Ciao!

If wishes where fishes

04.14.2005

Attended the Sam Clark lecture tonight, where Dr. Fred Dallmayr (Notre Dame) spoke on "Empire or Cosmopolis? Civilization at the Crossroads" (certainly an intriguing topic). I left rather unconvinced, though he made some interesting points.

The essential argument was that America seems poised to engage in empire-building, but that an alternative vision — "cosmopolis" — is possible. This new empire, of course, is different from others because A) it's the first founded on a truly global superpower & B) it's supported by a series of international institutions (World Bank, IMF, international corporations, etc). Dallmayr often referred to the US as a "global Leviathan" (referencing Hobbes).

The discussion of empire centered on the formulation of the Spanish empire of the 1500s, which presented a moral argument in favor of empire (based on Greco-Roman philosophers). The Scholastic philosopher Sepulveda formulated a defense of Spain's empire:

1. Spain as morally superior & civilized, and since the superior must rule over the inferior, Spain must rule (the context here, of course, is the New World).
   
2. Spain's empire was actually a civilizational goal in the interest of its subjects (Dallmayr likened this to "developmentalism").
   
3. The threat of coercion was necessary to maintain the empire, and its civilizational goals.
   
4. Which meant the use of force was justified in defense of civilizational goals.
   
5. But that violence was actually caused by opponents of civilization, and the responsibility was not on the empire, but on those who resist civilization.

In contrast, Dallmayr presented a historical opposition to empire (which can also draw on Greco-Roman traditions). He presented de las Casas, who argued against Sepulveda:

1. That Aristotle actually conceived of politics as a relationship between equals, not superior-inferior relations.
   
2. That the use of force was rarely (if ever) in the subjects' actual interests.
   
3. Therefore the use of force was brutal & unjust.

Interestingly, while he spent a great deal of time outlining how empire works, Dallmayr was unwilling to describe how this "cosmopolis" would either function and/or come into being.

I've numerous objections to the presentation — some minor, some major. Generally, I found it overly idealistic. Sure, a peaceful, egalitarian cosmopolis sounds great. But how do we get there? The insistence on mutual cooperation, grass roots interactions, etc don't seem able to impose world peace in the face of threats from, say, North Korea. So. What do we do in the meantime?

At heart, he presents only two options: empire (which is bad) v. cosmopolis (which is good). But what if the two options are empire v. dark ages. After all, he did jump in his historical discussion from Rome to Spain — let's not forget that the centuries between the two were among the bloodiest in European history. And w/o limiting ourselves to the Western experience, the same could be said for the chaos between imperial periods in China, or India, or elsewhere. Empires, let's not forget, aren't limited to Europe.

Basically, are we willing to accept empire — as an instrumental bad-but-necessary — in transition to some other status quo? It's interesting that Dallmayr often went back to Hobbes. After all, Hobbes argued people create Leviathan to protect them from the crushing violence found in a "state of nature". And while Dallmayr pointed out that Hobbes also argued that the goal of politics was peace, let's not forget that Hobbes creates a Leviathan as an instrument for peace, as a near-omnipotent sovereign.

Also, I wish he'd spent some time discussing a comparison between empires. An audience question asked about some other empires: the Mongols & Ottomans. Dallmayr correctly pointed out that the Mongols had no "moral" defense for their empire (that is, they didn't try to formulate a theory that justified their empire), it was just brute force for the sake of empire. On the other hand, the first (pre-Ottoman) Muslim empire did have such a design. One could add that other empires had such defenses. But are all defenses equal? I'd argue that Nazi defense for empire-building is qualitatively different from the Spanish defense (or even the latter American "imperial project").

More importantly, though, I was troubled by the almost absolute reluctance to use force. After all, what if the imperial hegemon is actually doing good? Someone asked about Rwanda, and whether the US acting in Rwanda would've been good, even if no one else supported it. The answer Dallmayr gave never really convinced me, he seemed to try to say that some "humanitarian interventions" were good, but that it all depended on what the "stated objectives" were. So, does that mean the he does support the war in Iraq? (Since the Bush administration has frequently stated that one of the key goals was to liberate the people of Iraq, install democracy, etc.) What it comes down to is this: Arguing in defense of "humanitarian interventions" (which he supports) but against "imperial projects" (which he doesn't) implies that someone is determining which uses of force are "in the subject's best interests". And, here, we're back to one of his primary objections to the Sepulveda doctrine.

I suggest this: The kind of democratic international politics Dallmayr seeks is, I believe, impossible in the absence of some sovereign w/ control over international law. And that, I'm afraid, requires a global hegemon. Just as states emerged from absolutist monarchs who later gave way to democratic institutions, I think it may be important to think whether "cosmopolis" first requires a successful imposition of some standards of international law. And in the wake of oil-for-food scandals, sexual molestation of kids by peacekeeprs, and other UN scandals, I'm not sure I want to hand over international law enforcement to them. So. Who's left?

I've always had a problem w/ the kinds of arguments that demand an end to genocide & other human rights abuses, but then oppose the means capable of ending them. Sure, Gandhi was wonderful. But only because the empire he opposed was still "civilized" (so it could be shamed into acting morally). Can you imagine a successful Gandhi figure in, say, North Korea?

The harsh reality of international politics, is that politics is harsh & real. And if you're going to sell me on an ideal political structure, you've got to tell me how it can be built. And the "how" better not be "by wishing".

-----
ADDENDUM 1: Also, I'm disappointed when people use the Sepulveda v. de las Casas debate to make Sepulveda out to be an imperialist & de las Casas a glowing humanitarian. De las Casas wasn't immune to the Aristotelian superior-inferior dichotomies. Sure, he defended the rights of Indians in the New World; but he argued for replacing them w/ African slaves, since he didn't consider them fully "human" (in the Aristotelian sense). Also, the debate ended w/ a de las Casas victory — which was a victory for empire(!!), not the opposite. The Valladolid debate wasn't about whether or not Spain would have an empire, but whether or not Indians were human. De las Casas won, the Indians were human, and therefore were subject to Spanish law (e.g. empire).

ADDENDUM 2: My other major objection to most argumentats that claim force is only justifiable for self-defense is this: It's selfish. Because it suggets that the only moral claims on us are sins of commission, not ommission ("what we fail to do"). It's wrong of us to wage war on a brutal regime that's done nothing to us, even if that implies allowing it to massacre its people (because, after all, at least our hands are clean). Sorry, that just doesn't convince me. I believe in both sins of commission and ommission.

Posted by Miguel at 11:39 PM

Comments

Posted by: tom at April 15, 2005 02:36 PM

Posted by: stephanie at April 16, 2005 03:54 AM