Hegemony and Power in the Global War on Terrorism
This chapter discusses the role and power of the United States in a world of globalisation and global governance after 9/11, and specifically in the years 2001–2008. Theoretically and empirically, the Global War on Terrorism served as the background to analyze the style the United States uses its power in different forms to ‘govern’ the world in a hegemonic manner. While this governance is not comprehensive and all-encompassing, it is important in creating and influencing world affairs; it sets agendas and influences policy-making. Hegemonic governance and the use of a superior unipolar position in the international system are based on both material and ideological power. Both dimensions were needed to govern within the context of the Global War on Terrorism. This chapter will first discuss the interrelated role of ideas and matter generally, and for hegemony specifically. It will then discuss United States hegemony more broadly, and conclude with a presentation of how this hegemony was utilised to achieve participation in the GWOT by the EU and ASEAN. Parts of this chapter have been published in a former version in “Hegemony, Equilibrium and Counterpower”, which appeared in International Relations 2010.
KeywordsInternational Relation International System Ideational Factor Economic Power Main Threat
- Beyer, C. (2010). Counterterrorism and international power relations: The EU, ASEAN and hegemonic global governance. London: IB Tauris.Google Scholar
- Chirot, D. (2000). How societies change. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
- Cuneo, C. (2007). Hegemony in Gramsci’s original prison notebooks. http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/soc/courses/soc2r3/gramsci/gramheg.htm. Accessed 21 Jan 2007.
- Engel, S. (2008). The world bank and neoliberal hegemony in Vietnam. In R. Howson & K. Smith (Eds.), Hegemony. Studies in consensus and coercion (pp. 159–183). New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Engel, S. (2006). Where to neoliberalism? The World Bank and the post-Washington consensus in Indonesia and Vietnam. In Paper presented to the 16th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, Wollongong, Australia, 26–29 June 2006.Google Scholar
- Galtung, J. (1978). Peace and social structure. Essays in peace research (Vol. 3). Copenhagen: Ejlers.Google Scholar
- Huntington, S. (2008). The lonely superpower. In: Foreign Affairs, March/April, http://www-stage.foreignaffairs.org/19990301faessay966/samuel-p-huntington/the-lonely-superpower.html. Accessed 05 March 2008.
- Jackson, R. (2004). Writing the war on terrorism: Language, politics, and counterterrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
- Kapstein, E. (1999). Unipolar politics: Realism and state strategies after the cold war. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Mearsheimer, J. (2008). Conversations in international relations: Interview with John J. Mearsheimer (Part I). International Relations, 20(1), 105–124.Google Scholar
- Parsons, C. (2003). A certain idea of Europe. Ithaka: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Philpott, D. (2001). Revolutions in sovereignty: How ideas shaped modern international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Simon, R. (1991). Gramsci’s political thought: An introduction. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
- Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
- Wartenberg, T. (1990). The forms of power: From domination to transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar