Us Led Democratization Efforts : An Example Of Empire Building

The book, Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer, is organized by chapters and parts. It begins with the introduction, and then it flows into the following parts: The Imperial Era, Covert Action, and Invasions. After these parts are the notes, bibliography, acknowledgments, and index. The book also features pictures of the people and places that are spoken of within it. The book is targeted at a mature, college-aged, or even older, audience, while remaining easy to read, and its tone is not at all tense for the subject portrayed. Overthrow is written as a historical recountal of America’s overthrow of foreign governments, including those of Hawaii, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Iraq, etc. The book uses these examples to argue that a strong nation strikes against a weaker one because “it seeks to impose its ideology, increase its power, or gain control of valuable resources.” The author of Overthrow did a phenomenal job of proving his thesis statement through his examples and making the book suitable for the audience.

Throughout american history, examples of the United States’ domination of the political, economic, and social aspects of other countries can be seen. This domination, also known as imperialism, was primarily caused by a growing sense of nationalism, the influence of supply and demand, and a desire to maintain global military power. Imperialism is categorized into three different groups: colony, protectorate, sphere of influence. TRANSITION SENTENCE

From the dawn of man, the different civilizations of mankind have been out to dominate and conquest the globe. To spread his/her’s power, authority, and culture across as vast an area humanly possible. Only in the last century have these ideals been diminished, but for the U.S. during the turn of the 20th century it faced a choice on this path. Was the U.S. to remain to the domain of the contiguous United States? Or was it destined to take foot on the global stage and claim land far from it’s shores? William Graham Sumner, an American sociologist and Albert Beveridge, a U.S. senator from Indiana both disagreed as to whether imperialism was right for the country. Beveridge argues that imperialism is beneficial to the U.S. by giving access to raw materials, while Sumner fears that imposing rule on someone who does not want to be ruled makes us the exact people that we declared our independence from. This is just one example from their different views on American Imperialism.

Under the claim of involving themselves in oversea events to “feed and clothe the world” (Beveridge, “The March of the Flag”) and promote democracy, the United States exploited these areas for personal gain. These “unexplored lands” were deemed to have a “savage wilderness” (Beveridge, “The March of the Flag”) society that required American intervention to civilize these inferior people. Even though morally one should “not to govern a people without

From its humble beginnings, the United States of America has expressed its intention to assist individuals who desired freedom by serving as an exemplar of liberty. Originally, Americans sought to preserve their republic by avoiding all foreign altercations and external constraints. At the dawn of the nineteenth century, in his first inaugural address Thomas Jefferson warned his audience of the potential dangers of foreign affairs by stating, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” pleading for a delicate balance between national security and commerce. This sentiment on foreign policy was reiterated on July 4, 1821, by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams when he said, “America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” At the dawn of the 21st century, the implications from Adam’s statement are no longer consistent with the demands of American national security. The key tenets of the Bush doctrine, democratization and preemption, have deviated from Adam’s vision and redefined United States foreign policy for the 21st century.

Exceptionalism, Expansionism, and Isolationism Throughout the United States’ history three key values has steered our foreign policy; these include exceptionalism, isolationism, and expansionism. These three connected principles fight against American morals and obligation but helped the United States become a superpower. In this paper, I will explain these three forces and how they interconnect, argue the belief that they helped shape America as a supreme power, and look back on these principles and how they led to the Mexican- American War, and provide a contemporary example.

Examining through American Empire by Joshua B Freeman, it evident that American has indeed integrated into an empire. In the writing, Freeman advocates that the tenure of World War I created one of the most profound legacies across the world. The legacy resulted in the collapse of countries such German, Russia, Ottoman Empire, and Austro-Hungarian. On the other hand, the author defines that existence of World War II came in with much influence to the Americans. The events within the World War II integrated America from being a collection of states to a formidable American empire. Compared to its presence after World War I, Freeman notes to the readers that at the time it was a reluctant empire with that faced extreme restraint in various

It uses the same strands of exceptionalism to justify its actions as it did for its expansion into the Pacific. America interferes with countries on the claims that they need to be liberated or that it’s making the world safe for democracy. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is an excellent example of the imperialism sought out by modern America. In his Iraqi War Address in 2005, President George W. Bush said that, “As freedom takes route in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty, as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorists will… lose their hopes for turning the region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.” America has acted as the World’s Policeman in the Middle East, continually forcing American assimilation and Western ideologies on independent nations. Once again, these acts for freedom are again undermined by the military intervention in Iraq and the use of harsh counterterrorism measures that undercut the symbolism of freedom (Lagon). America promotes democracy forcefully on other countries so that they are easier to fall under Western influence in factors such as free trade and economic

After a long, exhausting, painful war for independence from Great Britain, the United States became its own nation, a nation of choice and rights, a nation of voice and strong opinion, a nation with freedom handed to humans by God. The birth of this glorious new state brought forth a new era of revolution throughout the world. Countries took America’s victory to heart, overthrowing their monarchial governments and establishing governments run by popular sovereignty. The existence of the United States, perhaps, led to the global fight for self-government.

Charles Tilly’s article “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime” creates an analogy between the creation of European states and acting out an organized crime. Earlier in our course, we learned about Max Weber, who defined a state as “a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Tilly argues that the word “protection” in relation to physical force has positive and negative connotations, leading to illegitimate use of power during the period time that Tilly is discussing. Tilly’s analysis eventually tells the reader that war is always a major part of state politics; specifically that war making and state making are interdependent.

From its inception, America has been in a continual state of growth and expansion. Influenced by their grandfathers’ westward expansion in the early 19th century, expansionists in the turn of the 20th century expanded American influence and control worldwide. Various sources brought American desire of faraway land, through both individuals and through developments of the period. However, this Manifest Destiny didn’t always result in positive development, as shown with later problems incurring from the U.S. occupation of Cuba and the Philippines.

They become, as Deborah Poole claims, an “imperial subject,” the focus of the “anxious and interested spectators” whose “racial discourses, administrative habits, historical narratives, and spatial configurations… form and legitimate imperial power”. With the public political protection of these nations assured in the eyes of other international “spectators” as a result of the Monroe Doctrine, the citizens of these nations felt an increased sense of protection that resonated throughout the region. Yet as the century progressed and America began using the Doctrine as the basis of militaristic action, these countries struggled to reconcile the idea of America as an ever-present force of veiled imperialism within their own national identity. This deceptively paternalistic hierarchy produced an evaluative system that relegated the recipient of such political protection as inferior, and fundamentally undermined any larger political benevolence the Monroe Doctrine contained.

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

The United States has undergone significant changes since the Founders signed the Constitution in 1787 and created the largest federal republic at that time. When drafting the Constitution the Founders created checks and balances to limit the power of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Since 1787, however, the executive branch has accumulated a massive amount of power and authority over the other two branches. More acutely, the President has gained the authority to control the financial sector as well as the military industrial complex, and thus dictate how many Americans live their lives. This accumulation of power and authority has been systematic and cannot be considered an accident. The President of the United States

The key objections to humanitarian intervention include the conflict of interests with the self-interested state and sovereignty, the difficulty of internal legitimacy, the problematical Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and the debate over legality of intervention. The issue of morality stands as an overarching issue which touches on all of these. Overall, one finds that despite a moral imperative to intervene, humanitarian intervention should not occur but is perhaps the lesser of a series of evils.