America – The World's Next Great Empire

by Franz Schurmann

01 February 2002

Through NATO, through its dominance of global trade groups, and through a "war on terrorism" that is bringing its military to every corner of the Earth, America is fast becoming the world's next empire. More than the world's solo superpower, the United States is fast becoming a world empire.

Since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great 25 centuries ago, there have only been one or two dozen major and lasting empires. An empire is a political entity that rules over diverse peoples and territories. Its power is based on an awesome military, and it is led by an emperor. Both "empire" and "emperor" come from the same Latin root, "imperare," meaning "to command."

Just as the British Empire – the most recent empire on the world stage – ruled the seas and world trade, so does America. America's military forces are now almost everywhere in the world. Despite recession, it remains the heart and core of the world economy.

America created and dominates the World Trade Organization (WTO). It created and dominates NATO. Its military allies such as Turkey, Egypt, Japan and many others are armed with American weapons and organized along American lines.

The imperial state emits an aura of a religious or law-giving character. The British Empire emitted a law-giving force that even now continues to operate in the new lands that emerged from it. America's aura is not so much about law as values. American values in almost every sphere of individual and social life have spread throughout the world.

The citizens of an empire are not always comfortable with their role. In 1857, Indian troops rebelled against their British masters. British troops crushed the rebellion, giving rise to a great debate in England about whether Britain should take the imperial route. In 1877, the conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli won out over his liberal critic William Gladstone, giving Queen Victoria the title "Empress of India."

America's expansionism began with the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, then a century ago moved into Latin America and East Asia and became quasi global after World War II. An ongoing debate similar to that in England a century and a half ago erupted in the United States right after victory in 1945. In general, left and right both opposed getting involved in foreign ventures. Moderates did not. In the last presidential election, both the progressive Nader and the nationalist Buchanan opposed globalism, while Bush and Gore supported it.

Immediately after Sept. 11, President Bush, a moderate conservative, fingered the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan as rebels against the world. Three months later they were crushed. Only a short time ago it seemed America could not gather up the fruits of its victory. It had not captured or killed Osama Bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Russia had the power edge in Kabul because it had been the chief backer of the Northern Alliance.

But then Bush fought back and succeeded in outflanking the Northern Alliance in Kabul, though Russian power remains in Afghanistan's north and Iranian in its west. Secretary of State Colin Powell, a master coalition builder with his soft-spoken manner, set the stage for the Tokyo conference on aid to Afghanistan. Not since America's Marshall Plan of 1946 has the world seen such a large-scale commitment to rebuilding a war-torn country. Because Russia has no money it found itself outflanked for a second time.

When Bush delivered his recent State of the Union address, interim Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai sat next to Laura Bush.

Victoria was both Queen of England and Empress of India. Has Bush now also become commander in chief of Afghanistan? The answer is yes.

A day before his speech, Bush said in Karzai's presence that America would train Afghan military and police forces. The commander in chief designates the civilian leader of every soldier, sailor or flyer in modern republics. Karzai's presence when Bush announced the program implies he accepts putting the new Afghan forces under American control.

Other nations have recognized the new empire-in-the-making. The Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram of Jan. 21 noted remarks made by a top Chinese general during a recent visit to China by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. In an editorial entitled "world hegemony," General Fu Quangyou's words are summarized as follows:

"America is using the war on terror to gain world hegemony. Though China is relatively silent on the subject, it has made clear its worry about America's military penetration of Central Asia, specifically building air bases in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan and stationing troops in Tajikistan. All three border on China."

High Russian officials too have voiced strong criticism of America's entry into a region that used to be part of the defunct Soviet Union. And they are even more critical of American's persistent pushing of "NATO expansion."

A hegemon is one who rules over other rulers. Cyrus the Great was a hegemon who ruled over nations from modern Tunisia in the west and Central Asia in the east. In Old Persian, rulers of these countries were called "khshatra-pavan," governors. The Greeks shortened the word into "satrap," with its contemptuous connotation of "subordinate ruler."

In the January issue of the Atlantic Monthly, foreign policy experts Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne write: "For more than 50 years American foreign policy has sought to prevent the emergence of other great powers – a strategy that has proved burdensome, futile and increasingly risky." They argue for pullback.

But the events of late January 2002 suggest that the American Empire has become a reality that will not pull back. And the leaders of the world may be turning into so many satraps of this newest empire.

PNS Editor Franz Schurmann (fschurmann@pacificnews.org), emeritus professor at UC Berkeley, has long written on the rising American Empire, especially in his book, The Logic of World Power (Pantheon, 1974).