Hegemony not dependent on military superiority: Florida Intl. University professor

TEHRAN, March 11 (MNA) – Like many other scholars Nicholas Onuf is of the view that Hegemony is not directly dependent on military superiority. In an interview , Onuf, a professor of the Florida International University, says, “Many scholars believe that hegemony does not directly depend on military superiority. I am among them.” Following is the text of the interview: Q: What is the relationship between economy and military expenditure in the United States? A: The relationship between the national economy and military expenditures is a complicated one, and not just in the U.S. Investment in research and development for what we like to call national defense stimulates technological innovation and economic productivity for all sorts of non-military purposes, and has done so for the last century. Furthermore, military training and service provides people with valuable skills to bring to the workplace after they leave military service. On the down side, military activity destroys human and material resources. Furthermore, when military equipment is not used, it generally goes to waste. On the one hand, the same amount of wealth were used for non-military research and development and for productivity activity unrelated to national defense, it might have an even greater economic benefit. On the other hand, less wealth would be used for research and development in high technology if there were no compelling reason, such as national defense, to concentrate investment in such a way. After all, the same money might be used to produce luxury goods without fostering technological improvements. As I said, it’s a complicated relationship. Q: Which organizations in the U.S. benefit from military expenditure? A: Almost everyone benefits to some degree. Some regions and productive sectors benefit much more than others. Just for example, military bases in poor rural areas provide a huge economic benefit to those areas. Similarly, military expenditures effectively subsidize high technology companies, with benefits that diffuse globally, sometimes quite rapidly. Let me remind you that the internet, which you and I use to communicate with each other, was initially paid for by the U.S. Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Q: Isn’t it necessary for a hegemon to expend more on military to preserve its hegemony in the international system? A: Many scholars believe that hegemony does not directly depend on military superiority. I am among them. Ideally the hegemon (a Greek word for leader) leads by setting a good example for appropriate conduct, and others follow out of respect and because they see the benefit of good conduct. More generally, the hegemon can use its superior position to shape the rules that all must follow in such a way that the hegemon will benefit more than it would through direct coercion. Others will also benefit, which disposes them to accept this asymmetrical situation, and this result reduces the costs of hegemony. Using rules this way is sometimes said to be the key to British hegemony in the 19th century and to U.S. hegemony after World War II. Nicholas Onuf is one of the primary figures among Constructivists in international relations. His best known contribution to Constructivism is set out in World of Our Making (University of South Carolina Press, 1989). (By Javad Heirannia)