This sample is my contribution to the portal. The paper was written in summer 2005 for an intermediate course on International Relations (LUMS). Although you are more than welcome to use it as a reference or study tool, I would appreciate it, however, if you give due credit to the author when using/citing material from the article. Umair Tamim

edit Imperialism in the Globalized World: A Theoretical Analysis

edit Introduction

Even though imperialism, as a phenomenon, is “as old as time” (Rajan, B., 2001, p. 1444), it was not until the 18th century that political scientists theorized it as an imperative aspect of international relations. These included, among many, Schumpeter, Hobson, Kautsky and Lenin, all of whom generally described imperialism as a cross-national endeavor by a state not necessarily for the conquest of territory, but particularly for the expansion of their domestic markets into foreign capitals for the purpose of economic gains and expansion (Wolff, R. D., 1970; Etherington, N., 1982).

Now, however, with the advent of technology, communications and, more importantly, the spread of liberal values in our post-modern, globalized world, the definition of imperialism, although unchanged at face value, has transformed into a new paradigm that must account for these very global, socio-political changes. Hence, it is no longer possible to give the term the concrete, historical definition. Although the motives of modern imperialism are still the same in principle, they entail a much more complex and rather latent aspect that can only be accounted for through ‘globalization’. Hence, this essay will attempt to redefine modern imperialism by accounting for the post-modern theories of complex interdependence and structural realism.

edit Abstract Theory of Imperialism

Before we address the role of imperialism in the modern world, we must first formulate an abstract definition of imperialism so that it may be applied to the modern theories of international relations.

edit Classical Definitions

According to classical political scientists, imperialism is classified as a phenomenon of the following aspects: (1) economic endeavor, (2) militaristic action for the purpose of security and (3) nationalistic antagonism. Etherington (1982) addresses the apparent conflict over the definition of the terms ‘colonialism’ and ‘imperialism’ that arose in the 19th century between the contemporary political theorists of imperialism. While Lenin had described imperialism as an “epoch of world capitalism”, insisting that it was solely an cross-border economic endeavor in which states sought to change markets “from free competition to monopoly”, others, including Hobson and Kautsky, contended that imperialism was “merely another form of colonialism” in that apart from economic gains, the earlier European powers had other more political rather than economic motives for imperialism. Etherington resolves the reason for this apparently trivial debate with the notion that the “theory of the future was gradually transmuted into a theory of the past”, suggesting that even though the earlier Victorian imperial conquests may have been for militaristic purposes, they could not account well for the mercantilist, imperial endeavors of the British empire (Etherington, N., 1982).

Knorr (1952) adds by incorporating Schumpeter’s definition of imperialism as an “objectless disposition on the part of a state to unlimited forcible expansion” and Dr. Ardent’s notion of imperialism as “expansion that is an end in itself and not a temporary means” (pp. 403-4), implying that states seek imperialism not only for political or economic means, but also for becoming hegemonies and for inciting a sense of “national power” within its people (pp. 403).

These definitions thence suggest that imperialism is a dynamic concept that has changed with time and socio-political conditions.

edit The Center and the Periphery

Let us now formulate a general but abstract theoretical framework of imperialism. According to the Lenin tradition, imperialism is a complex linkage between “a Center (imperial nation-state) and a Periphery (imperialized nation-state)”, but more specifically, between the ‘center’ of the Center and the ‘center’ of the Periphery (Galtung, 1971). Galtung suggests that imperialism occurs when there is a disharmony of interests among the respective classes of the Center and the Periphery, i.e. this disharmony is primarily within the ‘center’ (the elites or Marx’s bourgeoisie) and ‘periphery’ (the lower income class or proletariat) of the Center and within the same entities of the Periphery. As a result, the theory implies that there are increasing inequalities between the two states that emanate a “conflict of interests” between the two states.

According to the theory, there is a harmony of interests – which, not surprisingly, is similar to the ‘harmony of interests’ notion proposed by E. H. Carr – between the centers of the two states, but that there will be a disharmony, or increasing inequality of conditions, between the peripheries of the states. Galtung suggests that since the peripheries of states are generally the majority in states, the Periphery will suffer in conditions whereas the Center will benefit overall. Hence, he suggests that imperialism is precisely this “invariance” in conditions. Although he does not specifically define these exact “conditions”, he refers to them in a “materialistic sense”, accounting for the “quality of life” and “autonomy” of individuals within the states (Galtung, 1971, pp. 81-84).

From this framework, we can deduce that imperialism is hence the disparity between the colonizing and colonized states, but more specifically, between those of the people within the states and across them. This notion will be important in determining the intra- and inter-national effects that globalization has on states and their people.

edit Theoretical Analysis of Imperialism

Now that we have developed the theory of imperialism, we will attempt to explain it in terms of international relations’ theories, mainly through structural realism and complex interdependence.

edit Structural Realism and Imperialism

Realism holds that states, in their Hobbesian ‘state of nature’, will seek to ensure their security, and through the fear of being dominated, they will aspire to become dominant. If we consider the Victorian age, the realist argument accurately explains the imperialistic endeavors of the European states of the time. Each state, in order to ensure its survival, would colonize the weaker states so as to increase their power and maintain their sovereignty in the multi-polar world.

In the more contemporary times, we see that during the Cold War, one of the prime objectives of the United States and Soviet Union was to impart their ‘values’ to the other states so as to strengthen their sovereignty. It was for these reasons that the Soviet Union aspired to export Communism to the other states, whereas the U.S., as a preventive measure, competed with the Soviets by imparting their own values of liberal democracy. The question that arises is whether or not these actions were imperial in nature.

Considering the definition we have already established of imperialism, one of the historical motives of imperial states was ‘national collectivity’. In order to maintain and legitimize their sovereignty, states sought to dominate other states. In this paradigm, we can see that the U.S., in order to ensure its national security, formed NATO and hence the quarantine states, seeking the support of the world in favor of liberal democracy. James (1995) suggests that one of the factors that determine “war proneness” is the “degree of polarization” or the extent to which a state in the realpolitik paradigm has political strength in the international realm (pp. 183). Hence, the policy of ensuring that strength was the export of ‘values’. And the reason these ‘exports’ were actually a form of imperialism is that each state sought to ensure its ‘national collectivity’ and would, in fact, benefit from the dominated, small state while the latter would suffer in security. For example, considering the theory of realism, small states that side with a larger state would lose a certain degree of autonomy through their allegiance with the larger state. Consequently, the smaller states would be unstable and the larger state, in order to restrict this caprice, would ensure ‘loyalty’ through incentives and/or through coercion.

Hence, we can deduce from the empirical evidence that structural realism does explain imperialism, for imperialism is a method that states, as rational, competitive actors, use to ensure their sovereignty and security.

edit Dependence and Interdependence

Theories on contemporary liberalism, more or less, deal with the intensifying role of complex interdependence or how the increase in technology is leading to the rapid spread of information, ideas, etc. In opposition to structural realists, apologists of complex interdependence contend that the belligerent role of states is reducible, and, in fact, has been reduced through the collaboration of international institutions that work across borders. They contend that the imparting of liberal values and post-modern ideas, and through the rapid spread of knowledge and information, states are no longer the only contending actors in the political world. Among their other values, one of the most revered is that of free trade.

Most leftist writers, including Udofia (1984), contend that this complex interdependence is merely the new form of imperialism called “neoimperialism”, which is simply more economic than militaristic. Udofia states that in this form of imperialism, there exists a “contractual agreement between the capitalist and developing countries whereby the former undertake to assist the industrialization of the latter, on the understanding that loans will be reimbursed and investment capital will not be nationalized [by the developing country]” (pp. 354). This is clearly the Marxist-Leninist critique of imperialism, and gains more strength in light of the contemporary times where multi-national corporations, acting in the interests of their own country, seek to monopolize the capital markets of the developing countries so as to exploit them and reap the benefits. Although this fits our definition of imperialism, to simply place the blame of this dependency on complex interdependence or the repercussions thereof would be unfair. For in reality, empirical evidence suggests that the East Asian giants have had their alarming rates of success precisely because of the intervention of and interaction with the foreign states into their markets and, hence, due to the effects of complex interdependence.

But in order to establish the relationship between complex interdependence and imperialism, we need to look at the world from its current, globalized situation.

edit Globalization and the new face of Imperialism

Keohane and Nye (1998) contend that the rapid progress of technology has transformed the face of politics, for power is no longer determined solely by military might, but more so by the ability of a state to influence another state without taking any real action. This is referred to as “soft power”, where a state can cause another state to do exactly what it wants not through incentives or coercion, but rather because the other state shares the same norms. This, in my opinion, forms the basis of ‘post-modern imperialism’, in that imperial domination is no longer militaristic, but rather cultural and normative. Again, the ends are still economic, but the means have changed with the ‘global’ circumstances.

The historical motives of imperialism have changed over time from that of colonization to that of capital monopolism and of national sovereignty. In particular, however, these aspects have been superseded by the “post-ideas”, or the ideas of the post-modern world (Kellner, 2002). What this implies is that the power struggle that occurs between states is no longer just for economic ends, but also for cultural ones. In other words, “knowledge is power” in this age and the only states that can be dominant today are those that can somehow make others incorporate their values and norms (Keohane & Nye, 1998). It is at this juncture, unfortunately, where the clear distinction between the West and the non-West has arisen.

We have already described the realist perspective on imperialism. With regards to globalization, however, we have not been able to identify a distinct link yet. Referring strictly to our definition, we see that the empirical evidence on globalization shows two general trends: (1) effects of globalization have not been universal (Keohane & Nye, 1998) and (2) the benefits of globalization have been detrimental to many states (Rajan, B., 2001). The fact that there exists a disparity in who benefits from globalization indicates that there is, in fact, some form of imperialism inherent in globalization.

Unfortunately, though, we still do not have concrete empirical or theoretical evidence suggesting that globalization is either a means or an end to imperialism. We have already established that ‘cultural imperialism’ is on the rise and the West/non-West divide is proof of this. However, Rajan (2001) notes that globalization itself is not inherently linked to imperialism in any way. He contends that globalization’s “rhetoric calls for a universal meritocracy that offers equality of opportunity to all the world’s people”. He goes on to suggest that unfortunately, the more powerful nations in the world have not addressed the issue of inequality properly. This complaint has been made by many other proponents and opponents of globalization, including Joseph Kahn (2002). Another contemporary, Kellner (2002), contends that the reasons for the apparent disparities between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ is not because globalization was an “inevitable” plot of the “capitalists” to dominate the developing nations, but rather that it was the failure of the developed nations to implement adequate and universally beneficial international policies. Hence, Kellner argues that aspects of globalization in the “post” have been “misused” and hence, there needs to be a global agenda arising not at the international level, but on the grassroots level.

In conclusion then, we can conclude that even though the neo-Marxist-Leninist theory does account for many of the disparities between states, incorporating globalization as the modern form of imperialism (Kellner, 2002), it alone can not account for the benefits that many developing nations have accrued as a result of globalization. Imperialism has transformed along with the global political scenario and it will possibly continue to do so with the changing face of the political world.