Saturday, May 15, 2004
"The Unipolar Predicament." posted by Richard Seymour
There is nothing quite as appalling as a civilised discussion between apologists for Empire. Here , Robert Kagan and Niall Ferguson trade perspectives and jokes about the subject of America's awesome dominion - the same dominion, in fact, that led Hubert Vedrine to describe America as a "hyperpower" and which, even today, is in the process of attempting to batter down all walls, Chinese walls included. I've reviewed Kagan's book elsewhere , and won't recount its themes in this sitting. However, I'd just like to note a couple of things:1) Niall Ferguson quotes the estimable John Lewis Gaddis, on what constitutes an Empire:
"[A] situation in which a single state shapes the behaviour of others, whether directly or indirectly, partially or completely, by means that can range from the outright use of force through intimidation, dependency, inducements, and even inspiration."
"Empire" says Gaddis, as a time-tested means of pursuing the democratisation of the world. And how, retorts Ferguson, is this different from what America does today? Now, since Ferguson is fully prepared to abide the costs of Empire (as he notes in his book on the topic, if we hadn't done it someone else would have, and they'd have been even more beastly), this should be seen more in the light of trying to waken America to its historic duties and opportunities. It is certainly no rebuke.
2) In response, Kagan horses about for a while, then sobers himself for the solemn announcement that:
In the meantime, whether you call us an empire or a banana, the United States finds itself in a unique predicament. It is the predicament of unipolarity. Unipolarity is, of course, the product of America's extraordinary success as a world power, a success that I would argue far exceeds that of the British Empire...
Could all this success be attributed, as John Gaddis has often suggested, to a form of international grand strategy that is, in fact, superior to "empire"? Might it not be precisely the hesitation to rule and subjugate that has been at the core of Americans' success, the tendency rather to enlist cooperation and inspire others to follow American leadership?
Kagan would still like to avoid using the language of imperialism since, as he suggests in his book, "The United States is a behemoth with a conscience... Americans do not argue, even to themselves, that their actions may be justified by raison d'etat... [T]o the extent that Americans believe in power, they believe it must be a means of advancing the principles of a liberal civilisation and a liberal world order." (Page 41) However, it is difficult to resist a giggle at the notion of America being hesitant "to rule and subjugate" in this conjuncture. Ferguson's cynical reproach that America just doesn't want to spend the money or invest the political capital in a fully committed Empire seems about right.
Kagan's favoured answer to the "predicament" is "hegemony" . Not only that section of the globe's population that "does not benefit from American dominance", but even those "European allies" who do, will have to be comforted, cajoled and persuaded. This is not to mention the American public, whose history of isolationism is not entirely forgotten, and whose apparent readiness to go to war is always manufactured and always conditional. "Nor are Americans likely to be comfortable consistently acting in ways that much of the world, and especially other like-minded peoples, deem illegitimate." Kagan observes.
In highlighting these themes, I just want to compare them with the high minded (and often sanctimonious) appeal to universal values at Harry's Place , Normblog and elsewhere. Here we have two arbiters of Empire, noted intellectuals of the Right, rehabilitating the language of imperialism. Moreover, doing so precisely with recourse to the high-minded idealism of liberal discourse - naturally, we do it because we are virtuous. And naturally enough, just as in the last century millions were prepared to accept the benign intent behind Russia's invasion of everywhere from Hungary to Afghanistan, so in this century there are plenty of fellow travellers of the American Empire, ready to append noble ends to the most vile of deeds and extirpate heresy with lexical flashes of bile and invective. Meanwhile, two urbane, articulate members of the intelligentsia trade e-mails and and catty remarks, and Iraqis are left to teach the Americans the lessons of colonialism past: refuse and resist