Is the formation of global empires an inevitable evolution for the common good of humanity, or an inevitable consequence of clashing hegemonisms that will lead to international chaos?
According to what many people believe today, humanity as a whole, not individuals with specific nationalities, is the rightful source of political power, and its principles should be to protect human rights and safeguard the interests of humanity as a whole. In addition, as global problems such as global warming have emerged, no single sovereign state can overcome them alone. Countries are rapidly losing their independence, both politically and economically, and national boundaries and the opinions of a single country are losing their influence.
In light of these developments, the possibility of the world uniting as one community for the common good is no longer unrealistic. The author of Homo sapiens refers to the empire that unites the entire world as a unified system as a “global empire.” To be called an “empire,” a political order must have two characteristics. First, it must dominate a large number of different ethnic groups or peoples, each with its own cultural identity and living in separate regions. Second, it must have elastic borders and an insatiable appetite, absorbing more countries and territories while maintaining its basic structure and identity. Thus, empires are defined by cultural diversity and border resilience, two characteristics that allow them to unite diverse ethnic groups and ecological regions under a single political system. If an empire exists that has enough control to ensure that all culturally diverse nations on Earth agree to and follow a single social and political decision, even if it means losing money, then it can be called a “global empire”. This, of course, assumes that the territory of the empire is considered to be the territory of the countries that follow its ideology. Based on the above definition of an Earth empire, we have yet to see an Earth empire that unites the entire planet. However, the partial unification of the world around a few countries, such as the United States, Europe, and China, suggests that it is not far off.
If a global empire is formed, it is likely that the United States, which currently influences the politics of almost every country, will be the center of the global empire. In particular, the U.S. and its coalition of allies, which is often referred to as the “U.S. Empire,” has been the center of global leadership. The U.S. has been able to wield such enormous influence because its policies are based on hegemonism. Hegemony is the imperialistic policy of a great power to dominate the world through its economic and military power. The term “hegemony” means “the power of those who rule the world by force,” and was used by the Chinese to criticize the diplomatic course of great powers like the United States and the Soviet Union, who expanded their power through military force.
Unlike imperialism, which focuses on territorial expansion through the acquisition of colonies by military force, hegemony is about the expansion of a country’s sphere of influence through cultural and economic dominance, which has become practically impossible since World War II. Today, the costs of war have risen dramatically, the benefits have diminished, and a tectonic shift in global political culture has emphasized peace in many parts of the world. In this context, hegemony can be seen as a modern adaptation of imperialism. However, hegemony and imperialism are similar in that both are aggressive and seek to exert influence over other countries. Since the very definition of hegemony is based on imperialism, hegemony can be considered “modern imperialism”.
According to Hegemonic Stability Theory, the world is politically stable and economically prosperous when there is a hegemonic power. Take international commerce for example. A nation-state insists on opening its doors to other countries for items that are favorable to it, while closing them for items that are unfavorable. In this case, economic disputes are inevitable, and conflicts of interest can lead to war, which is when the hegemonic power mediates and peace is achieved. Therefore, the United States, with its hegemonic foreign policy, has used its military and economic hegemony to intervene in the policy decisions of other countries, impose sanctions, and maintain the world order through its military presence and economic aid. Even countries allied with the U.S., as well as those at odds with the U.S., such as China, cannot ignore U.S. opinion, making the U.S. a powerful hegemon and a strong candidate for the ruling class with absolute power if a global empire were to emerge.
However, with the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, it is clear that the international community is about to undergo many changes in policy, foreign relations, and power shifts. Trump’s campaign promises to renegotiate free trade agreements (FTAs), rebalance relations with allies such as NATO, improve relations with Russia and China, and implement anti-immigration policies such as a wall on the Mexican border have caused great turmoil in the world. In particular, the U.S. has pledged to withdraw U.S. troops from various countries, and the renegotiation of numerous trade agreements is expected to move toward protectionism in order to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. Given Trump’s pledges, it is likely that the U.S. will effectively abandon its role as a hegemonic power, and reverse its aggressive international interventionism. According to hegemonic stability theory, this abandonment of hegemony will lead to much more conflict in the global economy than in the past, increase the likelihood of military conflict, and cause great disruption in the world.
So why is the United States willing to abandon the hegemony that underpins its global leadership? The answer lies in “America First”. Since the 2008 financial crisis, the United States has been in economic turmoil. Countless households went bankrupt, causing a cascade of financial institutions to collapse, which in turn caused a crisis that reduced investment in other sectors of the economy. As a result, unemployment in the U.S. rose sharply, and the country experienced years of recession. Today, of course, the United States has succeeded in reducing its unemployment rate considerably through quantitative easing, and economic indicators are improving. But that’s just within the borders of the United States. It’s only true for Americans, including immigrants. In other words, it’s not a story that applies to the people who were originally here and consider themselves to be the true “Americans,” especially white people. As they watched immigrants take low-paying jobs in the midst of economic hardship, they believed that foreigners were taking their jobs. They saw Obama’s welfare policies as protecting immigrants at the expense of their taxes. Trump’s pledge to reduce foreign aid and defense spending, and to pursue a variety of policies for the benefit of his own people, was a great relief to Americans, especially low-income white Americans. The U.S., which is struggling economically, can no longer afford to allow other countries to benefit from its actions and has given up its hegemonic status.
Given the feasibility of its policies, it is questionable whether the United States will ever be able to reign as a global empire. The emergence of a global empire that unites the world and works for the common good of all humanity may not be far off, but it depends largely on policies and human psychology. Trump’s “America First” rhetoric is driven by a sense that the United States cannot maintain its position as a superpower, and it remains to be seen whether the formation of a global empire will conflict with the hegemony of any nation. What is certain, however, is that Trump’s America’s policy of abandoning this hegemony will disrupt the international economy for many countries around the world, and it could spark a backlash even within the United States. While it is unlikely that all of Trump’s promises will be fulfilled during his term, even the realization of some of them would be enough to set back American hegemony and hasten the emergence of a global empire.
