Empire. It is not a word we hear much these days. Oxford defines empire in part as “an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state”.

In the introduction to his translation of the Roman poet Virgil’s epic Aeneid Irish poet and British poet laureate Cecil Day-Lewis (yes he is related to the actor Daniel Day-Lewis as his father) writes that “without bloodshed and destruction empire is impossible”.

While we may no longer hear the word empire much anymore since I suspect people have become quite suspicious of it this does not mean empire does not still abound in many different forms all around us. There are economic empires like Saudi Arabia, technological empires like Microsoft, Apple and Sony, there are financial empires, information empires, and of course there are political empires.

All around us empires are being built, defended, and destroyed and I am wondering – just how true is Day-Lewis’s statement that empire is impossible without bloodshed and destruction. Certainly he would be speaking from the perspective of an Irish man bearing all the history of empire that entails having been occupied and otherwise subject to one conquering power after another (despite his eventual taking of British citizenship). And while Britain is certainly more benevolent than the Vikings the sense of being dominated and exploited would be embedded in such a man’s sensibility. Perhaps the best place to analyse empire is from the outside however for those within, however they may see themselves, ultimately always see themselves as necessary.

“Rome will bring to the world the gifts of peace, justice, order and law;” writes Day-Lewis, “but they can be brought only by force.”

This is a grim prospect for those outside of the empire, whichever empire that may be. History has also proven again and again and again it is a grim prospect for the empire itself eventually…just ask the Greeks, the Romans, the Huns, the Persians, the Ottomans, the Hapsbergs, the British, etc. etc.

There is much bloodshed and destruction in the world today and while this has always been the case (apologies to those who interpret such things with an eschatalogical sadistic pleasure) one wonders if it is because the striving for empire continues unabated. Do we think empire is contradictorily  necessary to bring about peace, justice, order and law? Whose peace, justice, order and law are we talking about anyhow and how does one define such thing absolutely in a world that has abandoned absolutes to the junk heap of history? Does this mean our history will be forever dominated by bloodshed and destruction?

Empires are never as simple as people would like to believe (few things are). Some would like to interpret the east-west tumult of today as nothing more than Christianity versus Islam. While there may be shades of this it is far too simplistic a theory to pay any serious attention to.

There are empires at war though. There is an American empire striving to maintain its thinning borders (both geographically and geo-politically) with decreasing resources and increasing and numerous outside threats. There is the emerging Chinese empire that has employed the weapons of economics to it’s imperial advantage. There is the dying Soviet empire still trying to find ways to rise out of the restraining half-dead, half-alive restraints of Russia.

All of these empires have one thing in common – they believe they offered the conquered a better way. In the end however this seems increasingly like thinly veiled code for “the only way” .

Empires view everything and everyone outside of themselves as a threat. There are no friends outside the empire only enemies one needs to keep  close.

As Canadians we are an emerging vestige of a dying/dead British Empire. What happens to the remains of an empire? Usually other empires entreat and invade for the sake of expansion of resources designed to shore up and increase power. How does a country like Canada maintain a neutral status in the face of empire? This is a serious line of thinking we need to pursue – no other country on the planet offers as rich and diverse a chest of resources as Canada. Switzerland has been able to keep itself empire free since its establishment in 1291 but at what cost? To maintain such a level of neutrality one must in fact be allies with all (or at least the most powerful) and then neutrality becomes a myth. When you are banker to the nations (some would say launderer) guaranteeing absolute secrecy regarding all dealings  you are merely an accomplice and anything noble in your foundation has been lost.

Is it possible to have a world without empire? Can we have a peaceful series of co-existing states? If peace requires destruction and bloodshed the answer is no. If peace requires empire to enforce it the answer is no.

What is the alternative to empire in the 21st century and if there is no alternative which empire will reign supreme?