Worldwide spread and dominance of American culture is seen as one of the most controversial aspects of globalization. How do you approach the fears - especially on the part of the countries such as China, France and the wider Middle East - that global culture may become too Americanized, destroying other cultural, economic and religious traditions? Do you agree with Iriye's interpretation of the state of affairs from 1913 to 1945 which he sees as mainly based on the actions of the US as a major actor affecting the outside world? What kind of challenges (in cultural terms), if any, US had to face since its globalizing role in the aftermath of WWI? Do you think that those challenges have shaped the US as well or the so-called "globalizing" of America has remained to be a "unidirectional" process?
I absolute concur with Iriye that Americanization (spread of American principles, values and way of life) is an unquestionable phenomenon which is predisposed to increase as the world becomes more and more connected (globalization). Recent world uprisings and revolutions are evidences that American principles of freedom, democracy and human rights are being aspired throughout the world, especially after the media revolution and the increase of the use of the internet and the social media.
The American culture is also transmitted to the world through mass media communications including movies, tv channels and music dictating a model of life to be followed, influencing the way people dress, eat, think, buy, listen. Anyone who is fortunate enough to have travel around the world can notice that McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Coca Cola and many other American multinationals are spread through countries and doing very well financially. An example is fast food restaurants which usually offer inexpensive unhealthy highly processed foods and are considered to have negative influence in countries with cultures that historically have consumed healthy foods, causing increase of obesity and cardiovascular diseases or destroying local restaurants that cannot compete with prices.
In my opinion, whether the influence come from US or any other power that might emerge in the world arena, governments should accept that the world is connected (globalization is here to stay) and that it is only in educating its people that they will be able to evaluate foreign influences and make healthy choices for their lives and for future generations. China, France and others should encourage their population to ask questions like, is eating fast food really the best option for my children? Up to what point will these influences damage my national identity? Suppressing foreign influences through censorship is in my view wrong and a failed approach since it will only make people more curious.
I do agree with Iriye that state affairs from 1913 to 1945 were based on the actions of the US as a major actor that affected the outside world. And thus, globalization is a two-way phenomenon, also affecting the US. With the spread of Americanization, people will feel compelled to migrate to the US in search for the American Dream. Thus, US is a country that was made from immigrants by default. However, as we witness all the debate behind immigration issues (regardless of which side you agree) it is notable that the majority of immigrants and minorities are marginalized and isolated causing social problems (as poverty).
Other aspect that present challenge is the corporate capitalism (we call it in Brazil, the American wild capitalism) which will glorify profits over all costs (over environmental preservation, labor laws, etc). This translates in the idea that as long as money is coming in happiness will follow. Thus, the US assume a image of double standards since it fights for human rights but close their eyes to factories overseas that manufacture their inventions at a cheap cost because they abuse employees and degrade the environment. This only increase anti-American sentiments abroad.
Another challenge is terrorism and extremists groups that use Americanization as threat of destroying people’s culture and especially religion. An example is Al Qaida agenda of implying that the West (mainly the US) is anti-Islam. This week hearings on radicalization of the Muslim community promoted by Rep. King is precisely what extremists groups would use as propaganda against Americans. They will use the media reports about the hearings to prove that the US is after their religion and demand reactionary attacks against us (via videos or the internet). That in return will cause that US step up in security measurements in other to prevent attacks provoking limitation of our privacy rights.
Friday, April 1, 2011
American expansionism
Perkins was celebrating "American expansionism" on the grounds that it was an important component of US foreign policy on its way to become an empire. LaFeber, on the other hand, approaches American interventionism as a source of disorder and instability in affected lands. How would you evaluate American interventionism in the Middle East in general, and in the context of the recent revolutionary movements in Egytp and Tunisia in particular? LaFeber thinks the US was a determinative force in helping to trigger 19th century revolutions in Mexico, China, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua and elsewhere. Do you think that the US, through its policies in the region, has played a similar role in the Middle East too throughout the 20th century?
In my view, the United States has used the same Interventionist policies applied to the Middle East in the 20th century as it did to Mexico, China, Cuba, Panama and elsewhere else.
In regards to foreign policy, American politicians prioritized national interest (strategic, security and economic) over fundamental ideals we stand for as order, democracy and liberty. The US continues to support regimes that are tyrannical, corrupt and unpopular, closing their eyes to the oppression of millions of people as long as those governments are pro-American cooperating with US demands. These policies send a very hypocritical image to the world especially when the US claims to be the most important advocate of human rights in the international arena. This double standard just helps to increase anti American sentiments throughout the Middle East.
The US continues to create foreign policies which reflect the Cold War years. These policies were created with the idea that the “ends” justifies the “means”. The best example I can think of is Saddam Hussein, who was first an important ally to the US when he was engaged in war with Iran. Saddam helped to keep the Islamist revolutionaries occupied avoiding the revolution model to be spread throughout the Muslim world (including Egypt and Saudi Arabia). It all changed when Saddam decided to invade Kuwait, which was not a country that posed any treat to US interests. Suddenly Saddam became the villain and after the US got him out of Kuwait, the US did not do much to overthrow him from power. Then, when the W.G. Bush come to power, he found “reasons” to take Saddam out of power and generated a war that depleted our economy, lost many innocents lives and destroyed Iraq infrastructure.
In my view the US is indirectly responsible for the latest uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia and throughout the Arab world because of its continuous support for oppressive corrupt regimes in the name of region stability. Murabak, named one of the most important US ally in the region in the war against terrorism, led an oppressive regime. Ironically, the Egyptians triumphant revolution demanded to obtain the dreamed democracy preached by the Americans. The US, in the beginning of the uprisings, decided to practice omission and only after the clashes escalated that the Obama Administration voiced that Egyptian government should hear the requests of its people. I think these events in Tunisia and Egypt teach us that we should respect and appreciate movements within countries and we should stay away from wanting to impose changes from outside. These movements started from within against pro-western leaders without any anti-westerner or anti-imperialist characteristics.
In my view, the United States has used the same Interventionist policies applied to the Middle East in the 20th century as it did to Mexico, China, Cuba, Panama and elsewhere else.
In regards to foreign policy, American politicians prioritized national interest (strategic, security and economic) over fundamental ideals we stand for as order, democracy and liberty. The US continues to support regimes that are tyrannical, corrupt and unpopular, closing their eyes to the oppression of millions of people as long as those governments are pro-American cooperating with US demands. These policies send a very hypocritical image to the world especially when the US claims to be the most important advocate of human rights in the international arena. This double standard just helps to increase anti American sentiments throughout the Middle East.
The US continues to create foreign policies which reflect the Cold War years. These policies were created with the idea that the “ends” justifies the “means”. The best example I can think of is Saddam Hussein, who was first an important ally to the US when he was engaged in war with Iran. Saddam helped to keep the Islamist revolutionaries occupied avoiding the revolution model to be spread throughout the Muslim world (including Egypt and Saudi Arabia). It all changed when Saddam decided to invade Kuwait, which was not a country that posed any treat to US interests. Suddenly Saddam became the villain and after the US got him out of Kuwait, the US did not do much to overthrow him from power. Then, when the W.G. Bush come to power, he found “reasons” to take Saddam out of power and generated a war that depleted our economy, lost many innocents lives and destroyed Iraq infrastructure.
In my view the US is indirectly responsible for the latest uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia and throughout the Arab world because of its continuous support for oppressive corrupt regimes in the name of region stability. Murabak, named one of the most important US ally in the region in the war against terrorism, led an oppressive regime. Ironically, the Egyptians triumphant revolution demanded to obtain the dreamed democracy preached by the Americans. The US, in the beginning of the uprisings, decided to practice omission and only after the clashes escalated that the Obama Administration voiced that Egyptian government should hear the requests of its people. I think these events in Tunisia and Egypt teach us that we should respect and appreciate movements within countries and we should stay away from wanting to impose changes from outside. These movements started from within against pro-western leaders without any anti-westerner or anti-imperialist characteristics.
AMERICAN EMPIRE
Perkins appears to have a celebratory tone in his view of the role of the US in the world (you may challenge that) and provides us with a detailed survey of how it was transformed into a republican nation and extended into a continental "empire" as he calls it. Given his discussion on the origins of the American pattern of behavior, do you think that the US still sustains the "empire" in the postmodern world especially in the face of the challenges posed by other major economic and political actors emerging onto the world scene such as China, India, Japan, and possibly the EU?
I absolutely concur that the United States sustains the “empire” in the post modern world even though countries such as China, India, Japan and EU are emerging onto the world scene. Perkins “glorious” account of the birth of the republic and its first decades was very informative pointing out that America was born from principles of liberty, ambitious economic prosperity (thus prioritizing trade and expansionism) and use of diplomacy to defend national interests. The Founding Fathers created a governing system that would correct the dreadful wrongs done by European monarchies and it would become the model of government the world should exercise. The Republic was designed to empower its people with the ability to write their own destiny. Foreign Policy was a crucial part of the revolution and it proved to be essential tool in order to demand acceptance and respect from Europe. The United State would only be valued as an International player if other dominant nations perceived its influential power. Nationalism was the force that kept the Union together and is still the force that helps Americans to maintain the status as “superpower”. Americans believe in their governing institutions and stand by its policies and actions. Today, the United States has the largest economy; the most advanced military system; prominently influences international policies and major global debates; in my opinion, all these major achievements no other single country is close from accomplishing.
I finish with a quote from Pres. Obama 2011 State of Union speech, to conclude that the future of the American “empire” is really in the hands of its own people:
“So, yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us. It should challenge us. Remember -– for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers -- no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.
What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That’s why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”
The future is ours to win.”
Note:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address
I absolutely concur that the United States sustains the “empire” in the post modern world even though countries such as China, India, Japan and EU are emerging onto the world scene. Perkins “glorious” account of the birth of the republic and its first decades was very informative pointing out that America was born from principles of liberty, ambitious economic prosperity (thus prioritizing trade and expansionism) and use of diplomacy to defend national interests. The Founding Fathers created a governing system that would correct the dreadful wrongs done by European monarchies and it would become the model of government the world should exercise. The Republic was designed to empower its people with the ability to write their own destiny. Foreign Policy was a crucial part of the revolution and it proved to be essential tool in order to demand acceptance and respect from Europe. The United State would only be valued as an International player if other dominant nations perceived its influential power. Nationalism was the force that kept the Union together and is still the force that helps Americans to maintain the status as “superpower”. Americans believe in their governing institutions and stand by its policies and actions. Today, the United States has the largest economy; the most advanced military system; prominently influences international policies and major global debates; in my opinion, all these major achievements no other single country is close from accomplishing.
I finish with a quote from Pres. Obama 2011 State of Union speech, to conclude that the future of the American “empire” is really in the hands of its own people:
“So, yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us. It should challenge us. Remember -– for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers -- no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.
What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That’s why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”
The future is ours to win.”
Note:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address
Does NATO functions as a useful tool for the US in order to continue to promote its values and principles?
In my opinion, NATO is a vital alliance, important for the maintenance of collective security, peace and stability of the world. NATO has become an important political institution advocating its commitment to democratic values with its system of to resolving emerging conflicts through its practice of consensus ensuring peace. NATO has been successful in fulfilling its member’s security over the years. The cost of security would be a burden to “weaker” nations that would not be able to secure themselves individually. This is the reason why I think that the alliance will not come to an end as its members will continue to support it as NATO re-evaluates its goals and its ability to respond to the new enemies, challenges and treats collectively. Another important task of NATO to contribute to its legitimacy is its role in international humanitarian assistance in disaster-stricken areas.
NATO’s expansion to include countries of the former Warsaw Pact (former adversaries) has been controversial as some critics will argue that their admission to the alliance would jeopardize American-Russian relations. However, I believe that in expanding, NATO strengthened the security of its members and partners as it broadened its area of influence and helped these countries to reform and progress towards democratization and modernization contributing to the overall stability of Europe.
I also agree that the US interest and agenda is a very influential force in actions taken by NATO. I also believe that it will always exist a leading force in all organizations and institutions as they are operated by people with its own interest and bias. However, the US has been assumed the role of world leader since World War I and it will continue to act as the leader unless other power assumes its role.
The recent crisis is Libya is an example how NATO continues to play an important role in the international arena as it is the only military organization capable of supporting UN Security Council resolutions.
NATO’s expansion to include countries of the former Warsaw Pact (former adversaries) has been controversial as some critics will argue that their admission to the alliance would jeopardize American-Russian relations. However, I believe that in expanding, NATO strengthened the security of its members and partners as it broadened its area of influence and helped these countries to reform and progress towards democratization and modernization contributing to the overall stability of Europe.
I also agree that the US interest and agenda is a very influential force in actions taken by NATO. I also believe that it will always exist a leading force in all organizations and institutions as they are operated by people with its own interest and bias. However, the US has been assumed the role of world leader since World War I and it will continue to act as the leader unless other power assumes its role.
The recent crisis is Libya is an example how NATO continues to play an important role in the international arena as it is the only military organization capable of supporting UN Security Council resolutions.
America in the Age of Soviet Power
Cohen’s America in the Age of Soviet Power, is a fascinated reading describing the period in which the Cold War occurred and that the United States became a hegemonic world leader. The Americans were able to fully exercise its messianic destine as the propagator of its values in the quest for achieving of a prosperous and peaceful world. Democracy, freedom, free trade and collective defense were principles in which the new world order was going to be constructed. Peace and stability would reign only if these ideals were implemented to all corners of the world. In his book, Cohen describes the American trajectory as it fought to establish its expected role in dominating the international arena demonstrating how US leadership played foreign policies to first and foremost envisioning its own interest from the birth of the Soviet conflict after the end of World War II to the Reagan Administration, shaping the world we live today.
His book begins by explaining how both the US and the USSR fought together to win the battle against the Axis Power and how they became victorious. The war brought destruction among European countries and the US (with all the financial benefits from the war) and Soviet Union emerged as dominant forces of the world politics. The war brought to end European colonialism in the Third Word and many new nations came to exist in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Cohen states regarding the relationship between the Soviet Union and United States during the years after the end of the war to the beginning of the Korean War in 1950 “Each nation (US and USSR) pursued its vision of world order, exploring the possibilities of cooperation in achieving its goals, and testing the limits of the other’s tolerance in pursuit of unshared goals” (P. 1). Both countries understood that with the collapse of Germany, Japan and the decadence of British power, there were new grounds for increasing its influence and interests. The Roosevelt Administration was sure that the moment had came for America to fulfill its messianic mission in creating a world order based on its idealism that would guarantee not only prosperity, peace and stability abroad but also be advantageous to the interest of the United States. Germany and Japan would be prevented to gain power and never again be able to commit the atrocities against the world. The Bretton Woods conference was initiated to establish the post-war monetary system, a liberal international economic order. The Soviets did not fully participated but understood the importance of not creating tensions between them and the west. The results were the creation of IMF and the World Bank aiding the expansion of international trade. The system would assure the long term interest of the US. When Truman assumed presidency after Roosevelt’s death, he understood that Soviet-American cooperation was essential to the new world order. The problem over Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe needed to be addressed maintaining the sense of cooperation left from the Roosevelt-Stalin’s talks. However, Truman could not ignore American’s principles of self-determination and he got tougher with the Soviet leadership that fearfully perceived that American policy had changed. Other problems emerged in the relationship of the two nations right after the war ended. Soviets were eager to receive reconstruction loans that no one in the US was willing to give. Also, there were disagreements on the amount of German’s reparations and the way the US dominated the administration and occupation of Japan. The American public was horrified by the brutal behavior of the Soviets in Eastern Europe. Cohen states “Soviet suspicions angered Americans. American arrogance, bordering on contempt, infuriated the Soviets (P. 25). By 1946, Truman realized that cooperation with the Soviets was not going to be easily achieved and both countries were feeling the threat initiating a “security dilemma” that encouraged both countries to enhance both national security. Other nations also, trying to gain influence in the America, exacerbated this idea of the Soviet threat in order to gain reconstruction aid and military assistance. On the Soviet side, American interest in the reconstruction of Germany was seeing as a betrayal and threat to its security since the latter had invaded the Soviet Union twice and causing great damage and harm. Another area of American concern was the Middle East where Soviets had not yet withdrew its troops from Iran as the West did after the end of the War. As American understood the threat of losing vital Western Europe to communism, the Truman administration launched the “containment” policy. A civil war crises (little known of Soviet involvement) in Greece erupted. As Cohen explains “Their ultimate concern was not Greece, but rather the assertion of American power in the Middle East. The region was of enormous strategic importance in the event of war with the Soviet Union and its oil reserves could not be allowed to fall into unfriendly hands (P. 37). After an address to Congress requesting for aid for Greece and Turkey, the Truman Doctrine was outlined further exacerbating the Soviet threat as a serious challenge to national security to the American public. As Cohen explained in the weak-government paradigm “To focus congressional attention on foreign affairs, and attain their objectives, the president and his retainers may contrive an international crisis… almost always in foreign affairs, a sense of crisis will result in legislative deference to the president, to an enhancement of executive power, to an imperial presidency (P. 251). Therefore the Marshall Plan was created to finance the implementation of Bretton Woods and politically to eradicate the chances of a Soviet influence in Western Europe. In reaction, the Soviet Union created a Cominform to organize Communist activities. Crises increased as West Germany was being reconstructed. The Soviets applying a blockage on West access to Berlin almost provoked the declaration of between the two countries. After Truman successful airlift operations, the Soviets retreated and suspended the blockage. “The confrontation over Berlin changed the nature of the relationship between the US and the Soviet Union” (P. 46). By March of 1948, the European nations afraid of a Soviet military assault signed a defense pact in Brussels and invited the US to join them as they knew they needed its military and economic aid. NATO was signed in 1949. When Americans understood the Soviets were able to test an Atom bomb, the Truman administration had to increase its military power and established the NSC-68, to ensure American supremacy. However both sides understood the danger of an unwinnable war as both countries could be completely destroyed independently from who shoot first.
The Korean War, as Cohen described, “was the most dangerous of the wars on the periphery” (P. 256). Soviet trained Korean troops attacked Koreans troops that were trained by Americans in the south causing a turning point in Soviet-American relationship, as the Soviets did not expect the Americans to intervened (as the US had not intervened in China). However, American leaders understood that it was crucial for American supremacy that an act of aggression to be retaliated (or the inaction could result in the “domino” effect risking the US to lose its influence over all Asia). The Korean War exacerbated the fear of communism in American society, where leaders took advantage of perceived terror to gain support for their agenda, complicating even more the improvement of relations between the US and USSR. This not only resulted in conflicts that drained economic resource but also many lives in the periphery and at home (by military personal fighting wars) were lost for many years to come. These looses sparked an arms race. New American leadership called for tougher anti-Soviet agenda. Eisenhower’s “New Look” called for air and nuclear power. “The cost of conflict became unacceptably high. Aware of the dangers, leaders in both countries began to develop proposals for arms limitation (P. 88).
Kennedy’s administration goals were no different than the previous leader. Khruschev’s hoped that the new US president was going to be more respectful of Soviet policies in the Third World and at the same time send message to Washington that he wanted to reduce tensions. However, soon it was to come the gravest crises of the Cold War, the Soviet missile installation in Cuba. It was a close call for a nuclear war if the Soviets had not understood the seriousness of American retaliation. The graveness of the crises resulted in the both nations to act prudently and work towards the détente. Communication was open to engage in arms reduction agreements.
With the crises and Vietnam, American showed its resolve to fight against communism even if that implied to close its eyes for its anti-imperialism principle. US troops were engaged in the wars very far away from home, in countries which did not posed any threat to American security. “(Vietnam war) example of great-power arrogance and self-deception, of the abuse and dissipation of wealth and power” (P. 147). The 30 years war brought unprecedented misery to Vietnam and even further drained American wealth that accelerated its decline as a hegemonic power. “Defeat in Vietnam was of little consequence, without impact on the strategic balance between the US and its adversaries. Indeed before it ended, the US had taken major strides toward reconciliation with the Soviet Union and China, the very nations Americans had sought to contain by killing and dying in Vietnam” (P. 179). Conflicts resulting from the ideological war between US and USSR were fought all over the periphery in Africa, Asia, Middle East, Central Americans and Caribbean where many more lives were lost. In other to prevent the spread of communism, the US was willing to abandon its commitment to democracy and human rights and supported many totalitarian regime. “Rarely these conflicts threaten the vital interests of either the Soviet Union or the United States. The superpowers simply would not tolerate indigenous challenges to the status quo unless the challenges were likely to align with their side. With less risk of provoking a nuclear exchange, intervention was always tempting” (P. 257). All three administrations (Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon) spear no costs for their objectives regarding foreign policies causing the destabilization of the monetary system it had created. Germany and Japan came to the rescue entering the world politics once again. The power game that US and USSR play in order to attempt to control the world was coming to an end. The Soviet economy after the costs of conflicts of 60s and 70s were in deep problems and it collapse in the Mid 1980s resulting from “changes in Soviet society, Gorbachev’s reforms, modification of Soviet military doctrine and, more important, Soviet military posture.” (P. 257). The Soviet collapse meant that US could see themselves as victorious in their war against oppressive communist regime. The world was finally free from the red ink but far away from being a peaceful place. However, American impression on the world was here to stay as we see more the more the world looking “culturally” as Uncle Sam had envisioned.
In conclusion, Cohen comprehensive description of the historic context of the Cold War was informative. In my view, he is fair in demonstrating the deceits and achievements of both powers. The US is portrayed in its quest to fulfill its perceived role in leading the world according to its idealism but at the same time these principles could be distorted by the power seeking national politics that played fear games in maneuvering America public option in accordance to elite’s interests. The USSR was portray not a monsters ready to attack the west as it was the image sold to the world, however Cohen does emphasize Lenin and Stalin oppressive regimes that committed atrocities against its own people. The interplay of the two nations is presented as a reactionary game of perpetual sense of danger. Cohen makes you understand the implications of foreign policies in national politics and how the balance of power played were far away from the vision of the Founding Fathers. It is distressing to grasp the ability of the political system in working the system to advance group agendas as we know that history tends to repeat itself.
Notes:
Cohen, Warren I. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations Volume IV, AMERICA in the Age of SOVIET Power, 1945-1991 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)
His book begins by explaining how both the US and the USSR fought together to win the battle against the Axis Power and how they became victorious. The war brought destruction among European countries and the US (with all the financial benefits from the war) and Soviet Union emerged as dominant forces of the world politics. The war brought to end European colonialism in the Third Word and many new nations came to exist in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Cohen states regarding the relationship between the Soviet Union and United States during the years after the end of the war to the beginning of the Korean War in 1950 “Each nation (US and USSR) pursued its vision of world order, exploring the possibilities of cooperation in achieving its goals, and testing the limits of the other’s tolerance in pursuit of unshared goals” (P. 1). Both countries understood that with the collapse of Germany, Japan and the decadence of British power, there were new grounds for increasing its influence and interests. The Roosevelt Administration was sure that the moment had came for America to fulfill its messianic mission in creating a world order based on its idealism that would guarantee not only prosperity, peace and stability abroad but also be advantageous to the interest of the United States. Germany and Japan would be prevented to gain power and never again be able to commit the atrocities against the world. The Bretton Woods conference was initiated to establish the post-war monetary system, a liberal international economic order. The Soviets did not fully participated but understood the importance of not creating tensions between them and the west. The results were the creation of IMF and the World Bank aiding the expansion of international trade. The system would assure the long term interest of the US. When Truman assumed presidency after Roosevelt’s death, he understood that Soviet-American cooperation was essential to the new world order. The problem over Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe needed to be addressed maintaining the sense of cooperation left from the Roosevelt-Stalin’s talks. However, Truman could not ignore American’s principles of self-determination and he got tougher with the Soviet leadership that fearfully perceived that American policy had changed. Other problems emerged in the relationship of the two nations right after the war ended. Soviets were eager to receive reconstruction loans that no one in the US was willing to give. Also, there were disagreements on the amount of German’s reparations and the way the US dominated the administration and occupation of Japan. The American public was horrified by the brutal behavior of the Soviets in Eastern Europe. Cohen states “Soviet suspicions angered Americans. American arrogance, bordering on contempt, infuriated the Soviets (P. 25). By 1946, Truman realized that cooperation with the Soviets was not going to be easily achieved and both countries were feeling the threat initiating a “security dilemma” that encouraged both countries to enhance both national security. Other nations also, trying to gain influence in the America, exacerbated this idea of the Soviet threat in order to gain reconstruction aid and military assistance. On the Soviet side, American interest in the reconstruction of Germany was seeing as a betrayal and threat to its security since the latter had invaded the Soviet Union twice and causing great damage and harm. Another area of American concern was the Middle East where Soviets had not yet withdrew its troops from Iran as the West did after the end of the War. As American understood the threat of losing vital Western Europe to communism, the Truman administration launched the “containment” policy. A civil war crises (little known of Soviet involvement) in Greece erupted. As Cohen explains “Their ultimate concern was not Greece, but rather the assertion of American power in the Middle East. The region was of enormous strategic importance in the event of war with the Soviet Union and its oil reserves could not be allowed to fall into unfriendly hands (P. 37). After an address to Congress requesting for aid for Greece and Turkey, the Truman Doctrine was outlined further exacerbating the Soviet threat as a serious challenge to national security to the American public. As Cohen explained in the weak-government paradigm “To focus congressional attention on foreign affairs, and attain their objectives, the president and his retainers may contrive an international crisis… almost always in foreign affairs, a sense of crisis will result in legislative deference to the president, to an enhancement of executive power, to an imperial presidency (P. 251). Therefore the Marshall Plan was created to finance the implementation of Bretton Woods and politically to eradicate the chances of a Soviet influence in Western Europe. In reaction, the Soviet Union created a Cominform to organize Communist activities. Crises increased as West Germany was being reconstructed. The Soviets applying a blockage on West access to Berlin almost provoked the declaration of between the two countries. After Truman successful airlift operations, the Soviets retreated and suspended the blockage. “The confrontation over Berlin changed the nature of the relationship between the US and the Soviet Union” (P. 46). By March of 1948, the European nations afraid of a Soviet military assault signed a defense pact in Brussels and invited the US to join them as they knew they needed its military and economic aid. NATO was signed in 1949. When Americans understood the Soviets were able to test an Atom bomb, the Truman administration had to increase its military power and established the NSC-68, to ensure American supremacy. However both sides understood the danger of an unwinnable war as both countries could be completely destroyed independently from who shoot first.
The Korean War, as Cohen described, “was the most dangerous of the wars on the periphery” (P. 256). Soviet trained Korean troops attacked Koreans troops that were trained by Americans in the south causing a turning point in Soviet-American relationship, as the Soviets did not expect the Americans to intervened (as the US had not intervened in China). However, American leaders understood that it was crucial for American supremacy that an act of aggression to be retaliated (or the inaction could result in the “domino” effect risking the US to lose its influence over all Asia). The Korean War exacerbated the fear of communism in American society, where leaders took advantage of perceived terror to gain support for their agenda, complicating even more the improvement of relations between the US and USSR. This not only resulted in conflicts that drained economic resource but also many lives in the periphery and at home (by military personal fighting wars) were lost for many years to come. These looses sparked an arms race. New American leadership called for tougher anti-Soviet agenda. Eisenhower’s “New Look” called for air and nuclear power. “The cost of conflict became unacceptably high. Aware of the dangers, leaders in both countries began to develop proposals for arms limitation (P. 88).
Kennedy’s administration goals were no different than the previous leader. Khruschev’s hoped that the new US president was going to be more respectful of Soviet policies in the Third World and at the same time send message to Washington that he wanted to reduce tensions. However, soon it was to come the gravest crises of the Cold War, the Soviet missile installation in Cuba. It was a close call for a nuclear war if the Soviets had not understood the seriousness of American retaliation. The graveness of the crises resulted in the both nations to act prudently and work towards the détente. Communication was open to engage in arms reduction agreements.
With the crises and Vietnam, American showed its resolve to fight against communism even if that implied to close its eyes for its anti-imperialism principle. US troops were engaged in the wars very far away from home, in countries which did not posed any threat to American security. “(Vietnam war) example of great-power arrogance and self-deception, of the abuse and dissipation of wealth and power” (P. 147). The 30 years war brought unprecedented misery to Vietnam and even further drained American wealth that accelerated its decline as a hegemonic power. “Defeat in Vietnam was of little consequence, without impact on the strategic balance between the US and its adversaries. Indeed before it ended, the US had taken major strides toward reconciliation with the Soviet Union and China, the very nations Americans had sought to contain by killing and dying in Vietnam” (P. 179). Conflicts resulting from the ideological war between US and USSR were fought all over the periphery in Africa, Asia, Middle East, Central Americans and Caribbean where many more lives were lost. In other to prevent the spread of communism, the US was willing to abandon its commitment to democracy and human rights and supported many totalitarian regime. “Rarely these conflicts threaten the vital interests of either the Soviet Union or the United States. The superpowers simply would not tolerate indigenous challenges to the status quo unless the challenges were likely to align with their side. With less risk of provoking a nuclear exchange, intervention was always tempting” (P. 257). All three administrations (Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon) spear no costs for their objectives regarding foreign policies causing the destabilization of the monetary system it had created. Germany and Japan came to the rescue entering the world politics once again. The power game that US and USSR play in order to attempt to control the world was coming to an end. The Soviet economy after the costs of conflicts of 60s and 70s were in deep problems and it collapse in the Mid 1980s resulting from “changes in Soviet society, Gorbachev’s reforms, modification of Soviet military doctrine and, more important, Soviet military posture.” (P. 257). The Soviet collapse meant that US could see themselves as victorious in their war against oppressive communist regime. The world was finally free from the red ink but far away from being a peaceful place. However, American impression on the world was here to stay as we see more the more the world looking “culturally” as Uncle Sam had envisioned.
In conclusion, Cohen comprehensive description of the historic context of the Cold War was informative. In my view, he is fair in demonstrating the deceits and achievements of both powers. The US is portrayed in its quest to fulfill its perceived role in leading the world according to its idealism but at the same time these principles could be distorted by the power seeking national politics that played fear games in maneuvering America public option in accordance to elite’s interests. The USSR was portray not a monsters ready to attack the west as it was the image sold to the world, however Cohen does emphasize Lenin and Stalin oppressive regimes that committed atrocities against its own people. The interplay of the two nations is presented as a reactionary game of perpetual sense of danger. Cohen makes you understand the implications of foreign policies in national politics and how the balance of power played were far away from the vision of the Founding Fathers. It is distressing to grasp the ability of the political system in working the system to advance group agendas as we know that history tends to repeat itself.
Notes:
Cohen, Warren I. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations Volume IV, AMERICA in the Age of SOVIET Power, 1945-1991 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)
The Globalizing of America, 1913-1945
Globalizing of AMERICA, 1913-1945 is an instructional book. The author Akira Iriye delineates the trajectory of the American diplomatic course in these turbulent years when the world underwent two global wars. It was then that the United States transformed itself into the world’s political, economic, cultural and military leader surpassing Europe’s supremacy in the international arena. He explains that this transformation process gained momentum with the dominant role that the United States played in the construction of the post-war world order which reflected America’s cultural ideals and strategic interests shaping the standards of modern international relations and prescribing the way we create our foreign policies until today. In addition, the book demonstrates a shift the creation process of American foreign policies when they were now being produced in response to world events instead of national state of affairs. Iriye convenes that the phenomenon of globalization of American ideology emerged from this context and it has profoundly changed or as he calls it “Americanized” the world, as it looks at the United States as model of prosperity, liberty and democracy. He concludes that this Americanization of world may bring the opposite effect of what the United States had intended: international relations focusing on the promotion world stability.
The first chapters of the book describe the international system of the beginning of the twenty century which was dominated by European nation states. Iriye described Europe as a divided continent with nation states that were in constant state of war with each other. That caused these nations to be militarily prepared to engage into conflicts. At the same time major important developments helped spread European predominance to the world: The Enlightenment, creation of modern states and the Industrial Revolution. As Europe saw its ability to increase its productivity, they also rationalized the idea that societies were able of infinite development. It is important to understand the occurrences in Europe because it translated in how it was conducting international affairs with other parts of the world. It was in this context that the US first materialized its influence in the international arena. Iriye stated that it was from the refinement Europe’s thought that emerged American ideologies as Republicanism and American Exceptionalism that helped Americans feel part of the western superior world. “There was a cohesiveness in America that could create a sense of nationhood – a nationalism that transcended the factional alignments or ethnic traditions of the citizens and was founded upon a shared consciousness of how the independence have been won. The absence of a serious division was a source of strength for the new nation, perhaps the key to its acceptance as a member of the European-defined community of nations” (P. 5). The American civil war had positive effects in helping the country to understand and value the importance of national unity. That gave the US leadership confidence to adopt and develop a policy of military and colonial expansion thus proving to Europe that America was ready to emerge as a global player. “The globalization of America had begun” (P. 13). The Open Door Policy is an example of how the US envisioned establishing new markets for its exports. It was clear that by helping countries in their development, it would generate new markets for American goods. This shows that the influence of European principles of conquest of power and control was ingrained into the American interventionist policy.
With Pres. Wilson, the priority of international affairs was economic interdependence and peaceful settlement of dispute as demonstrated in his vision for the role of the United States towards the world. As soon as Americans realized that the Great War was eminent, it declared its neutrality status. The first step toward imposing America’s rights was to “remind the great powers that they had an obligation to observe international law in war as in peace” (P. 23). By being neutral the US was still part of the conflict since the states involved in the war had to observe America’s rights. As the war continued and as Americans were profiting from arms selling and loans, the nations in Europe were concluding that the US was having an influential role in the conflict. Also, the increase of American investments abroad helped Asia and Latin America to build their development in order to be able to purchase US exports. America was proving to be a major economic power. That would provide influential power to place the US as a mediator between the belligerents to end the conflict. “America’s strong interest in playing the role of peacemaker was abundantly clear...Europeans were incapable of managing their own and by extension the world’s affairs, and that without some leadership role played by the US, there could be no stable international order” (P. 29). By 1917, the US had assumed its role as the major world power.
In Asia, the US understood the danger of Japanese imperialistic intervention in China which was an important market (the latter saw in the United States an ally who could change the way foreign policies were developed). Europe was too busy dealing with conflict at home and Asia was not its priority. In Latin America “Earlier, interventionism in the region had been justified in the name of the Monroe Doctrine, …Now under Wilson, it was couched in the vocabulary of political reform precisely the language in which the Wilsonian administration was trying to cope with developments in Asia and Europe” (P. 35). The US understood that its role in the construction of a new world order was essential the American prosperity and expansion Wilson public justification for entering in the war was that humanity craved for peace and it is only with democratic government that the stability would be able to survive. “In a major battle in 1917, it seemed as if Germany victory were within reach – unless Americans arrived to prevent it…American participation spelled the defeat of German ambitions” (P. 43).
The League of Nations, as proposed by the US leadership ( in the Fourteen Points speech by Wilson) would have been based in the pillars of democracy, self- determination (peaceful modification), international cooperation and collective security (by arms control), controlled and administrated with a system envisioned on principles of pacifism and Wilsonian idealism. “Perhaps the key was its universalistic character. It spelled out some basic principles that were to define the postwar world order” (P. 47). However, the American leaders were not ready for such action and congress did not approve and the entrance of the US in the league.
The interwar peaceful period (1920-1939) is given an unprecedented importance by Iriye due to contradictions between idealism and realism. After the rejection of the Versailles Treaty, the US supposedly reverted its course and went back to the pre-war isolationism due to several reasons, even though it made strategic alliances (acting not in accordance to the open diplomacy ideal) and increased its military power (though it did comply with disarmament treaties). The peace treaty was getting major disapproval and unpopularity in many countries including Germany, Italy, China, and Russia (the latter ideals clashed with Wilsonian internationalism since the Bolshevik revolution and their particularistic nationalism, anti pluralistic capitalism and antiimperialistic ideals were spreading across Europe and in colonies). In the economic arena, with the help of US, leaders in Europe recognized that “international peace now depended on economic underpinnings” (P. 96). As the US was the leading economic power, it facilitated its leading role in postwar world. Culturally, the US was very effective in exporting its ideals of stability through the peace movement agenda, cultural internationalism (“global trend towards intellectual understanding of war and peace” (P. 106)) and the improvement of life quality by the consumption of its material goods. However, the Great depression, come to change that reality of the 1920 decade since the its capitalistic and democratic policies were question throughout the world as being a failed system. With the international system crumpling the world witness the rise of fascism, communism and totalitarian regimes in Europe and Asia presenting military and ideological threats challenging national and international stability. “For those and other countries that were joining the rank of fascist states, war was taken as a perpetual condition of national and international affair” (P. 134). The early years of the Roosevelt administration still prescribed neutrality and priority to national affairs in order help the economic crises at home. In Latin American, the policy of Good Neighbor thought to comply with non-interventionism, separating the continent from Europe and Asia. By now (1937-38), the US understood that the escalating conflicts by the unified forces of Germany, Italy and Japan had proved the crises in Europe and Asia was interrelated. As the appeasement policy failed, “the Western democracies were put on the defensive. They not only faced the prospect of war against Germany, but were also confronted with the spectacle of a worldwide coalition of antidemocratic powers” (P. 153) forcing the US to reassume its place in the world arena as the rescuer of peace and stability. Administration’s evaluation of use of force to defend nationals was backed by national public opinion since the Panay incident.
In the chapter Road to Pearl Harbor, Iriye explained that by then, Congress authorized the Lend-Lease arms to any country that would help to defend American security, marking the involvement of the US in the war. Since Japan signed a Neutrality pact with Moscow, it decided to engage in a war with the US and thus attacking Pearl Harbor. From there on, the US was the only country involved in the war in all parts of the world and thus proving that it was a determinant in the establishment of the Americanization of the world. “But the way the war came to an end – through Soviet entry into the Pacific war and the US use of atom bombs- suggested that the post war world would be enormously complicated” (P. 21 4).
In conclusion, in only few decades the US was able to become the world’s super power making the best use of international relations to achieve this goal. Iriye account of the period was informative but in my view, lacked description of war the events in order to provide better complete understanding of the foreign policies. That approach could work for scholars who are familiar with historical occurences, but not for undergrad students. I also think that he could have been more explicit in providing information regarding national reactions to different foreign policies during these. In order to fully comprehend the country actions abroad, first you need to understand the national context which will prescribe such actions. He also seemed to positively portray all US actions deemphasizing US eagerness (at all costs) to become major player in the world.
Notes:
- Iriye, Akira The Cambridge History of American Relations, Volume III The Globalizing of AMERICA, 1913- 1945 (Cambridge University Press – 1993)
The first chapters of the book describe the international system of the beginning of the twenty century which was dominated by European nation states. Iriye described Europe as a divided continent with nation states that were in constant state of war with each other. That caused these nations to be militarily prepared to engage into conflicts. At the same time major important developments helped spread European predominance to the world: The Enlightenment, creation of modern states and the Industrial Revolution. As Europe saw its ability to increase its productivity, they also rationalized the idea that societies were able of infinite development. It is important to understand the occurrences in Europe because it translated in how it was conducting international affairs with other parts of the world. It was in this context that the US first materialized its influence in the international arena. Iriye stated that it was from the refinement Europe’s thought that emerged American ideologies as Republicanism and American Exceptionalism that helped Americans feel part of the western superior world. “There was a cohesiveness in America that could create a sense of nationhood – a nationalism that transcended the factional alignments or ethnic traditions of the citizens and was founded upon a shared consciousness of how the independence have been won. The absence of a serious division was a source of strength for the new nation, perhaps the key to its acceptance as a member of the European-defined community of nations” (P. 5). The American civil war had positive effects in helping the country to understand and value the importance of national unity. That gave the US leadership confidence to adopt and develop a policy of military and colonial expansion thus proving to Europe that America was ready to emerge as a global player. “The globalization of America had begun” (P. 13). The Open Door Policy is an example of how the US envisioned establishing new markets for its exports. It was clear that by helping countries in their development, it would generate new markets for American goods. This shows that the influence of European principles of conquest of power and control was ingrained into the American interventionist policy.
With Pres. Wilson, the priority of international affairs was economic interdependence and peaceful settlement of dispute as demonstrated in his vision for the role of the United States towards the world. As soon as Americans realized that the Great War was eminent, it declared its neutrality status. The first step toward imposing America’s rights was to “remind the great powers that they had an obligation to observe international law in war as in peace” (P. 23). By being neutral the US was still part of the conflict since the states involved in the war had to observe America’s rights. As the war continued and as Americans were profiting from arms selling and loans, the nations in Europe were concluding that the US was having an influential role in the conflict. Also, the increase of American investments abroad helped Asia and Latin America to build their development in order to be able to purchase US exports. America was proving to be a major economic power. That would provide influential power to place the US as a mediator between the belligerents to end the conflict. “America’s strong interest in playing the role of peacemaker was abundantly clear...Europeans were incapable of managing their own and by extension the world’s affairs, and that without some leadership role played by the US, there could be no stable international order” (P. 29). By 1917, the US had assumed its role as the major world power.
In Asia, the US understood the danger of Japanese imperialistic intervention in China which was an important market (the latter saw in the United States an ally who could change the way foreign policies were developed). Europe was too busy dealing with conflict at home and Asia was not its priority. In Latin America “Earlier, interventionism in the region had been justified in the name of the Monroe Doctrine, …Now under Wilson, it was couched in the vocabulary of political reform precisely the language in which the Wilsonian administration was trying to cope with developments in Asia and Europe” (P. 35). The US understood that its role in the construction of a new world order was essential the American prosperity and expansion Wilson public justification for entering in the war was that humanity craved for peace and it is only with democratic government that the stability would be able to survive. “In a major battle in 1917, it seemed as if Germany victory were within reach – unless Americans arrived to prevent it…American participation spelled the defeat of German ambitions” (P. 43).
The League of Nations, as proposed by the US leadership ( in the Fourteen Points speech by Wilson) would have been based in the pillars of democracy, self- determination (peaceful modification), international cooperation and collective security (by arms control), controlled and administrated with a system envisioned on principles of pacifism and Wilsonian idealism. “Perhaps the key was its universalistic character. It spelled out some basic principles that were to define the postwar world order” (P. 47). However, the American leaders were not ready for such action and congress did not approve and the entrance of the US in the league.
The interwar peaceful period (1920-1939) is given an unprecedented importance by Iriye due to contradictions between idealism and realism. After the rejection of the Versailles Treaty, the US supposedly reverted its course and went back to the pre-war isolationism due to several reasons, even though it made strategic alliances (acting not in accordance to the open diplomacy ideal) and increased its military power (though it did comply with disarmament treaties). The peace treaty was getting major disapproval and unpopularity in many countries including Germany, Italy, China, and Russia (the latter ideals clashed with Wilsonian internationalism since the Bolshevik revolution and their particularistic nationalism, anti pluralistic capitalism and antiimperialistic ideals were spreading across Europe and in colonies). In the economic arena, with the help of US, leaders in Europe recognized that “international peace now depended on economic underpinnings” (P. 96). As the US was the leading economic power, it facilitated its leading role in postwar world. Culturally, the US was very effective in exporting its ideals of stability through the peace movement agenda, cultural internationalism (“global trend towards intellectual understanding of war and peace” (P. 106)) and the improvement of life quality by the consumption of its material goods. However, the Great depression, come to change that reality of the 1920 decade since the its capitalistic and democratic policies were question throughout the world as being a failed system. With the international system crumpling the world witness the rise of fascism, communism and totalitarian regimes in Europe and Asia presenting military and ideological threats challenging national and international stability. “For those and other countries that were joining the rank of fascist states, war was taken as a perpetual condition of national and international affair” (P. 134). The early years of the Roosevelt administration still prescribed neutrality and priority to national affairs in order help the economic crises at home. In Latin American, the policy of Good Neighbor thought to comply with non-interventionism, separating the continent from Europe and Asia. By now (1937-38), the US understood that the escalating conflicts by the unified forces of Germany, Italy and Japan had proved the crises in Europe and Asia was interrelated. As the appeasement policy failed, “the Western democracies were put on the defensive. They not only faced the prospect of war against Germany, but were also confronted with the spectacle of a worldwide coalition of antidemocratic powers” (P. 153) forcing the US to reassume its place in the world arena as the rescuer of peace and stability. Administration’s evaluation of use of force to defend nationals was backed by national public opinion since the Panay incident.
In the chapter Road to Pearl Harbor, Iriye explained that by then, Congress authorized the Lend-Lease arms to any country that would help to defend American security, marking the involvement of the US in the war. Since Japan signed a Neutrality pact with Moscow, it decided to engage in a war with the US and thus attacking Pearl Harbor. From there on, the US was the only country involved in the war in all parts of the world and thus proving that it was a determinant in the establishment of the Americanization of the world. “But the way the war came to an end – through Soviet entry into the Pacific war and the US use of atom bombs- suggested that the post war world would be enormously complicated” (P. 21 4).
In conclusion, in only few decades the US was able to become the world’s super power making the best use of international relations to achieve this goal. Iriye account of the period was informative but in my view, lacked description of war the events in order to provide better complete understanding of the foreign policies. That approach could work for scholars who are familiar with historical occurences, but not for undergrad students. I also think that he could have been more explicit in providing information regarding national reactions to different foreign policies during these. In order to fully comprehend the country actions abroad, first you need to understand the national context which will prescribe such actions. He also seemed to positively portray all US actions deemphasizing US eagerness (at all costs) to become major player in the world.
Notes:
- Iriye, Akira The Cambridge History of American Relations, Volume III The Globalizing of AMERICA, 1913- 1945 (Cambridge University Press – 1993)
LaFeber’s The American Search for Opportunity
The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relation, Volume II, The American Search for Opportunity, written by Walter LaFeber is in my view an instructional and fascinating book that describes the trajectory of the United States foreign relations between the years 1865-1913 when Americans developed foreign policies aiming to open and expand new commercial opportunities in order to create better conditions for the development of the national economy that resulted in the emergency of the United States as a new global power. As this unfolds, instead of promotion of order, liberty and stability abroad, the American foreign policy had unsettling impact in the international affairs. The Second Industrial Revolution was a determinant factor in the development of the American economic growth. Cultural ideals of isolationism, exceptionalism, and racism (white supremacy) shaped the foreign policy. It was during these years that the United States understood the importance of being able to protect commerce by creating an efficient maritime force, which was used to interfere during clashes in the quest for obtaining new markets in the Pacific Ocean, Africa and in Latin America and suppressing nationalist sentiments in the regions. According to LaFerber, the American Executive power was transformed into an imperial presidency with unprecedented ability to use force bypassing Congress approval in other to maintain American interest of increasing its commercial power. It is in analyzing these policies that we are able to better understand current United States foreign relations and come to the conclusion that these fundamental values are still shaping American foreign policy.
LaFeber gives much importance to the Second Industrial Revolution and the redesigned productive system, revealing that it was due to its occurrence that the U.S. became an emergent global power. “From the 1890s on, the nation had emerged as the world’s greatest and most competitive player in the marketplace. Fearful Europeans warned of an “American Invasion” an overwhelming offensive of United States-made goods and multinationals long before they worried about challenges of United States military, political, or cultural power”(Page 21). It was because of the development of a new capitalism and its need for foreign markets that many revolutions were not only supported but sometimes instigated by the United States leadership envisioning enhancement of commercial opportunities. Hypocritically, when ideals of liberty, stability and order ingrained in the Constitution clashed with the quest of profit and market share, the latter usually prevailed in the discernment of the United States action. The restoration of order was only emphasized if opportunity could be first pursued. “Neither Seward nor any other official could ever discover how to extract extensive concessions from weaker nations without ultimately undermining the order, if not sovereignty, of that nation” (Page 19). This proves LaFeber’s disagreeing with the notion that the United States foreign policy is portrayed by many scholars as to aim for order and stability. Isolationism did not mean that the United States would distant themselves of the political activities of the entire world. American isolation was only practiced in the political activities of Europe because Americans understood European foreign policy as intrinsically bad, corrupt and colonialist. “The Unite States did not want to join the European and Japanese quest for landed, colonial empire. American officials wanted only scattered, relatively small areas of land to serve as bases for their necessary commercial expansionism.” (Page 238) With Europe, the United States concentrated on commercial relations distancing itself from political intervention in order not to risk its sovereignty and autonomy. Everywhere else, interventionism, which maintained the United States emergent economic power, was justified by the quest of new commercial opportunities and the exercise of the exceptionalism. The latter was the believe that the United States had a messianic mission (Manifest Destiny) to provide the possibility for the New World to have a better and just political system disseminating democracy, liberty and Christian values. When dealing with Asia, Africa and Latin America, the United States was very much involved in their politics as LaFeber described “American policy played some role in all revolutionary outbreaks (in Russia, China, Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua, Philippines, Panama, El Salvador, Hawaii and many others) and in most it was a determinative force” ( Page 234). “From Seward to Hay, the United States officials had not hesitated to use bullets when dollars proved inadequate” (Page 216).
Expansionism (secular and religious) was perceived as condition for security and prosperity of the American republic and thus we saw continuous territorial growth of the state. From the initial colonies of the Atlantic east to the conquest of the West continental state and later the “informal” imperial power with the annexation of the Philippines and defeat of Spain in the Cuban independence war. The expansion of the boarders proved that the United States commercial relations had to increase continuously, reaching nations in faraway lands. It was when the United States feared that European nations (Germany, England and France) were going to close his commercial trade with China, that the Open Door policy was created insisting that all countries were to be given equal rights and possibilities throughout the world. China was forced to agree with the trade policies of the U.S. On the other hand, Central and South America was understood to be part of the New World (under the Monroe Doctrine) and a vital strategic position with importance in order to maintain the security of American interests. As soon as the United States felt threatened in the international commercial system, it entered into action using force if necessary in order to defend its interest and thus implementing its interventionist policies. The construction of the Panama Canal is an example as LaFeber states “the canal is the most important subject now connected with commercial growth and progress of the United States…the United States helped trigger a revolt and used the resulting disorder to obtain land for the canal” (Page 74). Missionary groups played a major role in expansion that ultimately influenced the destabilization of East Asia together with the imports of foreign goods.
Another fact that made public acceptance of intervention acceptable was racism. It was usually combined with white paternalistic supremacy. During the intervention in the Philippines, LaFeber stated “ the United States government had shown it could keep African Americans and Indians (and women) in their place at home without the vote, it could do the same with Filipinos” (Page 163). It was part of the culture in America (exemplify in its treatment of native Americans and the segregation of Africa Americans even after emancipation) and it reflected in the United States foreign policy “The consolidation of the continent, training of military force, contradictory feelings about immigrants, and above all, racism not only characterized these late nineteenth-century decades but were central in shaping U.S. foreign policy then and in the new century” (Page 45). Americans had not problem to the annexation of Canada because of the same Anglo-Saxon race, but were not so thrilled to combine the “creoles” of the South into the white nation. The people of the South were better controlled, but not annexed to the Union.
Another important development that came from these years was the appearance of a very strong presidency. LaFeber detailed the nearly open-ended power of post -1898 presidency, as described by the Supreme Court in Inre Neagle “the president’s power was not limited to carrying out Congress’s wishes but extended to enforcing the rights, duties, and obligations growing out of the Constitution itself, our international relations, and all the protection implied by nature of the government under the Constitution” (Page 82). This proved to be right when presidents used military force when it was necessary to preserve and defend American opportunity. “The changing interrelationships of business and foreign policy began to change as well the balance of power within the U.S. governmental system” (Page 42). “Expansion and disorder abroad equaled centralization at home” (Page 177).
In conclusion, LaFeber account of the Foreign Policies in the late nineteen century and beginning of twenty century was very informative explaining in details American ambition in becoming a successful world power and the role of American leadership who took advantage of Europe declining economic situation and independency revolutions throughout the world to expand its commercial aspirations. I would say that this ambition as LaFeber portrayed would go far against fundamental principles proclaimed by the Founding Fathers of America being the beacon of liberty, democracy and justice for all humanity.
LaFeber in my view neglected to develop other factors involving the American Expansionism. It concentrated mostly on the quest for business and commercial trade but barely noticed any other reasons for drive to expansion providing a narrow and homogenic view. He could have developed the concept of America’s cultural imperialism as an ideology and geographic strategic aspirations not tied to commercial trade.
Notes:
- LaFeber, Walter The Cambridge History of American Relations, Volume II The American Search for Opportunity, 1865-1913 (Cambridge University Press – 1993)
LaFeber gives much importance to the Second Industrial Revolution and the redesigned productive system, revealing that it was due to its occurrence that the U.S. became an emergent global power. “From the 1890s on, the nation had emerged as the world’s greatest and most competitive player in the marketplace. Fearful Europeans warned of an “American Invasion” an overwhelming offensive of United States-made goods and multinationals long before they worried about challenges of United States military, political, or cultural power”(Page 21). It was because of the development of a new capitalism and its need for foreign markets that many revolutions were not only supported but sometimes instigated by the United States leadership envisioning enhancement of commercial opportunities. Hypocritically, when ideals of liberty, stability and order ingrained in the Constitution clashed with the quest of profit and market share, the latter usually prevailed in the discernment of the United States action. The restoration of order was only emphasized if opportunity could be first pursued. “Neither Seward nor any other official could ever discover how to extract extensive concessions from weaker nations without ultimately undermining the order, if not sovereignty, of that nation” (Page 19). This proves LaFeber’s disagreeing with the notion that the United States foreign policy is portrayed by many scholars as to aim for order and stability. Isolationism did not mean that the United States would distant themselves of the political activities of the entire world. American isolation was only practiced in the political activities of Europe because Americans understood European foreign policy as intrinsically bad, corrupt and colonialist. “The Unite States did not want to join the European and Japanese quest for landed, colonial empire. American officials wanted only scattered, relatively small areas of land to serve as bases for their necessary commercial expansionism.” (Page 238) With Europe, the United States concentrated on commercial relations distancing itself from political intervention in order not to risk its sovereignty and autonomy. Everywhere else, interventionism, which maintained the United States emergent economic power, was justified by the quest of new commercial opportunities and the exercise of the exceptionalism. The latter was the believe that the United States had a messianic mission (Manifest Destiny) to provide the possibility for the New World to have a better and just political system disseminating democracy, liberty and Christian values. When dealing with Asia, Africa and Latin America, the United States was very much involved in their politics as LaFeber described “American policy played some role in all revolutionary outbreaks (in Russia, China, Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua, Philippines, Panama, El Salvador, Hawaii and many others) and in most it was a determinative force” ( Page 234). “From Seward to Hay, the United States officials had not hesitated to use bullets when dollars proved inadequate” (Page 216).
Expansionism (secular and religious) was perceived as condition for security and prosperity of the American republic and thus we saw continuous territorial growth of the state. From the initial colonies of the Atlantic east to the conquest of the West continental state and later the “informal” imperial power with the annexation of the Philippines and defeat of Spain in the Cuban independence war. The expansion of the boarders proved that the United States commercial relations had to increase continuously, reaching nations in faraway lands. It was when the United States feared that European nations (Germany, England and France) were going to close his commercial trade with China, that the Open Door policy was created insisting that all countries were to be given equal rights and possibilities throughout the world. China was forced to agree with the trade policies of the U.S. On the other hand, Central and South America was understood to be part of the New World (under the Monroe Doctrine) and a vital strategic position with importance in order to maintain the security of American interests. As soon as the United States felt threatened in the international commercial system, it entered into action using force if necessary in order to defend its interest and thus implementing its interventionist policies. The construction of the Panama Canal is an example as LaFeber states “the canal is the most important subject now connected with commercial growth and progress of the United States…the United States helped trigger a revolt and used the resulting disorder to obtain land for the canal” (Page 74). Missionary groups played a major role in expansion that ultimately influenced the destabilization of East Asia together with the imports of foreign goods.
Another fact that made public acceptance of intervention acceptable was racism. It was usually combined with white paternalistic supremacy. During the intervention in the Philippines, LaFeber stated “ the United States government had shown it could keep African Americans and Indians (and women) in their place at home without the vote, it could do the same with Filipinos” (Page 163). It was part of the culture in America (exemplify in its treatment of native Americans and the segregation of Africa Americans even after emancipation) and it reflected in the United States foreign policy “The consolidation of the continent, training of military force, contradictory feelings about immigrants, and above all, racism not only characterized these late nineteenth-century decades but were central in shaping U.S. foreign policy then and in the new century” (Page 45). Americans had not problem to the annexation of Canada because of the same Anglo-Saxon race, but were not so thrilled to combine the “creoles” of the South into the white nation. The people of the South were better controlled, but not annexed to the Union.
Another important development that came from these years was the appearance of a very strong presidency. LaFeber detailed the nearly open-ended power of post -1898 presidency, as described by the Supreme Court in Inre Neagle “the president’s power was not limited to carrying out Congress’s wishes but extended to enforcing the rights, duties, and obligations growing out of the Constitution itself, our international relations, and all the protection implied by nature of the government under the Constitution” (Page 82). This proved to be right when presidents used military force when it was necessary to preserve and defend American opportunity. “The changing interrelationships of business and foreign policy began to change as well the balance of power within the U.S. governmental system” (Page 42). “Expansion and disorder abroad equaled centralization at home” (Page 177).
In conclusion, LaFeber account of the Foreign Policies in the late nineteen century and beginning of twenty century was very informative explaining in details American ambition in becoming a successful world power and the role of American leadership who took advantage of Europe declining economic situation and independency revolutions throughout the world to expand its commercial aspirations. I would say that this ambition as LaFeber portrayed would go far against fundamental principles proclaimed by the Founding Fathers of America being the beacon of liberty, democracy and justice for all humanity.
LaFeber in my view neglected to develop other factors involving the American Expansionism. It concentrated mostly on the quest for business and commercial trade but barely noticed any other reasons for drive to expansion providing a narrow and homogenic view. He could have developed the concept of America’s cultural imperialism as an ideology and geographic strategic aspirations not tied to commercial trade.
Notes:
- LaFeber, Walter The Cambridge History of American Relations, Volume II The American Search for Opportunity, 1865-1913 (Cambridge University Press – 1993)
The Creation of a Republican Empire
Bradford Perkins’ The Creation of a Republican Empire presents an informative account of the history of American foreign policy. He discusses important theories behind the policies used in laying the path to convert the state into what he calls, the American Republican Empire. He focused on the ideals of republicanism, individualism, trade and economic expansionism that shaped international policy debates. Perkins framed his work on proceedings such as the struggles of the American Revolution, the creation of the United States constitution, the effects produced by the European wars, the Monroe Doctrine, the decade of 1840s and its emphasis on expansionism and the Civil War. In just one century, the United States through a well design approach to international relations was able to legitimize its independence and secured commercial trade and its geographical territory. This distinctive model inspired many countries throughout the world to follow its successes. It was because of the vision of the Founding Founders transmitted to and embraced by the nationalistic American people that the United States became a leading country in international relations and major player in the international community today.
American Foreign Policy started to be patterned in the early days of the American Revolution. Since the beginning, Americans were driven by the desire to attain power and wealth. They understood that it was only through dominion of foreign policy that they would be able to maneuver the economic and political wheel towards their side, acknowledging that foreign commerce was crucial to the nation’s survival. As Richard Henry Lee wrote “ No state in Europe will either Treat or Trade with us so long as we consider ourselves Subjects of G.B. It is not choice then but necessity which calls for Independence, as the only means by which foreign Alliances can be obtained.” (p.19) Politicians concentrated their efforts in the promotion of foreign trade pushing for an agenda that emphasized their belief in republicanism and individualism.
Perkins illustrated the continuous power struggle to control of foreign policy between congress and the presidency. The latter was able in many events, to influence and dictate policies creating tensions between the two branches. This power struggle was deep-rooted in the Constitution. Edward S. Corwin concluded that the constitution “is an invitation to struggle for privilege of directing American foreign policy” (p.70). This contradiction demonstrated that behind closed doors, American presidents would prioritize its interested disregarding the main values aspired by the convention in Philadelphia. A double standard criticized by many today.
National interest was the most important aspect of foreign policy, although, as Perkins states “it professes to represent the aspirations of the entire world. Foreign policy include same emphasis on national self-interest, the same intrusion of the larger culture, the same distortions- sometimes minor, sometimes substantial-of the view of the world events seen through a prism of national but not universal values”.(p. 6) Directly connected to national interest, as Perkins described in his prism concept, is the American devotion to isolationism. By opening its commerce to every nation, and by committing themselves to non involvement policy with the politics of other continents (especially the corrupted European international politics), U.S believe that “reason would rule (p. 22) and isolation was the only way to avoid exploitation and perhaps even wars of no real concern to the United States but dangerous to independence and happiness.” (p. 23) However, with the French alliance treaties of 1778 in which the American Revolution was to receive aid essential to the accomplishment of the movement, showed the ambiguity within American Policy. The commercial treaty reflected isolationism and the treaty of conditional alliance implicated the US into the European politics. Reality was way from the utopia ideals of the Revolution.
After the peaceful political transition after the first national election, the bi-partisan system became a prevalent force in politics. This is a very significant development especially with the beginning of the European wars in the last decade of the eighteen century. Americans constituents responded to the pronouncements of their fellow partisan leaders. Perkins stated “differences over foreign policies dominated the political battle field” (p. 95) .Federalists and Republicans both came to the view the European contest as extension of their own struggle. Federalists already felt that democracy could go too far; they believe that events in France so proved and they could not respect those who differ from them. Republicans had already identified the domestic conflict as an effort to defend America against corrupting English ways, and it was easy now to see administration policy as an attempt to ally the country with England and the league of despots against liberty and the French. Republicans were pro-French and Federalists pro-British” (p. 84). However, a policy of peace and neutrality reflecting the ideal of non involvement was agreed by all Americans and Pres. Washington Neutrality Act of 1794 proclaimed independence of neutral commerce. This policy it obtained extensive economic benefits. Both England and France had to open their trade policies increasing imports and opening colonial ports to foreign ships due to the necessity of supplies during the wars. As Perkins states “when war resumed, so did profits – for farmers, plantation owners, merchants, and the nation as a whole. The United States had established itself as a growing factor in the world economy. Like territorial empire, this was very largely a consequence of the Europe’s wars” (p. 93).
Republicans took power in the beginning of the nineteen hundreds, and managed an agreement with France, in which Napoleon renounced the entire colony of Louisiana. This was a major accomplishment by Jefferson’s administration when territorial expansionism was at the heart of political discourse. Perkins states “The acquisition more than double the size of the US and more than any other event in the Republic era, placed the nation on the road to world power.”(p.117). However, after the success of the Louisiana Purchase, the federalist faced many threats that attempted to weaken American commerce by Europeans, which after much humiliation ended causing a war with England. The United States was sending the message to Europe that they were the owners of commerce and only Americans had to right to decide who would be their trade alliances. Jefferson and Madison try to get concessions from England by applying the tactic of fear of war. Speeding up the approval of an embargo policy and preventing American exports to leave the country, the administration again sent a message of warning proved not to be effective. Perkins describes “the Embargo stimulated law breaking so extensive as to undermine the Republican regime, perhaps the Constitution itself…citizens of all occupations, were unwilling to make economic sacrifices the policy required. At no time was the Embargo close to success as an instrument of coercion” (p.128). Republicans were effective in selling the concept of war by linking it to the attacks against commerce with attacks on independence and gained popular support for the war. Nothing much was gained from the war but a revitalized nationalistic pride.
The Monroe Doctrine was implemented in fervent phase of nationalism and was aimed to further expand commerce, encourage national self-sufficiency, territory expansionism and influence abroad sending the message of freedom and therefore non acceptance policy of Europe’s colonization of new territory in the American continent. With this in mind and rumors that England had interest of conquering Florida, the U.S. “forced” Spain into a treaty to transfer the Sunshine colony to the American union. At the same time, Spanish colonies throughout Latin American started their independence revolutions. Even though isolationism and non-intervention principle was very much part of American culture the United States begun to recognized the newly sovereign nations. Most importantly, the doctrine was intended to make Europe realize that Americans were pronouncing their diplomatic autonomy. However in reality, Europe continued to have influence in the south. With the Manifest Destiny, Americans preached to be the beacon of democracy and freedom and were called to missionary enterprise to save the world. Latin American received this as a demonstration of American arrogance and domination where its interest in expansion was primarily preoccupied with increase of power. Perkins’ concluded that “racism, also worked, in a perhaps paradoxical way, to limit the extent of territorial ambition (p.173) and moral ideology was the partner of self interest in intimate alliance of which expansionism was the offspring.” (p.178) The 1840s was a decade of successful expansionism in part due to misfortune events in Europe. Europe needed a break and America benefited from it. America became what Perkins describe as “a power of first class, a nation which it is dangerous to offend and almost impossible to attack.” (p.231)
In conclusion, Perkins presents a homogeneous account of the evolution of the American Foreign Policy detailing how national politics influenced foreign relations. America experienced an identity crises struggling with paradox of the policies of isolationism and expansionism. This was revealed in an oscillating pattern of her foreign policies reflecting contradictory combination of ideals of democracy and liberalism with expansionism which was present in the very birth of the nation. The author did not clarify if expansionism was adopted by the founders as a reaction to European power or if it was an intrinsic American desire for power. In my view, Perkins wrote the book only to the U.S audience failing to prescribe the repercussions of the American policies of the period in other parts of the world including Latin America, Asia and Africa.
Notes:
Perkins, Bradford The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations Volume I, The Creation of the Republican Empire, 1776-1865 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)
American Foreign Policy started to be patterned in the early days of the American Revolution. Since the beginning, Americans were driven by the desire to attain power and wealth. They understood that it was only through dominion of foreign policy that they would be able to maneuver the economic and political wheel towards their side, acknowledging that foreign commerce was crucial to the nation’s survival. As Richard Henry Lee wrote “ No state in Europe will either Treat or Trade with us so long as we consider ourselves Subjects of G.B. It is not choice then but necessity which calls for Independence, as the only means by which foreign Alliances can be obtained.” (p.19) Politicians concentrated their efforts in the promotion of foreign trade pushing for an agenda that emphasized their belief in republicanism and individualism.
Perkins illustrated the continuous power struggle to control of foreign policy between congress and the presidency. The latter was able in many events, to influence and dictate policies creating tensions between the two branches. This power struggle was deep-rooted in the Constitution. Edward S. Corwin concluded that the constitution “is an invitation to struggle for privilege of directing American foreign policy” (p.70). This contradiction demonstrated that behind closed doors, American presidents would prioritize its interested disregarding the main values aspired by the convention in Philadelphia. A double standard criticized by many today.
National interest was the most important aspect of foreign policy, although, as Perkins states “it professes to represent the aspirations of the entire world. Foreign policy include same emphasis on national self-interest, the same intrusion of the larger culture, the same distortions- sometimes minor, sometimes substantial-of the view of the world events seen through a prism of national but not universal values”.(p. 6) Directly connected to national interest, as Perkins described in his prism concept, is the American devotion to isolationism. By opening its commerce to every nation, and by committing themselves to non involvement policy with the politics of other continents (especially the corrupted European international politics), U.S believe that “reason would rule (p. 22) and isolation was the only way to avoid exploitation and perhaps even wars of no real concern to the United States but dangerous to independence and happiness.” (p. 23) However, with the French alliance treaties of 1778 in which the American Revolution was to receive aid essential to the accomplishment of the movement, showed the ambiguity within American Policy. The commercial treaty reflected isolationism and the treaty of conditional alliance implicated the US into the European politics. Reality was way from the utopia ideals of the Revolution.
After the peaceful political transition after the first national election, the bi-partisan system became a prevalent force in politics. This is a very significant development especially with the beginning of the European wars in the last decade of the eighteen century. Americans constituents responded to the pronouncements of their fellow partisan leaders. Perkins stated “differences over foreign policies dominated the political battle field” (p. 95) .Federalists and Republicans both came to the view the European contest as extension of their own struggle. Federalists already felt that democracy could go too far; they believe that events in France so proved and they could not respect those who differ from them. Republicans had already identified the domestic conflict as an effort to defend America against corrupting English ways, and it was easy now to see administration policy as an attempt to ally the country with England and the league of despots against liberty and the French. Republicans were pro-French and Federalists pro-British” (p. 84). However, a policy of peace and neutrality reflecting the ideal of non involvement was agreed by all Americans and Pres. Washington Neutrality Act of 1794 proclaimed independence of neutral commerce. This policy it obtained extensive economic benefits. Both England and France had to open their trade policies increasing imports and opening colonial ports to foreign ships due to the necessity of supplies during the wars. As Perkins states “when war resumed, so did profits – for farmers, plantation owners, merchants, and the nation as a whole. The United States had established itself as a growing factor in the world economy. Like territorial empire, this was very largely a consequence of the Europe’s wars” (p. 93).
Republicans took power in the beginning of the nineteen hundreds, and managed an agreement with France, in which Napoleon renounced the entire colony of Louisiana. This was a major accomplishment by Jefferson’s administration when territorial expansionism was at the heart of political discourse. Perkins states “The acquisition more than double the size of the US and more than any other event in the Republic era, placed the nation on the road to world power.”(p.117). However, after the success of the Louisiana Purchase, the federalist faced many threats that attempted to weaken American commerce by Europeans, which after much humiliation ended causing a war with England. The United States was sending the message to Europe that they were the owners of commerce and only Americans had to right to decide who would be their trade alliances. Jefferson and Madison try to get concessions from England by applying the tactic of fear of war. Speeding up the approval of an embargo policy and preventing American exports to leave the country, the administration again sent a message of warning proved not to be effective. Perkins describes “the Embargo stimulated law breaking so extensive as to undermine the Republican regime, perhaps the Constitution itself…citizens of all occupations, were unwilling to make economic sacrifices the policy required. At no time was the Embargo close to success as an instrument of coercion” (p.128). Republicans were effective in selling the concept of war by linking it to the attacks against commerce with attacks on independence and gained popular support for the war. Nothing much was gained from the war but a revitalized nationalistic pride.
The Monroe Doctrine was implemented in fervent phase of nationalism and was aimed to further expand commerce, encourage national self-sufficiency, territory expansionism and influence abroad sending the message of freedom and therefore non acceptance policy of Europe’s colonization of new territory in the American continent. With this in mind and rumors that England had interest of conquering Florida, the U.S. “forced” Spain into a treaty to transfer the Sunshine colony to the American union. At the same time, Spanish colonies throughout Latin American started their independence revolutions. Even though isolationism and non-intervention principle was very much part of American culture the United States begun to recognized the newly sovereign nations. Most importantly, the doctrine was intended to make Europe realize that Americans were pronouncing their diplomatic autonomy. However in reality, Europe continued to have influence in the south. With the Manifest Destiny, Americans preached to be the beacon of democracy and freedom and were called to missionary enterprise to save the world. Latin American received this as a demonstration of American arrogance and domination where its interest in expansion was primarily preoccupied with increase of power. Perkins’ concluded that “racism, also worked, in a perhaps paradoxical way, to limit the extent of territorial ambition (p.173) and moral ideology was the partner of self interest in intimate alliance of which expansionism was the offspring.” (p.178) The 1840s was a decade of successful expansionism in part due to misfortune events in Europe. Europe needed a break and America benefited from it. America became what Perkins describe as “a power of first class, a nation which it is dangerous to offend and almost impossible to attack.” (p.231)
In conclusion, Perkins presents a homogeneous account of the evolution of the American Foreign Policy detailing how national politics influenced foreign relations. America experienced an identity crises struggling with paradox of the policies of isolationism and expansionism. This was revealed in an oscillating pattern of her foreign policies reflecting contradictory combination of ideals of democracy and liberalism with expansionism which was present in the very birth of the nation. The author did not clarify if expansionism was adopted by the founders as a reaction to European power or if it was an intrinsic American desire for power. In my view, Perkins wrote the book only to the U.S audience failing to prescribe the repercussions of the American policies of the period in other parts of the world including Latin America, Asia and Africa.
Notes:
Perkins, Bradford The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations Volume I, The Creation of the Republican Empire, 1776-1865 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)