International Studies Journal (ISJ)

International Studies Journal (ISJ)

U.S. Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan and turning to East Asia; Transition to Coercive Hegemony

Document Type : Original Independent Original Article

Authors
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Humanities, Ayatollah Borujerdi University, Borujerd, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Humanities, Ayatollah Borujerdi University, Borujerd, Iran.
Abstract
Following Obama and Trump̕s strategy, Biden̕s government considered the withdrawal of America from Afghanistan as one of the priorities of its foreign policy and it quickly withdrew the country military forces from Afghanistan by September 2021. The purpose of this article is to examine the global strategy of America in leaving Afghanistan and the strategic turning to East Asia. This article answers the question with a descriptive-analytical method; why did America end its twenty-year military presence in Afghanistan after bearing huge financial and military costs? In response to the mentioned question, this hypothesis has been proposed that »powerful economic and military rise of China in the shadow of transferring the responsibility of global security to the United States has raised an unprecedented threat against the perceived global hegemony of the United States and the desirable international order of this country; Therefore, according to American decision-makers, the withdrawal of this country's military forces from Afghanistan is a strategic opportunity to turn to East Asia and create a new alliance in the Asia-Pacific region in order to control the threat of China«. The main finding of the research is that, in order to maintain its hegemonic position against the threat of China, the United States has put a strategy of coercive hegemony in its international agenda, with a focus on East Asia, by dividing the huge burden of responsibility for global security among its allies. The method of data collection is archive-based research using specialized magazines and reliable internet sources.

Highlights

Introduction

The withdrawal of American military forces from Afghanistan at the same time as the return of Taliban to power can be analyzed as a strategic issue from various dimensions. The purpose of present article is to examine the global strategy of America in leaving Afghanistan and the strategic turn to the East Asia. This article answers the question with a descriptive-analytical method; why did America end its twenty-year military presence in Afghanistan after bearing huge financial and military costs? In response to this question. the hypothesis has been proposed that "»powerful economic and military rise of China in the shadow of transferring the responsibility of global security to the United States has raised an unprecedented threat against the perceived global hegemony of the United States and the desirable international order of this country Therefore, according to American decision-makers, the withdrawal of this country's military forces from Afghanistan is a strategic opportunity to turn to East Asia and create a new alliance in the Asia-Pacific region in order to control the threat of China”. The finding of the research is that in order to maintain its hegemonic position against the threat of China, America is trying to adopt a coercive hegemonic strategy focusing on the East Asia while dividing the huge burden of global security responsibility among its allies.

 

Theoretical Framework: From "Hegemonic Stability" to "Coercive Hegemony"

The discussion of hegemony mainly revolves around two main concepts: dominance and leadership. Dominance refers to the material capabilities of the hegemon country and leadership refers to its normative and prescriptive capabilities (Clark, 2011:18-19).

Kindleberger poses the issue of "hegemonic stability" and believes that the hegemonic power is responsible for providing "public interests" in the international system and must prevent actions "against public interests". Such a special task can lead to the stabilization of hegemony in long term (Stokes, 2018:7).

Unlike Kindleberger, Gilpin argues for coercive hegemony, arguing that hegemons provide public goods but are less tolerant about governments attempting to free ride. According to Gilpin, provision of public goods is desirable for the hegemon when other states are either willing to pay for them or can be forced to pay for them.

The effort to maintain hegemonic stability has imposed a heavy financial burden on the American economy; Today, America security strategy for leading the world order is based on two principles: fewer international costs and more domestic interests (Marchetti, 2017). In fact, America has entered a period of transition towards coercive hegemony since Trump. In this period, in order to reduce the burden of responsibility for global security, this country has seriously demanded that its allies in NATO, East Asia and the Persian Gulf share the costs of international security.

In this context, he starts negotiating with Taliban leaders to leave Afghanistan.

 

China's Rise and America's Strategic Turn to East Asia

Today, "China threat theory", which considers hegemonic China in Asia as a threat to the liberal world order (Soleimani Pourlak, 2022: 240), is the most important challenge to the American foreign policy.

China has the most hegemonic tendencies in the Asia-Pacific region. Of course, the strategic competition between China and America goes beyond the Asia-Pacific area.

The evolution of the American Middle East strategy from military presence to “offshore balancing and focusing on East Asia has changed the security equations in this region.

In this regard, China seeks to fill the existing security gap by being opportunistic and concluding military contracts with regional countries, especially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Over the past years, China has narrowed its distance with the US militarily and economically. Since 2011, China's military budget has raised by 76% to reach 252 billion dollars in 2020, while the US military budget has decreased by 10% to reach 778 billion dollars this year (Sipri, 2021:4).

China's military spending in 2021 increased by 4.7% to reach 293 billion dollars. This country, with a share of 14% of the world's military budget, still ranks second after the United States with 800 billion dollars (38%). China's military spending has been growing for 27 consecutive years (Sipri, 2022:3).

Economically, China's GDP is growing at an ever-increasing pace, from about 1,200 billion dollars in 2000 to about 20,000 billion dollars in 2022, which means it has grown by about 1,700 percent (Statista, 27/10/2022). While the gross domestic product of the United States increased from about 10,200 billion dollars in 2000 to about 25,000 billion dollars in 2022, which has grown by about 150% (Statista, 21/06/2022).

 

The United States and the Strategy of Maintaining Hegemony

What is important to maintain the hegemony of the United States is that it must be able to respond appropriately to the security concerns of its allies. After World War II, the United States shouldered the main burden of maintaining the existing liberal order by bearing the costs of hegemony and provided a strong security umbrella for its allies and even its rivals; While today, the heavy burden of maintaining the hegemony over the American public budget is felt more than in the past. Therefore, in order to reduce the costs, the United States has put a coercive hegemonic strategy on its agenda, in which the hegemonic allies must take responsibility for a part of the costs of maintaining the existing order.

In this context, Biden withdrew American forces from Afghanistan in September 2020, and on September 15, 2021, a year after the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, with the aim of strategically focusing on East Asia, he signed the AUKUS Treaty with the membership of the United States, England, and Australia. This pact seeks to increase the "security and defense capabilities" of the members in East Asia with the aim of putting China in a strategic bottleneck. Also, after leaving Afghanistan, United States held the largest joint exercise known as Malabar 2021 in the Bay of Bengal, within the framework of the Quad Treaty, which was established in 2007 with the membership of the United States, Australia, India and Japan to ensure security in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

 

Conclusion

In general, there is a dominant idea in the American decision-making apparatus that this country should pull itself out of the Greater Middle East in order to respond appropriately to the threats in the Indo-Pacific. In fact, the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan has opened up new opportunities for this country to focus on East Asia. Getting out of the swamp of Afghanistan, which has imposed billions of dollars in military spending on the US economy over the course of two decades, can give the country a strategic advantage against its powerful rival by saving money and freeing up the military resources in Afghanistan and directing them to the Asia-Pacific region. AUKUS security agreement and the strengthening of the QUAD agreement through the holding of new military maneuvers are a clear manifestation of strategic capacity-building after leaving Afghanistan.

Keywords

Subjects


  1. Arredondas, M. (2021). US looks to Asia-Pacific region after Afghanistan withdrawal. Atalayar, Aug23, at: https://atalayar.com/en/content/us-looks-asia-pacific-region-after-afghanistan-withdrawal
  2. Ayesha, Z. (2022). US–China Tit-for-Tat Politics in the Asia-Pacific. Journal of Indo-Pcific Affairs, Feb, at: https://media.defense.gov/2022/Feb/15/2002939154/-1/-1/1/JIPA%20-%20ZAFAR%20-%20FEB%2022.PDF
  3. Ceber. (2022). Chosun Ilbo – China’s Economy Could Overtake U.S. Economy by 2030. Jan 5, at:
  4. https://cebr.com/reports/chosun-ilbo-chinas-economy-could-overtake-u-s-economy-by-2030/
  5. Chapman, B. (2022). The Australia, United Kingdom, and United States (AUKUS) Nuclear Submarine Agreement: Potential Implications. FORCES Initiative: Strategy, Security, and Social Systems, at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=forces
  6. Clark, I. (2011). Hegemony in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Crawford, Neta C., Lutz, C. (2021). Human and Budgetary Costs to Date of the U.S. War in Afghanistan. Watson Institute, Aug 25, At: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Human%20and%20Budgetary%20Costs%20of%20Afghan%20War%2C%202001-2022.pdf
  8. Farahmand, M., Motaghi, A., Mirkoshesh, A. (2021). anUS-China Hegemonic Rivalry and Its Impact on World Energy and Oil Flows. International Studies Journal, 18(1), 103-120. (In Persian)
  9. Fettweis, C.J. (2017). Unipolarity, Hegemony, and the New Peace. Security Studies, 26(3).
  10. Gale, ,Wang, J., Norma, L. (2021) U.S. Tightens Focus on China After Afghanistan Withdrawal. Wall Street Journal, Aug. 19, At: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tightens-focus-on-china-after-afghanistan-withdrawal-11629378244
  11. Gen, LT., Mills, P., Davidson, E. (2021). How the Afghan withdrawal impacts US-China competition. Defence News, Sep 17, At: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/09/17/how-the-afghan-withdrawal-impacts-us-china-competition/
  12. Gholizadeh, A., Mirnezami, S.R. (2023). A comparative study of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with the US Marshall Plan and the Soviet Molotov Plan (CMEA). International Studies Journal, 19(2), 7-29. (In Persian)
  13. Hamidi, S., Mozdkhah, E., Zangane, P. (2022). US and Afghanistan Peace-building Strategy; from neo-Conservatism to neo-Hamiltonism, Research Letter of International Relations, 14(4). (In Persian)
  14. Jamshidi, M., Yazdanshenash, Z. (2020). Piovt to Asia: China and US national security policy in Asia. Political Knowledge, 16(1). (In Persian)
  15. Marchetti, R. (2017). End of the American hegemonic cycle. Open Democracy, 14 February, At: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/end-of-american-hegemonic-cycle/
  16. Mastanduno, M. (2019). Liberal hegemony, international order, and US foreign policy: A reconsideration. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 21(1), At: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1369148118791961
  17. National Intelligence Council. (2012). Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/GlobalTrends_2030.pdf
  18. NATO. (2019). NATO Secretary General announces increased defence spending by Allies. Nov 29, At: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_171458.htm
  19. Panda, J. Swanstrom, N. (2021). AUKUS: Resetting European Thinking on Indo-Pacific? Institute for Security & Development Policy, At: https://isdp.eu/content/uploads/2021/10/AUKUS-Resetting-European-Thinking-on-the-Indo-Pacific-9.11.21.pdf
  20. Paul, C. al.. (2021). A Guide to Extreme Competition with China. RAND National Security Research Division, at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA1300/RRA1378-1/RAND_RRA1378-1.pdf
  21. Rahman, M. (2018). The US State-building in Afghanistan: An Offshore Balance? Jadavpur Journal of International Relations, 23(1).
  22. Ramezanpour Shalmani, J., Hedayati Shahidani, M. (2019). S. approach to China's Continued Economic-Military Development (Case Study: Donald Trump Presidency). International Studies Journal, 16(2), 69-89. (In Persian)
  23. Rosse, R., Gamso, J., Nelson, R.C (2021). China’s Rise, World Order, and the Implications for International Business. Manag Int Rev, 61(1), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-020-00433-8
  24. Schubert, J. (2004). Hegemonic Stability Theory: The Rise and Fall of the US-Leadership in World Economic Relations. Munich, At: GRIN Verlag Publishing, https://www.grin.com/document/22451
  25. Schutte, G.R. (2021). The challenge to US hegemony and the “Gilpin Dilemma. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 64(1), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329202100104
  26. (2022). How much is China’s foreign direct investment and is it still a good destination for overseas investors? 10 Jan,available at: https://www.scmp.com/economy/economic-indicators/article/3181037/how-much-chinas-foreign-direct-investment-and-it-still
  27. (2021). Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2020. April, At: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/fs_2104_milex_0.pdf
  28. SIPRI. (2022). Trend in Wprld Military Expenditure,2021. April, At: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/fs_2204_milex_2021_0.pdf
  29. Soleimani Pourlak, F. (2022). US withdrawal from Afghanistan; Reflection of Rebalancing Strategy. Political and International Approaches, 13(2). (In Persian)
  30. gov. (2020). Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan. February 29, at: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf
  31. Statista. (2022). Gross domestic product (GDP) at current prices in China from 1985 to 2021 with forecasts until 2027. Oct 27, At: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263770/gross-domestic-product-gdp-of-china/
  32. (2022). Gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States at current prices from 1987 to 2027. Jun 21, At: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263591/gross-domestic-product-gdp-of-the-united-states/
  33. (2021). Value of export of goods from China from 2010 to 2020. Jul 9, At: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263661/export-of-goods-from-china/
  34. Stokes, D., (2018). “Trump, American hegemony and the future of the liberal international order”, International Affairs, 9(1), At: https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/31821/Liberal%20Order%20IA.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
  35. THEME. (2019). The end of the fourth Hegemonic Cycle. No. 218, Oct 14, At: https://freedomlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Macroscope-NO-218-The-end-of-the-fourth-Hegemonic-Cycle.pdf

36.    Unctad. (2021). Global Foreign Direct Investment Fell by 42% in 2020, Outlook Eemains Weak. Jan 24, At: https://unctad.org/news/global-foreign-direct-investment-fell-42-2020-outlook-remains-weak

  1. USIP. (2018). Providing for the Common Defense (the Assessment and Recommendations of the National Defense Strategy Commission. At: https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/providing-for-the-common-defense.pdf
  2. Wallerstein, E. (2014). US Geopolitical Situation since 1945: From Hegemony to Irreversible Decline. Center for Strategic Studies, April. (In Persian)
  3. Walt, S. (2019). Everyone Knows America Lost Afghanistan Long Ago. Foreign Policy, 16 Dec, At: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/16/everyone-knows-america-lost-afghanistan-long-ago/
  4. Washington Post. (2021). Biden’s claim that nation-building in Afghanistan ‘never made any sense to me’. Aug 18, At: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/08/23/bidens-claim-that-nation-building-afghanistan-never-made-any-sense/
  5. World Bank (2021). Military expenditure (% of GDP) – China.at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=CN
  6. (2015). International Trade Statistics 2015. At: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2015_e/its2015_e.pdf
  7. Yousafzai, Z. (2022). The troubled triangle: U.S.-Pakistan relations under the Taliban’s shadow. NY: Routledge.