THE 'EMPIRE' STRIKES BACK
Radicals Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt popularized the notion of 'Empire' - an abstract system of imperial regulation that rises above specific great power interests in their book of the same name. It was a theory that described the emerging pattern of international relations in the 1990s, when world leaders acted through international organizations, like the United Nations, or the International Criminal Court.
Since the election of George W Bush, the most powerful of all the great powers has challenged the framework of international cooperation. That lead yet more radical commentators than Hardt and Negri to challenge the notion of 'Empire' as insufficiently specific. Not abstract 'Empire' but actually existing US imperialism is the real enemy (see Alex Callinicos, 'The Actuality of Imperialism', Millennium: Journal of International Studies (2002), Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.319-326).
The Hardt-Negri theory of 'Empire' has its flaws, but at least it did try to capture what was new in the conduct of international relations. By contrast, the intellectual champions of the European peace movement were nervous of change, and much preferred the old theories of Yankee imperialism driven by economic predation. For them, the war on Iraq was a return to old certainties. Much as they disapproved of the war, they were invigorated by an uncomplicated moral choice that would galvanise the left.
In the last two weeks, though, 'Empire' has struck back against the actuality of American imperialism. Drowned out by the din of war, the European critics have piled on the pressure afterwards to try to force the US to accept a framework of cooperation between the dominant states.
To the irritation of loyal Bush ally, Prime Minister Blair, critics in parliament and even in the Secret Services have continued to attack the causus belli Iraq's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). In the US, too, Secret Services have leaked documents casting doubt on the evidence for war. Retiring UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix poured scorn on US and British briefings on WMDs. Non-Governmental Organisations have made it clear that they will keep up the pressure on Coalition Forces guilty of human rights abuses, internationalizing the conduct of the occupation. It is becoming clear that the US needs its allies to maintain legitimize the administration, even if it did not need them to win the war.
Meanwhile, France's armed forces, derided as by US hawks as 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys', were demonstrating their military readiness by sending troops into the Congo, just as four German 'peace-keepers' were being killed in Afghanistan, upholding the US-imposed government of Hamid Karzai.
On the economic plane, Germany continued to refuse to boost demand and relieve the pressure on the US balance of payments. Last week President Bush put a brave face on the dollar's slide against the Euro saying that he would let it fall to boost US exports - only to backtrack at the G8 summit, after investors fled the dollar.
The most cynical example of US concessions to demands for international cooperation, though, took place at Aqaba in Jordan, where the Middle East 'peace process' was turned back on, like a tap. George Bush's administration signaled its indifference to international cooperation by withdrawing from the previous attempts to impose an international solution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Blowing first hot then cold, US policy actually accelerated the fighting, as both sides struggled to retain the initiative in uncertain circumstances. Now, with little more reason than a desire to make friends with Arab states dismayed by the Iraq war, America is once-again reining in Yitzhak Sharon. It is little wonder that all the combatants in the conflict view this renewed 'peace process' with weary skepticism.
-- James Heartfield