<<<	speeches
Imperialism not required Samuel Brittan: Speech Against the Motion "The American Empire is a force for good" 30/10/03 There was once a long and learned debate among philosophers about how to analyse the statement "The King of France is bald". (This was at a time when French philosophers were arguing about whether to join the Resistance or the Communist party.) In the end there are only two possibilities. One is to say that any assertion about a non-existent person is false. The other is to say that, as there is no King of France, the question does not arise. I was tempted to say as there is no American empire - leaving aside tiny bits and pieces such as Puerto Rico - it could not be a force for good or for evil and then sit down. But somehow I do not think that this would have satisfied the organisers of this debate. So I will just say that if there has to be an empire, I would rather have an American one than one run by most other countries, certainly more than a French one. But I am against anything resembling empires. Nations have the right and duty to defend themselves, not merely from traditional aggression across national frontiers but from organised terrorism, intolerant religious fundamentalism and other threats to their way of life. Doing so may involve incursions into other countries from which the threats originate and temporary alliances with appalling regimes. But these should be of a limited kind and brought to an end as soon as possible. When President Bush declared a war on terrorism after September 11,2001 he was abundantly justified. He was also quite right to single out governments intent on developing nuclear amnd chemical weapons with which they could not be trusted, whether or not they formed a single "axis of evil." The invasion of Afghanistan could probably be justified by the support of the Taliban regime for Bin Laden's al-Qaeda. But when it came to Iraq I had a very big question: was an invasion of that country to depose Saddam Hussein a further stage in the war against terrorism or was it a diversion from that war? More is involved than individual mistakes. Unfortunately the modest and non-intrusive interpretation of Western foreign policy is now being challenged by two misguided forces. One is known as neo-conservatism. The other is liberal imperialism. But they all too often march together. Like many other mischief makers, they start off with the best of intentions. They observe the existence of unpleasant and sadistic dictatorships and their horrific violations of human rights. They also notice "failed states", that is territories which do not have a stable government able to enforce the rule of law and which are a source of instability to their neighbours. The liberal imperialists believe that the West has a duty to intervene in these countries to impose better performance, perhaps by establishing western protectorates, akin to those which existed in the early 20th Century. My main case is that quasi-imperialist efforts to reform the world, whether from Washington or London or even by some coalition of western countries, or the UN itself, are likely to do more harm than good. The primary responsibility of any government is the welfare of the inhabitants of the area of which it is in charge. This does not mean being indifferent to the abuse of human rights elsewhere. But just as the primary responsibility of parents is for their own children, the primary responsibility of governments is for their own citizens. Moreover we often do not have the knowledge to improve the affairs of distant countries. Because of this ignorance, dreadful mistakes are made and it is extremely doubtful how far the welfare of those whom we purport to help is actually improved. An example was the assumption that American forces would be widely welcomed as liberators in Iraq and the failure to foresee the all too likely outbreak of tribal, religious and simple gang warfare after the fall of the Saddam dictatorship. I annot resist quoting from a letter by that great 19th Century English Liberal statesman, Richhard Cobden: "In all my travels three reflections occur to me: how much unnecessary solicitude and alarm England devotes to the affairs of foreign countries; and how with how little knowledge we enter upon the task of regulating the concerns of other people; and how much better we might employ our energies in improving matters at home." (Letter to John Bright, September 18, 1847.) An early and devastating account of imperialism was given by the third and great Lord Salisbury when it was called colonialism. "Seizing a coloured man's land and giving it to a white man is an operation now generally known as the progress of colonialisation... As far as right goes, there are no wastelands and they might as well talk about opening the Duke of Bedford's park to colonisation." (The Political Thoughts of Lord Salisbury, 1854-1868, Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, Constable 1967). Unfortunately when Salisbury became prime minister he was unable to prevent his Colonial Secretary, that arch imperialist, Joseph Chamberlain, who had a great force of public opinion behind him, from pursuing just such policies he had previously denounced. Disraeli in his early days was even more radical and did not think the colonies were a benefit even to Britain, describing them as "a millstone round our necks". These 19th century sceptics had a hard task. William Gladstone, a very reluctant imperialist, was provoked into invading Egypt in the mid-1880s as a temporary measure; and the occupation lasted until the mid-1950s. In the decade before World War One, Norman Angell demonstrated very clearly that the pursuit of empire - still more, great power wars to extend them - so far from being the cynical capitalist enterprise that the Marxists had supposed actually incurred a grave economic cost on the imperial powers (The Great Illusion). Angell was quite wrongly discredited in some circles because he was supposed to have said that war was impossible in modern conditions. He merely said that there was nothing to be gained and a great deal to lose from it. Equal caution applies to the so-called moral case. The American diplomat and historian, George F. Kennan, who developed the original Cold War doctrine of deterrence, made a vigorous onslaught on what he called the "moralistic, legalistic approach" to foreign policy. His strongest argument was that this approach brought more human hardship than a straightforward defence of national self interest. (Realities of American Foreign Policy, Oxford, 1954). A Cambridge historian, the late Herbert Butterfield, wrote of the shock cause by the German invasion of Norway in 1940. A pupil "who had been the most authentic of conscientious objectors and had been exempt from military service, was so appalled by the attack that his world attitude was shaken and he died not very much later in naval service. I have wondered sometimes what his reaction would have been if he had lived to know that Great Britain had a prior intention of invading Norway - and this even irrespective of the desire to help Finland - and that Hitler, initially unwilling to undertaken the adventure, had decided to forestall us." Let me take a very recent example, that of Uzbekistan which now provides bases for American and British as well as Russian troops. It has however a dictator in charge on a scale of nastiness rare even in that part of the world, who makes a habit of boiling the heads of his enemies. We may have to make temporary alliances with the devil himself when our existence is at stake - this was Churchill's attitude when he welcomed Stalin as an ally in World War Two. But let us do it with our eyes open. There was absolutely no need for the British government to free Uzbekistan from controls on arms sales. Nor can there be any defence for the great pressures that the Foreign Office imposed on a courageous British ambassador who made a few frank comments about the nature of the regime. In practice, there is no avoiding a case by case decision. It will always be a matter of judgment how far any particular overseas adventure can be justified as acts of pre-emptive self-defence and how far it represents a misguided attempt to establish a New World Order dreamed up in Washington, London or New York. Moreover, there will be cases where a modest amount of force, without long term entanglements, might be able to stop a gross breach of human rights. The difference between the imperialist and the Cobdenite is that the imperialist gives the benefit of the doubt to intervention and, given the slightest chance, flies off to save the world. The Cobdenite or anti-imperialist needs to be very convinced that his actions will do more good than harm and will want to bring his involvement to an end as soon as possible. The opposition to the boy scout mentality may be regarded as negative and defensive. It is none the worse for that. An attempted universalism may the shortest way to a hell on earth: a lesson demonstrated by the mediaeval crusades which George Bush, probably unintentionally, invoked in his initial response to September 11.
<<<	speeches
Site designed and managed by Andrew Heavens - aheavens@ftnetwork.com