Imperialism, Nationalism, and U.S. Foreign Policy: Lecture Notes

Global Imperialism and the Late 19th Century

  • By the late 1800s, approximately 80\% of the globe's land was owned by European powers.
  • Africa:
    • About \frac{1}{2} of Africa belonged to France; the other half belonged to England.
  • Latecomers in the scramble for colonies include:
    • Germany, which gained two colonial spots (territories).
    • Italy, a very late entrant, which received the leftovers or “crumbs.”
    • Ethiopia remained independent.
  • Asia and the East:
    • China, India, Burma, and Indochina were being split off among European powers.
  • The United States is not included in this map of European-dominated imperialism at the time; the US is initially left out.
  • The map foreshadows later changes in the American role (see Philippines below).

Emergence of Nation-States and Nationalism in Europe

  • Germany: There was no German nation as we understand it before 1871; it existed as the Holy Roman Empire prior to unification.
  • Italy: There was no unified country called Italy; allegiance was to city-states (e.g., Venetian, Genoan, Roman), with Syracuse cited as an example of the city-state system.
  • Unification and nationalism:
    • After about 1870, Italy becomes a country.
    • Nationalism motivates efforts to repossess or remake the Roman Empire in the Italian sense.
    • From nationalism grows extreme nationalism and ultranationalism, which pave the way for fascism.
    • Benito Mussolini (referred to as Venito Mussolini in the lecture) provides a foundation for fascist ideology.
  • This period also sees rising nationalist fervor in other parts of Europe, contributing to tensions that culminate in the early 20th century.
  • United States: Not yet part of the European imperial map shown; will later acquire colonial possessions (e.g., Philippines) as the US begins to assert its own empire.

The United States as an Emerging Empire

  • After the American Civil War, there is anxiety that the United States might be “left out” of global imperial competition.
  • The US begins to build an empire around the turn of the century, with expansion starting around 1898 (Spanish-American War era).
  • The talk points to a broader pattern: the US expanding influence and military bases around the world as part of a global role.
  • Economic and fiscal signals: a striking figure cited is a debt level of 37{,}000{,}000{,}000{,}000 (i.e., 37\times 10^{12}) to reflect the scale of U.S. global commitments and bases.
  • The need for overseas bases is framed as supporting global leadership and security.

The Rhetoric of Responsibility: Beacon of Light and the “New Israel” Metaphor

  • World War II-era thinking frames the United States as a powerful nation with a moral mission: a beacon of light to other nations, much like a modern “Israel” that brings democracy, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  • The idea is that the United States has a responsibility to stop threats to this vision of the world order.
  • This rhetoric sounds compelling on paper but faces real-world complications and contradictions when implemented.

The Gap Between Ideals and Real-World Practice

  • In practice, corporate and state interests shape foreign policy more than noble ideals alone.
  • Examples cited:
    • United Fruit Company (and other corporate actors) manipulate governments to advance economic interests, sometimes under the banner of countering the Soviet Union or atheistic threats.
    • The narrative of fighting atheists in the Soviet Union is used to justify interventionism, sometimes at odds with democratic ideals abroad.
  • The result is a pattern where economic and geopolitical interests drive actions that contradict the lofty rhetoric of democracy and human rights.

Iran, 1953: Coup, Oil Nationalization, and Aftermath

  • In 1953, Iran had a democratically elected government under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.
  • Mosaddegh nationalized Iran’s oil industry, bringing it under state control (oil nationalization is described as a socializing action—i.e., a form of socialism in the sense used in the lecture).
  • As a result, foreign intervention occurred, framed as necessary in the bigger Cold War struggle.
  • The lecture connects this to the CIA, calling it the “little state” that carried out covert activities; the CIA is identified as the organization behind the covert actions.
  • SAVAK, Iran’s secret police, is described as being trained by Israel and is likened to the Gestapo in Germany (a comparison used to illustrate the brutality of the secret police).
  • The implication is that U.S. interventions and covert actions in Iran were tied to broader Cold War objectives and oil interests.
  • The 1953 events set the stage for later tensions and the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which radically redefined Iran’s relationship with the United States and Israel.
  • The talk links the 1953 coup to current Iranian-U.S. and Iranian-Israeli tensions, explaining that the 1953 intervention is the root cause of later conflicts.
  • Terminology notes from the lecture:
    • The United States is described as the “big Satan” after the 1979 revolution, while Israel is referred to as the “small state.”
    • The dichotomy is used to explain the post-revolution political dynamics and foreign policy rhetoric.

Key Personalities, Terms, and Concepts to Remember

  • Benito Mussolini: Fascism laid groundwork in the post-1870 nationalist era; Mussolini is credited with providing further foundation for fascism.
  • The Holy Roman Empire: Pre-1871 German political structure; its dissolution and unification created the modern German nation-state.
  • City-states as early Italian political units: Examples include Venice, Genoa, Rome, Syracuse; allegiance to city-states rather than a unified Italy prior to 1870.
  • Nationalism and its consequences: The rise of nationalism in Europe, especially in Germany and Italy, contributes to a broader political climate leading to fascism.
  • United States as a global power: The shift from a continental republic to an imperial power with overseas bases and a global footprint.
  • Mosaddegh and oil nationalization (1951–1953): Key domestic Iranian event that triggered foreign intervention.
  • SAVAK: Iran’s secret police; described as being trained by Israel; associated in the lecture with covert actions and a Gestapo-like role.
  • The “big Satan” vs. the “small state”: Post-revolution framing of the United States and Israel in Iranian discourse.

Connections to Foundational Principles and Real-World Relevance

  • Imperialism and the scramble for colonies illustrate the emergence of globalization and the consolidation of European power in the late 19th century.
  • The rise of nationalism in Italy and Germany demonstrates how political identities and regional histories influence modernization and political ideologies (including fascism).
  • The United States’ expansion into empire illustrates the tension between liberal-democratic ideals and pragmatic foreign-policy interests based on economic and strategic concerns.
  • The 1953 Iranian coup shows how Cold War geopolitics intersect with resource control (oil) and how covert action can shape long-term regional dynamics.
  • The lecture highlights the ethical and practical tensions between rhetoric (beacon of democracy, human rights) and actions (interventions, corporate influence, regime change).

Formulas, Numbers, and Key Dates (for quick reference)

  • Global European land ownership: 80\% of the globe owned by Europeans.
  • Africa split: \frac{1}{2} to France, \frac{1}{2} to Britain.
  • German unification: 1871.
  • Italian unification era: around 1870.
  • Philippine acquisition by the United States: around 1898.
  • U.S. debt figure cited: 37{,}000{,}000{,}000{,}000\(37\times 10^{12}).
  • Oil nationalization in Iran: occurred in the early 1950s, culminating in the 1953 coup.
  • Iranian Revolution: 1979.

Conceptual Takeaways

  • Imperial expansion often occurred in waves: late-19th century colonization, then post-World War II power projection and the emergence of a global security architecture.
  • Nationalism can serve as both a unifying force for a country and a driving force behind aggressive or expansionist ideologies (e.g., fascism).
  • National sovereignty and economic interests (oil, markets) frequently intersect with geopolitical strategies and covert interventions.
  • The rhetoric of democracy and humanitarian intervention can mask strategic calculations and corporate interests.
  • Historical events (e.g., Mossadegh’s nationalization, the 1953 coup) have long-lasting consequences for regional politics, international relations, and public perceptions of foreign powers.

Practical and Ethical Implications

  • The tension between ideals (democracy, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) and actions (covert operations, regime change, corporate influence) raises questions about ethical foreign policy.
  • The use of covert operations and secret police in foreign interventions has lasting consequences for civilian populations and the legitimacy of foreign powers.
  • The framing of foreign policy as a mission to “be a beacon” can obscure the realpolitik of resource extraction, strategic interests, and geopolitical competition.

Links to Earlier Content and Real-World Relevance

  • The material connects to foundational topics in imperial history: the scramble for colonies, nationalist movements, and the emergence of modern nation-states.
  • It also ties into Cold War geopolitics, the role of multinational corporations in shaping policy, and the long arc of U.S. foreign policy that blends ideals with power politics.
  • The examples of Iran (1953) and the broader discussion of the “big Satan”/“small state” dynamic illustrate how historical episodes shape current regional dynamics and transnational perceptions.

Key Takeaway Questions for Review

  • Why did Germany and Italy become nation-states later in the 19th century, and how did nationalism contribute to fascism?
  • How did European imperialism shape global power dynamics, and what role did the United States gradually assume?
  • What are the ethical tensions between democracy promotion and realpolitik in U.S. foreign policy?
  • How did Mossadegh’s oil nationalization lead to the 1953 coup, and what were the long-term consequences for Iran and regional politics?
  • In what ways does the rhetoric of being a “beacon” of democracy align with or diverge from actual foreign-policy actions?