At the height of British imperial dominance throughout much of the world, the British adventurer and writer Rudyard Kipling wrote one of his more controversial poems, \The White Man's Burden."" His philosophy of noblesse obligation toward other races had a profound impact on colonial thought and still influences most of the discourse concerning developing nations to this day.
Kipling's words were certainly racist, but they are not yet an anachronism. Kipling's philosophy is having a rebirth in certain intellectual circles in this country under a new guise'international security. The result has been an extension of the United States' power throughout the world, but with little regard for the effectiveness of justifying military action based on moral obligation.
In many ways, the new colonialism is much like the moralist arguments made in the late 19th century to justify intervening in places like the Sudan, which allowed the slave trade to flourish until a British expedition routed the forces of an extremist Muslim leader. The British General Gordon, who led the expedition to the Sudan, felt it was his duty to force the Sudanese to end slavery.
Of course, once the British left Sudan, the country descended into warlord violence once again. In fact, Sudan is one of the few places on Earth where one can still buy or sell slaves. Apparently, the ""white man's burden"" was too much for the British colonial administrators.
But, will the Bush administration want to shoulder this same burden in Afghanistan? By all indications, Afghanistan can barely be called a nation. If improvements are going to be made, it will take years of support from Western governments and require forces on the ground enforcing the peace between rival warlords.
The responsibility sounds a lot like colonial administration. There is pressure being applied by various human rights organizations for the United States not to abandon Afghanistan after the Taliban are thoroughly routed. This could mean a commitment of more than 20 years and certainly billions of dollars.
In a sense, arguing for the United States to accept the burden of bringing Afghanistan into the 21st century in terms of living standards and moral behavior is like accepting the ""white man's burden."" It is assuming that the United States and other Western nations could change Afghanistan and its culture if it wanted to. Gordon failed, what makes Bush think he can succeed?
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has been arguing in his column that the United States needs to become more involved in spreading democracy to the Middle East. He has been urging policymakers to stop supporting autocratic and corrupt rulers in the Middle East, who siphon their countries' wealth into private jets and palatial mansions.
Part of Friedman's argument is correct. Strategic interests such as oil sometimes play too large a part in formulating American foreign policy. There is rarely any acknowledgement of the danger to U.S. interests that come from supporting rulers who base their popularity on anti-Americanism. The United States government could take simple steps like reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and removing United States military bases from countries like Saudi Arabia that would de-emphasize our connection to Middle Eastern oil and Saudi Arabia's corrupt rulers.
Yet, we cannot begin to believe that by meddling in Middle Eastern politics, the United States will ""convince"" countries to accept democratic principles or embrace religious diversity. Just look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a good example. The Oslo Peace Accords are the closest the region has come to a peace agreement, but they relied too heavily on United States pressure.
The region's prejudices and hatreds are too firmly implanted in the minds of the average West Bank or Israeli resident. It seems absurd to think that only two years ago President Clinton proclaimed that peace in the Middle East was just over the horizon. That burden was too great for the United States to support, and now it is painfully obvious that no amount of U.S. intervention could halt the violence.
Kipling's burden was not a literary invention. It was an arrogant assumption of the white man's superiority. Now it appears as if the United States is poised to be just as arrogant by assuming a similar burden to purge the world of Islamic extremism. The result may just be the rebirth of colonialism, with all its ugly assumptions of superiority and responsibility.
