Chapter II: Acts and Means of the U.S. in Maintaining Military Hegemony
In his 1941 article announcing the advent of the “American” century, Henry Luce, an American publisher and co-founder of Time, said that it is necessary “to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.”
Military supremacy depends on enduring control. To maintain military hegemony all over the world, the United States has not only exercised direct control by explicit means such as launching or involving itself in wars and laying out global base networks, but also used implicit means such as alliance systems, rules and mechanisms to exercise indirect control. It has developed a new intervention model, military and concepts for operations in accordance with the new situation, so as to control any potential competitor and prevent it from becoming a power that rivals the United States or challenging the United States’ supremacy.
2.1 Explicit control: wars and bases
— War and military operations are the most direct means for the United States to maintain its military hegemony.
“War has become an integral part of the history of this country. The United States is not so much a long-term participant in war since its founding as a product of war. The wars the United States fought made the country what it is today, and will shape its future,” French historian Thomas Rabino said, in describing the “unbreakable” relationship between the United States and war.
It was shaped in war, expands in war, and dominates in war. The rise of the United States to the pinnacle of power over the past 240 years or so can be attributed to the endless wars including the American War of Independence, Indian War, Mexican-American War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Kosovo War, Afghanistan War, Iraq War, etc. The U.S. hegemonic chariot has thundered across the world.
Through wars, the United States has expanded its territory, captured strategic locations, and enlarged its sphere of influence. The territory of the United States has increased more than 10 times from about 800,000 square kilometers at the beginning of its founding to about 9.37 million square kilometers now. By means of military intervention, coups, and proxy wars, the United States treats Latin American and Caribbean countries as its “backyard” and exerts geopolitical control over the Middle East and other Eurasian countries.
With wars, the United States has occupied sea transportation lines and resource-critical areas. The United States has annexed many islands in the Pacific Ocean such as Hawaii and Wake Island, colonized the Philippines, forced the construction of the Panama Canal, divided up interests in China with other imperialist powers, stationed troops in Africa and controls vital resources and materials through military action.
With wars, the United States has united allies and eliminated dissidents. After the September 11 attacks, the United States has launched wars or military operations in 85 countries around the world under the banner of “anti-terrorism.” The U.S. National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies are constantly “creating” enemies, overthrowing other governments through illegal, secret operations, and assassinating foreign leaders that are against the United States.
The endless wars to defend and enhance its supremacy, including short-term wars, long-term wars, world wars, the Cold War, secret wars, proxy wars and anti-terrorism wars, are turning the United States into a Spartan state and dragging it into a perpetual state of war.
— The military bases all over the world are the strategic anchors for the United States to control the world.
Military bases are the frontiers for the United States to impose deterrence and military intervention. With military bases as anchors, the United States exerts military hegemony throughout the world from the Arctic to the Cape of Good Hope, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The number of U.S. military bases overseas increased significantly during World War II. In September 1940, the United States offered Britain, its ally on the edge of bankruptcy, 50 destroyers from World War I in exchange for its control over sea and air bases in British colonies. It reflects the ambition of the United States to strengthen its military presence around the world. In 1943 and 1944, U.S. military planners drew up plans for building a system of overseas bases that presupposed the U.S. hegemonic power across both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. During World War II, the U.S. military built and occupied about 2,000 bases on all continents, with about 30,000 military installations.
After World War II, its military bases overseas turned into an ever-extending “strategic frontier,” and delineated a large area under U.S. “de facto sovereignty.” During the Cold War, the United States encircled and contained the Soviet Union with a large number of troops and military bases as close to the country as possible. After the end of the Cold War, American politicians still believed that overseas military bases were crucial to the global security of the United States. They made the military always remain in a state of readiness, and also shaped an offshore defense belt for the United States. For example, the Bush administration claimed that overseas bases “maintained peace,” while the Obama administration believed that “moving bases forward and deploying U.S. troops are meaningful and necessary.”
After the September 11 attacks in 2001, the United States established a powerful network of military bases in Afghanistan and the entire Middle East and Central Asia in the name of “anti-terrorism,” thereby establishing its own military, geostrategic, geopolitical and geoeconomic bridgeheads in the heart of Eurasia.
After ushering in the 21st century, the United States began to adjust its overseas military base deployment strategy, and moved to build smaller and more flexible “forward operating bases,” or “lily pads,” to reduce the U.S. military’s reliance on large Cold War-style bases. These “lily pads” are seen in Colombia, Kenya, Thailand and many other places, generally located in areas where there was little military presence in the past, and thus within easy reach.
Over the years, the United States has built a network around the world by signing bilateral and multilateral documents such as military base agreements, status of forces agreements, and security cooperation treaties with other countries. According to a 2021 study conducted by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, the United States currently has 750 military bases in 80 countries and regions overseas, which is almost three times the number of U.S. embassies, consulates and missions. These bases cost 55 billion U.S. dollars every year. Since 2001 alone, overseas military bases have provided support for the United States in launching wars or military operations in at least 25 countries. Some analysts believe that the establishment of overseas military bases by the United States and the emergence of wars in other countries where the bases are located seem to follow the law of cause and effect. Military bases are more likely to bring about wars, and wars ask for the establishment of more military bases.
2.2 Implicit control: alliances and rules
— The alliance system is the main pillar for maintaining U.S. military hegemony.
The alliance system indicates a formal or informal security cooperation relationship between two or more countries. Compared with “tangible” wars and military bases, the alliance system established and dominated by the United States can be seen as implicit control to maintain hegemony.
The U.S. hegemony is underpinned by a delicate system of alliances and allies around the globe. The main way for the United States to establish and maintain military hegemony is to form alliances and establish an alliance system with itself at the core. It will thus help the United States achieve its strategic goals.
Marked by the establishment of NATO in 1949, the United States began to establish military alliances. It then established alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines to form a global alliance network centered on the United States. During the Cold War, its global alliance system played a major role in helping the United States win the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The Cold War turned the United States into the superpower of the Western world, or actually the head of alliances. After the end of the Cold War, these alliances with the United States at the center were not dissolved, but were instead strengthened. For example, through the “new strategic concept of NATO,” the United States changed its function from collective defense to global intervention, and turned it into a political and military tool to maintain its hegemony. In the wars that the United States participated in after the Cold War and the global anti-terrorism cooperation after the September 11 attacks, the United States’ alliance system played a substantial role and acted as the major pillar for the country to maintain its global military presence and hegemony.
The United States has built the military alliance system based on three considerations: first, to deter opponents by means of garrisons, joint military exercises, and military assistance; second, to gain an overall military advantage through alliances and maintain its own security and interests; third, to keep allies at bay as an incidental goal. Statistics show that in the fiscal year of 2011, the U.S. Pacific Command led a total of 146 military exercises involving the U.S. military and its allies and the U.S.-led NATO conducted 88 military exercises in 2020.
On the whole, the U.S. military alliance system is a hierarchical system among countries. The United States with its leading role sets the agenda and exerts hegemony with others subject to asymmetric and unequal conditions.
In recent years, the United States has taken the lead in promoting the transformation of the bilateral alliance system towards trilateral and multilateral development, from the U.S.-Japan-Australia and the U.S.-Japan-Philippines alliances to the U.S.-Japan-India-Australia “Quadrilateral Security Dialogue,” forming the U.S.-UK-Australia trilateral security partnership, in an attempt to strengthen the alliance against potential threats and challenges. With the eastward shift of the U.S. strategic military center, the Indo-Pacific region has become increasingly important. The United States is making great efforts to build the “Indo-Pacific alliance system” in an attempt to utilize the alliance system to integrate regional strategic resources, which will help improve the efficiency of U.S. operations in the region. The U.S. “Indo-Pacific Strategy” truly aims to maintain its hegemonic system.
— American rules and mechanisms are used to maintain the dominant position of U.S. military hegemony.
First, export control is employed.
Its world-leading military technology is an important basis for the U.S. military to occupy the dominant position. On the one hand, it is attributed to the excellent scientific research capabilities and strong manufacturing industry of the United States. On the other hand, it is related to various export control measures introduced by the United States. The measures are important tools for expanding military superiority and seeking military hegemony. During the Cold War, the export control policies of the West played an auxiliary role in isolating, containing, and ultimately dragging down the Soviet Union.
The U.S. export control policy has a history of more than a century and can be dated back to the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. It was strengthened during World War II and the Cold War, with the purpose of maintaining a military technological edge over its opponents. Specific practices are as follows: Laws and regulations such as the Export Administration Regulations and the Arms Export Control Act were consulted to build dual-use and military export control systems. Legislation was conducted in specific areas, covering the Atomic Energy Act and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act. Multilateral mechanisms were set up or driven forward such as the “Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls,” the “Missile Technology Control Regime,” and “The Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies.”
The existence of these international rules and mechanisms essentially serves the security interests of the United States.
In order to maintain its hegemony, the United States is willing to suppress and sanction its allies, as shown in the Toshiba incident. During the 1980s, Toshiba Machine Co., Ltd. in Japan exported 9-axis CNC machine tools to the Soviet Union, an action seen by the United States as a threat to its military superiority and national security. Consequently, the United States imposed sanctions on Toshiba Machine Co., Ltd. and used this incident to pressure Japan regarding its new-generation fighter jet program, ultimately forcing Japan to make concessions to the United States. The Toshiba incident laid bare the United States’ hegemonic mentality and behavior from the start to the end of this incident.
Second is arms control.
According to the traditional view, the arms control agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War were made to increase transparency, reduce the risk of nuclear conflict, and enhance strategic stability, preventing the nuclear arms race from spiraling out of control and ultimately contributing to the peaceful end of the Cold War. However, the U.S. government’s core objective in pursuing arms control was to establish and maintain its military technological superiority over the Soviet Union.
Thomas Countryman, former U.S. acting undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, has stated that “(arms control agreements) are a vital tool that can constrain other nations’ ability to act against our interests, while still allowing the freedom of action that is necessary to defend U.S. interests and those of our close allies. In other words, arms control agreements are not a concession made by the United States, nor a favor done for another nation; they are an essential component of, and contributor to, our national security.”
By utilizing the arms control mechanisms in a flexible manner, the United States can achieve three key benefits. First, it can allocate more funds toward enhancing military capabilities in other areas. For instance, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed with the Soviet Union in 1972 allowed the United States to save billions of dollars; second, another advantage of leveraging arms control agreements, such as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, is the transparency and verification measures they provide. This enables the United States to gather and analyze intelligence on its adversaries’ military capabilities, which can help its effective planning and management of nuclear forces; a third advantage of arms control mechanisms is the ability to restrict adversaries’ advancements in critical areas, while also forcing them into an unwinnable arms race in areas where the United States holds an advantage. For instance, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in 1987 by the United States and the Soviet Union was not aimed at sea- or air-based intermediate-range missiles, where the United States had significant advantages in technology, geography, and allies compared with the Soviet Union.
In February 2021, the U.S. government extended the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, which largely reflects considerations of “playing to one’s strengths and avoiding weaknesses.” Jon Wolfsthal, who previously served as senior director for Arms Control and Nonproliferation on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, warned in 2020 that Russia was close to completing its strategic nuclear modernization cycle. If the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty were to expire, the United States could fall behind Russia in terms of strategic nuclear forces due to the uncertainty of the U.S. nuclear modernization program. Therefore, extending the treaty would allow the United States to maintain a limit on and monitor Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal while advancing its own nuclear modernization projects.
The third is the misinterpretation and misuse of international law.
The United States has long relied on a strategy of selectively applying international law when it serves its interests while ignoring it when it doesn’t, which is a consistent approach of U.S. hegemonism. The most blatant example of this in the military field is the misinterpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which it leverages to maintain its naval hegemony through the implementation of “freedom of navigation” actions based on its own standards.
Starting in 1979, the United States has been carrying out what it terms “freedom of navigation” operations, which it claims are meant to “preserve lawful commerce and U.S. military global mobility.” However, these actions are designed to ensure that the United States can possess unrestricted and unimpeded power projection capabilities. Several American scholars have said that the United States’ persistent “freedom of navigation” operations in the South China Sea are a crucial means by which the U.S. military sustains its presence in the region.
In its “freedom of navigation” operations, the United States recklessly deploys large combat ships to challenge coastal nations’ sovereignty and jurisdiction over their territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, archipelagos, and straits. The U.S. refusal to comply with requests from coastal countries for prior notification or permission and its arbitrary entry into foreign territorial waters underscores its military hegemony. The fact that the United States has not yet ratified the UNCLOS but still selectively interprets and utilizes it as a means of maintaining its maritime hegemony reflects the hegemonic logic of “might makes right.”
2.3 New models and trends
The world in which the United States exists today is vastly different from the past. The world is currently experiencing a new trend: emerging countries are rising rapidly, the military technology of major powers is gradually becoming more widespread, and the international balance of power is shifting towards a multipolar structure. In the face of profound changes in the international landscape, however, the United States continues to cling to its hegemonic mentality and attempts various methods to maintain and reinforce its military dominance.
— New model of military intervention
The use of military force has always been a significant means for the United States to maintain its military dominance. However, after several wars that have drained its resources and damaged its reputation, there has been a decline in public support for U.S. military intervention abroad. As a result, the U.S. government and Congress have shown a reduced willingness to use military force outside their borders. Against this backdrop, in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the United States, together with its allies, has relied on providing a large amount of military aid and intelligence support to manipulate the situation without openly deploying personnel to intervene in the conflict. This may indicate a new model for future U.S. military interventions abroad.
This kind of military intervention has three new characteristics.
First, military assistance is highly targeted and can be supplemented and adjusted according to changes on the battlefield. Since the outbreak of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the United States has pledged to provide Ukraine with over 46 billion U.S. dollars in military aid, and the types of weapons offered have changed according to the situation on the battlefield and the needs of the Ukrainian military.
Second, the United States has used its intelligence advantage to the fullest extent. The intelligence information and battlefield situation awareness provided to the Ukrainian military by the United States have played a crucial role in enhancing Ukraine’s combat capabilities. According to reports, such a large amount of intelligence shared with Ukraine, a non-ally, by the United States is almost unprecedented, and U.S. intelligence agencies have even modified 27 intelligence-sharing policies for this purpose.
Thirdly, the United States has employed new hybrid warfare tactics. The United States and its allies have launched a hybrid warfare campaign against Russia, which includes economic warfare, diplomatic warfare, and propaganda warfare. Although the U.S. military did not directly intervene in the conflict, it has been fully involved in the war in substance. Some scholars have pointed out that the U.S. involvement in the conflict has provided rules and models for future U.S. military interventions overseas.
— Adjustment and upgrading of the alliance system
In light of the weakening of the United States’ absolute military superiority and its strategic shift towards great power competition, the United States has been gradually breaking through geographical, structural, and technological limitations in its use of its military alliance system in recent years.
First, the United States has been encouraging its allies outside the region to intervene in Indo-Pacific security affairs. This is exemplified by NATO’s inclusion of Indo-Pacific security issues in its strategic vision and its expanded military presence in the region. In 2021, a group of countries including Canada, the UK, France, Germany, and the Netherlands dispatched 21 naval vessels to the South China Sea to take part in joint maritime exercises with the United States and its allies in the Indo-Pacific region.
Second, in the Asia-Pacific region, the United States has shifted its military alliance focus from primarily relying on a bilateral military alliance in a “hub-and-spokes” model to more trilateral and multilateral approaches. Since taking office in 2021, the Biden administration has elevated the importance of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) mechanism among the United States, Japan, India, and Australia and established a trilateral security partnership with the UK and Australia. At the same time, the United States is further deepening its engagement in smaller multilateral security mechanisms such as the U.S.-Japan-Australia and U.S.-Japan-South Korea partnerships while actively encouraging allies to enhance their security cooperation.
Third, the United States is transferring advanced military technology to its regional allies to bolster their military capabilities. For instance, within the framework of the trilateral security partnership among the United States, the UK, and Australia, the United States and the UK have agreed to assist Australia in constructing at least eight nuclear-powered attack submarines. This marks the first time the United States has shared its nuclear propulsion technology with another country since it did so with the UK over 60 years ago. This move may pose a risk of nuclear proliferation as it exploits loopholes in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act and could potentially undermine regional security and stability. The United States is departing from past limitations and conventions by transferring core military technologies and offensive weapons to regional allies, with the fundamental objective of increasing its competitiveness in the military race in the Indo-Pacific region.
— Application of new technologies and new operational concepts
On the one hand, the U.S. Department of Defense attaches great importance to the strategic significance of new technologies such as AI and automation in future military competition. Given the research and development advantage and experience of U.S. commercial tech companies in related fields, the Pentagon has been making efforts in recent years to foster closer connections with such companies and continuously promote the research and development of new technologies such as AI and automation, as well as their application in weaponry and equipment.
On the other hand, the United States is creating military concepts to adapt to new circumstances. For instance, there is the “Mosaic Warfare” that highlights flexibility, dispersion, and network intelligence, and the concept of “Joint All-Domain Command and Control” that aims to integrate sensors and combat platforms, as well as enable real-time data and information transmission. In the 2022 version of the National Defense Strategy released by the United States, the concept of “Integrated Deterrence” is identified as the core of the country’s defense strategy. This requires a high level of integration of new technologies, operational concepts, and capabilities, the removal of boundaries between military branches and operational domains, and cooperation with allies. (More)
