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. 

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.

Ethnic Violence in Kyrgystan

Associated Press
Guardian 06.17.2010

Kyrgyzstan's interim government has accused the country's deposed president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, of igniting longstanding ethnic tensions by sending gunmen in ski masks to shoot members of both groups. The government, which overthrew Bakiyev in April, also accuses the leader of corruption and says he and his supporters were attempting to damage official control of the south and reassert their control of the Afghan heroin trade in the area.  The official death toll on both sides is 189 but the true number appears to be far higher.  Many Kyrgyz have been killed but the victims appear to have been predominantly Uzbeks, traditional farmers and traders who speak a distinct but separate Turkic language and have traditionally been more prosperous than the Kyrgyz, who come from a nomadic tradition...A few parts of the south have been all but purged of ethnic Uzbeks. In other areas hundreds who had not fled piled up old cars on the streets, barricading themselves into their neighbourhoods.

Luke Harding
Guardian 06.27.2010

Kyrgyzstan's interim government tonight claimed victory in a controversial referendum, held just two weeks after 2,000 people were killed and tens of thousands were left homeless in ethnic violence. Rosa Otunbayeva, the country's acting leader, said she had won overwhelming support for her plan to create a new parliamentary system... Today's ballot was designed to legitimise the current government and to replace the country's abuse-prone presidential system. The new European-style model is a first in central Asia, which is run by authoritarian "super-presidents". A new government would be formed on 10 July, Otunbayeva said, without a "temporary" tag. But international observers and human rights groups today criticised the timing of the poll, which took place against a backdrop of the worst ethnic violence in central Asia for two decades. They also warned that the vote could exacerbate divisions between the north and south of the country and hasten its break-up, or lead to civil war.

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.