William F. Buckley Jr., no less than a revered epopt of the Republican Party and rabid supporter of this country's foreign policy, considers it completely Imperialist. I was at a lecture 12 or so years ago where he debated Richard D. Lamm on foreign policy issues. Lamm gave his overview, and Buckley approached the podium. I remember him opening with what (at the time) I thought was the most amazing thing I could ever hear a politician say - "America is an Imperialist power". He then used the 7 minutes of his opening to describe when and why Imperialism is a *very* good thing.
So the description of foreign-policy supporters is incorrect for some. One could assume especially for the American right-wing.
Sorry about the edit conflict.
Don't both critics and supporters of US foreign policy use the phrase Pax Americana? If so, it would be a neutral phrase, and the dispute would be between those who favor and those who oppose US policy.
Let's work together to expand this article. --Ed Poor
The edits I made today were intended only to clarify -- not to justify or criticize US policy. The challenge when writing on a controversial subject is to keep the article from endorsing any one side. --Ed Poor
- There is not going to be a Pax Americana. The reason is that the American people are not imperialists, do not imagine themselves imperialists and lack the ruthlessness to impose and maintain an empire. [1]
I get the impression that "Pax Americana" connotes more than "peace brought about by America" or "peace in the Americas". Is there a sense of "peace imposed at the expense of other countries' interestes for America's selfish interest"?
Rome is not generally seen as benevolent. The imperialism of Rome was intended primarily if not solely for its own benefit, not for the benefit of its colonies or for countries it forced to pay tribute. I wonder if the term Pax Americana is meant to imply that America has been imperialistic like Rome, at least to some degree. --Ed Poor
- "Ed Poor (Is America as selfish as Rome was?)" -- Well, I think if I got this question as a class assignment, I'd be hard pressed to come up with any good comparisons (i.e., given the huge differences between the politics and economies) to settle the matter. Also, I strongly suspect that a sense of responsibility to the "barbarians" ("Roman Man's Burden"?) was often a motive for Roman policies. ("All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?") Have a good one. :-)
Perhaps slighty off topic, but anyway: There is a statement in the atom bomb museum in Hiroshima protesting against the US foreign policy and the so-called Pax Americana. It finishes with the slogan "No annihalation without representation". Rather good, in my opinion --AdamW
In Anti-Imperialism in the United States, 1898-1935, Jim Zwick writes:
- Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the most heatedly debated question in dominant U.S. foreign policy circles has been whether the country should assume leadership in a "one-superpower world" or subordinate itself to the decisions of international organizations like the United Nations. [2]
Zwick also opposes the attitude expressed in Kipling's poem, The White Man's Burden.
But much of the criticism of "imperialism" begs (or ducks) the question of whether dominion of one group over another can ever be justified. Do anti-imperialists simply oppose all dominination on principle? If so, what principle? (I'm not arguing, I just want to know so we can mention it in the relevant articles.)
My own philosophy is that there do exist relationships in which it is proper for one party (the "subject") to exercise authority over another party (the "object") for the sake of the object. For example, parents restrain their children from dashing out into the street, lest they be hit by a car. Teachers require students to do homework and obey rules of deportment (e.g., no bullying other students). Generally, this kind of dominion is accepted, even praised or seen as an obligation.
Whether family or school relationships can be extended to relations between races or nations is problematic, though. There apparently exists a school of thought saying that no degree of self-perception as "advanced" or "benevolent" justifies the slightest degree of dominance over other peoples: "Just leave them alone!"
Is there any other contributor who feels this analysis has relevance to Pax Americana, White man's burden, or imperialism? --Ed Poor 14:21 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)