In addition to the American Revolutionary War, the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 is another example that anti-imperialist rhetoric is actually a front for U.S. imperial projects.
The document used language that is seemingly anti-imperialist, and therefore seems to place the U.S. on the right side of history. The document opposes European colonialism in the Americas, stating opposition to “any interposition for the purpose of oppressing [governments who have declared their independence].”
Tellingly, the document states in the same sentence that such action by Europe would be seen “as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” Therefore, upon close reading, the document reveals not anti-imperial sentiment, but rather a sense of ownership over Latin America, which was then even referred to as “America’s backyard.” This demonstrates that the United States’ seemingly anti-imperialist tendency was actually a front for its own imperialist tendencies. This doctrine was used by subsequent presidential administrations to justify U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.
Similarly, during the Spanish-American war, the U.S. government used anti-colonial language to justify its actions against Spain. But once free from Spanish colonial rule, Cuba, the Philippines and Puerto Rico were not respected as sovereign nations. For example, the 1901 Platt Amendment stated different conditions that had to be met by the Cuban government in order for the U.S. to withdraw its troops. In the Philippines, president Emilio Aguinaldo was not recognized by the U.S. It took another war, this time against the United States, for the Philippines to become an independent nation. Even today, Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States. Puerto Rico, and other places like Guam and American Samoa, are called territories today to obscure the fact that they are colonies.
A common strain throughout American history is that the government's anti-imperial rhetoric and call for “justice and liberty for all” does not line up with its actions- as evidenced both in its nation building and its actions abroad. Ultimately, this is because what mainly drives U.S. policy is material benefit for the capitalist class- the rest is propaganda.
Through this lens, the smokescreen is cleared. The victors of the alleged revolutionary and progressive impulse of 1776 went on from there to crush indigenous nations, and then did something similar in Cuba, the Philippines, Guatemala, Vietnam, Iraq and throughout the world. American government's values are mainly the accumulation of profit- by, for, and of, the corporations. And so it becomes clear that there is nothing contradictory about the United States government’s values and the actions it takes domestically and internationally- then and now.
Kommentarer