Empires Don't Go Home

National Post ^ | 4/7/2003 | Andrew Coyne

[tentmaker]

Empires don't go home
Andrew Coyne
National Post

As every schoolchild knows, this month marks the 186th anniversary of the signing of the Rush-Bagot Treaty, an event of monumental importance to every Canadian as it is all that stands between us and an American invasion. Those of you no longer of school age will nonetheless instantly recall that the treaty demilitarized the Canada-U.S. border after the War of 1812: each side was limited to no more than four warships on the Great Lakes, none to exceed 100 tons. And so it remains to this day, an inspiring example of the power of international law to restrain American imperialism and the sole guarantee of our security from American attack.

I recite all this stale history for the benefit of Stephanie Nolen, The Globe and Mail's correspondent among the Kurds in northern Iraq. Ms. Nolen reports on having recently had the unusual experience of having to defend her country from criticism by the locals, for having opted out of the American-led war against Iraq. (Apparently, in that part of the world, people actually welcome an American invasion.) She made a game try at it. "The people of Canada," she began, "understand that Saddam is a dictator, and that the Kurdish people, like many other Iraqis, have suffered terribly under his regime."

But. But "what we object to is unilateral action by the United States. We believe that if the Americans are allowed to decide today that Mr. Hussein must go, they may decide next week that it should be the leader of another country -- perhaps it will be Canada who annoys them, because we will not give them cheap access to our forests or our water." Stephanie, Stephanie. Have you forgotten? It could not happen. We have a treaty.

But Ms. Nolen is far from alone. Probe a little beneath the surface of any critique of the war, and you will find the same anxiety: that this is just the start, that America has let slip all civilized restraint, at last daring to assert what previously it had only dreamed of -- empire. Rick Salutin, also writing in the Globe, sees the liberation of Iraq as "the first in a limitless chain of assertions of U.S. power." The Independent newspaper wonders whether the war has "a sinister, wider purpose, warning other rogue states, and perhaps other states, too, that this is what they can expect if they trouble the world's only superpower?" (Emphasis added.)

The notion that this conflict heralds the arrival of the American Empire is by now a commonplace. Even America's friends, such as Niall Ferguson or Michael Ignatieff, urge it to embrace the title. It is, they say, an "empire in denial." Some on the American right have taken them up on it, if only for the shock value. Max Boot, fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, likens it to gays who embrace the "queer" label. Aren't we naughty?

No, just silly. An empire is an explicit scheme of territorial aggrandizement, born of military conquest and maintained by force of arms. The conquered territory is wholly absorbed within the legal and administrative structure of the imperial power. Most important, this arrangement is permanent. Empires don't go home.

[Captain Kirk]

The author is wrong. Empires do not necessarily wholly incorporate conquered territory into a common administrative structure. The British certainly didn't.

[RippleFire]

Ahem - Queen Victoria was Empress of India

[Ditto]

The last permanent addition to American territory by force of arms was in the Spanish-American War, more than a century ago. Empires don't go home.

Unless I'm mistaken, all we held from then is Puerto Rico, which can vote itself independent or for full statehood at any time it chooses. It regularly chooses to do neither.

[pabianice]

Invading Canada would be like "The Ransom of Red Chief." We'd have to pay them to take it back.

[Servant of the Nine]

We are not restrained by treaty.
We are perfectly capable of tearing one up if we wish.

We have been restrained for nearly 200 years by good will.
The present Canadian Govt. has just about used that up.

Canukistan Ping

SO9

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Also hold the U.S. Virgin Islands from the Spanish-American War. The author is wrong about that war being the last that we acquired territory in. After World War II we have continued to hold Guam and the Marianas Islands, as well as several South Pacific Islands as American Territories.

[Junior]

Puerto Rico, Guam, and a bunch of islands somewhere way out in the Pacific. We also took Cuba, which we granted independence, and the Philippines, which we held onto until 1947 or thereabouts.

[Ditto]

Also hold the U.S. Virgin Islands from the Spanish-American War.

I thought we acquired the US V.I. from the Netherlands in exchange for support during WWI. I don't think we got them through conquest.

"After World War II we have continued to hold Guam and the Marianas Islands, as well as several South Pacific Islands as American Territories."

Ditto here. Weren't they UN designated US possessions after WWII? (Guam might have even been after WWI, or was that Wake Island????) Again, it might be somewhat technical, but they were not acquired by conquest but through international/multi-national agreement.

[Alas Babylon!]

We also acquired Guam from the Spanish in the Spanish-American War in 1898. Before that, Guam had been Spanish since Magellan discovered it many centuries ago. Guamians voted to remain an American territory recently.

[Ditto]

"...and the Philippines, which we held onto until 1947 or thereabouts.

In the 1920s, the US promised Phillippines independence in 1944. Keep in mind that half of the country was barely out of the stone age then, and a lot of education and infrastructure needed developed to have the have any chance of success. But we helped them establish their own government structures, a civil service, a military (that's who MacArthur, who was retired from the US Army, was training, reporting to President Quezon, when WWII broke out). The War delayed their independence for only 2 years --- to July 4, 1946. Pretty remarkable actually. It hasn't worked out perfectly there, but over the last 55 years, they have done a damn sight better than 90% of 3rd world countries.

[Ditto]

Thanks for the correction.

[goody2shooz]

The author was, on the whole, correct. But what he didn't say was that building an empire requires conquest.

Conquest is messy.

Americans don't mind messy - look closely at our guys in uniform blowin' things up! - but it is not our preferred way of dealing with other nations. We prefer to find common grounds for a relationship.

[Batrachian]

Let's see: small population, mostly pacifists, huge land area, vast natural resources including oil, coal, iron, etc..., no military to speak of, no natural barriers to an invasion, unfriendly behaviour lately, and lots more.

Let's Roll!

[Semper]

Don't forget the island of Okinawa. The U.S. kept control of that territory of Japan until the mid 1960's.

[CatoRenasci]

Only after over 100 years of letting the East India Compan run the subcontinent.

[Ancesthntr]

The Independent newspaper wonders whether the war has "a sinister, wider purpose, warning other rogue states, and perhaps other states, too, that this is what they can expect if they trouble the world's only superpower?"

Gee, warning other rogue states not to trouble us - what offensive behavior on our part! I'm so ashamed - NOT.

The Bush Doctrine is clear, simple and just:

1) Don't F with us, and we won't F with you. In fact, we may even trade with you and help you out on occasion - i.e. we'd rather get along.

2) If #1 isn't good enough for you, be assured that we can open up a very large can of whoopass and deliver it to your home via Armed Forces Express ("AFE, when it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed overnight").

(Semi-sincere apologies to the more diplomatic out there, but this is really what it says - diplomacy is, after all, the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a big rock).

[Ancesthntr]

Not a half-bad idea, you know. Except that we don't want the part of that territory that begins with "Q" - most of the natives smell badly, and they have a sour disposition.

[Canadian Outrage]

Tell ya what George - I SURRENDER!! I'm tired of this Country anyway. An entire Country is ruled by one FRENCH Province that should NEVER have been incorporated into it in the first place. Now if you want to talk about Imperialists - THE FRENCH are it!!

[Captain Kirk]

Yes...and various Rajes and other potentates ruled under her and exercised powers not enjoyed by either parliament or the British aristocracy. The same was true in many parts of Africa where various kings and tribal chiefs continued to reign (and to various degrees rule), albeit as part of the British empire.

In some respects, the French Republican empire (which included an assortment of Kings and princes in Indochina and elsewhere) was similar. In neither case, did all subjects of these empires live under the "same" political system. Each empire included an immense variety and range of systems ranging from direct colonial rule to looser protectorates.