Literary Analysis Essay on "After Hegemony"

Introduction

Several theorists have attempted to discuss the aspects associated with hegemony and their influence on international affairs such as politics and economics. Robert Keohane's (2005) book titled "after hegemony" gave several concepts of hegemony. The book involves a deep analysis of cooperation observed between advanced nations which are mainly under capitalist governance. The main question from the book is whether cooperation can continue existing in an instance where there is no single dominant nation such as the United States. Keohane expressed two main themes; first, the author agreed that common interests are aspects that trigger cooperation. Despite this assumption, the author argued that even though common interests are factors to enhance cooperation, there is a possibility of cooperation to fail even in situations where common interests exist. The second theme in the book involves "hegemonic cooperation." The author argued that hegemonic cooperation has more advantages and would erode the hegemony of certain states leading to the emergence of new systems of international regimes characterized by unique dynamics.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Methodology and Level of Analysis

The author used a system level of analysis to examine the world systems and their connection to the hegemonic nations. He covers both realistic systems as well as institutions to make a clear link between the two systems. Keohane uses rational analysis to portray the power struggle between countries and subsequently focus on the institutions to expound on the importance of cooperation. Despite his focus on both entities, the author focuses more on institutions to lay a better ground of explaining the role played by various systems.

Hegemonic Cooperation

Several aspects lead to cooperation among nations. After the end of World War II, the developed countries have shown vast cooperation based on several common interests that usually leads to mutual benefits. Nevertheless, in some situations, cooperation has not succeeded even where there is a common interest of the involved parties. Politics, economics, and international system are the main aspects that lead to a concurrence (Keohane, 2005). The competition in these factors is sometimes fierce causing mistrust that might affect corporation. In such cases, hegemony may be used especially when there is common interest that benefits the whole world. Over the years, the reasons for cooperation have significantly changed. In the current world, reasons such as climate change, terrorism, and human rights have risen as some of the main factors that cause nations to cooperate (Keohane, 2015). These factors are sensitive, and if active cooperation cannot be achieved, hegemony should be used.

Cooperation at the international level goes beyond relationships among states to the aspects of ethics as well as normative issues on these relationships. According to Keohane argument, cooperation does not necessarily encourage humane characteristics in international politics. The definition of cooperation in the book shows that harmony and discord are two distinct entities. In harmony, the involved parties' policies complement each other resulting in attainment of goals of the players. In such cases, cooperation will not be necessary (Keohane, 2005). The case of the conflict between North Korea and South Korea lacked harmony in their policies. Creation of harmony was used to restore cooperation. The two countries used several interventions to reduce the conflict that was worsening each day. The conflict started immediately after World War II when the Japanese were defeated, and the Soviet Union took North Korea while America took South Korea. The two occupants had differences in policies leading escalating conflicts. Recently, the two nations have developed harmonious working relationships that complement each other. The two governments agreed to reopen a jointly operated liaison office located at Kaesong. In addition, the two nations agreed to establish buffer zones at their borders to prevent confrontations.

On the other hand, Keohane used discord to refer to cases where specific governments see each other's policies as a hindrance to the achievement of their goals leading to conflicts with each nation forcing the other to change their policies (Keohane, 2005). The conflict between the United States and North Korea is a classic example of discord. The US accuses North Korea of having nuclear weapons that pose a security threat to the United States especially in the modern era of terrorism. North Korea has defended their stand by stating that the weapons are meant to strengthen their defense. The two nations seem to be compelling the opposing side to change their policies to accommodate the achievement of the country's goals. In this case, the goal of the US is to ensure their security while North Korea objective is to strengthen their military. Unless an agreement is reached, the two sides will never collaborate. Cooperation, therefore, refers to the attainment of an agreement between the confliction nations with the aim of creating conformity. The case of North Korea and the US confirms the first thesis of the book on the fact that cooperation may fail even in situations where the nations have a common interest. Hegemony comes in at this point. Hegemony can facilitate some forms of cooperation. It was successfully used by the US in Iraq to compel them to stop nuclear weapons production and afterward used to develop a new government that cooperated with the US (Powaski, 2017). The same intervention should be used in North Korea since a threat to the US means a threat to other many nations across the globe.

Despite the facts that hegemony is useful as discussed by Keohane, there is a need for further research on his assumption since he states that the political and economic institutions are slowly overtaking military interventions in their significance in the world (Keohane, 2005). This point does not hold weight based on what is observed in the modern world. The Bush administration used military intervention which was successful in areas such as Iraq while Obama government focused on UN intervention leading to little success in halting nuclear production by some nations such as North Korea. The current US government is considering military intervention after international regimes interventions such as economic sanctions failed to yield fruits.

Situation after Hegemony

The second thesis of the book stated that once the dominant nation is eroded and replaced by another state, the international regimes the country established are going to persist and exist as an autonomous body functioning on its own without the founding nation (Keohane, 2005). This argument holds little weight since the dominant nation establishes regimes that will support their political agendas and prevent other nations that are deemed rivals from penetrating the system. If a new nation rises to become the new hegemonic state, they will form their unique regimes that fit their needs and prevent the previous state from reclaiming their position. They will consequently create bodies that will prevent any other nation from displacing them.

The US is currently the dominant nation in hegemony. The nation has played the greatest role in establishing the current international regimes (Rodman, 1995). The switch from the British hegemony to the United States and their preferred political and economic regimes is an example that shows the international regimes are likely to change if a hegemonic nation is displaced. Despite both nations using military power in their operations, Britain used colonies to push their agendas unlike the US that is using fortified systems based on political benefits. These systems are being used by the US to compel North Korea to stop production of weapons of mass destruction based on the view that it is dangerous for all nations across the globe. If North Korea becomes a new hegemony, it is likely to establish policies that will aid in the achievement of their goal such as allowing the production of nuclear weapons by nations without any regulations. The United States hegemony is characterized by international regimes that include the World Bank, the international trade organization and international monitory funds. On the contrary, British used private owned companies that were associated with blocks of colonies. As the British hegemony decline commenced in the 1950s, their international regimes started to fade and were replaced by new regimes developed by the US.

Conclusion

Keohane book provides valuable information on hegemony. The book discussion utilizes world-systems analysis that focuses on an explanation of various world phenomena. Some of the concepts in the book on hegemonic cooperation as well as resultant international regimes are evident in the world operations; however, some of them are not applicable as explained in the counter-argument of the paper. There is a need for clarification on the aspects of international regimes and their possibility of autonomy existence after regime change.

References

Keohane, R. O. (2005). After hegemony. New Jersey: Princeton University Press

Keohane, R. O. (2015). After hegemony cooperation is still possible. The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, 50(4), 92-94.

Powaski R.E. (2017). George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, 2001-2003. In American Presidential Statecraft. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-50454-4_6

Rodman, K.A. (1995). Sanctions at Bay? Hegemonic decline, multinational corporations, and U.S. economic sanctions since the pipeline case. International Organization,49(1), 105-137.