The quote of the week this week comes from the brave protestor's in Tehran. One of them said: Just be patient, we are trying to have a revolution

The West attacked in Saudi Arabia

On news of the multiple attacks in Saudi Arabia and the attack in Chechnya (coincidence or no?) I started to wonder just who was being attacked.

This is not a 9/11 attack against the US, nor is it an attack against an embassy or a military installation (although a military contractor did have employees living in the one of the Riyadh compounds hit.)

So, who was attacked?

I think it is also significant that the attacks were on these residential areas because this is where a "Western" way of life can be found in Saudi Arabia with such monstrosities as swimming pools where men and women BOTH go and you can have a drink.

This may just be because embassies and other more official targets are too 'hard' so they have turned to 'soft' targets. This is the simplest explanation, but the fact they had to shoot their way in and attacked with a convoy of bomb laden cars seems to suggest they were ready to attack a pretty hard target.

I think this attack is significant because it is, in a way, an attack on the Western way of life. A place of Western living was attacked. George is always blabbing about how they hate our way of life and this seems to support that. Except the way of life lived in these compounds was not strictly American, British, German, Italian, or Australian. It seems the way of life is Western.

Now it is dangerous to let your enemies define you, but I think this is worth considering in a discussion of Empire. People talk a lot about the American Empire, but I think it may be more appropriate to think of it as The Western Empire.

Free Markets
Trade by Agreements (with disputes arbitrated by the WTO)
Democratically Elected Governments
Equal Rights for Men & Women
Secular Government
Legal Accountability


It may not seem so on a day to day basis but these factors have a far reaching, profound effect on the states involved. They play the role Nationalism, Religion, and Communism have had in Empires of the past.

My thesis is that the Empire of today is really not an American Empire. The Empire is The West. This may not be the most useful title since its Western border could be Tokyo and its Eastern border Seoul, but we don't alway choose our names. The Empire of The West, or The Western Empire is confused for an American Empire because economically, culturally, politically, and militarily the US is the most prominent member. But America doesn't run it. No one is in charge of it.

The West is the most powerful supranational institution in the world. It is Empire. Problems, financial, trade and military are worked out in the Empire.

When the UN and the EU cannot solve the problem in Kosovo, NATO acts.

When the Mexico or Asia has major currency or banking problems, the IMF acts.

When Iraq is not forthcoming with their weapon's programs after Gulf War 1, the UN security council acts.

I think each of these instances can be understood as action of Empire. This Empire is also called "The West" frequently. It is primarily Europe, remnants of the British Empire: the US, Canada, Ausralia. Russia, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, and about a score of other countries are partial members.

Look at how the the LA Times described the common elements of what was attacked: The common denominator at the sites, according to U.S. Embassy officials, was that they represented joint U.S.-Saudi ventures or housed both Saudis and Americans and other foreigners, including Canadians, Italians, Germans and Australians.

Also, two other items unreported in the NYTimes, LATimes, or Wash Post stories about the blast: Al Qaeda has a news spokesman who said last week that attacks against the US were inevitable and the explosions came minutes before the Prophet Muhammed's Birthday. This is not to say that these bombings are driven by the Islamic faith. It is to say that it may be a reminder from Al Qaeda that they grotesquely believe their actions are related to Islam. It is driven by faith to the extent that a madman shooting at people in a mosque, synagogue or church who thinks God told him to do it is driven by faith.

Maybe these last two items are not about Empire but I think they are worth note.

I know I am supposed to be talking about empire, but this news story in the NYTimes today has me perplexed. Basically, it says Sharon doesn't like the 'road map' so screw it.

It includes this remarkable line: "Some experts say Mr. Sharon was testing the administration by insulting Mr. Powell." I think this indicates US Empire is off to a bad start. When we give a state unflagging support, and are the only nation in the world who does, not to mention the $3 Billion dollars a year we give them and they test us by insulting our secretary of state, we have a problem.

Like it or not, being the US requires interacting with other nations in a way other than dropping bombs. We actually do need a Sec of State in addition to our Sec of Defense. Bush either needs to support Powell, or cut him loose because this half assed stuff is hurting us. When Powell goes to Israel to work on peace, Bush should not be quoted in the NYTimes talking about Powell's "personal commitment" to the middle east. Powell's personal commitment doesn't do a lot of good; what does a lot of good is US commitment.

Bush is getting played by Sharon because Bush refuses to see the difference between Al Qaeda and Hamas. How embarrassing.

"The modern capitalist has shown himself a very incompetent defender of modern capitalism" So says Angell, Sir Norman in a speech he gave called What is Happening in the British Empire? in the early 1930s.

I happened upon this today when looking for information on the history of runs on banks. I think it was serendipidy because it also happens to be a great place to begin a discussion of empire.

All I know about this guy is what I read in his Nobel Prize bio so this is not an apology for him.

I am intrigued that his view of the British empire after WW1 reads a lot like a description of the system of international trade that exists today under the WTO, and previously under the GATT

My question, then is can there be globalization without Empire?

As the Economist points out this week, the last time there was such a significant flow in goods and capital around the world was the height of the British Empire. Today, people are worried about American empire. They are also worried about globalization. Are the two separate?

It is possible that the American Empire people are worried about is just a global system of trade under the WTO where America is the biggest economy.

Of course, there is military empire as well. I think the US has troops in 17 nations or something. But look at the nations where most of those troops are (excepting the adventure in Iraq. We don't yet know how many of those troops are going to stick around.) Most US troops abroad are in Germany, Japan, and Korea. These are, incidentally, major trading partners and major economies. The handful of folks in Afghanistan may make the news more often than the 10s of thousands in Germany, Japan & Korea but the bottom line is that our military exists in places where our economic relationships are vital.

Additionally, the war in Iraq (against a country with 20 some million people weakend by sanctions for a decade with a GDP less than the annual budget of New York City) took a double digit percentage of our military even with the lighter faster force of Rumsfeld's wet dreams. My point is our military is not a useful tool for establishing an imperial domination over any sizable area or healthy government. People frightened of American hegemony may fear a military empire but really we are an economic empire. Military empires are weaker than economic ones because it is a hell of a lot easier to get someone to buy your potatoes than to get someone to die for you. It just makes sense. Military is necessary to empire, but not in the way people fear.

The bottom line is that if there is an American Empire, most of the nations involved are willing participants. France may not want to drop bombs with us, but they are not going to pass trade sanctions against the US anytime soon.

Apparently in his book The Grand Illusion Angell argues that the age of military conquest as a strategy to make money as an Empire is over. Makes sense to me.

People say Iraq is all about oil. With an annual GDP of $30 Billion and no excess capacity America will have to spend a hell of a lot more money than it is going to make in Iraq, even if it did take all the oil revenue.

So, economic participation in Empire is voluntary (although it makes a hell of a lot of sense), and military conquest is not too profitable an enterprise for empire. So, what is empire up to? Maybe this is the next question for this blog.

Does Empire have an agenda? Does it have agency? Does it have a will? And the ultimate question, can Empire will itself into or out of existance? In other words, do we have a choice?

NextEmpire - Modern Global Politics

This entry begins a "new phase" (to use the most over used word in media of the last 18 months) in my blog on politics. Going forward, the goal of this blog will be to look at how nations conceive of themselves and each other, and how they relate with themselves and each other. As you can tell from this definition, the domestic will creep in as well as it is no longer quite a separate as it once was.

Because I feel like it, and because I think it is enough to keep this blog going for the next 500 years or so, I want to define three questions for this blog. Maybe this is an attempt to shape it so it is more than just a litany of complaints by yours truly, TGD. It'll probably still become a litany of complaints, but what the hell! Let's give it a try. Here are the questions:

What is Empire?

How does Empire relate to Globalization?

How do nations relate to one another?


Implicit in this, of course, are issues of identity, power, money, history, and most immediately (though not most importantly) the necessarily shortsighted, narrow minded, volatile world of politics.

In other news, the US policy of keeping a couple thousand troops around to keep the peace in an entire country is failing at the site of the first battle of this war (aka Afghanistan). For those who want empirical proof that Rummy's plan to win a war on the cheap is the best thing since sliced bread, to those who say it doesn't matter if we get leaders like Mullah Omar, Osama, or Saddam (hint: see Prince George & Co.) and to those Shia militants who think that guerrilla attacks on US or govt troops will get the US out of a country, YOU ARE ALL WRONG.

This is the nightmare scenario for Iraq, but no one knows it yet. posted by JJ at 12:52 PM

Thomas Friedman correctly points out that the US/UK war in Iraq has a second front - the Israel/Palistinian showdown. Bush poo-pooed this issue initially because it had Clinton cooties. (So did North Korea btw and suddenly he is involved there too.) Well, the time has come. If we are willing to spend $80 billion and even more in political capital on a war with Iraq and perhaps the same amount in the next 5 years rebuilding Iraq (assuming Bush really does want a stable democratic friendly state in the Middle East) then we damn well better get tough on Israel Palestine. Until this issue is solved, the region will never move forward no matter how many troops bombs or dollars we pour into it. It is the middle east's excuse for procrastination and anti-amercanism.

Life sucks? Well, blame America and think of the Palestinians.

No, Democracy? Well, blame America and think of the Palestinians.

No job? Well, blame America and think of the Palestinians.

Head cold? Body Odor? Bad haircut? Well blame America and think of the Palestinians.

Once this problem is addressed, there will still be a large portion of Arab society that will blame America for every hangnail, but in time they will look more and more to their own governments. This has already started happening with Iraq. People on the street are already asking why 300 million Arabs couldn't prevent 300 million Americans from launching a war in their neighborhood. The more they ask why their governments are so weak, the more change their will be. If neocons, screw that, if America really wants this war in Iraq to bring change in the region it damn well better solve Israel/Palestine. Otherwise, Blame America will become the refrain for yet another generation of Arabs.

Wednesday, April 16, 2003

Apparantly, the brilliant plan of the US Military to bring victory, has failed to bring peace. What are the protesters doing? What would they like? The same thing Iran wants? For the US/UK to just pick up and leave now? Do they for one minute think that would bring more peace, or freedom to Iraq? Another dictatorship would take hold if we left right now. It wouldn't look like a dictatorship to begin with but 5 or 6 years from now it would, OR the country would fragment into an oil-rich Kurdish state in the north (which Turkey would immediately attack and occupy. So the protesters should choose whether they prefer Turkey or the US as an occupying power.) and an oil-rich Shia state in the south which eventually exist under the suzerainty of Iran, and a land locked, water-rich Sunni state in the middle with lots of anger, little money and rich neighbors.

This would be an utter disaster. If the US pulled out now, it would be unforgivable and when the region decended into chaos the protestors would blame the US for not staying, or just blame the US for everything as is their wont.

I love the fact that people protest, but too many of today's protestors are stuck in a 1960s mindset and they don't help anything.

I'm glad someone is finally debunking the stupid myth that wars make economies boom I even had an economics teacher once who believed this. It's stupid, inexcusable, armchair politics that cheapens those who believe it and confuses important arguments about war.

Tuesday, April 15, 2003

The Jordan Times has a quick little history of the Baath party today Another great product from the a.) French and b.) Socialists. Talk about a winning team.

Whew, had to get my petty patronizing pissy spat of the day out of the way.