The Unbearable Costs of Empire

[klook]

Check this out, from Business Week no less. The writer makes the case that U.S. Imperialism is not only bad for the rest of the world, but it makes poor economic policy for us as well.

The Unbearable Costs of Empire
Since September 11, 2001, the phrases "American empire" and "America as an imperial power" are being heard a lot more. But in contrast to the 1960s and 1970s, when such terms were brandished by an angry domestic anti-war movement or by developing nations in U.N. debates, the concept they represent has now at least partially entered the mainstream. However much it has incurred hostility throughout most of the world, including European and other countries usually allied with the U.S., the "new imperialism" has gained ground among the Establishment here.

The post-9/11 rationale is that America has terrorist enemies and rogue states that will do it serious harm -- maybe even with weapons of mass destruction -- if it doesn't police the world to stop them. "Being an imperial power is more than being the most powerful nation," writes Michael Ingatieff at Harvard's Kennedy Center. "It means enforcing such order as there is in the world and doing so in the American interest."

But what most analysts have missed --- whether or not they support the idea of an American empire -- is that the U.S. simply can't afford the role of global cop.

THE REAL DEBT. First, the U.S. is entering this new age of empire with a gross federal debt that is the highest in more than 50 years as a percentage of gross domestic product. For fiscal 2005, which begins in October, the U.S. gross federal debt is projected to be $8.1 trillion, or 67.5% of GDP (news - web sites). By the time 100,000 U.S. troops were in Vietnam in 1965, it was 46.9% and falling.

One technical point that's vitally important here: It's the gross federal debt and deficits that matter, not the smaller "debt held by the public" and "unified budget deficit" that are generally cited in the press. For example, the most commonly reported estimate of the annual federal budget deficit is $478 billion for 2004. But this number is misleading, because it doesn't include borrowing from federal trust funds -- mostly Social Security (news - web sites) and Medicare.

more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/bw/20040729/bs_bw/nf200407299971db045

[brokensymmetry]

1. Read this article!

:kick:

[gottaB]

2. It's an interesting take, but....

The problem with neocon foreign policy is neither spending in itself nor the goal of promoting democratic reforms in the Middle East, nor even the overall goal of projecting US power abroad. The problem is the marriage of belligerence and unilateralism, a shotgun wedding of sorts, with Pappy Oil Addiction giving away the bride and the Old Man Haliburton standing in as best man.

A handful of idiotic policies illustrate the folly: The Iraq fiasco, the true costs of which go far beyond the hundreds of billions explicitly earmarked for reconstruction and the burden placed upon the military; the abrogation of the abm treaty, going hand in hand with the wasteful spending on boondoggle weapons systems, and so on. (For perspective I rely on the Union of Concerned Scientists' monitoring of Global Security Issues.)

In my view, we do have a security interest in international peacekeeping and, in some cases, what the wingnuts used to disparage as "nation building." Therefore, I think criticism should target specific abuses of the treasury, point out the costs of profiteering and cronyism and obstinate, uncooperative leadership, and weigh the costs of various alternatives. A blanket condemnation of the spend-and-pretend empire doesn't get us very far, and could backfire, in the sense that it could promote further withdrawal from international institutions, a move which could end up being extremely detrimental to our way of life.

There is a, what, hubris, an arrogance associated with the idea of America as the lone superpower, the American empire, or American hegemony. When that attitude informs policy, singlemindedly, that is costly. It's unsustainable. But American leadership among the nations of the world is not unsustainable. We shouldn't cede that to the right wing.

[IrateCitizen]

6. Your blinding yourself to the realities this article points out

This Business Week article summarizes some of the best works out there right now on the precarious position of America in the world, as it struggles to maintain a hegemony that no longer exists at a time that the rest of the world is finding that it can get along without the United States.

I would highly suggest you read the works of Chalmers Johnson (Blowback and The Sorrows of Empire) along with After the Empire by Emmanuel Todd. Both authors approach things from a rather mainstream (if not establishment) perspective -- IOW, Chomsky they ain't -- and lay out the case clearly and convincingly that the folly of empire being pursued by the US is something that has been going on for quite some time, and will only end in our eventual implosion.

Europe and Japan have largely surpassed us WRT production. Our economy is held together with the duct tape and spackle of excessive consumer spending coupled with the hogging of global investment capital. Our military provides us with an empire of bases with which we still try to maintain control over global resources, but which is proving excessively expensive to maintain and we are seeing that its reach is increasingly limited.

The United States is declining in terms of global status, make no doubt about it. John Kerry can't stop that -- nobody can. The one thing that is clear is that Bush will accelerate the process and probably make it more painful. The world is reorganizing itself into spheres of influence -- Europe (to possibly include Russia), the Pacific Rim, South America, and North America. The United States will still be a major nation in the world, but to think that it will maintain the same global reach and influence that it had throughout the Cold War and its immediate aftermath is to engage in delusions of a grandeur long since gone.

[gottaB]

7. I think I'm aware of those realities, among others

I respectfully disagree.

My position is not grounded in nostalgia, but rather in a sense of responsiblity.

The fact that all nations eventually perish does not warrant taking a fatalistic attitude towards foreign policy.

Imagine, if you will--the historical perspective you're adopting should allow it--, that neither Jimmy Carter nor Bill Clinton had ever been president, that the Bush* regime followed upon 32 years of right wing dominance. What then would we say of his incompetence? How would we percieve his weakening of US influence? Perhaps this crowd is so venomously idiotic, they would be regarded as losers in any case. I suspect, however, that under this imagined scenario, your dim view of the trajectory of US power would be more convincing--not to my point of view, mind you, but generally--and that Bush* would be regarded as less competent than his imediate predecessors, but, from a historical perspective, not remarkably so.

It's wrong to view Clinton's foreign policy successes as mere coldwar leftovers, not because it distorts the historical record, but because it puts blinders on the conduct of our foreign policy at a time when we need to be scanning the horizon and exploring alternative ways to reach our goals.

The emergent multipolar world system, which perhaps we can both agree is a force to be reckoned with in the coming years, is, at present, in no shape to cope with the power vacuum that would be created were the US to abdicate its leadership responsibilities. That to me is the real lesson of Bush*'s foreign policy mistakes.

[IrateCitizen]

8. We'll just have to agree to disagree then

I do have to say, however, that I find this kind of thinking to be quite chilling:
The emergent multipolar world system, which perhaps we can both agree is a force to be reckoned with in the coming years, is, at present, in no shape to cope with the power vacuum that would be created were the US to abdicate its leadership responsibilities.

The inherent assumption in such a statement is that the world cannot somehow get along without the United States. I find that proposition to be arrogant and quite preposterous.

The world CAN get along without the United States exercising "leadership" (a more accurate term would be strategic dominance or hegemony), and is finding out that it can do so. While this is certainly not good for the United States in the short run, it is good for the rest of the world. The US has had the opportunity to use its leadership to positive effect for quite some time now (including the Clinton years). We could have moved in ways to help propel the rest of the world toward weaning ourselves off of oil -- instead, we tried to increase consumption in order to increase profits. We could have helped supply people around the world with clean drinking water supplies -- instead, we took measures to increase privatization and further degrade water supplies. We could have provided immunizations to children around the globe -- but instead we opted to dump money into an already bloated and wasteful military machine.

As Mark Hertsgaard points out in his book In the Eagle's Shadow, America DOES exercise tremendous influence throughout the world. It's just too bad that we've consistently chosen to exercise leadership in pursuit of profit over valuing people (something which goes back to the times of the founding of this nation, and before) -- and as such, I still believe that the world will be much better off with America assuming the role as just another major nation among several, as opposed to being the lone superpower.

BTW, I'd still recommend you read the books I mentioned above. They might change your perspective on this a little bit.

[gottaB]

9. was the word "cope" ill-chosen?

I asked myself that last night, becuase I anticipated the rejoinder you're making. No, I stand by my statement. Individual nations, even alliances, may well cope with or without the United States. A multipolar world system capable of meeting global needs, that's something else altogether. I stand by my statement.

When I say "leadership," I mean "leadership," and most certainly do not mean "hegemony." That is the essence of my critique.

[IrateCitizen]

10. Look, I'm all for a genuine, positive "leadership" exercised by the US...

The problem lies largely in the manner that this "leadership" has been exercised.

If that leadership sought to promote positive values, then I would readily embrace it. Sadly, it has mostly been about hegemony and control of resources -- therefore, I reject it as it has historically played out.

You stand by your statement, I stand by mine. I guess that puts us back at the impasse of "agreeing to disagree".

ON EDIT: I'd like you to clarify the following statement.
A multipolar world system capable of meeting global needs, that's something else altogether.

What are these "global needs" that the United States meets, alone?

[gottaB]

11. clarification

Global Issues on the United Nations Agenda.

I never said the US meets those needs alone. I argue that its leadership is needed. If you look at an issue you care about, like immunizations, and look at the UN agencies that do immunizations, UNICEF, for instance, you can read their reports and you will learn that the US is the largest government donor to that agency. That's an example of leadership.

[IrateCitizen]

12. Negative, Ghost Rider...

The United States ranks next-to-last among industrialized nations (just ahead of Japan) in terms of foreign aid as a percentage of GDP.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/2003/0428flunk.htm

US, Japan Flunk Global Poverty-Reduction Test
By Jim Lobe

Of the world's 21 wealthiest developed countries the United States ranks 20th, just ahead of Japan, for its policies aimed at reducing poverty in poor countries, according to a new index released Monday by the Washington-based Center for Global Development (CGD) and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The index, published in the latest edition of the Carnegie Endowment's Foreign Policy magazine, concluded that the policies most likely to alleviate poverty in the developing world are being pursued mainly by smaller donor countries. The Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, New Zealand, and Switzerland ranked as the world's five most helpful rich nations.

And, of the members of the Group of Seven Western powerhouses, which give the most aid and engage in the most trade with poor nations, only Germany was found to be among the ten most helpful in the fight against poverty. The other six--Britain (11), France (14), Italy (15), Canada (18), the U.S. (20), and Japan (21)--all ranked lower in the "Commitment to Development Index."

SNIP

Ironically, although the U.S. and Japan provide the greatest amount of foreign aid to poor countries in nominal terms, they received the two lowest scores in the aid category. This was because U.S. aid as a percentage of GDP ranks in the cellar among the 21 wealthiest countries, and because the quality of the aid from both countries is regarded as particularly poor. Much of both countries aid is "tied;" in the late 1990s, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) told Congress that almost 80 percent of its resources were used to buy U.S. goods and services.

Compare this assessment with what the United States gives out in military aid.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#AidAndMilitarism

Aid And Militarism
Inter Press Service noted that recent U.S. aid has taken on militaristic angles as well, following similar patterns to aid during the cold war. The war on terrorism is also having an effect as to what aid goes where and how much is spent.

For example:

“Credits for foreign militaries to buy U.S. weapons and equipment would increase by some 700 million dollars to nearly five billion dollars, the highest total in well over a decade.” (This is also an example of aid benefiting the donor!)
“The total foreign aid proposal ... amounts to a mere five percent of what Bush is requesting for the Pentagon next year.”
“Bush's foreign-aid plan actually marks an increase over 2004 levels, although much of the additional money is explained by greater spending on security for U.S. embassies and personnel overseas.”
“As in previous years, Israel and Egypt are the biggest bilateral recipients under the request, accounting for nearly five billion dollars in aid between them. Of the nearly three billion dollars earmarked for Israel, most is for military credits.”
This militaristic aid will come “largely at the expense of humanitarian and development assistance.”

I'd also urge poking around the whole site from which I took this excerpt for military aid, it has some other good tidbits to show just how paltry US foreign aid (even compared to the stingy amounts offered forward by other industrialized nations) really is.

Logically speaking, if the US wanted to demonstrate true leadership in this area, it would call on all nations to donate something approaching 1% of GDP (which could EASILY be found in the bloated Pentagon budget, which alone approaches 4% of GDP), and then proceed to BACK IT UP.

As it stands, the US leads the rest of the world with its complete lack of committment to foreign aid, which is much, much better than bombs and bullets in stopping terrorism.

Like I said earlier, I stand by my point.

[gottaB]

13. When you go to the grocery store, do you spend nominal dollars

Or dollars as a percentage of your annual income?

In 2003, UNICEF reported that the US was, as usual, the largest donor, contributing $119,220,000 to regular resources, and $168,907,000 to other resources, for a total of $288,127,000. (The grand total, which includes donations from governments, national committees and private donors was $341,800,926).

You can say, oh, well that's a small fraction of US gdp, and therefore doesn't illustrate political leadership, but is merely a reflection of the size of the US economy. Okay. I didn't say it was an example of especially good leadership. For whatever reasons, the US is undeniably the leading contributor to UNICEF.

Could UNICEF cope with a loss of US support? Probably, but who would want that? Both you and I agree that the US can and should contribute more to disease prevention. Both you and I seem to agree that military spending and foreign aid in the form of military boondoggles has grown unchecked, is robbing the treasury, undermining foreign policy objectives, and diminishing US stature.

But I am not opposed to military spending. I believe that the US military is the most powerful in the world, and for that reason we have a responsibility to wisely govern our procurements and deployments.

For me, it's about choices. For instance, I would rather that the US gave more support to UN peacekeeping operations. It is my understanding that Ambassador Holbrooke, who served under President Clinton, was a great champion of peacekeeping operations, whereas neither Negroponte nor Danforth have done much to advance that cause, and, actually, with all that kicking and screaming about exemption from the icc, the Bush* administration has set it back.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24820-2004Jul2.html

Obviously, the Clinton government was not ideal. In the end, though, Clinton did sign the Rome Statute, and, I would argue, he made good use of military and diplomatic resources.

btw, thanks for the link to http://www.globalissues.org . Of course you noticed the quote by former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, "We are the stingiest nation of all." This is a Democratic value, that foreign affairs is a matter of conscience. If you are going to criticize this or that Democratic President's actual support for foreign aid as not meeting their promises or obligations, well, okay, but you ought to factor in the priorities of Republican leaders in Congress. All things considered, Democrats are more interested in building community and less interested in projecting imperial force than are Republicans.

[IrateCitizen]

14. The "grocery store" comparison is a false one

A much better one would be comparing a person who made $30k in a year, but donated $3k of it to charity. Compared with a person who made $100k, but donated $4k of it, who one is more generous?

The question isn't how much each nation spends in straight dollars -- the question is how much it gives in aid as compared to its MEANS. Since the US is, by far, the wealthiest nation on the planet (WRT straight GDP), it's a no-brainer that it should give more in straight dollars than any other country. My question, which remains unanswered, is how it can be considered leadership in this area when it is capable of giving so much more?

But I am not opposed to military spending. I believe that the US military is the most powerful in the world, and for that reason we have a responsibility to wisely govern our procurements and deployments.

Are you, or have you ever, been in the military? How much of this spending do you think works its way down to actually preparing a force to meet the real threats out there -- as in paying the soldiers and providing top-rate training -- and how much do you think is swallowed up within the military-industrial-congressional complex? I have no problem with spending money on a military that is proportional to the true threats we face combined with peacekeeping missions. However, I DO have a huge problem with flushing some $400 billion (and that really doesn't include the full bill, which ends up at about $650 billion) per year down the black hole of the Pentagon. And FWIW, I know this first hand, because I am STILL in the military.

As for your last paragraph, please tell me where I ever said that Democrats were less interested in foreign aid than Republicans. Of course Republicans aren't interested in foreign aid (other than military aid) -- their entire philosophy is based on selfishness over "being your brother's keeper". Of course, the Democrats have not been traditionally interested in the latter to a large degree either -- it's just that they aren't anywhere close to as bad as the Republicans in this area.

[54anickel]

3. Seems "Empire" is on a lot of minds lately

http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20040728/index.php

Let's Dump The American Empire

There is an American Empire, but we should dump it, because we Americans are woefully incompetent when it comes to maintaining empires.

One mistake that seems to be a permanent feature of our foreign policy is mirror-imaging. So many American politicians, most of them poorly educated and ignorant of other people and their cultures, tend to think other people are just like us. A great many are not.

snip>

Let's face it — we have become a secular and materialistic society. The two kinds of people we have real trouble believing actually exist are people of true religious faith and people to whom honor means more than money.

snip>

We should start bringing our troops home from the far-flung corners of the world, establish a sensible self-defense posture and use the billions of dollars we would save to tackle all the really serious domestic problems we have.

more...


http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=3207

The Choice: Bush's Empire or Kerry's

With foreign policy becoming the big issue of the 2004 U.S. elections, predictions that Democrats would invoke the "successes" of Clintonian interventions, particularly in the Balkans, seem to be coming true. But though Bosnia and Kosovo don't seem to figure prominently in convention speeches just yet, with the assortment of Balkans veterans on John Kerry's staff, that is only a matter of time.

Contrary to the belief of many anti-Bush activists, Kerry is hardly a peace candidate. The Democrats offer America a vision of "good wars," fought with the enthusiastic support of the rest of the world – but wars still, and fought nonetheless. "American foreign policy under Kerry would not change dramatically," Philip H. Gordon of the Brookings Institution told The New York Times.

Americans will get an Empire whether they buy George W. Bush's or John Kerry's version. And while Bush's reign may make one nostalgic for the Age of Clinton that Kerry promises to restore, it may not be a bad idea to remember that Clinton's Empire – and Kerry's – is not all it's advertised as being.

A Different Reality

Democrats, Republicans and the mendicant media can "package" Imperial wars all they want, but they cannot change their true nature, which is becoming increasingly obvious: widespread destruction, bitterness and poverty among the invaded, along with callousness, cruelty and corruption among the invaders. "Stopping genocide" sounds great, until it is discovered the genocide was a fabrication. The gullible may be fooled by photos of people cheering and throwing flowers at the occupation troops – as many Albanians did in Kosovo – until someone points out that they cheered the 1941 Axis invasion with the same enthusiasm.

more...

[Dancing_Dave]

4. All to true--I hope Kerry or Edwards reads it.

Right now they are set to stay right on the course that the rest of this planet rejects as Imperialist, ready to pour in even more troops to be treacerously Sacrificed for Oil. Most Americans don't want to keep this up. The American's who do support this resource imperialism, are most likely to stick with Bush anyway.

Staying on this path Kerry and Edwards cannot win.

[teryang]

5. Good article

Country's priorities are AFU!