{"id":6865,"date":"2011-04-25T08:24:14","date_gmt":"2011-04-25T12:24:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/?p=6865"},"modified":"2012-12-26T16:08:17","modified_gmt":"2012-12-26T21:08:17","slug":"subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/","title":{"rendered":"Subjection And Local Rule In A Unipolar World"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Title:<\/strong> An Empire of Failed States<\/em><\/a> by Alfred W. McCoy, Brett Reilly, and Tom Engelhardt on Antiwar.com.<\/p>\n

The Text:<\/strong> Imperial powers hedge their bets. The most striking recent example we have of this is in Egypt. While the Pentagon was pouring money into the Egyptian military (approximately $40 billion since 1979), it turns out\u2014thank you, WikiLeaks!\u2014that the U.S. government was shuttling far smaller amounts (millions, not billions) to various \u201cAmerican government-financed organizations\u201d loosely connected with Congress or with the Democratic and Republican parties. Some of that money, in turn, was being invested in \u201cdemocracy-building campaigns\u201d aimed at teaching young Egyptian activists how to organize a movement against their autocratic ruler, how to make the best use of social networking sites, and so on.<\/p>\n

In other words, in Egypt (and elsewhere in the Middle East), Washington was funding both the autocrats and the young activists who opposed them and who, in Egypt, would be crucial players in the Tahrir Square movement that overthrew President Hosni Mubarak. As one of those activists told the New York Times, \u201cWhile we appreciated the training we received through the NGOs sponsored by the U.S. government, and it did help us in our struggles, we are also aware that the same government also trained the state security investigative service, which was responsible for the harassment and jailing of many of us.\u201d
\n
\nMeanwhile, thanks to other State Department documents WikiLeaks recently released, we know that, in at least one Middle Eastern country where Washington did not enthusiastically support the local autocrat\u2014Syria\u2014the State Department was channeling significant sums of money into \u201csecretly financ[ing] \u2026 political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country.\u201c It was, in other words, preparing a new elite for a \u201cregime change\u201d future.<\/p>\n

Think of it as a kind of grim irony that a significant part of the Egyptian military\u2019s high command was in northern Virginia, attending an annual U.S.-Egypt Military Cooperation Committee meeting in late January, when all hell broke loose in Tahrir Square, thanks to those Egyptian activists, some trained with Washington\u2019s money. The creation or support of elites has, as Alfred McCoy and Brett Reilly write, always been crucial to running global empires. And yet client elites are one of those subjects seldom given much thought, even though Great Britain, for instance, ruled its Indian Raj with striking, if oppressive, efficiency for endless decades with surprisingly few personnel from England. How else, after all, could a global empire continue? And yet, as a great power\u2019s strength and influence wane, those bets\u2014like the one Washington placed in Egypt\u2014begin to go awry, from an imperial point of view. If McCoy, a TomDispatch regular and the author most recently of Policing America\u2019s Empire, and Reilly are right, Washington\u2019s touch, when it comes to keeping local elites in line, may indeed be \u201con the rocks.\u201d<\/p>\n

Washington on the Rocks: An empire of autocrats, aristocrats, and uniformed thugs begins to totter<\/strong><\/p>\n

In one of history\u2019s lucky accidents, the juxtaposition of two extraordinary events has stripped the architecture of American global power bare for all to see. Last November, WikiLeaks splashed snippets from U.S. embassy cables, loaded with scurrilous comments about national leaders from Argentina to Zimbabwe, on the front pages of newspapers worldwide. Then just a few weeks later, the Middle East erupted in pro-democracy protests against the region\u2019s autocratic leaders, many of whom were close U.S. allies whose foibles had been so conveniently detailed in those same diplomatic cables.<\/p>\n

Suddenly, it was possible to see the foundations of a U.S. world order that rested significantly on national leaders who serve Washington as loyal \u201csubordinate elites\u201d and who are, in reality, a motley collection of autocrats, aristocrats, and uniformed thugs. Visible as well was the larger logic of otherwise inexplicable U.S. foreign policy choices over the past half-century.<\/p>\n

Why would the CIA risk controversy in 1965, at the height of the Cold War, by overthrowing an accepted leader like Sukarno in Indonesia or encouraging the assassination of the Catholic autocrat Ngo Dinh Diem in Saigon in 1963? The answer\u2014and thanks to WikiLeaks and the \u201cArab spring,\u201d this is now so much clearer\u2014is that both were Washington\u2019s chosen subordinates until each became insubordinate and expendable.<\/p>\n

Why, half a century later, would Washington betray its stated democratic principles by backing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak against millions of demonstrators and then, when he faltered, use its leverage to replace him, at least initially with his intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, a man best known for running Cairo\u2019s torture chambers (and lending them out to Washington)? The answer again: because both were reliable subordinates who had long served Washington\u2019s interests well in this key Arab state.<\/p>\n

Across the Greater Middle East from Tunisia and Egypt to Bahrain and Yemen, democratic protests are threatening to sweep away subordinate elites crucial to the wielding of American power. Of course, all modern empires have relied on dependable surrogates to translate their global power into local control\u2014and for most of them, the moment when those elites began to stir, talk back, and set their own agendas was also the moment when it became clear that imperial collapse was in the cards.<\/p>\n

If the \u201cvelvet revolutions\u201d that swept Eastern Europe in 1989 tolled the death knell for the Soviet empire, then the \u201cjasmine revolutions\u201d now spreading across the Middle East may well mark the beginning of the end for American global power.<\/p>\n

Putting the Military in Charge<\/strong><\/p>\n

To understand the importance of local elites, look back to the Cold War\u2019s early days when a desperate White House was searching for something, anything that could halt the seemingly unstoppable spread of what Washington saw as anti-American and pro-communist sentiment. In December 1954, the National Security Council (NSC) met in the White House to stake out a strategy that could tame the powerful nationalist forces of change then sweeping the globe.<\/p>\n

Across Asia and Africa, a half-dozen European empires that had guaranteed global order for more than a century were giving way to 100 new nations, many\u2014as Washington saw it\u2014 susceptible to \u201ccommunist subversion.\u201d In Latin America, there were stirrings of leftist opposition to the region\u2019s growing urban poverty and rural landlessness.<\/p>\n

After a review of the \u201cthreats\u201d facing the U.S. in Latin America, influential Treasury Secretary George Humphrey informed his NSC colleagues that they should \u201cstop talking so much about democracy\u201d and instead \u201csupport dictatorships of the right if their policies are pro-American.\u201d At that moment with a flash of strategic insight, Dwight Eisenhower interrupted to observe that Humphrey was, in effect, saying, \u201cThey\u2019re OK if they\u2019re our SOBs.\u201d<\/p>\n

It was a moment to remember, for the president of the United States had just articulated with crystalline clarity the system of global dominion that Washington would implement for the next 50 years\u2014setting aside democratic principles for a tough realpolitik policy of backing any reliable leader willing to support the U.S., thereby building a worldwide network of national (and often nationalist) leaders who would, in a pinch, put Washington\u2019s needs above local ones.<\/p>\n

Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. would favor military autocrats in Latin America, aristocrats across the Middle East, and a mixture of democrats and dictators in Asia. In 1958, military coups in Thailand and Iraq suddenly put the spotlight on Third World militaries as forces to be reckoned with. It was then that the Eisenhower administration decided to bring foreign military leaders to the U.S. for further \u201ctraining\u201d to facilitate \u201cthe \u2018management\u2019 of the forces of change released by the development\u201d of these emerging nations. Henceforth, Washington would pour military aid into the cultivation of the armed forces of allies and potential allies worldwide, while \u201ctraining missions\u201d would be used to create crucial ties between the U.S. military and the officer corps in country after country\u2014or where subordinate elites did not seem subordinate enough, help identify alternative leaders.<\/p>\n

When civilian presidents proved insubordinate, the Central Intelligence Agency went to work, promoting coups that would install reliable military successors\u2014replacing Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who tried to nationalize his country\u2019s oil, with Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi (and then the young shah) in 1953; President Sukarno with General Suharto in Indonesia during the next decade; and of course President Salvador Allende with Gen. Augusto Pinochet in Chile in 1973, to name just three such moments.<\/p>\n

In the first years of the 21st century, Washington\u2019s trust in the militaries of its client states would only grow. The U.S. was, for example, lavishing $1.3 billion in aid on Egypt\u2019s military annually, but investing only $250 million a year in the country\u2019s economic development. As a result, when demonstrations rocked the regime in Cairo last January, as the New York Times reported, \u201ca 30-year investment paid off as American generals \u2026 and intelligence officers quietly called \u2026 friends they had trained with,\u201d successfully urging the army\u2019s support for a \u201cpeaceful transition\u201d to, yes indeed, military rule.<\/p>\n

Elsewhere in the Middle East, Washington has, since the 1950s, followed the British imperial preference for Arab aristocrats by cultivating allies that included a shah (Iran), sultans (Abu Dhabi, Oman), emirs (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Dubai), and kings (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco). Across this vast, volatile region from Morocco to Iran, Washington courted these royalist regimes with military alliances, U.S. weapons systems, CIA support for local security, a safe American haven for their capital, and special favors for their elites, including access to educational institutions in the U.S. or Department of Defense overseas schools for their children.<\/p>\n

In 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice summed up this record thus: \u201cFor 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy \u2026 in the Middle East, and we achieved neither.\u201d<\/p>\n

How It Used to Work<\/strong><\/p>\n

America is by no means the first hegemon to build its global power on the gossamer threads of personal ties to local leaders. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Britain may have ruled the waves (as America would later rule the skies), but when it came to the ground, like empires past it needed local allies who could serve as intermediaries in controlling complex, volatile societies. Otherwise, how in 1900 could a small island nation of just 40 million with an army of only 99,000 men rule a global empire of some 400 million, nearly a quarter of all humanity?<\/p>\n

From 1850 to 1950, Britain controlled its formal colonies through an extraordinary array of local allies\u2014from Fiji island chiefs and Malay sultans to Indian maharajahs and African emirs. Simultaneously, through subordinate elites Britain reigned over an even larger \u201cinformal empire\u201d that encompassed emperors (from Beijing to Istanbul), kings (from Bangkok to Cairo), and presidents (from Buenos Aires to Caracas). At its peak in 1880, Britain\u2019s informal empire in Latin America, the Middle East, and China was larger, in population, than its formal colonial holdings in India and Africa. Its entire global empire, encompassing nearly half of humanity, rested on these slender ties of cooperation to loyal local elites.<\/p>\n

Following four centuries of relentless imperial expansion, however, Europe\u2019s five major overseas empires were suddenly erased from the globe in a quarter-century of decolonization. Between 1947 and 1974, the Belgian, British, Dutch, French, and Portuguese empires faded fast from Asia and Africa, giving way to a hundred new nations, more than half of today\u2019s sovereign states. In searching for an explanation for this sudden, sweeping change, most scholars agree with British imperial historian Ronald Robinson who famously argued that \u201cwhen colonial rulers had run out of indigenous collaborators,\u201d their power began to fade.<\/p>\n

During the Cold War that coincided with this era of rapid decolonization, the world\u2019s two superpowers turned to the same methods regularly using their espionage agencies to manipulate the leaders of newly independent states. The Soviet Union\u2019s KGB and its surrogates like the Stasi in East Germany and the Securitate in Romania enforced political conformity among the 14 Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe and challenged the U.S. for loyal allies across the Third World. Simultaneously, the CIA monitored the loyalties of presidents, autocrats, and dictators on four continents, employing coups, bribery, and covert penetration to control and, when necessary, remove nettlesome leaders.<\/p>\n

In an era of nationalist feeling, however, the loyalty of local elites proved a complex matter indeed. Many of them were driven by conflicting loyalties and often deep feelings of nationalism, which meant that they had to be monitored closely. So critical were these subordinate elites, and so troublesome were their insubordinate iterations, that the CIA repeatedly launched risky covert operations to bring them to heel, sparking some of the great crises of the Cold War.<\/p>\n

Given the rise of its system of global control in a post-World-War-II age of independence, Washington had little choice but to work not simply with surrogates or puppets, but with allies who\u2014admittedly from weaker positions\u2014still sought to maximize what they saw as their nations\u2019 interests (as well as their own). Even at the height of American global power in the 1950s, when its dominance was relatively unquestioned, Washington was forced into hard bargaining with the likes of the Philippines\u2019 Raymond Magsaysay, South Korean autocrat Syngman Rhee, and South Vietnam\u2019s Ngo Dinh Diem.<\/p>\n

In South Korea during the 1960s, for instance, Gen. Park Chung Hee, then president, bartered troop deployments to Vietnam for billions of U.S. development dollars, which helped spark the country\u2019s economic \u201cmiracle.\u201d In the process, Washington paid up, but got what it most wanted: 50,000 of those tough Korean troops as guns-for-hire helpers in its unpopular war in Vietnam.<\/p>\n

Post-Cold-War World<\/strong><\/p>\n

After the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, ending the Cold War, Moscow quickly lost its satellite states from Estonia to Azerbaijan, as once-loyal Soviet surrogates were ousted or leaped off the sinking ship of empire. For Washington, the \u201cvictor\u201d and soon to be the \u201csole superpower\u201d on planet Earth, the same process would begin to happen, but at a far slower pace.<\/p>\n

Over the next two decades, globalization fostered a multipolar system of rising powers in Beijing, New Delhi, Moscow, Ankara, and Brasilia, even as a denationalized system of corporate power reduced the dependency of developing economies on any single state, however imperial. With its capacity for controlling elites receding, Washington has faced ideological competition from Islamic fundamentalism, European regulatory regimes, Chinese state capitalism, and a rising tide of economic nationalism in Latin America.<\/p>\n

As U.S. power and influence declined, Washington\u2019s attempts to control its subordinate elites began to fail, often spectacularly\u2014including its efforts to topple b\u00eate noire Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in a badly bungled 2002 coup, to detach ally Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia from Russia\u2019s orbit in 2008, and to oust nemesis Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 2009 Iranian elections. Where a CIA coup or covert cash once sufficed to defeat an antagonist, the Bush administration needed a massive invasion to topple just one troublesome dictator, Saddam Hussein. Even then, it found its plans for subsequent regime change in Syria and Iran blocked when these states instead aided a devastating insurgency against U.S. forces inside Iraq.<\/p>\n

Similarly, despite the infusions of billions of dollars in foreign aid, Washington has found it nearly impossible to control the Afghan president it installed in power, Hamid Karzai, who memorably summed up his fractious relationship with Washington to American envoys this way: \u201cIf you\u2019re looking for a stooge and calling a stooge a partner, no. If you\u2019re looking for a partner, yes.\u201d<\/p>\n

Then, late in 2010, WikiLeaks began distributing those thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables that offer uncensored insights into Washington\u2019s weakening control over the system of surrogate power that it had built up for 50 years. In reading these documents, Israeli journalist Aluf Benn of Haaretz could see \u201cthe fall of the American empire, the decline of a superpower that ruled the world by the dint of its military and economic supremacy.\u201d No longer, he added, are \u201cAmerican ambassadors \u2026 received in world capitals as \u2018high commissioners\u2019 \u2026 [instead they are] tired bureaucrats [who] spend their days listening wearily to their hosts\u2019 talking points, never reminding them who is the superpower and who the client state.\u201d<\/p>\n

Indeed, what the WikiLeaks documents show is a State Department struggling to manage an unruly global system of increasingly insubordinate elites by any means possible\u2014via intrigue to collect needed information and intelligence, friendly acts meant to coax compliance, threats to coerce cooperation, and billions of dollars in misspent aid to court influence. In early 2009, for instance, the State Department instructed its embassies worldwide to play imperial police by collecting comprehensive data on local leaders, including \u201cemail addresses, telephone and fax numbers, fingerprints, facial images, DNA, and iris scans.\u201d Showing its need, like some colonial governor, for incriminating information on the locals, the State Department also pressed its Bahrain embassy for sordid details, damaging in an Islamic society, about the kingdom\u2019s crown princes, asking: \u201cIs there any derogatory information on either prince? Does either prince drink alcohol? Does either one use drugs?\u201d<\/p>\n

With the hauteur of latter-day imperial envoys, U.S. diplomats seemed to empower themselves for dominance by dismissing \u201cthe Turks neo-Ottoman posturing around the Middle East and Balkans,\u201d or by knowing the weaknesses of their subordinate elites, notably Col. Moammar Gadhafi\u2019s \u201cvoluptuous blond\u201d nurse, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari\u2019s morbid fear of military coups, or Afghan Vice President Ahmad Zia Massoud\u2019s $52 million in stolen funds.<\/p>\n

As its influence declines, however, Washington is finding many of its chosen local allies either increasingly insubordinate or irrelevant, particularly in the strategic Middle East. In mid-2009, for instance, the U.S. ambassador to Tunisia reported that \u201cPresident Ben Ali \u2026 and his regime have lost touch with the Tunisian people,\u201d relying \u201con the police for control,\u201d while \u201ccorruption in the inner circle is growing\u201d and \u201cthe risks to the regime\u2019s long-term stability are increasing.\u201d Even so, the U.S. envoy could only recommend that Washington \u201cdial back the public criticism\u201d and instead rely only on \u201cfrequent high-level private candor\u201d\u2014a policy that failed to produce any reforms before demonstrations toppled the regime just 18 months later.<\/p>\n

Similarly, in late 2008 the American embassy in Cairo feared that \u201cEgyptian democracy and human rights efforts \u2026 are being suffocated.\u201d However, as the embassy admitted, \u201cwe would not like to contemplate complications for U.S. regional interests should the U.S.-Egyptian bond be seriously weakened.\u201d When Mubarak visited Washington a few months later, the embassy urged the White House \u201cto restore the sense of warmth that has traditionally characterized the U.S.-Egyptian partnership.\u201d And so in June 2009, just 18 months before the Egyptian president\u2019s downfall, President Obama hailed this useful dictator as \u201ca stalwart ally \u2026 a force for stability and good in the region.\u201d<\/p>\n

As the crisis in Cairo\u2019s Tahrir Square unfolded, respected opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei complained bitterly that Washington was pushing \u201cthe whole Arab world into radicalization with this inept policy of supporting repression.\u201d After 40 years of U.S. dominion, the Middle East was, he said, \u201ca collection of failed states that add nothing to humanity or science\u201d because \u201cpeople were taught not to think or to act, and were consistently given an inferior education.\u201d<\/p>\n

Absent a global war capable of simply sweeping away an empire, the decline of a great power is often a fitful, painful, drawn-out affair. In addition to the two American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down to something not so far short of defeat, the nation\u2019s capital is now writhing in fiscal crisis, the coin of the realm is losing its creditworthiness, and longtime allies are forging economic and even military ties to rival China. To all of this, we must now add the possible loss of loyal surrogates across the Middle East.<\/p>\n

For more than 50 years, Washington has been served well by a system of global power based on subordinate elites. That system once facilitated the extension of American influence worldwide with a surprising efficiency and (relatively speaking) an economy of force. Now, however, those loyal allies increasingly look like an empire of failed or insubordinate states. Make no mistake: the degradation of, or ending of, half a century of such ties is likely to leave Washington on the rocks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Title: An Empire of Failed States by Alfred W. McCoy, Brett Reilly, and Tom Engelhardt on Antiwar.com. The Text: Imperial powers hedge their bets. The most striking recent example we have of this is in Egypt. While the Pentagon was pouring money into the Egyptian military (approximately $40 billion since 1979), it turns out\u2014thank […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nSubjection And Local Rule In A Unipolar World - Prose Before Hos<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Title: An Empire of Failed States by Alfred W. McCoy, Brett Reilly, and Tom Engelhardt on Antiwar.com. The Text: Imperial powers hedge their bets. The\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subjection And Local Rule In A Unipolar World - Prose Before Hos\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Title: An Empire of Failed States by Alfred W. McCoy, Brett Reilly, and Tom Engelhardt on Antiwar.com. The Text: Imperial powers hedge their bets. The\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Prose Before Hos\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-25T12:24:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-12-26T21:08:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Article of the Day\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@pbhnetwork\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@pbhnetwork\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Article of the Day\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/\",\"name\":\"Subjection And Local Rule In A Unipolar World - Prose Before Hos\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-25T12:24:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-12-26T21:08:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e\"},\"description\":\"The Title: An Empire of Failed States by Alfred W. McCoy, Brett Reilly, and Tom Engelhardt on Antiwar.com. The Text: Imperial powers hedge their bets. The\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subjection And Local Rule In A Unipolar World\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/\",\"name\":\"Prose Before Hos\",\"description\":\"The Far Side Of Politics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e\",\"name\":\"Article of the Day\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/pbhnetwork\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/author\/article-of-the-day\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Subjection And Local Rule In A Unipolar World - Prose Before Hos","description":"The Title: An Empire of Failed States by Alfred W. McCoy, Brett Reilly, and Tom Engelhardt on Antiwar.com. The Text: Imperial powers hedge their bets. The","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subjection And Local Rule In A Unipolar World - Prose Before Hos","og_description":"The Title: An Empire of Failed States by Alfred W. McCoy, Brett Reilly, and Tom Engelhardt on Antiwar.com. The Text: Imperial powers hedge their bets. The","og_url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/","og_site_name":"Prose Before Hos","article_published_time":"2011-04-25T12:24:14+00:00","article_modified_time":"2012-12-26T21:08:17+00:00","author":"Article of the Day","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@pbhnetwork","twitter_site":"@pbhnetwork","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Article of the Day","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/","url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/","name":"Subjection And Local Rule In A Unipolar World - Prose Before Hos","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-25T12:24:14+00:00","dateModified":"2012-12-26T21:08:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e"},"description":"The Title: An Empire of Failed States by Alfred W. McCoy, Brett Reilly, and Tom Engelhardt on Antiwar.com. The Text: Imperial powers hedge their bets. The","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/04\/25\/subjection-and-local-rule-in-a-unipolar-world\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subjection And Local Rule In A Unipolar World"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/","name":"Prose Before Hos","description":"The Far Side Of Politics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e","name":"Article of the Day","sameAs":["https:\/\/twitter.com\/pbhnetwork"],"url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/author\/article-of-the-day\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6865"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6865"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6865\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":133825,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6865\/revisions\/133825"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6865"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6865"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6865"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}