Imperio de la Libertad o República Imperial (1890 - 1939)?

De Baripedia

Trataremos el tema del lugar de la democracia en la política exterior estadounidense. La primera secuencia cronológica abarca desde los años 1890 hasta el final del período de entreguerras, la segunda desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial hasta finales de los años 1980 y la tercera desde la posguerra fría hasta nuestros días.

¿Por qué los años 1890 como límite de tiempo para el comienzo? Desde el punto de vista de la política exterior estadounidense y la proyección internacional, los años 1890 son cruciales porque es un período marcado por un proceso de expansión extremadamente importante. Esta expansión tiene un carácter original que es la proyección internacional de Estados Unidos, la política exterior de Estados Unidos y la política de poder de Estados Unidos. Esta originalidad se mantiene en varios puntos:

  • El hecho de que se caracteriza relativamente poco por conquistas territoriales;
  • Existe la idea de la expansión y difusión de la democracia estadounidense, es decir, un sistema político que Estados Unidos considera superior al de los demás, y su concepción de la democracia es una certeza de haber logrado una síntesis política perfecta a finales del siglo XVIII. Esta es la esencia de la política exterior estadounidense;
  • Existe el aspecto fundamental de conquistar mercados extranjeros. La dimensión económica está vinculada a la dimensión política.

Se trata del papel de la democracia en la política exterior estadounidense. No se trata en absoluto de adoptar una perspectiva geográfica, ni tampoco se trata de una perspectiva emancipatoria diciendo que el discurso sobre la democracia es una pantalla para ocultar la política imperialista estadounidense. Tienes que tomar las cosas literalmente. Es la cuestión del régimen democrático y su establecimiento internacional como objetivo histórico de la política exterior estadounidense. Está la cuestión de la democracia, cómo es, cómo funciona esta política exterior y cuáles son sus medidas. La idea es entender que la promoción de la democracia es un hilo conductor de la política exterior estadounidense y que la idea fundamental de promover la democracia es absolutamente inseparable de la promoción de los intereses nacionales estadounidenses. La difusión de la democracia es parte integrante de la política de seguridad que buscan los Estados Unidos, porque desde finales del siglo XVIII la idea ha sido que si promovemos la democracia, fortaleceremos la seguridad nacional, porque crearemos regímenes amigos. Existe una inseparabilidad entre la promoción de un tipo de sistema político y la promoción de los intereses estadounidenses.

Cuando miramos lo sucedido en el siglo XIX, después del fracaso de las revoluciones de 1848 y de la reacción conservadora en los años 1850 y 1860, la cuestión democrática se convirtió en un asunto nacional dentro de cada país. Lo interesante para los Estados Unidos es que la democracia vuelve a ser una cuestión internacional, y los Estados Unidos la ven como una cuestión ideológica en las relaciones internacionales. A partir de finales del siglo XIX se produjo un ascenso del poder norteamericano, y con la Revolución Rusa de 1917, el tema de la democracia fue arraigando poco a poco en el corazón de la política internacional. La Revolución Rusa es, en efecto, tanto el hecho de derrocar al régimen zarista como un desafío a la concepción europea de la democracia contra la que se enfrenta. Ya en 1917, uno de los principios rectores de la política exterior estadounidense fue proponer una respuesta. Ya existen dos sistemas cara a cara antes de la Guerra Fría de 1947.

Los comienzos del Imperio Americano

Los años 1890 fueron un momento fundacional extremadamente importante.

El imperialismo en debate

Scène à la signature de la Constitution des États-Unis, par Howard Chandler Christy. Ce tableau représente les 33 délégués qui signèrent la Constitution.

La cuestión del imperialismo se debatió en el seno de la clase política y la sociedad norteamericana a partir de la década de 1890, cuando se finalizó la unificación del territorio, y muchos se preguntaron si la frontera debía ser empujada más allá de los límites del continente americano. Hay un importante debate sobre si conquistar un imperio o detener la expansión territorial. Es un debate que ocupará desde finales de la década de 1880 hasta principios del siglo XX. Los proimperialistas y los antiimperialistas van a luchar entre sí. A finales del siglo XX, Estados Unidos era el único que aún no tenía imperio.

Los antiimperialistas plantean una serie de razones:

  • Argumento económico: hay que conquistar un imperio, mantenerlo, es caro. Estados Unidos como país rico no lo necesita;
  • Argumento político: si Estados Unidos comienza a conquistar un imperio, contradirá los principios fundadores de la democracia estadounidense y se hundirá en el imperialismo;
  • Argumento racista: si Estados Unidos conquistara un imperio colonial, provocaría migraciones, lo que diluiría la raza blanca como resultado de la migración tras la anexión. Un imperio colonial importaría toda una serie de otras "razas" que debilitarían a la raza blanca. Las elites estadounidenses desarrollan el discurso de WASP America en este momento histórico. Esta es una pregunta interesante en términos de historia transnacional. Hay una coincidencia cronológica entre el debate sobre el imperialismo en Estados Unidos y la aplicación de las leyes de segregación. En cierto modo, uno se pregunta si la introducción de la segregación ha frenado el imperialismo territorial?

Los imperialistas sostienen que Estados Unidos debe conquistar su imperio,"jugar" con las otras potencias europeas:

  • Argumento económico: las colonias son una garantía de riqueza económica, especialmente con los recursos naturales que pueden ser explotados, pero también son puntos de apoyo y enlaces a nuevos mercados. En un contexto en el que las empresas estadounidenses están creciendo y buscando nuevas oportunidades, el argumento económico se maneja de una manera importante;
  • Argumento estratégico: la conquista de colonias y contadores permite la construcción de bases navales. El poder militar puede ser medido por la marina, por lo que los puertos deben ser conquistados y su interior controlado;
  • Argumento racial: es la idea de que al establecer un proceso de colonización, traeremos la civilización y asumiremos la "carga del hombre blanco".

Es un debate que está ardiendo en la sociedad, particularmente en los medios de comunicación y círculos políticos, pero se cerrará cuando Estados Unidos empiece a construir un imperio. Habrá un proceso de conquista de un imperio a finales de la década de 1890, pero esto será relativamente más corto. Desde principios del siglo XX, los Estados Unidos bajo la presidencia del presidente Roosevelt teorizarán un nuevo tipo de expansionismo que no es la conquista.

La conquista de un imperio

Desde el momento en que Estados Unidos está unificado, algunos consideran que es necesario extender el territorio norteamericano y emprender una política imperialista en el sentido de construir un imperio, extendiendo la dominación más allá de sus fronteras y no necesariamente en el sentido territorial, ya que este imperialismo es un imperialismo no territorialista.

La pregunta es si el imperialismo norteamericano es un accidente. El gobierno estadounidense puede haber presionado y aceptado situaciones de facto, pero el proceso de expansión estadounidense no es accidental, sino que es el resultado de un proceso.

Finalmente, el proceso de expansión comenzó en la década de 1870 y continuó hasta la década de 1890. Si tomamos el caso del archipiélago de Samoa, comienza con un simple puesto comercial en 1872. El Pacífico es un área enorme donde las enemistades imperialistas son fuertes. A lo largo de esta zona se producen enfrentamientos importantes entre franceses, ingleses y holandeses por la posesión de estos puestos comerciales y lugares de recursos naturales. A partir de finales de la década de 1870 en adelante, los Estados Unidos comenzaron a negociar, discutir con los ingleses, alemanes y franceses sobre la región del Pacífico y en particular con los alemanes e ingleses que en los años 1880 y 1890 vieron el establecimiento de un condominio hasta que la parte oriental del archipiélago fue anexionada por los Estados Unidos en 1899. Para las Islas Hawaii, el mismo proceso tuvo lugar que era un simple puesto comercial, en 1875 los Estados Unidos establecieron una base en Pearl Harbour hasta que se estableció la anexión en agosto de 1898. El equilibrio de poder es extremadamente desequilibrado. El proceso de apropiación se realiza a lo largo de quince años. Para Hawaii, es una isla estratégica y está fuera de discusión dejar que los competidores se instalen allí.

El punto de inflexión principal en el establecimiento del imperio colonial fue la guerra contra España en 1898, que dio lugar a un cambio en la soberanía de Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam y Filipinas. Las Filipinas fueron tomadas primero de España, pero una rebelión resultó en una guerra entre 1899 y 1902 que permitió a los Estados Unidos establecerse permanentemente hasta la década de 1930. Al mismo tiempo, la región panameña, que formó parte de la Gran Colombia, experimentará una rebelión en 1903 contra el gobierno colombiano apoyado por Estados Unidos, que garantizará la independencia de Panamá a cambio de una fuerte presencia estadounidense.

Mientras estamos debatiendo si necesitamos o no un imperio colonial, a finales de la década de 1890, de hecho, existe un pequeño imperio colonial. En la década de 1890, la colonización se convirtió en un asunto político.

¿Imperio de la libertad?

Soldats américains en mouvement près de Manille, 1899.

¿Cuáles son las características de este imperio, cuál es su originalidad? Plantea la cuestión del Imperio de la Libertad de Jefferson. Estados Unidos promovería otro tipo de imperialismo. Cuando miramos la práctica del imperialismo, por un lado, Estados Unidos conquistó un imperio como cualquier otra potencia colonial a través de la conquista militar. Las guerras coloniales americanas son tan violentas como las guerras coloniales europeas, que tienen lugar con el mismo prejuicio racial en un contexto de segregación. La coincidencia de estos dos elementos es significativa. Si tomamos el caso de la guerra filipina en 1899 - 1902, es un conflicto colonial a la carta del término con 200.000 soldados estadounidenses en el sitio con la dimensión racial extremadamente presente.

Por último, los Estados Unidos van a hacer otra cosa con bastante rapidez, empezando por anexar los territorios antes mencionados, y muy rápidamente van a encontrar soluciones jurídicas diferentes porque hay problemas con la anexión. Anexar un territorio significa integrarlos en los Estados Unidos y hacer que los colonos ciudadanos americanos, y porque son de razas inferiores, inmigrarán y contribuirán a la disminución y debilitamiento de la raza blanca. Estados Unidos ha encontrado una forma diferente de colonizar y hacer que su imperialismo viva con un florecimiento de estatutos legales que encontrarán estatutos para anexar sin anexar.

Page une de l'amendement Platt.

Por ejemplo, Guam y Puerto Rico se anexan inicialmente, pero cambiaremos nuestro estatus inventando estatutos específicos. Con la Ley Foraker de 1900, Puerto Rico ya no se anexionó, sino que se convirtió en un "Territorio no incorporado", es decir, era un territorio donde la ciudadanía estadounidense se extendía a los ciudadanos puertorriqueños, pero no podían aprovecharse de ella. A Puerto Rico se le concedió la ciudadanía en 1917 sin dar a los ciudadanos puertorriqueños el derecho a elegir al presidente estadounidense. Desde 1900 ha sido un territorio con estatus de territorio no incorporado, con ciudadanía limitada. Hoy, Puerto Rico sigue siendo un estado libre asociado con un status especial. Lo mismo ocurrirá con Guam, que se convertirá en un territorio no incorporado, Cuba y Filipinas se anexionarán en primer lugar y luego se convertirán en protectorados. En Panamá, habrá un status de "soberanía titular" establecido por los Estados Unidos en el área del territorio a lo largo del canal. Panamá es un territorio independiente garantizado por los Estados Unidos, pero en la zona del canal, los Estados Unidos tienen plena soberanía. Precisamente, cuando hablamos del Imperio de la Libertad, desde el momento en que Estados Unidos se establezca en los distintos territorios, habrá una presencia física y económica, pero también la voluntad de remodelar el paisaje político local con las primeras experiencias de "construcción de la nación". Podemos ver en particular en Cuba, con la enmienda Platt de 1901 y en Filipinas, donde los norteamericanos intentarán reproducir in situ el modelo americano reformando las instituciones políticas con la abolición total de la legislación española y el establecimiento de un sistema político basado en su modelo con un régimen bicameral, un sistema federal, un Tribunal Supremo, un código civil, un sistema electivo censal, universidades y escuelas de derecho para formar escuelas de derecho civil. Es la idea de crear una democracia al estilo americano desde cero en estos territorios, especialmente con la americanización del sistema político filipino.

William Howard Taft en 1909.

El primer gobernador de las Filipinas americanas es William H. Taft, que se convertirá en presidente de los Estados Unidos, preguntándonos sobre la dimensión transnacional porque las cosas se viven en los imperios coloniales antes incluso de que se apliquen en los Estados Unidos. Las colonias pueden ser un laboratorio político para los Estados Unidos. En la empresa de la colonización, existe la voluntad de crear regímenes democráticos como los Estados Unidos, característicos de la política estadounidense, algo que no existe en absoluto en la empresa colonial europea.

El Corolario Roosevelt

The letter in which Roosevelt first used his now famous phrase
William Allen Rogers's 1904 cartoon recreates an episode in Gulliver's Travels

Por mucho que la Doctrina Monroe fuera una declaración de intención de separar radicalmente los asuntos latinoamericanos de los asuntos europeos, que hizo que el corolario de Roosevelt en 1904 a la Doctrina Monroe fuera que Roosevelt cuyo lema es "habla suavemente y lleva un gran palo, irás lejos", se reserva el derecho de intervenir en América Latina.

La doctrina Monroe ha pasado de una etapa en la que existe una separación radical de los asuntos europeos a principios del siglo XX, en la que los Estados Unidos teorizarán su derecho a intervenir en estos ámbitos desde el momento en que se vean amenazados sus intereses económicos y políticos. En ese momento, América Latina y Central y luego América del Sur se convirtieron en un patio trasero de EE. UU. con intervenciones en Panamá en 1903, en Cuba en 1906, particularmente en 1906, que estaba experimentando disturbios, y en Santo Domingo entre 1905 y 1941, que iba a sufrir un protectorado después de los disturbios políticos y los problemas económicos. En el caso de Santo Domingo, podemos ver cómo también se está llevando a cabo esta instalación para expulsar potencias europeas de estas regiones. La isla de Santo Domingo estaba extremadamente en deuda con Francia, Gran Bretaña y Alemania y Estados Unidos tomará el control de las aduanas y el comercio dominicano. No hay control político, pero los sectores estratégicos son tomados por los norteamericanos, quienes establecen un protectorado un poco diferente a Cuba. El control de la isla está en manos americanas. El protectorado de Santo Domingo y en casi todos los demás no está establecido por un "tratado", sino por un "acuerdo ejecutivo" que permite al presidente anular la aprobación del Senado. Podemos ver cómo la política imperialista liderada por los Estados Unidos en aquel momento se llevó a cabo en el marco de una oposición bastante fuerte entre el Presidente y el Congreso y los acuerdos de protectorado formaban parte de la afirmación de la prerrogativa presidencial en relación con el Senado, que a menudo se encuentra en posiciones más maltusianas desde el punto de vista de la expansión territorial.

El Corolario Roosevelt es un tiempo en que los Estados Unidos teorizan su derecho a intervenir fuera del territorio estadounidense, particularmente en América Latina y Centroamérica. Esto es tanto la formación de un imperio propiamente dicho, porque los Estados Unidos están conquistando un imperio de manera similar a los europeos, pero al mismo tiempo hay una construcción legal que se está poniendo en marcha. Por último, es un tipo de dominación diferente en la medida en que la presencia es menos fuerte, se basa en contratos aunque sea forzada y con la voluntad de importar regímenes democráticos, lo que no es culpa de los colonizadores europeos.

El nacimiento del imperialismo moral

Vamos a explorar la originalidad del proceso de expansión puesto en marcha. El nacimiento del "imperialismo moral" es una señal de la originalidad del proceso imperialista estadounidense.

El derecho internacional y la misión civilizadora

Un aspecto que es importante entender para comprender la especificidad de la expansión estadounidense es el papel del derecho inseparable de la certeza de la misión civilizadora de los Estados Unidos. A finales del siglo XIX, el movimiento de Arbitraje Internacional se desarrolló tanto en Estados Unidos como en Europa. Existe todo un movimiento que es un movimiento del movimiento pacifista que considera que las relaciones internacionales deben estar reguladas por ley, por contrato y no por la fuerza y la guerra. Habrá muchas organizaciones que se involucrarán en la implementación del derecho internacional que no existe. La ley se construye históricamente sobre una base nacional.

Con la idea de que las relaciones internacionales deberían estar reguladas por el derecho, a partir de finales del siglo XIX se crearon toda una serie de organizaciones, como la Conferencia de Arbitraje Internacional del Lago Mohonk en 1895, la American Society for Judicial Settlement of International Disputes y la Carnegie Endowment for International Peace en 1910, que fue un grupo de reflexión y al mismo tiempo promovió la investigación sobre el derecho internacional. Estas organizaciones son lideradas por abogados y juristas, muchos de los cuales seguirán carreras políticas como Taft, quien fundó la Sociedad Americana para el Arreglo Judicial de Disputas Internacionales y se convirtió en presidente de los Estados Unidos.

Son organizaciones en la encrucijada entre lo privado y lo público, con y una profusión de organizaciones que trabajarán en lo que es el derecho internacional, que teorizarán el derecho internacional y la posición de Estados Unidos en la escena internacional basada no sólo en la base militar, sino también en el derecho. Existe la idea de que los Estados Unidos deben imponerse a la escena internacional de otra manera que no sea la fuerza militar.

Precisamente, cuando miramos la estructuración de la línea política estadounidense en este momento, vemos que hay muchos abogados, son los abogados los que hacen que las carreras políticas lleguen a un nivel muy alto, ya sea en el lado republicano o demócrata. Una gran parte de los tenores políticos de finales del siglo XIX y principios del XX se encuentran en posiciones clave en el aparato estatal.

La casa de los republicanos:

  • Elihu Root, Secretary of State 1905 - 1909
  • William H. Taft, President of the US 1909 - 1913
  • Frank Kellog, Secretary of State 1925 - 1929
  • Henry Stimson, Secretary of State 1929 - 1933

Demócratas:

  • Woodrow Wilson, President 1913 - 1921
  • William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State 1913 - 1915
  • Robert Lansing, Secretary of State 1915 - 1920
  • Brainbridge Colby, Secretary of State 1920 - 1921

Son personas cuyo trabajo como juristas internacionales es inseparable de su actividad en el sistema político estadounidense. Vemos cómo el establecimiento del derecho internacional forma parte de una estrategia de los Estados Unidos. Los Estados Unidos desempeñarán un papel importante en el establecimiento de un derecho internacional cuyas normas se correspondan lo más estrechamente posible con las de los Estados Unidos. La ley es una parte importante de la estrategia de Estados Unidos.

Woodrow Wilson: Un personaje complejo

Hay una bisagra cronológica vinculada a una figura importante de la política estadounidense en la afirmación del imperialismo moral que es el período de las dos presidencias de Wilson de 1912 a 1920. Wilson es una persona crucial en la afirmación del imperialismo moral. Sintetiza toda una serie de elementos que se manifiestan muy claramente desde 1910 en adelante en la estrategia expansionista estadounidense. El imperialismo moral, que es la especificidad del expansionismo estadounidense con varias características, se ve como maduro:

  • la fuerza del derecho y la democracia: esta es la idea de que el derecho y la democracia deben ser principios fundadores y principios de organización de las relaciones internacionales. En la concepción y el discurso, la fuerza del derecho debe ser uno de los principales aspectos del surgimiento de nuevas relaciones internacionales;
  • Divina providencia: hay una dimensión religiosa a la misión de los Estados Unidos en el sentido divino con el discurso del Manifiesto del Destino;
  • La superioridad del modelo americano: es la certeza de la superioridad del modelo americano;
  • Una visión global: es un imperialismo mundial, porque las potencias europeas tienen visiones en términos de bloque, mientras que los Estados Unidos pensarán en un mundo a escala global.
Le président Wilson demandant au Congrès de déclarer la guerre à l'Allemagne, le 2 avril 1917.

El imperialismo moral y el ascenso de Estados Unidos a la escena internacional es inseparable del ascenso de Wilson al poder y, a través de él, de la figura presidencial del sistema político estadounidense. La perspectiva transnacional es muy importante porque muestra cómo los aspectos externos interactúan con los internos. El Senado y el Congreso en general están siempre en una línea menos expansionista que el Presidente. Los períodos de expansión a menudo corresponden a las declaraciones de la oficina presidencial. Hay una conexión importante entre la apariencia interior y exterior. La presidencia de Wilson es una bisagra importante en este proceso.

En las relaciones internacionales, Wilson se limitaba a menudo a la Primera Guerra Mundial y a los Catorce Puntos. Concretamente, el imperialismo moral cristaliza en este momento porque existe la Primera Guerra Mundial, pero también toda una serie de revoluciones en Rusia, China y México. Estas revoluciones se llevan a cabo en forma de desafío a la democracia europea. El imperialismo moral Wilsoniano es una respuesta a estas revoluciones con la promoción de la democracia estadounidense en todo el mundo. En el imperialismo moral, existe la idea de una respuesta a estas diferentes revoluciones. Los Catorce Puntos de Wilson es ante todo una respuesta a las diferentes revoluciones, pero sobre todo una respuesta a las convicciones íntimas de Lenin.

Wilson es un personaje complejo porque existe la paradoja de un personaje que es el canto de la democracia teorizando a la democracia como una solución global para conducir las relaciones internacionales a una nueva era, especialmente con el derecho internacional, pero no duda en usar la fuerza en América Latina cuando cree que es necesario en el momento mismo en que teoriza la Sociedad de Naciones. La presidencia de Wilson es un momento absolutamente importante en la cristalización del imperialismo "al estilo estadounidense", que es un imperialismo de libertad, un imperialismo no territorial, un imperialismo moral.

América Latina: Laboratorio de Diplomacia Wilsoniana

Es la idea de ver a Wilson desde una perspectiva global. Antes de ver a Wilson en Europa, tenemos que verlo en América Latina. El laboratorio de la política exterior de Wilson es América Latina. La idea de que la democracia debe imponerse por sí sola sin intervención militar se cuestiona de hecho. Es una tesis imposible entre la idea de que los países son democráticos y que el orden debe prevalecer en el interior. Tenemos que "enseñar a los sudamericanos cómo elegir buenos líderes", Wilson no dudará en intervenir:

Carte-amerique-centrale-1024x769.png
  • Nicaragua, 1912 - 1925,1926 - 1934
  • México, 1914
  • Haití, 1915 - 1934
  • República Dominicana, 1916-1925
  • Cuba, 1917
  • Panamá, 1918

Vemos cómo en toda esta parte de América Latina, la política Wilsoniana manejará tanto la retórica de la democratización como la intervención militar con el pretexto. Wilson se sitúa en este punto de vista en la continuidad del corolario Roosevelt. Desde el punto de vista de las concepciones de la política exterior, los demócratas eran muy aislacionistas y Wilson es el primer presidente demócrata en afirmar puntos de vista expansionistas en la línea de los presidentes estadounidenses y en particular Theodore Roosevelt. América Latina es el laboratorio de la diplomacia Wilsoniana.

La Primera Guerra Mundial y la Globalización del Proyecto Wilsonian

La Primera Guerra Mundial fue un momento importante para la globalización del proyecto Wilsoniano. Hasta 1917, la política de Wilson se limitaba al continente americano, pero la Primera Guerra Mundial vio a Estados Unidos entrar en el escenario mundial. Inicialmente, Estados Unidos era neutral, pero después de un cambio de opinión, se involucró en el conflicto de 1917-1918 que llevó a los catorce puntos.

Los Catorce Puntos son la respuesta a la Revolución Rusa que denuncia el imperialismo de las potencias europeas. A través de estos catorce puntos, Wilson afirma el papel de Estados Unidos en la arena internacional. El discurso de los Catorce Puntos se pronunció el 8 de enero de 1918, fecha aniversario del primer discurso de George Washington a la nación estadounidense, que fue el precursor del discurso del Estado de la Unión, excepto que estaba destinado al Congreso. Es un símbolo de la misión global de Estados Unidos. Es una afirmación del papel de Estados Unidos en las relaciones internacionales. Esto proporciona un nuevo marco para las relaciones internacionales con el establecimiento del derecho internacional como marco normal. A través de la idea de una respuesta a la Revolución Rusa, surge una oposición entre un modelo estadounidense y un modelo soviético.

Wilson sugiere a través de los catorce puntos:

  • Fin de la diplomacia secreta: voluntad de poner fin a la diplomacia secreta que se considera entre los responsables de la declaración de la Primera Guerra Mundial;
  • El día de la conquista y ampliación ha pasado ": Wilson promueve la paz sin anexión territorial;

derecho de los pueblos al autogobierno: para aquellos que son capaces de autogobierno;

  • Desarme global;
  • creación de la Sociedad de Naciones.

Podemos ver claramente cómo, por un lado, estaba la vieja concepción w Wilsoniana y por otro lado, las concepciones leninistas que promueven dos sistemas políticos contradictorios, a saber, la extensión de los principios de la democracia estadounidense al mundo entero y la revolución proletaria mundial y la emancipación de los pueblos dominados.

En la conferencia de paz de 1919, Wilson impuso su agenda, pero no estaba familiarizado con la situación europea. Esta falta de conocimiento de la situación europea lo aísla. Desde este punto de vista, Wilson no impondrá sus soluciones, sino que lo que le interesa es la imagen global de una sociedad que opera sobre los principios del derecho con la Sociedad de Naciones. Se negará a discutir los detalles de las situaciones y aceptará la creación del sistema de mandatos.

El período de entreguerras: ¿el fin del mesianismo democrático?

Entre las dos guerras mundiales, el mesianismo democrático fue revisado a la baja. En primer lugar, porque el Tratado de Versalles, que debía firmar el triunfo del derecho de los pueblos a la libre determinación, no es así. La aceptación del sistema de mandatos es percibida como un revés para Wilson por los países colonizados. Por eso parte de los movimientos independentistas se dirigirán hacia el lado soviético, que le afirma inequívocamente el derecho de los pueblos a la autodeterminación, mientras que Wilson se ve constreñido por su compañerismo con las potencias europeas. A los ojos de los partidos independentistas, la URSS se está volviendo más creíble que el modelo estadounidense.

La decepción de la recesión americana se confirmó en los años treinta, cuando la situación política empeoró en Europa. Estados Unidos entró en un sistema político aislacionista entre 1935 y 1939 con las tres leyes de neutralidad que desvincularon a Estados Unidos de los asuntos europeos. La primera ley de neutralidad fue la Ley de Neutralidad en 1935, cuando Italia invadió Libia, luego fue renovada en 1936 con la Guerra Española, en 1937 se aprobó la Ley de Efectivo y Carga, que obligó a los Estados Unidos a no vender armas a un país devastado por la guerra a menos que pagara en efectivo y viniera a recogerlas.

El retiro del mesianismo democrático es un retiro relativo. Durante el período de entreguerras fue un retiro completo. Sin embargo, el wilsonismo sobrevivió entre los actores no gubernamentales y, en particular, en el marco de fundaciones privadas como la Liga de Naciones fundada en 1922, fundaciones filantrópicas como las fundaciones Rockefeller y Carnegie, o a través de sindicatos como AFL-CIO y Samuel Gompers en la OIT.

La Segunda Guerra Mundial

La Segunda Guerra Mundial fue un punto de inflexión importante en el mundo y la historia estadounidense, ya que la Segunda Guerra Mundial continuó el proceso de participación de Estados Unidos en los asuntos internacionales que había comenzado durante la Primera Guerra Mundial, que se puso en espera en el período de entreguerras. A partir de la Segunda Guerra Mundial podemos hablar del compromiso irreversible de los Estados Unidos con los asuntos internacionales.

Hay una paradoja en el corazón de la política estadounidense que afirma los principios democráticos universales con la idea de aplicar al mundo entero lo que ha sucedido a la nación americana, por otra parte, la tentación de una política de poder basada en estos principios. Existe un equilibrio en la política estadounidense entre la afirmación de estos principios y prácticas. Lo importante es considerar que no hay uno u otro, sino ambos al mismo tiempo.

Veremos la cuestión de difundir el modelo estadounidense con la importancia de la construcción de la democracia en la política exterior estadounidense. Es una política con resultados extremadamente desiguales.

Entrar en la guerra

Mientras los Estados Unidos se involucran en la guerra, recuperamos un cierto número de temas. La entrada de los Estados Unidos en la guerra no es un fenómeno automático en la medida en que es objeto de discusiones y negociaciones dentro de la maquinaria del Estado y la maquinaria administrativa estadounidenses y, en particular, entre el Presidente y su administración, y más precisamente entre el Presidente y el Departamento de Guerra. En tiempos de crisis, el presidente es a menudo más intervencionista que su administración y, además, los períodos de crisis son tiempos en que el poder presidencial se impone sobre el Congreso. El estallido de la Segunda Guerra Mundial no escapó a la regla, hubo un conflicto entre Roosevelt y su administración, que se convirtió en la ventaja de Roosevelt. Estados Unidos va a entrar en guerra después de un proceso bastante largo.

A partir de 1937, hubo una serie de factores que llevaron a la opinión pública estadounidense, a la clase política estadounidense y al Presidente a dar un giro gradual y a estar a favor de la intervención junto con las potencias europeas. El año 1937 fue el año en que estalló la Segunda Guerra Mundial tras la invasión japonesa de China, que fue la afirmación de las claras ambiciones japonesas.

Hitler et ses officiers, avec la Tour Eiffel en arrière-plan.

1938 es importante porque en Europa hay persecuciones antisemitas, especialmente en Alemania son actos de violencia sin precedentes con la Noche de Cristal en particular. La inmigración judía se volvió importante, trayendo a la atención de la opinión pública estadounidense la realidad del régimen nazi. En septiembre de 1939 estalló la guerra con la invasión de Polonia.

Como en 1914, en 1939, surge la pregunta de si los Estados Unidos deberían permanecer neutrales. Esto da a Roosevelt y a su Senado un gran debate. Se trata de saber si los Estados Unidos deben o no declararse a favor de las democracias europeas. Hay un tiempo entero cuando estamos esperando. Lo que realmente lanzará la máquina del compromiso americano es la invasión de Francia y la caída de Francia.

La caída de Francia en mayo de 1940 es simbólicamente importante, porque es una de las naciones que ganó la Primera Guerra Mundial, supuestamente el primer año del mundo. Este es un verdadero trauma para los franceses, pero también para Roosevelt, ya que la opinión estadounidense y Roosevelt, entre otros, entienden que Francia ya no es una gran potencia. Esto desempeñará un papel importante en la voluntad de Roosevelt de comprometerse con las democracias contra el nazismo.

A partir de 1940, se creó una máquina aunque la declaración de guerra no figurara en el orden del día. Hay un proceso de preparación en particular con la organización del servicio militar obligatorio en septiembre de 1940. Sobre todo, la Ley de Préstamos y Préstamos de 1941, que es una ley que revoca la Ley de Efectivo y Carga de 1937, es una ley que permite a Estados Unidos vender o prestar cualquier posible equipo que las democracias puedan necesitar. Esto es particularmente cierto en Gran Bretaña en marzo de 1941, ya que es prácticamente el único país fuera de la dominación nazi de Europa. Es una forma de contribuir al esfuerzo bélico europeo sin ir a la guerra.

La entrada en la guerra es progresiva, no tiene nada mecánico y se produce a través de una serie de gradaciones desde finales de los años treinta hasta 1941.

Las Cuatro Libertades

El contexto intelectual y la justificación de la entrada en guerra es importante en la medida en que Roosevelt comprometerá a los Estados Unidos en la guerra, lo hace en nombre de una serie de principios en particular la defensa de la democracia contra el totalitarismo que se convertirá en un hilo conductor de su discurso. Este discurso se pronunció ya en diciembre de 1940, cuando los Estados Unidos entraron gradualmente en la organización de una economía de guerra, aunque todavía no estaba allí. Esta es la primera vez que Roosevelt anuncia que Estados Unidos debe ser el "arsenal de las democracias", es decir, poner su aparato industrial al servicio de la lucha contra el nazismo, aunque no haya ido a la guerra. También es una forma de preparar a la opinión pública para lo que un día podría ser la entrada de Estados Unidos en la guerra.

El 6 de enero de 1941 es la fecha del discurso sobre el Estado de la Unión, que es un ejercicio de balance para saber dónde se encuentra la Unión a principios de cada año. Sin embargo, el 6 de enero de 1941, Roosevelt no sólo pronunció un discurso desde el punto de vista interno de la Unión, sino que también pronunció un discurso sobre las cuatro libertades que afectaban al mundo entero, la lucha contra el nazismo. Este discurso sobre el estado de la Unión es también un discurso sobre el estado del mundo. En el proyecto estadounidense, la línea divisoria entre lo que está ocurriendo dentro de los Estados Unidos y lo que está ocurriendo fuera de los Estados Unidos es extremadamente borrosa en la idea de que el mundo es una extensión de los Estados Unidos.

El discurso proclama las famosas cuatro libertades que son cuatro libertades necesarias para conocer las libertades de expresión y la libertad de religión aplicadas al mundo entero, pero que resultan de la constitución estadounidense y permiten vislumbrar la dimensión potencialmente internacionalizable de la síntesis política estadounidense. Finalmente, la libertad de vivir libre de la necesidad no contenida en la Constitución de Estados Unidos, pero que es un logro del Nuevo Trato ya que la libertad de vivir libre de necesidad fue formalizada en la Ley de Seguridad Social de 1935, es decir, el nacimiento de un sistema de seguridad social que permite constituir una red contra los caprichos de la vida, la crisis y en particular la crisis económica. La cuarta libertad es la libertad de vivir libre del miedo con una profesión de fe política que es la de luchar contra el totalitarismo, es situar el cursor con una simple alternativa entre democracia y totalitarismo.

A través del discurso de las Cuatro Libertades, hay un proyecto global que se afirma aunque Estados Unidos no ha ido a la guerra. Este proyecto fue elaborado en agosto de 1941 con la Carta Atlántica, que retoma el discurso de las Cuatro Libertades y sitúa la lucha contra el nazismo y, por tanto, la construcción o reconstrucción de la democracia en el centro de las prioridades internacionales de los Estados Unidos. Podemos ver cómo la Carta Atlántica es sólo una reanudación o extensión del proyecto Wilsoniano y en particular como se expresa en los Catorce Puntos de 1918. Hay una continuidad entre Wilson y Roosevelt. También está la afirmación del principio anticolonialista que es consustancial a la política exterior norteamericana y se convierte en central para un proyecto que tiene vocación internacional con la idea de convertirlo en un principio estructurador de lo que será la futura organización del mundo cuando acabe la guerra. En la Carta Atlántica se afirma que los futuros pilares de las Naciones Unidas, que son en gran medida estadounidenses de origen, serán los pilares de las Naciones Unidas, a saber, la paz mundial, la democracia en todas partes, la economía de mercado vinculada a la democracia y la cuestión de la seguridad social.

Compartir áreas de influencia

Al final de la guerra y en un momento en que la resolución del conflicto es inminente, el punto esencial es el reparto de las zonas de influencia entre los que se han convertido en los dos grandes actores y potencias del conflicto, a saber, los Estados Unidos y la URSS con toda una serie de conferencias, en particular en Teherán entre noviembre y diciembre de 1943, en Moscú en octubre de 1944, en Yalta en febrero de 1945, en San Francisco de mayo a junio de 1945, y en la Unión Soviética. Las cuestiones de la posguerra se resuelven en varios años con una serie de grandes conferencias cumbre que abordan dos tipos principales de cuestiones: militares y políticas. Las cuestiones militares son una cuestión de estrategias a implementar siendo problemas inmediatos desde el punto de vista militar, problemas políticos sobre lo que ocurrirá después de la guerra. En 1944, la cuestión no es si se ganará la guerra, sino cuándo. Ya se está implementando una lógica de sistema a sistema y diseño a diseño. Se trata de dos ideas muy diferentes del orden geopolítico posterior a 1945.

Les dirigeants alliés à la conférence. De gauche à droite : Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt et Joseph Staline.

Es en Yalta donde se discute con más detalle, los principios fundamentales son:

  • La destrucción final del nazismo, es decir, la rendición incondicional;
  • Afirmación de que todos los pueblos liberados deben poder elegir el régimen político que desean para dotarse de la idea de que se celebren elecciones libres en todas partes;
  • El hecho de que Stalin entre en la guerra contra Japón una vez que Alemania sea derrotada para retomar Japón;
  • la reconstrucción y sustitución de Polonia al oeste;
  • Ampliación del Gobierno provisional polaco para que el gobierno polaco esté abierto a los no comunistas. Polonia es un elemento central de la geopolítica de Europa del Este, como lo fue al final de la Primera Guerra Mundial.

Yalta fue objeto de una gran negociación. Roosevelt y Churchill están dispuestos a hacer concesiones importantes, en particular para asegurar el compromiso militar de Stalin contra Japón. En Yalta, el que se sale con la suya es Stalin, que recibe muchas cosas de Churchill y Roosevelt haciendo promesas extremadamente vagas sobre las elecciones en Europa del Este y Polonia en particular.

Durante el período 1944-1945 hubo una división de zonas de influencia donde los respectivos proyectos políticos finalmente comenzaron a enfrentarse a toda una serie de ambigüedades no formalizadas, pero que se hicieron más claras en las semanas y meses siguientes.

Entrar en la Guerra Fría: Europa

Denazificación y reconstrucción democrática

The challenge is denazification in Germany and Austria. In Germany, the reconstruction of German society and politics is taking place. One of the most important goals of the United States is to rebuild German society on a democratic basis. We will see the US nation-building project unfold, Germany being one of the experimental sites. The idea is ultimately to eradicate the germs of totalitarianism from German society and to build a society on new foundations, especially on a democratic basis, hence the Nuremberg Tribunal. The denazification involves trying those guilty of war crimes. The notion of war crimes was built on the occasion of the Nuremberg Court, during which Nazi dignitaries were judged.

Robert Jackson s'adressant à la cour.

The Nuremberg Court only deals with the greatest personalities, but the American objective is to de-nazify German society in depth. An extremely detailed questionnaire process is submitted to those who have had administrative responsibilities at any level in the Nazi state. Finally, it soon turns out that it is difficult to implement the process of denazification because, to varying degrees, whole sections of German society have more or less willingly or forcibly participated in the totalitarian enterprise. The American ambition to set up a survey on the scale of the German society turns short quite quickly because it is difficult to implement, it is difficult to know the degree of responsibility of each other, to know whether it was voluntary or not. In addition, the company is faced with a concrete reality that in order to put the German political, economic and social machinery back into operation, it is necessary to have managers capable of running the state, local and national administration, companies, etc., who are capable of running the company. On the one hand, the results are rather mixed, and after some trials, from 1948 and 1949 onwards, the denazification enterprise was more or less abandoned. The project is much less ambitious than expected.

Alongside the process in depth, there is an important and real restructuring of political institutions, since it is the whole political and administrative functioning of Germany that has been merged with the complete repeal of all Nazi laws since 1945 and the fundamental law of 8 May 1949, which is the constitution of what will become the Federal Republic of Germany. When we look at the fundamental law and the American constitution, there is a lot of similarity and in fact, the German political system is built on the model of the American political system with, in particular, a federal state, a bilateral system. The American model is quite clear: there is a concrete manifestation of a strategy to rebuild an ex nihilo political regime, since there is a complete abrogation of Nazi laws and the construction of a democratic constitution in a country that has no democratic tradition.

In Austria, the process is about the same with the same project and the same problems. However, Austria is the stake of a geopolitical object which means that it will not be anchored in the west, the Austrian state treaty ratifies the neutralization of Austria in 1955. In a way, the political reconstruction effort in Austria has been far less than in Germany.

The denazification and democratic reconstruction are two things that go hand in hand and which, despite the broad initial ambitions, are gradually being abandoned.


La URSS: la estrategia glacis

On the one hand, the United States is putting in place a global strategy, on the other hand, the USSR is in a defensive position setting up a continental strategy of glacis on a more than global scale. It is a superpower like the United States, but in a weak position being economically less developed than the United States.

The USSR paid the heaviest price with 20 million deaths, almost half of the total number of victims of the Second World War, the country is completely traumatized by the two successive invasions of 1914 and 1941, the obsessive objective of which is to ensure security against a possible invasion in the near future, hence the strategy of the glacis in order to create a certain number of buffer states between the Western powers and the Soviet Union. All the communist regimes established in 1945 - 1946 and confirmed in 1947 - 1948 are regimes intended to ensure the security of the USSR. The question in this process is whether this strategy is a threat to Western Europe and what Stalin's intentions are.

In the American vision, there is the idea that communism can spread in Europe and that the glacis can go further and further west. This may explain the affirmation of Cold War policy in Europe from 1946-1947.

La respuesta estadounidense: Contención

This is to respond to the potential threat that the American Cold War policy known as containment in shaped. At first there is a passive attitude of Roosevelt who is at the end of his mandate and at the end of his life. He was ready to make many concessions in order to obtain from Stalin a whole series of things and in particular Stalin's commitment against Japan. It was from 1946 onwards that the new President Truman gradually reacted with the implementation of a strategy, notably with the telegram Kennan in February 1946 describing the Soviet strategy and advocating containment.

Between the beginning of 1946 and the beginning of 1947, the containment strategy was put in place, the first concrete manifestation of which was in March 1947 with the help of the Greek and Turkish governments, which was a first release of funds in order to redress the situation in particular of Greece, which the United States considered as potentially winnable by the USSR. Finally, March 1947 was the beginning of the Marshall Plan even before the Marshall Plan began.

What is interesting is to see how the containment strategy is implemented. There are both globalist principles and at the same time the entry into the Cold War is not mechanical either. Between 1945 and 1947, the Cold War logic was established and the American doctrine of containment became clear, applying to Europe and rapidly becoming a global doctrine on a global scale.

The strategy is comprehensive because it covers all areas of activity; it is military in the first place, referring in particular to the National Security Act; it is an economic strategy resulting in the implementation of the Marshall Plan; it is also a political strategy with the idea of nation-building in order to help a certain number of countries financially and militarily and to support a certain number of organisations which the United States believes that they are able to support.

Confrontación sobre el terreno

A 1962 nuclear explosion as seen through the periscope of a U.S. Navy submarine. The goal was to contain Communist expansion without a nuclear war.

On the ground we are in a very concrete confrontation logic between the two. Between 1947 and 1949, there was a series of very important events such as the Berlin Airlift episode following the Soviet blockade of the Allied area of Berlin.

With the creation of the Atlantic Pact in April 1949, there was the creation of a military alliance between the various European countries and the United States. The significance of the Atlantic Pact is the American military umbrella of all Western Europe. It is a logic of a confrontation with the creation of the Warsaw Pact that will respond to the Atlantic Pact.

The Greek crisis of 1949 is important from the point of view of the American strategy since there is on the one hand the United States which proclaims the principle of universal diffusion of democracy considering Greece as an absolutely fundamental and key country ready to fall on the communist side. In the Greek crisis, the United States will come to support a dictatorial regime that was imposed in the late 1940s to prevent the country from falling under communist domination. We see the contradiction or paradox in the principles and the global strategy and action on the ground, where realpolitik prevails over the implementation of the fundamental principles.

Finally, in the 1950s, the American strategy did not follow a very clear guideline; it was an evolutionary and hesitant strategy between a firm attitude towards the Soviet Union or a much more flexible attitude aimed at protecting the adversary.

Globalization of the American model?

Japan

Japan is a key location since it was occupied by the Americans between 1945 and 1952, administered by General Mac Arthur. One of the objectives of the US military occupation is also to rebuild Japanese society on a democratic basis in order to remove the bases of Japanese militarism. Like Germany, the American objective is to rebuild a society on democratic bases on the basis of the American model. The Americans act alone while in Germany the American occupation is with the English and French. The nation-building process is set up according to the same pattern as in Germany, with the abolition of laws passed under the military regime, the establishment of religious freedom and freedom of expression, but also the establishment of a political system similar to that of the United States with political pluralism, a two-chamber system, the constitution of intermediary bodies and in particular trade unions. It is a democratic political regime, even though strictly from a legal point of view Japan is a constitutional monarchy, but functioning as a democracy.

The Japanese constitution of 1947 is a kind of "copy and paste" of the American constitution, there is an important influence of the American political system in the reconstruction of the Japanese political system. There are also a series of trials of Japanese criminals. His also implemented an agrarian reform to deconcentrate land ownership and a process of decartellisation since the Japanese economy was concentrated among a few groups.

There is a series of fairly similar processes at the global level. There is the same process as in Germany, and just like in Germany, the process runs up against the same problems. The process of demilitarisation and "detotalitarisation" of Japanese society is confronted with the same problems as in Germany, i. e. if everyone is judged, there is no one left to rebuild the country. At some point the process is halted and particularly in the economic field, decartellisation is halted fairly quickly, since only large industrial groups are able to turn the economy around quickly.

From the moment that the Cold War logic is announced and asserted, denazification in Germany and demilitarization in Japan is second only to the fight against the communist. The political project of democratization becomes secondary behind the realpolitik of power relations with the USSR. There is soon a return of traditional elites, including those who were very much involved in Japan's expansionist enterprise, are hardly worried. The emperor himself is completely out of the question and not judged, because the United States needs a symbol that embodies the unity of Japan. Any discussion of the Emperor's role in Japan's declaration of war effort is ignored.

There is an important nation-building process with an undeniable remodelling of Japanese institutions but it is a process that remains largely unfinished for both internal and external reasons that are linked to the Cold War logic.

China

China is an extremely important country in Roosevelt's strategy. If Roosevelt wanted to involve China in the Security Council at the end of the 1930s, it was because the Communist Party was almost ready to take power. Roosevelt's primary objective is to prevent China from falling into the communist escarcelle and admitting it to the great powers club in 1945. The idea is to try to anchor it as far west as possible and give it the opportunity to do a democratic reconstruction.

It is a strategy that will gradually fail because of an extremely strong opposition between the nationalists and the communists who, after having set up a modus vivendi during the Second World War, are once again confronting each other, leading the installation of Mao in 1949 to power. We see the limits of American influence in the world. The seizure of power by the communists in 1949 is one of the undeniable signs that the American political project runs up against a number of resistance. The project pursued was identical, but was stopped by the Communist power prayer.

Korea

In Korea, we find the same kind of situation since the south of Korea was occupied by the United States in 1945. In Yalta, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill shared areas of influence in both Europe and Asia. It was anticipated that North Korea would be under Soviet influence and South Korea under American influence.

Syngman Rhee, in May 1951.

Korea is occupied and the occupation of the country is ill-prepared. The United States was unfamiliar with the region, and there are very few interpreters who speak Korean that do not facilitate communication with the population. Finally, the United States does not know what to do in Korea in comparison with Germany and Japan. There is an attempt at reconstruction on the American model without having prepared things well. The United States will try to encourage the development of a moderate political class that shares the same objectives but does not succeed. The leaders they will find are much more conservative, especially with Syngman Rhee in power following the 1948 elections, which turned out to be much less democratic than the Americans had imagined. The United States will have to live with it because from 1947 - 1948 onwards we are in the logic of the Cold War, and stability is much more important than democracy.

While this regime was being established in South Korea, the communist regime was also being established in North Korea, triggering an offensive in South Korea in June 1950. This was followed by an American counter-attack, which was itself followed by the entry of China into the Korean War by unofficially sent soldiers. Quite quickly, we arrive at a status quo between the two Koreas, which was confirmed by the 1953 armistice, which cut Korea in half and to this day. The Armistice enshrines a political division that was more a division of zones of influence in 1945 - 1946 becoming a clear division.

After the armistice, the United States will continue to support Syngman Rhee's rebellion, which is not a very democratic regime and will be overthrown in 1961 by a military coup d’État that will maintain a fairly fierce dictatorship until the early 1980s, also supported by the United States. We note the same type of configuration between the objective of democratisation and then realpolitik and the adaptation to the Cold War context with the idea of stability, which is more important than the establishment of a democratisation of local society.

Vietnam: between Nation building and the excessive war

The crisis of the model

In the late 1940s, throughout all of the 1950s and early 1960s, it was a situation of frontal opposition between the United States and the USSR with an American model that had an important prestige and a fairly positive image in much of the world. For part of the world, the United States is often a more attractive model than the USSR.

This model will enter into crisis from the 1960s onwards, particularly for internal and external reasons.

The flaws of the model proposed to the world

The internal reasons are first and foremost the flaws of this model proposed to the world. On the one hand, a superpower that proposes the export of democracy, the liberalization of the market, that denazifiers; within the United States, society is not as democratic as it would like to be. In particular, there is the theme of "imperfect democracy" or "incomplete democracy" as the United States promotes democracy in the world:

  • Racial segregation: it is a society based on the strict separation of blacks and whites until 1954 with the judgment of Plessy v. Ferguson. This is a constant element in the debate about the relative role of the United States in the world;
  • the excluded from the consumer society: one of the important elements of the American democracy project is to link democracy and market economy. One becomes a citizen through access to the market economy and consumerism. However, the consumer society, even if it is broader than in European countries at the same time, it has many exclusions.

Throughout the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, not only in countries opposed to the United States, but also in countries that are in American orbit, the United States is extremely critical of these two points. The flaws of this model were even more pronounced in the 1960s with the Civil Rights movement leading to intense unrest in the United States, even with extremely violent struggles.

The question of the discourse, on the one hand, and the question of action on the ground, on the other hand, refer to the question of the end and means. On the one hand, there is a global politics of which democracy is one of the pillars and at the same time the United States is implementing the National Security Act of 1947 the CIA which is a kind of free electron in the American administrative maze being involved in a number of coups d'état with the idea of democratizing by force or setting up regimes that are more anti-communist. The role of the CIA is widely debated throughout Europe, and this is one of the elements where the American model is being contested on a theme that cannot be democratised by force.

This debate has been growing since the late 1950s, when we can take stock of what American policy on democratization has been like since the end of the Second World War. There is an extremely mixed record because, on the one hand, there are two countries where there has been a relatively successful restructuring of the political regimes with Germany and Japan despite a few caveats, but there are also a whole series of failures, particularly Korea and Vietnam, which broke out in the mid-1960s.

The mid-1960s was the time when both the civil rights movement within the United States began to become extremely violent and outside it was the time when the United States became very active in Vietnam. Specifically, in Vietnam, nation-building policy collides with excessive warfare. The main failure of the United States in Vietnam is to have put in place both at the same time: to have put in place a nation-building policy with the funding of organizations, infrastructure and the attempt to set up civil society frameworks in parallel with a logic of excessive war commitment and the support of the regime in South Vietnam which is a dictatorial regime making their policy illegible for local populations making them hate even more. The Vietnam War is the implementation of the strategy of nation-building and excessive warfare.

A whole series of other more or less non-aligned countries will, from the 1960s onwards, highlight the fact that the United States has not succeeded in rallying them. From the mid-1960s onwards, we gradually entered a period of crisis in the American model, which would rise until the early 1970s.

Domestic Challenge

The protest against the Vietnam war began within American society with extremely strong debates. The protest against the Vietnam War began on American campuses in the early and mid-1960s because American students did not want to fight in Vietnam. One should not think that opposition to the Vietnam war is only external, being debated within American society.

It is also important to take into account the evolution of the American left and part of the political class in relation to the American project. If we look at the long term, there is the implementation of American democratic messianism, which is initially rather manipulated by the Republicans with Theodore Roosevelt, then becoming a consensus within the political class, since the Democrats will appropriate this term especially with Wilson. Until the late 1950s, democratic messianism was a consensus within the Republican and Democratic parties. Democratic messianism will cease to be a consensus, particularly in the Democratic Party where the challenge to American politics and the American commitment to Vietnam is beginning to develop. Johnson who succeeds Kennedy is a Democratic president, but will have to deal with growing opposition within his own ranks against his engagement in Vietnam. A whole section of the Democratic Party and the left-wing Democrat obedience party will, from the late 1960s onwards, criticise American messianism. There is a rupture of political consensus and we see how a certain number of members of the Democratic Party break away from this idea, which is no longer necessarily a consensus in American politics. The crisis of this model has external aspects, but also internal aspects. The consensus broke in the 1960s.

External Challenge: Anti-Americanism

There is growing criticism of the American political model, including in allied countries. From the 1960s onwards, anti-Americanism, including in Western Europe, became extremely strong at events such as the pivotal Vietnam War.

The Decline of the 1970s

The 1970s were marked by a time when the United States downgraded the mission of universal diffusion of democracy, firstly because global messianism was a bit of a stalemate, and secondly because a whole series of Third World countries did not side with the Western world, marking a failure on the part of the United States. The 1970s were a time of reflection at a time when the Soviet model was gaining a number of successes:

  • 1970: Creation of the Democratic Republic of South Yemen
  • 1974: coup d'état in Ethiopia
  • 1975: MPLA takes power in Angola
  • 1975: Creation of the People's Republic of Mozambique
  • 1975: Reunification of Vietnam
  • 1975: Khmer Rouge capture of power in Cambodia
  • 1975: Creation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic
  • 1978: Communist coup d'état in Afghanistan.

These are countries where communist regimes take power as strategic defeats for the United States. From the moment the United States disengaged, North Vietnam took over from South Vietnam, leading to Vietnam's reunification in 1975. There is the seizure of power by communist regimes, which are points gained by the Soviets and points lost by the United States. After 1973, the United States lost influence in Latin America as a result of the coup d’état in Chile.

The 1970s were marked by an expansion of the Soviet model, which was already completely in crisis from an internal point of view, but which, from the outside, was extremely attractive when one looked at the various countries where these regimes were set up.

The last symbol of the American backlash is the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the seizure of power by Ayatollah Khomeiny ending with the crisis of the hostages of the American embassy. Looking back at the 1960s and 1970s, there is a period after a flourishing American model after the first few years of the Cold War, a fairly strong decade, when messianism based on the global diffusion of an American-style democracy came to a standstill in the 1960s and 1970s. In the late 1970s, we came to the end of a time marked by the Iranian revolution.

The transformations of moral imperialism

There is a mutation in both the ideological underpinnings and forms of American interventionism abroad in the diffusion of democracy.

1980 to 2013 corresponds to the end of the Cold War, the exit process from the Cold War is relatively long. A number of things that are present in the 1990s have already been put in place in the 1980s and under the Reagan presidency. In this period, there is an extremely strong domination of the United States on the world stage. From the break-up of the USSR, there is an extremely strong imbalance between the United States and the other powers. This period from the late 1970s to the present day and marked by a return to American unilateralism, even if this is not valid for the whole period, but above all for the decade from the 1990s to the present.

The Democratic Party and the Decline of Democratic Messianism

Moral imperialism is not only an American specificity that began to be forged at the beginning of the 20th century with the Wilson presidency. Moral imperialism remained an element of consensus in the American political class until the late 1960s, when consensus cracked and broke. American moral imperialism remains, but there are a number of transformations.

The transition from moral messianism is from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, since there is a time when American messianism, broadly formulated by the Democrats, becomes much more of a republican discourse with other expectations.

Portrait officiel de Jimmy Carter, en 1977.

The Vietnam war is an absolutely fundamental moment which is a crack in the model, the moment when the American model appears increasingly doubtful in increasingly important parts of the world. This is valid in the American political class, in American and world opinion. There is a time when the consensus breaks down and we can see it clearly in the subsequent presidencies and in particular in Jimmy Carter's presidency, who is the first president since Wilson who is a democrat to lower the theme of the worldwide diffusion of democracy. It is a time when the American model is going backwards, there is a whole series of successes of the Soviet model. There is a setback in the American model, and during the Carter presidency from 1976 to 1980 there was a half-mast of this process in favour of a north-south dialogue. On the other hand, there is a relaxation of relations and dialogue with the USSR, particularly through disarmament agreements. It is clear that the Carter presidency marks a change in the position of the United States from a democratic messianic standpoint.

Portrait officiel de Barack Obama, en 2012.

The Clinton and Obama Presidencies have highlighted a number of elements, including the democrats' abandonment of democratic messianism. The discourse is apparently very Wilsonian, but in the end, on the ground, there is a rather cautious foreign policy that is moving fairly quickly towards unilateralism. When we look at the various intervention frameworks, particularly following the suppression of the 1989 Tiananmen Square riots, there is almost no reaction except formal one from the point of view of the American presidency. When we look at the attitude towards political unrest in Haiti in the early 1990s, while Haiti has traditionally been an American field of intervention since the early 20th century, there is a relatively cautious policy. In Somalia, the U.S. intervention is suffering some damage, and the United States is rapidly retreating. The discourse remains the same, but this will be characterised in particular by the fact that the fields of intervention are reduced and from 1994 onwards, the United States will withdraw from UN peacekeeping operations. It is a strong symbol, knowing that the United States was very much involved in the creation of the United Nations. In the aftermath of the 1990s, disengagement was confirmed as the reason why the United States did not intervene during the Rwandan genocide in 1994, while its intervention in the former Yugoslavia was very limited. Under Clinton's presidency, the notion of moral and democratic messianism and handled with extreme caution. This is paradoxical since the United States has a boulevard ahead of it, since the Soviet model has collapsed, offering the United States the opportunity to embody the only model on offer. Since 2008, with Obama's presidency, this caution has been evident in particular with the withdrawal from Iraq and a status quo in Afghanistan with a planned withdrawal in 2014.

Whether it is Carter, Clinton or Obama, the question that may be asked is whether the Democrats can still make Wilsonian moralism their own. The answer is not univocal, but rather negative.

The Neoconservative Movement

There has been an extremely important change in American foreign policy since the late 1970s, marked by the rise of the neoconservative movement and the influence that movement will have on American foreign policy, not having an immediate impact but over the long term. To understand the movement, we have to go back up the chronology and in particular to the 1960s. The origins of the neoconservative movement are in fact within the democratic party and a fraction of a part of the Democratic Party that does not agree with the democratic politics of the 1960s. These are people who disagree with the civil rights policy and affirmative action in the 1960s by Johnson. A fraction both agree with Johnson's interventionism in Vietnam, but disagree with his domestic positions. There is a split within the Democratic Party with a fraction of the Democrats who will gradually break away from their party's consensus. In the 1960s, the rupture is still not very visible. From the moment the presidency disengages from Vietnam, they are people who will be orphaned by the Democratic Party and go to the other side. The origins of the conservative movement lie within the Democratic Party with both internal and external political influences.

Logo of the Committee on the Present Danger.

For the time being, this is relatively inconspicuous because there is a relative minority group within the Democratic Party, but one that will gradually pass its arguments on to the Republican side. There was an important moment when the Committee on Present Danger was reactivated in 1976. This committee is a lobby set up in 1950 with the aim of trying to push and influence in favour of a more aggressive policy towards the USSR in support of the NSC-68 directive, which sets the framework for American policy on containment of communism and the explosion of military credits. From the moment the NSC-68 passed, it is a committee not formally dissolved, but dormant. This committee will reactivate itself in the early 1970s at a time when American foreign policy is in retreat from the time the idea of democratic messianism and offensive action in the Cold War is muted.

It's a body where Democrats are the first to meet, but there are a number of Republicans, including Ronald Reagan, who went into politics in front of the President of the United States in 1981. This committee is a meeting place between a fraction of the Democratic Party and Republicans. It is a place of passage from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party where there will be more resonance. It is one of the laboratories of the constitution of what will become an ideological corpus of the Republican Party during the Reagan presidency.

The Republican Party: a neo-wilsonism?

President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. W. Bush at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas.

The question that can be asked is whether the Republican Party, Reagan and the Bush fathers and sons have a neowilsonian body of doctrine that makes the spread of democracy their battle horse.

Under the two Reagan Presidencies from 1980 to 1988, the neoconservative discourse was to have an important influence and in particular a whole section of the American academic community and American politicians who were to contribute to the development of the neowilsonian discourse of the Republican Party such as Francis Fukuyama who worked at the RAND corporation and Robert Kagan who worked at the Policy Planning Staff. There is a relationship between the sphere of political expertise and the sphere of political decision-making. All these people will contribute to the construction of the neoconservative body of doctrine in which the crusade for democracy plays a fundamental role.

The neoconservative body of doctrine will find its way into the federal administration through individuals who will hold positions in the Reagan administration such as Paul Wolfowitz who is part of the principal private secretary[PPS], Casper Wainberger at the Secretary of Defense. All the key positions have neoconservatives or people who are relatively close to them.

Their influence is crucial in understanding what is one of the guiding threads of foreign policy under Reagan, which is the resumption of the Cold War. With the arrival of Reagan in power there is a frontal resumption of the Cold War with support for the mujahedin in Afghanistan against the Soviets, in Nicaragua there is support for the opposition to the Sandinista regime in Ortega. At a time when the situation had stabilized in the 1970s, there was a resumption of the American offensive in all the theatres of operations with the idea of specialists and neoconservatives to overthrow the Soviet regime and those who belonged to them and were related to them, and which must be pushed in this direction. It is a logic of recovery and rising from the Cold War. The Star Wars project allows the military budget to increase again.

The Bush presidency from 1988 to 1992 is complicated to interpret. It has Wilsonian accents, but generally speaking, it triggers the war in Iraq and opts for a cautious policy in Iraq. Under Bush Sr., the neo-conservatives had less influence than under Reagan. The major fact is the war in Iraq, which is the first war in Iraq to drive Iraq out of Kuwait and leave Saddam Hussein in place when the neo-conservatives wanted to drive him out of Iraq.

Under George W. Bush's presidencies from 2000 to 2008, there is talk of "kicked wilsonism" which is an expression of political scientist Pierre Hassner which means a revival of Wilsonian moralism with a militaristic dimension which in the body of doctrine is provided by the neoconservatives. The foreign policy put in place is based on a whole university production that develops immediately after the fall of the communist world. Francis Fukuyama talks about the end of history with the fall of the USSR since there is only an existing model which means the end of history. There is a discourse according to which during the 20th century, there was a confrontation between several forms of regimes. As Nazism and communism collapsed, the American model is all that remains. It was also the period of the Democratic Peace Theory and Democratic Transition Theory that updated the theories of modernization in the 1950s. This production seeks to implement a completely new theory of the political situation that illustrates the fall of the communist world.

That is when institutionalist liberalism becomes a true ideology. It is from there that there is the certainty that the democratic model represents the only model is that it is legitimate to impose oneself, including by all means, in the rest of the world. There is the observation that the Soviet model has collapsed and a legitimacy to export the American model to the rest of the world. After the neoconservatives were removed from key positions during the Bush and Clinton Presidencies, they return to the time of George W. Bush's presidency.

An organization serves as a meeting place, the Project for the New American Century, where the tenors of the neoconservative movement meet with Fukuyama and Kagan. This project is a neo-conservative think tank that calls on the US government to assume its responsibilities in terms of foreign policy, calling for the US model to be disseminated by all possible means. In the aftermath of the September 11,2001 attacks, it was this group that wrote an open letter to President George Bush in support of an intervention in Afghanistan.

This corpus will be put into practice when the neoconservative movement recovers seats in George Bush's administration. The Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld trio will play a role in designing the frameworks for the US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003. The key moment of the neoconservative movement is 2003 - 2004 when there is still a fairly strong consensus at the level of opinion. From 2004 onwards, the movement cracked with an increase in protest. Between 2000 and 2004, the neoconservatives were at the helm of American foreign policy.

The spokesman for neoconservatism and the republican party became from the 1990s onwards a more aggressive movement with the intervention in the Afghan and Iraqi cases.

From the Communist enemy to the Islamist enemy

It is interesting to see the transition from one to the other because it reveals a number of things about the constitution of American politics.

The fall of the USSR

What characterizes the Reagan presidency in foreign policy is the resumption of the Cold War with the idea of harassing the USSR as much as possible in order to hasten its downfall. On the other hand, there is a debate about whether the collapse of communism was due to harassment by the United States in foreign policy or simply the result of the internal disintegration of the regime itself. Through this debate, the legitimacy of neoconservatism is at stake. If the collapse of the USSR is the cause of the harassment of the neoconservatives, it legitimizes their rhetoric to continue to move in this direction; if it is the opposite, if the collapse of the Soviet regime is due to its internal disintegration and the reforms put in place by Gorbachev, the legitimising rhetoric is much less important. It is a debate that has stirred intellectual and political circles enormously. From this point of view, the place of the neoconservatives made more noises than the others. The idea was that if the USSR had collapsed so quickly, it was due to the federal administration of President Reagan.

The 1990s and the march towards unilateralism

We must ask ourselves what is happening from the global point of view of the construction of American policy. There is a clear return of the United States to a clear, global and much more unilateral policy. In the early 1990s, there was the golf war, which was an episode if not a consensual one where international law was respected and legitimized by the UN. In a way, the First Golf War may appear to be a Wilsonian moment in which there is international legitimacy and the application of democratic principles as part of a coalition to uphold international law and bring Iraq out of Kuwait.

When we look at what happens after that, it is finally a fairly rapid return to unilateralism. It is a cautious foreign policy, and the rejection of interventionism is also and is beginning to be that if ever there is a need to intervene, the United States would do it on its own. That is when there is a change in American foreign policy and the main target is no longer communism, but international terrorism. That is when the term rogue states first appears. International terrorism is becoming an important focus of US foreign policy, explaining that there is a proliferation of attacks on US interests. With Clinton, there is a very Wilsonian discourse, but at the same time, the United States is turning to a unilateral policy. George W. Bush is simply continuing a unilateral policy under Bill Clinton. The theme of rogue states, the focus on international terrorism, began under Clinton. Terrorism is becoming an important aspect of American foreign policy, the communist enemy and replaced by the Islamist enemy.

Under Clinton's presidency, we are in a time that is slipping towards unilateralism, particularly with two laws that fairly clearly demonstrate the extra-territorialism of the United States, testifying to the willingness of the United States to act on the international stage:

  • The Amato-Kennedy Law of 1996 established sanctions against American or non-American companies that will invest in strategic sectors in Iran or Libya. They are states that are considered Rogue states and will invest in oil and gas. The laws of extraterritoriality are in any case quite remarkable;
  • The Helms-Burton Act of 1996 which introduced sanctions against Cuba, implying sanctions against American and non-American companies trading with Cuba.

It is a shift in American foreign policy towards significant unilateralism.

The attitude of the United States towards the International Criminal Court is characteristic of unilateralism, since the International Criminal Court was created in 1998 and the United States did not adhere to it. After having been historical promoters of international law, when the International Criminal Court was created at that time, they did not participate in it, noting that the shift towards unilateralism began in the 1990s under the Clinton and Bush presidencies.

Transformational Diplomacy and the War on Terrorism

The shift towards unilateralism will gradually transform itself into transformational diplomacy by the federal administration and lead to a war on terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The war on terrorism is the Islamist threat implemented by the United States in the 2000s to a number of roots that must go back to the Iranian revolution of 1979, when Islam appeared as a geopolitical threat to the United States.

Throughout the Cold War, the Middle East was in American orbit with the Shah of Iran and the oil monarchies that were under American military umbrella. The Middle East is under control and not part of American concerns. Everything changes with the Iranian revolution of 1979 which brought to power the regime of Ayatollah Khomeiny which is a new political object is unknown for the United States being violently anti-western and anti-American.

The Iranian revolution of 1979, for the United States is the potentiality is the realization of the Middle East in general from the American orbit to something else. It's a region that the United States thinks it's coming out of, and that's in fact under its control. Islam in its most radical form enters the radar of American foreign policy. In the 1990s, Pakistan's case was grafted as an object of concern. Historically, Pakistan has been part of the Baghdad Pact as an ally and not a particular problem for the United States. On the other hand, at the time of the Afghanistan war, this becomes a special case as Pakistan becomes a backbench for the mujahedin against the communists and anti-American. Pakistan will play a double game by supporting the mujahideen and cooperating with the United States. Pakistan becomes an uncontrollable ally and potentially an enemy.

Saudi Arabia became an ally of the United States, except that from the 1980s and 1990s, Saudi Arabia was an ally, but also the cradle of terrorism, especially Osama bin Laden. Finally, the United States are less and less willing to play a double game against Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

A series of changes are taking place in the geopolitics of the Middle East. Islam in general becomes a potential political enemy. From the moment the Soviet regime fell in 1991, the enemy number one in American conceptions of the 1990s was radical Islam. The concept of the war on terrorism implemented in the 2000s is the culmination of this movement.

This will develop dramatically during the 1990s with the First Golf War, but especially its aftermath and in particular the embargo imposed on the Iraqi population under the aegis of the UN, but under American dominance. The embargo aimed at bringing down Saddam Hussein does not work, starving the Iraqi people and damaging the American image in the region. The geopolitical situation in the Middle East is becoming increasingly uncontrollable during this decade. During the 1990s, opposition to the West and the United States became increasingly strong in this region of the world, resulting in a series of attacks, including the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and a series of attacks on American interests in the Middle East and Africa.

September 11 is only the most dramatic attack in a series of attacks. A huge literature has blossomed, but this is not such an important moment because it is not a fundamental geopolitical rupture. It is a symbolic event for the United States, but it is not a founding event. 9/11 is more of an accelerator than a breakup. The transition from American politics to a more unilateral dimension has begun further.

The neoconservative movement will push for a militarization of the American intervention. September 11 signals the Bush Presidency's transformational diplomacy to reshape the Middle East from Mauritania to Pakistan. The nerve centre of the Middle East and Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The idea is to consider all these states that are non-democratic or Islamist as potential enemies of the United States, and it is only by democratizing the Middle East that we can secure the area. Transformational diplomacy is the idea of turning the Middle East into a democratic environment. This strategy was first implemented in Afghanistan and Iraq. The name of the operations is symbolic of this policy with "Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan in 2000 and "Iraqi Freedom" in Iraq in 2003.

We see how danger number one in American foreign policy is no longer communism, but Islam.

Builders of democracy

We will see how this strategy is being implemented on the ground and its effects.

Human rights diplomacy

First, it is necessary to show how American foreign policy promoted democracy abroad from the 1970s and 1980s onwards gradually integrated human rights discourse.

Under Jimmy Carter's presidency, foreign policy is in line with a more relaxed policy towards the USSR. Carter will focus on supporting dissidents especially in Poland. The notion of human rights first appeared in American foreign policy in the 1970s. This notion of human rights will become one of the central and ideological points in the justification of American foreign policy to the neoconservative movement.

Finally, one of the elements of the ideological construction represented by conservatism is to have reinterpreted the question of human rights. That is to say, when the discourse on human rights has established itself at the international level with the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are conceived as an element if not an integral part of the international system or at least to be considered as a universal concept. Precisely, the neo-conservative movement will use the notion of human rights in order to nationalize it, i. e. to consider that human rights are a fundamental element that must be part of the democratization of regimes that are under communist domination. The neoconservative movement will transform human rights from something universal to something national that will strengthen democracy in a given country. For the neoconservatives, human rights are not a universal right, but protect against the discretionary powers of the State. The concept of human rights is conceived in the political framework and in the context of the opposition between democracy and totalitarianism. Human rights are not meant to be universal, but as an element that should protect the individual from state encroachment on individual freedoms.

The concept of human rights is mobilized by the neoconservatives to promote the idea of democratization within. Human rights are an element of the struggle against totalitarianism. This is important because the idea of human rights goes against the discretionary power of the State. Human rights are becoming an element of fundamental democracy, becoming one of the elements that must justify the universalization of the American democratic model. The notion of human rights becomes a common thread and justification for the neoconservative ideology.

Furthermore, the concept of human rights is also used against international organizations and multilateralism, which is seen as an encroachment on individual freedoms. The neoconservative movement is a unilateralist movement. The way in which the issue of human rights is nationalized by the neoconservatives will be an important element in the construction of nation-building policy, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The theme of the nationalization of human rights will be adopted by a whole series of organizations and in particular by the National Endowment for Democracy created in 1983, which is a think tank of Democrats and Republicans and which will eventually be one of the places where the policy of support and strengthening of democracy led by the United States from the 1980s onwards will be developed.

This organization has significant public funds. This organization is conducting an American and international lobbying campaign on the theme of democratization both by publishing reviews and books, but by supporting a variety of movements such as those opposed to the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. Their support is part of the United States' overall policy of strengthening democracy. It's a bit of an odd organization because in a way it's taking over some of the methods the CIA has put in place. It is an organisation that is much more than just a lobby and that a simple think tank is a laboratory for disseminating the discourse of democracy, but also an armed arm that continues to implement it.

Aid to post-communist Europe

During the 1980s, the doctrine of the idea of the diffusion of democracy developed. From the fall of the wall, a boulevard opens up to American foreign policy. Finally, very soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. foreign policy got underway with the launch of a number of programs designed to support the regime change that is taking place in the east. At the end of 1989, the Support for East European Democracy Act was launched after the Congress to support democratic transformation in Eastern European countries. From the time the USSR fell in 1991, the same type of program was implemented with the Freedom Support Act in the spring of 1992.

USAID-Identity.png

This policy was launched very early on, characterized by funding and a multiplicity of actors present on the spot with the American government, governmental agencies more or less attached to the government, but with a certain degree of autonomy such as USAID, there is all the machinery of NATO and a whole series of private, public, partisan or bipartisan think tanks, there is also a whole series of private organizations, the most famous of which are the Soros foundations. A plethora of actors set up an action from the fall of the wall with the idea of pushing in a direction of democratisation of Eastern Europe and the former USSR.

The avatars of the Nation building

États en déliquescence d'après le Failed States Index 2012 de Foreign Policy[1]
  États en situation critique de défaillance
  États en danger de défaillance
  États en stabilisation
  États en situation stable
  États en situation très stable

This will become a reality in the 1990s and 2000. Nation-building policy will be one of the central elements of the neoconservative ideology. The central idea that began to take hold in the 1990s is the idea that there is now a boulevard for American politics, that democracy represents the end of history, and the more democracy in the world the more American security and hegemony is strengthened. This discourse is all the more developed as it is at this time that the Rogue states and Failed states theory develops, which is a creation of American political science creating a ground for nation-building politics because the idea is that failed states are a breeding ground for totalitarianism, especially Islamist totalitarianism. Bankrupt states are considered to be extremely favourable soil for totalitarianism and terrorism in general. U.S. policy will target the Failed States in particular and turn them into sites for its intervention.

From that point on, nation-building becomes extremely vast: it is a matter of building a society, a state, a political system. It will be a question of judging those who are responsible politicians or not involved in massacres or settling scores and in the longer term, the objective is to build democratic institutions on the American boss and on the style of Germany, Japan and the Philippines. It will also mean demilitarising the political lives of these countries. It is also necessary to build or rebuild the economies of these countries, build infrastructures and establish a free market. The nation-building strategy is something extremely broad, ambitious and long-term, becoming one of the overriding priorities of a world in which the USSR has collapsed and where, instead of the USSR, there is a potential chaos that must be solved by means of an important democratic synthesis known, in particular, by the United States.

Loya jirga of Kabul on June 13, 2002.

On the Afghan case, there is the immediate objective and immediate justification for the intervention, which is retaliation against the attacks of 11 September, but in the longer term there is the objective of building a state on a democratic basis. Finally, in the American intervention in Afghanistan, there is a military dimension and a political and economic dimension aimed at building democracy. We see how the American strategy includes military operations and a process of bringing together local elites. Particularly with the meeting of Loya Jirga, which is a meeting of tribal and local chiefs to draft a constitution and elections in 2004 that will see Hamid Karzai elected, there is the idea of forming an Afghan army, unifying a country and developing a market economy, especially at the expense of the drug economy.

It should be noted that in Afghanistan, as in Vietnam in the 1960s, the strategy of nation-building and military operations was carried out simultaneously and collided head-on, one destroying the other. The material means used are relatively important. The nation-building strategy in Afghanistan is a mixed record at the moment, since the country's pacification has not been achieved and the construction of a political regime has not been achieved either. The same reasoning can be done for Iraq. We can see how these types of strategies have been at the centre of American policy since the fall of the Wall and how the results are contrasted or even in direct contradiction with the discourses set up.

Anexos

Referencias

  1. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/failed_states_index_2012_interactive Failed States, Foreign Policy, accessed 27 Feb 2013