Below two thoughtful commentators, Walden Bello, Executive Director of Focus on the Global South, and Immanuel Wallerstein of the Fernand Braudel Center at Binghamton University, both imperial declinists, take up the potential conflict between a world economy and a world military empire, which might seem to be but are not the same. If you want, first of all, to grasp the military side of things, you might take a look at Marco Garrido’s piece, America’s military “imperial perimeter” in Asia Times, which offers a vivid sense of the way, particularly since 9/11, the United States has been garrisoning the planet and hemming in future potential rival powers or combinations of powers. He says in part:
“In the words of one senior official in the Bush administration: ‘On September 11 [2001] we woke up and found ourselves in Central Asia. We found ourselves in Eastern Europe as never before, as the gateway to Central Asia and the Middle East.’ And after Iraq, the US found – or rather, placed – itself in the Middle East. The widening scope of US military deployments configure what one analyst calls an ‘imperial perimeter’ hemming in the aspirations of regional great powers-rivals with the United States for local influence – by projecting US might as preponderant and proximate.
“New bases in the Central Asian republics of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, along with its sizable military presence in Afghanistan, not only enable the US to loom over Iran and Syria but put it right in Russia’s underbelly and at China’s western frontier.”
But, as I’ve long argued, a military empire that has no means other than threat, force, and bribery to bring its allies and dependents into line, that cannot, in essence, be joined, is not an empire for the ages. Bello picks up this theme and runs with it in a piece from the Foreign Policy in Focus website. He makes a cunning conceptual comparison between the Roman and American versions of global rule and also suggests what the United States was able to offer its allies and hold out to its enemies during the Cold War (and after) — multilateralism and liberal democracy — both of which the Bush administration has now taken out of play. I’ve added as well an interesting piece by Franz Schurmann of Pacific News Service who explores in a somewhat different way the Roman/American analogy.
Finally, in one of his bi-monthly commentaries, Immanuel Wallerstein suggests that the “great capitalists” are growing uneasy with the Bush administration’s approach to the global economy. All of the above help remind us of just how radical the Bush administration has actually been in its acts in the world. It has torn apart a way of global life — and of course prepared the way for something new. Tom
Pax Romana versus Pax Americana: Contrasting Strategies of Imperial Management
By Walden Bello
Foreign Policy in Focus
May 12, 2003After its successful invasion of Iraq, the U.S. appears to be at the height of its power. One can understand why many feel the U.S. is supreme and omnipotent. Indeed, this is precisely what Washington wants the world to think.
“New bases in the Central Asian republics of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, along with its sizable military presence in Afghanistan, not only enable the US to loom over Iran and Syria but put it right in Russia’s underbelly and at China’s western frontier.”
But, as I’ve long argued, a military empire that has no means other than threat, force, and bribery to bring its allies and dependents into line, that cannot, in essence, be joined, is not an empire for the ages. Bello picks up this theme and runs with it in a piece from the Foreign Policy in Focus website. He makes a cunning conceptual comparison between the Roman and American versions of global rule and also suggests what the United States was able to offer its allies and hold out to its enemies during the Cold War (and after) — multilateralism and liberal democracy — both of which the Bush administration has now taken out of play. I’ve added as well an interesting piece by Franz Schurmann of Pacific News Service who explores in a somewhat different way the Roman/American analogy.
Finally, in one of his bi-monthly commentaries, Immanuel Wallerstein suggests that the “great capitalists” are growing uneasy with the Bush administration’s approach to the global economy. All of the above help remind us of just how radical the Bush administration has actually been in its acts in the world. It has torn apart a way of global life — and of course prepared the way for something new. Tom
Pax Romana versus Pax Americana: Contrasting Strategies of Imperial Management
By Walden Bello
Foreign Policy in Focus
May 12, 2003After its successful invasion of Iraq, the U.S. appears to be at the height of its power. One can understand why many feel the U.S. is supreme and omnipotent. Indeed, this is precisely what Washington wants the world to think.
No doubt, the U.S. is very powerful militarily. There is good reason to think, however, that it is overextended. In fact, the main strategic result of the occupation of Iraq is to worsen this condition of overextension.
Overextension
Overextension refers to a mismatch between goals and means, with means referring not only to military resources but to political and ideological ones as well. Under the reigning neoconservatives, Washington’s goal is to achieve overwhelming military dominance over any rival or coalition of rivals. This quest for even greater global dominance, however, inevitably generates opposition, and it is in this resistance that we see the roots of overextension….
Walden Bello <[email protected]> is a professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines and executive director of Focus on the Global South (online at www.focusweb.org) where this first appeared and is reprinted by Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org).
To read more Bello click here
Like Ancient Rome, America Shifts From Republic to Empire
By Franz Schurmann
Pacific News Service
May 09, 2003The U.S. victory in Iraq signals the transformation of the American republic into an empire. This development shows many similarities to the emergence of the Augustan empire of Ancient Rome — from the changes in the exercise of executive power to the role of the military.
America’s awesome victory in Iraq has rekindled debate about “American Empire” in intellectual circles. Ordinary people still think of America in far more domestic terms, as the USA of Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA.” Current events and history show that that USA is increasingly a memory as the Republic transforms itself into an Empire.
The notion of the American Empire has been around since Thomas Jefferson’s 1803 “Louisiana Purchase.” The Allied victory in World War II saw articles comparing modern America to the Roman Empire.
This is the first in a series of articles on “The Politics of Empire” by PNS Editor Franz Schurmann ([email protected]), emeritus professor of history and sociology at U.C. Berkeley and author of numerous books.
To read more Schurmann click here
“Empire and the Capitalists”
By Immanuel Wallerstein
Commentary No. 113
May 15, 2003No doubt, George W. Bush thinks he is in the forefront of those sustaining the world capitalist system. No doubt, a large part of the world left thinks that too. But do the great capitalists think so? That is far less clear. A major warning signal has been launched by Morgan Stanley, one of the world’s leading financial investor firms, in their Global Economic Forum. Stephen Roach writes there that a “US-centric world” is unsustainable for the world-economy and bad in particular for the United States. He specifically takes on Robert Kagan, a leading neo-con intellectual, who has been arguing that American hegemony can only increase, particularly vis-a-vis Europe. Roach could not agree less. He sees the present world situation as one of “profound asymmetries” in the world-system, one that cannot last.
What is Roach’s argument? The world has been in a “great disinflation [marvelous euphemism] from 1982 to 2002” – a salutary appraisal so different from the usual crowing about the strength of the U.S. economic position in the world-economy. “And now the unwinding of a new disequilibrium is at hand – the rebalancing of a U.S.-centric world.” Why? First of all because of the “ever-widening disparities in the world’s external accounts.” He says that “as the United States squanders its already depleted national saving” and “as the rest of the world remains on a subpar consumption path,” the situation can only get worse.
Finally, the conclusion: “Can a saving-short US economy continue to finance an ever-widening expansion of its military superiority? My answer is a resounding ‘no.'” What will therefore happen? The “prices of dollar-denominated assets compared to those of non-dollar-denominated assets” must fall, and fall drastically soon. Roach estimates: “a 20% drop in real exchange rates and nearly double that in nominal terms, higher real interest rates, reduced growth in domestic demand, and faster growth overseas.” He ends his piece by saying that “the world is not functioning as a global economy” (so much for the globalization theorists) and that “for a lopsided global economy, a weaker dollar may well be the only way out.”
In short, Roach is arguing that the macho militarism swagger of the Bush regime, the dream of the U.S. hawks to remake the world in their image, is not merely undoable, but distinctly negative from the point of view of large U.S. investors, the audience for whom Roach writes, the customers of Morgan Stanley. Roach is of course absolutely right, and it is noteworthy that this is not being said by some left-wing academic, but by an insider of big capital.
Seen in longer historical perspective, what we are seeing here is the 500-year-old tension in the modern world-system between those who wish to protect the interests of the capitalist strata by ensuring a well-functioning world-economy, with a hegemonic but non-imperial power to guarantee its political underpinnings, and those who wish to transform the world-system into a world-empire. We had three major attempts in the history of the modern world-system to do this: Charles V/Ferdinand II in the sixteenth century, Napoleon in the beginning of the nineteenth century, and Hitler in the middle of the twentieth century. All were magnificently successful – until they fell flat on their faces, when faced by opposition organized by the powers that ultimately became hegemonic – the United Provinces, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Hegemony is not about macho militarism. Hegemony is about economic efficiency, making possible the creation of a world order on terms that will guarantee a smoothly-running world-system in which the hegemonic power becomes the locus of a disproportionate share of capital accumulation. The United States was in that situation from 1945 to circa 1970. But it’s been losing that advantage ever since. And when the U.S. hawks and the Bush regime decided to try to reverse decline by going the world-imperial path, they shot the United States, and U.S.-based large capitalists, in the foot – if not immediately, in a very short future. This is what Roach is warning about, and complaining about.
But doesn’t the Bush regime give these capitalists everything they want – for example, enormous tax rebates? But do they really want them? Not Warren Buffett, not George Soros, not Bill Gates (speaking through his father). They want a stable capitalist system, and Bush is not giving them that. Sooner or later, they will translate their discontent into action. They may already be doing this. This doesn’t mean they will succeed. Bush may get reelected in 2004. He may push his political and economic madness further. He may seek to make his changes irreversible.
But in a capitalist system, there is also the market. The market is not all-powerful, but it is not helpless either. When the dollar collapses, and it will collapse, everything will change geopolitically. For a collapsed dollar is far more significant than an Al-Qaeda attack on the Twin Towers. The U.S. has clearly survived the latter. But it will be a vastly different U.S. once the dollar collapses. The U.S. will no longer be able to live far beyond its means, to consume at the rest of the world’s expense. Americans may begin to feel what countries in the Third World feel when faced by IMF-imposed structural readjustment – a sharp downward thrust of their standard of living.The near bankruptcy of the state governments across the United States even today is a foreshadowing of what is to come. And history will note that, faced with a bad underlying economic situation in the United States, the Bush regime did everything possible to make it far worse.
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at [email protected]; fax: 1-607-777-4315.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]
To read Wallerstein at his site click here