I write as a critic of American empire, not an opponent of it, if you catch my drift. America is doing what large, hegemonic powers have pretty much always done when in this position, and this behavior is not exceptionally vile, as the leftist screechers would have us believe, and it is not especially virtuous, as the neocon tubthumpers would have it. Think of us as a big international galoot, being selfish here, altruistic there, and a mix of both everywhere else.
Being an opponent of empire strikes me as trying to be an opponent of something like the weather, which is way too much like Al Gore for my liking. As a critic, I can speak to the central issues — which are always the issues surrounding worship — with a special word to the Church to avoid all forms of jingoistic idolatries. I am not doing what I can to advance the cause of American empire, and the problems caused by American empire are not keeping me up nights. That said, some of the problems generated by the exigencies of empire are getting tracked into the Church, and here is the point where we can afford to be a little more strident. Wipe your feet, man.
There is a point I have been making in this regard that appears to be grasped with some difficulty — although one commenter summarized my point quite nicely. Given that we are now here, in this position in the Third World, we have three choices. We can walk away, we can support dictators, or we can become a dictator.
The demand that is being made for the “First World” to do something about Third World debt is a demand that unwittingly brings with it a strong presumption that America needs to increase its imperial hegemony. The fact that this is not immediately obvious to those Christians who are making this plea means that we have to talk a lot more about it. We really need to work through this.
Does anyone really think that empires only have one trick? Empires are not built in fits of absent-mindedness, as Charles Beard once put it, and empires are also not built by one-trick-pony men. There are sticks and there are carrots. There are wars and there are trade deals. There are good cops and bad cops. There are State Department official tours, not to mention Rolling Stones concert tours. We do it lots of ways.
If we withdraw away from empire, then of course this particular discussion is moot. Doing this is an option on paper, of course, but nobody should be holding their breath.
If we continue to throw katrillions of dollars down the international rat hole, providing foreign aid and loans without new conditions, we are wasting the money, devastating the people of the countries involved, with an occasional kickback benefit coming back to us from the s.o.b. that we are keeping in power, a little something to keep the CIA happy. (I speak, of course, of the CIA as portrayed in all the really-true-to-life movies we see nowadays.) If we were to do this, we lose the moral high ground completely. Did Jesus really want us to keep Idi Amin going as long as possible?
But if we attach conditions, demand reforms, and so on, as a number of people have observed that Bush the Second is doing, then think for a moment what this actually entails. We are telling all these people how they must run their countries. Proverbs tells us that the borrower becomes the lender’s slave, and this is no less true for countries than it is for individuals. If we walk away, none of this would be a problem (well, actually it would be, but that is another problem for another discussion). If we subsidize wickedness, then that (somehow) doesn’t seem right. And if we set conditions, then we are running the show.
Empires know how to get a lot done — and they do what they do by force, cajolery, bribes, gifts, diplomacy, loans, and so on. It is simplistic in the extreme to think that American military intervention in Iraq is a function of empire, but that a string of conditions attached to loan repayments from African countries is not a function of empire.
I am a critic of empire, as I said. I don’t think this will make it shrivel up and go away, but I do think that the criticism, if it is cogent and to the point, can at least contribute to getting Christians to think clearly on the subject. Whatever we do, it ought to be with our eyes open. And if you exclude the first two options (walking away, and throwing good money after bad), and settle on this final, third option, then you may be a very nice person, but you are a very nice person who is advocating the expansion of American empire. People like N.T. Wright ought not to believe that they are critics of American empire simply because they oppose the Iraq war. There are lots of ways to get American fingers into international pies. Just ask Bono.
Note that this applies to the matter of tax dollars, and public, governmental issues. Someone could advocate walking away from the Third World (with regard to civil government) and still be a passionate advocate of private funds from the Church being invested in the Third World. But that admirable view brings up another aspect of this very complicated subject.