New Left Project’s James Quinney talks to John Newsinger, author of The Blood Never Dried, about the brutal realities of British empire - past and present.

The idea of Britain’s basic benevolence in the world seems almost unquestionable in our culture. Why do you think, as a nation, we have such a hard time accepting the truth about the history of British imperialism?

I don’t think Britain is alone in this belief in national benevolence, although Britain’s Imperial past certainly makes it particularly grotesque. What is crucial in Britain’s case is the weakness of the Left. While there have been periods of intense class struggle in British history, these have never led to the rise of a mass organised Left, with anti-Imperialist politics, that could have effectively challenged the Establishment view of the Empire, whether in its liberal or conservative versions. Instead we have had a Labour Party that, in government, has always been pro-Imperialist and in which anti-Imperialists have always been a minority. If David Miliband becomes the next Labour leader then we will actually have a man who wholeheartedly supported the Iraq War and has effectively condoned and tried to cover –up torture as the alternative to the Tory-LibDem Coalition. In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that anti-Imperialism is marginalised, at least in official culture. What it is important to recognise is that Britain’s Imperial adventures have always met with domestic opposition, that there have always been individuals, organisations and sometimes mass movements that have opposed the Empire. One thing I tried to do in my book was to make clear that there was always opposition to Empire in Britain. What history shows is that it is when the British working class is fighting in its own interests that you get British workers beginning to identify with other people’s struggles.

Clearly we face an uphill struggle today as far as arguing for recognition of the realities of Empire is concerned. This is demonstrated most clearly by the new government’s intention to involve Niall Ferguson in developing the history curriculum for schools. But growing resistance both at home and abroad will strengthen our arguments, will make our words flesh, so to speak.

How important is Britain’s imperial history to understanding modern geo-politics?

There are a number of aspects to this really. First of all, there is the extent to which contemporary crises can be seen to have had their origins in British Imperial history. The most dramatic example at the moment is, of course, the Middle East. The Zionist settlement in Palestine was established because it was seen as a way of strengthening British domination over the region and the deliberate decision was taken by successive British governments to deny the Palestinians any rights in their own country. This policy was introduced before the Holocaust although it was European anti-Semitism and the Holocaust that was to drive European Jews to seek refuge in Palestine and so make the settlement viable. The Palestinian people are still paying the price for this British policy. In a more general sense, the history of the British Empire does reveal the realities of Imperial rule and of Imperial conflict and these still obtain today, indeed often over the same ground. Just as the Americans and the British have confronted rebellion and insurgency in Iraq today, so the British confronted rebellion and insurgency in Iraq in the early 1920s. Similarly, the war in Afghanistan is the fourth time the British sent invading armies into that country, invasions always ending in defeat or disaster. Although we are ‘peace-loving’ and the Afghans are ‘warlike’, so far they have never actually invaded Britain, and yet British governments claim, quite hilariously, that British troops are in Afghanistan to protect Britain’s streets. The geo-strategic dimensions of Empire today are very similar to those of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

To what extent does the British Empire exist today?

The British state today plays the role of a junior partner of US Imperialism. The so-called ‘special relationship’ is often presented as a matter of sentiment. In fact, it is all about material self-interest. The British ruling class has global interests, but no longer has a state machine strong enough to protect those interests and so instead looks to the US state machine to do the job. This is why British troops were sent into Iraq and Afghanistan, and why New Labour ministers condoned and covered-up torture. The British military and defence establishments, including the arms industry, are increasingly integrated into the US military-industrial complex. This is never discussed in the media, in Parliament and hardly ever in academic circles. As far as the British Establishment is concerned it is vital that Britain has nuclear weapons in order to still be able to pass itself off as a world power. They are completely dependent on the US for these weapons and there is an unspoken understanding that these weapons will only be made available as long as British governments have a foreign policy that in all essentials is dictated by the US State Department. As the international position of the US Empire weakens, this situation is going to involve increasing difficulties for British governments. Already, the British military have been put under tremendous strain in the service of Uncle Sam and Afghanistan is unlikely to be the American’s last request for troops.

Some of the atrocities that you catalogue in The Blood Never Dried are quite simply staggering. Do you think the racist dynamic of imperialism made it easier for British forces to perpetrate these horrific acts?

There is no doubt that the ferocity of the repression unleashed against the rebellion in Kenya in the 1950s was made possible by the fact that the victims were black. It is inconceivable that the government would have got away with hanging white men for offences such as the administering of illegal oaths. This does seem to be a feature of British colonial repression. One should not, however, underestimate the ability of governments to demonise their enemies, whatever their colour or religion, although racism certainly makes it easier. Personally I still hope to see a Britain where a statue of the great Kenyan freedom fighter, Dedan Kimathi, will be put up, by popular demand, in Trafalgar Square, in place of the statue of the Victorian General, Sir Henry Havelock, or any of the many other Imperial butchers who are still honoured in the capital. We have a long way to go.

John Newsinger is a British professor of History at Bath Spa University.