Product Description

Is America the new world empire? Presidents from Lincoln to Bush may have denied it but, as Niall Ferguson’s brilliant and provocative book shows, the US is the greatest military and economic colossus of all time. What’s more, it always has been an empire, with its founding fathers battling westwards for territory and their successors spreading freedom across the world - at gunpoint if necessary. Yet is the US really equipped to play Atlas, bearing the weight of the world on its shoulders? America, Ferguson reveals, is now an empire running on empty, backing away from the crucial imperial commitments of time, money and manpower - and resting on perilous financial foundations. When the New Rome falls, its collapse may come from within.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #8699 in Books
• Published on: 2005-06-02
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 416 pages

Amazon.co.uk Review
"The United States today is an empire--but a peculiar kind of empire", writes Niall Ferguson in Colossus: the Price of America's Empire. Despite overwhelming military, economic and cultural dominance, the US has had a difficult time imposing its will on other nations, mostly because the country is uncomfortable with imperialism and thus unable to use this power most effectively and decisively. The origin of this attitude and its persistence is a principal theme of this thought-provoking book, including how domestic politics affects foreign policy, whether it is politicians worried about the next election or citizens who "like Social Security more than national security".

Ferguson, author of Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, has no objection to an American empire, as long as it is a liberal one actively underwriting the free exchange of goods, labour and capital. Further, he writes that "empire is more necessary in the 21st century than ever before" as a means to "contain epidemics, depose tyrants end local wars and eradicate terrorist organisations". The sooner America embraces this role and acts on it confidently, the better.

Ferguson contrasts this persistent anti-imperialistic urge with the attitude held by the British Empire and suggests that America has much to learn from that model if it is to achieve its stated foreign policy objectives of spreading social freedom, democracy, development and the free market to the world. He suggests that the US must be willing to send money, civilians and troops for a sustained period of time to troubled spots if there is to be real change, as in Japan and Germany after World War II--an idea that many American citizens and leaders now find repulsive. Rather than devoting limited resources and striving to get complex jobs done in a rush, Americans must be willing to integrate themselves into a foreign culture until a full Americanisation has occurred, he writes.

Overall, this is a trenchant examination of a uniquely American dilemma and its implications for the rest of the world. --Shawn Carkonen, Amazon.com

About the Author
Niall Ferguson is Professor of International History at Harvard University, Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His other books for Penguin are The Pity of War, The House of Rothschild, The Cash Nexus and Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World.

Customer Reviews

Economic perspective on America Hegemony
The core argument of this book is that a world without an empire can be a dangerous place. Stability within the international system is guaranteed by the overwhelming power vested in the hegemon. Moreover, not all empires are despotic and Ferguson argues that liberal empires are beneficial for all parties in a range of ways.

The liberal empires (first the British empire and now, somewhat reluctantly, the American empire) are guided by the principle of the spread of liberal values across the globe. They are motivated by the desire to bring responsible representative government to countries in which it does not exist, to engender respect for the rule of law, create the stability needed for economic growth and encourage the peaceful coexistence of nations. Ferguson decisively rejects the Hobson theory of empire as some quasi mafia style protection racket run by elites in the imperial core.

Looking at the historical record, Ferguson argues that imperial status has done a great deal of good. The stability thereby created enhances the colonial state's credit ratings, thus allowing it to borrow and service its debts more cheaply than countries outside the imperial system. Also the guarantee of intervention by the imperial power in cases where the colony is threatened or otherwise in difficulty promotes further stability and positive attidues to the future, so necessary for investment and growth. This is backed up by statistical argument that growth rates within the British empire were superior to those of the same countries once outside the imperial framework.

This book is however about America. Following the British Empire's decline, the Americans slipped into the role of system hegemon, adopting responsibility for developing favourable political climates in countries falling under its influence. Thus the likes of Japan, Germany and Korea were transformed from dictatorships into vibrant market economies with healthy growth rates, high standards of living and respect for the rule of law. He argues that Empire is not a money-spinner in itself - in fact the normal running costs of maintaining standing armies are high - but that the principal benefit comes from increased stability, and hence greater international integration, trade, growth and prosperity.

The complaint underlying all of this is that, according to Ferguson, America is yet to acknowledge its role as the new imperial power. It is reluctant to commit its forces in the long term to any country, it tries to leave as soon as circumstances permit, rather than (as say the British in Egypt) linger on trying to condolidate the liberal values it promotes. Moreover, American elites (again in contrast to their British counterparts of the last century) are unwilling to spend their entire careers, or even lives, in some far-flung outpost of empire in the service of the imperial system. This all goes together to make the US an "empire in denial" which de facto ends up having to behave like an empire, but lacks the political conviction to see through its policies to the end.

A particularly fascinating part of this book is the analysis of the current world financial system based on the dollar as the almost universal reserve currency. American spending is essentially bankrolled by the East Asian economies, which run a huge trade surplus with the US. Thus while this makes the US vulnerable to creditors calling in their dollar debts, at the same time the resulting shock in the US in terms of consumption may have strong reverberations in Asia. Thus this precarious balance maintains America's status as a paradoxical debtor empire (in contrast to the capital exporting British empire).

A few qualms to add to this otherwise rosy review. Ferguson does tend to cherry pick examples which support his view of benign empire, ignoring those which do not fit in with the scheme of liberal empire. Ferguson often cites the venture in the Philippines, but is rather more reticent on the blood-stained details of the US occupation. Some other questions: Why for example did the US bankroll the Indonesian regime committing acts of genocide in East Timor, continuing to sell it weapons for the duration of an invasion which left up to 30% of the pre-war Timorese population dead? Why should a liberal empire support a sanctions policy against Iraq which led to over 1,000,000 excess deaths over 10 years? Why did a liberal empire interested in establishing the rule of law support the mafia in 1940s Italy and rig the 1948 elections? Why did a liberal empire overthrow the Arbenz government in Guatemala? Why did a liberal empire support the Suharto coup in Indonesia which led to the murder of 1,000,000 communists? Was it necessary to kill these people in order to save them from communism? Just how liberal is this sort of Empire? This is not of course to say that America is a great Satan, far from it, but a review of its foreign policy needs to be nuanced enough to account for these different and often contradictory policies towards the third world. In always focusing on positive aspects of US power, Ferguson's account risks one-dimensionality.

Nonetheless recommended reading. It's not his best book but it's comfortably in the same league as Empire and the Cash Nexus.

Excellent surevy of American foreign policy
Colossus is one of the best books I have read on current affairs on politics in recent years, and the foreward for the paperback edition is the best piece of writing on the problems in Iraq I have read to date. He never holds back from being controversial, and his book is continually thought provoking, especially for anyone with a theoretical knowledge of international relations.

His argument that American has already been an Empire is a compelling one. Americans would certainly struggle to deny that America expanded westwards, displacing an indigenous population, whatever the merits or otherwise, and their interventions in South America demonstrate their imperial pretensions in ensuring that regimes sympathetic to their own interests are in place.

The real interest in Ferguson's argument is not that America is an Empire, but the strengths that can be gained from it and its possibility as a force for good. He stresses that America has already been doing this, and firmly believes that it has contributed much to security. He issues a stirring defence of globalisation and makes the rather neat point that globalisation hasn't created problems in Africa, as African economies aren't integrated into a globalsied system. He does acknowledge that the problem is that developed countries do not allow Africans to enter into that integrated economic system.

Whilst he presents an interesting argument and compelling about America being an "Empire in denial", I do not necessarily think he explained why it is in "denial" enough. This is surely necessary in order to understand and predict America's response to its decline if (or when) it occurs, and the dichotomy between this and what is often perceived as a willingness to exert influence where it is not needed or wanted.

His arguments concerning the reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq was not as concrete as I think he assumes. He appeared to fundamentally misunderstand why people were concerned about the invasion, and whilst Saddam perhaps did deserve what happened to him given the repeated opportunities he had to stop flouting UN resolutions, to blame the invasion on Saddam was perhaps putting things a bit strong.

This book is an excellent exploration of America's foreign policy through history, and a magisterial survey of the contemporary global political system. Worth reading for anyone with at least a passing interest in international relations.

The price before the fall
Colossus, Ferguson's natural successor to his best selling history of British imperialism 'Empire,' is a must read for anyone interested not only in how America came to dominate the world scene, but in how the world has developed since America became the world's number one power after WW2.
Ferguson's central contention is that America has long been an empire in denial, one that avoids ostensive control of the countries that it dominated. America as a nation and an empire is in relative terms far more powerful than any other hegemon in recent world history. This makes it even more disappointing that in retrospect it appears to have achieved so little.
Whereas previous empires brought stability, the rule of law and investment to the areas that they control, the period of American dominance has been characterised by declining living standards, growing corruption and degradation of human rights over much of the developing world.
This has not been caused by any malicious intent on the part of the US, quite the contary, but by lost opportunities and an unwillingness to get involved. America and it's electorate are wary of foreign entanglements, and particularly dislike being viewed as operating in an imperial manner.
Since world war two, capital flows have become concentrated almost exclusively within the developed world marketplace, with many developing countries now just seen as sources for primary products. This has meant increasing marginalisation for many from the world economy, and a poorer life for many of its inhabitants.
America seems to have dodged the 'Spiderman' maxim, 'with great power comes great responsibilty,' by being powerful, but not particularly responsible. Ferguson's conclusions are particularly bleak, firstly that even a disinterested dominant state such as the US is better than none at all, but that America's own emerging fiscal nightmare will inevitably massively reduce its ability to project power. Those that think this is a good thing should read this book, and take heed of what's said