The Global Security Argument for liberal imperialism holds that imperial policy promotes global security. The combined threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction mean that “global security may require that entire regimes be brought forcibly to heel” (37), and that this would entail forcibly removing them from power and replacing them with a democratic government. Purdy advances two arguments against this argument.
First, he claims that liberal empire presupposes the existence of hegemony, a single “dominant superpower,” when in fact the world is rapidly shifting from post-Cold War uni-polarity to economic and military multi-polarity. As Russia regains its military momentum, as China slowly liberalizes, as India continues its massive economic boom, and as the European Union matures, American dominance begins to look less and less stable. In the new multi-polar world, as in the old, respect for the rules of sovereignty have a great deal more practical importance to human welfare than they did during the period of alleged American ascendancy, since no single entity had, nor presently has de facto authority over matters of global security.
Second, he claims that an American policy of unilateral intervention is likely to have perverse incentives for nuclear proliferation. Some states will take such a policy not as a deterrent to seeking nuclear arms, but as a prod. He does not say so, but this claim, if true, would buttress the prior objection, because if and when nuclear proliferation accelerates, the prospects for US hegemony will dissolve more rapidly.
