Posted on 10/16/2002 10:03:16 AM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner
Middle East
BEIJING - "Hegemonism" has recently become a derogatory byword of US foreign policy. Unilaterally, driven by the selfish pursuit of its national interests, the US is said to be willing to step on anybody's head to keep and protect its primacy in the world. But even if this blunt analysis is accurate, this in the end amounts to a normal imperial policy.
Empires are made of blood. The cross, which now symbolizes Christianity and its ideals of mercy and tolerance, was for centuries the sign of power and of the most atrocious death the Roman Empire could devise. Lines of crosses holding thousands of people were erected on the sides of roads leading to Rome warning the foreign traveler and reassuring the Roman citizen of the pitiless power of Rome. Rome was a cruel empire, and it knew it so well that Cato, speaking of the many enemies of Rome, would say: "Let them hate us as long as they fear us."
The United States, though also an empire, can't bring itself to adopt the Roman ways. It can't stand other people's hatred and even resents the fact that its foreign policy is labeled "hegemonistic". In this way the United States is unconsciously thinking along lines more similar to those of the Chinese rather than Roman Empire: Force, although sometimes necessary, must be used as the instrument of last resort; persuasion, winning the heart of potential enemies, must be preferred to terror striking the heart of the people. But this preferred policy doesn't work so well, or it is not implemented well enough.
How can the US avoid being regarded as hegemonistic? Perhaps we have to take a step back and restart from the cross.
In 1966 it came as a total surprise that North Korea beat Italy in the soccer World Cup. The Italians went back home and the Koreans were so surprised that they found themselves without hotel reservations for the England venue. All rooms were fully booked, so they had to take up all the bookings the smug Italians had made. For the next round they had to live in a monastery, a terrifying experience for the North Koreans. They were sleeping alone in very austere rooms where the main piece of furniture was a huge crucifix hanging over the bed. The players were used to sleeping together in bunk beds and were quite unused to the figure of this tortured man nailed by his hands and feet. In the very place where the Italians thought their players would feel tranquil and would rest peacefully before the games, the North Koreans were uneasy.
The Jesuit missionaries who came to China in the 17th century found a similar problem. The Chinese could not understand or easily accept the idea of the crucifixion. Why would a religion of mercy choose such a cruel symbol? Why was God so cruel as to let his own son die in such a manner?
It took a lot of explanation for the Chinese converts to understand that it was the forbearance of that cruelty that made Christians what they were. At the same time the missionaries were also explaining one of the reasons of the fall of Rome. The Christians could withstand all of the Roman cruelty - they were not afraid of painful death, but would gladly embrace it as martyrdom. When subjects are no longer afraid of punishment they can't be ruled. For this reason the spiritual rule of the Church would try to work on the principle of persuasion rather than terror, similarly to the earthly rule of the Chinese empire keen on winning the hearts of the enemy.
These Christian ideals shape the ideology of the American Empire that tries to act according to merciful rules and thus according to justice. The only problem is that in the West for centuries empires could not bring themselves to apply Christian mercy while running their dominions.
In a similar fashion now the US can't do without its ideals of freedom and democracy, which are to be not national but global, and which spring from its Christian roots. The United States is born out of a revolution, and those ideas shape its way of thinking, arguably even more deeply than they shaped the Soviet Empire, where communist ideals were often a veneer to cover up wanton inclemency. For this reason the US needs to be loved and accepted. But this, strictly speaking, it is not necessary for empires, which are often driven by the simpler reasons of conquest or, if one wishes, of national interest.
Even the British Empire with its quest of bringing civilization to the barbarians had few qualms about the use of brute force in its imperial territory. Here, however, it might be interesting to notice that the contradiction between imperial necessities (the brutal use of force) and the domestic ideals of democracy and freedom eventually helped the collapse of the empire. Mahatma Gandhi used the British right to a free press and Britain's democratic ideals to convince the British public of the injustice of the British rule in India. For it is very difficult to maintain the right to a free press without also guaranteeing the right to free determination.
The US position is in many way worse than that of the British. The British wanted an empire, and claimed a right of colonization. They openly claimed to have a superior model to impose on an inferior world. In this way, they were the same as the Roman Empire. Military victory ultimately gave them the right to the empire.
The Americans don't think this way. They believe they fought and defeated two evil enemies, fascism and communism, in the world. These two victories did not give them an empire, but gave the world an opportunity for freedom and democracy.
The conundrum is, what if a country doesn't want freedom and democracy? The simple answer in the US could be: this country must be fascist or communist.
Next: Righteous king
(©2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
This is something that still troubles me each time I go to a church service where the matter is discussed. I wonder, "Why couldn't God - assuming he could design the universe however he desired - create a world where the crucifixion of his only begotten son would not be necessary?" If anybody has a simple (i.e., sixth grade) explanation of this, I'd appreciate it.
By Francesco Sisci
An interesting asian name.
By Francesco Sisci
An interesting asian name.
Perhaps I should have said "non-US", although the fact he writes for the Asia Times, indicates an Asian perspective, regardless of his nationality.
Mercy without Justice is weakness.
The fundamental need for a Godly sacrifice for the created man is inherent in our freedom to choose. That implies we will sin. Sin requires death, which is the opposite of what God wants for man, eternal life. How could God make a sinful being, man, righteous? Only His own righteousness is satisfactory to God.
The answer is, as Creator, God can pay for the sins of His Creation Himself. He is free from sin, and can take the penalty deserved by His creation upon Himself.
Why death through a torture instrument like the cross? That indicates how evil sin is and how much God loves us. Our sins require death on the cross for a just punishment. So God paid that price for us.
The alternatives are 1) take away freedom of choice from His creation--He's done that in the animals. They don't sin. 2) Punish all sinners--He's done that with angels--the one third who sinned are imprisoned now. For mankind, that would mean death to all.
Is that at a sixth grade level?
Most of the people of the world don't give a rodent's rump about "democracy." It's the "freedom" thing that is proving seductive. We tend to conflate the two because of a yet-unproven doctrine that you can't have the one in the absence of the other. It is also yet-undisproven.
I have to laugh every time I read about French demonstrations outside of McDonald's constituting an attack on American culture. McDonalds's isn't American culture, the demonstrations are. We've already accomplished the real worldwide revolution, what we are seeing in the Islamic countries is the backlash.
And this is supposed to be a bad thing?
SO9
There you have it, Justice and Love led to the cross.
Value judgment aside ("selfish" pursuit ...), this is entirely correct. Futhermore, it is entirely justifiable. No nation in history has had to apologize for protecting its "primacy." And it is only when we pretend that the policy is something other than imperialist that we run into trouble. Let's accept it for what it is and stop shuffling our feet and wringing our hands before a tribe of unwashed savages and jealous malcontents.
These two victories did not give them an empire, but gave the world an opportunity for freedom and democracy. The conundrum is, what if a country doesn't want freedom and democracy? The simple answer in the US could be: this country must be fascist or communist.
You forgot one: stupid. Or corrupt. It is obvious that the American Way works. It is equally obvious that the feeble attempts at governance by most third-world barbarians result only in savagery, oppression, and misery. How is it morally wrong for us to crush that corruption and elevate these reprehensible cultures to the level of human beings instead of ravenous animals?
We not only have the power of empire, we have the obligation.
With all due respect, it is very possible that the French actually authored the art of demonstration. Their revolution, though eventually consumed by sanguinary egalitarianism, closely matched our own. It was only through the exercise of conservative restraint that we suppressed our own Jacobin urges and created a Republic, not a Terror.
Funny how a writer for the Asian Times can see this but many Americans can't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.