respect, then, the record of the UnitednStates is superior to that of any communistnor non-Western country, although,nas Sieghart indignantly reports,nit has not ratified any of the globalnor regional human rights treaties.nThe U.S. has displayed good judgmentnin its refusal to ratify these treaties,nas well as an awareness that eachnnew document is more cynical thannthe last. This is so, I think, because thenemphasis has begun to shift from Wilsonianismnto Leninism, non-nEuropean ideologies both. Sieghartnnotes with satisfaction that the Wilsoniannprinciple of the self-determinationnof all peoples has triumphednalmost everywhere, at least on thensurface; it does not occur to him, as itndoes to Kedourie, that “to upset allnexisting arrangements in order to makennational self-determination the solenand overriding aim of all political actionnis a recipe for perpetual war.”nLeninism, unfortunately, is at leastnas mischievous as Wilsonianism andnnow serves to define the anti-Westernnagenda. In Imperialism, the HighestnStage of Capitalism, the Bolsheviknleader wrote that “capitalism hasngrown into a world system of colonialnoppression and of the financial stran-nMOVING 9nLET US KNOW BEFORE YOU GO!nTo assure uninterrupted delivery ofnChronicles, please notify us in advance.nSend change of address on this form withnthe mailing label from your latest issue ofnChronicles to: Subscription Department,nChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,nIllinois 61054.nName_nAddress_nCitynState_ -Zip_n28 I CHRONICLESngulation of the overwhelming majoritynof the population of the world by anhandful of’advanced’ countries.” Emboldenednby these inflammatorynwords, the African Charter on Humannand Peoples’ Rights (1981) speaksnmenacingly of the need to eliminatencolonialism, neocolonialism, apartheid,nand Zionism, and of the “duty tonachieve the total liberation of Africa”nby “any means recognized by the internationalncommunity.” This liberation,nwe are instructed, will entail thencreation of a “New International EconomicnOrder” that will be summonedninto being by the massive transfer ofnresources from Western to non-nWestern countries. Such a transfer,nmany Africans and Asians insist, isnjustified because colonialism was andnis responsible for the poverty of thenformer colonies. It is only, Ali Mazruincomplains, because Africans live in anworldwide “capitalist prison” that theirnsocialist experiments have all ended innfailure.nNow this, as the excellent P.T.nBauer has demonstrated repeatedly, isnsimply not true. On the contrary, colonialnrule promoted material progress,nhowever much it eroded localnvalues and customs in the process.nWhat is more, the European empire,nalone among world empires, was notnby nature despotic. In fact, Europeansnbrought with them moral imperativesnthat inspired successful efforts to improventhe well-being of the native peoples.nAmong other things, colonialngovernments established effective systemsnof law and order, modernizednhealth services, and introduced newnagricultural methods. As Adda Bozemannobserves in her superb essay, thenWest may well be said “to have inventednprogress and reform.”nBut no matter. Most non-Westernnleaders earn what political capital theynpossess by clothing their actions in thenritualistic language of anticolonialism.nAnd Soviet leaders nod publicly innagreement, notwithstanding thenUSSR’s own, far less humane imperialnrecord and its continuing war againstnthe Afghans. Richard Lowenthal suggestsnthat the belief in a basic antiimperialistnaffinity between the SovietnUnion and the former colonies maynnot survive that war, but thus farnnon-Western leaders have embracednthe Soviets as allies not merely in thennnquest for economic advantage, andnhence internal political power, but innthe assault on Western values. That isnone reason why Hindus and Islamicnfundamentalists have often seen fit tonmake common cause with Moscow.nEven rnore alarming than the warnpresentiy being waged against the Westnby non-Western states and the SovietnUnion is the eagerness with which sonmany Western intellectuals havenjoined in the attack. In the spirit ofnE.M. Forster, whose A Passage tonIndia accused the British and flatterednthe Indians, significant numbers ofnour clews are prepared to defend anynnon-Western demagogue, includingnLibya’s treacherous dictator, MuammarnQaddafi, who vilifies the West. AsnBozeman rightly observes, such seeminglyninexplicable behavior is rooted inna profound sense of guilt, itself a productnof a Christian conscience. In theirnlonging for absolution, secularized intellectualsnhave made of politics anreligion; they have convinced themselvesnthat forgiveness can be had onlynby identifying with the Chosen Peoplen—not the proletariat of a single nationnbut all of those whom the late FrantznFanon called the wretched of thenearth.nIf the West is to survive, its peoplesnwill have to accept the fact that thenfragile and short-lived internationalnsystem of the 19th century is no longernin working order. The world is oncenagain an anarchy of religions, cultures,nand political orders, a place, asnKedourie puts it, in which “power isnchecked neither by law nor by scruple.”nUppermost in his mind, nondoubt, are the fanatical and cowardlynterrorists for whom hatred of the Westnsanctifies any deed, however despicable.nThese barbarians pose a directnthreat to a civilization that offers themnaccess to the media and protectionnunder the law.nYet the peoples of the West will facena still greater danger if they fail to heednthe warning Jose Ortega y Gasset issuednmore than 50 years ago: “Civilizationnis not ‘just there,’ it is notnself-supporting. It is artificial and requiresnthe artist or the artisan. If younwant to make use of the advantages ofncivilization, but are not prepared tonconcern yourself with the upholding ofncivilization—you are done. In a tricenyou find yourself without civilization.”n