Living With the Hegemon: Extending the Empire to New Frontiers

CounterPunch, July 17, 2012

Extending the Empire to new frontiers

Recent wars from Libya to Afghanistan and Pakistan in a region of vast natural wealth and strategic importance highlight a phenomenon as old as humanity. Iraq and Libya had oil, but their leaders were longtime foes of the United States, now the world’s lone hegemon. Saddam Hussein allied with the Soviet Union before its demise, so did Muammar Gaddafi. They both displayed stubbornness. They were ready to drop the American dollar as the oil currency before bigger players like China and India dared. Saddam and Gaddafi ruled with an iron hand state systems that were brittle. They were too independent for their own good.

Saudi Arabia and tiny Arab emirates such as Bahrain and Qatar, on the other hand, are punching above their weight. Wealthy and dictatorial, their rulers accommodate the hegemon’s interests. These rulers sell their oil and amass petrodollars which they spend in vast quantities on weapons and consumer goods from the industrialized world led by the hegemon. Their relationship is far more agreeable.

The hegemon is thus left with states of two more categories of significant kind. In one category is Iran since the 1979 Revolution, Syria since the 1963 Ba’athist coup, and Sudan. The hegemon intervenes seeking to overthrow uncooperative regimes by diplomatic, economic and military means. In the second category are China, Russia and, to a lesser degree, India, where even the world’s lone hegemon has limits. Beyond these categories are the discarded––completely failed entities like Somalia, Ethiopia, Mali, where utterly poor and miserable people live.

The hegemon and satellites have not a care in the world for the welfare of such people, except sending drones or troops from neighboring client states to kill those described as “terrorists.” What desperate poverty and misery lead to has no space within the realm of this thinking.

Plato’s Republic, written around 380 BC, has a dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon about civilized society. They discuss how a society develops from primitive to higher levels of civilization. Trades and occupations multiply and population grows. The next stage of development, according to Socrates, is an increase in wealth that results in war, because an enlarged society wants even more for consumption. Plato’s explanation is fundamental to understanding the causes of war. This is how empires rise, military and economic power being essential to further their aims. A relevant section in the Republic reads:

We shall have to enlarge our state again. Our healthy state is no longer big enough; its size must be enlarged to make room for a multitude of occupations none of which is concerned with necessaries. There will be hunters and fishermen, and there will be artists, sculptors, painters and musicians. There will be poets with their following of reciters, actors, chorus-trainers, and producers; there will be manufacturers of domestic equipment of all sorts, especially those concerned with women’s dress and make-up. 

Nearly two and a half millennia after Plato, Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt offered a Marxist vision of the twenty-first century in their book Empire. Their core argument in the book published in 2001 was that globalization did not mean erosion of sovereignty, but a set of new power relationships in the form of national and supranational institutions like the United Nations, the European Union and the World Trade Organization. According to Negri and Hardt, unlike European imperialism based on the notions of national sovereignty and territorial cohesion, empire now is a concept in the garb of globalization of production, trade and communication. It has no definitive political center and no territorial limits. The concept is all pervading, so the “enemy” must now be someone who poses a threat to the entire system––a “terrorist” entity to be dealt with by force. Written in the mid-1990s, Empire got it right, as subsequent events testify.

The United States occupied “a privileged position in Empire” depicted by Negri and Hardt. Its privileges did not necessarily arise from its “similarities to the old European imperialist powers.” They derived from the assertion of  “American exceptionalism.” From the early days of its formal constitution, the founders of the United States had believed that they were creating “a new Empire with open, expanding frontiers,” where power would be distributed in networks. More than two centuries later, the idea had become global. The presidency of George W. Bush was a powerful militaristic expression of America’s will.

Like terrorism, the term “empire” is often used disparagingly by those on the left and the right. The emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as the two greatest powers after the Second World War offered contrasting models. Advocates of each accused the other of being an empire, meaning a large population comprising many nationalities in distant territories living under subjugation or exploitation.

Different concepts of empire have existed through history. For centuries, the term referred to states that considered themselves successors to the Roman Empire, but later it came to be applied to non-European monarchies such as the Empire of China or the Mughal Empire. Most empires in history came into being as a result of a militarily strong state taking control of weaker ones. The result in each case was an enlarged, more powerful political union, before its eventual decline.

The dissolution of the Soviet bloc in the late 1980s and early 1990s was a blow against the idea of ruling an empire by brute force. Suddenly, the floodgates opened for rapid globalization and expansion of the markets to places that had previously been in the Soviet domain. Capitalism could reach where it had not been before, from newly independent countries in eastern Europe to Soviet-style economies in Asia and Africa. Two decades later, the West was to hit the most serious crisis since the Great Depression. It was brought about by a combination of impudence after the West’s Cold War triumph, false sense of moral superiority and belief in its power to destroy and recreate nations at will.

Norwegian scholar Johan Galtung, regarded as the father of conflict and peace studies, said in 2004 something that is a fitting definition of the term “empire.” He described it as “a system of unequal exchanges between the center and the periphery.” An empire “legitimizes relationships between exploiters and exploited economically, killers and victims militarily, dominators and dominated politically and alienators and alienated culturally.” Galtung observed that the U.S. empire “provides a complete configuration, articulated in a statement by a Pentagon planner.”  The Pentagon planner in question was Lt. Col. Ralph Peters:

The de facto role of the United States Armed Forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing. (Fighting for the Future: Will America Triumph? 1999, 141)

The American defense planner’s confession was as revealing as it was terrifying. Economic interest and cultural domination are interwoven in imperial thinking, driven by its simplistic logic. Imperial powers are expansionist by nature, always inclined to enlarge territories they control. What lies behind their ambition is access to more and more resources––energy, minerals, raw materials and markets to trade. Imperial behavior drives a great power to expand its domain of direct control or influence by military and other means to territories that have resources and a certain cultural symmetry with the center. The greater the cultural symmetry, the better for the hegemon.



One thought on “Living With the Hegemon: Extending the Empire to New Frontiers

  1. Deepak, thank you for your excellent article in “counterpunch”.

    The absolute need to properly diagnose what is actually happening in the disguised evolution of this new, historically unique, and unprecedented, Global Empire is becoming more recognized and addressed by some leading edge thinkers like yourself, Hardt and Negri, Berman, and recently even Francis Fukuyama.

    However, until the ‘framing’ and overt naming of this cancerous DGE (Disguised Globlal Empire) is explicitly called by its correct, accurate, and plain language name, ‘Empire’, and is repeatedly used in public dialogue with average people to educate them, we will have ZERO chance of gaining a broad favorable and popular movement to address this hidden and causal pathology that misuses all the ‘tools’ of government, economics, politics, media, technology, capitalism, etc. for evil (self-serving) purposes rather than good (public and popular) purposes.

    The current Occupy movement has accomplished quite a bit in getting average people to think in terms of the 1% economically oppressing the 99%, but the absence of addressing the real underlying term of ‘Empire’ is continuing to allow the DGE to hide, and worse to ‘frame’ the issue as a matter of how the economy works, how economics works, how government works, and how modernization, politics, capitalism, etc work —- namely that all of these ‘tools’ must be utilized in a modern world, and that there is no specific (and specifically destructive) ‘actor’ or ‘pathogen’ behind the causes of such tools always working to the advantage of the elite, and to the detriment of the many/99%.

    Currently the deluded (and under-educated) ‘Right can easily be recruited to the side of the 1% by simply repeating the mantra that “government is the problem”.

    But average people on the left as well as the right must be educated to the fact that Empire is the problem, not government — just as was the case with the American colonies under the thumb of the British EMPIRE.

    Empire is easily recognized, and universally understood to be bad, and if people are presented — often and repeatedly by emotive presentations — that Empire is the disguised pathology that no politicians, media, or certainly any at the top of the Empire will ever mention, then bringing Empire to the ‘top of mind’ in all discussions will quickly clarify the reality, and most importantly support broad anti-Empire emotional and rational attention to our current dilemma.

    Just continuing to point out that there are many, many, many problems, ‘issues’, problems, and ‘symptoms’ of social ills with the current environment — as is being continually done by Common Dreams, truthdig, Occupy, and many other progressive sources — will never get beyond pointing at the ‘problems’ (like many blind men describing an elephant).

    What is needed is an accurate diagnosis of the causal pathology, the disease, the core of the tumor.

    Until this is done and identified as ‘Empire’, then Zygmunt Bauman’s warning has not been heeded of the essential need to “adequately diagnose” a disease which is guilefully hiding itself (as cancer does):

    As a good doctor would do, we need to seriously consider the insight of Dr. Bauman who
    Morris Berman quotes in his fabulous “Dark Ages America; The Final Phase
    of Empire”:

    As Zygmunt Bauman hauntingly puts it, “In the case of an ailing social
    order, the absence of an adequate diagnosis…is a crucial, perhaps
    decisive, part of the disease.”13

    Berman, Morris (2011-02-07). Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire (p. 22). Norton. Kindle Edition.

    The disease today is Empire, and the lack of an adequate diagnosis of
    this hidden cancerous tumor within our nation, our societies, and our world can best be
    appreciated by a doctor who brings an understanding of looking carefully
    for the diagnosis to “first do no harm” and then to excise the tumor.

    Best luck and love to the “Occupy Empire” educational and revolutionary movement.

    Liberty, democracy, equality, and justice

    Alan MacDonald
    Sanford, Maine

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s