Replies

I think Mr. Harris' somehwat polite terminology is leading people astray. When he says "neo-sovereignty" I think he would like to say "neo-imperialism".

In the 19th century imperialism got a bad name because it was generally used for the economic advantage of the colonizer and they were some shamefully exploitave episodes during that era as well. On the other hand, however, 19th century imperialists did understand that part of their mission aside from trade was to bring the benefits of cvilization and good government to parts of the world that had known neither.

After WWII, we pressured Britain and France to give up their colonies in Africa. In light of the post-WWII history in Africa and other former colonies can anyone honestly contend that these unstable governments have been a blessing to their people? According to Harris' criteria these nations had not earned their sovereignty through the struggle for national self-determination; their nationhood had been handed to them by their former colonial masters. The process of arbitrarily bestowing nationhood on a group of people because of guilt has not worked very well.

A neo-imperialist doctrine for the 21st century recognizes that democratic structures are not synonymous with good government. Societies lacking functioning civil institutions tend to evolve toward illiberal psuedo-democracies ("one man, one vote, one time"). In countries such as these a governmental structure that insures fundamental human rights but it is not wholly democratic would be preferable.

If a group of people is not yet ready to responsibly exersize the democratic franchise then obviously the possession of WMDs is a prescription for disaster. A neo-imperialist theory of international relations would redirect developing nations away from from acquiring WMDs for petty aggrandizement toward legitimate development projects.

In light of 20th century history, the British system of gradually developing sovereignty culminating in a new nation receiving commonwealth status seems enlightened. An updated version of the British system would mandate that the doctrine of national self-dtermination be abandoned. Given the problems that this doctrine has produced in being applied to the developing world we could scarely do any worse.