The Kampala Geopolitics Conference 2020 concluded recently under the theme ‘Geopolitics in the Year of the Pandemic and Beyond’. It was organized by Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS) and its partners and the conference were broadcast live on Uganda’s leading Television Network – NBS. This annual conference is one of the most prolific, epic and riveting conversation on the geopolitical landscape in the region. The Centre for Multilateral Affairs was invited to present expert opinion in this conversation and was represented by its Chief Executive Officer. The discussion on topic ‘COVID-19 Responses: What Implication for Global Leadership’ was unraveled and unpacked by these experts. We present the conceptual underpinnings with which this discussion was hinged.
The outbreak of corona-virus in Wuhan, China has not only been detrimental in the way lives were and is still being lost, the crippling of economies and its negative effects on livelihoods of many people but has also tilted strongly the political power contestations and landscape of other states. The United States indifference to handling COVID19, broadly explained in terms of ideological or other forms of ideational factors arguably rendered the Trump Administration weak in the sight of some American voters and is likely to cost Donald Trump the Presidency – notwithstanding the extent of the disputed nature of 2020 US elections.
However, to be able to explain the implications of COVID19 to global leadership, there is need to broaden and deepen conceptual understanding on the terms ‘global leadership or global governance’. Many people have confused the terms to imply the role of United Nations (UN), multilateral institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO), International Monitory Fund (IMF), World Bank and other community of interests. On the other hand, many have falsely interpreted the terms based on emotions and veil politicking. This article will explain these conceptual flaws without necessarily delving into their wider implications.
Realist proposition view interactions of states within the international system in structural terms – based on their relative power defined in terms of material capabilities e.g. military, economic and or geography. Because states pursue their interests relative to others, maximization of power and the deployment of that power both in hard and soft terms define how a dominant power exerts influence over the rest of the weaker ones.
Hegemonic power therefore requires strong and stable combinations of military, economic, political as well as institutional and ideological alliances. These factors are very important in ensuring the dominant power order behaviors of other states – either using ‘carrots or even the stick’ approach. While other scholars emphasize economic factors such as access to raw materials, control of major sources of capital and maintenance of large market for imports, a combination of strength in all of these areas guarantees the enduring nature that a dominant power has over the rest of others.
The United States emergence to the dominant stage of international system is not accidental but propelled by the declining weaknesses of Great Britain after WWI until WWII in 1939 when the international economic system was changed. Germany is defeated in WWII and Britain is too weak to play the role of a leader in this period. In fact, the economic weaknesses of Great Britain influenced its military geopolitical posturing quite negatively. For instance, in 1931 Japan attacked a small island called Manchuria and in 1935 Benito Musolini – the 27th Prime Minister of Italy invaded Ethiopia – then Abyssinia forcing Emperor Haile Selassie into exile, but Great Britain is too weak to order a sanction and impose an effective punishment on Italy aggression.
Therefore, the emergence of the United States as a hegemon defined in terms of its structural powers as advanced by Susan Strange in her 1987 work “the persistent myth of a lost hegemony’ prescribes structural powers as that which is able to choose and shape the structure of the global political economy within which other states, their political institutions, their economic enterprises and their professional people have to operate. If this definition can simply be viewed within the context of neo-liberal ideology and its attendants – globalization, capitalism and the predominance of the global financial institutions, then its right to argue and assert that the United States is a global leader.
Now, a global leader is supposed to lead by example – but also sometimes deploying the use of hard power; that is, force and even soft power to its advantages. A global leader often would support and coordinate the work of multilateral institutions, build or maintain political alliances and support or order behaviors of other states towards a common agenda. In this case the United States actions or inaction in handling COVID19 from a global perspective would have significant ramifications – either positively or negatively in the ways other states react or address COVID19 challenges at domestic level. The conclusions and inferences that can be drawn from the US experience can also depend on which ideological standpoint or school of thought one brings on board.
But more importantly, hegemons play very fundamental roles and without its ordering nature and principles, international stability is impossible. Only this power can establish international rules that facilitates orderly exchanges amongst countries. Hegemon can punish and reward, she is the stabilizer and the strongest power of all. This means more than the power to set agenda of discussions or to formulate international regimes and customs.
The power can be defined in structural terms and seen in four different interrelated sets. According to Strange (1987), those able to exercise control over; that is, to threaten or defend, deny or to increase other people’s security from violence, those able to control the system of production of goods and services, those able to determine the structure of finance and credit and those who have most influence over knowledge – technology, religious, leadership ideas, communication storage, of knowledge and information.
While domestic behaviors of states are largely constrained to the sovereign interest of the political elites and decision makers and less by the way other nation states behave, most nation states would react or not react in differing political and ideological contexts. For instance, where huge financial resources are committed by the hegemon and other Great Powers and advanced to different nation states especially developing ones, their handling of COVID19 would certainly change determined by the interest of the hegemon and the Great Powers. This is because, as a fact and consequence of the international system, a hegemon will produce order and stability in the world and more specifically order and stability in an independent world economy when it uses its power to enforce order on others.
What implications can then be drawn from how the United States handled COVID19 both domestically but also in terms of her foreign policy goals. Fundamental questions can be asked and without answering them in this article, this could be: Did the United States’ response signify a declining superpower and the emergence of new ones envisaged in China? Did it present a sharp contrast in terms of how authoritarian verses democratic leaders responded? Is China seen as the superpower able to take advantage, assume superpower status? Is China willing to meet the cost – including going to war with the sole superpower – the United States? Are we likely to see a major war between the two greatest powers on earth? Are we escaping the Thucydides trap? What does this present to the state of global human security? What role did multilateral institutions such as the UN, WHO, IMF, World Bank play?
The panel of experts at the Kampala Geopolitics attempted to answer some of those questions in a live Television Broadcast. However, these are also very interesting and dynamic questions that require strict and disciplined analytical perspectives. The panel of experts weighed in the topic, explaining, expounding, debunking as well as critiquing different perspectives.
Therefore, the emergence of the United States hegemonic stance supported by its strong economic powers after WWII destroyed the economic position of western Europe – Great Britain, Germany, France and Japan. The weaknesses of the Soviet economy as a counter hegemony in this period led to its collapse in 1991. China today as a counter hegemony is not willing and ready to take the mantle of Global Leadership. The Chinese economy and its military are still very weak in contrast to that of its foe – the United States despite its impressive growth rates over the past decades.
China if it continuously threatens, impedes and jeopardizes the US economic interest and foreign policy goals should be willing to fight a major war, which is unlikely to happen in many decades to come. Afterall, the Chinese defense white paper, one would argue does not project China as a great power seeking hegemonic status. Rather the 2017 United States National Security Strategy view China as an adversary, a foe, a revisionist power alongside Russia trying to erode the powers of the United States. In other words, the United States is fully aware and ready to fight this adversary in short and medium term goals – using soft power but will not be restrained to deploy hard power – including military force to re-assert its superpower status.
Moses Owiny – is the Founder and Chief Executive Officer at the Centre for Multilateral Affairs. He participated in the Kampala Geopolitics Conference 2020 as expert on the topic ‘Covid19 Responses: What Implications for Global Leadership’ organized by Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS) Foundation.
I really like this global analysis in respect to covid 19 and effects