Part 1: Reluctant hegemon

BEIJING - "Hegemonism" has recently become a derogatory byword of US foreign policy. Unilaterally, driven by the selfish pursuit of its national interests, the US is said to be willing to step on anybody's head to keep and protect its primacy in the world. But even if this blunt analysis is accurate, this in the end amounts to a normal imperial policy.

Empires are made of blood. The cross, which now symbolizes Christianity and its ideals of mercy and tolerance, was for centuries the sign of power and of the most atrocious death the Roman Empire could devise. Lines of crosses holding thousands of people were erected on the sides of roads leading to Rome warning the foreign traveler and reassuring the Roman citizen of the pitiless power of Rome. Rome was a cruel empire, and it knew it so well that Cato, speaking of the many enemies of Rome, would say: "Let them hate us as long as they fear us."

The United States, though also an empire, can't bring itself to adopt the Roman ways. It can't stand other people's hatred and even resents the fact that its foreign policy is labeled "hegemonistic". In this way the United States is unconsciously thinking along lines more similar to those of the Chinese rather than Roman Empire: Force, although sometimes necessary, must be used as the instrument of last resort; persuasion, winning the heart of potential enemies, must be preferred to terror striking the heart of the people. But this preferred policy doesn't work so well, or it is not implemented well enough.

How can the US avoid being regarded as hegemonistic? Perhaps we have to take a step back and restart from the cross.

In 1966 it came as a total surprise that North Korea beat Italy in the soccer World Cup. The Italians went back home and the Koreans were so surprised that they found themselves without hotel reservations for the England venue. All rooms were fully booked, so they had to take up all the bookings the smug Italians had made. For the next round they had to live in a monastery, a terrifying experience for the North Koreans. They were sleeping alone in very austere rooms where the main piece of furniture was a huge crucifix hanging over the bed. The players were used to sleeping together in bunk beds and were quite unused to the figure of this tortured man nailed by his hands and feet. In the very place where the Italians thought their players would feel tranquil and would rest peacefully before the games, the North Koreans were uneasy.

The Jesuit missionaries who came to China in the 17th century found a similar problem. The Chinese could not understand or easily accept the idea of the crucifixion. Why would a religion of mercy choose such a cruel symbol? Why was God so cruel as to let his own son die in such a manner?

It took a lot of explanation for the Chinese converts to understand that it was the forbearance of that cruelty that made Christians what they were. At the same time the missionaries were also explaining one of the reasons of the fall of Rome. The Christians could withstand all of the Roman cruelty - they were not afraid of painful death, but would gladly embrace it as martyrdom. When subjects are no longer afraid of punishment they can't be ruled. For this reason the spiritual rule of the Church would try to work on the principle of persuasion rather than terror, similarly to the earthly rule of the Chinese empire keen on winning the hearts of the enemy.

These Christian ideals shape the ideology of the American Empire that tries to act according to merciful rules and thus according to justice. The only problem is that in the West for centuries empires could not bring themselves to apply Christian mercy while running their dominions.

In a similar fashion now the US can't do without its ideals of freedom and democracy, which are to be not national but global, and which spring from its Christian roots. The United States is born out of a revolution, and those ideas shape its way of thinking, arguably even more deeply than they shaped the Soviet Empire, where communist ideals were often a veneer to cover up wanton inclemency. For this reason the US needs to be loved and accepted. But this, strictly speaking, it is not necessary for empires, which are often driven by the simpler reasons of conquest or, if one wishes, of national interest.

Even the British Empire with its quest of bringing civilization to the barbarians had few qualms about the use of brute force in its imperial territory. Here, however, it might be interesting to notice that the contradiction between imperial necessities (the brutal use of force) and the domestic ideals of democracy and freedom eventually helped the collapse of the empire. Mahatma Gandhi used the British right to a free press and Britain's democratic ideals to convince the British public of the injustice of the British rule in India. For it is very difficult to maintain the right to a free press without also guaranteeing the right to free determination.

The US position is in many way worse than that of the British. The British wanted an empire, and claimed a right of colonization. They openly claimed to have a superior model to impose on an inferior world. In this way, they were the same as the Roman Empire. Military victory ultimately gave them the right to the empire.

The Americans don't think this way. They believe they fought and defeated two evil enemies, fascism and communism, in the world. These two victories did not give them an empire, but gave the world an opportunity for freedom and democracy.

The conundrum is, what if a country doesn't want freedom and democracy? The simple answer in the US could be: this country must be fascist or communist. (2002-10-16 Asia Times)