Abstract
The ghosts of hegemony and counter hegemony had has been haunting the true spirits of humanity, productivity, and the last but not the least, survival on the plan-et. Right from the beginning, the two opposite forces have been producing havocs in the human civilization. Afterwards, the emergence of power politics, economic domination, and militarization succeeded to ruin the concept of equality, human dignity, freedom and liberty at large. Class struggle trigged, society divided and the birth of ideology further isolated people trapping in to mental inflexibilities, living into orbits of caprices. Moreover, power shifts are an inexorable phenomenon in history. The global power structure continually evolves.
The rise of statehood, system, law, and rules & regulations patronized structure and super-structure in the world especially in the Europe. The invention of political economy and economic determinism changed the basic elements of national policy, foreign policy and of course military misadventure. The dawn of globalization, information technology revolution and emergence of unipolar power system has further complicated the concept of hegemony and counter hegemony.
The work of Antonio Gramsci has been very influential in the field of International Political Economy. Not only has the Italian revolution-ary’s body of thought been taken as a starting point for conceptualizing hegemony at the international level.
In this research paper, concept of hegemony and counter hegemony is applied in the affairs of to-day Middle East and Asia and pin-point certain scenarios relating to this basic concept.
Introduction
Hegemony is a Greek term that originally designated the power of a single state over other states in a confederacy, for exam-ple the power of Athens over the Greek city-states. Hegemony as a cultural and ideological means whereby the dominant groups in society, including fundamentally but not exclusively the ruling class, maintain their dominance by securing the ‘spontaneous consent’ of subordinate groups, including the working class.
Concept of hegemony and counter hegemony has been used by most of American researchers in the international relations discipline. They focus in the theory of hegemonic stability. Simply stated, this theory argues that the hegemonic power plays a crucial role in maintaining stability and order in the world system. The military power of the hegemon keeps the peace, discouraging challengers to the global order. The economy of the hegemon is the engine that drives international economic growth and development. In order to preserve its network of alliances, the hegemon is the political broker who moderates disputes between other powers, thus keeping them from escalating into serious conflict.
On the other hand, the theory of hegemonic instability argues that hegemony is a destructive force in the global system. The hegemon uses its military power to impose its will around the world, raising the level of violence associated with regional political conflicts. The economy of the hegemon sucks resources from less developed economies and twists development around the globe to fit its insatiable appetites rather than benefit the peoples of the world.
Conflict between the hegemonic alliance system and the counter-hegemonic alliance system was the source of the two world wars and the Cold War. The military competition between the hegemonic and counter-hegemonic alliances turns many otherwise manageable political disputes into violent conflict.
Literature Review
Arrighi is one of the authors that take Gramsci seriously when cogitating on the concept of hegemony and reflecting upon ways in which this concept could be applied to the international relations.
For Arrighi in fact power can take the form of a “combination of consent and coercion”. Consent is associated with moral leadership, while domination implies “the use of force, or a credible threat of force”. Arrighi claims that a dominant group’s power then can be based on domination.
Arrighi in fact understands hegemony eventually as additional power to domination which “accrues to a dominant group by virtue of its capacity to place all the issues around which conflict rages on a “universal” plane” It is based on Gramsci’s statement that “it is true that the State is seen as the organ of one particular group, destined to create favourable conditions for the latter’s maximum expansion.
In an influential article called “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method” Robert Cox also analyses Gramsci’s concept of “hegemony” and gives some guidelines on how it could be applied to the field of international relations.
As Arrighi he underlines the Machiavellian root of Gramsci’s understanding of power, exemplified by the comparison with a centaur: “half man, half beast” and hence power as “a necessary combination consent and coercion”. Hegemony prevails, Cox argues, when “the consensual aspect of power is in the forefront”4. Because hegemony is “enough to ensure conformity of behaviour in most people most of the time”, coercion will be mainly latent and used only in particular, deviant situations.
When looking at the way in which Arrighi has applied Gramsci’s concept to the International relation, we realize how a particular state has the chance to become hegemonic if it can “credibly claim to be the game-changer. Following this approach Arrighi proposes an historical narrative according to which the historic development of the capitalist world system can be understood as having been shaped by the rise, full expansion and supersession of four subsequent hegemonies since the 16th century.
Hegemony and Counter Hegemony Forces and To-day Middle East
Right from the beginning, the soil of Middle East region has had been one of the ideal places for hegemony and counter hegemony forces. Human massacres, ethnic cleansing, physical destructions and above all gross crimes against weakened populations have been mantra of many regional dynasties, states and powerful groups. The emerging geopolitical and geo-strategic trends all speak about yet another bloody round of hegemony and counter hegemony forces clash in the region.
Many forces of hegemony and counter hegemony are at work in the different parts of the world and especially in the Middle East and Asia-pacific regions. Syria crisis would be the turning point in the geo-political and geo-strategic map-ping of the Middle East region. It is feared that after the expected fall of President Bashar Al Assad the hide and see play of hegemony and counter hegemony forces would be at fire and widened.
| Name of the Country | Population % Shiite sect |
| Syria | 15-20 |
| Iraq | 50-70 |
| Iran | 70-85 |
| Lebanon | 30-50 |
| Bahrain | 70 |
| Yemen | 50 |
Acceding to the International Crisis Group [ICG] report (March, 2012), the uprising in the different parts of Syria would instigated a fully-fledged sectarian conflict in the Middle East. The report titled “Now or Never: A Negotiated Transition for Syria” seriously warned that uncompromising attitude of the government, increasing militarisation of the opposition and the last but not the least, growing international divide would produce fatal all-out civil war. Moreover, a regional proxy war would be started that might well precipitates a dangerous regional conflagration”.
US invasion in Iraq 2003 was the first major step towards greater sectarian tension in the Middle East region. The fall of Saddam Hussian regime was a strategic set back to Sunni domination in the region. Many regional strategists including King Abdullah II of Jordan were of the opinion that US policies in the Middle East would change the landscape, and pattern of governance in the region.
In an interview with ABC news in November 2006, the Jordanian king warned that the sectarian violence in Iraq was threatening to spiral out of control. More alarming perhaps, King Abdullah II warned that unless some very strong actions were taken on the ground, the Middle East was likely to face the prospect of grand sectarian war.
According to mail online (2012), only 10 to 15 per cent of the Muslim worlds are Shi’ites, but they are concentrated in strategically vital areas especially in the Middle East region. So, the consequences of the expected split would be devastating in the days to come.
On the other hand, many Arab commentators believed that the Jordanian King was exaggerating about Iran’s rising influence in the region and that he was driven by unwarranted fear of a Shiite revival in the Middle East.
According to Vali Nasr’s book “The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future” by toppling of Saddam, the US may have just liberated and empowered Iraq’s Shiite majority and helped launch a broad Shiite revival that will upset the sectarian balance in Iraq and the broader Middle East for years to come.
Aftermath geo-political and geo-strategic repercussions rattled Sunni dominated governments in the region. The ongoing fierce conflict for holding of physical possession and maintaining ideological superiority between the pro-Iran Syrian regime and the Sunni-dominated opposition in Syria supported by Turkey and the other Sunni dominated states are playing with fire and threatens to engulf the whole region in a fully-fledged sectarian conflict.
To rectify its pervious strategic blunders the US turned again to its Sunni allies in order to restore the balance of power in the region. The US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 has put Iran in a driving seat position. It enabled Iran to assert its ideological holding/influence spreading from Western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. It seems that the Shiite crescent, King Abdullah II of Jordan once warned against, is already in place in many parts of the region.
Sunni dominated states and sup-ported groups by them are trying their levels best to tame Iran and put it into manageable size. So, proxy wars have already been engaged in the Iranian strategic areas of influence i.e. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.
It is feared that Iran will not sit idol. It will fight back and try to prevent Saudi Arabia and Turkey from gaining the upper hand. .It could very well lead into the much feared grand sectarian conflict which would engulf the entire Middle East. Power struggle in Bahrain would be the next playground for forces of Hegemony & Counter-Hegemony.
| Discussion | |
| Country | Forces of Hegemony & Counter-Hegemony |
| Iraq | Unsuccessful efforts of the removal of the pro-Iran Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki are rigorously under way. |
| Syria | Sectarian divide has already produced havocs and all Sunni dominated states are supporting the opposition with all the means to bring down the regime of President Bashar Al Assad. |
| Lebanon | Hezbollah is already under tremendous pressure as a result of its position on the Syrian crisis. |
| Gaza | Iran has already lost influence. |
| Egypt | The success and revival of Islamic parties in the recently held elections in many countries of the region, Hamas has distanced itself from both Iran and Syria. |
| Source: Critical Analysis of different articles of the Middle East Media | |
International Power Politics (Agents of Hegemony & Counter-Hegemony)
The chess board of international power politics has already been tabled and all the major stakeholders are dying for having lion share in the ongoing horrendous conflict in Syria. Agents of hegemony and counter hegemony are fighting for securing strategic edge in the region. Socio-economic bounties, geo-political maneuverings and geo-strategic ramifications have polluted the face of humanity at large.
| Discussion | |
| Forces of Hegemony | Geo-political & Geo-Strategic Motives |
| Turkey | Regaining of leading role in the region (Sunni ideological domination). |
| Saudi Arabia | Trying to completely break the Iranian influence and its strategic allies in the region. So Syria carries weight in the ongoing endgame. |
| Qatar | It has opened its military wings to fly over the region in order to better protection of the Sunni allied states in the region. |
| USA, Britain, France | To pose as abiding by UN standards, while at the same time flouting the UN Charter by promoting an attack on a member state. |
| Israel | It wishes to have a weakened Syrian government, inoperative army, spreading of sectarianism. The ultimate goal would be the Somalization of Syria in the days to come. |
| Forces of Counter Hegemony | Geo-political & Geo-Strategic Motives |
| Russia | At every international forum, Russia strongly rejected any military action against Syria. Russia vetoes UN Security Council Resolution twice, because Russia may loss its one of the key strategic ally in shape of Syria afterwards. It does not allow again the US to military power to dismantle the Syria and triggers greater sectarian conflicts and proxy wars in the entire region. |
| China | Right from the first day of Syrian Conflict, China opposed any misadventure led of US or any other country. China vetoed security council resolution against Syria. Geopolitically and geo-strategically, China does not want to give any walk-over to US for its military domination in any part of the world. |
| Source: Comparative Study of different leading English media of the GCC. | |
Washington Post in its July 18, 2012 report indicated that “the CIA has been working with the Syrian opposition for several weeks under a non-lethal directive … Scores of Israeli intelligence officers are also operating along Syria’s border, though they are keeping a low profile”.
Washington is clearly displeased with the intransigence of both Beijing and Moscow on dealing with the Syrian crisis and their unwilling-ness to justify a direct US strike against President Bashar al-Assad with the full authorization of the United Nations.
China and Russia seem to be unconvinced with the US plan of action for number of reasons. One is that the moral indignation of Washington hardly stands the test of history. Washington was a good friend of Josef Stalin, Augusto Pinochet and the Shah of Iran but they were both perished even by the US itself. Repeatedly, US has demonstrated that it had no prejudice when it comes to dealing with pressing geopolitical vested interest.
Veto of Russia and China, specific stances of Turkey and other Sunni states in the region and track-II diplomatic maneuvering of the US represents the different shades of hegemony and counter hegemony, working side by side. Turkey spy plane over Syrian territory on June 22, 2012, flee of so many high officials from Syrian military into Turkey, support extended to the Syrian opposition by many Sunni states are making things complicated.
Having all said, the Russian and Chinese stand, a clandestine Western and allied intervention without UN authorisation was seen as the best option to save the people from the genocide perpetrators.
Probable Operational Plan
Many regional security are of the opinion that Ankara may step up the covert operations inside Syria (bankrolled by Saudi Arabia and Qatar), Israel would cross the border into Syria from the south and attack Bashar’s military and degrade its capacity to resist the Turkish threat. Predators are wandering at will in search of easy prey.
Hot pursuits of oil has had been remained mantra of every government in the human history and Middle East region is not any exemption. Not a major oil producer itself, Syria’s fate still has implications for this energy-rich region. The country’s importance has always been as an oil transit state rather than a producer. In July, 2011 Iran, Iraq and Syria signed a deal for a US$10 billion (Dh36.73bn) gas pipeline. Some regional energy and security experts termed it as one of the motivation for a western campaign against the Al Assad regime. A large part of Syria’s own oil is in the largely Kurdish north-east corner, sandwiched between Iraq and Turkey (most of the rest lies farther south, along the Euphrates).
Moreover, the entry of ExxonMobile and Chevron would be a game changer in the regional politics over Syria. It is true that the best transportation route to the world market for the massive oil and gas deposits in Kurdistan will be via the Syrian port city of Latakia on the eastern Mediterranean.
| International Media | Levels of Narratives/Reporting | Main Aim | Basis |
| CNN | The vast majority of reports -from the ground indicate that government forces are killing citizens in an attempt to wipe out civilians seeking President Bashar al-Assad’s Ouster. | To elicit a heart-wrenching emotional response Western audiences in that trumps all other considerations and makes the call for Western/Gulf intervention to effect regime change. | Distortion, manipulation, lies and video-tape. |
| Name of Publication | Levels of Narratives/Reporting |
| Time Magazine | The US has been facilitating the Syrian opposition with training, and equipment. It reported in July 2012, the US apparently said it will not actively support the Syrian opposition in its bid to oust Assad but as US officials have revealed, the administration has been providing media-technology training and support to Syrian dissidents by way of small non-profits like the Institute for War & Peace Reporting and Freedom House. Viral videos of alleged atrocities,” noted Time, “have made Assad one of the most reviled men on the planet, helping turn the Arab League against him and embarrassing his few remaining allies almost daily.” |
| Al-Jazeera | Every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without any explanation of the cause of the deaths. Many … reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters, but the cause of their death is hidden and they are described … as innocent civilians killed by security forces, as if they were all merely protesting or sitting in their homes.” |
| Channel 4 | It has been playing with the facts and slanted according to its hidden agenda. |
Different Narratives
| First Stage | Second Stage |
| Unarmed protesters being shot by Syrian forces | One of armed insurgents reluctantly “being provoked into taking up arms”, as US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton explained, to defend peaceful protesters. |
Syrian Opposition Leaders
| Confirmed Report | Foreign Infiltration |
| April 2011 | Cyber-training, weapons and money from Syrian exiles, as well as from Sunni states and a Lebanese political party, were being distributed to “young demonstrators” |
International Organizations
| UN Human Rights Commissioner’s report | Basis |
| December 2011 | Solely on interviews with 233 alleged “army defectors”; similarly, the first UN report to accuse the Syrian government of crimes against humanity was based on 369 interviews with “victims and witnesses |
The end game has become further complicated after Syrian government recent agreement with Syrian Kurdish Democratic Party (PYD). Syrian regime’s tactical move to allow the annexation of five Kurdish-majority towns along its border has put the Turkish and Iraqi governments on edge.
It produced Mexican ways of shocks in the region and Turkey has felt its complex implications. It concerns two strategic oil and gas pipelines from Kirkuk to Ceyhan a direct deal between Ankara and the Iraqi Kurds which in theory bypasses Baghdad. About 9 per cent of Syrians are Kurdish, 1.6 million people. If they emerge as a major force in a post-Al Assad Syria, they offer an alternative route for KRG oil exports, dependent on agreement neither with Baghdad nor with Ankara.
Former UN secretary general Kofi Annan’s six-point plan never stood a chance because neither the opposition from the Free Syrian Army to the Syrian National Council and its many offshoots nor the regime was willing to make necessary political concessions. The Syrian uprising has become a “battle to the death”. Now, Kofi Annan has resigned.
Russia and Turkey
The mess of Syria has already produced tension between Russia and Turkey and both are at tug-of-war. Following are some incidents given as:
(a) Turkish armed forces have attempted to interfere with Russian vessels delivering cargo to Syria; the Russians have now delivered the message that Turkish cargoes headed for Russia may be stopped altogether.
(b) The Russian government’s food safety and quarantine service Rosselkhoznadzor [RSN] issued an announcement disclosing that it had detected 33 cases of infestation in Turkish exports to Russia of fruits and vegetables, on June 28.
(c) Warning of trade embargo was issued Russia. The Russian move against Turkish agribusiness is an invitation to count what Turkey’s war against Syria may cost Turkish growers and traders.
Syria: Western Media’s Regime Change Project
Gramsci pinpointed that popular culture and the mass media are places where hegemony is produced, reproduced and trans-formed; they are institutions of civil society which involve cultural production and consumption.
The selection of language, documentaries, news items, planted interviews; slanted projection of one-side version/story of Syria is all about another international media project to bring change in Syria. Weapons of mass destructions (Iraq), winning hearts and souls operations for enduring jus-tice (Afghanistan), were the prime examples where the Western mainstream media did not play fair role. It is new stage of information war intentionally constructed and cast as a simplistic narrative of a struggle for human rights and democracy so as deliberately to exclude other interpretations and any geo-strategic motivation.
Landis Director of the Center of Middle Eastern Studies (June, 2012) says that the USA, Europe and the regional states are starving the regime in Damascus and feeding the opposition. They have sanctioned Syria and are busy shoveling money and helping arms supplied by the Gulf get to the rebels.
It is seemed that the both Saudi Arabia and Iran are trying to rein-force their strategic influence in the Arab world by attracting the largest Arab country, Egypt, to their camp. Tehran’s support for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) bid for authority and for the MB’s victorious presidential candidate, Mohammed Morsi. It would lead to marginalizing Saudi Arabia and limiting its role in the region. On its part, Saudi Arabia proposed to supply Egypt with billions of US dollars to solve its economic difficulties.1
Forces of hegemony and counter hegemony are colluding badly even in Egypt. The ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces [SCAF] of Egypt and the country’s most powerful political movement, the Freedom and Justice Party of the Muslim Brotherhood, seem to be set for a continued struggle for power. Neither side wants an open conflict and seems to be testing each other’s waters as they seek to consolidate their influence.
It was evident when the country’s new president, Mohammed Mursi of the Brotherhood, recalled the legislature, which was disbanded by the military junta last month, and Parliament Speaker Saad Katatni, who is also a Muslim Brother, summoned the assembly to meet. The Supreme Constitutional Court, which is made up of Mubarak-era judges, froze Mursi’s presidential decree reinstating the Islamist-led parliament, hours after the People’s Assembly convened for five minutes.
In the latest round of the struggle with the military, Mursi has also decreed that fresh parliamentary elections will be held within 60 days of the ratification of a new constitution. But that decree has also been annulled in view of the court ruling.
Secretary of State played media-tory role and met with head of the Egyptian armed forces and the newly elected President. Afterwards, the president reassured his commitments to acknowledge all the agreements including with Israel to be honored in letter and spirits.
According to the Wall Street Journal (July, 2012), to strengthen its geo-strategic positions, the Pentagon is building a missile defence radar station at a covert location in Qatar. The site will be part of a system intended to defend the interests of the US and its strategic allies against Iranian rockets.
The Journal also reported that Washington was preparing for its biggest-ever minesweeping exercises in the Gulf in September, calling them the “first such multilateral drills in the region.” Similar radar has existed on Mount Keren in the Negev Desert since 2008 and another is installed in Turkey as part of NATO’s missile defence shield. In addition, officials told the Journal that US Central Command, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East and South Asia, wants to deploy the first Terminal High Altitude Area Defense [THAAD] missile system in the area in the coming months.
The United States has warned Teheran about blocking the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, and has significantly bolstered its military presence there. Fears of a closure of the strait through which about a fifth of the world’s traded oil passes intensified earlier this year after Iran threatened to close it if Western governments kept up efforts to rein in Tehran’s controversial nuclear program by choking off its oil exports.
Complicated and Overlapping Gestures of Hegemony and Counter Hegemony in Asia: Pacific Region
Stretching from the Indian sub-continent to the western shores of the Americas, the region spans two oceans the Pacific and the Indian. It includes many of the key engines of the global economy, as well as the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. In most recent times, the
Asia-Pacific has become a key game-changer of global politics. In this connection, hectic efforts are being carried out in many capitals of the Asia-Pacific in order to secure its short and long term socio-economic, geo-political and geo-strategic security vested interests.
According to the published document titled ‘Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense’, explains that the US ‘will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia Pacific region’, and gives the reason for this change as `US economic and security interests vitally linked to developments in the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia’.
The so-called ‘Asia pivot’ is an aggressive policy that guarantees American military presence throughout the region in the Philippines, Japan, Australia, Guam, South Korea, Singapore, etc. in an unprovoked scheme to contain rising Chinese economic and military influence. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently made public the Pentagon’s plans to shift 60% of the US Navy into the Pacific. One of the recent recipients of the Pentagon’s largesse has been Australia, where 2,500 US marines have already been sent.
In his recently published article “SCO: Regional Security Dynamics and World Power Politics” Khan (July, 2012) pinpointed that USA has been doing its great to block the Chinese marathon socio-economic growth and strategic expansion in the region and around the globe. Most recently, USA has increased its naval strength in the region in order to stop China’s East Asia naval march. Its disguised economic diplomacy drives/missions to Vietnam, Myanmar, South Korea, Japan and the last but not the least Australia is nothing but an effort of encircling China. US Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta visits to Central Asian countries and of course, India is another effort to block China’s strategic expansion in the CIS and Asia. On the contrary, China has had been using economic cooperation to defuse the US strategy of encircling China. It has had been granting loans, professional training, and similar measures to struggling economies. China does not have any military ambitions.
The US President refurbishes its Asian strategy in response to a rising China; the U.S. military is eyeing a return to some familiar bases from its last conflict in the region the Vietnam War. The Obama administration is continuing its strategic pivot to Asia-Pacific and now trying to cultivate renewed relationships with countries in a bid to further expand the amount of US military bases throughout the region.
Administration officials have been in intense talks with the Thai government over using airfields and naval ports and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently visited Vietnam to visit the naval and air base at Cam Ranh Bay. Last month, US Marines rebuilt and restored the 8,000-foot runway at the abandoned North Field air base on the island of Tinian and engaged in a military exercise with nearby US forces based in Guam. The Tinian airbase is where the B-29s that dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki took off from in 1945.
In the game of hegemony and counter hegemony the US is not alone in shifting its security focus to East Asia. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to host Russia’s first Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] meeting in Vladivostok in September reflects his country’s growing interest in the region. The latest, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation [SCO] was held in China, showing increasingly socio economic integration, geo-political association and geo-strategic priorities of China and Russia in the region and at international levels too.
A recent report from the Center for Strategic International Studies (2012), predicted that next year “could see a shift in Chinese foreign policy based on the new leader-ship’s judgment that it must respond to a U.S. strategy that seeks to prevent China’s reemergence as a great power.”
US outreach to China, India, Indonesia, Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia, Mongolia, Vietnam, Brunei, and the Pacific Island countries is all part of a broader effort to ensure a more comprehensive approach to American strategy and engagement in the region. So the United States has moved to fully engage the region’s multilateral institutions, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN] and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] forum. US is also making progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP], which will bring together economies from across the Pacific developed and developing alike into a single trading community.
| Discussion | |
| Name of the country | US Justification/Policy Out-line |
| Japan | Cornerstone of peace and stability in the region and to tackle the military might of China. Expanding joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance activities to deter and react quickly to regional security challenges, as well as information sharing to address cyber-threats. |
| South Korea | Combined capabilities to deter and respond to North Korean provocations. Agreed on a plan to ensure successful transition of operational control during wartime and anticipate successful passage of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. And our alliance has gone global, through our work together in the G-20 and the Nuclear Security Summit and through our common efforts in Haiti and Afghanistan. |
| Australia | From cyber-security to Afghanistan to the Arab Awakening to strengthening regional architecture in the Asia-Pacific, Australia’s counsel and commitment have been indispensable. |
| Philippines | Renewing and strengthening our alliances. The number of ship visits to the Philippines and working to ensure the successful training of Filipino counterterrorism forces through our Joint Special Operations Task Force in Mindanao. |
| Thailand | Oldest treaty partner in Asia. Working to establish a hub of regional humanitarian and disaster relief efforts in the region. |
| Indonesia | Forging a new partnership. Resumed joint training of Indonesian special forces units and signed a number of agreements on health, educational exchanges, science and technology, and defense. |
Source: Different Research Journals and Newspapers. | |
It is expected that the US economic recovery at domestic front will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia. Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region’s key players. US treaty alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand are the fulcrum for our strategic turn to the Asia-Pacific.
America’s “pivot to Asia” has placed it out on a limb in the western Pacific. Support of an ASEAN+Japan united front vs. the People’s Republic of China [PRC] increases instability and makes a peaceful settlement of overlapping resource development and exploitation interests less likely. It looks like the dirty secret of US policy in the region is that it welcomes instability: a virtuous cycle of assertiveness and resentment that polarizes relations between the PRC and Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines, and pushes the tinier folk into the welcoming arms of the United States.
Serious issues of different Islands had has been one of the key elements in the national histories of all the regional countries but old fires could be rekindled in the event of the US and China forming rival alliances.
A major justification for the US presence in Asia was the need for the United States to lead the coalition of democracies and not-quite democracies anxious to contain communist China because Japan had forfeited its claim to regional security leader-ship because of a certain foreign-policy misstep, World War II, that had resulted in Japan attacking, invading and/or occupying virtually every member of what became the postwar anti-China coalition.
The Japan Times also noted: “Tokyo may have to take counter-measures in light of China’s increasing activities in the East China Sea. Taiwan has also dispatched its naval patrol and coast-guard vessels to the contested waters, offering the now-rare sight of a local democracy openly lining up on Beijing’s side against Japan on a foreign-policy issue, thereby adding to Tokyo’s discomfiture.
The People’s Republic of China may very well be interested in step-ping up confrontation with Vietnam over the Spratlys. But in the matter of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, it may be content to watch Japan and the United States dig a deeper hole for themselves in the blue-green oceans of the East China Sea.
On its part, the Chinese government takes a dual approach to consolidating its territorial claims in the South China Sea. A recent softening of the country’s diplomatic line amid a simultaneous deployment of military assets reveals a nuanced carrot-and-stick approach. It is feared that China’s rising power and Washington’s tacit aim of forming an anti-China alliance in the region may exacerbate longstanding rivalries to the general detriment of Asian stability.
The announcement by the Chinese military of plans to station a permanent military presence in the South China Sea has raised the stakes. China’s Central Military Commission [CMC] approved the deployment of a division-level military garrison to “Sansha City”. China’s complaints of a lingering “Cold War” mindset in Washington have a basis in reality.
Conclusion
Forces of hegemony and counter hegemony are wandering like vultures in different parts of the world most specifically Middle East and Asia-Pacific regions. Human wisdom, productivity, and means of intellect are in search of easy prey for complete domination in these areas with the help of martial forces, wealth, and friends and of course media.
International Mass media can-not stand against the whims and wishes of their greedy bosses who are blind even before their own noses. The incidents of Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and even Syria are the prime examples of jaundiced international reporting and media coverage.
“Allies or enemies” and “relations between base and super structure” are swappable and may be verified in the emerging geo-political and geo-strategic trends rapidly happening in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific regions. The sand and sea is falling in the hot waters. The dust storm and sea tsunami are making its ways to crash the naked humanity in these parts of the world. Power politics, hot pursuits of oil and gas supplies, and the last but not the least, regaining of the regional strategic geographic balance are going on and on like an infinite voyage.
The birth of popular culture led by the US and the EU, ramifications of socio-economy axis, rise to geography and above all indoctrination of oppression has already trapped the Middle East and Asia-Pacific regions and forces of hegemony and counter hegemony are confronting for survival.
History repeats itself and history is in the making. USA, France, UK, Sunni States, UN Security Council and China, Russia, Iran and Syria represent the two distinctive poles of hegemony and counter hegemony in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific regions. Lines have already been drawn. Ever body is engaged directly and playing with fire i.e. proxy wars in the both the parts of the world. Intensive search is going on for new safe-heavens and trust-worthy alliances. Bounties of socio-economy, security apparatus, and `showering of money from skies in shape of foreign direct investments have already initiated intensified class of interests in the Middle East.
Role of _ideology, human agency and abuse of indoctrination is skyrocketing especially in the Middle East region. Merchants of ideology are using human agency as their “best shield” and one of the main instruments to pro-long their governance and power.
The ideal combination of geo-politics and economy pave the way of glory, success and winning hearts and souls. Karl Marx, Althusser and Gramsci stated different aspects of political economy but the one thing was common i.e. paramount importance of political economy in the lives of common people and rulers alike which is still true in case of what is going on in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific region.♦
References
1. Ali, M., (July 18, 2012). Tussle for Egypt’s future. Khaleej Times.
2. AFP, (July 30, 2012). Free Syrian Army issues military-led transition plan.
3. Andreas, B., Adam, M., (2004). “A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change: neo-Gramscian perspectives in International Relations.” In: Capital & Class 28; 85.
4. Asia Times. (October 29, 2010). Japan spins anti-China merry-go-round.
5. Bhadrakumar. M. K., (July 24, 2012). Syria: Regime Change and Smart Power. Asia Times.
6. Business Recorder, (July 19, 2012). Obama, Putin fail to agree on Syria.
7. Byrne, A., (2012). Covering Syria: The information war. Asia Times.
8. China Daily. (July 22, 2012). ASEAN principles in accord with China’s policy on South China Sea settlement.
9. Carroll, W.K. (2006). Hegemony, counter-hegemony, anti-hegemony. Socialist Studies 2(2), 9-43.
10. Cox, R.W. (1987). Production, Power, and World Order. New York: Columbia University Press.
11. Dominic, S., (1995). An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, Routledge, London.
12. Femia, J. V. (1981). Gramsci’s polit-ical thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
13. Gill, S.R. & Law, D. (1989). Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital. International Studies Quarterly 33, 475-499.
14. Giovanni, A., (1994). The long twen-tieth century: money, power, and the ori-gins of our times. London: Verso
15. Gramsci, A. (1977). Selections from Political Writings, 1910-1920 (Hoare, Quintin). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
16. Heydarian, J. R., (August 3, 2012). Iran’s fate after Assad.
17. Kablan, M., (July 6, 2012). Tehran has secured a sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. Gulf News.
18. Keilani, M., (July 18, 2012). Power struggle continues. The Gulf Today.
19. Khan, M. L. H., (July, 2012). SCO: Regional Security Dynamics and World Power Politics. Defence Journal. Pages. 18-22.
20. Kozuki, T., (July 6, 2012). U.S. eyes return to some Southeast Asia military bases. Washington Post
21. Paul, R., (1992). Antonio Gramsci: A new introduction, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire.
22. Magosaki, U., (July 11, 2012). Continuing to table Senkaku issue is to Japan’s advantage, Asahi.
23. New York Time. (July 15, 2012). .Under Diplomatic Strain, Japan Recalls Envoy in Dispute With China Over Islands.
24. Naoum, S., (July 14, 2012). Iran and Saudi Arabia Compete For Influence in Egypt. Mail online.
25. Robert, C., (1987). Production, power, and world order: social forces in the making of history: New York : Columbia Universty Press.
26. Robert, C., (1983). “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method”.
27. In: Millennium – Journal of International Studies; 12; 162.
28. Robert, C., (1981). “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations
29. Theory”. In: Millennium – Journal of International Studies; 10; 126
30. Roger, S., (1991). Gramsci’s Political Thought: An introduction, Lawrence and Wishart, London
31. Reuters, (August 1, 2012). Obama authorizes secret US support for Syrian rebels.
32. Seale, P., (August 2, 2012). Al Assad uses Kurds to fan regional tensions. Gulf News.
33. Shobert, B., (July 18, 2012). Misunderstanding America’s ‘Pacific pivot. The Gulf Today.
34. The News. (July, 2012). Russia, China veto Syria sanctions resolution at UN.
35. Times. (July 22, 2012). Palace opti-mistic over 6-point joint statement of ASEAN member states following Indonesia’s initiative.
36. Washington Post, (July 19, 2012). Looking for a Syrian endgame.
37. Yomiuri (July 10, 2012). Ishihara slams ‘crude’ govt Senkaku purchase plan.
38. Young, M., (July, 19, 2012). As Syria’s civil war explodes, preparing for the aftermath. National.
