Hegemony Is Globalization's Lifeblood
Without a global hegemon to maintain order, globalization cannot exist.
In every organism there are four cycles: birth, development, primacy, and death. Each cycle features a unique period of transition. Globalization is no different.
The 1990s witnessed the birth of globalization through the demise of the Soviet Union, the creation of the European Union, and the rise of China. It was The End of History. The 2000's manifested a classic coming-of-age story. After going through some rocky teenage years as reflected by the War on Terror and the 2008 Financial Crisis, globalization transitioned into its prime. People no longer feared the worst. The European Union survived crises, the U.S. maintained its superpower status, it felt inevitable that China would become a liberal democracy, and while powers like Iran, Russia, and North Korea posed periodic nuisances, they were not an existential threat to the order.
Then this thing called Covid-19 happened.
In the blink of an eye, the world changed. In just a few short years, humanity now recognizes this order we enjoy is coming to an end. Globalization is dying, and there's nothing we can do about it.
This is due to the basic structure of the international system.
One of the great fundamental truths of the past 500 years is that the most powerful ideology is not liberal democracy, but nationalism. We do not live in a world of liberal democracies. We live in a world of nation-states. This is of critical importance.
The idea of the nation reflects that a distinct group of people has their own traditions, laws, and beliefs which are uniquely their own. The idea of the state is that a government apparatus is designed to provide law, order, and security. The nation-state is the fusion between national identity and state power. We call this nationalism.
This world of nation-states is inherently anarchic. There is no authority above the nation state. Forget the UN, it's a joke. The UN only has power because nation-states choose to grant it power. No one is going to die for the idea of the UN, but you can be sure that people will die for their country.
The problem with anarchy is that “life is nasty, brutish, and short.” It is order that provides the necessary conditions for civilization to flourish. However, order can only be established by the strong. In an anarchic world, this means “the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.” The tragedy of the anarchic system of nation-states is that “might makes right.” It is the victor who gets to write history.
Such an idea is abhorrent to those who come from any tradition of universal morality, but history is rife with examples of great moralists justifying their own hypocrisy for the sake of advancing the national interest. A strong state must recognize this tragic reality and execute plans to prevent itself from becoming a victim. It must maximize its power on the world stage. The nation must have secure borders, a growing population, a vibrant economy, and access to critical natural resources. Most importantly, the state must secure the nation from foreign attack. A fear of the other is always in the back of the mind.
There are those who will likely take offense to this description of the "the other." Yet, fear of the other, fear of the unknown, is a natural human response. As humans gain more information about the unknown, their fear and insecurity is often assuaged. In the modern age, the seemingly endless variety of information exchanged between different nations gives the illusion that we know all that is needed to prevent misunderstandings, particularly misunderstandings that might lead to violence. This view ignores a harsh reality of the human existence: no matter how good your communication skills may be, there is no escaping there are times your interests will create conflict with others. And when conflict arises, especially when your interests are of primal importance, you had better be ready to fight to protect those interests.
Nation-states are no different.
When national interests collide, the threat of war emerges. If the conflict surrounds periphery interests, a peaceful resolution may be established. If it is a matter between a core interest and a periphery interest, the state with the core interest, unless faced with insurmountable odds, will almost always seek to escalate diplomatically to secure that interest, even if that escalation involves violence. But if it’s a matter of core interests at stake, general warfare is all but inevitable.
The inherent anarchy of the international system means that nation-states must undertake aggressive actions to secure their interests. While each country is its own sovereign entity, there are undoubtedly vast differences in power and prestige. Some nation-states are more equal than others.
Nation-states are comprised of different, overlapping, dynamic systems. These systems are demographics, economics, politics, security, environment, and culture. Each of these systems are shaped by the geographic boundaries of the nation-state as well as its level of technological sophistication. Additionally, interactions with neighbors will also drastically shape a nation-state’s development and relative power. It is the global aggregation of these systems and interactions which creates the international system. This is the essence of geopolitical theory.
When it comes to international relations, relative power is all that matters. Power hierarchies are a zero-sum game. Some states are strong while other states are weak. The goal of any nation is to be strong. If that's not possible, then the goal is to find a patron to protect you from becoming a victim. However, not all patrons are created equal. Some are lenient and offer a semblance of autonomy while others are tyrannical puppet masters. As a weak state, who you align with matters.
This brings us to the 800-pound gorilla: the United States.
For reasons of both geography and culture, the U.S. found itself situated as the world's preeminent power. Geography endowed the U.S. with the ingredients to become an absolute juggernaut, but it is America’s unique culture and government, as outlined by the Founding Fathers, that enabled it to provide coherent governance across the entirety of the North American continent. Through a complex and often contentious series of events, the U.S. found itself as the world's sole superpower at the beginning of the 1990s.
This global hegemony created the perfect conditions for globalization to flourish because only a global hegemon has the power to enforce a global order.
Commerce is a risky enterprise. If I'm going to trade goods with you, I better have some guarantees. For instance, I need guarantees that my goods will not be stolen in transit and that you will actually pay for the goods. In short, commerce requires order, but order requires power. The greater the distance of commerce, the greater the order required, so the greater the power required. Thus, to stitch together any sort of commercial trading relations across vast distances, there must be a sole hegemon capable of enforcing order in a world of anarchy.
In the Western tradition, hegemony took forms such as the Pax Romana, the Pax Hispanica, Pax Britannica, and now the Pax Americana. Each of these eras featured a global hegemon to enforce order, but when the hegemon's power faded the existence of that commercial order quickly evaporated.
So, is U.S. hegemony eternal? Of course not. But, if U.S. hegemony is required for the existence of globalization, what happens when U.S. hegemonic power begins to fade? It means we’re witnessing the death throes of globalization.
Here's the thing: the end of American hegemony doesn't mean the end of American preeminence. The international system is in the process of transitioning from a hegemonic, imperial structure to a multipolar system where the U.S. remains the Principate, that is the first among equals. America may face challenges from up-and-coming power such as China, but its position on the North American continent provides incomparable opportunities.
Despite the advantages of geography, U.S. power isn’t permanent. America is a nation-state after all. There is such a thing as the American people. It is the American people who, through elections, choose the officials of the American state. While the ethnic origins of the American people may shift over the centuries, it is undeniable there is such a thing as an American identity.
Unfortunately, even acknowledging such a reality is often deemed as beyond the pale. It is an unfathomable to acknowledge that there is even such a thing as the American people – past, present, or even future. People are just a blank slate according to many. Yet, such thinking ignores the basic realities of human existence. We all have histories, we all have families, we all have ideas, and our ideas have consequences.
The challenge for the U.S. today is the interests of those who make up the American state are fundamentally at odds with the interests of those who comprise the American nation. The people no longer have a voice in government. An inspection of American political economy from 1981-2002 reveals that every major policy outcome represented not the best interests of the people but the self-interests of economic and political elites. This social structure is more representative of an oligarchy not a democratic republic.
It is an understatement to say that American politics these days is rather tense. Each area of disagreement must be vigorously fought over and decided upon, yet the difference in American political opinion is increasingly no longer a difference in political economy preferences but a difference in worldviews. The idea of neutrality in the public square - and good faith debates - is only possible when both parties share a common worldview.
The domestic cultural, economic, and political dynamics of the U.S. have international consequences. Rising social discord, both present and future, will hamstring America's ability to project power abroad. For this reason alone, the era of hegemony is coming to an end. The rising economic and military strength of other powers is but the nail in the coffin. Globalization as we know it is dead. So, what comes next?