|
Zonie63 -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/26/2013 6:58:07 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Stability is not the natural order of things. In fact, history shows that stability such as it exists is usually a function of imperial rule, which, in turn, is a common form of hierarchy. To wit, there are few things messier in geopolitics than the demise of an empire. The collapse of the Hapsburgs, of the Ottoman Turks, of the Soviet Empire and the British Empire in Asia and Africa led to chronic wars and upheavals. Some uncomprehending commentators remind us that all empires end badly. Of course they do, but that is only after they have provided decades and centuries of relative peace.
Indeed, from the end of World War II until very recently, the United States has performed the role of a hegemon in world politics. America may be democratic at home, but abroad it has been hegemonic. That is, by some rough measure of international consent, it is America that has the responsibility to lead. America formed NATO in Europe, even as its Navy and Air Force exercise preponderant power in the Pacific Basin. And whenever there is a humanitarian catastrophe somewhere in the developing world, it is the United States that has been expected to organize the response. Periodically, America has failed. But in general, it would be a different, much more anarchic world without American hegemony.
Your thoughts??
It's an interesting article. It might have had more depth if it explored the transition of America from a relatively isolationist (yet expansionist) regional power to a global superpower and quasi "imperialist" state. What we aspired to be in the 19th century turned out to be quite different as events of the 20th century developed. The article seems to imply that American hegemony and role in the world was planned and intended, but a lot of it was due to mischance and America's reaction to new situations we had not really planned or prepared for.
A commonly held view within America is that we didn't really want world war or global hegemony; it was thrust upon us and we were given little choice. We seemed to be adapting well in the previous era when the Anglo-French Empires held hegemony over the world. Unlike Germany and Russia, we complemented Anglo-French hegemony, we did not compete or conflict with it. For this reason, America's "imperialism" became more of a hand-me-down type, where America's hegemony became something analogous to a substitute teacher taking over stewardship of someone else's empire. It was never truly our own "empire," if it was even an "empire" at all.
This also seemed to create a bit of an identity crisis for Americans themselves, transitioning from isolationist self-interest to becoming a member of a coalition where we're "not our own man" anymore. What we do, how we do it, and the reasons why we do it became all the more confused and inconsistent. We weren't really establishing our own hegemony as much as trying to prevent the world (under the old hegemony) from falling under a newer hegemony emanating from other powers. The central thrust of our policy was that if we didn't exert hegemony over a given territory or region, then it was believed that other powers (namely the Soviet Union) would exert their own hegemony over that territory.
American hegemony became justified mainly on that basis, not because we wanted to do it, but because the circumstances of the world gave us no other choice.
This article seems to be a validation of that viewpoint, suggesting that it would be a more anarchic world without American hegemony. I've found this to be a relatively common view within America when discussing our security perceptions and foreign policy. There's this view that "without us, the rest of the world would be totally fucked." There's a lot of "what if" involved in that perception. (e.g. "If we don't invade Iraq now, then Saddam Hussein will use WMDs to take over the Middle East and then he'll come after America.") No matter where in the world we've been involved, there was always this implied imperative that "if we don't do it, then worse things will happen."
There is some historical basis for this viewpoint. I posted a thread last week about a speech by John McCain in which he discusses U.S. foreign policy and why we should stay the course. He repeated the widely held view that if America had taken a more active role in world affairs just after World War I, instead of turning inward and isolationist, then we might have been in a better position to prevent World War II - or at least minimized the damage. As McCain and many other Americans reflect on that, it was viewed as a tragic mistake on America's part, and there's been this lingering guilt over not intervening and interfering with the rest of the world.
This article seems to reflect the same idea, that America really has no other moral choice but to continue exerting its hegemony over the world - or else it will become an anarchic world - or worse.
But I would question the underlying premise behind that. Is the world so chaotic and anarchistic that the whole world order would fall apart without American hegemony?
What has this done for stability within America? Foreign policy has become a very divisive issue for a lot of people. Even at a time when America's standard of living was improving by leaps and bounds, when people were comfortable, well-fed, and had the world at their fingertips, some Americans were protesting and rioting about what we were doing thousands of miles away on the other side of the planet.
Some could even cynically argue that America's foreign policy and imperialism have also existed as a way of distracting the American public from domestic issues and problems that may affect us internally. America's internal stability came about with a heavy price (another kind of hegemony), but because of the overall world situation, there has been a strong motivation to push for American unity and a stronger centralized government. In a perfect world, we wouldn't ordinarily need a military-industrial complex, the CIA, the NSA, and such a powerful state apparatus. Americans accept these things because they feel it's necessary, and out of a sense of civic responsibility, we don't really want to rock the boat or challenge any sacred cows.
Another thing that should be mentioned is that the world order has to operate much differently than it once did, mainly due to the advanced technologies and weapons of mass destruction which today's world has to contend with. If we didn't have the threat of nuclear war hanging over our heads, the world order might have taken a completely different direction.
In addition, unlike previous eras where empires were sovereign and could pretty much do whatever they wanted, we had pledged (at least on paper) to act as a responsible nation, to not engage in aggressive war, and to recognize universal declarations of human rights, etc. So, in order to maintain hegemony, we had to expend a great deal of energy and resources on making ourselves look good, which tempered our actions, methods, and objectives. Indeed, in order to maintain the illusion that the world is stable and not anarchic, we have to present ourselves as adhering to the rule of law. If we didn't, then the whole world system would be anarchic and chaotic, if it isn't already.
I suppose our hegemony might have been more stable if we really did try to be a true "empire." We could have played harder ball with the rest of the world. We could have used the three-year window when we had a nuclear advantage over the Soviets and created a lot of havoc in the world if we really wanted to. We could have made it impossible for China or Russia to recover from World War II, and we never would have had to deal with them as powerful rivals in later years. Once the major powers were out of the way, we could have mercilessly crushed any opposition anywhere in the world. The Middle East, Latin America, East Asia...there would have been no one left to oppose us. If we really wanted to be total imperialist assholes (if we could have lived with ourselves), then we could have seriously fucked the rest of the world and taken over. If we had, we probably wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now.
But we never really wanted to be an empire. We never really wanted to do all that stuff. This is where our identity crisis comes into the picture. We may want to be Dudley Do-Right, but sometimes we want to be Snidely Whiplash. The world can never really be sure what we are, with this Jekyll/Hyde effect at work in America's foreign policy.
|
|
|
|
