The world we live in is an intricate and elaborate fabric of social connections; fighting for their place in this limited space. Much similar are the dynamics of countries that operate to achieve stability, growth, and influence over one another. However, it gets interesting when we discuss the role of a hegemonic power in the national and international political arena. In the light of the recent political events in Pakistan, it becomes a topic of much interest to explore and decode the impact hegemonic powers have on economies that may or may not align with their vision. If I was to claim that without a strong hegemon, the creation of international stability is impossible, it would not be entirely incorrect. Bringing in the historical perspective, political instability and economic depression in the decades preceding the Second World War were closely related to the absence of strong hegemonic power. In the years 1919 to 1939, Great Britain was extremely weak, and the United States refused to assume the role of new hegemonic power. In the 1930s, the League of Nations was ineffective due to a lack of hegemonic power. The United States’ role as a new hegemonic power had a significant impact on the improvement and stability of international politics and the economy following World War II. For many of us who are not clear about the concept of a hegemonic power within the political and economic context, I would refer back to the theories established by neoliberalists or neorealists. From a neoliberal standpoint, a global hegemon possesses the necessary economic size and political power to overcome collective action costs and generate international public goods, such as free trade, open capital flows, and liquidity provision during crises. In turn, the availability of these public goods generates economic and political stability. Political instability and economic depression in the decades preceding the Second World War were closely related to the absence of strong hegemonic power. From a neorealist point of view, the international system’s structural factors predominate. Each nation has four fundamental interests that are affected by the structure of international trade: political power, national income as a whole, economic growth, and social stability. Without a hegemon, large states would compete for more modest gains from trade, and openness would cause social instability and increase the political vulnerability of less developed states. In comparison, when there is a single dominant hegemon, small states have access to a large export market and thus a high potential for increases in national income and economic growth; the hegemon also has substantial export opportunities. Given the hegemon’s size and thus relatively low involvement in the international economy, the political power-threatening costs of closure minimize. To say that hegemonies can be neutral is a statement far from the truth, a person or a country in a position of power is anything but neutral. Similarly, let’s closely analyse the state of the current hegemonic power in the political and economic dynamics. The United States of America is the undisputed hegemon and in my opinion, is going to remain so for many years to come. Let’s just simply look at the network of organizations that the US influences apart of financial institutions from the United Nations to WHO to the World Bank – all of these organizations do heavily impact a country’s economic and political stability, impact its international relations, and influence decision making. This web of interconnected organizations govern by a single hegemonic power is also a very strong hindrance standing in the way of China from replacing the US as a hegemonic power on the global stage. In Pakistan’s case, if it were to take a strategic shift toward a particular group of powers with the assumption that it will not have any consequences was perhaps a naïve idea. We are financially dependent on the IMF and need 3.16 billion to pay dollar bonds and loans this year followed by $1.52 billion next year and $1.71 billion in 2024. Our relationship with FATF remains in the grey and we are not in the clear. As our foreign reserves continue to fall and we are pushed toward bankruptcy, the country has felt the signs of changing political regimes and their inclination towards a hegemon. The US has become generous toward Pakistan’s finances while China demands its repayments before releasing any new funds. Interestingly enough, Saudi Arabs reiterated the need for Pakistan to comply with IMF conditions before the kingdom even commits to financial support for its long-standing brother state. All of these are a mere reflection of the hegemonic power the US holds over the global economies despite their regional diversity and varying economic strengths. I do believe that there is no harm in maintaining a balanced relationship with world powers and even having a clear stance over matters that are important in the global arena. However, that should not come at the cost of national sovereignty and security. Pakistan with a current account deficit of $623 million, total liabilities of Rs 53.5 trillion, and a circular debt of Rs 2,500 billion, simply does not have the economic strength to stand in the line of fire and collide head-on with the economic hegemon that the US has emerged over the years. Now we are caught in the power battle between the two giants that hold their claim to the hegemonic throne. I have been very vocal about the need for Pakistan to maintain a delicate balance between global powers which should be driven by its economic vision, national sovereignty, and political stability. CPEC is a reality that must be accepted as part of the grand national vision and so is our dependence on organizations such as IMF, The World Bank, and FATF if we are to flourish in the international arena. It is not about choosing one over the other but clearly stating the fact that Pakistan must make use of all means and resources to achieve its economic and political independence. The writer is the Foreign Secretary-General for BRI College, China. He tweets @DrHasnain_javed.