Legacy of Empires and the U.S. Policies in the “Third World”: Historical Modelling of Asymmetric Conflicts

In the light of rapid transformation of contemporary world order in the context of long military-political destabilization in the Near and Middle East the increasing attention of expert community is drawn by an empire phenomenon. In 2016 the world has celebrated 100-year anniversary of the well-known British- French Sykes-Picot agreement which in many respects has laid the foundation of a political configuration of the contemporary Middle East shaken today – a circumstance which reports additional relevance to studying the heritage of the European colonial empires in the practical plane. The answer to the question of a role of the colonial knowledge acquired during an era of empires in military-political planning and forecasting in Great Britain and the USA in the second half of XX – the beginning of the XXI centuries (the Anglo-Saxon model is of special interest as is the most integral from the point of view of reception of colonial experience of the European powers during a post-colonial era) allows to make more subject idea of the theory and practice of the international relations after World War II, with transition from an era of global colonial empires by an era of nuclear superpowers, and after “Cold War”, in the conditions of disintegration of bipolar system and the accruing contradictions between supporters of the concept of “global leadership” and the multipolar world that has not only the academic, but also political value.

In this regard the main attention in the article is paid to a role of historical modeling of the asymmetric conflicts as method of military-political forecasting in the second half of XX – the beginning of the 21st centuries in expert maintenance of the USA policy in the countries of “the Third world”. The state and tendencies of development of science about the international relations allow to claim that “lessons of history” of the asymmetric conflicts in expert circles keep the value for the analysis of decision-making process in the countries with high degree of inclusiveness of representatives of the academic world in expert community and relevant social and political discussions. At the same time, so far as concerns the role of colonial heritage of the European empires in development of a relevant  foreign  policy,  it  is necessary to consider influence of disciplinary filters on judgments and conclusions of experts. These methodological restrictions of the analysis of the USA policy in the countries of “the Third world” representatives of expert community also investigate in this article.

1. Aust M., Vulpius R., Miller A. (Eds) (2010). Imperium inter Pares: rol' transferov v istorii Rossijskoj imperii (1700–1917): Sb. st. [Imperium inter Pares: the Role of Transfers in the History of the Russian Empire]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. 392 p.

2. Badger A. (2012). Historians, a legacy of suspicion and the «migrated archives». Small Wars & Insurgencies. Vol. 23. No. 4-5. P. 799–807.

3. Bell D. (2007). The Idea of Greater Britain. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 336 p.

4. Bell D. (2009). Writing the World: Disciplinary History and Beyond. International Affairs. Vol. 85 No. 1. P. 3–22.

5. Bradley M. (2010). Classics and Imperialism in the British Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 350 p.

6. Brendon P. (2010). Upadok i razrushenie Britanskoj imperii 1781–1997 [Decline and Destruction of British Empire 1781–1997]. Moscow: Ast: Ast Moskva. 957 p.

7. Burton A.M. (ed.) (2003). After the Imperial Turn: Thinking with and through the Nation. Durham: Duke University Press. 384 p.

8. Chin W. (2010). Colonial Warfare in a Post-Colonial State: British Military Operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Defense Studies. Vol. 10, No. 1–2 (March–June). P. 215–247.

9. Churchill W. (2003). Mirovoj krizis [World Crisis]. Moscow: Jeksmo. 768 p.

10. CIA (1948). The Break-Up of the Colonial Empires and its Implications for US Security. 3 September. ORE 25-48.

11. CIA (1949). Current Situation in Malaya. CIA report for the President of the United States. 17 November. Declassified Documents Reference System.

12. CIA (1951). French Problems in Indochina. 4 September. Board of National Estimates. Staff Memorandum 124. WSH/CLC. № 53617.

13. CIA (1951). Resistance of Thailand, Burma, and Malaya to Communist Pressures in the Event of a Communist Victory in Indochina. 20 March. National Intelligence Estimate. NIE-20.

14. CIA (1954). Current Outlook in Indochina. Memorandum for the Director of Intelligence. 9 February. NE-11.

15. Cooper R. (2002). The Post-modern State and the world order. London: Demos. 43 p.

16. D'Aoust A.M. (2004). Abusing History: A Critical Analysis of Mainstream International Relations Theory Misconduct. Occasional Paper № 6. Center for Unites States Studies. University of Quebec. Montreal: UQAM. 16 p.

17. Deudney D. (2001). Greater Britain or Greater Synthesis: Seeley, Mackinder, and Wells on Britain in the Global Industrial Era. Review of International Studies. No. 27. Р. 187–208.

18. Egorova N.I. (2009). «Novaja istorija “holodnoj vojny”» v sovremennyh zarubezhnyh issledovanijah [“New History of the Cold War” in Contemporary Foreign Studies]. Novaja i novejshaja istorija. No. 4. P. 116–129.

19. Elman C., M.F. Elman M.F. (eds) (2001). Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations. Cambridge [Massachusetts]: The MIT Press. 438 p.

20. Felbab-Brown V. (2017). President Trump’s Afghanistan Policy: Hopes and Pitfalls. Washington. Brookings Institution Press. 18 p.

21. Fergjuson N. (2013). Imperija. Chem sovremennyj mir objazan Britanii [The Empire]. Moscow: Ast: CORPUS. 560 p.

22. Ferguson N. (2003). Hegemony or Empire? Foreign Affairs. September/October 2003. URL: https:// www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/2003-09-01/hegemony-or-empire

23. Ferguson N. (2004). Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire. New York: Penguin Press. 384 p.

24. French D. (2012). Army, Empire and Cold War: The British Army and Military Policy, 1945–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 346 p.

25. Gaddis J.L. (1996). History, Science and the Study of International Relations. Explaining International Relations Since 1945. Ed. By N. Woods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 392 p.

26. Gerasimov I., Glebov S., Kaplunovski A., Mogilner M., Semynov A. (2005). In Search of a New Imperial History. Ab Imperio. No. 1. P. 33–55.

27. Ghosh D. (2012). Another Set of Imperial Turns? American Historical Review. June. P. 772–793.

28. Hevia J. (2012). The Imperial Security State. British Colonial Knowledge and Empire-Building in Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 304 p.

29. Hingley R. (Ed.) (2001). Images of Rome: Perceptions of Ancient Rome in Europe and the United States in the Modern Age. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology L.L.C. 190 p.

30. Hoffmann S. (1977). An American Social Science: International Relations. Daedalus: American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Vol. 106, No. 3. P. 41–60.

31. Hosmer S.T., Crane S.O. (Eds) (1963). Counterinsurgency. A Symposium, April 16–20, 1962. The RAND Corporation’s Washington Office. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.

32. Howe S. (ed.) (2010). The New Imperial Histories Reader. London: Routledge. 480 p.

33. Jones D.M., Smith M.L.R. (2010). Grammar but No Logic: Technique is Not Enough – A Response to Nagl and Burton. Journal of Strategic Studies. Vol. 33. No. 3. P. 437–446.

34. Jones D.M., Smith M.L.R. (2010). Whose Hearts and Whose Minds? The Curious Case of Global Counter-Insurgency. Journal of Strategic Studies. Vol. 33. No. 1. P. 81–121.

35. Jones D.M., Smith M.L.R. (2013). Myth and the small war tradition: Reassessing the discourse of British counter-insurgency. Small Wars & Insurgencies. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 436–464.

36. Kennedy D. (2007). Essay and Reflection: On the American Empire from a British Imperial Perspective. The International History Review. Vol. 29. No. 1 (Mar.). P. 83–108.

37. Koebner R., Shmidt H.D. (1964). Imperialism: The Story and Significance of a Political Word, 1840– 1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 460 p.

38. Lieven D. (1999). Dilemmas of Empire 1850–1918. Power, Territory, Identity. Journal of Contemporary History. Vol. 34. № 2 (Apr.). P. 163–200.

39. Liven D. (2007). Rossijskaja imperija i ee vragi s XVI veka do nashih dnej [Russian Empire and Its Enemies from 16th Century till Today]. Moscow: Evropa. 688 s.

40. Lobell S.E., Ripsman N.M., Taiaferro J. (2009). Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 324 p.

41. Long A. (2006). On «Other War». Lessons from Five Decades of RAND Counterinsurgency Research. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation. 99 p.

42. Lorcin P.M.E. (2002). France and Rome in Africa: recovering Algeria’s Latin Past. French Historical Studies. Vol. 25, No. 2. Р. 295–329.

43. Lorcin P.M.E. (2012). Historicizing Colonial Nostalgia: European Women’s Narratives of Algeria and Kenia 1900–Present. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 317 p.

44. Lorcin P.M.E. (2013). Pax Romana Transposed: Rome as an exemplar for western imperialism. Routledge History of Western Empires. London and New York: Routledge. 544 p.

45. Louis W.R. (1977). Imperialism at Bay, 1941-5: The United States and the Decolonization of the British Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 608 p.

46. Louis W.R. (2006). The Pax Americana: Sir Keith Hancock, The British Empire and American Expansion. Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire Suez and Decolonization. London, New York: I.B. Tauris. 1082 p.

47. Louis W.R., Robinson D. (1994). The imperialism of decolonization. Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. 22. Р. 462–511.

48. Mabee B. (2004). Discourses of empire: the US “empire”, globalization and international relations. Third World Quarterly. Vol. 25. No. 8. P. 1359–1378.

49. Maier C.S. (2006). Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 384 p.

50. McNay J.T. (2001). Acheson and the Empire: the British Accent in American Foreign Policy. Columbia: Missouri University Press. 219 p.

51. Miller A., Lipman M. (Eds) (2012). Istoricheskaja politika v XXI veke: Sbornik statej [Politics of History in the 21st Century]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. 648 p.

52. Miller A.I. (2008). Nasledie imperij i budushhee Rossii [The Heritage of Empire and the Future of Russia]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. 528 p.

53. Mockaitis T.R. (2012). The minimum force debate: contemporary sensibilities meet imperial practice. Small Wars & Insurgencies. Vol. 23. No. 4-5. P. 762–780.

54. Morefield J. (2014). Empires Without Imperialism: Anglo-American Decline and the Politics of Deflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 304 p.

55. Mumford A. (2012). The Counter-Insurgency Myth: The British Experience of Irregular Warfare. London: Routledge. 216 p.

56. Mumford A., Reis B.S. (eds) (2014). The Theory and Practice of Irregular Warfare. Warrior-scholarship in counter-insurgency. London, N.Y.: Routledge. 176 p.

57. O’Brien P., Clesse A. (2002). Two Hegemonies: Britain 1846–1914 and the United States 1941–2001. Aldershot: Ashgate Pub Ltd. 365 p.

58. O’Cadhla S. (2007). Civilizing Ireland. Ordnance Survey 1824–1842: Ethnography, Cartography, Translation. Dublin, Portland: Irish Academic Press. 280 p.

59. Palmer R.R. (1971). The American Historical Association in 1970. American Historical Review. Vol. 76. No. 1. P. 1–15.

60. Plank G. (2001). An Unsettled Conquest: The British Campaign against the Peoples of Acadia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 239 p.

61. Plank G. (2006). Rebellion and Savagery: The Jacobite Rising of 1745 and the British Empire. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Press. 259 p.

62. Porch D. (2011). The dangerous myths and dubious promise of COIN. Small Wars & Insurgencies. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 239–257.

63. Rahshmir P.Ju. (2008). Amerikanskie neokonservatory i imperskaja ideja [American Neoconservatives and Imperial Idea]. Novaja i Novejshaja istorija. No. 4. P. 3–25.

64. Reis B.C. (2011). The Myth of British Minimum Force in Counterinsurgency Campaigns during Decolonisation (1945–1970). Journal of Strategic Studies. Vol. 34. No. 2. P. 245–279.

65. Rich P.B., Duyvesteyn I. (Eds) (2012). The Routledge Handbook of Insurgency and Counterinsurgency. London: Routledge. 386 p.

66. Sili Dzh.R. (2004). Rasshirenie Anglii. Britanskaja imperija [Expansion of England. British Empire]. Moscow: Algoritm-Kniga, Jeksmo. 488 p.

67. Smith S. (2000). The Discipline of International relations: Still an American Social Science? British Journal of Politics and International Relations. Vol. 2, No. 3. P. 393–396.

68. Smith S. (2002). The United States and the Discipline of the International Relations: «Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline». International Studies Review. Vol. 4, No. 2. P. 67–86.

69. Sogrin V.V. (2015). SShA v XX–XXI vv. Liberalizm. Demokratija. Imperija [The USA in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Liberalism, Democracy and Empire]. Moscow: Ves' Mir. 592 p.

70. Steel R. (1967). Pax Americana: The Cold War Empire. How It Grew and What It Means. New York: Viking Press. 371 p.

71. Sunderland R. (1964). Antiguerrilla Intelligence in Malaya, 1948-1960. Memorandum № RM-4172

72. ISA. Sponsored by the Department of Defense, Contract SD-79. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation. 80 p.

73. Sunderland R. (1964). Army Operations in Malaya, 1947-1960. Memorandum № RM-4170 ISA. Sponsored by the Department of Defense, Contract SD-79. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation. 267 p.

74. Sunderland R. (1964). Organizing Counter-insurgency in Malaya, 1947-1960. Memorandum

75. № RM-4171 ISA. Sponsored by the Department of Defense, Contract SD-79. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation. 95 p.

76. Sunderland R. (1964). Resettlement and Food Control in Malaya. Memorandum № RM-4173 ISA.

77. Sponsored by the Department of Defense, Contract SD-79. Excluded from automatic downgrading and declassification. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation. 145 p.

78. Sunderland R. (1964). Winning the Hearts and Minds of the People. Malaya, 1948-1960. Memorandum

79. № RM-4174 ISA. Sponsored by the Department of Defense, Contract SD-79. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation. 70 p.

80. Thomas M. (2008). Empires of Intelligence. Security Services and Colonial Disorder after 1914. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 428 p.

81. Thompson R. (1966). Defeating Communist Insurgency: The Lessons of Malaya and Vietnam. N.Y.: F.A. Praeger. 171 p.

82. Ucko D.H. (2014). Critics gone wild: Counterinsurgency as the root of all evil. Small Wars & Insurgencies. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 161–179.

83. Vaughan-Williams N. (2005). International relations and the “Problem of History”. Millenium: Journal of International Studies. Vol. 34, No. 1. P. 115–136.

84. Walton K. (2016). Britanskaja razvedka vo vremena holodnoj vojny. Sekretnye operacii MI-5 i MI-6 [British Intelligence during the Cold War. Secret Operations of MI-5 and MI-6]. Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf. 543 p.

85. Westad A.O. (2007). The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of our Times.

86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 484 p.