-Physically does not possess the qualities of an empire
-Not ruled by monarchy or oligarchy
-Does not have peripheries
-Peripheries are used for the benefits of the core, resources sucked and moved into the capital
-Just because it does not formally acknowledge itself as an empire, does not mean it is not.
-Possess all the qualities of an imperial core
1. Biggest economy
2. Biggest military
3. Biggest political influence
4. Biggest consumer base
5. Big magnet for foreign immigration + investment.
-Has some qualities of a formal empire
Ex. Having 800 military bases outside of its borders
Revisionist Historians say:
-Since the beginning of US, people and communities
1. Sought to get territory
2. Subject people that stood their way
3. Claimed land and power for themselves
-Geographically on a map, one can see a westward, southward, northward territorial control
-American growth spreading into Germany and Japan
They have an empire & It is a good thing
-American provides strength and stability, saves international system from anarchy (chaotic state of fighting and conflicts between various national groups and regions).
-Economy, knows how to motivate people to work hard
-Values, American is the standard barrier of western culture
-Empire is bad, it is the opposite of democracy
-Americans are ignorant to the rest of the world
- Roman Empire => Started off good, for democracy but eventually failed.
-Split between east and rest of USA, handful of people at the top that controls everything.
-A group of power at the top that run the country ruthlessly
-Could be good but currently bad
-Roman empire provided peace, prosperity, civilization, technological innovation, rule of law
-British empire brought prosperity, cultural advancement for its subjects, political stability free trade, industrial evolution, allowed democracy
-“American is an empire in denial.”
-USA does not live up to its potentials of developing its dependencies into decent societies.
-Should follow Britain’s example of developing future leaders that the societies depend on.
-USA should be more aware of the societies that depend on it.
-In the British Empire, young individuals would compete with each other to see who could help more in developing their country in a prosperous, peaceful and good way.
-USA citizens are not mindful or concerned of the national’s development
Realism vs Idealism
-The view that your country’s goal is to advance its national interest
-“Look out for #1”
-Do the best you can for your own society
-Constrained and unconstrained selfishness
Assurance problem/ The game theory:
-Cannot trust other countries:
-Big difference between countries
-No effective world government
- The view that your country’s goal is to do its part in making the world a better place
-Use your resources to make the work richer, happier and more secure
-Favours small-scale, concrete and gradual improvement vs. large-scale, sweeping and more sudden shifts in international politics
- Supports the UN and international law
In response to the assurance problem, take multilateral approaches as opposed to unilateral approaches.
For realist, security means national security
Strengthening the country and providing protection for it
Ultimate sense of protection is being rich and powerful
For idealists, security means human security
Powerful military, lots of weaponry doesn’t necessarily make people feel secure
What make people secure is having resources and options, so that they can pursue the things that they want
Health care spending, educations spending, growing a healthy economy.
UN General assembly
-Everyone gets a vote, no veto