What's the difference between Paul Johnson's "new colonialism" and Hardt & Negri's "Empire," practically speaking? While their political preferences and theoretical frameworks are obviously different, _the real-world object of their analysis is the same_, whether you call it imperialism, new colonialism, or Empire. In my opinion, Chris Burford is the only one here who is bringing Hardt & Negri's theory to its logical conclusion -- the conclusion that Hardt & Negri themselves may not be prepared to accept but makes sense given their theory.
In short, if you accept Hardt & Negri's analysis, why resist the expansion of Empire? Is it not reactionary to resist it tout court? Why not welcome the civilizing influence of capital and then struggle from within Empire? Even if expanding Empire necessarily takes deaths and injuries of thousands of Afghans and other peoples here and there, not expanding it has and will take an even higher human toll in any case, so why not argue for peace-keeping and nation-building missions under the U.N. aegis (rather than under the Anglo-American flags), which should guarantee equal rights to women in the public and private spheres, reconstruction of economic infrastructure, food, medical, & other aids to the truly desperate, international crime tribunals, and so forth, while minimizing civilian casualties? Shouldn't universal human rights of individuals trump dubious rights of national sovereignty? -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>