Tom Hickey’s lengthy and useful comments on this blog
reminded me of the work of Hans Morgenthau, a famous political scientist whom I
met at the University of Chicago when I was a young assistant professor there
almost 60 years ago. Drawing on Morgenthau’s work, and taking into account Tom
Hickey’s comments, let me say a few words about the international world order
or lack of order as I see it.
For all of recorded history, states have sought to establish
imperial domains both by force of arms and through economic means. In the last
several hundred years, there have been fundamentally two kinds of empires. The
first, exemplified by the British Empire, consists of a homeland and a
far-flung collection of colonies seized by force and economically exploited.
The French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and Belgian empires have been of this
sort. The second kind of empire, of which the Chinese and Russian are the most
prominent examples, consists of a homeland which expands into adjacent
territories by force of arms. The fine old book by Owen Lattimore, called The Inner
Asian Frontiers of China, describes the way in which over almost 2 millennia
the Chinese state has, when it is strong, expanded into Manchuria, Mongolia,
Tibet, and Southeast Asia, retreating when it is weaker and expanding again
when it grows strong. The Russian Empire is much younger, of course, but it has
followed the same course. As it grew stronger, it expanded into its Asian
neighbors, Turkmenistan, Khirgizia, and Kazakhstan. It expanded south toward the Crimean, and as
a consequence of its successes in World War II, West into the East European
nations including the Baltic nations. (Alas, Russia even made it as far as
Konigsberg, which it captured and renamed Kaliningrad, taking the library of
the University there, with its trove of Kant materials, back to mother Russia.)
The imperial history of the United States has been to some
extent a mixture of these two prototypes. America’s principal imperial
expansion, of course, was its progressive seizure of Western lands, killing or
imprisoning the people who lived there, until it stopped at the Pacific Ocean.
But the United States has also engaged in what we might call imperialism at a
distance, seizing at one time or another the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto
Rico, and at least trying unsuccessfully to take control of Cuba.
The border areas between Imperial nations are always danger
spots which can erupt into local wars and if not carefully managed into
regional wars or worse. At the moment, Kashmir, which has long been claimed
both by Pakistan and India, is the site of renewed conflict. All of this is
made enormously more dangerous by the advent of nuclear weapons.
Empires, at least in the modern world, find it useful to
advance elevated moral rationales for their expansions and struggles against
other empires. This is not new, but it seems somehow to have become more
necessary in the modern world. So England conceived itself to be bringing
civilization to “lesser breeds without the law.” The United States fancies
itself “the leader of the free world” and a force bringing democracy to “Third
World” nations. The Soviet Union liked to represent itself as being the tip of
the spear of a world-wide communist movement, and just about every European
nation congratulated itself on bringing Christianity to the “primitive” people
of Africa.
It is easy for the disillusioned subjects of an imperial
nation, disabused of the ideological rationalizations offered by their
government, to suppose that if their home country were to refrain from pressing
against the boundaries of other empires, peace would break out and we would all
live happily together. But of course that is nonsense. If Pakistan ceases to
lay claim to Kashmir, India will simply take it over. If Russia withdraws from
those parts of Ukraine that it has taken control of, NATO will respond by
expanding its claims on other borderlands. And of course, if the United States
and its NATO allies pull back from Eastern Europe, Russia will move back in,
claiming lands that it won in the Second World War and has since lost.
If one dislikes this system of competing world empires and
would like the United States to withdraw from it, one must of course recognize
that the space in the world system ceded by the United States will be taken by
other empires. That may be a good thing, but it is a certainty.
Looking forward, beyond the years when I will still be
alive, it is easy enough to see that China will for the foreseeable future play
a major role in the world Imperial system but that Russia will not. Russia is
essentially a petrostate dependent for its economic survival on the sale of a
diminishing asset that will, we can all hope, soon no longer play a central
role in the world economy. There is at this point very little evidence that the
Russian government is doing anything to replace its dependence upon oil.
I hope it is clear that none of this has anything at all to
do with my reaction to the story about bounties. That reaction had a good deal
more to do with my somewhat fanciful sense that I am still, in some attenuated
fashion, a veteran.
16 comments:
This post captures one piece of the picture, esp in terms of historical patterns. Another piece is a set of normative principles, such as those involving sovereignty and non-intervention in internal affairs, which most countries, even the "imperial" ones, observe most of the time.
Often these norms are "internalized" to the point where observing them is no longer really a conscious decision. (It doesn't cross the US's mind to conquer the Bahamas, to use an example that is not original with me.)
The interesting questions (or some of them) involve how the quasi-imperial dynamics sketched in the post are tempered by, and interact with, the principles that provide the legal and normative framework of the state system.
You can't fully understand what goes on by only looking at the imperial dynamics. That would be sort of like trying to understand one of Kant's Critiques or Marx's Capital by throwing out half the book and only reading every other paragraph.
On Kashmir btw: the local and particular roots of that issue (and the Hindu-Muslim divide and how it played out at Partition in 1947) are what mostly account for that long-standing problem, not the fact that Kashmir is a border area betw two "imperial" nations.
all quite true
On the other hand, if the occupation of the Bahamas were a geo-political imperative, I rather suspect we would fine a noble reason to take a little brother under our broad protective wing.
Yes, we might.
Reagan's invasion of Granada, in 1983, may be another recent (and largely forgotten) example. Ostensibly, it was about protecting medical school students; mostly, though, it was a proxy for beating up on Cuba.
In Latin America the U.S. also engages in imperialism through using local Armed Forces, whose officer corps has been trained in the U.S., against presidents who get out of hand.
The classic case is the 1973 coup against Salvador Allende in Chile, and the most recent one occurred last than a year ago, in Bolivia, against Evo Morales. Here's Glenn Greenwald on how the New York Times lied, as usual, about what occurred.
https://theintercept.com/2020/06/08/the-nyt-admits-key-falsehoods-that-drove-last-years-coup-in-bolivia-falsehoods-peddled-by-the-u-s-its-media-and-the-nyt/
An offering of some summary thoughts on theory of empire, stated in very broad terms.
1. Humans exhibit dominance-submission tendencies. When such tendencies are considered “natural” this often indicates an evolutionary trait. Humans are similar to pack animals in this, for example, where the alpha male dominates the pack and organizes it. Cats, who are individual hunters, are also territorial and mark their territory. Dominance-submission manifests not only intra-group but also inter-group. Dominance has many aspects and territoriality is a prominent one. Dominance is an evolutionary trait in that it favors the “strong.” Humans are not all that much different in this. Empires are the pinnacle of this dominance-submissive trait in humans. Strength in humans is not necessarily physical strength, so the manifestation of dominance-submission in humans is species-specific. While this evolution trait is an aspect of the human condition, humans as “rational animals” are capable of greater universality than sub-human species and can sublate their traits and rise above the animal nature of their evolutionary heritage.
2. Empires can be “good” or “bad,” and an empire can be “good” and “bad” at different times. A “good” empire emphasizes soft power instead of hard power and operates the empire on a more or less win-win basis where all concerned benefit from standardization of rules, facilitation of commerce, mutual trade, lingua franca, etc. A “bad” empire exploits its colonies and vassals based on hard power for its own interest disregarding the interests of others.
For example, post-WWII the UN, the Washington Consensus, etc., established principles of good empire as the liberal world order based on democracy and rights. Conversely, this was interpreted in terms of capitalism as 20th century neoliberalism and the concomitant neo-imperialism and neocolonialism. The economic system that corresponds to liberal democracy is socialism and the economic system that corresponds with modern republicanism is capitalism. Democracy is government of, by, and for the people, whereas republicanism is based on the assumption that some are “better” than other, that is, more competent. Paraphrasing first SCOTUS first justice John Jay, Those that own the country should rule the country. At bottom, democracy and capitalism are incompatible. Capitalism can be ameliorated and democracy strengthened by social democracy, but capitalism regards this “the slippery slope” to “collectivism,” so republicanism prevails that this institutional arrangement involves dominance-submission based on class and property.
Insofar as the US promoted the liberal order it was a good empire ruling based on soft power. But when the US empire became a tool of capitalism, it was a bad empire, and now is eating its children, even domestically, as the interior is colonized by economic rent extraction that manifests as indebtedness of the immiserated classes, now a growing portion of the population. This is resulting in pushback.
continued
continuation
3. The era of "classical" empire is winding down the West post-WWI and especially post-WWII. Neoliberalism, neo-imperialism and neocolonialism are vestiges of an age that is passing, just as the remaining monarchies are vestiges of the feudal age. For the most part, America refuses to call itself an empire (pace Karl Rove) or denies that it is one. Concomitant with this is the collapse of unipolarism and the rise of multipolarism internationally. Bipolarism ended with the collapse of the USSR and the beginning of the unipolar era dominated by the US. Now that is ending with former vassals and colonies rising in wealth and power, one might as, partly as a result of good empire and part of bad in spite of itself. It’s true that a rising tide (growth) as lifted all boats, but now many boats are getting swamped by rising inequality. Change is in the making as the unipolar world gives way to multipolarity. Overall, this is a period of decolonization historically. A new theory of empire will be needed to the degree that dominance-submission, including territorial, continues to be in play.
4. The world also stands at one of the pivotal points of history when the mode of production shifts, resulting in a new age. Previously, the great ages were the tribal era of hunting and gathering, the national era of feudalism, and the international era of industrial capitalism. Now the world is on the brink of the global era known variously as the digital age, the knowledge age, and the information age. This is provoking a transition that is emergent and only the outlines are visible on the horizon at present.
5. What the outcome will be is uncertain. What seems certain is that the West and the US in particular is clinging to a dominance that it can no longer exert other than using hard power — economic, cyber and military. This is provoking resistance and a backlash. Simultaneously, the US is divided domestically, and dangerously so as the political process itself feeds this dynamic of conflict.
6. To summarize, the entire world is at a turning point in the historical dialectic, if that doesn’t sound too Hegelian. A major factor in this is the conflict between liberalism and traditionalism, and also between different approaches to both liberalism and traditionalism. The unfolding of this story will be a tale told in the coming decades. Whatever happens, this is shaping up as a civilizational moment.
While this pattern is cyclic — “”there’s nothing new under the sun,” each cycle is its own moment with its own characteristics. How this moment of history will play out is anyone’s guess. Enjoy the reality show, and don’t forget to pass the popcorn.
Bob, I’ve seen you post this thought at least once, and maybe even twice before. I’ve got to ask you: what do you think are the practical implications of this analysis? Because I can’t see any, beyond not being misled into thinking everything would be great if it weren’t for America. I could easily see hawks and doves, neocons and internationalist socialists all accepting this analysis.
Tom,
I am not clear about your analysis: which US interventions were "win-win?" we all know how they have been cloaked in "win-win" rhetoric, but the substance of win-win eludes me: Iran, Guatemala,Cuba,Brazil, Chile, Vietnam, Haiti, Honduras, etc ??? And today Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, Iraq, the countries of northern Africa. Since Columbus, European powers seem to have used white supremacy to justify the extraction of wealth and the establishment of strategic military positions around the world. That Russia and China take over countries on their borders, as the Professor points out, does, however, seem to be a distinction with a difference."We" now have over 800 military installations around the world and conduct covert operations in 114 countries, more or less, while bombing (droning) 7 that we are told about. Russia and China, as imperial powers, have a lot of catching up to do. So what explains the difference?
Jerry,
I am neither asserting nor implying that interventions are ever win-win, even liberal intervention to assert liberal values. Interventions employ hard power, whether military, economic or whatever. Intervention or threat of it in the past has been about subjugation or the exacting of tribute without regard for mutual interests.
The US went seriously off the course in following Wilsonian doctrine about liberal internationalism that morphed into liberal interventionism, generally behind the façade of defending liberal values a "natural rights," or "human rights."
Since modern Western governments are republican in nature rather than democratic, they are also oligarchic, and owing to their economic and financial infrasture they are also plutocratic. That is to say, republican governments are committed to the interests of the ruling class, through which their cronies and minions, as well as vassals and compradors are also rewarded with status, power and wealth.
In the American "empire," the elite attempt to create a veneer over the use of hard power using propaganda about soft power based on Western liberal values and extending the liberal model to "the oppressed" abroad. Thus liberal interventionism is presented as virtuous.
The reality is that modern republican government is capitalist. The basis of capitalism is favoring capital since growth is assumed to be function of accumulated capital. As classical economists pointed out both feudalism based on land ownership and capitalism based on ownership of the material means of production and financial capital derive much of their gain not through actual economic contribution but rather from extraction of economic rents — land rent, natural resource rent, monopoly and monopsony rent, and financial rent. Because economic rent is based on ownership, Marx targeted that. This is not the only way to address the issue of economic rent, however.
continued
continuation
Taking democracy to be governance of, by, and for the people, the corresponding economic system would be socialism or at least social democracy, e.g., along the lines of the Swedish model (that is no longer operative there).
After WWII, the US was conflicted. It presented an image of liberal internationalism and political strength based on soft power, but the ruling elite could not abide the existence of a bipolar world and, against the warnings of the founding fathers created a huge military industrial complex and a standing army, which the founding fathers cautioned would lead to tyranny.
So the US became a conflicting mix of sort power and hard power, liberal interventionism and the advocate of a capitalist world order led by the most successful and power capitalist country.
This can go two ways. Either US continues down the republican path of aggregating power, or else the US develops as a strong democracy based on social democracy. I think it unlikely that the US would go directly to democratic socialism (Bernie got his terminology wrong). In this case, the US would still be an "empire" but it could be a good empire based on win-win, as President Xi is now talking about multipolarism.
After the collapse of the USSR, Russia and China would have been happy to join a good American empire that respected its associates rather than dictating to them as vassals or colonies. Use of the USD as the global reserve currency smooths international commerce, as does English as the lingua franca of the empire. International institutions and trade agreement that are balanced could have added to win-win.
While this was an option that was advertised as the intent, behavior revealed a different story, the outline of which is the Wolfowitz doctrine of permanent US global hegemony, by force if necessary.
continued
continuation
It could have been different. But it isn't owing to unfortunate choices. As a result, the unipolar American empire that took over from the British empire post-WWII is already in decline. But I think it could still be salvaged and turned into a good empire presiding over decolonization and the advancement of all, but that would require power-sharing and loss of being the unipolar global hegemon. The US elite is not ready to take that step. So hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Either the US will be come a virtuous world leader and shaper in cooperation with the international community or chaos will continue.
It's pretty clear that this pandemic and ensuing ones, along with climate change, the pace of which seems to be accelerating, require concerted action and a world order based on cooperation rather than competition for scarce resources. The chief question now is whether the US will rise to the occasion and assume leadership based on win-win. Under the present republican system of government, with neoliberalism as the economic model, and a military-industrial complex that feeds on endless conflict, the optimistic scenario seems unlikely in the immediate future, that is, after the coming general election.
The Democratic Party establishment is as deeply entangled as the GOP, and there is no third alternative on the horizon. I am estimating that significant change will not take place until at least 1932, and the direction of change is as yet quite uncertain, with the electorate divided on a vision for America. The promising thing at this point is that the younger generations seem to be socialistic in attitude now according to polling. But what is concerning is that there are few visions on the table now that are inspiring overall.
Russia and China are just not yet in the league of the US and neither is interested in creating an empire, let alone achieving world dominance. Their military spending is very limited in comparison with the US (although that could change). Putin has stated and I take him as honest in this that Russia only interested in Ruskiy Mir, those that share language and cultural tradition. Crimea? Russian to the core and NATO was moving to take the naval base at Sevastopol. Putin had no strategic choice in this.
China's BRI? China is interested in a commercial "empire" that it advertises as win-win in a multipolar world. Same with its ventures in Latin America and Africa. Similarly to Crimea, strategically China had no choice but to act there after being provoked with insurrection and separation. Similarly with Xinjiang and Tibet. States will act with respect to strategic interests. That's not necessarily empire. President XI just announced that the export investment-led economic model is over and now China is focused on a domestic consumption-led model. China needs to do this to take the next step in its development.
While Russia and China are serious challengers of American unipolar global hegemony, neither seeks to be king of the mountain itself or in alliance. They want a multipolar world and would not mind American leadership in it if this is win-win and multipolar, with respect for all nations. This what I would recommend that US policy shoot for. That means dumping liberal interventionism and cutting the military back to national defense. Tulsi Gabbard advocated for this and was marginalized along with Bernie.
end
I remember ten or fifteen years ago an intellectual spokesman for the Chinese government saying something like 'China does not want to be world hegemon. It's very tiring'. I thought to myself 'You say the now ....'
Tom Hickey,
Thank you for your excursus. International relations, as you note, have switched from bipolar, to unipolar, and now to multipolar. The drive to hegemony will still be a problem and likely require force projection at some point. I presume the costs of liberal interventionism can be reduced but I guess not to the level of national defense.
We are at, or in, an inflection point. I think terms like knowledge economy, digital age, etc. are not particularly helpful. It was advances in knowledge (science) that got the industrial revolution going in the first place and, as best I can tell, knowledge is still driving it. The trend seems to be that more and more knowledge is embodied in the forces of production. Dead labor is creating the conditions for liberation from dead labor. The benefits this dynamic are not shared and it appears the injustice inherent in that is becoming clearer. To paraphrase Marx, poverty doesn't result from shortage, but rather exclusion from objective wealth, and we keep producing more and more material wealth.
The Democratic Party's is certainly as entangled with capital as the Republicans! The trend toward U.S. parties becoming more ideological, like the European parties, is going to continue and I suspect it's just a matter of time before a social democratic party appears on the scene. If only Bernie had committed himself to building a social democratic party rather than the party of Bernie 40 years ago...
"It was advances in knowledge (science) that got the industrial revolution going in the first place and, as best I can tell, knowledge is still driving it."
Yes, and now that knowledge is largely digital. Industrial capital is digitizing, e.g., computerization, automation, robotics, 3-D printing, etc., and so it is its output, e.g., devices, driverless vehicles, etc. Experts who analyze this trend say 1) this is just the beginning, you haven't seen anything yet, and 2) it happening a lot faster than you likely realize. This is no longer futurism. It's happening presently.
Another aspect of digitization to consider is its non-rival and non-exclusive aspect, unless goods are made so by artificial means, e.g. monopoly pricing based on intellectual property rights, DRM, legal action, etc. Knowing about the true cost and artificiality, many people now see nothing wrong about digital duplication even though it is illegal. Indeed, many see this as a scam enabling a big rip-off. It's nowhere near as difficult to figure out than a labor-based theory of value and extraction of surplus value.
Change is running much deeper. Genetic engineering and artificial life, climate engineering, AI, surveillance and mind control, healthcare and medicine, and space travel, mining, and settlement are only some of the emergent technology that is being developed. And this is just the outset of a period in which the human limitation is receding owing to technology.
In addition, growth and development have largely been a function of increasing energy availability and decreasing cost. This is a major push now that it is clear that we are poisoning ourselves and planet with the existing technology that relies mostly on hydrocarbons. Breakthroughs are just beginning to be made in alternative energy sources and distribution, and this is will a principle economic field in the future. Harnessing fusion would change everything in ways that are only barely imaginable at this point when combined with other factors that are emerging.
All this will accelerate with the development of AI, quantum computing, etc. We used to say, "the sky is the limit." Now it is not even space.
In addition, the inner frontier is coming into prominence with the scientific study of ancient subjective technology such as meditation. This too will have profound effects. Inner space is much more significant than outer space.
The obstacles will be the vested interest in the status quo, on one hand, and self-imposed limitations on the other. e.g., residual beliefs that were at one time beneficial but have become a drag.
The future is bright if we can get through the tunnel leading to it without blowing ourselves up, both figuratively and literally.
BTW, here is a link to the type of world analysis I was mentioning above applied to China. It is by a retired Indian engineer who is geopolitically and geostrategically savvy. He is also a socialist. It's a three part series. The link is to the first and links are contained in the post to the installments. I am not endorsing all of it, but it is a good example of a proper approach to analytic method that is also synthetic, viewing the parts in terms of a whole.
Post a Comment