AMERICAN HEGEMONY OR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AMERICAN HEGEMONY OR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE? COMPETING VISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY (KRAHMANN, 2005)

CHALLENGE TO STATE-CENTRIC MODEL Post-Cold War Era Growing influence of international organizations and private actors such as multinational corporations (MNC) and non-governmental organizations Increasing relevance of non-state actors in policy- making processes

Alternative vision: global and security governance Global and security governance have become important for international security because: “Sub-national and transnational threats- such as civil wars, ethnic cleansing, transnational crime and terrorism- require a broader definition of security that includes people as well as states. Non-state actors are taking on crucial roles in the provision of security ranging from humanitarian aid to military services.”

World system since september 11: KRAHMANN’S The US demanded international co-operation during the break-up of former Yugoslavia and the first Gulf War. Yet it showed the possibility of unilateral intervention by, at least, the superpowers in Afghanistan and Iraq after September 11. So in which type international system do we live in? US hegemony? Balancing or bandwagoning by other major powers? The emergence of security governance?

US HEGEMONY after the cold-war? What is the type of that hegemony? Polarity is about the relative distribution of capabilities within the global international system Hegemony is about the capabilities that are matched by influence over other states in the international system Imperialism is about the capabilities as well as the willingness to use those capabilities to shape international orders- by force if necessary. Has the nature of the US hegemony changed since September 11 from the benign hegemon to neo- imperialist power?

Hegemony ın realısm First let’s go over the main assumptions of realism States are the key actors in international security International system is anarchical; hence states are the most dangerous threat to one another States aim at improving their capabilities/resources for power. Entering into alliances either to balance the primary powers or to bandwagon with them for protection are also means to increase state power vis-à- vis the other states

Hegemony in realısm Different approaches Non-hegemonic unipolarity: Unstable system because balance of power politics will eventually give rise to competing powers which try to balance against the dominant state Hegemonic unipolarity: The dominant power is expected use its resources to appease the challengers; hence it is more stable in that it may avoid wars between the hegemon and its allies. Yet it cannot prevent new threats from un-allied powers Imperialist hegemony: The least stable because it increases threat perceptions among allies as well as enemies; hence it encourages balancing policies.

Does the US move towards imperialist hegemony? “My hypothesis is that the greater the United States tilts toward liberal hegemony, the greater the incentives these states will have to engage in cooperative behavior with the United States. The greater the United States tilts toward imperial hegemony, the more incentives states will have to resist or move away from the United States (Ikenberry, 2003)”

Global security governance What is governance than government? Governance is about fragmentation and re-integration of political authority among state and non-state actors across levels of analysis 1) Geographical fragmentation downward to local bodies, upward to international organizations, and sideways to private and voluntary actors The result is redistribution of policy making and implementation capabilities among state and non-state actors 2) Representation of heterogeneous interests becomes significant The result is more emphasis on expressive rights, self-government and civil society

Global security governance How can we apply the premises of governance to security issues? States are no longer the single most important threat to international security. Terrorism, crime, and environment are equally important. Hence the concern should be broadened from the security of the states to security of the people and the planet Contemporary security threats demand collective solutions which go beyond the capabilities of a single state such as humanitarian aid, human rights monitoring, refugees, military training and protection Citizens expect the states to handle security issues in the most cost-efficient ways

RESULTS OF THE GLOBAL SECURITY GOVERNANCE Geographical and functional specialization decreases the threat of inter-state war among states States progressively collaborate with state and non- state actors and actors in providing national and international security. States have the opportunity to collaborate within a system of more flexible “coalitions of the willing” rather than within a well-defined, but antagonistic alliance systems

International security Post September 11 US military power: 3.5% GNP devoted to military spending, which is 2.3% in China, 3.8% in Russia, 2.5 % in UK and France (Posen, 2003) Significant influence in international organizations: UN, NATO, IMF, World Bank Bilateral and multilateral relations with major and minor powers such as the UK, Germany, Japan and South Korea Advantage in terms of soft power, which is related to economic and cultural influence for prestige and reputation Given this power resources, does the US decision to engage in unilateral, pre-emptive war after September 11 indicates a transition to imperial hegemony?

Major powers: bandwagoning or balancing? NATO declared commitment to the US and its subsequent intervention in Afghanistan Russia and China also bandwagoned with the US after the immediate aftermath of September 11 Yet both the allied and non-allied powers opposed US intentions of pre-emptive war in Iraq For Krahmann, the most interesting opposition came from Turkey Despite oppositions, the strained relations between the US and its allies have been restored during the aftermath of the intervention

The continuation of security governance Growing functional and geographic division of labor between state and non-state actors The US supports regional alliances against terror and it argues for the greater role of NATO in peace-keeping missions The US welcomed financial aid in Iraq from Russia, Germany, China and Germany, which initially opposed the intervention US growing reliance on private initiatives for military capabilities and re-construction efforts. The use of international organizations and alliance systems become more flexible

DISCUSSION Which paradigm, do you think, does propose a more convincing account for international political order after the end of the Cold war: the realists or the pluralists? Why? Why not?