CRISIS OF NATION-STATES
We are witness to the degradation of national (Westphalian) sovereignties, but this does not mean that new organized sovereignties are not emerging in the form of postnational global powers, supranational regions, and regional superpowers. Events in Iraq, the Near and Middle East, EU expansion eastward, institutional reform in Europe, change in Russia’s stand, and its claims to the post-Soviet sovereign status — are the main proofs of the world entering the imperial globalization stage, renewing hierarchical organization of the international system as a response to the uncontrollable globalization of the 1990s.
The Latin imperium means putting things in good order; it means order. Creating large imperial formations is a way to achieve controllable globalization. Global empires are trying to regulate processes taking place primarily in the periphery of the modern world, fraught with the threat of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, extremism, and xenophobia.
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri sum it up in their Empire (Harvard University Press, 2000): “It is certainly true that, in step with the processes of globalization, the sovereignty of nation-states, while still effective, has progressively declined. The decline in sovereignty of nation-states, however, does not mean that sovereignty as such has declined.” On the contrary, a new kind of sovereignty has emerged — or rather, imperial sovereignty has received a fresh impetus. “In contrast to imperialism, Empire establishes no territorial center of power and does not rely on fixed boundaries or barriers. It is a decentered and deterritorializing apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open, expanding frontiers.”
It is premature to be frightened by or frighten others with the notion of Empire, considering that the entire system of international relations is becoming supranational, over and above the state, and imperial. Not imperialistic, as in the times of colonial empires at the turn of the twentieth century, but precisely imperial and integristic. Former empires were aggressive. The new empires are coveted, as is the case with the global empire of the United States and the European Union, it being a collective imperial center. Therefore, the notions of Empire, imperial sovereignty, and imperial sovereigns require an additional rational definition.
ON LIBERALISM
In order to prevent reviving the banal imperial hegemony (imperialism in the classical sense of the word) when transferring to imperial globalization and imperial sovereignty, it is necessary to clarify the issue of the types of empires. The more so that Russia, where one finds sure signs of Soviet postimperialism, appeared very interested in the coming of the “new imperial epoch,” specifically in Chubais’s concept of Russia as a liberal empire.
It is necessary to distinguish between truly liberal empires (otherwise known as penetrating empires) and old-type empires, the hermetic, closed ones. Hermetic empires have no place in the modern world. They are not only dangerous to their neighbors, but also glaringly ineffective, meaning that they will exist for only so long.
Western political analysts have long suggested that the Atlantic system of the Cold War period was an imperial formation of sorts. What made it special? What makes the current American empire special? Primarily their openness and penetrability. What does penetrability mean? The US political system is transparent, so various ethnic communities, public-interest groups, nongovernmental organizations, transnational corporations (like Japanese and French business) can lobby for their interests. This has a tangible effect on the US top decision- makers.
Another aspect is that such open systems emerge in an environment of coexistence. Such empires include the EU as an economic empire, so we want its membership. Why? Because it will benefit this country and will be convenient for its citizens. Moreover, now that the world is closing down unto itself and into the so-called golden billion, dooming the remaining five billion human beings to misery, there has appeared a notion, ostracizing imperialism, a system of thriving countries leaving all others out of the area of stability and well-being. Open empires are ones offering other countries mutually advantageous terms and conditions, the more so that in the modern world national interests are becoming increasingly globalized. Therefore, participation in various preferential coalitions, accessing the headquarters of modern global or imperial centers being in a position to make decisions affecting their allies, etc., are turning into guidelines for the less developed countries. Open empires make it possible, on the one hand, to put the process of further globalization in some semblance of order, and on the other, to improve the situation in certain countries by helping them join supranational entities and institutions. The difference between the old territorial and current empires is that the new ones see their task not in expanding territories, but in learning to look to the future. This is precisely the ideational dominant of imperial globalization.
There is something novel about Chubais’s liberal empire concept, yet there is also something that makes it in practice hazardous. What is this? It is the fact that Russia remains a hermetic, closed society. It does not have an open political system. The latter is hard to penetrate by Russian citizens, let alone by global, cosmopolitan or other ethnic interest-groups. Decisions are made by a chosen few, actually by the president. It is difficult to penetrate such an empire.
What is happening in Russia will in many respects determine whether it will become a truly liberal empire or a hermetic one, where territorial expansion and regional hegemony will be the exclusive priorities. And regional hegemony means returning to imperialism, rather than becoming imperial.
