Is (cultural) imperialism a good thing… or a bad thing? Writing for the American Thinker Jeremy Egerer explains that, to him, it’s the wrong question. One should not ask whether (cultural) imperialism is in itself morally acceptable or not, but whether the imperializing force is ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
Therefore, since no nation can ever be its own supreme authority, and all governments must force someone to abide by law against his will, and positive influence is always good, the question arising from cultural imperialism is not whether it should take place. Rather, the question concerns who is right and what is good.
In a way, Egerer’s question is very American in nature. I’ll tell you why: historically, countries – especially the most powerful countries in any given point in time – have never had a ‘moral’ foreign policy. France, Germany, Britain, etc.; they never wondered whether their deeds were morally OK. No, what matters in foreign policy to most countries in the world is… Self-interest. That’s what governs them, nothing else.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, I’m a realist. It’s great if one’s principles coincide with one’s interests, but if that’s not the case, it’s often best to choose the latter. That may not be very ‘enlightened’, but it is beneficial to one’s own country and one’s own people. In the end, that’s the real principle one should hold high.
And yes, I realize that makes me sound remarkably similar to Machiavelli. So be it.
* One point worth mentioning, by the way, is that the author seems to consider an interventionist foreign policy ‘cultural imperialism’. I don’t quite agree with that. Imperialism, and cultural imperialism especially, is about spreading your culture, your way of life to other parts of the world. Interventionism may simply mean you get rid of a foreign government; not because their ways are different than yours, but simply because they pose a threat to your own security.
/