COMMENTARY
Has America become a world empire in denial?

By John Griffin

What role can — or should — Hawai'i play in the growing American world empire?

In his State of the Union address, President Bush emphasized U.S. power. Advertiser library photo • Jan. 22, 2003

Of course, the idea of having an empire is anathema to most Americans, who proudly see themselves as citizens of a country that won its independence fighting against colonialism. We often think we invented democracy, and that all will be well if the world follows our example.

President Bush told a November gathering of veterans that our country has "no territorial ambitions. We don't seek an empire. Our nation is committed to freedom for ourselves and for others."

But in his State of the Union address, he emphasized U.S. power, saying: "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others." That got a big ovation and seems to say something about our national outlook in a complex world.

The case for calling our world engagement an empire in denial was made last month in a New York Times magazine article by Michael Ignatieff of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. He wrote:

"Yet what word but 'empire' describes the awesome thing that America is becoming? It is the only nation that polices the world through five global military commands, maintains more than a million men and women at arms on four continents, deploys carrier battle groups to watch in every ocean, guarantees the survival of countries from Israel to South Korea, drives the wheels of global trade and commerce, and fills the hearts and minds of an entire planet with its dreams and desires. ...

"America's empire is not like the empires of the past, built on colonies, conquest and the white man's burden. ... The 21st-century imperium is a new invention in the annals of political science, an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever seen."

While many Americans may like this, or at least consider it necessary, Ignatieff notes that our power comes with price tags. One is a "distended military budget" that drains from crying needs at home and nonmilitary aid in the world. Another is threats to civil rights. It's dangerous to underestimate the task of playing world policeman.

Iraq is seen as the critical case in point, a defining moment in the American debate over whether our role in the world threatens or strengthens our existence as a republic. Ignatieff states, "Unseating an Arab government in Iraq while leaving the Palestinians to face Israeli tanks and gunships is a virtual guarantee of unending Islamic wrath against the United States."

His is a long article with many points that can't be covered in this limited space. To me, it is not anti-military and it is critical of naive right-wing isolationists as well as those who see "American imperialism" as the root of all evil.

It gets to a point driven home by the fate of Rome and others: Empires not only rise, they also eventually fall or fade away.

And that leads to an article by Stanford University scholar Donald Emmerson, passed along by Pacific Forum/CSIS, the Hawai'i think tank.

Emmerson wonders who or what will emerge to challenge or counterbalance U.S. global primacy.

He says that won't be done by the terrorist likes of al-Qaida; widespread Islamist rage; or by Iran, Iraq or North Korea, adding: "Nor is it likely that an epitaph to U.S. power is now being written in either Russian or Chinese."

One leading possibility is that the United States will wind up defeating itself, from the exhaustion of trying to do too much or by provoking cumulative reaction against us.

But his main point is this: "The consequences of democratization will pose the chief and most enduring challenges to U.S. primacy."

He notes that electoral democracies in the world have grown to record numbers. According to Freedom House, an international democracy advocacy organization, there are 121 electoral democracies today, up from 66 in 1987.

While that is good news, it doesn't automatically follow that all democracies will emulate us or lead. Europe on Iraq is a case in point about independence and differing views. South Korea's domestic situation provides another.

I find it a delicious irony — and certainly not bad — if America's power and hubris in the world are limited by a value we promote. You might call it a U.S. victory, although it may also be painful at times for our pride and positions.

So whither Hawai'i in all this?

Depending on your view, these islands were a victim or beneficiary — or both — of American imperialism in the late 19th century. When empires were most fashionable, Hawai'i was part of one in the Pacific that also included the Philippines, Guam and American Samoa.

But that is the old American empire. The question now is how we fit in the new one. I think it means living with our military might, questioning and protesting if it seems misused, and also promoting the positive and peaceful aspects of American values.

That's part of another column to follow.

John Griffin, former editor of The Advertiser's editorial pages, is a frequent contributor.