The London School of Economics and Political Science
MSc International Relations
IR 410 – International Politics
Essay 3 – Lent Term

Empire without an Emperor. America′s inability to rule the
world and its consequences.

von: Torsten Michel

Section 1 – Empire defined  4

Section 2 – The quest for and the indispensability of order – Is there an empire?  5

Section 3 – Mastering globalisation – the case for an “American” empire 8

Section 4 – Who wants to be an emperor? – When the will to power meets reality 10

Bibliography:  13

The last 15 years, the period after the surprising and precipitous decline of the Soviet Union and the international structure of bipolarity saw another discussion of the future development of the international system. Some predicted that an ever declining America will be balanced by aspiring middle sized powers or new alliances; others foresaw a peaceful future in an America-dominated unipolar system due to the vast gap in the capabilities of the US and its closest pursuers. Whatever stand one made, one question remained and still remains central to an assessment of the future development of the international system: the role of the United States of America.

Especially after September 11 a discussion came to the surface that has been lingering in the international system since the end of the Cold War period: Is there an American empire? In the last years a lot of scholars – political and non-political alike – started talking about the emergence or non-emergence of such a phenomenon and the range of these writings encompassed, on one extreme, realists like William Wohlforth1, who celebrated American greatness in an unbridled enumeration of its quantitative capabilities and demanded an unconditional surrender to American power from the rest of the world and, on the other extreme, the prayer-wheel-like repetition of the American demise by writers such as the French historian Emmanuel Todd.2 Between these extreme positions there are a lot of different viewpoints dealing with the characteristics and consequences of the current USdominated international system. This domination and the vast gap between the capabilities of the US and other states in the system are unprecedented in history and cannot even be matched by former empires like the Roman or the British. Nevertheless, many scholars decided to use the phrase “empire” to describe the situation. To adjust this historical term to the present conditions nearly innumerable refinements, mostly “attributive”, have been made ranging from “reluctant empire” to “Empire lite”. 3 As it is always the case with applying old terms to new situations there appear some difficulties regarding the appropriateness of the term in the current situation. This is not only a semantic matter but also plays a crucial role for real world politics. If one considers oneself as an empire one will inevitably act as one – perception, especia lly self-perception matters in international politics. This essay will go beyond the question of the reasonableness of America’s foreign policy or assessments of particular capabilities and try to look at the term empire itself to discuss the soundness of using this term to describe the present situation. This essay will argue that the situation is more complex than depicted in most of the contributions and the question that has to be raised is twofold: 1. Is there an empire? 2. Given an affirmative answer, is it an American empire? At first glance, the separation of the term American empire into two different contexts seems inappropriate, for a lot of people would argue that if there is an empire it only can be an American one. The argument in this essay rests upon the widely familiar distinction in IR between agent and structure. An empire describes a specific kind of international structure whereas the attribute “American” points to the agent that is allegedly in charge of this structural phenomenon. Eventually, this essay will argue that there is an imperial structure out there but no agent who is actually in charge of it – in other words: there is an empire without an emperor.

The first section will shed light on the definition of the term empire and will examine four different kinds of dominion within the international system: the formal empire, the informal empire, the hybrid form of empire called suzerainty and hegemony. The second section will point out that all different kinds of empire – historical and contemporary alike – have one common essence on the basis of which one can assess the appropriateness of using the term to describe a particular pattern in the international system – a concept of imperial order. This will be followed by discussing the question whether there is an internationally valid and influential kind of order at present. The third section will scrutinize the reasonableness of the term “American” empire and the fourth section will contain a conclusion and short prospect for the development of the international system in the near future.

Section 1 – Empire defined

[...]

1 Brooks, Stephen G and Wohlforth, William: American Primacy in Perspective, in: Foreign Affairs, July/August 2002, p. 21ff.

2 Todd, Emmanuel: After the Empire. The breakdown of the American order, New York: Columbia University Press, 2003.

3 See for instance Mallaby, Sebastian: The reluctant imperialist, in: Foreign Affairs, March/April 2002, p. 2ff.