Liberal Imperialism and Global Security

Jedediah Purdy.

“Liberal Empire: Assessing the Arguments”

Ethics and International Affairs 17/2, (Fall 2003).

The Global Security Argument for liberal imperialism holds that imperial policy promotes global security. The combined threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction mean that “global security may require that entire regimes be brought forcibly to heel” (37), and that this would entail forcibly removing them from power and replacing them with a democratic government.  Purdy advances two arguments against this argument. 

First, he claims that liberal empire presupposes the existence of hegemony, a single “dominant superpower,” when in fact the world is rapidly shifting from post-Cold War uni-polarity to economic and military multi-polarity.  As Russia regains its military momentum, as China slowly liberalizes, as India continues its massive economic boom, and as the European Union matures, American dominance begins to look less and less stable.  In the new multi-polar world, as in the old, respect for the rules of sovereignty have a great deal more practical importance to human welfare than they did during the period of alleged American ascendancy, since no single entity had, nor presently has de facto authority over matters of global security.

Second, he claims that an American policy of unilateral intervention is likely to have perverse incentives for nuclear proliferation.  Some states will take such a policy not as a deterrent to seeking nuclear arms, but as a prod.  He does not say so, but this claim, if true, would buttress the prior objection, because if and when nuclear proliferation accelerates, the prospects for US hegemony will dissolve more rapidly.

Facebook, Territory, and the Demos

"The reason we think that territorial or historical or national groups ought make decisions together is that, typically if not invariably, the interests of individuals within those groups are affected by the actions and choices of others in that group. Those common reciprocal interests in one another’s actions and choices are what makes those groups appropriate units for collective decisionmaking, at least in a rough-and-ready way.  Rough-and-ready, because (as flagged by the recurring qualifier, 'typically if not invariably') the correlation between territoriality or nationality or history and shared interests is far from perfect. Not every person who lives in a given territory is affected by the actions and choices of every other person in that territory; not every person in the territory is affected by every collective decision of the demos constituted on the basis of residence in that territory. Ditto for historical or national groups. Constituting a demos on the basis of shared territory or history or nationality is thus only an approximation to constituting it on the basis of what really matters, which is interlinked interests."

Robert Goodin
"Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives"
Philosophy & Public Affairs 35/1 (2007), pp. 40-68

Turkish Military on the Outs?

Jonathan Head
BBC 12.16.2010

"A trial of nearly 200 retired and serving military officers has begun near Istanbul. They face charges of plotting to bring down the government of the Islamically rooted Justice and Development Party seven years ago. The alleged conspiracy, one of several being investigated, has divided opinion in Turkey. The armed forces say that the plot was no more than a seminar to discuss hypothetical scenarios. Twenty-eight serving generals or officers of equivalent rank are among those in the dock, and the trial could go on for months... [W]hile the once-powerful armed forces commanders have at times complained about their colleagues being put on trial, the fact that they have done nothing else has convinced many Turks that the era of military intervention in politics is now over."

Liberal Imperialism

Jedediah Purdy 

“Liberal Empire: Assessing the Arguments”

Ethics & International Affairs 17/2, (Fall 2003) 

Purdy defines imperialism as the view that 

(1) states or peoples are politically unequal, and 

(2) this inequality can help justify military intervention.  

There are two kinds of imperialism. Weak imperialism holds that states are unequal in their ability to represent the will of their peoples. Strong imperialism holds that peoples are unequal in their capacity for self-rule.  Weak or strong, liberal imperialism holds that states might justifiably impose democratic political arrangements on foreign peoples in order to render them capable of self-rule.  Purdy aims to undermine what he takes to be the three central arguments for liberal imperialism.  I'll summarize Purdy's objections to liberal imperialism in subsequent posts; here I will simply outline his gloss of the arguments he will attack. (Names for the arguments are my addition.)

1. The Global Security Argument. Liberal imperialists argue that imperial policy is prudent, because it promotes global security.  The combined threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction mean that “global security may require that entire regimes be brought forcibly to heel” (37).  He does not mention the so-called "Democratic Peace Hypothesis," which suggests that liberal societies tend not to go to war with one another, but presumably he has something like this in mind.

2. The Human Flourishing Argument. Liberal imperialists argue that the promotion of (a specific conception of) human flourishing justifies imperial policy: “Such a consideration begins from an idea of what the most basic and general human interests are, and proposes that the domination of one people by another, at least for a time, may be necessary to achieve them” (37).  

3. The Duty of Assistance Argument. Finally, liberal imperialists argue, along deontological lines, that imperial policy may be justified as a means to stop or prevent certain prohibited actions, such as genocide or other severe wrongs.  Purdy does not appear to explain why the prohibition of genocide and similar atrocities would help support a specifically liberal imperialism, but presumably such an argument would need to claim that state violations of democratic rights are severe enough in kind to warrant coercive intervention by external force. 

United Russia

Clifford J. Levy
NYT 12.11.2010

"Local officials even emblazoned logos of the governing party, United Russia, on city bulldozers to give the party, not the government, credit for fixing roads.  On Election Day, hundreds of soldiers from a military garrison were marched to a polling place and ordered to vote for United Russia, according to nonpartisan voting monitors.  It was as if the governing party and the government had merged, just as in the Communist era. And in many ways, they have. United Russia effectively controls regional governments, prosecutor’s offices, courts, police departments and election commissions."

The Neoconservative Moment

Summary: Francis Fukuyama
"The Neoconservative Moment"
The Right War? The Conservative Debate on Iraq.
Cambridge University Press (2005). pp. 170-85.

In "The Neoconservative Moment," Francis Fukuyama argues that Charles Krauthammer's "democratic globalism" brand of neoconservativism is too realist and too idealist by turns.  Democratic globalists, according to Krauthammer, believe that American military supremacy should be used to "support U.S. security interests and democracy simultaneously."  

Fukuyama argues that Iraq was hardly a strategic threat, even less a global, existential threat to freedom.  But even if it had been it was clear from the beginning that neither the nature of Iraqi society nor the United States' past experience with regime change lent themselves well to the prospects of success. Finally, Fukuyama argues that democratic globalism fails to appreciate the value of legitimacy, and overlooks the fact that many of our allies "did not trust us...to use our huge margin of power wisely and in the interests of the world as a whole."  The US can no longer count on post facto legitimacy as it did during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was a competing power, and the United States and its allies agreed that frequent demonstrations of resolve, in the form of military action, could be beneficial.  

Focus now is on the Middle East, and a pre-emptively and frequently intervening superpower is as unlikely to coax the Arab world into democracy as force is unlikely to drag them into it. Fukuyama advocates a gentler, more multilateral brand of democratic globalism: reinstate diplomacy and coalition-building, promote democracy “through all of the available tools,” be more realistic about our abilities, be better prepared for nation-building when the need arises, and build institutions.  Whether this can be called ‘neoconservativism,’ Fukuyama does not know.

Turkish Leadership in the Middle East

Elliot Hen-Tov & Bernard Haykel
NYT 06.18.2010

Iran paradoxically stands to lose much influence as Turkey assumes a surprising new role as the modern, democratic and internationally respected nation willing to take on Israel and oppose America... Turkey’s Islamist government has distilled every last bit of political benefit from the flotilla crisis, domestically and internationally. And if the Gaza blockade is abandoned or loosened, it will be easily portrayed as a victory for Turkish engagement on behalf of the Palestinians... For Americans, it may be hard to see the blessings in a rift with a longtime ally. But even if Turkey’s interests no longer fully align with ours, there is much to be gained from a Westernized, prosperous and democratic nation becoming the standard-bearer of the Islamic world.

Your Human Right to Democracy

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 21.

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
   
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
   
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
   

Myanmar to Hold 'Elections'

NYT 5.3.10

Under a new Constitution adopted in 2008, the military that has ruled Myanmar, formerly Burma, since 1962 is preparing to replace itself with a civilian government that includes a 440-member House of Representatives...The new legislature will set aside 25 percent of its seats for serving military officers, a number that could be augmented by former officers in civilian clothes...Many foreign analysts, as well as Myanmar's opposition party, the National League for Democracy, have called the elections a false front intended to put a civilian face on the military's continued grip on power.