This book, which was published in 2004, gives an interesting insight into Emmanuel Todd’s thinking in that year compared to his current thoughts, as outlined in his recent book La Défaite de L’Occident, which was reviewed in the September issue of the Irish Political Review.Many of the trends he identified in this book have been accentuated in the present.  The problems of the world did not begin with Trump and Netanyahu!

America’s trade deficit was already exploding 20 years ago, and Israel’s genocidal oppression of the Palestinians did not begin with the Hamas attack in October 2023.

A constant theme of Todd’s books is the structure of the family and its influence on the politics of a society.  He suggests that the Anglo-Saxon model is unequal between the siblings and this has a profound effect on society.  Russian society has an authoritarian father, but the male children are equal.  Its family structure is also more community-oriented.  This had consequences for the character of Soviet society.  France and Germany each have different family structures which have also profound social and political consequences.

This reviewer finds it difficult to evaluate such a theory.  Presumably Todd has given a more detailed justification in earlier works.  In this book he takes his theory as read.  But whether one agrees with the theory is not too important.  From the reader’s point of view, the real question is whether the author gives an accurate description of the world.  In this reviewer’s view he does.

Todd thinks the United States, unlike Russia, does not have a “universalist” philosophy.  For the US not all men are born equal.  At the top of the society are the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and then come various other groups.  This ideological position was a handicap when the US was competing with the Soviet Union, and it had to be modified both abroad and domestically.

After the Second World War various other ethnic groups were absorbed into the mainstream of American society, such as the Irish, Jews, Italians, the Asians and other groups.  Progress was also made with the African-Americans but, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the impetus for “universalism” was dissipated.

Todd adduces statistics on inter-racial marriage among Blacks to show that, while there was some small progress from 1965 to 1995, the progress stalled in that year and then was reversed.  He also shows that there has been a significant increase in infant mortality among Blacks, which diverges from the rest of American society.

One of the most interesting parts of the book is his discussion of Israel and the American Jewish lobby.  Part of the reason why the Jewish lobby is so aggressive is that the Jews remain insecure about their status in American society.  American society can extend equal rights to ethnic groups, but it can also withdraw them.

One of the groups that supports the Zionist project are the Protestant fundamentalists.  Todd thinks these are anti-Semitic.  Their anti-Semitism is masked by their even greater hatred of Islam.  So their support for Israel is fragile.

Todd himself has many Jewish relatives, both in France and the United States.  At one point he recounts an incident in which one of his American relatives berated his French counterpart for not being aggressive enough in denouncing attacks on French synagogues.  Todd thinks the aggression is a sign of weakness rather than strength.  In Todd’s opinion French Jews are far more secure in French society than their counterparts in America.

No doubt the success of the Jewish lobby is partly due to its political skills and wealth.  But another factor is the absence of a pro-Arab lobby in the United States.

Todd also thinks that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a factor.  

The favouring of Israel over Arab countries is another example of America’s retreat from universalism.

A final element is that America sees so much of itself in Israel.  Israel is doing to the Palestinians what America did to the Indians.

But can America continue to behave as it does with impunity?  The author suggests that it is an empire in decline.

In the light of current social unrest in America, it is interesting to note Todd’s description of the evolution of empires. At a certain point, the centre treats the conquered people like ordinary citizens and then ordinary citizens like people conquered.  The wealth generated in the periphery is no longer enough to support the living standards in the centre.

One of America’s weak points is its economy, as reflected in its massive trade deficit.  Todd describes America’s decline from an industrial powerhouse to a country dependent on goods produced from the rest of the world.

It is not the first Empire to be dependent on production from its colonies. The Roman Empire extracted food and other products from its periphery to such extent that the peasants and workers in the heart of the empire had become useless and had to be entertained in order to be kept compliant.

The Roman Empire could sustain this by extracting a tribute from the colonies but in America the means of exercising control are more complicated.

Certainly, America like the Romans, has a military presence throughout the world.  Its client states are obliged to buy from its arms industry.  But, while it has superiority in air power, its ground forces are limited.  In Afghanistan, for example, it used local warlords to do much of its fighting.

In 2004 America was already a net importer of oil.  Its strategy has been to control the world’s energy resources.  It exercises its control through its multi-national oil companies, but also through the political influence it exercises over countries in the Middle East.

Control over the Middle East gives it control over Western Europe and Japan—which are completely dependent on oil imports for the functioning of their economies.

But the most significant means of retaining its power is through the dollar.  The world has needed the dollar to trade.  In an unstable world the dollar is a safe haven.  

While the military record of the United States since the Second World War has not been great, it has shown it has the capacity to disrupt and destroy weak states.  America has an economic interest in generating instability.  An unsafe and insecure world has a greater need of a safe haven currency like the dollar.

But the emergence of the BRICs [Brazil, Russia, India, China] countries presages the end of dollar dominance.

In the light of current events, Todd’s analysis of Russia is particularly interesting.  That country’s weakness is its declining population and low birth rate.  But its strength is its resource-rich territory.  It is the second largest producer of oil and the largest producer of gas.  Stalin’s policy of “Socialism in One Country” was possible only because the Soviet Union was self-sufficient.  The Western Powers should have known that their economic sanctions would not work against Russia.

Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, America was worried about Russia.  As well as its legacy of military power, its self-sufficiency in energy resources was a threat to American power.  Todd thought twenty years ago that, with the ending of the Cold War, there was the possibility of a resurgent Russia increasing trade with the EU and thereby making the latter less dependent on the American Empire.

The opposition of France, Germany and Russia to America’s war on Iraq in 2003 must have seemed to Todd of greater significance than mere dissatisfaction with the uni-polar power.  How wrong he was!  But he can hardly be blamed for underestimating the sheer stupidity of the current crop of European leaders.

Twenty years ago it was clear to Todd that American strategy was to destroy Russia.  One of the most influential books on American Foreign policy was written by a Polish American:  Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard.   Todd suggests that playing chess with the Russians is not a good idea.  You are bound to lose!

Nevertheless, Brzezinski identified Ukraine as a vulnerable point for Russia.  Todd thinks that Ukraine was inherently incapable of any independent development.  It could only come under the influence of a foreign power:  whether America or Russia.

The thrust of Todd’s analysis was that America would fail to destroy Russia.  That twenty-year old prediction certainly has not been invalidated by the passage of time.  But he could not have predicted that the Americans would win a consolation prize:  the complete subordination of Europe to America interests, as evidenced by the destruction of the Nordstream pipelines.

No one could have predicted that!

John Martin