Michael Brenner: Hegemony?

HEGEMONY. “Hegemony, Hegemon everywhere — but not a ‘definition’ in sight.”

Discussions on American foreign policy frequently revolve around this term, which appears in scholarly, media, and political conversations alike. Like other buzzwords such as existential or transgender, it generates intense interest without a shared understanding of the specific realities it denotes.

Rather than clarifying its exact meaning, many assume their personal interpretation is the definitive one, carrying all sorts of implied meanings.

As a result, debates often take place among individuals lacking a mutual comprehension of the concept, revealing a societal tendency to prioritize expression and opinion over real dialogue.

Certain observable trends, however, raise implicit questions.

Broadly, it is acknowledged that global dynamics are shifting, with old frameworks dissolving and new, undefined patterns emerging.

One key inquiry is whether the United States has diminished its capacity to dictate terms internationally compared to earlier periods—and if so, when that change began.

Identifying the main factors behind such shifts and contemplating possible future directions is crucial. The notion of “control” remains central to any general explanation of “hegemony.”

An illustrative definition is: “Hegemony represents the stable control by a dominant state — acting in its self-defined national/imperial interest — of its external environment.”

No historical case fully matches this idealized concept. The closest example is the vision of American global dominance laid out in the Wolfowitz Memorandum from 1991.

This memorandum is significant in two ways: it outlines a total and unrestrained supremacy, and its core principles have been widely adopted by U.S. foreign policy elites. From around 1990 to 2005, the international environment most closely resembled this outlook, fostering efforts to realize it.

During that period, the notion of America as a “hyper-power” dominated in capitals worldwide—until three major events disrupted this confidence: the trauma of 9/11; Vladimir Putin’s rise in Moscow, reviving Russia as an autonomous force rich in resources after the Yeltsin collapse; and China’s emergence as a possible challenger to U.S. long-term primacy.

Hyper-Power & Boundaries

The all-encompassing dominance envisioned by Wolfowitz eliminates concerns about such boundaries. Following the U.S. military interventions across the Greater Middle East, climaxing with an aggressive war against Iran, America and its allies have lost considerable “soft hegemony” within the Persian Gulf.

Similarly, control over the flow through energy routes has weakened. True hegemony requires absolute, “permanent” control.

Compare American influence over Middle Eastern oil and gas with Britain’s command over resources throughout India under the Raj. For about 175 years, Britain exercised a comprehensive, institutionalized dominant-subordinate relationship that systematically transferred wealth.

Comparable forms of colonial, geographically bounded hegemony characterized the West’s Imperial Age—stretching from Algeria to India-China, Indonesia, and across Africa. Consolidating those ties sometimes demanded formal annexation strategies, as seen in Algeria, Russia’s expansion in Central Asia and the Caucasus, and the U.S. acquisition of Puerto Rico and large parts of Mexico through conquest.

After WWII, the Soviet Union imposed effective annexation across Eastern Europe, creating a rigid form of hegemony lasting 45 years. This “hard-point” control complemented influence tactics like intimidation, political meddling, and economic dependency in neighboring countries.

In the Western Hemisphere, American dominance was undeniable for a century following the Monroe Doctrine, shaping political and economic life in South and Central America. Restoring this status is the overt aim of the Trump administration, frequently reiterated by Marco Rubio.

Segmented or sectoral hegemony occurs when a dominant power maintains stable control over a key aspect of inter-state relations while allowing autonomy elsewhere.

China’s dominance over the global rare earth mineral market is a prime example today.

This brief survey of hegemony’s diverse meanings and manifestations reveals the concept’s limitations as a tool for explaining the changing international order.

At its essence, hegemony means dominance, shown through influence over other states’ actions in the external sphere. Its methods vary—military, economic, ideological, political interference, or combinations thereof—and control can be fixed or fluid, aimed at securing assets or preventing rivals from gaining advantage, whether globally comprehensive or sector-specific.

Examining recent significant episodes in U.S. foreign policy helps assess whether there have been fundamental changes in its power to shape global affairs in Washington’s favor.

One encounters a longtime advocate of the Wolfowitz vision at Raffles bar in Singapore, out of touch for 25 years and involved in opium smuggling from the Golden Triangle, who wonders: “How is the U.S. doing?”

ECONOMIC

• The U.S. has pursued an extensive and persistent campaign during the last decade to reinforce its worldwide dominance. This includes strengthening economic influence through control of essential financial structures, weaponizing trade leverage, and imposing sanctions and embargoes.
• Washington has arbitrarily levied heavy tariffs against every trading partner from Lesotho to China, violating treaty commitments and international laws. Most have reluctantly complied, except China, which countered by leveraging rare earth minerals. Despite this, Beijing accepted selective tariffs on certain exports and refrained from responding to America’s broad restrictions on semiconductor technology access. The EU, Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia also committed significant investments in U.S. industries.
• The U.S. pressured India to reduce energy imports from Russia and provide further trade concessions. These contentious diplomatic moves in the Middle East have served to undermine BRICS.
• Together with its European allies, Washington has targeted Russian energy shipments in the Baltic, Black Sea, Mediterranean, and English Channel, with no retaliation from Moscow.
• It has imposed a naval blockade around the Persian Gulf, again without challenge from Russia or China.
• The U.S. has frozen $300 billion of Russian central bank reserves within the SWIFT system and seized tens of billions of dollars of private Russian assets, facing no reprisals. Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund RDIF and Putin’s special envoy for investment, has held lengthy discussions with American officials on creating a joint investment trust using these frozen funds as capital and collateral, granting the U.S. interests in Russian natural resources.
• The U.S. enticed Putin into prolonged, fruitless talks with Kushner/Witkoff/Bessent, though no concessions were made on Russia’s core demands. Meanwhile, Putin cultivates Trump with flattering words, avoiding hostile tones and entertaining visions of future friendly Russo-American relations. Remarkably, he seems oblivious to the fact he is dealing with a “Fascist psychopath with demonstrable dementia who tried to kill him.”
• Washington has committed acts of piracy violating international law through attacks on commercial vessels, including fishing boats, from Venezuela, Colombia, and Iran.
• An absolute military embargo on Cuban trade aims at forcing the current government’s surrender, without any meaningful response from Russia, China, or Mexico.
• Attempts to coerce Denmark into ceding sovereignty over Greenland to the U.S. met with mild and accommodating reactions beyond Copenhagen. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte advocated expanding U.S./NATO bases and investments there.
• EU leaders endorsed concessions for expanded U.S. military facilities and access to mineral rights. Putin proposed a possible sale, valuing Greenland by comparison to Alaska’s sale price.

MILITARY

• Washington has supported Israel’s comprehensive efforts to eradicate rivals in the Middle East to establish regional dominance. This includes ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank; seizing Syrian territory; aggression in Lebanon as preliminary to annexing its southern region; attacks on Iran; and solidification of bases in northern Iraq despite Baghdad’s demands for their withdrawal.
• Through NATO, the U.S. is forward-deploying troops and weaponry in Finland, Poland, Romania, and Lithuania, in direct provocation of Russia, violating agreements dating back to 1990.
• Thousands of American military and CIA operatives operate in Ukraine, directing cross-border missions, managing HIMARS and ATACMS missile systems, and guiding drones in strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, key radar stations, and Putin himself. Russia’s response has been nonexistent.
• Washington has nullified all arms control treaties from the Cold War era.
• A network of U.S. ABM sites surrounding Russia can be converted into offensive missile launchers.
• The U.S. abandoned the 1970s agreement recognizing Taiwan as part of China, instead promoting Taiwanese autonomy through large arms sales and stationing American troops on the island.
• Washington invaded Venezuela without cause to capture President Nicolas Maduro and replace him with an American-aligned government led by former Vice-President Delcy Rodriguez, personally recruited by CIA Director John Ratcliffe. In exchange, U.S. oil firms gained control of Venezuela’s vast reserves.
• The U.S. backed Syrian insurgents led by jihadists who toppled Bashar al-Assad and established a government under former al-Nusra/Al Qaeda leader Abu Mohammad al-Golani—on whom the U.S. had placed a $10 million dead-or-alive bounty.

POLITICAL

• These military interventions were coordinated with political actions in the countries involved.
• Washington pushed India to align with the U.S. and Israel against Iran (and in support of the Palestinian genocide) through inflammatory, Islamophobic displays by Narendra Modi, causing serious rifts within BRICS. Pressured by the U.S., India curtailed Russian energy purchases, foregoing cheap oil and profits from refined product re-exports.
• This occurred amidst the collapse of an ambitious plan for a southern alternative route to the Chinese-backed Silk Road, once favored by Washington, revealing the extent of American influence inducing a great power to act against its own interests—a diplomatic success reminiscent of the 1980s’ handling of Japan.
• Washington successfully recruited Japan into its anti-China campaign with such intensity that Tokyo actively supports Taiwan independence.
• Washington encouraged Pakistan’s military to depose and imprison elected President Imran Khan, whose criticism of Israeli-American atrocities in Gaza made him persona non grata.
• U.S. support extends to various Kurdish separatist factions in Iraq, attempting to open a second front against Iran.
• Washington essentially bribed Argentine voters to back neo-fascist Trump ally Javier Milie by openly promising essential IMF financial aid and debt restructuring only if he won the election.
• The U.S. pressured Romanian authorities to annul the 2024 free and fair election results because the winner failed to adopt a hardline anti-Russia stance.

Free-Floating Anxiety

One wonders what might have happened had Trump not made the catastrophic—perhaps fatal—decision to wage war on Iran.

Overall, America’s performance does not suggest a profound or systemic loss of its dominant global role. It never fully attained the Wolfowitz ideal of hegemony, even at its zenith as a hyper-power. Until the Iran conflict, its status remained largely intact.

Much of the concern reflects vague fears over losing America’s global supremacy rather than actual decline—at least for now.

These fears have driven an aggressive, expansive strategy that has, for the moment, largely succeeded. Another grave miscalculation was categorizing both China and Russia as adversaries that must be contained or destroyed.

This approach has only tightened the Sino-Russian alliance, making their partnership a fixed feature of global geopolitics. It seems unlikely that U.S. leaders ever possessed the foresight to act differently. Their fervent pursuit of Wolfowitz’s vision denied them the detachment needed for more cautious and nuanced diplomacy.

They failed to emulate Bismarck’s strategy for managing both France and Russia. Despite these weaknesses, America’s consistent ability to maintain influence highlights structural aspects of international relations, especially given its leaders’ poor grasp of global politics, ignorance, and lack of diplomatic skill.

Original article: Consortium News

About the Author

Jonas Mikkelsen

Author

A political correspondent in Copenhagen who covers European Union affairs with a focus on social welfare and migration issues.

View All Posts