This picture of burned and broken vehicles was taken on the ‘Highway of Death’, a road between Kuwait and Basra, on which the retreating Iraqi army was attacked by American aircraft during the First Gulf War in February 1991. Some commentators have suggested that the US forces deliberately bombed this stretch of highway where fleeing and ‘out of combat’ Iraqi soldiers were stuck in a frenzied traffic jam and that the victims included Kuwaiti prisoners and hostages and Palestinian civilian refugees. Many observers have called it a ‘war crime’ and a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Another significant US military action during the Clinton years was in response to the bombing of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania in 1998. These bombings were attributed to Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organisation strongly influenced by extremist Islamist ideas. Within a few days of this bombing, President Clinton ordered Operation Infinite Reach, a series of cruise missile strikes on Al-Qaeda terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. The US did not bother about the UN sanction or provisions of international law in this regard. It was alleged that some of the targets were civilian facilities unconnected to terrorism. In retrospect, this was merely the beginning.

9/11 and the ‘Global War on Terror’

On 11 September 2001, nineteen hijackers hailing from a number of Arab countries took control of four American commercial aircraft shortly after takeoff and flew them into important buildings in the US. One airliner each crashed into the North and South Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York. A third aircraft crashed into the Pentagon building in Arlington, Virginia, where the US Defence Department is headquartered. The fourth aircraft, presumably bound for the Capitol building of the US Congress, came down in a field in Pennsylvania. The attacks have come to be known as “9/11”. (In America the convention is to write the month first, followed by the date; hence the short form ‘9/11’ instead of ‘11/9’ as we would write in India).

This is how the New York Times reported 9/11 in its edition the following morning

The attacks killed nearly three thousand persons. In terms of their shocking effect on Americans, they have been compared to the British burning of Washington, DC in 1814 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. However, in terms of loss of life, 9/11 was the most severe attack on US soil since the founding of the country in 1776.

The US response to 9/11 was swift and ferocious. Clinton had been succeeded in the US presidency by George W. Bush of the Republican Party, son of the earlier President George H. W. Bush. Unlike Clinton, Bush had a much harder view of US interests and of the means by which to advance them. As a part of its ‘Global War on Terror’, the US launched ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ against all those suspected to be behind this attack, mainly Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The Taliban regime was easily overthrown, but remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have remained potent, as is clear from the number of terrorist attacks launched by them against Western targets since.

The US forces made arrests all over the world, often without the knowledge of the government of the persons being arrested, transported these persons across countries and detained them in secret prisons. Some of them were brought to Guantanamo Bay, a US Naval base in Cuba, where the prisoners did not enjoy the protection of international law or the law of their own country or that of the US. Even the UN representatives were not allowed to meet these prisoners.

Suppose you are the Secretary of State in the US (their equivalent of our Minister of External Affairs).How would you react in a press conference to these cartoons?

The Iraq invasion

On 19 March 2003, the US launched its invasion of Iraq under the codename ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’. More than forty other countries joined in the US-led ‘coalition of the willing’ after the UN refused to give its mandate to the invasion. The ostensible purpose of the invasion was to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Since no evidence of WMD has been unearthed in Iraq, it is speculated that the invasion was motivated by other objectives, such as controlling Iraqi oilfields and installing a regime friendly to the US.

Although the government of Saddam Hussein fell swiftly, the US has not been able to ‘pacify’ Iraq. Instead, a full-fledged insurgency against US occupation was ignited in Iraq. While the US has lost over 3,000 military personnel in the war, Iraqi casualties are very much higher. It is conservatively estimated that 50,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US-led invasion. It is now widely recognised that the US invasion of Iraq was, in some crucial respects, both a military and political failure.

What does hegemony mean?

Politics is about power. Just as individuals want to gain and retain power, groups too want to gain and retain power. We routinely talk of someone becoming powerful or someone doing something for power. In the case of world politics too, countries and groups of countries are engaged in constantly trying to gain and retain power. This power is in the form of military domination, economic power, political clout and cultural superiority.

Entitled ‘Under US Thumb’, this cartoon captures ourcommonsensical understanding of what hegemony means.What does this cartoon say about the nature of US hegemony?Which part of the world is the cartoonist talking about?

Therefore, if we wanted to understand world politics, it is necessary that we understand the distribution of power among the countries of the world. For instance, during the years of the Cold War (1945-91) power was divided between the two groups of countries, and the US and the Soviet Union represented the two ‘camps’ or centres of power in international politics during that period. The collapse of the Soviet Union left the world with only a single power, the United States of America. Sometimes, the international system dominated by a sole superpower, or hyper-power, is called a ‘unipolar’ system. This appears to be a misapplication of the idea of ‘pole’ derived from physics. It may be more appropriate to describe an international system with only one centre of power by the term ‘hegemony’.

We can identify three very different understandings of what hegemony is. Let us examine each of these meanings of hegemony and relate them to contemporary international politics.

Hegemony as hard power

The roots of the word hegemony lie in classical Greek. The word implies the leadership or predominance of one state, and was originally used to denote the preponderant position of Athens vis-à-vis the other city-states of ancient Greece. Thus, the first meaning of hegemony relates to the relations, patterns and balances of military capability between states. It is this notion of hegemony as military preponderance that is especially germane to the current position and role of the US in world politics. Do you remember Ayesha, who lost her leg in an American missile attack? It is hard power hegemony that has broken Ayesha’s body, if not her spirit.

Source: http://www.c6f.navy.mil/about/area-responsibility

Note: The representation of boundaries is not necessarily authoritative.

The bedrock of contemporary US power lies in the overwhelming superiority of its military power. American military dominance today is both absolute and relative. In absolute terms, the US today has military capabilities that can reach any point on the planet accurately, lethally and in real time, thereby crippling the adversary while its own forces are sheltered to the maximum extent possible from the dangers of war.

But even more awesome than the absolute capabilities of the US is the fact that no other power today can remotely match them. The US today spends more on its military capability than the next 12 powers combined. Furthermore, a large chunk of the Pentagon’s budget goes into military research and development, or, in other words, technology. Thus, the military dominance of the US is not just based on higher military spending, but on a qualitative gap, a technological chasm that no other power can at present conceivably span.

Most armed forces in the world divide their areas of operation into various ‘commands’ which are assigned to different commanders. This map depicts the areas of responsibility of the Six Commands of the US armed forces. It shows that the commands of the US military are not limited to the area of the United States; it extends to include the whole world. What does this map tell us about the military power of the US?

Undoubtedly, the US invasion of Iraq reveals several American vulnerabilities. The US has not been able to force the Iraqi people into submitting to the occupation forces of the US-led coalition. To fully understand the nature of American weakness, however, we need to have a historical perspective. Imperial powers through history have used military forces to accomplish only four tasks: to conquer, deter, punish and police. As the Iraq invasion shows, the American capacity to conquer is formidable. Similarly, the US capability to deter and to punish is self-evident. Where US military capability has thus far been shown to have serious weaknesses is in policing an occupied territory.

Source: The Military Balance 2018 (International Institute for Strategic Studies, London)

The US today spends more on its military capability than the next 12 powers combined.

As you can see here, most of the other countries that are big military spenders are USfriends and allies. Thus, balancing US power is not a feasible strategy today

Hegemony as structural power

The second notion of hegemony isvery  different  from  the  first.  Itemerges  from  a  particularunderstanding  of  the  worldeconomy.  The  basic  idea  is  thatan open world economy requiresa hegemon or dominant power tosupport   its   creation   and existence.  The  hegemon  must possess both the ability and thedesire to establish certain normsfor  order  and  must  sustain  theglobal  structure.  The  hegemonusually  does  this  to  its  own advantage but often to its relativedetriment, as its competitors takeadvantage of the openness of the world economy without  paying  thecosts of maintaining its openness.

Hegemony in this second sense is reflected in the role played by the US in providing global public goods. By public goods we mean those goods that can be consumed by one person without reducing the amount of the good available for someone else. Fresh air and roads are examples of public goods. In the context of the world economy, the best examples of a global public good are sea-lanes of communication (SLOCs), the sea routes commonly used by merchant ships. Free trade in an open world economy would not be possible without open SLOCs. It is the naval power of the hegemon that underwrites the law of the sea and ensures freedom of navigation in international waters. Since the decline of British naval power after the Second World War, the multi-oceanic US Navy has played this role.

Dollar World

Another example of a global public good is the Internet. Although it is seen today as making the virtual world of the World Wide Web possible, we should not forget that the Internet is the direct outcome of a US military research project that began in 1950. Even today, the Internet relies on a global network of satellites, most of which are owned by the US government.

As we know, the US is present in all parts of the world, in all sectors of the world economy and in all areas of technology. The US share of the world economy remains an enormous 21 per cent.

The US also accounts for 15 per cent of world trade, if intra-European Union trade is included in world trade data. There is not a single sector of the world economy in which an American firm does not feature in the “top three” list.

It is important to remember that the economic preponderance of the US is inseparable from its structural power, which is the power to shape the global economy in a particular way. After all, the Bretton Woods system, set up by the US after the Second World War, still constitutes the basic structure of the world economy. Thus, we can regard the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) as the products of American hegemony.

he American economy is the largest in the world, but unlike in the sphere of military power,the US faces credible competitors in the world economy. This becomes even clearer if weconsider the world economy in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms as in the graphic on theright. PPP is what a nation’s currency actually buys in goods and services.

A classic example of the structural power of the US is the academic degree called the Master’s in Business Administration (MBA). The idea that business is a profession that depends upon skills that can be taught in a university is uniquely American. The first business school in the world, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, was established in 1881. The first MBA courses were initiated around 1900. The first MBA course outside the US was established only in 1950. Today, there is no country in the world in which the MBA is not a prestigious academic degree. This takes us back to our South African friend Jabu. Structural hegemony explains why Jabu’s father is insisting that his son gives up painting and studies for the MBA instead.

Hegemony as soft power

It would however be a mistake to see US hegemony in purely military and economic terms without considering the ideological or the cultural dimension of US hegemony. This third sense of hegemony is about the capacity to ‘manufacture consent’. Here, hegemony implies class ascendancy in the social, political and particularly ideological spheres. Hegemony arises when the dominant class or country can win the consent of dominated classes, by persuading the dominated classes to view the world in a manner favourable to the ascendancy of the dominant class. Adapted to the field of world politics, this notion of hegemony suggests that a dominant power deploys not only military power but also ideological resources to shape the behaviour of competing and lesser powers. The behaviour of the weaker countries is influenced in ways that favour the interests of the most powerful country, in particular its desire to remain pre-eminent. Consent, in other words, goes hand-in-hand with, and is often more effective than, coercion.

The predominance of the US in the world today is based not only on its military power and economic prowess, but also on its cultural presence. Whether we choose to recognise the fact or not, all ideas of the good life and personal success, most of the dreams of individuals and societies across the globe, are dreams churned out by practices prevailing in twentieth-century America. America is the most seductive, and in this sense the most powerful, culture on earth. This attribute is called ‘soft power’: the ability to persuade rather than coerce. Over time we get so used to hegemony that we hardly notice it, any more than we notice the rivers, birds, and trees around us.

You couldn’t have forgotten Andrei and his ‘cool’ pair of blue jeans. When his parents were youngsters in the Soviet Union, blue jeans were the ultimate symbol of ‘liberation’ for their generation. Young men and women often spent over a year’s salary to buy blue jeans from foreign tourists on the black market. Somehow, for an entire Soviet generation blue jeans came to represent aspirations of the ‘good life’ that were not available in their own country.

The second constraint on American power is also domestic in nature, and stems from the open nature of American society. Although the American mass media may from time to time impose or promote a particular perspective on domestic public opinion in the US, there is nevertheless a deep scepticism regarding the purposes and methods of government in American political culture. This factor, in the long run, is a huge constraint on US military action overseas.

However, it is the third constraint on the US that is perhaps the most important. There is only one organisation in the international system that could possibly moderate the exercise of American power today, and that is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The US obviously has an enormous interest in keeping the alliance of democracies that follow the market economies alive and therefore it is possible that its allies in the NATO will be able to moderate the exercise of US hegemony.

All this sounds like a lot of jealousy. What is our problem with US hegemony? Just that we were not born there? Or something else?

• Those Indian analysts who see international politics largely in terms of military power are fearful of the growing closeness between India and the US. They would prefer that India maintains its aloofness from Washington and focuses upon increasing its own comprehensive national power
  
• Other analysts see the growing convergence of interests between the US and India as a historic opportunity for India. They advocate a strategy that would allow India to take advantage of US hegemony and the mutual convergences to establish the best possible options for itself. Opposing the US, they argue, is a futile strategy that will only hurt India in the long run.
  
• A third group of analysts would advocate that India should take the lead in establishing a coalition of countries from the developing world. Over time, this coalition would become more powerful and may succeed in weaning the hegemon away from its dominating ways.
  

India-US relations are perhaps too complex to be managed by a single strategy. India needs to develop an appropriate mix of foreign policy strategies to deal with the US.

How can hegemony be overcome?

How long will hegemony last? How do we get beyond hegemony? These become, for obvious reasons, some of the burning questions of our time. History provides us with some fascinating clues to answer these questions. But what about the present and the future? In international politics, very few factors formally curtail the exercise of military power by any country. There is no world government like the government of a country. As we shall see in Chapter 6, international organisation is not world government. Thus, international politics is ‘politics without government’. There are some rules and norms called the laws of war that restrict, but do not prohibit, war. But few states will entrust their security to international law alone. Does this mean that there is no escape from war and hegemony?

In the short term, we must recognise that no single power is anywhere near balancing the US militarily. A military coalition against the US is even less likely given the differences that exist among big countries like China, India, and Russia that have the potential to challenge US hegemony.

Some people argue that it is strategically more prudent to take advantage of the opportunities that hegemony creates. For instance, raising economic growth rates requires increased trade, technology transfers, and investment, which are best acquired by working with rather than against the hegemon. Thus, it is suggested that instead of engaging in activities opposed to the hegemonic power, it may be advisable to extract benefits by operating within the hegemonic system. This is called the ‘bandwagon’ strategy.

Another strategy open to states is to ‘hide’. This implies staying as far removed from the dominant power as possible. There are many examples of this behaviour. China, Russia, the European Union—all of them, in different ways, are seeking to stay below the radar, as it were, and not overly and unduly antagonise the US. However, this would not seem to be viable for the big, second-rank powers for very long. While it may be an attractive, viable policy for small states, it is hard to imagine mega-states like China, India, and Russia or huge agglomerations such as the EU being able to hide for any substantial length of time.

Some people believe that resistance to American hegemony may not come from other states, which as we have seen are powerless to confront the US today, but rather from non-state actors. These challenges to American hegemony will emerge in the economic and cultural realms, and will come from a combination of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), social movements, and public opinion; it may arise from sections of the media and intellectuals, artists, and writers. These various actors may well form links across national boundaries, including with Americans, to criticise and resist US policies.

You might have heard the saying that we now live in a ‘global village’. In this global village, we are all neighbours of the village headman. If the behaviour of the headman becomes intolerable, we will not have the option of leaving the global village, because this is the only world we know and the only village we have. Resistance will then be the only option available.