The New,
New World Order:
Empire
In the Post-Colonial World

Written by:  Travis Seewald

Abstract:

This essay question asks students to discuss the topic, ‘Is America an Empire’.  The simple answer to that question is, yes.  However, the question is an open one and in this essay, I will describe what kind of empire the United States has become in today’s world.  In a time when political climates are rapidly changing and alliances are made and broken, the meaning of empire has taken on new aspects such as ‘soft power’ and capitalist persuasions.  To examine the aspects of this question, I will explore several theorists including Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri, Emmanuel Todd, Naill Ferguson, and Joseph Nye as they describe empires in the world today.

Definitions:
Empire- an extensive group of states ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state.

Imperialism- a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means.

Introduction:
The lines between empire and imperialism have been blurred by the ways in which the world’s political climate and economy have changed.  New alliances and technologies prevent the silent overthrow of countries any more.  Large armies are proving ineffective as deterrents to other countries leaving only the threat of force in the form of economic sanctions to constrain friends and enemies to conform to the will of powerful nations.  In the aftermath of World War II, the United States emerged as a super power challenged only by the Soviet Union in a binary struggle for power and influence over the rest of the world.  The players have changed and now there are more of them.  Since the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union, the United States was left as the sole superpower without anyone left to challenge its supremacy militarily or economically.  Now the battlefield has changed, and the war is being fought on the economic front for control of the financial markets, natural resources, energy and water supplies not with armies but with political agreements that usually benefit both parties but favor one more heavily than the other. 
Now there are more countries at the negotiation table all competing for a stake in the world market, particularly the world oil market.  Those countries include the United States, the European Union, China, and Japan.  Russia is on the forefront with its vast amount of untapped natural resources.  It however, lacks the infrastructure to capitalize on them as of yet (Todd 2003).  India, as well, is being rapidly industrialized and heavily out-sourced to for immaterial labour in the American and European markets (Ferguson 2004).  Battle for control over these areas happens in the arena of the negotiation table with politicians and corporate executives laying out trade embargos to benefit their particular interests and needs.  Soft power or cultural influence is the name of the game now and who can market it in new hemispheres across the globe. 

Theory & Discussion:
Empire of Globalization & Capitalism:
To begin with, I will explore the economic aspect of the American empire and its influence within the world.  America’s economic empire was given its start at the end of World War II when the rest of the world’s industrial infrastructure was laid to ruin over years of war throughout Europe and Asia.  The United States was in a position to help rebuild these countries to benefit America’s interests, who were, economic interests and to engulf the world with capitalist ideologies instead of communist ones.  The only opposition that the United States faced was communism in the Soviet Union and other outlining regions.  The United States set up military blockades to prevent the spread of communism in Western Europe.  In addition to the military instillations around Eastern European countries the United States also established trade agreements to perpetuate the need for cooperation between countries (Friedberg 1994).  Now that communism has failed and the former Soviet Satellite states are joining up with the European Union capitalism has reached out to countries that it never could have tapped before infecting these countries with the desire to consume without a conscious or an end in sight.
The next step is globalization through capitalistic ideals that support the United States Empire. “Empire is emerging today as the center that supports the globalization of productive networks and casts its widely inclusive net to try to envelope all power relations within its world order.” (Hardt 2000: 20).  Hardt and Negri go on to state that capitalist exploitation has nearly engulfed all of humanity meaning that the Unites States has succeeded in its unspoken and possibly and unrealized goal as well. “Consumerism is no longer an American phenomenon with some spillover effects.  It flourishes and is rooted in Europe, Japan, and numerous other enclaves around the world.” (Schiller 1992: 12).  To go against Max Weber’s argument that capitalism would not flourish in Asian cultures is proven wrong in a study done by Randal Collins in 1997 over the expansion of capitalism in Asian markets, explaining that it was only a matter of time before capitalism in some form would penetrate those markets.  Even though capitalism was thought to be part of, a Christian set of standards and principals it has morphed into a means of conducting business across the globe and has proven to have the ability to adapt to any countries or peoples ideologies.
This expansion of consumerism has raised the level of business dealings in the political and world sphere since one aspect capitalism is it is expansive in nature (Hardt 2000).  Once there is a demand then someone will fill that demand and at the end of the Cold War, American companies were ready to exploit that demand with political influence to open up new markets for American products in markets they were unable to penetrate before the fall of communism. “The commanding role that these corporations play in global economic affairs elevates them, with few exceptions, above the authority of most governments in the world.” (Schiller1992: 7).  This is part of the playing field in the establishing of global empires; creating a demand and then feeding that demand whenever possible.  However, it is a give and take exchange where governments allow American business in to their countries in exchange for cooperation from the United States government in ways that benefit the companies, and the countries they want to exploit (Schiller 1992).  The Third World is no exception, “The governing strata throughout what was once the Third World, with few exceptions, accept the West’s market prescriptions for economic activity and allow, or can do nothing to stop, their countries from being integrated into the world market system.” (Schiller 2-3: 1992).  This desire for governments to conform to capitalist beliefs is also a way for governments to keep their people occupied consuming instead of paying attention to what the government is actually doing if they are violating the human rights of others; almost creating the same apathy that exists in American politics.
With America’s ideals of capitalism spreading throughout the world the stage is set for a parasitic relationship where countries become interdependent in the aspects of the production and consumption of consumer items.  This is where the United States begins to falter and then rebound because the world’s economies are interlinked.  It is in every country’s best interest if the United States continues to consume or other markets will falter as well. “Even a modest reduction in the growth of American consumer demand in the years ahead would have serious consequences for the rest of the global economy, given that nearly 60 percent of the total growth in output since 1995 has come from the United States.” (Ferguson 2004: 290).  The empire is secure even when it hits economic downturns because the economy of one country is now dependant on other countries for stability.  Thus, a new codependence is formed and nurtured.  This can be, in one example, by China purchasing ‘dollar-denominated bonds’ and ’96 billion dollars in U.S. government securities’, to maintain the currency exchange rate in their own country, thus keeping the world economies balanced and the status quo of consumption and a standard of living that they have become accustomed to (Ferguson 2004). 
With the economic empire being maintained to stabilize other countries currency, there is concern that this form of ‘soft power’, or cultural power, of globalization could have its backlashes seen in the form of a lack of infrastructure in the United States to support modes of production that have been moved to other countries. “The U.S. corporate economy, for example, has grown significantly over these years but its global position has weakened.  Domestically, the industrial infrastructure has shrunk markedly while a huge increase in information-using services has largely transformed the nation’s work and jobs.” (Schiller 1992: 2).  Whereas after World War II the United State was the leading industrial power, now the labour jobs have moved to less industrial countries to capitalize on cheaper labour and to begin opening up new markets by introducing these products to these countries.  Now the ability of the American empire to produce its own goods has been diminished because of the shift to an economy that is based on the exchange and sale of information, which is often referred to as ‘immaterial labour’.  Now the empire must rely on other countries to produce its goods which forces trade relations with these countries and they know that corporate interests play a decisive role in the United States government thus they appease these companies.  Peace can therefore be maintained in the interest of the economy and a standard of living that Americans have become accustomed to will spread to other parts of the globe. 
There are other new empires on the horizon and with economic empires’; there is always room for more.  The more industrialized empires there are the more markets there are to exploit and more people to peddle products.  With the formation of the European Union, the United States finally has a counterpart to compete and work with.  However, the E.U. is in a different situation that the United States because it still retained its modes of production but they still pale in comparison to that of China and Japan (Ferguson 2004). “But for the present the European Union comes close to matching U.S. output.” (Ferguson 2004: 228).  Now there is a competition between the two empires being fought by appealing to the nations that produce most of our goods though trade embargos, ‘soft power’, and political favors but not with weapons and nobody gets hurt, they only are exploited.  With the ‘soft power’ relations that already exist with the European countries that make up the E.U., there already exists a homogeneous consumption pattern of the same types of goods.  No matter who has political dominance in the new market regions the United States Empire will benefit from any relations that the E.U. makes with countries that refuse the United States version of consumption.  This leads us to the imperialist intentions of establishing empire through ‘soft power’ relations.

Imperialism and ‘Soft Power’:
Part of the definition that was given for imperialism alludes to the extending of influence through ‘other means’.  As I have discussed in the above argument, the United States, in perpetuating its empire through economic means because capitalism has become the new drive in most societies.  This is, in fact, a slight form of imperialist intentions.  With more and more countries, becoming economically independent power takes on new forms (Nye 1991).  The “proof of power lies not in resources but in the changed behavior of nations.  Thus, what is critical for the United States is not whether it will start the next century as a superpower with the largest supply of resources, but to what extent it will be able to control the political environment and to get other nations to do what it wants…The problem for the United States will be less the rising challenge of another major power than a general diffusion of power.” (Nye 1991: 174, 175).  This is due to the fact that other countries are beginning to be industrialized and others are moving from industrialization to immaterial labour and are also interested in extending their markets to maximize their profits as well.
Now power is becoming soft or ‘soft power’, thus influencing other cultures through cultural and ideological beliefs.  This is carried out by the perpetuation of capitalism instead military means.  However, in today’s political climate where the United States has entered into an unpopular war, upsetting several of its allies the United States ‘soft power’ are waning and the European Union’s ‘soft power’ is growing. “If a state can make its power legitimate in the eyes of others, it will encounter less resistance to its wishes…..If its culture and ideology are attractive, others will more willingly follow….These soft sources of power are becoming more important in world politics today.” (Nye 1990: 182).  However, the products the E.U. consumes and produces are similar to that of the United States; therefore, the companies that produce the same goods in both empires are not suffering because the types of items that are produced and consumed are homogeneous.  In fact, several of them are profiting from the United States’ military involvement in the Iraqi occupation there fore it continues (the military aspect will be discussed further in the next section of this paper).
The type of ‘soft power’ that prevails in the world over was started when the British had a colonial empire.  This takes the shape in the spread of the English language, and with it come the homogenous exchange of ideas and the ability to carry out business in one language other than that of numbers (Schiller 1992).  The ability to speak the language of the dominant empires is an indication that English is the language of business across the globe.  Including the member states of the E.U., students are learning English, “Excluding Britain and Ireland, 92 percent of secondary school students in the E.U. are studying English-nearly three times the number studying French and seven times the number studying German.” (Ferguson 2004: 251). 
This discourse of language links both the E.U. and the U.S. empires to that of an imperialist nature or goal.  Actually running a colony and directly controlling it is costly on the empire at home.  Therefore, it is easier to whip the countries in question into the same modes of production and consumption that you enjoy at home and let the consumption and the maintaining of the economy to keep the relations of governments on the same page with the same interests in mind.  In the imperialist system the ‘conquered can redefine themselves as the conquers’, thus their desire is to maintain the status quo of the current system to keep them at the top of the class system (Todd 2003: 101).  “The stupendous swelling of incomes in the upper layer of American society cannot be explained otherwise than with the imperial model, and the same goes for the sluggish or very slow income growth of the vast majority of the population.” (Todd 2003: 72).  It is true that only a small number of people are benefiting financially from these exchanges; however, when peace between two countries is established for reasons of trade then at least that is a start to understanding and perhaps true peace.  From there, the constant exchange of goods will possibly build good relations between countries that would typically have nothing else in common culturally. 
The E.U. is taking this opportunity to exploit the anti-American sentiment right now by increasing its ‘soft power’ relations with the rest of the world.  This might be unintentional but it is still a by-product of the effects of war, and as mentioned earlier.  If the countries that accept the soft power of the E.U. and open trade, then it is possible that they will accept American goods after the hostile climate of war recedes.  Financial aid to countries in another way this is achieved.  Consequently, the United States Empire is involved in a costly war and therefore the amount of money it can loan to other countries is less than that of the E.U.  “If official aid budgets are adjusted to take account of a variety of relevant factors, it emerges that the combined aid budgets of the EU members are nearly three times larger (than the U.S.).” (Ferguson 2004: 238).  The American Empire has decided to begin to use its military to extend its empire to other areas of the globe and business, in the form of controlling the world’s energy supply.  The E.U. is starting to become a very powerful counterpart and could begin to interfere with the empire of the United States by changing the rules of engagement with developing foreign countries (Ferguson 2004).  However, any conflict that would arise from the two democratic empires, the E.U. and the U.S., would not result in military confrontation.  Democracies do not tend to wage war against one another on the battlefield; it is done diplomatically through trade agreements (Todd 2004).  As I have stated before with the democratization of most of the world, there are few countries left to confront on the battlefield and more to confront on the field of business and with ‘soft power’ relations.  “The process of modernization, urbanization, and increased communication in developing nations has also diffused power from government to private actors.” (Nye 1991: 185).  Giving more power to companies instead of governments to make decisions as to whether or not to become allies with them, the capitalistic systems will replace the governments in making alliances.

Empire through the military:
“Empire, however, denotes something more sophisticated still: the extension of one’s civilization, usually by military force, to rule over other peoples.” (Ferguson 2004: 169).  This, however, has not been the crown jewel of the American Empire controlling countries with our military has proven almost futile.  “The important point is that, except for brief periods, none of the attempted military hegemonies in modern times have succeeded.  No modern state has been able to develop sufficient military power to transform the balance of power into a long-lived hegemony in which one state could dominate the world militarily.” (Nye 1990: 188).  The only time the United States has proven itself or extended itself with its military power is when it is called upon to do so.  This delves into the heart of the aspect of the American empire that Hardt & Negri explain as empire is something that is called upon and asked for by the rest of the world.  “Empire is not born on its own will but rather it is called into being and constituted on the basis of its capacity to resolve conflicts” (Hardt 2000: 15).  The American Empire has done that in several countries around the world.  However, we are entering into a new age where the United States military has almost created a reason for being called into existence with the ‘war on terror’.  I will not capitalize the words ‘War on Terror’ because it is a false war where people are dying to perpetuate a lie and is being fought to control the flow of oil through the democratization of Iraq to turn it into another capitalist market that the rest of the world can exploit for a time.  This is only my speculation and only time will tell if I am right or if the American government/oil industry is right.
This is where the empire starts to show signs of weakness.  In Hardt & Negri’s book, Empire, they state that empire is called into being by necessity.  They also state that, “Empire is formed not on the basis of force itself but on the basis of the capacity to present force as being in the service of right and peace.” (Hardt 2000: 15).  Or the perception of right and peace, as one looks further into the Empire, the reader is subjected to the idea that the empire is the dominate power in the world and should have the right to intervene into other country’s affairs to promote peace, resolve humanitarian disputes, and to guarantee accords between countries (Hardt 2000).  Of course, this book was published before September 11, 2001, and the United States Empire was attacked on its own soil.  Now the empire has been called into existence, it must use its military to resolve an issue that now threatens its own boarders or, so we are told, in the interests of peace in the Middle East.  Hardt & Negri did state that, “The U.S. world police acts not in imperialist interest but in imperial interest.” (Hardt 2000: 180).  Thus, it is establishing its imperial dominance in Middle East through military force.
Keeping that in mind is where Emmanuel Todd debates the usefulness of the American Empire as a force for peace and stability on the world.  Todd’s theory is that the American Empire is in its death throws and is making one last attempt to show that it has what it takes to lead.  Looking at the war on terrorism as being a war on an intangible concept and not a country, the American Empire is proven ineffective and slow to counter the insurgence that it faces.  Declaring a war on a concept instead of a country legitimizes the United States Empire’s involvement all across the globe with the war on terror.  Why is creating this level of instability across the globe necessary when the world was starting to develop its own democracies and starting to conform to capitalism?  Why is America rocking the proverbial boat (Todd 2003)?  His theory correlates with mine.  Since the American Empire has exhausted its ‘soft power’ and its economy has turned to one of the trading of information instead of production, it is now seeking the means to control the energy supply of the countries that are starting to develop in order to play a dominate role in their development and production (Todd 2003).  Even the E.U. is at risk of conforming to America’s will if they are successful however, since relations between the U.S. and the E.U. do exist and they share the same desire for mass consumption of the same products the conflict will be minimal.  “From now on the fundamental strategic objective of the United States will be political control of the world’s resources.” (Todd 2003: 30).  No matter which country the United States Empire upsets with its invasion of Iraq, no one has stopped the U.S., they will have to do business with the U.S., in the future if they are successful in establishing a government in Iraq. 

Summary:
Is American an empire?  The answer is yes.  As I have illustrated the aspects that the United States has proven to be an empire is in the following respects.  Economically, the United States has proven to be a dominant factor in establishing capitalist ideals across the globe.  Through the spread of capitalism, international dependence has grown between countries that would normally not be involved with America.  This interdependence of trading has brought the E.U. from forethought to reality and has proven to be a counterbalance to the American Empire establishing its own trade agreements with fellow countries.  Capitalism has also penetrated former Soviet countries aligning them with the E.U. to open up trade agreements.  However, these trade agreements established with the E.U.’s Empire also benefit the United States Empire because the homogenous consumption of goods.  This is what I meant by the lines of empires are blurred, where it is almost impossible to know which country benefits from the consumption of any product.  The division of ownership in these economic empires is almost evenly divided; 176 of the fortune 500 companies reside in the United States, whereas 166 are in the EU and the remaining 158 are spread throughout the world bringing an interdependence/clashing of empires across the world to compete for their piece of the profits (CNN 2006).  This is where the United States Empire is the strongest and seems able to retain and perpetuate because the government of the United States Empire wants to keep the economy strong and expanding. 
This brings the discussion to the use of the United States ‘soft power’ resources or the acceptance and perpetuation of cultural ideas as a form of social currency.  The form of ‘soft power’ that I am referring to also tied to capitalism.  The spread of the American way of life and standard of living is spreading throughout the world.  Even though the United States Empire is involved in an unpopular war and people are looking to the E.U. as a new counterbalance.  We are all consuming the same type of products and one way or another the American Empire will capitalize on these modes of consumption and ‘soft power’. 
Moving on to the military aspect of the American Empire, it has been cited above that there has not been a military that has been able to sustain the control over another country in recent history.  The United States Empire is not an exception to the rule.  Typically, where the American military goes it rarely stays; aside from the military bases that remain after the end of World War II, and Germany was already a capitalist nation with a strong industrial base before World War II (Todd 2003).  Thus, it did not take long to get the people back into that mode of consumption in the rebuilding of Europe, especially towards one that embraces capitalistic desires.  The United States Empire today is using its military to extend its empire’s control over the natural resources that the developing countries in the region are going to need to compete in the world economy.  This act is similar to colonialism; however, the Untied States Empire never seems to stay where its military has been.  Theoretically, once the region is stabilized the troops will come home and the corporations will cash in on the new markets that have been made available through the expansion of the empire in this way.

Conclusion:
The United States Empire seems to be playing a dangerous game where the winner can take all.  That is not actually the case it is only an illusion.  As I have explained in my theory and discussion section, economic empires are becoming more common and important in the world today because of the way the United States restructured the world after World War II.  The United States Empire is based on the economy; however, the United States government might have difficulties sustaining it.  The economies of world powers move in cycles, when one rises, one falls.  Since the United States lacks colonies to maintain the economy, only real pressure comes from maintaining trade relations with the rest of the world, which, is perpetuated by its ability to maintain its ‘soft power’ and the consumption of goods.  This is the difference in empires today as opposed to the past where countries conquered a region and stayed to control them.  This is not the case today.  The Unites States Empire lacks colonies to maintain, and thus it will never lose any territory.  Where it gains territory is through trade embargos imposed on countries to conform to the wills and desires of the over-capitalist United States Empire. 
Whether this works or not, only time will tell but it has worked in the past and judging from the consumption patterns of the world, it should not be long until every country becomes dependant on one another to survive in a world economy.  This, necessarily, is not a bad thing until one country becomes too powerful and tries to become too controlling over the others with harsh trade embargos.  This is already being done today through quotas that are put on imports and exports into a country.  That will be the day when alliances might be broken and wars could erupt as Emmanuel Todd had pointed out that typically democracies do not seem to ever wage war against one another on the battlefield.  Therefore, I foresee a pattern of cooperation between empires to achieve a common goal: to capitalize on the open market across the world with the backing of their homelands or their empires. 
What I really want to say is that capitalism and the world market are here to stay.  The United States and several countries are all empires in their own right each having some control over the other.  The control lies in the demand for the products that are produced by these market exchanges between countries.  This means that the world economy and empire’s will conform to the desires of the populous that controls the wealth, and the United States Empire is learning that really quickly, so quickly in fact that the rest of the world can not keep up with the greed that is produced from this capitalist empire.  This desire is spreading like a plague and the rest of the world had better get in line with the rest of the industrialized worlds needs or else they will see destruction.  That is what the world saw with Iraq, and no one stopped it.  It is similar to when Hitler started taking over parts of Europe, and no one did any thing.  In this case, it is too late because only Iraq was invaded and the rest of the world continued to consume so every one sat idly by and let it happen because they wanted the latest and greatest product to come out on the market.  There is nothing left.  Start buying land because God is not making more of it.  That is all tonight so buy something on your way home and support the empire, good night and good luck.