There have been different descriptions of empire throughout history. But all of them fit into one pattern: a militarily and economically strong state taking control of weaker ones. This relationship leads to an unequal and combined process of economic and political relations until it is challenged by either other empires or the peripheral countries sucked into the system.
Brute force is not enough to keep up an empire. A pervasive economic system that tie all dependent components (states) together and cultural affinity are equally important. Following the demise of the Soviet Empire many of the satellite countries were open to the effects of rapid globalization. Market relations expanded, capitalism reached virtually everywhere in the world.
A new form of empire began to shape as Johan Galtung (2004) has propounded. It fit into the old mold of “unequal exchanges between the center and the periphery” legitimizing “relationships between exploiters and exploited economically, killers and victims militarily, dominators and dominated politically and alienators and alienated culturally.”
This analysis reveals the spirit of the modern day empire; economic interest and cultural domination are interwoven and driven by the logic of control and exploitation of the hegemonic power. Power has the tendency of controlling more territories and people with resources such as energy, minerals, raw materials and markets for increasing trade.
Today’s imperialism does not aim to control territories by direct military occupation. It is too costly and risky. Military might is only necessary where there are resistance and direct defiance of the control of the hegemonic power. Creating “a certain cultural symmetry with the center” is also vital to sustain the unequal relationship.
Looking from this perspective understanding assaults on Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan makes sense. These were countries that possess vast natural wealth and strategic importance. Iraq and Libya had oil and gas, but their resources. But they were also unruly regimes and could not be reined in by the global hegemonic power. Furthermore both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi are on record for becoming too friendly with the Soviet Union before its collapse. They were found to be too unpredictable and stubborn. They also attempted to drop the American dollar even before formidable economies like India and China tried to so.

Saddam and Gaddafi ruled over their people with considerable ruthlessness. They were undemocratic, so their people had to be liberated from them! But the same rationale was never employed in the case of other despots in the Gulf region and the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia and Arab emirates such as Bahrain and Qatar have no semblance of western type of democracies. In fact they are just warming up to the idea of sending female competitors to the Olympics. However, the rulers of these wealthy despotisms see it expedient to accommodate the hegemon’s interests. They do not apply restrictive quotas to their oil and gas through the sale of which they hoard billions of dollars with which they buy vast quantities of weapons systems “and consumer goods from the industrialized world led by the hegemon.” This is far more agreeable relationship.
In the hegemonic world system that has shaped up since the end of the Cold War there are several categories of nations/states:
Stubborn and the uncontrollable. Iran since the 1979 Revolution, Syria since the 1963 Ba’athist takeover, and Sudan. The hegemon (and systemic allies) does everything “to overthrow uncooperative regimes by diplomatic, economic and military means”.
Alternative hegemonic powers. China, Russia and, to a lesser degree, India that pose a counterweight that make the hegemon feel that it has limits. Multifaceted but competitive relations are developed with these states/nations.
Failed states like Somalia, Ethiopia, and Mali. They are abject poor and disregarded by both the hegemon and the rest of the world except when they threaten the security of the “friendly neighbors” and at times of temporary shows of benevolence of the “civilized” nations.
This classification once again drives the point home that globalization has not led to the erosion of sovereignty. Instead, a set of new power relationships in the form of national and supranational institutions like the United Nations, the European Union and the World Trade Organization has been introduced into the global equation. Imperialism is no more based on the notions of national sovereignty and territorial possession. It is in the form of “globalization of production, trade and communication. It has no definitive political center and no territorial limits.” The new Empire has open and expanding frontiers. Power is distributed in networks.
Alright then who is the enemy? It is any move, group or nation that “poses a threat to the entire system”. They have to be dealt with by force. This is the new definition of “terrorism”.


Prof. Dr. Doğu Ergil is a Professor of political Science in Fatih University \ Turkey, and also an expert on the Kurdish Question, and he is one of the well-known authors in Turkey.