America and world domination

Great Debates
1

Throughout the history of the world certain groups have had their time as the foremost power. We had the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Ottomans, the British.

Currently the US is the world superpower but, since we can’t tell the future, we don’t know how long this will last.

There are a number of countries throughout the world that are ruled by cruel dictators. We are in the process of removing one such government right now - the Taliban. But there are many others - Iraq, Congo, Zimbabwe.

Whenever the US flexes it’s muscle, such as currently in Afghanistan, people accuse it of trying to achieve world domination but, if all went well, the US would install a friendly democratic regime in Afghanistan and then go home and forget all about that country.

Some people claim that, by installing a “friendly democratic regime”, what the US is actually doing is installing a US controlled puppet-government.

But isn’t it better that power in that country is contested every few years by popular vote than the situation where power is centralised under a president-for-life like Saddam?

Having a president-for-life must be worse than having the ability to kick out the entire government after 4 years if you don’t like them.

Whilst there may be many problems with certain areas of US foreign policy, maybe the US should use its (possibly) short time as the predominant power in the world to spread some good and convert some of the one-party states to democracy. To spread freedom.

Then, if the time should come that some other power becomes predominant, some more tyrannical, cruel power, there will be more countries that have a democratic tradition and therefore more countries to oppose the new tyrants.

I think the problem at the moment is that America (and Europe) jealously guard their freedoms when they should be exporting them.

2

First of all. We oftentimes support regimes that are decidedly undemocratic. Kuwait, Iran come to mind.

Second: Forced Democracy can never be a true democracy.

Third: If we forced democracy, it would cause deaths and that would be tyranny and not democracy at all.

Erek

3

Japan, Germany, Italy? Are they true democracies? They were certainly forced.

4

After WW2, the existing regimes were basically wiped out, leaving room for a new government. We “installed” democratic ones to fill the gap- and those countries kept them, because they worked.

Xanakis and mswas are refering to starting a conflict with the sole intent of installing democracy- definately forced, and probably short lived. In the post WW2 countries, democracy was a result of a much larger conflict, and definately helped those countries rebuild faster. Of course, massive U.S. aid ala the Marshal Plan doesn’t hurt a new regime’s legitimacy… Hmmm…

5

Spreading democracy can have the nasty effect of installing governments which aren’t friendly to US interests. I would guess that a democratic election in Saudi Arabia, for example, would be disasterous for the US.

And other countries simply don’t like nosy foreigners interfering in their internal politics. An example in a book I recently read (not at hand) by William Shawcross looks briefly at the US Civil War. Russia and France were going to intervene to bring peace. Would Americans have liked foreign powers interfering in that war?

Say I am the Swedish prime minister, and Sweden is the world’s foremost power. “That American government is still executing its criminals,” I think to myself, while chewing on a herring. “We should step in an impose our will on them and force them to accept our definition of human rights! The American people will embrace us for bringing freedom to their land. While we’re there, we’ll clean up the guns and impose very high taxes on the rich, to equitably redistribute the wealth.” Americans would take to the streets, scattering petals in gratitude at the feet of massed Swedish troops, who have arrived to impose a Swedish version of good governance. Right.

6

Well as Masamune said, the idea is imperialism in order to install democratic regimes.

Erek

7

“Was there ever any domination that did not appear natural to those who possessed it?”

  • John Stuart Mill, British philosopher and economist, 1806-1873
8

I really need a bit more detail on just how the US would go about “exporting freedom” in Africa. Any previous successes that I can think of in “exporting freedom” have been in countries that were destroyed by war with the US.

I would advise the author of the OP to be careful about how readily Africans would welcome American intervention in the affairs of their countries, no matter how disorganized they may seem and no matter how well-intentioned our efforts may be. Memories of the abuses of the colonial era are still fresh. Consider the debacle in Somalia: who could object to the US supplying a starving population with a smidgen of food? Well, we saw what happened there.

I have some personal knowledge of Zimbabwe. The fact is, legislatively Zimbabwe already IS a republic with a form of government similar to that of the US and UK, including a parliament, supreme court, etc.

Practically, it is true, through the abuse of the system (notably “war veterans” who have been disrupting much of the country’s economy and harassing opposition politicians) Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF has held onto power much longer than it was actually given a mandate for.

The question is, what, if anything, should the US do about this? Well firstly, and most importantly, Zimbabwe remains a member of the British Commonwealth and as such, Mugabe is a problem for the UK to sort out if it so chooses. The idea of the US acting unilaterally to depose him, by whatever means, is a complete non-starter unless the UK would actually ask for help, which they have not done so far. Bonus question: ask yourself, just why has the UK taken no concrete steps there?

Secondly, what is the US interest in Zimbabwe? Sadly, the answer is next to nothing. Again, it is up to the UK to make the first move. Humanitarian concerns aside, the US does a miniscule amount of trade with the country and has no particular strategic interest in the region. This makes it difficult to exert any political pressure on Mugabe and his cronies.

Mugabe must by law call a presidential election, and soon. He has already pushed it back several times and the population aapears to have lost its tolerance for any further delays. Even if this were not the case, he grows old and weary and has no clear successor within ZANU-PF. Thus the political situation is likely to change drastially within the next few years; as to whether it swings back towards democracy or further towards dictatorship and chaos is yest to be seen. I do not, however, see what the US could do in addition to their current diplomatic policy to improve the situation.

9

Would the US trying to convert all those “nasty, savage countries” out there to be like them not be similar to missionaries or which ever religious groups came over to N.America (and many other foreign countries) a few hundred years ago and tried to turn all the natives into good christians or which ever religion/s it was? In the eyes of those who were doing the converting, they saw themselves as really trying to help (hey, it was working great for them), and didn’t think of their actions as destroying the native culture (that worked for them) that already existed and creating a lot of tension… which is usually what happened. And of course there were secret agendas to converting the native population… such things were not done 100% out of innocent kindness at all. I think the idea of trying to actually convert the government of any country that isn’t causing trouble for others, or asking for help, is sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong. Sort of like having the attitude that [insert current world power here] is the adult and all the other nations are foolish children who need to be shown the “right” way to do things. I saw a peice of a Bill Clinton speach a while back where he was talking about not forcing the democratic way onto other countries - some of the actual words I remember were “It (democracy) works for US… just”.

10

First, as a minor nitpick, it hasn’t been the British Commonwealth for some time.

I certainly agree with your main point that the US would not be able to help much in this instance, but it’s also debatable how much the UK can solve the problem either. Inevitably, any action taken by the British would be seen locally as another unwelcome intervention by a colonial power which biased in favour of “its own people”, and thus Mugabe’s view that the whites are illigitimate occupiers of black people’s land would be reinforced.

The recent attempts by Nigeria (of all places) to broker a peaceful resolution of the problem don’t seem to have got anywhere either, but I’d have more confidence in any deal which was seen to be independent of Britain than one seen to be the brainchild of the former colonials.

In any case, IIRC, a perfectly reasonable proposal was agreed by all sides when ZANU-PF first took power, and it is only through procrastination and incompetence locally that it still hasn’t been implemented after so many years.

11

I’m agree totally. My “bonus question” was intended rhetorically and was aimed at the OP.

And I stand corrected. “Commonwealth of Nations”, I should have said.

12

We would, of course, need to throw a lot of money at these new democracies once they were formed not just abandon them immediately afterwards.

Dave Stewart said:

This is an interesting point, and I know what you are trying to say, but I think the idea that you can’t trust other nations to be democratic is ultimately a slightly racist argument. The same argument was advanced during Apartheid period South Africa - “if this country was truly democratic (ie black-run) then it would collapse”.

But it didn’t work out like that. Sure they have their problems but it isn’t any less democratic than it was.

You say you wouldn’t have wanted Russian and French interference in your civil war but if the aim of the Russians and French had been to quell the war and turn you into a full democracy. The kind of democracy you are now, then maybe you would have welcomed that kind of interference.

You are using hindsight!

You are saying “Look how great America is now, would we have wanted Russia or France to possibly prevent that?”

But this isn’t the question. Imagine if it wasn’t the Russians and the French who were considering interfering back then but the United States as it is now and their aim was to get rid of your dictatorial government (which you are unable to get rid of on your own) and put the power in the hands of the people and then leave. And then afterwards they send you a load of money to sort out any problems you may have, with a promise of further military assistance if necessary.

El_Kabong:

Different types of intervention would be needed for different countries. It would not be direct US intervention all the time but US backing would usually be needed eg in Rwanda it may have been more appropriate to mount some kind of French/US or British intervention.

Congo may also require US/French intervention.

Zimbabwe may require British/Russian intervention.

These are just details, we would have to work out the best way to do it in each individual case. But it would involve all the democratic countries of the world.

Are we missionaries or colonialists? No, I don’t think so. We may have to impose a government on a few nations but it is undoubtedly a better form of Government than they have now.

If they don’t like it, they can always vote a dictatorship back in.

But the point is:

You can’t vote a dictatorship out once they’re in

13

I think what I’m trying to say is this:

I don’t have any problem with people being ruled by the Taliban if they want to be.

But why is it that you can never get rid of governments like the Taliban after 5 years or so if you decide you don’t like them?

Why can’t the Taliban be a political party like all the others? You can vote them in, but then, if they’re shit, you can vote them out.

Why are extreme people always the ones who are against democracy? If what they do is so right then they shouldn’t be afraid of the majority opinion.

If their argument is compelling enough then they will win the popular vote every time so they have nothing to worry about.

Any government that needs to be enforced on the population is wrong.

Any government that cannot stand up to a popular vote of the people is wrong.

14

And therein lies the problem. The Marshall Plan got the political support it needed because it helped keep the Soviet Union from overrunning Western Europe and Japan. A plan to throw money at Afghanistan to support democracy there would be able to get political support because a higher standard of living there would hopefully reduce support for radical terrorist groups. But where do we get the political support necessary to throw billions of dollars into propping up our hypothetical newly spawned African democracies? I know this is incredibly cynical, but how long will citizens of western democracies stand to have large chunks of their tax money funnelled into Africa, if the only reasons to do so are humanitarian ones?

Another interesting issue is how would China and North Korea react if the United States or some other western country started imposing democratic governments in other countries.

It’s a noble idea, but there are definitely practical concerns.

15

Two points:

  1. I never said that non-Western countries couldn’t handle democracy, and reject entirely any allegation of racism. Japan handles it very well. So does South Africa. What I was getting at is that the United States can’t count on democracies being friendly. India is the world’s largest democracy. Its relations with the US since its foundation as an independent country have been cool, at best. What makes people think democracies are pro-US? Certainly the US State Department for decades have realised this - whicb is why non-Communist, non-democratic regimes were supported in the Cold War.

  2. My point in respect of French or Russian intervention in the US Civil War is that no one likes outsiders intervening in their internal problems. Let me be more plain: If Hawaii wanted to secede, would Americans like a Thai peace-keeping force preventing violence? (PS Xanasis I’m not American - and I am in full agreement with what you’ve otherwise said)

16

I think we know how China would react to this scenario. Look at Taiwan.
But look fast. It may turn into a sacrifice.