Some people still feel this way

[LightbulbSun]

Some people still feel this way...

My conversation with a good old friend:

Sometimes also imperialism is what keeps empires afloat and basically that is what America is. If the country is suffocating from a lack of resource, every country, tribe, empire or whatever, do whatever means it takes to survive.

Do you want the United States to become Imperialistic?

No, but when the situation is dire and calls for it. That's what Iraq was in my view
we needed to get the leverage back in the mid east.

 

[Evo]

LBS, you have to start a dialogue, what exactly do you wish to discuss?

 

[LightbulbSun]

LBS, you have to start a dialogue, what exactly do you wish to discuss?

I mostly would like to discuss his comments about Iraq being a dire situation that we needed to act upon to regain leverage in the Middle East.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I think it's an interesting question... if America could invade the middle east to capture oil wells and ensure it remains the world's sole superpower for another 20, 30 or 50 years, should we do it? A lot of people would say that's not 'fair', but consider our initial superpower status was heavily derived from the fact that we were the sole large industrial nation insulated from the effects of total warfare in WWII, so it's not really 'fair' that we're a superpower to begin with.

 

[russ_watters]

I mostly would like to discuss his comments about Iraq being a dire situation that we needed to act upon to regain leverage in the Middle East.

The situation in Iraq is vastly improved in recent months (year). As of a few minutes ago, October became the first month since the start of the war that no Americans were killed in Baghdad (and there were just 13 combat and non-combat deaths country-wide: http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-10-30-iraqnews_N.htm ). It isn't quite where it needs to be yet, but it is getting pretty close.

On the larger issue, people today have broadened the definition of "imperialism" to include any aggressive foreign policy, even purely economic ones. By the classic definition (taking over a country and making it a part of yours), the US is not imperialistic. Since the end of WWII, the west in general and the US in particular have decreased the size of their empires.

 

[LightbulbSun]

The situation in Iraq is vastly improved in recent months (year). As of a few minutes ago, October became the first month since the start of the war that no Americans were killed in Baghdad (and there were just 13 combat and non-combat deaths country-wide: http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-10-30-iraqnews_N.htm ). It isn't quite where it needs to be yet, but it is getting pretty close.

On the larger issue, people today have broadened the definition of "imperialism" to include any aggressive foreign policy, even purely economic ones. By the classic definition (taking over a country and making it a part of yours), the US is not imperialistic. Since the end of WWII, the west in general and the US in particular have decreased the size of their empires.

Interesting. Imperialism can also mean "the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations." I think under this definition, you can say the U.S. has become imperialistic to some degree.

 

[russ_watters]

To what degree? Could you name a country besides Iraq and Afghanistan where that condition exists and explain how that definition fits?

 

[Alfi]

To what degree? Could you name a country besides Iraq and Afghanistan where that condition exists and explain how that definition fits?

Why are you not including Iraq and Afghanistan?
How many countries are necessary to qualify? Do murderers need to kill more than one person to qualify as being a murderer?

 

[Hurkyl]

Why are you not including Iraq and Afghanistan?

It should be obvious; Iraq and Afghanistan are still emotionally charged topics that people have difficulty discussing objectively (e.g. the juxtaposition of this comment with your next comment is a demonstration of this).

I assert that any serious argument that the U.S. has been imperialistic would draw support from many events; so in light of my above comment, I think Russ's request is fair and reasonable.

The only exception to my assertion I can see is if someone was claiming that the U.S. has only just begun with Afghanistan & Iraq -- but that does not appear to be the case in this thread.

 

[Astronuc]

Afghanistan and Iraq are rather extraordinary situations with complex histories.

In Afghanistan (and Pakistan), the prime US goal is to deprive al Qaida (Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, et al) a safe haven from which they can attack the US and allies, and with the Taliban undermine the national governments.

In Iraq, the US seems to have stumbled into a minefield. Certainly there are economic interests at play. Iraq has large oil reserves, and it would be of interest to some in the US to exert influence and/or control of those resources. Iraq has also presented a national and international security threat vis-a-vis invasion of Kuwait and programs to produce biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and missile systems to deliver them well beyond its borders. Bush and his administration felt compelled to remove Saddam Hussein and his sons from control of Iraq. That has however introduced an instability with the conflict among Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish interests.

Elsewhere, the US has supported some governments which have not been democratic, e.g. Equatorial Guinea, and last century, Nicaragua (Samoza), Guatemala (Ríos Montt), El Salvador (Roberto D'Aubuisson), . . . .

On the other hand, if the US does not establish strong economic/political ties, China, Russia and other nations will. China has big projects in Zambia and Dem. Rep. of Congo, and they don't appear to favor the population.

 

[Alfi]

Originally Posted by Alfi - Why are you not including Iraq and Afghanistan?

It should be obvious; Iraq and Afghanistan are still emotionally charged topics that people have difficulty discussing objectively

It was not 'obvious' to me. That's why I asked. Thank you for your explanation.
I do not agree with 'emotionally charged topics' as a valid reason for those two examples being disqualified though, but I notice Astronuc has supplied additional examples that can be considered and discussed.

 

[LightbulbSun]

To what degree? Could you name a country besides Iraq and Afghanistan where that condition exists and explain how that definition fits?

I think globalization as a whole could be added as support to the notion that the U.S. is becoming imperialistic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the United States still the front runner in the globalization movement?

 

[russ_watters]

It should be obvious; Iraq and Afghanistan are still emotionally charged topics that people have difficulty discussing objectively (e.g. the juxtaposition of this comment with your next comment is a demonstration of this).

[snip]The only exception to my assertion I can see is if someone was claiming that the U.S. has only just begun with Afghanistan & Iraq -- but that does not appear to be the case in this thread.

Actually, though that's true, that's not the reason they shouldn't be included: the reason is that they are situations currently in progress. You can't call them imperialistic unless the US intends to stay in both countries indefinitely and since they are essentially in-progress wars, it is tough to argue either way.

Yes, the intent, is that we will not stay there indefinitely, assuming you believe our national policy.

I assert that any serious argument that the U.S. has been imperialistic would draw support from many events

I'm not even looking for many, just maybe one or two real ones where we got our hold on them and didn't let go.

 

[russ_watters]

...I notice Astronuc has supplied additional examples that can be considered and discussed.

I didn't see Astronuc asserting that those were examples of imperialism. All he said is that we supported governments. We support a lot of governments that we have no control over so I don't see how that implies imperialism.

To put a finer point on it: toppling a government is not imperialism unless the government is replaced by a puppet.

 

[russ_watters]

I think globalization as a whole could be added as support to the notion that the U.S. is becoming imperialistic.

That seems to me to be inherrently self-contradictory. If "globalization" was about American imperialism, it would be called "Americanization". Indeed, it is a common American criticism of globalization that are losing control of our own country!

Could you explain why you think globalization means an assertion of American control (and over whom)?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the United States still the front runner in the globalization movement?

Depends what you mean. American companies are going abroad and foreigners are investing in the US at a very high rate, so if that's what you mean then yes. What that has to do with imperialism is beyond me, though. Could you explain?

 

[OmCheeto]

I didn't see Astronuc asserting that those were examples of imperialism. All he said is that we supported governments. We support a lot of governments that we have no control over so I don't see how that implies imperialism.

Like Saddam Hussein in his fight with those heathen Iranians.

And freedom fighters like Osama bin Laden in his fight against those godless commies.

That's what Iraq was in my view. We needed to get the leverage back in the mid east.

If a country can't stand on it's own two feet without "leveraging" it's way into foreign lands, then I would call that a form of Imperialism. But I suppose that's easier than just fixing what is wrong at home.

 

[russ_watters]

Let me put a finer point on it by expanding on that definition, since the definition doesn't really explain much. It requires historical context.

Up through about WWII, much of the world, including the US, operated under a very simple/straightforward form of imperialism: Country A decides they want country B, so country A invades/annexes country B and makes it a part of country A (or installs a puppet regime). Simple. I call this "classical imperialism" because it is the way imperialism worked for most of human history before WWII.

After WWII, partly due to the creation of the UN (and yes, with roots before even WWI, but it didn't really stick until after WWII), that form of imperialism ceased to be acceptable. That doesn't mean it isn't still practiced, but it is pretty rare and generally when it happens between medium-sized countries or larger, the international community intervenes (see: Kuwait, 1991).

Now you guys will have to help me with defining what replaced classical imperialism. I tend to see "hegemony" as being direct and strong control. Syria's strong economic and political control over Lebanon would be a good example. Russia seemingly moving to revert back to the Cold War protective circle of puppet nations would be another (though it is arguable that that is closer to the classical definition, since they seem to be attempting to actually annex territory as well as just exerting influence).

Due to the morphing of the definition in the past 50 years, this is not a simple issue. If you want to use a morphed definition, you really need to explain not only the definition you are using but why you think it applies. It is often asserted that the US is imperialistic, but I rarely see anyone attempt to lay out an argument for it.

 

[russ_watters]

Like Saddam Hussein in his fight with those heathen Iranians.

And freedom fighters like Osama bin Laden in his fight against those godless commies.

Though I disagree with your characterization of them, sure: those are examples where we supported a cause but did not intend to exert any direct or lasting control. So you are agreeing with me, right?

 

[OmCheeto]

Though I disagree with your characterization of them, sure: those are examples where we supported a cause but did not intend to exert any direct or lasting control. So you are agreeing with me, right?

Yes. I agree with you. Classical imperialism is dead. But it has been replaced by strategic meddling, which, depending on the situation, may or may not be a good thing for all parties.

I would call the liberation of Kuwait a good thing.
I would have like to have waited for more global support for the second gulf war.
But only time will tell whether it was good for the survivors.
I do like to see countries bounce back, like Germany and Japan, after we clobbered 'em.

 

[LightbulbSun]

That seems to me to be inherrently self-contradictory. If "globalization" was about American imperialism, it would be called "Americanization". Indeed, it is a common American criticism of globalization that are losing control of our own country!

I honestly think "globalization" is pretty much "Americanization." I don't see any foreign companies moving over here. I do see a lot of American based companies spreading their economic product overseas which I think could fall under "economic hegemony." I think that point is debatable, depending on how you view it. I'm just trying to get a discussion going on this.

Could you explain why you think globalization means an assertion of American control (and over whom)?

I'm mostly referring to economic hegemony. I don't think the United States really wants to control Iraq and Afghanistan politically for a long period of time.

 

[Alfi]

strategic meddling, :rofl:

Yes. That sounds much better. Find the right watered down phrase and anything can be made to be acceptable.

 

[russ_watters]

Huh, I actually liked the term. People are often very loose with their application of words like "imperialism". OmCheeto recognized that the typical definition didn't fit and rather than misapply it, attempted to find an alternative.

 

[russ_watters]

I honestly think "globalization" is pretty much "Americanization." I don't see any foreign companies moving over here. I do see a lot of American based companies spreading their economic product overseas which I think could fall under "economic hegemony." I'm mostly referring to economic hegemony.

I don't think people being able to buy a Big Mac on Red Square qualifies as control.

I think that point is debatable, depending on how you view it. I'm just trying to get a discussion going on this.

And I'm just trying to flesh-out people's opinions. We get a lot of people who express opinions here that really haven't been thought through. I get the feeling that the reason people can't present a one or two paragraph explanation of their opinion is that they've never put 50 words of thought into the subject.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I don't think people being able to buy a Big Mac on Red Square qualifies as control.

But the infiltration of American companies into other countries economies is a form of control. It's Americanization, which I think is a form of imperialism under the second definition.

And I'm just trying to flesh-out people's opinions. We get a lot of people who express opinions here that really haven't been thought through. I get the feeling that the reason people can't present a one or two paragraph explanation of their opinion is that they've never put 50 words of thought into the subject.

This is true. I change my views on things when evidence to the contrary is provided. I do think America has become imperialistic to a degree, especially under the Bush administration.

 

[OmCheeto]

But the infiltration of American companies into other countries economies is a form of control. It's Americanization, which I think is a form of imperialism under the second definition.

I don't follow other towns too closely, but a German company just invested a half a billion dollars in mine. Being that Germany has pretty much grown into a benevolent country, I welcome their business. Not to mention that half of my relatives live over there. But I'd probably welcome Saudi Arabian, Chinese, Russian, or Iranian investors as well. As long as it's not some coal dust burning or Bhopalish time bomb.

This is true. I change my views on things when evidence to the contrary is provided. I do think America has become imperialistic to a degree, especially under the Bush administration.

I thought we'd decided that we weren't talking imperialism?

Oh well.

Imperialism has been around for thousands of years.

Look at a map of Africa from 1917.
French West Africa
Belgian Congo
French Equatorial & French West Africa(covered a quarter of the continent)
Italian Somaliland
Portuguese East Africa
German East Africa
British Somaliland
Transvaal
etc.

And although the following did not have European titles:

Nigeria became a British protectorate in 1901, gaining independence in 1960.
Egypt became a British protectorate in 1914, gaining independence in 1922.
The same goes for Tripoli & Kamerun.

The only significant exception was Abyssinia(Ethiopia).

I'm not aware of any such European titles left on the continent, so except for the occasional bribing of officials, I'd say the concept of imperialism is dead.

Oh, and by the way, The USA, and all of the countries in the western hemisphere would not exist as we know them if it hadn't been for imperialism.

But that would get us into an argument about auslanders, which is way off topic.

Gads.

No wonder I never write more than 50 words at a time. I've forgotten what we were arguing about.

 

[russ_watters]

But the infiltration of American companies into other countries economies is a form of control. It's Americanization, which I think is a form of imperialism under the second definition.

Can you explain how that qualifies as control? I'm a big fan of Chinese food and frequent a couple of local Chinese restaurants, but I can't see how one could claim that China is exerting control over me via these restaurants (which, incidentally, are run by American citizens).

This is true. I change my views on things when evidence to the contrary is provided. I do think America has become imperialistic to a degree, especially under the Bush administration.

I would really like to hear an explanation of that. You keep making claims, but you have yet to actually provide a reason why those claims might be true.

Btw, I drive a Mazda 6. It's Japanese (sorta). My home theater is a Samsung. My Nike's are made in Indonesia. My telescope is Chinese, but resold by an American company. One of my best friends owns a Honda. How are these countries not exerting imperialistic influence over me as per your definition?

Let me be more specific: the spread of various cultures across the world, whether American, Chinese, British (love that Borat) is not imperialism under any reasonable extension of the definition. Cultural expansion is a choice made by the people who buy the products. The difference between that and imperialism could not be more clear: Imperialism is forced.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Can you explain how that qualifies as control? I'm a big fan of Chinese food and frequent a couple of local Chinese restaurants, but I can't see how one could claim that China is exerting control over me via these restaurants (which, incidentally, are run by American citizens). I would really like to hear an explanation of that. You keep making claims, but you have yet to actually provide a reason why those claims might be true.

Btw, I drive a Mazda 6. It's Japanese (sorta). My home theater is a Samsung. My Nike's are made in Indonesia. My telescope is Chinese, but resold by an American company. One of my best friends owns a Honda. How are these countries not exerting imperialistic influence over me as per your definition?

Let me be more specific: the spread of various cultures across the world, whether American, Chinese, British (love that Borat) is not imperialism under any reasonable extension of the definition. Cultural expansion is a choice made by the people who buy the products. The difference between that and imperialism could not be more clear: Imperialism is forced.

Just because you can buy chinese food in America doesn't mean imperialism. That's not what I said at all. The rest of the world is slowly becoming Americanized though with American-based companies moving overseas. I don't see a large number of overseas companies moving to America.

How come the opposite isn't happening Russ? Maybe I'm missing something here.

 

[OmCheeto]

Just because you can buy chinese food in America doesn't mean imperialism. That's not what I said at all. The rest of the world is slowly becoming Americanized though with American-based companies moving overseas. I don't see a large number of overseas companies moving to America.

How come the opposite isn't happening Russ? Maybe I'm missing something here.

hmmm... My nephew works for Honda. He lives in Alabama.

But looking for other foreign companies in America I ran across this old article:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/07/17/foreign_companies_buy_us_roads_bridges/
By Leslie Miller, Associated Press Writer | July 17, 2006
WASHINGTON --Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying.

Perhaps that belongs in the "What's wrong with the American economy?" thread.

But that's a digression, let's see if I can get this conversation back on track.

Why would American companies expand overseas, and not vice-versa?
Perhaps because American companies build what other countries want?
And foreign countries don't make what we want. Or it would be more expensive to build them here. Since we've got an incredibly high standard of living, which is fueled by our high wages, which is fueled by our high productivity.(is, was, whatever, the market will be up 20% by next Friday...)

What do American's want anyways? Homes, cars, flat-screen TV's, lap-top pc's, telephones smarter than necessary to put people on the moon, gasoline, food, and an occasional pair of tennis shoes.

And what do people in foreign countries want? Probably the same, but 2/3 would probably settle just for food and a cardboard shack.

So I don't think the movement of companies across borders is anything like imperialism. It's simply the economical thing to do.

Now I agree that there are some despicable things that have been going on. My acquaintance from Hyderabadi told me about Monsanto. I believe I've posted quite at length how I disagree with http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=59&item=137. But they really couldn't do what they do in India without some complicity from local officials. I've been told that corruption in India is so bad, it would make our Mafia blush.

So where am I going with this? I don't know. I guess I think that your neo-economic-imperialism is just a part of human nature.

I do wish we could get back to the original topic though; "Why do some people think it's ok to "militarily" invade other countries for profit, perceived security, or just plain laziness?"

 

[Astronuc]

Just because you can buy chinese food in America doesn't mean imperialism. That's not what I said at all. The rest of the world is slowly becoming Americanized though with American-based companies moving overseas. I don't see a large number of overseas companies moving to America.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the world is becoming more 'commercialized', and the companies from Europe and Asia, as well as US companies, are asserting their 'brand' in various countries, really economies, around the world. Yes one can find McDonalds, Pizza Hut, . . . in various parts of the world. That's because those particular companies were very successful in franchizing their brand of fast food. Coca Cola (and perhaps Pepsi too) is also globally ubiquitous. There are other companies of consumer products, e.g. luxury goods, or consumer electronics, e.g. Samsung, Sony, . . . . , which are similarly scattered around the world. But that certainly has nothing to do with imperialism.


Classical imperialsim has more or less disappeared, but the US-Iraq situation is probably the closest relevant example.


Strategic-meddling is probably an accurate term. What one does see these days is some economic and military support of governments in exchange for access to resources. The US does this to some extent, but then so do China, Russia, and other powers. One just has to follow the flow of cash (or foreign direct investment) and arms into a particular country, and flow of resources out - or which national company, e.g. Exxon-Mobil, Total, China Non-ferrous Metals Corp, . . . . gets exclusive mineral rights to a particular region.

 

[Astronuc]

Here's an interesting series on China's involvement in Africa. The US and EU are basically being out-maneuvered.

Special Report: China Invades Africa
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/126/special-report-china-in-africa.html

The sub-Sahara is now the scene of one of the most bare-knuckled resource grabs the world has ever seen.

While America is preoccupied with the war in Iraq (cost: half a trillion dollars and counting), and while think-tank economists continue to spit out papers debating whether vital resources are running out at all, China's leadership isn't taking any chances. In just a few years, the People's Republic of China (PRC) has become the most aggressive investor-nation in Africa. This commercial invasion is without question the most important development in the sub-Sahara since the end of the Cold War -- an epic, almost primal propulsion that is redrawing the global economic map. One former U.S. assistant secretary of state has called it a "tsunami." Some are even calling the region "ChinAfrica."

China Launches Mining Program in Zambia
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400536.html

On the other hand - business is business.

Albidon plans to expand Zambia nickel concentrator
http://africa.reuters.com/business/news/usnBAN158975.html

LUSAKA (Reuters) - Australia's Albidon Ltd. plans to expand its concentrator at its Zambia nickel mine after it is fully commissioned in 2009, the company said on Thursday.

Albidon Ltd., which operates the Munali Nickel mine in Zambia, said it intended to expand the concentrator to 1.2 million tonnes capacity per year from 900,000 tonnes capacity to achieve nickel output of 10,000 tonnes per year.
. . . .
The nickel, copper and cobalt concentrate stockpile would be sold to China's Jinchuan Group.
. . . .

 

[russ_watters]

Just because you can buy chinese food in America doesn't mean imperialism. That's not what I said at all. The rest of the world is slowly becoming Americanized though with American-based companies moving overseas. I don't see a large number of overseas companies moving to America.

How come the opposite isn't happening Russ? Maybe I'm missing something here.

Maybe I'm missing something: how is it imperialism when American companies go overseas but not imperialism when foreign companies come to America?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Maybe I'm missing something: how is it imperialism when American companies go overseas but not imperialism when foreign companies come to America?

I wasn't implying that at all.

 

[russ_watters]

I wasn't implying that at all.

Now I'm really confused. Earlier, you said this:

I think globalization as a whole could be added as support to the notion that the U.S. is becoming imperialistic.

Could you please explain exactly what you mean, because it seemed pretty clear to me that you were saying that a MacDonalds' in Red Square is economic imperialism.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Now I'm really confused. Earlier, you said this: Could you please explain exactly what you mean, because it seemed pretty clear to me that you were saying that a MacDonalds' in Red Square is economic imperialism.

I already did.

 

[russ_watters]

That post just said it isn't happening the other way, and that is clearly false. You can't create this false dichotomy. If it is imperialism for American companies to go overseas then it must also be imperialism for foreign companies to come here.