a970: The Reluctant Imperialist (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Dr Allen <drallen@periogroup.com>

    In the last issue of Foreign Affairs (march/April 2002), the article
The Reluctant Imperialist written by Sebastian Mallaby caught my attention.
This article brought me back to the series of postings on the list regarding
the Blockade of aid to Haiti from the World Bank(WB) and the International
monetary Fund (IMF) and what may be in store for us in the future.
    Mr. Mallaby who is and editorial writer and a columnist for the
Washington Post thinks that "The anti-imperialist restraint is becoming
harder to sustain, as the disorder in poor countries grows more
threatening". He contends that the failed states, and Haiti is one, will
require a different set of methods.
    In the article, Mr. Mallaby makes the case for intervention in foreign
countries either directly or through mercenaries for whatever reason the big
powers may find that threatens their security, including but not limited to
these countries' inability to control their population: " There is another
reason why state failures may multiply.  Violence and social disorder are
linked to rapid population growth...Failed states also challenge orderly
ones by boasting immigration pressures".
    According to the author, at a recent meeting of the World Bank's task
force on failed states, the discussion centered on "routing aid around
dysfunctional governments...". The conclusions are that "..in countries like
Chad, Haiti and Angola, aid cannot accomplish much.  Such places are beyond
he reach of economists who prescribe the policies from afar."  In other
words, only intervention can help fix the place.
    Now "la piece de resistance"!  Mr. Mallaby recommends a new
International Body with the same type of structure as the ones used at the
WB and IMF that "would be subject neither to the frustrations of the UN
Security Council, with its Chinese and Russian vetoes, nor to those of the
UN general assembly, with its gridlocked one-country-one-vote system.  A New
international reconstruction fund might be financed by rich countries
belonging to the OECD    (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development). It would assemble nation-building muscle and expertise and
could be deployed whenever its American-led board decided, thus replacing
the ad hoc begging and arm-twisting characteristic of the current
peace-keeping efforts."
    As I understand it, Mr. Mallaby who is clearly nostalgic of the former
European Empires (he says it in the article), feels that they have to be
replaced. The UN might be too democratic and he recommends in its place a
"Monroe Doctrine Plus" on the planet to dictate the will of the rich
countries.  The UN would be the equivalent of the YMCA to which all would
belong, but all the important decisions would be made at the more select
Country Club level, with limited attendance and a community of views.
    The sad thing is that Mr.  Mallaby not once in this crusade recognizes
that the former European Empires and the rich countries might be responsible
in part for the failure of these states. This is a very poor rationalization
for the need for imperialism.
    Why would this be relevant for Haiti.  Mr. Mallaby's logic is what is in
part responsible to the blockage of funds already appropriated to Haiti.   I
have on prior occasions made the case for releasing the funds to Haiti
despite the bad record of the Aristide Government at the risk of making a
few more Lavalas richer. The problem is bigger than lavalas and Aristide.
The convergence and others are, I think, on the wrong side of the issue
because it is an unprincipled stance and it is bordering on being criminal.
If they ever get to power, the next time the funds are blocked, it will not
be because of flawed elections; it may very well be because of "excessive"
illegal immigration or under the false pretense of increase drug flow to the
rich countries, or simply exceeding a "population quota" if the club imposes
one.
    Hopefully, such a Body will never exist.  I point to the article not
because it is a good foreign policy document; however it contains ideas that
are , regrettably, getting more popular in the United States.
    Joseph A. Allen DDS
    Miami, FL