For one, though he reiterated his faith in democracy as the only viable system of government for the rest of the world, he did not go into specifics, and for another, it meant that spreading democratic reforms, even at the cost of riding roughshod over existing governments, seemed to be an obsession dominating his agenda. He seems to have dedicated his second term to this obsession. But the US president’s pledge to spread freedom and democracy should come as no surprise as should the Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s call for reforms. “Reform, or else” ... seems to be the rhetoric. Middle Eastern regimes and Iran are the immediate targets.

Underlying this rhetoric lies a well-defined manifesto called Manifest Destiny. It is based on the tenets of liberty and freedom and held by not just the present US president, but by many other presidents before him and thinkers and visionaries of the country.

The United States — and more specifically, some of its eminent citizens — have always felt a compulsive need, nay a responsibility, akin to the ‘White Man’s Burden’ to reform the world to further its own end — the end being imperialism, albeit in a more acceptable garb. Manifest Destiny is the aspiration of a nation self-consciously aware of its eminence in the world arena. The concept of Manifest Destiny is nothing new. It comes from a belief that the United States of America is destined to bring about a positive change in the world, and to rule it. It is a tenet bordering on jingoism, which implies that territorial expansion of the United States is not only necessary, but divinely ordained.

The expression was first used by the American journalist and diplomat, John Louis O’Sullivan in an editorial in the July-August 1845 edition of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review. It was written supporting annexation of Texas. But as early as 1839, O’Sullivan had outlined the concept when he wrote: “Yes, we are the nation of progress, of individual freedom, of universal enfranchisement. We must march onward to the fulfilment of our mission — to the entire development of the principle of our organisation — freedom of conscience, freedom of person, freedom of trade and business pursuits, universality of freedom and equality. This is our high destiny, and in nature’s eternal, inevitable decree of cause and effect we must accomplish it.”

The ideology of Manifest Destiny soon gained currency among expansionists of all political stripes to justify the acquisition of California, the Oregon Territory, and Alaska. By the end of the 19th century, Manifest Destiny was not just an expression, but a respectable doctrine that justified the proposed annexation of islands in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. It cloaked the intention of hostile interference in the affairs of other countries. If the US dictated terms to others and ticked them off for not toeing the line, it was merely fulfilling its Manifest Destiny that Providence had chosen for it.

Manifest Destiny then became a genuine ideal, a philosophy of a nation, not just an excuse for annexation of territory. It was a deep-rooted conviction that God intended Americans to control North America, and possibly the rest of the world. Though it hinted at the idea of Anglo-Saxon supremacy and racism, it now wore the veneer of idealism. This idealism, or plain power grabbing — call it what you will, has had its impact on American foreign policy. For example, the US waged a war against Spain in 1898 for a number of political and geographical reasons. But one of the underlying factors was the philosophy of Manifest Destiny. Most of the fighting occurred in two theatres of war — near the Spanish colonial possessions of Cuba and the Philippines. The war effectively ended Spain’s colonial ambitions and marked the rise of the United States as a global military power.

The annexation of Hawaii, again in 1898, was part of the same agenda. The then US president William McKinley famously said: “We need Hawaii just as much and a good deal more than we did California. It is Manifest Destiny.” The rationale behind the earlier US-Mexican War and the capture of lands in the Southwest was ostensibly to spread Anglo-Saxon ideals and bring the much-needed enlightenment to the people. Again, it was Manifest Destiny at work.

So, it should come as no surprise that the US is prepared to send its troops half way around the world — Afghanistan, Iraq and now, probably, Iran — to spread its political ideals that it firmly believes are good for the rest of the world. This is one of the reasons why the country’s interventions abroad are not seen by many of its politicians and people as adventurism or triumphalism, but a genuine desire to fulfil what is perceived as a divinely ordained responsibility. Gaining foothold in other territories is seen more as a religious sanction and less as an imperialist ambition.

The desire and decision to extend American influence overseas is not dictated by geo-political compulsions alone. The agenda includes cultural imperialism as well. Fast food is only one of the means to achieve the end. Fashion, entertainment, and education are others, especially entertainment, that includes music, movies and television programmes. They have influenced popular tastes all over the world. Controlling the way the world thinks, reacts, eats and dresses can often give a nation a stronger hold on others than any geographical annexation of territories. Control a peoples’ mind and lifestyle, and you control a nation.