The American Empire is a force for good

The American Empire is a force for good

30 Oct 2003

There is no arguing with the fact that America is the global superpower of recent times - but does the 'American Empire' perform a vital role as the 'World's Policeman', or pursue an aggressively imperialist policy to protect its own interests? And does the 'American Empire' even exist? The panel discuss these issues amongst others in this debate about America's role in international affairs.

Arguing in favour of the motion are William Shawcross, Anne McElvoy and Bernard-Henri Levy. William Shawcross opens the case for the affirmative side by citing historical examples of why American interventionism is a good thing. Shawcross notes the fact that in the four years leading up to 2003, three dictatorships were toppled – Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Slobodan Miloševic in Yugoslavia, and the Taliban in Afghanistan – and it was America that was instrumental in these events. The American empire is a force for good – just ask the citizens of Iraq, who mostly welcome the American-led occupation of their country. Anne McElvoy begins by stating that she is a not a particular fan of America, but she refutes Charles Glass’ earlier assertion that the Iraq war can in any way be compared to atrocities committed in earlier American campaigns. McElvoy sees American foreign policy in the wake of 9/11 as a reasonable response – an attempt to prevent these events from happening again. She ends by noting that in the two World Wars and the Cold war, America was our greatest bulwark in the fight against the threats to liberal democracy – and she believes it still is. Bernard-Henri Levy defends the motion on three counts – firstly, that the perception America is conducting a war against Islamic civilisation is absurd; secondly, that the West, and in particular America, is held responsible for all the world’s ills to excuse the elites of developing nations; and thirdly, that America is resented and feared as a hugely successful new country.

Arguing against the motion are Charles Glass, Clyde Prestowitz, and Sir Samuel Brittan. Charles glass looks further back into American history, discussing the origins of American imperialism in the nineteenth century, and explaining how American foreign policy contradicts its own founding principles. He argues that America has always trampled over the rights of indigenous peoples – both in the settlement of North America, and more recently in the Middle East. Turning to more recent history Glass asks us to consider whether the people of countries such as Cambodia and Vietnam would think the American empire is a force for good. Clyde Prestowitz argues that America is fundamentally a good country, but one that doesn’t 'do empire' well. America’s origins, as a rebel colony of the British Empire, means that Americans are reluctant to see themselves as part of an empire. Therefore, when America does engage in imperialistic acts, it tries to rush them, and to do them on a shoestring budget, invariably leading to disaster. Prestowitz points to the Iraq war as an example of American intervention gone wrong, and suggests that things might have developed differently if the Allied forces had waited for the UN resolution before invading Iraq. Samuel Brittan begins by saying that if there was to be an empire, he would prefer that it was one run by Americans – but he is against empire all together. He believes that President Bush was right to assert America’s will to defend itself from external threats in the wake of 9/11, but criticizes the means by which America invaded Iraq.

First vote: 299 For, 253 Against, 60 Don't Know

Final Vote: 372 For, 264 Against, 18 Don't Know

Motion carried by 112 votes.

BUY THE DVD