The issue of global US hegemony and/or imperialism is one that instantly generates heated debates when addressed. The divide generally lies between pro-US and anti-US "debaters," with discussion between them usually going along the following lines:
Moe: "The US sucks!"
Moe: "The US sucks!"
Joe: "No, the world sucks!"
Moe: "You think you are so much better than everyone else, but you don't even know the difference between Malawi and Kazakhstan! You just force your ways on the world through force!"
Joe: "Well, we bring the world Democracy! If it weren't for us you'd be kissing Nazi ass or getting raped by the Japanese imperial army!"
Moe: "You suck, you ignorant asshole American"!
Joe: "You suck, you dimwitted hippie"!
If we get past the name calling and take a closer look at the situation on the ground today and compare it to recent superpowers, a relatively benign picture of the USA prevails. Take Britain at its imperial peak for example. Wherever they were present, be it in Kenya or in India, every aspect of public life - ranging from taxes and laws to external relations - were controlled by the British. Other great powers of afore such as France and Russia also exhibited what renowned Political Scientist Joseph Nye considers to be "the core feature of imperialism," namely political control. Certainly unequal relationships between the US and most of the rest of the world exist and, yes, the US does exert her influence when she feels it is necessary, but this does not equate to political control.
The 'occupation' of Western Europe and Japan provide two perfect examples where US influence is clearly visible on the one hand, but it is equally obvious that these areas are entirely sovereign. The US rebuilt Western Europe and Japan, leaving a clear American footprint, but when it comes to making any decision of significance, the US has no role to play. This is especially the case now that the EU has solidified itself as a powerful unit. Granted, militarily the US is the world's sole superpower and, if they choose to do so, they could bring down any government in the world. But, as the case of Iraq has shown, even the world's sole superpower cannot succeed alone, as a military victory is only one of many steps needed to attain true victory.
Indeed, the USA has shown itself to be a severely poor occupier in the aftermath of the Iraq War. Bringing down the Baathist government and Saddam Hussein was a cinch, but managing the occupation has thus far been a total disaster. Up until the two World Wars devastated the power of the British and the French to subdue any form of revolt in their colonies through force, these two countries had been masters at occupation. The reason the US succeeded in Europe was because they had been welcomed as liberators. In Japan I believe they had both grown tired of war and the sheer devastation allowed for an environment in which the victors could leave their mark without much opposition. In areas where the US has not been welcomed (e.g. Vietnam and Iraq), they have been unable to deal even a fraction as efficiently with occupation as the British, French and Russians managed.
Furthermore, while the US might be the world's military hegemon, in terms of issues such as economics it is nothing more than an equal power. If the EU, Japan, or even China or India are engaged with the US in trade talks, they generally have to meet halfway. Imperial Britain would have accepted no such thing. They would have simply forced their way. In today's world, however, this is not the case and would probably not be possible or at least not sustainable either. The world order is defined by more than just military might and, with this in mind, the US has positioned itself as the world's primal player, but not an imperial one.
If we get past the name calling and take a closer look at the situation on the ground today and compare it to recent superpowers, a relatively benign picture of the USA prevails. Take Britain at its imperial peak for example. Wherever they were present, be it in Kenya or in India, every aspect of public life - ranging from taxes and laws to external relations - were controlled by the British. Other great powers of afore such as France and Russia also exhibited what renowned Political Scientist Joseph Nye considers to be "the core feature of imperialism," namely political control. Certainly unequal relationships between the US and most of the rest of the world exist and, yes, the US does exert her influence when she feels it is necessary, but this does not equate to political control.
The 'occupation' of Western Europe and Japan provide two perfect examples where US influence is clearly visible on the one hand, but it is equally obvious that these areas are entirely sovereign. The US rebuilt Western Europe and Japan, leaving a clear American footprint, but when it comes to making any decision of significance, the US has no role to play. This is especially the case now that the EU has solidified itself as a powerful unit. Granted, militarily the US is the world's sole superpower and, if they choose to do so, they could bring down any government in the world. But, as the case of Iraq has shown, even the world's sole superpower cannot succeed alone, as a military victory is only one of many steps needed to attain true victory.
Indeed, the USA has shown itself to be a severely poor occupier in the aftermath of the Iraq War. Bringing down the Baathist government and Saddam Hussein was a cinch, but managing the occupation has thus far been a total disaster. Up until the two World Wars devastated the power of the British and the French to subdue any form of revolt in their colonies through force, these two countries had been masters at occupation. The reason the US succeeded in Europe was because they had been welcomed as liberators. In Japan I believe they had both grown tired of war and the sheer devastation allowed for an environment in which the victors could leave their mark without much opposition. In areas where the US has not been welcomed (e.g. Vietnam and Iraq), they have been unable to deal even a fraction as efficiently with occupation as the British, French and Russians managed.
Furthermore, while the US might be the world's military hegemon, in terms of issues such as economics it is nothing more than an equal power. If the EU, Japan, or even China or India are engaged with the US in trade talks, they generally have to meet halfway. Imperial Britain would have accepted no such thing. They would have simply forced their way. In today's world, however, this is not the case and would probably not be possible or at least not sustainable either. The world order is defined by more than just military might and, with this in mind, the US has positioned itself as the world's primal player, but not an imperial one.
3 comments:
As ever, this is a tricky conceptual question. Personally, whilst I'm keen to use historical examples and analogies with past empires, such as the British, French or Russian, I think these examples do have a real limit to there use.
This is because Empire is a fundamentally dynamic concept, and can only be understood and analysed in a contemporary contextual manner. This is why comparisons with past empires are limited; for example, the British, French etc, were able to exert a much greater degree of control in many cases. But actually, on closer inspection, the history of the British empire in India and South East Asia was very much about informal empire - only a tiny percentage of India was directly administered by the British, for example, and the vast majority of taxes, laws etc were in fact administered through the local Raj. Much the same can be said of the Malaya Penninsula, and later, much of Africa.
Where there was an ability, and will to enforce 'absolute' power, this was possible to the very much greater disparities of wealth, knowledge, technology, political organisation and social complexity between say, the Zulu Nation and the British Empire. Such gaping disparities have now largely disappeared from the world, through economic development and the diffusion of technological know-how. This has empowered groups, such as the Vietcong or Iraqi insurgency, with much greater resources and abilities to fight asymmetrical warfare then in the past. But this isn't new, Sun Tzu and the Greeks talked extensively about this. Therefore, what this means is that Empire isn't dead, but rather, it must be revisited as a concept.
For, whilst Nye did state political control was important, he also stressed the central role of 'soft power' (that is, essentially culture) in providing the fundamental foundation of hegemony. This, more then brute strength, is what must be analysed.
Understood this way, the US is clearly an imperial nation. It produces the overwhelming majority of the worlds most watched (and profitable) films and television shows; an act of vast scale narcisism that recreates and reimagines Amercian history and destiny, before disseminating these values and beliefs across the world. The vast majority of the developed world lives and breathes all manner of American imperial iconography and symbolism - McDonalds, Coke, Ipod, Nike, American Express - in exactly the same way to be Roman was not to be born of Rome, but to speak Latin, wear Roman dress, customs, laws and products. The millions -literally- of people globally who migrate (legally and illegally) to the US, is a testament to the power of this idea, as is the billions more who dream of this standard and way of life.
American brands occupy the 7 of the top 10 in terms of value. Of the top 200 Leading Companies list by Forbes, 170 are American. The US economy consumes 25% of the worlds resources, yet only has 2% of the worlds economy. The US as a political body dominates international financial organisations such as the World Bank and the IMF.
It is this that allows the US to exert another central imperial power, to set the norms, rules and agenda of international political debate - and, furthermore, to be exempt from those binding on others. The unilaterial abridgement of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the 'unsigning' of the International Criminal Court agreement or the refusal to ratify the Kyoto Accords are all clear examples of this, as is, quite obviously, the decision to invade Iraq without a second UN resolution.
Indeed, let us not forget the fact that the US also spends more money on defence then the next 12 companies combined. For, in spite of the debacle in Iraq, the US is the only superpower. Current US strategic doctrine is that America must be able to fight -and be victorious- two mid level conflicts simultaneously anywhere in the world. If the Bush administration had demonstrated more foresight, and sent the 300,000 troops recommended by General Shinseki, it seems clear that they would have been able to establish effective military control. The issue here being, therefore, mismanagement and not fundamental lack of strength or resources.
This is Empire; a different kind from before, but its Empire.
Sorry, that should be 2% of the worlds population.
Compelling rebuttal!
Post a Comment