[Futurework] RE: US not an Empire

[Karen Watters Cole]

Thanks, Ed, this is a good clarification on topic.    I have also received a link that indicates US AID is accepting applications for federal grants to help universities and NGOs get established in Iraq.   It would be interesting to confirm Keith’s assertion that the current volatile condition in Iraq is discouraging any or many US firms from signing contracts.  I know that firms were lining up to do business with Halliburton and Bechtel, but would love to know if contracts have been signed and project teams and procurement are under way.  Has anyone been following that?   KWC   -----Original Message----- From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 6:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: US not an Empire 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 ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -----Original Message----- From: Karen Watters Cole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2003 3:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: US not an Empire 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