Imagine a hypothetical situation: the Polish government is sending officers of its services to Bulgaria to assist Bulgarians with the designation of an highly dangerous criminal, the head of an organized crime group, who is to be deported to Poland after arrest and sentenced by the Polish court to prison sentences. It must be admitted that this would be an unusual, abstract and even absurd situation and could be taken negatively from the Bulgarians' perspective. Rather, everyone would want that criminals would not service time in abroad prisons and be tried by their own national courts. However, akin situations occurred in the United States and their fight against drug smugglers. On January 8, 2016, Joaquín Guzmán Loera, known as “El Chapo”, Mexican criminal, drug dealer and cartel leader from Sinaloi was detained by peculiar forces of the Mexican Navy. US national services, including the DEA, have collaborated with Mexican authorities in this regard, and unconfirmed information is circulating on the net that US peculiar Forces soldiers are present during the arrest. Whether it is actual or rumored, the fact is that “El Chapo” was sentenced by an American court to prison sentence, of course held in an American prison facility. Similarly, Colombian police forces were trained and supported by American services in akin cases. It should be noted, however, that American prisons are far more adequate to keep specified serious criminals – there are no corrupt guards in them and they are harder to escape.
Without considering whether specified support from the United States was due to the peculiar interests of the fight against drug traffickers, whose products seriously harmed the American public, and which, however, proved to be a failure, whether this support was due to the goodness of the heart of the “leader of the free world” is an crucial origin which in general enabled specified and akin US actions to be their status. But it's not about the position of power, it would be cliché, it would be truism. It's about the position of the empire.
However, the concept of empire is not that simple. We like to think of empires structurally, as a large heterogeneous state organism. reasoning of Rome in ancient times, we think of a map, we think of the full Mediterranean basin. However, it is worth reasoning of the United States as, among another things, a geopolitical unit whose scope of methods and tools characteristic of interior policy goes importantly beyond formal political boundaries. Political action can be external, specified as the establishment of diplomatic posts and all diplomatic acts, the declaration of wars or the conduct of intelligence activities. This kind of action is carried out by all countries with limited different determinants, although not all countries can take all of these measures. Russia may have invaded Ukraine, but it cannot do the same Uruguay against India due to geographical factors or deficiency of strength and resources, and Andorra is incapable to attack any another country due to the fact that it simply does not have an army. The second kind of policy action is interior activities specified as the work of the judiciary, police and taxation policy. So we have 2 levels of political action that permeate each another and are not homogeneous. Certain methods and tools are appropriate for each of them. For interior policy, police will be the right tool, and the right method of external policy will be to wage war. According to this knowing the empire is simply a state whose formal boundaries are purely legal, and in fact, its power extends much further. However, the usage of alternate methods and tools as a general rule should not be considered, for an empire can be defined as a kind of certain power.
The United States has become de facto the most powerful empire in history, though specified a word never came out of the mouth of American leaders. U.S. influences in the planet were and inactive are like octopus tentacles. They cover virtually all America, a large part of Europe and parts of Asia, where “Uncle Sam” has its “unsinkable aircraft carriers” in the form of Taiwan or Israel. While inactive utilizing the Octopus metaphor, which, though more closely associated with criminal organizations than states, is highly accurate, the Cold War was the conflict of 2 specified octopuses among tiny squids. After the dissolution of the russian Union and the political failure of this project, the US became an empire of hegemonic format. A swift economy, CIA intelligence structures, and the world's most powerful army, and the fleet in the seas is simply a image of the beginning of a fresh era of hegemon. The United States Empire has gained the power of what the 19th century British Empire could only dream of. The US never even covered half the territory of the large colonial empires – they never had to. To manage strategical interests effectively, you do not request to exercise authority over territories, but only have comfortable conditions. It would seem that the United States, while respecting the principles of democracy and peaceful coexistence of nations, does not occupy the territories of another countries as opposed to the erstwhile empires that drained, among others, Africa from resources. Nothing more wrong. The change in the structure of the global strategy after planet War II and the decolonization only changed the methods of imperial aspirations.
Africa is the perfect example, due to the fact that it was colonized practically throughout the period of the interwar period. The only sovereign states were created by liberated black slaves Liberia and imperial Ethiopia, nevertheless conquered in 1936 by Italy Mussolini. independency was besides announced by Egypt, but British influences in this country, especially during the war were crucial and hard to talk of the sovereign state. African societies have mostly been and any of them are inactive based on tribal structure. The introduction of a strategy of liberal democracy into these societies was a misunderstanding which allowed for the gaining of influence through concessions, secret agreements or average trade. present it is not worth having these territories. alternatively of maintaining a permanent military contingent, civilian administration and repressing the local population – just deal with the local government and establish an embassy. The American embassy anywhere in the planet can be not only a diplomatic facility, but besides a kind of “lobbyist” that can more or little influence the politics of another states like the office of politician – an interior policy tool. This example is only an analogy, but the United States has surely been able to make provinces of another countries subject to 1 another. Provinces in the sense of not administrative units, but subjects, like any Roman provinces, who, however, maintained a certain degree of interior independence. It was the Jews who captured Jesus, but they brought him to Pilate due to the fact that they themselves could not conviction him to death. What was South Vietnam if not specified a “region”? An even better comparison seems to be the definition of this arrangement as flaxy. It is clear that the situation of specified a “lennik” on interior issues is much better than in British colonies.
The American empire, if nothing changes and both its interior and external policies are not modified, will likely fall. It is not expected that the state itself will fall, although this cannot be ruled out. The collapse of the empire will mean a revision of the current global order upon which the rubble will emergence new. However, the United States has a crucial problem. They're unbelievable. Liberal hegemon, on the 1 hand, puts emphasis on democracy and respect for human rights, on the another hand, for years the American government had a good relation with the state, which is 1 of the fewer absolute monarchies in the planet where so far there is simply a punishment of flogging – Saudi Arabia. The US prides itself on supporting democracy in the world, but supported the coup of General Pinochet in Chile, which overturned the communist government, but it was surely not a democratic way. The United States condemned war crimes in the erstwhile Yugoslavia and American soldiers participated in arrests. You're right. However, Henry Kissinger for Cambodia's carpet bombardment never responded. However, the problem is not that the United States acted immorally to safeguard its strategical interests. Winston Churchill is liable for the deaths of many Hindus, and Arthur Harris could surely be considered a war criminal. The problem is that the U.S. is doing this to stay a moral model, which makes them a hypocrisy empire, a saint empire. After the Second planet War, however, global policy took on any valuable character. It was loud about crimes, but mostly the countries defeated. The U.S. is besides opposed to the U.S. tradition of abandoning its ally-lentists Cultov became a 1975 photograph in which the last American chopper leaves Saigon. A akin photograph was taken in 2021 in Kabul. They look identical. It should be understood that for the United States this situation is simply a slap, for an American ally it is frequently a substance of existence. The American operation in Afghanistan only confirms that. By the way, this war was more of a “police-stabilization” action, and for the purposes of specified operations the Americans introduced peculiar armored vehicles into the armed forces, which have increased opposition to mines and improvised explosives. The U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan have made more action characteristic of police forces than the strictly military action. It is not about diminishing the valor of American soldiers, but about indicating that during this conflict the American army did not wage war with an equal opponent, but mainly counter-terrorist actions with overwhelming advantage. Many terrorists were arrested and killed during these actions, but if they were hiding in the United States, alternatively of the Green Berets, the national Bureau of Investigation would come for them.
In the end, the US withdrew from Afghanistan, leaving the pro-American government to the Taliban. However, this should not be interpreted from a state policy position as a proposition to break all alliance ties with Americans. An alliance from the United States should be considered in terms of matrimony by reason, with a signed prenup and the anticipation of divorce. You just should be ready to revise your alliances.
The United States continues to feed global imperial ambitions and extend its curate over the world. The future will show whether the U.S. government will change its policies and possibly keep the level of power or the imperial power of the U.S. will fall and the global strategy will endure immense changes, resulting in the American empire falling.
Jakub Frąckiewicz
