Power and Strategies of Rule - Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order - page 61

sovereign authority and the terms of exchange are less unequal. Typically, the dominant state
forges patron-client relations as part of its larger regional or global political-security goals.
The client state is one of an array of junior partners that anchor and support the leading state's
global and regional position. The client state ties its own political and economic fortunes to
those of the lead state, and in return it receives economic benefits and security. The exchange
between the patron and client can vary. As one study indicates: “In the international context,
the patron can offer military and intelligence protection. It can offer material aid or crisis in-
surance in the form of a reliable response when the client is threatened with loss of income,
unexpected costs, or its own survival. It can offer brokerage with the outside world, including
financial and political institutions as well as multinational banks and businesses. The goods
and services offered by the client-state may include investment opportunities, raw materials,
exports, military bases and services that support the patron's regional interests, votes in in-
ternational fora, and other expressions of loyalty.” 13
During the Cold War, the United States developed a wide array of client-state ties with
regimes in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and Africa. The ties were often established
with specific leaders—the shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos of Philippines, and the Somoza
family of Nicaragua. Many Cold War-era client-state relationships were pursued by the Un-
ited States as part of its efforts to build a global anticommunist alliance system—and the
bargains and exchanges often included security guarantees and the presence of forward-de-
ployed bases. The United States would offer economic assistance and market access to its
junior partners, and in return these client states would host military bases and support the
American-led international order. 14
In some instances, these bilateral, clientelist ties are elevated to “special relationships.”
America's relations with Great Britain and Japan are often described in these terms. These
are still bilateral ties between unequal states—and patron-client bargains and exchanges still
exist. But the ties are given more status equality and the relationships are seen as more genu-
ine partnerships between major states that together occupy leading positions within the lar-
ger international hierarchy. 15 In special relationships, the junior partner is understood to have
privileged access to the dominant state and its foreign policy decision making. Reciprocity,
consultation, partnership, and status equality—these are the norms and expectations of spe-
cial relationships, and they distinguish these sorts of bilateral relationships from the more tra-
ditional patron-client arrangements.
Rule through rules and rule through relationships are based on distinct and divergent lo-
gics of order. Both are strategies that a dominant state can use in efforts to assert control over
the international environment. But they lead logically to very different sorts of orders. One is
an order built around agreed-upon rules and multilateral governance. The other is a hub-and-
spoke order in which the dominant state asserts more direct control over other states. One is
open and inclusive—states participate on the basis of consensual multilateral rules that di-