Jun 6th 2014

America’s Late Imperial Dilemma

by Ian Buruma

 


Ian Buruma is the author, most recently, of The Churchill Complex: The Curse of Being Special, From Winston and FDR to Trump and Brexit. 

NEW YORK – US President Barack Obama is under attack – from so-called liberal hawks, more or less to the left of center, as well as from active interventionists on the right – for being a weak president, leading a war-weary (even world-weary) America in retreat.

Obama’s critics, whether on the left or the right, believe that the United States has a unique calling to impose its will on the world. The only difference is that the former justify their views with talk of democracy and human rights, while the latter do not need any such justification, because, after all, America is the greatest country on earth.

Either way, the premise that the US should lead forcefully rests on the idea that without a benevolent hegemonic power to police the world, chaos will ensue and more malevolent forces will take over. This opinion was expressed most clearly in a recent article by the conservative foreign-policy thinker Robert Kagan.

Kagan’s argument is that other countries cannot be relied upon to behave responsibly without strong US leadership. Like other hawks, he warns not only that dictators will behave badly if given the chance, which is certainly plausible, but also that democratic allies need to be kept in their place by a firm hegemonic hand.

In East Asia, for example, China must be “hemmed in” by strong US allies. But if Japan, America’s main ally in the region, were “much more powerful and much less dependent on the United States for its security,” it, too, should not be trusted.

Kagan may be right in thinking that a precipitous US retreat from East Asia could have dangerous consequences. But this argument has the familiar whiff of the late stages of empire. The European imperial powers of the twentieth century would periodically hold out the distant prospect of independence to their colonial subjects – but not yet, not before they were ready, not before their Western masters had educated them to take care of themselves responsibly. How long this education might take was anybody’s guess.

That is the paradox of imperialism. As long as the colonized are under the imperial cosh, they can never truly be ready, because the authority to run their own affairs, responsibly or not, was taken away from them.

Empires can impose order and stability for a long time; but imperialists – rather like many Americans today – become tired, and their subjects grow restless. The imperial order becomes brittle, and, as Kagan rightly notes, when the old order finally breaks down, mayhem often follows.

That happened in India in 1947, when the British left, Pakistan broke away, and roughly a million Hindus and Muslims died in mutual slaughter. But does this really mean that the British Raj should have lasted longer? If so, how much longer? It is just as plausible to argue that prolonged imperial rule could have made ethnic tensions worse. After all, those tensions were largely the result of colonial divide-and-rule policies.

So it is today, to some degree, with Pax Americana – a kind of imperial world order that was never a formal empire. Compared to most previous empires, it was relatively benign, though it is too easily forgotten how often the leader of the “Free World” subverted elected leaders and supported dictators, as in Chile, South Korea, El Salvador, Argentina, Indonesia, Guatemala, and so on.

The much-vaunted “liberal order” policed by the US was a product of World War II and the Cold War. Germany and Japan had to be kept down, the Communist powers had to be contained, and the old countries of Europe had to learn to live with one another under unifying pan-national institutions. All of this was made possible by American money and military might. As a result, the Free World, in Western Europe and East Asia, became a US dependency.

This cannot go on forever. Indeed, the arrangements are already fraying. But then comes the old imperial paradox. The longer others remain dependent on the US, the less capable they will be of taking care of their own affairs, including their security. And, like an authoritarian parent, the US itself, despite its admonitions to its allies to pull their weight, is often loath to let go of its increasingly unruly dependents.

When a new government came to power in Japan in 2009 and tried to break the postwar mold by initiating better relations with China and seeking to reduce its dependence on the US, the Obama administration sought to undermine this effort. The informal empire would not stand for that kind of insubordination.

In his recent foreign-policy speech at the US Military Academy at West Point, Obama barely mentioned East Asia. But if any region would benefit from the Obama doctrine, which promises to shift from military to more political approaches to regional problems, it is East Asia.

Still, Obama’s instincts are right. At least he has recognized the limits of America’s power to impose a global order by force. His success as a president rests less on the good things he has done (although he has done plenty) than on the stupid things he has avoided, like getting into more unnecessary wars.

This does not resolve the late imperial dilemma of how to reduce dependency on the hegemon without causing more tyranny and violence. But that painful and risky process will have to be launched eventually, and it will be better served by Obama’s brand of caution than by the tough talk of his critics.




Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2014.
www.project-syndicate.org




 


This article is brought to you by Project Syndicate that is a not for profit organization.

Project Syndicate brings original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by esteemed leaders and thinkers from around the world to readers everywhere. By offering incisive perspectives on our changing world from those who are shaping its economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivalled venue for informed public debate. Please see: www.project-syndicate.org.

Should you want to support Project Syndicate you can do it by using the PayPal icon below. Your donation is paid to Project Syndicate in full after PayPal has deducted its transaction fee. Facts & Arts neither receives information about your donation nor a commission.

 

 

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Mar 9th 2010

David Axelrod, President Obama's chief political adviser, sleeps "five fitful hours a night," the New York Times reported yesterday.

Mar 6th 2010

He was called a walking obituary of the British Labour Party more prone to writing suicide notes (in the political sense), than manifestoes for survival.

Mar 5th 2010

It is time for the Israeli government to be realistic with the changing political conditions in the Middle East.
Mar 4th 2010
President Obama's announcement yesterday began the final chapter in the 14-month war over health care reform.
Mar 3rd 2010

Competition is lonely. It is good to have it between organisations. Within organisations, though, it may or may not increase productivity, but it does not increase happiness. To extol it is to make a fundamental misjudgment about human nature.

Mar 1st 2010
As momentum grows to change the rules of the United States Senate, it's important to look beyond partisan battles and evaluate the effect of the way we make major decisions on the prospects for American success in the 21st Century
Feb 26th 2010

The Great Recession is not just an economic crisis, it is the result of a loss of values, a moral crisis. And to say that it is a moral crisis is also to say that it is a spiritual crisis.

Feb 24th 2010
Those who don't live in the nation's capital may so far have been spared the columnist-generated imbroglio over who is "to blame" for the fact that many of President Obama's
Feb 24th 2010

Study after study are taking their place in a growing lineup of scientific research demonstrating that consuming high-fructose corn syrup is the fastest way to trash your health.

Feb 24th 2010

The bluff and bluster of history stills itself from time to time, leaving in its wake the busy activity of revisionism and more sympathetic readings of its figures.

Feb 23rd 2010
Last April we polled across the Arab World asking what Arabs thought was the most positive early action President Obama had taken to improve U.S.-Arab relations. High up on the list (barely topped by the decision to leave Iraq) was the President's pledge to close Guantanamo and ban torture.
Feb 17th 2010

How will we remember J.D. Salinger? The painfully reclusive author of the monumental work on childhood alienation The Catcher in the Rye (1951)? A rather cranky voice for silenced youth?

Feb 16th 2010

Last weekend, when Washington was being hit by its worst-ever snow storm, the Tea Party Movement was holding its first national meeting in Nashville, Tennessee.

Feb 12th 2010

Recently Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman caused yet another blunder for Israel's foreign image in a series of hawkish comments and threats toward Syria.

Feb 12th 2010

T. Boone Pickens has a big idea. It may even be a good one. But when Pickens stoops to using fear and bigotry to sell this idea, it becomes small and unsavory.

Feb 12th 2010
It's the red carpet season in Hollywood.
Feb 7th 2010

I am raising my recommendation of 1,000 IU of vitamin D per day to 2,000 IU per day.