In a book review in the current issue
(Sept./Oct.) of the journal "Foreign Affairs", the British historian Niall
Ferguson makes the following comparisons between the US and Britain as
empires:
A more sophisticated definition of "empire" would
have allowed the book’s authors to dispense with the word "hegemony"
altogether. Instead, they could have argued that the United States is an
empire—albeit one that has, until now, generally preferred indirect and
informal rule. (Whether its recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq presage a
transition to more direct and formal imperial structures remains to be
seen.)
The reason the choice of terms matters is that to
compare, as the authors do, the United States and the United Kingdom as
hegemonies is to miss differences that become obvious when the two are
compared as empires. It is certainly true that in economic terms, the United
States accounts for a much higher share of global output than the United
Kingdom ever did, and it is also true
that in military terms, the United States enjoys a greater lead over its
rivals (one even bigger than that enjoyed by the United Kingdom immediately
after 1815). But in other respects, the two
countries’ positions are reversed. A century ago, the United Kingdom’s formal
empire was very large indeed, covering nearly a quarter of the world’s surface
and ruling roughly the same proportion of its population. Today, on the other
hand, the United States’ formal empire
includes just 14
dependencies (of which the largest
is Puerto Rico) and covers less than 11,0000 square kilometers. A century ago, the United Kingdom could
draw wealth and personnel from the 15 million of its subjects who had settled in the temperate
zones of the empire. Today, by contrast, fewer than four million Americans
reside abroad, and nearly all of them live in Canada, Mexico, or Western
Europe. A century ago, the United Kingdom was a net exporter of capital, on
such a scale that it truly deserved to be called "the world’s banker." Today
the United States is a net importer of capital on almost as large a scale. A
century ago, British leaders could devote the lion’s share of their attention
and taxpayers’ money to imperial defense and grand strategy since before
1910, government provided
only minimal care for the sick and elderly, and most of that was local. Today
Washington spends its money on social security, defense, welfare, and
Medicare—in that order.
Ed Weick
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 3:30
PM
Subject: RE: US not an Empire
US
has been in Korea 50+ years.
In
Germany as long. In Japan as well.
Sometimes the relationships have soured. But the US
continues.
arthur
I think the point was made recently
that the British Empire had a longer view, business plan or attention span,
and tended to stick around a long time in the areas it colonized. At the moment, most supporters and
detractors of Bush2 foreign policy have a difficult time believing that
there is a real long term commitment based on mutual economic growth and
governance. By their own words
they were promising to be in and out as quickly as possible. Again, they seem to be their own
worst enemy in conducting foreign policy and building confidence. To wit, didn't some one also note
that US and UK firms are not as eager as supposed to get involved in Iraq
because of the volatile situation?
I think it would be worthwhile to watch who and what actually lines
up with Halliburton and Bechtel.
Coincidentally, I was reviewing
something forwarded to me this morning about NAFTA, which mentioned that it
was and is being used as the template for US foreign policy in Iraq. Maybe we are just having a
linguistic discrepancy? Would
anyone care to comment on this?
Article attached and linked below. -
KWC
How
NAFTA Failed Mexico
Immigration
is not a development policy.
Jeff
Faux, The American Prospect, Sept. 01, 2003 @
http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/7/faux-j.html
Excerpt:
"NAFTA
proponents, on the other hand, claimed that merely opening Mexico to free
trade and unregulated foreign investment would produce the job growth and
rising incomes needed to create a stay-at-home middle class. It was the
capstone on an effort begun in the early 1980s by a group of U.S.-educated
economists and businesspeople who took over the ruling Partido
Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) in order to build a privatized,
deregulated and globalized Mexican economy. Among their chief objectives was
tearing up the old corporatist social contract in which the benefits of
growth were shared with workers, farmers and small-business people through
an elaborate set of institutions connected to the PRI.
NAFTA
provided no social contract. It offered neither aid for Mexico nor labor,
health or environmental standards. The
agreement protected corporate investors; everyone else was on his or her
own.
Indeed, NAFTA
is the nation-building template imposed on developing countries by recent
corporate-dominated U.S. administrations and their client international
finance agencies.
It is the model for the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, as
well as for the Bush administration's development plans for
Iraq."
Keith said, I think
he's dead wrong about America being an Imperial Power. In the Middle
East, America is just trying to look after itself and its future oil
supplies.
arthur And what was Britain doing all those years as an
Imperial Power. Looking after others???
Ed, At 16:11
30/08/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Lawry, I don't think that the US has the
luxury of admitting that it made a >mistake. Whether it did so
or not, it would remain in the very >uncomfortable position of being
the prime terrorist target. We mustn't >forget that Sept. 11,
2001 happened before the US wars on Afghanistan and >Iraq. A
great many people were already very angry at the US before those >wars
and are far angrier now. What the US has to do is sit on
both >countries until they are pacified and fixed up, and especially
Iraq. It has >to demonstrate that it meant and business and
continues to mean it. It may >take a long time and it may cost a
lot of money, but that is what it has to >do. No matter what
spin it puts on things, It can't just walk out saying >"Ooops, sorry,
we didn't mean that". > >Niall Ferguson is a British historian
who has recently published a book >called "Empire". I haven't
read the book, but I saw him interviewed on TV. >His main argument
there was that the US is now an empire much like Britain >was in the
19th Century. The difference is that Britain behaved like
an >empire and stayed in places like India long enough to bring about
a genuine >transition toward a more democratic and egalatarian
system. He doubted that >the US has the staying power to do
so.
Niall Ferguson is, in my opinion, a brilliant historian and a
Prof at both Oxord and somewhere in America. I have three of his books on
my shelves. He also produced a brilliant BBC series recently on the
British Empire. However, I think he's dead wrong about America being an
Imperial Power. In the Middle East, America is just trying to look after
itself and its future oil supplies. However, this is a far stronger
motivation than any amount of empire building and can lead to far greater
follies.
KSH _______________________________________________ Futurework
mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
|