On April 14, 2021, President of the United States Joe Biden announced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the endless war in Afghanistan. Former president Donald Trump had already begun the process of withdrawing troops under an agreement reached with the Taliban. Many praised the decision to bring an end to the twenty-year war the U.S. waged in Afghanistan against the Taliban, an ultraconservative, Sharia-supporting, terrorist-backing organization which controlled the country from 1996 to 2001. After the announcement Afghanistan fell rapidly in a series of collapsing dominoes. For more information about Afghanistan by Libel, read Walied Ali’s article The Taliban take over Afghanistan – How Did it Happen and What Does the Future Look Like? and Luke Sandford’s piece On Brussels: Kabul Earthquake. Questions arose when Kabul fell to the Taliban. Why wasn’t the U.S. prepared for this? Why wasn’t the Afghan military prepared for this? What went so wrong that the U.S. effectively left taxpayer-funded weapons to the terrorists it was trying to defend against?
While an in-depth article into the mistakes and issues and technicalities that led to the fall of Kabul would be expected, it is redundant coming from an American source. Too often, governments and media provide excuses as to why a country promoted as the greatest in the world couldn’t expect the swift victories of the Taliban. It is more accurate to examine how America has been building up to a moment like this for decades.
I gave this article the title Imperium Americae, Latin for the Empire of America. The Roman Empire and the United States can be analogized in many ways. Both influenced global affairs in ways unthought of by their forefathers, both established military and economic powers unseen before, both had a series of problems that eroded their might. The growing exertion of American influence in the form of neo-imperialism under the guise of democracy is not only hypocritical, it is bad for U.S. foreign policy.
Following the creation of the United States as an independent state in the late 18th century, the belief of non-interventionism was a long-standing tenet in our foreign policy. Characterized best by the Monroe Doctrine, the United States would recognize Old World affairs and nations but would consider attacks and colonization by world powers in the New World as a threat to America. Of course, this Doctrine was more germane in the 19th century as Spanish colonies declared independence and European powers voraciously craved more power and lands. Perhaps the Monroe Doctrine would be better-suited to the challenges that the 21st century brings. For the past several decades, the United States has been James Monroe’s and John Quincy Adams’ worst nightmare. We have our intelligence agencies organize coups against democratic leaders for our own economic gain[1]. We send drones to towns in foreign countries under the banner of “national security”. Monroe’s Doctrine meant we kept our hands out of international affairs, but in the 21st century it means the opposite. We must not encroach on the sovereignty of other nations but rather work with them on shared values. Democracy, social progress, world peace, and human rights can only be furthered by a new American foreign policy which places emphasis on cooperation rather than unilateral action.
A new American foreign policy means appealing to all of our allies for forgiveness and cooperation on a path forward. Donald Trump and conservatives believe that apologizing is a sign of weakness. Perhaps they are right; perhaps it is a sign of acknowledging our weakness and committing to the strength needed to change. A new American foreign policy doctrine could invest in preventing coups and corruption by supporting democratic governments rather than tearing them down. A new American foreign policy could see cooperation in the Americas as a national security strategy and a new front in the fight against drug abuse pandemics rather than a way to exploit cheap labor for oil and minerals. A new American foreign policy could see the rise in democracy across the world as a result of strength through peaceful cooperation and global organizations like the United Nations.
Neo-empires are perhaps the largest threat to world stability. Danger will be in the form of neo-empires whose influence is not exerted by classic military conquest but by covertly-funded coups d’état. Autocrats will be neo-emperors who prove their might not through building roads but by burning bridges. Fanatic extremists will be neo-imperialists who honestly believe that the invasion of countries with different cultures is to “liberate” them. A new foreign policy is needed not to wage war against these threats but to prevent their creation. Some may criticize this view as too isolationist or perhaps to idealistic and not within the scope of realist international theory. It is note that a new foreign policy which fights against internal neoimperialism must also fight against other neoempires like China and Russia who exercise their influence by generating debts from developing countries or funding corruption and extremism. However, to prevent these threats, we must not act unilaterally. Russia and China can support themselves if the United States acts alone. Instead, we must act through our allies to work towards a peaceful and international end to neoimperialism.
Where do youth fit in this new movement for a new foreign policy to work on new issues in a new century? We create it, of course. Already, youth are leading the charge for global cooperation on issues like climate change, human rights, and democracy. We in America, as well as youth everywhere, must lobby our governments to promote global cooperation rather than the neo-imperialism we see in the policies of world powers. As we confront the problems that the 21st century brings, a new strategy is needed to prevent the creation of new unethical and hypocritical neo-empires.
[1] Foreign Policy Magazine lists Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1954; Congo, 1960; South Vietnam, 1963; Brazil, 1964; and Chile, 1973 as seven different examples of the Central Intelligence Agency or other government agencies funding coups d’etat against leaders of foreign nations for economic gain. Stuster, J. Dana. Mapped: The 7 Governments the U.S. Has Overthrown, 2013. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/mapped-the-7-governments-the-u-s-has-overthrown/