From: Steve Davies (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 07:31:26 MST
Lee Corbin wrote last Thursday
> In two posts on March 13, Steve Davies writes
>
> > Imperialism means a bit more than [taking of someone else's land].
> > Obviously, the core aspect is one nation or state ruling over
> > territory not its own original territory and (the really important
> > part) the people who inhabit that territory. It's the rule of one
> > people over another that makes a state an empire.
>
> [Ron and I asked "What is 'liberal imperialism'?"]
>
> > "Liberal imperialism" is originally a term used by historians to
describe
> > the kind of 'New Imperialism' that appeared after the Berlin Conference
of
> > 1878, to some extent in reality, much more in theory. By extension it
means
> > a policy motivated or justified by the same kinds of ideas. That is,
the
> > notion that imperialism is not about simply conquering other peoples for
> > wealth, power, or glory. It is about advanced or civilised nations
ruling
> > over other (not so advanced) nations so as to bring them the benefits of
> > law, modernity...
Lee responds
> Yet in all the cases I can think of from 1878 on, European powers
> ruled over others' lands for the primary purpose of enriching
> themselves (i.e. economic advance), or for military gain (e.g.,
> the conquest of the Turkish possessions). I would be willing to admit
> that a secondary consideration might be the welfare of the ruled,
> at least after, as you suggest, 1878.
Not so. You have to make a distinction between practice and justificatory
theory (as I did en passant) and also between practice and motive. In other
words there is both Empire (the institutional/policy reality) and
Imperialism (the ideology that justifies the policy and inspires it). It is
simply not true that Europeans and people of European origin such as
Americans ruled over others for reasons of material gain. This was a motive
in the earlier phase of Empire in the 18th to early 19th century but is
mainly absent in the post 1878 period. Colonial empires lose money big time
and (contrary to the Hobson//Lenin view) there is not a substantial group
that gains economically at others expense. There are groups who gain
politically but that's another story. The main motives, as spelt out by the
advocates of Empire are (a) Glory (b) national power (c) the 'uplifting'
'civilising mission' as the French call it. This last is very important for
the great colonial administrators such as Cromer, Lyautey, and Lugard.
>
> Probably in the minds of the American leaders, benefit to the
> people of Iraq is one of the motives, but probably no higher
> than about 3rd or 4th.
I think it is actually higher than that but only inasmuch as it's an
inevitable element of a main motive - to realise a set of values and to
ensure American safety and predominance by doing this.
>
> > An important point is that you may not need to directly rule
> > over land/people de jure if your power is such that you effectively
> > control it anyway e.g. British rule over about half of India plus
> > places like Argentina. I'm afraid that while the US avoided that
> > until the 1890s it caught a bad case after then, viz Hawaii, Puerto
> > Rico, the Philippines. The policy followed in the Middle East
> > after [this new] war will tell us if it has embarked on another
> > round of imperialism.
>
> Then the irony is, the more effort that is made on behalf of
> the Iraqi people, then the more imperialistic the U.S. role
> will become! For example, suppose (as I have just said) that
> there are two reasons that come before benefiting the Iraqi
> people. For the purpose of discussion, let's assume that they
> are (i) ridding Iraq of WMD, (ii) stabilizing the price of oil.
> Then a possible (iii) establishing a non-authoritarian or less
> repressive regime in Iraq would require an extended stay by
> the Coalition (or at least U.S.) forces. But the longer the
> stay, the more this is a case of liberal imperialism.
This is exactly right. As you say paradoxical. BTW the 'beneficiaries' of th
is policy are likely to resent it, even if they do actually benefit.
>
> > In other words to rule over other people for their own good,
> > with a kind of tutelary role. Basically it's a Fabian welfare
> > state but on an international level (one reason why most Fabians
> > were ardent Imperialists). It seems to me that this kind of
> > thinking is a major element in much argument about a war on
> > Iraq, e.g. the idea that the US will reconstruct Iraq in the
> > way it (allegedly) did in Germany and Japan after 1945.
>
> The tutelary role the Fabians probably had in mind would
> have extended indefinitely, no? (After all, it was widely
> supposed at the time that non-Western peoples couldn't
> really rule themselves on our level.)
No. If you read Fabians and other imperialists of that period they did
forsee the tutelary period ending at some time. Having said that it was
supposed to be a pretty distant prospect for some (e.g. black Africans)
while being much closer for others (e.g. West Indians, Egyptians). The
tricky case of course was India.
>
> As for Germany and Japan, it's become clear that the occupying
> countries needed only "flip a switch". The Germans and Japanese
> rather easily converted into stalwart democracies. We cannot
> expect most Middle Eastern countries to do so, not at least without
> a rather long period of "tutelage".
I agree. That's why I think the kind of project being dreamed up by the
wilder neo-cons is insanely overambitious.
> > The faction in Washington [Wolfowitz, etc.] are arguing, as
> > I understand them, that the unique position of power the US
> > found itself in at the end of the Cold War gives it the
> > opportunity and the responsibility to shape the world in
> > a way that both protects US interests and security and
> > advances certain political ideals. Sounds a lot like liberal
> > imperialism to me, could come straight out of late nineteenth
> > century British imperialist writings of the Cecil Rhodes variety.
>
> Really? As I said, the 19th century thinkers did *not* have any
> intention of bringing up the White Man's burden to the White Man's
> level now, did they? I gather that the English really and
> sincerely were trying to do this in India, but only, I think,
> well into the 1920's. Don't you think that if Rhodes and
> all actually wrote this that they didn't quite mean it the
> way that we would today?
This *is* certainly what they said (although as I say they thought it would
take a very long time). Even if they thought it would be indefinite there is
a difference between thinking you are ruling over another people 'for their
own good' as opposed to because you have won a war and are more powerful
(the second view is actually less condescending than the first)
>
> > This is very much where Tony Blair and his advisors are coming from.
>
> So in your opinion, they're not in advance of the late 19th
> century imperialists?
Absolutely - I think this is a case of brushing the dust off an old set of
arguments. There are several people here who make this case explicitly such
as Robert Cooper and John Lloyd. Also a recent TV series on the history of
the British Empire by Niall Ferguson argued the case for seeing the BE as
the great instrument of modernisation, with the not vey coded message that
something like it was needed now. (Remember Kipling's poem which you cited
was addressed to Americans and was a call for them to take over the imperial
role from the Brits)
>
> Above you wrote
>
> > The policy followed in the Middle East after [this new] war
> > will tell us if it has embarked on another round of imperialism.
>
> What are your criteria, more specifically?
Pretty much what you pointed to earlier, plus policy towards the rest of the
region. I would say
1. Length of stay - a flashing sign if it's clearly meant to be long
term/indefinite.
2. Signs that the authority exercisd by American officials is intended to
lead to a reconstruction of some basic social and political institutions.
3. Pressure put on other regimes in the region such as Syria, Iran, Egypt to
'mend their ways' and adopt more 'westernising' policies.
4. A very substantial military and administrative presence in the region.
OTOH, if the US adopts a minimal approach of removing WMDs and the
Baathists, replacing them with clients (a Hashemite King perhaps?) and then
withdrawing most of it's military presence, and doesn't try to actually
administer or set policy for post Saddam Iraq, them Empire has got the
thumbs down. I suspect, having started the war, it will be difficult for the
administration to do this.
>
> Thanks,
> Lee
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 24 2003 - 07:39:07 MST