20 세기미제국행보의역사적회고 / 한글초록 9 11,,.,..,.. :,,.,.,.
6 23 1.,,,., (Johnson 2004)..,,. (Dumenil 2004).,,,. 19. (Prestowitz, 2003)..,,.,., ( 2005). 9 11,,
7.,.. 1776,.,. 1800,,,,,,. 1823,.,.,,.,,.., 1836, 1845 28., 1846
8 23 1. 1,500 (Gadsden Purchase, 1853).. 1867,.. 1875, 1890., 1893, 1893. 1898 - (Frey 2004). < 1> 1898 1836 1850, 1853, 1854 1855 1856 1893 : Frey 2004. 1898.,.,.
9 (Social Darwinism),, (Frey 2004). 1898 2 15. 1898 4 25 1898., 2,000. -. (Frey 2004). 1898, 1898. 1901. 1903. 1936,.. 1912..,, (Johnson 2004). 1,,, (Beasley 1987: 2).
10 23 1 < 2> 1898-1934 1898,, (,,, ) 1903 1904 1906 1907 1908, 1912 1909 1910 1912 1912-1925 1914 1915-1934 1916-1924 1916-1917 1917-1923 1918, 1921 1925, 1926, 1932, 1933, T. 1934 1937 : Frey 2004
11. 1935 1940. 1935 6 2 1941 12 ( 2001). 2, 2...,,. 3. CIA. 1951.. 1953, CIA.. CIA. 1951, (UFCO). 1953 270,. CIA, 1954.
12 23 1. 1959,. 1960. 1960 CIA. 1961 4,. 1961 31.. 1962 CIA. 2. 1966.,. 1970,,.... 1973 CIA,.,. 1990 (Frey 2004). 3.
13 < 3> 1953 CIA, 1955-1973 1955. 1963. 1964. 1973 1954 CIA, 1958, 1961 CIA 1964, 1965-1966, 1970 CIA, 1973 1981-1986,. 1983 800 1989 : Frey 2004,. 50.,,.,.,.
14 23 1.,. (Johnson 2004, 2004: 17-18 ).,, ( 2001).,. 1990, 54 70.,.,,.. 2001 9 11,.,..,.
15 < 4> 1990 1992. 1995, 1999, 2002 2003.,..,., 20 (Theodore Roosevelt).., (content analysis). 4.., 1869,.
16 23 1 (commanding influence)..,. (duty),., (free self-government) (responsibility). (provincial). 1,., (moral) (united). (moral imperialism),.. (Old World),.,. 1.,. (world supergovernment), (restrictive association). 1929 (Hoover)
17 (no desire for territorian expansion). 1941 2. 1949.,.,. 1953... (world leadership)..,.. (globe),.,.,. (peacemaker),,.
18 23 1. 1977 200, (moral duty). (nobility of idea). (purely idealistic nation).,.,.. 1981 1., (sovereignty),,. 1985 2. 4 (MAD). 1989,,.,. 1993., (vital interest).,. 1997 2, 2.
19,. 2001.,. 2005 2,.,,. < 5> world (wpt*) international (wpt) power (wpt) responsibility / duty(wpt) peace (wpt) McKinley 1.29.32 0 0 1.94 T. Roosevelt 3.04 0 4.05 7.09 3.04 Taft.37 1.10 0 0.74 Wilson 3.58 0 2.69 1.34 2.69 Harding 5.40 1.50 0.90 1.80 Coolidge 2.71.99.99.99 3.94 Hoover 4.00.53.27 0 4.27 F. Roosevelt 1.44 0 0 0 1.80 Truman 6.17 2.20.44.88 7.05 Eisenhower 6.61.49 1.47 1.47 4.16 Kennedy 5.95 0 4.46.74 2.97 L. Johnson 0 0 0 0 0 Nixon 8.53 0.47 5.22 6.64 Carter 4.92.82 0 1.64.82 Reagan 3.81 0 0.20 2.21 G.H.Bush 2.16 0.86 0.86 Clinton 5.10.27 1.34 1.88.54 G.W.Bush 2.96 0 1.35.54.54 *wpt(word per thousand), 1898
20 23 1. < 5>.... (world),,. (international). (power). (responsibility) (duty). (peace),,. (world) (peace).,, (liberty) (democracy)....,
21.. 19, CIA..,. ( 2005)..,,,., ( 2002)..,...,.
22 23 1. : 1935-1941. 35 3 (, 2001).. : :, 2005..? :, 2005.. 9 1 (, 2003)., 9 11 :, 2,, 2003.. : 20 21. :, 2001.. : 32 2 (, 1992).. : 8 (, 2002).. : 35 1 (, 2001). Arrighi, Giovanni. Lineages of Empire Historical Materialism 10-3 (2002). Arrighi, Giovanni. The Social and Political Economy of Global Turbulence, New Left Review, 20(March / April, 2003). Beasley, W. G. Japanese Imperialism 1894-1945 Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Callinicos, Alex. New Mandarins of American Power: The Bush Administration's plan for the World. Boston: Polity Press. 2003., :, 2004 Callinicos, Alex. The Actuality of Imperialism Millenniun: Journal of International studies, 31-2 (2002). Cohen, Mitchell, An Empire of Cant: Hardt, Negri, and Postmodern Political Theory Dissent, 49-3 (2002). Cox, Michael. September 11th and U. S. Hegemony-Or Will the 21st Century Be American Too? International Studies Perspectives, 3-1 (2002). Dougherty, James E. and Pfaltzgraff, Robert L., Jr. American Foreign Policy: FDR to Reagan. New York: Haper & Row, Publishers, Inc. 1986., : :, 1997.
23 Dumenil, Gerard and Dominique Levy. The Economics of U.S. Imperialism at the Turn of the 21st Century, Review of International Political Economy. 11-4 (October, 2004). Fields, Wayne. Union of Words: A History of Presidential Eloquence. New York: Free Press, 1996. Frey, Eric. Schwarzbuch USA. Frankfurt: Eichborn AG, 2004.,, USA :, 2004. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. The Global Coliseum: On Empire Cultural Studies 16-2 (2002) Howard, Zinn. Declarations of Independence. 1991.. :. :, 2001. Ikenberry, G. John, America's Imperial Ambition Foreign Affairs, 81-5 (September / October 2002). Johnson, Chalmers. The Sorrow of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of Republic. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 2004., :, 2004. Kristol, Irving. The Neoconservative Persuasion, The Weekly Standard, 8-47(August 25, 2003). Kupchan, Charles A. The End of the American Era, 2002.. 2005. :. Negri, Antonio, and Michael Hardt. Empire. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2000., :, 2001. Nye, Joseph S. Jr. U.S. Power and Strategy After Iraq, Foreign Affairs, 82-4(July / August, 2003). Prestowitz, Clyde. Republican, Stepping off the Platform, Los Angeles Times, (August 10, 2003). Taylor, Peter. The Way the Modern World Works: World Hegemony to World Impasse, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1996. Taylor, Peter. What's Modern about the Modern World-system?: Introducing Ordinary Modernity through World Hegemony Review of International Political Economy 3-2(Autumn, 1996). Vagts, Alfred. A History of Militarism. New York: Meridian, 1959. Wallerstein, Immaneul, and Terence K. Hopkins, eds. The Age of Transition: Trajectory of the World-System. 1945-2025. London: Zed Press, 1996., :, 1945-2025, 1999.
24 23 1 ABSTRACT A Historical Retrospect on the Development of the American Empire in 20th Century Hyok Kim / University of Seoul Many intellectuals criticize the reinforced unilateralism of the US foreign policy after the events of September 11, 2001, and grieve over the establishment of a new Empire. At this point, it seems very valuable to investigate, through historical retrospect, how the keynote of the US foreign policy has been maintained. This study approaches the deployment of the US foreign policy on the basis of historical events, and examines profoundly whether the policy keynote has been imperialistic or not. From the analyses, I found that the past keynote of the US foreign policy has been apparently imperialistic. To be sure, the imperialistic feature of the US keynote is not based on the past colonialism or territorial expansionism. However, if the US foreign policy does not intend to accomplish an idealistic integration over the boundaries of nation states, and tries to survive by expanding its power and hostilely competing with non-american values, it could be called exploitatively imperialistic. Key Words: imperialism, foreign policy, military intervention