from Il Manifesto, by way of b.p.hamm <72650.3616 at compuserve.com>
Life under Empire
by Michael Hardt
At first sight the war in Kosovo seems most clearly understandable within the framework of nationalism and the continuing powers of nation-States. The problematic of nationalism defines the available positions for supporting and opposing the war. But the framework of nations and nationalism finally hinders more than it aids our understanding of the situation and the possibilities for political action.
First of all, the Serbian campaign against the Kosovar Albanians is commonly understood as an effect of ultranationalism. And indeed the operations of ethnic cleansing do correspond to the notions of pure ethnic identity common to many traditions of European nationalism.
The military action against Serbia, conducted under the auspices of NATO but under the indisputable leadership of the US, can thus present itself as an internationalist or even antinationalist operation. We should note that the legal justification of this military action is opposite to the one presented during the Gulf War against Iraq. Against Iraq the international/US force acted to restore the sovereignty of a defeated nation (Kuwait); now the international/US force is intervening within the sovereignty of a nation (Yugoslavia). The legal basis of intervention into the territory of a sovereign nation rests on the claim to defend the human rights of (one segment of) the population.
The support for the war is thus able to adopt a position that celebrates humanitarian virtue over nationalist interests. After centuries of senseless wars, proponents might say, military might can finally now be deployed to defend the weak and defenseless throughout the world, without regard for national boundaries. In contrast to the relative inactivity of Allied forces during World War II when they knew of the Nazi plans for a "final solution," the civilized powers now have the will and means to act. Rather than human rights, perhaps what we should understand is at stake is really human life itself. The virtue of this new deployment of global power thus presents itself a form of "biopower," that is, a power aimed at the protection and reproduction of life itself.
* * *
Since the ideological perspective that supports the war has so solidly occupied the terrain of internationalism or anti-nationalism, the avenues most clearly open for the opponents of the war are all nationalist in some sense. The most visible opposition in the US has adopted the traditional rhetoric of isolationism. Whereas the supporters of the war celebrate the fact that humanitarian concerns have taken president over national interest, opponents lament that same fact. We should address our problems at home before sending our troops to die overseas! The US has no national interest in Yugoslavia! (In the US, this position has been expressed most loudly on the Right but it is equally effective among many segments of the Left.)
>From the European perspective, the clearest paths to oppose the war are
also nationalist. Although the war is conducted under the auspices of NATO
command, no one doubts the guiding role of the US and its ultimate
authority on military matters in the final instance. The dramatic
superiority of US military technology and organization was demonstrated
convincingly in Iraq and that demonstration has been repeated in
Yugoslavia. US officials and spokespeople are often forced into rhetorical
gymnastics because they have to claim at once the equality of the NATO
partners and the ultimate military authority of the US.
It is thus not difficult from a European perspective to oppose the war as an act of US imperialism and condemn the European leaders for lacking the courage to stand up to Washington. Just when it seemed, with the establishment of the Euro, that Europe had managed to pull itself out from under the domination of the US, the war in Yugoslavia makes clear that at least in military matters the US reigns supreme. European members of NATO seem to have no choice but to follow the US lead. Opposition can thus easily be configured as an attempt to reclaim sovereignty in political and military affairs either for individual nations or for Europe as a whole. (The opposition is most clearly expressed in the traditional idiom of Leftist anti-Americanism, but it is equally effective for a Gaullist Right.)
* * *
None of these explanations, however, really correspond to the situation we are facing. The images do not quite match the reality and the disparity causes a slight sensation of unease and nausea, like when wearing a pair of glasses with the wrong correction. In fact, to arrive at a clearer view of the war, we opponents first have to recognize the truth of the claims of the war's proponents. We have to recognize that this is not an action of US imperialism. It is in fact an international (or really, supranational) operation. And its goals are not guided by the limited national interests of the US; it is actually aimed at human rights (or really, human life). If we accept the internationalist and humanitarian claims of the war-makers, however, are we not forced to support the war? Does not accepting the "virtues" of the war take the ground out from any opposition? It certainly does until we gain a better understanding of these "virtues" and the new framework of power to which they belong.
* * *
It may seem paradoxical to claim that the war against Yugoslavia (or the one against Iraq for that matter) is not an act of US imperialism, or at least an imposition of US national will over another nation, while recognizing the supremacy of US military might and the ultimate authority of US military leaders. If we were to limit our vision strictly to the military terrain and if we were to understand power only in terms of lethal force, then this might be a logical interpretation. A power that acts only, or even primarily, through force and coercion, however, is a very precarious power that cannot last long. The present state of war encourages us mistakenly to adopt too narrow a view and recognize only one face of the power at work.
This war and the deployment of lethal force in general has to be understood as merely one element that operates in a broader field of cultural, political, and economic forces. In this broader context, it cannot be said that ultimate authority resides in the US ? or Germany, Japan, or any other nation-State. When we adopt this perspective we can begin to recognize the existence of a new power that is not national or even international, but rather supranational. This is not to say that all nations are now equivalent, that nation-States are powerless, or that national interests play no role, but rather that the powers of nations now act as elements within the framework of a global power and that sovereignty and authority reside finally only at that supranational level. This is an extraordinarily difficult proposition to verify, in part because the center of this supranational or global power exists nowhere. There is no seat of power we can locate and challenge. Instead the center exists only virtually in the interactions among a variety of regional, national, international, and global institutions ? or rather, it exists only at the ultimate horizon, always just beyond our line of vision. This is an Empire that, like all the ancient Empires, aspires to encompass the entire "civilized" world ? and in the present case that claim is more plausible than ever before.
In the old framework of competing national powers one of the highest objects of the nation was the pursuit and protection of the interest of its people against outside forces. There is no outside, however, to this new global power. Its object is thus not tied to the interest of any particular people but concerned instead with the life of the entire global population, or really, with human life itself. Human rights, or rather, the protection and the reproduction of life is the "virtue" of Empire.
In order to understand the role of human rights in Empire, however, we need once again to expand our vision and recognize how action based on human rights is merely one element in a much larger program. It is tempting to say, and it is true in part, that human rights are only a pretext that justify imperial intervention into any local context, the extension of the breadth and depth of global power, which is accompanied, paradoxically, by renewed death and suffering.
But it is important also to take the discourse on human rights seriously. One should note that political and economic are not the effective kernel of this discourse. After all, political and economic rights are always "local," that is, they are understood differently and contested in each national and ideological context. What is effective here is only the most basic, universal (and hence non-ideological) right: the merely biological right to life. This universal good, this "virtue," is the fountain of consent to imperial power.
We need to understand the workings of a power that is aimed not at the repression of peoples but at the management of populations and finally at the control of naked life itself. This is a biopower that extends to the depths of the social field in the effort to constitute and control its every function. This too is a daunting theoretical task, but one that has become urgent in the present context.
* * *
Recognizing the supranational nature of the power behind this war and the "virtue" of its motives does not hinder our abilities to oppose it, but it should change our strategies. It is certainly not wrong in each nation to call on political leaders to end the war, but we should recognize that the powers of national leaders and institutions are very limited. We will have to look beyond the national and even international context. To contest the power of Empire and create an alternative we have to learn to act on an equally supranational level.
In some senses we are in a position similar to that of the communists who opposed World War I. There was nowhere for them to stand in that war. Since they were against all sides, they had to invent a new war. Transform interimperialist war into civil war within every nation! We are now faced with not an interimperialist but an imperial war, and we need to discover the terms of a new social struggle, a civil war, that extends transversally across national and regional boundaries, a counter-Empire. This is a tall order and it is unclear how we can fulfill it immediately, but we need to think to the future. Kosovo will not be the last imperial war, and our opposition to Empire is only beginning.