Ancient & modern
Can one justify American intervention in the Middle East, both the wars themselves and the apparent establishment of a shadowy sort of American empire? If one accepts the force of the arguments the Romans used to justify their empire, the Americans probably can.
Justifying a war had never been a problem. The 2nd-century BC Greek historian Polybius (who became an ambassador for Roman interests) reports that Rome was always eager to find a just pretext for going to war, and Romans argued that their wars either defended their own interests or assisted the victims of injustice abroad. But in the 2nd century sc the Romans, who had already taken control of Sicily, Spain and North Africa as a result of the wars against Carthage, now moved against Greece and western Turkey (Asia). Rome was becoming master of an empire. This was a different kettle of fish.
The Greek philosopher Zeno (335-263 sc), who invented Stoicism, argued that all forms of subjugation were evil, and therefore both slavery and empire — the exercise and maintenance of power over other states were morally wrong. Other Stoics agreed: 'Justice instructs you to spare all men, to respect the human race, to return to each his own, not to touch what is sacred, or what belongs to the state, or what belongs to someone else.' The argument was extended by later Stoics to embrace the idea that humans were naturally bound to one another by a code of law, and that for one man to use another merely for his own benefit was to break that natural, mutual bond.
Roman Stoics therefore had to reverse the trend of Greek thinking if they were to justify Rome's imperial ambitions. The defence of empire began from the proposition that slavery was in the interests of certain kinds of men who, if left to their own devices, would only damage those interests, e.g., by robbery or civil disorder. A properly administered empire, however — i.e., one driven by moral concerns— would ensure that such injustices did not take place. In certain cases, therefore, the subjugation of a people was justified — on condition that the imperial power acted morally and had the wellbeing of its subjects at heart.
So the earlier Stoic position that all subjugation was immoral had been reversed. Rome was satisfied of its own moral superiority and its determination to act in its subjects' interests. Its empire was therefore justified. All very American in principle. The practice, however, is never quite as straightforward.
Peter Jones
Previous page
