General Analysis of "Empire"
2004
Is America Planning New Imperial Adventures? (December 18, 2004)
This article claims that the US, led by neoconservative "Likudniks" will likely stick to its imperialistic ambitions during the forthcoming administration. Led by the State Department, the National Security Council and the CIA, the US now pursues a "crusade against ‘islamofascism,'" its newly defined enemy. (Daily Star)
2001 Memo Reveals Push for Broader Presidential Powers (December 18, 2004)
Previously undisclosed details of a 2001 memo titled "The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them" allows US President George Bush to wage war "with no limits." The memo specified militant Islam rather than Al Qaida as enemy, implying a more widespread US "antiterror" campaign than he had originally planned. (Newsweek)
US and Russian Nuclear Missiles Are Still on Hair-Trigger Alert (December 17, 2004)
The Soviet-US juxtaposition of two decades ago is revived as US nuclear missiles and Russian "hypersonic flying vehicle[s]" remain on hair trigger alert, prepared for a possible attack from the other. Neither anti-proliferation treaties signed by the US and Russia, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty nor the Treaty of Moscow address the question of hair trigger alerts. (Knight Ridder)
A Flood of Troubled Soldiers Is in the Offing, Experts Predict (December 15, 2004)
A study by the Center for American Progress reports widespread mental health effects in soldiers returning from Iraq and estimates that up to 100,000 soldiers will need medical help for decades to come. The mental health consequences of the war are called the "medical story of this war." The Pentagon acknowledges as the main problem the "warrior ethos," or the reluctance of soldiers to admit problems. (New York Times)
El Baradei Campaign Potentially Dangerous: Expert (December 13, 2004)
In this interview, non-proliferation expert Joseph Cirincione warns about the US campaign against International Atomic Energy Agency Chief Mohamed El Baradei. The US campaign, initiated to create a strong "united position" for action against Iran, is liable to backfire on the US and jeopardize international nuclear security if the US doesn't resort to diplomatic measures. (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
A Defeat for an Empire (December 9, 2004)
"The United States has lost the war in Iraq," this article proclaims. It considers the defeat fortunate – not because it is a defeat for the US but rather for the empire. (Fort Worth Star-Telegram)
Hyping Terror for Fun, Profit - And Power (December 7, 2004)
This Common Dreams article suggests that the US and the UK have created threats of enemies and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) largely in order to sustain and enhance their power. It states that the US began to make its original WMD allegations in the late 1970s, when members of the US administration decided that fear was the best instrument to manipulate the population.
"Save the World, Not the Empire" (December 1, 2004)
This article asserts that US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan represent classical "historical imperatives" that predict the demise of an empire. It suggests that the only way to bring about an end to international chaos and disorder "ensued and nurtured by fundamental and right-wing elements" is continued Iraqi resistance and popular opposition abroad. (YellowTimes.org)
Neo-Cons Hop on Extreme Right's Anti-UN Drive (November 30, 2004)
Neo-conservative hawks continue their attack on the UN, fueling their newest campaign on recent reports about the involvement of Secretary General Kofi Annan's son in the Oil-for-Food programme. The UN opponents, backed by conservative voices such as Fox News, the New York Times' William Safire and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, call for Annan's resignation. (Inter Press Service)
Blair Calls On UN to Ease Invasion of 'Bad' Countries (November 16, 2004)
In his annual foreign policy speech, British Prime Minister Toni Blair suggests a new UN charter enabling the US and Europe to intervene against regimes they consider "bad". (Independent)
The Bush Victory, Fallujah, and the Republican Right's Challenge to the Global Peace Movement (November 8, 2004)
This Focus on the Global South article claims that the expansion of the US "war on terror" overseas backfired, causing countries to increasingly denounce US policy. It calls for "militant solidarity among world's peoples" as a solution to the US Bush administration's "global domination" agenda.
Full Steam Ahead for America's Empire (November 6, 2004)
This article claims that the US shows no signs of wielding in its imperial policies. As formerly avid challengers of Bush policy settle to reconcile with US administration, the government considers its reelection a carte blanche to continue its aggressive foreign policy. (Sydney Morning Herald)
Growing Russian Influence in Central Asia (November 5, 2004)
Russia moves its Central Asian Republics (CAR) policy toward a desired geostrategic pole position. The government employs the CAR policy to gain more economic and military clout vis-í -vis the US and China. (Power and Interest News Report)
Anti-War Movement: The Centrality of the Palestinian Question (October 31, 2004)
This letter to participants of the anti-war movement draws parallels between Israeli policy and the US Bush administration's unilateralist policies. It intends to show that "the Palestinian question" has central importance in Bush's war to establish "global apartheid". The author suggests that the anti-war and global justice movements must stand by Palestinians to avoid further devastation in the region. (A-Safir)
Imperial Hypocrisy (October 21, 2004)
This Progreso Weekly article argues that the US is actually "an administrative faí§ade for the world's largest and most powerful, albeit informal empire." Through constant repetition of its Orwellian jargon, the US justifies its own self-proclaimed status as a world republic.
The End of the Unipolar Myth (September 27, 2004)
This Panglossian article from the International Herald Tribune disputes the view that the world is unipolar with the US as a "hyperpower." Rather, it considers the US an "indispensable power," with increasingly manifest limits arising from its glum economic prospects and limited military power.
Neoliberalism and Class Politics in Latin America (September 22, 2004)
In this article, James Petras explains that imperial powers aim to shift the balance of power in their favor through colonization and redivision of existing power structures. Petras says that the US and EU are "carving up" Latin America via corporate and governmental activities in order to form their own joint "imperial colony." (Rebelión)
Imperialism without Empire (August 26, 2004)
A follow-up to Jonathan Schell's and Tom Engelhardt's exchange on Empire, the article questions the concept of the "unipolar" world and the fundamental question of whether the US really comprises an Empire or rather a great power with "global imperial ambitions." It also suggests that the US faces an impossible task in trying to achieve dominance over an "unconquerable world." (TomDispatch.com)
Jonathan Schell on the Empire That Fell As It Rose (August 19, 2004)
Authors of The End of Victory Culture and The Unconquerable World, Power, Nonviolence and the Will of the People, Tom Engelhardt and Jonathan Schell exchange thoughts on whether the US constitutes a "globe-straddling" imperium or a "distinctly unfinished, even ungainly, creature." (TomDispatch.com)
Antonio Negri: The Nostalgic Revolutionary (August 17, 2004)
Fresh out of prison, Antonio Negri is the co-author of Empire, a book hailed as the "Communist Manifesto for the 21st century." The Independent's interview with Negri is a mildly sarcastic take on this eccentric personality.
The Bush Foreign Policy Revolution, Its Origins, and Alternatives (August 17, 2004)
In this book excerpt, John Langmore argues that the Bush administration has been responsible for an aggressive and dangerous turn in US foreign policy. He sees the Bush "revolution" as rooted in public fears of terror and a widespread national belief that the US is a uniquely benevolent power. A Kerry election victory, while welcome, would not alter the deep structure of US policy and power. (Global Policy Forum)
Deadlock in Georgia: An Incremental Gain for Russia (August 16, 2004)
The United States has established a military presence in the former Soviet republic of Georgia to protect its access to the vital oil resources of the Caucasus. Conflict over the region's energy supplies could eventually lead to overt confrontation between the US and Russia, but in the short term the rival powers seem content with preserving the status quo. (Power and Interest News Report)
Today Iraq, Tomorrow Iran (August 11, 2004)
This article lists 21 mistaken predictions of the US neocon administration in its invasion of Iraq. The author suggests that the US government may consider a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran to "distract the American people from their catastrophic and incompetent record". (Salon.com)
The (British) Empire Strikes Back (July 13, 2004)
British schools have downplayed the history of empire, treating the topic as "politically incorrect." A recent parliamentary report called the word empire "anachronistic" and "insensitive." But a new textbook called The Impact of Empire and the opening of the British Empire and Commonwealth Museum reflect increasing enthusiasm for the open discussion of this formerly taboo subject. (BBC)
What to Expect from US "Democracy Promotion" in Iraq (July 1, 2004)
This article suggests that the goal of US Middle East policy is not the promotion of democracy but rather the forced integration of the region into the world capitalist economy. The means for achieving this objective is a combination of military might and political intervention. (Focus on the Global South)
The Imperial Lament (July 2004)
Niall Ferguson's Colossus urges the United States to learn from the past in order to rule effectively as an empire. In this review, Middle East historian Joel Beinin makes the case that Ferguson's book fails as a work of history, is inaccurate and inconsistent, and "simply ignores unambiguous facts and interpretations that do not confirm his opinions." (MERIP)
The End of Power (June 21, 2004)
What would the world look like without the US empire? Some foresee a multipolar global order, but Niall Ferguson has apocalyptic visions of "a new Dark Age" of civilizational warfare, terrorist violence, fortified cities, economic catastrophe, and nuclear devastation. (Wall Street Journal)
Shanghai Group Aims to Keep US in Check (June 19, 2004)
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), established in 2001 to form a counterweight to US economic and political influence, took steps at its June meeting in Uzbekistan toward becoming "a full-fledged international organization." Comprised of Russia, China, and four Central Asian states, the SCO has not invited US ally Afghanistan to become a member. (Asia Times)
The New Regionalism: Drifting Toward Multi-Polarity (June 7, 2004)
With the "collapse" of its campaign in Iraq, the United States faces a "decline in American credibility and the worldwide recognition of its military limitations." The article predicts that regional powers such as China and Russia, backed by military power, will move toward multi-polarism, "a containment policy against the United States." (Power and Interest News Report)
The Illusions of Empire (June, 2004)
In this lengthy critique of the book Empire, the writer argues that authors Negri and Hardt "wrongly conclude… that imperialism has been overcome. In reality, it has only been perfected under U.S. hegemony." (Monthly Review)
An Empire of Denial (June 1, 2004)
Niall Ferguson's former university housemate suggests that, "while brilliantly exposing America's imperial denial," Ferguson himself "forgets those who are always forgotten by empire: the victims." (Guardian)
It's Not Just the Emperor Who is Naked, But the Whole Empire (May 24, 2004)
The author argues that US empire-building has been well underway since the end of World War II. Democratic administrations have been just as imperialistic as Republicans, though they may use different style and tactics. (Common Dreams)
Imperial Denial (May 21, 2004)
In this interview, Niall Ferguson suggests that US citizens should acknowledge that their state is a global empire. He argues that "empire provides stability," and that the US should act as a "liberal empire" by establishing free-market liberal democracies "to create a political underpinning for a globalized economy." (Mother Jones)
EU Constitution: Blueprint for Superstate? (May 17, 2004)
Will the European Union (EU) constitution empower the union to become a "superstate" that could seriously challenge US hegemony? This article argues that at the very least, a constitution will change the shape of the EU and possibly bring the union closer to its people. (BBC)
Europe's Soft Power (May 3, 2004)
Soft power comes in forms of influence in literature, science, sports, music and tourism. Europe has been quite successful in expanding its influence through such soft power. Joseph Nye argues that the US, as a leader of the information age, has the potential to use more soft power. (Globalist)
EU Enlargement: Good for the US? (May 3, 2004)
This article argues that as more pro-US states join as new members of the European Union, it will be trickier for the EU to serve as "a strategic counterbalance to the US." (BBC)
Multilateralism — The World's Viewpoint (April 8, 2004)
This article gathers opinions of world leaders and journalists on multilateralism, unilateralism and the role of the US in the world. (Globalist)
War on Terror: Coming Apart at the Seams (March 20, 2004)
The article remarks that the US has not pulled itself out of the "nation-building business" as promised by President Bush in the election of 2000. The author argues that people in the West mistakenly see nation-building as a noble or just cause. Elsewhere, many people see it as a new form of colonialism and imperialism. (Telepolis)
We Aren't the World (March 19, 2004)
According to a Pew opinion poll, US international reputation has "gone down the drain" as it pursues policies of unilateralism over multilateralism and military intervention over international cooperation. (O'Dwyers PR Daily)
Illusions of Empire: Defining the New American Order (March/April 2004)
This article reviews five texts examining contemporary US imperialism and concludes that "when all is said and done, Americans are less interested in ruling the world than they are in creating a world of rules." Whether these sentiments are shared by ruling neo-conservative factions in the Bush administration, however, remains to be seen. (Foreign Affairs)
The Empire Backfires (March 29, 2004)
The author argues US imperialism "has interposed a huge, unnecessary roadblock between the world and the Himalayan mountain range of urgent tasks," that include finding solutions to global warming, global poverty, human rights emergencies and nuclear proliferation. (The Nation)
US Revealed to be Secretly Funding Opponents of Chavez (March 13, 2004)
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a non-profit agency financed entirely by Congress, has distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to political opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. NED claims the funds are used in "effort[s] to strengthen democracy;" critics argue NED's ‘meddling' in Venezuela is designed to replace Chavez with a pro-US president. (Independent)
Bush or Kerry? No Difference (March 8, 2004)
Journalist John Pilger argues that there is little discernable difference between the attitudes of George W. Bush and John Kerry when it comes to US imperialism: both, he insists, will continue to support it. (New Statesman)
America: An Empire Built On Sand? (March 1, 2004)
The author examines spiraling US foreign indebtedness and growing international distrust of US policies and motivations, and speculates whether the foundations of US power are as secure as they presently appear. (BBC)
No End to War (March 1, 2004)
This American Conservative article condemns the neoconservative "ideology of benevolent American empire and global democracy" as disguising a "voracious appetite for power." However the author argues leading neoconservative ideologues are "losing their grip on reality as well as their influence on policy."
How Britain and the US Keep Watch on the World (February 27, 2004)
Intelligence sharing and collaboration between the highly-secretive US National Security Agency (NSA) and Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) allows comprehensive – and unaccountable – spying on private, organizational and government communications. (Independent)
Exporting the American Dream (February 23, 2004)
The author examines US "soft power" – "the ability to get what we [the US] want[s] by attracting others, by getting them to want the things we want" – and Bush administration plans to use this power in its transformation of the Middle East. (BBC)
"It's Time to Get Over It" (February 18, 2004)
This article argues the Democrat foreign policy of "progressive internationalism" constitutes a radical interventionist program that likewise promotes US hegemony, albeit "in a kinder, gentler fashion" than current neoconservative policies. (Counterpunch)
The Politics of Narcissism (February 15, 2004)
A psychoanalyst scrutinizes contemporary US foreign policy and identifies where traits of narcissism are reflected in the Bush administration. (Counterpunch)
US Image Abroad Will 'Take Years' to Repair (February 9, 2004)
A US State Department official in charge of public diplomacy has acknowledged that US standing abroad has deteriorated considerably and "will take…many years of hard, focused work" to restore. The official argued this US image problem "does not lend itself to a quick fix or a single solution or simple plan." (Christian Science Monitor)
Security, Terror, and the Psychodynamics of Empire (February 7, 2004)
A psychoanalyst argues latent ‘social narcissism' generates insecurity, fear and hostility in US society. Unable to accept themselves as cause of their own distress, US citizens disown and ‘project' their rage onto hostile external actors, whether real or concocted. (ZNet)
The One-Note Superpower (February 2, 2004)
The article argues US single-mindedness with the war on terror ignores equally pressing global issues such as poverty eradication, disease prevention and education. (Newsweek)
US Imperial Strategy in the Middle East (February 2004)
According to this article from Monthly Review, the world's growing dependency on Middle East energy resources drives US policy in the region. It argues that the United States intends to profit from the necessary boost in Persian Gulf oil production in the coming decades, and invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in order to pursue this goal. However, the potential "quagmire" of the Iraq occupation and the unresolved Israel-Palestine conflict threaten the success of the US strategy.
America: An Empire to Rival Rome? (January 26, 2004)
Despite comprehensive military, economic and cultural dominance the BBC argues the term "empire" does not properly describe the US. But empire or not, it suggests there is a growing feeling around the world that unrivalled US power is a problem. (BBC)
The US is Now in the Hands of a Group of Extremists (January 26, 2004)
George Soros argues ideological extremists dominate the US administration. Soros contends their distorted ideology postulates that US economic and military strength translates into superior wisdom and morality. (Guardian)
A Tougher War for the US Is One of Legitimacy (January 24, 2004)
A "great philosophical schism" has opened between the US and Europe on fundamental matters of ideology, strategy and world order. The article suggests the US, once the "vanguard of worldwide liberal revolution," is suffering a crisis of international legitimacy that ultimately threatens the security of the entire liberal democratic world. (New York Times)
Ashcroft Says US Not Greedy for Empire (January 23, 2004)
Defending US conduct in its war on terror, US Attorney General John Ashcroft has claimed the US is "not an aggressor" and does not "seek to consume territory or to acquire an empire." (Reuters)
Do Turkeys Enjoy Thanksgiving? (19 January, 2004)
Arundhati Roy contends US "New Imperialism" "seeks to perpetuate inequity and establish American hegemony at any price, even if it's apocalyptic." Roy warns the global resistance movement must be prepared to do more to combat it. (Countercurrents.org)
A Foreign Policy of Try, Try Again (January 18, 2004)
The author argues US confusion and its "seat-of-the-pants approach" to reconstruction in Iraq is nothing new to US post-war occupation policy. He suggests a similar US approach marred reconstruction efforts in post-war Japan and Germany. (New York Times)
Think Again: Neocons (January/February 2004)
Has "neocon" become an all-purpose term of abuse for anyone deemed to be hawkish? The author seeks to clarify rumors behind the neocon ascendancy, which he argues have been greatly exaggerated. (Foreign Policy)
In 2,000 Years, Will the World Remember Disney or Plato? (January 15, 2004)
As the unrivaled global superpower the US exports its culture on an unprecedented scale, spreading it speedily and inexorably to every corner of the globe. This article discusses how US "cultural imperialism" both threatens and enriches foreign cultural diversity. (Christian Science Monitor)
Sorrows of Empire: An Interview (January 5, 2004)
Chalmers Johnson condemns US imperialism and militarism, and denounces the Bush administration's "unrelenting propaganda campaign of fear," arguing it is designed to "implement a private agenda that it has kept hidden from the public at large." Johnson makes dire predictions for the future of the US and its place in history. (ZNet)
The Sorrows of Empire – Echelon and Information Sharing (January 2004)
Chalmers Johnson examines Echelon, an unaccountable multi-nation intelligence gathering, processing and sharing operation that targets all international civil communications channels and enjoys near-total government secrecy. Johnson suggests Echelon's existence highlights the "implacable advance of militarism" in supposedly democratic countries. ("The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy and the End of the Republic")
Global Civil Society Meets Amidst Crisis of Empire (January 2004)
Walden Bello suggests continued US problems in Iraq and the collapse of the WTO Ministerial Meeting in Cancun are manifestations of US imperial overreach. In the face of emerging challenges to US hegemony he argues the administration should return to multilateralism and assume moral leadership. (Transnational Institute)
Conceptualizing Imperialism in the 21st Century (2004)
This article suggests that from the late 19th century until World War Two, wealthy countries created bureaucratic structures, legal codes, and new forms of economic production in the colonized territories. After World War Two, however, the UN became a Trojan horse for richer countries' ambitions for political domination, as influential member states urged the UN to administer its authority in unstable countries. The author argues that the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are proof that imperialism still occurs. (University of Wollongong)
2003
Democracy Cannot Coexist with Bush's Failed Doctrine of Preventive War (December 3, 2003)
This article argues that Washington does not want democracy but an assent to its policies. US President George Bush claims to lead a global struggle for democracy, but the US holds enemy prisoners without rights and denigrates US citizens who criticize the "preventive-war" policy. (Los Angeles Times)
US Hegemony: Continuing Decline, Enduring Danger (December 2003)
The US attempts to preserve its advantage over the European Union and Asia through a "belligerent" trade policy and unequalled military power, but its political and economic supremacy is on the decline. The article argues that the US is no longer able to control an increasingly multipolar world, and its attempts to compete with emerging rivals "can only bring devastation and disruption." (Monthly Review)
Imperialism Book Reviews (December 2003)
This review from Z Magazine takes a critical look at some recently published histories of British and US imperialism. The author summarizes and comments on books by Andrew Bacevich, Walter Russell Mead, Niall Ferguson and Neil Smith.
The Bubble of American Supremacy (December 2003)
George Soros argues September 11 has allowed the US administration to implement a preconceived radical foreign policy agenda to consolidate US global supremacy and impose US values globally. He compares this agenda to a financial "market bubble," or a "misconception" that departs from reality and that, like a bubble, threatens to burst. (Atlantic Monthly)
The Moral Myth (November 25, 2003)
A superpower does not have moral imperatives, it has strategic imperatives. Its purpose is not to sustain the lives of other people, but to sustain itself. (Guardian)
The Road to Damascus (November 24, 2003)
Before the US invaded Iraq, many doubted that the US would carry out its threat of war. Washington turns its focus to Syria and its grievances are more explicit than those against Iraq, argues Foreign Policy in Focus.
Continued Policy of US Unilateralism May Depend on 2004 Presidential Elections (November 19, 2003)
The administration of US President George Bush say that US foreign policy should reflect the US "position as the sole superpower in the world, capable of fighting military conflicts without allies." Critics of the administration, both Republicans and Democrats, believe that the US needs to mend ties with its traditional allies and the UN. (Power and Interest News Report)
Criticizing the US Empire is Not Enough (November 13, 2003)
The author argues those critics dissatisfied with the US administration need to show how a less unipolar and a more UN-driven world might work. (International Herald Tribune)
Favoring the Strongman in Pakistan over the Populist of Persia (November 6, 2003)
Even after 9/11 the US seems not to have learned its lesson and continues to support "military dictatorships over budding democracies" in the Middle East and West Asia. (Yellow Times)
Defining the Mission of the 21st Century (November 6, 2003)
Former US President Bill Clinton says that the US can win any military conflict by itself, but that it can't build peace by itself. Clinton thinks that the US should strive for "more friends and fewer enemies." (International Herald Tribune)
Sorrows of Empire (November 2003)
US imperialism used to be a "fiction of the far-left imagination", now it is a fact of life, writes Foreign Policy in Focus. US President George Bush says that Washington has a right to overthrow any government that it considers a threat.
Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy (October 30, 2003)
The Democrat National Security Strategy promises to replace the Republican "go-it-alone" policy with a strategy founded on "muscular internationalism." This new strategy requires the "bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values." (Progressive Policy Institute)
Tony Blair's New Friend (October 28, 2003)
In Uzbekistan, political and religious prisoners die from torture. During 2002 the US government gave the regime of Islam Karimov $500m, of which $79m went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture. Supporting Karimov, like the US supported Islamist extremists in Afghanistan, might "foster" the next US "enemy," says the Guardian.
The American Empire (October 16-18, 2002)
This article argues that the US is an empire, but one of reluctance and denial. It provides a concise account of the history leading to the rise of US hegemony in the world. In addition, the article provides comparisons between the US role in the world and past empires such as the Chinese, Roman and British variants. (Asia Times)
The Widening Crusade (October 15 - 21, 2003)
US President George W. Bush has an extensive but covert war plan. A document from September 2000 presents the US plan to fight "multiple, simultaneous, large-scale wars across the globe." By November 2001 the Pentagon had considered atacks on Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan, as part of a five-year plan. (Village Voice)
Cheney Goes on Offensive over Iraq (October 11, 2003)
A critical review of Vice President Dick Cheney's speech on US foreign policy to the Heritage Foundation. (Washington Post)
Remarks by the Vice President to the Heritage Foundation (October 10, 2003)
In his speech to the Heritage Foundation, Dick Cheney talks about "the war on terror," international law and multilateralism, and delivers a concise statement of the Bush Doctrine: "Any person or government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists… will be held to account." (White House)
US "Empire" and its Limits (October 9, 2003)
US citizens feel increasingly doubtful about the "Bush doctrine." They believe that their country's military presence in other countries increases the risk of terror attacks. Furthermore, the financial burden and the stress on US troops exceed their expectations. (Christian Science Monitor)
Bin Laden Lacks a Political Solution (October 9, 2003)
Middle Eastern and Central Asian animosity towards the US has deep roots. However, the Bush administration's harsh rhetoric and unilateralist foreign policy create more support for bin Laden in these regions. (Power and Interest News Report)
The Road Map to Damascus (October 8, 2003)
According to the Christian Science Monitor, Israel's air raid on Syria links the Israeli Palestinian conflict to Washington's war on terrorism. President Bush even sees preemptive attack on Syria as an option, but he asks Israel to "avoid escalation."
The Cost of Empire (October 6, 2003)
This American Conservative article strongly criticizes the Bush administration's unilateralist agenda, and argues that US imperial decline, stemming from a combination of external and internal factors, is imminent.
The Economics of Empire (Fall 2003)
Walden Bello insists that empires require both political legitimacy and moral vision to survive and prosper. Bello accepts that the US met both criteria in the post-WW2 period. Nonetheless he argues that the absence of US political legitimacy and moral vision today spurs resistance to US imperialism. (New Labor Forum)
Liberal Empire: Assessing the Arguments (Fall 2003)
According to this article by Jedediah Purdy, the imperial doctrine rests on the idea of a "political inequality of countries." The author identifies weak imperial policy as political inequality between states and strong imperial policy as political inequality between peoples. (Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs)
Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and Lessons for Global Power (September 16, 2003)
In this transcript, Niall Ferguson presents his book at the Carnegie Council Books for Breakfast. Ferguson argues that the most important reason for US imperial failure is its lack of long-term vision. (Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs)
Multilateralism, American Style (September 13, 2002)
Multilateralism has different meanings on both sides of the Atlantic. Europeans are more committed to building an international legal order based on the United Nations. For most US citizens, multilateralism means getting a few important allies on board. (Washington Post)
Foreign Views of US Darken Since Sept. 11 (September 11, 2003)
After the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, countries rallied in support for the US. But increasingly states consider the US an imperialist power seeking military domination and control of global oil supplies. (New York Times)
Hegemony or Empire? (August 19, 2003)
Professor Niall Ferguson compares current US power in world affairs with the former British Empire and asks whether the US constitutes an empire or a hegemonic power. (New York Times)
A Debate over US 'Empire' Builds in Unexpected Circles (August 10, 2003)
Many conservatives promote the idea of a US empire, arguing that Washington should increase military spending to spread US political values and preempt hostile nations' ability to threaten the US with weapons of mass destruction. (Washington Post)
Empire Redux? (August 7, 2003)
Lee Siegel, a contributing editor of Harper's Magazine, states that the imperialist label has again become timely in describing the exploits of the US government. However, Seigel denies its usefulness as a concise description of the US, asserting that it is a banal, all-purpose term. (Newsweek)
Mirror Mirror on the Wall, Who's The Biggest Rogue of All? (August 7, 2003)
Richard Du Boff provides 27 reasons why he thinks the US government is the biggest rogue state in the world. (ZNet)
War on Truth (August 4, 2003)
John Pilger argues that the unprovoked US attack on Iraq constitutes the 73rd colonial intervention in the history of the US. Pilger states that "these, together with hundreds of bloody covert operations, have been covered up by a system and a veritable tradition of state-sponsored lies reaching back to the genocidal campaigns against Native Americans." (New Statesman)
Imperial Perspectives (July 24-30, 2003)
Edward Said argues that imperial powers have always looked at foreign realities through the haze of a history created by its own views and interest. This "imperial perspective" has produced distortions in Middle Eastern society that prolong suffering and induce extreme forms of resistance. This is happening in Iraq today with the Iraqi resistance against its current imperial invaders. (Al-Ahram)
Blackballed By Bush (July 21, 2003)
The White House has blocked the Swedish UN Ambassador's assignment as the new head of the UN peacekeeping mission in Kosovo for his lack of support for the Iraq war. (New Yorker)
Political Capital (July 15, 2003)
Alan Murray reviews the debate between conservatives and liberals over the US "world-empire." He details the recent statements of well-known neo-conservatives touting the "empire label," such as Max Boot and William Kristol, publisher of the right-wing newspaper the Weekly Standard. (Wall Street Journal)
Adjusting to Empire (July 12, 2003)
The Bush Administration's push for Empire has caused an identity crisis among some US citizens, for whom the revolution against the British Empire constitutes a source of national pride and identity. Bush has tried to couch US imperialism in terms of "democracy," "freedom," and "responsibility," but some people aren't buying it. (ZNet)
The Empire Strikes Back (July 7, 2003)
The US under President Bush drives toward empire, while wounded and vengeful nationalism in the domestic sphere fuels the engine. The Bush administration exploits and manipulates these sentiments in its own interests, motivated by geo-politics and a desire for economic expansion. (Nation)
The Power of Virtue . . . (July 4, 2003)
According to this Washington Post article, the Bush administration has been "militarily effective" in Afghanistan and Iraq. The article asserts that the US is "morally superior to the fundamentalists' version of Islamic society" and should impose US "freedom" and "virtue" on the Muslim world.
Out of Their Own Mouths (July 2, 2003)
For those who remain skeptical of Washington's imperial intentions, Anna Pha of the Guardian goes straight to the source. Pha reprints verbatim quotes from right-wing think-tanks with intimate ties to the Bush administration that explicitly propose strategies to maximize and extend US global dominance.
US May Not Be Imperial, But It Does Have an Empire (July 2, 2003)
The war in Iraq did not inaugurate a new US empire, argues Professor Kal Raustiala of Princeton University. In fact, the US has maintained colonies since the Spanish-American war. While Raustiala does not believe the US has imperial ambitions in the Middle East, he argues the US should extend its professed commitment to democracy to its remaining colonies. (International Herald Tribune)
The New Age of Imperialism (July/August, 2003)
John Bellamy Foster contends that imperialism serves the needs of a ruling class and not the entire nation. He argues that imperialism constitutes a "systematic reality" arising from the very nature of capitalist development and not simply from the policies of neo-conservative cabals and individuals. (Monthly Review)
US Weakness and the Struggle for Hegemony (July/August, 2003)
Immanuel Wallerstein argues that the world currently experiences US imperialism that is particularly aggressive compared to past imperialist states. Some US officials and right-wing academics actually use the words "imperialist" to describe themselves. Wallerstein argues that this self-description stems from current US weakness. (Monthly Review)
An American Empire Built on Deception (June 26, 2003)
The fruitless search for Iraq's supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction should leave US citizens with a feeling of unease if not indignation. Yet, the US public seems content with the fact that, WMDs or no WMDs, "at least we won the war." Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe argues that this kind of complacency lays the foundation for a "New American Empire."
Clear and Present Danger (June 19 - 25, 2003)
Washington's "arrogant unilateralism, its untrustworthy rhetoric and its belligerent posturing" trigger a growing anti-Americanism and undermines US security. (Al-Ahram Weekly)
The Hard Edge of American Values (June 18, 2003)
In his article "Supremacy by Stealth," Robert Kaplan unabashedly hails the pre-eminence of the US global empire, calling the maintenance of US dominance "paramount" for global security. Kaplan explains in this interview why the US military should exercise "light and lethal" control over the world to promote so-called "American liberal values." (Atlantic)
American Empire: The History and Future of an Idea (June 12, 2003)
Stephen Howe argues that in spite of an increasing number of US direct military interventions the US empire differs from formal colonialism. The US essentially exercises its control through informal economic, diplomatic and cultural means. (openDemocracy)
After the Winning of the War (June 2003)
Historian Eric Hobsbawm argues that overwhelming US military and technological dominance combined with a domestic inclination toward economic protectionism make for an unprecedented kind of militaristic global empire. Hobsbawn warns that expanding US militarism could destabilize the world. (Le Monde Diplomatique)
US: The Obvious Emperor (May 27, 2003)
Francesco Sisci details the origins of the US Empire, tracing the development of US relations with the UK and Europe in the post-World War II era. Sisci also identifies many facets of US imperial power in the world today. (Asia Times)
Going Global: Building a Movement Against Empire (May 16-17, 2003)
Phyllis Bennis states that as the Bush administration consolidates its occupation of Iraq, it continues its trajectory of international extension of power. With no other country strong enough to counter US expansion, Bennis insists that global public opinion constitutes the only serious competitor to challenge the US Empire. (Foreign Policy in Focus)
Entering Global Anarchy (May/June 2003)
According to Immanuel Wallerstien, the US has had a hegemonic position in the capitalist world system for the last 55 years. He predicts that the future trajectory of the system will be terminal crisis, degenerating into "global anarchy" with the decline of US hegemony. (New Left Review)
Imperial America and War (May 2003)
Richard Haass, the director of policy planning in the US State Department, called for open acknowledgement of Washington's imperial role. Haass describes how the US should follow the 19th century British example, and extend control "informally if possible and formally if necessary" to secure its interests around the world. (Monthly Review)
Transition to Empire (May 2003)
This article argues that the US has completely ignored the UN and international law by occupying Iraq, imposing its own law of neo-colonialism. The author compares the US occupation to examples from history ranging from British colonial rule in India and the Sudan, to General Macarthur's occupation of Japan after World War II. (Le Monde Diplomatique)
Postmodern Imperialism (April 24, 2003)
A good way to understand US policy is to look in the past to the era of European colonization. Today many problems are consequences of the British colonial past in the Middle East. (Le Monde)
A Nation Lost (April 22, 2003)
According to the Boston Globe, the new US policy assumes that Washington "not only stands apart from other countries but above them." The newspaper suggests strategies for opposing "the new US doctrine of coercive unilateralism."
Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong (April 18, 2003)
Howard Dean criticizes the Bush administration for seeking to impose its will on sovereign nations, dismantle multilateral institutions and distort the rule of law to suit its narrow purposes. (Common Dreams)
From Republic to Empire (April 14, 2003)
Regardless of the outcome in Iraq, George W. Bush is "America's most imperial president," argues the Globe and Mail. He has taken "imperial presidency" further than Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon ever imagined, says the newspaper.
Europe against Empire? (April 10, 2003)
The EU's criticism of US hegemony draws attention away from its own ambition of being a super power.The article says that European leaders "do not resist the idea of a world ruled by Great Powers; they just want in on the game." (Spiked)
Imperialism: Then and Now (April 2003)
In this interview, Tariq Ali discusses the development of US global hegemony. He touches upon issues such as the relationship between imperialism and capitalism, racism, the role of the media, and resistance to empire. Ali also addresses the so-called "clash of civilizations," arguing that "imperial fundamentalism" is at the root of religious extremism. (Z Magazine)
Going Global (April 2003)
This article examines the global movement mobilized around the slogan - The World Says No to War. The article argues that this global movement serves as a counter superpower to the US, which surpasses antiwar protests and challenges American unilateralism and empire. (Transnational Institute/ Institute for Policy Studies)
"American Empire" as Will and Idea (February, 2003)
This policy paper analyses the imperial ambition of the Bush Administration after September 11, 2001. It identifies three major elements of the US grand strategy for maintaining the "American Empire": Unrivalled US military superiority, preventive acts of war and exclusive US global sovereignty. (Rainer Rilling - Rosa Luxemburg Foundation)
Is the US an Empire? (February 3, 2003)
The historian Paul Schroeder claims in this article that the US exercises hegemony, but is not yet an empire. He says that the Bush Doctrine – preemptive and unilateral military action – "proclaims unquestionably imperialist ambitions and goals." However, Schroeder warns strongly about imperialist policies, saying it will fail and suggests that the US "settle for hegemony." (History News Network)
America's Empire Is an Empire Lite (January 10, 2003)
President Bush said that the US "has no empire to extend or utopia to establish." Michael Ignatieff disagrees, asserting that the US does qualify as an empire based upon its international dissemination of free markets and liberal democracy. (New York Times)
2002
The Rediscovery of Imperialism (November 2002)
The author argues contemporary US re-engagement with concepts of "empire" and "imperialism" is guided by "rules" that emphasize the "uniquely benevolent motives" of the US, avoid "any sense of economic imperialism" and "eschew all radical notions that connect imperialism to capitalism and exploitation." (Monthly Review)
Return of the Nation-State—and the Leviathan (November, 2002)
The Bush administration's unabashed unilateralism reveals its imperial desire to "sweep away . . . civil society participation, citizen diplomacy, and multidimensional forms of conflict prevention." This article warns, "we are entering into an imperial world order maintained by a Leviathan nation in search of monsters to slay." (Interhemispheric Resource Center)
American Empire for Dummies (October 21, 2002)
William Blum launches a scathing attack on US foreign policy interventions and proposes a ‘radical' anti-terrorist agenda: "stop giving terrorists the motivation to attack America." (ZNet)
The Struggles of Democracy and Empire (October 10, 2002)
The probable US invasion of Iraq will pose underestimated difficulties in nation-building a war-torn, impoverished and segregated country. Despite the possible destabilization of the entire Middle East, the political re-construction of Iraq into "the first Arab democracy" may be much harder than it seems. (New York Times)
Hegemony to Imperium (September 26, 2002)
Foreign Policy in Focus argues that the Bush administration prefers a world where US unchallenged military power guarantees its supremacy. The new US grand strategy features "aggressive anti-multilateralism, new militarism, and moral absolutism."
A Bush Vision of Pax Americana (September 23, 2002)
The Bush administration's first National Security Strategy asserts the US as the lone superpower and declares its dominance in expanding global peace and freedom. (Christian Science Monitor)
Rome, AD…Rome, DC? (September 18, 2002)
Whilst the Romans triumphantly proclaimed themselves masters of the world, the US often depicts itself as a more humble "freedom fighter". Nonetheless, historians keep identifying disturbing similarities between the two. Could it be that the US is in fact a new version of the Roman Empire? (Guardian)
A Second-Generation Alliance System (September 11, 2002)
Highlighting global security concerns, Leon Fuerth analyzes the US's current and past roles in global leadership, questioning its current direction and proposing alternative pathways. (International Herald Tribune)
Westward the Course of Empire (September, 2002)
Le Monde Diplomatique argues that a new imperial ideology takes shape under President Bush. The new US empire strives for global expansion and "greater security and prosperity through the force of arms", while submitting developing countries to a new period of colonization.
The West May Be Cracking (August 9, 2002)
In a post 9/11 context, Francis Fukuyama draws attention to the disparities between a unilateralist US ideology and a multilateralist European one. The author argues that while other countries place the sovereign nation-state within the scope of the international body, the US views the two as incompatible. (International Herald Tribune)
Reaching the Parts Other Empires Could Not Reach (January 16, 2002)
The US sphere of influence in central Asia is considerable. "In previous eras, this sort of expansionism would have been called colonialism or imperialism," argues the Guardian.
2000
Empire (2000)
In this preface to "Empire" published in 2000, authors Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argue that the sovereignty of nation states has declined and been transformed into a new form of global sovereignty which they call Empire. The Empire is similar to what others call globalization – the borderless and all-powerful exchange of economic and cultural production. Hence, it is very different from the days of European colonial imperialism, entirely tied to the sovereignty of the nation state. (Hardt & Negri)
Rebuilding America's Defense: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century (September, 2000)
The Project for the New American Century argues that the US should extend its global leadership by increasing military spending, maintaining strategic nuclear superiority, developing and deploying global missile defenses, and controlling the new "international commons" of space and "cyberspace."
Cultural Imperialism in the Late 20th Century (February 2000)
This article categorizes the goals of cultural imperialism as well as its new forms, impacts and limits. The article sees cultural imperialism as a type of "cultural terrorism," which takes the guise of "international culture," through which western society forcibly imposes its values and ideals upon the rest of the world. (Rebelión)
Campaign 2000: Promoting the National Interest (January/ February, 2000)
This Foreign Affairs paper sets forth a Republican ideology of US national interests. From the premise that US values are universal, Condoleezza Rice deduces that the spread of freedom, peace and prosperity are by-products of the pursuit of US interests. Thus, she resorts to traditional imperial claims, that unilateralism is legitimate and humanitarian intervention valuable only when national interest is at stake: "There is nothing wrong with doing something that benefits humanity, but that is, in a sense, a second-order effect."
