Wither The Empire:
The Rise
Of Global Resistance
By Omar Barghouti
30 July 2004
Electronic Iraq
Mahmoud
Darwish, arguably the Arab world's leading contemporary poet, wrote
in his recent poem, Nothing but Iraq, the following...
"Dead blacksmiths
awaken from their graves to make our shackles ...
but we never dreamt of more than a life like life
and of dying our own way ..."
One doesn't have
to be endowed with the eloquence of Darwish to identify with his quest.
When a "life like life" becomes too much to dream of, humanity
as such is essentially defied.
The tens of millions
of war-protesters who blossomed on the world's Main Streets like belated
spring flowers, days before the war on Iraq, did not look alike, speak
the same language, belong to the same culture or religion, read the
same papers, watch the same TV news or hold the same political thought.
But, they were all motivated by a far grander and more noble cause than
mere opposition to yet another war on a battered nation of the South:
they shared the ideal of resisting empire.
Perhaps the fervor
and intensity of protest have relatively waned since the images of the
"sweeping victory" over Iraq, carried by not-so-free western
media, inundated us. But after the US war crimes in Falluja, the racist
torture orgy at Abu Ghraib and the wedding massacre were revealed, the
motivation for resisting empire is on the rise again, globally. This
essay goes back and explores the formative stage of this resistance:
the critical period before and right after the start of the war on Iraq,
arguing that such a resistance is not just ethically laudable, but also
practically winnable.
Empire
We are witnessing
the ominous rise of the most powerful empire ever to exist. Judging
from consistent media reports and opinion polls, the rest of the world
seems to view it as a menacing rogue state that is arrogantly bullying
other nations, east and west, north and south, into unqualified submission
to its self-declared designs for world domination and incontestable
economic supremacy.
Perceiving the United States under Bush as a "fearful giant throwing
its weight around," George Soros summarizes in the Financial Times
[March 12, 2003] what has become common knowledge nowadays: "The
[Bush] doctrine is built on two pillars: first, the US will do everything
in its power to maintain unquestioned military supremacy; second, it
arrogates the right to pre-emptive action." The U.S., according
to this argument, maintains two classes of sovereignty: "American
sovereignty, which takes precedence over international treaties; and
the sovereignty of all other states...."
That much is old
news. It is lavishly published in respectable editorials, books and
throughout the internet. What's new is that there is opportunity in
the midst of the bleakest of disasters, as capitalist entrepreneurs
have always held, albeit a different type of opportunity than the profit-obsessed
one they've often eyed. With the United States' shocking and awful projection
of the closest human approximation to absolute power to date, there
is an equal but opposite global force of deep resentment, revulsion,
dissidence and resistance that is fast developing.
And for the first
time in decades, there is no simple dichotomy to conveniently divide
the world into.
If the fall of the
Berlin Wall signaled the decisive beginning of the end of the East-West
opposition, the illegal, immoral and criminal war on Iraq, waged by
the new Rome of our time, might well announce the baptism of a new world
community opposed to empire, any empire, and based on the precepts of
evolving international law, human rights and the common principles of
universal morality that are emerging.
Almost everyone
with conscience fears and resents the megalomaniac cult sitting on the
throne in Washington. It is the product of a strategic alliance between
the omnipotent military-industrial complex (with a lion's share for
the oil industry), the fundamentalist-Christian and the Zionist ideologies.
It is a cult that has amassed colossal financial, political and media
power, enough to rekindle its deep-rooted disposition and ambition to
become the master of the universe. A century and a half after officially
abolishing slavery in the U.S., the new-old masters have a diabolic
agenda to resurrect it, except this time on a worldwide scale.
Being able to detect
this phenomenon, a great majority of nations, including an impressively
increasing number of conscientious and mentally-liberated Americans,
wish to see this cult of "neo-conservatives" and its agenda
humbled, at the very least, if not altogether defeated.
Around the
world, many feel threatened, and indeed enraged, by the new Washington
talk of setting new norms in international relations, based on might,
and on the sole interests--and whims--of the current emperors who wield
that might. Far from apologizing for this raw proclivity to dominate,
with all the lawlessness that is bound to result from it on the world
stage, Robert Kagan, a leading neo-conservative ideologue, justifies
it as the prerogative of the mightiest:
"The United
States ... remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic
Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and
where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order
still depend on the possession and use of military might." ["Power
and Weakness," Policy Review, No. 113, June 2002]
According to Kagan's
argument, only the weak whine and moan about the sanctity of international
law. The powerful, on the contrary, have a "propensity to use [their]
strength" to achieve their political objectives. And there is nothing
anyone can do to stop them from so doing.
At the very heart
of this strategy is control over oil supplies. Robert E. Ebel, director
of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), a Washington think tank whose advisers include Kissinger
and Brzezinski, among other dignitaries, explains: "Oil fuels military
power, national treasuries, and international politics. It is no longer
a commodity to be bought and sold within the confines of traditional
energy supply and demand balances. Rather, it has been transformed into
a determinant of well-being, of national security, and of international
power." [Robert Dreyfus, Oil: The Thirty-Year Itch, Mother Jones,
March/April 2003]
Thus, Iraq.
Iraq has the second--perhaps
the first, according to some experts--largest oil reserves in the world.
More than 400 billion barrels of easily-accessible fossil fuel, to be
exact.
"Controlling
Iraq," says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security
studies at Hampshire College, "is about oil as power, rather than
oil as fuel. Control over the Persian Gulf translates into control over
Europe, Japan, and China. It's having our hand on the spigot."
[Ibid]
If this concern
figured prominently on the geo-political agenda during the cold war,
it has evolved to a full-fledged obsession after it. Monopolizing control
over the Gulf area has become far more realistic and daunting in a mono-polar
world. The disintegration of the formidable Soviet deterrent has made
the red lines surrounding the Gulf region far more porous, and rendered
the previously off-limits area wide-open to American hegemonic ambitions.
The reaction of the smaller world powers has varied from grudging acquiescence,
represented by a much weakened Russia, to an if-you-can't-beat-them-join-them
attitude, exemplified by the United Kingdom, to composed protestation,
best shown in the French position. Everyone knew that once Uncle Sam
dips his eager toes in that magnificent pool of black gold, no force
on Earth can make him retreat or share the spoils fairly.
Achilles' Heel
But just like any
other cult, this one too has a fatal weakness, which people from within
cannot visualize. It is blinded by a single dimension, power, whereas
the "game" is far more complex. Ultimately, it takes a willing
slave to sustain a ruthless master. If a slave refuses to be, a master
ceases to exist. Power is a beast that feeds on fear and submission
and dies without them.
Hence, beyond fear
and rage, the will to resist subjugation and the praxis (reflective
action) towards a more just and peaceful world remain not only the strongest
bonds that unite us, humans with conscience, but also the most potent
weapons of resistance available to us. For such a unity to mature, nevertheless,
international law must itself evolve beyond the constraints set by the
former East-West divide. If peace and security--the current two pillars
of the United Nations--were the indispensable principles that have bridged
the gulf between East and West after World War II, they have essentially
ignored the currently far more enormous gap between North and South.
Justice, sustainable development and the environment are the necessary
ingredients that can assure us all that no one nation, or a small band
of nations, will ignore, circumvent, or otherwise abuse international
legitimacy to establish a new master-slave relationship. Nurturing a
universal community that respects justice and peace can, and indeed
should, become our response to the challenge posed by empire.
This vision is not
motivated by naive optimism, seeing the half-full part of the cup, but
rather by a conviction that one has to shatter the damned cup altogether
in order to see beyond the confining choices offered by the master holding
that cup: you're either with us or against us. We simply cannot accept
being boxed in such confines. There is no monolithic "you"
or "us" here; there are shades and gradations of every color
of the human spectrum, coexisting and mutually influencing one another.
It is not as deceivingly simplistic as "Anglo-Americans against
Arabs," or "Judeo-Christians against Muslims," or even
"whites against browns." The spreading anti-war movement has
become the Baghdad curse that is gradually shattering the Bush-bin Laden
fundamentalist worldview of good-v-evil, bringing together Christians,
Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, atheists, Europeans, Arabs, Latin
Americans, North Americans, Asians, Africans, Australians, among others,
all shocked and awed by the ability of a small gang of bigoted, fanatical,
lawless but extremely powerful ideologues to drag the world to the rim
of annihilation.
Dissent in Empire
But more Americans
are realizing what their government is up to. America was "late
for the last two world wars. Now it seeks to be early for the next.
It is not an easy sell," argues Mathew Engel [The Guardian, February
25, 2003] Even some mainstream print media outlets in the U.S. were
alarmed enough by the irrational militarism taking Washington by storm
that they allowed a wider margin of dissent than usual.
The courageous
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times -- yes, even the Times allowed for
dissent at some stage-- for example, analyzed the failure of American
diplomacy to sell the war to the UN differently from most other less-daring
American journalists. In an opinion column tellingly titled, Mashing
Our Monster, she wrote: "Everyone thinks the Bush diplomacy on
Iraq is a wreck. It isn't. It's a success because it was never meant
to succeed." She further argued that the neo-conservatives (or
neo-cons, as Americans call them) "never intended to give peace
a chance. They intended to give pre-emption a chance. ... The hawks
despise the U.N. and if they'd gotten its support, they never would
have been able to establish the principle that the U.S. can act wherever
and whenever it wants to." [New York Times, March 16, 2003] Instead
of garnering multilateral support, Dowd argues, "Bush officials
believe that making the world more scared of us is the best way to make
us safer and less scared." [New York Times, March 9, 2003]
The New York Times
also carried excerpts from the public resignation letter of John Brady
Kiesling (a career diplomat who was the first to leave the Foreign Service
in protest against Bush's policy), where he wrote: "Why does our
president condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends
and allies this administration is fostering, including among its most
senior officials? Has 'oderint dum metuant' ('let them hate as long
as they fear') really become our motto?" [March 7, 2003]
Another New York
Times columnist evoked the lessons of Troy, warning against "the
intoxicating pride and overweening arrogance that sometimes clouds the
minds of the strong." [March 18, 2003]
In the same paper,
former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, who has prominently attacked the
war on Iraq as unjust, brought into the debate another dimension saying:
"The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after
the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been
largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies
have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level
in memory." [New York Times, March 9, 2003]
Being accustomed
to reading the New York Times almost every day for many years now, I
can attest that this trend of tolerating such eloquent and sharp dissent
was never in style in the paper, especially when covering a conflict
related to the Middle East.
Keeping in mind
the hyper-influence this paper has on decision makers in Washington
and beyond, one cannot but consider the above trend another sign of
this pregnant new era.
Even an unrelenting
right-wing conservative, who is a Nixon and Reagan White House aide
and three-time presidential candidate, like Patrick Buchanan rebuked
the Bush Administration saying: "Not in our lifetimes has America
been so isolated from old friends." In a fervent attack against
the neo-cons, whom Buchanan holds responsible for pursuing a "new
crusade," he describes them as a "cabal of polemicists and
public officials seek[ing] to ensnare our country in a series of wars
that are not in America's interests," charging them with deliberately
alienating "friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western
world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity." [American
Conservative, March 24, 2003]
Europe: The Revolt of the Former Masters
A new environment
of international solidarity is already in its formative stage. And,
of all the peoples on Earth, Europeans, most of whom are citizens of
former empires themselves, were notably the first to usher in this new
era, weeks before the war was launched. Clearly, the US cannot but take
this crucial dimension into consideration. Some, as Charles A. Kupchan,
a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, go as far as predicting
that the escalating conflict between Europe and the United States among
is one of several important factors that will cause the "End of
the American Empire." [New York Times, March 23, 2003]
Europeans were undeniably
the most resolute in voicing their utter opposition to the empire's
new designs. Granted, they were not just actively opposing the planned
war, but also shouting out loud that they were no longer content with
"doing the dishes" while America cooks the dinner and eats
it too. But, they were also defending the primacy of international law
in dealing with conflicts. In fact, by burying the malicious theories
of clash of civilizations, the millions of anti-war protesters who flooded
the streets of Western capitals announced the initiation of a virtual
global community upholding resisting empire, or any rogue nation, for
that matter.
"Europeans
think America does more harm than good," roared a headline in the
Guardian, reflecting the results of a recent European Commission poll
conducted in 15 European states gauging attitudes towards the United
States in various areas, especially in the promotion of world peace.
Just two days before the Anglo-American military aggression against
Iraq started, a survey by the Pew Research Center found that, "Since
last year the proportion with a favourable view of the US has dropped
from 75% to 48% in Britain, 76% to 34% in Italy, 50% to 14% in Spain,
and 86% to 50% in Poland. In countries with governments opposed to the
war the drop is steeper - from 63% to 31% in France, 61% to 25% in Germany,
61% to 28% in Russia..." [Guardian, March 19, 2003]
Neal Ascherson of
the Observer describes the intra-European brawl concerning the war on
Iraq as a debate "about uncontrolled [U.S.] military might flinging
itself at a frightened and embittered world." [March 16, 2003]
Capturing this new
spirit (expediently and erroneously branded as "anti-Americanism,"
although it really should be accurately termed: anti-imperialism) that
has swept Europe, Jose Saramago, the Portuguese writer and Nobel laureate,
told hundreds of thousands of anti-war demonstrators in Madrid: "We
are marching against the law of the jungle that the United States and
its acolytes old and new want to impose on the world." [New York
Times, March 16, 2003]
If that was the
case before the war, polls conducted after gory footage of the invading
forces' atrocities had been aired to millions around the world showed
an even steeper decline in support for U.S. policies. Soon after the
war had started, a solid majority of Europeans (more than 80%, actually)
viewed the US as the most serious threat to world peace, when compared
to Iraq and North Korea. In Spain, where more than 90% of the people
opposed the Anglo-American war (enthusiastically endorsed by their pathetically
isolated government then), a typical editorial in the El Pais daily
declared, "At the moment, American politics is dominated by a messianic
clan that wishes to govern by itself, and through extremism." [March
29, 2003, quoted in The Guardian, April 3, 2003]
A representative
German columnist further protested, "Every day conservative US
ideologues ... deepen the rift by accusing Europeans alternatively of
being arrogant, incompetent or simply stupid. In this situation there
remains nothing for the Europeans to do than to free themselves once
and for all from the US. Politically and morally it will not be a problem
- but militarily, things are much more difficult." [Die Tageszeitung,
Germany, April 2, 2003]
This seething antipathy
has already engendered across Europe an effective "Boycott Brand
America" campaign. "If people all around the world boycott
American products it might influence their policies," explained
one restaurateur in Germany. Another was more blunt: "We want to
hit America where it hurts -- in their wallets." [Reuters, March
25, 2003]
Former Slaves -- Will Take no More
The obvious question
that comes to mind is: if this is what Europeans think of the U.S.,
can you imagine what most Arabs, Africans, Latin Americans and most
Asians have on their minds?
To give but a hint,
this is what a Nigerian journalist wrote: "Iraq was already the
cradle of the first civilisation on earth at a time when Americans were
living in caves," adding, "Iraqis need no lesson in democracy
and freedom from the bloody mobs... of their age." [The Nigerian
Guardian, cited in The Guardian, April 3, 2003]
The compelling
Indian writer, Arundhati Roy, expressively revealed, "In most parts
of the world, the invasion of Iraq is being seen as a racist war. The
real danger of a racist war unleashed by racist regimes is that it engenders
racism in everybody - perpetrators, victims, spectators. It sets the
parameters for the debate, it lays out a grid for a particular way of
thinking. There is a tidal wave of hatred for the US rising from the
ancient heart of the world." [The Guardian, April 2003]
Summing up what
seems to be close to a consensus among developing nations, a Kenyan
journalist quite unambiguously insisted, "The new age of global
dictatorship that America is unravelling must be condemned." [Sunday
Standard, quoted in The Guardian, April 3, 2003]
Empire v. Heaven: Demise of the Idea of America
While the vast
majority of humans around the world bear witness in anger, grief and
disbelief to America's thrashing of international law in its feverish
execution of its so-called "pre-emptive war" (which Chomsky
properly terms, "preventive") against Iraq and its atrocious
ascension to uncontested world domination, one cannot but ironically
wonder whether this "crusade"--to borrow Bush's diction--might
go down in history as the war that unraveled the new empire.
Empires, history
tells us, start to disintegrate when are they are perceived as such
by their victims, and resisted accordingly. Although the left around
the world has always viewed the United States as the embodiment of modern
imperialism, the quintessential attribute most associated with the nascent--by
Arab and "old" Europe's standards, any how--American nation
was not raw power, military superiority, or colonialism, but rather
its almost miraculous ability to win over the hearts and minds of diverse
nations across the globe. The United States has until recently managed
to convince Indians, Mexicans, Arabs, Brazilians, Russians, Philippinos
and Nigerians alike of the vigor of its culture, of its freedoms they
so desire, of its recipe for economic progress they wish to emulate,
and its respect for the individual and citizens' rights they wish their
governments would adopt.
Regardless how many
of these attributes are mere illusions or myths, as leftists would argue,
they seem to have captured the imagination of world populations, especially
the young. Youths everywhere, from Beijing to Caracas, and from Stockholm
to Durban fell under the spell of a glittering idea called America.
Of course the socialists
had good reasons for their skepticism: the U.S., after all, is a nation
that was established by means of genocide of the native Indians. And
let's not forget the immoral slavery era, which was responsible for
generating a substantial chunk of the nation's wealth. Even in the last
century alone, successive U.S. governments have committed numerous crimes
against the peoples of Japan, Vietnam, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, East
Timor, El-Salvador, Panama, Colombia, Angola, South Africa, Somalia
and, of course, Palestine. Needless to say, this list is by no means
exhaustive. In fact, if the Wolfowitz-Cheney-Perle-Rumsfeld cult is
not stopped, this list might in the foreseeable future overlap with
the UN roster of member states, give or take a few.
But, those wicked deeds have been effectively outweighed in the collective
memory of most nations by the prevalent image of America as an almost
benevolent superpower that spreads McDonald's, Starbucks, Microsoft,
Nike and Madonna, when compared with the death and destruction wrought
by European colonial regimes in their former colonies for centuries.
It was a popular dream for youths the world over to immigrate to America:
the Earthly paradise. The power of America was most formidably embodied
in the exquisitely marketed idea of America.
Not any longer!
The bewitching ideal
behind the image of America is virtually dead. With the current hurricane
of fundamentalism, neo-McCarthyism, hyper-nationalism (which is slightly
reminiscent of the rise of European fascism less than a century ago),
brute force, unabashed bullying, contempt for most other nations, unprecedented
imperial arrogance and patent militarism, the leaders of America have
assassinated the idea of America.
"Under the
present situation, I cannot think of defending the United States,"
said Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, a leading establishment intellectual in
Egypt, adding, "To most people in this area, the United States
is the source of evil on planet earth. And whether we like it or not,
it is the Bush administration that is to blame." [The New York
Times, April 8, 2003]
Shedding further
light on this phenomenon, the Washington Post reported, "A generation
of Arabs wooed by the United States and persuaded by its principles
has become among the most vociferous critics of America's world view,"
[February 26, 2003]. And the Arabs are no exception in this regard.
Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge presents the Homeland Security
Advisory System to the media at Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C,
March 12, 2002. (White House)
Americans: Subjects
of Empire or Citizens of the World
Perhaps absolute
power does corrupt absolutely, after all.
We're seeing it
before our own eyes. But it does not only corrupt those who possess
it, but everyone else around them as well. How else could a nation that
has largely abandoned its old ways of genocide and slavery and has prided
itself of its unique freedoms and civil rights suddenly turn into a
third world-like plutocracy, governed by a rabid--though sort of elected--junta
that shamelessly, even proudly, represents the interests of the oil
and military industries above everything and anyone else? How could
such an enlightened nation fall into such an abyss of religious fanaticism,
suppression of rights, and herd-like faith in the Great Leader? How
could a significant majority of Americans suddenly suspend their collective
faculty of reason and kneel before the new Caesar so sheepishly?
Surely, the ruling
cult could not have dreamt of such an achievement without September
11th. But those criminal attacks, as shocking, immoral and traumatic
as they were, and still are, cannot alone explain the current state
of the Union. The credit goes to decades of complacent American media,
apathy and detachment from the world, as many liberal and progressive
American intellectuals have always warned.
It is no coincidence
that in the eyes of most American political elites Germany and France
are considered pariah states that might face sanctions or worse if they
fail to comply; that Arab oil is considered rightfully belonging to
Americans, albeit lying under the sands of Arabia by mere coincidence,
that even the United Nations is viewed as just another mischievous third
world country that needs a whipping every once in a while to properly
toe the line.
Going beyond any
former American government in disdain and aversion towards the international
organization, the current US Administration had the audacity to declare
that since the UN "failed to" endorse or legitimize its campaign
of pre-meditated pillage and carnage against Iraq, it--that is the UN--has
lost its "relevance." Boutros Ghali, the former UN Secretary
General, addresses this dimension of empire saying, "Multilateralism
and unilateralism are just methods for the United States: they use them
a la carte, as it suits them. The United Nations is just an instrument
at the service of American policy." [The Guardian, March 1, 2003]
So, the American
rulers, "whose ignorance is matched only by their greed,"
as a former World Bank official describes them, get to indulge for a
moment in sheer power and all the profits that come with it. But, their
short-sightedness may prove to be their fatal undoing. Even in the likely
event of a decisive American military victory in Iraq, whatever that
really means, David Von Drehle of the Washington Post warns, "a
successful result contains risks in the eyes of those who have pondered
the recurring cycle in human history in which power leads to hubris,
hubris leads to overreaching, and overreaching leads to collapse. Victory
could tempt the United States to overreach." [March 16, 2003]
Putting it more
gloomily, a veteran French diplomat, Regis de Bray, writes: "Provoking
chaos in the name of order, and resentment instead of gratitude, is
something to which all empires are accustomed. And thus it is that they
coast, from military victory to victory, to their final decline."
[New York Times, February 23, 2003]
Stunned and angered
to a boiling point by footage of the latest Anglo-American remote-control
massacres in Iraq, my 72-year-old father shouted from his revolted guts:
"The worst catastrophe that has ever hit the human race was Columbus'
'discovery' of America." And my father, I should remind you, is
not a native American.
While I can fully
understand my father's anger, as I am sure many would, I am more inclined
to concern myself with what to do and where to go from here. In that
light, it seems each one of us will have to choose between empire and
freedom. Even Americans will see these paths as mutually exclusive,
for while empire will further aggrandize the wealth and power of the
plutocracy and its cohorts, most Americans will lose their precious--exemplary,
I would venture--civil rights, and, perhaps more importantly, their
claim to morality. Recent polls of American public opinion reflect that
a considerable and very committed minority is perturbed by the government's
crimes around the world. Many are doing something about it.
Indeed, Americans
with conscience opposing their government's bloody war are at the forefront
of this international struggle. As Arundhati Roy writes:
"Most courageous
of all, are the hundreds of thousands of American people on the streets
of America's great cities - Washington, New York, Chicago, San Francisco.
The fact is that the only institution in the world today that is more
powerful than the American government, is American civil society. ...
How can we not salute and support those who not only acknowledge but
act upon that responsibility? They are our allies, our friends."
[The Guardian, April 2, 2003]
They are also our
hope. The rest of the world truly hopes that Americans may themselves
rise up to the occasion and renounce the empire from within; that they
may opt for the status of relatively less privileged citizens of a more
just and peaceful world, rather than the loathed masters of a bludgeoned,
bullied, and oppressed world; that they may shed their role as uncritical,
even submissive, subjects of a reviled, racist and morally bankrupt
empire. With conscientious Americans on board, the world has a chance
to defeat the mad beast with nuclear fangs, before it takes us all under.
With concerted mobilization and global activism, we may well celebrate
one day the withering away of empire.
Omar Barghouti is an independent Palestinian political analyst.
His article "9.11 Putting the Moment on Human Terms" was chosen
among the "Best of 2002" by the Guardian. His articles have
appeared in the Hartford Courant, Al-Ahram, CounterPunch, Znet, Open
Democracy, Outlook India, Al-Adab (Beirut) among others.