Thursday, March 15, 2012

America: An Empire?

I participated in a very lively debate yesterday during my Introduction to World Politics course about the question of whether the United States can be characterized as an empire or not; the alternative being a hegemonic power. Several students took either position, citing examples as far reaching as the war in Iraq to McDonald's in East Asia to bolster their positions. The consensus settled on by the class, which coincides with my personal opinion, is that America cannot be described as an empire in the classical sense of the word but nevertheless acts with imperialistic tendencies in its foreign policy.

In order to truly break down the debate on both sides, one must first define what is meant by the term empire. In the traditional usage of the word, empire implies certain criteria that set it apart from other similar political systems. First and foremost, an empire has a spatial component to it: a territorial empire must span a conquered geographic area in which certain territories are peripheral to a core geographic area where political and economic power reside. Secondly, an empire explicitly wields political and economic power over the territories which it governs.

Colonial empires such as the British or Ottoman all had explicitly territorial ambitions. These were formal political systems in which several nations submitted to the political rule of another, more powerful nation; most often in pursuit of economic benefit. In September 2004, then U.S. Secretary of Defense stated that the United States was not imperialistic and never had been. I believe that the majority of US citizens would agree that the United States is not an empire and does not seek to become a territorial power. Being the undisputed hegemon of the world, the US does have to answer whether its activities have imperial overtones, and whether in fact the US is a new kind of empire.

Borders: What are they and why do they matter?

The whole rational of a nation-state is traditionally defined territorial. The borders of nation-states are not etched into the earth nor are they immutable. These borders are the process of several centuries of war, negotiation, and migration. 

Nations are a specific population of people, irrespective of geographic location, who share common historical, cultural, and linguistic traits. Nations, therefore, are defined as people and not the space they occupy. For example, any talk of the Romanian nation must by definition include the large diaspora of Romanians scattered throughout Europe regardless of where they reside. 

States are defined as the entity with a certain territorial boundary that exercises sovereignty over that specific geographic area. Therefore, the concept of a state is very much bound to the element of physical space, where as a nation is not. In order to define which nation exercises legitimacy over a geographic area, the concept of boundaries is indispensable. 

The question is, how is the physical space a certain group of people can claim right to govern allocated amongst nations and how much of this is a political process? It is my view that boundaries between states represents a monopoly of violence by the states themselves. The very concept of a boundary implies separation between two self-distinguished groups of people who cannot occupy the same space under the same set of laws. In carving out these boundaries, it is necessary for a state to use violence to maintain its right to rule the land it sees as its own.

Borders are made to keep others out and to keep some in. Any attempt to breach this nearly universally recognized right is met with detention, prosecution, and often physical violence. Borders serve to delineate the difference between "us" and "them". Any cross border action, even should it be beneficial and compassionate, can only take place with the consent of the states. It is possible, therefore, for a state to perpetrate extreme crimes against humanity within its own borders and legitimately claim that other states have no right to intervene. 

In the realist narrative, nation-states are the fundamental building blocks of the international system. What happens within the borders of a state is its own affair according to Westphalian theory. In a liberal institutionalist point of view, however, the state itself is not as important as the nation(s) within it and the political legitimacy the state has to rule them. Liberal institutionalists are much more likely to support transnational and supranational entities that in some aspects partially deconstruct state borders.

Not all borders are created equal, and the openness of borders shows the exact degree to which people who inhabit one region are considered to be irreconcilable with those living in another. For example, the US-Canadian border is extremely porous, while the US-Mexico border is heavily militarized. The clearly shows the mentality that an American and a Canadian are much closer in identity that an American and a Mexican. Any attempt by a Mexican to cross into a the US unsanctioned will be met with violence. In this way, the state legitimately claims a monopoly on violence and a right to use it against human beings who live just a few miles beyond its borders.

Another example is that of Europe. The so-called Schengen zone, which consists of most countries within the eurozone, is made up of borders that are practically non-existant. One can freely travel between states with absolutely no violence involved in the process. The boundary between Europe and Africa, however, is very heavily guarded against penetration. 

Clearly, there is a political aspect to the demarcation of boundaries between nation-states and the right of individuals to move themselves into certain physical locations. Many people in the world are free to move as they wish to all corners of the globe with no fear of violence in the process. Others are not able to move even outside of their cities without fear of persecution. Boundaries exist to maintain a status quo between nations politically, economically, and socially. In order to build a truly progressive global society, the nation-state must become less relevant and boundaries must be at least partially dissolved. 

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Why the US must not go to War with Iran

Today, Prime Minister Cameron announced he would stand with the Obama administration in urging Israel not to launch a military strike on Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu responded by declaring that the possibility of an Israeli offensive against Iran is currently very low. All nations, however, remain committed to deterring Iran from enriching it's nuclear program and gaining access to nuclear weapons.

The rhetoric surrounding this issue has been quite alarming in recent weeks. The US currently imposes heavy sanctions against Iran in an attempt to halt it's nuclear programs. The strict limitations against investing in Iranian industries and trading with Iranian companies has severely damaged the economy of Iran at the level of its working class but has done little to change the position of the regime.

The threat of the hated West ganging up with their archnemesis Israel is creating all the more incentive for Iran to plow ahead with its nuclear initiative in order to acquire a nuclear bomb. Nuclear nations are seen as global strategic players in the modern era of international security, and Iran no doubt seeks to use this leverage to push the West out of its affairs. Already, the country is surrounded by Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey (all staunch US allies) and US troops stationed in Afghanistan.

This is a defining moment for the Middle East as the Arab Spring continues to cut its bloody course through the Fertile Crescent. As Iran sees regimes toppling left and right around it, it will start to feel more and more vulnerable to threats. It already has a shaky history with the US, who opposed the Ayatollah regime in the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980's.

The Israeli push for a military strike against Iran could potentially result in a war that would claim thousands of lives on both sides and end up exacerbating the already fragile state of the Middle East. There is even a potential for nuclear war should ethnic and religious tensions come to a boiling point. This is one instance where the US needs far-sighted political leadership and not a blind support of Jerusalem in order to help maintain stability in a volatile region. It will be detrimental for all parties involved if US politicians stir up a war just to win an election cycle.