Illustrations by Ryan Wolfe
By Andrew Shears
Through careful seizure of opportunity, the United States has risen to unparalleled political, economic and cultural power. However, U.S. hegemony is fragile; dominance is maintained only through military action. Concurrent military activities are perpetrated by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly soon Iran under the banner of an ongoing "War on Terror." Make no mistake – the war is not one of competing ideologies but one created to accomplish certain economic objectives. The relationship between the military power and economic dominance is important. Capitalism’s need for continuous growth led the U.S. to seek interest in foreign markets, established and maintained through military power. Markets are created through the flexing of military muscle and mobilization expands the U.S. economy. Demand is sustained by U.S.-led implementation of neo-liberal trade policies targeting developing nations. Challenge to the U.S. role in global hegemony leads to direct military action and neo-conservative reestablishment of the status quo. However, this cycle of military action as a stimulation of economic growth will cause overextension, leading to inevitable collapse.
Throughout history, the ends of empires were marked by increased militarism as imperial leaders attempt to maintain peak power and hegemony. The Bush Administration’s goalless War on Terror, continuing without accountability, does not define the American Empire but constitutes a symptom of the imperialist condition. Quashing opposition to U.S. hegemony is consistent with the historical trajectory of foreign policy.
The history of the empire is recent in context. The first imperial notions in U.S. history were those of "Manifest Destiny." The United States assumed the duty of conquering North America and its vast resources. An industrializing capitalist society requires unfettered access to exploitable resources; the U.S. was industrializing at a historically unprecedented rate. Annexation of the continent’s resources despite existing populations was excused through racist assumptions of cultural inferiority. Economically, David Harvey claimed this view arose from a failure of natives to achieve a proper mix of labor and land (e.g. western-style industrialization).
Briefly, the continent fulfilled the exploitative needs of U.S. industry. Once frontiers closed and resources depleted, focus shifted to international holdings; however, the world was already colonized by Europe, leaving little opportunity. A two-pronged strategy was adopted to make necessary resource acquisitions. The first objective was to wrestle colonies from existing empires, projecting military power to retain control. The second was a liberal economic climate of free trade, forcing opening markets and creating demand for goods.
In 1854, a U.S. naval fleet forced open Japan to trade. In 1867, the United States coerced the ceding of Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million. In 1898, the U.S. strong-armed the Kingdom of Hawaii into waiving rights of independence. The same year, through catalytic construction of the USS Maine’s explosion, the U.S. declared "war" on Spain, annexing the colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the Philippines.
During the First World War, the United States remained neutral for three years. This decision was economically -- not politically -- based. The U.S. was already profiting substantially from sale of armaments to the United Kingdom and France. Active participation of the United States began late in the inconclusive war as a grasp for power in the future of Europe. The post-war power brokered by Woodrow Wilson during the creation of League of Nations was limited when the U.S. Congress denied passage of the Versailles Treaty.
Like World War I, the U.S. was neutral early in World War II, instead reinvigorating the Depression-ravaged economy through supplying the Allies. Japan’s 7 December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, a colony of the U.S. for only 43 years before, provided the U.S. an ironic entrance. The forced opening of Japan by U.S. naval bombardment in 1867 inspired a process of self-westernization led by Emperor Meiji. As Japanese industrialization continued, demand for resources and markets increased, leading to political expansion throughout the Pacific, ultimately to Pearl Harbor. With this catalyst, the U.S. became actively involved in both Europe and the Pacific.
The Depression and World War II provided perfect conditions for capitalist America to crush labor with little resistance. Prior to World War II, labor was openly sympathetic to domestic socialist leaders such as Eugene Debs. Sympathy lacked for wage demands when a third of workers were unemployed. The Depression ended only with new demand of armaments for the war in Europe. Again, American labor found little popular support because of unpatriotic portrayal of work stoppages. Such social conditions allowed enhanced exploitation of laborers; it was upon their backs that created demand was fulfilled and profits realized.
During the infancy of the United Nations, the Allied Powers convened to discuss financial implications of reconstruction. At the U.N. Monetary and Financial Conference held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and a precursor to the World Trade Organization were formed. Created to stabilize global market corrections by providing aid to troubled economies, the IMF quickly morphed into a body trumpeting the superiority of market capitalism. The IMF disallowed funding to states that failed to enact tax cuts, government spending cuts and other pro-business legislation. The World Bank originally focused on extending credit to reconstruct areas destroyed by war. Under pressure from Ronald Reagan, the WB focus shifted in the 1980s to IMF policy enforcement. The third product of the conference was the powerless General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs, which became the influential World Trade Organization in 1995. The World Trade Organization allows IMF/WB funding to states only under conditions of free trade. Without the protection of tariffs, infant industries in industrializing states cannot survive imported competition. Developing nations borrow money from the IMF/WB to increase industrial capacity, while the enforced free trade prerequisite entirely precludes establishment of new industry. Developing nations are entrapped into debt from which no profit is realized, into dependence upon the developed world. This is neo-liberal imperialism – through forced liberalization of trade laws dependence is realized, and new markets for exploitation and consumption are created for the developed world’s disposal. Through post-war occupation and rebuilding of Europe and Japan and through influence in various former European colonies, the U.S. installed great financial interest abroad.
The Cold War is described as military rivalry between two superpowers, painted romantically as a struggle between ideologies from which capitalism emerged victorious. This is false – it was a U.S. economic program seeking to continue growth realized from World War II mobilization. Growth is necessary for successful capitalism, and huge capitalist economy must find demand externally. Adoption of socialist ideology by any state represented two threats. First, U.S. interests, particularly in oil or infrastructure were targets of nationalization. Secondly, capitalist potential was limited in socialist systems, confining future U.S. international growth. Military might required to maintain these interests required unbridled access to petroleum, assured by close ties to the Saudis maintained by both the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. In 1953, responding to threats of oil nationalization, the CIA overthrew Iran’s government and installed the dictatorial (and U.S.-friendly) Shah. This marked the beginning of active U.S. involvement in the Middle East.
The Cold War presented the U.S government a distinguishable enemy, an "other" -- the "godless" communist. Discursively, the U.S. military could not rest until communists were freed from oppression, allowed to practice religion and, most importantly, spend earnings freely. Through McCarthyism, the binary was enhanced further in American society, painting communist and socialist sympathizers as enemies worthy of blacklisting. Scary scenarios such as the Cuban Missile Crisis and nuclear fallout drills solidified the "us" portion of the binary. Participation in other competitions such as the space race and Olympic games drilled the rhetoric of competition into the minds of Americans. Militarism emerged in American culture. From GI Joe dolls in the 1950s to scene-changing wipes brought by fighter jets on Fox News, militarism is visible throughout American society. This increased militarism created an assumption that existence of the military is justified and necessary to American life.
In advanced capitalism, an important partner to foreign markets accessibility is domestic market expansion. Since 1945, credit opportunities for American consumers have mushroomed, creating demand through fictitious capital. Adjusted for inflation, the average U.S. family earns more than 40 years ago; however, each family’s consumption has increased exponentially. Parents, beyond purchases for their own use, are convinced to purchase a television, stereos, automobile and computer for each child. Workloads increase to enable such purchases, yet simultaneously create more consumerism. After working long hours, a parent is more likely to visit McDonald’s than cook. Amazingly, such consumerism creates more consumerism! As children’s nutritional needs are ignored throughout adolescence, countless weight-loss plans offer freedom from obesity for a fee. Psychiatrists are available to overweight children cope with social banishment accompanying "unacceptable" appearances. Insecurity of adolescents creates markets in which companies like Abercrombie & Fitch operate, offering social acceptability through outrageously priced clothing.
Americans are completely placated materialism. It is difficult to enrage a college freshman about global exploitation when he drifts into iPod-induced isolation immediately following the discussion. It is difficult to convince the cubicle worker of oppression when she has achieved desired status with her new Mercedes-Benz. Consumerism and greed are so firmly entrenched into American society that the average U.S. citizen cares about little beyond personal well-being. Through material placation, Americans have allowed without opposition the politics of the past 50 years. An underlying understanding loaned to contemporary rhetoric is that protection of U.S. interests abroad through any means necessary ensures the "freedom" to enjoy materialistic life.
It is here that Iraq bears mentioning. The original Gulf War of 1990-91 was established by George H.W. Bush to accomplish three major objectives: to justify the bloated military spending commonplace during the Reagan administration but was then threatened by Iron Curtain’s fall; to establish precedent by which overt military action was an acceptable means to economic ends; and to ultimately protect U.S. oil interests by creating hegemonic stability in the Middle East. Iraq was a target of necessity and convenience. Bush portrayed Saddam Hussein as a horrible tyrant; he was, though little had changed since the early 1980s when the U.S. supported his regime. Regardless, domestic support for Operation Desert Storm registered in the ninety percent range.
Establishment of a neo-conservative doctrine was disrupted when William Clinton defeated Bush in 1992. Clinton’s foreign policy, similar in the objective of global hegemony, differed from Bush’s in means. Neo-liberalism was employed through strengthening the WTO. Clinton’s favored diplomatic weapon was the economic sanction, though smaller-scale military actions were frequently employed as a reminder of U.S. power. The disputed election of George W. Bush in 2000 marked a return to neo-conservativism. Under Clinton’s post-Cold War demobilization, military spending was significantly cut. With a looming recession, Bush realized that drastic action was necessary to avoid blame for the downturn through economic revitalization. A clear enemy was needed to justify rapid military spending increases.
The events of 9/11 gave Bush an opportunity to create the "other" sorely lacked since the Cold War. Conveniently, the new enemy was the "terrorist," an exceptionally ambiguous term. Terrorists challenged U.S. hegemony, a rebellion that required example-serving quashing. Bush declared an ongoing "War on Terror" to be waged on many fronts. The war began with the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. Late in 2002 focus shifted to Iraq, following an Iraqi transition to selling oil for euros instead of U.S. dollars, a trade disadvantage for the U.S. Bush wagered that reopening Iraqi oil to the U.S. through military action would reestablish the neo-conservative precedent his father intended Gulf War I to represent. The pending occupation presented other non-military demand for American goods. However, the war was sold to the American public as a way to disarm a potential security threat.
That an ongoing unilateral war is waged without backlash is interesting. The early objections from Germany and France were attempts to protect those nations’ economic interests in the region. The roadblocks this opposition presented in the U.N. were portrayed as threats to U.S. sovereignty, security and freedom. In a blatantly American style, spoils of war were offered to states that supported a preemptive war. States such as the United Kingdom, Poland, the Philippines, and Mongolia, among others, were admitted to a "Coalition of the Willing." In return for discursive support, coalition members were promised concession privileges during rebuilding. As domestic placation was achieved through economic means, Bush simply used economic rewards on a global scale, supposedly achieving enough international support to discount labels of unilateralism.
To claim the Iraq war is waged for oil is partially correct. The Achilles heel of the American empire is a desperate dependence upon petroleum products. Without relatively inexpensive oil and gasoline, the U.S. economy would freeze. Additionally, U.S. military machinery is predominantly fueled by petroleum. Globally, peak petroleum production occurred in 2004, a year in which the U.S. imported more than 80% of its petroleum consumption.
The irony of the American economic system is clear. At the current state of advanced capitalism, continued expansion and imperialism powered by the military is necessary to continue the growth necessary to avoid implosion, all of which is dependent upon an unfettered access to oil. The military intimidation necessary to continue foreign exploitation feeding the U.S. economy requires tremendous amounts of oil to fuel the machinery of war and to fund the military through continued economic growth. As global oil supplies dwindle, U.S. demand faces competition from the industrializing nations of China and India. The future of the United States hegemony seems bleak.
Boulding noted that power has three faces: economic, military and integrative. The United States military is certainly unparalleled in terms of global dominance. However, the economic and integrative power of the United States is slipping. Arrighi noted that the economic power of the world is shifting to the export-based economies of the Far East, which certainly compete with U.S. goods. In the ongoing War on Terror, the U.S. has achieved limited success in translating the military action into economic growth. Economically, the U.S. is dependent upon military success to maintain overseas interests. Should the military slip through overextension or fuel shortage the other faces of American power will quickly crumble. This perspective ignores Marx’s historical materialism, overlooking possible innovations in alternative fuel. The oversight is intentional -- such innovations cannot be reasonably predicted.
The empire will fall, just as all empires in history. The end of the American Empire is foreseeable though not temporally certain. This crumbling could occur within 20 years, though may take 100 or more to fall. In Blood and Oil, Klare outlines one likely scenario: growing concern about oil supply will result in massive military investment to control access. As military investment in oil grows, the relative returns will diminish. The result is military overextension; the bloated military will be unsustainable as oil supplies diminish and returns from neglected international interests falter. The American economy will suddenly implode, as the preoccupied military will be unable to support the overseas markets needed for domestic growth. The government will use military spending to avert recession, deepening the problem. Describing the effect of the collapse on everyday life is best left to fiction, though life will be drastically different for most Americans. The resulting power struggle could be catastrophic for the human condition.
A question for the activist community is: "what can we do?" The question is difficult to address given what is outlined. The current conditions of global politics and of the American Empire are not beneficial to the greater portions of humanity. Hyperexploitation promulgated by the current system leaves a vast majority of humankind without hope. The question is whether to encourage the American Empire to its inevitable demise, or to reverse the current trajectory, slowly rolling back American hegemony to avoid the potential humanitarian catastrophe realized by the struggle of a global power vacuum.
The current times are discouraging for activism, as it seems that little activist activity has been successful in the years since Seattle. Protests are seen as phenomena of antiquity, evoking the 1960s and so-called "hippy" culture. This negative linkage prevents many agreeable to politics of contemporary activism from engaging in protest. Recognition of American material complacence is key. The average American sees a traffic-halting protest as disruption of convenience, a cause of tardiness leading to disciplinary action from an employer. This me-first aspect of American culture is deep-rooted. Such protests turn away those whose daily convenience is interrupted, yet it the less-politically minded that should be targeted by activism! Protests are not useless in today’s society, as a select few (Seattle, Washington and even Chicago this March) have shown during the past decade, but careful consideration in planning and execution must cater message dissemination to the focus audience.
Just as the government exercises hegemony both overtly and covertly, activism must be involved in both spheres. While public protests are overt, activists should simultaneously focus on other means. Vladimir Lenin’s notion of vanguard is exceptionally important in today’s "dumbed-down" society. Activists must be exceptionally well prepared intellectually to overcome material placation existent in American culture. Activists must lead a life of example that others will strive to emulate. Personal interaction and political discussion must be both memorable and remarkable, making instantaneous positive impressions on those encountered. Access presents a particularly daunting challenge. The average American may only have brief and occasional exposure to activism but will have continuous access to Fox News at home.
If activism is going to have a say in the end of the American Empire, the time for action is now. Through a culture of increased militarism by a realization of neo-conservative doctrines under George W. Bush, evidence has been presented that the end of the Empire is approaching. While this end appears the ultimate goal, cautious implementation of goals and methods is urged. The increasingly fragile empire creates an increasingly fragile time for activism. Actions must be handled carefully and deliberately to ensure an improvement of future human condition, the ultimate goal of true activism.
Arrighi, G. 2005. Hegemony Unravelling. New Left Review. 32(2):23-116.
•Boulding, K. 1990. Three Faces of Power. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
•Cox, K.. 2002. Political Geography: Territory, State and Society. Malden, Massachussetts: Blackwell Publishing. 382 p.
•Flint, C. 2003. Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Geographic Research Questions and Agendas. The Professional Geographer 55(2):161-169.
•Harvey, D. 2003. The New Imperialism. New York: Oxford University Press. 275 pp.
•Johnson, C. 2004. The Sorrows of Empire. New York: Henry Holt and Company. 389 pp.
•Klare, M.T. 2004. Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum. New York: Henry Holt and Company. 277 pp.
•Said, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Random House, Inc. 394 pp.
Stiglitz, J.E. 2002. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton Company. 288 pp.
•Smith, N. 2005. The Endgame of Globalization. New York: Routledge. 227 pp.
•Tyner, J.A. 2005. Iraq, Terror, and the Philippines’ Will to War. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 143 pp.