Recent Peace Conundrum of United States

                           

By Naveed Qazi | Editor, Globe Upfront

American imperialism did not begin with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Historians and journalists have traced its roots back to 1898, when the US annexed Hawaii and seized Cuba and Puerto Rico. Contemporary press accounts described how President William McKinley presided over the invasion of Spanish‑occupied Puerto Rico, a moment that symbolised America’s transformation into a global power. Exhibitions and historical features have since highlighted how the War of 1898 marked a decisive shift, with the US acquiring territories in the Caribbean and Pacific, including Guam and the Philippines, and setting the stage for its imperial reach.

This expansionist logic carried forward into the 20th century. Ronald Reagan’s administration brought covert wars to Central America, destabilising Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Journalists covering the region documented how US support for authoritarian regimes and paramilitary groups entrenched violence under the guise of fighting communism. Reports in The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times during the 1980s revealed the extent of US involvement in training and financing militias, while human rights organisations chronicled the widespread abuses that followed.

By the Clinton era, presidential doctrines openly justified unilateral military action to secure energy supplies and markets. The State Department spoke of a “New Nationalism,” promising prosperity at home while asserting dominance abroad. Later, George W. Bush’s policies intensified this trajectory. David Rose reported in Vanity Fair how Bush officials, including Condoleezza Rice, backed armed factions under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, contributing to civil conflict in Gaza. The press revealed how these factions were armed and funded with the expectation of countering Hamas, but instead they helped trigger a bloody civil war. Other outlets, including The Guardian, corroborated these accounts, noting how US‑backed initiatives deepened Palestinian divisions rather than fostering peace.

Barack Obama’s presidency revealed contradictions. He praised the Arab Peace Initiative, which called for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, yet failed to advance it. In December 2008, the US voted against a UN resolution affirming Palestinian self‑determination, while simultaneously increasing military aid to Israel in a decade‑long package. Obama missed his own deadline to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by 2014, and reconfigured missile defence systems in Europe, raising tensions with Russia over the START treaty. The deployment of US submarines to Diego Garcia in 2009 entrenched America’s military footprint in the Indian Ocean. Press coverage in The New York Times and Foreign Policy highlighted how these moves were justified as defensive measures, but critics argued they violated international norms and inflamed regional rivalries.

Meanwhile, Israeli settlements expanded. Peace Now documented the approval of tens of thousands of settlement units in the West Bank, effectively dividing Palestinian territories into disconnected cantons. Arab public opinion saw US policy as hostile to Arab nationalism, supportive of authoritarian allies such as Hosni Mubarak, and primarily concerned with safeguarding oil interests. Obama’s 2008 visit to Israel, where he acknowledged Israeli control of occupied territories, reinforced perceptions of US bias. White House reports in 2007 encouraged American investment in Iraq’s military infrastructure, signalling long‑term entrenchment rather than withdrawal. Journalists from Haaretz and Al Jazeera reported extensively on settlement growth, noting how US diplomatic gestures rarely translated into meaningful pressure on Israel.

These developments deepened sectarian divides and fuelled jihadism. They also raised pressing questions for citizens and intellectuals. Should they remain passive, or should they commit themselves to challenging entrenched power and exposing contradictions, as journalists and monitoring groups have done? The record of press investigations shows that dissent can be manufactured and sustained. The challenge is whether reformers and thinkers will take up that responsibility to push for genuine peace.

The broader narrative of American imperialism is thus not confined to the post‑9/11 era but stretches back more than a century. From the annexation of overseas territories in 1898 to Cold War interventions in Latin America, from the militarisation of the Middle East under Bush to the contradictions of Obama’s diplomacy, the press has consistently documented the ways in which US power has been projected abroad. Reports from Reuters, Associated Press, and The Guardian have shown how military deployments, aid packages, and covert operations have shaped political realities across regions.

What remains unresolved is whether these policies have created more stability or more instability. The evidence suggests that while they have entrenched US influence, they have also fuelled resentment, sectarianism, and cycles of violence. Intellectuals and reformers face the task of questioning these trajectories, exposing contradictions, and imagining alternatives. The press has played a vital role in documenting abuses and contradictions, but the responsibility to act lies with societies themselves.

In extending this account, one sees how the continuity of American imperialism is not accidental but structural. Each administration has inherited and adapted the logic of expansion, whether through military campaigns, economic leverage, or diplomatic manoeuvres. The question for the future is whether this logic can be challenged, and whether genuine peace can be pursued in regions long destabilised by intervention. Stability may bring optimism, but whether it outweighs the tenets of democracy remains uncertain. Only time will reveal which path the region chooses.