Complete summary 'The rise and decline of the American empire' by Lundestad, Dispense di Storia Politica

Scarica Complete summary 'The rise and decline of the American empire' by Lundestad e più Dispense in PDF di Storia Politica solo su Docsity! THE RISE AND DECLINE OF THE AMERICAN ‘EMPIRE’ POWER AND ITS LIMITS IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE – Lundestad Introduction – the rise and fall of great powers Great powers and empire are volatile as they rise and fall (Mogul empire in India, Roman empire, Ottoman empire, Chinese empire). A western wave of hegemony started with the discovery of America in 1492 and the establishment of colonies. The US managed to establish its independence, and after the civil war it was already one of the greatest global powers. Since WW2 the US has been the single most important power in the world, enjoying an unipolar moment in the 90s after the collapse of USSR, however many had already predicted the inevitable fall of the American empire. This was followed by the research of the next hegemon, proposing Japan, the EU and China. This view is not accepted in the US that still perceive their country as the number 1 in the international scenario, however the focus is not only on the decline of the US but rather on the growth of everyone else, with new rising economies and growing political actors. PART I – POWER 1 – America’s position America’s vast strength At the end of WW2, US position was compared to that of UK in 1815 after the Napoleonic wars. It was even declared an ‘American century’ due to the position of supremacy of the US after WW2, producing much more than the rest of the world put together and with the greatest advantages in technology. This lead was especially based on oil resources, a position held until the 70s when Saudi Arabia and USSR surpassed the US. This strong economy provided the basis of American military strength, maintaining until 1949 the monopoly on nuclear weapons. During the 50s and 60s the US frequently intervened with armed forces especially in third world countries, moreover it maintained the nuclear bomb as a symbol of American power, maintaining a lead in nuclear arms race against USSR. It was never used after 1945 as it was unlikely that Americans would have risked the response of the Soviet Union with an attack on one of their cities. The US had to deter the Russians and reassure the Europeans at the same time, it was difZicult because all the allies of the US relied on it for protection. After 1945 the US set up a ‘liberal international order’ formed by the UN and the Bretton woods system (IMF, WB, GATT, OECD), providing institutions from Washington to the globality. The dollar was the economic symbol of American supremacy, and it gave the US great advantages compared to the rest of the world, as all the other countries had to maintain large dollar reserves, while the US could run the greatest deZicits. The dollar was tied to gold while all the other currencies were tied to the dollar. However the US run large programs of support and aids for the rest of the world (Marshall plan). Washington was the leader in coordinating international macroeconomic policies and trade policies, taking the lead of the liberalization of trade. American political system remained characterized for years by the bipartisanship between democrats and republicans, representing an attractive perspective for the rest of the world especially for its values (democracy, self-determination, international cooperation…). The US faced defeat in Eastern Europe, where the Soviet managed to obtain control, however the objective of the US remained greater than any other empire before, being the exercise of inZluence on the whole world rather than geographical expansion. Questions and doubts America had pessimistic moments, but the general mood was optimistic during the cold war. During the 70s this mood changed as French, West German, Italian and Japanese economies all grew faster than the US, in 1957 the Sputnik underlined Soviet progress surpassing the US, and economic progress appeared faster in the USSR rather than in the West. However the Soviet Union remained much behind the US, except for the military Zield, in fact the SALT agreement was signed in the 70s. Vietnam war was considered a defeat for the US, starting a long period of decline of the US under Nixon presidency. Ronald Reagan changed the rhetoric, celebrating American achievements even if reality hadn’t changed much. America’s “unipolar moment” The 90s were American unipolar moment, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its military power the US had no rivals, with the possibility to dominate the entire globe. The US started a series of military invasions (Panama, Gulf war, Haiti, Kosovo, Afghanistan) generally considered as successes except for Somalia. Some of these operations were done under the approval of the world community while others (Kosovo, Iraq) weren’t. NATO was predicted to fall after the Cold war, instead it kept growing, America’s allies in Europe and Asia wanted to maintain the alliance structure. American economy blossomed in the 90s under Clinton, with high employment and high productivity. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and Japan’s economic problems there was no economic rival to the US, which started spreading its economic model and a third wave of democratization. Clinton remained quite popular even if under some criticism. Bush instead answered to those that claimed that the US should have taken advantage of their unipolar moment to reorganize world structures, he took the lead in interventions in the Middle East especially after 9/11 for regime change. America’s decline Operations in Afghanistan went well, with small US forces overthrowing the Talibans, instead in Iraq things were more difZicult. The US remained the greatest military power in the world, which also brings to a large number of alliances for security, however the events in Iraq showed the limitations of American military power. After the fall of Saddam Hussain’s government chaos emerged, with new governments that didn’t’ follow what the US were trying to implement. Many criticisms started to be directed against Bush and his interventionist policies. The economy also started a deterioration process which went all through 2007/2008 and the Zinancial crisis which also brought to great Zinancial deZicits, a problem that also continued under Obama. The new position of the US after its decline was of a smaller prominent actor in a world of rising and growing actors. Barack Obama’s foreign policy: what can the US do and not do? Even if the US maintain the greatest share of resources in the world, this doesn’t translate into power, as they have to be used correctly into policies and outcomes by leaderships, strategies and organizations. Bush had rendered the image of the US negative to the rest of the world, while Obama brought a rise in America’s popularity, as he brought limited change and increasing his support worldwide. There were limits to what he could due, imposed by the polarized political structure of the US. He had an ambitious agenda to promote international cooperation and multilateral diplomacy, he established the objective of a nuclear-free world, and he favored cooperation with Russia and China. Anyway he left American presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, straining American military resources. Obama especially focused on the nuclear struggle between the countries, however results could be obtained only through the effective cooperation between the different international actors. In 2010 the START agreement (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was signed with Russia, however all the other actors were unwilling to abandon their nuclear weapons. An American domestic balance sheet Despite the many issues, the US still maintains a strong economic basis for growth, the largest and deepest Zinancial market and large resources. It has one of the highest rates of immigration, especially of skilled and educated workers. However inequality remains very high. 2 – America’s challengers The US is the only superpower, with great inZluence in every region of the world, however this position has gradually became more limited due to the growth of other great powers, especially on a regional level. For example BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), which control the greatest share of population and land and are all characterized by a great nationalism, which limits their cooperation. - Between these powers Brazil has been considered as having the smallest share of power despite its territorial advantages, because of its major social and economic problems. It has high inequality and plays a small military role, however it had a rise in its international importance thanks to its role as mediator for political peacekeeping. - India underwent a great process of economic growth and increase of education, together with the greatest demographic growth. This lead to higher expenditure in the military and power projection, with also a shift from soviet reliance to more relationships with the US, also including a nuclear program. However India remains a poor country, with huge domestic needs and poor infrastructures. At the same time despite the growth in education between men, the levels of illiteracy between girls remain high. Other problems came from the territorial dispute for borders with China and Pakistan. - After the end of the cold war, Russia still had the second largest nuclear arsenal, even if the rest of the military equipment remained quite weak for long. Russian economy collapsed in the 90s together with a deep social crisis and declining life expectancy. This increased in the 2000s with better economic conditions especially due to the greatest exports in oil and gas. This situation of reliance of exports created in Russia the ‘Dutch disease’ (increase in income from natural resources pushes up the country’s currency making exports more expensive and imports cheaper). Economic conditions worsened again with the economic crisis of 2008 and greatest levels of corruption. Moreover Putin’s nationalist-authoritarian government limited Russian’s possibilities for cooperation internationally. There were some attempts to obtain cooperation with countries in central and eastern Europe. - Japan experienced a great growth since the 70s, becoming the leader in many sectors and threatening American primacy. This changed in the 90s with some economic setbacks that lasted until 2003 but worsened again with the crisis of 2007, which led China to surpass it on an economic level and increased its deZicit and debt to unsustainable levels. Another problem came from the constantly ageing population, that caused a shrinkage of the labour force and an increase in health expenditure. Issues came from the traditionalist approach of the country to the economy and social policies which inhibited further progress. Japan’s economic problems were related to its political ones, a Zirst cooperation between the different political forces, soon transformed into corruption and conformism. Japanese will to play a relevant role globally outside of the economic sector always remained limited, therefore with general low levels of military spending. The European Union At the beginning of the 2000s the EU was seen as the most likely challenger of the US, with a greater GDP and greater population. Integration of new states was continuing and had evolved from economic cooperation to the common currency and the CFSP. It maintained stable peace and democratic ideals which were posed as conditions for the integration of new members. However its members maintained different visions about the military and foreign policy questions (relations with the US, military intervention), with a general decline of the military expenditure after the cold war. The EU only engaged in small scale military operations very limited in scope. However such small developments in their military still led them to be a very important actor globally. The EU always stressed non-military means, with a general condemnation of the use of force and peace maintenance between its members. Many highlighted how in military interventions, the US took Also in the middle east wester leadership was being transferred from Britain to the US, but the process was slower and rich of conZlicts, especially due to the process of decolonization by Britain. Since before WW2, American oil companies had started operating in Arab countries, at the same time maintaining strong links with Israel. An American-British dispute arose about the control of oil revenues. With president Eisenhower and his doctrine started in 1957, the US tried to step into the vacuum of power left by the British withdrawal in the Middle East, before it was Zilled by Russia. The most important phenomena of those years was the dismantling of the colonial empires. A similar reasoning was applied to Asia, were American position also expanded dramatically. In south Asia, the US encouraged the British to leave their colonies and replaced its role, for example in India where Eisenhower increased economic aid and links with the government against China. The situation aggravated with the war in Vietnam, were the initially reluctant Us Zinally decided to step in to help France in its Zight against the communist Vietminh. After the French defeat the US proposed in 1954 the decision to create the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). The importance of America’s allies Britain had historically pursued a policy of isolation, but the lack of allies can represent a point of weakness, in fact in the Zirst 20th century it started concluding alliances treaties with Japan and other European countries. Also the USSR had alliances and treaties, with Eastern European countries and China, even if with this power the alliance started to break up in the 60s favoring much American position. After WW2 the position of the US allowed it to remain isolated from the rest of world politics, instead it decided to conclude an extensive system of alliances and treaties, which granted it a very strong position of dominance as any other country was able to provide an effective alternative to it. Europe for example asked the US to step in and guide the rebuilding after WW2, their cooperation was based on the idea that Europe was the area of the world that mattered the most, especially for Cold war. NATO became an extension of US strategy, for example with retaliation, then for Zlexible response under Kennedy-Johnson. The situation in Asia was more complex due to Japan being former enemy of many other countries, therefore the US had to conclude many separate treaties of alliances. However, just like in Europe, whenever the US insisted on a certain decision, the countries that depended the most of it had to adopt it without choice. In general all allied powers were reluctant to take decisions which could have been seen as offensive by the US. After WW2 the US developed objectives for Europe: - Limit Soviet expansion – after the fall of Czechoslovakia in 1948 no other European country joint the USSR. In order to Zight Soviet threat the US had to join its resources with European ones, for this purpose it created NATO. - Economic organization - through the OEEC (organization for European Economic Co-operation, transformed in the OECD in 1961), GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and the CoCom (coordinating Committee for multilateral export controls). All of these organizations were useful for the US do coordinate and administrate aid to Europe and manage the allocation of the funds of the Marshall plan. - Keep the communists out of power – the US was able to fulZil this objective in all NATO countries - Keep Western Europe open to American culture Why the European invitations? Did they determine US policy? Every empire rules on the basis of some consent from the ruled people, even in the USSR the consensus was given on the basis that countries in Eastern Europe didn’t see any alternative to the red army. When soviet interests were threatened Russia intervened with the Red army, however when local communists had an independent power base they usually broke away from Soviet rule. The British empire instead rested on a mix of active support and passive loyalty, even if sometimes they faced some forms of active resistance especially in the ‘colored’ parts of their empire. The US instead was able to exert its inZluence more indirectly, with generally limited military presence and limited use of force when possible. American rule was frequently ‘invited’, especially in Western Europe where the countries actively worked to increase US role in the region. The reasons for this were: - Western Europe needed economic assistance - Forces of political center wanted American support to strengthen their position (ex. France and Italy needed the US to counterbalance the political left) - Need for military support and military guarantees against the Soviet Union - Ability of Europeans to transform American initiatives into less threatening perspectives The results of the Marshall plan were good and different in the different countries. Europeans maintained generally lower amounts of military sending than what the US would have preferred. Some countries were skeptical about too much American presence, especially the most exposed (Denmark, Norway…) and the US demonstrated to be ready to accept the different needs of the countries. For this reason some argued that the results of the Marshall plan didn’t represent the objectives of the US for Western Europe. Anyway the policies that the US undertook in Europe were certainly due to the strategic, economic and political interests that America had in the region, in addition to the direct invitation of Europeans. The relative contraction of the United States in recent years It’s difZicult to argue that the US have been contracting recently, its imports and exports are constantly increasing and it still plays a relevant military role worldwide. The end of the cold war brought a decrease in US military presence worldwide and a reduction of its nuclear presence, however NATO continued to operate and was increased, becoming a political organization with the emphasis on providing coordination on relevant international issues. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan diminished any further US interest in other conZlicts in Iran, North Korea or anywhere else. In Libya it ‘lead from behind’ and Europe took the lead. PART II – THE LIMITS OF POWER 5 – The impotence of Omnipotence With globalization the impulses of one great power are carried to the rest of the world, quickly carrying ideas, events and goods around, also providing for the disappearance of single languages, tribes and groups. However empires remain fragmented, nationalism remains a strong ideals. The US have always played an important role in this Zield, many talk in fact of Americanization rather than globalization. The internet was created in America and then exported. The US have always been a sort of omnipotent power gathering a round of alliances around it and surviving where all the previous empires had failed and collapsed. In this sense the US demonstrated to be stronger than the USSR and all the previous empires, however American rule has also been very vulnerable, with fragile interests and the necessity to obtain the loyalty of the people before ruling over them. Imperial overstretch and the fall of the Soviet Union The fall of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev was very sudden and unpredicted, the reasons were imperial overstretch, the erosion of the center’s will to rule and the dissatisfaction of the ruled nationalities. In particular imperial overstretch is the most relevant theory, introduced by Paul Kennedy in The rise and fall of the great powers, referring to the practice of USSR to allocate very large amounts of funds to armaments indirectly limiting its growth rate. His argument was that when new powers arose they tended to increase military expenses leaving wealth creation behind and thus weakening national power in the long run. For this reason leading powers were eventually doomed to decline. However Kennedy wrongly predicted the fall of the US and not that of the USSR. the analysis of the fall of the Soviet Union revolves around there arguments: • Imperial expenses of the USSR were extremely high • Need to reduce imperial expenses was the prime motivation behind Gorbachev’s drastic changes in Soviet domestic and foreign policy • These drastic changes were responsible for bringing the Cold war and the USSR to an end In 50s and 60s economic growth in USSR had been high, with great optimism for the future, in the 70s and 80s economic growth began to reduce, but with high military expenditure and little investment in other Zields. However it remains difZicult to estimate the exact rate of these military expenditure compared to the country’s and to American GDP as data from USSR has never been reliable especially in its latest years. How to reduce Soviet defense spending? It’s probably impossible to establish the correct rate of Soviet imperial expenditures, but it’s interesting to examine what Soviet leaders believed to be the effects of this high defense spending. When Gorbachev came to power in 1985 there was already a widespread feeling that the USSR was spending too much on defense, a matter on which Gorbachev himself and his collaborators agreed. Military and defense expenditure had to be reduced in favor of large-scale social programs changing Soviet foreign policy at its basis and changing its relationship with the west. The initial Gorbachev’s plan for military reduction were highly strategic, involving for example a last concerted military effort to end the war in Afghanistan and the ousting of American troops from Europe. He remained focused on the scaling down of the arms race, arriving even to a proposal of a nuclear-free world. However when negotiations about this project failed at Reykjavik with Reagan, Soviet government tried to present it as a failure due to the unwillingness of the US. The smell of success The domestic reforms of 1985-86 produced few signiZicant results, but a shift to more comprehensive reforms started from 1987 (glasnost and perestroika). Gorbachev’s problem with domestic politics is that it wasn’t clear where he wanted to take the Soviet Union, while in the foreign arena, it was clear that he wanted to end the arms race but he wasn’t open to actually enter into negotiations with the west. Communist thinking had always been convicted that international relations were dominated by the interests and laws of class warfare, with a continuation of the international class struggle, now however universal values had to take the priority over the class struggle. The Zirst example of this approach was seen in Afghanistan where Soviet forces were withdrawn in 1988, a series of new agreement about nuclear arms limitation were signed, especially the treaty for the banning of intermediate-rage nuclear missiles (INF). In 1988 Gorbachev delivered a speech at the UN evidencing his impatience to reduce military expenditure and the end of the cold war. In 1989 in fact, USSR published the Zirst realistic defense budget. This impatience to move ahead for Gorbachev was due to slow economic growth, his will to take strong control of the government and the party, moreover he appreciated foreign policy because there it was easier to obtain rapid results rather than domestic policy Garthoff said about the end of the cold war that: “The West did not, as is widely believed, win the Cold War through geopolitical containment and military deterrence. Still less was the Cold War won by the Reagan build-up and the Reagan Doctrine, as some have suggested. Instead ‘victory’ came when a new generation of Soviet leaders realized how badly their system at home and their policies abroad had failed.” The United States and overstretch The application of the theory of the ‘imperial overstretch’ was Zlawed, however it can be useful to explain the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold war. 6 – The long lines of history Globalization entails that we are all inZluenced by the same forces emanating from a geographical center which is usually the US, frequently globalization is seen as a synonym of Americanization. However also fragmentation is connected, as during history several empires have fragmentated and dismantled to create many new state entities which have become smaller and smaller. Globalization Globalization had existed for centuries, through the contacts that civilizations have created with other cultures. This can be seen in religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all originated in the middle east and then spread. Before 1914 the world was more integrated than it is now, and this was also shown in how the whole world was affected by the great depression of 1929. After 1945 there was a great improvement in communications of all types. When globalization hit it brought rapid economic growth all over the world, but at the same time created a basis for bigger problems in case of crisis such as in 2007. Ideologies and religions all spread quicker, also political ideologies such as democracy. Global institutions have also helped reducing the ‘distance’ between different regions, such as the United Nations, and international organizations such as the WTO, Amnesty International, Greenpeace…. The nation state started being challenged also by developments at the regional level, for example with the rise of the European Union. Fragmentation It’s important not to overestimate the impact of globalization. Today the world is more fragmented than ever, with many small nation states and the complete dissolution of the great empires of the pre-wars period and their colonies. During the 90s in Europe both the USSR and Yugoslavia dissolved, and Czechoslovakia separated, in Africa countries started reorganizing their borders after the colonial rule. If we consider ‘nations’ and not states, the world is deeply fragmented, with borders which are constantly challenged by the needs of globalization, interest groups, terrorism, immigration and climate change. Why both globalization and fragmentation? Globalization and fragmentation take place in different spheres, globalization is a technological and economic process, while fragmentation remains a political phenomenon. And often there isn’t even a connection between these two spheres. Revolutions and war didn’t bring to a uniZication as some scholars had envisioned, but rather created nationalism and brought to the rise of the nation state. In many ways technological-economic globalization stimulates political fragmentation for different reasons: • Political-phycological explanation – when travelling abroad people discover a new sense of patriotism, which is connected to the person’s identity. This also implies the transferring of one’s culture or religion to another country. • Ideological-cultural explanation – ideologies cross borders more easily, as shown for example with the spread of democracy. But also nationalism always spread easily, which causes different groups to merge together and others to disappear. • Technological explanation – technology helps connect the world and eliminate distances, however technological advantages stimulate globalization and fragmentation at the same time. • Economic explanation – globalization often has a negative impact on the economy. Great powers and their will to rule For centuries great powers had remained local or regional, such as Rome and China, even if at the time they didn’t know much about each other. With the age of exploration came a deeper understanding of the world, with the expansion of Spain and Portugal. The British empire had the most complex colonial structures but only limited global aspirations and it eventually came to an end after WW2 and the defeat against Japan which represented a turning point for Western ideologies. After WW2 a general weakening of the will to rule over the colonies arose in generally all the colonial powers, this eventually happened for the Soviet Union as well, in the late 80s, when all the different countries under its control started to withdraw from it. In democracies in the long run, it was impossible to use substantial force over long periods of time to keep foreign peoples under control, and this also happened for the Soviet Union, where leaders eventually lost their enthusiasms for the Soviet-Communist system. Great powers and empires Most great powers started consolidating their power in their central area and them attempted to hold in obedience distant provinces becoming empires. They generally provided stability, but their legitimacy gradually became undermined and in the end they collapsed. The rise and fall of great powers was partly related to war which accelerated processes which were sometimes already in progress. Great powers developed empires as they came to control territories outside their core areas and when these peripheral areas fell away it represented the decline of such empire, which core remained intact. So the strength of the great power after the fall was connected to the power and the geographical extension of its core. For the good functioning of an empire there can be no division between its homeland and the colonies, as shown by the Soviet Union. The US is a unique case as semi-distant lands have been integrated successfully. Old and new forms of legitimacy The falling away of the ‘distant provinces’ was related to political changes leading to a gradually disappearing legitimacy for imperial rule. Empires rested on force even if its use became increasingly difZicult. Imperial rule started to break away from accepted norms at three levels: international, national and local, losing its legitimacy. Legitimacy is a state of affairs which is perceived as in accordance with established rules and principles. Traditional forms of legitimacy such as inheritance have