12.07.2015 Views

2008 Vol. 2 Num. 1 - GCG: Revista de Globalización, Competitividad ...

2008 Vol. 2 Num. 1 - GCG: Revista de Globalización, Competitividad ...

2008 Vol. 2 Num. 1 - GCG: Revista de Globalización, Competitividad ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Bringing the Empire Back In56 lative powers located within a couple dozen <strong>de</strong>centralized empires or large fe<strong>de</strong>ral states.There are also about 20 ‘territories’ formally linked but physically non-contiguous to somelarge empire or state and in fact quite in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt, and about 15 other territories <strong>de</strong> factosece<strong>de</strong>d from recognized states. About 150 of these non-state small units are in Europe,nearly 200 in the Americas, about 150 in Asia and about 40 in Africa. (Helpful data are provi<strong>de</strong>dby Kristian S. Gleditsch and Michael D. Ward and by the Correlates of War project atthe University of Michigan. A good collection of cases of states in process of separation canbe found in Tozun Bahcheli, Barry Bartmann and Henry Srebrnik, 2004).In Western Europe the building of a few large states affirming their own sovereignty visà-visother states resulted in several centuries of war-making between monarchies, weak<strong>de</strong>mocracies and new dictatorships. Most Europeans only achieved an equilibrium basedon <strong>de</strong>mocracy, peace and prosperity when, after the Second World War, they un<strong>de</strong>rtookthe construction of a large empire based on military, commercial, economic, monetary andpolitical cooperation among states. Further members of the European club found in thatmembership a way to avoid the perils of unviable in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nce and the new dictatorshipsthat would likely arise in such an environment.If the American experience and the most recent European one are of any exemplary value,the building of military and commercial large ‘empires’ seems, thus, to be a favorable formulafor stability and progress in those areas that have been subject to never-ending processesof trial and error in the art of building nation-states. The Organization of American States,the projected American Free Tra<strong>de</strong> Agreement, the African Union, the League of Arab Statesand similar institutions have so far been revelations of intention and hope more than effectiveinstitutional networks. But only if ‘imperial’-size tight networks of this sort are built andput into effect can the states and nations in those regions of the world find the opportunityto attain stable <strong>de</strong>mocracy, peace and prosperity. This is just as the European states andnations found stable peace and prosperity when they embarked on a Europe-wi<strong>de</strong>, <strong>de</strong>mocraticand free-market empire. Given the spread and importance of these experiences andchallenges, we may gain un<strong>de</strong>rstanding and knowledge by calling empires ‘empires’1.1. Interestingly, in this period ‘empire’ is also used in a different sense, as in expressions such as “empire of law”, “empire of liberty” or “empireof reason”, which may indirectly reflect the oblivion in which the political concept of empire had plunged.<strong>GCG</strong> GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY - UNIVERSIA <strong>2008</strong> VOL. 2 NUM. 1 ISSN: 1988-7116

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!