America s Global Influence. David M. Haugen and Susan Musser, Book Editors

Transcription

1 America s Global Influence David M. Haugen and Susan Musser, Book Editors

2 In the end, American exceptionalism, all that it is and all that it isn t, is what shapes attitudes toward the United States around the world. Andrew Kohut and Bruce Stokes, America Against the World Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has emerged as the sole global superpower. Whereas once America could claim that it involved itself in foreign wars, enacted stringent diplomatic and trade policies, and spread capitalist culture to counter the threat of Communist expansion, the post Cold War America had no ideological rivalry to easily justify furthering its interests around the world. The United States eventually gained a new opponent in 2001, after Middle Eastern terrorists attacked it on American soil by flying jet airliners into New York s World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. President George W. Bush asserted that the country s new mission was to defeat terrorism and bring democracy to those parts of the world where oppressive governments sheltered the type of anti-american elements that were responsible for the 2001 tragedies. The administration s successive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, however, seem to be making little headway against the shadowy terrorist organizations, and critics accuse the president of having ulterior motives such as the securing of Iraqi oil fields for pursuing war in the Middle East. These critics from both America and abroad argue that the United States is acting imperialistically, fearing no challenge to its right to direct world events to suit its own desires. In addition to stating that American military ventures are examples of U.S. hard-power imperialism, critics of America s 14

3 power also point to the export of trade and culture as evidence of empire building. They contend that pushing American goods, pop music, films, and television on the rest of the world is a form of soft-power warfare, or cultural imperialism. The purpose of this soft power is to persuade foreign countries to want what America has to offer from the latest trends in clothing styles to venerated cultural values such as democracy and freedom. Some critics are already convinced that America culturally dominates the rest of the world and can dictate what it pleases. Francesco Sisci, for example, wrote in a 2002 article for the Asia Times, The US has won it all, so much so that there is not even any real resistance against soft war, despite some botched attempts to create competing cultural industries. Hollywood and its US clones dominate the cultural industry.... The whole information industry is dominated by Anglo- American news. No TV network or newswire is as comprehensive and persuasive as the Anglo-American ones.... America is so successful that everybody would like to become American. Sisci, however, goes on to say that cultural imperialism creates its own perils. He warns, It is impossible for America to grant the American dream to all people who dream it, either in the US or abroad. The danger of creating a desire that cannot be satisfied whether desire for a certain product or a certain civilization is the backlash that will follow. In Sisci s view, the backlash has manifested in increased dislike of U.S. imperialism and growing support for anti-american terrorism. Proponents of America s hard-power and soft-power wars, on the other hand, believe that America is right to exert its influence in foreign lands. As David Rothkop argues in a wellknown 1997 Foreign Policy article praising American cultural imperialism, The United States should not hesitate to promote its values. In an effort to be polite or politic, Americans should not deny the fact that of all the nations in the history 15

4 America s Global Influence of the world, theirs is the most just, the most tolerant, the most willing to constantly reassess and improve itself, and the best model for the future. Such arguments rely on a belief that American virtues such as liberty, democracy, and freedom of choice are what all people yearn to acquire and that to thwart the spread of these ideas whether through foreign policy or cultural imperialism would be tantamount to denying oppressed people the hope that they can achieve a better life. Also implicit in these arguments for American leadership in the new world order is a faith that the United States is a benevolent empire. As Michael Mandelbaum writes in a 2006 issue of Foreign Policy, In contrast with empires of the past..., theunitedstates does not control, or aspire to control, directly or indirectly, the politics and economics of other societies. Viewed under this perspective, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are conducted with the intent of stopping dictatorial regimes that aid terrorists and threaten not only U.S. interests but the interests of all people in the free world. America therefore must always stand up to global bullies or lose its rightful place as the defender of democracy and free markets. While critics may debate the pros and cons of America s influence on the global stage, there are some forecasters who claim that U.S. dominance is far from assured. The National Intelligence Council published a report in 2005 that predicts America will see its relative power erode in the coming decades. The report argues that rising Asia will continue to reshape globalisation, giving it less of a Made in the USA character and more of an Asian look and feel. This prediction rests greatly on China s booming economy, which is earning six dollars in exports to America for every one dollar China spends on U.S. imports. Other commentators suggest that globalization especially cultural globalization has never been very one-sided in the first place. In an issue of the International Economy, Philippe Legrain claims it is a myth that globalization involves the imposition of Americanized unifor- 16

5 mity, rather than an explosion of cultural exchange. To Legrain, globalized culture borrows what is universally appealing from a wide variety of regional sources. He also asserts that globalization is not a one-way street.... Foreigners are changing America even as they adopt its ways. As observers note, this cross-fertilization has been aided by the Internet and other telecommunications media, which have liberated people worldwide from the confines of geography. With these technologies in place, it becomes easier for individuals to sample from a variety of cultures so that all people including Americans become more broadly globalized instead of simply Americanized. The authors in Opposing Viewpoints: America s Global Influence address both the nation s hard-power and soft-power strategies in chapters titled: What Are the Aims and Impact of America s Foreign Policy Agenda? How Are U.S. Military Policies Affecting America s Global Influence? How Are American Economic Policies Affecting Trade and Foreign Aid? What Is the Global Impact of American Culture? Some of these authors view America s power as waxing, while others contend that it is waning, but all acknowledge that the nation has been exceptional in shaping world events, orchestrating global economies, and selling its image and perhaps its values to a mostly receptive world audience. 17