Is the American Empire collapsing?
Isolationist tendencies, or ambivalence regarding the USA’s global role, are nonetheless a near-permanent feature in the opinions of the American populace. This can paradoxically help increase the likelihood that the United States will remain actively engaged globally.
Historian Robert Kagan may be right when he argues that “it was precisely Americans’ limitations and hesitations that made them such an attractive leader of the transatlantic ‘empire’”.
Additionally, from the perspective of (most of) the rest of the world, the United States is seen as a geographically distant maritime power with no territorial ambitions. The superpower is instead regarded as a highly desirable ally and protector against more geographically proximate threats.
Regional Military Alliances
Secondly, there are forces in American politics, academia and other public sectors that recommend a partial withdrawal. The idea is to let regional ‘middle powers’ take the primary responsibility for regional security. In such a scenario, the United States can keep its forces ‘above the horizon’ and come to the rescue if, and only if, it is truly necessary.
Such ideas are likely to gain new life if Donald Trump wins the upcoming presidential election. Many (but by no means all) of his supporters advocate such ideas. In practice, however, a strategy of this type has proved particularly difficult to implement.
Throughout history, empires have risen and fallen, largely depending on shifts in relative power dynamics.
Europe is far from possessing the necessary capabilities, let alone a coordinated willingness. In addition, there is no country in the Middle East to which the United States can delegate responsibility. And regarding East Asia, almost everyone in the United States and among its allies agrees that an American withdrawal would provide significant geopolitical gains for China (and North Korea), to the detriment of most others, including the United States.
Changes in the Balance of Power
Significant changes in the balance of power are a third, more fundamental reason why superpowers must eventually scale down their global activities. Throughout history, empires have risen and fallen, largely depending on shifts in relative power dynamics.
If the gap between material capabilities and global presence becomes too large, the empire becomes ‘overstretched’ and starts living on borrowed time. The British Empire is one example – the Soviet Empire is another. The existence of emerging rival superpowers accelerates this process.
______________________________________
The United States is still in a completely different league when it comes to the most important power factors, even in the face of a rapidly growing China.
______________________________________
However, the United States in 2024 is not like the Great Britain of old. The British economic and demographic basis was always quite fragile, and the empire was gigantic. By the end of the 19th century, it was clear that other states – not least Germany and the United States themselves – had caught up with Great Britain on many key economic parameters. However, it is worth noting that the empire lived on, or limped along, for another two generations before the Second World War decisively put the final nail in its coffin.
The United States is still in a completely different league when it comes to the most important power factors, even in the face of a rapidly growing China. In addition, the United States has (mostly) avoided the perpetual temptation of empires: seeking territorial control. Another point is that the United States has no major security threats in its own region.
Such threats posed a very costly and energy-draining headache for both the British Empire and the Soviet Empire, and they were also a key reason for the collapse of the Dutch maritime-based empire in the 18th century.
The United States is undoubtedly in relative decline, and the economic centre of gravity in the world is gradually shifting eastward towards Asia. However, the decline has so far been very slow and gradual, and, it seems, quite manageable.
Black Swans and Credibility
The fourth and final possible reason is probably the least tangible, although it might represent the most plausible candidate. It involves dramatic, unpredictable events – so-called ‘black swans’. The outbreak of a major war, and especially one with multiple fronts, is probably the most obvious example.
Even significant international crises that do not involve full-scale warfare can be draining enough to strongly affect the perception of one’s own capabilities and willingness, as well as those of adversaries and allies.
It is about credibility, which is basically the most valuable currency of empires. That is why American decision-makers always seem so obsessed with showing strength.
During the Cold War, it was believed that showing weakness in the major crises – such as over Berlin, Korea, Formosa (Taiwan), Cuba and Vietnam – would signal the beginning of the end for the American Empire. That is still the case.
______________________________________
If others, as well as the United States itself, do not perceive the superpower as a credible stabilizer and guarantor of security, then the United States can no longer function as a stabilizer or security guarantor.
______________________________________
The war in Ukraine, along with the United States’ short- and long-term response, also impacts how everyone – enemies, allies and the United States itself – perceives the durability of the American empire. And this perception manifests itself in reality.
If others, as well as the United States itself, do not perceive the superpower as a credible stabiliser and guarantor of security, then the United States can no longer function as a stabiliser or security guarantor. The same would apply in the event of a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
If the United States did not respond to this, and especially if it did not respond strongly and with military force, American credibility would crumble – and with it, the empire as we know it.
It is also for such reasons that it is so difficult to begin the process of withdrawal. This has been the case for virtually all empires throughout history. Withdrawal usually signals an admission and a demonstration of weakness, which in turn leads to diminished credibility, and an empire with diminished credibility will be quickly shaken to its foundations. For this reason, one can expect that the United States will remain as it is for the time being, regardless of who ends up in the White House in January.
Jo Jakobsen is a professor, Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). The article, first published by forskersonen.no on 6 July 2024, is republished courtesy of Norwegian SciTech News.
