April 08, 2002
A Liberal Imperialism for Asia?
Over the past 6 months we have gotten used to leaders of the old imperialist superpower Britain, and the new - USA - more agressively interfering in the world outside their borders. Robert Cooper in 'Re-Ordering the World: The long-term implications of September 11th' reviews recent economic history, albeit from a Euro perspective, and provides some explanation of the immediate willingness of the US and Britain to engage in a new imperialism. From the UK Guardian - Observer report on Cooper's paper The new liberal imperialism in part... "...All the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism have dried up. And yet the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world. A world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth - all of this seems eminently desirable. What is needed then is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern its outline: an imperialism which, like all imperialism, aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle. Postmodern imperialism takes two forms. First there is the voluntary imperialism of the global economy. This is usually operated by an international consortium through International Financial Institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank - it is characteristic of the new imperialism that it is multilateral. These institutions provide help to states wishing to find their way back into the global economy and into the virtuous circle of investment and prosperity. In return they make demands which, they hope, address the political and economic failures that have contributed to the original need for assistance. Aid theology today increasingly emphasises governance. If states wish to benefit, they must open themselves up to the interference of international organisations and foreign states (just as, for different reasons, the postmodern world has also opened itself up.) The second form of postmodern imperialism might be called the imperialism of neighbours. Instability in your neighbourhood poses threats which no state can ignore..." Several years back the McKinsey consultant Keninchi Ohmae predicted correctly the demise of the nation state in favour of regional power bases. In the present however, imperialism has made a comeback as super powers realise more and more that the world's problems CAN end up on their own doorstep. It is a dangerous precedent however. It presumes that shared international values have the upper hand over conflicts of values. It also assumes that the current powerful states (or regions like the EU), are better able to delineate these "shared values". The past 10 years have seen an Asia arguing forcefully that "Western values" are different from "Asian values". We have seem a Muslim and Christian world divided on what is good. Western states and Muslim states cannot even agree among themselves on a definition of a "terrorist". And what of the China in the future, setting up for their second great reign of imperialism? "World governments" have limited credibility, with the UN sending insiped pop singers world wide to spread the AIDS word, the IMF enduring much criticism from within Asia, and many political leaders in Asia decrying global finance as a tool of the West. Yet power is power. The US obviously must defend its interests. Its relationship with Israel is symbiotic. Both need each other for very different reasons, and that is why the Middle East conflict remains a hoary problem for which solutions are not readily apparant. Political instability affects not along those countries directly involved, but next it's neighbours, and also the super powers.
|
Sponsor APMF Member
|