Modern America: Power and Politics of an Empire @hist1977-blog - Tumblr Blog

Corporate Imperialism

The post- WWII era saw the United States emerge as a contender for global domination through various mediums – whether it was taking on communism in the developing world or establishing military bases in the Middle East, the US and it’s widespread influence has slowly become, what is known to be, the American Empire.

Since the debate on whether or not the US exemplifies an empire can be considered outdated within certain academic and political circles, it is interesting to think about the notion of empire without nations, states or borders. This kind of empire has no state control, it's economic capital can sometimes be worth more than the GDP of a small country and it often has an important and influential role in the global economy. It is also known as the corporate empire, or the proliferation of Multinational Companies (MNCs) in the developing world. Some examples of US-based MNCs are the McDonald’s franchise, Unilever, Proctor and Gamble, each, of which have factories, franchises and offices all over the world.

U.S. MNCs are known to have acquired prominence in the post-war era when the country’s foundation of “superior business and political systems” led the Allies to victory. However, a big wave of MNC market entry in the emerging or developing markets began in the 1980s, where companies “foresaw a bonanza in incremental sales for their existing products” (Harvard Business Review). The pace of the Foreign Direct Investment or FDI of these multinationals was both a cause and a consequence of the rapid globalization in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The reasons behind this growth is often due to the complex and interconnected relationships of the trade and capitalist networks, which often rely on global integration of international production systems.

The idea that a company can become an Empire and challenge the authority and control of a nation-state is a relatively new concept, and can be explained through an example like Unilever. Unilever was at first a detergent business but later acquired smaller food companies and other consumer product business sectors. Unilever established itself globally at a time when Western products were at the forefront of consumer trends, creating a “critical differences between developed and developing countries in the availability of products” and changing consumption patterns world-over. Moreover, the fact that Unilever was a U.S. based company mean that it’s ownership and control laid within the home economy. However, in the contemporary world, the nationalistic sentiments of many MNCs are now blurred and more ambiguous because of the integrated world-economic system.

The foundations of corporate imperialist theory can be explained by the Dependency Theory, as the spread of multinationals further contributed to an unequal system upon which the center or core economies of the world, like the US, that can foster an environment in which an MNC can develop and grow, are exploitative of the periphery economies in which many MNCs use as outsourced factory and office locations. Essentially, it is often argued that MNCs are at the forefront of a skewed capitalist system.

Lastly, as debates on the decline of American Empire circulate, it is interesting to think about who or what will fill the power vacuums of a future without an American Empire - perhaps we need to take a closer look at the regulations and anti-trust laws of the expanding MNCs and it's growing influence on the global world economy and the development of emerging markets.

#mncs #corporateimperialism

Poll on Empires and Imperialism

Finally we got together to post the final results of our poll! We got 78 responses from people aged 20-30 years old from all over the world. A lot of our sample came from Brown University but we also send out the poll to our friends from other parts of the world. We have asked a group of question, where the most important ones were: In what terms would you define the word “Empire”

Do you think that the contemporary world has empires?

Do you think that current the United States is an empire?

If yes, in what ways do you think that the U.S. exemplifies the term “Empire”?

The results for these questions will be shown on graphs. The other significant question asked whether empires serve a purpose today? We received a range of descriptive responses and will quote some of them below.

At first we present the results of the poll jointly in order to understand the general perception of imperialism in our sample. Afterwards we will look at the results with splitting the results between U.S. and non-U.S. respondents (we asked a question: with what country do you identify (by virtue of birth, passport, residence) and then divided the respondents respectively). We got quite similar response groups with 36 people self-identifying as from the United States and 42 self-identifying as not from the United States.

The results show that in our sample groups the term empire is identified mostly with Overseas Colonies (84.62% or 66 respondents) and Military Power (76.92% or 60 respondents). This shows that the traditional, historic definition of empire is still most prevalent. Considerably smaller percentage of people defines empire as Self-serving influence in global politics (62.82% or 49 respondents), Overseas military bases (52.56% or 41 respondents), Economic capital in foreign countries (51.28% or 40 respondents) and Media domination-cultural hegemony (51.28% or 40 respondent). In this sense, around half of our respondents thought of empires outside the traditional definition and pointed to possible new forms of imperialism. Humanitarian Intervention was one of the least like responses (17.95% or 14 respondents), which shows that people do not really consider it as a form of an imperial behavior. In actual experience the difference between self-serving influence in global politics and humanitarian intervention can be blurred at times and the concept of humanitarian aid is seen as generally positive and hence non-imperial. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that selfless humanitarian intervention occurs quite rarely.

The other answers proposed by the respondents pertained to some sort of control over global finance, global military response or being a stabilizer in the world.

The results show that the majority of the people still recognize that empires are present in the current world.

The question also shows that majority of people recognize the United States as an empire. It is interesting to note that 50 people identified U.S. as an empire while 59 identified the presence of empires in general in the world. This difference points to the perceived existence of other empires in the current world.

The results show that in general the respondents that recognized United States as an empire did so due to its military power (94.44% or 51 respondents). Slightly smaller percentage of people gave following answers: Overseas military bases (77.78% or 42 respondents), Economic capital in foreign countries (70.37% or 38 respondents), Self-serving influence in global politics (77.78% or 42 respondents) and Media domination-cultural hegemony (68.52% or 37 respondents). The least likely response was Overseas colonies (38.89% or 21 people). This could reflect the fact that official the U.S. only has dependent territories with various degrees of autonomy and dependence on the Federal Government like Guam or Puerto Rico. In this sense, these areas might not be seen as formal overseas colonies but still reveal some sort of quasi-colonial dependency. Moreover, these territories are considerably small while the term overseas colonies might be normally associated with historical possession of huge lands by Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Germany among others.

Question: Do you think that empires serve a purpose today?

If you’re looking at the questioning and thinking, that sounds a little vague – that might have been what we were aiming at. The question of whether an empire is good or bad seems rather black and white, and we were hoping to get some answers that would go beyond a short yes or no. While we still got a lot of yes and no responses, we also got a lot of others. Here are some interesting ones:

-- Maintains stability in a unipolar world, but it is arguable whether this is the most desirable state.

-- In business public and private companies can be considers empires ( ex walmart or Exonn)

-- Yes-taking sides during crises and wars

-- I think the term empire is a bit outdated. I think a more productive form of the empire is achieved by international organizations such as the UN or WHO

-- I think they serve to "maintain" the balance of power in the world. For example, very powerful countries form alliances with smaller (less powerful countries) and other powerful countries whose interests align. So when there's a disaster, war or any kind of humanitarian crisis that needs to be resolved, the " new empires" must get together to decide how to proceed. This is not always the case however, and that's why powerful countries form unions such as the G20 in which the different regions of the world can be represented by a neighboring country that shares the same interest - that way, we avoid acts of pure self interest by the "new empires" and focus on more worthwhile pursuits that could help as many countries/people as possible.

-- Maybe - They could perhaps be a means of providing security and guidance to another nation, but generally empires are not completely helpful and usually have a destructive/harmful element so maybe not.

-- Yes - predominantly to cement the international positions and power of (neo)imperialists, but also in some ways to benefit the people whose countries are occupied, especially because much of today's imperialism is consensual/invited.

-- To some extent, yes. There is something to be said for countries with larger influence stepping in to stop human rights violations in other areas of the world.

-- They claim to elevate human rights through "democratization," which can have positive consequences for certain oppressed populations, but if that is indeed the case it often occurs as a secondary consequence of underlying intentions to economically exploit the target area in question

-- They serve a purpose for themselves in terms of guaranteeing economic prosperity, safety, etc, and because the well-being of other countries are often so intricately linked to them, they can sometimes end up helping other countries achieve positive outcomes, however the reverse is very much possible as well.

-- (And my favorite, just for fun) Acting like a blood-sucking squid on the face of the world, sure.

Apart from the last answer, I think these responses are interesting in the manner in which they show this paradox between empires that serve to “maintain stability” or “maintain the balance of power” but also “exploit”, have a “destructive/harmful element”. Another interesting feature in some of these responses is the image of empires that “step in to stop human rights violations”, “elevate human rights through democratization” or “help other countries achieve positive outcomes”. Most of these answers acknowledge that the converse of empires exploiting rather than helping can also occur, does occur, in these scenarios, but still respond that empires can be useful in supporting human rights. Lastly, these responses are also interesting in that they point at the manner in which corporations and international organizations are growing more powerful, perhaps indicating a shift in the way we perceive nations as empires.

Results divided between American and non-American respondents. (In order to clarify and make the viewing easier: the filled columns always represent answers from U.S.-identifying respondents while the non filled represent the non U.S.-identifying respondents; also the order of columns read from left to right correspond to the order of the legend read from top to the bottom )

The splitting of the results between American and non-American respondents show that more U.S. based respondents were more likely to associate military power with imperialism (88.89% vs. 66.67 %). Perhaps it reflects the fact the United States has very extensive military and its coverage in media, henceforth the consciousness of military importance could be greater within the United States than in other parts of the world. The other results remain quite similar except for Humanitarian intervention where similarly Americans were more likely to associate it with empires (30.56% vs. 9.52%). Most of the American respondents were coming from Brown University. Therefore, this difference in results might show that it is more likely to learn about imperial aspect of Humanitarian Aid in a progressive liberal art college like Brown.

The results show that non-US identifying respondents were more likely to recognize presence of empires in today’s world (80.95% vs. 69.44%).

The question showed that respondents identifying with the U.S. were more likely to call United States an empire (66.67% vs. 59.52%). The difference might caused by the fact that many more non-U.S. respondents had no opinion whether U.S. is an empire or not (11.90% vs. 2.78%). To an extent, the data could point to the fact that many of the respondents did not feel informed enough to judge the foreign policy of the United States.

The last question shows biggest differences between the U.S. identifying respondents and the ones that did not identify with the U.S. First, it is important to note that Military power and Self-serving influence in global politics are recognized as the imperial features of the United States by similar numbers of respondents (66.67% vs 64.29% and55.56% and 52.38%). This might be due to the fact that U.S. military and U.S. itself features prominently in global media, “ the international consensus” among our respondents could point to globalization of media and easy access to information.

The features that show most differences are Overseas colonies (38.89% vs. 16.67%), Overseas military bases (63.89% vs. 45.24%) and Humanitarian Intervention (41.67% vs. 19.05%). This data discrepancy might point to the fact that U.S. identifying respondents were much more aware of the discussions on American imperialism and hence recognized more imperial features. Also foreign media might be much less likely to focus extensively on in-depth analysis of U.S. foreign policy, which could obscure other possible imperial features of the United States.

Nevertheless, the fact that the U.S. identifying respondents are more likely to recognize more possible forms of imperialism can be seen as a possibility for a better future. Perhaps due to the awareness of the people the country’s policies might change as they might voice more and more criticism of different forms of imperialism.

In general our poll has showed that the term “empire” is mostly associated with military power and overseas colonies, which shows the need for further discussions about other forms of imperialism in todays world. Nonetheless, most of the respondents still see that today’s world has empires and U.S. is one of them. The awareness of this fact might help to mobilize civil society in order to prevent violent imperialism. It is important to bear in mind that a lot of our respondents recognized the ambivalent nature of empires as aggressors and stabilizers. Therefore, it might be too hasty a conclusion that awareness of imperialism might lead to its complete dissolution. Additionally, the respondents that think that the U.S. is an empire were cognizant of various forms of imperialism such as overseas military bases, economic capital in foreign countries, self-serving influence in global politics and media domination-cultural hegemony etc.

The comparison between U.S.-identifying respondents and non-U.S.-identifying respondents that in general there are no huge differences in perception of imperialism. The biggest differences were revealed in perception of various forms of American imperialism with U.S. respondents being more likely to recognize various forms of imperialism. This shows that a lot of debates on imperialism do not exceed the United States and there is a need to extend the analysis of American foreign policy in order to determine and evaluate its possible imperial type of behavior.

medinaksa

US intervention in Latin America

#neoimperialism

Institutionalized Imperialism: The Use of Multilateral Institutions to Implement Economic Imperialism

In early 2007, Venezuela made a benchmark decision by cutting ties with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, citing distance away from what it perceived were institutions nominally controlled by the United States. This claim then raises the question: can we consider US imperialism as being beyond US involvement in foreign countries, but rather as the source of global norms, implicitly controlling the ways in which the world, specifically the global economy, functions. Venezuela’s perception of the IMF and the World Bank as Washington-controlled institutions allows us to consider the ways in which the US has used international institutions to not only push its interests, but to also mold the world in its own image: the pursuit of free trade market capitalism.

The IMF, the World Bank were created during the Bretton Woods conference, representing 730 delegates from the 44 Allied States in 1944. The conference, officially known as the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference essentially determined the function of these institutions, with a strong push by the US for increased economic openness and free market policies. Essentially, the IMF and the World Bank were created to manage the world economy, most importantly monitoring barriers to trade and allowing for the freer movement of capital.

The importance of these institutions lies in their ability to use loan funding to coerce foreign countries to follow their mandates (often in the name of facilitating free trade capitalism). This coercion, however, remains an integral part of dollar diplomacy, in which the US is able to construct the global economy in its own image, without having to actively take the blame that these institutions do.

The existence of free market capitalism as an inescapable reality, the only reality within which the world can exist has been actively facilitated by these institutions. Furthermore, the influence of the US in these organizations is paramount––the US has the highest voting power in the World Bank at 15.85%, with the next country (Japan) trailing at 6.84%. In this regard, the US’s ability to coerce these institutions, who then coerce foreign (often developing) countries to follow their mandate is a fairly evident and transparent way in which the US has been able to expand its global influence and control, in addition to all the other ways it influences the world.

Additional articles:

http://isreview.org/issue/92/global-empire-or-imperialism

http://www.iacenter.org/folder02/imfworld.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/may/01/venezuela.imf

Do we need empires in today’s world? On Russian and American imperialism.

One of our survey questions asked whether empires still serve a role in today’s world. The full results of the survey will be posted soon, but the initial scrutiny of the responses shows that people identified various roles such as stability provider, economic power stabilizer and conflict mediator for today’s empires. Current crisis in Ukraine spurred many discussions on the nature and presence of imperialism in today’s foreign policy. Western-oriented journalists and politicians relentlessly ask whether Russia wants to rebuild its former territory and imperial might while the countering voices point out that the United States also acts in a self-interested, imperial manner – attacking and controlling foreign countries for allegedly humanitarian reasons. These debates reflect the guiding theme of our blog, which asks about present-day American imperialism while connecting it to the larger issue of imperialism in today’s world.

As a student from the former second-world and a post-communist country I have a particular interest in Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the conflict happening in Ukraine. My childhood has been filled with stories of hardships endured by my family during communism. The reasons given for this oppression were always Soviet imposition and an effective control of the communist government in Poland. For this reason, it is particularly hard for me to have a balanced view on the conflict in Ukraine since I instinctively assume Vladimir Putin’s mischievous intentions as a Soviet Empire (re)constructor. Nonetheless, my internal bias helps me to position myself within a debate and moreover gives me a closer, unique perspective on the issue discussed.

Recent article from the Brown Political Review (published March 10th “Crisis in Crimea”) framed the conflict in Ukraine as a challenge of differing worldviews. The author argues that Russian and American perspectives are incompatible and the stronger worldview will win. In a sense, this approach equalizes the Russian need to protect its minorities with the Western support for Ukrainian integrity and full sovereignty. For this reason, the article has shocked me and also made me think. Perhaps I am simply biased in my opinion on the conflict and cannot see that Putin’s administration genuinely wants to protect Russian speakers from the discrimination in a new post-Maidan Ukraine.

Even though I agree that the conflict has been a clash of different understandings of the world, I am conscious of the need to evaluate the quality of these worldviews. I see that both Russia and the United States exhibit a lot of imperial traits in their foreign policy but I think that we cannot try to justify and explain aggression by arguing that imperialistic, self-interested foreign policy is an actual standard in international relations.

In the Ukrainian conflict I think that Russia exposed how poorly prepared is their worldview. I find the accusations of anti-Semitism, fascism and anti-Russian sentiments waged against Maidan by Putin’s administration as hugely exaggerated. Josef Zisels, head of Association of Jewish Communities and Organization in Ukraine, expressed this view in his open letter to Vladimir Putin from 5th of March 2014 where he loudly denounced Putin’s concerns for Russian minorities as a constructed and imagined excuses for destabilizing situation in Ukraine.

This exchange of views, even though did not change much in the international policy (Crimea was still annexed by Russia), illuminates the imperial nature of the crisis in Ukraine. One of the features of empires is their ability to produce knowledge and impose their language and worldview, which effectively silences the marginalized - in other words the subalterns. Gayatri Spivak describes this situation in her essay “Can the subaltern speak?”, where she shows imposition of the British worldview over the voice of the colonized Indian women.

I feel that similar silencing took place with Zisels and Putin. Since President Putin engages in imperial policies, he can effectively decide the truth and then “protect” the Russian minorities in Crimea by annexing the territory for Russia. This conflict produces the subaltern- actual subjects of Putin’s concern who denounce the need for such aggressive “protective” policies- Russian speaking Ukrainians who also identify as Jewish. The subaltern voice is by definition silenced and ineffective under the imperial control, therefore Zisels’s letter was largely inconsequential in protecting Ukrainian territorial integrity. Nevertheless, the event helps to clarify the imperial nature of the conflict and reveals Putin’s imperial position.

The remaining question that has to be addressed in the conflict is: how to tackle the revival of Russian imperialist policies?

The international response to the Crimean annexation was largely restricted to condemning statements and economic or diplomatic sanctions. So far, in short term, these policies prove largely ineffective in face of continuous crisis in Eastern part of Ukraine where the pro-Russian separatists have been taking over local administration and claiming their independence. Just two days ago in Donetsk and Luhansk there were independence referenda held. Russian authorities only asked to delay them, while the European and American response unanimously stated that the results are invalid due to improper organization of the voting process and lack of legitimacy of pro-Russian separatists. This event shows the fragility of political life in Ukraine, which can be connected to Russian intervention in the country’s internal affairs.

Despite the efforts to reconcile the conflict in Ukraine there are little results achieved. These reflections lead me to pose a question about the American role in the conflict. Recent BBC article (published on the 24th of April 2014) describes the military exercises held by the U.S. troops in Poland. Additionally, these activities are simultaneous with increased activities of the NATO forces in the countries bordering with Russia.

This increasing militarization strongly echoes the imperial policies and Cold War. So far the actual conflict have not broken out and was restricted to the display of military power. I am largely bothered by this phenomenon as a student from a country formerly subjected to the domination from Soviet Empire. I identify as an anti-imperialist and yet I cannot help but think that the military presence of the U.S. in Poland and growing NATO militarization are good directions in foreign policy addressing the conflict in Ukraine.

Current situation exemplified by independence referenda and Ukrainian and European dependence on Russian gas supplies shows that Ukraine cannot solve the conflict on its own; it is also an issue of stability in Europe. When Russia uses its military and diplomatic power to destabilize the situation in Eastern Ukraine, there is a strong need of an equally powerful response from the European Union, NATO and the United States. Since the condemnatory statements do not work, the military display of power might. Perhaps the threat of an actual, worldwide military conflict will stop the Russian authorities from their imperial policy inclinations.

The above reflections bring quite somber conclusions. It seems that in order to fight with an empire one has to employ similar methods. On the other hand, the escalation of the imperial behavior from Russia, USA and Europe leads to a vicious circle of the revival of imperialism that could lead to yet another arm race and new form of the Cold War. Nevertheless, in the face of actual threat of the survival of Ukrainian state I do not see any other feasible, short-term solutions to the problems. Annexation of Crimea happened despite international outrage. This fact should be a warning to allies supporting Ukraine that their actions have to be more coordinated and visible in order to truly help stabilize the situation in the country.

This brings me to the opening question from my post: Do we need empires in today’s world? In the light of current situation, my personal answer to the question is yes - in order to tackle imperialism we need to provide a strong response that inevitably echoes and reproduces imperial policies. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that these imperial responses are necessary only in short term in order to stabilize the situation in Ukraine. Perhaps a more important question to pose is: Do we need empires in the world of tomorrow? My answer to the question is obviously no, but that requires certain stabilization coming from Ukraine, Russia, Europe and the USA.

Articles and sources used in the post with more information on the topic:

http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/03/crisis-in-crimea-the-challenge-of-an-alternative-worldview/ - Francis Torres’s article in Brown Political Review on the situation in Ukraine, published 10th of March 2014

http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2014/3/5/iry6leczywh8oqze14iygpfee30o7q#.U3Dona1dXLA - an article published by JNS (non-profit news website covering issues pertaining to Jewish communities worldwide) on the 6th of March 2014, describing Zisels’s letter to Vladimir Putin

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27360146 - BBC article from 11th of May 2014 on referenda in Donetsk and Luhansk

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27136276 - BBC article from 24th of April 2014 on the presence of U.S. military in Poland

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. –Spivak’s essay on the question of the subaltern and the imperial domination of Western worldview and perspective

What About Humanitarian Aid?

‘Humanitarian’ assistance to other countries involves providing direly needed food, medical aid, and assistance to alleviate suffering caused by natural or man-made disasters. Humanitarian aid is supposed to provide crucial help in the face of tragedy – constructed as a vital, moral duty, and thus, difficult to critique. But consider the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), created following the Second World War, to provide foreign relief aid during emergencies and development assistance. According to USAID, “US foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America's interests while improving lives in the developing world.” USAID “carries out US foreign policy by promoting broad-scale human progress at the same time it expands stable, free societies, creates markets and trade partners for the United States, and fosters good will abroad” (http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are). When considered through perspective of USAID as an instrument of US foreign policy, a very different picture of ‘humanitarian’ assistance and the long-term consequences of relief efforts emerges.

After the 2010 Haitian earthquake, President Obama declared, “we have to be there for them in their hour of need”. In response to the earthquake that killed over 200,000 people and left as many as a million without shelter, US officials mobilized a “massive military response”, immediately sending a Marine unit to Haiti, along with more than half a dozen ships including one of the “US Navy’s largest amphibious ships, a destroyer and a guided missile cruiser” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/obama-haiti-response-we-h_n_421770.html). Through this so-called “humanitarian” response, the US and the UN together were managing to feed only 1 million people, leaving more than a million people without any assistance. Instead of mobilizing to provide water, food, and housing for the victims, the U.S. had occupied the country with 20,000 U.S. troops and surrounding it with a flotilla of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships.

An Al Jazeera report captured the nature of this “humanitarian aid” that was being provided: “Most Haitians here have seen little humanitarian aid so far. What they have seen is guns, and lots of them. Armored personnel carriers cruise the streets. UN soldiers aren’t here to help pull people out of the rubble. They’re here, they say, to enforce the law. This is what much of the UN presence actually looks like on the streets of Port-au-Prince: men in uniform, racing around in vehicles, carrying guns. At the entrance to the city’s airport where most of the aid is coming in, there is anger and frustration. Much-needed supplies of water and food are inside, and Haitians are locked out. “These weapons they bring,” [an unidentified Haitian says], “they are instruments of death. We don’t want them; we don’t need them. We are a traumatized people. What we want from the international community is technical help. Action, not words.” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F5TwEK24sA)

Dr. Evan Lyon of Partners in Health claimed that the aid response was incredibly slow. In the week after the quake, Partners in Health estimated as many as 20,000 Haitians were dying daily from lack of surgery. Doctors were forced to work without basic pain medications or anesthesia, struggling to get the services up to twenty four hour care(http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/20/devastated_port_au_prince_hospital_struggles). Aid workers US-controlled airport operations for prioritizing the transportation of security troops over rescuers and supplies. In an extraordinary outburst, an Italian government minister called the US aid response a “pathetic situation”. He said: “Americans are extraordinary but when you are facing a situation in chaos they tend to confuse military intervention with emergency aid, which cannot be entrusted to the armed forces. It's a truly powerful show of force but it's completely out of touch with reality." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7074099/West-urged-to-write-off-Haitis-1bn-debt.html)

“Humanitarian” aid is thus more complex than the provision of only crisis relief. If military forces are the ones carrying out humanitarian missions, how then do we begin to define ‘humanitarianism’? Even if humanitarian aid is distributed by NGOs, when they begin to be seen as instruments of foreign policy, to promote US interests abroad under the guise of aid, a more disturbing picture seems to emerge. During "Operation Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan in 2001, then Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed, “just as surely as our diplomats and military, American NGOs are out there serving and sacrificing on the front lines of freedom. I am serious about making sure we have the best relationship with the NGOs who are such a force multiplier for us, such an important part of our combat team”. If NGOs are ‘force multipliers’, if they are a part of the ‘combat team’, is this kind of humanitarian aid a part of ‘combat’ too?

Some Resources! These books explore the complications that surround humanitarian aid, the discourse of liberalism, and the broader structural conditions that produce situations where aid becomes necessary.

Shock Doctrine – Naomi Kelin (http://www.amazon.com/The-Shock-Doctrine-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999)

Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism—Greg Grandin (http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Workshop-America-United-Imperialism/dp/0805083235)

Humanitarian Reason: A Moral History of the Present—Didier Fassin (http://www.amazon.com/Humanitarian-Reason-Moral-History-Present/dp/0520271173/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0A72WGR9DJXZX5911SGA)

Casualties of Care: Immigration and the Politics of Humanitarianism in France—Miriam Ticktin (http://www.amazon.com/Casualties-Care-Immigration-Politics-Humanitarianism/dp/0520269055/ref=pd_sim_b_5?ie=UTF8&refRID=0A72WGR9DJXZX5911SGA)

Pathologies of Power – Paul Farmer (http://www.amazon.com/Pathologies-Power-Health-California-Anthropology/dp/0520243269/ref=pd_sim_b_5?ie=UTF8&refRID=0DD33QBK4DZT06M11BTS)

#humanitarianism #imperialism #aid #power

Uncle Sam, with the medic/aid patch, carrying Cuba and Hawaii amongst others away from barbarism, oppression, and ignorance, towards civilization. Apparently in the footsteps of Britain with India and China on his back.

Thoughts?

Some resources on humanitarian intervention/humanitarian imperialism

These are some books that I have found both interesting and useful to read on the subject:

Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa -- Maximilian Forte (http://www.amazon.com/Slouching-Towards-Sirte-NATOs-Africa/dp/1926824520)

The Thin Blue Line – Conor Fole (http://www.amazon.com/The-Thin-Blue-Line-Humanitarianism/dp/1844676285)

Saviors and Survivors – Mahmood Mamdani (http://www.amazon.com/Saviors-Survivors-Darfur-Politics-Terror/dp/0385525966)

Humanitarian Imperialism – Jean Bricmont (http://www.amazon.com/Humanitarian-Imperialism-Using-Human-Rights/dp/1583671471)

The Liberal Defense of Murder – Richard Seymour (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Defence-Murder-Richard-Seymour/dp/1844672409)

#humanitarianism #imperialism

Noam Chomsky on "Dilemmas of Humanitarian Intervention"

cyborges

I think, anyway, that philosophical thinking has never been more important than it is today, because there’s a whole system taking shape, not just in politics but in culture and journalism too, that’s an insult to all thinking.

Deleuze, “On A Thousand Plateaus,” in Negotiations, p. 32 (via cyborges)

“Humanitarian” Intervention

We thought it would be interesting to conduct a survey on American imperialism, to get an idea of what our friends understood to be imperialism and how they saw America’s policies fitting into this pattern. All of the results of this survey will be posted shortly, but it was really interesting that in conceptualizing what imperialism was, only 18% of the 82 respondents considered humanitarian intervention to be a mechanism of imperialism. In contrast, at least 50%, if not more, considered military power, overseas colonies, military bases, economic capital, and media domination to be forms of imperialism.

Humanitarian intervention can be explained as the use of military force against a state to protect the people within its borders from severe violations of fundamental human rights. Conceptualized as a ‘just war’, a war to protect the rights of others, humanitarian intervention continues to raise many dilemmas: Who has the authority to sanction intervention? When should a humanitarian crisis trigger armed intervention? Where does state sovereignty fit into this? The World Summit of 2005 ratified the “Responsibility to Protect” or the “notion that when a state proves unable or unwilling to protect its people, and crimes against humanity are perpetrated, the international community has an obligation to intervene—if necessary, and as a last resort, with military force.” This “responsibility to protect” comprises three specific responsibilities: (1) responsibility to prevent: to address the root causes of internal conflict (2) responsibility to react: to respond to situations of compelling human need with appropriate measures and (3) responsibility to rebuild: to provide full assistance with recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation.

Who decides when to intervene? Who decides in which cases to intervene? Who decides who can intervene?

The decade of the 1990s saw multiple interventions led under the claim of moral justice – in Liberia, northern Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda and eastern Zaire, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, and East Timor. The Kosovo bombing in particular is an important case in which NATO forced chose to resort to force without the authorization of the UN Security Council. The UN Charter sanctions the use of force “only in self-defense” under Article 51, or when authorized by the Security Council to “prevent an act of aggression or a breach of international peace and security” under Chapter VII. Article 2.7 specifically forbids intervention “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”, though this injunction can be overridden by a Security Council authorization under Chapter VII. A commission formed after the intervention famously declared NATO’s use of force without UN authorization as “illegal but legitimate”. The legitimacy of an intervention thus seems to be very much in the eye of the beholder. The United States adamantly opposed Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in 1978, regardless of the fact that it halted the atrocities being committed by Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime. However, the NATO intervention in Kosovo was seen as legitimate despite the absence of the Security Council’s authorization.

The defining of humanitarian crises is also subject to a great deal of political manipulation and debate. During the first half of 2004, there was a global debate as to whether genocide was, or was not, taking place in Darfur, Sudan—even while tens of thousands of people were being killed by the Sudanese Army and the Janjaweed, and over a million people displaced. The UN resolution passed in June 2004 condemned the human rights abuses, but stopped short of sanctioning or even condemning the Sudanese government. The resolution gave the government thirty days to disarm the Janjaweed and punish human rights abusers, threatening economic sanctions if it failed to do so. Critically, the international response to Darfur came in the wake of 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. The (ab)use of humanitarian justifications and terminology by the US in the case of Iraq raised further doubts as to intervention as a “Trojan horse” to secure petroleum resources. Further, for the United States and other states engaging the Sudanese government, the significant political capital they had invested in the Naivasha peace negotiations to end the war in the south was been another brake on strong action in Darfur.

State sovereignty is an important factor that needs to be safeguarded, particularly in the developing and post-colonial world and particularly in the face of Western economic, political, cultural and military imperialism. However, states have a responsibility to protect their citizens, to ensure that gross violations of their fundamental human rights do not occur. But how then do we think of protecting human rights when cases of ‘humanitarian intervention’ are left to such subjective interpretations, when the sovereignty of some states is prioritized over the sovereignty of others?

It is important to note that three years after the ‘humanitarian’ intervention in Libya, the country is teetering on the brink of failure. The still-transitional government has not been able to disarm militia groups who continue to wreak havoc in the country. On the day of the bombings in 2011, President Obama said, “Make no mistake, today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.” Today, Libyan interests have fallen by the wayside – while the responsibility to react was seized, the responsibility to rebuild seems to have been relinquished.

Guantanamo Public Memory Project

Link to an interesting project that "seeks to build public awareness of the long history of the US naval station at Guantánamo, Bay, Cuba, and foster dialogue on the future of this place and the policies it shapes."

http://gitmomemory.org/

The Project is trying to "foster intense and ongoing debates over critical issues around 'remembering' Guantánamo": Does looking at the past distract from current issues? How do you build a public memory of a place so few people can see? How do you open dialogue on an issue that is so divisive?

Knowledge production

“One of the most striking proofs of the symbolic dominion and influence exercised by the USA over every kind of scholarly and, especially, semi-scholarly production, notably through the power of consecration they possess and through the material and symbolic profits that researchers in the dominated countries reap from a more or less assumed or ashamed adherence to the model derived from the USA.” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1999: 45-46)

"There is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations."

— Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison

The production and management of knowledge is crucial to maintaining an empire, with certain versions of history being recorded, events being narrated from a one-sided perspective.

Edward Said writes about the production of the Orient, the Other: "My contention is that without examining Orientalism as a discourse one cannot possibly understand the enormously systematic discipline by which European culture was able to manage -- and even produce -- the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively during the post-Enlightenment era."

Is the American Empire in Decline?

Empires exist for a finite amount of time. The British Empire survived until the end of World War Two and the Roman Empire is widely argued to have culminated with the overthrow of Augustus in the 5th century. Similarly, many argue, and have been since the 1960s and 70s, that America’s imperialist grip on the world is loosening, and its established Empire is systematically declining. This post acknowledges that by discussing the decline of the American Empire, I am admitting that America is an Empire, a statement supported by evidence – including but not limited to – of the country’s dominance in the global economic landscape, self-serving attitude in diplomatic spheres and establishment of numerous military bases on foreign, sovereign land. Julian Go, author of Patterns of Empire, finds connections between the rise, development and fall of the British Empire with that of the American Empire, ultimately stating that a “new imperialism” of “a more aggressive and imperialist approach” does not signal the dominating power of an empire but rather it’s “impending doom.”

Although Go provides substantial information, graphs and statistics that compare the rise and fall of these empires, it is difficult to completely internalize his argument because of the different contexts in which the two empires have developed. In the contemporary world, Empire is no longer directly associated with colonialism, but instead with hegemonic dominance through alliances, military bases and an unequal economic exchange and interdependence, and perhaps, even western cultural assimilation and humanitarian intervention. A brief analysis of the economic, military and political condition of the US should hopefully shed some light on the development of the decline argument, and whether or not the Empire is falling.

Renowned historian, Niall Ferguson, argues that the beginning of an empire’s decline is “a debt explosion,” similarly, Michael Cox, a scholar of US foreign policy and international relations, believes that the American empire is coming to an end because of “national debt” and an “interdependent world economy.” Clearly, the economic condition of the US is one of the most relevant measures of US decline. On one hand, declinists argue that the economic crisis of 2007 and the gaping income inequality, widely publicized through the Occupy Movement in 2011, are examples of US economic deterioration. These arguments certainly have strong motivations, such as statistics that proclaim, “95% of growth in income between the end of the recession in 2009 to 2013 went to the richest 1% in the US” (Jacobin Magazine, 2013). Currently, economic stability has not reverted to pre-2007 conditions, and there is an attitude of cautious optimism of the bond market as U.S. federal tapering continues and the outperformance of European and emerging markets in the near future.

On the other hand, Joseph Nye, well-known political scientist, counters the theory of total US economic decline by stating that the “US economy leads in many new growth sectors such as information technology, biotechnology and nanotechnology.” Moreover, the American economy has the advantage of being the world’s reserve currency and having the “most liquid asset market in Treasury bonds” (Nye 2010). Both of these combined ensure that any economic instability of the US will have worldwide reverberations, refuting claims that US economic performance will be negligible to the global economy in the near future.

Aside from economic dominance and decline, the rising numbers of military bases post 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 certainly illustrate aggressive security policies. According to Ferguson, the invasion of Iraq was a catastrophic event, often serving as evidence for US decline theories. Analogously, Go argues that “America’s dealings with Iraq and Afghanistan suggest that the United States had become more willing to act as an imperial power,” emphasizing that renewed military interventions were a symbol of America’s desperation to assert global dominance. A recent example of foreign military domination as an exposure of internal domestic and international decline is the ongoing war in Syria. Immanuel Wallerstein, in a commentary on his website, suggests that controversy over whether or not to intervene in Syria “illustrates the limitations of Western power…and will result in dire negative consequences for the U.S. and west European geopolitical power” (Syria: No Win for the West, May 2013).

Despite these apparent cracks in U.S. hegemonic and military domination, the fact that countries and foreign governments have allowed the US to set up bases on their land for security and diplomatic protection elucidates the power of the military and it’s unparalleled intelligence resources and weaponry. In fact, US overseas weapon sales amount to 3/4ths of the global arms market in 2011, and sales continue to grow (New York Times, Aug 26 2012). Clearly, US military dominance has not completely deteriorated, but in fact, is being sustained by not only new bases established, like in the Philippines, but also the increase in national security issues with the escalation of crises in the Middle East.

Lastly, it can be argued that the influence of US in global diplomatic forums and international crises is waning. With the rise of China, and the emerging markets, the once unequal power dynamics are shifting to create new paradigms of diplomatic relations. Political power is now multipolar. Joseph Nye supports this argument by discussing the diffusion of centralized power to Europe, Japan, and China as well as “non-state actors like bankers, terrorists, multinationals and cyber security hackers” who can sway policies and limit the states political authority.

As discussed in this post, America’s current political, economic and military weaknesses are continuing to shift power paradigms, suggesting a deterioration in American power and influence in the contemporary world. Forthcoming, it would be interesting to see whether these signs of weakness lead to an absolute or relative decline of the American Empire.

References and Suggestions for Further Reading

Cox, Michael. "Is the United States in Decline -- Again? An Essay."International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944) 83.4 (2007): 643-53. JSTOR.

Nye Joseph S. "The Future of American Power: Dominance and Decline in Perspective." Foreign Affairs 89.6, The World Ahead (2010): 2-12.JSTOR.

Go, Julian. Patterns of Empire: The British and American Empires, 1688 to the Present. New York: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.

#theempirehasfallen

zolamtl

OFF MURALES

Feminist, antiracist, anticolonial & anticorporate street art

http://offmurales.com/

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Modern America: Power and Politics of an Empire