Putin's Wars (5 page)

Imperial rule needs legitimation. But it would be an exaggeration to state that imperialist
rule always needs legitimation. In the first phases of modern imperialism territorial
expansion
just happened.
Often it could not even be called imperialism, especially when expansion took place
in empty territories where no native populations lived that could be subdued. However,
it was a different matter when imperialist expansion implied wars of conquest, as
in South America where the Spanish
conquistadores
conducted bloody wars against the indigenous Indian populations. It is, therefore,
no coincidence that “Spain was the only conquering country . . . that asked itself
questions about its capacity and the legality to exercise its rights and dominate
other peoples.”
^[1]

In its search for a legitimation theory Spain fell back on the old medieval theory
of the “just war” waged by Christians against the infidels. The “infidels,” in this
case, were not Muslims, but pagans. An additional argument was found in the fact that
the population of the Caribbean included cannibals, which was considered a reason
for them to be enslaved. Thus, in this early period the Christian faith and the superiority
of Europe’s civilization were used as arguments to support imperialist rule. In Western
Europe the inherent hypocrisy of these theories began to be attacked in the eighteenth
century when Enlightenment philosophers, such as Voltaire and Diderot, formulated
the first fundamental criticism of slavery and colonial rule.
^[2]
These critical voices found resonance in the nineteenth century, when a widely
supported anti-slavery movement emerged. This led to a new legitimation theory, the
theory of the
white man’s burden,
which was the result of the bad conscience caused by the new moral criticism. It
became more difficult to legitimate imperialist expansion by referring to the Christian
faith (in both its catholic, as well as its protestant variants). In the words of
John Kenneth Galbraith,

[Colonialism’s] real motives, were they stated, would be altogether too uncouth, selfish
or obscene. So where colonization has involved people—where it has not meant merely
the appropriation and settlement of unused lands—the colonialists have almost always
seen themselves as the purveyors of some transcendental moral, spiritual, political
or social worth. The reality [however] has as regularly included a considerable component
of pecuniary interest, real or anticipated, for important participants.
^[3]

The bad conscience about colonial practice that emerged in the nineteenth century
necessitated the forging of a new legitimation theory in which the concept of
moral duty
had a central place. This was especially the case in protestant countries, such as
Britain and the Netherlands. This new legitimation theory was dubbed
the white man’s burden
,
^[4]
because imperialist expansion was considered not so much an interest- and profit-driven
exploitation of foreign countries and foreign peoples, but rather a
civilizing mission.
Of course this civilizing mission had already played a role when the Christian faith
was used as a legitimation theory. But then the emphasis was still on the
spiritual
salvation of the indigenous populations by their conversion to Christianity. Now this
legitimation theory was turned upside down: what was at stake was not their
spiritual
salvation in the afterlife, but their
earthly
salvation here and now. The colonial ruler—far from being an oppressor and exploiter—was
a
helper
and a
coach
of native populations, bringing them the benefits of modern governance, modern transport
systems, modern industry and trade, and, in addition, the whole rich Western culture
that became available to local elites by giving them access to higher education. In
1897 H. F. Wyatt, the founder of the British
Imperial Maritime League
, wrote:

In Asia and in Africa great native populations have passed under our hands. To us—to
us, and not to others, a certain definite duty has been assigned. To carry light and
civilization into the dark places of the world; to touch the mind of Asia and of Africa
with the ethical ideas of Europe; to give to thronging millions, who would otherwise
never know peace or security, these first conditions of human advance . . . .
^[5]
To sustain worthily the burden of empire is the task manifestly appointed to Britain,
and therefore to fulfil that task is her duty, as it should also be her delight.
^[6]

The young Winston Churchill, twenty-two years old, delivered his first political speech
in Bath in the same year (1897). He told his audience “that our determination is to
uphold the Empire that we have inherited from our fathers as Englishmen,” adding:
“we shall continue to pursue that course marked out for us by an all-wise hand and
carry out our mission of bearing peace, civilization and good government to the uttermost
ends of the earth.”
^[7]
Was this merely a
new
hypocrisy replacing the old? One might be tempted to reply in the affirmative. However,
this is not completely true. Galbraith, for instance, stressed the important role
Britain played in building a
Rechtsstaat
in India. Introducing a functioning independent and impartial judiciary in this large
country was, indeed, a matter of great historical progress.

“The new faith was law,” wrote Galbraith. “The British were in India to trade and
make money. There was nothing wrong with that. But the redeeming purpose was to bring
government according to law. It was an idea of genuine power.”
^[8]
“Largely in consequence,” he continued, “India was one of the best-governed countries
in the world. Persons and property were safe. Thought and speech were more secure
than in recent times. There was effective action to arrest famine and improve communications.
The courts functioned impartially and to the very great pleasure of the litigiously-minded
Indians.”
^[9]
And Galbraith concluded: “The British rulers were snobbish, race-conscious and
often arrogant. But if colonialism could anywhere have been considered a success (the
empty lands always apart), it was in India.”
^[10]

At the end of the nineteenth century the theory of the white man’s burden became
widely accepted in the Netherlands also. Here it was called
de ethische koers
(the ethical course). This “ethical course” was intended to repair the historical
ereschuld
(honorable debt) to the indigenous populations.
^[11]
It is telling that even a Dutch socialist MP, Henri van Kol, who, in 1901, in an
article in the press had severely attacked the imperialist policies of the Dutch government,
was much more positive after a visit to the Dutch Indies (Indonesia) some years later.
In a report he wrote of having felt “a feeling of pride” during his visit: “There
is over there something great and noble being achieved.”
^[12]
According to the Dutch sociologist Van Doorn, “this sense of mission, the feeling
of being ‘responsible’ for Indonesia grew between the world wars to almost mythical
proportions.”
^[13]
The Dutch were even praised by outsiders:

In the 1920s American perceptions of Dutch colonial rule had been positive, even if
such assessments were colored by paternalistic, racial overtones. Consul-General Chas
Hoover spoke approvingly of Dutch colonial rule over the “apathetically conservative
people of these islands.” His successor argued that “the whites—particularly the 30,000
Dutch who are doing it—are experts in the art of government” who were willing to “discuss
with friendly interest the aspirations of the brown people to learn how to govern
themselves.”
^[14]

Although recognizing the fact that “every empire has been both Jekyll and Hyde,”
^[15]
ex-colonial powers, generally, have stressed the credit balance of their imperial
rule. However, at the beginning of the twentieth century the sociologist Vilfredo
Pareto, who was anything but a pure democrat, criticized the hypocrisy of the European
powers. “An Englishman, a Frenchman, a Belgian, an Italian,” he wrote, “when he fights
and dies for his fatherland, is a hero; but an African, when he dares to defend his
fatherland against these nations, is a vile rebel and a traitor. And the Europeans
carry out their holy duty to destroy the Africans, as, for instance in the Congo,
in order to teach them to be civilized.”
^[16]
Despite the moral self-satisfaction of the former colonial powers concerning the
supposed blessings of their colonial rule, it is good to remember the words of Aimé
Césaire, the founder of the
négritude
movement in France, who wrote:

I maintain that colonial Europe is dishonest in legitimating colonialism
a posteriori
by the evident material progress which has been realized in certain domains under
colonial rule; . . . that nobody knows at what stage of material development these
same countries would have been without European intervention; that the technical equipment,
the administrative reorganisation, in a word: the “Europeanization” of Africa or Asia
was in no way linked to a European occupation—as is proved by the example of Japan;
that the Europeanization of the non-European continents could have been achieved in
other ways than under the Europan boot.
^[17]

Theories of the white man’s burden reflected the growing feelings of moral uneasiness
with imperialist policies amongst the enlightened metropolitan elites. However, in
the last quarter of the nineteenth century we can witness in Western Europe a rude
and cynical reaction against this new moral criticism with the emergence of legitimation
theories based on
social Darwinism.
As the term indicates, these theories were inspired by Charles Darwin, especially
by his theories of “natural selection” and the “survival of the fittest,” which he
had developed in
The Origin of Species
(1859). Darwin’s theory was biology. It was not sociology or political science. However,
already Darwin himself had given his theory a wider interpretation when he applied
it to the human world in his book
The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex
(1871). In this work he spoke of the “lower races,” a term that he not only used to
refer to colonized peoples outside Europe, but also to some peoples inside Europe.
For instance, he quoted uncritically an author who compared the Scots, supposed to
be “frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, [and] ambitious,” with the Irish, who were
considered to represent an “inferior and less favored race.”
^[18]
Many of Darwin’s contemporaries were eager to grant his theory of the survival
of the fittest, including its implicit conclusions of racial superiority and inferiority,
an almost universal validity. It was a theory, considered not only useful to explain
the biological world, but also human society, and even international relations.