American Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of U.S. expansion and influence

American Empire

Foreign relations

List of military actions

Non-interventionism

Opposition to expansion

Overseas expansion

Pax Americana

Territorial acquisitions

This box: view • talk • edit

This article is about views of the historical expansionism and current international influence of the United States. For other uses, please see American Empire (disambiguation). For a history of overseas United States territorial acquisitions, see History of United States overseas expansion.

American Empire is a term sometimes used to describe the historical expansionism and the current political, economic, and cultural influence of the United States on a global scale.

It is usually part of a politically charged debate which involves three basic questions:

1. Is the United States currently an empire?
2. If the United States is an empire, when did it become one?
3. If the United States is an empire, is that good or bad?

However, there are also more neutral uses of the term.

[edit] Definition of empire

The term "empire" has two uncontroversial meanings. In one sense, the U.S. is not an empire, because it lacks a legal emperor, king, despot, or other hereditary head of state. In another sense, the U.S. satisfies the definition of an empire, because it possesses sovereignty over territories which it has not annexed as states, such as Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam and in the past the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and the Philippines.^[1]

Controversy exists over whether the U.S. consistently behaves like an empire across the world, and if it would be accurate to describe it as such. The term imperialism was coined in the mid-1800s to describe empire-like behavior, carried out by states which might or might not be formal empires.^[2] The Oxford English Dictionary gives three definitions of imperialism:

1. An imperial system of government; the rule of an emperor, esp. when despotic or arbitrary.
2. The principle or spirit of empire; advocacy of what are held to be imperial interests.
3. Used disparagingly. In Communist writings: the imperial system or policy of the Western powers. Used conversely in some Western writings: the imperial system or policy of the Communist powers.^[3]

Debate exists over whether the U.S. is an empire in the politically-charged sense of the latter two definitions. Some have suggested that this use of the term is an abuse of language. Historian Stuart Creighton Miller argues that the overuse and abuse of the term "imperialism" makes it nearly meaningless as an analytical concept.^[4] Historian Archibald Paton Thorton wrote that "imperialism is more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves. Where colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against."^[5] Political theorist Michael Walzer argues that the term "hegemony" is better than "empire" to describe the US' role in the world.^[6]

[edit] American exceptionalism

Stuart Creighton Miller points out that the question of US imperialism has been the subject of agonizing debate ever since the United States acquired formal empire at the end of the nineteenth century during the 1898 Spanish-American War. Miller argues that this agony is because of America’s sense of innocence, produced by a kind of "immaculate conception" view of America's origins. When European settlers came to America they miraculously shed their old ways upon arrival in the New World, as one might discard old clothing, and fashioned new cultural garments based solely on experiences in a new and vastly different environment. Miller believes that school texts, patriotic media, and patriotic speeches on which Americans have been reared do not stress the origins of America's system of government, that these sources often omit or downplay that the "United States Constitution owes its structure as much to the ideas of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes as to the experiences of the Founding Fathers; that Jeffersonian thought to a great extent paraphrases the ideas of earlier Scottish philosophers; and that even the allegedly unique frontier egalitarian has deep roots in seventeenth century English radical traditions."^[7] Philosopher Douglas Kellner traces the identification of American exceptionalism as a distinct phenomenon back to 19th century French observer Alexis de Tocqueville, who concluded by agreeing that the U.S., uniquely, was "proceeding along a path to which no limit can be perceived."^[8]

American exceptionalism is popular among people within the US^[9], but its validity and its consequences are disputed. Miller argues that US citizens fall within three schools of thought about the question whether the United States is imperialistic:

• Overly self-critical Americans tend to exaggerate the nation’s flaws, failing to place them in historical or worldwide contexts.
• At the other end of the scale, the tendency of highly patriotic Americans is to deny such abuses and even assert that they could never exist in their country. (As a Monthly Review editorial describes the phenomenon, "in Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent “white man’s burden.” And in the United States, empire does not even exist; “we” are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy, and justice worldwide." ^[10])
• In the middle are Americans who assert that "Imperialism was an aberration."^[11]

[edit] First school of thought: "Empire is at the heart of US foreign policy"

1898 political cartoon: "Ten Thousand Miles From Tip to Tip" meaning the extension of U.S. domination (symbolized by a bald eagle) from Puerto Rico to the Philippines. The cartoon contrasts this with a map of the smaller United States 100 years earlier in 1798.

Since the Spanish-American War, Marxists and New Left writers tend to view imperialism as an unmitigated evil. US imperialism, in their view, traces its beginning not to the Spanish-American war, but to Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana Territory, or even to the genocide of Native Americans prior to the American Revolution, and continues to this day. Historian Sidney Lens argues that "the United States, from the time it gained its own independence, has used every available means—political, economic, and military—to dominate other nations."^[12] Numerous U.S. foreign interventions, ranging from early actions under the Monroe Doctrine to 21st-century interventions in the Middle East, are typically described by these authors as imperialistic. Some critics of imperialism have a more positive view of American's early era, however. Prominent conservative writer Patrick Buchanan argues that the modern United States's drive to empire is "far from what the Founding Fathers had intended the young Republic to become."^[13] This latter point of view is often identified with American isolationism, in the tradition of either the Old Right (Buchanan), or libertarianism (for example, Justin Raimondo).

1900 Campaign poster for the Republican Party. "The American flag has not been planted in foreign soil to acquire more territory but for humanity's sake.", president William McKinley, July 12, 1900. On the left hand, we see how the situation allegedly was in 1896, before McKinley's victory during the elections: "Gone Democratic: A run on the bank, Spanish rule in Cuba". On the right hand, we see how the situation allegedly is in 1900, after four years of McKinley's rule: "Gone Republican: a run to the bank, American rule in Cuba" (the Spanish-American War took place in 1898).

Lens describes American exceptionalism as a myth, which allows any number of "excesses and cruelties, though sometimes admitted, usually [to be] regarded as momentary aberrations."^[14] Linguist and left-wing political critic Noam Chomsky argues that it is the result of a systematic strategy of propaganda, maintained by an "elite domination of the media" which allows it to "fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns."^[15]

This critical historical view is usually continued to present US foreign policy. Historian Andrew Bacevich, drawing on the work of Charles Beard and William Appleman Williams, argues that the end of the Cold War did not mark the end of an era in US history, because US foreign policy did not fundamentally change after the Cold War. US foreign policy has long been driven by the desire to expand access to foreign markets in order to benefit the domestic economy. The moralistic reasons given for American foreign intervention mask the true economic reasons, and Bacevich warns that US economic imperialism (in the guise of globalization) may not be in the best interests of the United States. ^[16]

This is a common extension of the critique of American empire; Buchanan and, from the opposite side of the political spectrum, prominent left-wing writer Tariq Ali, argue independently but similarly that acts of terrorism against the United States, such as the September 11, 2001 attacks, are the direct result of the U.S.'s ill-fated attempts to intervene in places where it should never have been involved in the first place. Ali claims that "the reasons [for terrorism] are really political. They see the double standards applied by the West: a ten-year bombing campaign against Iraq, sanctions against Iraq which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, while doing nothing to restrain Ariel Sharon and the war criminals running Israel from running riot against the Palestinians. Unless the questions of Iraq and Palestine are sorted out, these kids will be attracted to violence regardless of whether Osama bin Laden is gotten dead or alive."^[17]

Ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill is almost alone, however, in extending this critique further to argue that at least some of the victims of the 9/11 attacks - the "little Eichmanns" who "formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of the US' global financial empire – the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved" - deserved their fates.^[18] A different extension is more common; many critics of US imperialism argue, like Marxist sociologist John Bellamy Foster, that the United States' sole-superpower status makes it now the most dangerous world imperialist.^[19]

[edit] Theories of U.S. empire

Left-wing journalist Ashley Smith divides theories of the U.S. as an empire into 5 broad categories: "liberal" theories, "social-democratic" theories, "Leninist" theories, theories of "super-imperialism", and "Hardt-and-Negri-ite" theories.^[20] According to Smith,

• A "liberal" theory asserts that imperialistic U.S. policies are the products of particular elected politicians (e.g. the Bush administration) or political movements (e.g. neo-conservatism). These policies are not an essential product of U.S. political or economic structures (even if American culture has an unfortunate tendency to militarism), and are straightforwardly counter to U.S. interests. Liberal theories are held by most Democratic critics of U.S. imperialism, whose proposed solution is typically electing better officials.
• A "social-democratic" theory asserts that imperialistic U.S. policies are the products of the excessive influence of certain sectors of U.S. business and government, the arms industry in alliance with military and political bureaucracies and sometimes other industries such as oil and finance, a combination often referred to as the "military-industrial complex". The complex is said to benefit from war profiteering and the looting of natural resources, often at the expense of the public interest. The proposed solution is typically unceasing popular vigilance in order to apply counter-pressure. Left-wing ex-CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson holds a version of this view; other versions are typically held by right-wing anti-interventionists, such as Buchanan, Bacevich, and Raimondo.
• A "Leninist" theory asserts that imperialistic U.S. policies are the products of the unified interest of the predominant sectors of U.S. business, which need to ensure and manipulate export markets for both goods and capital. Business, on this Marxist view, essentially controls government, and international military competition is simply an extension of international economic competition, both driven by the inherently expansionist nature of capitalism. The proposed solution is typically revolutionary economic change. The theory was first systematized during the First World War by Russian Bolsheviks Vladimir Lenin and Nikolai Bukharin, although their work was based on that of earlier Marxists, socialists, and anarchists. Ali, Chomsky, Foster, Lens, and Zinn each hold some version of this view, as does Smith himself.
• A theory of "super-imperialism" is similar to the Leninist theory in its view of the roots of imperialism, but asserts that global economic interdependence has superseded the association of businesses with a single country, so that among developed nations economic and military cooperation is now more common than competition. The central conflict in modern imperialism is said to be between the global core and the global periphery rather than between imperialist powers. Political scientists Leo Panitch and Samuel Gindin hold versions of this view.
• A "Hardt-and-Negri-ite" theory asserts that the Leninist theory was valid when formulated, but that the U.S. is no longer imperialistic in the classic sense, because the world has passed the era of imperialism and entered a new era. (However, see note.^[21]) This new era still has oppressive, colonizing power, but has moved from national military forces based on an economy of physical goods to networked biopower based on an informational and affective economy. On this view, the U.S. is central to the development and constitution of a new global regime of international power and sovereignty, termed "Empire", but the "Empire" is decentralized and global, and not ruled by one sovereign state; literary theorist Michael Hardt and philosopher Antonio Negri argue that "the United States does indeed occupy a privileged position in Empire, but this privilege derives not from its similarities to the old European imperialist powers, but from its differences."^[22] Hardt and Negri draw on the theories of Spinoza, Foucault, Deleuze, and Italian autonomist marxists. Critical international relations theorist James Der Derian and philosopher Jean Baudrillard hold related though less systematic views, as do many in the traditions of postcolonialism, postmodernism and globalization theory.

[edit] U.S. military bases abroad as the neo-colony

Proponents who claim that the U.S.A. is indeed an empire point to American military bases abroad, even when they might not be popular with the vast majority of that nation as a sign of an empire. One author, Chalmers Johnson, notes that America's version of the colony is the military base.^[23] Professor Chip Pitts accepts U.S. empire as an empirical reality, but argues that empire is profoundly at odds with the better instincts of U.S. citizens and policymakers, and that rejecting neo-colonialism by military means such as those employed during the Iraq War, is a prerequisite to restoring domestic civil liberties and human rights that have been infringed upon by the imperial presidency -- while simultaneously being crucial to promoting peace and stability in the Middle East and beyond.^[24]

[edit] Second school of thought: "US empire never existed"

For many citizens of the United States, part of patriotism is defending the historical role of the US against allegations of imperialism or other evil. This is especially common among prominent mainstream political figures; former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for example, has said "we don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic. We never have been."^[25]

Ronald Radosh of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies argues that the United States' entrance into the Second World War, against Adolf Hitler's Germany is evidence that the US ability to intervene militarily abroad is crucial to preserving freedom and preventing genocide. Radosh claims that opponents of US imperialism are hypocrites, ignoring the greater crimes of states such as the Soviet Union because of an irrational prejudice against the United States, and/or appeasers, whose fear of exercising military power will only lead to larger and bloodier wars, as British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's led to the rise of Hitler.^[26]

The early 20th century US occupation of the Philippines, by contrast, is perhaps the most frequently cited evidence that US military intervention abroad has an imperial character. Extensive war crimes by US soldiers, conducted as matters of policy, have been well documented. General Jacob H. Smith told his officers, "I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States."^[27] Nevertheless, conservative military historian Max Boot defends US actions there, downplaying the relative significance of US atrocities, and defending US motives.

Boot argues that that the United States altruistically went to war with Spain to liberate Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Filipinos from their tyrannical yoke. If US troops lingered on too long in the Philippines, it was to protect the Filipinos from European predators waiting in the wings for American withdrawal and to tutor them in American-style democracy. In the Philippines the US followed its usual pattern; "the United States would set up a constabulary, a quasi-military police force led by Americans and made up of local enlisted men. Then the Americans would work with local officials to administer a variety of public services, from vaccinations and schools to tax collection. American officials, though often resented, usually proved more efficient and less venal than their native predecessors... Holding fair elections became a top priority because once a democratically elected government was installed, the Americans felt they could withdraw."

Boot argues that this was far from "the old-fashioned imperialism bent on looting nations of their natural resources." Just as with Iraq and Afghanistan, "some of the poorest countries on the planet," in the early 20th century "the United States was least likely to intervene in those nations (such as Argentina and Costa Rica) where American investors held the biggest stakes. The longest occupations were undertaken in precisely those countries--Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic--where the United States had the smallest economic stakes... Unlike the Dutch in the East Indies, the British in Malaya, or the French in Indochina, the Americans left virtually no legacy of economic exploitation."^[28]

Stuart Creighton Miller claims that this patriotic interpretation is no longer heard very often by historians.^[29]

[edit] "The Benevolent Empire"

But Max Boot, in fact, is willing to use the term "imperialism" to describe United States policy, not only in the early 20th century but "since at least 1803," though this is primarily a simple difference in terminology, since he still argues that US foreign policy has been consistently benevolent.^[30] Boot is not alone; as conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer puts it, "People are now coming out of the closet on the word 'empire.'" This embrace of empire is made by many neoconservatives, including political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski, historian Paul Johnson, and writers Dinesh D'Souza and Mark Steyn. It is also made by some liberal hawks, such as Michael Ignatieff.^[31]

For example, historian Niall Ferguson argues that the United States is an empire, but believes that this is a good thing. Ferguson has drawn parallels between the British Empire and the imperial role of the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, though he describes the United States' political and social structures as more like those of the Roman Empire than of the British. Ferguson argues that all these empires have had both positive and negative aspects, but that the positive aspects of the US empire will, if it learns from history and its mistakes, greatly outweigh its negative aspects.^[32]

[edit] Third school of thought: "Empire was an aberration"

Another point of view admits United States expansion overseas as imperialistic, but sees this imperialism as a temporary phenomenon, a corruption of American ideals or the relic of a past historical era. Historian Samuel Flagg Bemis argues that Spanish-American War expansionism was a short lived imperialistic impulse and "a great aberration in American history," a very different form of territorial growth than that of earlier American history.^[33] Historian Walter LaFeber sees the Spanish-American War expansionism not as an aberration, but as a culmination of United States expansion westward.^[34] But both agree that the end of the occupation of the Philippines marked the end of US empire - they deny that present United States foreign policy is imperialist.

Right-wing historian Victor Davis Hanson argues that the US does not pursue world domination, but maintains worldwide influence by a system of mutually beneficial exchanges; "If we really are imperial, we rule over a very funny sort of empire... The United States hasn't annexed anyone's soil since the Spanish-American War... Imperial powers order and subjects obey. But in our case, we offer the Turks strategic guarantees, political support — and money... Isolationism, parochialism, and self-absorption are far stronger in the American character than desire for overseas adventurism."^[35]

Liberal internationalists argue that even though the present world order is dominated by the United States, the form taken by that dominance is not imperial. International relations scholar John Ikenberry argues that international institutions have taken the place of empire; "the United States has pursued imperial policies, especially toward weak countries in the periphery. But U.S. relations with Europe, Japan, China, and Russia cannot be described as imperial... the use or threat of force is unthinkable. Their economies are deeply interwoven... they form a political order built on bargains, diffuse reciprocity, and an array of intergovernmental institutions and ad hoc working relationships. This is not empire; it is a U.S.-led democratic political order that has no name or historical antecedent."^[36] I.R. scholar Nye argues that US power is more and more based on "soft power," which comes from cultural hegemony rather than raw military or economic force. This includes such factors as the widespread desire to emigrate to the United States, the prestige and corresponding high proportion of foreign students at US universities, and the spread of US styles of popular music and cinema. Thus the US, no matter how hegemonic, is no longer an empire in the classic sense.

This point of view might be considered the mainstream or official interpretation of United States history within the US. The United States Information Agency writes that, "With the exception of the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, American territory had remained fixed since 1848. In the 1890s a new spirit of expansion took hold... Yet Americans, who had themselves thrown off the shackles of empire, were not comfortable with administering one. In 1902 American troops left Cuba... The Philippines obtained... complete independence in 1946. Puerto Rico became a self-governing commonwealth... and Hawaii became a state in 1959."^[37]

[edit] Cultural imperialism

The debates about the issue of American cultural imperialism are largely separate from the debates about American military imperialism that are the subject of this article.

However, some critics of imperialism argue that cultural imperialism is not independent from military imperialism. Edward Said, one of the founders of the study of post-colonialism, claims that, "So influential has been the discourse insisting on American specialness, altruism and opportunity, that imperialism in the United States as a word or ideology has turned up only rarely and recently in accounts of the United States culture, politics and history. But the connection between imperial politics and culture in North America, and in particular in the United States, is astonishingly direct." He identifies the way non-Americans, particularly non-Westerns, are usually thought of within the US in a tacitly racist manner, in a way that allows imperialism to be justified through such ideas as the White Man's Burden.^[38]

Opponents of theories of cultural imperialism argue that it is not connected to any kind of military domination. International relations scholar David Rothkop claims that alleged cultural imperialism is the innocent result of globalization, which allows many consumers across the world who desire US products and ideas access to them. A worldwide fascination with the United States has not been forced on anyone in ways similar to what is traditionally described as an empire, differentiating it from the actions of the British Empire and other more easily identified empires throughout history. Rothkop identifies the desire to preserve the purity of one's culture as xenophobic.^[39] A similar analysis can be found in Matthew Fraser's Weapons of Mass Distraction: Soft Power and American Empire (St. Martin's Press, 2005), though Fraser joins the neo-conservative thesis by arguing that America's global cultural influence is a good thing.

[edit] Notes and references

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:

American Imperialism

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:

American benevolence

• Bellah, Robert N. (March 8 2003). "Imperialism, American-style". The Christian Century: 20-25.
• "America and Empire: Manifest Destiny Warmed Up?". The Economist. Argues that the U.S. is going through an imperial phase, but like previous phases, this will be temporary, since (they argue) empire is incompatible with traditional U.S. policies and beliefs.
• 9/11 and the American Empire. Retrieved on 2006-05-05. A website that looks at the events of 9/11 which point towards government orchestration with the intention of using mass public fear as a catalyst for creating a stronger American Empire..
• The American Empire Project. Retrieved on 2006-06-10. A series of books from left-wing writers such as Noam Chomsky, critical of the "American Empire".
• An American Question. ''tygerland.net by AS Heath. Retrieved on 2006-06-10. July 25, 2005
• Boot, Max (May 5 2003). "American imperialism? No need to run away from label". USA today. Argues that "U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century."
• Hitchens, Christopher, Imperialism: Superpower dominance, malignant and benign. Slate.com. Retrieved on 2006-06-10., warns that the U.S.—whether or not you call it an empire—should be careful to use its power wisely.
• Johnson, Paul, America's New Empire for Liberty. Article from conservative writer and historian, argues that the U.S. has always been an empire—and a good one at that.
• Motyl, Alexander J. (July/August 2006). "Empire Falls Alexander J. Motyl". Foreign Affairs. Two new books attempt to explain U.S. power and policy in imperial terms.
• Empire?. Global Policy Forum. Retrieved on 2006-08-07.
• Niall Ferguson. "Empire Falls". Vanity Fair. Retrieved on 2006-10-01.

[edit] Further reading

• Perkins, John (2004). Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. ISBN 1-57675-301-8.
• Zepezauer, Mark (2002). Boomerang! : How Our Covert Wars Have Created Enemies Across the Middle East and Brought Terror to America. ISBN 1-56751-222-4.
• Tremblay, Rodrigue (2004). The New American Empire. Infinty publishing. ISBN 0-7414-1887-8.
• Card, Orson Scott (2006). Empire. TOR. ISBN 0-765-31611-0.

Colonialism
Belgian Empire | British Empire | Danish Empire | Dutch Empire | Empire of Japan | French colonial Empire | German colonial Empire | Italian Empire | Portuguese Empire | Russian Empire | Spanish Empire | Swedish Empire | American Empire