I apologize for taking so long to get this post up, I was
working on the first chapter of my dissertation, and I have been too tired to
work on this blog.
Now that the definition of what an empire is has been
established, it can now be determined whether or not the United States has ever
been or is presently an empire. Before
we continue a brief recap, the definition of empire that I use is the
following: an empire is a political entity that has direct formal control over
multiple regions that are not equal with, nor intended to be assimilated into
the metropole AND/OR a state that exerts considerable military, economic, or
political influence over multiple regions or states who may also be beholden to
the dominant state through treaties or economic assistance. Thus, there are two types of empire, the
formal empire with direct political control over non-metropole territories or a
state that exerts indirect control over multiple areas. Remember that not every empire will fully fit
into this description.
So, did the United States fit into either the formal and
informal empire category? The answer is
yes. The United States has had both an
informal and, to a certain extent, a formal empire. It is important to note that while the United
States has always been both a formal and informal empire, it is an informal
empire is always dwarfed the United States' traditional colonial possessions.
First, let's tackle the informal empire category. Does, or has the US ever exerted a
considerable military, economic or political influence over multiple regions or
states. The answer here is clearly yes. The United States is one of the dominant
political, economic, and military power in the world. A casual reading of international news can
demonstrate this without providing examples (I will, though). American economic and political influence extends
well beyond American borders; indeed, many states are dependent upon the
American economy. Two examples of this
are Mexico and Canada members of the North American free-trade Association. For both Mexico and Canada, the United States
is the leading trading partner. Thus,
their economies are tied to the United States, and their political interests to
a certain extent depend upon American goodwill.
Although these nations can and do have interests that do not entirely
align with the United States and do not always do what the United States wants,
American interests still bind these nations. They would never do anything that would
seriously jeopardize their relationship with the United States.
Mexico's dependence upon the United States is an excellent
example of this; the US is Mexico's largest trading partner, accounting for
close to half of all exports in 2008 and more than half of all imports in
2009. For the US, Mexico is the
third-largest trading partner after Canada and China as of June 2010. Without trading with the United States,
Mexico would face a serious economic impact and thus follows policies relating
to drugs that the United States prefers to appease the United States and
prevent any political frictions that could adversely affect the economy. Besides Mexico and Canada, there are other
examples of America's informal empire close to its shores. Many nations in the Americas depend upon the
US economy to function. Remittances of
immigrants from the US to the Caribbean and Central and South American nations
are a good example of this economic and political power that the United States
wields. A 2004 study found that over 60%
of the 16.5 million Latin American-born adults who resided in the United States
at the time of the survey regularly sent money home. The remittances sent by these 10 million
immigrants were transmitted via more than 100 million individual transactions
per year and amounted to an estimated $30 billion during 2004. These factors drive the policies of these
nations and their economies; thus, the United States has a great deal of impact
and power over these smaller and often impoverished nations.
In addition to remittances, United States also gives these
nations and other nations economic and political aid to help strengthen their
economy and governments. As part of
these aid packages, these nations are required to implement reforms and actions
favored by the United States, increasing the United States' is influence and
power over these nations. That is not to
say that these reforms and actions demanded by the United States are nefarious.
Indeed, many are good such as requiring
greater governmental transparency and freedom of the press. However, whether these demands are reasonable
or not is beside the point; the fact that the United States can demand these
things from other nations and get them demonstrates how the United States has
an informal empire of which it controls.
Outside of economic and political control, the United States
exerts informal military control over nations as well. Many states throughout the world depend upon
American political-military support to defend themselves from outside
aggression. The countries most Americans
are probably most familiar with this fact are our NATO allies.
Although these allies maintain their militaries that are
somewhat capable of independent operations, these nations ultimately rely upon
the United States to guarantee their protection from outside attacks. And it is not just our European allies to
rely on this; Japan, having a security guarantee from the United States,
depends upon this. South Korea,
Australia, and even Vietnam depend upon the United States to guarantee their
nation from outside aggression. Of
course, not all at the same level; Japan, for example, has a competent
military, and Vietnam as a reasonably large one. However, these nations still required American
support as a great power to counterbalance possible Chinese aggression. These nations can likely fight without the
United States, but it would much prefer to have the United States as an ally
and guardian to prevent any aggression against them in the first place.
Here, you see American influence impact these nations, for
countries like Japan and Australia and to a lesser extent, our NATO allies are
constantly debating about military policy to appease American demands for their
governments to defend themselves militarily.
Ultimately without the United States, most of these nations would be
unable to, but they follow policies to ensure the United States will continue
to support them. Probably the best
example of this is Taiwan. While the
United States does not have a formal relationship with Taiwan or a formal
agreement to protect Taiwan in case of attack, the United States still
guarantees Taiwan's independence. To
ensure, and appease, American demands for self-defense, Taiwan pursues military
policies that the United States desires Taiwan to implement. As the United States has demanded that Taiwan
to have more asymmetric defenses to protect itself from invasion from China,
Taiwan's military has sought to buy more asymmetric defenses to appease
American demands. Here again, you can
see America's informal empire at work, foreign nations essentially building
their defense policies around the United States' demands and ideas.
I think it is clear from the above the United States has a
fairly extensive informal empire. The
above examples are just limited thumbnail sketches of US influence in those
states mentioned. On top of the
political and economic influence the United States wields, it should be noted
that the United States' social power is also extensive. Many American found companies, like McDonald’s
for example, operate in places as far as part as the United Kingdom and
Japan. It should also be mentioned that
American popular culture widely affects the world, how many people worldwide
listen to American music and buy blue jeans, and how deeply American political
ideals have become established in many nations.
What I discussed already is quite clear the United States maintains
a relatively extensive informal empire. The question is does the United States
maintain or never had a formal empire?
The answer here is yes; the United States has had been to an extent
continues to have, a formal empire. The
United States' formal empire has always been relatively small compared to its
informal one, but it did exist. At its
height, the United States controlled the Philippines, Panama Canal Zone, Cuba
(for about four years), Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and other uninhabited
island possessions.[i] It is a small formal empire, but a formal one
nevertheless as none of these territories were ever intended to become states.[ii] Thus, the United States did have a formal
empire at one point in time, and Americans thought of it(approvingly) as such
an empire. However, whether the US
continues to have a formal empire today is a bit more complicated. While historically none of the territories
acquired by the United States were intended to become states, such is not the
case today. The territories maintained have
been given the option to become states or achieve independence; most of these
territories have rejected both options.
For example, American Samoa was given the opportunity of independence,
statehood, or joining with the nation of Samoa; and they have rejected all
three and continue to elect to maintain the territorial status. So does a little bit more complicated today
than in the past.
There are other, arguable forms of colonial possession is
the United States, such as Native American reservations and the District of
Columbia. I can't entirely agree with
this position, but it can be argued. But
again, these are complicated. For
example, Native Americans have the right to vote in both state and national
elections even though tribal reservations are de jour independent entities that
are only subject to federal law and not state law even when their borders fall
entirely within the state, such as the Flathead Indian Reservation. The children of the District of Columbia
residents have their tuition paid for by the federal government to any state
university in the country.[iii]
It should be noted that the District of Columbia is a unique
and Constitutionally defined status that differentiates it from US territories
like Puerto Rico. So even in these
territorial possessions, whether or not the United States continues to operate
as a formal empire is a little bit more complicated. I would personally argue, and I think the
evidence suggests that considering the second-class status of those who live in
territorial possessions, the United States still maintains a formal colonial
empire. However, I want to stress that
outside Puerto Rico, there have not historically been significant objections to
the continued colonial status of these territories.
The final and unique aspect of American imperialism, are Compacts
of Free Association. This status is
something that is between a direct formal territorial control in a more
indirect informal influence. Three
nations are presently Association states, the Federated States of Micronesia,
the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, all former
Pacific Trust Territories. The Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands was a United Nations trusteeship administered
by the United States from 1951 to 1986 (to 1994 for Palau), created from the holdings
Japan seceded at the end of the Second World War. Under these agreements, the United States
provides a great deal of economic assistance along with military
protection. These Pacific nations can
actively participate in all Office of Insular Affairs, the agency that
administers US territories, technical assistance activities (which they do). Further, they receive access to many US
domestic programs, such as Pell Grants, disaster response under the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. The United States Post Office serves these areas
as a domestic destination and is the Postal Service for these nations. Moreover, these nations are also represented
by the United States and the International Frequency Registration Board of the
International Telecommunication Union.
Furthermore, the COFA allows the United States to operate
armed forces in Compact areas and demand land for operating bases, subject to
negotiation, and excludes the militaries of other countries without US
permission. The quasi-colonial
relationship is further reinforced by the ability of the citizens of these
nations to live and work in the United States indefinitely without requiring
visas and American citizens to do the same.
A privilege that is not extended to any other nations in the world,
including our closest allies. And while
the Compact nations are outside the customs area of the United States, their
products are mainly duty-free for imports.
Additionally, citizens of the associated states may serve in America's
armed forces, and there is a high level of military enlistment by Compact
citizens. For example, in 2008, the
Federated States of Micronesia had a higher per-capita enlistment rate than any
US state and had more than five times the national per-capita average of casualties
in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of this
mirrors how their colonial overlords treated the people and territories of
empires.
Although this may sound more like an informal influence,
these nations have far more closely intertwined with, and behold too, the
American federal government more than any other independent nations in the
world. In reality, this relationship is
a quasi-colonial status, reinforced by the fact that the United States has
complete control over these nations' international affairs, except declarations
of war. Further, in the United Nations,
these three states consistently vote the way the United States does in almost
all matters. [iv]
I think it is clear from the above; the United States has
been an empire for a significant portion of its existence. Indeed, for most of American history,
Americans have conceived of their nation as an empire. Some of this was more rhetorical points, such
as when the Founding Fathers further the United States as an "empire of
liberty." However, following the Spanish-American War and up to the
mid-twentieth century, Americans conceived their nation as a true empire on par
with Rome or Britain. The answer to the
question is the United States empire answer is clearly yes.
The United States has operated both a formal, although small
formal empire, a much larger and think far more influential informal
empire. Again, I would like to stress
that being an empire does not make the United States evil, or any nation evil
is merely a state of existence is very common throughout human history. Not every aspect of America's informal empire
has been developed for nefarious reasons or planned out by the American
government for its people. In many
cases, the United States' empire has grown due to its economic strength and the
appeal of its institutions and ideas.
However, while large amounts of the American Empire were likely
accidental, not all of it was what is.
Like empires before it and empires that will follow it, the United
States has used brute force, corruption, and other nefarious means to expand
its power.
Thank you for reading this; I hope you all found it
insightful and interesting. Again, I
apologize for not getting this up earlier. Writing my dissertation takes a
front seat to this. I should not have
any significant disruptions in writing for this blog for the rest of the year,
but I will try to inform you all of such disruptions if I do. The next post will be about race and empire;
specifically, a question that another Ph.D. student asked me while I was in
Scotland "because of racism in the United States, did that lead to
empire?" I was unable to answer this question while I was there because
the next week, we went into lockdown before I could talk to him again, so I
will answer that here and touch upon race and other empires as well. Not to give too much away, race is important,
but it complicates the narrative empire.
Note: Puerto Rico is the only major US territory, and it has
the largest population, all other territories are significantly smaller than Wyoming,
our least populous state, with a population of around 575,000. Excluding Puerto Rico, Guam has the largest
population at approximately 161,000.
Again, excluding Puerto Rico, US territories have a collective
population of just under 400,000.
[i] The
United States ruled Cuba for four years following the Spanish-American
War. After they had written a
constitution, they were granted independence per the terms of the Treaty of
Paris (which ended the war with Spain) and the Teller Amendment.
[ii] Slight
exception here in Puerto Rico; there has always been a debate about whether or
not Puerto Rico should be granted statehood since the United States acquired
this territory in the Spanish-American War.
Although Americans of the turn of the last century indeed would NOT have
agreed with making Puerto Rico a state, statehood has always been a perennial
political issue in both Puerto Rico and the United States mainland since its
acquisition.
[iii] I
am not talking about student loans; these are straight tuition payments that do
not have to pay back to the federal government.
[iv] This
quasi-colonial status has been renewed by these nations at the beginning of the
century.
