Hosted by Dailymotion. For legal issues report at the Copyright Center, report us on DMC, or use the Instant Removal tool.
American Empire
Description
We need to restore our stature among other nations.
Question: Is America an empire today?
Peter Beinart: I think the larger principle . . . the reason that America was relatively successful in establishing its legitimacy -- certainly easy in comparison to the Soviet Union at the beginning of the Cold War -- was that America helped to forge a series of rules for how countries should behave in . . . in . . . in . . . in foreign policy that we not only expected other countries to comply by, but that we complied with ourselves. Those rules were not absolute. They didn't mean that every country had equal power; but there was a fundamental recognition that there were a set of rules in international affairs that we did not simply define ourselves; that other nations had a role in defining; and that if they constrain those other nations, they to some degree constrained us as well. That was what the building of the United Nations, the IMF what became the World Bank, what became the WTO, what NATO . . . what those things were all about. They were based . . . based on the principle at least -- even though America was by far the most powerful country in those institutions -- the principle at least that might did not make right; that there were principles that existed above and beyond the United States; that we had to try . . . sometimes modify our behavior to comply with. I think that the fundamental thing that has happened in the Bush era is the sense that other people in the rest of the world believed that while America still insists that other countries adhere to certain rules that we lay out, we no longer ourselves abide by those set of rules; and we no longer ourselves give other nations any role in defining the rules that, in fact, constrain us as well as them. And that although we keep on speaking about these rules as universal -- democracy, human rights, peace -- they don't seem universal to other nations because other nations are playing the role in defining them. To other nations it seems imperial. It seems as if America is simply saying democracy, and human rights, and peace and all these other nice things are simply whatever America decides it wants to do.
Recorded on: 9/12/07
Question: Is America an empire today?
Peter Beinart: I think the larger principle . . . the reason that America was relatively successful in establishing its legitimacy -- certainly easy in comparison to the Soviet Union at the beginning of the Cold War -- was that America helped to forge a series of rules for how countries should behave in . . . in . . . in . . . in foreign policy that we not only expected other countries to comply by, but that we complied with ourselves. Those rules were not absolute. They didn't mean that every country had equal power; but there was a fundamental recognition that there were a set of rules in international affairs that we did not simply define ourselves; that other nations had a role in defining; and that if they constrain those other nations, they to some degree constrained us as well. That was what the building of the United Nations, the IMF what became the World Bank, what became the WTO, what NATO . . . what those things were all about. They were based . . . based on the principle at least -- even though America was by far the most powerful country in those institutions -- the principle at least that might did not make right; that there were principles that existed above and beyond the United States; that we had to try . . . sometimes modify our behavior to comply with. I think that the fundamental thing that has happened in the Bush era is the sense that other people in the rest of the world believed that while America still insists that other countries adhere to certain rules that we lay out, we no longer ourselves abide by those set of rules; and we no longer ourselves give other nations any role in defining the rules that, in fact, constrain us as well as them. And that although we keep on speaking about these rules as universal -- democracy, human rights, peace -- they don't seem universal to other nations because other nations are playing the role in defining them. To other nations it seems imperial. It seems as if America is simply saying democracy, and human rights, and peace and all these other nice things are simply whatever America decides it wants to do.
Recorded on: 9/12/07
Question: Is America an empire today?
Peter Beinart: I think the larger principle . . . the reason that America was relatively successful in establishing its legitimacy -- certainly easy in comparison to the Soviet Union at the beginning of the Cold War -- was that America helped to forge a series of rules for how countries should behave in . . . in . . . in . . . in foreign policy that we not only expected other countries to comply by, but that we complied with ourselves. Those rules were not absolute. They didn't mean that every country had equal power; but there was a fundamental recognition that there were a set of rules in international affairs that we did not simply define ourselves; that other nations had a role in defining; and that if they constrain those other nations, they to some degree constrained us as well. That was what the building of the United Nations, the IMF what became the World Bank, what became the WTO, what NATO . . . what those things were all about. They were based . . . based on the principle at least -- even though America was by far the most powerful country in those institutions -- the principle at least that might did not make right; that there were principles that existed above and beyond the United States; that we had to try . . . sometimes modify our behavior to comply with. I think that the fundamental thing that has happened in the Bush era is the sense that other people in the rest of the world believed that while America still insists that other countries adhere to certain rules that we lay out, we no longer ourselves abide by those set of rules; and we no longer ourselves give other nations any role in defining the rules that, in fact, constrain us as well as them. And that although we keep on speaking about these rules as universal -- democracy, human rights, peace -- they don't seem universal to other nations because other nations are playing the role in defining them. To other nations it seems imperial. It seems as if America is simply saying democracy, and human rights, and peace and all these other nice things are simply whatever America decides it wants to do.
Recorded on: 9/12/07
Question: Is America an empire today?
Peter Beinart: I think the larger principle . . . the reason that America was relatively successful in establishing its legitimacy -- certainly easy in comparison to the Soviet Union at the beginning of the Cold War -- was that America helped to forge a series of rules for how countries should behave in . . . in . . . in . . . in foreign policy that we not only expected other countries to comply by, but that we complied with ourselves. Those rules were not absolute. They didn't mean that every country had equal power; but there was a fundamental recognition that there were a set of rules in international affairs that we did not simply define ourselves; that other nations had a role in defining; and that if they constrain those other nations, they to some degree constrained us as well. That was what the building of the United Nations, the IMF what became the World Bank, what became the WTO, what NATO . . . what those things were all about. They were based . . . based on the principle at least -- even though America was by far the most powerful country in those institutions -- the principle at least that might did not make right; that there were principles that existed above and beyond the United States; that we had to try . . . sometimes modify our behavior to comply with. I think that the fundamental thing that has happened in the Bush era is the sense that other people in the rest of the world believed that while America still insists that other countries adhere to certain rules that we lay out, we no longer ourselves abide by those set of rules; and we no longer ourselves give other nations any role in defining the rules that, in fact, constrain us as well as them. And that although we keep on speaking about these rules as universal -- democracy, human rights, peace -- they don't seem universal to other nations because other nations are playing the role in defining them. To other nations it seems imperial. It seems as if America is simply saying democracy, and human rights, and peace and all these other nice things are simply whatever America decides it wants to do.
Recorded on: 9/12/07
More from User
08:39
Is reality real? These neuroscientists don’t think so.
Big Think
06:37
Your reptilian brain, explained | Robert Sapolsky
Big Think
05:35
3 brain hacks to control your Amazon addiction (from a neuroscientist)
Big Think
06:36
Isolating carbon from human ashes to create diamonds
Big Think
05:28
What charity does to your brain
Big Think
05:49
How to trick your brain into saving money
Big Think
Related Videos
00:08
PDF Dilemmas of Domination: The Unmaking of the American Empire (American Empire Project)
Kasper Jeton
00:05
Book The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (American Empire Project) Read
Liogiawr
00:25
[PDF] Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam (American Empire Project) Full
Sebastaron
00:19
Kill Anything That Moves The Real American War in Vietnam (American Empire Project)
abdulsomad
47:27
Empire - The decline of the American empire
Al Jazeera English
03:53
The American - Violante Placido interview | Empire Magazine
EmpireMagazine