America. An Empire Or Not?

[Guest Scanderbeg]

America: An empire to rival Rome?

In a new six-part series entitled Age of Empire, the BBC's Jonathan Marcus sets out on a journey to examine America's place in the modern world.

 

"America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves - safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life."

 

So declared President George Bush in the traditional graduation address at the US Military academy at West Point in June 2002.

 

But despite his insistence that the US has no imperial ambitions, the word "empire" is increasingly used by academics and pundits alike when talking about America's role in the world.

 

We thought long and hard about the title for this series. Would Age of Empire prejudge the issue? Is America really in any sense an empire like Ancient Rome or Victorian Britain?

 

It is a question I put to virtually everyone I spoke to.

 

'Not quite right'

 

The answers differed dramatically.

 

The young British historian Niall Ferguson, for example, had no doubts.

 

"The United States," he said, "is an empire in every sense but one, and that one sense is that it doesn't recognise itself as such."

 

He called it "an empire in denial."

 

Strobe Talbott, former Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton administration, found the notion of the US as an empire "grotesque, bizarre or laughable, depending upon what mood I'm in and who says it".

 

He said that, if anything, it was an anti-empire. "There is no interest among American people to set themselves up as an imperial power."

 

For others, like Michael Mandelbaum of the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, America's current position is unique - there simply is not an adequate word to describe it.

 

As he put it: "Empire is not quite right but it seems to be closer than anything else we have in common usage, so we employ it."

 

Empire or not, there is a growing feeling around the world that America's unrivalled power is in some sense a problem.

 

It is something that Strobe Talbott recognises with regret.

 

"When our friends around the world get together behind our backs, they talk about the problem of American power, how to cope with it, manage it, even how to contain it.

 

"That is not the way we want others to think about us."

 

Globalisation meets 9/11

 

Today one of the buzz-words of international politics is globalisation.

 

It too is not an easy term to define; it encompasses the spread of market capitalism and the new communications technologies.

 

These seem to be shrinking the world and eliminating diversity.

 

World Trade Center, 11 September 2001

Many trace a foreign policy shift to the events of 11 September 2001

 

Globalisation and US dominance are inextricably bound up.

 

The world of globalisation that was opened up by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War seemed almost designed for the US, accelerating the emergence of American superpowerdom.

 

For Joseph Nye, dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, US dominance has been a fact for years.

 

But it was the tragedy of 11 September which presented America's position in a stark new light.

 

Indeed, we began our series at Ground Zero in New York, the site of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

 

Many people believe that it was from the rubble of the towers that a more assertive and ideological foreign policy emerged.

 

Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded. President Bush proclaimed a new doctrine of pre-emptive military action.

 

Military, economic, cultural

 

So how does the current position compare with the great empires of the past. Is America just the latest in a long line of dominant powers? Or is it really unique?

 

Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek International, fast becoming one of America's most interesting foreign policy pundits, insists that there has never been anything quite like America's dominance of the world.

 

There have been other great powers, like the British Empire, but none have towered over their rivals in the way the United States does.

 

US defence spending dwarfs any of its rivals.

 

American dominance is not just military; it is economic.

 

US popular culture has spread around the globe.

 

There is what Mr Zakaria terms "a comprehensive uni-polarity" that nobody has seen since Rome dominated the world.

 

 

 

Enlarge Map

The Romans with their language, currency and the spread of Roman citizenship perhaps foreshadowed an early form of globalisation.

 

Niall Ferguson believes it is the British Empire that offers one of the best parallels.

 

He argues that if you look at what the US has long tried to do - expand the global reach of free markets and ultimately representative government - it bears an uncanny resemblance to what he characterises as the project of Victorian Imperialism.

 

Needing friends

 

But there is another side to this whole debate. Joseph Nye of the Kennedy school of Government believes that all the talk of US dominance and influence obscures a much more fundamental reality.

 

He calls it "the paradox of American power", by which he means that for all its global might, the US is unable to get the outcomes it wants by acting alone.

 

He argues that in terms of issues like countering transnational terrorism, dealing with the spread of infectious diseases, global climate change, international financial stability, none can be managed by any one country.

 

The message for US policy-makers, he says, is simple.

 

"We are the strongest nation the world has seen for some two millennia and yet we can't get what we want by acting alone".

 

The Age of Empire series is broadcast on Mondays at 09:05GMT on BBC World Service Radio.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3430199.stm

 

 

I hope this does not turn bad

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Can people explain themselves please.

[Ursus]

I hope this does not turn bad

 

 

It probably will, but we can try to enjoy it before then. ;-)

 

The US is what some political scientists call a hegemon (from the Greek word meaning leader, or something equivalent). That means its the single most influential actor on the stage, but it can't completely dominate the scene by itself. Therefore it's not an empire in the traditional sense of the word. But it is the 800 lb gorilla that can make a lot of noise when it throws its weight around.

 

 

I really don't think American hegemony would be extensive as it is if it weren't for British imperialism spreading the anglosphere across the the globe. We built upon their solid foundation, as the above article suggests.

 

We lead because the world often lets us lead. Our government promotes global business and a stable world economy. This is what most businesses and governments in the Western world want. In other words, most of the countries that matter (i.e., the rich ones) will ultimately get behind us because its good for business. The presence of some skeptics in Western countries to American led global business doesn't negate that. Even China, an 800 lb gorilla in training, wants access to Western and particularly American markets. Everyone wants to make money, and Americans know how to make money. That's why there is no real opposition, despite people on the far right and far left who are skeptical about the merits of global capitalism.

 

The main people who don't like it sufficiently enough to use force against it are religious conservatives in other cultures who see global capitalism as a theat to their tribal identity. Of course, Islamic fundamentalists are spearheading the initiative, and that's where I imagine the American hegemony is going to get a few bloody noses for the next 100 hundred years.

[pompeius magnus]

I will be the first to show my disapproval to this topic as it will cause too many angry posts. I for one do not think we have an empire, at least not by choice Bush is not representative of the majority of Americans in this desire for empire. I for one would rather leave Iraq alone, as it will lead to too many wars and a falling foreign policy could lead to war with europe, a war we could not win. Thats all for now.

[Fatboy]

Hmmnnn...... this would usually be my que to go off on a rant.

 

I really don't think that would help kick off a balanced disscussion though. It would be better if this thread did not go down the well trodden road of Americans having to defend their country against various allegations thrown at it by Europeans and others. This tends to lead to people taking sides and trying to " win " the argument rather than simply exploring the subject, the most important subject in the world today.

Instead, I would be much more interested to hear the opinions of Americans themselves on this.

 

The first Americans I have ever met were on this site, and I was pleased to find them to be intelligent, knowledgeable and open minded people and not the dribbling simpletons they are so often protrayed to be over here. You see where I live many people actually believe this image.This stems, largely from American TV from which we get our impression of America and its people. We get American News channels and discussion programmes and since 9/11 if one was to believe TV it would seem as if America has switched off its collective brain. The tone has become consistently militaristic, jingoistic and beligerent and when compared with European channels the News programmes are so selective as to be almost crooked. Even those aware enough to know this is not a fair reflection on the American people generally have a very suspicious of America's ability to think objectively in this confrontational age. I would be fascinated to hear how Americans see the role of their country today and in the future, and any worries they might have about the direction they are heading in.

 

There are certainly many parallels between the Roman Empire in the America of today to be explored, from the habitual portayal of distant battles as " defensive wars " to the widespread exportation of American culture.

 

There is not nessecarily a right or wrong in this discussion of course, but as you are all most probably aware from earlier posts I am deeply concerned by modern America as a political entity. I would be optimistic that the thread would not get too out of control since on previous threads where I took the opportunity to have a go at American policy, everybody managed too deal with it quite maturely.

[Moonlapse]

Actually, I don't see this thread as being a problem, at least among the regular members.

 

I voted no. I could write a book explaining my reasoning and nitpicking the rights and wrongs of America, but I'm tired and its time for bed.

[Augustus]

For all intesive purposes, yes. Now take Bush and imagine him with Laural Wreath about his head, pretty convincing.

[Ursus]

This stems, largely from American TV from which we get our impression of America and its people.

 

I always found this interesting. I don't wish to single you out, but to ask a general question: Why do people think American television and movies are somehow documentary of the culture?

 

I've met a lot of foreign exchange students who come over expecting everybody to be the rich and beautiful creatures living lives of luxury that they see on American TV. Then they get over here and they see most Americans are anything but what they see depicted on TV.

 

The reason most Americans watch TV and Movies with beautiful, rich people is because most of them aren't rich and beautiful but secretely want to be. American media isn't a documentary. It's a fantasy. Most of our women do NOT look like the women on "Baywatch"...

[Demson]

I would say no. The democraty of the US, no matter how troubled by the oil and weapon lobby, is too subtile for imperialism. Futhermore, although the military power of the US in unrivaled in terms of destructive power, it's not a super power. Look at Iraq, where a reasonably small contigency pins down an entire army by clever use of ak-47's, improvised bombs and RPG's. The success of the Empire was it's ability to project not only military power, but also police power and authority. This is something the US can not achive.

 

In terms of economic and technological advantage, the US is not as advanced as people might think.

 

That said, they're still a major player. But a hegemon? If the US is, it's rapidly changing.

[Primus Pilus]

although the military power of the US in unrivaled in terms of destructive power, it's not a super power. Look at Iraq, where a reasonably small contigency pins down an entire army by clever use of ak-47's, improvised bombs and RPG's. The success of the Empire was it's ability to project not only military power, but also police power and authority. This is something the US can not achive.

Being a superpower doesn't mean an enemy can't resist. Many did the same against Rome. Look at the Germanics as examples. Rome tried but never could conquer. However, Rome was still a superpower empire.

 

Anyway. The United States is not an empire. We are a federal republic with democratic ideals.

[Fatboy]

Why do people think American television and movies are somehow documentary of the culture?

 

Yes, certainly to think all Americans live like they do on TV is ridiculous but I was in fact referring to American News and discussion programs rather than soap operas and hollywood blockbusters, which is slightly more reasonable.

 

For the record I voted yes, although I accept its a bit of a stretch. Rather than a territorial Empire I believe it is an economic one. This has been achieved through the work of the IMF ( International Monetary Fund ) and the World Bank under the umbrella of the WTO ( World Trade Organisation ).

 

It is an accepted fact that the US effectively controls the IMF through its disproportionate voting strength and effective veto power. The financial clout of the IMF is of course provided by the World Bank whose President is chosen by the American Goverment ( Paul Wolfowitz(!) at the moment ).The original purpose of these organisations since their foundation at the tale end of the Second World War was of course to provide financial assistance to poorer countries.

 

The World Bank provides loans to finance SAP's ( Structural Adjustment Programs ). These SAP's involve a complete overhaul of the countries economic system, turning it into a completely free market economy almost overnight whether the country is capable of it or not. Third World countries cannot sustain loan payments or keep their economy afloat without the service provided by the IMF.

 

Now, the IMF supplies money for the short term financial balancing and debt repayment. This though is only supplied if the recipients agree to a SAP, removing any freedom of action for the beneficiaries of the loan. As the policy of the World Bank is subordinate to that of the IMF anyway agreement to adopt an SAP is the first thing any impoverished country has to do in order to secure assistance.

SAP's are forced upon these countries, who already in debt from previous loans, have no choice but to do as they are told by their creditors.

 

To be honest, none of this is really up for debate, its just the way it is. What was up for debate until recently was the effect of this on the " victims ". This has been pretty much resolved with the admission of former IMF and World Bank Presidents and Chief Executives of the harm done by this policy and recent resistance within American political bodies themselves. For the recipient nations it has been an unmitigated disaster, most spectacularly causing the economies of various South American countries to fall like dominos one after the other into chaos. For America it has been hugely beneficial.

 

Predictably and purposely the main effect of this whole thing has been to mould the world economy to America's vision. The principal points in any SAP are the privatisation of government controlled industry and services and the withdrawal of governmental protection for native business from the " global economy ". This is disastrous for native business but a wonderful opportunity for American companies. They are now buying up such essential services as drinking water and electricity in these countries which obviously means that the financial capital of the country is flowing endlessly outwards, never to return. Add this to the fact that the local representative of the IMF, which as we have seen functions an arm of the American Treasury, controls all aspects of the country's economic and political life, and its clear that these nations are ceasing to exist - they are becoming little more than satellites of the US.

 

I should of course point out that European and Japanese companies are equally quick to dismember these " corpses " and that there is huge European involvement in the World Bank and IMF. The direction and philosophy of these organisations though are provided directly by the American government.

 

I was lucky enough to see the portrayal of the attempted coup in Venezuela and the abduction of Hugo Chavez on American TV. It was shown as a popular revolution against a hated dictator. This was not the case, Chavez for all his faults was the democratically elected eader of the country. His crime was to turn down the IMF. This incurred the wrath of big business in his own country and elsewhere. I will certainly not make any unfounded allegations about possible US involvement in this coup, but suffice to say, he was not popular in the WhiteHouse and the plane used for his abduction was found to be registered to the CIA:blink:

 

I'm not tying to suggest that America is " evil " or even bad. All countries act in their own interests and all powerful countries intervene in the affairs of others. What I am trying to say is that America is shaping the world in its image and enforcing it. It is easy to see the US's latest military and poltical adventures as simply an acceleration of this process, the exportation of US style government leading to the creation of mini-americas where the wholesale adoption of American culture and economic beliefs provides another compliant member for the American sponsored Global Economy.

I wouldn't be the first to liken this world economy to the British Commonweath of the 19th Century, or the power of the IMF representatives to the British Consuls of the same era.

 

 

If I was pushed I'd have to say that I guess the US does not quite qualify as an Empire but I think its heading in that direction, and fast. I'm not saying this has to be a bad thing. The US way of running a country is certainly a vast improvement over some of the brutal totalitarian regimes out there. What would be so wrong with an eventual pax-americana across a world where everybody enjoyed freedom and democracy.

 

The United States is not an empire. We are a federal republic with democratic ideals.

 

The Athenian Empire of ancient Greece was an Empire centred around a democracy, an Empire does not need an Emperor, or any form of totalitarian government to be so.( If indeed the Athenian Empire is usually recognised as such, I think it is )

 

Please remember not to get angry everybody . I'm not necessarily criticising America, I'm pointing out how its behaviour is more and more resembling that of a burgeoning Empire. If it is an Empire it would the most benevolent one in history, but remember also that America is not Santa Claus either. It is as capable of political selfishness and manipulation as any other country and does not export its ideals out of an innocent kindness.

 

*EDIT* Sorry for inflicting another rant on y'all, I just don't seem to be able to resist. I only intended to post " for the record I voted yes, although I accept its a bit of a stretch ", but I just kept going.............

[Moonlapse]

I think that America is not selfish enough... meaning concerned chiefly or only with oneself. I also think our free market ideals are being mixed with socialism... just consider Fatboy's post about the IMF. I think that combination is ultimately self-destructive and not selfish. Free market ideals should never be forced, the only way America should try to spread them is by example.

[Hamilcar Barca]

The American empire? **Laughs** I could write a book about why it isn't but my answer in short is no.

[Germanicus]

The media reports and recent round of Mike Moore docos do all they can to convince us that the US is no longer a democracy.

 

I guess I should be happy our government chose to be "with" the US. As Texas Bush said "If you ain't with us, you're against us"