American Imperialism

The rise of the Untied States in the 20th century as the world’s leading superpower is because they followed a foreign policy of imperialism, which furthered their economic expansion throughout the world. When studying imperialism many people think of imperialism as the well-known traditional British imperialism in Africa. However, William Appleman Williams argues in his book, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, that the U.S. formed a new type of imperialism in the 20th century, which was unique to that of traditional British imperialism. This new type of imperialism that U.S. used in the 20th century can be defined by Brian Crozier as neo-colonialism, which is that indirect control of a country through economic, diplomatic, or military mean
to dominate a foreign country. However, the argument of Williams stating that American foreign policy during the 20th century is wrong because Canada used similar neo-colonial foreign policy.
In this essay, I will argue against Williams idea of how U.S. foreign policy during the 20th century was unique because I will examine Canada’s foreign policy to that of the United States’ and compare how they used similar foreign policies of neo-colonialism through economic, diplomatic, and military means to further their economic expansion of the world. The similarities of Canadian and American neo-colonial foreign policy to further their economic expansion of the world can be seen through the Open Door Policy, military means in Latin America, missionary diplomacy to promote democracy, the Good Neighbour Policy, and containment policies. The first example of the United States’ foreign policy of neo-colonialism can be seen in the Spanish- American war of 1998. Williams argues that the Spanish-American war was fought to gain a foothold in the Pacific in order to preserve the Open Door Policy. John Hay created the Open Door Policy in 1899, which was designed to allow every country to have an equal trading basis with China and keep any country from dominating the Chinese sphere of influence. The Open Door Policy would be the cornerstone of American foreign policy for the next 50 years because it was important for America to secure and preserve access to China for economic
expansion. Williams argues that the Open Door Policy was an imperialist economic policy because when an advanced industrial nation plays a controlling one-sided role in the development of a weaker economy then the policy of the powerful country is described as imperial. The Open Doors policy is a neo-colonial foreign policy because the American government used a policy that dictated the way China traded in order to secure their economic expansion in China. However, the tactics of neo-colonialism were not unique to that of just America and can be seen in the foreign policy of Canada where they used similar economic policies to befit their economic expansion.
Canada has similar neo-colonial foreign policy to that of the U.S. because they have used economic policies like NAFTA in Mexico that is similar to the Open Door Policy in China. In Yves Engler’s book, The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy, he argues Canada entered free trade agreements because they wanted to establish strong investments in foreign countries like mining, natural resources, financial services, and agriculture. Chapter 11 in NAFTA limits a series of measures governments have traditionally used to protect local industry against dominant foreign competition such as rules technology transfer requirements, collaborating with local companies, and to treat the investors of another signatory country no less favourably then its own investors. The foreign policy of Chapter 11 in NAFTA is interesting because it shows how Canada is using economic policy to limit foreign competition from other countries so it can dominate countries like Mexico. Chapter 11 in NAFTA that states countries must treat investors of another signatory country no less favourably then its own investors, is an economic policy that guarantees Canada equal treatment of any country
it invests with. Chapter 11 is similar to the Open Door Policy in China that guaranteed equal access to China where no one country would dominate the sphere of influence. The example of Chapter 11 shows how Canada used similar foreign policy of neo-colonialism like the Open Doors Policy that the U.S. used to further its economic expansion of the world. The U.S. also used a neo-colonial foreign policy in Latin America by using military force to expand and protect their economic interests. The use of military force to stabilize economic interests is known as ‘hard power’, which is using military force as a way of imperialism. The U.S. used military force in Latin America to advance their interests and safeguard the millions of dollars they had invested there. In 1903, the U.S. took particular interests in Panama where they wanted to construct the Panama Canal that would allow America’s great white fleet access from the West to the East quicker then going around South America and strengthened their sphere of influence in Latin America. The U.S. offered the Columbians ten million dollars to build the Panama Canal, but the Columbians refused and said it was a violation of Columbian sovereignty. Roosevelt was furious with the Columbians refusal and he created a conspiracy against the Columbians where he supported the Panamanian revolution by sending marines to block the Columbians. The Panamanians gained independence from Columbia and granted the U.S. the right to build the Panama Canal. The U.S also had economic interests in Nicaragua and as the Mexican Revolution continued, the U.S feared that it would spread throughout Central America, so Coolidge sent in the marines in 1926 to protect their economic interests where they stayed for six years. The U.S also feared that if revolution broke out in Haiti then European countries, that invested large sums of money just like the United States, would intervene and disrupt U.S. investments, so the U.S. sent troops to Haiti to stabilize the country until 1934. The use of hard power shows how the U.S. used neo-colonialist foreign policy to expand and protect their markets, but was not unique as Williams claims because Canada used similar military intervention in Latin America. Canada used similar foreign policy of neo-colonialism to that of the U.S because they also used military means to expand and secure foreign markets in Latin America. In Todd Gordon’s book, Imperialist Canada, he argues that Canada uses neo-colonialism to exploit and expand its markets in Latin America for its abundant natural resources, cheap labour, and growing markets. When foreign policies did not work because Latin American countries would not cooperate, the Canadian government used military means to stabilize foreign markets. The example of using military means to secure economic expansion is when Canadian business elites and parliamentary forces supported a coup in 2004 that overthrew the popularly supported President of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, because Aristide was a political nuisance to the Canadian government and did not want to comply with their imperialist interests in the Caribbean. The coup of Aristide allowed better investment condition for Canadian mining and sweatshop manufacturing in Haiti, which guaranteed better economic and military presence in the country. The military intervention in Haiti was for economic interests just like when the U.S. intervened in Panama, Nicaragua, and Haiti. Another example of how Canada used military force to preserve its market interests was in Honduras in 2009, when the Honduran President Mel Zelaya was overthrown in a military coup. Zelaya sought to nationalize energy-generating plants and counter imperialist influence in the region, which was troubling for the Canadian government because they were one of the largest investors in Honduras with $600 million invested and if nationalization occurred they would lose all their profits. Canada used military intervention to support a coup in Honduras and put in place Porfirio Lobo that signed a free-trade agreement, which was expected to secure the greatest possible freedom, flexibility, and incentives for Canadian businesses that choose to invest in Honduras and to protect Canadian investments against disruptions. The military intervention in Haiti and Honduras shows how the Canadian government used similar neo-colonial foreign policies to that of America because they both used military intervention to stabilize and expand their economic interests.