New Delhi, 05
May 2003
TWO
CONTRADICTORY lessons are emerging from the initial experiences of
American forces in postwar Iraq. Officials concerned with restoring
Iraqi infrastructure, services and government have quickly realized
that they face humbling challenges, and that reaching the goal of a
stable Iraq under a democratic regime may take a few years to
accomplish –– not months. Secondly, do Americans have the
patience and will to go through this painful and difficult
transitional phase of a free Iraq to whose people Bush has promised
democratic self-rule –– just like handing over an American
product?
IDC
came across a very incisive and pithy write-up in New York Times –
“The Empire Slinks Back” by Niall Ferguson, a Herzog professor
of financial history at the Stern School of Business, New York
University, a senior research fellow of Jesus College, Oxford and
author of ''Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order
and the Lessons for Global Power'' that may give our viewers an
insight into the size of the problem lying before the Americans.
Ferguson
starts with an epithet, “Wheresoever the Roman conquers, he
inhabits. — Seneca” thus
emphasizing the virtue of avoiding short cuts specially where
nation-building is involved and that too in a foreign land. He
recalls the pax Britannica of Queen Victoria's reign and
compares it with the pax Americana in the reign of George II
(Bush); and then describes the qualities of British
imperialism and the price they were willing to pay for running an
empire. “As seen in Afghanistan and now in Iraq, American power is
far from soft. It can be very, very hard. The trouble is that it is
ephemeral. It is not so much Power Lite as Flash Power –– here
today, with a spectacular bang, but gone tomorrow.” The first
basic question therefore, is how long US plans to stay/involve
itself in Iraq? Now that “America has embarked on a new age of
empire, it may turn out to be the most evanescent empire in all
history. Other empire builders have fantasized about ruling subject
peoples for a thousand years. This is shaping up to be history's
first thousand-day empire. Make that a thousand hours.”
The
difficulty American ‘neo-conservatives’ will find is in
recruiting the right sort of people to run the empire. America's
educational institutions excel at producing young men and women who
are both academically and professionally very well trained. It's
just that the young elites have no desire whatsoever to spend their
lives running a screwed-up, sun-scorched sandpit like Iraq.
“America's brightest and best aspire not to govern Mesopotamia,
but to manage MTV; not to rule Hejaz, but to run a hedge fund; not
to be a CBE (Commander of the British Empire), but to be a CEO. And
that, of course, is one reason so many of the Americans currently in
Iraq are first-generation immigrants to the United States. Despite
their vast wealth and devastating weaponry, Americans have no
interest in the one crucial activity without which a true empire
cannot enduringly be established. They won't actually go there.
''Don't even go there!'' is one of those catch phrases you hear
every day in New York or any other big city.”
In
contrast, “the British regarded long-term occupation as an
inherent part of their self-appointed ''civilizing mission.'' This
did not mean forever. The assumption was that British rule would end
once a country had been sufficiently ''civilized'' –– read:
anglicized –– to ensure the continued rule of law and operation
of free markets (not to mention the playing of cricket). But that
clearly meant decades, not days. When the British intervened in a
country like Iraq, they simply didn't have an exit strategy. The
only issue was whether to rule directly –– installing a British
governor –– or indirectly, with a British ''secretary'' offering
''advice'' to a local puppet like Faisal.
One
would ask, “Why were so many products of Britain's top
universities willing to spend their entire working lives so far from
the land of their birth, running infernally hot, disease-ridden
countries? Why, to pick a typical example, did one Evan Machonochie,
an Oxford graduate who passed the grueling Indian Civil Services
exam, set off for Bengal in 1887 and spend the next 40 years in
India? One clue lies in his Celtic surname. The Scots were heavily
over-represented not just in the colonies of white settlement, but
also in the commercial and professional elite of cities like
Calcutta and Hong Kong and Cape Town. The Irish too played a
disproportionate role in enforcing British rule, supplying a huge
proportion of the officers and men of the British army. For young
men growing up on the rainy, barren and poorer fringes of the United
Kingdom, the empire offered opportunities.”
This
is in sharp contrast with today's ''wannabe'' imperialists in the
United States –– call them ''nation-builders'' and the following
five points stand out :
-
“First,
not only do the overwhelming majority of Americans have no
desire to leave the United States; millions of non-Americans are
also eager to join them here. Unlike the United Kingdom a
century ago, the United States is an importer of
people, with a net immigration rate of 3.5 per 1,000 and a total
foreign-born population of 32.5 million (more than 1 in 10
residents of the United States).
-
Second,
when Americans do opt to reside abroad, they tend to stick to
the developed world. As of 1999, there were an estimated 3.8
million Americans living abroad. That sounds like a lot. But it
is a little more than a tenth the number of the foreign-born
population in the United States. And of these expat Americans,
almost three-quarters were living in the two other Nafta
countries (more than one million in Mexico, 687,700 in Canada)
or in Europe (just over a million). Of the 294,000 living in the
Middle East, nearly two-thirds were in Israel. A mere 37,500
were in Africa.
-
Third,
whereas British imperial forces were mostly based abroad, most
of the American military is normally stationed at home. Even the
B-2 Stealth bombers that pounded Serbia into quitting Kosovo in
1999 were flying out of Knob Noster, Mo. And it's worth
remembering that 40 percent of American overseas military
personnel are located in Western Europe, no fewer than 71,000 of
them in Germany. Thus, whereas the British delighted in building
barracks in hostile territories precisely in order to subjugate
them, Americans today locate a quarter of their overseas troops
in what is arguably the world's most pacifist country.
-
Fourth,
when Americans do live abroad they generally don't stay long and
don't integrate much, preferring to inhabit Mini Me versions of
America, ranging from military bases to five-star
''international'' (read: American) hotels.
-
The
fifth and final contrast with the British experience is perhaps
the most telling. It is the fact that the products of America's
elite educational institutions are the people least likely to
head overseas, other than on flying visits and holidays. The
Americans who serve the longest tours of duty are the volunteer
soldiers, a substantial proportion of whom are
African–Americans (12.9 per cent of the population, 25.4 per
cent of the Army Reserve). It's just possible that
African–Americans will turn out to be the Celts of the
American empire, driven overseas by the comparatively poor
opportunities at home. Indeed, if the occupation of Iraq is to
be run by the military, then it can hardly fail to create career
opportunities for the growing number of African-American
officers in the Army. The military's most effective press
spokesman during the war, Brig Gen Vincent K Brooks, exemplifies
the type.
It
can of course be argued that “Americans would prefer 'tours of
duty’ (pay flying visits) to such tasks –– rather than
settling there” what with latest technology you could go around
the world in just one day as against 80 in days of British Empire.
Most CIA officers prefer life in Virginia to what the British once
called the North-West Frontier. But with the undoubted advantages of
modern technology comes the disadvantage of disconnection.
Technology cannot replace ‘human touch’. Unless the Americans
radically rethink their attitude to the world beyond their
borders and “there are more Americans not just willing but eager
to shoulder the ''nation-builder's burden,'' adventures like the
current occupation of Iraq will lack a vital ingredient. For the
lesson of Britain's imperial experience is clear: you simply cannot
have an empire without imperialists ––
out there, on the spot –– to run it.”
Finally,
“so long as the American empire dare not speak its own name ––
so long as it continues this tradition of organized hypocrisy ––
today's ambitious young men and women will take one look at the
prospects for postwar Iraq and say with one voice, ''Don't even go
there.''
But
Americans need to go ‘there’ and offer their mite in a good
measure, if Bush’s promise to the Iraqi people is to be fulfilled
and the world, especially the Islamic one, is made to believe that
America’s charter of freedom and democracy is not restricted to
its own boundaries but washes beyond the Atlantic and the Pacific.
(The
full article by Niall Ferguson is available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/magazine/27EMPIRE.html)
Disclaimer Copyright |