Comparative And International Politics

Ajmal Khan Page 1

Student Name: Ajmal khan

Student ID : 570292

Title of course: Comparative And International Politics

Tutor: Priya Kumar

Does it make sense to speak of an American Empire.

Word count: 2722






















Comparative And International Politics

Ajmal Khan Page 2



Does it make sense to speak of an American Empire?

The American public as well as US government have long rejected the notion of
an American Empire. It is due to the very principles of democracy and liberty
that the United State stands for, and the fact that America is known as the land of
the free. However a very leading role of America in Second World War, and more
importantly the events of cold war era and Americas empire like rule indicate
that whether it happened intentionally or unintended consequences of events
beyond American control, an empire emerged. One that had a particular view of
the world and it constituted a particular strategy to which the American people
gave their full support.

This essay will analyze whether role played by the US military as well as its
political and economic dominance during the 20
th
century was a result of
American resistance to communist and totalitarian regimes and the promotion of
democracy, or whether the US political and economic global expansion is nothing
but act of an Empire denied by its government. International order is analyzed in
this essay in order to understand whether U.S stands as an equal partner
amongst other nations or as a dominant imperial figure. The essay will indicate a
number of Imperialist American dominance over international institutions such
as the World Bank and IMF (International monetary Fund). An indicator that the
US Empire not only controls such supra-national institutions, but it also uses
them to suppress and dominate not only countries in the global South but also in
the North. While many believe that America indeed is an empire due to its self-
serving foreign policies during the last few decades, however, there is another
argument that this empire is in decline. America is losing its global position with
the emergence of other super powers such as China, Russia and India. This essay
will analyze whether these emerging powers can counterbalance the US political
and economic powers.

If the United States does not lead, there will be no leadership (Bacevich, J. A.
(2002) P. 51) A view expressed by President George H. W. Bush in the concluding
paragraph of his foreign policy memoir. Backed by many US officials, claiming
that American is the only power capable of providing leadership. The American
supremacy as the only leader reached its peak after the Second World War, and
continued during the Cold War era. While American hegemony was justified as a
liberal power, resisting communist and totalitarian regimes, this US hegemony
however was rejected by many. Claiming that US military and economic
expansion and its unilateral approaches was the making of an American empire,
an effort to control political institutions.

To better understand whether America really is an empire. One must analyze
international political order. Divided into anarchy and hierarchy. Anarchy is a
system without any central authority, where states do not stand on a formal or
hierarchical relation with one another but as politically sovereign. (Ikenberry, G,
j. (2004) p 612) Hierarchy on the other hand is order where states are integrated
vertically with highly define superordinate and subordinate positions. Where
Comparative And International Politics

Ajmal Khan Page 3

political authority is centralized, and great powers have privileged positions
based on their capabilities. (Ibid, p 613) Clearly international order today
indicates a significant amount of hierarchical characteristics rather than anarchy.
Where the dominant figure, United States, a politically centralized authority,
enjoys an enormous amount of power enabling it to impose its will on the global
system.

Furthermore G, John, Ikenberry, in his article, Liberalism and empire: logics of
order in the American unipolar age, distinguishes between the three norms of
hierarchical order - Empire, hegemony and security community. According to
him empire is based on formal or informal control by a leading state of a foreign
and domestic policies of a politically or economically weaker state. Hegemony
according to ikenberry is also based on hierarchy, however, weaker states in this
order are formally sovereign, and political dominance over weaker states are
less formal. If non-coercive, hegemony is based on institutionalized relationships
between the states. In such order, hegemonic state seeks to establish multilateral
regimes rather than operating almost unilaterally. (Ibid, Pp 615-616)

Despite the constant claims made by American officials that the US seeks to
operate under unipolar order organized around liberal characteristics, (an order
build around multilateralism, institutional and role based relationships and
alliance partnership) this claim however is rejected by many scholars. Claiming
that US tends to apply imperial version of order, one that is build around
American unilateralism, power provider, and one where US is the final word in
international order. (Ibid, p 610)

This very logic of American unilateral and unipolar rule was embraced by the
Bush administration in its 2002 National Security Strategy. Arguing that US will
almost stand aloop from the rest of the world and use its powers, particularly
military powers to differentiate between right and wrong and impose peace. The
US insisting that it will not accept the rice of a peer competitor, and that it will
refuse to play by the same rules as other states. In fact Bush administration like
its previous predecessors raps itself around liberal clothing. Claiming that
America is serving universal ideas of openness, democracy, human dignity and
the ruling of law as a liberal beacon of the world. (Ibid, 618)

Whether this American global dominance is a liberal hegemony or an empire
based on self-serving foreign policies to dominate international political and
economic institutions. A number of factors needed to be analyzed. First and very
important factor is to look into the power resources of the US, and whether they
were sufficient for this new American empire, and secondly whether US used
these power resources to strengthen its informal empire.

American military power dominates the minds of the new conservatives. With
the collapse of the Soviet Union, Chinese and Russian emergence into capitalist
world and the decline in almost all the worlds military budgets. U.S. on the other
hand is expanding its military capability to an unrivalled position. The gap
between the U.S. and the rest of the world is growing wider and America is seen
as a military giant. This golden-American military age lasted for well over half a
Comparative And International Politics

Ajmal Khan Page 4

century since the end of World War and it improved dramatically throughout
the mid and late 19
th
century. The US enjoys an enormous nuclear arsenal,
enabling it to attack almost any enemy target around the world. With the Bush
administration developing Star War anti-ballistic missile defense system to new
battlefield nuclear weapons, creating an enormous defense than any state has
ever had. US military budget for 2003 was 40 percent of the worlds' total
military spending, exceeding the spending of next 24 countries combined (Mann,
M (2004) P639).

With a global reach, U.S. has military facilities in almost every corner of the
world. With full-scale bases in around 40 countries, Chalmers Johnson describes
this US power as an empire of bases. (Ibid, p 639) No state has ever had this
giant amount of tanks, ship, missiles and other highly technological weapons Its
enormous military capability plays a huge role as an intimidator to any state
which dares to stand up to it. Indeed US showed its military capability in the
Afghan War of 2001-2002 and in the Iraq invasion of 2003. Unlike any other
empire before it, U.S. enjoys a dominant position without the existence of a single
state capable of counterbalancing US military power. (Ibid, p 640)

While US government officials repeatedly claimed that USSR and other
authoritarian regimes like it impose great threat to democracy and more
importantly to American stability during Cold-War era. A rhetoric used by U.S.
officials in order to get the backings of American public to legitimize its military
expansion and military interventions. However, with the collapse of USSR and
the incapability of other countries to counter balance U.S. military after Cold-War
era; U.S. military expansion and its foreign policies were questioned by many
critics around the world. Claiming that American armed interventions were
American imperial actions to secure U.S. benefits and to expand its informal
empire. For instance Persian Gulf war in 1990s was seen as U.S. afford to secure
energy-rich resource for American advantages. (Bacevich, A.J. (2002) p 243)

Furthermore, American armed intervention of Iraq in 2003 was a clear evidence
of American empire. When Bush administration decided to go ahead almost
unilaterally with support only from British and Australian troops to invade Iraq.
Unable to assemble a UN Security Council vote to fully back the invasion of Iraq,
the informal empire almost ignored UN, Europe, Russia and China during the
invasion. A clear indication of an American Empire. (Mann, C. (2004) P 642)

Another U.S. power resource is dominant American economy. A significant factor
that aids and permit U.S global supremacy. The US economic dominance can be
traced back to 1940s. Firstly, with the Bretton Woods regime designed by the
super power, the US, to strengthen US global economic dominance. However,
these institutionalized arrangements were later seen by the Nixon
administration as mean to limit the US dominance in international monetary
politics. A new regime, one that will give America its imperial dominance over
international monetary affairs was required. With the collapse of the central
pillars of Bretton Woods regime in the early 1970s, America used this break up
to restore the dominance of US capitals through turning the international
monetary system into a dollar-standard regime. (Gowan, P. (1999) Pp. 16-19)
Comparative And International Politics

Ajmal Khan Page 5


This new centrality of dollar turned the world towards Wall Street for finance.
This shift towards Wall Street was due to dollar being the dominant world
currency, and almost all states for their economic stability preferred to hold their
foreign currency reserves in dollar, placing them within American financial
system. (Ibid, p 24) At the same time, this boost in the strength of Wall Street, as
a financial center, not only reinforced the dominance of dollar but it also
strengthened US political influence over international monetary and financial
system. This political dominance over international institutions such as IMF and
the World Bank overwhelmingly enabled the US to make rules and influence
decisions of these institutions. (Ibid, p 30)

According to Michael Mann, powers in the main lending agencies such as the
IMF, the World Bank and other development banks, is not democratically shared
amongst nations. Instead, it is the American imperialism that controls the
constitutions of these organizations. Northern countries hold very little powers,
and countries in the global South hold no powers at all. America is believed to be
the biggest debtor nation in the world, a sign of strength and its financial
freedom. (Mann, M (2004) Pp. 635-637) U.S. used these economic powers to
strengthen its strategic interests through aid, but more importantly by
promoting trade, where freeing up markets was seen a mechanism for global
growth. This Washington consensus was seen as an indirect American
imperialism: imposing some unequal free trade agreements on the poor
countries, which leads to more harm than any benefit to the poor.

Another US imperialism can be seen in the way IMF, World Bank and other
development organizations operate. With US Treasury controlling their policies,
approaches taken by IMF, World Bank and almost all other international lending
organizations are informally directed and monitored by the U.S: if US Treasury
disagree on a loan to a poor country, almost every other development
organization follow the US. A clear indication of an undemocratically distribution
of power, and a sign of American political dominance. This can be seen as yet
another American power resource in the form of political power to aid and
strengthen a distinctively American imperialism. (Mann, M (2004) Pp. 637)


Even with loan paid to poor states, it become problematic for them as in many
cases they are unable to repay their debts due to high interest rates. Leading
towards tougher measures imposed on them. On a surface these measures may
appear as tools of IMF or World Bank to get the debts repaid, but in reality they
are measures imposed by the US Treasury. To get the debt repaid, US then
impose fiscal austerity (by cutting government spending and raise taxes)
privatization of government enterprises, high interest rates and liberalization of
trade. These measures are widely seen as direct economic imperialism by many
around the world, since they enable the US government and American
corporations to control domestic economies and banks of debtor nations making
them more vulnerable to global financial perturbations. (Mann, M (2004) Pp.
637-639)

Comparative And International Politics

Ajmal Khan Page 6

However this global economic imperialism, in which the rich, led by America,
exploit the poor is in decline. It is believed that new super powers such as China,
India, Russia and Japan are countries almost capable of counterbalancing US
economic powers.

While many around the world are optimistic about the emergence of these super
powers to challenge the US economic dominance, others however argue that
American economic primacy is both robust and unlikely to be challenged in the
near future. It is believed that although China with its enormous economic
dynamism may one day prove a regional or even global challenge to US, but its
political communist system may prove in obstacle to achieve general rule of law.
Moreover with its own regional problems, China often finds itself compelled to
cooperate with the US in dealing with North Korea, and a number of other issues
in the region. Moreover, Japan and India, another two main rivals to US economy,
are also seen not anywhere close to counterbalance the US economy. While one
suffered from economic stagnation since 1990 and is facing intense competition
from Chine, the other is facing ongoing and potentially explosive conflict with
Pakistan over the disputed territory of Pakistan. (Robert J, L. (2005) Pp. 16-19)




Conclusion

While it is clear that the exercise of American power throughout the 20
th
and 21
st

century cannot be fully understood, but one thing is quiet clear that U.S. has
received all the advantages of an empire without admitting it being an empire.
American officials repeatedly claimed that America is leading in order to fulfill a
universal purpose, liberty and democracy. However U.S. foreign policies and its
military interventions in the recent decades reflects a single-mined
determination to expand and impose American military, economic and cultural
dominance around the word. The question is not whether Americas military and
political dominance in the international order resembles similarities of the
British or Roman empires before it, but the question really is whether it is
possible in the near future to counterbalance this American empire. While
America still is the dominant power in international order both economically
and politically, it is showing signs of weakness. This informal empire is slowly
but surely encountering new economic and political rivals such as China, India,
Russia and Europe. They may not be single-handed capable of counterbalancing
American powers in the very near future, but they surely are expanding their
capabilities to emerge as the next world super.


Quotes

If the United States does not lead, there will be no leadership (Bacevich, J. A.
(2002) P. 51)


Comparative And International Politics

Ajmal Khan Page 7













Bibliography

Brooks, S. G. and Wohlforth, W. C. (2008) World Out of Balance: International
Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Princeton: Princeton
University Press

Bacevich, A. J (2002) The American Empire: The realities and consequences of
U.S. diplomacy. Cambridge University Press

Bello, W (2005) Dilemmas of domination: the unmaking of the American Empire

Cox, M. (2001) Whatever Happened to American Decline? International Relations
and the new United States Hegemony, New Political Economy, 6:3 -311-340.
(10.1080/13563460120091333)

Colas, A. and Sull, R. (eds) (2006) The war on Terror and the American Empire
After the Cold War. Abington: Routledge


Gowan, P. (1999) Global Gamble: Washingtons Faustian Bid for World
Dominance. London: Verso, 1999

Ikenberry, G. J. (2002) Liberalism and empire: Logics of order in the American
unipolar age, review of international studies, 30, 609-630.
(10.1017/S0260210504006254)

Lieber, R. J. (2005) The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21
st
century.
New York: Cambridge University Press

Mann, M., The First Failed Empire of the 21st Century, Review of International
Studies 30/4 (2004): 631-653

Zakaria, F. The Rise of the Rest, Newsweek, 3 May 2008