And now a jot, following on from one and two : so assuming Pax Unus [unitary peace] and the patterns of how an empire behaves are consistent over time; this suggests that the greatest perceived threat to an empire is not nation-states, rogue-states, terrorism or non-state actors - it is an independent foreign policy.

Neo-conservatism, PNAC and the Bush Administration are all acting as if the United States is an empire. The threats of the last six years have been better dealt with inside the westphalian and liberal democratic system. For instance, Indonesia's approach to terrorism was to use civil power, and it has worked, far better than the militaristic approach of the US. Rogue-states are better dealt with by containment, something the US did very cheaply and efficiently with Hussein prior to the invasion in 2002.

The threat that Al-Queda, Saddam Hussein, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, etc pose to the United States is that they have an independent foreign policy. Maybe the disagreements the Bush Administration had with France, and the ridiculous lengths the polemics went to in 2001/2002 can also be attributed to a Gaullist foreign policy being a threat to the American peace.

Maybe we can define the point of empire being reached when a political body will go to war, not in defence, or in military aggression, but over the fear that a competitor has an independent foreign policy.

More Reading on Empire

• Empire
• Foreign Policy
• Johnson, Britain, Empire and Democracy
• The Tipping Point of Empire
• Empire and Unitary Foreign Policy
• Splintering of Empires