|
May 31, 2007
An article on the debate about America as an empire. Is the USA one? I switch between imperial order and hegemony approaches on philosophy.com. Even though I think in terms of empire i am unclear of the distinction between imperial and hegemonic systems.
Nexon and Wright approach this in terms of dynamics or logics of empire and explore the degree to which relations between the United States and other polities have imperial characteristics.They say that:
We argue that ideal-typical empires ... differ from hegemonic and unipolar orders because they combine two features: rule through intermediaries and heterogeneous contracting between imperial cores and constituent political communities. These characteristics constitute ideal-typical empires as a form of political organization with particular network properties. Ideal-typical empires comprise a “rimless” hub-and-spoke system of authority, in which cores are connected to peripheries but peripheries themselves are disconnected—–or segmented—–from one another
They say that when a particular set of relations takes on an imperial cast, a number of important changes occur in the basic dynamics of international politics.
These are spelt out as follows:
First, dynamics of divide-and-rule supplant traditional balance-of-power politics. Imperial control works, in part, by preventing resistance in one periphery from spreading to other peripheries ... Second, the key axis of political relations shift from interstate to intersocietal. Imperial cores exercise rule through local intermediaries over various actors within the domestic sphere of constituent political communities .... Imperial control of particular peripheries also involves local processes of divide and-rule .... Third, empires face specific problems of legitimating their control. Imperial rule involves heterogeneous contracts that specify varied rights and privileges to different peripheries; empires function most effectively when they maintain their authority over extremely diverse audiences who, in turn, place differing demands on imperial authorities.
Nexon and Wright say that if relations between the United States and other polities reflect imperial logics, then American leaders face more distinctive opportunities and challenges than those specified in balance of- power and hegemonic-stability theory. The debate, moreover, calls into question the still-prevalent “states under-anarchy” approach to international politics.
After working through a lot of theory Nexon and Wright say that:
The American-led invasion of Iraq... currently positions the United States in an imperial relationship with that country. The United States negotiates and renegotiates asymmetric contracts with other states—–such as its bargains with Pakistan concerning counterterrorism policy—–that place foreign leaders in the structural location of local intermediaries between U.S. demands and their own domestic constituencies ... Its basing agreements incorporate many of the hallmarks of imperial bargains
The dynamics of empire suggests that imperial expansion is often more the result of pressures in the periphery that
lead to unintended, unanticipated political developments that generate reactions that pull great powers more deeply into the politics of other polities.
|
Gary, I led myself to the conclusion over several posts that empire means unitary foreign policy. The threat to the 'Pax' comes with other political actors (not necessarily nation-states) having independent foreign policies.