VIEWSrnThe Price of EmpirernGlobalism and Its Consequencesrnby Samuel FrancisrnIknow it will strike many people as odd to call the current foreignrnpolicy of the United States a form of “empire building”rnor “imperialism,” and of course none of our leaders wouldrnever call it that. They would prefer some such term as “peacekeeping”rnor “spreading democracy” or “nation-building” orrn”exporting capitalism,” or some other euphemism. Frankly, itrnwould be refreshing, whatever we think about imperialism inrngeneral or our current policies in particular, if someone had thernintegrity of Vergil, who openly acknowledged Rome’s imperialrnmission in the sixth book of the Aeneid. As John Dryden translatedrnthe passage.rnBut Rome, ’tis thine alone, with awful sway.rnTo rule mankind and make the world obey.rnDisposing peace and war thy own majestic way.rnTo tame the proud, the fettered slave to free—rnThese are imperial arts, and worthy thee.rnOr to invoke the imperial mission as frankly as Rudyard Kiplingrndid in his famous lines, “Take up the white man’s burden, /rnSamuel Francis is a nationally syndicated columnist and editorrnof The Samuel Francis Letter. This article was delivered asrna speech at a Chicago conference in March on “America’srnIntervention in the Balkans,” hosted by Chronicles andrnThe Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies.rnSend out the best ye breed; / Go, bind your sons to exile, / Tornserve your captives’ need.” At least, if we cannot have such exhortationsrnto conquer and subdue even as we liberate and serve,rnwe might have imperialism as an English schoolboy once definedrnit on his examination paper, according to a story told byrnthe historian Sir Lewis Namier. Imperialism, wrote the buddingrnproconsul, is simply “learning to get along with one’s socialrninferiors.”rnBut unfortunately today we are not even permitted suchrnopen acknowledgments of our imperial mission, let alone of therndomestic price such a mission almost always involves. A warrnjustifiable only on the basis of protecting the stability of our authoritarianrnclient states in the Persian Gulf is justified byrnpromises of punishing Iraqi aggression and war crimes and ofrnbuilding democracy in what remains today, as it was beforern1990, the kumquat despotism of Kuwait. Military interventionrnin Somalia is justified on the grounds of feeding the people ofrnthat country, when it should have been obvious that it was firstrnnecessary to invent a Somali government to administer thernfood. The invasion of Haiti is justified by the slogans aboutrnbuilding democracy in a country that has perhaps the finest traditionrnof political assassination in history. And our most recentrnadventure in empire-building in the Balkans is justified withrnonly the thinnest reference to our national interest. How muchrnmore refreshing it would be if President Clinton simply announced,rn”No, we have no national interest in any of thesern14/CHRONICLESrnrnrn