THE ＧＬＯＢＡＬＩＺＡＴＩＯＮ ＆ ＧＯVＥＲＮＡＮＣＥ ＰＲＯＪＥCＴ， ＨＯＫＫＡＩＤＯ ＵＮＩＶＥＲＳＩＴＹＷＯＲＫＩＮＧ ＰＡＰＥＲ ＳＥＲＩＥＳ

Embracing Empire:
The Future of Global Power and Democracy
Ｖ−１０Ken-ichi Nakamura, Hokkaido University(Translated by Aaron Skabelund, Hokkaido University)＊

Transcript of the lecture for the Symposium Liberal Democracy in a Global &American Era, 7 February 2004．
＊

None of these papers should be cited without the author’s permission.

Embracing Empire: The Future of Global Power and Democracy
Nakamura Ken’ichi

In modern history, the term, “empire” denotes a “state which rules over colonizedterritory.” After the end of the Second World War, the connotations of empire became
extremely negative as decolonization swept the globe. During the short span of just a few
years at the beginning of the twenty-first century, people inside and outside of the UnitedStates are again beginning to frequently deploy the term, this time to describe America as
either an “empire” or as a “global empire.” The direct reason for the resurrection of thisword is that for many people associate the military attacks and occupations ofAfghanistan and Iraq directed by the Bush administration with the earlier imperialism ofthe great powers. I believe we need to think more deeply about this issue.
First, I think that semantically it is incorrect to attach the label of empire for the entire
span of American history and that such a characterization is undermined by historicalfacts. The original thirteen American states were themselves once colonies, so afundamental part of US history was its struggle for independence from empire. TheUnited States did colonize Cuba and the Philippines, but it was a late-developing imperialpower. Since the end of the Second World War, an underlying premise of US policy has
been anti-colonialism. If we consider this history, it is clear that the current use of theterm empire signifies something different than from the previous use of the word thatdesignated colonial empires, or countries that sought to expand their territory, which was
the predominant form of imperialism until the twentieth century.

The Coercive Nature of Imperial Power
So why is empire now being frequently employed? Perhaps this is because America
recognizes that it acts as the “global police” and this role is one of the reasons that people
describe the United States as an empire. This role is based on the strength of its coercive
power—the might of its military power that vastly exceeds any other country. At thesame time, America has positioned itself as the “global judge.” The world, however,regards the United States as an “unworthy judge,” an “empire with power but withoutauthority or legitimacy.”
In order to examine the coercive power of empire, we need to consider to what degree theUnited States is fulfilling the role of global police.
First, as has already been pointed out in the presentations, the United States is the sole
surviving superpower in the post-Cold War era. It not only possesses the greatest
military resources, but those resources are equivalent to those of all the countries thatrank from second to ninth. In terms of quality, the US military has applied information
revolution to military technology and produced a “revolution in military technology.” Asa result, the US military has the ability to attack with great precision and efficiency, withrelatively few soldiers and few (partisan) casualties, and to destroy enemy forces in ashort period of time. The disparity in military power is so great that, for example, if theAmerica goes to war in concert with Britain, the country with the next mosttechnologically-sophisticated military, the British army simply becomes a drag on the USmilitary. It is unlikely that this gap in military power will be closed any time soon.

2Second, we need to think about strategy. As Professor Gerstle has just described, theBush Doctrine justifies preemptive attacks by the United States. This is a huge departurefrom previous American strategy. During the Cold War, the guiding principles of US
strategy were “containment” and “determent,” which were dedicated to preventing an
enemy attack with the threat of massive retaliation. In some situations, however, theBush doctrine goes much further with the potential that America might strike out anenemy before being attacked.
The third issue is who is the target of these attacks. The Bush administration has adopted
language with strong religious connotations, such as the “axis of evil,” to describe the“enemy.” As a result, such countries as Iraq, North Korea, and Iran are faced with thealternative of either destroying any weapons of mass destruction that they might possessor having their regimes be crushed by an American military attack. Of course, there is acertain amount of ambiguity about who is being singled out as evil. The uncertainty ofjust who the enemy is produces widespread resentment, but it is also what makes thethreat so effective. For example, soon after the United States attacked Iraq, Libya
announced that it would dismantle its weapons of mass destruction. Because of thisambiguity, the United States can self-righteously determine what country it wants toattack.
The fourth issue we must consider is the leaps in logic in the strategy of the Bushadministration. First, there is a contradiction between waging war against countries on anational level to combat terrorism that is conducted by individuals or groups rather thannations. Second, there is a problematic connection between the “war on terrorism” andthe “elimination of weapons of mass destruction.” Third, the administration is ignoring
international law when it militarily crushes certain regimes in the name of “eliminatingweapons of mass destruction.”
So what is the ideological foundation supporting this military strategy? In the case of theBush administration, this ideology is characterized by the presumption that United Stateswields force only for “just means.” The words “we” and “they” appear frequently in thespeeches of President Bush. In general, Bush divides the world in two extreme poles, sothat the use of “we” is linked to “justice” while “they” is connected to “evil.” His choiceof words reveals the attitude that America’s “application of military power actual isalways just” and “the enemy is a bad influence that seeks to spread evil.”
It appears that the administration thinks that “we,” in other words, America’s mighty
military power, cannot possibly be unjust. Likewise, there is little sense of caution that
America might do things that are wrong. The Bush administration frequently labels othercountries “rogue states” and naively thinks that America itself can never act like a roguestate.
Based on the ideology that “we are just, and they are evil” and on the pretext of weaponsof mass destruction, the United States toppled the Hussein regime in Iraq, but there were
no weapons of mass destruction to be found. This was distressing for the Bushadministration, but it is clear what nations possess weapons of mass destruction. These
are, of course, countries such the United States, Britain, and Russia, but these nations all
optimistically believe that their weapons would never be used for evil purposes. But, in
the United States those weapons are already being employed for evil.

3Many people probably don’t recognize the connection, but this use of weapons of mass
destruction for evil was the anthrax scare of 2001, which resulted in the deaths of five
Americans. An examination of the anthrax that was used has definitively confirmed thatit had been smuggled out of some US domestic military installation. In other words,
weapons of mass destruction have already been deployed domestically but because many
people believe that Americans would never use their weapons for evil, this incident has
not become a serious problem in the United States.
To summarize, the military power of the United States far exceeds that of any othercountry, the Bush administration now justifies preemptive attacks, its identification ofpossible threats is ambiguous, and its strategy is characterized by logical inconsistencies.
The administration also optimistically believes that America’s military power is appliedjustly. These, I think, are the characteristics of the “American empire.”“Why Do They Hate Us?”
Next, I would like to talk about an important question that Bush used in his speech to ajoint session of congress soon after the 9/11 attacks. As I just mentioned, Bushfrequently used the words “us” and “them” in this speech, but the sentence I would like toconcentrate in particular is his query, “Why do they hate us?” This is an extremely
important phrase, I think.
To answer this question, in his speech President Bush asserted that some people hate
America because of democracy. His answer was entirely off the mark. Yes, the UnitedStates is indeed hated, but that is certainly not because of democracy. Rather, what theyhate is the nature of America’s coercive power.
To put it metaphorically, Bush presumes that he is a just sheriff, who is both thepoliceman and the judge. This sheriff does not only go after people who have broken thelaw, but if he suspects someone is an enemy, he goes after them even if he does not haveany solid evidence that they have committed a crime. At the same time, he is not agitatedwhen his country’s biological weapons are used to kill his fellow citizens. For many
people in the world, including the 9/11 kidnappers, such attitudes appear to be impartialand self-righteous. As a result, America’s actions find, and create, new enemies one afteranother. And all the while, the Bush administration thinks its actions are just, but
America becomes to be regarded as a crooked sheriff by certain people in the world, andthe United States identifies and then goes after new enemies that America itself iscreating.
I think this vicious cycle is the answer to the question, “Why do they hate us?”
Incidentally, Bush’s tendency to simply divide the world into either enemies or allies andto declare that we are just and they are evil is just like the statements made by Osama binLadin. In this way, these two rivals’ way of thinking has much in common.

4The Collapse of Political Authority
Next, I would like to talk about the political authority of the American empire, and focus
on the issue of unilateralism.
Those who pursue unilateralism dislike the method of coming to an agreement throughbilateral or multilateral negotiations and prefer for their country to act on its own. A
preference for unilateralism by the Bush administration was already evident even during
its first six months in office. For example, the administration defected from the Kyoto
Agreement to reduce global warming, it allowed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty to expire, it scrapped the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that it saw as an
impediment to the development of a missile defense system, it emasculated plans for aUN conference on small weapons reduction, and it rejected the conclusions of aninspection regime for the Biological Weapons Ban Treaty. And these are just a few ofmany possible examples.
Three characteristics sum up American unilateralism. First, the United States depends on
its own power rather than on cooperation with other countries. Recently Russia has
shown an interest in cooperating with other countries to accomplish its aims, but theUnited States has shown little desire to work with others, as shown by a reliance on its
own missile defense system. Second, as a just mentioned, the United States claims that
only it is not bound by decisions that have been agreed to multilaterally. Third, many
people in the United States self-righteously believe that its principles are universally
applicable to the entire world. To anyone, the actions of the United States appear to beunilateral.
Such unilateralism is not only limited to the actions of the Bush administration, but to anextent is a traditional characteristic of US foreign policy. This is signified by an
expression often used to historically describe American policy, a “swinging pendulum
between interventionism and isolationism.” I will forgo talking in greater detail due totime constraints.
Next, I would like to consider the questions of whether such policies lend authority to theAmerican government and whether or not they give it more power to lead the entire
world.
By “authority,” I am referring to the ability of a country to gain the trust of othercountries and people, to persuade them to follow its leadership, and not to raise
objections to its policies. As Professor Endo has pointed out, the source of this authority
is “soft power.”In the case of the Bush administration, even when other countries follow its lead, they
seem to submit unwillingly, and the leverage of American soft power appears toweakening. I would like to emphasize the contradiction between the extreme military
power of the United States and its increasing inability to politically persuade and bringothers into an agreement with its policies.
There are two principal reasons for this situation. First, too often the United Statessystematically proceeds to order around other countries. In other words, too frequently
the United States tries to persuade or force onto others the supposed universality of its

5
way of doing things, which are a reflection of its own culture. If the United States had
the trust of other countries, it could criticize the United Nations and the Kyoto Agreement
and persuade other countries to follow its leadership, but this is not the case, and it
highlights the reduction in American soft power.

The Hegemony of a Great PowerThe second reason for the weakening of American soft power is related to Professor
Dore’s comments about the educational system. I don’t have enough time to talk about
this issue in depth, but I would like to make one point. As Professor Gerstle has observed,
until 1973 the United States was a model and leader of the world. In relation to this, I
would like to introduce the view of E. H. Carr, who discussed the responsibilities ofmajor powers in a 1945 essay. Three previous presenters have referred to Churchill but I
would like to refer to his intellectual rival, Carr.
At the end of the Second World War, Carr believed that the model nations for the futureworld were the United States and Britain, but this was not because these two countries
were militarily powerful. Rather, this was, as Professor Gerstle just pointed out, because
these were the principal countries where democracy survived during the Second WorldWar. In addition, Carr regarded these two countries of having successfully integrated thevarious racial, cultural and religious members on the basis of universalism. This madethese two countries a much better model for the world than Germany and Japan, which
had invented cults venerating a single nation. Moreover, Carr believed that if
governments ruled through persuasion and consensus, there was a greater chance thatthey would act in the same way in their relations with the outside world. In particular,
Carr thought that America, which governed its citizens in this way, would guide theworld through persuasion and consensus. Governance that avoided tyranny and force
would endow the United States with the soft power it needed to lead the world.
Today’s world, though, is entirely different from the one that Carr described. First,
because the total number of democratic countries in the world has increased, the relative
difference between the United States and Britain and the rest of the world has decreased.
And after 9/11, although the United States is still a multi-ethnic country, its degree ofreligious tolerance has dropped dramatically. Furthermore, because the Bushadministration has chosen to favor war as a strategy of foreign relations, the United Stateshas become a symbol of tyranny and its hegemony has been weakened.
There is one additional point that I must make. At the beginning of the twentieth century,
if any nation is going to be hegemonic and guide the world, it is imperative for it to deal
directly with all global problems, such as environmental issues, to provide thecompetence, resources, and methods to successfully respond to these problems, and berecognized by the world as a great leader. But, as shown by its rejection of the Kyoto
Agreement, the United States chose outright unilateralism instead of tackling this globalenvironmental problem.
The actions of the United States, forcing its policies upon the world when the entire globe
is questioning their legitimacy demonstrates that currently the United States deserves tolabeled an American empire. I would like to talk in more detail about this issue, but
because of a lack of time, I leave it here.

6Toward the Realization of Global Democracy
In conclusion, I would like to make a few remarks about democracy.
Professor Tanaka has pointed the difference between domestic democracy and democracy
among nations, and Professor Gerstle has mentioned the importance of social movements.
In relation to this, in order to solve global problems, I don’t think it is adequate to simplyextend the existing national systems of representative government and administration tocover the entire world.
There are three conditions necessary for global democracy. Two hundred years ago, thephilosopher James Mill, who made important contributions to the establishment ofmodern democracy, suggested that the most important discovery of the modern age was
not the steam engine but was representative democracy. People modified the systems of
the early modern era, and created political parties, elections, and assemblies, andskillfully extended and applied municipal governing systems to cover entire countries. Inorder to replicate this and create global democracy in the future, people will need todemonstrate tremendous skill in crafting new systems of governance. These skills are thefirst condition.
Second, people need to hold strong convictions that will sustain movements to deal withthe world’s various problems. In order for social movements to be successful, people
need to feel that they themselves are the actors in creating future communities and thatthey have the authority to determine what global policies are enacted. As has been
already indicated, a third condition for global democracy is a revival of politicaldemocracy on a national level, which continues to be weakened. When these three
conditions are combined, progress will be made in establishing global democracy.
Finally, I would like to recall the thinking of E. H. Carr that is related to the issue ofempire. The key to accomplishing this prescriptive vision is for great countries toconstruct policies of enlightened self-interest and to think of the needs of others,
especially to consider the needs of the weak, during debates about legitimacy. If thishappens, and is combined with skill in crafting new systems and revived democracy on anational level, there is hope of creating global democracy.
Thank you.