Can the empires of the world be “resurrected” –Author Rear Admiral (rz) PhD. Corneliu Bocai
History has proven that empires have emerged, expanded, dominated the world (from one century to dozens) and finally disintegrated. Their emergence was mainly determined by territorial conquest, subjugation of peoples, forced submission or even treason.
It was military force that was the dominant element that led to their emergence. This was then often accompanied by the spread of culture in the conquered area (e.g. Roman, Ottoman, British empires ….) taking advantage of the advanced level of civilization and the lack of reaction from the conquered peoples.
Most empires have been able to survive for centuries, thanks to an efficient (though sometimes harsh) administration, a sustainable organization of economic activities, an efficient use of the natural and human resources found in those territories, and why not also to the environmental conditions that were favourable to the development of useful activities and necessary to maintain the occupation. This is what happened with the Roman, Macedonian, Persian, Chinese, Habsburg, Austro-Hungarian, British, Japanese, Macedonian, Persian, Chinese, Habsburg, Austro-Hungarian, British, Japanese empires…
The natural question arises, can such empires or something similar still exist today? The answer could be that such empires need not arise today, for the simple reason that they exist! Obviously not in the form known to history! In the meantime, the world has evolved, it has become super-technologized, globalized, other forms and ways of dominating a territory (state, area) have appeared. I say this because today it is no longer necessary to conquer territories, to consume human and material resources to manage them! But how then?
After the failed export of communism (in Europe, Africa, Asia, Central America), the export of democracy as a form of progress and civilization (which is true compared to the other one) began (if not even before), or rather its imposition by force, dictated by the interests of the great powers, the only ones capable of imposing such a thing, using and supporting various methods, which have given the impression that they are the wishes of the states concerned (starting with supporting coups, so-called uprisings where the US excels). But even here, in most cases, failure has made its presence felt (see the cases of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt…). Today it is not necessarily military force that must be used to subdue or dominate a state. It is enough to control a territory from several points of view, such as:
– economically, through various companies, which monopolize and capitalize “more efficiently” the resources of the country in question, which impose certain forms of administration, and establish different economic policies, which correspond to their interests and give the impression that the countries in question are following the path of development and democracy;
– politically, either by supporting from the shadows a candidate (or party) that also corresponds to the interests of the “protector” state or even by getting involved and influencing the electoral process in the country in question;
– militarily, by intervening (often covertly) to ensure the security and protection of the people from the ‘undemocratic’, dictatorial regime in that country, which is restricting freedom in all its forms;
– propagandistically, by using the media as a tool to influence and manipulate the population into hating their rulers, their social system and presenting democracy and its benefits;
– financially, by granting loans by the IMF or WB for the development of the country, with substantial interest rates, which cause these countries to become totally dependent on these financial institutions for a long period of time.
We are witnessing all this today, convinced of the beneficial role of these ‘benevolent’ states and institutions, and we are seeing (or not wanting to see) the emergence of real ’empires’, obviously in a different form, as I have already said, but which do not claim this title. They no longer call themselves empires, because they do not conquer territories by force of arms, as they did some tens or hundreds of years ago, but by “force of intelligence and diplomacy”, as they perceive them to be.
They resort, however, to military force sometimes at first, in order to eliminate opposing forces to the will of the powerful. We must admit that democracy, even if it is the form that ensures prosperity and freedom, cannot be established everywhere (not even by force), especially in Muslim countries, where there has never been such a regime and probably no one can guarantee the imposition of such a regime.
So I believe that even today in the 21st century (it seems paradoxical but it is so) there are “empires” (although they are not called that) as I have tried to describe them or some that aspire to dominate an area, such as China in South-East Asia.
I have heard talk of the “sick Europe” (i.e. the Ottoman Empire) of the “axis of evil” (Iran-North Korea) but of the “evil empire” I have yet to hear, though I suspect what it might be. But who would call it that? Today, a small regional or even local conflict (even if it no longer has the characteristics of a classic conflict), because of globalization, reverberates and has repercussions and consequences up to the highest spheres of world leadership. That is why the major powers are trying to resolve them by peaceful means, but in their own interests, with the imposition of democracy as their “logo” or slogan, regardless of how they do it.
MARITIME SECURITY FORUM