| In 44 BC Julius Caesar turned his back on almost 500 years of Roman republicanism and declared himself the perpetual dictator of the new Roman Empire. Covering almost 6 million sq. kilometres, the world’s largest empire to date lasted almost another 500 years and transformed the fabric of western civilization.
At the heart of Roman dominance over Europe, northern Africa and the Middle East was a long period of relative peace and stability know as Pax Romana (27 BC-180 AD). Many found the cost of this Roman-enforced peace too high to bear, however, and fought back. The Empire endured, all the same.
There seems little purpose, now, in denying the reality of American imperialism. President George W. Bush may not have yet declared himself the new emperor, but his effective rule far exceeds U.S boundaries. Armies of American-led occupation are in place in many areas of the world, just as the Roman army once ruled from Armenia in the East to Wales in the West. American culture dominates the world in a way that Romans could only have dreamed of, while the power and prominence of several American corporations rival that of old European empire monopolies such as the Hudson’s Bay Company and the English, French and Dutch East India Companies.
To say this is nothing new. Many writers in recent years have produced books on the subject of American imperialism. It is the basic assumption of John Newhouse in Imperial America: The Bush Assault on the World Order; of Roger Burbach and Jim Tarbell in Imperial Overstretch: George W. Bush and the Hubris of Empire; of Chalmers Johnson in The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic; and of Michael Scheuer in Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror.
These authors link the rise of American imperialism to the presidency of George W. Bush. Or more precisely, to the Republican administration’s response to the attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent "war on terror."
There may be much merit to this idea, but it is also misleading on two important counts. First, President Bush hardly invented the notion of American imperialism, nor is he even its most ardent pioneer. Second, while the whiff of imperialism may be particularly noticeable during Republican regimes, it is an American and not a partisan phenomenon. The Democrats may protest the particular policies and goals of Bush, but in the past they have equally supported the expansion of the American empire.
"The new American empire has been a long time in the making," writes Johnson in The Sorrows of Empire. "Its roots go back to the early 19th century, when the United States declared all of Latin America in its sphere of influence and busily enlarged its own territory at the expense of indigenous people of North America, as well as the British, French and Spanish colonialists and neighbouring Mexico."
It’s possible to push the origins back even further. In as much as one of the key causes of the American Revolution was Britain’s opposition to the colonies’ desire to expand westward over the Appalachians in order to settle new farmland, it can be said that the very creation of the United States was born of an imperial outthrust. Indeed, it’s possible to view American history over the following two centuries, in part, as a series of imperial challenges and conquests.
What sets America apart from other imperial ventures is the sense of purpose and righteousness with which it pursued territorial expansion. Admittedly, almost all imperial powers find ways to justify or legitimize their encroachment upon and acquisition of other lands. Yet the U. S. alone has claimed its expansion to embody those same virtues on which the Republic itself stood – namely, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In short, American expansion would, ultimately, be to the benefit of all mankind.
Thus the 19th century saw the phrase "manifest destiny" (coined by the Democrats in the 1840s) used to justify expansion westwards to the Pacific, the purchase of Alaska in 1867 and struggles with Canada over the exact latitude of the continental border. As late as 1911, House Speaker Champ Clark declared that he hoped to see the day "when the American flag will float over every square foot clear to the North Pole." At the same time, the U.S. spread southwards, notably in the Spanish-American War of 1898, whose outcome gave America control over Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam.
In the 20th century, America extended its influence further still. A late entrant into the First World War in 1917, the U.S. nevertheless proposed a blueprint for the re-organization of global security in 1919. It did so again in 1945, when aid made available through the Marshall Plan helped to rebuild a devastated Europe, but only on the condition that newly elected labour and socialist governments curtailed their own agendas.
During the Cold War, America expanded its reach into Central and Latin America and Southeast Asia, while expanding its military presence in Europe. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush declared a "new world order" but was vague on details. Since then, the U.S. has recovered, the terrorist attacks justifying a new global mission unfettered by the usual restraints that democratic republicanism entails.
What are we to make of American imperialism? First, to view it as a product of the current Bush administration is to miss its deep historical roots. Critics of Bush are mistaken if they assume that his departure will end the imperial venture. Second, a more balanced assessment is in order. Pax Americana may come at a heavy price – culturally, politically, economically, etc. – but it may well be the least-worst among the alternatives available.
Despite their frequent longevity, empires are inherently unstable. They must either expand or contract and suffer the consequences of either. The American Empire may well last another hundred years, but the signs are there – dependency on a dwindling fuel supply, an unsustainable national debt, an overextended military – that it is already in decline. |
Copyright ©2007 FFWD. All rights reserved.