News networks are awash with “live updates” from the Middle East as the region devolves into chaos. The USA and Israel ignited a war with Iran Saturday morning as President Trump announced strikes against the nation. A neighboring conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan had already escalated into “open war” the previous day. Time will tell how wide and hot the fires of this conflict burn, and when, where, and how they will be put out.
All this can lead to a long conversation about the history of geopolitics between these nations and within the regions of the Near and Middle East, but that discussion is not necessary to understand what’s driving this conflict: hegemony (i.e. dominant influence).
Hegemony is dominant influence, not violence. A county can be influential without being violent. But the quickest way to expand power is through violence. And violence often comes with the territory of hegemony.
The USA conquered land from native Americans, Spanish, Mexico, Hawaiians, Filipinos, etc. The Louisianna purchase (from France) and purchase of Alaska (from Russia) ignored the will of the people who were living there prior to being conquered or claimed by the French and Russians. So, the United States has practiced violent or, at least unethical, imperialism for many years.
It has also done some moral or ethical things (e.g. helping to defeat Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan, providing lifesaving humanitarian aid to other nations, supporting peace efforts in many nations via the United Nations, charitable donations from U.S. citizens, etc.). But overall, two wrongs do not make a right and a right cannot cure past wrongs… the USA has done a lot of ill in/to the world.
So, the conversation of “American Hegemony” cuts to the heart of what we see playing out in the world today. Many people (especially in the USA) see the United States as the dominant world power and call on the USA to maintain that power. It’s a self-serving narrative for US citizens, especially ones who don’t have to fight in wars to defend the USA’s hegemony. Being the most influential country in the world comes with many perks such as the reserve currency status, most powerful military, cheaper and more accessible goods, and – very often – a physically safer society for the citizens of that nation.
Many people in the United States have grown accustomed to our debts and luxuries. We don’t want to give them up. But if the USA is to lose its hegemony, the people of the United States will have to get used to getting by with less.
These are three videos/book reviews I complete a few years ago now… they demonstrate how the USA’s position as the world’s most influential nation (i.e. hegemon) has been in decline for decades now…
We can go back to September 11th, 2001 as a pivotal shift or the removal of the gold-backed guarantee to foreign debt by President Nixon in the 1970’s… the USA has been falling deeper and deeper into debt and waging more and more unwinnable (i.e. foolish) wars. These geopolitical actions can be viewed both as an unwillingness to accept lower standards of living and an attempt to defend hegemonic status. The United States government appears to be attempting to defend its economic and hegemonic status not not with educational/economical competence but with military might.
This might-makes-right path will eventually result in more and more ultra-wealthy people fleeing the country, or certain cities/states within it, until those places are physically safe and economically advantageous enough for them to return. Such a process may continue to occur slowly over the next two decades as a “unipolar world” transitions to a “multipolar world”. The devolution from a unipolar to multipolar world will be felt economically and militarily as more and more countries (1) agree to trade in other currencies – the dollar has already been falling rapidly during the second Trump administration – and (2) build up their own defenses and militaries rather than relying on an alliance with the USA – this is already happening across Europe.
All that said, when people argue for hegemony, I don’t think they are directly arguing for violence. But the quest for hegemony (i.e. influence) and its rhetoric often leads to violence (indirectly if not directly). History shows nations rarely if ever allow another nation to exert and claim hegemony without a fight.
“There is no victory except one which conquers enemies who in their minds confess it.” – Claudius, On the Sixth Consulship of Honorius, 248 (Also cited in Essays Chapter 31: On the Cannibals by Michel de Montaigne)
It is a warning for all of us. The desire for influence is a dangerous thing. The path to power often includes violence.
Deliberating Truth 