Is American imperialism a good thing or a bad thing?

OpinionJournal.com (Wall St. Journal) ^ | June 7, 2003 | Niall Ferguson

[Huber]

We may now be witnessing the most radical reshaping of the Middle East since it acquired its modern form (and many of its modern problems) in the wake of World War I. What the British Empire began, the American Empire may be about to finish.

[Huber]

Are world circumstances thrusting this mantle on the United States? Any thoughts on the relationship between Ferguson's premise and the premises of Hernando de Soto's Mystery of Capital? Can a current imperial phase be a good thing and a temporary thing that leaves a foundational legacy, establishing societal tools that better enable peaceful intercourse among cultures?

[ckilmer]

please give the cliff notes on de soto's book

[ckilmer]

one thing you'll want to note is that at the turn of the 20th century the british trade deficit fell off the cliff. Interestingly a similiar thing has happened has to the US at the turn of the 21st century.

both trade deficits I think are oil related.

as an economic move the business in Iraq is a rear guard action. imho the key for the US is getting energy independence--a policy which Bush endorsed at the last state of the union speech. (he also committed 1.5 billion to hydrogen research.)

As well I think it would be prudent to commit a similiar sum to water desalination reasearch--since most of the world's deserts are right beside the ocean and most of the world's problems these days are coming from desert countries. The stated policy would be to turn the desert green. That would change the future in much the same way star wars did because it would change the decades spanning calculations of men.

[steve50]

No, maybe, and no.

Haven't read the book you mention, but it appears to be a fiat problem to be. Lot of unhappy natives out there with resources.

[Huber]

I'll try, hopefully without butchering de Soto too much.

De Soto's premise is that societies create wealth when there is a well established system of property rights and legal processes that facilitate the transactions of commerce between persons. He blames the failure of some societies that possess great natural and cultural resources but do not create large scale prosperity on the lack of this legal infrastructure. If it is more difficult to demonstrate clear title to a parcel of land, and it is subsequently more complex to obtain the necessary governmental approvals to buy it, sell it or develop it, this will discourage capital investment. As a result, the wealth of a society remains locked up as potential wealth, never fully productively deployed.

(Perhaps someone else could do a better job clarifying. It's early yet and I'm typing fast so we can leave for church!)

In the case of the empire discussion, those former British colonies that have been left with the English commonlaw tradition tend to be among the most prosperous and peace loving nations in the world, preferring to pursue growth through commerce vs. conquest.

Hope this helps...

[Savage Beast]

"Unlike his predecessors, who thought peace could be brought by touchy-feely peace talks, Mr. Bush has grasped that military power is key..."

Yes, this is obvious to those who are both intelligent and honest. Peace is the prerogative of the powerful, not the weak, to paraphrase Winston Churchill. The path to peace is strength, not weakness--and not appeasement.

"The aim is to put the frighteners on the region's Muslim powers. And it's working."

Yes. And not just them but any tyrants and terrorists who seriously threaten peace, liberty, and justice.

The War on Terrorism is a defensive war. Americans have no interest in dominating anyone--but we will protect ourselves and our freedom. "Liberty or death" was not a hollow rallying cry!

"The terrorist threat will never be contained if the U.S. does not eradicate breeding grounds."

Obviously.

"For the moment America loses interest in what it has initiated, the cycle of terror will resume."

Yes, the greatest threat to freedom is decadence--the form of decadence known Orwellianly as "Liberalism" (but that in fact means the exact opposite).

"Americans have no qualms about sending their troops to fight in faraway countries. But they expect wars to be short and the casualty list to be even shorter."

Obviously. And also that enemy casualties be minimal to absent, that the lives and property of enemies to be minimally disrupted, and that vanquished nations be rebuilt and brought to freedom and prosperity!

Americans hate war! We always have!

Anyone who wonders why might reflect on Normandie, Flanders' Fields, et al.

Is America an empire? Maybe. Maybe not. But if so--it's a helluva lot better than a Nazi empire, the Japanese Empire, the Soviet Empire--

--Or a Muslim empire, and remember: The overt goal of Islam is the establishment of a worldwide theocracy with the Koran as the only constitution and the shariah as international law! This is imperialism!

[Huber]

PING

[Huber]

Or a Muslim empire, and remember: The overt goal of Islam is the establishment of a worldwide theocracy with the Koran as the only constitution and the shariah as international law! This is imperialism!

Well put!

[elhombrelibre]

5 minutes ago I finished Ferguson’s book. At a minimum for anyone interested in history, I recommend it. It refreshes the memory on things most readers probably once knew, and he does have a provocative conclusion and many historic facts most folks likely don’t know. I think the biggest difference in my own views and his are that while there is nearly always a public service when the US intervenes, and we do act from many motives, self-interest, self-defense, humanitarian concerns, etc., I see no hope of the US willingly embracing Empire by any name. I disagree with Buchanan and his barely covert racism and anti-Semitism, but I agree Americans will never sign up for Empire building. The US may have the power, but not the will, and our greatest lament is that the rest of the world wants to have it both ways. They want to benefit from US peace-keeping in places like the Balkans, and US peace-making in the Middle East, while carping and passing up the opportunity to help. My view is the US should be first among equals for making the world secure and that everyone ought to pull its weight. The US largely sees it self now and is leading an anti-imperial struggle with Islamic nut cases.

[TaxRelief]

De Soto advocates property rights primarily for collateral purposes (securing capital to invest in business by promising property in exchange for a loan default).

Is America a potential empire? One conquest does not scream "Imperialism!" If that is the general direction we are taking, I believe a takeover of Mexico would have been more easily accomplished. Imperialism is incredibly expensive, both in cost of war and in the cost of humanitarian aid. (Iraq, of course, will ultimately be a profitable expansion.)

America no longer has the fundamental political structure necessary to sustain a major expansion. "States rights" and "state autonomy" has been wittled down to almost nothing and there has been a general tendency to try to assimilate every one into the liberal view of intrusive government that excludes retention of sacred religious practices. This practice alone feeds unrest and resistance.

[tictoc]

Thank you for the first-hand book review!

My view is the US should be first among equals for making the world secure and that everyone ought to pull its weight.

I agree with you 100%, but unfortunately it isn't likely to happen. With the exception of Australia, no ally can be trusted without reservations. Heck, we can't even trust all of our own people to do the right thing! Now that the new Euro constitution has passed, the UK will find it increasingly difficult to maintain the "special relationship" with the US.

The US largely sees itself now and is leading an anti-imperial struggle with Islamic nut cases.

I agree, but how do you do that in the long run without establishing some serious power of your own? We are not colonialists: we don't enslave anyone and we don't take natural resources without paying the fair market price. But in other respects, we do fit the definition of an Empire. I believe we should embrace the responsibility thrust upon us, not slink away from it.

For more on my view of the Free Man's Burden, please view my profile page.

[Captain Kirk]

You mean like cannibalism by a president in Uganda (courtesy of the British foundation) cannabalism by a tinpot emperor in the Central African Repubican (courtesy of the French Foundation), mass murder in the Congo (courtesy of the Belgian foundation), and racist land seizures in Zimbabwe (courtesy of the British foundation)?

[Huber]

Captain,

Are you attributing cannibalism to English common law tradition?

Sorry Jim - Three to beam up.

[Huber]

My view is the US should be first among equals for making the world secure and that everyone ought to pull its weight

You make good points about willingness in the traditional sense. A challenge, however, is that there are significantly different international standards of rights, and application of law. Clearly, the US wants no part of the proposed international criminal court because of the expectation that it will be politicized. Similarly, when you have a countries like Syria and Libya on the UN Human Rights Council, you have good reason to be skeptical that internationally developed standards of international law will ever work.

To borrow loosely from Churchill, while the American system is certainly flawed, it is possibly less flawed than all the other systems. What will it take for the unstable regions of the world to stabilize? Will other countries truly step up in partnership or will the majority continue to use instability to their own purposes such as "multipolarism" or whatever else is the strategy du jour? We already know that our European allies will put their phobias around genetically engineered crops ahead of addressing starvation in Africa.

The US is as you point out, more (although certainly not purely) altruistically motivated than most other nations. Is it truly possible for anyone to be simply first among equals?

[Huber]

America no longer has the fundamental political structure necessary to sustain a major expansion. "States rights" and "state autonomy" has been wittled down to almost nothing and there has been a general tendency to try to assimilate every one into the liberal view of intrusive government that excludes retention of sacred religious practices. This practice alone feeds unrest and resistance.

True enough. I have not yet read Ferguson's book, but my guess is that he assumes that we would reverse our current lapse into moral relativism as a necessary precondition for our new role in the world, and that in fact, the trend in that direction began on 9/11 and has been gaining momentum since.

[HatSteel]

In an age of mass, global, instantaneous communication, we don't need to occupy any longer than it takes to hold the first election.

At that point we communicate very clearly the issues that will bring us back once again to use the stick if the restored nation of Iraq goes down a forbidden path.

I'm one who believes that in the long run it's cheaper to leave and return than it is to stay and suck up losses. BUT the departure should be part of the plan. The condition should be the first election of the first new, acceptable government. It should NOT be the "establishment of the perfect peace and economy."

Then we can have an empire of independence, and it can be run via global communications.

[Steel Wolf]

When Mr. Bush says he is prepared to fight terror in "every corner of the world," he really can. And he really does. If this isn't imperial power, I don't know what is.

That's right, Sparky, you don't know what is. Can you imagine the Roman empire, or the Imperial Japanese, vowing to fight terrorism in every corner of the world?

No, because they'd view terrorists as just another enemy to be eradicated, and diplomatic niceties be damned. We're not fighting terrorists to take their lands, make them learn English, convert them to our religions, and make them our subjects.

WHY DOES NO ONE GRAPS THAT DISTINCTION?!?

America is not an imperial power, and hasn't been in a century.

[TaxRelief]

In an age of mass, global, instantaneous communication, we don't need to occupy any longer than it takes to hold the first election.

Perhaps we should leave a trained parliamentarian, though.

[Captain Kirk]

Of course not! You know better than that Huber. I am merely pointing out that empire building by Europeans has at best, a mixed record in building the necesssary "foundation" for free societies. Those freepers who want us to go down the same colonializing road their ancestors rejected in 1776 often sugar coat this fact.

[Captain Kirk]

Yeah right, our little brown brothers in Iraq who aren't even allowed to form their own independent government lest they might chose the "wrong" way are not subjects. Tell me another one.