Sometimes you can control the lives and destinies of other nations in a
virtual way or in an indirect way. Cyber-empire. Virtual
empire. Financial control empire. But control it
is.
arthur
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
|