Political Capital


Manifesto Warns of Dangers Associated With an Empire

By Alan Murray*

Wall Street Journal
July 15, 2003

An unusual manifesto is circulating through the e-mail boxes of prominent Washingtonians from an ad hoc group calling itself the "Committee for the Republic." Its five sponsors include conservative C. Boyden Gray, a White House lawyer in the first Bush administration; Chas. W. Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia; and Stephen Cohen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

The manifesto is a work in progress, its authors say. But the goal is clear: to educate Americans about the dangers of empire.

A decade ago, being against empire would have been like being against rape. To all but the perverse few who cheered for the wrong side in Star Wars movies, "empire" was a dirty word. Today, it has re-emerged, newly laundered.

The most aggressive advocates are "neoconservatives" such as William Kristol, publisher of The Weekly Standard, who said on Fox television recently that "if people want to say we're an imperial power, fine." Or Max Boot, a veteran of this paper's editorial page, who wrote shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, that "Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets."

Left-leaning foreign-policy thinkers have taken up the battle cry as well, saying they disagree less with the ends of the neoconservatives than their means. They want empire, but administered through multilateral institutions. Robert Cooper, director-general for external affairs at the European Union and a senior adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, calls for a "new kind of imperialism" by which Western states, perhaps acting under the guidance of the United Nations, take political responsibility for zones of disorder. Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay at the Brookings Institution, a more-liberal leaning think tank here, write: "The real debate is not whether to have an empire, but what kind."

We are all, it seems, imperialists now.

Bush Administration officials avoid the "e" word, not so much because they disagree with those who use it, but because they recognize it as bad public relations. What they say, however, is less important than what they do.

The U.S. is operating open-ended protectorates in Afghanistan and Iraq, at a combined cost of $5 billion a month, or $60 billion a year. That's roughly triple the entire foreign-aid budget, and almost double the federal government's budget for elementary and secondary education. Meanwhile, intervention in Liberia appears just around the corner. U.S. soldiers reside in nearly 100 different countries. During the president's trip last week to Africa, there was talk of opening bases elsewhere on that continent.

You can argue that none of this is "empire" of the British or Roman variety, since it doesn't involve, for the most part, elaborate systems of civil as well as military governance. But it's close enough. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. has struggled with what it means to be the world's sole remaining superpower. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, President Bush moved with surprising force and speed -- and with surprisingly little resistance -- to put an expansive definition on that role.

The Committee for the Republic is saying, in effect: "Whoa, hold on a minute. Shouldn't we talk about this first"?

"The American Revolution was a nationalist revolt against the British Empire," the draft manifesto argues. "Our country was born as a defiant rejection of the legitimacy of imperialism." Citing the lessons of the classics, it argues that the "inevitable cost of empire" is a loss of political and economic freedom at home. "Domestic liberty is the first casualty of adventurist foreign policy."

While the draft was written before the latest flap over bad intelligence used in the State of the Union address, it also argues: "To justify the high cost of maintaining rule over foreign territories and peoples, leaders are left with no choice but to deceive the people."

The events of the past week have provided new heat to the debate over the war in Iraq. For the first time since this past fall, Mr. Bush's defense and foreign policies are encountering serious questioning at home. For the first time, Democrats seem to have found a consistent voice in criticizing those policies. And for the first time, Washington's political punditocracy has begun saying that the defining issue of the 2004 election might not be the economy or health care but foreign policy.

That is a good thing. Mr. Bush may have defined a bold new course for the U.S. in foreign policy, but he hasn't yet had to defend it before a skeptical public. And while the leading Democratic presidential hopefuls are getting more aggressive in their foreign-policy attacks, none has yet articulated a clear alternative vision.

The Committee for the Republic thinks it is time to have a great national debate about America's role in the post-Cold War world. I say: Bring it on.

About the Author: Alan Murray is Washington bureau chief of CNBC and co-host of "Capital Report," which airs Tuesday-Friday at 9 p.m.

More Information on US Empire and Unilateralism
More General Analysis on Empire

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.