British imperialism was grounded on laissez-faire

IN PRAISE OF EMPIRES — Globalization and Order: Deepak Lal; Pub. by Palgrave Macmillan

Dares to question the current accepted shibboleths and is the first well-argued neo-conservative case for empires. Case for imperialism: S. L. Rao The Hindu Tuesday, Sep 06, 2005

This book by a distinguished scholar dares to question the accepted shibboleths of our times. It is highly provocative and will incense many. It is the first well-argued neo-conservative (Bush) case for empires and for the U.S. acting as a truly imperial power, without regard to world opinion. He justifies the American War in Iraq; argues that climate change is an untenable idea; is against the `woolly' imposition of human rights on disparate countries; is against the U.N. as a body with equal voting rights; and argues cogently that globalisation (which he says accompanies empires) helps imperial economies and improves the living standards of very many in the colonies.

His starting precept is that "Empires have been natural throughout human history." Empires are the international analogue to the domestic `Leviathan' (of Hobbes), providing the order necessary for social and economic life to flourish. Imperial powers despoil colonies, live there in person or allow them their own laws while paying tribute. To be effective they have to create a civil service, a legal code, and promote a lingua franca for communication and control. The Americans failed in Iraq by not doing these. He advocates incorporating natives into governance of empires, to temper revolts. Like Lenin, the author argues that empires benefit most citizens of the imperial power.

He says that applying self-determination led to the Second World War. He questions whether African peoples have benefited from self-rule as against imperial rule. An empire driven by materialism like the British is more effective than the American, driven by `cosmological ideas' like freedom and human rights. The U.N. constrains the freedom of the `Imperial American Republic' to act. For the failed or failing states of Africa and the Middle East, capital (not foreign aid) and foreign trade are the best responses.

British imperialism was grounded on laissez-faire, free trade, the gold standard and protection of property rights. Lal sees no alternative today to the classical liberal policy package of the Washington Consensus: sound money, balanced budgets, free trade and flexible exchange rates. He is against capital controls except for short periods. He is against any restraint on capital flows, including `volatile' short-term ones. He says that equality conflicts with liberty, and a true "liberal is not an egalitarian." Linking globalisation to empire, he concludes "globalisation has been good for the world's poor and has reduced global inequalities." He believes that NGOs, especially those combating climate change, have vested interests in their self-perpetuation because of vast funds they raise. He pooh-poohs any major and disastrous climate change.

He criticises the `American Empire' for promoting its domestic concerns for social welfare, human rights and democracy internationally. He argues: "If the United States had used its emerging economic and military power to prevent the rise of the Bolsheviks, had not made the botched Wilsonian peace of Versailles, and had directly sought to prevent the rise of fascism," we could have avoided the wars of the 20th Century. He considers the concept of universal human rights woolly and meaningless. At the corporate level he argues similarly that stakeholder capitalism (versus shareholder capitalism) is undesirable and managerial rent-seeking is what has to be prevented. He objects to corporate social responsibility for sustainable development.

For him, "liberal democracy is likely to be a frail flower in much of the world." Economic freedom and liberty bring peace and prosperity, not political freedom. Muslim countries may not become democratic but could establish economic liberty. "The U.S. through its imperium should be promoting globalisation which will lead to economic freedom. The promotion of the Wilsonian ideals of national self-determination and democracy will not necessarily aid this spread of the liberties that really matter." Lal is consistent but has many faults. Empire did despoil the economies of the ruled countries. The British Empire changed the historical and cultural self-concepts of Indians.

In recent years, historians have unravelled the falsehoods and distortions that enabled the British to rule a vast population. The British encouraged confrontation between Hindus and Muslims and census classifications rigidified caste. They neglected grassroots democracy of the panchayats, now being revived. Material well-being is very important but so is self-respect through political freedom. African self-rule did not result in economic progress because imperial powers created African countries that had little commonalities and with broken tribal linkages. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would be aghast if equated in ideas with Lal. But the Empire was beneficial to India in some ways, creating a national identity, a common market, a national administration and an international language. Would there be a prospering India if the British had not conquered and ruled?