Saturday, January 11, 2003
4:42 pm
Liberation is a Reactionary Word - 11th January 2003, 16.42
Adrian Hamilton of the Independent drew upon Niall Ferguson's new history of the British Empire as shown on one of the British television channels to condemn the prevailing political culture of the United States, which he describes as imperialist. His description fits the blogosphere to a tee, if you discount the idiocy of his position:
To listen to US politicians or to read American columnists these days is rather like eavesdropping on a Colonial Office conversation in the late 19th century. The hand sweeps across the world's map marking the natives.
Europe: a fine civilisation but a people grown overprotected. Must brace up with fewer social benefits and more armaments. Japan (wry smile here): once quite challenging but now sunk in a slough of inaction. Africa: a benighted people who have brought it on themselves. And the Arabs? Failed the challenge of modernity. We'll need not just to remove a few bad regimes but also occupy Baghdad until we can spread the word of democracy and capitalism.
Extraordinary to say, but there seem to be a substantial number of people in Washington who believe this patronising drivel.
Hamilton is, of course, wrong in his description of American foreign policy as imperialist. The motivations behind the contemporary expansion of US power are defensive and preventive, stemming from the continental insecurity following the destruction of the World Trade Centre. (Empire, even if unlooked for, is a consequence). It is instructive to consider from this passage that what was once liberal is now reactionary. In the first half of the nineteenth century both France and Britain, considered liberal powers, supported movements for representative institutions against autocratic monarchies or the Ottoman empire without acting in a way that would threaten the Concert of Europe. Now, if a great power promotes liberal values and representative democracy, this is imperialism and "patronising drivel", a reactionary measure. When did the invasion of a country to liberate it from an evil dictator and set up a democracy in its place become an action criticised by so-called progressives as immoral and insulting to native culture?
The other point that Hamilton raises is that there is a conservative wing in Britain wishing to experience Empire again through an American proxy. His evidence, one historian. If the British right did support US action from an ideology of neo-imperialism, it would provide some optimism: indicating a level of forethought and principle behind their Atlanticist stance that does not currently exist (except perhaps with Liam Fox). However, Hamilton's drivel is an attempt to discuss the Empire (again), do down the right and display his credentials as an anti-American - three standard nostrums of the Left.
Update: An interesting discussion of whether America is an Empire, or just a "mild hegemon", by James Bennett at UPI. Given the extension of military and economic power wielded by the US through various institutions, I am inclined to view its control and influence as a form of Empire, though direct and formal control of territory is no longer required.
Adrian Hamilton of the Independent drew upon Niall Ferguson's new history of the British Empire as shown on one of the British television channels to condemn the prevailing political culture of the United States, which he describes as imperialist. His description fits the blogosphere to a tee, if you discount the idiocy of his position:
To listen to US politicians or to read American columnists these days is rather like eavesdropping on a Colonial Office conversation in the late 19th century. The hand sweeps across the world's map marking the natives.
Europe: a fine civilisation but a people grown overprotected. Must brace up with fewer social benefits and more armaments. Japan (wry smile here): once quite challenging but now sunk in a slough of inaction. Africa: a benighted people who have brought it on themselves. And the Arabs? Failed the challenge of modernity. We'll need not just to remove a few bad regimes but also occupy Baghdad until we can spread the word of democracy and capitalism.
Extraordinary to say, but there seem to be a substantial number of people in Washington who believe this patronising drivel.
Hamilton is, of course, wrong in his description of American foreign policy as imperialist. The motivations behind the contemporary expansion of US power are defensive and preventive, stemming from the continental insecurity following the destruction of the World Trade Centre. (Empire, even if unlooked for, is a consequence). It is instructive to consider from this passage that what was once liberal is now reactionary. In the first half of the nineteenth century both France and Britain, considered liberal powers, supported movements for representative institutions against autocratic monarchies or the Ottoman empire without acting in a way that would threaten the Concert of Europe. Now, if a great power promotes liberal values and representative democracy, this is imperialism and "patronising drivel", a reactionary measure. When did the invasion of a country to liberate it from an evil dictator and set up a democracy in its place become an action criticised by so-called progressives as immoral and insulting to native culture?
The other point that Hamilton raises is that there is a conservative wing in Britain wishing to experience Empire again through an American proxy. His evidence, one historian. If the British right did support US action from an ideology of neo-imperialism, it would provide some optimism: indicating a level of forethought and principle behind their Atlanticist stance that does not currently exist (except perhaps with Liam Fox). However, Hamilton's drivel is an attempt to discuss the Empire (again), do down the right and display his credentials as an anti-American - three standard nostrums of the Left.
Update: An interesting discussion of whether America is an Empire, or just a "mild hegemon", by James Bennett at UPI. Given the extension of military and economic power wielded by the US through various institutions, I am inclined to view its control and influence as a form of Empire, though direct and formal control of territory is no longer required.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
January
(87)
- Wouldn't that be something? - 30th January 2003, 2...
- New Labour, New Europe - 30th January 2003, 23.06 ...
- Blair's Appeasement - 29th January 2003, 23.15 Bl...
- Winstone's Czech Mate Interesting article in the ...
- The most special of relationships Geoffrey Wheatc...
- France and Britain are to blame - 28th January 200...
- Linkages - 28th January 2003, 20.55 Behind the sc...
- Benefits of Iraq So, we're sending troops to Iraq...
- Two Fronts According to the BBC fighting has erup...
- Defence Merger - 27th January 2003, 23.14 British...
- 1,192 Possible Terrorists to be caught - 26th Janu...
- Start, Act, Ignore (the Independent) - 26th Januar...
- Back of the Net - 26th January 2003, 17.34 A ha! ...
- Exit Strategy - 26th January 2003, 15.54 Sometime...
- Zimwatch: An Idiot writes - 24th January 2003, 00....
- The Heir of Gladstone and Thatcher - 24th January ...
- 'Winable' According to the Foreign Policy Center ...
- More joys of Europe Five Moroccans found with exp...
- Are the Frogs hopping mad? The French seem to be ...
- If you believe that Shock, horror. Saddam has ch...
- The Argument Changes Again. 24th January 2003. A...
- Is Anti-Americanism in Britain increasing in stren...
- Why are they laughing at me? - 23rd January 2003, ...
- That word, opposition I don't like using the word...
- Hitting the Buffers - 22nd January 2003, 23.21 Th...
- Zim watch: Games people play Electric Review has ...
- Crikey The game really must be up for the Euro. ...
- Iraq, what do we do after we go in? Alexander Coc...
- Philip Gould is burying his head in his hands - 21...
- Philosopher Kings As judges are using internation...
- Objectively Evil I couldn't make this up: The Eu...
- Let Slip... - 20th January 2003, 23.28 Geoff Hoon...
- The Dual Executive is strengthened - 20th January ...
- Further Strength to the Referendum Camp - 20th Jan...
- For Rothermere and Liberty It's been a while sinc...
- Confused and Insecure - 19th January 2003, 21.20 ...
- Beyond the Pole - 17th January 2003, 23.18 Geoff ...
- What's it good for? A good bit of right wing NATO...
- Wrestling with Islam An interesting essay on the ...
- Just War An interesting article on Just War by Mu...
- Not one of our better campaigns - 16th January 200...
- The Battle for Europe is lost. The Battle for Brit...
- W, WWYD? The question "well what would you do?" h...
- Peace of what? A new group seems to be organising...
- Sacked for Blogging Iain Murray has been sacked f...
- 'Britain's role is to unite the world' It's some ...
- Jail for Jokes It's really quite chilling how ben...
- Securing Energy Supplies - 14th January 2003, 23.0...
- More public consultation In an article on the fam...
- Liberalism and the EU redux I'm not sure whether ...
- Identity Problem Do you like the idea of identity...
- Zimwatch: False Dawn? - 13th January 2003, 23.00 ...
- Heralding an Inner Core - 13th January 2003, 20.56...
- Murdoch sells out One of the problems about the A...
- By Jingo what a fuss There is a bit of a to do ar...
- Zimwatch: From Crisis to Catastrophe, From Fear to...
- Italy: Eurocon Referendum - 12th January 2003, 13....
- Brunei: British Gurkhas stay on - 12th January 200...
- Unreported in the UK Media - 12th January 2003, 13...
- Preachers of Hate - 11th January 2003, 21.00 Angu...
- Liberation is a Reactionary Word - 11th January 20...
- Zimwatch: Slow Steps to Genocide - 10th January 20...
- How to do it I remember the peace movement in Ame...
- A real threat While busy bleating about the drast...
- Vulnerability to the Economic Costs of an Aging Po...
- Christianity's Clause in the Eurocon - 9th January...
- American Views of the Palestinian Conference - 9th...
- Not so magic circle The Telegraph reports on plan...
- If you can't win the argument, smear I used to li...
- Cato's take on Prodi's Plan for the EU - 8th Janua...
- Tories keep Eurocon simmering- 7th January 2003, 2...
- NAFTA or EU? - 8th January 2003, 21.05 Talk of cl...
- Don't Blame Religion Javier Solana is profiled in...
- Would you trust your money with them? France and ...
- Zimwatch: Mad Bad Bob - 7th January 2003, 20.15 I...
- I am a Counsellor to an American Prince - 7th Janu...
- Our Foreign Policy in action - 6th January 2003, 2...
- Identification: Friendly Fire - 6th January 2002, ...
- Simply not our job At last there is an attempt to...
- Soft Power - 5th January 2003, 23.58 Walker's Wor...
- American Recessional - 5th January 2003, 23.35 Pa...
- The 30 year rule - 4th January 2003, 8.55 Many do...
- Still at the Heart of Europe - 4th January 2003, 1...
- How is the Swedish model faring? - 3rd January 200...
- Lost Letter This letter does not appear to be on ...
- Importing the problem Srdja Trifkovic writes abou...
- On the other side of the world Some of the more r...
-
▼
January
(87)
0 comments:
Post a Comment