American Imperialism

                 The roots of the American imperialistic goal date from long ago. The Founding Fathers believed that the US had the responsibility to “spread its values and institutions in a world dominated by anti-liberal forces” (Layne and Thayer 8). But in more recent times, George W. Bush declared that US “seek[s] to shape the world” (“National Security” 2006). Indeed, the argument of the Empire is that it has the right and the obligation to use its power to shape the international environment to its own advantage by actively promoting American principles: democracy, free markets, and respect for liberty. Therefore, almost as a remaining retort to the Soviet Union or as prevention against the spread of communism, the US is implementing its model, country, after country. But its purpose for doing so exceeds the realist approach that would suggest a search for security. This argument is supported by the inconsistencies between the hegemon’s principles and its actions which suppose some further interest, notably economical. As the examples in the domain of American imperialism aspirations are innumerable, the following essay will look into three dissociate grounds illustrating the American imperialistic ambition: firstly, in regards to the way it deals with “enemy” countries, radically different from its ideal; secondly, in the context of the hegemon’s relations with democratic developing countries; and thirdly, in its relationship with allies in the Western world. The following essay is then meant to offer a glimpse into the American imperialistic ambition: shaping the world in its image, for the benefit of its own prosperity. 

The Middle East is one of these regions of the world which shares little similarities with the US. Indeed, very few Arab countries adopt a democratic form of government and the terrorist groups implemented in this region are even a threat to the security of the US.  However, because of the interest the Middle East represents for the hyperpower (notably in its resources), the US has been, for long, working on altering these attributes. The State Department spends about $183 million a year to support democracy in the Middle East through the Middle East Partnership Initiative and the National Endowment for Democracy (McInerney). Other soft power tools include “Radio Sawa radio programing” and “Al Hurra television station” which attempt to influence the public opinion in the Middle East (Layne and Thayer 27). On the hard power side, US military has been assisting countries like Afghanistan and Iraq to adopt democratic governments. Without this transition, the region would lack the foundation on which to build the rest of the American model. Indeed, according to the democratic peace theory, democratic states are less likely to launch wars against each other (“Peace and Democracy”). Following this principle, democracy then brings security after which a free market economy and a spread of American ideas can occur. In Iraq, for example, as observed by Christopher Layne, Professor of International Affairs, the intention to overthrow Saddam Hussein was the real aim of the Bush II administration’s policy as it had been formulated by the President, even before the start of the war (qtd. in Layne and Thayer 88). Layne argues that “9/11 opened the door for the Bush II administration to attempt to incorporate the Middle East into the American Empire” (61). Indeed, the hope was that a democratic and “Pro-US” Iraq would then influence the rest of the region (Harvey 19). However, in terms of democracy, historical events in Iran show that this transition does not constitute an absolute priority for the hegemon. Indeed, there, the US had overthrown the democratically elected Mossadegh after he had nationalized foreign-owned oil companies, and, in its place, positioned the dictatorial Shah (Harvey 9). These inconsistencies between its promises and its actions clearly illustrate the real priority of the hegemon.

When dealing with developing countries that have already adopted a democratic political system, the US prioritises a different issue. Here, according to the American model and the “stage theory” approach to development, the focus is placed on assisting these countries with the adoption of free trades agreements. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is a major player in this process as it is responsible for supervising the regulation of all exportations ("Understanding the WTO"). The majority of the WTO members are developing countries who expect an enhancing of their export from their membership but who also depend on it to fund of their public sector (Baylis, Smith, and Owens 447). However, the benefits of this organization are broadly criticised for their asymmetry. Indeed, by pushing for free trade agreements through the WTO, the US is enforcing globalization. And as the WTO focuses mainly on the most advanced sectors of the world economy, the advanced industrialized countries, like the US, are able to keep most of the economic gains from globalization for themselves (Baylis, Smith, and Owens 446). For example, the WTO enforces free trade in the area of intellectual property which clearly benefits developed countries. On the other hand, it blocks free trade in areas like agriculture which could benefit developing countries (Baylis, Smith, and Owens 449). Furthermore, the WTO, more than anything, is a tool for global investors to have the assurance that the money they invest in developing countries that are members is assured to remain safe (Baylis, Smith, and Owens 447). The WTO is also criticised for its democratic flaws: the US has much power over the policies of the WTO as the organization’s credibility is depends on the hegemon’s membership (Baylis, Smith, and Owens 448). Furthermore, developing countries are forced into accepting policies that clearly ran counter to their interests through the “Single Undertaking” process which forces countries to agree to “a package of reforms in its entirety for fear that the ongoing round of multilateral trade talks will collapse if they do not” (Baylis, Smith, and Owens 448). Moreover, the US and the EU have a considerable advantage in the decisions of free trade agreements as the exports of many developing countries are oriented mostly towards them. Developing countries, therefore, would not dare challenge their decisions.

Western countries share many similarities with the US. They are democratic, do not represent a threat to the US’ security, and embrace, mostly, a free market economy. However, the final stage of indoctrination has not been fully completed. Indeed, culturally, western countries distinguish themselves from the US. Here, intentionally or not, the US exercises its “soft power” to tame these differences. The soft power of the US can be observed in its ability to getting others to do what it wants through the attractiveness of its ideas and its culture (“Soft Power”). Indeed, the key to the success of the American Empire in the developed countries is that people welcome American ideas. The most influential vehicle for the American ideas is undeniably its film and television industries. However, the international reputation of the American education is also a great source of soft power. The public sees this influence coming from below as opposed to being imposed by an authority and this provides the US with considerable power as Western countries are democratic, and, therefore, the influence done on the population is reflected in its political vote. On a diplomatic level, American soft power is also found in the fact that other countries will agree with the decisions of the US because they are seeking favors from the hegemon (Layne and Thayer 26). Clearly, it is in no state’s advantage to be opposed to the most powerful state.

Political scientists are still divided regarding the American imperialism and the role it plays in international relations. The advocate of the American leadership believe that the benefits of having a persistent American Empire is worth its costs as it “provides stability, allows democracy to spread, furthers economic prosperity, and makes possible humanitarian assistance” (Layne and Thayer 41). Indeed, there is no other state or international organization that can provide such intervention in the world. The UN, for example, cannot because it lacks the military and economic power of the US. Therefore, they argue that “America should use its hard and soft power to intervene in failed states like Afghanistan, and rogue states like Iraq, […] to ensure that these states no longer serve as terrorist havens or are sources instability and aggression” (Layne and Thayer 52). These partisans look at the Liberal International Economic Order (LIEO) (which includes the role of the WTO) as a network that promotes global economic growth, and includes developing countries. Finally, the advocates of the American Empire argue that it will always have an exaggerated impact on smaller countries due to its power, and that this power is, in fact, the cause of the deterioration of the American image for the international community, as it generates resentment and jealously (Layne and Thayer 46).

The opposite view argues that the dominance of the US allows it to be “indifferent to its allies, ignoring international intuitions like the United Nations, and acting in defiance of international law and norms” (Layne and Thayer 51). This attitude results in actions that are harmful to other countries interests. For example, the Jury of Conscience of the World Tribunal on Iraq established that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was illegal and that they were devastating to human security and the Iraqi society, it also deplored the failure of the UN Security Council to intervene against the illegal war and for “allowing the US to dominate the United Nations” ("Declaration of the Jury of Conscience World Tribunal on Iraq - Istanbul June 23 - 27, 2005"). Furthermore, these actions deteriorate the image of the US in the international community. The opposite view also argues that American primacy sometimes finds its own security threatened by its too powerful position in the world. For example, 9/11 attacks were a violent reaction against America’s primacy, and specifically against its imperial ambition in the Middle East. There, the expansion of the American presence for the purpose of overthrowing regimes will not make America more secure from terrorist attacks as radical Islamists are full of resentment against its primacy and the Islamic public opinion could still promote war (Layne and Thayer 94). For the anti-American empire, the American mission of extending democracy worldwide is not altruistic: “it grew out of the belief that American liberties could not long exist at home unless the world was made safe for ‘democracy’” (qtd. in Layne and Thayer 84). This self-centred interest is also found in the logic of the democratic peace theory and is the motive which drove Americans to create the LIEO.

The US applies different methods of dealing with other countries depending on which stage of indoctrination they are in. As discussed above, the US has adopted a radical approach using hard power to try transforming the Middle East for the benefit of American security and for its interest in the region’s resources. The relationship between the US and the Third World has taken an economic development which benefits the American economy and compromises the interests of developing countries. In regards to the rest of the Western world, the US is finalising its indoctrination through soft power tools aiming to bend these countries’ interests towards Americans’. However, different states have different cultures, history, priorities, and interests, which all play a role in shaping their politics. Therefore, forcing a standardisation through globalization, militarisation, and power relations influence is not a reasonable strategy.  Instead, the hegemon should promote a “lead by example” approach. Indeed, the respect of international laws and other states’ differences, the decrease of its military power, and a genuine help towards developing countries would increase the respect to the leading power and, therefore, increase its influence in the world. Fortunately, the Obama administration’s foreign policy is, to a certain extent, leaning towards such solution (“National Security” 2010). However, the remaining of US’ strategy to global control could still lead to a global political repercussion against the hegemon’s dominant position in the world.

Works Cited

Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics: an Introduction to International Relations. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.

"Declaration of the Jury of Conscience World Tribunal on Iraq - Istanbul June 23 - 27, 2005." Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. N.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2012.

Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print.

Layne, Christopher, and Bradley A. Thayer. American Empire: a Debate. New York: Routledge, 2007. Print.

McInerney, Stephen. "The Federal Budget and Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2013”. p. 7-13. POMED - Project on Middle East Democracy. 12 July 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.

"National Security Strategy of the United States." p. 2. White House. 15 May 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2012.

"National Security Strategy of the United States." p. 3. Commonwealth Institute. 15 Mar. 2006. Web. 12 Nov. 2012.

"Peace and Democracy." Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict. Oxford: Elsevier Science & Technology, 2008. Credo Reference. Web. 18 November 2012.

"Understanding the WTO." World Trade Organization. 24 Aug. 2012. Web. 3 Dec. 2012.