Is the US an Empire or Not?
Contesting the American Identity

Hello, welcome to BadlyPresented where we talk about things in international relations. As you browse the interweb, you might have come across people who call the US an “empire” or US foreign policies as “imperial” policies. Noam Chomsky, a celebrated linguistics professor at MIT is a great example. He constantly characterizes the US as an empire and American policies as imperial. He is not alone to do so, but he is one of the most prominent ones. Don’t worry, we won’t be going into Chomsky’s works. Instead, let's talk about how “empire" is defined, why the definitions of things change, and discuss the consequences of calling the US an empire.

What is an empire?

How do we distinguish empires from other forms of political structures in international politics? Unsurprisingly, the concept of empire is formulated differently by different people at different times for different reasons. We may never be able to come up with a clear, all encompassing concept of empire that captures all the variations of empires in history. But this is a problem that extends to all definitions. We try to find definitions that are meaningful and helpful enough for us to communicate with each other, even though we acknowledge that it will never be perfect. So which definition of empire is most useful for us right now? It depends on what you are trying to do with it.

For people like Noam Chomsky who use the word “empire” and “imperialism” as a means to critique US policies, their definition of empire is not aimed at explaining the differences between political structures. They basically use the terms as insults, name calling if you will. That’s why Chomsky literally said he doesn’t care about the actual definition of empire. Because the word “empire” generally has a negative connotation, that most americans share the belief that empires are evil. Just look at Star Wars - people like Chomsky use the word “empire” to express how unjust, aggressive and un-American US policies are in foreign policy and try to rally the people to oppose such policies.

Because Chomsky doesn’t care about his definition of empire, neither will we.

Instead, let's try to find a working definition of “empire” for the sake of our discussion. You don’t have to agree with my definition, since it's not the defined definitive definition of empire.

Empires are defined by two key traits: the center-periphery relationship and frontiers.

The center-periphery relationship basically means there is a sovereign center - the imperial power - which governs and controls its subjects in its empire, the periphery. The periphery is vague in its shape and size, because the periphery can change. It can expand or contract due to changing geopolitical realities. That is why empires have frontiers. Frontiers are not set. Think of how the term “frontier” has been used in history. When the US expanded westward in North America in the 1800s, the West was considered a frontier; it is meant to be expanded. Space is called a new frontier, it's meant to be expanded. The metaverse is a new frontier, except no one wants to expand it.

My definition of empire is basically just that; it's not too complex nor sophisticated. But there is a reason for defining it as such. I don’t want to see imperialism come back as the norm in international politics. I adhere to the belief that imperialism as the norm in the world would lead to many major wars over territories and encourage zero-sum game mentality among societies in the world. So it's important that my definition of empire is used to identify polities that try to expand territories.

If I don't want to see empires, then what is the alternative? The nation-state.

I define nation-state as sovereign polities that are defined by one key major difference from empires: the national border. National borders do not change. Borders cannot expand or contract. Borders are fixed. This difference allows me to identify empires from nation states: if some country expands its borders through military conquest, or even trades territories as part of political or economic settlements, that is an empire to me. Countries that do not do so, and also recognize the sovereignty of other nation-states and its borders are nation-states.

Like I said, you don't have to agree with my definitions of empires and nation-states. You will most likely have your own definitions, and there might be commonalities or differences with mine. That’s okay. I would argue it's quite normal for people to have competing definitions of words and concepts. Because the point I’m trying to make is not to convince you of my definitions of empire and nation-states, but allude to this quirky reality: definitions are not defined.

Don’t be afraid, I won’t go into some pseudo-post-modernist nonsense. I don’t need to, because we all see and feel the changes or attempts to change meanings and definitions of words and concepts all the time in our daily lives. What is right or wrong? What is justice? Patriotism? What is a man, or a woman? What is gender? Concepts in identity politics is perhaps one of the most polarizing examples of how we as a society contest definitions of words and concepts. Definitions are points of major contests. Because how we define things matters a lot. It influences how people understand reality. That’s why people try to change definitions according to their goals. Whether you think a particular attempt to change definitions is right or wrong, depends on where your values lie.

Not all things are contested. Say for example, the definition of sand. It's coarse, rough, and it gets everywhere. Anakin’s definition is quite useful. And most of us don’t really see the need to contest that definition. Because the definition of sand has less social and political importance than say, whether the US is an empire or not.

According to my definitions, the US was definitely an empire in the past. It began as an imperial colony of the British empire. Then it became its own empire as it conquered territory over North America, all the way until the US colonization of the Philippines. However, the US after WW2 stopped being an empire, and transitioned to a nation-state, like most former empires. When was the last time the US acquired territory? Apparently in 1947, the US acquired the Marshall islands, although it was under UN Trusteeship program, so whether that counts is up to you. But in general, the US does not gain nor lose territories anymore. So it's not an empire unlike Russia, who literally tried to annex territory in Ukraine. I say tried because I don’t want to legitimize Russia’s actions. Because I don’t want empires to come back.

What are the consequences of calling the US an empire or its policies imperial?

For one, I don’t see how helpful it is to change the definition of empire to include the US as it is now. Does the US engage in foreign policies that are immoral, aggressive, and violate human rights and international law? Sure it does. And we should criticize the US, and every other nation when they do so. But do we really need to levy the accusation that the US is an empire for us to make meaningful critiques against it? I believe we don’t. I also believe we hurt our own criticisms by doing so.

Look at Chomsky, the man sees the empire everywhere. Trade deals, alliances, defense pacts, economic and military aid, armed interventions, NATO, UN, WTO, IMF, FBI, CIA (Actually, I do see that in CIA), DIA, DOD, NSA, Hollywood, Wall Street, McDonalds. When we start to do things like Chomsky, not only do we look paranoid, but it also dilutes the definition of empire. If we start diluting the definition of empire, then we are starting to make equivalences between policies like the Marshall plan and the Russian attempts to annex Ukraine by military force. Chomsky finds both to be imperial policies. I disagree. Clearly, it's McDonalds.

As much as I disagree with people like Chomsky over their definitions and use of the words “empire” and “imperialism”, I’m not here to convince you that I’m right and they are wrong. Definitions are inherently indeterminate. Even when we do have definitions that are somewhat reasonable, they will not be able to fully explain everything. Take my version of the “nation-state” for example. The nation-state concept has problems dealing with internal conflicts. When there are civil wars among competing political factions vying for sovereignty, how do we define which group is legitimate? How do we deal with decolonized nation-states, whose national borders were drawn up by colonial powers in the past without consideration for the regional political realities? What does it mean for a nation-state to become a “failed state”?

For every concept, we cannot escape the consequences of our choice in how we define them.

If I choose to understand nation-states as I define them, I must face the problems that arise out of that choice. If people want to change the definition of empires and accuse the US of imperialism, then they must also deal with the problems of diluting the meaning of that word.

That's it for me today, but I do want to know what you think when we start to engage with definitions of words and concepts not as fixed and determinant, but fluid and contested. Do you have a personal example of definitions of concepts that you contested with? Leave your thoughts in the comments because I would love to read them. And also, there is an interesting article on foreign affairs by John Ikenberry, where he argues about the distinction between a hegemon and an empire. See you next time.