Discuss how ‘identity’ shapes and/or complicates EU foreign policy behaviour”?
pedagogical coercion. (Mill 1963) (Ryan 2014: 11). It is possible that Mill’s opinions evolved over time to value the improvement of the local people, however this is unlikely given that “Considerations”, in which he talks of prestige, was published two years after “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” where he highlights how the colonised people must be improved. (Mill 2006: 259) His justification for colonialism in “Considerations” is therefore a great contradiction to his commitment to individual liberty. This suggests that his view that colonialism led to more individual liberty for the people was an idea rather than a definitive policy. (Isak 2007: 359-400). Mill’s justification that colonialism will nurture the people to adopt the principle of individual liberty also contradicts all his arguments for non-intervention in the case of a civilised nation; that liberty must be gained through an arduous struggle and that aid by a foreign power to obtain liberty has negative long term affects. Firstly, it could be argued that if an arduous struggle is the only way people can gain liberty, then how are the British going to artificially prepare the people for liberty? Secondly, there were examples of arduous struggles against British rule in India and yet Mill still supported British control over these people. For example, the Sepoy Mutiny in India in 1857-59 involved the majority of the population. (Ryan 2014: 1-14) To add to this great contradiction, the same year (1859) as the mutiny Mill even wrote in “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” about how people must be given self-rule if they fight for it. (Mill 2006: 262) Although Mill may argue that these “barbarians” are not yet civilised enough to know that they want this freedom, Hamburger questions how Mill is to judge who is ready to decide their own governance through individual liberty? (Hamburger 1999 in Tunick 2006: 601). A further contradiction is Mill’s belief that it is unfair for a foreign power to prevent the people from overthrowing it and he even believes foreign oppression would warrant an invasion from another foreign power to correct the imbalance and create a fair struggle. (Mill 2006: 262) Tunick has tried to argue that there was greater corruption in India prior to British rule hence at least the British gave the people a chance of gaining liberty which they would not have had. (Tunick 2006: 601) However, this argument actually contradicts Mills belief that foreign intervention in this situation was unhealthy, as the State could easily become reliant on foreign support and this could lead to another civil war or oppressive government when the foreign power leaves. Hence, if foreign control could lead to this situation, this clearly would not give the people more liberty and this undermines Mills argument that the local people of India will one day have been pedagogically coerced enough to be able to take over from British rule.>GET ANSWER