In this blog post, we explore the possibility of a global empire and the chaos that a clash of hegemonic powers could bring. We will examine whether this is an inevitable step toward the common good of humanity or a source of new conflict.
According to the belief held by many today, the legitimate source of political power lies not in individuals of a specific nationality but in humanity as a whole, and the protection of human rights and the interests of all humanity must be the guiding principle. Furthermore, as global issues such as global warming have come to the forefront, no single sovereign state can overcome all problems on its own. Nations are rapidly losing their political and economic independence, and national borders and the opinions of individual states are losing their influence.
Given these phenomena, the possibility of the entire world uniting as a single community for the common good is no longer a far-fetched idea. The author of *Sapiens* refers to an empire that unites the entire world into a single integrated system as the “Global Empire.” To be classified as an “empire” within a political order, it must possess two characteristics. First, it must rule over a multitude of different ethnic groups or peoples who possess distinct cultural identities and live in geographically dispersed regions. Second, it must possess flexible borders and an insatiable appetite, absorbing more nations and territories while maintaining its fundamental structure and identity. Thus, an empire is defined by cultural diversity and flexible borders; based on these two characteristics, it must be capable of uniting diverse ethnic minorities and ecological regions under a single political system. If an empire existed that possessed sufficient control to make all nations on Earth—despite their cultural diversity—agree to and follow a single social and political decision even at the cost of sacrifice, that empire would be fully deserving of the title “global empire.” Of course, this holds true only when the territories of nations adhering to the empire’s ideology are considered part of the empire’s territory. Based on the definition of a global empire presented above, a global empire that unifies the entire planet has not yet emerged. However, given that the world is being partially integrated around certain nations such as the United States, Europe, and China, the advent of a global empire does not seem to be a matter for the distant future.
If a global empire were to form, it is highly likely that the United States—which currently influences the political situation of nearly every country—would become its center. In particular, the United States has exercised such global leadership that it would not be an exaggeration to call the alliance of nations centered on the U.S. the “American Empire.” The reason the United States has been able to wield such immense influence is that it has pursued policies based on hegemony. Hegemonism refers to the imperialist policies of a great power seeking to dominate the world backed by strong economic and military power. Here, “hegemony” means “the power of those who rule the world by force,” and it is a term used by China to criticize the diplomatic strategies of great powers like the United States and the Soviet Union, which expanded their influence through military force.
Unlike imperialism, which focuses on securing colonies—that is, territorial expansion—through the mobilization of military forces, hegemony refers to the efforts of nations that have achieved cultural and economic superiority to expand their influence, particularly since the end of World War II, when territorial expansion through force became practically impossible. Today, while the costs of war have risen dramatically and expenses have skyrocketed, the corresponding benefits have diminished. As tectonic shifts occur in global political culture, peace is being emphasized across the globe. In this context, hegemony can be viewed as a modern adaptation of imperialism. However, both hegemony and imperialism share similarities in that they possess an aggressive nature and seek to exert influence over other nations. Since the very definition of hegemony is rooted in imperialism, hegemony can be regarded as so-called “modern imperialism.”
According to “Hegemonic Stability Theory,” the world we live in is politically stable and economically prosperous when there is a hegemonic power. Let us take the aspect of international trade as an example. Nation-states tend to demand that other countries open their markets to goods that are advantageous to them, while seeking to close their own markets to goods that are disadvantageous. In such cases, economic disputes are inevitable, and conflicts of interest can lead to war; however, peace is said to be restored when a hegemonic power steps in to mediate. Consequently, the United States, which pursues a hegemonic foreign policy, has maintained global order by leveraging its military and economic hegemony—through U.S. military bases stationed abroad and economic aid—to intervene in the policy decisions of various nations and impose sanctions. The U.S. holds such powerful hegemony that even countries in opposition to it, such as China, cannot ignore its views, let alone its allies. If a global empire were to emerge, the U.S. would be a strong candidate for the ruling class wielding that absolute power.
However, with Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president, it has become clear that the international community will undergo significant changes in areas such as policy, diplomatic relations, and the balance of power. The world has been thrown into turmoil by Trump’s campaign promises, including the renegotiation of free trade agreements (FTAs), the realignment of relations with allies such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the improvement of relations with Russia, a hardline policy toward China, and anti-immigration policies such as the construction of a wall along the Mexican border. In particular, the U.S. has stated it will withdraw U.S. troops stationed in various countries, and the direction of renegotiating the numerous trade agreements the U.S. has signed is expected to shift toward protectionism aimed at resolving the U.S. trade deficit. Given these campaign promises, it is highly likely that the U.S. will effectively abandon its role as a hegemonic power and withdraw from its previous active international interventionism. According to hegemonic stability theory, this abandonment of hegemony by the United States will cause far more economic disputes worldwide than in the past, increase the likelihood of military conflict, and bring significant turmoil to the world.
So why is the United States seeking to abandon the hegemony that underpins its global leadership? The answer lies in “America First.” Since the 2008 financial crisis, the United States has experienced economic turmoil. As countless households went bankrupt, numerous financial institutions collapsed in a domino effect, triggering a crisis accompanied by a decline in investment in other sectors. As a result, the U.S. unemployment rate rose sharply, and the country endured years of economic recession. Of course, the U.S. has now succeeded in significantly lowering the unemployment rate thanks to the effects of quantitative easing, and economic indicators are improving. However, this applies only to the territory of “America.” It applies only to Americans, including immigrants. In other words, it does not apply to those who have lived in the United States from the beginning and consider themselves the true “Americans”—especially white Americans. Having watched immigrants secure jobs by accepting low wages amid economic hardship, these people believed that foreigners were taking their jobs. They viewed Obama’s welfare policies as measures that used their tax dollars to protect immigrants. In this context, Trump, championing “America First,” pledged to cut foreign aid and defense spending and pursue various policies for the benefit of American citizens. This was a great source of comfort to Americans, particularly low-income white Americans. Facing economic hardship, the United States could no longer turn a blind eye to other nations profiting at its expense and thus relinquished its status as a hegemonic power.
When assessing the feasibility of these policies, one must question whether the United States can continue to reign as the dominant power of a global empire. While the emergence of a global empire—where the world is unified and acts for the common good of all humanity—may not be far off, this outcome could vary significantly depending on policy and human psychology. Trump’s “America First” policy stems from anxiety over the United States’ inability to maintain its position as a hegemonic power, and it remains unclear whether the formation of a global empire will clash with any nation’s hegemonic ambitions. However, one thing is certain: if Trump’s America maintains a policy of abandoning this hegemony, many countries around the world will face turmoil in the global economy, and this could even provoke backlash within the United States itself. Although it may be difficult for all of Trump’s campaign promises to be fulfilled during his term, the realization of even some of them could lead to a retreat in U.S. hegemony and further accelerate the emergence of a global empire.
