scholarly journals The us bases and their contributions to us hegemony

Milletleraras ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (0) ◽  
pp. 57-87
Author(s):  
ÜSTÜNTAĞ Gülten ; ATMACA
Keyword(s):  
The Us ◽  
Us Hegemony

The Rise and Return of the Indo-Pacific

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Doyle ◽  
Dennis Rumley
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
First Century ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
Pacific Region ◽  
Nation States ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Hegemony ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
Under Construction ◽  
Political Realities

In the twenty-first century, the Indo-Pacific region has become the new centre of the world. The concept of the ‘Indo-Pacific’’, though still under construction, is a potentially pivotal site, where various institutions and intellectuals of statecraft are seeking common ground on which to anchor new regional coalitions, alliances, and allies to better serve their respective national agendas. This book explores the Indo-Pacific as an ambiguous and hotly contested regional security construction. It critically examines the major drivers behind the revival of classical geopolitical concepts and their deployment through different national lenses. The book also analyses the presence of India and the US in the Indo-Pacific, and the manner in which China has reacted to their positions in the Indo-Pacific to date. It suggests that national constructions of the Indo-Pacific region are more informed by domestic political realities, anti-Chinese bigotries, distinctive properties of twenty-first century US hegemony, and narrow nation-statist sentiments rather than genuine pan-regional aspirations. The book argues that the spouting of contested depictions of the Indo-Pacific region depend on the fixed geostrategic lenses of nation-states, but what is also important is the re-emergence of older ideas—a classical conceptual revival—based on early to mid-twentieth century geopolitical ideas in many of these countries. The book deliberately raises the issue of the sea and constructions of ‘nature’, as these symbols are indispensable parts of many of these Indo-Pacific regional narratives.

US Hegemony in Korean Studies and the Soviet Role in Early Postwar Korea

2021 ◽  
pp. 375-395
Author(s):  
Kathryn Weathersby
Keyword(s):  
The South ◽  
Post Colonial ◽  
Korean History ◽  
American Occupation ◽  
Korean Studies ◽  
The North ◽  
Soviet Occupation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Hegemony

This paper examines some of the ways the US-centric framework of Anglophone Korean studies has distorted scholarship on post-colonial Korean history. First, an over-emphasis on the American role in the division of Korea has exaggerated the possibility that the US and USSR could have compromised to create a unified government for the peninsula. The Soviet documentary record reveals that Moscow was determined to obstruct such an outcome if it endangered Soviet security. Second, by focusing on the serious damage the American occupation inflicted on the South, scholars have understated the control Soviet occupation authorities exercised in the North.

scholarly journals FUTURE OF US HEGEMONY

2019 ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
A Subotin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Social Power ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Politics ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Future ◽  
Us Hegemony

Abstract. The demise of the bipolar system of international politics has revived interest in such closely related and contested terms as "superpower", "hegemon", "empire" and "imperialism". This article represents an attempt to define the most probable trend in the future evolution of the international system with regard to the role of the United States of America as the most prominent state power of today's world. This article seeks to analyse the US power posture in today's world politics by comparing its core capabilities to those of the classical empire of the previous century - the British Empire - with analytical emphasis on both the "hard power" and the "soft power" dimensions. The author maintains that the notion of US hegemony or even American Empire is still relevant despite a clear historic tendency of hegemonic decline seen throughout the second part of the 20th century. The United States still ranks high on the scale of most traditional power factors and, what is by far more important, they continue to be able to shape and control the scale and the volume of international exposure of all other major players within the framework of contemporary global international system. The relative decline of US influence upon world politics at the beginning of the new millennia has been effectively off-set by the profound change in the nature of American power which is now assuming the form of a structural dominance. The author's personal view is that US hegemony is not doomed to wane, given the enormous impact the United States have already made economically, politically and intellectually upon the post World War II international relations. The continuance of the US playing the pivotal role in the international politics of the 21st century will be dependent on the ability of the US political class to adapt to and to harness the social power of numerous non-state international actors that are due take over the leading role in the future world's politics.

scholarly journals Is COVID-19 the end of US hegemony? Public bads, leadership failures and monetary hegemony

2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (5) ◽  
pp. 1281-1303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Norrlöf
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Goods ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Health ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Hegemony ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Public Bads ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract COVID-19 is the most invasive global crisis in the postwar era, jeopardizing all dimensions of human activity. By theorizing COVID-19 as a public bad, I shed light on one of the great debates of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries regarding the relationship between the United States and liberal international order (LIO). Conceptualizing the pandemic as a public bad, I analyze its consequences for US hegemony. Unlike other international public bads and many of the most important public goods that make up the LIO, the COVID-19 public bad not only has some degree of rivalry but can be made partially excludable, transforming it into more of a club good. Domestically, I demonstrate how the failure to effectively manage the COVID-19 public bad has compromised America's ability to secure the health of its citizens and the domestic economy, the very foundations for its international leadership. These failures jeopardize US provision of other global public goods. Internationally, I show how the US has already used the crisis strategically to reinforce its opposition to free international movement while abandoning the primary international institution tasked with fighting the public bad, the World Health Organization (WHO). While the only area where the United States has exercised leadership is in the monetary sphere, I argue this feat is more consequential for maintaining hegemony. However, even monetary hegemony could be at risk if the pandemic continues to be mismanaged.

The US Dollar as the Global Reserve Currency: Implications for US Hegemony

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Costigan ◽  
Drew Cottle ◽  
Angela Keys
Keyword(s):  
Reserve Currency ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Hegemony ◽  
Us Dollar

Akkumulationszyklen und Hegemonie

2011 ◽  
Vol 55 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christof Parnreiter
Keyword(s):  
World Economy ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Commodity Chains ◽  
Unit Of Analysis ◽  
Global Commodity Chains ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Us Hegemony ◽  
National Economies ◽  
Primary Unit

Cycles of accumulation and hegemony. A critical discussion of Giovanni Arrighi’s arguments on the relocation of centre and periphery of the world economy. Based on data on GDP and on stock market capitalization, the paper takes issue with Giovanni Arrighi’s notion of the “terminal crisis” of the US hegemony and the related relocation of the center of the world economy to China. While some indicators support Arrighi’s argument (e.g. the shift of the accumulation dynamic from the material to the financial sphere), others don’t. My analysis in this paper does not yield unambiguous results. Moreover, I question Arrighi’s primary unit of analysis, national economies, maintaining that such a focus downplays the recent fundamental changes in the organization of the world economy. I propose a less state-centric approach to identify centres of the world economy, which is derived from an integration of the concepts of global commodity chains and global cities.

scholarly journals US Hegemony and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Consensus, Crisis, and Common Sense

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-101
Author(s):  
Rubrick Biegon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Economic Policy ◽  
Elite Networks ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Hegemony ◽  
The Common

Abstract This article provides a critical analysis of the agency of the United States in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Building on neo-Gramscian theory, it contextualises the US decision to withdraw from the TPP as an expression of hegemonic crisis. Through an examination of the strategic and geoeconomic logics and objectives of the trade agreement in US foreign economic policy, it maintains that the TPP was intended primarily to expand the structural and consensual power of the United States in the international political economy. Partly an attempt to kick-start a stalled neoliberal agenda, the TPP was also an effort to respond to China’s growing influence in trade governance. The article argues that, despite the revival of the TPP in the form of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the inability of elite networks in the United States to implement the original accord is illustrative of a crisis of hegemony driven largely by the collapse of the ‘common sense’ in favour of economic globalisation.

scholarly journals A real driver of US–China trade conflict

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min-hyung Kim
Keyword(s):  
Transition Theory ◽  
Power Transition Theory ◽  
Content Type ◽  
China Trade ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Us Hegemony ◽  
Trade War ◽  
Zero Sum ◽  
Hegemonic Stability

Purpose According to the conventional wisdom, trade is not a zero-sum game, but a positive-sum game. By allowing countries to focus on producing the goods that they can produce relatively efficiently, free trade is largely beneficial for everyone involved. Then, why are the world’s two largest economies (i.e. the USA and China) currently engaged in a trade war, which is likely to hurt their own economies? What is the driving force for the trade war between the two economic giants? The purpose of this paper is to offer an explanation of the underlying cause of the US–China trade war. Design/methodology/approach In an effort to make sense of the trade war between the USA and China, the paper draws the insights from the two international relations theories – i.e. hegemonic stability theory and power transition theory. Findings As China continues to threaten US hegemony in the world in general and East Asia in particular, the Sino–US competition for hegemony will intensify over time. As a result, the trade war between the two countries may persist longer than many anticipate. Further, even if the trade war between the two superpowers ends soon, a similar type of conflict is likely to occur later as long as the Sino–US hegemonic rivalry continues. Originality/value The central thesis of this paper is that “US fear” about its declining hegemony and China’s rapid rise as a challenger of US hegemony is driving a US-launched trade war with China. Since the underlying cause of the trade war between the world’s two largest economies is political (i.e. the Sino–US hegemonic rivalry) rather than economic (e.g. US attempts to improve the trade balance with China by imposing tariffs on Chinese goods), the paper contends that the full understanding of the trade war requires close attention to the importance of power competition between the two superpowers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document