-Caveat Lector-
From
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=20
01-10-20&id=1207
}}}>Begin
The snakes or Araby
Bring back colonialism, says Mark Steyn. The hands-off approach never
works
New Hampshire
Before the White House decided to lean on the networks and get him
off air, Osama bin Laden popped up on the TV in my general store in
another rerun of his caveman special. Off he went with his usual
shtick about ‘the tragedy of Andalusia’.
‘What’s he on about?’ asked my friend, Judy.
‘It’s a reference to the end of Moorish rule in Spain in 1492,’ I
said.
‘That’s our fault?’ she said. I started to say something about how,
as Osama saw it, the roots of Islam’s downfall in Andalusia lay in
its accommodation with the Christian world and the move towards a
pluralistic society, but Judy wasn’t in the mood. ‘You know why this
is a great country?’ she said. ‘Because none of us have a clue what
he’s on about.’
This is a common theory. There’s a wonderful screed floating around
the Internet called ‘We’re more nuts than you and it should scare you
shitless’, which works up to a grand assurance to al-Qa’eda that,
even after we’ve killed them, our schoolchildren still won’t have a
clue who they are, where they’re from or what was bugging them in the
first place. The clichémongers of the global media like to talk about
‘America’s loss of innocence’, but that innocence is more properly
understood as ‘ignorance is bliss’ — America is where you go to get
away from guys hung up on whatever it was that happened in Andalusia
in 1492. Pat Buchanan, in his book A Republic Not an Empire, argues
that the US has drifted away from its original vision by getting
mixed up in all kinds of imperial adventures that are more suited to
old-school European powers than to the aloof yeoman republic its
founders foresaw.
On the other hand, there are those who think the events of 11
September prove that you can’t buck millennia of tradition: a non-
imperial superpower is a contradiction in terms, and it’s time for
America to embrace its fat
e and start colouring the map red, white and blue. My neighbour Tom, who’s painting my
house at present and who always carries a copy of the Constitution with him, thinks
this is a filthy unAmerican idea. ‘You Commonwealt
h guys,’ he says. ‘You can’t let go of the whole colony thing.’ He’s right, of course:
the founders would be horrified at the idea of the White House appointing chaps in
sola topis with ostrich feathers. But, simmering un
der the talk of immediate war aims in Afghanistan, a republic-versus-empire debate is
already under way.
Let’s start with Osama bin Loser’s main beef, about the US military presence near
Islam’s holiest sites in Saudi Arabia. He’s right; it is a humiliation that one of the
richest regimes on earth is too incompetent, greedy
and decadent to provide its own defence. But it’s not America’s fault that those
layabout Saudi princes, faced with Saddam’s troops massing on the border, could think
of nothing better to do than turn as white as their ro
bes and frantically dial Washington.
In fact, in so far as the Middle East is the victim of anything other than its own
failures, it’s not Western imperialism but Western post-imperialism. Unlike Africa,
Asia, Australasia and the Americas, Araby has never co
me under direct European colonial rule. (The Ottoman empire was famously characterised
by Tsar Nicholas I as ‘the sick man of Europe’, which would seem to concede admission
to the club, but also suggests that its sickness
was at least partly due to its lack of Europeanness.) After the first world war the
Ottoman vacuum was filled not with colonies proper but with League of Nations mandates
and then ‘spheres of influence’. Rather than maki
ng Arabia a Crown colony within the empire, sending out Lord Whatnot as governor,
issuing banknotes bearing the likeness of George V, setting up courts presided over by
judges in full-bottomed wigs, and introducing a prof
essional civil service and a free press, the British instead mulled over which sheikh
was likely to prove more pliable, installed him in the capital and invited his sons to
Eton and Sandhurst. The French did the same, and
so, later, did the Americans.
This was cheaper than colonialism and less politically prickly, but it did a great
disservice to the populations of those countries. The alleged mountain of evidence of
Yankee culpability is, in fact, evidence only of the
Great Satan’s deplorable faintheartedness: yes, Washington dealt with Saddam, and
helped train the precursors of the Taleban, and fancied Colonel Gaddafi as a better
bet than King Idris, just as in the Fifties they bolst
ered the Shah and then in the Seventies took against him, when Jimmy Carter decided
that the Peacock Throne wasn’t progressive enough and wound up with the ayatollahs
instead. This system of cherrypicking from a barrel-lo
ad of unsavoury potential clients was summed up in the old CIA line: ‘He may be a
sonofabitch but he’s our sonofabitch.’
The inverse is more to the point: he may be our sonofabitch, but he’s a sonofabitch.
Some guys go nuts, some are merely devious and unreliable, some remain charming and
pleasant but of little help, but all of them are a b
unch of despots utterly sealed off from their peoples. As we now know, it was our
so-called ‘moderate’ Arab ‘friends’ who provided all the suicide bombers of 11
September, just as it’s in their government-run media — nota
bly the vile Egyptian press — that some of the worst anti-American rhetoric is to be
found. The contemptible regime of President Mubarak permits dissent against the US
government but not against its own, licensing the for
mer as a safety-valve to reduce pressure on the latter. This is a classic example of
why the sonofabitch system is ultimately useless to the West: the US spends billions
subsidising regimes which have a vested interest in
encouraging anti-Americanism as a substitute for more locally focused grievances. As
a result, the West gets blamed for far more in a part of the world it never colonised
than it does in those regions it directly adminis
tered for centuries.
The worst example of this is Saudi Arabia, the source of many — if not all — of our
present woes. It’s remarkable how, for all the surface flim-flam about Afghanistan,
Israel, Iraq, Palestine and Pakistan, everything spec
ific about this crisis circles back to Saudi Arabia: some of the suicide bombers were
Saudi, Osama is a Saudi, the Taleban were trained in Islamic terror schools in
Pakistan funded by the Saudis, etc., etc. American defen
ce of Saudi Arabia gave Osama bin Laden his cause; American investment in Saudi Arabia
gave him the money to bankroll it. If we’re looking for ‘root causes’ of this current
situation, American support for Israel is a mere
distraction next to its creation and maintenance of modern Saudi Arabia.
The Beltway guys may talk about realpolitik, but they’re pikers compared with the
House of Saud. After all, as this last month has proved, you can be one of only three
states with diplomatic relations with the Taleban, yo
u can be militarily unco-operative, you can refuse to freeze Osama’s assets, you can
decline even to meet with Tony Blair, you can do whatever you like, and Washington
will still insist you’re a ‘staunch friend’.
The joke in all this is that Saudi Arabia as a functioning state is an American
invention: in 1933, just a year after founding his kingdom, Ibn Saud signed his first
oil contract with the US and eventually gave them a mon
opoly on leases. Saudi Arabia was the prototype of latter-day hands-off
post-imperialism and a shining example of why it’s ultimately a waste of time. A
century ago, Ibn Saud was a desert warrior of no fixed abode. Today
the House of Saud has approximately 7,000 members and produces about 40 new princes a
month. Chances are, while you’re reading this, some hapless female member of the House
of Saud is having contractions, because if there
’s one thing Saudi Arabia can always use, it’s another prince. The family hogs all the
cabinet posts, big ambassadorships and key government agencies, and owns all the
important corporations: that takes a lot of princes.
Public service in Saudi Arabia is an expensive business because salary is commensurate
with royal status: cabinet ministers can earn over $6 million (base).
This isn’t some quaint ancient culture that the US was forced to go along with, but
rather one largely of its own creation. American know-how fuelled Saudi Arabia’s rapid
transformation from reactionary feudal backwater i
nto the world’s most technologically advanced and spectacularly wealthy reactionary
feudal backwater. They’ve still got beheadings every Friday, but the schedule is
computerised. As Ibn Saud told Colonel William Eddy, the
first US minister to Saudi Arabia in 1946, ‘We will use your iron, but you will leave
our faith alone.’
It’s possible to foresee (admittedly some way down the road) Jordan evolving into a
modern constitutional monarchy, but not the decadent, bloated, corrupt House of Saud.
It’s not a question of if the royal family will fal
l, but when. Even if they really were the ‘good friends’ Washington insists they are,
their treatment of women, the restrictiveness of the state religion and their
ludicrous reliance on government by clan make it impossib
le for the Saudi monarchy to evolve into anything with a long-term chance of success.
By backing and enriching Ibn Saud’s swollen progeny, the US has put all its eggs into
one basket-case. If Washington wasn’t thinking ab
out these things before 11 September, it ought to be now. America may be the engine of
the global economy, but Saudi Arabia is the gas tank, producing more oil more easily
than anywhere else on earth. No one could serious
ly argue that Washington’s Frankensaud monster is the best way to guarantee long-term
access to that oil.
By comparison with the sonofabitch system, colonialism is progressive and enlightened.
If, as the bonehead peaceniks parrot, poverty breeds instability, then what’s the best
way to tackle poverty? The rule of law, a marke
t economy, emancipation of women — all the things you’re never going to get under most
present Middle East regimes or any of the ones likely to overthrow them. Even in
Afghanistan, the savagery of whose menfolk has been m
uch exaggerated by the Left’s nervous nellies, such progress as was made in the
country came when it fell under the watchful eye of British India, as a kind of
informal protectorate. With the fading of British power in th
e region in the 1950s, King Zahir let his country fall under the competing baleful
influences of Marxism and Islamic fundamentalism.
What will we do this time round? Will we stick Zahir Shah back on his throne to
preside over a ramshackle coalition of mutually hostile commies, theocrats and
gangsters, and hope the poor old gentleman hangs in there till
we’ve cleared Afghan airspace? Or will we understand that only the West can make his
kingdom a functioning state once more? Afghanistan needs not just food parcels, but
British courts and Canadian police and Indian civil
servants and American town clerks and Australian newspapers. So does much of the rest
of the region.
The viability of America’s non-imperial strategy was demolished on 11 September. For
its own security, it needs to do what it did to Japan and Germany after the war:
civilise them. Kipling called it ‘the white man’s burde
n’ — the ‘white man’ bit will have to be modified in the age of Colin Powell and Condi
Rice, and it’s no longer really a ‘burden’, not in cost-benefit terms. Given the
billions of dollars of damage done to the world econo
my by 11 September, massive engagement in the region will be cheaper than the
alternative. If neo-colonialism makes you squeamish, give it some wussified
Clinto-Blairite name like ‘global community outreach’. Tony Blair,
to his credit, has already outlined a ten-year British commitment to
rebuilding Afghanistan under a kind of UN protectorate. But, given
the appalling waste and corruption that attend any UN peacekeeping
mission, it would be better to do it directly under a select group of
Western powers. We can do it for compassionate reasons (the starving
hordes) or for selfish ones (our long-term security), but either way
the time has come to turn ‘American imperialism’ from a cheap leftie
slur to a formal ideology.
Return to top of page
© 2001 The Spectator.co.uk
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
