Hegemony In The Current World Order - Essay Example

Hegemony In The Current World Order Introduction Hegemony refers to an indirect form of imperial control, where a dominant culture [or state (thehegemon)] rules over certain geopolitical subordinatesvia the implied means of power rather than by direct military combat (Hassig, 1994, pp. 23–24).It is a condition, backed by material strength thatenables one great power [or allied powers] within a system to wield immense control that leaves other actors little freedom of de facto action, even in their own sphere of influence. Accordingto the Marxist philosophy, hegemony embodies manipulation instincts that adopts a superior dictum of not only the cultural belief system, values and perceptions, but also imposes a particular worldview as a universal ideology that justifies a socio-political and economic course as natural, inevitable, perpetual and more so beneficial to all (Bullock andTrombley, 1999, pp. 387-88). In other words, hegemony is a process that inculcates ideals of the hegemon into the undertaking of the subordinates via the social channels such as educationalpublications, advertising, and, if need be, through mobilization to subdue any possible opposition. In the 21st century, economic liberalism–the belief in globalization andthe relative effectiveness of private enterprises are certainly well-orchestrated ideals of capitalism that have fought communism right into oblivion. Equally prominent alongside the above capitalistic ideals are the standards of western civilization that comprises of the greater awareness of human rights and aheightened cognizance of the moral responsibilityas the bedrock of accountable governance. Hegemon on the Offensive Hegemony as a concept frequently features in scholarly analysis of power relationsin international politics, particularly how a dominant power [state] ought to deal with a second tierstate's rapidly growinginfluence in the international arena andthe subsequent antagonistichegemonic ambitions that ensue thereof. There is a wide consensus among theorists of international relations (IR) that such scenariosnecessitatethe formation of alliances in order to neutralize [balance]any possible stronger wave-challenges from the seemingly ambitious state(s),protect the existing status quo control of a dominant power, and so to the survival of the second tier powers that may feel threatened by the new power game. Kenneth Waltz argues that in an international system with no overarching government that is strong enough to enforce laws, balancing is often the immediate remedy induced by the system (1979, pp. 125–6). More than any other time in history, the decline of US hegemony vis-à-vis the rise of China as an economic powerhouse has acquired a legion of analysts in the academic circles. As historywould have it, even the vast and mighty Empires like the Ottoman, the Roman, the British and the Soviet Empires’ domination of the world politics ultimately crumbled,paving way for a more freer multipolar system where independent states could chat their destiny without undue external interference. United States, the undisputed hegemon of the 21st century, attained the status of a ‘Superpower’ in the aftermath of World War II; a status that firmed up further after the demise of Soviet Republic in the 1990s. The Post-Cold War era is replete with unchecked ‘USunilateralism’ that have gone far into unrestrained misadventures ranging from the Vietnam War to the recent Afghan and Iraq wars. It is fashionable enough today to refer the US hegemonyas a predominant feature with unlimited access to the post-Cold War international order; a claimthat restsupon the US’s unipolar primacy within the international system suspended by the unprecedented preponderance of its materialwealth. Stanley Hoffmann’s famous description of international relations as “an American social science” in his 1977publication more than affirms the above assertion (Biersteker, 2009, p.308). Intuitively, the exercise of political influence over subordinates within the modern international system comes in different forms. Coercive power is by and large part and parcel ofthe concept at hand; a concept that embodies in it the ability to bind others into a submissive authority line via material threats/rewards to condition behavior. This ability, as indicative in the realms of academia, combines and commandsstrong “hard power” indicators that not only include measurable wealth (GDP) and military spending, but a host of factors that basically defines a state’s reflective position beyond its borders. The many decades of unprecedented era of peace and stability underwritten by the United States’ strategic primacy’ on the planet earth is, no doubt, increasingly under intense pressure (Hughes and Lai,2011, p. 305). Michael Cox (2007) predictions ofthe US losing either its will or the nerve to sustain its expansive, universal police roleis ever edging closer to fruition as the country’s comparative advantage ‘continues to dwindle in the face of the ‘rising others’. That themultipolar power distributive effect of the “Beijing Consensus” on the international stage is out of the closet with a reorganizing precedence is no longer a surprise; for while China continues to register extraordinary record economic achievements, the United States catastrophic stumble in the wake of a deadly financial crisis opened up a leveraging power gap that continues to raise emotions among policy makers. Even though shrouded in a lot of contradictions, China’s has made momentous leaps economicallyto occupy the number two spot. According to the IMF reports, the Chinese economy would be the world’s largest by 2016 (Shor, 2011). It is official as at now that China tops the US and the world in a number of key manufacturingareas such as steel production; it also controls four-fifths of the world’s textile exports andtwo-thirds of the world’s microwaves ovens, copy machines and DVD players.Accordingly,it is the world’s largest importer of essential metals such as Zinc, copper, platinum and an avidconsumer of hydrocarbons. The extent of China’s engagements with almost the entire Middle East underscore the country’s growing need for the regions’ oil and natural gas in wholesale; a clear pointer to the directchallenge to US geostrategic interests in the region (Dilip, 2010).Its energy consumption is fast approaching the 20 percentage mark relative to the world’s total consumption, and may well overtake the US in this area going by its growth statistics. Conclusion While it is true that United States’ economic dominance no longer enjoys the comparative advantage it had during the first two decades after WWII, its position as the world’s economic power remains(Gulick, 2011, p. 17).A huge chunk of the global capital, to a certain extent, has no doubt been delinked from the nation-state. Nonetheless, the United States neo-imperialistic military strength still persists to perform essential geostrategic control (Giovanni, 2007, p.77).A fully decentered global system envisioned by Thomas Friedman on the right or Hardt and Negri on the left is still but largely a mirage (Harvey, 2005, p.183). References Biersteker, T. J. (2009) 'Theparochialism of hegemony: challenges for “American” International Relations', in Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver (eds), InternationalRelations Scholarship around the World, London: Rutledge. Bullock, A. and Trombley, S. (1999)The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, 3rd ed., pp. 387–88. Cox, M. (2007) ‘Is the United States in decline—again? An essay’, International Affairs, 83(4), pp. 643–53. Dilip H. (2010) After Empire: The Birth of a Multipolar World, New York: Nation Books. Giovanni, A. (2007) Adam Smith in Beijing, New York: Verso. Harvey, D. (2005) The New Imperialism, New York: Oxford University Press. Hassig, R. (1994)Mexico and the Spanish Conquest, New York: Longman. Hughes, C.W. and Lai, Y. M. (2011)Security Studies –A Reader, Eds., Oxon, England: Rutledge. Gulick, J. (2011) ‘The Long Twentieth Century and Barriers to China’s Hegemonic Accession’, Journal of World-Systems Research, 17(1), pp. 4 – 38.  Shor, F. (2011) ‘Declining U.S. Hegemony + Rising Chinese Power: A Formula for Conflict?’State of Nature.[Online],Available at:http://www.stateofnature.org/?p=4541 [accessed4 Apr. 2013]. Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics, New York: McGraw-Hill. Read More