Anthony makes a good point --- BUT in fact, US OPEN-DOOR imperialism had a model that existed throughout the 19th century (up till the time the British decided that acquisition of new colonies was important in the era of conflicting imperialism -- hence the so-called "scramble for AFrica.")
During most of the 19th century -- INDIA was of course the "crown jewel" of the British Empire --- but for the most part they pursued what Robinson and Gallagher called -- in a great article "THE IMPERIALISM OF FREE TRADE." -=-- which is exactly what HAY demanded of the "old" empires in China with the Open Door Notes -- Chile, Brazil and ARgentian constituted an "informal British empire" --- I know a tiny bit about 19th century Chile --- a British investor John THomas North had bought up nitrate mines during the WAR OF THE PACIFIC (when Chile conquered Nitrate fields from BOlivia and Peru) --- in 1890, a nationalist Chilean PResident was ini power seeking to gain more control over the foreign owned nitrate mines --- There just "happened to be" a revolt which deposed that PREZ ()he committed suicide) --- I actually investigated this for my Ph D thesis "ON THE ORIGINS OF THE CHILEAN NITRATE ENCLAVE" but right now I cannot remember EXACTLY what role if any the British played in supporting the revolt against Balmaceda -- I know Balmaceda's idea of "Chileanization" of the nitrate mines was abandoned after the successful revolt -- On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 9:58 PM Anthony Boynton via groups.io <[email protected]> wrote: > *Open-Door Imperialism* > > In a recent thread (Some say China is not imperialist because it has no > militaristic expantion) Michael Meeropol cryptically referred to William > Appleman Williams idea of “Open-door imperialism.” > > I think that point deserves more discussion. Although I have not read “The > Tragedy of American Diplomacy” for many decades, I think Williams was on > the right track. > > > > IMHO, the USA was really the first modern imperialist country. Lenin’s > famous pamphlet danced around the topic avoiding military and political > issues to focus on the economic side of the question. Mostly, this was to > avoid Tsarist censors. > > The older imperialisms of Europe and Asia were based on territorial > conquest, and on the plunder, tribute, and mercantile control it entailed. > > > > The British empire, the most important of those in the modern era, was an > improvised affair that ended up having two different models of empire: the > settler colonial model in what became the USA, Canada, Australia and New > Zealand (and also in, but not as completely in, South Africa and Zimbabwe); > and the Vice Royalty model of the British colonial conquests in southern > Asia and other parts of Africa. That model entailed temporary settlers and > formation of English speaking colonial bureaucracies staffed by local > people who were educated and taught to be loyal but privileged servants of > the empire (At least that was what the imperialists hoped for). > > The United States struck out onto a new path at the end of the 19th > century. Rather, it decided to enter the fray and compete with the old > empires of Europe in acquiring overseas empires. The close of the North > American frontier had ended the first phase of US settler colonial > imperialism. > > > > What should it do? Conquer the rest of Mexico? Some said, Yes! Conquer > Canada? That door had long been closed. Go South young man ad filibuster! > Cuba and Puerto Rico looked ripe for the taking, and so for that matter, > did the Philippines. The Spanish-American war ensured, and the USA took all > three! > > > > What to do next? Improvise! Depending on local circumstance the United > States tried three different tactics: British style colonial conquest in > the Philippines, a new hybrid type colony in Puerto Rico, and a subservient > but formally independent country in Cuba. > > > > Of the three, the Cuban experiment seemed like the most promising model > for US imperialisms future forays onto the world stage. > > > > It was already working on a series of those in Asia. It had “opened the > doors” of Japan and was trying to force the open doors policy on the dying > Chinese empire AND on its imperialist rivals for dominance in that country. > > > > > The combination of the Puerto Rican model and the open door policy became > the basis of US imperialism for the rest of the 20th century, and it > became the real basis for “international law” following the US victory in > WWII. What is sacred is the right of imperialist capital to invest in every > country, and to have those investments protected against expropriation and > local laws and regulations. All of that other stuff about human and > democratic rights can be, and is, ignored. > > > > What is now happening in Ukraine, is Russia’s failing challenge to that > world order, and its attempt to return to the older style of imperialism > based on conquest, tribute and monopoly privilege. > > > > Chinese imperialism has proceeded cautiously. It is committed to, and > working profitably within, the US dictated world order. However, it is not > only keeping its powder dry, it is building up a stock pile, just in case. > _._,_._,_ > ------------------------------ > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#32132): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/32132 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/108347993/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
