The White Man’s Burden and generational change: the evolution of imperialism. Part 5

In the previous commentary on the historical evolution of imperialism we have finally reached the stage where the demand for sovereignty for all peoples had become the new social norm. The direct and overt colonial control of huge swathes of non-white territories - which had been a “self-evident” feature of our history for quite a while - has become since the later part of the 20th century no longer acceptable. It has become outdated, immoral, unjustifiable, etc. But just because the former colonies had finally been officially declared to be adults - on par with their former colonial master countries - this did not immediately translate into a full equality within the international relations.

There were times, and quite recent ones by the standard of the entire history of humanity, when a universalistic basis of equality was not seen as an essential requirement within the society. For instance, the feudal hierarchy in Europe had its distinctive legal privileges and superior rights for a certain segment of the population. And this state of things was at the time considered as just, natural, and acceptable. And at a particular stage of history every single reader of this commentary would have subscribed to such notions of “organic” inequalities. It is only gradually and relatively recently that the historical evolution of our social consciousness has created the universal demand that all individuals be treated as equals. Of course, there are still a number of cases even today where the wealthy individuals get more leniency, for example, than members of the ordinary folk. But these are getting ever greater backlashes within our modern societies. And at least on paper and in law, within the advanced societies we are all considered as having the same rights. And the mere existence of a principle of equality must never be underestimated.

As far as the inter-state relations are concerned, they are not exactly the same as interactions between individuals within a society. Everyone understands that at least so far global geopolitics lacks a global enforcement mechanism which would be comparable to the legal systems within individual sovereign countries. Hence, despite the fact that on paper - and this is, once again, equally essential - all sovereign states are now considered to be equals, the practical applicability of this principle has so far been much less advanced than the equality of individual citizens against the law. In other words, “powerful states, often through their economic, military, or political influence, exercise dominance over weaker states, challenging the ideal of equal sovereignty. These power dynamics underscore the difference between formal legal equality and practical inequality in international affairs.”

And it is not only that the legal establishment of the permanent members of the UN Security council and their veto powers have been eating into the principle of equality on the international stage. The practical real-life actions by various sovereign powers have equally been constantly undermining it. Namely, the placing of particularistic national interests over and above the universalistic international law - as the primary driver of these actions - has been the principal hindrance to the establishment of the de facto equality in geopolitics. A perfect historical example is provided by the Suez Crisis of 1956, whereby the former imperial hegemon under the name of the UK was forced to realize that a new mafia boss, i.e. the USA, had arrived in town.

“Eden rejected the charge that Britain’s position was colonial. Canal internationalisation, as he understood it, involved neither annexation nor conquest. He also believed that Britain was acting with Europe in mind as much as with itself. The canal was an artery for the continent and a collapse of British and French authority in Egypt threatened more than national prestige. By October, the space for manoeuvre had narrowed to a blunt choice. Either Britain accepted Nasser’s seizure as irreversible, or it attempted to reverse it by force. Eden did not believe that a prime minister could explain to Parliament, still less to the country, that a vital interest had been abandoned because an ally objected.”

It had not been that long since Egypt had become a proper sovereign country. During the colonial era the colonial subjects were treated like kids, incapable of making their own decisions, hence these had to be made for them by the imperial powers. With the natural historical death of colonialism and the emergence of new sovereign actors, the old rationale for interventions had become obsolete. While previously the economic interests of the European states were hidden behind the “civilizing mission”, this was now superseded by the classic caricatural division of the world into the “good” versus the “evil”. And as every side of a conflict naturally describes itself as the “righteous” one, no surprise then that the Egyptians had to be demonised by the British side:

“[...] propaganda played a central role in the 6-month-long Suez crisis of 1956, and for the British government especially. Prime Minister Anthony Eden secretly sought regime-change in Cairo, not just the re-internationalisation of the Suez Canal. Radio broadcasting in Britain and the Middle East was seen as a vital instrument in effecting regime-change in Cairo – for putting psychological pressure on Gamal Abdul Nasser – especially during the ‘war’ phase of the crisis in October–November. That ‘psy-war’ went horribly wrong, however, undercutting the Eden government’s whole strategy. It might be argued [...] that Eden’s propaganda strategy – especially his demonising of Nasser – was counter-productive, and meant that ultimately Eden could not, for domestic political reasons, compromise with a man whom he had labelled a second Hitler.”

Now what is clear here, is that such neo-imperial interventions can only be sustained as long as the above mentioned Hollywoodian ideological notions are maintained. Declare your opponents to be the “axis of evil”, for instance, or compare their leaders to Hitler and Stalin, and you are good to go. Leaving aside Britain and Egypt in the 1950s, we have also had the US military actions in Vietnam. Obviously, you can not directly proclaim to be merely imposing a friendly regime with a pro-American foreign policy. There has to be a moral element within:

“In 1956, Kennedy, then a U.S. senator, claimed that Vietnam was ‘the cornerstone of the Free World in Southeast Asia, the keystone in the arch, the finger in the dike, and should the red tide of Communism pour into it … much of Asia would be threatened.’ [...] Eisenhower embraced Truman’s containment policy and its application to Far Eastern ‘dominoes.’ In a 1959 speech, he said, ‘The loss of South Vietnam would set in motion a crumbling process that could, as it progressed, have grave consequences for us and for freedom.’ [...] Johnson, in an address in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1966, said, ‘South Vietnam is important to the security of the rest of all of Asia.’ He added that the fighting in Vietnam ‘is buying time not only for South Vietnam, but it is buying time for a new and a vital, growing Asia to emerge and develop additional strength. If South Vietnam were to collapse under Communist pressure from the North, the progress in the rest of Asia would be greatly endangered. And don’t you forget that!’ [...] Kennedy trumpeted in his inaugural address, ‘Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’”

One could inquire over what the intervention by the USA in Iran in 1953 had to do with liberty? Or what was the relation between Pinochet's regime in Chile and the Free World, cherished so much by the politicians in Washington? But even these and many other occasions of going against the proclaimed moral principles of the US foreign policy aside, on what basis has this global superpower taken up the position of the supposed “global policeman”? It is more than just a simple case of “might makes right”. There have been other countries during this epoch of global American supremacy that would utilise their might in the name of their proper geopolitical interests. But those interventions would not receive such approval - at least in the so-called Western World - as the actions by the US and its allies. Again, the crux of the matter resides in the dominant mental perception that the global list of countries could be distributed into the “good” ones and the “evil” ones. And from this stems the “natural” conclusion that some states have more rights than others.

This ideological feature also has other practical consequences for the international law, and not just a tacit acceptance of neo-imperialist interventions by the supposed “good guys”. The biased activity of the UN Human Rights Council could also serve as an example:

“One of the key issues that illustrate the unfair treatment is the double standards applied within the council. Developed countries, with their greater resources and influence, often evade adequate investigations into their own human rights violations. [...] More than a decade after dozens of detainees were held in a CIA-operated secret detention system – authorized from 2001 to 2009 – no one had been brought to justice for the crimes under international law and systematic human rights violations committed under that programme, including enforced disappearance, torture, and other ill-treatment conducted by the United States of America. [...] Furthermore, the council’s intervention in developing countries is often motivated by political interests and ulterior motives, rather than a genuine commitment to improving human rights. Developed nations frequently exploit the council as a tool to further their geopolitical agendas, selectively targeting specific countries while turning a blind eye to others with a similar or worse human rights record. This selective approach is a clear manifestation of the power dynamics at play within the council, favoring influential nations over the weaker ones. At the Seventy-Eighth Session, 53rd and 54th meetings of the United Nations General Assembly, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) approved six resolutions, including on the human rights situations in Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Myanmar and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. At the outset, Azerbaijan’s delegate, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed deep concern over the selective adoption of country-specific resolutions in the Committee and Human Rights Council. This practice exploits human rights for political purposes and breaches principles of universality, impartiality, and objectivity, she said.”

However, with every passing day the economic relations between different countries are getting more and more interconnected. Each day makes the economies of the individual states ever more dependent upon the global economy. And this has an inevitable impact upon the social consciousness of individuals. As a result, with every passing generation this up-till-now-dominant ideological framework that permits the unequal treatment of different countries is gradually disappearing. And with every new generation the demand for a strict de facto adherence to the principles of the international law becomes ever greater. One needs only to look at how unpopular the current US war against Iran is - both within the USA as well as around the world. And it is not merely the presidency of Donald Trump that is responsible for the latest decline in global perceptions of the “global policeman”.

The historical solution to unilateral neo-imperialism by any superpower, be it the USA, China, Russia, or India, for example, is not a multipolar world. Rather, it is the general consensus by the global population that all sovereign states have truly equal rights. In such a world even if one country stood out in terms of its global weight, its own population would not allow its foreign policy to intervene and to impose its own particularistic interests upon other, weaker states. And to those who claim that “people have always lived within a world where the strongest political powers acted unilaterally without any regard to the interests of others”, we can only show the receipts of all of the historical social change so far. Before the 19th century, for instance, slavery had basically accompanied humanity for millennia. But here we are today.

In any case, it is not the task of the progressives to change their minds. Most importantly, the delusional divisions within the international relations into the “good” and the “bad” countries are naturally running out of their historical time. The idea that a global hegemon, such as the USA for example, could play the role of a “global policeman” is becoming ever more ridiculous each day. This historical process is assured by the continuous economic development of mankind. And also, equally importantly, by the gradual but irreversible passing away of those generations whose social consciousness enables this modern neo-imperialism.

Sources:
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/5519354
https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/britains-suez-catastrophe/
https://www.iwm.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/gallery/The%20BBC%20Monitoring%20Service%20and%20the%20Middle%20East%20during%20the%20Suez%20crisis%20-%20Tony%20Shaw%20gen.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.ceaclaw.org/post/is-there-really-equality-of-states-working-in-international-legal-framework
https://historynet.com/did-two-presidents-unnecessarily-prolong-the-vietnam-war/
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/global-perceptions-us-fall-below-russia-under-trump-survey-finds-2026-05-08/
https://www.nextcenturyfoundation.org/the-un-human-rights-council-unfair-in-its-treatment-of-developing-countries/

Image by magnific.com

The Progressive Optimist

Educational project dedicated to the understanding of historical progressive social change

© 2025. All rights reserved.