This project is intended to be a brief introduction into several aspects of the nature and also future of the American empire. This introduction will span several posts over the next month, which will each involve considerations about aspects of the empire.
This first post will be a sort of general introduction, both in terms of the subject as a whole, and the nature of the American empire. While much literature and discussion has been devoted to the question of whether the global American presence and power constitutes an empire or not, I have approached this by accepting the existence of an American empire as predetermined assumption. While I certainly recognize that this open to argumentation, it might be more useful to approach the way in which American power is projected around the world, as a form of empire, rather than getting bogged down in a discussion of semantics. In any case, there are plenty of writers who recognize the reality of an empire, both in terms of supporters and critics. In my series of posts, I will be drawing on some of these writers.
Once the premise of the American empire is accepted, the next logical question that necessarily emerges is of course what kind of empire it is, and how to define it. Insofar as the classical notion of an empire is perhaps defined by a never-ending quest for more territory, the American empire does not appear to fit to that description. Rather, as is often emphasised by opponents of the whole concept of an American empire, as well as by those generally in favour of an interventionist foreign policy, the quest for territory is not a driving force for the United States. Niall Ferguson believes that it is a common misconception to equate an empire with a form of direct rule over a body of subjects, which might also be considered the classical definition. He highlights the usefulness in operating in more flexible terms, such as the distinction between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ rule, and ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ empire. Following this logic, it is possible to be an empire even without physically subjugating nations or peoples. Andrew Bacevich notes that while the United States tried their hands on obtaining a traditional empire in the past, it was abandoned in favour of a more cost-effective model. Indeed he believes that one of the reasons for the lack of colonial ambition, at least in the past, is that it was simply a poor investment to get involved in ‘direct’ rule.
Max Boot comprehensively argues that the United States has certainly been involved in its fair share of empire-like endeavours and interventions in the past, in his detailed historical accounts of what he refers to as ‘small wars’. He also underlines that mostly, though with some notable exceptions, the United States would only retain a military presence for as long as it took to resolve a given conflict, and then quickly get out. This certainly backs the notion that America has little or no imperially territorial ambitions, but at the same time, it reinforces the image, both historically and contemporarily, of a nation that is not afraid to conduct interventions. Boot consequently notes that the American reluctance for overseas colonialism does not equate an isolationist policy, which is an important point if one is to understand the current American empire.
As Boot and others note, this particular feature of the United States foreign policy underlines the particular paradox of the American empire; that it was originally founded on an idea, whether real or perceived, of anti-imperialism. This adds to the notion of the ‘reluctant’ empire, that is, an empire that does not actively seek out expansion or colonies, something that coincides very well with our previous assumption of lack of territorial ambition. However, while the ‘reluctant’ empire has a nice, almost apologetic ring to it, it is not a view that is universally shared. Andrew Bacevich notes that the myth of reluctance is very much an idealized (American) way of portraying reality, perhaps in order to justify the numerous interventions and general involvement in world affairs. However, no one can dispute that the might of the American military would, technically at least, be more than capable of conquering vast areas if it was so inclined. But the fact that the United States chooses not to, makes the American empire quite different from the territorially driven empires of old.
From these points we can so far deduce that while the American empire is perhaps not an empire in the classical sense, it does feature certain empire-like qualities, especially in terms of sheer military power and willingness to use that power, albeit not for ‘traditional’ imperial utility. With these conclusions in place, we can turn to examining how exactly its imperial power manifests itself, and to what exactly motivates American policy makers. For the next couple of weeks I will look closer at the imperial strategy, both politically and militarily, as well as the economic considerations.
Works referred to here:
Andrew Bacevich: American Empire
Max Boot: The Savage Wars of Peace
Niall Ferguson: Colossus
No comments:
Post a Comment