A friend and I were discussing the question of imperialism and he felt strongly that the US is an imperial power. For evidence he referenced an article by an obscure US academic, Laurence Vance. The article states:

The extent of the U.S. global empire is almost incalculable. The latest "Base Structure Report" of the Department of Defense states that the Department’s physical assets consist of "more than 600,000 individual buildings and structures, at more than 6,000 locations, on more than 30 million acres." The exact number of locations is then given as 6,702 – divided into large installations (115), medium installations (115), and small installations/locations (6,472). This classification can be deceiving, however, because installations are only classified as small if they have a Plant Replacement Value (PRV) of less than $800 million.

Although most of these locations are in the continental United States, 96 of them are in U.S. territories around the globe, and 702 of them are in foreign countries. But as Chalmers Johnson has documented, the figure of 702 foreign military installations is too low, for it does not include installations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan. Johnson estimates that an honest count would be closer to 1,000.

The number of countries that the United States has a presence in is staggering. According the U.S. Department of State’s list of "Independent States in the World," there are 192 countries in the world, all of which, except Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, have diplomatic relations with the United States. All of these countries except one (Vatican City) are members of the United Nations. According to the Department of Defense publication, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," the United States has troops in 135 countries.

The argument thus states that he United States not only exerts control through these bases and through its other foreign ventures (such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Vietnam, Korea, et al.) but also creates dependence through foreign aid, lending and culture (i.e. capitalism, democracy, pop culture etc..).

Questions for Debate:

1. Is the definition of exerting influence over another country too broad a definition of imperialism? Why or Why not?

2. Is the US Imperialistic based upon your definition?

3. Is foreign adoption of capitalistic economies, representative government and general US culture a rational choice or a result of coercive US hegemony?

1.
Goodness yes, it renders the term entirely without meaning. Every country works to exert influence. We call this foreign policy.

Say that the US is the most influential country in the world, I would agree, but an empire?

2.
Far from it.

An empire is a country which attempts exerts direct political control over other nations in a permanent fashion. Thankfully the US (and much of the world) has cut that out.

3.
I believe that adoption of capitalistic practices by the nations of the world is entirely rational, for many impoverished countries access to world markets is the only hope there people have of raising dismal living standards.

Questions for Debate:

1. Is the definition of exerting influence over another country too broad a definition of imperialism? Why or Why not?
Way too broad. As noted, "exerting influence" is what foreign policy is about.

2. Is the US Imperialistic based upon your definition?
No.

3. Is foreign adoption of capitalistic economies, representative government and general US culture a rational choice or a result of coercive US hegemony?
No country has adopted "general US culture", not even our closest neighbor Canada. Countries adopt elements of our culture for a wide variety of reasons, "coercion" being near the bottom, if not the bottom, of the list. It's clearly not a stretch to say that the US coerced Germany and Japan , but beyond that, it can be a stretch. It is also supportable to say that the sheer weight of American hegemony has the same effect as the presence of a supermagnet or a massive celestial body. It affects things, whether it wants to or not. The only way to stop it is to reduce the weight. Doing so may not be a good thing, to put it lightly...

Of course not. If this were so them most industrial nations would fit the bill.



No. Not at all. It is obvious that many of the bases we do have are for the protection of the country they are in – are very much ok with the country in question and do not give us political control of the country.



Ludicrous idea. Capitalism wins out because it works and provides wealth. US companies with manufacturing in other countries provide millions of jobs and billions of $$$ spent in those countries – a net benefit for both countries. This is no way fits the definition of “imperialism” although our Socialist and Communist rivals will disagree.