Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

COLUMN: America, France and colonialism
By Zachary Steinert-Threlkeld
The Student Life (Washington U.)
09/07/2007

(U-WIRE) ST. LOUIS, Mo. — Despite the vitriol of the last few years, America and France resemble each other as much as, or more than, America and Great Britain.

Two hundred and thirty years ago, the two countries created the modern idea of republicanism and its accoutrements: egalitarianism, capitalism, bourgeois middle-class, mass education and nationalism, among others. Through colonial expansion and Manifest Destiny, the sister countries expanded their dominion over previously independent territories, implanting their values and language on top of other cultures. And now, Nicholas Sarkozy is shaping up to become the French version of Tony Blair; if his American vacations, prognostications on Iraq and Iran, and enthusiasm for more liberal economic ideas are any indication, he will be the most Americanized French president ever.

Aside from some minor differences — beer over wine, Amtrak versus a working railroad system, sickness versus universal health care, two weeks of vacation versus five — the two countries have one singular difference: the degree of their imperial past.

France, following Britain, conquered its way through the nineteenth century while America expanded domestically (imperially but less expansively) and did not acquire overseas territory (except for the Philippines). Moreover, and in contrast to the British, the French viewed themselves as spreading their values; the economic benefit became, rhetorically, secondary to spreading "civilization." America's Iraq expedition, and especially the foibles of the last few months, has erased this final distinction between the two nations.

This article is not trying to debate the merits of the Iraqi invasion, the War on Nouns or the nature of American dominance. Instead, it seeks to point out the hypocrisy to which American leaders are submitting us. American mythology portrays the country as a land of opportunity, equality and freedom, but our (relatively few) international forays had always been pragmatic and amoral: never devoted to proselytizing. And, until reality intervened, Desert Storm II was predicated on this same mission: ridding the world of an evil tyrant to protect America from al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. (To hear an alternative interpretation, read David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism.") Once this did not pan out, Plan B (or C or D or E, no one is counting) arose: America is spreading freedom and democracy.

Fine, so rationales change. At least Iraqis were choosing their president and officials while America created security so democracy and capitalism can flourish. Giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, let's assume that it in no way wittingly interfered in domestic politics: America then could claim to be a benevolent, neutral force only trying to assist less-fortunate citizens of the world. In an exported sense, has this not always been America's calling?

But we have now assumed the colonial role we stumbled into some time ago. Over 50 American congressmen have visited the country this year to ascertain its status. Several of the same people have also openly called for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to either resign, shift strategy, or called him ineffectual. President Bush, Condeleezza Rice and Robert Gates just met with al-Maliki to discuss strategic military issues. The point is that there is a disconnect: on one hand, we have birthed — remember the "birth pangs of a new country?" — an independent, sovereign nation, but we expect it, probably because of colonial levels of money and lives spent, to listen and bend to our whims. President Bush would be indignant if al-Maliki retorted on al-Jazeera, "Actually, I think your policy is bad, too. You should really focus on insuring more of your citizens while reforming your international policy to secure nuclear weapons and accommodate China's inevitable rise. Mr. Bush, really, you are running your country rather poorly."

But Iraq did not colonize America, so they do not hold the power to opine like this. The recent rhetoric demanding policy changes from a foreign leader represents behavior only an advanced, entrenched colonialist exhibits. This is doubly hypocritical: America acting contrary to its foundational ideology and belying the independence, democracy, and sovereignty of Iraq.

International diplomacy is always a dialogue, but it is supposed to occur behind closed doors. Thrust into the public arena, American foreign policy seems to be to shame al-Maliki into submission.

[ Back to Student Voices ]