For the last 6 months or so I've been looking at U.S. foreign policiy as an excercise in empire building. It's not like it's anything new in the world...
A colleague of mine made an interesting comment: that this is, in part, an attempt to reassert the nation-state against the rising tide of globalisation. The very nature of globalization requires a global community of consensual governance, which directly threatens the autonomy of the nation-state. And keep in mind that there's a difference between economic globalisation - keeping all markets open and unregulated for the benefit of commerce - and political globalisation - ceeding authority to a community of nations.
The U.S. wants access to and control of global markets without giving up it's authority - hence, empire building. If we become the sole governing body of the global community of nations, then we don't need NATO and we don't need the U.N. We just have to flex our military muscles enough and everyone will back down, right?
However, as noted, this theory is doomed, particularly in light of the world economic situation. Empires need money and they can only siphon it out of corporate multinationals for so long until the well runs dry. Similarly, waging war on multiple fronts is a recipe for further disaster. All empires fall, no matter how strong. Any attempt to exert so much control over inherently chaotic systems will only add more energy to those systems.
Chaos always wins, yeah? |
