Chalmers Johnson: Empire Vs. Democracy


Richard Moore

Original source URL:

Empire Vs. Democracy
Chalmers Johnson
January 31, 2007

Chalmers Johnson is a retired professor of Asian Studies at the University of 
California, San Diego. From 1968 until 1972 he served as a consultant to the 
Office of National Estimates of the Central Intelligence Agency. Nemesis: The 
Last Days of the American Republic, the final volume in his Blowback Trilogy, is
just now being published. In 2006 he appeared in the prize-winning documentary 
film "Why We Fight." This article appeared previously in

History tells us that one of the most unstable political combinations is a 
country‹like the United States today‹that tries to be a domestic democracy and a
foreign imperialist. Why this is so can be a very abstract subject. Perhaps the 
best way to offer my thoughts on this is to say a few words about my new book, 
Nemesis , and explain why I gave it the subtitle, "The Last Days of the American
Republic." Nemesis is the third book to have grown out of my research over the 
past eight years. I never set out to write a trilogy on our increasingly 
endangered democracy, but as I kept stumbling on ever more evidence of the 
legacy of the imperialist pressures we put on many other countries as well as 
the nature and size of our military empire, one book led to another.

Professionally, I am a specialist in the history and politics of East Asia. In 
2000, I published Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire , 
because my research on China, Japan and the two Koreas persuaded me that our 
policies there would have serious future consequences. The book was noticed at 
the time, but only after 9/11 did the CIA term I adapted for the 
title‹"blowback"‹become a household word and my volume a bestseller.

I had set out to explain how exactly our government came to be so hated around 
the world. As a CIA term of tradecraft, "blowback" does not just mean 
retaliation for things our government has done to, and in, foreign countries. It
refers specifically to retaliation for illegal operations carried out abroad 
that were kept totally secret from the American public. These operations have 
included the clandestine overthrow of governments various administrations did 
not like, the training of foreign militaries in the techniques of state 
terrorism, the rigging of elections in foreign countries, interference with the 
economic viability of countries that seemed to threaten the interests of 
influential American corporations, as well as the torture or assassination of 
selected foreigners. The fact that these actions were, at least originally, 
secret meant that when retaliation does come‹as it did so spectacularly on 
September 11, 2001‹the American public is incapable of putting the events in 
context. Not surprisingly, then, Americans tend to support speedy acts of 
revenge intended to punish the actual, or alleged, perpetrators. These moments 
of lashing out, of course, only prepare the ground for yet another cycle of 

A World of Bases

As a continuation of my own analytical odyssey, I then began doing research on 
the network of 737 American military bases we maintained around the world 
(according to the Pentagon's own 2005 official inventory). Not including the 
Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, we now station over half a million U.S. troops, 
spies, contractors, dependents, and others on military bases located in more 
than 130 countries, many of them presided over by dictatorial regimes that have 
given their citizens no say in the decision to let us in.

As but one striking example of imperial basing policy: For the past 61 years, 
the U.S. military has garrisoned the small Japanese island of Okinawa with 37 
bases. Smaller than Kauai in the Hawaiian Islands, Okinawa is home to 1.3 
million people who live cheek-by-jowl with 17,000 Marines of the 3rd Marine 
Division and the largest U.S. installation in East Asia‹Kadena Air Force Base. 
There have been many Okinawan protests against the rapes, crimes, accidents, and
pollution caused by this sort of concentration of American troops and weaponry, 
but so far the U. S. military‹in collusion with the Japanese government‹has 
ignored them. My research into our base world resulted in The Sorrows of Empire:
Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic , written during the run-up to 
the Iraq invasion.

As our occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq turned into major fiascoes, 
discrediting our military leadership, ruining our public finances, and bringing 
death and destruction to hundreds of thousands of civilians in those countries, 
I continued to ponder the issue of empire. In these years, it became ever 
clearer that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their supporters were claiming, 
and actively assuming, powers specifically denied to a president by our 
Constitution. It became no less clear that Congress had almost completely 
abdicated its responsibilities to balance the power of the executive branch. 
Despite the Democratic sweep in the 2006 election, it remains to be seen whether
these tendencies can, in the long run, be controlled, let alone reversed.

Until the 2004 presidential election, ordinary citizens of the United States 
could at least claim that our foreign policy, including our illegal invasion of 
Iraq, was the work of George Bush's administration and that we had not put him 
in office. After all, in 2000, Bush lost the popular vote and was appointed 
president thanks to the intervention of the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. But
in November 2004, regardless of claims about voter fraud, Bush actually won the 
popular vote by over 3.5 million ballots, making his regime and his wars ours.

Whether Americans intended it or not, we are now seen around the world as 
approving the torture of captives at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, at Bagram Air 
Base in Kabul, at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and at a global network of secret CIA 
prisons, as well as having endorsed Bush's claim that, as commander-in-chief in 
"wartime," he is beyond all constraints of the Constitution or international 
law. We are now saddled with a rigged economy based on record-setting trade and 
fiscal deficits, the most secretive and intrusive government in our country's 
memory, and the pursuit of "preventive" war as a basis for foreign policy. Don't
forget as well the potential epidemic of nuclear proliferation as other nations 
attempt to adjust to and defend themselves against Bush's preventive wars, while
our own already staggering nuclear arsenal expands toward first-strike primacy 
and we expend unimaginable billions on futuristic ideas for warfare in outer 

The Choice Ahead

By the time I came to write Nemesis, I no longer doubted that maintaining our 
empire abroad required resources and commitments that would inevitably undercut,
or simply skirt, what was left of our domestic democracy and that might, in the 
end, produce a military dictatorship or‹far more likely‹its civilian equivalent.
The combination of huge standing armies, almost continuous wars, an ever growing
economic dependence on the military-industrial complex and the making of 
weaponry, and ruinous military expenses as well as a vast, bloated "defense" 
budget, not to speak of the creation of a whole second Defense Department (known
as the Department of Homeland Security) has been destroying our republican 
structure of governing in favor of an imperial presidency. By republican 
structure, of course, I mean the separation of powers and the elaborate checks 
and balances that the founders of our country wrote into the Constitution as the
main bulwarks against dictatorship and tyranny, which they greatly feared.

We are on the brink of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. 
Once a nation starts down that path, the dynamics that apply to all empires come
into play‹isolation, overstretch, the uniting of local and global forces opposed
to imperialism, and in the end bankruptcy.

History is instructive on this dilemma. If we choose to keep our empire, as the 
Roman republic did, we will certainly lose our democracy and grimly await the 
eventual blowback that imperialism generates. There is an alternative, however. 
We could, like the British Empire after World War II, keep our democracy by 
giving up our empire. The British did not do a particularly brilliant job of 
liquidating their empire and there were several clear cases where British 
imperialists defied their nation's commitment to democracy in order to hang on 
to foreign privileges. The war against the Kikuyu in Kenya in the 1950s and the 
Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 are particularly savage examples 
of that. But the overall thrust of postwar British history is clear: the people 
of the British Isles chose democracy over imperialism.

In her book The Origins of Totalitarianism , the political philosopher Hannah 
Arendt offered the following summary of British imperialism and its fate:

"On the whole it was a failure because of the dichotomy between the 
nation-state's legal principles and the methods needed to oppress other people 
permanently. This failure was neither necessary nor due to ignorance or 
incompetence. British imperialists knew very well that 'administrative 
massacres' could keep India in bondage, but they also knew that public opinion 
at home would not stand for such measures. Imperialism could have been a success
if the nation-state had been willing to pay the price, to commit suicide and 
transform itself into a tyranny. It is one of the glories of Europe, and 
especially of Great Britain, that she preferred to liquidate the empire."

I agree with this judgment. When one looks at Prime Minister Tony Blair's 
unnecessary and futile support of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, one 
can only conclude that it was an atavistic response, that it represented a 
British longing to relive the glories‹and cruelties‹of a past that should have 
been ancient history.

As a form of government, imperialism does not seek or require the consent of the
governed. It is a pure form of tyranny. The American attempt to combine domestic
democracy with such tyrannical control over foreigners is hopelessly 
contradictory and hypocritical. A country can be democratic or it can be 
imperialistic, but it cannot be both.

The Road to Imperial Bankruptcy

The American political system failed to prevent this combination from 
developing‹and may now be incapable of correcting it. The evidence strongly 
suggests that the legislative and judicial branches of our government have 
become so servile in the presence of the imperial Presidency that they have 
largely lost the ability to respond in a principled and independent manner. Even
in the present moment of congressional stirring, there seems to be a deep sense 
of helplessness. Various members of Congress have already attempted to explain 
how the one clear power they retain‹to cut off funds for a disastrous program‹is
not one they are currently prepared to use.

So the question becomes, if not Congress, could the people themselves restore 
Constitutional government? A grass-roots movement to abolish secret government, 
to bring the CIA and other illegal spying operations and private armies out of 
the closet of imperial power and into the light, to break the hold of the 
military-industrial complex, and to establish genuine public financing of 
elections may be at least theoretically conceivable. But given the conglomerate 
control of our mass media and the difficulties of mobilizing our large and 
diverse population, such an opting for popular democracy, as we remember it from
our past, seems unlikely.

It is possible that, at some future moment, the U.S. military could actually 
take over the government and declare a dictatorship (though its commanders would
undoubtedly find a gentler, more user-friendly name for it). That is, after all,
how the Roman republic ended‹by being turned over to a populist general, Julius 
Caesar, who had just been declared dictator for life. After his assassination 
and a short interregnum, it was his grandnephew Octavian who succeeded him and 
became the first Roman emperor, Augustus Caesar. The American military is 
unlikely to go that route. But one cannot ignore the fact that professional 
military officers seem to have played a considerable role in getting rid of 
their civilian overlord, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The new directors
of the CIA, its main internal branches, the National Security Agency, and many 
other key organs of the "defense establishment" are now military (or 
ex-military) officers, strongly suggesting that the military does not need to 
take over the government in order to control it. Meanwhile, the all-volunteer 
army has emerged as an ever more separate institution in our society, its 
profile less and less like that of the general populace.

Nonetheless, military coups, however decorous, are not part of the American 
tradition, nor that of the officer corps, which might well worry about how the 
citizenry would react to a move toward open military dictatorship. Moreover, 
prosecutions of low-level military torturers from Abu Ghraib prison and killers 
of civilians in Iraq have demonstrated to enlisted troops that obedience to 
illegal orders can result in dire punishment in a situation where those of 
higher rank go free. No one knows whether ordinary soldiers, even from what is 
no longer in any normal sense a citizen army, would obey clearly illegal orders 
to oust an elected government or whether the officer corps would ever have 
sufficient confidence to issue such orders. In addition, the present system 
already offers the military high command so much‹in funds, prestige, and future 
employment via the famed "revolving door" of the military-industrial 
complex‹that a perilous transition to anything like direct military rule would 
make little sense under reasonably normal conditions.

Whatever future developments may prove to be, my best guess is that the U.S. 
will continue to maintain a façade of constitutional government and drift along 
until financial bankruptcy overtakes it. Of course, bankruptcy will not mean the
literal end of the U.S. any more than it did for Germany in 1923, China in 1948,
or Argentina in 2001-2002. It might, in fact, open the way for an unexpected 
restoration of the American system‹or for military rule, revolution, or simply 
some new development we cannot yet imagine.

Certainly, such a bankruptcy would mean a drastic lowering of our standard of 
living, a further loss of control over international affairs, a sudden need to 
adjust to the rise of other powers, including China and India, and a further 
discrediting of the notion that the United States is somehow exceptional 
compared to other nations. We will have to learn what it means to be a far 
poorer country‹and the attitudes and manners that go with it. As Anatol Lieven, 
author of America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism , observes:

"U.S. global power, as presently conceived by the overwhelming majority of the 
U.S. establishment, is unsustainable. . . The empire can no longer raise enough 
taxes or soldiers, it is increasingly indebted, and key vassal states are no 
longer reliable. . . The result is that the empire can no longer pay for enough 
of the professional troops it needs to fulfill its self-assumed imperial tasks."

In February 2006, the Bush administration submitted to Congress a $439 billion 
defense appropriation budget for fiscal year 2007. As the country enters 2007, 
the administration is about to present a nearly $100 billion supplementary 
request to Congress just for the Iraq and Afghan wars. At the same time, the 
deficit in the country's current account‹the imbalance in the trading of goods 
and services as well as the shortfall in all other cross-border payments from 
interest income and rents to dividends and profits on direct 
investments‹underwent its fastest ever quarterly deterioration. For 2005, the 
current account deficit was $805 billion, 6.4 percent of national income. In 
2005, the U.S. trade deficit, the largest component of the current account 
deficit, soared to an all-time high of $725.8 billion, the fourth consecutive 
year that America's trade debts set records. The trade deficit with China alone 
rose to $201.6 billion, the highest imbalance ever recorded with any country. 
Meanwhile, since mid-2000, the country has lost nearly three million 
manufacturing jobs.

To try to cope with these imbalances, on March 16, 2006, Congress raised the 
national debt limit from $8.2 trillion to $8.96 trillion. This was the fourth 
time since George W. Bush took office that it had to be raised. The national 
debt is the total amount owed by the government and should not be confused with 
the federal budget deficit, the annual amount by which federal spending exceeds 
revenue. Had Congress not raised the debt limit, the U.S. government would not 
have been able to borrow more money and would have had to default on its massive

Among the creditors that finance these unprecedented sums, the two largest are 
the central banks of China (with $853.7 billion in reserves) and Japan (with 
$831.58 billion in reserves), both of which are the managers of the huge trade 
surpluses these countries enjoy with the United States. This helps explain why 
our debt burden has not yet triggered what standard economic theory would 
dictate: a steep decline in the value of the U.S. dollar followed by a severe 
contraction of the American economy when we found we could no longer afford the 
foreign goods we like so much. So far, both the Chinese and Japanese governments
continue to be willing to be paid in dollars in order to sustain American 
purchases of their exports.

For the sake of their own domestic employment, both countries lend huge amounts 
to the American treasury, but there is no guarantee of how long they will want 
to, or be able to do so. Marshall Auerback, an international financial 
strategist, says we have become a "Blanche Dubois economy" (so named after the 
leading character in the Tennessee Williams play A Streetcar Named Desire) 
heavily dependent on "the kindness of strangers." Unfortunately, in our case, as
in Blanche's, there are ever fewer strangers willing to support our illusions.

So my own hope is that‹if the American people do not find a way to choose 
democracy over empire‹at least our imperial venture will end not with a nuclear 
bang but a financial whimper. From the present vantage point, it certainly seems
a daunting challenge for any president (or Congress) from either party even to 
begin the task of dismantling the military-industrial complex, ending the pall 
of "national security" secrecy and the "black budgets" that make public 
oversight of what our government does impossible, and bringing the president's 
secret army, the CIA, under democratic control. It's evident that Nemesis‹in 
Greek mythology the goddess of vengeance, the punisher of hubris and 
arrogance‹is already a visitor in our country, simply biding her time before she
makes her presence known.

Copyright 2007 Chalmers Johnson

Escaping the Matrix website
cyberjournal website  
subscribe cyberjournal list     mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives      
  cyberjournal forum  
  Achieving real democracy
  for readers of ETM  
  Community Empowerment
  Blogger made easy