September 4, 2007
American Empire - a discussion
Thanks to everybody who contributed to the Wikipedia discussion. I was reassured by the general consensus that using Wikpiedia is not the journalistic equivalent of putting on the dunce’s hat. As for the general discussion of Web 2.0 - very useful.
For anyone wondering what happens next, let me explain how I hope to use all this stuff:
I tend to have a list of topics that I hope eventually to write newspaper articles about. The idea is that at some point something happens in the news which makes my idea seem relevant - at which point, I pounce. Alternatively, if nothing much is happening in the news, I have an excuse to delve into my bag of general themes. So I will wait for my moment with the Web 2.0 stuff. And - in the meantime - if people feel inclined to contribute further thoughts to that discussion thread, so much the better.
Among the other topics that I’ve been planning to write about for ages are American "imperialism"; democracy promotion (was it a bad idea, etc…) and my personal hatred of Bono. Over the next few weeks, I’ll start discussions on all of these themes.
But first, empire:
Generally people who talk about "American imperialism" do not mean it in a nice way. But I was struck, during the run-up to the Iraq war, by the overt flirtation with the idea of empire among certain American policymakers and intellectuals. There is Ron Suskind’s now famous quotation of an unnamed senior Bush administration official, who allegedly said: "We are an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." Charles Krauthammer in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in 2004 salivated that "this American Republic has acquired the largest seeming empire in the history of the world - acquired it in a fit of absent-mindedness greater even than Britain’s".
Krauthammer did go on to say that because the US "does not hunger for territory", it is absurd to call it an empire. President Bush declared explicictly in 2004, "We are not an imperial power." But not all his neocon supporters were so coy. Max Boot of the Council for Foreign Relations published an article entitled "The Case for an American Empire"; and there were others who made the same argument, like Dinesh de Souza.
Meanwhile, in academe, the idea of empire was being rehabilitated. In 2003 Niall Ferguson published a well-received revisionist history of the British empire. (Although the book itself is far from being an unabashed apologia for empire.) A year later Ferguson produced "Colossus" arguing that - "the United States is and, indeed, always has been an empire" and that "the American empire might have positive as well as negative attributes." In fact Ferguson pronounced himself "fundamentally in favour of empire".
America’s bitter experience in Iraq seems likely to bring a swift end to this flirtation with imperialism, at least as an aspiration. But the parallels between the US and former imperial powers still fascinate. When the head of America’s GAO made a speech recently warning that the US risked going the way of the Roman empire, he provoked a big reaction - not least in the FT.
When I eventually get round to writing about the American empire, the sorts of questions I will want to answer will include - Is it analytically useful to think of America as an imperial power? How far were American policymakers consciously thinking about empire? Do America’s troubles in Iraq prove that the imperial idea is now dangerously anachronistic? Or has the US just gone about its imperial task in the wrong way?
That’s enough questions. Please, send me some answers.
Whether or not one uses the term empire, it is clear that the US regularly uses military force and diplomatic muscle in order to promote its national interests (usually commercial or security interests), and that its power is sufficient large that this behaviour affects a large tract of the rest of the world. In that sense, the US behaves as all empires have done: it’s strong, and it uses its strength to get its way.
However, describing the US as an empire tends to arouse an immediate and violent emotional response from one of two opposite directions: those who feel that the US is an evil creature attempting to dominate the world, and those who point out that the US cannot be called an empire if it isn’t actually trying to annex other states, or who consider the US to be a power for good in the world and therefore not to be compared with (say) Napoleonic France.
It seems to me that these emotional responses are so strong that they tend to obscure the point which is really important to debate, namely the circumstances in which the US should feel OK about using force or intense diplomatic and commercial pressure on others (and the acceptable level of any such force), and the circumstances in which other states should stand up this, whether or not they are US allies or just fundamentally pro-American in their outlook.
For a fairly intense criticism of the US attitude to submitting to enforcement by multilateral institutions of treaties to which it has signed up, see Philippe Sands’ Lawless World.
Maybe there’s some mileage in comparing US behaviour to the behaviour of, say, the Romans (a vicious and nasty imperial power but generally considered a Good Thing) or the Mongols (a vicious and nasty imperial power but generally considered a Bad Thing). Personally, I think it’s limited.
Posted by: David Karlin | September 4th, 2007 at 4:21 pm | Report this commentAmong political scientists, the most serious and interesting account of empire (and its analytic implications for the US role in the world) is Dan Nexon and Tom Wright’s recent piece for the American Political
Posted by: Henry Farrell | September 4th, 2007 at 6:56 pm | Report this commentScience Review. The article itself is available at http://homepage.mac.com/mgemmill/Nexon_Wright_Empire.pdf; a summary which cuts through some of the IR jargon necessary for publishing a piece in an academic journal these days is at http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2007/06/america_and_emp.html. There’s been some discussion of this piece in the blogs - see the comment section to this post at Crooked Timber - http://crookedtimber.org/2007/06/11/cooley-on-nexonwright-on-empires/ (ignoring the extraneous comments by Linda Hirshman). It also comes up in the recent debate between Dan Drezner and Glenn Greenwald over the usefulness of the term ‘imperial’ and whether the foreign policy community is any cop at all - see http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003454.html and http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003456.html .
The link to the Nexon/Wright article above has been garblized by Typepad; it should be http://homepage.mac.com/mgemmill/Nexon_Wright_Empire.pdf
Posted by: Henry Farrell | September 4th, 2007 at 7:00 pm | Report this commentAside of strength (military or otherwise), an empire needs an emperor. In the classical or historical sense, the implication was that as long as that person or group of persons or way of ruling survived, the empire, unless defeated(militarily) would continue. In that sense the US is very different. Already, having this discussion about the US being an empire seems pointless as the next president whether Democrat or Republican will be a very different beast. Then I think that a US president in a fairly similar way to a French president is pretty much beyond all domestic problems in the sense that he/she cannot be gotten rid of. Of course, Nixon resigned and they tried to impeach Clinton but my point is that there is a certain impunity and lack of accountability in the role of president.
Then on empires in general, it is pretty clear that all empires must necessarily bring at least some good things. Just like the much-reviled Microsoft, empires would not become dominant if they didn’t have an edge, be it military, economic, demographic or otherwise. Many empires have had a “civilising” function. For example, the Arabic expansion of the 7th/8th centuries brought many scientific discoveries (or re-discoveries) to Europe including that most fundamental material for scientific research numbers.
The US and USSR in their drive to outrun each other generated much scientific progress. While initially an initiative to guarantee peace within Europe, it is hard not to see the latest developments of the EU as a response to an hegemonic (economically) US.
I would argue the rise of empires or hegemon or dominat powers only incentivises other countries to counter balance that rise. As long as there’s a minimum of military component to this, it has to be a good thing for humanity at large.
Mr Chirac was much reviled in 2003 when he spoke of a multi polar world where the US might still be the super power but where several other emerging large powers would counterbalance the US’s power. I don’t think anyone can today argue with that analysis - it was spot on. Nobody is vying for dominance with the US globally but in Asia Pacific, it is clear that China is asserting itself, in Africa, China is not yet on a par with the US, Britain or France diplomatically, but it is flexing its economic (for now) muscle, in the middle east, Iran is clearly a key player, in South America, Chavez is doing his best to counteract the US wherever he can, while we’re seeing a resurgent Russia. And of course, there’s the EU, with its main international diplomatic powers Britain and France, and increasingly with its military reforms, Germany.
I think this is overall a good thing - as long as the military element is kept under wraps. It generally means more competition for scientific advancement, economic progress and generally means the 1/4 of the world population that has up to now been left out might get some attention.
Posted by: AF | September 4th, 2007 at 9:15 pm | Report this commentImperialism remains a fuzzy concept. It is never entirely clear whether it refers to military adventurism and gunboat diplomacy, or whether it refers to the wider networks of influence that hegemonic powers enjoy.
The US has indisputably enjoyed hegemonic influence in the Western world since the end of WWII. Partly this was down to sheer economic and political might: US views held weight. But it was also due to a complex and complicit strategy of linkage between the US and other Western countries. The development of the Bretton Woods system established the foundations of a rule-based international financial and economic system in which the US, as the key creditor nation and the financial backer of the reconstruction of Europe, was crucial - and while the system did not last, the role of the US in helping shape the international financial system has remained pivotal. In the development of NATO, as well, the US, as the guarantor of European independence of the Soviet Union, was crucial - the MAD structure was crafted in such a way that any escalation in Europe would inevitably escalate to a major superpower confrontation, effectively dissuading intervention. It is hard to say that in these systems the US was a clear imperial power, but its influence and its pre-eminent role are unmistakable.
It is really only in the post Cold War period that US military might has translated into adventurism and gunboat diplomacy. The military interventions of the 1990s may well have been justifiable, but that kind of gunboat diplomacy would have been much more politically fraught during the Cold War itself - not entirely unthinkable, but difficult, particularly without clear UN authority. Over time the rule-based system has been eroded - ironically, by the powers that created it in the first place, reaching a peak with naked adventurism of Iraq. It’s during that period that all the talk of the US empire ‘creating its own reality’ reached a peak, as well.
So, empire still doesn’t quite fit as a word. US power, influence and prestige was at its highest when it was the lynchpin of a rule-based international system. When it began to take that influence for granted and began to go against that system, its moral authority - and hence a large chunk of its power to ‘make things happen; (paraphrasing Morgenthau’s definition of political power) ebbed.
Posted by: gacetillero | September 4th, 2007 at 10:35 pm | Report this commentCould I suggest Chalmers Johnson…
“Blowback”
“Sorrows of Empire”
“Nemisis”
Of course America is an empire. We just do it in a “Neo” way.
Posted by: XER | September 5th, 2007 at 2:14 am | Report this commentIf imperialism is send in the old European powers sense of control over or influence over natural resources, the US has bases in many oil producing nations and does military exercises various regional powers.
Posted by: An American in China | September 5th, 2007 at 2:52 am | Report this commentHowever in this context China’s buying rights to resources in Africa, South American and South East Asia must also contribute to the Idea of Empire. The US may hold the defence alliance with Australia but China is buying all their resources. Yes it is true resources are now sold on a open market to the highest bidder. So China’s mercantilistic actions are somewhat strange.
But just as strange as the modern idea of having military bases in middle eastern countries helping the government and population side with us against Terrorism or Against the Palestinians. Apart from North Korea, we are in an age of Al Jeezera and Iranian TV stations in California. What worked in the past is not as relevant. US Gun boat diplomacy and Chinese Mercantile trading, just don’t fit. We can not say then that the US is an Imperial Power.
When it comes to Americans talking about “Empire”, the only useful part of the phrase is trying to figure out where their fantansies lie. Does “Empire”, as a political term, come into vogue just when you’re in hock up to the eyeballs? Certainly the “French Empire” of the 1850s and the “British Empire” of Disraeli comes to mind. I do find it interesting that we use the term “Empire” just at the point where the Chinese own the bulk of our debts.
Posted by: Charlie | September 5th, 2007 at 3:52 am | Report this commentIf not an Empire, at least a colonial power.
Posted by: Guido Sullam | September 5th, 2007 at 7:06 am | Report this commentThe real American Empire was created in what is now the continental United States, taken (stolen) from the native Americans and the Mexicans and purchased from the French. It has functioned successfully because it was colonized and developed by “Americans” and they understand it very well: speak its dialects, cultivate is customs and know and treasure its local foibles.
What passes today for an American “empire” really seems more of a financial system and endless military bases. Outside their true “Empire” Americans have little interest in or knowledge of other people’s ways or affairs.
Posted by: David Seaton | September 5th, 2007 at 7:50 am | Report this commentOf course this empire doesn’t need territory, it has a vice-grip on global intellectual property, the meat of the contemporary world economy. Its lobbies are established in Brussels (which American lobbyists say is now more important than Washington in any case - you can 27 for the price of one, you get a new more respectable base of influence worldwide, and you don’t have to deal with the messy thing called democracy), it has almost succeeded in criminalizing normal use of the internet (see second IP Criminal Enforcement Directive), and it has everyone’s personal information to pursue alleged suspects through data ‘procurement’ through SWIFT, Passenger Data Register and old-fashioned surveillance. Why would they bother to acquire useless territory?
Posted by: virginia brown | September 5th, 2007 at 9:53 am | Report this commentEmmanuel Todd has a lot to say about this in “After the Empire”. It’s suprising but plausible, and he was right about the Soviet Union.
He says there was one, sort of, but it’s already over, and now it’s just “theatrical micromilitarism”. His arguments are mainly economic and demographic rather than what I’d call political.
Posted by: ED | September 5th, 2007 at 10:06 am | Report this commenthttp://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Empire-Emmanuel-Todd/dp/1845290585
Ed is right about Emmanuel Todd’s book, it’s a must read. Like most of what Todd writes, after a few years have passed (”After the Empire” was out in 2003, I think) most of what he wrote seems prophetic.
Posted by: David Seaton | September 5th, 2007 at 10:32 am | Report this commentHi Gideon,
There was a country whose elected president had an agenda which focused mostly on domestic issues. He dismissed, internationaly, any agreements concerning Kyoto protocol and then arms race.
Then there was this day when 5000 people died in New York. Everything changed. A “war on terror” was declared and an “axis of evil” was created. The first is too broad and the second puts in the same bag completely different realities.
After this a focus was put on Iraq, which became a new born babilon for the US. Since you declare a war you have to choose enemies and fight. In a big show created in the UN for public purposes, the rationale was presented for that war. As we know today mr. Powell should have been best actor Oscar nominee and those who put all the information together for a pulitzer prize (fiction….of course).
As the statue of the dicatator came down in Iraq, everybody was happy, democracy showed its strenght against “evil”. Then the dictator was found which was a crown prize for the “liberators”.
Then something starts to go wrong, bomb blasts, civil and military people killed by the thousands, then Abu Ghraib, then Guantanamo, and so on and so on. Democracy shows its hidden face and his given a bad name.
So it makes sense to talk about empire. No the american policymakers are not conscious about that, because they see themselves as the righteous people which carry the truth in their side whose wonder “the others” are unable to see.
By what was said before, clearly America took it the wrong way but it will be all the West (in cultural terms) and democracy (as a form of political organization) that will be more affected in the long term.
Please read in the August 20 issue of the New Yorker Adam Gopnik’s article on Philip K. Dick sci-fi books and some of the connections bewteen “Clans of the Alphane Moon” and empire. Or paranoid empire, shall I say?
Posted by: Pedro Proença | September 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pm | Report this commentWhen we talk about foreign US bases where America pays a rent we are talking more than about an Empire about a commercial power like Phoenicia and Greece…but when we talk about NATO and occupation bases where America doesn´t pay a rent (Germany, Japan, Iraq and Afghanistan) we are talking about Empire.
As an Spaniard i support European Independence from America and that will only come when the Supreme Commander of NATO in Europe is a European not an American appointed by the President of the USA.
Note that there are two steps between the British or Spanish Defense head (supreme commander) and the President of America. When your Defense, which is the main proof of sovereignty, is not under your hands but under a Viceroy like the Supreme Commander of NATO Europe we are not talking about an equal agreement but about Empire in which Britain is just another Sri Lanka and Spain is another Tamil Nadu.
But, of course, there is a difference: the Euro which has built an economic block of almost the same size of the USA.
The USA, remember Martin Fieldstein in 1997, knows that the integration of Britain in the Eurozone would mean the transfer of the economic center of the World from America to Europe for the first time in 80 years…something that also would mean the build up of an autonomous Defense in Europe with a European as Supreme Commander of NATO Europe.
In fact, NATO would then be basically a binational (USA/UE) entity with an increasing importance of the European side.
Russia, dependent on the Eurozone for 55% of its Trade and with a GDP six times smaller, would be part of the European Economic Space like Turkey, Morocco and Algeria.
Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | September 5th, 2007 at 1:41 pm | Report this commentThere is a saying: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, acts like a duck, it’s a duck. If you choose not to believe it, it may be because you’ve mastered more sophisciated analytical tools, or there is some other benefit ($) to denying “duckness.” The american empire continues to produce inbred retards like GW Bush using both. The rest of the world best hold up mirrors, and shout “YOU’RE A DUCK”
Posted by: TGWOE | September 5th, 2007 at 3:39 pm | Report this commentGideon – I believe that in order to answer your questions it is necessary to cut through the Gordian Knot that is the conceptual melange enveloping the terms ‘empire’, ‘hegemony’ and ‘unipolarity’. The definition of concepts is indeed an essential pedagogical exercise as the definition of terms frame any argument that one might make about any given subject. However, it is sometimes more illuminating to take Ockham’s Razor to a subject and cut off all but the most essential elements. In this case, I believe that much of the conceptual confusion that is present in contemporary discussions of the nature of the American ‘empire’ (or otherwise) can be resolved by simply clarifying the distinction between ‘hegemony’ on one hand, and ‘empire’ on the other. A salient example of this conflation of terms is Ferguson’s assertion that, “the very concept of ‘hegemony’ is really just a way to avoid talking about empire, ‘empire’ being a word to which most Americans remain averse.” This is twaddle. Hegemony and empire are fundamentally different. Hegemony implies both leadership (the original Greek meaning of the term, I believe) and consent (which I use in a Gramscian sense, thus rebutting any assertion that hegemony is in any way in the interests of all). Thus, hegemony implies a system in which consent is achieved without the active and overt exercising of any ‘hard’ power. Rather, the sheer weight of material resources possessed by the hegemon, as well as the intrinsic benefits to attaching oneself to the hegemon (e.g. shared material interests, shared values, etc.), ensure that the hegemon exercises leadership through the consent of those that it leads. ‘Empire’, on the other hand, denotes a condition in which consent is achieved through domination and coercion. States within the system are not persuaded or cajoled, they are coerced. Talk of empires being in any way benign (as Ferguson argues throughout most of his work) misses the point. Although the end product may appear benign (e.g. India’s adoption of ‘civilized’ political structures from the British, completely neglecting the fact that many aspects of Indian culture were ‘civilized’ long before the British arrived), the entire project was one based on coercion, whether ‘divide and rule’ or simply ‘invade and rule’. Different means, same end. Of course, this is not to say that arguments surrounding ‘structures of rule’, ‘rule through intermediaries’, or ‘hubs’, ‘spokes’, and ‘rims’ are of no importance. Rather, by simplifying the terms one uses to analyse America’s current situation and making the distinction between hegemony and empire clear, it is, I believe, easier to answer the questions that you set out at the end of your article.
Firstly, is it analytically useful to think of America as an imperial power? To this, I would suggest that the answer is affirmative in some parts of the world, and negative in others. For example, America clearly exercises leadership with respect to some countries in the world. The UK, much of the EU, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, South Korea, Israel and Australia, as well as many others, all support the USA, more often than not, in its pursuit of policy aims across the world. Of course, sometimes the US may cajole rather than persuade. This is quite normal with dialogue, carrots and sticks being an essential part of all democratic societies. However, the US does not impose widespread economic sanctions on these countries or conduct regular air strikes in order to gain their consent. For example, many of the new members of the EU, such as Poland, the Czech Republic, etc. are all vehement supporters of many aspects of American foreign policy. This is not simply because of a handful of relatively understaffed US military bases on their territory. Instead, shared material interests and shared values ensure their acquiescence with American aims (i.e. commitment to democracy, free trade, and, most importantly, keeping the Germans down and the Russians out of Eastern Europe).
However, in other parts of the world, the US resembles an empire, most notably in Iraq. It did not achieve its aims (regime change) in Iraq through persuasion. Furthermore, there is a clear disparity between the sort of government that the US wishes to impose on Iraq at present (a sort of consensual oligarchy among factions legitimated by elections) and that which the militarily and politically active sections of Iraqi society desire (Sunnistan, Shiitistan, Calipahte, etc.). In this case, both the means used and the end desired by the US appear inimical to the desires of the Iraqi population. I must say, however, that I cannot think of too many other examples of states that states that would, on the definition used, belong to the American empire. Afghanistan, perhaps? Surely Afghanistan would belong to the ‘Atlantic/NATO’ empire? Indeed, arguing that having friendly relations with elites in countries that share American interests (e.g. Saudi Arabia and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan) does not, I believe, make these countries part of an American ‘empire’. If so, this implies that some countries are also parts of other empires, e.g. Saudi Arabia enjoys warm relations with the UK, it also benefit from the Saudi oil supply (see Al Yamahah), and it is not coerced militarily or economically by the UK – is Saudi Arabia, therefore, also part of a (neo-)British empire? To make the point further, there are many examples across the world in which states align themselves with larger states because of shared interests, even if these shared interests are between elites rather than wider populations. Are North Korea and Mynamar part of a Chinese empire? Are Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Belarus part of the Russian empire (a weaker argument, I know)? In conclusion, it seems to me that the term empire is somewhat over zealously employed and, if it applies to America outside of Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan, then it will probably apply to other ‘empires’ around the world. Simply because America is the preponderant power in today’s world system (no allusion to Wallerstein intended), it does automatically make it an empire.
Secondly, how far were American policymakers consciously thinking about empire? Probably not a lot. Here, I suspect that they also conflated means and ends. The end, in their eyes, was probably noble (peace and democracy across the Middle East), if idealistic and unfeasible. However, when the means employed changed from persuasion and cajoling to outright coercion, the nature of American involvement changed from hegemonic (leadership) to imperial (coercion). As I say, this really only applies to Iraq and Afghanistan, though. Therefore, only a certain portion of American policymakers ended up thinking about empire in a very limited portion of the world. Iraq does not qualitatively change America’s bilateral relationship with, say, Japan or the UK, from one of hegemony to one of empire.
I’ve gone on for far too long and have things to do so I’ll refrain from answering any further questions. I’m not sure if I’ve made a great deal of sense. I have simply written what has popped into my head whilst reading your article over lunch. I hope I’ve made my point.
Posted by: Richard Connolly | September 5th, 2007 at 4:01 pm | Report this commentThese constant comparisons to the Roman empire — especially by Americans who tend to make them perfunctorily without really knowing any of the historical facts — are laughable. Rome’s success and longevity as an empire was due to its superb administrative apparatus and, underlying that, a highly pragmatic, i.e. non-ideological, approach to matters of state.
The United States, on the other hand, is the most ideologically-driven power since Hapsburg Spain. Where protecting the Catholic Church was the motivation for Spain fighting off challenges to its corporate interests overseas — and, more recently, where this has been conflated with defending “Western” values — is the reason America gets drawn into so many conflicts. And, as with Spain, a kind of overreach will set in and the US will be picked off by up and coming powers like China and India without even the theatrics of sailing an Armada.
So to your main question: is it analytically useful to think of the US as an empire? Yes, up to a point, because although it has few overseas possessions it has sizeable financial interests all over the world. But the more relevant question is whether it is a durable imperial power and here the answer is No. Casting oneself as a Defender of the Faith is the quickest way to extinction.
Posted by: Arun Motianey | September 5th, 2007 at 4:55 pm | Report this commentI keep looking through these texts for a reference to the author / historian who first roused so much fury by naming the duck: it was in the 1960s that Gore Vidal repeatedly pointed out the tragic shift from Republic to Empire, one that didn’t just begin yesterday. His astute observations and comparisons with historical equivalents are worth taking most seriously (though he is generally ignored by academics and political sadhus).
Posted by: Byron Black | September 5th, 2007 at 5:12 pm | Report this commentGideon, I think the term “empire” is very loaded and cannot be an objective descriptor. I myself like to call Russia an empire because the Checnyans and many other peoples in modern Russia have no self determination; similarily the Chinese are imperial in maintaining their hold on Xinjiang and Tibet against the wishes of the locals. Still calling these countries imperial is rethorically evocative and provocative.
An empire is “a political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.” Russia and China both are empires in many ways since their leadership have supreme authority over distinct and even unwilling nations while the US does not. The US has created democracies in its two main world war two adversaries instead of occupy them, it has through diplomacy forced European nations such as Britain, France and the Netherlands to decolonize after world war two, and after the cold war has strongly encouraged democracy in nations such as Indonesia, Chile, South Korea, the Phillipines, Taiwan, South Africa, in all Eastern European and in many other nations. Encouraging democracy is encouraring self determination, that is the opposite of empire; the current president of Chile is Michelle Bachelet a socialist who spent her cold war exile in the DDR; certainly not the kind of leader you would expect in even a nominal vassal. The US took note of the end of the Soviet Union and many felt that the end of containment meant the end of dictatorial vassals and the start of democracy.
An imperium such as the British or Roman empire would not tolerate Toyota being the world’s largest automaker and they would pressure the European Central bank into issuing compliant policy. Perhaps the world market itself is the empire; but with Toyota being larger than GM, Bollywood selling more movies than Hollywood, and with the Saudi’s at the pump that sets the price of oil, Washington isn’t necessarily the capital of it.
So what purpose remains in styling the US an Empire? Only in the provocative rethoric of it.
While many argue strongly and impressively for the US to be called something that something is what we call a hegemon; hegemony being “The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.”
We ought to stick to the dictionary when using these definitions; i used the answers.com one that google links to.
As for hating bono Gideon, hate is a very strong word and while I think you’re capable of being stroppy I doubt that you are irrational enough to hate for very long.
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | September 5th, 2007 at 7:20 pm | Report this commenthatred of Bono? What has he done to you? Can’t wait to read this one…
Posted by: Jack Tripper | September 5th, 2007 at 8:09 pm | Report this commentThe term ‘American Imperialism’ could be slightly misleading. I doubt there has been a realistic modern ambition to create a single American sovereign state beyond current borders. However, I do not doubt that neoconservatives, and particularly those students so of Leo Strauss, consciously determined to create a global environment that would support the principles of American democracy abroad, whilst simultaneously ensuring their military and economic dominance as the single super power.
The neo-conservative movement articulated such principles via a (now dormant?) think tank call Project for a New American Century. The following principles and their supporters can be seen on :http://www.newamericancentury.org/
The principles of the group are stated as:
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
· we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
· we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
· we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
· we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
The members of this think tank include: Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Stephen P. Rosen, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz. All of whom held major briefs during the Bush administration, including being the architects of the unilateralist foreign policy that define the administration.
Neoconservatism has fallen out of favour; but the principles are alive and well with Rudi Giuliani who recent said: “[U]nless we pursue our idealistic goals through realistic means, peace will not be achieved.” “A realistic peace is not a peace to be achieved by embracing the ‘realist’ school of foreign policy thought. That doctrine defines America’s interests too narrowly and avoids attempts to reform the international system according to our values.”
Oh dear.
Simon Watson
Posted by: Simon Watson | September 6th, 2007 at 9:45 am | Report this commentRather than asking whether it is analytically useful to think of the US as an imperial power, we should be asking whether it is politically empowering to do so.
The range of comments already posted in this discussion site show that imperialism is a slippery term: it means different things to different people in different times and places. This cannot be resolved by appealing to academic definitions or to dictionaries, conventional or electronic. Better to recognise that imperialism is a powerfully contested term, which resurfaces periodically, each time it seems not only to describe the world but to enable people to act politically, to bring about change.
I have been running a project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), investigating the ways in which people speak of imperialism today. This concentrate on anti-war activists, with different traditions of speaking about imperialism: those on the left; in Muslim communities; Welsh and Scottish nationalists. This research has tracked imperialism as a powerful political tool, not simply an analytical concept. For details, see:
http://www.liv.ac.uk/geography/staff/phillips.htm and http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/esrcinfocentre/viewawardpage.aspx?awardnumber=RES-000-22-1785
This research has also shown that the language of imperialism can be slippery, even vacuous. As one anti-war activist put it to me, imperialism is ‘a word you would drop into a conversation every now and then, you could call somebody an imperialist or whatever’. Others said they found the term superficial, more about labelling rather than understanding, and alienating to many ordinary people, given its associations with the hard left. The recent outpouring of books and articles imperialism and empires seems, paradoxically, to have undermined the concept for some people.
But if imperialism is looking a little threadbare, it remains very much alive, as discussion sites such as this make clear. It is not up to academics or columnists to decide on once-and-for-all definitions of imperialism, and then to adjudicate on whether or not the world lives up (or down) to them. Rather, the life of an idea like imperialism depends on whether people – in the corridors of power, in street protests and everywhere between – can use it. The evidence for now is that, for all its flaws, the idea of imperialism is useful both in describing an unequal world and in drawing together people who would like to change it.
Posted by: Richard Phillips | September 6th, 2007 at 11:10 am | Report this commentFor some thought provoking views on anti-Americanism and perceptions of imperialism, may I recommend, “Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies” by Ian Buruma & Avishai Margalit.
http://www.amazon.com/Occidentalism-Ian-Buruma/dp/1843542889/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-1967288-8568918?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189094081&sr=8-1
Posted by: ppp | September 6th, 2007 at 5:21 pm | Report this commentI agree with your assessment on Bono - a loud, foulmouthed, ignorant Irish lout who wears ridiculous sunglasses and suits without a tie when one is required. Absolutely no class!
The discussions on US ‘imperialism’ are interesting. Having observed US foreign policy upclose in the 1980s and 1990s, it is now clear that the end of the Cold War signalled the end of an instinctive willingness of the US to cooperate multilaterally for joint objectives. Instead absolute power has led to absolute corruption in both domestic and foreign policy. The latter is now increasingly and cynically set by insiders in the military industrial complex for pecuniary benefit.
The system is now so rotten that the country is almost bankrupt. We will have to see how successful the new president can be in resusitating the country which has been one of the greatest and, until recently, successful experiments in human history. My guess is that the defeat in Iraq will end up being a cathartic and cleansing experience and, as happened after Vietnam, a more sober and realistic country will emerge.
Posted by: oldasiahand | September 6th, 2007 at 9:13 pm | Report this commentGideon
Posted by: David McKee | September 9th, 2007 at 4:11 am | Report this commentYou have been inundated with advice – good luck with your digestion! Here’s my pennyworth…
My first instinct is to get the terminology and the theory sorted out first. James Olney’s paper, “Britain’s Informal Empire in the Gulf, 1820-1971” (http://www.huss.ex.ac.uk/iais/research/read-room.htm) is short, but neatly sketches out the competing theories of empire, and draws the distinction between formal empire, informal empire and spheres of influence.
My second instinct is to distrust the temptation to believe in U-turn changes in foreign policy. Bush’s post 9/11 armed interventionism did not appear out of nowhere. Comprehensive lists appear here (http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html) and here (http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/interventions.htm) .
The desire for empire is nothing new either. How do the neocons compare to the imperialism of the Beveridge in the 1890s (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1898beveridge.html) and the frenzy for ‘manifest destiny’ by O’Sullivan in the 1840s (http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/HIS/f01/HIS202-01/Documents/OSullivan.html)? Or, for that matter, with the isolationism of Lindbergh (http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/index.asp)?
US establishment subconsiously WANTS to be an empire, and erratically demonstrates empire-like behavior, but fortunately it is unable to be an empre in its current state due to shyness of self-realization in this capacity, which is in turn a consequence of deep contradiction between the idea of an empire and the notion of individualism.
Empire is an empire not because of military force, and not because of hegemonic policies, but because it has spirit so strong that it twists good and bad and redefines itself as the only measure of good, standing above all and first and foremost, above individuum.
US’s profound lack of cultire made it go very far in the direction of righteousness, but luckily or not, it is not enough to be a Forrest Gump on a bomber dropping a payload on Belgrade, city last bombed by Nazis, to be an imperialist.
To be an imperialist power, you must have a nation that has a passion to rule the world. “We” becomes separate from “they”, and “we” becomes more important than “I”. This passion must be so strong that nation must be ready to give away its freedom, its lives, its wellness for the goal that makes it to raise a head above the hog-trough. Together as one and instead of one.
US people are ignorant enough to other nations, but as people they are free from this virus, they just want work, family, wellness, security - for themselves. They don’t want peace as such because they haven’t seen war, but they want security and don’t want problems. They are people as kind as can be a nation that developed individualism to its extreme in all spheres of life. I see no new Hitler in US, no new Napoleon, and I cannot imagine it coming because you need first to get rid of practice of catching senators in the toilets and to start be ashamed of disgrace of your ruler chanting “I Am Not Gay” in front of the entire world. You need to get rid of individualism to be an empire.
Posted by: Seva Snape | September 9th, 2007 at 8:49 am | Report this commentThis is what you need to know about Empires; how they end. You can probably guess the author.
The Coin Speaks
—————
Singers sing for coin: but I,
Struck in Rome’s last agony,
Shut the lips of Melody.
Many years my thin white face
Peered in every market-place
At the Doomed Imperial Race.
Warmed against and worn between
Hearts uncleansed and hands unclean,
What is there I have not seen?
Not an Empire dazed and old,
Smitten blind and stricken cold,
Bartering her sons for gold;
Not the Plebs her rulers please
From the public treasuries
With the bread and circuses;
Not the hard-won fields restored,
At the egregious Senate’s word,
To the savage and the sword;
Not the People’s Godlike voice
As it welcomes or destroys
Month-old idols of its choice;
Not the legions they disband,
Posted by: Paul Batten | September 9th, 2007 at 12:30 pm | Report this commentNot the oarless ships unmanned,
Not the ruin of the land,
These I know and understand.
—————————-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702151.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
You’re quiet about Tibet Gideon, I thought you were well prepared by your audience months ago to publish something as insightful as the above days ago.
Posted by: Felix Drost | March 18th, 2008 at 11:07 am | Report this comment