With the West once more forced into war because of Third World disorder, it's time to dust off an old concept for political order -- Empire. If the United States and its allies have to spend the next decade pursuing anti-western terrorists and regimes, perhaps it's time to impose imperial rule on the less enlightened parts of the planet.
To be sure, in these post-colonial times, you don't bandy words like "imperialism" and "empire" with nonchalance. Both have near-demonic associations, conjuring heart-of-darkness images of conquistadores slaughtering Aztecs, Belgians stripping the Congo and the British shelling Canton. But no less a socialist than Tony Blair has resurrected a more idealistic vision of empire. In a speech to his Labour brethren, the British prime minister cast the war against terrorism in idealist terms: "The starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the ignorant, those living in want and squalor from the deserts of North Africa to the slums of Gaza to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan: They too are our cause." Such sentiments would not have been out of place among those who once promoted the British Empire as a civilizing force in the world. Unwittingly or not, Mr. Blair has revitalized this imperial ideal.
It's about time. Since the end of the Cold War, we have been plagued by outbreaks of tribalist violence on the frontiers of civilization -- Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, East Timor, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, to name a few. This upheaval has threatened international order. Western armies (and money) have often been needed to prevent complete chaos or hunt down those who terrorize us.
In this regard, while Mr. Blair cast the imperialist impulse in an altruistic light, it is also a matter of self-defence. Indeed, British political theorist Robert Cooper, in his 1996 book The Postmodern State and the World Order, describes the situation facing the West as "post-imperial chaos." The existence of "zones of chaos" is nothing new, but in the past, such regions were largely isolated from the West or kept in check by an imperial power. Not so in the post-Cold War era, as Sept. 11 demonstrates. As Mr. Cooper writes: "If they become too dangerous for the established states to tolerate, it is possible to imagine a defensive imperialism."
Such an idea will undoubtedly be denounced as, well, imperialistic. But that ignores history. From the Sumerians and Assyrians to the Romans and the British, world history is imperial history. The nation-state emerged during the Renaissance, and became a major political player only in the 19th century. The lack of empire is historically unprecedented.
The nation-state has been a powerful force for modernization in the West, says Mr. Cooper, but the problem with a world of hundreds of nation-states -- the United Nations has 189 members -- is that many have weak national identities and flimsy political institutions. Some African states are near collapse, while others in Central Asia and South-East Asia are none too healthy.
Judging by the cries of "long live America" that greeted journalists in post-Taliban Kabul, people in these places may gladly accept temporary imperial rule -- a United Nations protectorate, perhaps -- if it brings peace. Indeed, demonstrators at a rally in Sierra Leone called for the return of British rule.
In a sense, the West is already engaged in empire-building. Non-governmental organizations have spent decades colonizing the Third World with western values through aid programs. The IMF and World Bank regularly prop up economically weak states. "Nation-building," "humanitarian intervention," "development"; these are euphemisms for what was once called the "white man's burden."
Therefore, the question needs to be asked: If the West is going to keep pouring money and manpower into marginal states anyway, why not impose an "imperial" rule that provides honest government, efficient administration and institutional order?
Of course, some already see the United States as an imperial power because of its political and cultural influence. But that is misleading. American culture may permeate the world, and its superpower influence may be immense. But this is not comparable to a classical imperial project. The ubiquity of McDonald's and CNN or occasionally sending the Seventh Fleet against tinpot regimes is not the same as assuming political responsibility for people.
No doubt, the lads and ladies on the left will swoon at such cultural chauvinism. Well, sniff the smelling salts. The West will not be secure so long as substantial parts of the planet are wracked by disorder. Given the anti-western hostility in the world, it's obvious efforts at "development" are naive and even counterproductive. Defensive imperialism is the only realistic response to barbarians.
Robert Sibley is a member of the Citizen's Editorial Board. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>