I am not trying to be creative with the title of this reading response; this is the feeling that I am getting from the reading “The Empire of Liberty: American Ideology and Foreign Interventions.” The details of the elements that constitute American ideology, the ideology that has formed and continues to form the basis to foreign interventions, is convincing to me, and this surprises me as I have always felt negative of American expansionism.
While fear of impure American ideals led to isolationist behavior reflected in America’s reluctance in leading post war international organizations, American foreign policy has been expansionist throughout, without going beyond the unlimited limits of its ideology of “free markets, anti-communism, fear of state power and faith in technology.” I find the core ideas of American ideology and their inter-relation very interesting and rational specially if contextually measured. Americans believed in liberty, but to address anarchy and continue to have a sense of control, of course for those who “needed to be controlled”, their concept of liberty applied only to those in possession of private property and values such as education and science, those whom could be expected to act “rationally”. This is where I think emphasis on individual against collectiveness comes from; it is easier to trust and expect rational behavior from an individual than a collection of individuals. And since a collection of individuals are more threatening than an individual, state as a form of collective being could be dangerous if awarded with centralized power. While Marxist interpretation of capitalist expansionism is not very popular with Americans as the reading suggests, it is not very wrong either. How American cultural, political and social values could be expanded without the basic form of expansion, the economic expansion? The vehicle of American influence has been American products for economic and American ideas for the rest.
Initially, expansionist behavior was a response to the question of how could “a universal ideology end its applicability at the shores of North America?” Gradually however, there developed a sense of duty and political responsibility towards the “freedom and independence” of others and towards setting “wrong things right.” American military involvement in China was driven by the motive of “guiding” Chinese towards reform, a nation which lacked required talent and education.
American reaction to nationalist movements was driven by two complementing view points. While US considered nationalism a positive trend for as much as it led to “freedom and independence” of colonies, on the other it thought of it as dangerous when and where it could lead to anarchy and where it could be a parallel to fascism and communism; a view point which justifies why US supported democracies in parts of the world while simultaneously backing dictatorships in other. The collapse of tsar’s government was welcomed initially; however Americans did not like the replacement of Tsar with a communist government which offered a more advanced alternative to American model, the main reason that drove Cold War.
Ait Ahmed of Algeria and United States were on the same page as far as the nature of the relations of decolonized Third World countries with west was concerned in an era characterized by Cold War. Both were aware that the future of these relations will depend on the “conditions of their independence”; for Ait Ahmed US support for GPRA meant backing against France, for US it meant enhanced American responsibility towards the Third World and diminished European one.