Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Picture Credit: AMNY General Analysis of "Empire"
The US has sought to expand its influence militarily through setting up military bases all over the world, waging preventive wars, and overthrowing leaders who oppose US policies. It justifies its actions by claiming to spread democracy and freedom. Further, the US seeks to maintain its top economic position by guaranteeing its oil and energy security. So is the US an empire? And is this good or bad? This section discusses the empire concept and whether the US should continue its current course of foreign policy.
Also See GPF's Pages on:
Empire?
Documents and Policy Papers | Articles | Archived Articles Documents and Policy Papers
"American Empire" as Will and Idea (February, 2003)
This policy paper analyses the imperial ambition of the Bush Administration after September 11, 2001. It identifies three major elements of the US grand strategy for maintaining the “American Empire”: Unrivalled US military superiority, preventive acts of war and exclusive US global sovereignty. (Rainer Rilling - Rosa Luxemburg Foundation)
The Democrat National Security Strategy promises to replace the Republican “go-it-alone” policy with a strategy founded on “muscular internationalism.” This new strategy requires the “bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values.” (Progressive Policy Institute)argues that the US should extend its global leadership by increasing military spending, maintaining strategic nuclear superiority, developing and deploying global missile defenses, and controlling the new “international commons” of space and “cyberspace.”
The Project for the New American Century
This Foreign Affairs paper sets forth a Republican ideology of US national interests. From the premise that US values are universal, Condoleezza Rice deduces that the spread of freedom, peace and prosperity are by-products of the pursuit of US interests. Thus, she resorts to traditional imperial claims, that unilateralism is legitimate and humanitarian intervention valuable only when national interest is at stake: “There is nothing wrong with doing something that benefits humanity, but that is, in a sense, a second-order effect.”Articles
2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | Archived Articles
In this TomDispatch interview, author Chalmers Johnson exposes the imperial nature of US foreign policy. The US operates what he calls “an empire of bases,” which are spread all around the globe. According to Johnson, past empires tried to disguise their military, but in the US, militarism has become a way of life. The Military-Industrial Complex exerts pervasive influence in the US and fosters this militaristic attitude.
This article reviews five texts examining contemporary US imperialism and concludes that “when all is said and done, Americans are less interested in ruling the world than they are in creating a world of rules.” Whether these sentiments are shared by ruling neo-conservative factions in the Bush administration, however, remains to be seen. (Foreign Affairs)
This article suggests that from the late 19th century until World War Two, wealthy countries created bureaucratic structures, legal codes, and new forms of economic production in the colonized territories. After World War Two, however, the UN became a Trojan horse for richer countries’ ambitions for political domination, as influential member states urged the UN to administer its authority in unstable countries. The author argues that the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are proof that imperialism still occurs. (University of Wollongong)
The author argues that contemporary US re-engagement with concepts of empire and imperialism is guided by “rules” that emphasize the “uniquely benevolent motives” of the US, avoid “any sense of economic imperialism” and “eschew all radical notions that connect imperialism to capitalism and exploitation.” (Monthly Review)
2008
The New Geopolitics of Energy (May 1, 2008)
The US and China have configured their military networks for global resource competition, argues Michael Klare. Both powers respond to intense bidding wars for oil on international markets, by increasing military buildup and projecting power in regions like the Middle East. The US and China face a stark policy choice, Klare claims: either they fight to the last drop of oil, or they scale down military operations and cooperate in funding development of renewable energy sources. (The Nation)The Future of American Power (May 2008)
The US will remain a dominant power if only Washington would “accept some pain now for great gain later,” argues wishfully the editor of Foreign Affairs, Fareed Zakaria. In contrast to the British Empire, the US is not suffering from irreversible economic deterioration, asserts Zakaria. Rather, it faces a political challenge. The rise of China, Europe and India undermines the US role as the global source of innovation. Zakaria argues that the US can avoid this challenge through policy adjustments, like greater funding for scientific training.Myth of the New Cold War (April 2008)
This Prospect essay argues that for two centuries, Anglo-US policymakers cultivated a caricature of Russia as “America’s dark double” so they could mobilize popular ideological support for US foreign projects. Political thinkers, from nineteenth-century slave abolitionists to modern presidents, have argued that Russia requires a Western model of social “freedoms.” Some politicians still stoke this myth with tales of the undemocratic and militaristic practices of Russia’s ruling elite. The author points out that, whilst President Vladimir Putin’s government has a record of human rights abuse and a penchant for military adventure, it has not precipitated a “new Cold War.”Empire or Humanity? (April 1, 2008)
Two centuries of US politicians have described their foreign military operations as “benign” projects to spread “civilization” abroad. Howard Zinn argues that US leaders cannot feign benevolence when a long history suggests otherwise. This essay sheds light on US expansion as a “succession of violent interventions” from the wars with Mexico, to the removal of the democratic Iranian Mossadeq government by the CIA, and recently the occupation of Iraq. (TomDispatch)2007
The Theology of American Empire (November 7, 2007)
This article claims that US foreign policy builds on a Christian foundation. The first one to introduce the notion of Original Sin into foreign policy was Reinhold Niebuhr, a theologian known for relating the Christian faith to modern politics. The ideology of “Realism” argues that individuals are evil and selfish and that governments will pursue their self-interest by any means. The author claims that this world view still prevails in the US and it explains the aggressive actions of the government. (AlterNet)Why Did We Invade Iraq Anyway? (October 30, 2007)
The Bush administration and some Democratic presidential candidates justify continued US presence in Iraq as necessary to secure vital national security interests and to fight terrorism. According to Michael Schwartz this vague reasoning cannot hide the reality that since the Second World War the US has viewed oil in the Middle East as “one of the greatest material prizes in world history.” He argues that the rise of OPEC, the US alliance with Saudi Arabia, the formation of foreign policy by neoconservatives including Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney provide the historical background for the invasion of Iraq. (Tomdispatch)The American Conundrum (September 17, 2007)
This essay poses some essential questions about the US “empire” and its self-image as the protector of the world with a right and a duty to impose democracy in the world. Arguing that this self-image is dangerous, the author presents a contrasting view, in which US leaders and powerful business constantly seek to expand markets for US products and increase control over natural resources. The author calls on US civil society needs to step forward to be the “impetus for positive change.” (Share the Worlds Resources)Seven Years in Hell (September 4, 2007)
Seven Years in Hell (September 4, 2007) This essay investigates the “imperial nature“ of US foreign policy since the Second World War and shows how the US since then has undergone a transformation from a republic to an empire. The author draws comparisons to the Roman Empire and argues that the US today, just like the Roman Empire then, has an “over-confident military” and acts “fiscally irresponsibly.” Will this lead the US to the same fate as its predecessor? (TomDispatch)Clinton, Kissinger and the Corruptions of Empire (July 26, 2007)
This Nation article argues that the secrecy and corruption surrounding Washington’s diplomacy eliminate leaders’ accountability and therefore help maintain the US Empire. The White House can choose its international allies and enemies and conduct trade and war “based on unspoken whims and self-serving schemes.” The author criticizes the undemocratic nature of these and other practices, such as refusing to hold talks with parties that Washington considers controversial, including Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.In the Sweep of History (July, 2007)
US policy-makers justify “American imperialism” in the name of freedom as a “cloak” for aggressive national interest, Anatol Lieven argues. Yet, great powers can dispose of this “liberal imperialist” ideology and spread genuine and equitable democracy by embracing two traditionally opposed, but compatible, values: unflinching respect for state sovereignty on the one hand; and an appreciation of states’ internal social conditions on the other. For the US, Lieven urges, this requires a foreign policy that opens US markets to poor countries and offers them generous aid for domestic reform. (Boston Review)Permanent Bases the World Over: Behold the American Empire (June 14, 2007)
Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, mainstream media outlets reported very little on the multi-billion dollar construction of US military bases and the massive embassy in Baghdad, essentially ignoring evidence of a permanent US presence in the country. But recently, the media have begun to portray this long-term plan – the “Korea model” – as “breaking news.” Describing US military interventions in other countries as “the American way of Empire,” this TomDispatch article, however, argues that the Bush administration has long held such imperial ambitions.2006
Imperialism 101 (September 17, 2006)
This ZNet article chronicles US imperial intervention in the affairs of other countries. The Bush administration has taken these tendencies to great lengths, engaging in preventative wars when it claims a “perceived threat” to US national security exists. The article concludes that throughout a great portion of history, US governments have implemented regime changes abroad under the guise of spreading democracy. They have done so through diplomacy, bribing and giving money to the opposition, covertly assassinating leaders or engaging in war.The Project for a New American Empire (August 9, 2006)
This Sojourners article discusses the “Project for the New American Century” under US President George W. Bush. The conservative think-tank, which aims to promote American global leadership, called for “an aggressive foreign policy with a then-unprecedented military buildup” to retain US hegemony. Before 2000, Democratic politicians largely rejected the project “as the work of hardliners.” However, the author argues that its steadfast implementation since President Bush’s election, most notably the implementation of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, begs the question of whether US citizens were manipulated into following a foreign policy they did not vote for.An Imperial Defeatist -- And Proud of It (July 20, 2006)
This TomDispatch article argues that a decline in US preeminence would benefit the country and the international community. The US cannot prosper as long as it continues to pursue energy resources under the guise of spreading democracy. US international intervention weakens the economy, bankrupts the government, endangers US citizens and decimates the country’s international standing.The Force Is Not with Them (July 17, 2006)
This TomDispatch article discusses the expansion of “Pax Americana,” or “The American Empire,” as a fundamental tenet of the Bush administration. Adherents of “Pax Americana” believe that force solves global issues, placing emphasis on a technologically advanced military. The unconditional reliance on military coercion has led to an interminable war involving multiple governments and proxy wars. The author warns that diplomatic options may quickly slip away.American World Order (March 5, 2006)
The latest book by Michael Mandelbaum, called “The Case for Goliath,” deals with “America’s role as the world’s government in the twenty-first century,” this New York Times book review reports. Mandelbaum is generally positive about the US role as global hegemon, but argues that the US increasingly antagonizes other countries by disobeying the general rules – such as its rejection of the International Criminal Court.2005
The Empire: What It Is and What It Means for All of Us (December 30, 2005)
This Centre for Research on Globalization article criticizes how Washington uses its overwhelming military power and economic dominance to disregard international law. The “total spectrum dominance” leads the Bush administration to prefer unilateralism to multilateralism and coercion to negotiation. However, the article speculates that the declining credibility of the US at home and abroad will eventually lead to the fall of this “first global empire.”Empire Made Easy (November 4, 2005)
According to former US Defense Department strategist Thomas P.M. Barnett the US can alleviate the world's problems through “conquest, occupation and occasional diplomacy.” In the process, Barnett adds, Washington will use the power of globalization to bring democracy, which will eventually eradicate terrorism. This article asks if Barnett’s “war-to-end-all-wars” strategy reflects the “intrinsically beneficent” power of the US empire. (In These Times)The White House Cabal (October 2005)
Lawrence Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, comments on the decision making processes at the White House during his tenure. The country’s most vital foreign policy and national security decisions, including the war in Iraq, are the result of Washington’s “insular and secretive” decision-making processes, Wilkerson argues. Wilkerson warns that similar processes have brought “national embarrassment” to the US in the past, like in the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal. (Los Angeles Times)The Americanization of Globalization: Reflections of a Third World Intellectual (September/October 2005)
Abid Hassan Minto, a professor of constitutional law in Pakistan, criticizes Washington's worldwide pursuit of corporate interests to the detriment of rights and sovereignty of nations. Minto warns that the Bush administration’s war in Iraq, the USA Patriot Act, and the ill-treatment of prisoners at detention centers only creates more resentment and anger towards the US. Emphasizing the growing demand for “universal jurisdiction,” Minto urges the world community to respect international law and “promote regional cooperation.” (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs)The Neoconservative Convergence (July 21, 2005)
Well-known conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer discusses the evolution of US foreign policy in the post-Cold War era. Claiming that each of the major schools of US political ideology has taken a turn at running things, he praises the “maturing” policies of today’s neoconservative Bush administration, contrasting them favorably with “realism” under President George H. Bush, and “liberal internationalism” under President Bill Clinton. He presents the neoconservative philosophy as one who’s “time has come,” and worryingly suggests that after Afghanistan and Iraq, the US must target Lebanon and Syria. (Opinion Journal)Celebrating Independence in the Era of Empire (July 3, 2005)
Common Dreams urges US citizens to use Independence Day to reflect on how “empire-building is destroying the soul of our nation,” and what “independence” really means today. The author contrasts Thomas Jefferson’s 1791 warning that “we should have nothing to do with conquest” with increases in US military spending levels, base building and “usurpations” on foreign soil. He urges the US to reclaim its founding spirit, and do away with imperialist ambitions.How To Change Ugly Regimes (June 27, 2005)
Fareed Zakaria argues that active US attempts to induce regime change in countries like Iran and Cuba through sanctions “has become a substitute for actual policy,” with “the opposite effect than is intended.” Suggesting that the alternative strategy of “conditional engagement” with US-despised governments in Libya and Vietnam has empowered civil society and helped encourage reform, this Newsweek article makes a case for normalization rather than isolationFear as Foreign Policy (June 16, 2005)
According to TomPaine, the Bush administration’s foreign policy follows Machiavelli’s dictum that it is “far safer to be feared than loved.” The White House finds no embarrassment in evidence of abuse in US custody, nor violent engagements in Iraq. Washington wants foreigners to be aware of what happens if you're "against us." “Gruesome disclosures serve a purpose: to create the kind of visceral fear abroad about the United States that the administration can exploit in its global "war on terror."“Evolution” Preferred Over “Revolution” in Arab Lands (June 9, 2005)
A Council on Foreign Relations report urges the US to rethink its approach to democracy promotion. Instead of current US rhetoric, which espouses democratic ideals yet is followed with support for non-democratic policies in the Middle East, Washington should encourage genuine pathways to reform. Above all, the US must be “mindful that democracy cannot be imposed from the outside and that sudden, traumatic change is neither necessary nor desirable.” (Inter Press Service)The Right’s Hostility to NGOs Glimpsed in Amnesty Flap (June 6, 2005)
As this Inter Press Service article makes clear, the recent Bush administration attack on Amnesty International is but a small facet of the neo-conservative campaign to de-legitimize NGOs. By branding influential organizations as part of a “veritable conspiracy of leftists and ‘globalists’” who wish to “subvert […] democratic governance,” Washington attempts to damage civil society and so strengthen its authority.Democracy Starts at Home (April 6, 2005)
Economist Joseph Stiglitz points out the “hypocricy” of the Bush administration’s democracy expansion theory, given the selective critiques it has chosen to pronounce on the world. Questioning Bush’s true motives, Stiglitz argues that the administration must first take a closer look at the election process, civil liberties, media coverage and standards of living within the US for the world to take the democracy campaign seriously. (TomPaine)Three Strikes for Empire (March 28, 2005)
Three telltale examples of US “imperial hubris” include a new State Department office that plans military interventions, the indefinite imprisonment of a Guantanamo detainee whose status even US intelligence agencies question, and the sale of F-16 jets to Pakistan despite the country’s nuclear volatility and regression from democracy. This Independent Institute article warns that US President George Bush’s “grandiose campaign” of spreading democracy will instead erode freedom and cause “retaliatory terrorism” at home. This is the price the US empire will pay, says the author, because “republic and empire don’t mix.”Globalising Freedom (March 15, 2005)
Using the “democracy deficit” at international financial institutions as an example, this OpenDemocracy author explains that the US—as the superpower in a globalized world— will only achieve its “admirable goals” if it pays attention the effects of US policy on global citizens. The US must emphasize multilateralism and work with international institutions and laws, or the world will continue to think of the US as “illegitimate and arrogant, even imperial.”The Third Stage of American Empire (March 1, 2005)
The US has thrived upon the notion of empire, from westward expansion and involvement in the “troubles of the ‘Old World’” to the present day “perpetual state of war,” says truthout author William Rivers Pitt. This third stage of empire, spurred by the “first taste of…global dominance,” manifests itself in the war on terrorism. But empires inevitably fall, and “this third American empire is threatening to collapse under its own ponderous weight.”Japan to Become “Britain of the Far East” (February 24, 2005)
In search of a strong ally in East Asia, the US wants to elevate its relationship with Japan to the level of its relationship with Britain, says the Asia Times. The US and Japan have agreed on joint use of US military bases and joint strategic goals for dealing with issues such as North Korean proliferation and Taiwanese secession. However, one major obstacle lies in the path to a strong bond between Tokyo and Washington: Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, ironically drafted by the US after World War II, bars use of force in international disputes and therefore prohibits Japanese support of US unilateral military tactics.Marine General Counseled Over Comments (February 4, 2005)
A decorated US Marine Corps general was warned but not punished for saying, “it’s fun to shoot some people." The general’s commanders apologized but claimed the statements were honest and reflective of wartime realities. Such remarks reflect the military's belief in US moral superiority and its “apparent indifference to the value of human life.” (Associated Press)Lessons for the American Empire (January 30, 2005)
While the US is the “unrivaled world leader” in terms of economic and military power, “nothing lasts forever,” says the New York Times. This article fails to question an empire’s adverse impacts, but demonstrates that the US government, given rising debts, increased military spending, and the expanding terror war, has too much confidence in its strength. The author uses the work of empire historian Niall Ferguson to conclude that the US empire will suffer an abrupt decline unless the government cuts military spending.An Imperial Denial (January 6, 2005)
This YaleGlobal article claims US imperialism through military and economic strength, which the author equates with “US-led globalization,” is necessary for “world stability, order and economic growth.” The author contends that the US should accept its imperial role by enforcing “complementary administrative structure[s]” in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of thrusting “its moral beliefs down others throats;” otherwise, countries like India and China may take its place. While the author considers historical context, he discredits any merits of multilateral institutions such as the UN and fails to recognize how empires seriously threaten civil liberties and human rights.US Turns Away from Arab Reforms (January 3, 2005)
The Bush administration has shifted Middle East policies towards economic reform rather than political change and the spread of democracy, says this Inter Press Service article. But the Arab public and other critics remain skeptical of the administration’s “hidden agenda” of “messianic empire building,” and argue that the US is looking past regime change as long as countries cooperate with the “war on terrorism” and try to improve relations with Israel.Archived Articles
