VIABILITY OF AMERICAN-“ISM”
INTRODUCTION
This paper is entitled, “Viability of American-“ism””. This paper is a review of the viability of the criticisms relating the United States of America (United States, for brevity), to militarism, imperialism, globalization, and cultural homogenization. The topics will be presented respectively. The viability of militarism in relation to United States will be based on the history and structure of its military power. The topic under imperialism will be focusing on the act of the United States that has been used by the critiques in connection to imperialism. The subject on globalization will be focusing more on the role of United States to globalization. The topic on cultural homogenization will be based on the cultural influence of the United States to other countries. A conclusion will end the paper, that will determine the feasibility of the criticism and a suggestion coming from the author will be a part of it.
MILITARISM
According to Machiavelli, “A prince must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.” (Curtis, 1981)
Every state has a military bureaucracy. In the United States, the President act as the Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and the military are thoroughly involved with decision-making through their roles on the National Security Council and the various Armed Services and Intelligence Committees of Congress.
In every kind of state bureaucratic power is present. According to Jackson and Jackson (2000), in the United States military power is a talent. This power is based on the belief that all social relationships can be organized, calculated, and controlled in order to bring about a rational and efficient use of people and resources. Since, Second World War, the United States has employed its armed forces and in different ways to help countries that in need of their help. According to Blechman, B., Kaplan, S., Hall, D., Quandt, W., & Slater, J. (1978), the United States is considered as the most active country in providing disaster assistance and similar supportive activities. The United States has been helping other countries using its military tactics and power for the prevention, answer, and fight against terrorism.
According to Geopolitics (2002), after the September 11 attack at the World Trade Center in the United States, President Bush issued an open invitation to governments to apply military aid. He further stated that, “America encourages and expects governments everywhere to help remove the terrorist parasites that threaten their own countries and the peace of the world, if governments need training, pr resources to meet this commitment, America will help.” Many countries or state has entered into an agreement with the United States to have military training purposes some of which are the Philippines or Afghanistan, which all end successfully. There are also state that has the extension of the military ground or camp such as Japan or Great Britain.
Since the invitation of President Bush, the power of the Secretary Defense has been extensive in taking controls over the government of the other states, especially those who were under the threat of terrorism, taking note on the war in Iraq. However, series of different human rights activists even the American constituents were concerned on the use of military power by the United States, articulating that the United States was using its power to control the internal situation or problems of other states. According to Bacevich (2005), America has become so accustomed to using military that it has “so mangles the concept of the common defense as to make it unrecognizable”.
From the aforementioned paragraphs, it could be inferred that the use of military and violence by the United States over other nations in helping the fight against terrorism is just another way of telling the terrorist a caveat that the fight against them is not taking for granted but is a worldwide campaign to eliminate them. The critiques have nevertheless, did not take into consideration the history that put the United States into that situation. The dominancy of the United State as regards to its status quo is not new. Thus, relating the statement of Machiavelli, into this situation, The United States is just being a lion to frighten wolves.
IMPERIALISM
According to Jackson and Jackson (2000), some European states, such as Britain, Spain, and France established large colonial empires over the years, which gradually gained economic and political independence. By the end of the Second World War, little remained of these empires, and a proliferation of new states, following the models of statehood established in Europe, created today’s political map of the world.
There was this one statement by Schlesinger (1986), articulating that the America’s empire is an informal one, not colonial in the traditional sense of using military forces and colonial administrators to run territory acquired and occupied by the imperial power, often against the wishes of the locals. In this century, many claims that the United State is on the process of imperialism just the way the world’s nations had been before. According to Foster (2006), the global actions of the United States since the September 11 attack are often seen as constituting a “new militarism and a new “imperialism”.
The acts of the United States in helping other states and coordinating with other state in the fight against terrorism are the facts that seemed to be the main component why individuals abhor the act of the United States. A survey conducted by Kuisel, (2004), has resulted that in the eyes of the majority of the French, the British, the Germans, the Italians, and the Spanish, the United States, in its approach to foreign affairs, appeared heavy handed during this period. The reason behind that view by the European citizens was that the United States has been acting as the world police, or its use of violence is not anymore significant with its goal as regards to its International Policy.
Such comments by other people were not feasible because such criticisms were just formulated question as ready to answer by the respondents. However, the perception that the United States is acting as a world police is attributed to the fact that in any states that the United States will consider being in need of its military help, it would gladly respond to it. Take for example, the war in Iraq. It was a war of the United States together with its ally to put an end to the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, which has brought much hardships and difficulties to the Iraqi’s. The war has ended and Saddam Hussein has been persecuted. The means of the United States by using military tactics is appropriate. The Iraqi’s has been suffering form that dictatorship and progress is minimal in that state. However, after the war, there are series of reports showing the aftermath and Iraq is better as far as its development is concern. Hence, the means of the United States may seem to be inhumane but the end is a positive result.
GLOBALIZATION
According to Jackson and Jackson (2000), history indicates clearly that nothing about politics is static. Everything about it is dynamic. State emerge, stabilize, and decay. Empires rise and fall. Civilizations come and go. The Industrial Revolution has brought enough benefits into the world, though series of problems has been posed into the emergence of that part history, no one has ever been strong enough to put a stop on it. Many authorities, citing the birth of machineries and other products of the early technology, have laid down the benefits of such of the history.
On this century, globalization is the term used as the world is on the way to become a united nations, ruled by those who have the power and means to regulate the world. The United States is considered as one those state who has the capacity to rule over the world. Such arguments were attributed to the actions of the United States to answer the dilemma the world has suffering right now. Such as the use of military power and imperialism, this has been discussed on the previous chapter. However, according to Iglesias (1997.), globalization is considered as one the great product of history as cheaper communications, economic liberalization, as a result, there has been a greater interdependence among national economies, and, what is significant is the participation in the process by the developing countries.
The United States is considered as one the powerful actor in the trend of globalization. According to Hay (2004), America (United States), emerged as a global power in the next century as contingent events shaped the direction pf American power. Policymakers either responded to challenges or sought to avoid the need for a response; there was no grand strategy for global mastery.
Some people would comment that United States continuous battle to interfere with other states internal situational dilemma is one of the way so that its plan to control will be feasible. According to Peach (1999), the media treats all aspects of globalization, but in a piecemeal fashion and without coherently crystallizing structural relationships. However, it is the stand of the author that such is still far from reality. According to Teichrib (n.d), globalization is not an overnight game. We do not stop work Friday afternoon, take a break over the weekend and poof, and find ourselves on Monday morning immersed in global governance. Furthermore, those people who comment on the acts of United States to the world have not seen the whole idea of why United States has been doing that.
The reasons why the author considers that such comments were not viable: 1. Globalization is not only an advantage to those states who is considered as the powerful, several developing countries have been benefiting to it; 2. The United States may be considered as one of the powerful actor because throughout history the United Stated has played a better role in the development of the world; 3. The United States is not the one controlling the results of globalization but it is the result of the activities that several states has been interacting with another.
CULTURAL Homogenization
According to Parks (n.d.), all agree upon one conclusion: America is a rich, powerful nation that wishes to spread its culture, resources, and businesses to the far corners of the world. This is because “Americanization” has been widely accepted throughout the world. Everything that can be attributed to United States, the world will be willing to accept it. Examples would be the reality television shows, the highly-priced coffee drinks, the Americans considered as the most beautiful, the contribution of the English, McDonald’s and other things that may have originated from the United States.
However, there are activists against the so-called cultural homogenization. Resistance to cultural homogenization is due to the fact that after this process domination and isolation will come into its existence. According to Barlow (2001), many societies, particularly indigenous peoples, view culture as their richest heritage, without which they have no roots, history, or soul. Its value is other than monetary. To commodify it is to destroy it. An example of this, many Asian countries still treasure its culture and tradition. Asian countries preserved their cultures because of their own standing. Some of such countries believe that their cultures define them as a state.
Nevertheless, the existence of United States culture in every part of the world does not mean that such culture will affect all the culture that has been preserved by other nations. The existence of such culture does not mean homogenization but it is the open acceptance of the whole nations of the world to what they may consider as applicable with their country and would not result into eradication of their own respected culture. There is an acceptance from other nations of United States culture because of its status as one of the powerful state in the world, and with the belief that acceptance could better their lives.
CONCLUSION
The criticism on militarism, globalization, imperialism, and cultural homogenization relating to America is not viable. However, it is inevitable to relate United Stated with the aforementioned occurrence. The fact remain that it is not viable.
On militarism, the United States has been playing a significant with the development of the world. Wars and occupation has been in the history with the United States. The use of military power is must not be taken into negative because what has been doing by the United States is in connection with its active fight against terrorism.
On imperialism, the act of the United Stated on using military power is treated as its way of conquering the world, which still has not been proven because of the fact that imperialism is not anymore acceptable in the international community. The means may seem not to be the right way, but the results using that mean will justify it.
On globalization, as it was mentioned globalization is not a happenings that may occur overnight. Hence, it is right to say that the act of United States must not be concluded as the act for globalization because such does not come into reality as what others may have predicted.
On cultural homogenization, the United States is considered as one of the most powerful nation in the world, the acceptance by people of the culture of the United States has been present in the world. It can be seen from the occupations of the United States to other countries and the use of the American English Language. Acceptance of culture does not mean clothing your own culture with the United States culture.
As the United States is considered as one of the powerful nations in the world, its act will always be taken into negative, but such negativity must not be accepted immediately because viability of such is not yet stabilized.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Bacevich, A., 2005, The new American militarism: how Americans are seduced by war, OUP 2005.
Blechman, B., Kaplan, S. Hall, D., Quandt, W., Slater, J., & Slusser, R., 1978, Forces without War: U.S. Armed Forces As a Policitcal Instrument, Brookings Institution, Washington D.C..
Curtis, M., 1981, The Great Political Theories, Vol. 1, Avon Books, New York.
Foster, J. B., 2006, Naked Imperialism: The U.S. Pursuit of Global Dominance, Monthly Review Press.USA.
Iglesias, E., 1997, Globalization and Regional Integration: Consequences for Latin America, Inter-American Developmen Bank, Mexico City.
Jackson, R. and Jackson, D., 2000, A Comparative Introduction to Political Science, Pearson Education Asia Pte Ltd., Singapore
Parks, M., n.d., Globalization: A Case Study on McDonald’s, Millsaps College, USA.
Peach, H.G., 1999, Implications of Income Shifts & Globalization for Program Evaluation in the United States, H. Gil Peach & Associates/Scan America, Oregon
Rowe, J.C., 2000, Literary Culture and U.S. Imperialism: From the Revolution to World War II, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Suter, K., 2003, Global Order and Global Disorder: Globalization and the Nation-State, Praeger, Westport, CT.
JOURNALS
Barlow, M.,2001 The Global Monoculture: “Free Trade” versus Culture and Democracy, Earth Island Journal.
Kuisel, R., 2004, What Do French Think of Us? The Deteriorating Image of the United States, French Politics, Culture and Society, p. 1.
Schlesinger Jr., A., 1986, America and Empire, The Cycles of American History, 1986, p. 141.
ELECTRONIC RESOURCES
An American Empire: An Essay on the United States as Global Power; William Anthony Hay; April, 2005; American diplomacy.org; viewed once; 12/05/08; < http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2004_04-06/hay_colossus/hay_colossus.html>
Sweeping Military Aid Under the Anti-Terrorism Rug: Security Assistance Post September 11th Federation of American Scientists; August, 2002, Geopolitics; viewed once; 12/05/2008; <http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/MilitaryAid.asp>
The Globalization Strategy: America and Europe in the Crucible; Teichrib, Carl; no date; August Review; viewed once; 12/05/08; < http://www.augustreview.com/issues/regionalization/the_globalization_strategy:_america_and_europe_in_the_crucible_200604072/>.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment