The United States has achieved global hegemony over the past few decades by formulating patterns of indirect policies to impose control over the political and economic structures within many countries around the world. Washington’s deals primarily focus on its allied elites in regions where it has fundamental interests, such as the Caribbean, Central America, Western Europe, and the Middle East. However, this model is now facing counter-challenges that may explain the relative decline of American dominance in the current global context.
In this context, the importance of David A. Lake’s book, released in 2024 and titled “Indirect Rule: The Making of US International Hierarchy,” comes to light. The book discusses the various mechanisms that have supported American power and hegemony in the world, viewing this power as a form of indirect governance. This approach has become a vital means for the U.S. to exert control over different countries using non-traditional, non-military tools, while also enhancing its diplomatic and economic capabilities to build its global influence.
Dimensions of Indirect Rule:
Indirect rule has historically characterized the relationships between nations and the foreign policy of the United States. It embodies the primary mechanism of international hierarchy, through which Washington maintains its global power. This model involves a coalition within a client state adopting policies favored by the dominant state in exchange for the latter’s support. The book defines hierarchy as a “continuous relationship of authority where the ruler or dominating state sets and enforces rules over a subordinate society.” This concept applies to Washington’s efforts to sustain an international system that serves its political and economic interests. Ultimately, Washington tends to prioritize its material interests over principled commitments and noble ideals espoused under the banners of liberalism and democracy, employing indirect rule as a practice of proxy power.
Various tools enable states to impose their indirect governance beyond traditional “military” means, the most notable of which include:
Economic Tools: At the forefront of tools for implementing indirect rule are the economic tools and deals that the U.S. employed in the mid-20th century with certain elites in countries and regions within the American sphere of influence to win over their leadership. This was prominent in areas like the Caribbean and Central America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as well as in Western Europe post-World War II and the Middle East. Despite geographical, economic, and political differences among these regions, the core aspect lies in how the U.S. applied the model of indirect rule to enhance its interests. For instance, the U.S. interacted with the economic elites, especially in real estate, in the Caribbean and Central America to bolster mutual interests, as both sides saw potential gains from expanding markets. Had these regional elites been able to market their products as desired without the guarantees of a favorable tariff system instituted by the U.S., the necessity for indirect rule might have been diminished.
Support for Local Elites: The U.S. formed alliances with local elites and political systems that were most aligned with its interests in the Middle East. Washington aims to forge alliances with groups in society whose interests closely align with its own. In return, the U.S. retains the discretionary authority to assist its allied group and/or agree on a set of rules.
Building Peace and Multilateral Cooperation: This is one of the tools the U.S. practiced in asserting its hegemony, particularly in the European sphere. American peace was built around a set of international systems, especially in trade, finance, human rights, and collective security, which facilitated cooperation among largely like-minded countries. This fostered mutual interests that allowed European systems to succeed. These systems did not emerge organically or entirely on their own; rather, they were actively shaped by the U.S. through indirect governance.
Even though the U.S. employed indirect governance policies in the Caribbean, Latin America, and the Middle East, it did not shy away from reinforcing its interests within the European Union. Washington’s interactions with European countries were also based on the idea of hierarchy and indirect governance, even if they formally relied on the concept of multilateral cooperation.
From this perspective, the author believes that the post-World War II era saw Washington’s interactions with Western Europe based on chaotic cooperation under a dominant leadership. The U.S. actively sought to ensure the election of right-wing and centrist parties and coalitions in the post-war period, establishing forms of indirect governance through the international institutions it created. The American peace that defined relations among Western states post-World War II is typically understood as an exceptional regional system. The American dominance produced extensive international cooperation amidst a chaotic global landscape. Additionally, the complexities of the international system during the Cold War and the mutual threat posed by Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), structurally rooted in a bipolar world order, drove the West to unite under an American security umbrella.
Diverse Challenges:
While indirect rule has helped place the U.S. at the top of global power, it comes with numerous challenges, the most notable of which is the emergence of an anti-American or opposing current in many countries worldwide. These challenges can be outlined as follows:
Declining Support Within Client States: There has been a reduction in support within many U.S.-allied countries for American efforts to promote democracy and other forms of intervention abroad. In this context, indirect rule raises questions about whether this governance style ultimately serves American interests or poses a challenge to them, particularly when high-risk assets are at stake and the costs of indirect governance are low. This situation could jeopardize U.S. interests within those states.
The Rise of Neoliberalism and Other Powers: The stability of American democracy and its supremacy depend on the well-being of other democracies linked to it, a notion previously voiced by former President Woodrow Wilson, based on the idea that democracies are likely to survive and thrive in a world of open trade and multilateral rules dominated by liberal democracies. However, in light of contemporary developments characterized by the neoliberal shift in the U.S. and Europe and the resulting erosion of economic security, alongside the rise of China and Russia as influential global players, these changes could impact American interests.
Erosion of the Dollar’s Global Supremacy: One of the most significant challenges facing the concept of U.S. indirect governance is the emergence of a counter-trend to the “weaponization of the dollar,” which has grounded the U.S. ability to tie world economies to the dollar. This was notably evidenced by the U.S. Treasury’s imposition of economic sanctions against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This strategy prompted central banks and governments to seek alternative currencies, leading to a gradual erosion of the dollar’s global supremacy. Nevertheless, central banks and governments continue to rely on the dollar, as there is no viable alternative. Should the dollar lose its global dominance and with it its geostrategic value, Washington would forfeit one of its tools of indirect rule.
In conclusion, the United States has shifted away from the idea of traditional or military direct hegemony. Instead, it has adopted tools of indirect rule, primarily economic and political support, as mechanisms for the hierarchy it established since the end of World War II through the formation of local elites in client states that align their interests with those of the U.S. At times, Washington utilizes financial institutions, economic support, and free trade policies as necessary means to impose dominance over ruling elites and decision-making circles in other countries. At other times, it relies on military guarantees to maintain allied regimes or on tools to implement liberalism, with democracy and the support of various freedoms at the forefront.
However, the current various changes in global politics, particularly the rising tide of anti-American sentiment and the rejection of Washington’s interventionist policies under the guise of democratic transformations, pose a challenge to the indirect governance model that the U.S. has relied on to achieve its global hegemony over the decades in many regions and territories worldwide.
Source:
David A. Lake, Indirect Rule: The Making of US International Hierarchy, Cornell University Press, 23 May 2024.
