The Geopolitics of Empire

A modernist concept that is deeply anachronistic is that liberal democracy, non-interventionism, and sovereign independence of nations are the natural end states of humanity. It is a reinterpretation of the Whiggish teleology of the 19th century, and many believe that democratic governance and stability will spread throughout the world until peace is achieved. However, this negates both the essentials of human nature and the empirical evidence of history. Contrary to what many think, empires are not truly in the past as there are people alive today who were born into empires. Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980 from the United Kingdom, Djibouti gained independence from France in 1977, and Portugal granted Angola independence in 1975. Empires exist within recent memory and still exist today, and analysts should not think that there is some telos of humanity that means imperialism is over.

Why Empires Exist

Every civilization has had empires, with at least 50 empires existing in history. Ancient civilizations like the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians all had empires in the Middle East, and after Islam spread, various caliphates would act similarly, such as the Abbasid, Umayyad, and Safavid empires. In Africa, there were the empires of Mali, Abyssinia, and Zulus while in the Americas there were the Aztecs and Incas. Across Asia empires existed, including the Hunnic, Mongol, and Japanese in central and east Asia, and in the subcontinent, there were the Gupta, Kushan, and Mughal empires. Europe had fewer empires directly on the continent because of geopolitical choices to keep several weak powers as balancers, but the Habsburgs effectively took over most of the continent. Figures like Napoleon and Hitler also seriously tried. However, Europe would change imperialism by creating global empires, conquering peoples and nations across the world.

A critical reason that every civilization, culture, and religion has produced empires is because all governments seek to maximize their security against threats, and the best mechanism to do that is through acquiring power. Historically, territory provided that power through better access to trade and resources along with strategic locations giving the government the best chance of survival and protecting their interests. The other main reason is that human nature seeks domination, so any leader with power seeks to dominate those around them. Augustine of Hippo referred to this as the libido dominandi, or human’s “lust to dominate.” Thomas Hobbes summarized the issue thusly, “So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel: First, Competition; Secondly, Dissidence; Thirdly, Glory. The first, maketh men invade for Gain; the second, for Safety; and the third, for Reputation” (Leviathan, ch. 13).

As all other governments seek domination either for the purposes of security or domination, the only choice for other governments is to do the same. Therefore, empires typically had a stabilizing influence on the regions in which they existed (though far from always… the Belgium empire caused nothing but disaster for the people of Africa). For example, the henotheistic governance structure of the Sumerian city states provided tremendous durability for their civilization four thousand years ago, and many other empires since then have similarly contributed to balance (see Adam Watson’s The Evolution of International Society). The two greatest empires in history were the Roman and British versions because of the extraordinary benefits they brought to their subjects. Rome ended multiple threats throughout the Mediterranean (including pirates and terrorists) while spreading economic and cultural development. Britain similarly brought stability globally by acting as an offshore balancer against other empires like France, Russia, and the Ottomans. They spread markets that significantly advanced economies, protected global trade, brought the rule of law and institutions, and imposed regional stability at the invitation of local rulers. Not to mention the British Empire ended the Atlantic slave trade.

(See Nigel Biggar’s Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning for a fuller exploration of the British Empire’s costs and benefits. Mary Beard’s SPQR and Boardman, Griffin, and Murray’s The Oxford History of the Roman World for a look at the Roman Empire.)

Side note: The Mongol Empire deserves an honorable mention as another power that brought trade and exchange because of the enforced stability.

Hegemony as the New Empire

Imperialism started dying out after World War II due to governments being bankrupt and many nationalists seeking self-determination. What took its place was a pursuit of hegemony. These related concepts both involve dominance and control by one entity over others for the purposes of security and stability. However, they operate in slightly different contexts and manners. While both hegemony and imperialism involve one state or group exercising control or influence over others, hegemony focuses on using political, economic, military, or cultural tools rather than direct control. In hegemony, autonomy of countries can also be limited through international institutions and treaties, such as only five countries having veto authority on the UN Security Council. Most importantly, though, both can have significant impacts on global or regional stability and relationships. They shape the geopolitical landscape by establishing spheres of influence (hegemony) or direct control (empire).

Yet the differences are myriad. Imperialism typically involves direct control over another country or territory, often through colonization or annexation. It is characterized by the physical occupation and administration of the acquired territories. Empires also established their own governments and systems. On the other hand, hegemony often involves indirect control where the dominant state influences or coerces other states to align with its policies and interests via bribery (e.g., foreign/military aid), other inducements (e.g., trade deals), and shared values (e.g., democracy). It relies more on cultural, economic, and diplomatic power rather than military occupation (what Walter Russell Mead referred to as “sticky” and “sharp” power in juxtaposition to hard and soft power).

Most great powers today seek regional or global hegemony, essentially emulating empires of yore. The United States established the rules based international order and spread its footprint globally at the behest of local leaders who needed assistance on issues like terrorism and communism. America is not the only country to pursue hegemony today. Regionally, this includes Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, African Union, Brazil, and others. Globally, Russia, China, and the EU have all challenged American hegemony (militarily, politically, and/or economically), though not entirely successfully.

America’s Liberal Empire

Because the United States is the only current global hegemon, it is important to understand the nature of its modern “liberal empire.” America has attempted to use its hegemony to spread free markets, democracy, human rights, end regional wars, and promote stability. As such, US hegemony has had several benefits, both for the Republic and for the international community. To start, the US took on the role of offshore balancer that Britain had during the 19th and 20th centuries. The presence of these dominant powers acted as a deterrent against large-scale conflicts, such as the prevention of another land war in Europe during the Cold War against the Soviet Union. In the 21st century, US military strength and its network of alliances (e.g., NATO or treaty alliances with Australia, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand) have contributed to a relatively stable international order, preventing major wars between great powers. The US has also led global efforts to combat transnational terrorism through security assistance and intelligence sharing with countries in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia.

Besides military benefits, US hegemony spread economic, political, and cultural benefits. America’s promotion of free trade facilitated economic growth everywhere, and the creation of institutions like the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and various free trade agreements have helped increase prosperity and integrate economies. Foreign aid programs spurred development in many parts of the world. American investment in infrastructure, technology, and education had a long-lasting positive impact on global development as well. Relatedly, the US has been at the forefront of technological innovation, which has benefited the world; innovations in information technology, medicine, and science improved the lives of billions of people. Democratic governance and human rights have also been promoted by the US, but one of the most effective impacts of US hegemony is disaster relief . The US often leads international efforts in disaster relief and humanitarian assistance, providing critical aid during natural disasters and emergencies, which only the US can do because of its global military reach.

Understanding Empire for Analysis

Geopolitical risk analysts need to understand that empires are a natural part of the human condition, not a relic of the past. Imperialism might have morphed into different versions via hegemony, but they are of the same essential nature in which a great power seeks to dominate others to protect their citizens and secure their interests. All middling powers will seek to become great powers, and all great powers will seek hegemony, the modern empire. That is the nature of the international order and is embedded in human nature. Furthermore, geopolitical risk analysts should not automatically assume empires and hegemons are inherently evil, corrupted, or negative. The United States provides military, economic, political, and cultural benefits to the world by being the global hegemon. But that does not mean other hegemons, such as more authoritarian ones like Russia or China, will be equally beneficial to the world just as some empires in history gave a plethora of benefits while others offered nothing but destruction. Analysts need to take a serious and objective look at each hegemon (empire) to determine the impacts they will have because they are not going anywhere.