THE WOLRD'S WORST IMPERIAL POWER?

November 26, 2007  

Dr. Rowen Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a wide-ranging interview with Emel, a British Muslim lifestyle magazine, labeled the United States as the world’s worst imperial power.  According to Williams, the United States wields its power in a way that is worse than Britain during its imperial heyday.

The religious head of the Church of England and symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion also linked his criticism of the United States to one of his most pessimistic declarations about the state of western civilization.

With only mild criticism of the Muslim world, acknowledging that its “political solutions were not the most impressive”, Williams said, “Our modern western definition of humanity is clearly not working very well.  There is something about western modernity which really does eat away at the soul.”

Certainly judgments about the conflicts between morality and modernity are the purview of a religious leader and grist for Sunday homilies.  I take exception, however, to the archbishop’s interpretation of history.

The archbishop, who has been a persistent critic of the war in Iraq, said last month that the war had wreaked “terrible damage” in the Middle East.  In his interview with Emel, Williams said he believes that by “clearing the decks” with a “quick burst of violent action” America’s misguided sense of its own mission had led to “the worst of all worlds.” 

While the archbishop is no doubt close to God, I doubt that God has granted him a divine vision of the future.  Nor does he claim one.  And if the past is a reliable guide to the future when it comes to interpreting history, it will take a few years, perhaps a few decades, before we truly understand how America’s actions in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East will play out.

As for how America stacks up with the world’s imperial powers, I will avoid arguments about how we liberated more oppressed people in the 20th Century than any nation in history.  That was then and this is now, and most critics of America subscribe to the what-have-you-done-for me-lately perspective.  And I will avoid further comparison of America to Imperial Great Britain or take any of the cheap shots people in the blogosphere are taking at Williams.

Whether Americans or non-Americans agree with current US foreign policy or not, it can hardly be labeled imperialistic, despite Williams criticism that, “We have only one global hegemonic power.  It is not accumulating territory: it is trying to accumulate influence and control.  That’s not working.”

Williams, and others, obviously believe that the United States seeks to influence and control the world for its own selfish purposes.  Indeed, the US is the most powerful and influential country in the world.  And like every great power, past and present, we have ‘interests’, and we pursue those interests, bilaterally with our friends and allies and multilaterally in forums like the United Nations.  From time to time, when necessary, we pursue them unilaterally

Those interests, however, are principally the spread of democracy, peace, stability, prosperity, and free trade, not the exploitation, domination, and repression of other countries physically or otherwise.  Democracies don’t go to war with other democracies.  Prosperity, stability, and free trade benefit all, where repressive governments don’t prevent the benefits from reaching their people.

After 9/11, and the terrorist attacks that preceded it, it also was in the interest of the United States and its friends and allies to go on the offensive against the terrorists who would destroy us and our way of life.  People can criticize American intervention in Iraq, but to call it imperialistic misreads America’s intentions and the fundamental nature of the American people.