Before answering this question, I know that a huge number of Americans would cringe at the very idea that the United States is an empire, or anything involving the concept of Imperialism. Americans, after all, in general, have a distaste for Realpolitik.
However, the reality is that the word ’empire’ does not connote anything negative. World history is the history of empires. Yet can you discuss history whether in the ancient, medieval, modern or any era without coming across the word ’empire’? No you can’t! The word had in fact, in the context of the past, symbolised prestige and glory. Now some may ask whether I am trying to whitewash imperialism and starting pointing out the many crimes of the ‘dirty history’ of imperialism. (One would also notice that their scope of empires would be rather limited, mentioning only European empires, and probably the Ottomans and Japanese. I can forgive them though, for those are the most known empires in recent memory) I know that some empires have dirty histories, talk about the Congo, the slave trade, genocides or the Rape of Nanjing, all malignant, barbarous and regrettable. However, that does not mean that the idea of empire is bad nor should it give that word a negative connotation. That does not discredit empire any more than say, the failings of democracy in some parts of the world should discredit democracy as a concept. It is hilarious.
But why has the word empire developed such a derogatory meaning in the modern context? Politics and ideology. After the First World War, four great empires and dynasties fell: the House of Romanov of the Russian Empire, the House of Habsburg of Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman dynasty of the Ottoman Empire and the House of Hohenzollern of the German Empire, leaving Great Britain’s George V as the only emperor in Europe (As Emperor of India) left after the war. American President Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic idea of Self-determination, as articulated in his Fourteen Points, also did much to delegitimise the concept of empire.
127 our experts are availableright now
After the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the two most powerful countries on the planet. The Japanese, German and Italian empires were defeated badly. The other European empires – Great Britain, France, the Netherlands etc were badly weakened and humiliated during the war. The two new superpowers were both ideologically against the idea of imperialism, even if their behaviour was little different from that of other great powers. The Cold War could be said to be a more global and ideological version of the The Great Game (or the Tournament of Shadows as the Russians called it), a geopolitical rivalry between the British and Russian Empires in the nineteenth century. During the Cold War, both superpowers chanted the call for ‘freedom’, while using ’empire’ as a derogatory term to insult each other. Just take Ronald Reagan’s ‘Evil empire’ speech for instance.
First, what makes up an empire?
According to the New Oxford American dictionary, the definition of empire is ‘an extensive group of states under a single supreme authority, formerly esp. an emperor or an empress’.
Does the United States fit this definition? Have different empires in history fit this definition?
The United States can be said to be an ‘extensive group of states’ considering its 50 states, and if one looks at the territorial evolution of the United States, he would notice how 13 states turned into 50, as well as territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and even for a period the Philippines. American control over these territories, which for the most was never relinquished, may qualify it as an ’empire’. Of course, this would also apply to other great powers such as China (Tibet, Xinjiang, Manchuria etc) and Russia (Siberia, the Caucasus, etc). A huge number of possessions is almost always the case when referring to empires, though that is not always the case. The short-lived Korean Empire for example, only spans the territory of modern-day North and South Korea, did not expand its territory at all and was actually on the verge of getting annexed by Japan.
One must also consider territory not under nominal American sovereignty, but instead under American hegemony or a sphere of influence. NATO for example, is a de facto US-led alliance and its policy is directed by the United States. That is comparable to colonial protectorates like Zanzibar (Britain), Tunisia (France), the princely states of the British Raj or Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. The United States also has a hegemonic role in other parts of the world, most notably in the Western Hemisphere, which was proclaimed as an American sphere of influence under the Monroe Doctrine. It was enforced – European countries such as France, Great Britain, Germany and the Soviet Union which tried to exert influence in the Americas were not tolerated by Washington (French intervention in Mexico, Venezuelan crisis of 1902–03, Cuban Missile Crisis, Invasion of Grenada etc)
‘under a supreme authority’ is much harder. The United States is a federation and the central government in Washington does not have supreme authority. However, it must be noted that there were other empires in history that had federal or democratic structures, such as the Athenian Empire, the Roman Empire, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the British Empire. Most empires in history however, were autocratic and authoritarian in nature, such as the Ottoman, Russian, Chinese, Spanish and Persian. That is not all surprising however, as for most of history, that was the norm. The political system of the United States, or any other country, does not disqualify it from being an ’empire’.
A country ‘ruled by an emperor or empress’ is technically an empire. An empire is to an emperor what a kingdom is to a king, what a duchy is to a duke, or what a sultanate is to a sultan and so on. Countries ruled by emperors or empresses have traditionally styled themselves ’empires’, such as the Korean Empire mentioned above or the Empire of Brazil whose borders differ little from Brazil today. The Roman and French Republic became styled as ’empires’ when they had an emperor, Augustus and Napoleon respectively. However, most would agree that this is flawed. By this definition, the Netherlands was never an empire, Spain was never an empire after Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, and Great Britain until 1876. It would also mean that Ethiopia and Iran were empires till the 1970s and Japan is today still an empire.
However, this is far from being the only definition of that word. According to Wikipedia:
‘An empire is defined as ‘an aggregate of nations or people ruled over by an emperor or other powerful sovereign or government, usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire or Roman Empire.’ [1] (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, Portland House, New York, 1989, p. 468.) An empire can be made solely of contiguous territories such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or of territories far remote from the homeland, such as a colonial empire.’
The United States does not have an emperor, and its constitutional Separation of powers would not allow for an extremely powerful central government and executive. However, as American power and prestige abroad increased, so did the power of the federal government, especially the executive branch of the government. This should come as no surprise, as the United States’ dominant role in the world would put immense pressure and responsibility on the White House.
American Presidents since 1945 have been tasked with important decision-making, and his influence is global. That was not the case before President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when the United States was a much weaker force in global affairs outside the Western Hemisphere, and the executive was much weaker relative to the other branches of government. Only a few pre-WWII Presidents, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, played a major role in international affairs. The United States was after all, for the most part before WWII ambivalent in regards to foreign policy, and in principle, believed not in traditional concepts like the national interest and power politics, but instead in ‘universal values’ and American exceptionalism, rejecting notions of imperialism. That is of course only in principle. However, the actions, behaviour and course taken by a state (or even individuals for that matter) are determined not by principle, but circumstances and interests.
An empire, in the general sense, is larger than a kingdom. However, as noted earlier, this can be highly flawed. Small kingdoms of republics can form empires. The list includes the Athenian, Venetian and Dutch republics, as well as kingdoms such as Castile, Portugal, France and England.
The United States has territory on many corners of the planet. It could be said to be a far-flung empire. The global reach of the United States had in history rivaled by arguably only the Mongol and British Empires. This includes not only nominal territory under American sovereignty, but also foreign military bases and spheres of influence.
Also note:
‘An imperial political structure can be established and maintained in two ways: (i) as a territorial empire of direct conquest and control with force or (ii) as a coercive, hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power. The former method provides greater tribute and direct political control, yet limits further expansion because it absorbs military forces to fixed garrisons. The latter method provides less tribute and indirect control, but avails military forces for further expansion.’
It appears to me that the United States belongs to the former in its early days, while today it belongs to the latter. I suppose it has more to do with the evolution of the country from a ‘rising power’ to the ranks of an ‘established power’. A rising power seeks to adjust the international order to its favour, with force if necessary. (‘War is a continuation of politics by other means.’-Carl von Clausewitz) An established power is a status quo power in most matters. The United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries was a rising power while in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, it is only an established power, but the most powerful nation on Earth.
The United States’ evolution into the ranks of an established power is also rather interesting. Heard of the Thucydides Trap? In the words of Thucydides, ‘It was the rise of Athens and the fear this inspired in Sparta which made (the Peloponnesian) war inevitable.’ The United States was able to displace the British Empire as the world’s premier power without engaging in direct confrontation against it. Instead, the United States relied heavily on her economic prowess to become a superpower after the Second World War. George Severn’s answer to Was WWII a historical gift to the USA since it lifted the USA out of the Depression to become an economic superpower in only four years?
What are the arguments against the motion ‘The United States is an empire.’?
‘The United States is nothing like the British, French or Japanese Empires.’
Similarly, the above empires were also nothing like the Roman, Persian, or Aztec Empires. Indeed, the United States is a very different form of empire, when compared to its counterparts in the past centuries. It is undoubtedly an empire of a different era, so much so that it doesn’t even call itself one.
‘The United States is a republic.’
Like mentioned earlier, many republics were empires. Those included Athens, Venice, the Netherlands and France. Republicanism did not disqualify any of them, neither does it disqualify the United States.
Americans in general, nevertheless, would still scorn at the very idea of an ‘American Empire’. Aside from the way ’empire’ is used in a rather derogatory manner in the modern context, a lot of this has to do with American exceptionalism. Americans are proud of their ‘exceptional’ status, sometimes even to the point of supercilious. Americans dislike being associated with other great powers in history as just ‘another great power’. They like to be seen as ‘acting for all mankind’, not for ‘selfish national interest’. As Henry A. Kissinger brilliantly put it in his book World Order, ‘Imbued with the conviction that its course would shape the destiny of mankind, America has, over its history, played a paradoxical role in world order: it expanded across a continent in the name of Manifest Destiny while abjuring any imperial designs; exerted a decisive influence on momentous events while disclaiming any motivation of national interest; and became a superpower while disavowing any intention to conduct power politics.
America’s foreign policy has reflected the conviction that its domestic principles were self-evidently universal and their application at all times salutary; that the real challenge of American engagement abroad was not foreign policy in the traditional sense but a project of spreading values that it believed all other peoples aspired to replicate.’
So, is the United States an empire? In the end, the answer appears to boil down to your own interpretation and definition of the word ’empire’, as well as your take or stand on geopolitics. There is no definite answer.
