The Current Position of the United States

In order to begin this investigation, it is first helpful to consider the current position of the United States in the context of the international community. A precursory of what has been written about America's position in the international community seems to suggest that overall the American government continues to pursue an imperialist agenda. While scholars that have addressed this issue argue in favor or against this imperialist attitude, the reality is that there is a general consensus that the U.S. is imperialist in nature. Heiss (2002) in his examination of imperialism in the United States makes the observation that when the U.S. was first founded more than 200 years ago, the country was predicated upon the elimination of imperialism. Rather, according to Heiss, the U.S. developed a policy of positive foreign development in which the government would not exert its authority over nay territory or country unless there was a positive, altruistic need to do so. Having been oppressed by the imperialist powers during the colonial age, the United States had made a commitment to pursue anti-imperialist policies to substantiate international development.

Although Heiss argues that the policies adopted by the US were indeed anti-imperialist in nature, he contends that in the past two centuries, the United States has only been able to sustain this ideology in theory. This is because most of the foreign policies that have been pursued by the US have been those deeply entrenched in doing what was considered to be positive for the United States only. As such, the development of foreign policy in the United States has evolved to an imperialist status, as the US government continues to spread the American way of life to developing nations. In order to codify this position, Heiss makes the following observations:

As the nation's history has played out however, the reality has been much different. Far from being consistently anticolonial, the US position on the imperial idea was not clear-cut, simple to determine, or even at all consistent. The nation in fact did not pursue an unchanging opposition to empire, either when it came to the empire of other nations or a potential empire of its own. It did not work consistently or in all cases for an end to empire and colonialism. At times it even worked to perpetuate colonial institutions in the pursuit of what were perceived to be more pressing international goals (p. 511-2)

As the United States moves toward the establishment of an empire through the use of imperialist policies in most cases, scholars examining this issue have made two notable arguments on either side of this issue. On one side, advocates of America's drive toward imperialism argue that the process is positive: "providing international security and promoting freedom and democracy" (Mabee, 2004, p. 1361). On the other side of the issue are those who believe that the drive toward the establishment of an empire is having a negative impact on the United States. "Its aim was always to further US economic interest though expansion abroad. While the geopolitics of empire is also crucial, the role of contemporary capitalism is always at the core" (p. 1362). Because capitalism is held at the core of imperialist policies, the needs of the US consistently take precedence over all other issues that arise in the context of the international community. Further, the pursuit of capitalism has led to the development of policies in which the US asserts its power through coercion rather than cooperation.

What becomes evident when examining this data is that there is considerable consensus among scholars that the US is indeed pursuing an imperialist discourse in the context of its international development. The departure point in on this issue comes in the interpretation of the effects that this position in having on the US. While supporters of imperialism argue that the US is pursuing imperialist policies in an effort to improve outcomes for both the US and the international community as a whole, those who reject imperialism contend that the US is promulgating more strife than cooperation in the international community. Thus, the question is one of how to address this issue such that a clear understanding of the impact of America's imperialism can be assessed.

Assessing the Current Position of the United States

Critically reviewing what has been written about the impact of America's imperialist policies overall, it seems reasonable to argue that many of the authors examining this issue have provided considerable criticism of government's foreign policy. Abu-Manneh (2004) in his examination of the foreign policy directives that have been used by the Untied States argues that throughout the course of the twentieth century, the American government has used its military and economic power to subordinate other states. According to Abu-Manneh this process is well seen in the context of what occurred during the Cold War. As noted by this author: "Through the construction of an elaborate hub-and-spokes protectorate system, the Untied States was able to dominate its allies and determine their friends, enemies, states of emergency, foreign policies, and strategies of accumulation. Allies were dependent on the United States to satisfy their security needs and each individual ally's main strategic relationship had to be with the United States" (p. 39).

Abu-Manneh goes on to further argue that while the system of "cooperation" that had been established in the Cold War worked well for the US to achieve a high degree of cooperation among its allies, when communism fell and the "new world order" was established, the Untied States had to contend with more dissention among individual countries. In an effort to bring these countries in line, the United States has had to use coercion and military power. Even though Abu-Manneh recognizes that the Untied States has been highly effective in its efforts to maintain its power in the post-Cold War era, the impact of the actions taken by the US has ultimately had ramifications for the development of the international community. Thus, while the foreign polices that have been pursued by the US in recent years have been aimed at reaffirming the dominance that the US held during the Cold War, the tactics that have been used by the US have not been highly favorable in many cases.

In an effort to understand how this imperialist push has impacted the development of the United States in foreign discourse, Encarnación (2005) observes what has occurred in Iraq as a result of America's imperialist foreign policy:

The Bush White House has already tasted the paradoxical and unintended consequences of democratic imperialism. In the apt words of one analyst, postwar Iraq has become 'a jobs program for jihadists worldwide,' a direct reference to the way in which the invasion of Iraq has emboldened terrorists throughout the Islamic world, many of whom have flocked to Iraq to fight Americans (p. 52).

This author goes on to argue that many in Iraq do not believe that the intentions of the US are to formally stabilize the Middle East. Rather, many believe that the US is pursuing economic or capitalistic intentions that will enable America to capitalize on the oil rich region.

When placed in this context, it becomes evident that the foreign policy currently being pursued by the US in many instances is serving as the impetus to create considerable hatred. While the US argues that its intentions in Iraq are noble, the past history of the US in its foreign policy actions suggests that the government is only looking for another opportunity to spread the American empire and bring the Middle East under the ubiquitous rule of the West. As the United States continues to pursue this agenda, more countries and citizens become enraged and angered. This results in the proliferation of anti-American policies that appear to have culminated in the September 11th terrorist attacks against the Untied States. In this context, it seems reasonable to argue that if the US was not pursuing an imperialist agenda, the hatred from the international community toward the US would not be as vehement.

Although the rationale that breeds this conclusion is quite evident, the reality is that those in favor of the current foreign policies being pursued by the US argue that global terrorism is expanding, regardless of US action. As such, these individuals contend that the only way to ensure the expansion of global terrorism does not have a detrimental impact on the US is to force the development of democracy and freedom: even if this means through the use of imperialist policies. In short, the United States, because of its world dominance through the twentieth century knows what is best for the international community.

Defining Terrorism

Unfortunately, when examined in this context, it becomes evident that a true dichotomy has been created with respect to this issue. In many respects the arguments that have been posed are such that the essential question of what came first is posed. Did terrorism come first, with the US adjusting its foreign policy to pursue democratization and freedom to improve international security? Or, did imperialism come first, followed by terrorism as a response to the actions taken by the US to maintain its hegemony? Arguably, this is a difficult dichotomy to resolve. However, when one looks at the fundamental roots of terrorism, it is possible to at least provide some insight to the dilemma created in this case.

Ruby (2002) in his examination of the definition of terrorism that has been developed by the US Department of State notes that terrorism is defined by this organization as: "politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience" (p. 10). Ruby goes on to note that there are three aspects of this definition that are critical for understanding: action is politically motivated; action is perpetrated against noncombatants; and action is perpetrated by subnational or clandestine groups. While each of these features is critical to the definition of terrorism, the first issue-i.e. that of the act being politically motivated-has the most important ramifications for understanding the impact of US primacy.

Looking specifically at the political dimension of terrorism as defined by the US Department of State, Ruby goes on to make the following observations: "Terrorism is directed toward goals that are political; in other words, terrorist actions are intended to guide or influence government policy. [...] This criterion emphasizes that the social and psychological antecedents of personally or criminally motivated violence are different than the antecedents of terrorist violence" (p. 10). When placed in this perspective, it becomes evident that that terrorist activities have clearly been identified as those acts which stand out as politically motivated. What this effectively suggests is that when terrorism is perpetuated, it is for the larger goal of changing foreign policy directed by a specific country-in most case the US or other European nations. Thus, terrorism is not undertaken arbitrarily. Rather, it is perpetuated in response to specific actions. This definition is the one that has been developed and supported by the United States government.

When the issue of US primacy and its pursuit of imperialism are placed in this context, it does not seem feasible to argue that terrorism came before US imperialism. As defined by the US government, terrorism results when clandestine or subnational groups feel that the political actions of a country are unjust. Thus, terrorist acts perpetuated against the US are a direct response of groups to the political actions pursued by the US. For this reason, the US government cannot make the argument that terrorism will proliferate unless the US stops it from occurring. Using the definition proposed by the US government, terrorism will continue to occur only if the policies enacted by the US continue to offend clandestine or subnational groups. Therefore, the best way to stop the spread of terrorism is to develop more uniform policy that seeks international peace, rather than the expansion of America's empire.

In an effort to better understand the impact of America's primacy on the international community, Panitch (2003) in his examination of the events that took place after the September 11th terrorist attacks demonstrates that the negative images of US supremacy that are held by terrorists are not wrongfully assigned. According to this author, in a poll taken right after the attacks, the international community was surveyed about its reaction to America's decision to engage in war with both Afghanistan and Iraq. The results of the survey show that while a majority of citizens (85 percent) in the US and other G7 countries supported the government's decision, citizens from developing nations did not look favorably upon the polices undertaken by the US. Between 70-75 percent of citizens in developing nations opposed the actions taken by the US, even in the wake of the terrorist attacks.

When the ramifications of this survey are considered, it becomes quite evident that the US has not made a positive impact on the international community. Rather, the US has undertaken such aggressive foreign policy in recent years that it has made itself a target for international hatred and the development of terrorism. If the United States had not chosen to pursue an agenda of imperialism in an effort to establish its dominance, the world community may have responded better to the actions taken by the US post-9/11. Unfortunately, the US has done little to improve its standing in the international community, further forcing nations such as Iraq to capitulate or be destroyed. When placed in this context, the true nature of the terrorist actions that have been taken against the United States can be better understood. Instead of using cooperation, the US is now relying on coercion and is quickly losing ground when it comes to retaining its hegemony.

Conclusion

Utilizing the basic definition of terrorism as established by the US Department of State, it becomes evident that terrorism evolves in direct response to the policies that are undertaken by national governments. While this investigation does not seek to argue that terrorist actions are warranted or justified in any manner, it does become evident that political action does indeed breed terrorism. As such, it is not surprising to find that as the US pushes its hegemonic position, terrorism continues to proliferate. The reality is that many counties in the international community want the freedom to run their governments as they see fit. As a result, US intervention that pushes an agenda that works to further entrench the hegemony of the US does nothing more than anger some groups in developing nations. Thus, while it is not fair to argue that terrorism would end if the US stopped pursing imperialist policies, the reality is that until the US is willing to stop pursing its own needs its actions will be viewed negatively. This will happen even if the US is defending itself from the worst terrorist attack in recent history.

In the end, it seems clear that the only way for the US to ensure the safety of the international community, it must accept the realization that the country's larger economic goals may not be commensurate with those held by other nations. The US must consider pursing policies that enable other nations to enjoy the wealth and prosperity that has been exclusively granted to the United States in the twentieth century. Unless the US is willing to accept this change and ensure that peace is the goal-rather than coercion for economic development of the US-terrorism and war will not abate; rather it will become more pronounced until the United States eventually loses. Unfortunately, globalization has led to a change in America's position in the international community. By reducing its primacy, the United States would be able to create a more peaceful world order.

References

Abu-Manneh, B. (2004). The illusions of empire. Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine, 56(2), 31-47.

Encarnación, O.G. (2005). The follies of democratic imperialism. World Policy Journal, 22(1), 47-60.

Heiss, M.A. (2002). The evolution of the imperial idea and US national identity. Diplomatic History, 26(4), 511-540.

Mabee, B. (2004). Discourse of empire: The US empire, globalization and international relations. Third World Quarterly, 25(8), 1359-1378.

Panitch, L. (2003). September 11 and the American empire. Interventions: The International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 5(2), 233-241.

Ruby, C.L. (2002). The definition of terrorism. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(1), 9-14.