What is imperialism, and how does it fit in the American ...



Imperial America

EDGE Fall Quarter 2003

Tim Chueh

Ambert Ho

12/5/03

What Is Imperialism?

“Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism…characterized by monopoly corporations and the compulsion to export capital abroad for higher profits. Unlike capitalism in the earlier stages, in the imperialist stage, capitalism has no more progress to bring the world…the cause of contemporary militarism” – Lenin

“The policy, practice, or advocacy of seeking, or acquiescing in, the extension of the control, dominion, or empire of a nation, as by the acquirement of new, esp. distant, territory or dependencies, or by the closer union of parts more or less independent of each other for operations of war, copyright, internal commerce, etc.” – Oxford dictionary

The word imperialism derives from “empire.” As such, it is useful to spend a bit of time to define the word. In working towards a minimal definition, Stanford Professor of Archaeology J. Manning in his first lecture on Ancient Empires starts with: “An empire is a territorially extensive hierarchically political organization.” Unfortunately this definition is too vague. All states encountered in human history are by definition hierarchical, and many nations today are vast compared to the empires of the ancient world. Thus, Manning rephrases his definition of empire to be: “A territorially extensive hierarchical political organization involving the rule of one or more groups over other groups of foreigners.” But what causes empire? There are two models worth explaining. One is originated by the Greek historian Thucydides, famous for the quote “The strong do what they can and the weak do what they must.” He stipulates that imperialism is a latent part of human nature, an atavism, and that empires break out whenever societal factors such as demography, technology, and/or political institutions favor their development. Dr. Michael Mann, in his book Sources of Social Power, lists the powers which govern the behavior of a state as ideological, economic, military, and political. A second, more recent theory named the Constructivist model, states that economic forces can also create the need for empire. And that in addition to the factors stated by Thucydides, ideology is also a factor. Now that we have those factors, as a preview, let us throw out some words: “Manifest Destiny, oil shortage, import tariff, Walmart.”

Imperialism is literally means “behavior exhibited by an empire”. Imperialism is the benefit an empire gets from being an empire. What are these benefits?

• An empire often has far greater economic leverage than a small nation. It often uses political clout backed by social, economic, and military power to bully/ignore the will of smaller states.

Today, America gets raw resources from many nations, which depend on America for all kinds of high level manufactured goods from printers to jet fighters. An empire has a powerful and stable currency, much like the American dollar is today, and also can cripple small nations with economic sanctions. Historically, the Romans and other armies up to medieval times would have enough troops to surround an enemy and prevent supplies from reaching them. The British navy was large enough to blockade the ports of its enemies, as was the Union to the Confederate ports in The Civil War. Today, as business is war, so to speak, the United States displays considerable power when it places a tariff or embargo on a smaller state. During my trip to Taiwan this past summer, I was amazed how concerned people I met were about the US nullifying the UN resolution by going into Iraq. This was a largely muted issue in America as the media was mobilized to back “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

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

The Aztec empire did not administer the lands it conquered. Rather these states were subjugated by tribute, and acted in addition as cushion states against the outside. Most all empires have a core region or nationality and the outlying territories act as buffer zones to enemy attack. It was very obvious during the era of the Soviet Union that Russia was the main power and its surrounding allied nations existed as an extension of its power.

• An empire often has a cultural influence which extends far beyond official political. borders.

One of the most famous Coca-Cola commercials depicts a truck dropping off a cooler full of the drink to a rural African village. McDonald’s Golden Arches, movies, American culture is exported everywhere, and whether or not the local populace agrees with American politics and foreign policy, almost the entire world enjoys and to some degree desires to emulate American culture. In Roman times, the officials of outlying territories built coliseums, amphitheaters, and Roman style villas, as well as dressed like Roman aristocracy. Most of the languages of East Asia have origins that can be traced to some form of Chinese dialect. When a nation is strong, its appeal is in its power.

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

An empire has enough diversity that it can call on diverse resources to achieve a goal most efficiently. Whether driven by ideological, economic, military, or political forces, all empires in history have arisen due to a disparity between a state’s tactical capabilities and its opponents. This disparity often arises from technology and a greater ability to organize. Starting from the Hittite army conquering Egypt with iron versus bronze weapons to the Roman empire mercilessly stomping out the ‘barbarians’ with catapults and legionnaires to modern day America firing cruise missiles into Iraq for nearly a month until the ground troops aided by GPS and laptops went in, technological/logistical ability is what allows an empire to exert its will.

Today, especially due to globalization and the electronic age, it no longer makes sense to define imperialism as something necessitating force. Imperialism can be defined as broadly as one country imposing will upon another. We can say that imperialism has to do with extension of beliefs onto foreigners, cultural assimilation and economic integration. The last sentence sounds a lot like the effects of globalization, one topic that will be touched upon later.

Is imperialism bad? That question is highly debatable, and it is an important question because the word imperialism has only recently taken on a negative context. It is used to describe a country behaving like a bully towards other states, but Frank Furedi in his book New Ideology of Imperialism points out that not long ago, “the moral claims of imperialism were seldom questioned in the west. Imperialism and the global expansion of the western powers were represented in unambiguously positive terms as a major contributor to human civilization" The United States exhibits imperialistic behavior arising from the need to protect interests. But without regard, this behavior is disrupts regional stability around the world. Still, US imperialism is not as malicious as some critics would make it out to be, rather it seems to be a natural extension of power; America’s meddling in the affairs of others is no different from what any strongman in a position of power would do in his own interests.

Is American Imperialism Different?

It has long been a tradition of American historians to prove that American intentions are not imperialistic. Joseph Schumpeter, in his 1919 article “Imperialism as a social atavism,” defines it as “the objectless disposition on the part of the state to unlimited forcible expansion.” This definition has two points worth mentioning. One, that imperialism must be objectless. Two, that the expansion is forcible, which Schumpeter later clarifies as military force. Marray Greene comments 35 years later: “[Schumpeter] develops a very specialized definition of imperialism which he then expounds with references to certain selected societies in history. He also sets up a very specialized definition of capitalism, which he then shows to be inconsistene with his definition of imperialism, thereby ‘proving’ that capitalism is anti-imperialist.” What exactly are the intentions of America?

Ernest May points out: “Instead of seeking, like European powers, to shut other nations out of colonial areas, the United States worked to insure that Americans were not excluded. Although this goal sometimes required acquisition of islands, since bases were needed both for trade and for the exercise of political and military influence, it did not require assumption of larger administrative responsibilities. Americans, by their competitive superiority, could achieve economic dominance without taking on such burdens.” In other words, May argues that the main reason why American imperialism did not take the form of conquering and holding land was that there was that cost-benefit analysis would provide more profit if the nations in question retained political autonomy yet opened their borders to trade with America. It is simply more advantageous for a capitalist society to secure the flow of trade (by breaking down barriers and raising our own tariffs as seen fit) rather than to secure land; the latter was indeed the mentality of a feudalistic society, the claiming of earth for little more than just that.

Criticisms of American Democracy

Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the case of America’s success exemplified how democracy was indeed the superior form of government in a modern, industrialized world. During this time period, various international crises, world wars, and economic developments tested the strength of America’s democracy, for democracy in America may have passed all of these tests, but by what means? In other words, did these developments reveal any vulnerabilities and inconsistencies of American democracy? Charles Sumner, in “The Bequests of the Nineteenth Century to the Twentieth,” criticizes American democracy for entrusting the uneducated people with too much power, for Sumner views the masses in a negative light, referring to them as “a mythological product with no definition” (Sumner, 216). Forty-five years later (1946), during the birth of the Cold War, Nikolai Novikov, a Soviet ambassador to the United States, criticizes American democracy for its imperialist tendencies and monopolistic capitalism. He suggests that America’s form of governance is in reality not democratic at all, for how can a country claim to be democratic and yet seek world domination? Lastly, Servan-Schreiber, in The American Challenge, points out many inconsistencies within American democracy that are mostly aimed at imperialist expansionism and self-interested, capitalist globalization. All of these critiques of American democracy share a common foundation, an element that has sustained nearly 70 years of history (1901-1968), and that is the element of hypocrisy in American policies. All three authors elaborate upon the hypocrisy of American democracy, for this foundation for criticism branches out to a plethora of weaknesses such as imperialism, yellow journalism, and monopolistic expansion.

By analyzing these critiques in a chronological order, starting with Sumner and ending with Servan-Schreiber, we can see how American democracy has been hypocritical in terms of foreign policy. By definition, democratic form of governance stands for freedom, liberty, and equality, but according to these criteria, American foreign policy in the early twentieth century was far from “democratic” and more like imperialistic. During William Sumner’s time, the Spanish-American War and Philippine Revolution were major concerns for American foreign policy. America surely did not implement a democratic policy because American troops brutally massacred Spanish troops in Cuba in order to protect their Latin American interests during the Spanish-American War (Kennedy, The United States in 1900, 4/4/02). Sumner criticizes this hypocritical action by stating, “Democracy assumes that numbers have a right in the natures of things to rule. Of course, that is entirely untrue. There is nobody who, in the nature of things, ought to rule” (Sumner, 218). Thus, Sumner condemns the American interventionist policy that incited a revolt in the Philippines and protected interests in Latin America because these imperialist actions sharply contrast with democratic principles. These two incidents at the turn of the century exemplified how American ideology was one of a “might is right” rule, where American democracy meant intervening in foreign affairs simply because America was stronger, which is contrary to the true meaning of democracy that is focused on peace and equality, not war and revolution.

Imperialism and the Cold War

Nikolai Novikov also lambastes American foreign policy by accusing the United States of preparing for world domination. Like Sumner, Novikov finds the hypocritical element in America’s democracy, but Novikov uses objective facts and figures to support his claim. During Novikov’s time, America was increasing expenditures on the army and navy, building nearly 500 new bases in the Atlantic and Pacific, and dispatching naval vessels throughout major European ports. All of these actions taken by the United States signaled the beginning of the Cold War. Novikov reacts by declaring, “All of these facts show clearly that a decisive role in the realization of plans for world dominance by the United States is played by its armed forces” (Novikov, 402). Another example of hypocrisy in American democracy was the policy towards the USSR during the post WWII period. According to Novikov, the United States was acting contrary to democratic principles by creating obstacles for the process of democratization in neighboring countries to the USSR. Novikov states, “Such a policy is intended to weaken and overthrow the democratic government in power there, which are friendly toward the USSR, and replace them in the future with new governments that would obediently carry out a policy dictated by the US” (Novikov, 403). If American foreign policy were truly democratic, why would the American government want to inhibit the spread of democracy? How can America preach for the spread of democracy in the world, while America herself is trying to prevent democratization in other countries? All in all, Novikov highlights the tension between expanding military forces and American democracy, for world domination and democracy do not go hand in hand. Therefore, one must conclude that American post WWII foreign policy was actually the antithesis of democracy and resembled imperialist tendencies.

Economic Imperialism in France

Twenty-two years later (1968), Servan-Schreiber denounces American democracy in a whole new light by writing from a technological and cultural standpoint, as opposed to the military one taken by both Sumner and Novikov. Servan-Schreiber believed that American industry in the 1960’s acted in imperialist ways by restraining French creativity, technology, and culture. He writes, “A nation holding a monopoly of power would look on imperialism as a kind of duty, and would take its own success as proof that the rest of the world should follow its example” (Schreiber, 102). This sort of “Americanization” conflicts with democracy, for democracy is supposed to support the freedom of ideas and culture. Therefore, American interests in France during the 1960’s presents a type of imperialism that exploited French resources during their time of reconstruction.

Another element of hypocrisy that can be traced through America’s form of democracy is the idea of the mass media and how it degraded into propaganda and yellow journalism. Alexis de Tocqueville writes in Democracy in America, “the power of newspapers must therefore grow as democracy spreads” (Tocqueville, 520). Over time, Tocqueville’s statement proved to be valid, for newspapers during twentieth century America wielded enormous power, but would this power have positive or negative effects on democracy? By definition, “democracy,” derived from the Greek word “demos” meaning “people”, is supposed to represent the views of the people. According to this definition then, Sumner proscribes that American journalism was the contraposition of democracy, for newspapers were sensationalist and not representative of the true public opinion. He writes, “The newspapers are, according to the conditions of the case, forced to catch everything as it flies” (Sumner, 227). This statement refers to the yellow journalism of Hearst and Pulitzer that utilized sensationalist headlines to heighten tensions during the Spanish-American War in 1898 (Kennedy, America in 1900, 4/4/02). During the turn of the century, newspapers conflicted with American democracy because by definition, democracy is supposed to represent the views of the people, but yet, yellow journalism only represented sensationalist views and war propaganda.

America continued with their undemocratic press well into the post WWII era, for Novikov criticizes the American press for representing slanted anti-soviet sentiments. Novikov asserts, “The basic goal of this yellow American press is to exert political pressure on the Soviet Union and compel it to make concessions” (Novikov, 403). He continues to discuss how the American press created a war psychosis among the masses. Therefore, Novikov and Sumner both view the American press as a tool for brainwashing the public and creating a sensationalist atmosphere; both of these critiques point out the hypocritical element in American journalism, for America’s press in the early twentieth century did not follow democratic principles.

The final hypocritical element found in America’s practice of democracy is the idea of capitalism and monopolistic expansion. Sumner shows great concern for the balance between economic policy and democracy, for he states, “The contest of democracy is the contest between the economic power and opportunity mentioned at the outset and the political conditions under which it must be carried on” (Sumner, 231). During Sumner’s time, the American government was starting to intervene in economic affairs by instituting the Interstate Commerce Commission and acting against previous Laissez-Faire policies. These actions concerned Sumner, who regarded government intervention in the economic sphere as undemocratic. For Sumner, democracy meant Free Trade and the right to own and trade property without government rules and regulations; however, American policies at that time were taking a “trust-busting” attitude, an attitude that was criticized by Sumner as being undemocratic.

Did America continue its interventionist, monopolistic policy into the post WWII era? According to Servan-Schreiber, America is guilty of hypocrisy from an economic point of view. Schreiber asserts, “If the first criticism is that the Americans dry up the capital market, the second is that they force salary hikes because they offer higher wages” (Schreiber, 23). Thus, does invading an economically unstable country during a time of reconstruction and forcing higher prices and wages for self-interested, monetary gain adhere to democratic principles? This is exactly what America did in the 1960’s to the French market and industry. Moreover, America’s free trade policy only benefited the US, for Schreiber protests, “the free exchange policy opens an enormous free trade zone and an industrial market of global scope to American industry, but where in all this is there any sign of European power?” (Schreiber, 104).

During Schreiber’s time, the Marshall Plan had rebuilt France by setting up American industries using French capital, and the Treaty of Rome had established free and fair trade for the new European Common Market (Sheehan, 4/30/02). However, America’s monopoly on technology, creativity, and industry exploited French resources and workers, thus displaying the inconsistency between American expansion and democracy, for democracy means free and fair trade, not the exploitation of a weaker nation for economic gain.

Over the time period from 1901 to 1968, democracy in the United States sustained serious criticisms in regards to foreign policy, media, and capitalism; all of these criticisms shared the common foundation of hypocrisy, the idea of representing and preaching a specific principle in theory, but in reality, acting contrary to that principle. The criticisms raised by Sumner, Servan-Schreiber, and Novikov exemplify how even the most powerful, stable country under a democratic form of government is susceptible to weaknesses and hypocrisy in their practice of democratic principles. Nonetheless, no country under a democratic form of government is perfect, for even with all the criticisms of imperialism, yellow journalism, and monopolistic expansion, America remained the paramount showcase for the success of democracy in a modern, industrialized world.

American Foreign Policy:

The Savior, the Restorer,

the IMPERIALIST

In the twentieth century, American foreign policy took on many different roles, each interdependent of the other. During World War I and World War II, democratic nations around the world called for American assistance in the fight against world domination; American foreign policy assumed the role as the Savior, the Savior of democracy, freedom, and peace. Compared to other countries in Europe and Asia, the US remained unharmed and actually benefited from the destruction of World War II, for America was able to boost her economy out of depression through wartime production. As countries such as Germany, Japan, and France lay crippled and ruined, American foreign policy took on the responsibility of rebuilding these countries through the Marshall Plan and investments in industry; American foreign policy assumed the role as the Restorer, the Restorer of industry and economy. Why did America assume these roles as the Savior and the Restorer? Moreover, in playing these roles, did American foreign policy act in Imperialist ways? These questions can be answered by analyzing the causes and developments of the Cold War in chronological order. All in all, America took on these roles to provide for American self-interest, self-preservation, and economic expansion, and in doing so, America contracted the label as the Imperialist.

America the Savior

Beginning in 1914, World War I presented the first serious challenge to democracy. As Germany began mobilizing troops throughout Europe, powering through neutral countries such as Belgium, America began to take action by sending allies such as England and France war supplies. In 1917, German U-boats sank the Lusitania, a US merchant ship carrying war supplies to Britain. America responded by taking further action and declaring war against Germany. In his war address to congress, Woodrow Wilson asserted that America needed to be the protector of democracy and freedom; he took on the role of the Savior. He states, “Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, which we are only a single champion” (Wilson, 8). Hence, Wilson desired to bear the responsibility of protecting humanity by championing human rights, not by seeking retribution against the oppressors. He continues by declaring:

The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind (14).

Wilson makes his mission statement to protect the world from tyranny and to spread the principles of democracy, thus acquiring the role as the Savior of democracy. More importantly, Wilson affirms that America is not entering the war for personal gain, but is entering to protect mankind. World War I showed how America first took on the role of the Savior of democracy with no hidden motives or self-interests, but would this change with the culmination of World War II?

With the outbreak of World War II in 1939, America was once again called to save the world from domination. Hitler had already marched through Poland, France, and Belgium while England was barely holding her ground against German bombings—democracy in Europe was in danger. America first took only a small part as the Savior, for foreign policy dictated that only ammunition and supplies would be sent, no troops. In his annual address to congress, Franklin Roosevelt suggests that America should not send men, but weapons of defense. He asserts, “They do not need man power, but they do need billions of dollars worth of the weapons of defense” (FDR, 668). Thus, America did not take full responsibility as the Savior, for the president did not want to send any troops, only supplies. This self-protection and lack of full effort shows how America would not enter World War II unless her own territory was in immediate danger.

Moreover, Henry Luce, the author of The American Century, declares that America has a duty to serve and that America must uphold the role of the Savior. Luce understands that America does not want to be involved in the war, for he proscribes “If there’s one place we Americans did not want to be; it was in the war. We didn’t want much to be in any kind of war but, if there was one kind of war we most of all didn’t want to be in, it was a European war” (Luce, 2). He also criticizes America for not fully taking leadership and responsibility in the world, for he writes, “America has refused to rise to the opportunities of leadership in the world” (Luce, 5). Thus, Luce advocates American involvement in World War II because he believes America must respond, take action, and be the Savior for democracy.

Luce’s declaration for American involvement begs the question: why must America assume the role as the Savior? Luce gives a powerful answer to this question, for he commands, “we must accept whole heartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes we see fit and by such means we see fit” (Luce, 7). This bold statement explains, according to Luce, why America should take on the role as the Savior—America is the most powerful country in the world, so America should act like it. Moreover, Luce commands, “America is responsible, to herself as well as to history, for the world-environment in which she lives” (Luce, 7). All in all, we can conclude from Luce’s argument that America should assume the role as the Savior because America is the most powerful nation in the world, and therefore, has a responsibility to rescue the world from tyranny.

How did American foreign policy react to Luce’s bold commands? Later in the year of 1941, Congress issued the Lend-Lease Act, which granted the president the authority to lend large sums of money to England, which in turn, could purchase war supplies from the US (Kennedy, American Democracy at War, 4/23/02). The Lend-Lease Act was a large step towards entering the war, but America still remained officially out of World War II and thus not fulfilling her duty as the Savior. It would take an actual attack on American soil to impel the US into War World II. Japan’s attack of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 propelled the United States into war because the attack was made on American soil and killed American citizens. This was the final straw for the US, for FDR and congress made a declaration of war against Japan the next day, December 8 (Kennedy, American Democracy at War, 4/23/02). Thus, America’s motivation behind entering the war was not only based on aiding desperate allies, but also based on revenge and self-protectionism.

America clearly entered the war for self-interest and self-gain, for Congress knew that war production would help lower unemployment and boost the economy, which was in a depression. Also, since the US had no economic interests in Asia, no materials or supplies were sent there, as opposed to the billions of dollars sent to Europe. The Atlantic Charter (1941), which became the cornerstone of Allied war aims, contained points that were specifically catered to United States economic interests. For example, the fifth point reads, “Fifth, we desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement, and social security” (FDR, 348). Another point that illustrates how America’s entrance into the war was based on selfish motives states, “Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance” (FDR, 348). The concept of freedom of the seas clearly benefits the US, who would gain the most from open trade. In summation, all of these points prove that America’s involvement in World War II was not entirely based on saving the world for democracy (acting as the Savior), for America entered the war for economic interests and retribution against Japan. Therefore, America’s role as the Savior mostly resulted from America’s pursuit of self-interest and retaliation, not from the desire to secure the world for democracy and freedom. More importantly, the concepts of freedom of the seas and free trade, which are harbingers of the Cold War, represent imperialist policies that will be discussed later in the essay.

America the Restorer

By looking at American reconstruction plans in chronological order, starting with the Fourteen Points (1919) and ending with French reconstruction (1968), we can see how America’s role as the Restorer came about and how this role evolved. Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, issued at the end of World War I, was intended to restore peace to Europe and prevent the occurrence of another world war. Thus, these Fourteen Points signify America’s role as the Restorer of peace and economic stability. However, some points have shades of imperialism, for they only cater towards American economic interests. For example, point number II reads “Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war” (Wilson, 159). The concept of freedom of the sees primarily benefits the US, since America has the largest trade industry. Therefore, beginning with post World War I restoration in 1919, America already took advantage of their role as the Restorer by employing policies that were intended to benefit themselves.

Another reconstruction plan that satisfied American economic interests was the Marshall Plan. The mass destruction of World War II left Europe in ruin, so the United States issued the Marshall Plan in 1947 to foster European growth and recovery (Sheehan, The War in Europe, 4/25/02). However, the Marshall Plan helped the US economy as well, for the money loaned by the US to European countries was used to purchase goods from the US. Once again, America found a way to act as the Restorer of the economy while also satisfying her own economic interests.

Where can we draw the line between American reconstruction and American imperialist expansion? America continued its monopolistic expansion in Europe, particularly France, well after the adoption of the Marshall Plan. Servan-Schreiber, in his book The American Challenge, denounces American economic investments in France from a cultural and technological standpoint. He accepts the fact that America has played the part of the Restorer by restoring French industry; however, Servan-Schreiber argues that American investments have turned monopolistic and evolved into imperialist expansion, for these investments restrained French creativity, technology, and culture. He writes, “A nation holding a monopoly of power would look on imperialism as a kind of duty, and would take its own success as proof that the rest of the world should follow its example” (Schreiber, 102). Servan-Schreiber explains America’s actions by stating, “It is a historical rule that politically and economically powerful countries make direct investments (and gain control) in less-developed countries” (Schreiber, 12). Therefore, American interests in France during the 1960’s present a type of imperialism that exploited French resources during their time of reconstruction. In general, American foreign policy crossed the line between helpful reconstruction (the Restorer) and harmful imperialist expansion (the Imperialist).

America the IMPERIALIST

Now that we have evaluated the trends of American foreign policy and how America played the role of the Savior and the Restorer, we can see how these roles transformed into imperialist policies. As noted earlier, free trade and freedom of the seas clearly favor America in terms of economic profits and gains. Servan-Schreiber acknowledges this by stating, “the free exchange policy opens an enormous free trade zone and an industrial market of global scope to American industry, but where in all this is there any sign of European power?” (Schreiber, 104). These concepts brought forth by Wilson’s Fourteen Points and revisited by the Atlantic Charter display America’s shift towards Imperialist policy over the years.

The roots of the Cold War highlight this shift from the Savior and the Restorer to the Imperialist. The Yalta Conference of February 1945 brought together Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin and divided Germany into three parts. Charles de Gaulle, the French Prime Minister in the 1960’s, stated that the Yalta Conference started the Cold Way by dividing the world into two powers—USSR and US. He writes, “Since Yalta, the global game has been restricted to two partners. But ever since these two hegemonic powers divided the world into two camps, liberty, equality, and fraternity have found no place” (de Gaulle, 228). Thus, as America was partaking in her role as the Restorer, she ended up becoming an Imperialist by attempting to divide the world between herself and the Soviet Union. This division started the Cold War, and as de Gaulle noted, impeded on French culture and liberty.

Lastly and most importantly, Nikolai Novikov, a Soviet ambassador to the US, declares that America is preparing for world domination. On September 27, 1946 Novikov sent a telegram to the Soviet foreign ministry warning the Soviet Union of American Imperialism (Kennedy, The US, Cold War, and the American Diplomatic Tradition, 5/2/02). Novikov opens his telegram by stating, “The foreign policy of the United States, which reflects the imperialist tendencies of American monopolistic capital, is characterized in the postwar period by a striving for world supremacy” (Novikov, 401). This quotation ties together the roles that American foreign policy has taken on since post World War II; America’s monopolistic expansion (the Restorer) reflects imperialist tendencies (the Imperialist).

Starting from World War I and ending with the Cold war, American foreign policy appeared to have good intentions by acting as the Savior and the Restorer in many instances. However, as time passed and the Cold war emerged, American foreign policy shifted towards imperialist tendencies which consisted of tailoring plans towards American interests, entering WWII only to retaliate against Japan, and investing in France through monopolistic expansion. America did indeed save the world for democracy and restore economic stability in Europe; however, in doing so, America abused her role as the Savior and the Restorer and thus acquired the label as the Imperialist.

Globalization and Its Challenge to Democracy

Benjamin Barber, in his article Jihad vs. McWorld, suggests that the two axial principals of our age—tribalism and globalism—clash at every point except one: they may both be threatening to democracy. Barber’s discussion of “Jihad” presents a social/cultural outlook on globalization, while his presentation of “McWorld” illustrates an economic point of view. Samuel Huntington, in The Class of Civilizations, views globalization from a cultural angle, suggesting that the fundamental source of conflict in the new world will be cultural, not ideological or economic. Taken together, Barber and Huntington offer a window on the status of the debate over democracy and its standing in the world from the end of the Cold War to the present. But how was globalization viewed during and before the Cold War? Moreover, how have these views changed over the past fifty years? Servan-Schreiber, in his novel The American Challenge (1968), confronts globalization or “Americanization” from an economic standpoint, criticizing America for its imperialist, monopolistic expansion in France. Lastly, Nikolai Novikov, a Soviet ambassador to the United States, declares in a telegram sent to the USSR that American globalization is actually an effort to establish world dominance. All in all, by analyzing these four texts, each written from a different perspective (social, political, or economic), we can see how the term globalization has evolved from the Cold War to present day.

During the start of the Cold War in the late 1940’s, America was increasing expenditures on the army and navy, building nearly 500 new bases in the Atlantic and Pacific, and dispatching naval vessels throughout major European ports. All of these actions taken by the United States signaled the beginning of the Cold War. Novikov, who presents a political view of globalization, reacts by declaring, “All of these facts show clearly that a decisive role in the realization of plans for world dominance by the United States is played by its armed forces” (Novikov, 402). According to Novikov, globalization really meant imperialism and world dominance by the United States. Thus, globalization could not have represented an opportunity for the historic project of democracy. Novikov states, “The United States attempts, at various international conferences or directly in these countries themselves, to support reactionary forces with the purpose of creating obstacles to the process of democratization of these countries” (Novikov, 402). On the whole, Novikov views American globalization as an obstacle to democracy and not on opportunity for democracy.

Twenty-two years later (1968), Servan-Schreiber states that American industry in the 1960’s acted in imperialist ways by restraining French creativity, technology, and culture. He writes, “A nation holding a monopoly of power would look on imperialism as a kind of duty, and would take its own success as proof that the rest of the world should follow its example” (Schreiber, 102). This sort of “Americanization” conflicts with democracy, for democracy is supposed to support the freedom of ideas and culture. Therefore, American interests in France during the 1960’s represent a type of imperialism that exploited French resources during their time of reconstruction. According to Servan-Schreiber, globalization was actually an “Americanization” of industry and technology, for American monopolistic expansion inhibited technological creativity and democracy. Moreover, Charles de Gaulle, the President of France during the 1960’s, declared that “Americanization” infiltrated French culture and society

Novikov and Servan-Schreiber present social, economic, and political views on globalization during the Cold War era in which they regard American foreign policy as imperialistic. Clearly, globalization could not present an opportunity for democracy if American foreign policy during the Cold War was acting in imperialist ways and hindering the spread of democracy, but would this version of globalization change with the dissipation of the Cold War?

According to Benjamin Barber and Samuel Huntington, old ideological conflicts have declined while globalization has increased. Barber explicitly states, “neither Jihad nor McWorld offers much hope to citizens looking for practical ways to govern themselves democratically” (Barber, 1). He uses the term “McWorld” to describe the globalization of politics in the new world (post Cold War) and breaks them down into four imperatives: market, resource, information-technology, and ecological. These imperatives have in combination achieved a considerable victory over factiousness and not least of all over the most virulent tradition form—nationalism. All in all, Barber views globalization as an integration and uniformity of economic and ecological forces, all of which challenge democracy.

Samuel Huntington discusses globalization from a cultural perspective, proposing that the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict in the new world will be cultural. He hypothesizes, “Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics” (Huntington, 22). According to Huntington, Western civilizations will remain at distance from non-Western civilizations due to differences in values and morals; this schism reveals how globalization and democracy do not mix.

In summation, all four of the authors regard globalization as an only an obstacle to democracy and in no instance view globalization as “an opportunity for the historic project of democracy.” Servan-Schreiber and Novikov define globalization as an American imperialist act, while Barber and Huntington offer modern descriptions of globalization. This evolution of the term “globalization” from the Cold War to present day has nonetheless been consistent in suggesting that globalization threatens democracy.

One proof of globalization in the 19th century is the massive increase in world trade from 1840-1880. Since world trade in the 19th century increased more than 500%, countries were beginning to “globalize” and expand industry across the entire world (Kennedy, The Age of Imperialism, 3/7/02). Dating back to 1848 and Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, globalization was viewed from a negative light, for Marx considered it a tool that the bourgeoisie used to suppress the proletariat. He writes, “The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. The bourgeoisie, by the rapid movement of all instruments of production, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization” (Marx, 69). Fifty years later (1899), Joseph Conrad in his novel Heart of Darkness, criticizes British Imperialism for corrupting society and civilization. This form of “globalization” consisted of British forces taking control of the “dark” places around the world, mostly in Africa. During Conrad’s time, European powers had divided up Africa into economic spheres at the Berlin Conference (1885). This conference displayed how imperialism was in a sense globalization because the continent of Africa was being amalgamated into European industry. All in all, globalization, which initially started in the form of imperialism, is not a novel concept, for it was discussed and criticized by 19th century authors and political theorists; thus, the point about the antiquity of globalization is valid.

By looking at specific democratic nations such as the United States and France, we can see how democracy has changed along with the dynamic international environment. Globalization, cultural clashes, and new technology have all created a complex world filled with constant conflict and controversy. In the case of America, Charles Sumner, in his Bequests of the Nineteenth Century, suggests that democracy has evolved and created conflict between politics and economics. Sumner states, “The evolution of democracy bequeaths to the twentieth century a great degree of social confusion, both in ideas and in institutions, which is due to the maladjustment between the industrial system and the political system” (Sumner, 235). Sumner’s statement characterizes how towards the end of the 19th century, increased focus on industry created more complicated tensions within democratic states, especially the United States.

In the case of France, another democratic nation-state that has adapted to an increasingly complicated international scene, Servan-Schreiber states that France must find ways to be self-sufficient and less dependent on American investments. He suggests that the world has become progressively more complex due to advancements in technology, for he devotes a whole chapter of The American Challenge to the World of Computers (Chapter X). Schreiber predicts, “The changes in information transfer processes are too radical for the present generation in management to feel comfortable with…we will be forced to readjust ourselves continually to change” (Servan-Schreiber, 98). Thus, Servan-Schreiber recognizes that technology will continue to cause constant change in the international scene, and that France must “readjust” to meet these changes.

Both Benjamin Barber and Samuel Huntington believe that historic experience will be important in the future; however, both authors argue that cultural and economic differences will be the cause for conflict in the future. In Jihad vs. McWorld Barber states that using historical documents and events can help prepare for the future, for he writes, “Recommended reading for democrats of the twenty-first century is not the US. Constitution or the French Declaration of Right of Man, but the Articles of Confederation” (Barber, 63). This suggestion shows how Barber understands the importance of history and how historic experience can be used to look into the twenty-first century.

Samuel Huntington also believes that history will be relevant in the future, especially in his discussion about Western civilizations diverging from Non-Western civilizations. Huntington argues that this divergence is caused by historical differences in culture and values, for he writes, “Non-Western civilizations will continue to attempt to acquire the wealth, technology, skills, machines and weapons that are part of being modern. They will also attempt to reconcile this modernity with their traditional culture and values” (Huntington, 49). Therefore, it is clear that Barber and Huntington concur on the notion that historic experience will prove relevant in the future, for they both use historical examples in their writings and both understand the importance of history.

Given Barber and Huntington’s outlook on globalization, tribalism, and culture, what can we expect in the future? Huntington states that the West will increasingly have to accommodate to Non-Western civilizations whose power approaches that of the West but whose values and interests differ significantly from the West. Barber advises us to “Think globally, act locally” and encourages the union of semi-autonomous communities smaller than nation-states, tied together into regional economic associations and markets larger than nation states (Barber, 63). For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with others; thus, we need history to understand and learn how to coexist with civilizations with different values and cultures.

In summation, we have analyzed this detailed statement about globalization from social, political, and economic perspectives. We have also looked at the evolution of the term globalization (Cold War vs. present day) and its connection with the imperialism of the 19th century. More importantly we have seen how globalization has presented a challenge to democracy and will continue to raise conflict and controversy in the future.

Wal-Mart’s Global Retail Market Domination

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, has a 37.7 percent stake in the supermarket chain Seiyu, the operator of Japanese stores and 400 others nationwide. Despite the $6.4 million remodeling of the flagship store, the Wal-Mart name is nowhere to be seen. Moreover, there isn't a single Super Center in Japan, and Wal-Mart officials say they may never open one here.

Wal-Mart has arrived in Japan, but it's making its entrance cautiously and stealthily. The retailer, based in Bentonville, Ark., studied Japan for several years and concluded it was a complex market best penetrated under an alliance with a local partner that understood Japanese shoppers. So it took a stake in Seiyu last year. Wal-Mart, which operates in 10 nations besides the United States, has adapted its approach to different markets, making itself more visible with Wal-Mart stores in places such as China, while taking a lower profile in Mexico and Britain, where it has chosen partners as it has in Japan. But nowhere else is the total invisibility of Wal-Mart quite as clear as in Japan, the world's second-largest economy.

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

Wal-Mart's price rollbacks, discounts that run for an extended time, but it has yet to carry out Wal-Mart's most basic concept, everyday low prices. Everyday low prices rely on the advantage of cost cuts that come from global suppliers and from Wal-Mart's sheer buying power, with about 4,700 worldwide stores. Wal-Mart is bringing its technological know-how to Japan, introducing a computerized system to track inventory and purchases to boost efficiency and trim costs at Seiyu.

On March 14, 2003 when Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced its first foray into Japan, the retailing giant placed a big bet that it could succeed where countless other foreign companies have failed. In the past five years, a number of famous Western brands have been forced to close up shop after failing to catch on in Japan, one of the world's largest and fickle consumer markets.

After some embarrassing setbacks in Hong Kong and Indonesia last decade, Wal-Mart is learning to adapt to local conditions. Indeed, Wal-Mart needs to get it right overseas because sales growth is flattening out at home. Wal-Mart's international sales grew 10.5% last year, to about $35.5 billion, or 16% of total sales. Operating profit from those sales surged 31%, to $1.46 billion. And the company expects international operations to contribute a third of its sales and profit growth in the next three to five years.

Thus far, much of Wal-Mart's overseas growth has come from Britain, Canada, and Mexico. Wal-Mart's Asia business is growing steadily, even if profits remain elusive. While Wal-Mart failed to gain traction in Hong Kong in the 1990s, it is making gains in China, where it now has 19 stores. In Korea, where the company already has nine stores, Wal-Mart ran into unexpectedly robust competition from local retailers, but it hopes to break even next year. It aims to open five more stores in 2002.

Much depends on whether Seiyu turns out to be a good partner. The 39-year-old retailer is a member of the Seibu Saison retail group. It also has deep ties to trading house Sumitomo Corporation, which will take a 15% stake in the venture with Wal-Mart. Perhaps the best thing that can be said of Seiyu's over 400 stores is that they're not as deeply troubled as other local retailers. Seiyu is burdened by big debt, but the underlying business at Japan's fifth-largest supermarket chain remains profitable.

The Middle East

“The unread news today is that the ‘war against terrorism’ is being exploited in order to achieve objectives that consolidate American power. These include: the bribing and subjugation of corrupt and vulnerable governments in former Soviet central Asia, crucial for American expansion in the region and exploitation of the last untapped reserves of oil and gas in the world; the expansion of the American arms industry; and the speeding up of trade liberalisation.” –John Pilger, A War in The American Tradition

With the explosion of the petroleum industry in the late 19th century and the subsequent discover of resources in the Middle East, oil was the primary interest pursued by western powers dominating the Middle East in the early part of the 20th century. After the Ottoman Empire collapsed following World War I, Britain and France rushed to claim territory in the region. Many developments sponsored by European capital were geared towards the petroleum industry and the infrastructure to support it, such as railroads and shipping ports. In addition “[the petroleum industry] was accompanied by the destruction of native industry in textiles and other sectors of the economy and the subjugation of the local population to the dictates of the Western powers.” (Berberoglu 2)

One aspect of American imperialism that gets chronically under-reported is the American trade deficit and the way the American government goes about to finance and manipulate it. No where is this more apparent than in the Middle East, which contains over half of the world’s oil reserves and is a critical resource to literally fuel the American machine. Many of the countries in the region, in particular Saudi Arabia, own large amounts of US government bonds. The Saudi royal family is just one of the entities throughout the world for which American support is a substantial, if not crucial factor in their ability to hold onto power. (Ahmed) The Saudis sell oil to America, earning American cash from the companies that import oil such as Exxon. This of course creates a large trade deficit, as the quantity of petroleum exported from these countries is huge. The Saudis, as well as many other nations, then use the earned cash to buy US bonds and hold onto them indefinitely such that they are not be sold. In fact, the threat to sell those bonds, impacting the value of the dollar and bond prices, are a option available to smaller countries in gaining leverage against America. There have been many reports of this type of talk between the US and Saudi governments, such as when the Saudi’s threatened to sell bonds if America invaded Iraq. (Ahmed) It is of course an exaggeration to say that this is all American imperialism squeezing other countries resources and forcing them to buy bonds, since numerous countries and foreigners buy US government bonds voluntarily b/c our currency is highly stable and widely used. Also, bonds are used by all kinds of entities to raise money. However, the fact cannot be escaped that this system allowing America to make up for the trade deficit is effectively allow America to use the resources of other countries practically for free. The indirect exchange of bonds for oil boils down to import oil into the US in exchange for a pile of paper. Foreign ownership of US government bonds has been on the rise. On November 3rd, 2003, it reached a new benchmark: one trillion dollars, or a full 10 percent of US gross domestic product. (CNN) In addition, foreigners also hold roughly one-third of US treasury securities. (Gold Eagle) On a related note about oil, it is curious to note that Iraq is also one of the top reserves of oil in the world. Could the American affairs with Iraq have something to do with oil?

On 2330 hours GMT, the 16th of January, 1991. President Bush ordered the allied forces to bomb Baghdad, signaling the start of Operation Desert Storm. The operation was billed as a rescue to the Kuwaiti people. However, for years Saddam Hussein had been sponsoring atrocities against the Kurdish nationality in the north of Iraq. What the US invasion really did was send a message to Saddam: Don’t mess with our supplies of oil. After beating back the Iraqi army and chastising Saddam Hussein about his human rights abuses, America imposed sanctions on Iraq and backed out. March 20th 2003, President GW Bush leads a "coalition of the willing" into Iraq with the aim of ousting Saddam Hussein from power. A year earlier, he had ordered forces into Afghanistan to oust the Taliban from power. Both operations were billed to the public as campaigns for freedom, to remove an oppressive regime and to free an oppressed people. But oppression is global but American intervention is highly selective.

America’s policy in The Middle East is one of constant warfare. In fighting wars for oil, the entire region was destabilized, and the American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is not simply to restore order, but to restore order in the Western image. John Pilger in an article in New Statesman argues: “The ultimate goal in the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq is not the capture of a fanatic, but the acceleration of Western power in the region.” The situation is made more complicated by the historical failure of The West to understand culture and viewpoint of the Middle East. The last one and a half millennia in which The West and The Middle East interacted were marked mainly by religious war and intense hatred for one another. America goes in seeing itself as a neutral party to settle affairs while it is not. As stated numerous times by numerous political analysts, the Islamic fundamentalists believe America is the direct successor to the British Empire. America is The West of 500, 1000, 1500 years ago that fought The Crusades. To quote Gwynne Dyer in the Spring 2002 issue of Whole Earth, “What you now have is a generation of people whose first-level analysis is that Western equals corruption, imperialism. They're thinking that they must return to root values, Islam, so on. At the same time, of course, they want cars, their kids to go to university, and their countries to be modem, powerful, and respected in the world. They even want democracy, but unlike the Filipinos or the Indians, they can't simply pick up this model and say, "That's culture-free, we'll use that." For the Middle East it isn't culture-free; it is laden with negative symbolism.” Much of American imperialism in the Middle East arises from that discrepancy in perspective, that we can go in, shape and manipulate Iraq, Afghanistan like they were fresh clay. They aren’t, and American foreign policy has to reflect that or risk the specter of cultural imperialism.

Africa: The Unspoken

Countries: Top 10 Oil Reserves

1. Saudi Arabia

2. Iraq

3. Kuwait

4. UAE

5. Iran

6. Venezuela

7. Russia

8. Mexico

9. Libya

10. United States

A glance at the above shows that most of the countries are in the Middle East South of America. It just also happens that most of the hotbeds of American activity are in the Middle East and South America. There is only one African country, Libya, on the list and indeed that is a country America often is involved in. Is this a coincidence? In other articles we cover the efforts of American intervention and imperialistic behavior in other countries. Africa is almost the opposite, where we see the lack of /selectivity in American participation altering the affairs of foreign countries. As such, this article centers on the unspoken in Africa.

Why does the US choose to become involved in/intervene in some countries (Somalia, Zaire, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria) and totally ignore others? For the second half the 20th century, America had 2 goals: the securing of strategic resources (this means crude oil reserves) and the fight against communism. Dictators such as Mobuto Seseseko, the former leader of Zaire (now Congo) were given almost unilateral support in exchange for mainly a promise against communism. In 1993 we saw the newspapers depict US soldiers go in to Mogadishu to feed the starving populace and being driven off by savages. Whatever the reason for US intervention, as Ahmed states, “In the view of many Middle Easterners, however, these Americans were engaged in an imperialist adventure. When attacked, they flinched and fled.” Perhaps this attitude arises out of the American indifference to the African plight. In 1994, after a plane carrying Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundian president Cyprirn Ntaryamira was shot down by a missile, the dominant Hutu ethnic group in Rwanda killed over 800,000 of the minority Tutsis within three months in the resulting flashpoint. The western powers once again have failed to react to mass genocide. There was no risk of international escalation in such a small, isolated country. There was no hotbed of international rivalry over Rwanda either. The involved parties were primitive and Western intervention could easily have prevented what happened. Yet nothing was done even while over 2500 UN peacekeepers were present in the region at that time.

[pic]

When in 1997 a military coup ousted the government of Sierra Leone, Violence and slaughter broke out in one of the most impoverished nations in the world as the rebel Revolutionary United Front fought the government for control of diamond mines. Almost nothing was heard on the news of the disaster in a country that already had the world’s highest infant mortality rate, and lowest expected lifespan (25 years).

The simple fact is that American interest is capitalistic first, only humanitarian second. America undertook almost no intervention in Africa although the crimes committed there are of an unprecedented magnitude, while exhibiting imperialistic behavior in comparatively minor flashpoints such as the almost bloodless takeover of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein.

Conclusions Drawn

To Quote J.F. Conway in the May issue of Briarpatch Magazine, “The American Empire now claims the right - unilaterally and pre-emptively - to intervene anywhere, any time in the world.” There has only been one exception to the now infamous Monroe doctrine: Cuba. It was only when America was confronted by the will of a rival superpower that it promised not to invade and overthrow the government of Fidel Castro like it did with countless South American countries and ‘dictators.’ Today America is the sole superpower, and with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it has become clear that the Monroe doctrine now applies to the whole world.

Whether we argue America to be an empire or not, the United States exhibits imperialistic behavior. This behavior arose from the need to protect interests, namely economic and political ones. Those interests manifest themselves as oil reserves and support for the American cause. However, American foreign policy has little regard to the interests of other nations, and the resulting actions carried out create the regional instability we have constantly been writing about. Indeed, these actions by America are not wholly malicious as some may believe, but America is at the forefront of the world and has a responsibility to use its power to advance in the best interests of mankind. This in fact is what the government propagates through interviews with the media as the reason for its intervention in all parts of the world: America is going to do ‘this’ or ‘that’ because we have a duty to do what is just and right. That the US government is using its power instead to decide what is just and right based on what is in its best interests and what is not is creating a double standard: when another country imposes tariffs on American goods the lawmakers are too quick to call a fair trade violation, but when Japanese manufacturers are taking over Detroit and hybrid vehicles such as the Toyota Prius are 10 years ahead of comparable programs in America, tariffs are immediately placed on the Japanese goods to defend American manufacturers, and fair trade is nowhere to be heard. And this double standard is political too: what is in the American government’s best interests ultimately has the effects of creating regional instability by tampering when not needed, and sitting idle whilst our help is desperately needed.

Works Cited

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

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

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

1999.

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

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

De Gaulle, Charles. “Response to a Toast, September 4. 1962” and “Address, April 27,

1965,” and From a Press Conference, November 27, 1967,” from Discours et

Messages (Paris: Plon, 1971), translated by Benjamin Kafka.

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

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

Gold Eagle gold-

Hudson, Michael. Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of The American Empire

Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1972.

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

Kennedy, David. “The United States in 1900.” Democratic Society in Europe and

America. Stanford University. 4 April 2002.

Kennedy, David. “American Democracy at War.” Democratic Society in Europe and

America. Stanford University. 23 April 2002.

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

Cambridge, 2002.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. “We are Fighting to Save a Great and Precious Nation” from

Public Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vol. 5 (New York: Random House,

1938), 230-36;

Selections from Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers 1946

(Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969), 696-709.

Servan-Shreiber, J.J. The American Challenge (New York: Antheneum, 1968),

Introduction, Chapters 1-5, 10-11, 16, 18.

Sheehan, James. “American Economic Expansion in Europe.” Democratic Society in

Europe and America. Stanford University. 30 April 2002.

Sheehan, James. “The War in Europe.” Democratic Society in Europe and America.

Stanford University. 25 April 2002.

Sumner, Charles. “The Bequests of the Nineteenth Century to the Twentieth” (1901), in

Essays, Volume 1 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934), 208-236.

“The World through Soviet Eyes,” from the American Spirit: United States History as

Seen by Contemporaries, vol. 1 (New York, Houghton Mifflin Co, 1998).

Wilson, Woodrow. “Essential Terms of Peace in Europe”; “For Declaration of War

against Germany”; “The Fourteen Points.” From Ray Baker and William E.

Dodd. War and Peace: Presidential Messages, Addresses, and Public Papers,

1917-1924 vol. 1 (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1927), 407-414, 6-16, 155-62.

-----------------------

The Rwandan Genocide

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download