FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Liberal Imperialist Syndrome

by MOHADESA NAJUMI

London.

Liberal Imperialism started to gain currency at the end of the nineteenth century. It brought with it the obvious economic benefits of building an empire with ready-made consumers and a base of raw materials needed for a country’s industrial goals. Empire has perennially been used as an export of moral values and cultural mores.

However, imperialism today can be defined as economic, political, cultural, military, informal, and formal. Indeed, this has changed the face and contours of liberal imperialism. No longer can imperialism be solely about military or economic gains, instead, it is now responsible for the ramifications of intervention in a country.

There are many contentions within the political theory of liberal imperialism, however, I, myself, wish to focus on the recent ramifications of adopting such a obviously paradoxical standpoint, particularly in the case of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

Stephen Walt calls liberal imperialists “kinder, gentler neoconservatives”. This is certainly true. Liberal imperialists– like neocons– believe in a country’s (most specifically the US) responsibility to right political and humanitarian wrongs. They give the international community (which really just consists of the main superpowers) a carte blance to intervene in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and perhaps even Syria, in the name of humanitarianism.

Now, my gripes with humanitarianism are myriad and wide ranging. But I do not want to get too embroiled in that. My gripes are the way in which liberal imperialists hijack humanitarian intervention and endorse it as a benevolent act of the “international community”. They make no exceptions and stand by their erroneous views that no nation– regardless of historical and cultural context– should be an exception for their redemptive missions.

While I do believe not all intervention is bad and in some cases necessity arises in the case for it (Rwanda, Cosovo etc.) there has to be some kind of boundary for this militaristic fetish of dropping bombs on countries we think might be a little worse than us. I’m sick of the liberal imperialist rhetoric of “It’s not our fault that Afghanistan went wrong. At least we tried!” Or ”It’s not our fault that Iraq went wrong”. Intentions stop becoming relevant after your second, third and even fourth mistake.

It wasn’t enough that we saw 30,000 dead in Libya– 5000 before the NATO intervention– and the blowback of Iraq still reverberates today. No sooner are we calling for a “liberal interventionism” in Syria. 

Liberal imperialists are those who drum up support for sending troops, drones, weapons and even Special Forces into countries they have little or no knowledge on. They only really started to notice that bad things are happening when they selectively and conveniently chose to pay attention. Their declarations for humanitarian intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq came only when these countries began to hit the headlines. Before that they had little care for Afghan women’s rights, impoverishment and creeping Islamism.

The arguments which liberal imperialists tend to adopt are “moral” ones. We the international community, are obliged to quell the barbarism of Middle-East and Central Asia because face it,  if we don’t, who will? And since we are the gatekeepers of morality and democracy we cannot act as bystanders while foreign tyrants trespass all over their citizens rights.

Democracy itself is a hugely contested theory and is yet to present a perfected model– yet liberal imperialists are quick to support the exportation of democracy to “less-civilised” countries.

In the US alone, we have seen countless human rights abuses begenning with the torture camps, targeted assassinations and the infamous Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. Liberal imperialists are quick to turn the other cheek and/or give a free pass to the government for these flagrant and blatant human rights violations.

Despite being self-proclaimed proponents of International Law, liberal imperialists excuse the US for its ever persisting quest of lawless activities.

The “international community” continues to receive its stamp of approval on its relentless drone campaign in the Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan, it’s torturing and most recently– force feeding– of Guantanamo prisoners , it’s imprisonment of those who reveal intelligence information implicating the government, those such as  Bradley Manning and this is all while liberal imperialists turn a blind eye and profess to champion freedom across the world.

Mohadesa Najumi is originally from Kabul, Afghanistan, now living in London. You can follow her on@mohadesareverie.

More articles by:
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail