----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Nathan Newman wrote:
> Egads. I'm assuming you mean "activists who are pro-war" and not
> active warmongers.
>
> Aside from that, I don't see how you can have a movement concerned
> about global justice and equality that isn't anti-imperialist as
> well. You can't have one without the other.
Yes in theory, but you are assuming the argument has been made that attacking Hussein is imperialism, rather than global collective security combined with fighting the oppression of the Kurds and Shii Iraqis from a dictator -- the argument of pro-war liberals. Now, I happen to see it as a combination of those two impulses, which complicates the analysis, but while I am anti-war, I understand why there are many people who see fighting to stop Saddam's overthrow as having little to do with promoting democratic alternatives to the World Trade Organization.
I just think the world "imperialism" is an analysis stopper-- it's a word from 100 years ago that applied to a very different global political system; the present system may be similarly unequal but its structure is very different, so it just doesn't convince many people to use the same term. The overthrow of Saddam is NOT seen by most people as on the same moral plain as the suppression of Gandhi and other anticolonial struggles. It is quite possible to imagine a world where overthrowing a local thug who has imprisoned democratic opponents and gassed minorities would be quite in line with global economic redistribution.
We may not be there and the motives involved may not be those articulated by the Bush administration, but when imperialism was in its heyday, imperialism was the explicit goal of the actions, not the subtext. It is up to antiwar activists to convince other liberals and progressives that the subtext is the goal.
-- Nathan Newman