The Persisting Ambiguity of Empire

Two American political scientists and a Ukrainian sociologist analyze the results of Ukraine's 1998 parliamentary elections. The purpose is to test propositions about the cognitive organization of voters' attitudes about issues and evaluations of the political parties that seek to mobilize their vote. The article then examines differences on these scores between the East and West of the country. A test is provided of the spatial model of voting that has been found to be a successful predictor of belief organization in other countries and milieux.     

Restructuring the Empire: The Nixon Doctrine after Vietnam

Abstract

Ever since Richard Nixon announced that the United States would adopt a “low profile” defense posture in Asia, American foreign affairs analysts have sought to construct an accurate model of the new policy. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, who analyzed the Nixon Doctrine in a 1969 report to the Congress, concluded that henceforth “The United States will avoid the creation of situations in which there is such dependence on us that, inevitably, we become enmeshed in what are essentially Asian problems and conflicts.” Lest this conclusion alarm any of our more insecure clients in the area, Vice President Agnew toured Asia in early 1970 to announce that the President had never intended such a sweeping reversal of policy: “Let me make it very clear,” he told newsmen in Canberra, “that despite a great deal of speculation and rumor, we are not withdrawing from Asia and the Pacific…. As a Pacific power, we will remain in the Pacific.” Nixon himself seems to have encouraged this dichotomy: thus the invasion of Cambodia in 1970 and the massive air attacks on Hanoi in 1972 suggested that he was committed to the interventionist stance represented by Agnew; while the cease-fire in Vietnam and the initiation of diplomatic contacts with China suggest that he leans toward the more restrained position of Mansfield.     

How Empire Shaped Us

How Empire Shaped Us. Edited by Antoinette Burton and Dane Kennedy (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), pp. xi+216. £65.00 (cloth).     

霸权的困境--"美国霸权治下的和平"与"新帝国"论的神话

"9·11"恐怖袭击事件的发生及其后续发展彰显了实力与国家安全之间的背离,国际多边主义与美国单边主义之间的对峙成了决定未来大国关系走向和国际体系发展的主要矛盾."美国霸权治下的和平"和"新帝国"论的倡导者主张美国应该通过追求超强实力实现国家安全和世界稳定,应该采取单边主义和先发制人战略实现并维持美国对世界的领导地位,应该通过追求国家绝对安全和相对收益为未来世界制定秩序.它忽视了实力上升并不必然带来安全相应增加的历史新现实,而演绎的只是一个现代神话.未来的世界和平,只能是"多边协调下的和平".     

恐怖、帝国神话和资本过程

后冷战时代,有一种观点认为,在和平和发展这个主题之外,恐怖和帝国构成了全球化的一个副主题.孱弱的恐怖活动以庞大的资本帝国为攻击目标,资本帝国以反恐为工具,二者在全球化过程中相互对抗,是全球体系的腐败区域所孳生的孪生物.从这个角度看,恐怖和帝国在本质上都是失败者.全球性本体的生成和全球社会的确立是全球化所要到达的终极目的地,而恐怖和帝国必将在到达这一目的地的过程中最终消亡