« Ian Smith: ‘A Great White Tribal Chief’ is Gone
Nawaz Sharif’s Plane Takes Off: Saudi King Gifts Him Bullet Proof Cars »
Archbishop’s Views on American ‘Imperialism’ & Old British Imperialism
When the Archbishop of Canterbury says that “the United States wields its power in a way that is worse than Britain during its imperial heyday”, let us pause and see who is this man and why is he saying that. There is no point in getting into a hysterical “for” or “against” mode about what Dr Rowan Williams stated in a magazine interview recently.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is the senior bishop and principal leader of the Church of England, as well as the symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Williams is the 104th in the list of Archbishops of Canterbury, in a line that goes back more than 1400 years to the first, Saint Augustine of Canterbury, who founded the see, the oldest in England, in the year 597.
“As Primate of All England, he is the chief religious figure in the Church of England (the British sovereign is the “Supreme governor” of the church) and its primary leader. The Archbishop of Canterbury plays a central part in (the British) national ceremonies such as coronations; thanks to his high public profile, his opinions are often in demand by the news media.
The Archbishop has an important ecumenical and interfaith role, speaking on behalf of Anglicans in England and worldwide. In addition to his office, the Archbishop also holds a number of other positions; for example, he is Joint President of the Council of Christians and Jews in the UK. Some positions he formally holds ex officio and others virtually so (the incumbent of the day, although appointed personally, is appointed because of his office).
Now let’s come to what Dr Williams said…and said it very emphatically. The Times reports: “Rowan Williams claimed that America’s attempt to intervene overseas by ‘clearing the decks’ with a ‘quick burst of violent action’ had led to ‘the worst of all worlds’.
“Williams went beyond his previous critique of the conduct of the war on terror, saying the United States had lost the moral high ground since September 11. He urged it to launch a ‘generous and intelligent programme of aid directed to the societies that have been ravaged; a check on the economic exploitation of defeated territories; a demilitarisation of their presence’.
“Williams suggested American leadership had broken down: ‘We have only one global hegemonic power. It is not accumulating territory: it is trying to accumulate influence and control. That’s not working’.
“He contrasted it unfavourably with how the British Empire governed India. ‘It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly, that’s what the British Empire did — in India, for example.
” ‘It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put it back together — Iraq, for example’.
“In the interview in Emel, a Muslim lifestyle magazine, Williams makes only mild criticisms of the Islamic world. He said the Muslim world must acknowledge that its ‘political solutions were not the most impressive’.”
This interview may kick up a controversy, especially because a growing number of people see the world only through the prism of their religions and culture. The Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a point of view that needs to be first understood with a cool state of mind. And only then we need to react if we wish to have a sensible and purposeful debate.
I have wonderful memories of my visit in 1975 to Canterbury city and the church, located in eastern Kent in the South East region of England. Much of the city walls and one of the city gates remain. “The city is the seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury… Thomas Becket was murdered in Canterbury Cathedral; King Henry IV was buried along with the Edward the Black Prince. Geoffery Chaucer wrote the Canterbury Tales about a group of people travelling from London to Canterbury. This literary heritage was continued with Christopher Marlowe who was born here.”
Comments to “Archbishop’s Views on American ‘Imperialism’ & Old British Imperialism”
[...] House Archbishop’s Views on American ‘Imperialism’ & Old British Imperialism » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
I find it odd that the comments are coming from an organization that can only be described as a failure. Organized religion in Europe has collapsed to the point of being irrelevant. It only lives on now due to past accomplishments.
So, instead of trying to find a way to become more relevant in the world, the leader of the Anglican church decided to become a policy work.
Yes, how shameful of us not to go to war over our right to make addicts out of a whole nation as the British did in the Opium wars.
Let’s face it, the British Empire was nothing more or less than a vampire, sucking the life out of it’s colonies and less powerful nations until one by one they finally managed to dislodge it’s fangs.
Frankly, I’m getting sick of everybody weighing in on what the US is or irs not.
We have a lot of problems, we know it, and we’re trying to work through them.
In particular, I’ve lost patience with those who define themselves by defining the US in a negative light. It’s almost as if they have no will of their own to define their own policies and would hardly exist if the US didn’t exist.
The archibisop would do better to spend a few thoughts on Britain’s own internal and international problem. There are quite a number of those, beginning with the changing demographic of its population.
Any words of wisdom as it relates to your actual congregants, archibishop?
No one addresses what the bishop said or comments on his perspective given his being part of the British Empire. Just attack…
Well another religious leader came out against the Iraq War, what about this Commie?
http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html
Now isn’t this appeaser being cannonised or considered for sainthood?
Rudi,
First of all, one can oppose the war without resorting to melodramatic rhetoric like “imperialism’ Terms like that, along with fascist or Nazi, are showbiz terms, without real relevance.
Second, the question of the day has long passed from why-we-went-in to how-to-get -out. If the archibishop had any insights to share on what is relevant today, I might be more tolerant.
Both the Archibishop and the Pope strike me as being like bystanders at a catastrophic accident offering useless homilies instead of genuine help or solace.
Domjat – While sniping with the Ducth lad at his site I dug up a little on the Lefty Williams. Seems he’s also concerned about Iraqis refuggees in Syria and the threat of Iraq spreading to other ME countries via a neocon dream. The man actually stepped foot on ME ground in Syria. He has an extensive history of being a critic of the Iraq war as “unjust” just like John Paul.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3852127.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2599716.ece
More Lefty Mother Theresa than ranting from an Ivory Tower.
Rudi,
Whether his’s a Mother Theresa or a Bill Kristol is beside the point.
Rather than throwing words like ‘imperialist’ around, which only serve to inflame instead of rectify, I would respect him if were to simply highlight, say, the plight of Iraqi refugees.
We;ve had quite enough of that sort of language passing for rational commentary, thank you very much.
He is copying Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil;’ rhetoric. only the target being different.
I don’t like it when Bush does it, and I don’t like when anyone else does it.
A body count does not define a war, BTW. By that measure, WWII was a drastic mistake.
I opposed the war from the beginning. That does not give me or anyone else license to hurl stupid eptaphs around. If we are to get through this mess, cool heads and rathional language must remain the coin of the debate realm.
DM – Points taken, a good response on your part. The good Archbishop is guilty of hyperbole, but his thoughts on Iraq are SPOT ON compared to our Southern Baptist and Religious Right disregard for WWJD.
“First of all, one can oppose the war without resorting to melodramatic rhetoric like ‘imperialism’. “
There are ample indications the term fits perfectly.
Consider the 14 hard-site bases, at least one with the longest runway in the Mideast, last time I read about it, built by the U.S. in Iraq. The bases’ design and existence are clear indicators of an intention to maintain a large military presence there indefinitely.
Consider the world’s-largest U.S. embassy just built in Baghdad. It’s another indication of an intention to play a major role in Iraq’s civilian and commercial affairs for a very long time.
Consider Alan Greenspan’s blatant acknowldgement that Iraq’s oil was/is a main — maybe the main — reason for Bush and Cheney’s intention from the beginning of their administration to invade Iraq.
I wish for my country’s sake that the imperialism charge could be blown off as being absurd. Unfortunately, the facts are what they are.
There is no imperialism here, of course. The guy’s statement reeks of 1980s (and US-and-oft-Reagan-bashing) “liberation theology.” (I’m surprised this guy hasn’t joined a Bolivarian Church in Venezuela.)
DLS, you might want to read US, Iraq deal sees long-term US presence.
I stand by my previous comment.
That is not imperialistic. Everyone who is sane knows that the USA cannot and should not leave Iraq immediately. Furthermore, military bases in Iraq (no more imperialistic than bases in Korea, or in Europe during the Cold War and even still now) make good sense, especially given Iran’s misconduct these days. What we see with this agreement can at worst be a selling out (with implied disgrace of the USA, Yet Again) of the Maliki government to the USA to stay alive. (A more moral and sane view would be simply to say this act rationalizes and accepts, if begrudgingly, a hard fact of reality in Iraq and the Middle East.)
DLS, what’s going on here is a bargain where the U.S. gets 30-year exclusive rights to Iraqi oil at a brother-in-law price in return for the al Maliki government being propped up — making it a puppet.
How is this different from the U.S. administration of the Philippines for decades? Make no mistake, that was imperialism, pure and simple.
What about what ordinary Iraqis want? Or is self-determination of peoples to go the way of collective security and deterrence under the neocons’ bull-headed incompetence and mismanagement?