It is undeniably paradoxical to talk of an American Empire considering that the US was born in opposition to the idea of Empire itself. The Founding Fathers might have looked for the establishment of an empire, but if that was the case it was one of freedom, one that could opposed the tyrant characteristics of the British Empire under George III. Today, the US still remains an ‘empire by denial’ but we have entered a time when US critics tend to use less and less the euphemism American ‘hegemony,’ and have a tendency to replace it for the word empire. As a matter of fact, there is a growing number of people who now employ the term American Empire, and the word is more and more accepted by several American scholars and the American establishment.
The Empire’s behaviour was clearly distinguishable, for instance, in 2001 when the Office of the Secretary of Defense organized a study at the Naval War College to ‘explore strategic approaches to sustain US predominance for the long term which drew comparisons between the US and the Roman, Ottoman, Chinese and British Empires.’[1] Even though the US has several similarities to other previous empires, two main differences that the American empire shows are: that the US does not look for territorial domination but for an economic one; and that is not neighbouring any other great power. In the past, the US experienced a kind of formal empire with the1898-Spanish-American War which set the expansionist policies of President William McKinley(R) as part of the Monroe Doctrine and the Manifest Destiny (The Philippines and Hawaii were annexed and Cuba became a protectorate). Today the American Empire tends to be informal but their military remains massive and world-wide spread.
At present, the US military has more than 750 installations in more than 130 countries around the globe, its total military spending accounts for 40-45 % of the world’s defence overall spending and is greater than those of the next 14 countries combined. However, in the economic realm ‘it is far less powerful than it was, say, 20 years ago—before Europe and China became more serious economic actors—or immediately after the Second World War, when it controlled 70 per cent of the world’s financial resources.’[2]
To critically shed light on the advantages and constraints of an American empire it would be interesting to determine whether what the contemporary world necessitates is an empire which is concerned on the development of peace and understanding between cultures, or an economic neoliberal empire which actually aims for the free international exchange of commodities, labour and capital, that is to say economic domination (as the status quo favours only the richest countries). It is undeniable that peace and prosperity are completely linked to each other but it is less clear whether the American Empire is focusing more on the economic development of an elite than in the societal well-being of the planet’s inhabitants, the development of plutocracy rather than democracy.
To better analyse the positive or negative impacts of an American Empire we shall first treat the arguments that let us believe that unipolarity would have unhelpful consequences for the world’s stability. In a second step we shall shed light on the approaches which could make us think that the consequences of the US ruling are constructive and beneficial for the rest of the world.
The first evidences that lead the observer to consider that an American Empire is more harmful than beneficial are based on recent developments. In fact, there is a growing list of rejected international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol, the International Court of Justice and a succession of rejections of arms control accords that suggest that the US is fully embracing the imperial policy of unilateralism. Without a doubt, the US has got two logics of acting, multilateralism or coercive domination (and decrease of commitments to share the internationals laws and treaties), it is the latter the one which has been increasingly privileged since the end of the Cold War.
The most obvious recent development of unilateral action was in the Middle East. In Iraq the American Empire invaded and occupied the country for unclear and debatable reasons going from WMD, oil, and the establishment of a democratic country and/or the strengthening of Israel in the region. After Baghdad fell in April 2003, the Bush administration placed a U.S. administrator in charge of the country until U.S. officials eventually handed sovereignty back to the Iraqis, but they made clear they would do so only after a government was installed that accorded with U.S. interests, regardless of what Iraqis wanted. Moreover, the Bush administration also declared support for privatizing the Iraqi economy. Even though occupying forces are forbidden from selling state assets under the fourth Geneva Convention the White House awarded the great bulk of contracts for rebuilding Iraq and its oil industry to U.S. firms.[3] Hence, one century after the McKinley invasion of the Philippines, after invading, occupying and dominating the Iraqi people the US was claiming once again that it was liberating them.
After September 11 the world had an unambiguous choice: ‘either with us or against us,’ something that is remindful of the Cold War era when the Manichean American conception of the world was easily distinguishable. The American Empire’s arrogance of power was manifested in a new conception of defence, pre-emptive attacks. Any state having WMD, or at least said to have any, or having any connexion to terrorism had heard the American anti-terrorism ultimatum- an ultimatum which ‘is high-handed and permits the arbitrary application of American power everywhere.’[4] In the 2002 ‘National Security Strategy’, the Bush administration sent a message to the world: ‘the United States government asserts the right to bomb, invade and destroy whatever country it chooses,’ and it refuses to respect any international law when go against their ‘vital’ interests.[5] But what were those vital interests? Perhaps those that the vice-president reported. The 2001 Cheney Report on US energy needs ‘identified Saddam as America’s main enemy and urged the US to use all the necessary means against him, including military intervention.’[6] Later, when President G. W. Bush delivered his speech in front of the UN before the invasion of Iraq he made clear that: ‘the purposes of the US should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced… or action will be unavoidable.’
The role of the dollar as the key currency in the world shall not be undermined as it constitutes one of the most important means of economic imperialism. The 1944-United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, commonly known as the Bretton Woods Agreements, gave the possibility to the American economy to counting on the IMF to support its dollars assets, and not having to be linked to the gold standart anymore. Thus, since the values around the world and much of the nations reserves are in dollars, the US dominates not only its own economy but also the value of the savings and reserves in foreign countries. This entire context offers to the US the capability of having low interest rates, allowing massive twins-deficit in the American economy, because is principally financed by foreign countries (especially the poorer countries which can not get money in the market at low interest rates because they are nor ‘reliable’), which actually finance and lend money to the famished American consumers.
From the end of the WWII, in order to establish neo-imperial reign in Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East, the United States did not annex countries, but instead ‘Washington sought to dominate these countries' economies and keep friendly governments in power—through quiet subversion or, if necessary, outright military intervention.’[7] The paradox is that free-trade is, and was, preached more for others than for the US itself; Thus, the ‘Washington consensus’ about neoliberalism has led to American global dominance of world markets. In the mean time the US continuous to subsidy its agriculture, as the EU and Japan, and intermittently some of its industries such as the steel and textiles one.
‘As the world’s dominant state, the US championed GATT (WTO)-and the Bretton Woods institutions- as a way of locking in other countries to an open world economy that would ensure massive economic gains for itself.’[8] Consequently, the US Treasury dominates the World Bank and the IMF and uses credit and loans as one of the most important sources of foreign policy. Once a country has acquired debt the US Treasury through the WB or the IMF and all the other international financial organisms (which are subjugated to these to banks) put pressure in countries to undertake ‘structural adjustment programs’ whose purpose is to liberalise the economy, the labour and the capital market, the privatisation of government enterprises, and the imposition of fiscal austerity. That fiscal austerity translates itself in the cutting of governing spending specially in health and education, which accentuates the difference between developed and underdeveloped countries and perpetrates the task of raw-material provider to the poorest countries (something that is in some way the continuity of colonial mercantilism).
Another reasons which could lead us to claim that America shall not lead the world unilateraly is the so-called American belief of the superiority of their values. The Manifest Destiny, the ‘city-upon-a-hill’ puritan conception of what America should be, represents a danger for the world as exceptionalism leads to phanatism and it can be compared with muslim fundamentalist which also believe in the superiority of their values. Senator J. William Fulbright obeserved in 1968, ‘the British called it the ‘white man’s burden, the French ‘la mission civilisatrice’ , Nineteenth-century Americans called it ‘manifest destiny.’ It is now called the ‘responsabilities of power’, ‘the promotion of democracy,’ ‘the promotion of freedom.’[9]
Not a minor theme is the religious character of the American society. The multiplicity of Chiristian sects and the very important pace religion occupies in the American society produce clashes with most of the European countries which tend to be more secular, with all the muslim countries, and with the Asian civilisations which have a totally different conception of spirtuality and do not understand the western conception of religion.
There are authors who claim that the unilateralist character of ther American Empire is positive since multilateralsim has been tried with poor results and catastrophic consequences. Thus, Krauthammer states that Europe had practice multilateralism for centuries and it never worked and because of that he describes unipolarity as more benign.[10] But can we really compare that period of time with today’s considering that states only had conventional weapons? The writer does not give enough importance to the development of nuclear weapons. It is not only the improvement of a kind of warhead, its power is so great that creates deterrence to a point that no nuclear power would dare to attack another nuclear power.[11]
It can be argued that up until know, with few exceptions, the US has preferred indirect rule and informal empire to achieve its policies of formal empire.[12] The methods of formal rule are visible as they are military ones, but US methods of indirect ruling and informal Hyperpuissance are usually achieve through NGOs, foundations, International Organizations and corporations, and local elites. The role the culture constitutes, the so-calles soft power, in the survival of an Empire shall not be undermine. American cultural imperialism, which was present during the Cold War world-wide and acted through philanthropic foundations and other NGOs, prepared the societies for economic neoliberalism.[13]
When dealing with the arguments for an American Empire, the first thing which is important to note is that the unipolarity of the world today is due to the reason that ‘other major states are not making systematic choices to pull away from and balance against the United States.’[14] It may not be forgotten the offshore balancing power that the US played when entering both World Wars leading to the victory of the allies, and the fact that the US provided relatively peace for the last 60 years by helping to organize and by encouraging the formation of International organization such as the UN and NATO after WWI and WWII leading to the end of communism. Therefore, since the end of the Cold War has altered the characters of the threat for the EU and Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, it has also changed the way these countries observe the US, not anymore as a security provider but a Hegemonic ruler. But, ‘How can one talk of empire when one of the United States’ obvious impulses abroad has been to advance the cause of national democracy and self-determination?’[15]
Another reason not to fear the American empire is the thesis that demonstrate that democratic countries as the US, which has it power primarily institutionalised, are less willing to use power in arbitrary cases in other democracies. Today, the Asian and EU countries do not want to dominate the ‘Colossus’ but just to predict its moves by means of international agreements and institutions. Moreover, American power is now more tolerable than the power of previous empires ‘because in the age of nuclear deterrence American military power cannot be used for conquest against other great powers.’[16]
Pro- US Empire critics also remembered the readers that America’s unique global power supremacy allowed balancing Iraq in the Gulf War by supporting its neighbours and it balanced China by supporting Taiwan, South Korea or even Vietnam.[17] Furthermore, Kosovo and Rwanda provide another example of why an American Empire is necessary: in order to stop the slaughter of innocents in NATO’s doorstep,[18] and in Africa. Had the US army not set up the air-bridge to eastern Zaire in the wake of the Rwanda genocide, even more people would have perish.[19] In addition, at present, there are still countries which need the imposition of authority from an external power. It is for instance the case of Sudan, Ethiopia, Liberia some years ago, North Korea, etc. Thus, it is claimed that the role of the US is to provide stability and order to these countries which would help develop institutions, public goods, justice and flourishing markets.
In A World Without Power, Niall Ferguson claims that ‘Apolarity could turn out to mean an anarchic new Dark Age: an era of waning empires and religious fanaticism; of endemic plunder and pillage in the world's forgotten regions; of economic stagnation and civilization's retreat into a few fortified enclaves.’[20] Deekap Lal asserts that it is actually imperialism what necessitates the Middle East to restore order and to embrace modernity, to fight the century-old confusion that persists in the Islamic souls about modernity which leads to believe in jihad. He goes even further by arguing that the Wilsonian-type moral persuasion that the Europeans preach to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict through an UN-lead multilateral action is the usual tactic of the weak powers.[21]
Concerning the failed completion of stability and democracy in Iraq and the Middle East, Philip Bobbitt declares in his ‘constitutional theory’ that democracy and human rights are above sovereignty. He claims that states as Iraq, being not democratic and not protecting human rights, should expect American interventionism because the US is democratic, immensely powerful and committed to human rights, and for that reasons it has the might and right to attack Iraq and others. He also maintains that for those same reasons pre-emptive action to countries trying to develop WMD is legitimate and that in these cases the US must have international law immunity.[22] One of the main reasons to the necessity of unilateralism, it is argued, is that the United Nations Security Council is not legitimate as it allows misrepresentation and keeps an image of the world after the WWII.
During the Cold War years the best understanding between two different and opposed worlds happened when détente was tried. Later on, the end of the Soviet Union was not a consequence of the hardliners of the Reagan Administration but a decision from the SU themselves to reform and open to the world (perestroika and glasnost) because of its great economies. Force might be the easiest way to achieve a goal but it does not guaranty long term duration.
If the US keeps choosing to act unilaterally its ability to dominate and transform countries will remain limited. Nothing which is achieved by force and unilaterally is durable as it has not real legitimacy and ‘liberated’ peoples actually feel themselves oppressed in the medium term. The every-day massacre that produced the invasion of Iraq and the unsolved problems with the Taliban in Afghanistan can attest of the consequences of acting by its own. Moreover, these last two unilateral interventions did not diminish but accentuated the development of WMD around the World. Hence, North Korea and Iran understood that the only way not to be invaded was to put more resources in the developing of their nuclear capabilities while the empire was busy with Afghanistan and Iraq.
As we have seen, unilateralism leads to unbalanced actions, policies and viewpoints. For instance, how to solve the problems in the Middle East when ‘in 2003, even Israelis tended to see the US as favouring them rather that the Palestinians.’[23]
Because global economic and political interdependence tends to grow, America will probably be obliged to sustained multilateral policies even if it faces resistance from internal ideologies. It is undeniable that today the UN does not fully represent the world and the US has a great responsibility in stopping the democratisation of the International Organisation. The US has the dilemma of multilateralism or the development of the American Empire. Unilateralism is entirely based on power and coercive repression of ‘rogue’ states by partial conception and policies; whereas multilateralism is based on international law and a more impartial viewpoint. The dilemma is jungle-ruling, where the stronger animal dominates the others, or societal ruling, which differentiates human being from other mammals, where institutions and law and not force are the soul of stability, democracy, peace and understanding.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Ikenberry, G. John, 'Liberal Hegemony or Empire?’ American Power in the Age of Unipolarity’ in Held & Koenig-Archibugi eds., American Power in the 21st Century, Cambridge: Policy Press, 2004, pp. 83-113.
Mann, Michael, ‘The First Failed Empire of the Twenty-First Century,’ in Held & Koenig-Archibugi eds., American Power in the 21st Century, pp. 52-82.
Bacevich, Andrew J, ed., The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2003. Chapter1: Back to an Imperial Future, pp. 5-81.
Cox, Michael, ‘Empire by Denial: The Strange Case of the United States,’ International Affairs, Vol. 8 (2005) 1, pp. 15-30.
Judis, John B, ‘Imperial Amnesia’, Foreign Policy, July/August 2004.
Ferguson, Niall, ‘A World Without Power,’ Foreign Policy, July/August 2004.
Ferguson, Niall, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. Penguin, March, 2005. Introduction, pp. 1-29.
[1] Ferguson, Niall, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. Penguin, March, 2005. Introduction, p. 6.
[2] Cox, Michael, ‘Empire by Denial: The Strange Case of the United States,’ International Affairs, Vol. 8 (2005) 1, p. 25.
[3] See Judis, John B, ‘Imperial Amnesia’, Foreign Policy, July/August 2004. pp. 5-6.
[4]Krauthammer, Charles, ‘The Unipolar Era,’ in Bacevich, Andrew J, ed., The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2003. p. 53.
[5]North, David, ‘America’s Drive for World Domination,’ in Bacevich, Andrew J, ed., The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2003. p. 67.
[6] Mann, Michael, ‘The First Failed Empire of the Twenty-First Century,’ in Held & Koenig-Archibugi eds., American Power in the 21st Century, pp. 76-77.
[7] Judis, John B, ‘Imperial Amnesia’, Foreign Policy, July/August 2004. p. 4.
[8] Ikenberry, G. John, 'Liberal Hegemony or Empire?’ American Power in the Age of Unipolarity’ in Held & Koenig-Archibugi eds., American Power in the 21st Century, Cambridge: Policy Press, 2004, p. 103.
[9] Ferguson, Niall, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. Penguin, March, 2005. Introduction, p. 23.
[10] Krauthammer, Charles, ‘The Unipolar Era,’ in Bacevich, Andrew J, ed., The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2003. p. 59.
[11] We may understand through this point why America is at present so interested in trying to develop the so-called ‘Star Wars’ Missile Defense Anti-ballistic System.
[12] Ferguson, Niall, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. Penguin, March, 2005. Introduction, p. 12.
[13] See F. Stonor Saunders, Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War. London: Granta, 1999.
[14] Ikenberry, G. John, 'Liberal Hegemony or Empire?’ American Power in the Age of Unipolarity’ in Held & Koenig-Archibugi eds., American Power in the 21st Century, Cambridge: Policy Press, 2004, p. 89.
[15] Cox, Michael, ‘Empire by Denial: The Strange Case of the United States,’ International Affairs, Vol. 8 (2005) 1, p. 21.
[16] Ikenberry, G. John, 'Liberal Hegemony or Empire?’ American Power in the Age of Unipolarity’ in Held & Koenig-Archibugi eds., American Power in the 21st Century, Cambridge: Policy Press, 2004, p. 95.
[17] Krauthammer, Charles, ‘The Unipolar Era,’ in Bacevich, Andrew J, ed., The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2003. p. 61.
[18] Rieff, David, ‘ Liberal Imperialism,’ in Bacevich, Andrew J, ed., The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2003. p.12.
[19] Ibid, p. 24.
[20] Ferguson, Niall, ‘A World Without Power,’ Foreign Policy, July/August 2004. p. 2.
[21] See Deepak, Lal, ‘ In Defense of Empires,’ in Bacevich, Andrew J, ed., The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2003. pp.43-44.
[22] See Mann, Michael, ‘The First Failed Empire of the Twenty-First Century,’ in Held & Koenig-Archibugi eds., American Power in the 21st Century, pp. 53-54
[23] Mann, Michael, ‘The First Failed Empire of the Twenty-First Century,’ in Held & Koenig-Archibugi eds., American Power in the 21st Century, p. 76.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment