WATCH: Former UK ambassador to Syria on how imperialism is being redefined as a liberal ideal
Peter Ford, former ambassador to Syria (2003-6) speaking at the “Imperialism on Trial” symposium in Derry, Ireland. He describes the weasel words and manipulative language used to redefine old ideas of imperialism as a liberal ideal. “Defending human rights”, he says, is simply a modern construct of the Victorian meme of the “White Man’s Burden” – the mendacious idea that the countries invaded by the British Empire needed and welcomed the invaders as a civilising and educational force.
If you have a Youtube account please take the time to follow Eva Bartlett there. This video is shared from her
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Writing a century ago, Lenin exposed the relationship of Finance Capital to imperialism. He wrote that “imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.” Competition creates a financial oligarchy and an over-accumulation of capital that is exported to seek higher returns abroad (as opposed to funding social development and welfare at home?) Wherever the finance capital went: the military followed (to protect assets) …or, in the case of recalcitrant rulers who refuse to become comprador vassals – the military preceded to ‘humanitarianly’ persuade and neoliberally ‘democratise’. There can be no better single illustration of this than L Paul Bremer III’s infamous ‘Rule 81‘ that threatened to destroy Iraqi ‘cradle of humanity’ agriculture in favour of the monopoly profits of the likes of Bayer, Dow, Syngenta and Monsanto? Thus, the relationship of capital and imperialism is clear. Neo-Classical (neolib/neocon) economics is codified exploitation and expropriation: imposed and maintained by financial terrorism (via… Read more »
Perhaps not.
@BigB. I date the decline of Great Britain to 1899 — the Boer War. Imagine how the Mother Country would have prospered if all that investment capital had stayed at home, instead of being used to build up the A-Z-C financial empire in South Africa. Followed by WW1 where British “blood and treasure” was again flushed abroad to build up the A-Z-C financial empire in the ME. The gentle but perceptive Max Beerbohm drew a memorable cartoon series showing John Bull’s increasingly battered and patched progress up till a little after WW1. But it was Mad Maggie Thatcher’s over-inflated Pound and her call to invest in the Asian Tigers which finally did for John Bull and replaced that sturdy old fellow with an effete Company yes-man called UK PLC.
@Vexarb: I would put the decline of the UK from when we first went agrarian! Not that Paleolithic man was particularly special: only they were limited by numbers as to the destruction they could cause! [Not that I proscribe in any way to the Bill Gatesian overpopulation psychopathy.] As for imperialism, you must include the East India Company of London …which was bigger than the contemporaneous state, and had its own private Blackwater-style private army to protect its capital investment? That takes us back to 1600? I would disagree with Peter Ford that the UK is strong militarily. China must be quaking to think of our single frigate on its way to conduct FONOPS? With an aircraftless aircraft carrier to follow. The Russians must be similarly afeared by our 6-800 troops in Estonia? But I would not underestimate the global power of the supranational self-maximising capital flowing through the City… Read more »
“imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism”
And the british monopoly capitalists held their protective arm around Marx for the most productive part of his career when he wrote that.
Except that Marx didn’t write that. It was Lenin. But who cares about the facts, eh?
I agree but the commenter I quoted is right about communicating the same meaning as Marx.
But who cares about logic eh?
I hardly think so. The imperialist age came in the 20th Century.
That is an original view. The british imperial efforts began in the 1500s and are sometimes dated to the gun powder plot in 1604 ( a false flag aimed at the catholics)
The year 1763 was the time the East India Company formally obtained the character of an empire. Some consider that empire to have been virtually synonymous with the british empire.
And that you would even consider jumping past the Victorian era placing the imperial era later is humorous.
For I cant believe you are quite serious.
Hardly an original view. Since you are discussing Marx and Lenin, I assume you are referring to the Marxist definition of imperialism which can be read at
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm#imperialism
No I dont use that definition. Imperialism is what empires do. And Marx defended british imperialism as a mediation of communism since the economy would have to first pass through a period of capitalism. But this just illustrates how dependent he was of his wealthy supporters. Socialists have a blind spot about it and fear the truth of it all being a deception to control the opposition. Which it was and still is. And to aid the ruling class in battling the middle class rivals. Usual case:They expand their territorial reach and subdue the targeted peoples. Like previous empires. The roman empire etc. But the venetian empire is a special case and the british empire became its continuation. Current british leadership, at least a few years back still referred to Venice in a positive way in connection with britains plans to dominate the world trade. The venetian imperialism took place… Read more »
I must add that there ought to have been a question mark behind my suggestion that Stalin was trained in London, since I have no reliable source for that and wasnt able to confirm it right now.
However Britain coordinated most of the radicals by proxy handlers on the continent for over a century, including for example Mussolini, so it wouldnt be surprising if even Stalin in younger years had received some kind of training outside Russia.
But Stalin hasnt been confirmed to be a freemason, unlike Lenin and Trotsky.
And the search engines are sensitive to your capacity to intelligently choose search phrases, in particular, I think, regarding such matters.
Lenin and Trotsky are confirmed freemasons? I read Isaac Deutscher’s three volume biography about Trotsky and don’t recall anything about freemasonry. Wiki doesn’t mention freemasonry for either figure. But I daresay your sources are far more reliable.
Socialists like Deutcher, (and I hold no grudges against them, but often agree about their critique about the western malicious bias against the USSR etc) hate to admit the truth about the freemasonic character of all revolutions as well as the fact that the freemasons generally constitute a special force for the wealthy classes ever since political freemasonry took shape. Lenin was a member of a number of different european lodges and I think Trotsky had the grade sometimes described as ‘Grand Inquisitor’. That particular detail I think I found partly confusing with different definitions but the one I cite is kind of fitting. I think I got some of that from Oleg Platonov who had access to the red army’s captured freemasonic archives which were in turn taken from the nazis who confiscated Grand Orients archives in France. Under Yeltsin those archives were returned. Platonovs books were available online… Read more »
I have mixed feelings about this.
Its great to hear Peter Ford speaking up but all those in the British and US diplomatic service must be well aware that their job requires them to put an acceptable spin on the beligerent imperialism that has gripped the Middle East, and elsewhere?
The unreasonable behaviour of the US demands that people take sides – so unfortunately you are either with them, which would appear to include most of those working in the diplomatic core, or against them, which in the case of diplomats only becomes apparent after they have retired.
The head of the snake is the most culpable but all oppressive regimes rely on a network of underlings to do their masters bidding.
Wonderful talk. Thank you so much. A breath of fresh air to hear truth spoken amidst the sea of lies we float about on each day in the West.
Lookout Peter.
There may not be any more spare rooms at the Ecuadorean embassy.
Lookout Peter.
There may not be anymore spare rooms at the Ecuadorean embassy.
He paints a very interesting picture mounting a question of should we or should we have not got involved.
It’s a mess now , it was a mess then and if we hadnt have got involved – maybe it would have been someone else’s mess to sort out.
There are so many sides in all this, it’s almost like a rubix cube of political problems – that will never be solved.
Come on Angela…that is a defeatist cop-out. Who is abusing their military might? Who is abusing their economic power and control? Who are the imperialists? Who puts profit before people? Who enshrined that in law? Who except the British ruling class, originally? Class politics rules. Which side are you on?
Now if Stella Creasy stepped aside this is the sort of person who would ornament Parliament.
The amazing thing is that people still fall for it ………
“Defending human rights” by bombing their country …… a bit of a disconnect don’t you think?
Tubularsock has always loved the “White Man’s Burden” trope.
It almost makes one feel “Imperialism” is a good thing. And of course it is UNLESS it’s those Russians!
“The White Man’s Burden”… “The White Helmets”. All the same trope tubularsock.
That nice Mr Bomb. Please…give it to us in the name of freedom.
Right on the money, tutisicecream!
Very good that Peter Ford would open up and tell it like it is , I guess he would have been sacked unceremoniously quickly had he done so while still an ambassador for the UK .
Too bad that we don’t have many more of this caliber to open up to the public.
Thanks. He is a very decent and sincere man who has been an insider and walked away from it. Not easy to do. Kudos to him.