America as an Empire?

I found another article, written by Jim Garrison, that deals with the question: Is America an empire? Here is the full article.

I think he has a convincing argument for why America is viewed by many as an empire. He says, "[America] used to represent freedom. Now it represents power." The level of power that America has attained is the basis for forming the American Empire. And just as Garrison stated, "The transition from republic to empire is irreversible, like the metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly. Once power is attained, it is not surrendered. It is only exercised."

Another argument supporting the idea that America is an empire is the fact that America has established military bases around the world. We keep these military bases in both times of war and in times of peace. Some of the military bases are unwanted, however, they remain there though the majority of people in some countries wish not to have the presence of US military bases.

I agree with Julie's comment that the definition of "empire" must change with time. We will never see another empire in the terms of the 18th century British Empire. Yet we conceive ourselves as an empire and we are quite different from the 18th century British Empire. This has much to due with America's military supremacy and our desire to influence other nations economically, socially, and politically.

Magic Carpet...

Ok, really there is no magic carpet, this picture is just an illusion...but seriously, I think some people would rather believe that their fancy new rug is magical than that a child may have knotted the rug on a heavy wooden loom, working from 4 in the morning until 11 at night.

I'm supposed to be responding to Evan about empire, but this article from The Globalist about "carpet children" in Nepal struck me (as we all knew it would) and I had to read it.

Because there were reports of children making up to 11% of the the work force in rug industry in India, a group called RUGMARK started to "rescue" children from there situations and leave the work to adults. At the same time, RUGMARK created a system of labelling the rugs that have been deemed "child-labor free," an easy way for consumers to know if their rug was compiled with children's fingers or adult's. The manufacturers of the product pay a small fee (0.25% of the product) to be inspected by RUGMARK and then once they join the program they pay 1.75 % to support schools and staff. According to this article, 65% of exported carpets have signed on to the program.

While RUGMARK could just be making money and lying about the actual situations in the looms, I think inspections (better if unannounced) would be good for any industry selling goods so that the exact conditions of their work environments could be assessed. At the same time, I appreciate "knowing" (used loosely, based on the ethics of the company inspecting) or at least worrying less about my contribution to child labor in other countries. If it were able to be controlled and cost-effective, I think labelling child-labor free items is a smart idea.

Van Halen, Not Van Hagar

As promised, here are the lyrics to the Van Halen song Panama.
Maybe they'll help you with your research Evan, but most likely not.

Uh!
Oh yeah!
Ah-huh!

Jump back, what's that sound?
Here she comes, full blast and top down
Hot shoe, burnin' down the avenue
Model citizen, zero discipline

Don't ya know she's coming home with me
You'll lose her in that turn
I'll get her!

Panama, Panama
Panama, Panama

Ain't nothin' like it, her shiny machine
Got the feel for the wheel, keep the movin' parts clean
Hot shoe, burnin' down the avenue
Got an on-ramp comin' through my bedroom

Don't you know she's coming home with me
You'll lose her in that turn
I'll get her
Uh-oh!i want sex


Panama, Panama. Wow!
Panama, Panama oh-oh-oh-oh
Woo!

(Guitar Solo)

Yeah, we're runnin' a little bit hot tonight
I can barely see the road from the heat comin' off
You know what I'm sayin'
Ahh, I reach down between my legs n' ease the seat back

She's runnin', I'm flyin'
Right behind in the rearview mirror now
Got the fearin', power steerin'
Pistons poppin', ain't no stoppin' now

Panama, Panama
Panama, Panama oh-oh-oh-oh
Panama, Panama oh-oh-oh-oh
Panama

See everyone this afternoon!
lyrics from sing365.com

America As a Modern Empire

One aspect of the definition of empire that seemed to continuously be involved was militaristic power. An empire must show that it not only has significant economic and political influence, but more importantly that it can support its policies with pure military force. In this aspect, America is most definetly an empire. We have continued to compel other nations to follow our democratic methods through threats of war and military intervention. From Vietnam and Iran to Cuba and more recently Iraq, U.S. forces have been sent in to (attempt to) force unruly leaders to follow our economic, political, or occasionally social standards. While America does not neccessarily 'take over' regions of the world as the Roman or British Empires, it still uses these same intimidation tactics of absolute military control of the world. The American empire is also unique in that it does not always feel the same obligations toward the regions in which it intervenes. The Roman and British Empires made considerable effort to 'develop and improve' the areas it ruled through the organization of political and social systems that ensure stability in a way that America never has. We remain in Iraq to help set up a democracy, but are quite obviously counting the days until we can make a quick and painless exit (much as a result of social pressure and financial struggle to support the war). I think that in order for the word empire to relate to contemporary world politics, it must change to fit the new version of empire that America has come to embody. In this every-developing version of empire, the ruling nation has unquestioned control over the economic and political policies of the current international system, and maintains such power through complete military control. Could this new empire have much to do with the effects of mass globalization?

Here is another article from Harvard Magazine discussing the modern American empire.

Is America an Empire?

I wish to propose that the class argue for or against their notion of the US as a modern day empire. I found the article that Julie and Max posted as an interesting way to see one viewpoint on the subject. Nonetheless, I think a debate in the blogosphere on our own opinions might prove interesting. I do not have enough time tonight to argue my case so the gauntlet falls to the floor to anyone willing to pick it up. Have a nice night.

European parliament groups reject plan for single patent court - Computer Business Review

There was an article today about a proposal that will be up for a vote by the European Parliament next month that would create a single court for issuing patents and resolving disputes. One of the concerns put forward by those who object to the proposal is that the new court might begin issuing patents on software. Ben-Atar was right in his assertion that intellectual property is purely a social/political construct, and that it can hardly be considered "self-evident." We are still struggling with issues of defining what can and can't be property. Much of the concern about the proposal stems from the loss of sovereignty to the single court, which is almost always an issue with supranational organizations.

Anti-American Bloc?

While perusing the NY Times Online, I came across an article that caused me to have sudden Cold War flashbacks (figuratively speaking of course, I wasn't alive then). The article discussed recent anti-American discussion at the UN by numerous third world countries. The leaders of Venezuela, Iran, and Syria all spoke out this week against the American control of the global economy. As the US faces charges of "racism, hypocrisy and imperialism," the third world may be aligning to address in a way that is reminiscent of the Nonaligned Movement that occured during the Cold War. However, the Nonaligned Movement was a attempt to separate national policy from American as well as Soviet influence, while the anti-American sentiments gaining strength in recent months seem to be directly critical of US policy imparticular. The attacks seem much more personal, attached to specific policies, statements, and interests of American political leaders. The obvious target, President Bush, was labeled racist by President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, claiming that "'Wherever [President Bush] looks, he sees extremists.'"
As globalization continues to place American foreign policy for open discussion, increased anti-American sentiment will undoubtedly occur. However, to what extent is the US government prepared to handle these attacks? Our increasingly connected world reveals the underpinnings of US foreign policy in a way that we have never been exposed before, and it seems as though we are not prepared for such a critique. As globalization continues, America must adapt to handle the pressures of censure and spotlight that accompany the interconnection of nations.

I got awarded 2 cows, and I still owe $2500!

Ok, so this is a little late, but I just found a really adorable 9/11 video on the New York Times webpage. If you check out the link, scroll down 3/4 of the way until you see the video screen and pick the 4th video, there's a small picture of a cow and an American flag.

Apparently, four years ago in rural Kenya, 14 prize cows were given to Americans to ease the pain of September 11th. This year, the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya went back to say thank you and to explain that the cows and their offspring are being used as a trust fund that will give educational scholarships for village children.

I'm not sure what educational scholarships have to do with 9/11, but I think it's really amazing to see people with hardly anything giving to others in the name of humanity, something we as a country haven't done in quite some time.

That word - humanity - implies that we have something within us that ties every human being together, be it anatomy or something deeper. I think globalization, while focused on economic gains, needs to also take into account the needs of other human beings. If people in Kenya can do it when we have one-time attack, why can't we do something about Darfur? Even something as small as giving 14 cows...

Wake up and smell the coffee...

Yesterday, I went to the Naro in Ghent and watched a really interesting documentary called "Black Gold". This documentary examined a negative development of globalization, the global- coffee trade and explained how multinational companies, as Starbucks, Kraft and Nestle for example, exploit coffee farmers in Ethopia, one of the poorest countries in the world and make coffee the most valuable trading commodity in the world after oil... The documentary also focused on an Ethopian initiative, a coorparative of thousands of common farmers, to sell their coffee as a fair trade-product and thereby improving their own situation by building a better infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc.) and changing their country's future...

The issue that was raised in the documentary strongly reminded me of Joseph E. Stiglitz's article "Global Discontents", in which Stiglitz argues that the distribution of the globalization's benefits, in the sense of global trade, is the biggest problem of globalization. The question he comes up with is, "How it has been managed?" and what we have to change in order to reduce poverty and creat a better environment...

One scene from the documentary gave some kind of answer to Stiglitz 's request, because by paying the farmer only a few Dirs more, the farmers could send their children to school and are even able to build a better infrastructure...

And we as the consumers can make the first step by being up to spending probably a little more for a fair trade-product ?!?