> In this article from the Washington Post, scholars debate "is America an
> Empire?" and what America's role should be for the future.
>
> Count me among those who believe that we *should* use our extraordinary
> power to reshape the world in our own image, to promote human rights, free
> trade, and democracy.
>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37019-2001Aug20.html?referer=
> email
I read the article and I disagree with the case that it makes. It makes a
case far stronger than advocating the promotion by the United States of
values like human rights and democracy. It even makes a case that is larger
than simply stating that the US should promote free trade. It argues that
the
US should use its strength to push its own interests in the world.
To look at this, let us look at the last imperial power: Britain. Britain
used the power of its fleets to directly control some countries, like India,
and to enforce trade terms that benefited Britain, but not the countries it
traded with. The opium wars in China are a classic example of this.
Indeed, an acceptance of an imperial roll would be a radical departure from
the United States policy of at least the last 50 years. The Marshall Plan
represented the exact opposite of imperialism. At its foundation was the
thought that the existence of strong free countries (including the old
enemies Japan and Germany) would be better for the US in the long run than
weak countries that are subservient to the United States.
Imperialism, on the other hand, works best when other countries are weak. A
strong India would not have agreed to the trade terms that the Britain had
proposed. A strong Canada and Mexico could be persuaded to join NAFTA.
(One could argue that Mexico is not strong, but I think that it is
reasonable to consider Canada as a country that is strong for the size of
its population and free to make its own policy.) A strong Europe and Japan
could be persuaded to agree to trade terms suggested by the United States.
If not, the United States has the right, as any other sovereign nation, to
act in response to any perceived trade barriers. Its actions, like any
other countries, would be constrained by possible actions by other
countries.
Now it is true that the US, looking out for its own influence, has a lot
more sway than Canada or Mexico or China. If, for example, the US and China
were to engage in a trade war, it would be devastating for China and a
bother for the US. I think that it behooves the US to not use this leverage
to push for unfair trade advantages. However, pushing for free trade seems
to be fairly reasonable. I'd argue that the inherent symmetry in free trade
would be considered substantial evidence for the fairness of free trade.
Having said that, it is still imperative that the US persuade countries to
join free trade blocks instead of using threats of trade wars to force them
into it. The bi-partisan policy of Clinton and Bush with respect to free
trade in this hemisphere is a good example of the potential for success with
the former. I'd argue that it is not only right to wait until countries
choose to join a free trade block, it is in the best interest of the US to
wait. Short term trade gains would be outweighed by long smoldering
resentment.
It is quite possible that another economic block, such as Europe, (or in the
very long term China) could emerge as more powerful than the United States.
If they do, there is a risk that they will have a policy that will be
detrimental to the interests of the United States. Good imperialistic
policy would dictate working to keep Europe and China relatively weak
compared to the US.
But, I don't think that is good policy, in general. I think that the US
could live quite well as a country that is stronger than it is now, but
living in a world where it has a weaker economy than China or Europe. I'd
argue that being third in economic power such a world, behind more regions
of higher population would actually have more plusses than minuses. A world
100 years from now where the world per capita GDP is higher than the present
per capita GDP of the US (as measured in purchasing power) , where of all of
Europe (Eastern+Western) is roughly the equal of the US and twice what the
US is now, where the poorest country in the world is at the present level
of, say, the Netherlands.
In such a world, it would be very difficult to envision an American Empire.
But, I can envision a happy, prosperous US at peace. I could picture it
more than I could picture a happy, prosperous US at peace in a world in
which the US did what was needed to maintain an empire.
That's just economics, and enough for one post. (BTW, I'd be surprised if
you took the other side in all of this debate, but I am arguing against the
implications of the article you cited...not your lead in paragraph. I'd be
interested to see where you'd agree with me and where you'd agree with the
article.) I'll try to find the time to discuss military and cultural
empires next.
Dan M.
