| |
THE AMERICAN EMPIRE
Part 1: Reluctant
hegemon
By Francesco Sisci
 BEIJING - "Hegemonism" has recently become a
derogatory byword of US foreign policy. Unilaterally,
driven by the selfish pursuit of its national interests,
the US is said to be willing to step on anybody's head
to keep and protect its primacy in the world. But even
if this blunt analysis is accurate, this in the end
amounts to a normal imperial policy.
Empires are
made of blood. The cross, which now symbolizes
Christianity and its ideals of mercy and tolerance, was
for centuries the sign of power and of the most
atrocious death the Roman Empire could devise. Lines of
crosses holding thousands of people were erected on the
sides of roads leading to Rome warning the foreign
traveler and reassuring the Roman citizen of the
pitiless power of Rome. Rome was a cruel empire, and it
knew it so well that Cato, speaking of the many enemies
of Rome, would say: "Let them hate us as long as they
fear us."
The United States, though also an
empire, can't bring itself to adopt the Roman ways. It
can't stand other people's hatred and even resents the
fact that its foreign policy is labeled "hegemonistic".
In this way the United States is unconsciously thinking
along lines more similar to those of the Chinese rather
than Roman Empire: Force, although sometimes necessary,
must be used as the instrument of last resort;
persuasion, winning the heart of potential enemies, must
be preferred to terror striking the heart of the people.
But this preferred policy doesn't work so well, or it is
not implemented well enough.
How can the US
avoid being regarded as hegemonistic? Perhaps we have to
take a step back and restart from the cross.
In
1966 it came as a total surprise that North Korea beat
Italy in the soccer World Cup. The Italians went back
home and the Koreans were so surprised that they found
themselves without hotel reservations for the England
venue. All rooms were fully booked, so they had to take
up all the bookings the smug Italians had made. For the
next round they had to live in a monastery, a terrifying
experience for the North Koreans. They were sleeping
alone in very austere rooms where the main piece of
furniture was a huge crucifix hanging over the bed. The
players were used to sleeping together in bunk beds and
were quite unused to the figure of this tortured man
nailed by his hands and feet. In the very place where
the Italians thought their players would feel tranquil
and would rest peacefully before the games, the North
Koreans were uneasy.
The Jesuit missionaries who
came to China in the 17th century found a similar
problem. The Chinese could not understand or easily
accept the idea of the crucifixion. Why would a religion
of mercy choose such a cruel symbol? Why was God so
cruel as to let his own son die in such a manner?
It took a lot of explanation for the Chinese
converts to understand that it was the forbearance of
that cruelty that made Christians what they were. At the
same time the missionaries were also explaining one of
the reasons of the fall of Rome. The Christians could
withstand all of the Roman cruelty - they were not
afraid of painful death, but would gladly embrace it as
martyrdom. When subjects are no longer afraid of
punishment they can't be ruled. For this reason the
spiritual rule of the Church would try to work on the
principle of persuasion rather than terror, similarly to
the earthly rule of the Chinese empire keen on winning
the hearts of the enemy.
These Christian ideals
shape the ideology of the American Empire that tries to
act according to merciful rules and thus according to
justice. The only problem is that in the West for
centuries empires could not bring themselves to apply
Christian mercy while running their dominions.
In a similar fashion now the US can't do without
its ideals of freedom and democracy, which are to be not
national but global, and which spring from its Christian
roots. The United States is born out of a revolution,
and those ideas shape its way of thinking, arguably even
more deeply than they shaped the Soviet Empire, where
communist ideals were often a veneer to cover up wanton
inclemency. For this reason the US needs to be loved and
accepted. But this, strictly speaking, it is not
necessary for empires, which are often driven by the
simpler reasons of conquest or, if one wishes, of
national interest.
Even the British Empire with
its quest of bringing civilization to the barbarians had
few qualms about the use of brute force in its imperial
territory. Here, however, it might be interesting to
notice that the contradiction between imperial
necessities (the brutal use of force) and the domestic
ideals of democracy and freedom eventually helped the
collapse of the empire. Mahatma Gandhi used the British
right to a free press and Britain's democratic ideals to
convince the British public of the injustice of the
British rule in India. For it is very difficult to
maintain the right to a free press without also
guaranteeing the right to free determination.
The US position is in many way worse than that
of the British. The British wanted an empire, and
claimed a right of colonization. They openly claimed to
have a superior model to impose on an inferior world. In
this way, they were the same as the Roman Empire.
Military victory ultimately gave them the right to the
empire.
The Americans don't think this way. They
believe they fought and defeated two evil enemies,
fascism and communism, in the world. These two victories
did not give them an empire, but gave the world an
opportunity for freedom and democracy.
The
conundrum is, what if a country doesn't want freedom and
democracy? The simple answer in the US could be: this
country must be fascist or communist.
Next: Righteous king
(©2002 Asia
Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
