As we approach the second anniversary of the terror attacks on New York City and Washington D.C., beyond the remembrance of the victims, there is the question being asked around the world. Is America, in part spurred by September 11, in transition from a Republic to an Empire? And can Canada survive the transition?
Two years and two wars after September 11, the relationship of the United States to the rest of the world has been transformed. Armed with a military whose budget constitutes nearly half the military spending in the world, and a doctrine of pre-emptive war that was put into effect in Iraq, the Bush administration has dispensed with the fiction that the United States is no more than "first among equals" in the ranks of the world’s democracies. Almost as shocking, leading American thinkers and their acolytes in other countries, are speaking openly of the existence of an American Empire, and doing so in approving terms.
At the end of the Cold War, the fashionable discourse was about the End of History and the Borderless World. Now the question of the hour is whether or not we should welcome the existence of an American Empire. In his new book, Empire Lite, Canadian global analyst Michael Ignatieff advocates a lengthy occupation of Iraq by the Americans and the British. He concludes that "the only form of empire that is compatible with democracy is temporary empire, but it is empire nonetheless." Similarly, in his highly acclaimed book, Empire, British historian Niall Ferguson sings the praises of the British Empire and recommends it as a model for Americans to follow. The obvious lesson of the British experience, according to Ferguson, is that "the most successful economy in the world….can do a very great deal to impose its preferred values on less technologically advanced societies….the Americans have taken our old role without yet facing the fact that an empire comes with it."
American ideologues and geo-strategists are also stepping forward to make the case for the American Empire. Among these are Zbigniew Brzezinski and Joseph S. Nye Jr. A number of key thinkers and political actors, who are closely tied to the Bush administration---including Robert Kagan, William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz----have authored a body of work that presents strategies for the United States to preserve its status as the world’s hegemonic power.
Throughout the ages, and it is no different with the Americans today, the rationale for imperial rule has rested on the claim of a particular leader or people that he and they represent the forces of civilization against the forces of barbarism. In the final analysis, George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified on this basis. Closely related to the notion of civilization versus barbarism is the recurrent idea that some peoples are naturally suited to self government and democracy while others are not, and that it is the right of the former peoples to rule the latter. The British, and not just Rudyard Kipling, were fond of making this case to underwrite their claim that they ruled an ethical empire.
Enthusiasts for its global sway make the case that the United States is a populist democracy that is endowed with a culture that is uniquely attractive to the peoples of the world. People everywhere, so it is said, love American movies, television, music and clothes and aspire to live the way Americans live, in a competitive capitalist economy where merit and ambition are rewarded.
Those who are attracted by the idea that the Americans have a "civilizing mission" to perform in the world ought to pay heed to the fate of earlier empires that took up this vocation.
The consequence of Rome’s militarism and its conquests was the undoing of the Roman Republic in the first century B.C. and its replacement by the Roman Empire. An argument that defenders of the American Empire regularly make is that because the United States is a democracy in which the rule of law and human rights are unshakably embedded, the U.S. can be counted on to promote these practices and values in the countries it dominates. What they rarely consider is the corroding effect that empire can have, is already having, on American democracy. As in the case of Rome the existence of an American Empire has been altering the nature of the American state and the balance of power between its ruling elites and the American people. The interests, corporate and military, that engorge themselves and grow stronger as a consequence of empire, also hollow away the body and the sinews of American democracy. Far from extending democracy, the rule of law and human rights to others, the American Empire weakens those features of American society at home.
The rise of Rome’s sway over much of the Mediterranean fatally upset the Roman State and its governing arrangements. This led to decades of political turmoil and civil war and ultimately the demise of the Roman Republic. While the transition from Republic to Empire was underway, there was scarcely any awareness of this among Rome’s thinkers and political leaders. Indeed, Augustus, the first emperor, shrewdly cloaked his new imperial state in the claim that he had restored the Republic.
Is America sleep-walking through a similar transition today?
The question has sharp relevance for Canadians who urgently need to re-think how to live next door to the supernova to the south. The traditional Canadian strategy---- muddling through and attempting to offset naked American power by encouraging multilateralism---lies in tatters. Sustaining Canadian sovereignty will require clear thinking and the exercise of considerable political will. What makes the exercise worthwhile is that the large majority of Canadians want Canada to survive as an independent country with its own political values and its own social system.
If we listen to our home grown continentalists, we would believe that any assertion of Canadian sovereignty would mean economic disaster for Canada---that the Americans would retaliate against us. What is completely ignored in this counsel of helplessness is that American interests are deeply entrenched in Canada because it is hugely profitable for them to be here. Our freedom of maneuver---as we showed in the decision to stay out of the Iraq war---is much greater than our timorous elites imagine.
The lesson of history teaches that nations outlive empires. During the centuries of our national story, we have survived the decline and fall of the French and British Empires. What destroys empires is imperial overstretch, the unwillingness of rulers to understand the limitations of their sway. That is the likely fate of the American Empire in the 21st century. With judicious realism, Canada has every prospect of surviving as a country and not merely as a geographical expression.
No comments:
Post a Comment