Does the USA represent an empire in international relations?

Contents

Introduction

I. What are the characteristics of an empire?

II. Examples of historical empires:
II.1.The Chinese Empire
II.2.The Roman Empire
II.3.The Venetian Empire
II.4.The British Empire

III. Behaviour of the USA since the end of bipolarity

IV. The USA and the ‘Lockean heartland’

V. Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Empires have existed during most of our known history and were dominant factors in shaping regional or world orders in their respective times. Have we now entered a period of history where empires have ceased to exist and the international system is exclusively composed of – formally independent and equal – nation-states?

The concept of ‘empire’ has recently resurfaced after the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 and the following campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq with several scholars claiming that the USA pursues an empire with its unilateralist stance towards other political entities and the preemptive use of its far superior military forces.^[1]

The following work tries on the one hand to illuminate the concept of empire in general and on the other hand to apply it to the United States of America in order to be able to answer the question on which this paper is based.

In the first chapter, I will try to identify the distinct characteristics of an empire and to explain why their external behaviour is fundamentally different from other political entities called states. Thereafter a limited selection of historical empires will be presented in order to demonstrate how different empires have been in the course of history. Subsequently the four different types of empires analysed shall be contrasted and compared with the contemporary United States of America.

In the third chapter the behaviour of the United States since the end of bipolarity is assessed mostly in terms of foreign policy and the use of its military capabilities. The focus shall be laid on the period after the demise of Communism, because during the Cold War aggressive actions of the United States were very often justified as being of a defensive nature and necessary to survive the contest for global supremacy with the Soviet Union. In the last chapter the concept of the so-called ‘Lockean Heartland’ is presented briefly and analysed in its importance in understanding the position of the United States in contemporary international relations.

Then, why is it important if the United States really represents an empire? Because, if this is the case, it will have an enormous impact for the conduct of international relations in the 21st century, as an empire behaves in a fundamentally different way than a nation-state.

I. What are the characteristics of an empire?

In order to be able to answer the question, whether the United States of America at the present time represents an empire in international relations, it is necessary to elaborate on the proper meaning of the term empire and expose its unique features. Also one has to ask what the differences between an empire and a ‘normal’ country are. The differences between the terms ‘empire’ and ‘hegemony’ and between ‘empire’ and ‘imperialism’ are relevant as well.

According to Stephen Peter Rosen, an empire is a political entity that exerts influence over other nations in order to manipulate or control their external behaviour and to ensure minimally acceptable forms of internal behaviour within the subordinate states. The essential task of an empire is, according to Rosen, the construction and maintenance of a hierarchical inter-state order, in which the empire resides on top and makes and enforces the overarching rules without being subject to them itself. From this central objective derives the absolute necessity to permanently secure the monopoly on the deployment of organised military force, in order to prevent the rise of peer-competitors. Also an empire has to guarantee the security and stability of the different parts that form a part in it, e.g. client-states, and has to generate some kind of ‘income’ to finance the costs of maintaining the empire. Finally it has to bind the elites of the non-imperial societies to the imperial centre.^[2]

For Herfried Münkler the crucial point in identifying an empire is its treatment of other political entities. He argues, that it lies in the nature of states to be in a reciprocal relationship with each other and to recognise – at least in principle – the sovereignty of other states. Occasionally fighting wars with other states does not rule out the general approval of this basic rationale. Empires do the opposite; they only recognise their own sovereignty and accept no peers, therefore they tend to unilateralism.^[3] Empires, according to Münkler, have to fulfil certain requirements in order to last. They have to integrate their imperially controlled space economically, culturally and in terms of administration. They have to create a space in which goods, services and information can be exchanged freely, and that is distinguished from the territories outside the empire by its higher level of security and stability.^[4]

In addition to these conditions, he claims that in the long run the costs of ruling the imperial space have to be lower than the so-called ‘peace dividend’ – the benefits enjoyed by the people living in the empire – otherwise they would increasingly turn away from the empire. Finally an empire has to secure its border regions with its superior military from the periphery that lies beyond its frontiers. Furthermore, geography plays an important role in shaping the nature of an empire – the main distinction being between a sea-based empire and a land-based one.^[5]

Joseph S. Nye claims that it is characteristic for an empire to establish relationships of direct political rule with one or more territories (or colonies), which are beyond the borders of the motherland but still claimed by the centre.^[6] Finally, Raymond Aron claims that the term ‘empire’ connotes supreme power, ‘(...) the virtually irresistible ability of a state to impose its will whenever it needs to’.^[7]

Although there is no clear-cut definition of the term empire, the essential features seem to be that an empire wishes to construct an international order according to its own interests and to claim a unique position in international relations above all other political entities – which are seen as subordinate. In order to achieve this goal, the empire has to have the means to impose its will on others – possessing powerful military capabilities therefore is a conditio sine qua non for an empire. The idea of a hegemon is strikingly different, it represents merely a state dominating other states – a primus inter pares – not a fundamentally different political entity.^[8]

In this essay, imperialism is seen as ‘(...) the diplomatico-strategic behavior of a political unit which constructs an empire, that is, subjects foreign peoples to its rule’.^[9] Although there are several interpretations of the term ‘imperialism’, as those of Hobson, Lenin, Schumpeter and others, this shall be the interpretation used here.

II. Historical examples of empires:

The following four examples of historical empires shall illuminate the concept of empire in concrete historical settings and will show that each empire had its very own characteristics and was notedly different from other empires due to its unique historical background.

II.1. China

The ancient Chinese Empire^[10] was land-based and rested on a centralised bureaucratic state with a huge apparatus of office holders administrating the geographically wide-stretched empire. Essential was the distinct hierarchy descending from the monarch to the administrative districts governed by imperial civil servants. The backbone of the Chinese Empire was the peasantry, which financed the imperial state by paying taxes.^[11]

Remarkable is that the Chinese Empire was not particularly keen on the colonization of other territories or on the rule of alien peoples, but was rather inward-looking and bent on defending its far-flung frontiers, where nomads consistently posed a threat. An illuminating example of this inward-looking attitude are the various naval expeditions China sent out in the 14th century, which went westwards at least as far as East Africa. Although it had superior military capabilities, China did not try to rule the peoples it encountered on these voyages, which were regarded as being culturally inferior, but demanded only a symbolic tribute to the emperor. Few decades later this huge fleet was dismantled, as foreign territories were regarded unimportant to the empire.^[12]

II.2. Rome

Compared to the Chinese Empire, ancient Rome chose a completely different path of pursuing its empire – it embarked on a massive territorial expansion. Its superior ground troops played a crucial role in acquiring a vast geographic empire, but also its flexibility in dealing with defeated adversaries. In general, conquered peoples were made dependent on the imperial centre and integrated economically, culturally and militarily, e.g. troops were being recruited from the newly conquered territories. Especially important was the integration of the landed aristocracies, by eventually granting them the Roman citizenship. These foreign elites were also integrated culturally, mainly by the spread of Latin as the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. Rivalling powers which could possibly constitute a threat in the future were engaged early on – the rise of a peer-competitor should be prevented by any means.^[13] The dense network of bases at the imperial frontier, which could be reached quickly from the centre using the good road-system, was essential in this respect.

[...]

^[1] e.g. Bacevich, Andrew: American Empire: The Realities & Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge 2002 or Ferguson, Niall: America as Empire, Now and in the Future, <http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol2Issue29/Vol2Issue29Ferguson.html> (accessed 10.4.2004)

^[2] cf. Rosen, Stephen Peter: An Empire, If You Can Keep It, in The National Interest, No.71, Spring 2003, p.51

^[3] cf. Münkler, Herfried: Das Prinzip Empire, in Speck, Ulrich and Sznaider, Natan (eds.): Empire Amerika, DVA, Munich 2003, p.107

^[4] Ibidem, p.115

^[5] Ibidem, p.123

^[6] cf. Nye, Joseph S. Jr.: Amerikas Macht, in Speck, Ulrich and Sznaider, Natan (eds.): Empire Amerika, Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, Munich 2003, p.157

^[7] Aron, Raymond: The Imperial Republic – The United States and the World 1945-1973,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1974, p.253

^[8] cf. Carlsnaes, Walter and Risse,Thomas (eds.): Handbook of International Relations, SAGE, London 2002, p.123

^[9] Aron: The Imperial Republic, p.258

^[10] The term is used here as an abstraction. Of course there have been different Chinese Empires, however they shared some basic characteristics.

^[11] cf. Meiksins Wood, Ellen: Empire of Capital, Verso, London 2003, p.27

^[12] cf. Swaine, Michael D. und Tellis, Ashley J.: Interpreting China´s Grand Strategy: Past, Present and Future, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica 2000, p.21

^[13] cf. Bender, Peter: Weltmacht Amerika - Das neue Rom, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 2003, p.131