American Imperialism is a policy aimed at extending political, economic, and cultural control of the United States government over areas beyond its boundaries. This can be accomplished in various ways: by military conquest, through agreements, through subsidies, through economic penetration through private enterprise followed by intervention when interests are threatened, or by regime change.
The concept of extension of territorial control was popularized in the 19th century as a doctrine of Manifest Destiny and manifested through conquest such as the Mexican-American War of 1846, which resulted in the annexation of 525,000 square miles of Mexican territory. While the US government does not call itself an empire, the sustained phenomenon has been recognized by major Western writers including Max Boot, Arthur Schlesinger, and Niall Ferguson.
Video American imperialism
Imperialisme
Indian Wars dan Manifest Destiny
Thomas Jefferson, in the 1790s, awaited the fall of the Spanish Empire "until our population can advance enough to get it from them piece by piece". In turn, the historian Sidney Lens notes that "the impetus for expansion - at the expense of others - returns to the beginning of the United States itself". The Yale historian Paul Kennedy says, "From the time the first settlers arrived in Virginia from England and began to move westward, this was an imperial nation, a conquering nation." Detailing George Washington's description of the beginning of the United States as an "infant empire", Benjamin Franklin's writings that "the Prince who acquired the new Territory... deprived the Natives to give its own People's Room... may be rightly called the [Father] of the Nation, and Thomas Jefferson's statement that the United States "should be seen as a hive from which all America, North & South must be inhabited", Noam Chomsky says that "the United States is one existing state, as far as I know, and ever, founded as an empire explicitly ".
A national drive for territorial acquisitions across the continent was popularized in the 19th century as the ideology of Manifest Destiny. It was later realized with the Mexican-American War of 1846, resulting in the annexation of 525,000 square miles of Mexican territory, stretching to the Pacific coast.
President James Monroe presented his famous doctrine to the western hemisphere in 1823. Historians have observed that while the Monroe Doctrine has a commitment to reject colonialism from Europe, it has some aggressive implications for American policy, since there is no limit to US action alone. mentioned in it. Student Jay Sexton noted that the tactics used to implement the doctrine were "imitating the people employed by British imperialists" in their territorial competition with Spain and France. The eminent historian William Appleman Williams dryly describes it as "imperial anti-colonialism."
The Indian war against indigenous people began in the British era. Their escalation under the federal republic allows the US to dominate North America and carve out 48 continental states. This is now understood as an explicit colonial process, since Native States of America are usually recognized as sovereign entities prior to annexation. Their sovereignty is systematically undermined by US state policy (usually involving unequal or broken agreements) and white settlers-colonialism. The culmination of this process is the California genocide.
New Imperialism and "The White Man's Burden"
Various factors converged during "New Imperialism" at the end of the 19th century, when the United States and other major powers quickly expanded their territorial holdings abroad. Some of these are described, or used as examples for various forms of New Imperialism.
- The prevalence of blatant racism, in particular John Fiske's concept of Anglo-Saxon racial superiority, and Josiah Strong's call to "cultivate and Christianize" - all the manifestations of Social Darwinism and racism developed in some American political schools think.
- Early in his career, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt was instrumental in preparing the Navy for the Spanish-American War and was an enthusiastic supporter of US military testing in battle, at one point stating "I must welcome almost any war, because I think this country needs one ".
Roosevelt claimed that he rejected imperialism, but he embraced the almost identical doctrine of expansionism. When Rudyard Kipling wrote the imperialist poem "The White Man's Burden" for Roosevelt, the politician told his colleagues that it was "a rather poor poem, but made sense from an expansionary point of view." Roosevelt was so committed to dominating the former Spanish colony that he proclaimed his own consequences on the Monroe Doctrine as justification, though his ambitions extended further, to the Far East. Scholars have documented the similarities and collaborations between US and UK military activities in the Pacific today.
Industry and commerce are two of the most prevalent motivations of imperialism. American interventions in Latin America and Hawaii resulted in several industrial investments, including the popular Dole banana industry. If the United States is able to annex a territory, in turn they are given access to trade and capital of these areas. In 1898, Senator Albert Beveridge proclaimed that market expansion is absolutely necessary: ​​"American factories make more than Americans can use: American soil produces more than they can consume." Fate has written our policy for us, world trade must and will be ours. "
The American government in the inherited Spanish territory is undeniable. The Philippine revolution had begun in August 1896 against Spain, and after Spain's defeat at the Battle of the Bay of Manila, it began again earnestly, culminating in the Philippine Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the First Philippine Republic. The Philippine-American War ensued, with extensive damage and death, which eventually resulted in the defeat of the Republic of the Philippines. According to scholars such as Gavan McCormack and E. San Juan, counter-contra America produces genocide.
The maximum geographical extension of American direct political and military control occurred after World War II, in the period following the surrender and occupation of Germany and Austria in May and then Japan and Korea in September 1945 and before Philippine independence in July 1946.
Stuart Creighton Miller says that public sense of innocence about Realpolitik undermines popular recognition of the behavior of the US empire. Resistance to actively occupy foreign territory has led to policies of exerting influence through other means, including regulating other countries through substitutes or puppet regimes, where unpopular domestic governments only survive through US support.
The Philippines is sometimes cited as an example. After Philippine independence, the US continues to direct the country through agents of Central Intelligence Agency such as Edward Lansdale. As noted by Raymond Bonner and other historians, Lansdale controls President Ramon Magsaysay's career, going so far as to physically beat him when the Philippine leader attempts to deny CIA-written speeches to him. American agents are also drugged sitting President Elpidio Quirino and ready to kill Senator Claro Recto. The prominent Filipino historian Roland G. Simbulan called the CIA a "secret apparatus of US imperialism in the Philippines."
The US maintains dozens of military bases, including several major bases. In addition, Philippine independence qualifies by law passed by the US Congress. For example, the Bell Trading Act provides the mechanism by which US import quotas can be set on Filipino articles that "come, or may come, into substantial competition with articles of a similar kind of US product". Furthermore, it is necessary for US citizens and companies to be given equal access to other Philippine minerals, forests, and natural resources. In a hearing before the Senate Committee on Finance, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs William L. Clayton described the law as "clearly inconsistent with the country's basic economic policy" and "clearly inconsistent with our pledge to grant Philippine independence The original.. "
Maps American imperialism
American exceptionalism
American expectations are the idea that the United States occupies a special niche among the nations of the world in terms of national credo, historical evolution, and political and religious institutions and their origins.
Philosopher Douglas Kellner traces the identification of American exceptionalism as a different phenomenon back to the nineteenth-century French observer Alexis de Tocqueville, who concluded by agreeing that the United States, uniquely, "continues along a path with no perceived restriction."
President Donald Trump once said that he does not like the term "exceptionalism" because he thinks it is "insulting the world". He told tea party activists in Texas that "If you're German, or you're from Japan, or you're from China, you do not want people to say that."
As the editorial's Monthly Review editorials argue about the phenomenon, "in England, the empire is justified as a 'white man' a good burden.And in the United States, the empire does not even exist; 'we' is simply protecting the cause of freedom, democracy and justice around the world. "
Wilsonian Intervention
When World War I broke out in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson promised American neutrality during the war. This promise broke down when the United States entered the war after Telegram Zimmermann. This is a "war for the empire" to control the vast raw material in Africa and other areas colonized by contemporary historians and civil rights leaders W. E. B. Du Bois. Recently historian Howard Zinn argues that Wilson entered the war to open up the international market for a US production surplus. He quoted Wilson himself
The concession gained by financiers should be kept by state ministers, even if the sovereignty of nations that do not want to be angry in the process.... the doors of the closed nations must be beaten.
In a memo to Secretary of State Bryan, the president described his goal as "an open door to the world." Lloyd Gardner notes that the genuine evasion of World War by Wilson was not motivated by anti-imperialism; his fear is that his "white civilization and dominance in the world" is threatened by the "great white nations" that destroy each other in endless battles.
Despite President Wilson's official doctrine of moral diplomacy seeking to "make the world safe for democracy," some of its activities at that time could be seen as imperialism to halt the progress of democracy in countries like Haiti. The United States invaded Haiti in July 1915 after landing eight times before. American rule in Haiti continued until 1942, but began during World War I. The historian Mary Renda in his book, Taking Haiti, spoke of the American invasion of Haiti to bring about political stability through US control. The American government does not believe Haiti is ready for self-government or democracy, according to Renda. To realize political stability in Haiti, the United States secures control and integrates the country into the international capitalist economy, while preventing Haiti from practicing self-government or democracy. While Haiti has been running their own government for many years before American intervention, the US government considers Haiti unfit for self-government. To convince the American public about justice in intervention, the US government uses paternalist propaganda, which describes Haiti's political process as uncivilized. The Haitian government will approve the US terms, including America's oversight of Haiti's economy. Direct oversight of Haiti's economy will strengthen U.S. propaganda. and further strengthen the perception of incompetent Haitians in self-government.
In World War I, the United States, Britain and Russia had become allies for seven months, from April 1917 until the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in November. Active distrust arose immediately, even before the October Revolution, British officers were involved in the Kornilov Events that sought to destroy the Russian anti-war movement and independent soviets. Nonetheless, after the Bolsheviks took Moscow, the British started talks to try and keep them in the war effort. British diplomat Bruce Lockhart fostered relations with several Soviet officials, including Leon Trotsky, and the latter approved an early Allied military mission to secure the Eastern Front, which collapsed in revolutionary upheaval. Finally, the head of the Soviet state V.I. Lenin decided the Bolsheviks would settle peacefully with the Central Bloc in the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. This separate peace led to the insult of the Allies against the Soviets, as he left the Western Allies against Germany without a strong Eastern partner. The British SIS, backed by US diplomat Dewitt C. Poole, sponsored a coup attempt in Moscow involving Bruce Lockhart and Sidney Reilly, which involved attempting to assassinate Lenin. The Bolsheviks went on to close the British and US embassies.
The tension between Russia (including its allies) and the West turned very ideologically. Allied military expeditions now explicitly assisted anti-Bolshevik white people in the Russian Civil War, with Britain and France providing armed support to the brutal General Alexander Kolchak. More than 30,000 Western troops are deployed in Russia as a whole. This is the first event that makes Russian-American relations a major issue, a long-term concern to leaders in every country. Some historians, including William Appleman Williams and Ronald Powaski, trace the origins of the Cold War in this conflict.
Wilson launched seven armed interventions, more than any other president. Looking back at the Wilson era, General Smedley Darlington Butler, a leader of the highest Haitian and Oceanian expedition, considers almost all operations to be economically motivated. In a 1933 speech he said:
I am a blackmailer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspect I was just part of the racket at the time. Now I am convinced of that... I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a viable place for National City Bank children to collect revenues. I help in rape. from half a dozen Central American republics to Wall Street profits... Looking back, I feel that I can give some guidance to Al Capone. The best he could do was operate his racket in three districts. I operate on three continents.
Views of American imperialism
Journalist Ashley Smith shares the theory of US imperialism into five broad categories: (1) "liberal" theory, (2) "social-democratic" theory, (3) "Leninist" theory, (4) "super-imperialism" (5) the theory of "Hardt-and-Negri".
There is also a conservative, anti-interventionist view as expressed by American journalist John T. Flynn:
The enemy of the enemy always pursues the path of theft, murder, rape, and barbarism. We always move forward with a high mission, a destiny worn by God to regenerate our victims, while inadvertently capturing their markets; to enslave the savage and the senile and the paranoid, while unintentionally into their oil wells.
A "social-democratic" theory says that the imperialistic US policy is the product of the excessive influence of certain sectors of US business and government - the arms industry in alliances with the military and political bureaucracy and sometimes other industries such as oil and finance, a combination often referred to as the "military industrial complex". The complex is said to benefit from profiteering war and looting natural resources, often at the expense of the public interest. The proposed solution is usually endlessly popular vigilance for applying counter-pressure. Chalmers Johnson holds a version of this view.
Alfred Thayer Mahan, who served as an officer in the US Navy in the late nineteenth century, supported the idea of ​​American imperialism in his 1890 book entitled The Influence of Sea Power on History . Mahan argues that modern industrialized countries should secure foreign markets for the purpose of exchange of goods and, consequently, they must maintain a maritime force capable of protecting this trade route.
A theory of "super-imperialism" suggests that US imperialistic policy is not solely driven by American business interests, but also by the interests of the larger apparatus of global alliances among the economic elite in the developed world. The argument asserts that capitalism in the Global North (Europe, USA, Japan, among others) has become too entangled to allow military or geopolitical conflicts between these countries, and the central conflict in modern imperialism is between Global North (also called global core ) and Global South (also referred to as global periphery) rather than between imperialist powers.
Empire
After the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the idea of ​​American imperialism was reexamined. In November 2001, a happy marine flying the American flag over Kandahar and in stage view was named the third after they were at San Juan Hill and Iwo Jima. All the moments, writes Neil Smith, express the US global ambition. "Labeling the war against terrorism, a new war represents an unprecedented American Empire acceleration, a third chance in global power."
On October 15, the cover of William Kristol's Weekly Stand contains the headline, "The Case for American Empire." Rich Lowry, editor-in-chief of the National Review, called for "a kind of low-class colonialism" to overthrow dangerous regimes outside Afghanistan. Columnist Charles Krauthammer states that, with US dominance entirely "culturally, economically, technically and militarily," people "are now coming out of the closet on the word 'kingdom.'" The New York Times Sunday magazine cover for January 5, 2003, read "The American Empire: Get Used." The phrase "the kingdom of America" ​​appeared more than 1000 times in the news during November 2002 - April 2003. Two Harvard historians and their French counterparts observed:
Since September 11, 2001... if not earlier, the idea of ​​the American empire has returned... Now... for the first time since the early 20th century, it is acceptable to ask whether the United States has become or become a kingdom in the sense classic. "
In the past three or four years [2001-2004], more and more commentators have begun to use the less derisive term of the American monarchy. , if still ambivalent, and in some cases with sincere enthusiasm.
US historians generally regard the 19th century imperialist insistence as an aberration in the smooth path of democracy... But a century later, as the US empire engages in a new period of global expansion, Rome is once again a distant but important mirror. for the American elite... Now, with military mobilization on a remarkable scale after September 2001, the United States openly asserts and exhibits its imperial power. For the first time since the 1890s, the show of force bare is supported explicitly by the imperialist discourse.
In the book "Empire", Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argue that "the decline of the Empire has begun". Hardt says the Iraq War is a classical imperialist war, and is the final point of a cursed strategy. They expanded this, claiming that in a new era of imperialism, the classical imperialists retained colonial power, but the strategy shifted from the military occupation of the economy on the basis of physical goods to biopower networks based on the information and affective economy. They went on to say that the US is central to the development of this new regime of international rule and sovereignty, the so-called "Empire" but that it is decentralized and global, and not governed by a sovereign state: "The United States does indeed occupy a privileged position in the Empire, but this privilege does not stem from its similarity to the old imperialist powers of Europe, but from its differences. "Hardt and Negri used Spinoza's theory, Foucault, Deleuze, and Italian autonomous Marxists.
Geography expert David Harvey says there has emerged a new type of imperialism because of geographical differences and different levels of development. He said there have emerged three new global economic and political blocs: The United States, the European Union and Asia are based in China and Russia. He said there was tension between the three major blocks of resources and economic power, citing the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a motive that, he argued, was to prevent rival blocks from controlling oil. Further, Harvey argues that conflict can arise in the main blocks between business interests and politicians because of their sometimes inappropriate economic interests. Politicians live in fixed geographical locations and, in the US and Europe, are accountable to voters. Thus, 'new' imperialism has led to an alignment between the interests of capitalists and politicians to prevent the rise and expansion of political and economic opponents from challenging American dominance.
The classical professor and war historian Victor Davis Hanson rejects the idea of ​​the American Empire altogether, with a disparate comparison of the historical empire: "We do not send proconsuls to be in the client's country, which in turn imposes tax on subjects who are forced to pay legions. on contractual obligations - expensive for us and profitable for their hosts. We do not see profits in Korea, but accept the risk of losing nearly 40,000 of our youth to ensure that Kias can overwhelm us, shaggy beaches and students can protest outside our embassy in Seoul. "
The existence of a "governor", however, has been recognized by many since the early Cold War. In 1957, the French historian, Amaury de Riencourt, connected the American "proconsul" with "the Romans of our day." An expert on American history recently, Arthur M. Schlesinger detected some features of the contemporary empire, including "governor": Washington does not directly run many parts of the world. By contrast, his "informal empire" was "equipped with court equipment: troops, ships, planes, bases, proconsuls, local collaborators, all widespread around unfortunate planets." "The Supreme Allied Commander, always an American, is the right title for an American proconsul whose reputation and influence exceeds that of European prime ministers, presidents and rectors." "The US combat commander... has served as governor, their position in their region usually downgrades ambassadors and assistant ministers of state." Historian Harvard Niall Ferguson calls regional combat commanders, among whom the whole world is divided, the 'pro-consul' of this 'empire'. GÃÆ'¼nter Bischof called them "the very powerful governor of the new American empire, like the governor of Rome they should bring order and law into a chaotic and anarchic world..." In September 2000, Washington Post reporter Dana Priest published a series of articles whose main premise is the influence of many Kombat fighters' political influence in countries in their area of ​​responsibility. They "have evolved into a modern state equivalent to the proconsul of the Roman Empire - a well-funded, semi-autonomous, and unconventional center for US foreign policy." The Romans often preferred to exercise power through friendly client regimes, rather than direct rules: "until Jay Garner and L. Paul Bremer became US proconsuls in Baghdad, that's also the American method."
Another difference from Victor Davis Hanson - that the US base, contrary to the legion, is expensive for Americans and profitable for their hosts - expressing the American view. The host expresses the opposite view. Japan pays 25,000 Japanese who work at US bases. 20% of the workers provide entertainment: the list compiled by the Japanese Ministry of Defense includes 76 bartenders, 48 ​​vending machines, 47 golf course maintenance personnel, 25 club managers, 20 commercial artists, 9 recreational ship operators, 6 theater directors, 5 decorators cakes, 4 bowling clerks, 3 tour guides, and 1 caretaker. Shu Watanabe of the Democratic Party of Japan asked: "Why do Japanese need to pay fees for entertainment US service members on their holidays?" One study of host country support concluded:
At an alliance level analysis, South Korea and Japan case studies show that the need for alliance relations with the US and their relative ability to achieve security objectives leads them to increase the size of direct economic investment to support US forces stationed in their territory, and to facilitate global defense posture US. In addition, these two countries have increased their political and economic contribution to US-led military operations beyond the geographical scope of the alliance in the post-Cold War period... Behavioral changes among US allies in response to demands for sharing direct alliance loads show the nature of unipolar alliances that changed. To maintain its strength and superiority, unipole has put greater pressure on its allies to devote much of their resources and energy to contribute to its global defense posture... [It is expected] that the systemic nature of the structural unipolarity and non-structural forces of unipole-gradually increasing the political and economic burden of allies in need of maintaining an alliance relationship with unipole.
In fact, increasing the "economic burden of allies" is one of President Donald Trump's top priorities. Classical Eric Adler notes that Hanson has previously written about the decline of classical studies in the United States and the lack of attention devoted to the classical experience. "When writing about American foreign policy for lay audiences, however, Hanson himself chose to punish Roman imperialism for portraying a modern United States different from - and higher than - the Roman state." In favor of a unilateral and hudkish US foreign policy, Hanson's obviously negative view of Roman imperialism is crucial, as it points to the importance of contemporary supporters of hawkish American foreign policy to criticize Rome. "
AS. foreign policy debates
Annexation is an important instrument in the expansion of a nation, due to the fact that once territory is annexed, it must act within the bounds of its superiors. The ability of the United States Congress to annex foreign territories is described in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations Congress, "If, in the assessment of Congress, such measures are supported by a safe and prudent policy, or based on our natural obligations to the people of Hawaii, or necessary for our national development and security, it is sufficient to justify annexation, with the consent of a recognized state government to be annexed. "
Before annexing the territory, the American government still held great powers through various regulations passed in the late 1800s. The Platt amendment was used to prevent Cuba from entering into agreements with foreign countries, and also gave America the right to build a naval station on their land. Executive officials in the American government began to determine for themselves the highest authority in regard to the recognition or limitation of independence.
When asked on April 28, 2003, about al-Jazeera whether the United States was "imperial development," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld replied, "We are not looking for empire, we are not imperialistic.
However, historian Donald W. Meinig says imperial behavior by the United States at least reaches Louisiana Purchase, which he describes as "imperial-imperial acquisition in the aggressive aggression of one person over another, resulting in the subjugation of those men against foreign policy. "The US policy toward the Native Americans he said" is designed to turn them into people who are more in line with the imperial wishes. "
Early 20th century writers and academics, such as Charles A. Beard, supported non-interventionism (sometimes referred to as "isolationism"), discussing American policy as being driven by selfish expansionism going back as far as the writing of the Constitution. Some politicians today disagree. Pat Buchanan claims that the United States' desire for modern rule is "far from what the younger Founding Fathers have meant."
Andrew Bacevich argues that the US does not fundamentally change its foreign policy after the Cold War, and remains focused on efforts to expand its control around the world. As a living superpower at the end of the Cold War, the US may focus its assets in a new direction, the future being "contested" according to former Defense Secretary for Policy Paul Wolfowitz in 1991. Olin Institute Head for Strategic Studies at Harvard University, Stephen Peter Rosen , maintain:
Political units that have extraordinary superiority in military power, and use that power to influence the internal behavior of other countries, are called empires. Because the United States does not seek to control the territory or organize foreign nationals from the empire, we are indirect empires, to be sure, but a kingdom remains. If this is true, our goal is not to fight the competition, but to defend our imperial position, and to maintain the imperial order.
In the Manufacturing Agreement: Political Economy Mass Media, political activist Noam Chomsky argues that exceptionalism and rejection of imperialism are the result of a systematic propaganda strategy, to "make an opinion" because the process has long been described in other countries..
Thorton writes that "[...] imperialism is more often the name of emotion that reacts to a series of events than the definition of events itself, where colonization finds analysts and analogy, imperialism must compete with crusaders for and against." Political theorist Michael Walzer argues that the term hegemony is better than the empire to describe the US role in the world; Political scientist Robert Keohane agrees to say, "a balanced and nuanced analysis is not helped... by the use of the phrase 'kingdom' to describe the hegemony of the United States, because the 'empire' obscures rather than illuminates the difference in the form of rules between the United States and other Great Powers , like the United Kingdom in the 19th century or the Soviet Union in the 20th century. "
Since 2001, Emmanuel Todd has assumed that the United States can not withstand long-standing hegemonic power status due to limited resources. Instead, the United States will be one of the major regional powers along with the EU, China, Russia, etc. Reviewing Todd's After the Empire , G. John Ikenberry discovered that it had been written in "The fantasy of the French fantasy mind." The thought proved "earnest", since it became the bestseller in France for much of 2003.
Other political scientists, such as Daniel Nexon and Thomas Wright, argue that there is no term that exclusively describes the foreign relations of the United States. The US can, and has, simultaneously an empire and a hegemonic power. They claim that the general trend in US foreign relations has been far from imperial control mode.
Cultural Imperialism
Some critics of imperialism argue that military and cultural imperialism are interdependent. American Edward Said, one of the founders of post-colonial theory, says that,
[...], influential is a discourse that emphasizes the privilege, altruism and opportunities of America, that imperialism in the United States as a word or ideology only rarely and recently appeared in the history of American culture, politics and history.. But the relationship between imperial politics and culture in North America, and especially in the United States, is directly surprising.
International relations expert David Rothkopf disagrees and argues that cultural imperialism is an innocent outcome of globalization, allowing access to many US and Western ideas and products that many non-Western and non-Western consumers around the world voluntarily choose to consume. Matthew Fraser has a similar analysis, but argues further that the influence of US global culture is a good thing.
Nationalism is the main process by which the government is able to shape public opinion. Media propaganda is strategically placed to promote a common attitude among people. Louis A. Perez Jr. gave an example of the propaganda used during the war of 1898, "We come, Cuba, come, we are bound to free you! We come from the mountains, from the plains and the inland sea! We come with God's wrath to make the Spaniards flee! , Cuba, come, come now! "
Progressive Americans are accused of being involved in cultural imperialism. On the contrary, many other countries with American brands have incorporated themselves into their own local culture. An example of this is the "Maccas" fraud, an Australian derivative of 'McDonald's' with little Australian culture.
US. military bases
Chalmers Johnson argues in 2004 that the American version of the colony is a military base. Chip Pitts also thinks so in 2006 that survives on a US base in Iraq suggesting the vision of "Iraq as a colony".
Although territories such as Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico remain under U.S. control, the United States permits much of its foreign territory or work to gain independence after World War II. Examples include the Philippines (1946), Panama's canal zone (1979), Palau (1981), Federated States of Micronesia (1986) and Marshall Islands (1986). Most of them still have US bases in their area. In the case of Okinawa, which came under US rule after the Battle of Okinawa during the Second World War, this occurred despite local opinions. In 2003, a Department of Defense distribution found that the United States has bases in more than 36 countries worldwide.
In 1970, the United States has more than 1,000,000 troops in 30 countries, is a member of four regional defense alliances and active participants in one-fifth, has joint defense agreements with 42 countries, is a member of 53 international organizations, and provides military or economy to nearly 100 countries across the globe. By 2015 the Department of Defense reports the number of military or civilian bases placed or employed is 587. This includes land only (where no facilities are present), facilities or facilities only (where underlying land is not owned or controlled by the government) , and land with facilities (where both are present). Also in 2015, David Vine's Base Nation book, found 800 US military bases located outside the US, including 174 bases in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea, total cost, about $ 100 billion per year.
Benevolent imperialism
One of the earliest historians of the American Empire, William Appleman Williams, wrote, "The routine lust for land, markets or security justifies the royalty of the nobility of prosperity, liberty, and security."
Max Boot defended US imperialism by claiming: "US imperialism has been the greatest power of goodness in the world over the past century, it has defeated communism and Nazism and has intervened against the Taliban and the ethnic cleansing of Serbia." Boots use "imperialism" to describe the policies of the United States, not only in the early 20th century but "at least since 1803". The imperial embrace was made by other neoconservatives, including the English historian Paul Johnson, and writers Dinesh D'Souza and Mark Steyn. It was also made by some liberal eagles, such as political scientists Zbigniew Brzezinski and Michael Ignatieff.
The English historian Niall Ferguson argues that the United States is a kingdom and believes that this is a good thing: "What is not allowed is to say that the United States is a kingdom and that this may not be all bad." Ferguson has drawn parallels between the United Kingdom and the role of the American empire in the late twentieth and early twentieth centuries, although he describes the political and social structure of the United States more like the Roman empire than the British. Ferguson argues that all these empires have positive and negative aspects, but the positive aspect of the US empire will, if learned from its history and mistakes, outweigh its negative aspect.
Another point of view implies that the expansion of the United States abroad is indeed imperialistic, but that this imperialism is only a temporary phenomenon; corruption of American ideals or historical relics of the past. Historian Samuel Flagg Bemis argues that the expansionism of the Spanish-American War is a short-term imperialistic impulse and a "major deviation in American history", a form of territorial growth that is very different from previous American history. Historian Walter LaFeber saw the expansionism of the Spanish-American War not as an aberration, but as the culmination of Western expansion westward.
Historian Victor Davis Hanson argues that the US does not pursue world domination, but retains worldly influence with a mutually beneficial exchange system. On the other hand, a Philippine revolutionary General Emilio Aguinaldo feels as though the American involvement in the Philippines is destructive, "... Filipinos fighting for Liberty, the Americans who fought them to grant them freedom.The two nations fought in parallel a line for the same object. "The influence of America around the world and its influence on other countries has many interpretations from whose perspective is taken into account.
Liberal internationalists argue that although the present world order is dominated by the United States, the form taken by domination is not imperial. International relations scholar John Ikenberry argues that international institutions have taken over the empire.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments