Imperial America

EDGE Fall Quarter 2003

Tim ChuehAmbert Ho

12/5/03

What Is Imperialism?

“Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism…characterized by monopoly

corporations and the compulsion to export capital abroad for higher profits. Unlike

capitalism in the earlier stages, in the imperialist stage, capitalism has no more progress

to bring the world…the cause of contemporary militarism” – Lenin

“The policy, practice, or advocacy of seeking, or acquiescing in, the extension of

the control, dominion, or empire of a nation, as by the acquirement of new, esp. distant,

territory or dependencies, or by the closer union of parts more or less independent of

each other for operations of war, copyright, internal commerce, etc.” – Oxford

dictionary

The word imperialism derives from “empire.” As such, it is useful to spend a bit

of time to define the word. In working towards a minimal definition, Stanford Professor

of Archaeology J. Manning in his first lecture on Ancient Empires starts with: “An

empire is a territorially extensive hierarchically political organization.” Unfortunately this

definition is too vague. All states encountered in human history are by definition

hierarchical, and many nations today are vast compared to the empires of the ancient

world. Thus, Manning rephrases his definition of empire to be: “A territorially extensive

hierarchical political organization involving the rule of one or more groups over other

groups of foreigners.” But what causes empire? There are two models worth explaining.

One is originated by the Greek historian Thucydides, famous for the quote “The strong

do what they can and the weak do what they must.” He stipulates that imperialism is a

latent part of human nature, an atavism, and that empires break out whenever societal

factors such as demography, technology, and/or political institutions favor their

development. Dr. Michael Mann, in his book Sources of Social Power, lists the powers

which govern the behavior of a state as ideological, economic, military, and political. A

second, more recent theory named the Constructivist model, states that economic forces

can also create the need for empire. And that in addition to the factors stated by

Thucydides, ideology is also a factor. Now that we have those factors, as a preview, let us

throw out some words: “Manifest Destiny, oil shortage, import tariff, Walmart.”

Imperialism is literally means “behavior exhibited by an empire”. Imperialism is

the benefit an empire gets from being an empire. What are these benefits?

An empire often has far greater economic leverage than a small nation. It often

uses political clout backed by social, economic, and military power to

bully/ignore the will of smaller states.

Today, America gets raw resources from many nations, which depend on America for all

kinds of high level manufactured goods from printers to jet fighters. An empire has a

powerful and stable currency, much like the American dollar is today, and also can

cripple small nations with economic sanctions. Historically, the Romans and other armies

up to medieval times would have enough troops to surround an enemy and prevent

supplies from reaching them. The British navy was large enough to blockade the ports of

its enemies, as was the Union to the Confederate ports in The Civil War. Today, as

business is war, so to speak, the United States displays considerable power when it places

a tariff or embargo on a smaller state. During my trip to Taiwan this past summer, I was

amazed how concerned people I met were about the US nullifying the UN resolution by

going into Iraq. This was a largely muted issue in America as the media was mobilized to

back “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

An empire often has weaker, allied if not subject nations.

The Aztec empire did not administer the lands it conquered. Rather these states were

subjugated by tribute, and acted in addition as cushion states against the outside. Most all

empires have a core region or nationality and the outlying territories act as buffer zones

to enemy attack. It was very obvious during the era of the Soviet Union that Russia was

the main power and its surrounding allied nations existed as an extension of its power.

An empire often has a cultural influence which extends far beyond official

political. borders.

One of the most famous Coca-Cola commercials depicts a truck dropping off a cooler full

of the drink to a rural African village. McDonald’s Golden Arches, movies, American

culture is exported everywhere, and whether or not the local populace agrees with

American politics and foreign policy, almost the entire world enjoys and to some degree

desires to emulate American culture. In Roman times, the officials of outlying territories

built coliseums, amphitheaters, and Roman style villas, as well as dressed like Roman

aristocracy. Most of the languages of East Asia have origins that can be traced to some

form of Chinese dialect. When a nation is strong, its appeal is in its power.

An empire often has a vast mobilizing ability and thus commands greater

productivity.

An empire has enough diversity that it can call on diverse resources to achieve a goal

most efficiently. Whether driven by ideological, economic, military, or political forces,

all empires in history have arisen due to a disparity between a state’s tactical capabilities

and its opponents. This disparity often arises from technology and a greater ability to

organize. Starting from the Hittite army conquering Egypt with iron versus bronze

weapons to the Roman empire mercilessly stomping out the ‘barbarians’ with catapults

and legionnaires to modern day America firing cruise missiles into Iraq for nearly a

month until the ground troops aided by GPS and laptops went in, technological/logistical

ability is what allows an empire to exert its will.

Today, especially due to globalization and the electronic age, it no longer makes

sense to define imperialism as something necessitating force. Imperialism can be defined

as broadly as one country imposing will upon another. We can say that imperialism has to

do with extension of beliefs onto foreigners, cultural assimilation and economic

integration. The last sentence sounds a lot like the effects of globalization, one topic that

will be touched upon later.

Is imperialism bad? That question is highly debatable, and it is an important

question because the word imperialism has only recently taken on a negative context. It is

used to describe a country behaving like a bully towards other states, but Frank Furedi in

his book New Ideology of Imperialism points out that not long ago, “the moral claims of

imperialism were seldom questioned in the west. Imperialism and the global expansion of

the western powers were represented in unambiguously positive terms as a major

contributor to human civilization" The United States exhibits imperialistic behavior

arising from the need to protect interests. But without regard, this behavior is disrupts

regional stability around the world. Still, US imperialism is not as malicious as some

critics would make it out to be, rather it seems to be a natural extension of power;

America’s meddling in the affairs of others is no different from what any strongman in a

position of power would do in his own interests.

Is American Imperialism Different?

It has long been a tradition of American historians to prove that American

intentions are not imperialistic. Joseph Schumpeter, in his 1919 article “Imperialism as a

social atavism,” defines it as “the objectless disposition on the part of the state to

unlimited forcible expansion.” This definition has two points worth mentioning. One, that

imperialism must be objectless. Two, that the expansion is forcible, which Schumpeter

later clarifies as military force. Marray Greene comments 35 years later: “[Schumpeter]

develops a very specialized definition of imperialism which he then expounds with

references to certain selected societies in history. He also sets up a very specialized

definition of capitalism, which he then shows to be inconsistene with his definition of

imperialism, thereby ‘proving’ that capitalism is anti-imperialist.” What exactly are the

intentions of America?

Ernest May points out: “Instead of seeking, like European powers, to shut other

nations out of colonial areas, the United States worked to insure that Americans were not

excluded. Although this goal sometimes required acquisition of islands, since bases were

needed both for trade and for the exercise of political and military influence, it did not

require assumption of larger administrative responsibilities. Americans, by their

competitive superiority, could achieve economic dominance without taking on such

burdens.” In other words, May argues that the main reason why American imperialism

did not take the form of conquering and holding land was that there was that cost-benefit

analysis would provide more profit if the nations in question retained political autonomy

yet opened their borders to trade with America. It is simply more advantageous for a

capitalist society to secure the flow of trade (by breaking down barriers and raising our

own tariffs as seen fit) rather than to secure land; the latter was indeed the mentality of a

feudalistic society, the claiming of earth for little more than just that.

Criticisms of American DemocracyThroughout the first half of the twentieth century, the case of America’s success

exemplified how democracy was indeed the superior form of government in a modern,

industrialized world. During this time period, various international crises, world wars,

and economic developments tested the strength of America’s democracy, for democracy

in America may have passed all of these tests, but by what means? In other words, did

these developments reveal any vulnerabilities and inconsistencies of American

democracy? Charles Sumner, in “The Bequests of the Nineteenth Century to the

Twentieth,” criticizes American democracy for entrusting the uneducated people with too

much power, for Sumner views the masses in a negative light, referring to them as “a

mythological product with no definition” (Sumner, 216). Forty-five years later (1946),

during the birth of the Cold War, Nikolai Novikov, a Soviet ambassador to the United

States, criticizes American democracy for its imperialist tendencies and monopolistic

capitalism. He suggests that America’s form of governance is in reality not democratic at

all, for how can a country claim to be democratic and yet seek world domination? Lastly,

Servan-Schreiber, in The American Challenge, points out many inconsistencies within

American democracy that are mostly aimed at imperialist expansionism and self-

interested, capitalist globalization. All of these critiques of American democracy share a

common foundation, an element that has sustained nearly 70 years of history (1901-

1968), and that is the element of hypocrisy in American policies. All three authors

elaborate upon the hypocrisy of American democracy, for this foundation for criticism

branches out to a plethora of weaknesses such as imperialism, yellow journalism, and

monopolistic expansion.

By analyzing these critiques in a chronological order, starting with Sumner and

ending with Servan-Schreiber, we can see how American democracy has been

hypocritical in terms of foreign policy. By definition, democratic form of governance

stands for freedom, liberty, and equality, but according to these criteria, American foreign

policy in the early twentieth century was far from “democratic” and more like

imperialistic. During William Sumner’s time, the Spanish-American War and Philippine

Revolution were major concerns for American foreign policy. America surely did not

implement a democratic policy because American troops brutally massacred Spanish

troops in Cuba in order to protect their Latin American interests during the Spanish-

American War (Kennedy, The United States in 1900, 4/4/02). Sumner criticizes this

hypocritical action by stating, “Democracy assumes that numbers have a right in the

natures of things to rule. Of course, that is entirely untrue. There is nobody who, in the

nature of things, ought to rule” (Sumner, 218). Thus, Sumner condemns the American

interventionist policy that incited a revolt in the Philippines and protected interests in

Latin America because these imperialist actions sharply contrast with democratic

principles. These two incidents at the turn of the century exemplified how American

ideology was one of a “might is right” rule, where American democracy meant

intervening in foreign affairs simply because America was stronger, which is contrary to

the true meaning of democracy that is focused on peace and equality, not war and

revolution.

Imperialism and the Cold War

Nikolai Novikov also lambastes American foreign policy by accusing the United

States of preparing for world domination. Like Sumner, Novikov finds the hypocritical

element in America’s democracy, but Novikov uses objective facts and figures to support

his claim. During Novikov’s time, America was increasing expenditures on the army and

navy, building nearly 500 new bases in the Atlantic and Pacific, and dispatching naval

vessels throughout major European ports. All of these actions taken by the United States

signaled the beginning of the Cold War. Novikov reacts by declaring, “All of these facts

show clearly that a decisive role in the realization of plans for world dominance by the

United States is played by its armed forces” (Novikov, 402). Another example of

hypocrisy in American democracy was the policy towards the USSR during the post

WWII period. According to Novikov, the United States was acting contrary to

democratic principles by creating obstacles for the process of democratization in

neighboring countries to the USSR. Novikov states, “Such a policy is intended to

weaken and overthrow the democratic government in power there, which are friendly

toward the USSR, and replace them in the future with new governments that would

obediently carry out a policy dictated by the US” (Novikov, 403). If American foreign

policy were truly democratic, why would the American government want to inhibit the

spread of democracy? How can America preach for the spread of democracy in the

world, while America herself is trying to prevent democratization in other countries? All

in all, Novikov highlights the tension between expanding military forces and American

democracy, for world domination and democracy do not go hand in hand. Therefore, one

must conclude that American post WWII foreign policy was actually the antithesis of

democracy and resembled imperialist tendencies.

Economic Imperialism in France

Twenty-two years later (1968), Servan-Schreiber denounces American democracy

in a whole new light by writing from a technological and cultural standpoint, as opposed

to the military one taken by both Sumner and Novikov. Servan-Schreiber believed that

American industry in the 1960’s acted in imperialist ways by restraining French

creativity, technology, and culture. He writes, “A nation holding a monopoly of power

would look on imperialism as a kind of duty, and would take its own success as proof that

the rest of the world should follow its example” (Schreiber, 102). This sort of

“Americanization” conflicts with democracy, for democracy is supposed to support the

freedom of ideas and culture. Therefore, American interests in France during the 1960’s

presents a type of imperialism that exploited French resources during their time of

reconstruction.

Another element of hypocrisy that can be traced through America’s form of

democracy is the idea of the mass media and how it degraded into propaganda and yellow

journalism. Alexis de Tocqueville writes in Democracy in America, “the power of

newspapers must therefore grow as democracy spreads” (Tocqueville, 520). Over time,

Tocqueville’s statement proved to be valid, for newspapers during twentieth century

America wielded enormous power, but would this power have positive or negative effects

on democracy? By definition, “democracy,” derived from the Greek word “demos”

meaning “people”, is supposed to represent the views of the people. According to this

definition then, Sumner proscribes that American journalism was the contraposition of

democracy, for newspapers were sensationalist and not representative of the true public

opinion. He writes, “The newspapers are, according to the conditions of the case, forced

to catch everything as it flies” (Sumner, 227). This statement refers to the yellow

journalism of Hearst and Pulitzer that utilized sensationalist headlines to heighten

tensions during the Spanish-American War in 1898 (Kennedy, America in 1900, 4/4/02).

During the turn of the century, newspapers conflicted with American democracy because

by definition, democracy is supposed to represent the views of the people, but yet, yellow

journalism only represented sensationalist views and war propaganda.

America continued with their undemocratic press well into the post WWII era, for

Novikov criticizes the American press for representing slanted anti-soviet sentiments.

Novikov asserts, “The basic goal of this yellow American press is to exert political

pressure on the Soviet Union and compel it to make concessions” (Novikov, 403). He

continues to discuss how the American press created a war psychosis among the masses.

Therefore, Novikov and Sumner both view the American press as a tool for brainwashing

the public and creating a sensationalist atmosphere; both of these critiques point out the

hypocritical element in American journalism, for America’s press in the early twentieth

century did not follow democratic principles.

The final hypocritical element found in America’s practice of democracy is the

idea of capitalism and monopolistic expansion. Sumner shows great concern for the

balance between economic policy and democracy, for he states, “The contest of

democracy is the contest between the economic power and opportunity mentioned at the

outset and the political conditions under which it must be carried on” (Sumner, 231).

During Sumner’s time, the American government was starting to intervene in economic

affairs by instituting the Interstate Commerce Commission and acting against previous

Laissez-Faire policies. These actions concerned Sumner, who regarded government

intervention in the economic sphere as undemocratic. For Sumner, democracy meant

Free Trade and the right to own and trade property without government rules and

regulations; however, American policies at that time were taking a “trust-busting”

attitude, an attitude that was criticized by Sumner as being undemocratic.

Did America continue its interventionist, monopolistic policy into the post WWII

era? According to Servan-Schreiber, America is guilty of hypocrisy from an economic

point of view. Schreiber asserts, “If the first criticism is that the Americans dry up the

capital market, the second is that they force salary hikes because they offer higher wages”

(Schreiber, 23). Thus, does invading an economically unstable country during a time of

reconstruction and forcing higher prices and wages for self-interested, monetary gain

adhere to democratic principles? This is exactly what America did in the 1960’s to the

French market and industry. Moreover, America’s free trade policy only benefited the

US, for Schreiber protests, “the free exchange policy opens an enormous free trade zone

and an industrial market of global scope to American industry, but where in all this is

there any sign of European power?” (Schreiber, 104).

During Schreiber’s time, the Marshall Plan had rebuilt France by setting up

American industries using French capital, and the Treaty of Rome had established free

and fair trade for the new European Common Market (Sheehan, 4/30/02). However,

America’s monopoly on technology, creativity, and industry exploited French resources

and workers, thus displaying the inconsistency between American expansion and

democracy, for democracy means free and fair trade, not the exploitation of a weaker

nation for economic gain.

Over the time period from 1901 to 1968, democracy in the United States sustained

serious criticisms in regards to foreign policy, media, and capitalism; all of these

criticisms shared the common foundation of hypocrisy, the idea of representing and

preaching a specific principle in theory, but in reality, acting contrary to that principle.

The criticisms raised by Sumner, Servan-Schreiber, and Novikov exemplify how even the

most powerful, stable country under a democratic form of government is susceptible to

weaknesses and hypocrisy in their practice of democratic principles. Nonetheless, no

country under a democratic form of government is perfect, for even with all the criticisms

of imperialism, yellow journalism, and monopolistic expansion, America remained the

paramount showcase for the success of democracy in a modern, industrialized world.

American Foreign Policy: The Savior, the Restorer,

the IMPERIALIST

In the twentieth century, American foreign policy took on many different roles,

each interdependent of the other. During World War I and World War II, democratic

nations around the world called for American assistance in the fight against world

domination; American foreign policy assumed the role as the Savior, the Savior of

democracy, freedom, and peace. Compared to other countries in Europe and Asia, the

US remained unharmed and actually benefited from the destruction of World War II, for

America was able to boost her economy out of depression through wartime production.

As countries such as Germany, Japan, and France lay crippled and ruined, American

foreign policy took on the responsibility of rebuilding these countries through the

Marshall Plan and investments in industry; American foreign policy assumed the role as

the Restorer, the Restorer of industry and economy. Why did America assume these

roles as the Savior and the Restorer? Moreover, in playing these roles, did American

foreign policy act in Imperialist ways? These questions can be answered by analyzing

the causes and developments of the Cold War in chronological order. All in all, America

took on these roles to provide for American self-interest, self-preservation, and economic

expansion, and in doing so, America contracted the label as the Imperialist.

America the Savior

Beginning in 1914, World War I presented the first serious challenge to

democracy. As Germany began mobilizing troops throughout Europe, powering through

neutral countries such as Belgium, America began to take action by sending allies such as

England and France war supplies. In 1917, German U-boats sank the Lusitania, a US

merchant ship carrying war supplies to Britain. America responded by taking further

action and declaring war against Germany. In his war address to congress, Woodrow

Wilson asserted that America needed to be the protector of democracy and freedom; he

took on the role of the Savior. He states, “Our motive will not be revenge or the

victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right,

of human right, which we are only a single champion” (Wilson, 8). Hence, Wilson

desired to bear the responsibility of protecting humanity by championing human rights,

not by seeking retribution against the oppressors. He continues by declaring:

The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted

upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to

serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for

ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely

make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind (14).

Wilson makes his mission statement to protect the world from tyranny and to spread the

principles of democracy, thus acquiring the role as the Savior of democracy. More

importantly, Wilson affirms that America is not entering the war for personal gain, but is

entering to protect mankind. World War I showed how America first took on the role of

the Savior of democracy with no hidden motives or self-interests, but would this change

with the culmination of World War II?

With the outbreak of World War II in 1939, America was once again called to

save the world from domination. Hitler had already marched through Poland, France,

and Belgium while England was barely holding her ground against German bombings—

democracy in Europe was in danger. America first took only a small part as the Savior,

for foreign policy dictated that only ammunition and supplies would be sent, no troops.

In his annual address to congress, Franklin Roosevelt suggests that America should not

send men, but weapons of defense. He asserts, “They do not need man power, but they

do need billions of dollars worth of the weapons of defense” (FDR, 668). Thus, America

did not take full responsibility as the Savior, for the president did not want to send any

troops, only supplies. This self-protection and lack of full effort shows how America

would not enter World War II unless her own territory was in immediate danger.

Moreover, Henry Luce, the author of The American Century, declares that

America has a duty to serve and that America must uphold the role of the Savior. Luce

understands that America does not want to be involved in the war, for he proscribes “If

there’s one place we Americans did not want to be; it was in the war. We didn’t want

much to be in any kind of war but, if there was one kind of war we most of all didn’t

want to be in, it was a European war” (Luce, 2). He also criticizes America for not fully

taking leadership and responsibility in the world, for he writes, “America has refused to

rise to the opportunities of leadership in the world” (Luce, 5). Thus, Luce advocates

American involvement in World War II because he believes America must respond, take

action, and be the Savior for democracy.

Luce’s declaration for American involvement begs the question: why must

America assume the role as the Savior? Luce gives a powerful answer to this question,

for he commands, “we must accept whole heartedly our duty and our opportunity as the

most powerful and vital nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world

the full impact of our influence, for such purposes we see fit and by such means we see

fit” (Luce, 7). This bold statement explains, according to Luce, why America should take

on the role as the Savior—America is the most powerful country in the world, so

America should act like it. Moreover, Luce commands, “America is responsible, to

herself as well as to history, for the world-environment in which she lives” (Luce, 7). All

in all, we can conclude from Luce’s argument that America should assume the role as the

Savior because America is the most powerful nation in the world, and therefore, has a

responsibility to rescue the world from tyranny.

How did American foreign policy react to Luce’s bold commands? Later in the

year of 1941, Congress issued the Lend-Lease Act, which granted the president the

authority to lend large sums of money to England, which in turn, could purchase war

supplies from the US (Kennedy, American Democracy at War, 4/23/02). The Lend-

Lease Act was a large step towards entering the war, but America still remained officially

out of World War II and thus not fulfilling her duty as the Savior. It would take an actual

attack on American soil to impel the US into War World II. Japan’s attack of Pearl

Harbor on December 7, 1941 propelled the United States into war because the attack was

made on American soil and killed American citizens. This was the final straw for the US,

for FDR and congress made a declaration of war against Japan the next day, December 8

(Kennedy, American Democracy at War, 4/23/02). Thus, America’s motivation behind

entering the war was not only based on aiding desperate allies, but also based on revenge

and self-protectionism.

America clearly entered the war for self-interest and self-gain, for Congress knew

that war production would help lower unemployment and boost the economy, which was

in a depression. Also, since the US had no economic interests in Asia, no materials or

supplies were sent there, as opposed to the billions of dollars sent to Europe. The

Atlantic Charter (1941), which became the cornerstone of Allied war aims, contained

points that were specifically catered to United States economic interests. For example,

the fifth point reads, “Fifth, we desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all

nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor

standards, economic advancement, and social security” (FDR, 348). Another point that

illustrates how America’s entrance into the war was based on selfish motives states,

“Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans

without hindrance” (FDR, 348). The concept of freedom of the seas clearly benefits the

US, who would gain the most from open trade. In summation, all of these points prove

that America’s involvement in World War II was not entirely based on saving the world

for democracy (acting as the Savior), for America entered the war for economic interests

and retribution against Japan. Therefore, America’s role as the Savior mostly resulted

from America’s pursuit of self-interest and retaliation, not from the desire to secure the

world for democracy and freedom. More importantly, the concepts of freedom of the

seas and free trade, which are harbingers of the Cold War, represent imperialist policies

that will be discussed later in the essay.

America the Restorer

By looking at American reconstruction plans in chronological order, starting with

the Fourteen Points (1919) and ending with French reconstruction (1968), we can see

how America’s role as the Restorer came about and how this role evolved. Woodrow

Wilson’s Fourteen Points, issued at the end of World War I, was intended to restore

peace to Europe and prevent the occurrence of another world war. Thus, these Fourteen

Points signify America’s role as the Restorer of peace and economic stability. However,

some points have shades of imperialism, for they only cater towards American economic

interests. For example, point number II reads “Absolute freedom of navigation upon the

seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war” (Wilson, 159). The concept of

freedom of the sees primarily benefits the US, since America has the largest trade

industry. Therefore, beginning with post World War I restoration in 1919, America

already took advantage of their role as the Restorer by employing policies that were

intended to benefit themselves.

Another reconstruction plan that satisfied American economic interests was the

Marshall Plan. The mass destruction of World War II left Europe in ruin, so the United

States issued the Marshall Plan in 1947 to foster European growth and recovery

(Sheehan, The War in Europe, 4/25/02). However, the Marshall Plan helped the US

economy as well, for the money loaned by the US to European countries was used to

purchase goods from the US. Once again, America found a way to act as the Restorer of

the economy while also satisfying her own economic interests.

Where can we draw the line between American reconstruction and American

imperialist expansion? America continued its monopolistic expansion in Europe,

particularly France, well after the adoption of the Marshall Plan. Servan-Schreiber, in his

book The American Challenge, denounces American economic investments in France

from a cultural and technological standpoint. He accepts the fact that America has played

the part of the Restorer by restoring French industry; however, Servan-Schreiber argues

that American investments have turned monopolistic and evolved into imperialist

expansion, for these investments restrained French creativity, technology, and culture.

He writes, “A nation holding a monopoly of power would look on imperialism as a kind

of duty, and would take its own success as proof that the rest of the world should follow

its example” (Schreiber, 102). Servan-Schreiber explains America’s actions by stating,

“It is a historical rule that politically and economically powerful countries make direct

investments (and gain control) in less-developed countries” (Schreiber, 12). Therefore,

American interests in France during the 1960’s present a type of imperialism that

exploited French resources during their time of reconstruction. In general, American

foreign policy crossed the line between helpful reconstruction (the Restorer) and harmful

imperialist expansion (the Imperialist).

America the IMPERIALIST

Now that we have evaluated the trends of American foreign policy and how

America played the role of the Savior and the Restorer, we can see how these roles

transformed into imperialist policies. As noted earlier, free trade and freedom of the seas

clearly favor America in terms of economic profits and gains. Servan-Schreiber

acknowledges this by stating, “the free exchange policy opens an enormous free trade

zone and an industrial market of global scope to American industry, but where in all this

is there any sign of European power?” (Schreiber, 104). These concepts brought forth by

Wilson’s Fourteen Points and revisited by the Atlantic Charter display America’s shift

towards Imperialist policy over the years.

The roots of the Cold War highlight this shift from the Savior and the Restorer to

the Imperialist. The Yalta Conference of February 1945 brought together Churchill,

Roosevelt, and Stalin and divided Germany into three parts. Charles de Gaulle, the

French Prime Minister in the 1960’s, stated that the Yalta Conference started the Cold

Way by dividing the world into two powers—USSR and US. He writes, “Since Yalta,

the global game has been restricted to two partners. But ever since these two hegemonic

powers divided the world into two camps, liberty, equality, and fraternity have found no

place” (de Gaulle, 228). Thus, as America was partaking in her role as the Restorer, she

ended up becoming an Imperialist by attempting to divide the world between herself and

the Soviet Union. This division started the Cold War, and as de Gaulle noted, impeded

on French culture and liberty.

Lastly and most importantly, Nikolai Novikov, a Soviet ambassador to the US,

declares that America is preparing for world domination. On September 27, 1946

Novikov sent a telegram to the Soviet foreign ministry warning the Soviet Union of

American Imperialism (Kennedy, The US, Cold War, and the American Diplomatic

Tradition, 5/2/02). Novikov opens his telegram by stating, “The foreign policy of the

United States, which reflects the imperialist tendencies of American monopolistic capital,

is characterized in the postwar period by a striving for world supremacy” (Novikov, 401).

This quotation ties together the roles that American foreign policy has taken on since post

World War II; America’s monopolistic expansion (the Restorer) reflects imperialist

tendencies (the Imperialist).

Starting from World War I and ending with the Cold war, American foreign

policy appeared to have good intentions by acting as the Savior and the Restorer in many

instances. However, as time passed and the Cold war emerged, American foreign policy

shifted towards imperialist tendencies which consisted of tailoring plans towards

American interests, entering WWII only to retaliate against Japan, and investing in

France through monopolistic expansion. America did indeed save the world for

democracy and restore economic stability in Europe; however, in doing so, America

abused her role as the Savior and the Restorer and thus acquired the label as the

Imperialist.

Globalization and Its Challenge to Democracy

Benjamin Barber, in his article Jihad vs. McWorld, suggests that the two axial

principals of our age—tribalism and globalism—clash at every point except one: they

may both be threatening to democracy. Barber’s discussion of “Jihad” presents a

social/cultural outlook on globalization, while his presentation of “McWorld” illustrates

an economic point of view. Samuel Huntington, in The Class of Civilizations, views

globalization from a cultural angle, suggesting that the fundamental source of conflict in

the new world will be cultural, not ideological or economic. Taken together, Barber and

Huntington offer a window on the status of the debate over democracy and its standing in

the world from the end of the Cold War to the present. But how was globalization

viewed during and before the Cold War? Moreover, how have these views changed over

the past fifty years? Servan-Schreiber, in his novel The American Challenge (1968),

confronts globalization or “Americanization” from an economic standpoint, criticizing

America for its imperialist, monopolistic expansion in France. Lastly, Nikolai Novikov,

a Soviet ambassador to the United States, declares in a telegram sent to the USSR that

American globalization is actually an effort to establish world dominance. All in all, by

analyzing these four texts, each written from a different perspective (social, political, or

economic), we can see how the term globalization has evolved from the Cold War to

present day.

During the start of the Cold War in the late 1940’s, America was increasing

expenditures on the army and navy, building nearly 500 new bases in the Atlantic and

Pacific, and dispatching naval vessels throughout major European ports. All of these

actions taken by the United States signaled the beginning of the Cold War. Novikov,

who presents a political view of globalization, reacts by declaring, “All of these facts

show clearly that a decisive role in the realization of plans for world dominance by the

United States is played by its armed forces” (Novikov, 402). According to Novikov,

globalization really meant imperialism and world dominance by the United States. Thus,

globalization could not have represented an opportunity for the historic project of

democracy. Novikov states, “The United States attempts, at various international

conferences or directly in these countries themselves, to support reactionary forces with

the purpose of creating obstacles to the process of democratization of these countries”

(Novikov, 402). On the whole, Novikov views American globalization as an obstacle to

democracy and not on opportunity for democracy.

Twenty-two years later (1968), Servan-Schreiber states that American industry in

the 1960’s acted in imperialist ways by restraining French creativity, technology, and

culture. He writes, “A nation holding a monopoly of power would look on imperialism

as a kind of duty, and would take its own success as proof that the rest of the world

should follow its example” (Schreiber, 102). This sort of “Americanization” conflicts

with democracy, for democracy is supposed to support the freedom of ideas and culture.

Therefore, American interests in France during the 1960’s represent a type of imperialism

that exploited French resources during their time of reconstruction. According to Servan-

Schreiber, globalization was actually an “Americanization” of industry and technology,

for American monopolistic expansion inhibited technological creativity and democracy.

Moreover, Charles de Gaulle, the President of France during the 1960’s, declared that

“Americanization” infiltrated French culture and society

Novikov and Servan-Schreiber present social, economic, and political views on

globalization during the Cold War era in which they regard American foreign policy as

imperialistic. Clearly, globalization could not present an opportunity for democracy if

American foreign policy during the Cold War was acting in imperialist ways and

hindering the spread of democracy, but would this version of globalization change with

the dissipation of the Cold War?

According to Benjamin Barber and Samuel Huntington, old ideological conflicts

have declined while globalization has increased. Barber explicitly states, “neither Jihad

nor McWorld offers much hope to citizens looking for practical ways to govern

themselves democratically” (Barber, 1). He uses the term “McWorld” to describe the

globalization of politics in the new world (post Cold War) and breaks them down into

four imperatives: market, resource, information-technology, and ecological. These

imperatives have in combination achieved a considerable victory over factiousness and

not least of all over the most virulent tradition form—nationalism. All in all, Barber

views globalization as an integration and uniformity of economic and ecological forces,

all of which challenge democracy.

Samuel Huntington discusses globalization from a cultural perspective, proposing

that the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict in the

new world will be cultural. He hypothesizes, “Nation states will remain the most

powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur

between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will

dominate global politics” (Huntington, 22). According to Huntington, Western

civilizations will remain at distance from non-Western civilizations due to differences in

values and morals; this schism reveals how globalization and democracy do not mix.

In summation, all four of the authors regard globalization as an only an obstacle

to democracy and in no instance view globalization as “an opportunity for the historic

project of democracy.” Servan-Schreiber and Novikov define globalization as an

American imperialist act, while Barber and Huntington offer modern descriptions of

globalization. This evolution of the term “globalization” from the Cold War to present

day has nonetheless been consistent in suggesting that globalization threatens democracy.

One proof of globalization in the 19th century is the massive increase in world

trade from 1840-1880. Since world trade in the 19th century increased more than 500%,

countries were beginning to “globalize” and expand industry across the entire world

(Kennedy, The Age of Imperialism, 3/7/02). Dating back to 1848 and Karl Marx’s

Communist Manifesto, globalization was viewed from a negative light, for Marx

considered it a tool that the bourgeoisie used to suppress the proletariat. He writes, “The

bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan

character to production and consumption in every country. The bourgeoisie, by the rapid

movement of all instruments of production, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations

into civilization” (Marx, 69). Fifty years later (1899), Joseph Conrad in his novel Heart

of Darkness, criticizes British Imperialism for corrupting society and civilization. This

form of “globalization” consisted of British forces taking control of the “dark” places

around the world, mostly in Africa. During Conrad’s time, European powers had divided

up Africa into economic spheres at the Berlin Conference (1885). This conference

displayed how imperialism was in a sense globalization because the continent of Africa

was being amalgamated into European industry. All in all, globalization, which initially

started in the form of imperialism, is not a novel concept, for it was discussed and

criticized by 19th century authors and political theorists; thus, the point about the antiquity

of globalization is valid.

By looking at specific democratic nations such as the United States and France,

we can see how democracy has changed along with the dynamic international

environment. Globalization, cultural clashes, and new technology have all created a

complex world filled with constant conflict and controversy. In the case of America,

Charles Sumner, in his Bequests of the Nineteenth Century, suggests that democracy has

evolved and created conflict between politics and economics. Sumner states, “The

evolution of democracy bequeaths to the twentieth century a great degree of social

confusion, both in ideas and in institutions, which is due to the maladjustment between

the industrial system and the political system” (Sumner, 235). Sumner’s statement

characterizes how towards the end of the 19th century, increased focus on industry created

more complicated tensions within democratic states, especially the United States.

In the case of France, another democratic nation-state that has adapted to an

increasingly complicated international scene, Servan-Schreiber states that France must

find ways to be self-sufficient and less dependent on American investments. He suggests

that the world has become progressively more complex due to advancements in

technology, for he devotes a whole chapter of The American Challenge to the World of

Computers (Chapter X). Schreiber predicts, “The changes in information transfer

processes are too radical for the present generation in management to feel comfortable

with…we will be forced to readjust ourselves continually to change” (Servan-Schreiber,

98). Thus, Servan-Schreiber recognizes that technology will continue to cause constant

change in the international scene, and that France must “readjust” to meet these changes.

Both Benjamin Barber and Samuel Huntington believe that historic experience

will be important in the future; however, both authors argue that cultural and economic

differences will be the cause for conflict in the future. In Jihad vs. McWorld Barber

states that using historical documents and events can help prepare for the future, for he

writes, “Recommended reading for democrats of the twenty-first century is not the US.

Constitution or the French Declaration of Right of Man, but the Articles of

Confederation” (Barber, 63). This suggestion shows how Barber understands the

importance of history and how historic experience can be used to look into the twenty-

first century.

Samuel Huntington also believes that history will be relevant in the future,

especially in his discussion about Western civilizations diverging from Non-Western

civilizations. Huntington argues that this divergence is caused by historical differences in

culture and values, for he writes, “Non-Western civilizations will continue to attempt to

acquire the wealth, technology, skills, machines and weapons that are part of being

modern. They will also attempt to reconcile this modernity with their traditional culture

and values” (Huntington, 49). Therefore, it is clear that Barber and Huntington concur on

the notion that historic experience will prove relevant in the future, for they both use

historical examples in their writings and both understand the importance of history.

Given Barber and Huntington’s outlook on globalization, tribalism, and culture,

what can we expect in the future? Huntington states that the West will increasingly have

to accommodate to Non-Western civilizations whose power approaches that of the West

but whose values and interests differ significantly from the West. Barber advises us to

“Think globally, act locally” and encourages the union of semi-autonomous communities

smaller than nation-states, tied together into regional economic associations and markets

larger than nation states (Barber, 63). For the relevant future, there will be no universal

civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn

to coexist with others; thus, we need history to understand and learn how to coexist with

civilizations with different values and cultures.

In summation, we have analyzed this detailed statement about globalization from

social, political, and economic perspectives. We have also looked at the evolution of the

term globalization (Cold War vs. present day) and its connection with the imperialism of

the 19th century. More importantly we have seen how globalization has presented a

challenge to democracy and will continue to raise conflict and controversy in the future.

Wal-Mart’s Global Retail Market Domination

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, has a 37.7 percent stake in the

supermarket chain Seiyu, the operator of Japanese stores and 400 others nationwide.

Despite the $6.4 million remodeling of the flagship store, the Wal-Mart name is nowhere

to be seen. Moreover, there isn't a single Super Center in Japan, and Wal-Mart officials

say they may never open one here.

Wal-Mart has arrived in Japan, but it's making its entrance cautiously and

stealthily. The retailer, based in Bentonville, Ark., studied Japan for several years and

concluded it was a complex market best penetrated under an alliance with a local partner

that understood Japanese shoppers. So it took a stake in Seiyu last year. Wal-Mart, which

operates in 10 nations besides the United States, has adapted its approach to different

markets, making itself more visible with Wal-Mart stores in places such as China, while

taking a lower profile in Mexico and Britain, where it has chosen partners as it has in

Japan. But nowhere else is the total invisibility of Wal-Mart quite as clear as in Japan, the

world's second-largest economy.

Many Seiyu stores have yet to get a makeover. The flagship store has introduced

Wal-Mart's price rollbacks, discounts that run for an extended time, but it has yet to carry

out Wal-Mart's most basic concept, everyday low prices. Everyday low prices rely on the

advantage of cost cuts that come from global suppliers and from Wal-Mart's sheer buying

power, with about 4,700 worldwide stores. Wal-Mart is bringing its technological know-

how to Japan, introducing a computerized system to track inventory and purchases to

boost efficiency and trim costs at Seiyu.

On March 14, 2003 when Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced its first foray into

Japan, the retailing giant placed a big bet that it could succeed where countless other

foreign companies have failed. In the past five years, a number of famous Western brands

have been forced to close up shop after failing to catch on in Japan, one of the world's

largest and fickle consumer markets.

After some embarrassing setbacks in Hong Kong and Indonesia last decade, Wal-

Mart is learning to adapt to local conditions. Indeed, Wal-Mart needs to get it right

overseas because sales growth is flattening out at home. Wal-Mart's international sales

grew 10.5% last year, to about $35.5 billion, or 16% of total sales. Operating profit from

those sales surged 31%, to $1.46 billion. And the company expects international

operations to contribute a third of its sales and profit growth in the next three to five

years.

Thus far, much of Wal-Mart's overseas growth has come from Britain, Canada,

and Mexico. Wal-Mart's Asia business is growing steadily, even if profits remain elusive.

While Wal-Mart failed to gain traction in Hong Kong in the 1990s, it is making gains in

China, where it now has 19 stores. In Korea, where the company already has nine stores,

Wal-Mart ran into unexpectedly robust competition from local retailers, but it hopes to

break even next year. It aims to open five more stores in 2002.

Much depends on whether Seiyu turns out to be a good partner. The 39-year-old

retailer is a member of the Seibu Saison retail group. It also has deep ties to trading house

Sumitomo Corporation, which will take a 15% stake in the venture with Wal-Mart.

Perhaps the best thing that can be said of Seiyu's over 400 stores is that they're not as

deeply troubled as other local retailers. Seiyu is burdened by big debt, but the underlying

business at Japan's fifth-largest supermarket chain remains profitable.

The Middle East

“The unread news today is that the ‘war against terrorism’ is being exploited in order to

achieve objectives that consolidate American power. These include: the bribing and

subjugation of corrupt and vulnerable governments in former Soviet central Asia, crucial

for American expansion in the region and exploitation of the last untapped reserves of oil

and gas in the world; the expansion of the American arms industry; and the speeding up

of trade liberalisation.” –John Pilger, A War in The American Tradition

With the explosion of the petroleum industry in the late 19th century and the

subsequent discover of resources in the Middle East, oil was the primary interest pursued

by western powers dominating the Middle East in the early part of the 20th century. After

the Ottoman Empire collapsed following World War I, Britain and France rushed to

claim territory in the region. Many developments sponsored by European capital were

geared towards the petroleum industry and the infrastructure to support it, such as

railroads and shipping ports. In addition “[the petroleum industry] was accompanied by

the destruction of native industry in textiles and other sectors of the economy and the

subjugation of the local population to the dictates of the Western powers.” (Berberoglu 2)

One aspect of American imperialism that gets chronically under-reported is the

American trade deficit and the way the American government goes about to finance and

manipulate it. No where is this more apparent than in the Middle East, which contains

over half of the world’s oil reserves and is a critical resource to literally fuel the

American machine. Many of the countries in the region, in particular Saudi Arabia, own

large amounts of US government bonds. The Saudi royal family is just one of the entities

throughout the world for which American support is a substantial, if not crucial factor in

their ability to hold onto power. (Ahmed) The Saudis sell oil to America, earning

American cash from the companies that import oil such as Exxon. This of course creates

a large trade deficit, as the quantity of petroleum exported from these countries is huge.

The Saudis, as well as many other nations, then use the earned cash to buy US bonds and

hold onto them indefinitely such that they are not be sold. In fact, the threat to sell those

bonds, impacting the value of the dollar and bond prices, are a option available to smaller

countries in gaining leverage against America. There have been many reports of this type

of talk between the US and Saudi governments, such as when the Saudi’s threatened to

sell bonds if America invaded Iraq. (Ahmed) It is of course an exaggeration to say that

this is all American imperialism squeezing other countries resources and forcing them to

buy bonds, since numerous countries and foreigners buy US government bonds

voluntarily b/c our currency is highly stable and widely used. Also, bonds are used by all

kinds of entities to raise money. However, the fact cannot be escaped that this system

allowing America to make up for the trade deficit is effectively allow America to use the

resources of other countries practically for free. The indirect exchange of bonds for oil

boils down to import oil into the US in exchange for a pile of paper. Foreign ownership

of US government bonds has been on the rise. On November 3rd, 2003, it reached a new

benchmark: one trillion dollars, or a full 10 percent of US gross domestic product. (CNN)

In addition, foreigners also hold roughly one-third of US treasury securities. (Gold Eagle)

On a related note about oil, it is curious to note that Iraq is also one of the top reserves of

oil in the world. Could the American affairs with Iraq have something to do with oil?

On 2330 hours GMT, the 16th of January, 1991. President Bush ordered the allied forces

to bomb Baghdad, signaling the start of Operation Desert Storm. The operation was

billed as a rescue to the Kuwaiti people. However, for years Saddam Hussein had been

sponsoring atrocities against the Kurdish nationality in the north of Iraq. What the US

invasion really did was send a message to Saddam: Don’t mess with our supplies of oil.

After beating back the Iraqi army and chastising Saddam Hussein about his human rights

abuses, America imposed sanctions on Iraq and backed out. March 20th 2003, President

GW Bush leads a "coalition of the willing" into Iraq with the aim of ousting Saddam

Hussein from power. A year earlier, he had ordered forces into Afghanistan to oust the

Taliban from power. Both operations were billed to the public as campaigns for freedom,

to remove an oppressive regime and to free an oppressed people. But oppression is global

but American intervention is highly selective.

America’s policy in The Middle East is one of constant warfare. In fighting wars

for oil, the entire region was destabilized, and the American presence in Iraq and

Afghanistan is not simply to restore order, but to restore order in the Western image. John

Pilger in an article in New Statesman argues: “The ultimate goal in the attacks on

Afghanistan and Iraq is not the capture of a fanatic, but the acceleration of Western

power in the region.” The situation is made more complicated by the historical failure of

The West to understand culture and viewpoint of the Middle East. The last one and a half

millennia in which The West and The Middle East interacted were marked mainly by

religious war and intense hatred for one another. America goes in seeing itself as a

neutral party to settle affairs while it is not. As stated numerous times by numerous

political analysts, the Islamic fundamentalists believe America is the direct successor to

the British Empire. America is The West of 500, 1000, 1500 years ago that fought The

Crusades. To quote Gwynne Dyer in the Spring 2002 issue of Whole Earth, “What you

now have is a generation of people whose first-level analysis is that Western equals

corruption, imperialism. They're thinking that they must return to root values, Islam, so

on. At the same time, of course, they want cars, their kids to go to university, and their

countries to be modem, powerful, and respected in the world. They even want

democracy, but unlike the Filipinos or the Indians, they can't simply pick up this model

and say, "That's culture-free, we'll use that." For the Middle East it isn't culture-free; it is

laden with negative symbolism.” Much of American imperialism in the Middle East

arises from that discrepancy in perspective, that we can go in, shape and manipulate Iraq,

Afghanistan like they were fresh clay. They aren’t, and American foreign policy has to

reflect that or risk the specter of cultural imperialism.

Africa: The Unspoken

Countries: Top 10 Oil Reserves

1. Saudi Arabia

2. Iraq

3. Kuwait

4. UAE

5. Iran

6. Venezuela

7. Russia

8. Mexico

9. Libya

10. United States

A glance at the above shows that most of the countries are in the Middle East

South of America. It just also happens that most of the hotbeds of American activity are

in the Middle East and South America. There is only one African country, Libya, on the

list and indeed that is a country America often is involved in. Is this a coincidence? In

other articles we cover the efforts of American intervention and imperialistic behavior in

other countries. Africa is almost the opposite, where we see the lack of /selectivity in

American participation altering the affairs of foreign countries. As such, this article

centers on the unspoken in Africa.

Why does the US choose to become involved in/intervene in some countries

(Somalia, Zaire, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria) and totally ignore others? For the second half the

20th century, America had 2 goals: the securing of strategic resources (this means crude

oil reserves) and the fight against communism. Dictators such as Mobuto Seseseko, the

former leader of Zaire (now Congo) were given almost unilateral support in exchange for

mainly a promise against communism. In 1993 we saw the newspapers depict US soldiers

go in to Mogadishu to feed the starving populace and being driven off by savages.

Whatever the reason for US intervention, as Ahmed states, “In the view of many Middle

Easterners, however, these Americans were engaged in an imperialist adventure. When

attacked, they flinched and fled.” Perhaps this attitude arises out of the American

indifference to the African plight. In 1994, after a plane carrying Rwandan president

Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundian president Cyprirn Ntaryamira was shot down by a

missile, the dominant Hutu ethnic group in Rwanda killed over 800,000 of the minority

Tutsis within three months in the resulting flashpoint. The western powers once again

have failed to react to mass genocide. There was no risk of international escalation in

such a small, isolated country. There was no hotbed of international rivalry over Rwanda

either. The involved parties were primitive and Western intervention could easily have

prevented what happened. Yet nothing was done even while over 2500 UN peacekeepers

were present in the region at that time.

The Rwandan Genocide

When in 1997 a military coup ousted the government of Sierra Leone, Violence and

slaughter broke out in one of the most impoverished nations in the world as the rebel

Revolutionary United Front fought the government for control of diamond mines. Almost

nothing was heard on the news of the disaster in a country that already had the world’s

highest infant mortality rate, and lowest expected lifespan (25 years).

The simple fact is that American interest is capitalistic first, only humanitarian

second. America undertook almost no intervention in Africa although the crimes

committed there are of an unprecedented magnitude, while exhibiting imperialistic

behavior in comparatively minor flashpoints such as the almost bloodless takeover of

Kuwait by Saddam Hussein.

Conclusions Drawn

To Quote J.F. Conway in the May issue of Briarpatch Magazine, “The American

Empire now claims the right - unilaterally and pre-emptively - to intervene anywhere, any

time in the world.” There has only been one exception to the now infamous Monroe

doctrine: Cuba. It was only when America was confronted by the will of a rival

superpower that it promised not to invade and overthrow the government of Fidel Castro

like it did with countless South American countries and ‘dictators.’ Today America is the

sole superpower, and with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it has become clear that

the Monroe doctrine now applies to the whole world.

Whether we argue America to be an empire or not, the United States exhibits

imperialistic behavior. This behavior arose from the need to protect interests, namely

economic and political ones. Those interests manifest themselves as oil reserves and

support for the American cause. However, American foreign policy has little regard to

the interests of other nations, and the resulting actions carried out create the regional

instability we have constantly been writing about. Indeed, these actions by America are

not wholly malicious as some may believe, but America is at the forefront of the world

and has a responsibility to use its power to advance in the best interests of mankind. This

in fact is what the government propagates through interviews with the media as the

reason for its intervention in all parts of the world: America is going to do ‘this’ or ‘that’

because we have a duty to do what is just and right. That the US government is using its

power instead to decide what is just and right based on what is in its best interests and

what is not is creating a double standard: when another country imposes tariffs on

American goods the lawmakers are too quick to call a fair trade violation, but when

Japanese manufacturers are taking over Detroit and hybrid vehicles such as the Toyota

Prius are 10 years ahead of comparable programs in America, tariffs are immediately

placed on the Japanese goods to defend American manufacturers, and fair trade is

nowhere to be heard. And this double standard is political too: what is in the American

government’s best interests ultimately has the effects of creating regional instability by

tampering when not needed, and sitting idle whilst our help is desperately needed.

Works Cited

Ahmed, Nafeez Mosaddeq. Behind The War On Terror Cromwell, Wiltshire, 2003.

Barber, Benjamin. “Jihad vs. McWorld.” The Atlantic Monthly. (March, 1992), 53-65.

Berberoglu, Berch. Turmoil in the Middle East State University of New York, Albany, 1999.

Clemens, Walter C. America And The World, 1898-2025 St. Martin’s, New York, 2000.

Darby, Phillip. Three Faces of Imperialism Yale Press, New Haven, 1987.

De Gaulle, Charles. “Response to a Toast, September 4. 1962” and “Address, April 27, 1965,” and From a Press Conference, November 27, 1967,” from Discours et Messages (Paris: Plon, 1971), translated by Benjamin Kafka.

De Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. New York: Basic, 1983.

Earle, Edward Meade. Against This Torrent Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1941.

Gold Eagle www.gold-eagle.com

Hudson, Michael. Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of The American Empire Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1972.

Huntington, Samuel. “The Clash of Civilizations.” Foreign Affairs. (Summer, 1993).

Kennedy, David. “The United States in 1900.” Democratic Society in Europe and America. Stanford University. 4 April 2002.

Kennedy, David. “American Democracy at War.” Democratic Society in Europe and America. Stanford University. 23 April 2002.

Lennon, Alexander T.J. What Does the World Want from America? MIT Press, Cambridge, 2002.

Luce, Henry. “The American Century”. Life Magazine (February 17, 1941).

Mann, Michael. Sources of Social Power Cambridge University press, Cambridge, 1986.

Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Harper Press, 1976.

May, Ernest R. American Imperialism: a speculative essay Atheneum, New York, 1968.

Newhouse, John. Imperial America Knopf, New York, 2003.

Pilger, John A War In The American Tradition New Statesman, Oct. 15, 2002.

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. “We are Fighting to Save a Great and Precious Nation” from Public Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vol. 5 (New York: Random House, 1938), 230-36;

Selections from Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers 1946 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969), 696-709.

Servan-Shreiber, J.J. The American Challenge (New York: Antheneum, 1968), Introduction, Chapters 1-5, 10-11, 16, 18.

Sheehan, James. “American Economic Expansion in Europe.” Democratic Society in Europe and America. Stanford University. 30 April 2002.

Sheehan, James. “The War in Europe.” Democratic Society in Europe and America. Stanford University. 25 April 2002.

Sumner, Charles. “The Bequests of the Nineteenth Century to the Twentieth” (1901), in Essays, Volume 1 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934), 208-236.

“The World through Soviet Eyes,” from the American Spirit: United States History as Seen by Contemporaries, vol. 1 (New York, Houghton Mifflin Co, 1998).

Wilson, Woodrow. “Essential Terms of Peace in Europe”; “For Declaration of War against Germany”; “The Fourteen Points.” From Ray Baker and William E. Dodd. War and Peace: Presidential Messages, Addresses, and Public Papers, 1917-1924 vol. 1 (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1927), 407-414, 6-16, 155-62.