Wars and Empire | Page 5

the West as the military-industrial
complex - also determines US foreign policy. Thus, the American
Empire is closer to the commercially driven British Empire than to the
militarily propelled Roman one.
Actually, the author thinks aloud, isn't America's reign merely the
successor of Britain's? Wasn't it John Locke, a British philosopher, who
said that expansion - a "natural right" - responds to domestic needs?
Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin who claimed that the United States must

"constantly acquire new land to open up living space" (the forerunner
of the infamous German "Lebensraum")?
The author quotes James Jerome Hill, the American railway magnet, as
exclaiming, during the US-Spanish War, that "If you review the
commercial history, you will discover anyone who controls oriental
trade will get hold of global wealth." Thus, US expansion was
concerned mainly with "protecting American commercial monopoly or
advantageous position." America entered the first world war only when
"its free trade position was challenged," opines the red-top.
American moral values are designed to "serve commercial capital".
This blending of the spiritual with the pecuniary is very disorienting.
"Even the Americans themselves find it hard to distinguish which
matter is expanding national interests under the banner of 'enforcing
justice on behalf of Heaven' and which is propagating their ideology
and concept of value on the plea of national interests."
The paper mentions the conviction, held by most Americans, that their
system and values are the "best things in human society." Moreover,
Americans are missionaries with a "manifest destiny" and "the duty and
obligation to help other countries and nations" and to serve as the "the
beacon lighting up the way for the development of other countries and
nations." If all else fails, it feels justified to "force its best things on
other countries by the method of Crusades."
This is a patently non-Orthodox, non-Marxist interpretation of history
and of the role of the United States - the prime specimen of capitalism -
in it. Economy, admits the author, plays only one part in America's
ascendance. Tribute must be given to its values as well. This view of
the United States - at the height of an international crisis pitting China
against it - is nothing if not revolutionary.
American history is re-cast as an inevitable progression of concentric
circles. At first, the United States acted as a classic colonial power,
vying for real estate first with Spain in Latin America and later with the
Soviet Union all over the world. The Marshall Plan was a ploy to make
Europe dependent on US largesse. The Old Continent, sneers the paper,
is nothing more than "US little partner".
Now, with the demise of the USSR, bemoans the columnist, the United
States exhibits "rising hegemonic airs" and does "whatever it pleased",
concurrently twisting economic, cultural and military arms. Inevitably

and especially after September 11, calls for an American "new empire"
are on the rise. Iraq "was chosen as the first target for this new round of
expansion."
But the expansionist drive has become self-defeating: "Only when the
United States refrains from taking the road of pursuing global empire,
can it avoid terrorists' bombs or other forms of attacks befalling on its
own territory", concludes the opinion piece.
What is China up to? Is this article a signal encrypted in the best Cold
War tradition?
Another commentary published a few days later may contain the public
key. It is titled "The Paradox of American Power". The author quotes at
length from "The Paradox of American Power - Why the World's Only
Superpower Can't Go It Alone" written by Joseph Nye, the Dean of the
John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and a former
Assistant Secretary of Defense:
"Hard power works through coercion, using military sticks and
economic carrots to get others to do our will. Soft power works through
attraction ... Our attractiveness rests on our culture, our political values
and our policies by taking into account the interests of others".
As it summarizes Nye's teachings, the tone of the piece is avuncular
and conciliatory, not enraged or patronizing:
"In today's world, the United States is no doubt in an advantageous
position with its hard power. But ... power politics always invite
resentment and the paradox of American power is that the stronger the
nation grows, the weaker its influence becomes. As the saying goes, a
danger to oneself results from an excess of power and an accumulation
of misfortunes stems from lavish of praises and favors. He, whose
power grows to such a swelling state that he strikes anybody he wants
to and turns a deaf ear to others' advice, will unavoidably put himself in
a straitened circumstance someday. When one indulges oneself in wars
of aggression under the pretext of 'self security' will possibly get, in
return, more factors of insecurity