This is a powerful and persuasive argument. However, I wonder if the sub-imperial influence of the UK is overstated. Unlike France, the British military only ever acts alongside US forces. The policy of both the ruling Conservative Party and the main opposition Labour Party on the main issues (e.g. Ukraine, Gaza, containing China) is to keep in lock-step with the US. The UK public keeps being told about the "special relationship" between the US and UK that we obtain through our unwavering support, but evidence that we influence US policy significantly is hard to find.
An excellent analysis. I will point out that there was one rather notorious incident in which Australia's sovereignty was monkeyed with by the US (no doubt in connivance with the UK) in 1975 -- look up Gough Whitlam.
Canada "enjoys" similar status as what I refer to as "remora of empire" having detached itself from the British Empire in order to join the American Empire of Michael Hudson's "Super Imperialism."
Yes... The hegemon needn't directly appoint leaders, but it will dispose of them. The events in Australia of 1975 have guaranteed Australia's continued fealty to US dogma. It was the moment the US (with the complicity of the British Crown) made plain to Australia "what matters" by conniving in removing an elected government whose prime minister had threatened to expose CIA operations in Australia and cancel leases on US military and intelligence bases. Since then, under governments of any persuasion, Australia's sub-imperial status has never been in question, thus, AUKUS. (Further reading at https://johnmenadue.com/shame-fraser-shame-the-overthrow-of-edward-gough-whitlam/).
It goes without saying that Subimperialism has long been an important concept in the Marxist thought of the Monthly Review variety, beginning with Ruy Mario Marini’s ‘Brazilian Subimperialism’ (1972), which started a debate that continues to this day.
Britain is probably the sub-empire that causes least problems for the US, and uses the subimperial position the best. There are several reasons; Britain has ruled an empire just before US, and understands perhaps better than other sub-imperial powers that rules based order is a reality, because is backed by US power, sanctions and military might, and UN based order not more than a facade a fairy tale as shown by irrelevance of General Assembly resolutions compared to vetos in Security Council.
Great piece! Oren Cass wrote an excellent article recently detailing the issues with the idea of comparative advantage and how it has been contested over the years https://lawliberty.org/forum/free-trades-origin-myth/
This is a powerful and persuasive argument. However, I wonder if the sub-imperial influence of the UK is overstated. Unlike France, the British military only ever acts alongside US forces. The policy of both the ruling Conservative Party and the main opposition Labour Party on the main issues (e.g. Ukraine, Gaza, containing China) is to keep in lock-step with the US. The UK public keeps being told about the "special relationship" between the US and UK that we obtain through our unwavering support, but evidence that we influence US policy significantly is hard to find.
An excellent analysis. I will point out that there was one rather notorious incident in which Australia's sovereignty was monkeyed with by the US (no doubt in connivance with the UK) in 1975 -- look up Gough Whitlam.
Canada "enjoys" similar status as what I refer to as "remora of empire" having detached itself from the British Empire in order to join the American Empire of Michael Hudson's "Super Imperialism."
Yes... The hegemon needn't directly appoint leaders, but it will dispose of them. The events in Australia of 1975 have guaranteed Australia's continued fealty to US dogma. It was the moment the US (with the complicity of the British Crown) made plain to Australia "what matters" by conniving in removing an elected government whose prime minister had threatened to expose CIA operations in Australia and cancel leases on US military and intelligence bases. Since then, under governments of any persuasion, Australia's sub-imperial status has never been in question, thus, AUKUS. (Further reading at https://johnmenadue.com/shame-fraser-shame-the-overthrow-of-edward-gough-whitlam/).
It goes without saying that Subimperialism has long been an important concept in the Marxist thought of the Monthly Review variety, beginning with Ruy Mario Marini’s ‘Brazilian Subimperialism’ (1972), which started a debate that continues to this day.
Britain is probably the sub-empire that causes least problems for the US, and uses the subimperial position the best. There are several reasons; Britain has ruled an empire just before US, and understands perhaps better than other sub-imperial powers that rules based order is a reality, because is backed by US power, sanctions and military might, and UN based order not more than a facade a fairy tale as shown by irrelevance of General Assembly resolutions compared to vetos in Security Council.
Great piece! Oren Cass wrote an excellent article recently detailing the issues with the idea of comparative advantage and how it has been contested over the years https://lawliberty.org/forum/free-trades-origin-myth/
The text is great, but tell me more about Brazil in this new order.
Great presentation of a very interesting book. Thank you, Branko.
Thank you Branko for a powerful point of view.