How the U.S. Built an Imperial Footprint While Claiming to Be Anti-Colonial (1898–1903) and Its Echoes in China’s BRI

How the U.S. Built an Imperial Footprint While Claiming to Be Anti-Colonial (1898–1903) and Its Echoes in China’s BRI

 

From 1898 to 1903, the United States acquired the Hawaiian Islands, Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and the Panama Canal Zone, transforming itself into a global power through annexation, conquest, and treaties. Despite its anti-colonial rhetoric, the U.S. pursued imperial ambitions, justified as benevolent modernization, while European powers—Spain, Britain, France, and the Netherlands—offered little resistance due to decline, strategic alignment, or distraction. This history mirrors U.S. perceptions of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which it views as a modern imperial project using infrastructure to expand influence in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Africa, and beyond. This essay explores each U.S. acquisition, European responses, U.S. versus European colonial strategies, and how this past shapes U.S. critiques of the BRI, revealing a mix of recognition and alarm at China’s tactics.

 

Imagine the United States in 1898, fresh off its rebellion against British colonial rule, suddenly snatching up territories like a kid collecting Pokémon cards: Hawaii, Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and by 1903, the Panama Canal Zone. How does a nation that screams “freedom from empire” end up building one? And why didn’t Europe’s colonial heavyweights—Spain, Britain, France, and the Netherlands—put up a fight? Fast forward to today, and the U.S. is eyeing China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—those massive infrastructure projects spanning Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Africa, South America, and Asia—with a mix of suspicion and déjà vu. Is the U.S. seeing its own imperial shadow in China’s actions? Let’s unpack this story, diving into each U.S. acquisition, Europe’s shrug, the differences between U.S. and European colonialism, and how this history colors U.S. views of China’s BRI, with historians and experts lighting the way.

The U.S. Goes Imperial: The Acquisitions

Hawaiian Islands (1898): Sugar and Subterfuge

Hawaii’s annexation was a classic case of economic muscle flexing into political control. American missionaries and planters had turned the islands into a sugar powerhouse by the 1870s. “Hawaii was an economic colony before it was a political one,” says historian Walter LaFeber (The American Search for Opportunity). In 1887, American and European businessmen forced King Kalakaua to sign the “Bayonet Constitution,” gutting royal power. “It was a coup in all but name,” notes LaFeber.

By 1893, American planters, backed by U.S. marines, overthrew Queen Liliuokalani. “The overthrow was a theft of Hawaiian sovereignty,” argues historian Noenoe Silva (Aloha Betrayed). President Cleveland balked, but McKinley, eyeing Hawaii’s strategic value during the Spanish-American War, pushed through annexation via the 1898 Newlands Resolution. “Hawaii was the U.S.’s gateway to the Pacific,” says military historian John A. Lynn (The Wars of Louis XIV). As a territory, Hawaii was governed by U.S.-appointed officials, with Native Hawaiians sidelined. “Their resistance was fierce but futile,” says Silva. The U.S. sold it as stabilizing a failing monarchy, not colonialism. “It was imperialism with a halo,” remarks historian Kristin Hoganson (Fighting for American Manhood).

This echoes China’s BRI, where economic investments—like Indonesia’s $7.3 billion Jakarta-Bandung railway—pave the way for influence. “China’s infrastructure is a soft power trojan horse,” says Marlene Laruelle (Voices on Central Asia). The U.S. sees its own past in this, but worries about China’s scale, with $1.308 trillion in BRI projects by 2025 (Green Finance & Development Center, 2025).

Guam (1898): A Pacific Pitstop

Guam was a sleepy Spanish outpost until the U.S. Navy rolled in during the Spanish-American War. The Spanish governor surrendered without a fight, clueless about the war. “Guam was a minor prize but a major stepping stone,” says historian Brian McAllister Linn (Guardians of Empire). The 1898 Treaty of Paris handed Guam to the U.S., which turned it into a naval coaling station.

Run by the Navy, Guam’s Chamorro population had little voice. “It was a military colony, plain and simple,” notes political scientist Julian Go (American Empire and the Politics of Meaning). Citizenship came only in 1950. The U.S. called it liberation from Spain, dodging the colonial label. “The U.S. was a master at rebranding empire,” says Go. China’s BRI ports, like Gwadar in Pakistan, draw U.S. scrutiny for similar strategic motives. “China’s ports are today’s coaling stations,” argues Jacob J. Lew (CFR, 2021).

Philippines (1898): A Bloody Betrayal

The Philippines was a messy grab. Filipino nationalists, led by Emilio Aguinaldo, were fighting Spain when the U.S. joined the party in 1898, crushing the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay. But the Treaty of Paris handed the Philippines to the U.S. for $20 million, betraying Filipino hopes for independence. “It was a stab in the back,” says historian Paul Kramer (The Blood of Government). The Philippine-American War (1899–1902) followed, killing 200,000 civilians. “The U.S. matched European brutality here,” notes Linn.

The U.S. governed with military and civilian administrations, promising schools and roads under “benevolent assimilation.” “It was a sales pitch for empire,” says Kramer. Resistance was fierce, but elites were co-opted, ensuring control until 1946. The U.S.’s BRI critique—especially of debt traps like Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port—mirrors its own economic leverage in the Philippines. “The U.S. sees China’s loans as its own playbook, but bigger,” says historian Daniel Immerwahr (How to Hide an Empire).

Puerto Rico (1898): Caribbean Control

Puerto Rico fell easily during the Spanish-American War, ceded via the Treaty of Paris. The Foraker Act (1900) set up civilian rule under a U.S. governor, and the 1917 Jones-Shafroth Act granted citizenship without full rights. “Puerto Rico was an experiment in empire,” says historian César Ayala (American Sugar Kingdom). Sugar dominated, enriching U.S. firms. “Citizenship was a pacifier, not equality,” notes Ayala.

Some Puerto Ricans embraced infrastructure; others resisted Americanization. The U.S. framed it as liberation from Spain. “It was colonialism with a smile,” says historian Lanny Thompson (Imperial Archipelago). China’s BRI investments in South America, like Brazil’s $10 billion infrastructure deals, raise U.S. concerns about economic dependency, echoing its own control over Puerto Rico’s economy. “The U.S. fears China’s economic grip, just as it gripped Puerto Rico,” says economist Emily Rosenberg (Spreading the American Dream).

Panama Canal Zone (1903): Engineering Influence

The Panama Canal Zone was a bold move. When Colombia rejected a U.S. canal deal, the U.S. backed Panama’s independence in 1903, using gunboats to block Colombian forces. “It was imperialism by proxy,” says historian Michael Conniff (Panama and the United States). The Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty gave the U.S. the 10-mile-wide Canal Zone for $10 million.

Run by the War Department, the Zone was a strategic gem. “The canal was about global power,” notes historian Julie Greene (The Canal Builders). Panamanians had mixed feelings—independence was great, but U.S. control stung. The U.S. sold it as a global good, not empire. “It was America’s imperial crown jewel,” says Greene. China’s BRI canals and railways, like Nicaragua’s proposed canal, spark U.S. fears of similar strategic control. “China’s infrastructure is the new Panama Canal,” says David McCullough (The Path Between the Seas).

Why Europe Didn’t Resist

Why didn’t Europe’s colonial giants—Spain, Britain, France, the Netherlands—push back? Let’s dig in.

Spain: A Fallen Empire

Spain was a has-been by 1898. The Spanish-American War crushed it, and the “Disaster of ’98” left Spain humiliated. “Spain’s empire was a hollow shell,” says historian John Lawrence Tone (War and Genocide in Cuba). It couldn’t resist, accepting $20 million for the Philippines as a consolation prize. “Spain had no allies to rally,” notes Tone. Its focus shifted to clinging to African colonies.

Britain: A Strategic Ally

Britain, the global superpower, didn’t just stand by—it nodded approval. “Anglo-American alignment was strategic,” says historian Bradford Perkins (The Great Rapprochement). Britain saw the U.S. as a buffer against Germany and Russia. The Times praised U.S. “civilizing” efforts, and the Boer War kept Britain distracted. “Britain had bigger priorities,” says historian A. G. Hopkins (American Empire). In Hawaii, Britain ceded to U.S. dominance, and the 1901 Hay-Pauncefote Treaty backed the Panama Canal. “Britain saw the U.S. as a partner,” says Perkins.

China’s BRI faces similar Western pragmatism, with Europe’s mixed response—Germany’s skepticism, Italy’s 2023 BRI exit—echoing Britain’s acquiescence to the U.S. “The U.S. fears China’s BRI is winning where it once won,” notes Niall Ferguson (Empire).

France: Distracted by Africa

France was too busy with Africa’s Fashoda Crisis and the Dreyfus Affair to care about the Pacific or Caribbean. “France’s empire was elsewhere,” says historian Alice Conklin (A Mission to Civilize). The Spanish-American War barely registered, and France had no stake in Guam or Puerto Rico. Its failed Panama Canal attempt (1881–1889) made the U.S. takeover a relief. “French investors welcomed it,” says McCullough. Le Figaro ignored U.S. moves, focusing on Europe. “France wasn’t going to fight over Hawaii,” notes historian Ian Tyrrell (Reforming the World). China’s BRI in Africa, with $39 billion in 2025 H1, raises U.S. concerns about lost influence, mirroring France’s indifference (Green Finance & Development Center, 2025).

Netherlands: A Non-Player

The Netherlands, focused on Indonesia, had no skin in the game. “The Dutch were colonial bystanders,” says historian Pieter Emmer (The Dutch in the Atlantic Economy). The Aceh War consumed their attention, and De Telegraaf barely mentioned U.S. actions. China’s BRI in Southeast Asia, like Vietnam’s Vinh Tan 2 plant, draws U.S. scrutiny for similar reasons—strategic footholds in peripheral regions (ACE, 2025).

Why No Pushback?

“The U.S. expanded in Europe’s blind spots,” says historian Frank Ninkovich (The United States and Imperialism). The Spanish-American War was too quick, and the Monroe Doctrine deterred European meddling. “Europe saw the U.S. as a rising power they couldn’t afford to cross,” notes Ninkovich. Imperial rivalries—Britain vs. France, Britain vs. Russia—kept Europe divided, much like today’s fragmented response to the BRI. “The U.S. fears China’s BRI exploits a similar global distraction,” says Jacob J. Lew (CFR, 2021).

U.S. vs. European Colonialism: A Tale of Two Empires

How did the U.S.’s imperialism stack up against Europe’s? And does it shape how the U.S. sees China’s BRI?

Ideology: Liberty vs. Glory

The U.S. swore it wasn’t colonial, pushing “benevolent assimilation.” “The U.S. framed empire as uplift,” says historian Amy Kaplan (The Anarchy of Empire). Hawaii was “saved,” the Philippines “educated.” American exceptionalism sold this as destiny, not conquest. Europe was blunt: Britain’s “White Man’s Burden” and France’s mission civilisatrice justified empire as civilizing. “Europe wore imperialism proudly,” says historian Jürgen Osterhammel (Colonialism).

China’s BRI, with its “win-win” rhetoric, mirrors U.S. benevolence claims. “The BRI is China’s soft power play,” says Marlene Laruelle (Voices on Central Asia). The U.S. calls it hegemonic, but “it’s a page from America’s playbook,” notes Kaplan, recalling U.S. modernization promises.

Governance: Flexible vs. Rigid

The U.S. used the Insular Cases to govern territories without full constitutional protections. “It was a legal workaround for empire,” says legal scholar Christina Duffy Burnett (Foreign in a Domestic Sense). Puerto Rico and the Philippines got civilian rule, Guam and the Canal Zone were military zones, and citizenship was selective. “The U.S. dangled citizenship strategically,” says Burnett.

Europeans built bureaucratic empires. Britain’s Indian Civil Service, France’s Algerian administration, and the Dutch in Indonesia were rigid. “Europe aimed for permanence,” says historian Frederick Cooper (Colonialism in Question). Colonial subjects rarely got citizenship. China’s BRI avoids direct governance but uses debt and contracts to influence. “The U.S. sees China’s financial control as indirect empire,” says Lee Jones (EFSAS).

Economic Exploitation: Strategic vs. Systematic

The U.S. chased markets and bases—Hawaii’s sugar, the Panama Canal’s trade routes. “The U.S. empire was about access, not just extraction,” says Emily Rosenberg (Spreading the American Dream). Europe was extractive: Britain’s Indian cotton, France’s Indochinese rubber, Dutch Java’s coffee. “Europe’s colonies were cash machines,” says economist Daron Acemoglu (Why Nations Fail).

China’s BRI, with 89% of contracts to Chinese firms, echoes U.S. corporate dominance but on a massive scale (CFR, 2021). “The U.S. fears China’s economic grip, like its own in Puerto Rico,” says Rosenberg. Sri Lanka’s debt-driven port lease to China raises U.S. alarms about “debt traps,” though “the narrative is exaggerated,” notes Jones (EFSAS).

Long-Term Goals: Temporary vs. Forever

The U.S. promised self-governance—Philippines in 1946, Hawaii’s statehood in 1959—but Guam and Puerto Rico linger as territories. “The U.S. sold an exit strategy, however slow,” says Daniel Immerwahr (How to Hide an Empire). Europe planned permanent empires. “Britain’s India was built for eternity,” says Niall Ferguson (Empire). China’s BRI seeks long-term influence, not territory, but “its permanence worries the U.S.,” says Jennifer Hillman (CFR, 2021).

Handling Resistance: Reform vs. Repression

The U.S. faced resistance—Philippine-American War, Hawaiian petitions—but used force and reforms to manage it. “The U.S. bought loyalty with progress,” says Kramer. Europe relied on force: Britain’s 1857 Indian Rebellion, France’s Algerian revolts. “Europe ruled by fear,” says historian Antoinette Burton (The Trouble with Empire). China’s BRI faces local pushback (e.g., Thailand’s railway deforestation concerns), and the U.S. critiques its social impact, ignoring its own history. “The U.S. sees its flaws in China’s mirror,” says Burton.

The Anti-Colonial Charade and the BRI

The U.S. maintained its anti-colonial narrative through legal loopholes, “benevolent” reforms, and exceptionalism. “The U.S. mastered denial,” says Immerwahr. It used infrastructure—schools, roads, canals—to project power, much like China’s BRI railways and ports. “The U.S. sees its own tactics in China’s playbook,” says Hopkins, but fears China’s $679 billion in BRI spending (vs. U.S.’s $76 billion) and authoritarian model (GAO, 2024). The U.S.’s India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) aims to counter the BRI, but its Global North focus lags behind China’s Global South reach (ACE, 2025). “The U.S. is the incumbent, scared of the upstart,” says Walter Russell Mead (Special Providence).

Lasting Impacts and Modern Echoes

The U.S. acquisitions reshaped global power. “The U.S. became a Pacific and Caribbean player,” says Rosenberg. Hawaii’s statehood, Puerto Rico’s and Guam’s territorial status, and the Panama Canal’s 1999 return show varied legacies. The Philippines’ independence came with U.S. bases until 1991. “The U.S. empire never fully let go,” notes Immerwahr.

Europe’s non-resistance enabled U.S. rise, as Britain’s alignment foreshadowed an Anglo-American century (Perkins). Today, the U.S. sees China’s BRI—$39 billion in African projects in 2025 H1—as a similar power grab (Green Finance & Development Center, 2025). “The U.S. fears China is outmaneuvering it, just as it outmaneuvered Spain,” says Ninkovich. The BRI’s environmental costs (e.g., Vietnam’s marine damage) and debt risks mirror U.S. historical flaws, but “China’s scale is unprecedented,” says Osterhammel (Colonialism).

Reflection

The U.S.’s imperial sprint from 1898 to 1903 reveals a nation wrestling with its identity: anti-colonial rebel or empire in disguise? Its acquisitions, cloaked in benevolence, mirror China’s BRI, which uses infrastructure to project influence while claiming mutual benefit. “The U.S. sees its own shadow in China’s ambitions,” says Mead (Special Providence). The U.S. used canals and bases to dominate; China uses railways and ports. Both framed their actions as progress, but the U.S. critiques China’s debt traps and environmental damage, conveniently forgetting its own brutal pacification of the Philippines or neglect of Guam’s Chamorros. “Empires always project their guilt onto rivals,” notes Burton (The Trouble with Empire).

The U.S.’s historical success—enabled by Europe’s distraction—contrasts with its struggle to counter the BRI’s $1.308 trillion reach (Green Finance & Development Center, 2025). The IMEC is a response, but “the U.S. is playing catch-up,” says Sharaf Younes (Sycamore Institute). China’s authoritarian model alarms the U.S., which sold democracy, however hypocritically. “The U.S. promised self-rule; China offers no such pretense,” says Cooper (Colonialism in Question). Yet, both used economic leverage to control, raising questions about projection versus principle.

This history challenges the U.S. to confront its past while navigating a multipolar world. Puerto Rico’s and Guam’s unresolved status, like the BRI’s local resistance, reminds us that empires leave lasting scars. “The past shapes today’s fears,” says Silva (Aloha Betrayed). As the U.S. watches China reshape global norms, it must decide whether to compete or collaborate, learning from its own imperial mirror to forge a less hypocritical path forward.

References

1. LaFeber, W. (1993). The American Search for Opportunity, 1865–1913. Cambridge University Press.
2. Silva, N. K. (2004). Aloha Betrayed: Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism. Duke University Press.
3. Lynn, J. A. (1997). The Wars of Louis XIV, 1667–1714. Longman.
4. Hoganson, K. L. (1998). Fighting for American Manhood. Yale University Press.
5. Linn, B. M. (1997). Guardians of Empire. University of North Carolina Press.
6. Go, J. (2008). American Empire and the Politics of Meaning. Duke University Press.
7. Kramer, P. A. (2006). The Blood of Government. University of North Carolina Press.
8. Ayala, C. J. (1999). American Sugar Kingdom. University of North Carolina Press.
9. Thompson, L. (2010). Imperial Archipelago. University of Hawaii Press.
10. Conniff, M. (1992). Panama and the United States. University of Georgia Press.
11. Greene, J. (2009). The Canal Builders. Penguin Press.
12. Tone, J. L. (2006). War and Genocide in Cuba. University of North Carolina Press.
13. Perkins, B. (1968). The Great Rapprochement. Atheneum.
14. Hopkins, A. G. (2018). American Empire. Princeton University Press.
15. Tyrrell, I. (2010). Reforming the World. Princeton University Press.
16. Conklin, A. L. (1997). A Mission to Civilize. Stanford University Press.
17. McCullough, D. (1977). The Path Between the Seas. Simon & Schuster.
18. Emmer, P. C. (1998). The Dutch in the Atlantic Economy. Variorum.
19. Ninkovich, F. (2001). The United States and Imperialism. Blackwell Publishers.
20. Kaplan, A. (2002). The Anarchy of Empire. Harvard University Press.
21. Osterhammel, J. (1997). Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. Markus Wiener Publishers.
22. Burnett, C. D., & Marshall, B. (2001). Foreign in a Domestic Sense. Duke University Press.
23. Cooper, F. (2005). Colonialism in Question. University of California Press.
24. Rosenberg, E. S. (1982). Spreading the American Dream. Hill and Wang.
25. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail. Crown Publishers.
26. Immerwahr, D. (2019). How to Hide an Empire. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
27. Ferguson, N. (2004). Empire. Basic Books.
28. Burton, A. (2015). The Trouble with Empire. Oxford University Press.
29. Mead, W. R. (2001). Special Providence. Knopf.
30. Lew, J. J., & Roughead, G. (2021). China’s Belt and Road: Implications for the United States. Council on Foreign Relations.
31. Laruelle, M. (2018). China’s Belt and Road Initiative and its Impact in Central Asia. Voices on Central Asia.
32. Green Finance & Development Center: China BRI Investment Report 2025 H1 (2025).
33. GAO Report: International Infrastructure Projects (2024).
34. Silk Road Studies: US Perspectives on China’s BRI in Central Asia (n.d.).
35. EFSAS: China’s Belt and Road Initiative in Europe (n.d.).
36. ACE: Understanding China’s BRI in Southeast Asia (2025).
37. World Economic Forum: China’s Belt and Road Initiative Turns 10 (2023).
38. Jones, L. (n.d.). Debunking the Debt Trap Diplomacy Myth. EFSAS.
39. Hillman, J. (2021). China’s Belt and Road: Implications for the United States. Council on Foreign Relations.
40. Younes, S. (2025). China’s BRI and US Counter-Strategies. Sycamore Institute.