On Making War On The Terrorist: Imperialism As Self Defence
In Anghie's, On making war on the terrorist: imperialism as self-defense, he makes a very valid point in addressing the United States's War On Terror parallel to the reproduction of imperialism.
Since 9/11 the United States has waged a vague war on terror that is familiar to the British Empire's vast colonial rule. I describe the War on Terror as vague because as explained in the chapter, former President Bush justified this war as basically saving the Iraqi's from themselves by promoting self-governance. He also justified the physical aspect of the war through international law that, "recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack." The United States took it a step further from the self-defense that the international law is suggesting and titled his force against the Middle East as "emerging threats." This idea of an emerging threat is meant to protect a nation or person from a possible attack onto their sovereignty. The appropriate matter to quell this threat according to the United States is to generalize the people by their race, beliefs, and "lack of democracy" (dynamic of differentce) and by means of force and coercion, make them conform to Western ideals and practices of democracy. It is an idea that is almost identical to the practice of imperialism that was the British Empire's driving force during their colonial reign. The act of subjecting ones beliefs onto another by reasoning of sanctifying and/or liberating the people's from practices that do not coincide with the other. Kant expresses his disdain for this practice in Perpetual Peace as those, "who make endless ado about their piety, and who wish to be considered as chosen believers while they live on the fruits of iniquity." In Kant's Perpetual Peace he accounts many times on the act and state of war that is essentially the harbouring of hostility. As for the war on terror that has been a sonata by state of war for over 10 years that continuously pushes the limits of international law.
However I disagree with Anghie where suggests that international law promotes imperialism. Granted the law was heavily influenced by major powers whom had an imperialistic past, but it's original intent was to protect all nations from atrocities expressed upon them. In its formation it protected against rogue nations that choose to defy a "natural order" of coexisting on the earth. As the years went on the law has obviously become up to interpretation as to how a nation should follow the rules. Just like any written law it can be adjusted to favor whomever finds it useful for their agenda. Therefore I cannot completely agree that the law promotes imperialism. Rather the law is interpreted as such by imperialistic nations.
Since 9/11 the United States has waged a vague war on terror that is familiar to the British Empire's vast colonial rule. I describe the War on Terror as vague because as explained in the chapter, former President Bush justified this war as basically saving the Iraqi's from themselves by promoting self-governance. He also justified the physical aspect of the war through international law that, "recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack." The United States took it a step further from the self-defense that the international law is suggesting and titled his force against the Middle East as "emerging threats." This idea of an emerging threat is meant to protect a nation or person from a possible attack onto their sovereignty. The appropriate matter to quell this threat according to the United States is to generalize the people by their race, beliefs, and "lack of democracy" (dynamic of differentce) and by means of force and coercion, make them conform to Western ideals and practices of democracy. It is an idea that is almost identical to the practice of imperialism that was the British Empire's driving force during their colonial reign. The act of subjecting ones beliefs onto another by reasoning of sanctifying and/or liberating the people's from practices that do not coincide with the other. Kant expresses his disdain for this practice in Perpetual Peace as those, "who make endless ado about their piety, and who wish to be considered as chosen believers while they live on the fruits of iniquity." In Kant's Perpetual Peace he accounts many times on the act and state of war that is essentially the harbouring of hostility. As for the war on terror that has been a sonata by state of war for over 10 years that continuously pushes the limits of international law.
However I disagree with Anghie where suggests that international law promotes imperialism. Granted the law was heavily influenced by major powers whom had an imperialistic past, but it's original intent was to protect all nations from atrocities expressed upon them. In its formation it protected against rogue nations that choose to defy a "natural order" of coexisting on the earth. As the years went on the law has obviously become up to interpretation as to how a nation should follow the rules. Just like any written law it can be adjusted to favor whomever finds it useful for their agenda. Therefore I cannot completely agree that the law promotes imperialism. Rather the law is interpreted as such by imperialistic nations.
Fantastic that you have used Kant to read Anghie. I enjoyed your blog very much!
ReplyDelete