The Burden - Imperialism by Michael Ignateiff
...dictionary description does not completely justifies the reason why Ignateiff claims that the United States is an imperialistic nation, but there are similarity to this definition that I believe makes the United States a imperial nation. First of all, although the Unites States has not truly acquired any new territories since the Treaty of Paris, established after the “Splendid Little War” in the Caribbean at the turn of the 20th century, America has sent their militaries to Africa, Asia, and especially in the middle east to “enforce order as there is in the world and doing so in the American interest.” They were not necessarily trying to increase their territory or attempting to establish an Imperial America, but targeting non-democratic nations to change their government status or some sort of policy the U.S. was not amiable towards. Ignatieff states that “the 21st century imperium is a… global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy.” This, I believe, is just the same as imperialism because the United States is not conquering the land which the people of other nations live on, but it is basically attempting to conquer the governments and ideology of the people into accepting the values and characteristics of Americans. Another reason why Ignatieff’s claims of an Imperial America is different from the “old imperialism” is because of the difference in the cause or need for imperialism. During the Age of Imperialism, world powers attempted to hold colonies in their empires to: have exclusive foreign markets and natural resources and to compete with the powers to acquire the most land and territory. The American imperium is, moreover, a response to the terrorist attacks on September 11. That day, “Sept. 11 changed everyone” claims Ignatieff who believes the reason for America’s intervention in the world, especially in the middle east, is from the fear of that incident happening again. As Woodrow Wilson said at the end of World War I, to “make the world safe for democracy”, President George W. Bush took the initiative to do exactly that. What President Bush had not considered was the challenges and pitfalls this aggressive democracization, if you will, of the Middle East will and has brought to America and its people. John Quincy Adams once quoted if America were tempted to “become the dictatress of the world, she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.” Additionally, Ignatieff writes that what any military or economic expense used outside the home land, that’s how much less they have for internal improvements like roads, hospitals and schools. Statistically speaking, about $1 billion dollars are spent averagely every month on military operation in the Middle East. That money spent does nothing directly to benefit the people of the republic. Another problem brought about by the new imperialism is the high tensions with the friends or allies, mainly speaking of the European nations. After World War II the European nations had to limit their military budget to a point they basically had none. To defend these countries, America stepped forward. Because of their positive status after the war, America was the only empire left with a functional military. In the new imperialism, military power is not enough to control the empire. “European participation,” claims Ignatieff, “in peace keeping, nation building and humanitarian reconstruction is so important that the Americans are required, even when they are unwilling to do so, to include Europeans in the governance of their evolving imperial project.” Although the United States has the power t...