CHAPTER TWO: Perspectives on World History

Using the Perspectives

Scholars are constantly searching for historical patterns or trajectories, so it should come as no surprise that the emergence of U.S. hegemony has been accompanied by comparisons to empires of the past. But are these comparisons fair? Does the United States' power really constitute empire? In "History and the Hyperpower," an article that first appeared in Foreign Affairs in 2004, Eliot Cohen explores the differences and similarities between the Roman empire, the British empire, and the current state of American hegemony. In his analysis, he argues that the United States surpasses both Rome and Britain in terms of military strength, economic power, and the growth and spread of ideas. However, Cohen claims that the United States is not a true empire.

"Empires have dissolved, and they will not return. To talk about the United States as an empire is, from this point of view, to engage in useless and potentially dangerous anachronism, a temptation to hubris, overstretch, and disregard of the claims of the international community."

1.  Based on this statement alone, which perspective do you think that Cohen is writing from? Why?
     

But despite his argument that empires are a thing of the past, Cohen writes that it is important to pay attention to imperial history. By doing this, it is easy to predict the future course of action that the United States will likely take.

"The United States will not . . . bind itself to an international institution and legal order that will domesticate and restrain it . . . No U.S. leader in the next decade or two will call for a dramatic reduction in defense spending or deny that this country must be the strongest in the world, ready to exert its power and act unilaterally if necessary."

2.  According to this statement, the United States will be guided by the principle of which perspective? How do you know?
     

The comparison to empires of the past breaks down, argues Cohen, when one considers that colonialism is no longer accepted by the international community. Instead, as in the case of Iraq, the United States must facilitate self-rule in other nations to gain legitimacy.

"The troubles of Iraq following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein showed . . . the United States has neither the cadre of administrators nor the organizations necessary to establish order and begin establishing domestic institutions that will prevent a relapse into violence and disorder...Formal colonial rule has lost all legitimacy. . . "

3.  From which perspective does this critique come? Why?
     

4.  Do you think that the United States is an empire? Why or why not?
     

Eliot Cohen, "History and the Hyperpower," Foreign Affairs, July-August 2004