INFORMATION IMPERIALISM

"[T]he creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

That is the definition Wikipedia gives to the word imperialism. It implies a forceful, aggressive tactic, specifically aimed at "taking over" a country for expansion of a nation's influence. In history it is represented by such events as the creation of the British Commonwealth by expansion into colonies all over the world. The United States also has been identified as imperialistic, demonstrated, for example, by occupation of The Philippines until its independence in 1946.

An interesting perspective was offered by Mark Twain on the occupation of the Philippines:

"I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land."

Today the Associated Press published that the Chinese government has objected to an online appearance by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton being seen in China, calling it Information Imperialism. I suppose it is dangerous to focus on an article that is barely hours old, but the term is fascinating, even apart from the article.

The Chinese government is accusing the U.S. of using the Internet as a weapon to "dominate and subordinate" the Chinese people with words. It is too early to either reject or support the accusation, but the concept deserves attention.

There are other examples of intentional interjection of ideology over the air waves,such as Radio Free Europe. But the Chinese accusation takes the concept to a new level, charging that the US is interfering with the stability of China and exercising imperialistic intent.

I doubt that anyone could believe that the US would have visions of taking over the nation of China. However, the concept of influencing the thinking of Chinese people is credible. In the past few weeks China has instituted a practice of intercepting the use of Google in the nation, causing Google to threaten to withdraw its company's product from Chinese Internet.

My interest in this debate is focused on the power of words. I'm fascinated with the realization that the two major powers in the world have identified the ability of words to do what military aggression cannot do: take over the thinking of an entire nation. That's awesome when you think about it.

Maybe we take the power of words too casually because we, in the U.S., are bombarded with words constantly. It is second nature to us to be on the receiving end of advertising, political rhetoric, commentary, and the millions of other ways spoken and written words invade our minds. But I suppose in a place like China, where the spread of information is measured and restricted, the leaders of the nation can see more clearly the potential danger of words.

It will be interesting to see how this U.S./China/Google episode plays out. But it is clear to me that at this point a new phrase with huge implications has entered our lexicon. A phrase which should not be taken lightly.

Photo Credit: "The Power of Words" http://www.lostateminor.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/rom-words.jpg

Éminence grise: A person who wields power behind the scenes

An eminence grise exists because there is a gap in leadership. During the George W. Bush administration, for instance, it is understood by many that Vice-President Richard Cheney was the source of policy in the absence of strong leadership by President Bush. Whether that was as true as his critics claim or not, the perception was clear. It would be difficult to eliminate that understanding.

Just thinking about this brought me to the current administration. It would be a natural thing to ask 'Who is the eminence grise, the power behind the throne of President Obama?' I don’t get the sense that anyone speaks for Barack Obama.

The President has surrounded himself with such people as Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Timothy Geitner. Just let those names roll off your tongue. They, and dozens of others like them, have huge amounts of power in the specific environments where they function. But the operative question is, does any one of these people have the ability to speak for the President or unduly influence him in the creation of policy? I think not. He is a strong, intelligent man with more than a sufficient quantity of self-determination.

That is not to say that The President cannot be influenced. I am convinced that Timothy Geitner and his finance gurus have done a huge amount of teaching and lobbying for decisions over the past year. It would be ludicrous to think that Secretary of State Clinton has not exercised some pressure on the President to develop a perspective on foreign policy which reflects her opinions. Is there anyone who believes that Rahm Emmanuel has not made known to the President some thoughts about governance of the country? And clearly, Nancy Pelosi has run the legislative process with a limited amount of restraint from the White House. But that is not the same thing as being “the power behind the throne.” Those people, whether we like them or agree with them or not, are doing what they were asked to do. And they do it well.

I suspect we might be surprised to know how much influence Vice-President Biden has on the President. He is cast by the media as a bungling, cartoonish character. But he is a wise and knowledgeable diplomat in the area of foreign policy. I suspect his influence is much greater than we might think.

I will risk a little and say that I think Michelle Obama has a significant influence on the decision-making of the President. He respects her intelligence and she certainly has access to him. Pillow talk can be powerful, and I would not begin to imagine that her engagement in pillow talk about issues facing the President has not been influential.

Overall, however, I am confident that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, is a man who establishes the bottom line. I think that is why he is not prone to quick, knee-jerk reactions. He is criticized for taking time to bring forth decisions. Not by me. I suspect that this “lag time” is the opportunity for him to talk in depth with his advisors, weigh their input, and develop a decision that is clear, and that he can promote without hesitation.

I suspect also that at the present time there is no one “behind the throne” who fills the definition of eminence grise.