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.

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 Genderless Capacity to Choose a Life

Martha Nussbaum.
Sex & Social Justice.
Oxford University Press (1999).

"Think what real people usually hold in awe: money, power, success, nice clothes, fancy cars, the dignity of kings, the wealth of corporations, the authority of despots of all sorts--and, perhaps most important of all, the authority of custom and tradition.  Think what real women frequently hold in awe, or at least in fear: the physical power of men, the authority of men in the workplace, the sexual allure of male power, the alleged maleness of the deity, the control males have over work and shelter and food.  The liberal holds none of these things in awe.  She feels reverence for the world, its mystery and its wonder.  And she reveres the capacity of persons to choose and fashion a life.  That capacity has no gender, so the liberal does not revere established distinctions of gender any more than the dazzling equipment of kings.  Some liberal thinkers have in fact revered established distinctions in gender.  But, insofar as they did, they did not follow the vision of liberalism far enough.  It is the vision of a beautiful, rich, and difficult world, in which a community of persons regard one another as free and equal but also as finite and needy--and therefore strive to arrange their relations on terms of justice and liberty.  In a world governed by hierarchies of power and fashion, this is still, as it was from the first, a radical vision, a vision that can and should lead to revolution.  It is always radical to make the demand to see and to be seen as a human rather than as someone's lord or someone's subject.  I believe it is best for women to embrace this vision and make this demand." (79-80)