- For other uses, see American Empire (disambiguation)
The American Empire is a politically-charged, informal term used to describe the current political, economic and cultural influence of the United States on a global scale. It is generally, though by no means always, used with a negative connotation. Proponents of the term claim that it is an appropriate one, based on American history and an evident American expansionism ideology, as conveyed in the cultural ethos of "Manifest Destiny" —often called "American exceptionalism."
Expansion
The United States originated as a fissile spin off of the British Empire at the height of its energies. An expansionist tendency was thus present in the United States right from the beginning. At first, the focus was on expansion in North America and internal agricultural and industrial development. This changed following the Spanish American War, which was partially provoked by American politicians and businessmen, like William Randolph Hearst, interested in overt European-style imperialism. After the war, the defeated Kingdom of Spain agreed to cede most of her colonial possessions to the control of the United States.
The following areas have at one time or another been part of a sort of "American Empire," that is to say colonies that were annexed to the United States, yet not granted statehood or self-rule.
Many of America's former colonies have since become independent countries, states of the American union, or self-governing commonwealths. However despite the fact that these countries are legally independent, the US has often intervened military or otherwise influenced their domestic affairs. Examples for military intervention are the US invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 or the invasion of Panama in 1989. An example for non-military forms of intervention in the former colonies are the numerous assassination attempts on Fidel Castro or the CIA-supported Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961.
The US also remains the main trading partner of both the Dominican Republic and the Philippines.
Contemporary use of the term
Today, what many consider to be the "American Empire" follows a pattern of informal influence wielded through patron client relationships with many states (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Taiwan, South Korea). This phenomenon is not new, but has always been one facet of imperial control. America's military presence by itself is breathtaking and influential. According to researchers [1], around the world, the United States maintains 750 military bases or installations staffed by American military personnel in roughly 130 countries. The economic influence of American corporations is also substantial which strongly contributes to the growing Americanisation of many countries. It has been suggested that America has achieved the status of world hegemon; defined as a State existing as a superpower in a unipolar geopolitical environment whence it can dictate international law. Put another way, the United States's power is such that it can act unilaterally without fear of reprisal due to the prevalence of its military forces in any relevant theater of operations.
The term "American Empire" is today often mostly used as derogatory expression to personify America's military and cultural presence in nations around the world.
At the same time, many statesmen, scholars, and historians within the United States insist that America "is" an empire in the sense that the country holds tremendous power over the world, comparable to other great empires of history. Many thus argue that the United States should thus not shy away from using this power as a way of maintaining order, peace, and safety for both America and the world at large. This is ideology is exemplified by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, which became influential in the 2003 decision to invade Iraq. As stated in PNAC's principles:
-
We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. [2]
While supporters cite such ideology as one with motivations of global peace and stability, many in opposition view it as harmful to diversity, and reject the notion of a single dominating superpower in order to maintain "balance", "equality", "mutual respect", and "harmony" among all nations around the world. Another criticism is that recent history has shown that despite US claims to the contrary US foreign policy has much more often brought war and conflict than peace.
Willaim Blum wrote in his book Killing Hope - US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II that "From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair."
Books
There has been much literature in recent years about the current state of what some consider to be the "American Empire."
In American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy (2002), Andrew J. Bacevich argues that the end of the Cold War did not mark the end of an era in American history, because (he says) American foreign policy did not fundamentally change after the Cold War. Bacevich argues, like historians Charles Beard and William Appleman Williams before him, that American foreign policy has long been driven by the desire to expand access to foreign markets in order to benefit the domestic economy. Bacevich believes that the moralistic reasons given for American foreign intervention mask the true economic reasons, and he warns that American economic imperialism (in the guise of globalization) may not be in the best interests of the United States.
In the book Empire by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, the USA is seen as central for the development and constitution of a new global regime of power and sovereignty, termed empire by Hardt and Negri. The book builds on neomarxist , postcolonial, postmodern ideas and globalization theories. Because the empire of Hardt and Negri is decentralized and global, not the rule of one sovereign state over another, it should not be equated with the American Empire described in this article.
In his books Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World (2003) and Colossus: The Price of America's Empire (2004), historian Niall Ferguson has drawn parallels between the British Empire and the imperial role of the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. However, he describes the United States political and social structures as more like those of the Roman Empire than of the British. In contrast to Hardt and Negri, Ferguson views empire as a neutral description, with both positive and negative aspects.
See also
Last updated: 05-22-2005 04:38:32
