A History of Empires

Introducing the latest series by Chirol:

I. Introduction:
Woodrow Wilson famously proclaimed that the world must be made safe for democracy. Almost a century later, with the recognition that democracy is an end and not a means, a reformulation thereof would simply be that the world must be made safe for connectivity. However, what is the best means with which to safeguard connectivity and to ensure that a global and most importantly stable system of interaction is established? The answer is what I will call a “Second Generation Empire” or 2GE for short (to be fully defined later). Additionally, I will argue that empires are at the very least, neutral entities, and at most positive ones, contrary to prevailing criticism from both sides of the political spectrum.

If one is to accept the most basic assumption of realism, namely that there is no world order and that nations exist in the world in a state of anarchy, then a natural corellary is that nations will strive for order and stability. Just as man evolved over time and has consistently imposed an increasing degree of order on nature and human society, so too do nations over time. Thus, historically, empires are rather natural developments in a basic pattern of chaos to order, or instability to stability. Until very recently, this pattern has rather been a regional phenomenon. Though empires of the past have indeed been sizable, some unparalleled such as that of the Mongols or British, a true global order was never on the horizon until today. While nevertheless a tremendous task frought with danger and difficulty, the chance of a truly global Globalization and thereby, world order, is finally here.

However, the word empire in itself is a rather charged word and often used in a derisive manner. Yet, are empires the evil entities they are portrayed as? Despite their lack of perfect behavior, have they not contributed more to global stability and therefore peace than all the liberals of the world combined? Might there be a pattern in the phrases: Pax Romana, Pax Mongolica, Pax Britannia and Pax Americana? Do we notice a recurring word, long the catch phrase of the left? Peace? Empires have consistently fought for, forged and maintained stability throughout history and brought on unparalleled periods of peace, stability, trade, cultural exchange, scientific advancement, innovation and general prosperity. I challenge anyone to find a liberal government anywhere in history that accomplished more for the world than one of the great empires of history. Such an example simply does not exist.

There have been many charges leveled against empires of the past and present. However, what many liberals fail to make clear, is whether it is actual behavior they are condemning or the empire itself. If one is against murder, does he not condemn those who commit it individually instead of his entire family/organization/race/etc? While empires have hardly been armies of angels, their smaller counterparts have hardly been better. Compare for example the violence that the Russian and British pacification and colonization of Central Asia during the 1800s brought on with the practices of the Khanates there. You’ll not find many, if any, examples of the Russians or the British tossing people from towers, gouging out their eyes, keeping them in rat and flea infested underground pits, removing body parts and so forth as the result of policy. While extreme things often happen during battle and the darker side of men sometimes gets the better of them, countries or regions outside the control of empires have hardly had a better track record, if not often a worse one. While the many wars waged by ancient Rome or the Mongol invasions were indeed deadly and caused great suffering and death, the stability, prosperity and the undeniable contribution to human society and development that both empires left did far more good than it did harm. Thus, states’ behavior has been relatively similar throughout history, empire or not.

Empires have always begun in successful states and continued success requires growth. This growth and domestic prosperity then leads the country to seek out new markets to sell their goods to and from which to acquire new goods and raw materials. As interests expand, protecting them only follows logically. In other cases, unruly neighbors are often contained and neutralized, often through war. Traditionally the empires who promoted minimum rule sets won out over those who tried to enforce maximum ones. While the Romans forced their culture on conquered territories, the nomadic Mongols had no strong culture to force on their subjects and they instead enforced only enough laws to maintain stability.

Lastly, there is nothing more crucial to an empire than its strength. Sheer military might is the backbone of its credibility . As the Godfather quote goes, it is better to be feared than loved and when the fear fades, death and destruction are soon to follow. Famous examples as old as the Peloponnesian War in ancient Greece or as recent as the first World war have proven this time and again. Thus, as ComingAnarchy’s battle cry goes, si vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, then prepare for war. Deterrence is the key to peace whether national or international.

As a second generation empire, the United States has a responsibility to itself and the world to maintain peace by maintaining unparalleled military and economic might and not allowing these to wane. The US must spread a minimum rule-set necessary for the continued growth of globalization while remaining in the background. Think small central government and lots of States Rights. Every game needs a Referee and we are it. When translating a document, one must strive to convey the meaning of the original text and fit it correctly into the system or grammar of the foreign language as well as possible, making changes where necessary. Thus,we need to “colonize” rule-sets, not countries. The meaning must remain the same, let the individual details change as necessary.

Most nations playing by the same rules is enough to enforce and propagate them as the European Union for example has shown. We are currently fighting an uphill battle but once we reach the peak, and enough states are involved in globalization, the United States will be able to step back and let things run their course.