American Interventionism in Historical Perspective - Essay Example

American INTERVENTIONISM IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Charges of imperialism are frequently leveled against the United s in the twenty-first century. As the US experience in the wake of the Spanish-American War demonstrates, these charges are nothing new. American imperialism predates the collapse of the Soviet Union and the past quarter century of American hegemony. As the American experience in the Philippines following the Spanish-American War persuasively demonstrates, questions of an imperial nature were discussed by prominent politicians, authors, soldiers and other public figures with respect to the US role in the Philippines at the turn of the twentieth century. Should this country have defied George Washington’s warnings in the first place and would it be wise if America gradually returned to an isolationist, non-interventionist foreign policy position? Seeking to address this question in historical perspective, the following explores American imperialism and argues that an engaged foreign policy has helped the United States maintain its preeminent position in world affairs. There were many arguments for the annexation of the Philippines following the overthrow of the Spanish colonial power in the islands. Prominent politicians and public figures emphatically argued that the United States had a duty, a Christ-given mission, to subdue the savages of the Philippine islands. This was a civilizing mission, part of the white man’s burden (re: Rudyard Kipling) to quell the savage countries of the world. There was a firm desire to save the Philippines from “savage anarchy” (Theodore Roosevelt) and the uncivilized way of life which came to characterize the islands. From a tactical perspective, many thought that there would be financial opportunities in the Pacific region with a foothold in the Philippines; China could be traded with and the United States would have a strong hand in regulating Pacific trade. Furthermore, there was a need to maintain a base in the Pacific and challenge European rivals in this geostrategic region. While each side differed with respect to its opinion on the US annexation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, in hindsight the arguments against US imperialism seem to make more sense. Despite this, at the time there were valid geostrategic arguments in favor of occupation, which should not be discredited. These included the importance of having a foothold in the Pacific as well as the growth and incredible opportunities of the region in coming years. How is an adventurous American foreign policy expressed today? ( Morgenthau 67-73) American unilateralism has been both an explicit and implicit policy of the present Bush Administration since the aftermath of September 11th 2001 (McCormick, 2010). Although the United States has historically been committed to multilateralism, collective decision-making and international rules of law, in recent times the United States has rejected foreign policy precedent and has engaged in direct military action on a unilateral basis. Former US President Woodrow Wilson espoused multilateralism as a cure to the world’s ills and believed that concerted diplomacy, best channeled through international non-governmental organizations like the League of Nations (the precursor to today’s United Nations), was the best way to avoid international conflict and violence. Collective bargaining and international coordination in global affairs has a long and storied tradition in the United States. Arguing that the rules of the game had changed in the post-Cold War and post-9/11 world, George W. Bush’s famously remarked that “you are either with us or against us” and set the stage for American unilateralism on a global scale (McCormick 33-45; Skidmore 280-288). Described as part of the Bush Doctrine, this set of beliefs about the international order and world affairs paved the way for the application of unilateral military action as an important tenant of American foreign policy. A neoconservative worldview was espoused in the early years of the Bush Administration and the Bush Doctrine advocates unilateral action on the diplomatic front and justifies for preemptive war to safeguard US interests abroad. As the word implies, unilateralism allows the United States to act unilaterally in the sphere of foreign policy and diplomacy. Without a need for negotiation, consensus building or collective bargaining, the proponents of a unilateral agenda argue that the United States is less constrained in the exercise of foreign policy when it does not have to act in concert with partners. Unilateral military action has been justified in the wake of the attacks of September 11th and the most obvious case of this unilateralism was the decision by the United States to invade Iraq in 2003 after UN Security Council approval – a traditional international “seal of approval” for military action – was denied. In addition to this most obvious case scholars have traced a unilateral streak in American foreign policy since the early days of the Bush Administration when the United States butted heads with its traditional European allies on the issue of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence and the decision to ignore the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Now that we have established that unilateralism has been a central policy objective of the United States for almost a decade, what have been the implications for the international order? (Skidmore 280-288) American Unilateralism and Hegemony after the Cold War As the world’s hegemonic power, the United States has, in the Cold War period, resorted to unilateralism and expansive military might. A systemic level response to unilateralism has been a variety of soft-power strategies by second tier major powers (France, Germany and India) to counter the influence of the United States while not harming their economic ties with the world’s dominant economic and military power. Thus although balance of power theory has traditionally focused upon the military dimension of balancing and the Cold War remains perhaps the most poignant example of this theoretical paradigm, in a unipolar world dominated by the United States, second tier powers within the international system has used soft-power balancing strategies to restrain the global hegemon. An excellent example of this phenomenon was the united opposition of France, Germany and Russia to the United States-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 (Skidmore 280-288). The international order, after the fall of the Soviet Union, is characterized by unipolarity with the United States alone at the helm of the current international order. Despite this profound change within the system, the system itself, according to structural realists, has not been transformed. Transformative of the system may occur one day, Waltz argues, but not until states become motivated by things other than self-interest and if anarchy no longer exemplified the condition of the international order. That is not the case and “until and unless a transformation occurs, [realism] remains the basic theory of international politics” (Waltz 3-13; Sheetz 168-174). The decision of the United States to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003 was an important watershed moment in world history. Although dreams of peace and prosperity ushered in the end of the Cold War; a new world order with the United firmly entrenched as the dominant country in international affairs, the unilateral decision by the United States to invade this Middle Eastern country has been controversial since day one. US foreign policy in the Middle East remains an important point of contention for the countries of the region and the following will discuss Middle Eastern perceptions on American foreign policy with effects on both the US and UK. The decision by the United States to invade Iraq in 2003 was perhaps the most controversial event in recent Middle Eastern history. Seen by many as an attempt by the United States to exert its global hegemony and dispose of a dictator not for the benefit of the Iraqi people, nor due to the supposed cache of weapons of mass destruction, but to obtain access to the vast oil resources of Iraq, this invasion is arguably the most controversial aspect of American foreign policy within the past quarter century. The US invasion of Iraq was controversial for a variety of reasons, the not least of which was the fact that the invasion did not first receive United Nations Security Council approval: an important condition in international relations which effectively legitimizes decisive political action. Opinion polls, conducted in the Middle East prior to the invasion by both the British Broadcasting Corporation and global pollster Ipsos Reed, effectively demonstrated how different Arab (and Iranian) perceptions of the War were in comparison to those of Americans (who were divided, albeit less opposed, to the invasion) (Horsley 2003). Concluding Remarks Unilateral action on the political front has been a foreign policy objective of the United States under the stewardship of George W. Bush. Unilateralism explains the American decision to abrogated the Anit-Ballistic Missile Defence shield, the decision to ignore the Kyoto Accord and finally, the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. A hegemon is described as a superpower and has a preponderance of power in the military, economic and sometimes social spheres. According to neorealists, a hegemonic power shapes the system in its interests and maintains the system through coercion. Coercion today is expressed through unilateralism and unilateral military action by the United States. The hegemony presently exercised by the United States does not differ substantially from all other forms of power previously exerted by the great powers. What has differed is the emergence of terrorism on a global scale and thus a new type of actor in the international equation. Why unilateralism? In a unipolar world, the hegemonic power must maintain its position of prominence in the international system. Unilateralism is how that goal is accomplished. Structural analyses have thus provided excellent insight into the functioning of the international order. American global hegemony has been reasserted through unilateral – as opposed to bilateral – action and according to realist doctrine, the United States is reaffirming its role as the global hegemonic power, thus contributing to overall system stability. According to this line of thought, the international order is maintained and promoted through the aggressive interest-affirming behavior of the global hegemon. The United States has been able to maintain its preeminent position in the international political order through an interventionist foreign policy. If the US had followed George Washington’s message it would not be the preeminent power that it is today. An interventionist foreign policy has allowed this country to create and maintain its global hegemony. REFERENCES Horsley, William. “Polls find Europeans oppose Iraq war”. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003. Last Accessed April 10 20010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2747175.stm McCormick, James M. American Foreign Policy and Process. New York: Wadsworth, 2010. Morgenthau, Hans. In Defense of the National Interest. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2951. Sheetz, M.S. ‘Correspondence: Debating the Unipolar Moment.’ International Security, 22.3 (1998): 168-174. Skidmore, David. ‘Understanding the Unilateralist Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy.’ Foreign Policy Analysis, 1. 2 (2005): 207-288. Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979. Read More