The Relationship between Hegemony and Cooperation - Coursework Example

Hegemony and Cooperation Hegemony is a concept that emphasizes consent as opposed to using force. The concept further argues that a dominant social group attains leadership or ruler ship through consensus and social cohesion. This suggests that the ruling group does not automatically get the ruling mandate but rather attains the consent to rule through complex social alliances and political negotiations. Analyzing different world scenarios today, one notices that cooperation between leaders; countries and even communities have always set the basis for hegemonic powers. An example is the United Nations, which was set up as a world body to collectively address the needs and wants of different countries across the world in equal measure. The mere fact that most financial support of the United Nations comes from the US means that the country has much more power on the governing of the organization than any other country. In addition, while the United Nations is meant to be a body with some measure of authority on all member countries, the US constitution states that any laws are inferior to it. Through its domination of the United Nations, the US has over the years managed to elaborate its political projects in some countries especially in the developing world, articulate its interests and construct alliances. Cooperation between less powerful regimes and the dominant regimes can also lead to the development of historical blocs and the initiation of passive revolutions. It is evident that human beings through their own acts of cooperation and wanting to belong to a more cohesive society give hegemonies the power to govern albeit indirectly. Overall however, it emerges that the conditions that lead to cooperation between leaders, societies and countries, thus consequently leading to the creation of hegemonies do not present much of a choice to the decision makers involved. As such, cooperation and hegemony becomes necessary social features in the contemporary world since they are perceived as the stabilizers that the world needs in order to operate harmoniously. It is thus through collaboration that a state obtains hegemonic powers. In the contemporary world however, a hegemonic solution cannot be attained for as long as a single state remains dominant and continues to enjoy unique privileges due to its economic and military dominance (Joseph 2002, p. 1). Relationship between cooperation and hegemony Cooperation as used in this paper is the collective action taken by different countries to address specific circumstances in the international system. Attaining cooperation between states however has never been an easy task. This is especially so because each state in the global arena has its own interest to consider and cooperation calls for such states to reach a compromise and hence adopt a stand that will be of mutual benefit to all parties. According to Agnew (2005, p. 15), the US aware of the hardships of creating cooperation on the international front in the 20th century started by creating alliances. Such are represented by organizations such as the United Nations, the World Trade organization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Another approach that the US adopted was the socialization of people, cultures and states outside its geographical borders to perceive the American perspective as right. Through this, the country was able to exercise its powers without any territorial control as was the case with Great Britain in the 19th and 20th centuries. According to Agnew (2005, p. 16), this approach to cooperation pursuit enabled the US to forge cooperation, gain assent and acceptance from other states with much ease. Instead of taking territorial control, the Hegemonic State that the US became choose to enforce its command through spatial interactions, which include trade laws and capital flow (Martin, 1992, p. 766; Robinson, 1996). However how is hegemony and cooperation related? According to Ferguson (2003, p. 2), the word hegemony was first used to define the relationship between Athens and other cities in Greek as they combined forces in opposition to the Persian empire. In this case, Athens was able to organize and combine efforts from all Greek cities without being too over domineering over the other cities. Over time, this has changed considerable and hegemony is viewed as a “state able to impose its set of rules on the interstate system, thereby creating a temporary new political order” (Ferguson, 2003, p. 2). An illustration of how this happens in the contemporary society is how the US seized Baghdad in 2003 ostensibly for purposes of creating peace and stability in the country. The then US president, George Bush, assured the people of Iraq that America’s sole aim was to end Iraq’s brutal regime, after which the country would become independent, unified and sovereign. Bush promised that once this had been attained, US military would return back home. Having established itself as a super-power, one can easily understand why President Bush needed to assure people in Iraq that the US was not going to play “ruler” in their country. It is also evident that though a high percentage of the Iraqis were weary of bad governance, they were also suspicious of the US intentions in the country especially considering the oil wealth in the country. The US however did it best to assure Iraq and the world that its occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with oil. In a more straightforward answer to the question about the relationship between hegemony and cooperation, Agnew (2005, p. 20) states that hegemonic domination “typically involves more than simple military and economic coercion and relies on active assent and cooperation”. This means that though a hegemonic state like the US may be superior economically and military-wise, it would have to rely on its ability to convince other states on the need to adopt a specific approach to problem solving in order to convince the ‘lesser’ state powers to cooperate. But creating cooperation even for a supranational is not an easy task. Using the case of Iraq’s occupation by the US, it is quite evident that the cooperation between Iraqis and the Americans was “tart rather than syrupy-sweet”. According to Mendelsohn (2010), the US ‘dished out lies” about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaida. Iraq however is just a tip of the iceberg in the creation of the hegemony that America is today. According to Ferguson (2003, p.3), the journey to becoming a hegemonic state started when “a young, extremely well-endowed stated… decided to on the task of creating external conditions for peace and prosperity, primarily for its own capitalists, but by extension for the rest of the world itself”. This means that America’s main contributor to its power is its economic growth, which eventually led to the country becoming a predominant economic player in the world. As the contemporary world has proven time after time, economic predominance comes with some political power attached to it. For this, the US started using the power that came from its economic prosperity to advance multi-lateral power, and impact on trade organizations such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was later, renamed the World Trade Organization (WTO). Through the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the US was able to pressurize lesser economies by setting conditions that had to be met before IMF could advance loans to the target countries (Robinson, 2003). This marked a deliberate process that was a sharp contrast of the free trade that was allowed to take place in the nineteenth century under the Great Britain’s watch. According to Ferguson (2003, p.3), the free trade era happened when the British Empire was at the helm of hegemony. Unlike what one would expect however, countries participated in free trade for their own independent reasons which were free from any coercion from the Britons. The US also became a hegemony state courtesy of the dollar. Through an analysis of different authors who have covered the subject, Ferguson (2003, p. 3) concludes that the US government took advantage of the role of a key currency that the dollar had attained after the Breton Wood institutions (World Bank and IMF) collapsed. As a result, the country did not face the fiscal and /or foreign exchange constraints that other countries faced when funding foreign and strategic policies that the country was pursuing. While the US enjoyed this status, other countries who wanted to use the dollar had to pay commission to the US government. To date, the dollar remains the major reserve currency in the world. Paul, Wirtz and Fortnman (2004) argue that hegemonic states always quest to increase its relative power. As such, the authors do not see a situation where the status-quo between countries can ever be attained. Theory of hegemonic stability According to Keohane (2002, p. 31), the theory of hegemonic stability argues that a dominant power creates order in the world’s politics. More to this, the theory argues that for the world to continually enjoy order there has to be continued hegemony, which acts as the stabilizer. On its part, cooperation is defined as the “mutual adjustment of state policies to one another”. Observing world relations today, it is difficult to determine whether hegemony is in itself a sufficient condition for the growth of cooperation between countries. Even more important is the realization that cooperation in the contemporary world environment is dependent on the establishment of international regimes rather than the presence of a leader of hegemony country. The hegemonic stability theory is defined as the predominance of material resources by a hegemonic power (Keohane, 2002, p. 32). To this end, the hegemonic power controls raw materials, capital, markets and the competitive advantages involved in the production of goods and services. When a hegemonic power controls raw materials, it is able to exert informal influence on other countries, which have little options but to cooperate. Control of capital enables a country to lend to other countries which cooperate with it, borrow cheaply, and at the same time deny credit to its antagonists. By their very nature, hegemonic states have vast consumer market (Press-Barnathan, 2003, p. 184). To influence other states, they can either deny or allow specific countries to this market. As Keohane(2003, p. 33) notes however, hegemonic states do not just open up their markets without some returns from other countries; the access to the vast markets is usually in exchange for deference or concessions. Finally, the competitive superiority enjoyed by a hegemonic state is derived from its technological advancement which allows it to be more competitive on the global market. Consequently, the hegemonic state attains competitive advantage over other economies by producing and exporting profit yielding goods and services. Notably, the more dominant a hegemonic state is on the political economy, the more interstate cooperation it attracts. Özçelk (2005, p.93) on the other hand observes that there are two versions of the Hegemony stability theory. These are identifies as the security version and the collective ‘good’ version. According to this author, the security theory suggests that a hegemonic state creates and maintains world order, and also organize good relations between other states. The reasoning behind this version of the theory seems to emerge from the belief that a hegemonic state has the powers to offer either negative or positive incentives to other states. This is reflected by Özçelk’s (2005, p.93) argument that the uneven distribution of power which contributes to the creation of a hegemonic state brings about international order and cooperation. Most states realizing that it’s better to cooperate with the hegemonic state rather than oppose it, have over the years followed the cliché rule “if you can’t beat them join them”. But it has never been a sweet-syrupy affair as most people would imagine. As Özçelk (2005, p.93) notes, a hegemonic state like the US considers its economic goals first, then the self-interest that will benefit its population and finally the security objectives in the country before engaging in any kind of international cooperation. To the lesser states, there is always an element of compromise involved. However, it is always the hope of benefiting for common institutions or set rule in the international society that keep them bound (Little, 2007, p. 139; Sheehan, 1996). As Mendelsohn (2010, p. 1) notes achieving international cooperation is not an easy task even for the hegemonic states like the US. This mainly stems from the fact that harmony between countries is not always present at all times. As the leader that wants to foster cooperation for its own self-interests, a hegemonic state should be ready to lead other countries in the pursuit of international cooperation. This however is not always a smooth ride for the hegemony despite its economic resources and expertise. As Mendelsohn (2010, p. 1) notes, a hegemonic states always has the responsibility, to shoulder most of the burdens that come with international cooperation. For example, though a hegemonic state may champion a specific cause of action, and even when other states agree that such an action is needed, the hegemonic state may have to lead the collective action for others to follow suit, and even then, some states may disagree on the specific strategy that should be adopted in the pursuit of an issue that is of general interest to all. The Kyoto treaty In other cases, just because a case is championed by a hegemonic state does not mean that it will attract the cooperation of other states. The reverse is also the case; where the hegemonic state abstains from a specific action; other states may still pursue the cause. A case in point is the Kyoto Protocol- an international treaty that champions the reduction of six greenhouse gases. The US failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol despite of it being among the largest polluters emitting approximately 25 percent of the greenhouse gases generated worldwide. Regardless of this action by the US, other developed countries ratified the protocol. Once again, the self-interested nature of the hegemonic state that the US is became apparent when it said that it could “not ratify a protocol that exempted the developing countries for binding targets and timetables, because such an action would seriously harm the economy of the US” (West, n.d., p. 1). Of specific concern to the US were countries like Brazil, India and China, which were estimated to be catching up on greenhouse emission. As is evident from this case, the hegemonic state, despite the evidence presented in the meeting held in Kyoto, Japan in 2005 that reducing greenhouse emissions would reduce the rate of global warming could not convince the US to cooperate with other countries, while forsaking its own interests. Acceptance of a hegemonic state’s leadership Just because a hegemonic state says something, does not mean that other states will automatically agree or follow the directives. Sometimes, it may take a lot of lobbying and convincing by the dominant state for others to cooperate. Mendelssohn (2010, p. 1) for example notes that unconditional and immediate compliance with policies articulated by a hegemonic state are not always guaranteed. Before complying, states always consider if the policies articulated by the hegemonic state fits into the existing world order. This means that before cooperation occurs, the hegemonic state must ensure that the policies that it proposes are legitimate in order to avoid the occurrence of opposition. To this end, the hegemonic state’s ability to exercise power on the international community is greatly inhibited. Overall, the hegemonic state must follow goals that serve the collective goals of all states involved, and should also adopt strategies that match the deep-seated principles such as non-intervention and respect for other state’s sovereignty. More to this, international cooperation is also faced by problems related to information and distribution. According to Morrow (1994, p. 387), states may be selective on how they cooperate with each other regardless of the hegemonic state’s intervention. Even when states agree to cooperate issues such as coordination problems, which come up as states search for leadership solutions exist. In other cases, state actors cooperate out of fear of anarchist regimes rather than from conviction. In such cases, there is always the probability that states do not take the cooperation seriously. The fact that resource distribution and information resources may not be similar in all countries may also interfere with the cooperation. For example, a state that is largely dependent on the hegemonic state for food and financial aid may be more willing to cooperate with it more than a resource independent country would. Another limitation to international cooperation stems from the fact that independent states may be suspicious of the hegemonic state’s intentions when it champions collaboration. According to Yarbrough, B. and Yarbrough, R (1987, p. 13), most states are afraid of the limits that a hegemonic state may impose on their sovereign interests. Most importantly, independent states fear the possibility of ceding ultimately control to a supranational sovereign. This then means that even where cooperation promises are made, they are pegged on specific conditions. As such, the adherence of the minor states to the cooperation agreements reached with the hegemonic state are pegged on the supranational sovereign keeping to its end of the bargain. “The possibility of a breach of promise can impede cooperation even when cooperation would leave all better off. Yet, at other times, states do realize common goals through cooperation under anarchy” (Yarbrough, & Yarbrough, 1987, p. 26). Analyzing this observation by the two authors indicate that states consider the gains of cooperation against possible losses before making a final decision. Rule Makers As one would expect, the powerful countries like the US occupy powerful positions in the decision-making processes that lead up to international cooperation. According to Falkner (2005), the outcomes of international negotiations depend largely on how power is distributed between negotiators, whereby, “the powerful nations tend to be rule makers, while less powerful nations take the role of rule takers” (p. 587). A perfect example of how this happens is the formation of the Breton Wood institutions, which was a reflection of the superiority of some countries like the US. As the structural theory suggests, hegemonic states determine the path to be followed in cooperation or international-regime building. Sometimes however, the hegemonic state fails to succeed in convincing other states to adopt its line of thought. Two examples in the 1982 and 1990 are evidence of this. In both cases, international negotiators came up with clauses that were rejected by the US, and which could have been deleted if the US had its way around in the “convention on the law of the sea” and “the Montreal protocol” respectively. In addition to the Kyoto protocol discussed elsewhere in this essay, the Cartagena Protocol is also a case in point where the United States proved its obstinacy but other countries still went ahead to ratify the same. The above mentioned cases are proof that although the support of a hegemonic state is usually necessary in some international cooperation matters, in other cases the less powerful nations can still go ahead and attain cooperation without the support, or even amid active opposition of the hegemonic state. This to an extent negates the proposition that the Hegemony stability theory, which suggests that a hegemony plays a major role in forming international regimes. With specific emphasis on environmental matters, which have on the whole attracted much international attention in the 21st century, Falkner (2005, p. 588) argues that the role of hegemonic states as analyzed by different scholars over the years have paid a blind eye to environmental politics. More specifically, this author notes that the hegemonic theory as discussed by different scholars limits how the theory can be applied on environmental protection matters. Most notably, the US’s label as a hegemonic state is attributed to its superior military and economic power. However, these powers are not directly relevant to environmental regimes. This limitation of hegemonic theory is particularly evident in environmental cooperation. It is however impossible to ignore the relation between global ecology and international financial interdependence. This in turn means that since hegemonic states occupy strategic positions in the global economy, it becomes hard for the less powerful nations to create efficient environment regimes without some assistance or input by the hegemonic state (Papayoanou, 1999, p. 18). As discussed elsewhere in this essay, the US hegemony took a completely different approach from Great Britain in enforcing its powers on the larger world. Instead of territorial occupancy, it used negotiations and self-mobilization which slowly absorbed people and regimes across the world to the outlooks, routines and practices, which initially belonged to the US, but which they eventually came to accept as theirs. But the process as indicated in the introductory part of the essay, and as proven in other sections of this essay has been as straightforward. To the US, it has been a journey of outright hand-knuckle politics, negotiations and in some cases like the Kyoto protocol, failure. Evidently, forming cooperation for a world hegemony is bitter-sweet as opposed to the perception of syrupy-sweet notion that onlookers may think that a hegemonic state enjoys. Cox and Sinclair (1996, p. 137) and Skålnes (2000, p. 123) are among the authors who captures the essence of the position that a hegemonic state occupies. In his description, he states that hegemony must possess the political, economic and social structures that are convincing enough to other states such that the former would have little option but to agree with the hegemonic state. In Cox and Sinclair’s (1996, p. 137) view, the three structures of power must be possessed by the hegemonic state, since failure in having any of them would lead to loss of confidence that other countries may have towards it. When this happens, the hegemonic state is able to mobilize acceptance around global regulations on trade, money and investments. The hardships experienced by a hegemonic state as suggested by Cox and Sinclair (1996) include forming a historic block, which must possess a dominant ideology that in turn allows international alliances to be formed. For this to succeed, the hegemonic state must present itself as morally and intellectually capable of international leadership. More to this, the legitimacy of leadership must be approved by not only the political class, but by the civil society, religious groups, and the mass culture. This therefore means that for a despite its economic and military power, a hegemonic state needs to have persuasive ideas, which would catalyze and help construct cooperative relations that support the ideas proposed by the hegemonic state. An example of how the US has endeared itself to the larger world is the post 9/11 events through which the country convinced a larger part of the world that despite the direct attacks on the country, the Al-Qaeda was an enemy to the larger world. As a result, the US was able to mobilize other states to fight a common enemy. Conclusion In conclusion, attaining cooperation through dialogue and negotiations is no mean fete even for a nation that has military and economic power. As stated herein, less powerful nations are always cautious of compromising their sovereignty and hence must approach international negotiations with much caution. It has also emerged that wielding economic power provides the hegemonic state with a negotiating tool especially for the developing world. Using organizations like the World Bank and the United Nations to exert their influence, aid dependent countries often have little choice but to oblige to already stated processes. Even for developed countries, indirect persuasion methods such as trade ties may be used to persuade them to comply with what a hegemonic state may want. Overall, though the power of influence that a hegemonic state has on influencing cooperation is debatable, it is quite evident that such a state has considerable influence on the less powerful states. It is also evident that hegemonic states have to overcome different hurdles for them to attain the level of cooperation and commitment needed in different spheres of global leadership. In the end however, it is quite evident that the power of a hegemonic state although derived from internal sources as military strength and economic prosperity, is established elsewhere through the direct or indirect approval of other state. References Agnew, J 2005, Hegemony: The New Shape of Global Power, Temple University Press, California. Cox, R & Sinclair, T 1996, Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Falkner, R 2005, ‘American hegemony and the global environment,’ International Studies Review, vol. 7, pp. 585-599. Joseph, J 2002, Hegemony: A Realist Analysis, Routledge, New York. Keohane, R. O 2002, After Hegemony, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Little, R 2007, The Balance of Power in International relations: Metaphors, Myths and Models, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Martin, L.L 1992, ‘Interests, power, and multilateralism,’ International Organisation, Vol.46, pp. 765-792. Mendelsohn, B 2010, The Question of International Cooperation in the War on Terrorism, foreign Policy Research Institute- E-notes, Viewed 28 July, 2010, Morrow, J 1994, ‘Modelling the forms of international cooperation: distribution versus information,’ International Organization, vol. 48, pp. 387-423  Özçelk, S 2005, Neorealist and neo-gramscian Hegemony in International relations and conflict relations and conflict resolution during the 1990’s, Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Güz, vol. 1, pp. 88-144. Papayoanou, P. A 1999, Power Ties: Economic Interdependence, Balancing and War, University of Michigan Press, Michigan. Paul, T., Wirtz, J. & Fortman, M. (2004). Balance of Power: Theory and Practise in the 21st Century, Stanford University Press, Stanford. Press-Barnathan, G 2003, Organizing the world: the United States and regional cooperation in Asia and Europe, Routledge, New York. Robinson, W 1996, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalisation, US Intervention and Hegemony, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Robinson, W 2003, Transnational Conflicts: Central America, Social Change and Globalization, Vaso, New York. Sheehan, M. J 1996, The Balance of Power, History and Theory, Routledge, New York. Skålnes, L. S 2000, Politics, Markets and grand strategy: Foreign Economic Policies as Strategic Instruments, University of Michigan Press, Michigan. West, L N.D. What is the Kyoto Protocol? Viewed 28 July, 2010, Yarbrough, B & Yarbrough, R 1987, ‘Cooperation in the liberalization of international trade: after hegemony, what?’ International Organization, vol. 41, pp 1-26. Read More

In the contemporary world however, a hegemonic solution cannot be attained for as long as a single state remains dominant and continues to enjoy unique privileges due to its economic and military dominance (Joseph 2002, p. 1). Relationship between cooperation and hegemony Cooperation as used in this paper is the collective action taken by different countries to address specific circumstances in the international system. Attaining cooperation between states however has never been an easy task.

This is especially so because each state in the global arena has its own interest to consider and cooperation calls for such states to reach a compromise and hence adopt a stand that will be of mutual benefit to all parties. According to Agnew (2005, p. 15), the US aware of the hardships of creating cooperation on the international front in the 20th century started by creating alliances. Such are represented by organizations such as the United Nations, the World Trade organization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Another approach that the US adopted was the socialization of people, cultures and states outside its geographical borders to perceive the American perspective as right. Through this, the country was able to exercise its powers without any territorial control as was the case with Great Britain in the 19th and 20th centuries. According to Agnew (2005, p. 16), this approach to cooperation pursuit enabled the US to forge cooperation, gain assent and acceptance from other states with much ease. Instead of taking territorial control, the Hegemonic State that the US became choose to enforce its command through spatial interactions, which include trade laws and capital flow (Martin, 1992, p.

766; Robinson, 1996). However how is hegemony and cooperation related? According to Ferguson (2003, p. 2), the word hegemony was first used to define the relationship between Athens and other cities in Greek as they combined forces in opposition to the Persian empire. In this case, Athens was able to organize and combine efforts from all Greek cities without being too over domineering over the other cities. Over time, this has changed considerable and hegemony is viewed as a “state able to impose its set of rules on the interstate system, thereby creating a temporary new political order” (Ferguson, 2003, p. 2). An illustration of how this happens in the contemporary society is how the US seized Baghdad in 2003 ostensibly for purposes of creating peace and stability in the country.

The then US president, George Bush, assured the people of Iraq that America’s sole aim was to end Iraq’s brutal regime, after which the country would become independent, unified and sovereign. Bush promised that once this had been attained, US military would return back home. Having established itself as a super-power, one can easily understand why President Bush needed to assure people in Iraq that the US was not going to play “ruler” in their country. It is also evident that though a high percentage of the Iraqis were weary of bad governance, they were also suspicious of the US intentions in the country especially considering the oil wealth in the country.

The US however did it best to assure Iraq and the world that its occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with oil. In a more straightforward answer to the question about the relationship between hegemony and cooperation, Agnew (2005, p. 20) states that hegemonic domination “typically involves more than simple military and economic coercion and relies on active assent and cooperation”. This means that though a hegemonic state like the US may be superior economically and military-wise, it would have to rely on its ability to convince other states on the need to adopt a specific approach to problem solving in order to convince the ‘lesser’ state powers to cooperate.

But creating cooperation even for a supranational is not an easy task.

Read More