Strategically Speaking
Pax Americana
OR let us call it new imperialism. Contrary to common belief that imperialism as a historical phenomenon had come to an end by the early sixties when the last vestige of colonialism was shed by the colonial powers through their exit from their possessions around the world -- regrettably, it did not.
It continued in several forms and changed from economic imperialism to the use of soft power, and finally as we notice currently, by the brazen use of raw power. Many call it the neo-liberals' way of enforcing their policies they practice at home with guns and bombs abroad. One scholar defines the phenomenon as: "The means by which the poorest countries are brought into line, their rulers allowed space at the big powers' table as long as they agree to take the medicine first, however unpalatable it may be."
As so brilliantly brought in the book Imperialism without Colonies (Harry Magdoff) the fact is that very soon after the colonial era was formally ended: "A new form of imperialism was, in fact, taking shape -- imperialism defined not by colonial rule but by the global capitalist market. From the outset, the dominant power in this imperialism without colonies was the United States." It continues not only to control the world economy; it is trying to dictate a world order of its own.
The world has suffered from the ill effects of this phenomenon because of the arrogant and imperious behaviour of the most powerful state in the world, and given the US propensity in recent times to dominate the world, through control of strategic resource centres of the globe disregarding international opinion, through the use of brute force, and by resorting to double standards -- the prospect of a serious international flux does not appear remote.
But is it really a world without colonies? Economic and military power combined give US the sole authority to dictate how the world should conform to the way of behaviour it orders. Thus, while no terroitory has been annexed, states and nations are controlled through cajolement, promise of aid and other financial blandishments. And, of course, there are regimes willing to go to any length in exchange for American largesse, but more for its support of their autocratic and dictatorial regimes.
But to say that territories have been not annexed is not entirely true -- in the true spirit of stamping American domination worldover, to ensure unchallenged control of the of major sea lanes and resource centers the US has by the latest count around several hundred bases all over the world. Some see that as a form of territorial control.
The sun may have set on the largest and the longest living empire a long timeback and the world may not have emperors but do not forget the commander-in-chief of the largest military in the world, who has made it his mission to chastise all "errant" states under the pretext of the global war on terror.
Reportedly, as early as the evening of 9/11 Bush had told his advisors that he saw the attacks as a chance to do what he had decided he would, long before his administration had come to power. And Donald Rumsfeld, who was yet to be appointed the defence secretary told his boss that he believed that the US military power was needed "to help discipline the world." This was a chance for the US to embark on the road to new imperialism -- and the world was to be disciplined under a strategy that came to be known as the Bush Doctrine.
His secondary aim was to bring the benefits of democracy to many parts of the world. Of course, the accompanying desire to establish human rights remains his principal focus too. But his focus and the focused have been selective. While he has been quite happy to live with dictators and autocrats in whose countries human rights exist only in the desecration of its principle, he has been up in arms against those that to him appear wayward and refuse to dance to his tunes.
The result of US war on terror has been horrible, both for the Americans and the world. It has created more unrest in the world not to speak of terrorrism it has spawned. And GWOT has lasted longer than the First World War, the death toll of civilians is estimated around 655,000 upto autumn 2006, which is more than what Britian suffered in military and civilian casualties between 1939 and 1945. Peace is nowhere in sight in Iraq. Bush and his neo-con hawks must have realised by now that neither democracy nor peace can come on the wings of F-16s or on the guns of Sherman tanks.
No wonder that the Bush administration has renamed GWOT as the "long war." It is not about to end soon, not because the Shia or Sunnis would not reconcile or that Iraq would be subsumed by the Iranians if the Americans were to leave soon, but because the effective domination of the area to control its startegic resources, has not been ensured as yet.
There are very few who do not believe that US interst in the area is anything other than the natural resources of region. It is just a mere coincidence, as one commentator puts it so well, that, "American oil happens to be under the sands of the Persian Gulf." Who are we to disclaim the US rights to control it?
And that is why the sabre rattling against Iran -- the only other country that has the potential to resist US hegemony in the region. All sorts of excuses are being drummed up to attack its nuclear facilty, exposing the ugly double standards the US and some of its allies have resorted to in the Middle East.
In the case of Iran, Great Britain has joined the countries who are willing to bend over backwards to appease the US surrogate in the region. They cannot stand the thought of Iran having nuclear capability -- while feeling no qualms in Israel having 200 or so warheads. This is perhaps because both these countries had actively helped Israel in its development of nuclear weapons.
Afghanistan was attacked on the plea of self-defence but neither the government nor the people of Afghanistan had ever or can ever attack the US. The guilt was by association -- for sheltering bin-Laden in their soil, something that the majority of Afghans had very little control on. Almost ten thousand Afghans have died during the period of initial bombing and many more have perished in the conflict since then. That Nato policy is not working is demonstrated by Karzai's frequent criticism of its policy. And Pakistan has found out to its agony that if you want to hug a big bear you must be prepared to suffer some broken bones.
They now risk being bombed by the US -- recall Barrack Obama's utterances last year that he would not hesitate to bomb Pakistan on certain conditions and his recent comments in the same vein.
So, what is the prospect of peace, in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere? Regrettably, the success story that US wanted to build in Iraq "like Germany and Japan, that still looked good after 50 years" to quote the first US "viceroy" to Iraq, may not ever be written. Reinforcements have been asked for by ISAF in Afghanistan. But the historical evidence suggests the invaders and intruders have met with terrible results.
What is most disquieting is the fact that there is very little evidence that the basic thrust of the US foreign policy will change even if a Democrat takes over the White House. Both the presidential candidates seem to be stuck with the Bush rhetoric, and the policy pronouncements made so far indicate that they would in all likelihood adhere to a policy for which there is less than 20 percent support at home.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments