Thirty years ago, the extreme left crowned the United States as the "American Empire". But now this title has entered the room, and analysts, whether left or right, use it to explain American foreign policy and even regard it as a standard. In many ways, the metaphor of empire has its attraction. American military strikes are far-reaching, and military bases are spread all over the world. American regional commanders are sometimes as important as colonial governors. English, like Latin in ancient Rome, has become a universal language. The American economy is unparalleled in the world, and American culture is near and far away. However, it would be unwise to confuse superpower status with imperialism. The United States, which has no formal control over other countries, is certainly different from the European power empires in the 19th and 20th centuries, when the core of imperialism was political hegemony. Although there is indeed an unequal relationship between the United States and other weaker countries, or even exploitation, the United States has no formal political control over other countries, so the word "empire" is untrue and quite misleading. The power gap between the United States and other countries is indeed even worse than that of the British Empire in its heyday. But Britain once ruled a quarter of the world and controlled the internal affairs of many countries. In this respect, the United States can't compare with the British Empire. For example, British officials control Kenya's schools, taxes, laws and elections, not to mention its foreign affairs. Today, the United States does not have this kind of power. For example, in the UN Security Council last year, the United States even lobbied Mexico and Chile to vote for the second resolution on Iraq, and it was completely rebuffed. Neo-imperialists will say, "Don't be so picky. "The word empire is just a metaphor. But the problem is that this metaphor means that the United States can manipulate other countries, but the fact is not; Moreover, the title of empire will only strengthen the unilateralism tendency of some officials in the US Congress and the Bush administration. The dark side of globalization is becoming more and more prominent in this global information age. It is impossible to gather strategic power in one. In fact, the power among countries is like a complicated three-dimensional chess game. On the top chessboard, American military forces dominate the world; But on the economic chessboard, the United States can't be called hegemony or empire, and the European Union can be equal to the United States. On the lower chessboard of international relations, the distribution of power is even more staggered, and the so-called unipolar system, hegemony or American empire can not be applied. Therefore, some people look at American power from a traditional military perspective and think that American foreign policy should go to the road of empire, which is really a big mistake. In a three-dimensional chess game, if you only focus on one chessboard and ignore other chessboards and their vertical correlation, you will lose. Believe it or not, in the war on terrorism, the United States eliminated the Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein on the upper military chessboard, but on the lower international relations chessboard, al-Qaeda took the opportunity to sit up and absorb more new blood. These problems highlight the dark side of globalization, and to solve them, all countries must work together and take a multi-pronged approach to achieve results. Therefore, describing the United States as an empire can be said to be a thousand miles away, but it makes people unable to see clearly the diplomatic challenges facing the United States today. Another big fallacy of American imperialists is that they misinterpret the nature of American public opinion response and state organization. Will the American people accept the role of empire? Neo-conservatives, such as Max Boot, advocated that the United States should play the role of foreign policy beacon for weak countries like the complacent British gentleman. But as Niall Ferguson, a British historian, said, one big difference between the United States and Britain in the 19th century is that the United States is "always only three minutes hot". When the United States rose a century ago, there was a time when it dreamed of an empire, but it was very short. Unlike Britain, Americans always feel uncomfortable with imperialism, and only a few special cases have been founded under the leadership of the United States in places that the United States once occupied militarily. The American Empire was not limited by economic forces. During the Cold War, the ratio of American military expenditure to gross domestic product was much higher, for example, today. The main limitation of the United States is that American public opinion does not want to send troops to take care of so many peripheral countries. Many polls show that the American people lack interest in the imperial dream and would rather continue to support multilateralism and the United Nations structure. Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian scholar who likes to talk about imperial metaphors, simply described the role of the United States in the world as "Empire Lite". When it comes to building an American empire, it's hard to do so. Apart from building the army, the American people and Congress are simply unwilling to spend money to establish the necessary mechanism to control and build other countries. The State Council's total budget accounts for only 1% of the total federal budget, but its military expenditure is nearly 17 times higher. This situation will not change in the short term. In a word, American foreign policy should avoid the misleading of imperial metaphors. In the 21st century, in the era of global information, the imperial rhetoric will not help the United States to understand and respond to all kinds of challenges. The world is like chess, where is the player? The writer is Dean of Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and former Assistant Secretary of State.