Seeker of Truth
05-30-2003, 03:36 PM
FPIF Discussion Paper
May 2003
Going Global: Building A Movement Against Empire
By Phyllis Bennis
Phyllis Bennis <pbennis@compuserve.com> is a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and writes regularly for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org (http://www.fpif.org)). This was prepared for the Transnational Institute's Fellows' Meeting, held May 16 - 17, 2003 (online at www.tni.org (http://www.tni.org)) and is reprinted with permission.
As the Bush administration strengthens its military victory and consolidates its occupation of Iraq, it continues its trajectory toward international expansion of power and global reach. The arrogance of its triumphalism, ignoring civilian carnage and dismissing the destruction of the ancient cities because, in Rumsfeld's words, "free people have the right to do bad things and commit crimes," reflects the hubris of ancient empires. Shakespeare's "insolence of office" could well describe the contempt with which the Pentagon warriors look down on the peoples of the world.
The U.S. war in Iraq is certainly not the first time the U.S. has unilaterally, illegally, and without justification attacked another country. But in the past--whether Grenada, Panama, the first Gulf War, even Kosovo--Washington generally attempted to validate its wars through some kind of claim (however spurious) of international legality. In giving life to Bush's doctrine of preemptive war, the assault on Iraq represents the first time a U.S. president has claimed--even boasted--that he had the right to launch such a unilateral attack against a country that had not attacked the U.S. and did not pose any imminent threat, and that international authority was unnecessary.
Claiming the right of preemptive war would not, by itself, be proof of empire. Even launching a war more accurately defined as an aggressive preventive war (since a preemptive attack implies an imminent threat) does not by itself represent such proof. But the eagerness of Washington's powerful to launch this war, without United Nations authorization and with such reckless disregard for the consequences, with the expressed aim of toppling the government of an independent country, albeit one mortally wounded from war and twelve years of murderous sanctions, may represent just such proof. Certainly one can argue, as Paul Schroeder does, that there is a critical distinction between hegemony and empire. (The History News Network, Center for History and the New Media, George Mason University, February 3, 2003.) "Hegemony," he writes, "means clear, acknowledged leadership and dominant influence by one unit within a community of units not under a single authority. A hegemon is first among equals; an imperial power rules over subordinates. A hegemonic power is the one without whom no final decision can be reached within a given system; its responsibility is essentially managerial, to see that a decision is reached. An imperial power rules the system, imposes its decision when it wishes."
Schroeder concludes that the U.S. "is not an empire--not yet." Writing some weeks before Washington's invasion of Iraq, he describes the U.S. as "at this moment a wannabe empire, poised on the brink. The Bush Doctrine proclaims unquestionably imperialist ambitions and goals, and its armed forces are poised for war for empire--formal empire in Iraq through conquest, occupation, and indefinite political control, and informal empire over the whole Middle East through exclusive paramountcy."
The rapid overthrow of the Iraqi regime, with its attendant moments of exhilaration and long hours of horror for tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, has pushed Bush administration officials over that brink. Their smug "other Middle Eastern governments better learn their lesson" attitude indicates a fortified sense of self-righteousness and the justification of their cause. If Washington has not yet consolidated its global empire, the drive toward it is now undeniable.
Much more @ presentdanger.org (http://www.presentdanger.org/papers/justice2003.html)
May 2003
Going Global: Building A Movement Against Empire
By Phyllis Bennis
Phyllis Bennis <pbennis@compuserve.com> is a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and writes regularly for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org (http://www.fpif.org)). This was prepared for the Transnational Institute's Fellows' Meeting, held May 16 - 17, 2003 (online at www.tni.org (http://www.tni.org)) and is reprinted with permission.
As the Bush administration strengthens its military victory and consolidates its occupation of Iraq, it continues its trajectory toward international expansion of power and global reach. The arrogance of its triumphalism, ignoring civilian carnage and dismissing the destruction of the ancient cities because, in Rumsfeld's words, "free people have the right to do bad things and commit crimes," reflects the hubris of ancient empires. Shakespeare's "insolence of office" could well describe the contempt with which the Pentagon warriors look down on the peoples of the world.
The U.S. war in Iraq is certainly not the first time the U.S. has unilaterally, illegally, and without justification attacked another country. But in the past--whether Grenada, Panama, the first Gulf War, even Kosovo--Washington generally attempted to validate its wars through some kind of claim (however spurious) of international legality. In giving life to Bush's doctrine of preemptive war, the assault on Iraq represents the first time a U.S. president has claimed--even boasted--that he had the right to launch such a unilateral attack against a country that had not attacked the U.S. and did not pose any imminent threat, and that international authority was unnecessary.
Claiming the right of preemptive war would not, by itself, be proof of empire. Even launching a war more accurately defined as an aggressive preventive war (since a preemptive attack implies an imminent threat) does not by itself represent such proof. But the eagerness of Washington's powerful to launch this war, without United Nations authorization and with such reckless disregard for the consequences, with the expressed aim of toppling the government of an independent country, albeit one mortally wounded from war and twelve years of murderous sanctions, may represent just such proof. Certainly one can argue, as Paul Schroeder does, that there is a critical distinction between hegemony and empire. (The History News Network, Center for History and the New Media, George Mason University, February 3, 2003.) "Hegemony," he writes, "means clear, acknowledged leadership and dominant influence by one unit within a community of units not under a single authority. A hegemon is first among equals; an imperial power rules over subordinates. A hegemonic power is the one without whom no final decision can be reached within a given system; its responsibility is essentially managerial, to see that a decision is reached. An imperial power rules the system, imposes its decision when it wishes."
Schroeder concludes that the U.S. "is not an empire--not yet." Writing some weeks before Washington's invasion of Iraq, he describes the U.S. as "at this moment a wannabe empire, poised on the brink. The Bush Doctrine proclaims unquestionably imperialist ambitions and goals, and its armed forces are poised for war for empire--formal empire in Iraq through conquest, occupation, and indefinite political control, and informal empire over the whole Middle East through exclusive paramountcy."
The rapid overthrow of the Iraqi regime, with its attendant moments of exhilaration and long hours of horror for tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, has pushed Bush administration officials over that brink. Their smug "other Middle Eastern governments better learn their lesson" attitude indicates a fortified sense of self-righteousness and the justification of their cause. If Washington has not yet consolidated its global empire, the drive toward it is now undeniable.
Much more @ presentdanger.org (http://www.presentdanger.org/papers/justice2003.html)