Free beta access. 50 free AI tokens each week. Optional top-ups available. See what is included
Opening Word document…

Neo-Imperialists Impose The US As a Model For The World, Justifying offensive militarism in the name of “national defense”

Peet ‘07 – (Richard Pete. Richard Peet is Professor of Geography at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, USA. He obtained his BSc (Econ) at the London School of Economics, his MA from the University of British Columbia, and his PhD at the University of California. He was the Editor of the radical geography journal, Antipode, from 1970 to 1985 and Co-Editor of Economic Geography between 1992 and 1998. His published books include: Radical Geography (Maaroufa Press, Chicago, 1977), Global Capitalism: Theories of Societal Development (Routledge, London 1991), Modern Geographical Thought (Blackwell, Oxford, 1998), (with Elaine Hartwick) Theories of Development (New York: Guilford 1999), (with Michael Watts) Liberation Ecologies (London: Routledge 1996 and 2004) and Unholy Trinity: The IMF, World Bank and WTO (Zed Books, 2003). Unholy Trinity has been translated into Spanish as La Maldita Trinidad and is being translated into Arabic and Korean. file:///C:/Users/Student/Downloads/Richard%20Peet%20-%20Geography%20of%20Power_%20Making%20Global%20Economic%20Policy-Zed%20Books%20(2007).pdf)JSR

The neocons are known for their aggressive geopolitics – especially the expansion of ‘democratic freedom’. In the neoconservative lexicon, ‘American exceptionalism’ is ‘a belief in the uniqueness and the virtue of the American political system that, when translated into foreign policy terms, offers the United States as a model for the world’ (Kaplan and Kristol 2003: 64). The ‘Americanness’ of this exceptionalism is rooted in US liberal democratic principles and its market economy. Rather than the blood-and-soil conservative nationalism of the first imperialism, this second generation of neoconservative neoimperialists has ‘faith in the universal idea of freedom’. The USA, they say, has the ability to defend those principles, and more generally has an obligation to defend the free world against competing ideologies. This Americanness stands in contrast not only to the communist world, but also to the rest of the free (capitalist) world that cannot or will not defend itself. Americans, they say, rightly think that the security and survival of the USA is synonymous with security and survival of freedom in the world. Peace and political liberty can be fostered not by international organizations, such as the UN, but by American power and American-led alliances. The neocon position was spelled out late in 2003 in a book called The War over Iraq by Lawrence F. Kaplan and William Kristol in terms of three principles of a Bush Doctrine: 1 Pre-emption. Pre-emption means striking first. In a world standing at the crossroads of radicalism and technology, the USA cannot rely on a reactive posture but must identify and destroy the threats posed by its enemies before they reach the country’s borders. More countries now possess weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them than in the past. Hence acts of ‘anticipatory self-defence’ are legitimate. 2 Regime change. The right to bring about by diplomatic or military means the demise of regimes with which the USA cannot peacefully exist – the ultimate aim being the spread of liberal democracy. 3 Pre-eminence. The USA must prevent potential adversaries from surpassing or equalling its power. American military power dwarfs that of any other nation, in its war-fighting capabilities and ability to quickly intervene in conflicts anywhere in the world. The USA, as the world’s sole superpower, commits itself to norms of international conduct – democracy, human rights, against aggression, against weapons proliferation – norms that successful challenges to American power would invariably weaken. Were the USA, through humility, self-abnegation or a narrow conception of the national interest, to retreat from the position that history has bequeathed, the turmoil that would soon follow would surely reach its own shores. A humane future requires an American foreign policy that is ‘unapologetic, idealistic, assertive and well funded. America must not only be the world’s policeman or its sheriff, it must be its beacon and guide’. (ibid.: 120–21) In general, the USA must promote a world order conducive to American interests and defend against any threat to that order. Iraq is a case in point. In his 2002 State of the Union address, George W. Bush, President of the United States, said that America’s goal was to prevent regimes that sponsored terror from threatening the USA or its allies with weapons of mass destruction – the cases being North Korea, Iran and Iraq. The President said: States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic … The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons … History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom’s fight. (Bush 2002)

Sign in to recut, update, or save this card.