THE EMPIRE:
What it is and What it Means for All of Us
Chandra Muzaffar
A global empire is in the making :
the first global empire in history.
Military Power
Like other empires in the past, this
empire is also US today commands overwhelming military power. It is not
only more powerful than any other nation on earth. Its strength exceeds
that of the next 14 militarily powerful states put together. There has
never been a military power as formidable as the US in history. No less
than 800 US military bases garrison the globe. Its military strength
extends from the depths of the ocean to the outer reaches of space. It aims
for ‘total spectrum dominance’.
It is because of it massive, mammoth military
power that Washington feels that it can disregard international law --- as
it did in the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Even the servile and
subservient Kofi Annan(United Nations Secretary-General) was compelled to
declare that the war was illegal, albeit a year after the invasion.
Again, it is because of its military power
that the US has bestowed upon itself the mantle of exceptionalism. It has
demanded, and has secured, from a number of countries the right to exempt
its soldiers from legal prosecution if they are involved in wrongdoings in
the course of discharging Iraq episode. It decided to invade and occupy a
sovereign nation even though the people of the world were against its
action, even though the UN refused to endorse its decision. Because it has
opted for unilateralism over multilateralism and prefers coercion to
negotiation, the US has been accused of fascism in international politics.
Iraq
is also proof of how military power is used to gain control over a critical
economic resource, namely, oil. Even in the case of Afghanistan milita was
used to first topple the Taliban regime following which the US extended its
tentacles to the five Central Asian republics. Initially, in three of those
republics it quickly established military bases. It now exercises effective
control over the oil wealth of the entire Central Asian-Caspian Sea region.
Military power has also been utilized to oversee strategic sea routes in
order to safeguard American trade, investments and markets. In short,
military power is an essential pre-requisite for the protection of the
entire Washington helmed neo-liberal capitalist system with its
Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and Transnational Corporations (TNCs),
banks, financial markets, currency dealers and commodity speculators. This
is what Thomas Friedman, one of the staunchest defenders of the American
Empire, meant when he lauded the iron fist as an important pre-condition for
the functioning of the hidden hand.
Entertainment Power
But it is not just through military
power that the Empire is being built. The United States’ entertainment
industry has always played a very big role in shaping popular attitudes both
within and without the nation. Through films and videos, music and songs,
cartoons and comic strip US is projected as a champion of freedom and
democracy, a land of opportunity and prosperity, a nation which values
talent and accomplishment. Over the years, the US, especially for the
foreigner, has come to be associated with an alluring lifestyle built around
personal liberty and individual success. No wonder entertainment products
constitute the US’s biggest exports !
Thus there is hard power---military
power---and soft power---entertainment power---that are both being harnessed
to build the Empire. To put it in another form, there is stark power and
subtle power. As we have seen, subtle power depends upon stark power. The
reverse is also true. Subtle power makes stark power palatable. After
exposing Vietnamese youth to American pop culture for a couple of decades,
US warships are now re-visiting Vietnamese ports.
Genesis ; Obstacles
At this point we should pause and
ask: How did the American Empire grow and develop? Of all the Western
colonial empires involved in the second world war, it was only the US that
emerged relatively uns victors of that war like Britain were financially
devastated. This meant that in 1945 it was only the US that was in a
position to lead the world. And the US chose to demonstrate its leadership
of the world in two ways.
It forced the world to acknowledge that only
the US commanded overwhelming military power. It dropped two atomic bombs
on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the 6th and
the 9th of August 1945 respectively, killing 340,000 men, women
and children. Since there is compelling evidence now to show that Japan was
on the point of collapse and surrender a couple of months before the bombs
were dropped, the only real reason for the bombings appears to have been the
desire to prove to the world that the US was an invincible military power
and that everyone should take notice of the fact.
At the same time, the US helped to establish
a number of international institutions which would shape the world according
to its vision. The most notable of these was of course the UN founded in
1945 which was to be led by t US and its four allies at that time (Britain,
France, the Soviet Union and China) all of which were given the veto power.
Before that in 1944, the US had launched the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). In 1947, it initiated the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
However, Washington’s plan to dominate the
world with the assistance of its allies was short-lived. By 1949, the
Soviet Union was in effective political and military control of Eastern
Europe. Soviet style communism was the reigning ideology in the region.
Europe was now split into states professing capitalist democracy in the
West and states aligned to the Soviet Union in the East with a bifurcated
Germany epitomizing the divide. The cold war had begun. 1949 is also
significant in the sense that it was the year that the Chinese Communist
Party under the leadership of Mao Tze-Tung seized power through a people’s
revolution. As with the Soviet Union, the US now regarded China as an
adversary. With the emergence of two powerful communist states with their
respective supporters, it had become more difficult for the US to push ahead
with its vision of the world.
There was another phenomenon which began to
unfold from the late forties which also affected Washington’s drive for
dominance or hegemony. A number of colonized states in Asia and then Africa
achieved their independence through the fifties and sixties. These
countries did not want to be subservient to the US---or to the Soviet Union
for that matter. Some of them came together in Bandung, Indonesia, under
the leadership of men like Sukarno(of Indonesia), Jawaharlal Nehru (of
India), Chou En-Lai (of China) and Gamal Nasser (of Egypt) to proclaim their
collective determination to defend their national independence and
sovereignty on the basis of the Bandung Principles. Asian and African
nationalism, it was obvious, was yet another obstacle to Washington’s
Empire. If anything, nationalist sentiment was further consolidated through
the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 1961 which included
almost all the states that initiated Bandung, with the exception of China.
The challenge posed by communism, on the one
hand, and nationalism, on t other, to Washington and its allies merged in
the valiant struggle of the Vietnamese people under Ho Chi-Minh to restore
their integrity and independence. After a struggle that lasted more than
ten years, they succeeded in defeating US aggression and occupation. The
victory of the Vietnamese people was undoubtedly one of the high points in
the resistance to American imperialism as it spread its wings to different
parts of the world in the decades following the second world war.
There were other important though less
dramatic events from the late fifties to the late seventies which showed
that there were hurdles in the path of USCuba under Fidel Castro asserted
its independence from Washington in 1959 through a people oriented
revolution. A couple of other Latin American states made less successful
attempts at preserving their sovereignty. In Africa, Julius Nyerere tried
to chart an autonomous path to development for his country, Tanzania. From
its Independence in 1947 right up to the early eighties, India held on to a
non-aligned foreign policy buttressed by a certain degree of economic
nationalism.
Even more significant, in the Middle East,
countries such as Libya and Iraq which had nationalized their oil, working
together with the Saudi monarch, King Faisal, revitalized the Organzation of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) into a powerful cartel which succeeded
partially at least in breaking the grip that Western oil companies had
hitherto exercised over petroleum prices. The economic power that OPEC
commanded in the mid seventies, limited though it was, enabled countries of
the South to articulate their agendas in the UN and other world bodies with
a sense of confidence. Proposals for a New International Information Order
(NIIO) and a New International Economic Order (NIEO) were products of that
era.
The Tide Turns
Nonetheless, even as the South was
demanding justice in the international system, the tide was beginning to
turn. For one thing, anti-colonialism---the glue that held together the
newly independent states of Asia and Africa---no longer had the impact it
generated in the immediate post-war decades. As they grappled with the
myriad challenges of economic development and social transformation,
different states discovered that their interests and aspirations varied.
Given the different rates of progress of different states, their interests
became even more divergent. To make matters worse, a number of the states
that belonged to NAM aligned themselves to either the US bloc or the Soviet
bloc and as a result weakened non-aligned solidarity. Then there were the
inter-state wars and conflicts---some of which were US-Soviet proxy battles
--- that further emasculated the South. One of the earliest of such wars
was the brief Sino-Indian border clash in 1962. But the most damaging was
perhaps the Iraq-Iran conflict from 1980 to 1988.
We need not discuss in depth the reasons for
the war. Suffice to know that fear among the Gulf Rulers that the anti
monarchical Iranian Revolution of 1979 would undermine their authority; US
antagonism towards the anti American Iranian ruling elite which had
overthrown the pro-US Shah; Soviet suspicion of a religious based
revolution; and Saddam Hussein’s ambitious desire to assume the mantle of
Arab leadership after Nasser’s death, all served to instigate Iraq to launch
an unprovoked assault upon Iran. The war between two leading OPEC members
sapped the dynamic strength of the organization much to the delight of
Washington. In fact, there is substantial evidence to suggest that
Washington provided Saddam with tangible support in the form of military
intelligence. The war also had a negative impact upon both NAM and the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) since Iraq and Iran were, and
are, members of the two outfits.
Needless to say, the Iraq-Iran conflict,
against the backdrop of all the other trends we have noted affecting the
South, created a situation that was specially favourable to Washington. It
was made even more favourable with the collapse of the Soviet Union. As
with any cataclysmic change of this sort, a variety of factors would explain
the demise of the Soviet system in 1991. The ignominious Soviet defeat in
Afghanistan at the hands of the Mujahideen had grave repercussions for the
moral authority of both the Soviet state and the Soviet army. The defeat
reverberated in not only the Muslim republics within the Soviet Union but it
also indirectly encouraged the East European states in the Soviet bloc to
throw off the Soviet yoke and to intensify their campaign for democracy. Of
course, in the midst of all this, US and Western propaganda against the
Soviet system and communism also played a role. Besides that, Mikhail
Gorbachev’s attempt at opening up and restructuring the system through
glasnost and perestroika had the unintended effect of weakening the
authority of the Soviet leadership. But most of all the inherent weaknesses
within the Soviet system---its inability to respond to changing and growing
consumer demands; its inefficiency; its declining productivity; its
over-emphasis upon military technology; its lack of accountability; its
suppression of dissent --- were the more important causes of the collapse of
the Soviet system. Even before the collapse, the cold war had come to an
end---in 1989 --- largely through the efforts of Gorbachev.
Thus, by the end of the eighties and the
early nineties, communism and nationalism, the two major forces which
stymied the US drive for global hegemony were in no position to challenge
Washington. But there was another challenge looming on the horizon which we
had alluded to in different contexts. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 thrust
Islam to the fore of both national and international politics. Likewise,
the Mujahideen’s victory over the Soviet army in 1989 underscored the
ability of an Islamic resistance movement to defeat a superpower. Though
the larger significance of both these events was not immediately obvious,
the roles that Islamic movements are playing today in offering different
modes of resistance to hegemony cannot be properly understood without
reflecting upon 1979 and 1989. We shall return to this later.
In the meantime, let us remind ourselves that with communism and nationalism
out of the way, the US was able to project itself --- for a second time ---
as the harbinger of a new world order. And it did so in grand style. It
mobilized an impressive array of governments under its leadership to force
the Iraqi army out of Kuwait----which Saddam had invaded in violation of
international norms on 2 August 1990. This US led coalition of thirty two
states was a demonstration of the power and influence Washington commanded
after the end of the cold war. Washington had no contenders for global
leadership. It was the sole superpower of the day.
It was around this time---in early 1991 ---
that some of the people associated with President Bush Senior tried to
convince him that the US should seize the moment and ensure that its
hegemonic standing as the world’s only superpower is permanent and
perennial. Before Bush Senior could move in that direction, he was booted
out of office. The advocates of total, absolute hegemony had to bid their
time.
Bush’s successor, Bill Clinton, was also
acutely conscious of the fact that the US was now the peerless leader of the
world. His military forays into Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan showed that he
was prepared to use and abuse US power to advance its global interests. But
Clinton was not willing to go all the way : from time to time he took into
consideration the views of his allies, the positions adopted by othe global
actors and the realities of the international environment.
The Neo-Cons and other Vested Interests
With the ascendancy of George Bush
Junior in 2000, the situation began to change. The neo-conservatives
(neo-cons) around him --- men like Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Douglas
Feith, Eliot Abrams and Richard Perle some of whom had worked for his
father---have a blueprint for transforming the world. The US, they are
convinced, should use its enormous military power to ensure it remains
dominant forever. overwhelmingly powerful that no other nation or
combination of nations would even contemplate challenging the US for global
supremacy. US supremacy in turn would reinforce Israel’s position to such
an extent that it would be able to dominate and control the Middle East
politically and militarily. The Neo-Cons incidentally are all Zionists.
Israeli and US hegemony would also help to ensure that they exercise some
control over the supply of Middle East oil and indeed oil from other regions
of the world through safe and secure sea routes which would be under their
watch. Of course, in order to gain total control over the Middle East and
the world, the Neo-Cons will camouflage their real motives by arguing that
their mission is to deliver freedom and democracy to people everywhere.
The 911 carnage in a sense provided the
Neo-Cons with the excuse to embark upon their mission. Since terrorists
allegedly opposed to freedom and democracy are hell-bent on destroying the
American way of life, the Bush Administration is justified in making the US
and the world safe for everyone by fighting terrorism. For the Neo-Cons
this is the justification for the US attack on Afghanistan and the ouster of
the Taliban regime which provided sanctuary to the Al-Qaeda terrorist
network under Osama bin Laden. What is concealed from the public is how US
control over Afghanistan has facilitated --- as we have seen---access to
huge oil resources in the surrounding regions. Similarly, Saddam Hussein
had to be overthrown to prevent him from allowing terrorist networks to
acquire the weapons of mass destruction that he allegedly possessed. Though
the invaders of Iraq now acknowledge that Saddam had no WMDs and there were
no terrorist cells in Iraq before the invasion, they insist that their
action was justified because it led to the elimination of a tyrant who
oppressed his people. But they will not admit that gaining control over the
world’s second largest petroleum resource was a major consideration just as
getting rid of a regime that was totally opposed to Israel was a primary
motivation. Indeed, it is because of the Neo-Cons’ obsession with Israel’s
total, absolute security---which can only be achieved through Tel Aviv’s
hegemonic power over the region --- that moves are now being planned against
Syria and Iran. More than any other group in Washington, it is the
Neo-Cons, and of course the Israeli elite, who want to cripple Tehran’s
ability to produce nuclear energy.
Apart from the Neo-Cons, the other
ideological group that is committed to US hegemony and the American Empire
is the Christian Right. A global American Empire which has total control
over the Middle East in particular, will, in their view, guarantee Israel’s
future. And a dominant and triumphant Israel is the pre-requisite for the
return of the Messiah. When the Messiah returns, influential elements in
the Christian Right reckon, the whole world will embrace Christianity ! In
the mean time, Washington and Tel Aviv should use their military power to
eliminate all those who threaten Israel’s security in any way.
However outlandish the Christian Right may
sound, one should not dismiss them outright. A significant segment of the
Christian population in the US --- some would estimate it at forty percent
--- it is said subscribe to Christian Right ideas of this sort. Besides,
there are influential lobbies and important political leaders in Washington
who would be seen as part and parcel of the Christian Right.
There are other interest groups associated
with the petroleum companies, the arms industry, business corporations, the
banks and the finance networks who may also have a stake in the Empire.
American global hegemony may enhance their wealth and expand their
opportunities. &nbs may also be elements in all these sectors of the economy
who may be uneasy with the creation of an Empire which is bound to generate
tension, instability and, in the ultimate analysis, perpetual chaos.
The Empire has also some enthusiastic
advocates outside the US. Like the empire builders in the US, they are
averse to using the term ‘Empire’. But it is obvious from their support
for, and participation in, the hegemonic designs of the Neo-Cons that they
believe in the US domination of the world. The Israeli elite and perhaps
even a sizeabl section of the Jewish-Israeli population would espouse US
hegemony. The British ruling elite has clearly chosen to identify itself
with the Empire. The Empire would also resonate with elites in Canberra,
Tokyo, Manila, Singapore and perhaps certain other capitals.
Impact ; Consequences.
What has been the impact of this
attempt to bui What have been the consequences?
The colossal loss of human lives is
undoubtedly the most tragic consequence of the attempt to build an Empire.
In both the Afghan and Iraq wars tens of thousands have been killed.
According to one source, since the invasion of Iraq, about 100,000
civilians have died most of them at the hands of the occupying forces.
We have observed that the drive towards
global hegemony has been global authoritarianism. A corollary to this is
the introduction of restrictive, sometimes repressive laws to fight
terrorism even in the established democracies such as Britain, the US and
Australia. It is ironical that the Empire that seeks to spread freedom and
democracy has created conditions that have led to the erosion of civil and
political liberties in a number of places.
An even more horrendous manifestation of the
strangulation of liberty would be the numerous instances of torture and
abuse in some notorious prisons and detention centres managed by the Empire.
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib would be but two such examples. Evidence is now
emerging that the US’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has even
established a whole network of prisons in different parts of the world where
some of the well known leaders of Al-Qaeda are detained indefinitely without
recourse to legal counsel or to a fair trial.
The Empire has also in a sense undermined
some of the fundamental tenets of national sovereignty. Sovereign
governments no longer exercise ultimate authority on matters pertaining to
national security. US intelligence services not only have full access to
internal security records of most governments but also sometimes dictate to
them on building began in earnest 3 or 4 years ago there has been an even
greater drive to force countries in the South to accept terms in global
trade, technology and investments which are clearly detrimental to their
interests.
The push for Empire has also widened
the chasm between Washington on the one hand and the Muslim masses on the
other. The first two countries to be attacked by the Empire were Muslim;
the next two on the hit list are also likely to be Muslim. Since most of
the oil that is bought and sold in the world flows beneath the feet of
Muslims they know that the Empire’s desire to control the commodity is one
of the reasons why they have come into conflict with the latter. The
Empire’s other agenda – re-shaping th Middle East to ensure Israeli
hegemony---is perhaps an even more potent cause of conflict as recent events
have shown. To ensure Israeli hegemony, Muslims realize that the legitimate
struggle of the Palestinians for a just peace will not be allowed to bear
fruit. At the most, the Neo-Cons, the Christian Right and other interest
groups may tolerate the creation of a Palestinian Bantustan on Gaza and a
small portion of the West Bank under Israel’s effective control. For
Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims everywhere this would be an unjust and
immoral solution. It will only spawn more anger and antagonism towards
Washington and Tel Aviv.
The is also another reason why relations
between Washington and the Muslim world have deteriorated dramatically since
911 and the drive for global hegemony. In the name of fighting terrorism,
Muslims in a number of Western countries are routinely hounded and harassed
and subjected to a great deal of intimidation and humiliation. The ease
with which a segment of the media, certain Christian theologians and some
politicians in the US in particular equate Muslims with terrorism has
reinforced the stereotyping and stigmatization of the community. Of course,
typecasting Muslims as terrorists or as people who are prone to violence has
a long history behind it. It is at the crux of an ancient phenomenon called
Islamophobia which in the last four years has witnessed a huge revival in
the West. Even in some non-Western societies Islamophobia is beginning to
present itself.
Terrorism and Al-Qaeda.
By criticizing the stigmatization of
Muslims and by lamenting the pervasiveness of Islamophobia, one is not
denying that there are fringe groups in the Muslim world who resort to
violence and terror in their quest for justice. Al-Qaeda is one such group.
It came into prominence in 1991 when it lambasted the stationing of
American troops in Saudi Arabia which it considered an act of sacrilege
since the land was the home of Islam’s In 1996, Al-Qaeda launched a bomb
attack at the King Abdul Aziz Air Base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killing
nineteen American soldiers. Al-Qaeda has been associated with other attacks
since then --- ; against American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998;
against an American warship in Yemen in 2000. The climax was the 911 attack
on the World Trade Centre (WTC) in New York and the Pentagon in Washington
which killed a total of almost 3000 people, mostly civilians. Since 911,
Al-Qaeda is also alleged to have staged the Madrid bombing in March 2004 and
the London bombing of 7 July 2005.
If the conscious, deliberate targeting of
civilians is part of Al-Qaeda’s strategy to fight the injustices perpetrated
by the US and its allies, it has embarked upon an approach which Islam would
condemn as heinous and barbaric. Islam does not permit the killing of
civilians or non-combatants in pursuit of any cause, however noble. This is
why immediately after 911 a number of leading Muslim theologians from all
over the world condemned the dastardly deed in the strongest language
possible. The Madrid and London bombings and other similar incidents
involving civilians have also evoked condemnations from Muslims of all
shades.
There are other dimensions of Al-Qaeda’s
belief system which mainstream Muslims would reject as inimical to Islamic
teachings. Al-Qaeda adheres to a simplistic dichotomization of the world
into Muslims and infidels. It has an exclusive rather than an inclusive
view of the religion and its message. It follows from this that Al-Qaeda
has a pejorative perception of people of other faiths. It justifies the
systematic discrimination of women in public life. Its interpretation of
Islamic jurisprudence is dogmatic and often atavistic. Al-Qaeda’s reading
of Islam’s basic text ---- the Quran -- is litera and outmoded.
Al-Qaeda subscribes to this
particular view of Islam because of the influence of Wahabism. Wahabism is
a reference to an ideological strain that developed within Islam in parts of
Saudi Arabia from the eighteenth century onwards which was characterized by
an extreme puritanical attitude. As time went on Wahabism became more and
more doctrinaire. It had some influence upon elements within the Saudi
royal family and the Saudi elite in general.
When the Saudi ruling class wanted to counter
revolution amongst Muslims, it was this Wahabist version of Islam that it
exported to other parts of the world. Groups within the Mujahideen in
Afghanistan who were fighting the Soviet occupation of their country
embraced Wahabism. The Saudi rulers in any case were also financing the
Mujahideen. This explains the Wahabist orientation of the Taliban---and
indeed Al-Qaeda---who were also part of the Mujahideen.
It is important to reiterate that Washington
which was an enthusiastic supporter of the Mujahideen against Soviet
occupation had no problem with Wahabism at that stage. In fact, Osama bin
Laden and the CIA worked closely togethe in resisting the Soviets. By
cultivating Osama, Al-Qaeda and the Mujahideen, the US, in a sense,
strengthened the role of a conservative brand of Islam in national and
international politics. That such a brand of Islam could triumph over a
superpower must have been a tremendous boost to Osama and his ilk. It may
well have inspired him to take on the other only remaining superpower. How
ironical therefore that Osama the CIA ally should now come back to haunt the
Empire. That is blowback at its finest !
Whatever Osama’s dream may be about
destroying the American Empire, it is very unlikely that he will succeed.
He may not realize that his terrorism has strengthened the Empire. After
911, the Empire, in the name of fighting terrorism, has, as we have seen,
penetrated Central Asia and the Caspian Sea, conquered Iraq and tightened
its grip over the security apparatus of countries all over the world. Osama
has proven that terrorism is counter productive; that it is a foolish
strategy for fighting the Empire.
Resistance.
Are there other ways of resisting
Empire ? Perhaps the strongest resistance at the moment is taking place in
those countries which are under the direct occupation of the US and
Israel. Leaving aside Afghanistan where there is organized but sporadic
opposition to US and other foreign troops, there is no doubt at all that in
Iraq resistance is widespread and systematic. Similarly, Palestinian
resistance to Israeli rule is one of the most sustained and determined
struggles for liberation in the contemporary world. Since controlling and
dominating the Middle East is pivotal to the American and Israeli agenda,
one can argue that Iraqi and Palestinian resistance have tremendous
historical significance. To put it simply it is because of their resistance
that the Empire is caught in a quagmire. Otherwise, the Empire builders, it
is quite conceivable, would have expanded their hegemony to other parts of
the Middle East by now.
We shall now turn to resistance to Empire
from different regions of the world beginning with Europe. Though Europe
remains integral to the Washington helmed Western alliance, governments in
Germany and France are sometimes uneasy about American unilateralism and its
eagerness to resort to force in the resolution of conflicts. This
difference in approach was obvious in the Iraq crisis. Nonetheless, o
should be realistic and should not expect European governments to stand up
to Washington’s imperial project.
In contrast, there is much more hope in Latin
America. Cuba has the most consistent, principled record of a nation
standing up to the Empire for more than 40 years and refusing to submit or
surrender to its hegemony. In the last four years, the President of
Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has also displayed some of the courage and
conviction of his Cuban mentor, Fidel Castro. Chavez is equally determined
to ensure that development benefits the poor and powerless in his society
and that Venezuela does not become an appendage of the US. Other countries
in Latin America such as Brazil. Chile, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay are
also becoming a little more assertive vis-a-vis US power.
In Africa, government leaders in the Sudan,
Libya and South Africa do take positions from time to time on regional and
international economic and political issues which reveal that they are
conscious of the importance of retaining their independence in the global
arena. This would also be true of the leadership in Syria. The Russian
leadership which has much more political muscle than many other governments
in the world, partly because of its population and partly because of its
recent history, is also not prepared to give in meekly to US hegemony. It
appears to be keen to harness its military strength to advantage. The
Indian government is also acutely aware of the fact that India is the
world’s second largest nation. Some of its leaders do not want her to
become a mere client state of the US. In Southeast Asia, both Malaysia and
Vietnam have shown that in spite of pursuing market oriented economic
policies it is possible to preserve one’s political independence.
Our quick survey of nations which continue to
enjoy a degree of independence in the international arena leaves us with
four states whose roles we have yet to explain. North Korea and Myanmar
have isolated themselves from the global community and for that reason need
not figure in our analysis. Iran is an outstanding example of a country
which since its 1979 Revolution has thwarted numerous moves by the US and
its allies and proxies to destroy its independence and sovereignty. In
spite of an eight year war that was imposed on it, a failed invasion
engineered by the US, a series of assassinations of its top political and
religious leaders, economic sanctions by, and frozen assets in, the US, Iran
has remained firm in its commitment to the Islamic ideals of its Revolution.
Unlike Al-Qaeda---which is bitterly opposed to Iran and its Shia ideology –
Iran has chosen to resist the US through the strengthening of its own sinews
and through the forging of political and economic alliances at the regional
and international level, guided by an approach to Islam that is less
exclusive and more contemporary.
The other nation which offers a challenge to
US hegemony is of course China. China, in a sense, is more indispensable to
the global economy today than the US itself. It is an economic powerhouse
which helps to create jobs and to keep businesses flourishing in a number of
countries all over the world. Because of its economic power and its
demographics---it is the world’s most populous nation---Washington has
become very wary of China and is going all out to contain the emerging
giant. But China has developed good relations with countries in every
continent and is generally held in high esteem everywhere.
China’s position in the international arena
today and the role played by a number of other countries, apart from the
resistance of the Palestinian and Iraqi people, mean that it will not be
easy to build or to sustain the American Empire. If anything, the concerted
opposition to the Empire from a segment of civil society has made it even
more difficult for the elite in Washington and its allies to impose their
imperial hegemony upon the rest of humankind. In global forums to parallel
UN Summits on themes ranging from environment and human rights to
development and racism held from 1992 to 2001, to massive street protests
against predatory globalization in the late nineties and the early years of
this century, these civil society actors had made it abundantly clear that
they wanted a better world. The causes they espoused and the positions they
articulated culminated in the inauguration of the World Social Forum in
Porto Alegre Brazil in January 2001 ---- a forum which embodies the people’s
aspirations for global justice and global peace, and is the antithesis of
the neo-liberal capitalist, hegemonic world that Washington and its allies
seek to build.
While some civil society actors were
attempting to formulate alternatives to the dominant global system, others
sought to address specific global concerns --- which also constitute a form
of resistance to hegemonic interests. Civil society groups, together with
some governments and a section of the media, played a major role in the
successful campaign to ban landmines. Though the US government and other
powerful states were against the Landmines Treaty of 1997, civil society
demonstrated that it has the ability to advance the cause of international
law, however formidable the obstacles. Civil society also helped to make the
Kyoto Accord of 1997 on global warming a reality --- again in the face of
strong opposition from the US and other states. The contribution of civil
society in the creation of the International Criminal Court through the Rome
Statute of 1998 would be a third example of how civil society resisted the
hegemonic power of the US and in the process strengthened international law.
It is only when these trends within a segment of
civil society expressed over a period of a decade or so are placed in their
proper context that we will be able to appreciate the ability of civil
society to mobilise millions and millions of people worldwide in the protest
against the war in Iraq in March 2003. It is worth repeating over and over
again that the Iraq protest was the most massive mobilization of people
against war and for peace in history. It was the most significant
_expression of collective resistance against US hegemony that had ever taken
place. It was the peoples of the world rejecting Empire !
Though the people failed to stop the war,
they succeeded in de-legitimising the war. It was because of civil society
mobilization that the war was rendered immoral and unjust. At the end of
the day it showed that the Empire now has a formidable foe – in the people
of the world.
Decline
However, resistance from outside
alone will not be enough to bring down the Empire. It is one of the
unerring laws of history that em The US’s military adventures---two wars in
three years---are beginning to strain its resources. The Iraq war in
particular has become an albatross around the nation’s neck.
It is one of the reasons why the federal
deficit has increased in recent years. Calculated together with the trade
deficit, the US’s total public debt stood at 7.9 trillion dollars as of 15
August 2005. The US is the world’s largest debtor nation. It is faced with
other economic and social problems too, including unemployment, inadequate
health care coverage, escalating fuel prices and a lack of investment in
public infrastructures.
In the course of the last six months domestic
opposition to the Iraq war has also been increasing. It is partly because
the death toll among American troops in Iraq has been climbing steadily. At
the time of writing, it has reached 2038. A majority of Americans now feel
that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. They would like the Bush
Administration to set a deadline fo the withdrawal of American troops from
Iraq. It is significant that armed forces recruitment exercises in the last
one year or so have consistently recorded shortfalls. In other words, fewer
and fewer Americans are prepared to go and fight in Iraq.
In the midst of all this, the anti-war
movement in the US has received a shot in the arm through a brave mother who
lost her son in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan whose soldier son Casey was killed in
combat has asked President Bush to explain to her why h son had to die.
What was the noble cause he was fighting for, she wants to know. Through
sheer perseverance she has drawn around her thousands of other protestors
who are equally determined to continue the campaign till the last soldier is
brought home. In fact, Sheehan is now talking of launching a nation-wide
civil disobedience movement against the war.
If domestic support for the war is in rapid
decline, the US Administration’s international standing had slumped a long
time ago. Even before the war started, Bush’s international credibility was
at a low ebb. After two years it is obvious to even his most faithful
supporters that Iraq is a total mess. It explains why in the eyes of the
world Bush is at his nadir.
When a leadership commands so little
credibility at home and abroad, how can it hope to continue to build a
global empire ? This is why one can be absolutely certain that the first
global empire in history is doomed to fail. And humankind will have every
reason to celebrate.
The above essay is based upon a
lecture delivered at Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia on 2
September 2005. The lecture was the university’s Annual Public Lecture
(national level).
