US Aims For Empire Cannot Endure

Prakash Karat

EIGHTY-FIVE years after the 1917 Russian Revolution, even though the Soviet state has ceased to exist, this historic event continues to be vilified. The latest to join this chorus is an NCERT textbook, which calls it a “coup led by Lenin.” This is nothing but a recycling of the old Bolshevik conspiracy theory. Why does this debunking of the 1917 revolution continue? If communism was buried along with the ruins of the Soviet Union, why is there this relentless attack on the Russian Revolution and all that it stood for? The answer is direct and simple: the revolution in Russia was the world’s first anti-capitalist revolution that opened the road to socialism. Its appeal will remain potent as long as world capitalism and imperialism dominate the world scene.

MORE VICIOUS PHASE OF IMPERIALISM

The end of the Soviet Union and the losses suffered by socialism have led to a new phase of imperialism, one which is more vicious and domineering. World domination by US imperialism and the sway of finance capital is becoming more blatant and aggressive. This new phase of imperialism is marked by: (i) a reordering of the world to ensure the domination of a sole hegemon --- the USA; (ii) an accompanying ideological offensive which openly talks of establishing a new imperial order and propagates its virtues; and (iii) an unprecedented use of military power to dictate terms in all parts of the world in order to further the aims of the United States and international finance capital.

In the ideological sphere, American ideologues do not shy away any longer from terming the role of the United States as an imperialist one. The role of the American empire or the American imperial order in the 21st century is being put out in a positive light. Especially after September 11, the idea of a Pax Americana, which can pacify “rogue states” and eliminate terrorist groups, is being touted as the best hope for world peace and stability. 

One of the editors of Wall Street Journal, Max Boot, has called for the military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, citing the role played by 19th century British rule in the region. He has written: “The September 11 attack was the result of insufficient American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation.” Another columnist has glorified the American empire by stating: “The fact is that no country has been as dominant culturally, economically, technologically and militarily in the history of the world since the Roman empire.” Another journalist, Robert Kaplan, has written a book demanding that the US leadership “bring prosperity to distant parts of the world under America’s soft imperial influence.” Kaplan states: “There is a positive side to empire. It is in some ways the most benign sign of order.”

If American right-wing ideologues can now openly talk of a US empire and its virtues, the British prime minister Tony Blair’s followers cannot be far behind. One of Blair’s senior policy advisers, Robert Cooper, called for a new liberal imperialism. In an article published in a leading British paper Observer, Cooper stated: “What is needed then is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern this outline: an imperialism which, like all imperialism, aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle.” He then goes on to spell out what he calls the “voluntary imperialism of the global economy.” He lauds the role of international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank.  This coming out of the closet by neo-imperialists indicates the arrogance and confidence with which they see America as the sole hegemon and superpower in the world. The drive for a war against Iraq and the demand by President Bush for a “regime change,” i e the removal of President Saddam Hussein, indicates what is in store for all the nation-states which do not accommodate themselves to the new imperial order.

RELIANCE ON MILITARY POWER

The other feature of this new aggressive imperialism is its primary reliance on military power. The end of the cold war did not see a winding down of military expenditures or the arms build-up. Instead, by the end of the decade of the 1990s (even before September 11), the United States was poised for a major leap in military technologies and expenditures. The current Pentagon budget stands at 355 billion dollars. This outstrips the military expenditure of the next nine major countries in the world, put together.

The scope and rapid increase in the use of military force coincided with the period of the Soviet Union’s dismantling. Beginning with the 1991 war on Iraq, the US went on to apply military force in Yugoslavia, then again in Iraq, and finally in the post-September 11 phase there has been a dramatic upsurge in US military activities. The “unending war,” which began with Afghanistan, continues to unfold. Iraq is the next target.

The relentless American drive for total domination in the past one decade, the military pummeling of small states, the threats of intervention to change governments and systems not to the US’s liking, its unilateral acts while bypassing international norms and forums --- all these have led to a sense of despondency in some progressive circles. The unrelenting onslaughts, the patently unjust economic order imposed on the poorer countries and the use of blockades, sanctions and open military intervention create the grounds for pessimism and anxiety.

But it would be a mistake to see only this side of the picture. As with all “empires,” there are limits to the powers of the sole hegemon. These limitations express themselves in the political, economic, cultural and military spheres.

US BATTLE TO WIN OVER PEOPLE LOST

Firstly, the imperialist driven globalisation and the imposition of neo-liberal policies around the world have their own dynamics. The operations of predatory finance capital and the imposition of neo-liberal policies in country after country have led to growing inequalities, loss of livelihood and widening poverty, which are now finding an expression through gathering discontent. The gulf between the rich and the poor countries as well as the sharp divisions between the rich and the poor within nations are setting off reactions over which the US imperial order have no control.

This is starkly seen in South America. In country after country, the neo-liberal policies stand discredited and it is becoming difficult for the ruling classes to impose that model. The most dramatic economic manifestation of the crisis took place in Argentina, and the most striking political reflection of the revolt against neo-liberal globalisation has happened in Brazil. The massive victory of Lula da Silva, the Left candidate for the presidency of this largest and most powerful country in Latin America, marks an important stage in the struggle against such policies. This comes after the significant fight-back in Venezuela where the domestic reactionary circles and their imperialist patrons failed to dislodge President Chavez through a military coup.

Both the impact of the economic processes and the popular resistance to privatisation are leading to a shift in the political landscape in this traditional backyard of the United States. The battle for winning the people’s minds for the neo-liberal ideology has already been lost. A regional survey sponsored by the Inter-American Development Bank in 2001 showed that 63 per cent of the respondents across 17 countries in Latin America said --- privatisation had not been beneficial.

Within the ruling circles in the United States and other advanced capitalist countries, a debate has opened up about the role played by the IMF and the World Bank. Increasingly, critical voices are being raised that the Fund-Bank prescriptions are making the disease worse. Coupled with the shattering blows to the image of US corporate capitalism with one corporate scandal after another beginning with the Enron collapse, this has shown up the greed and venality of the system. The gloomy forecast for the world economy, after the global recession in the year 2001, has badly dented the triumphalist note of right-wing economics that has been dominating the world scene in the recent period.

SMUG VISION OF HEGEMON’S ROLE

Secondly, the reliance on superior military power has not only its limits but also the danger of over-reach. Bush has announced the US resolve to resort to pre-emptive military action against any threat to US interests. The Bush doctrine was set out in National Security Strategy of the United States, a document recently presented to the US Congress. It has further declared that the US will not allow any other foreign power to catch up with the US militarily. There can be no power equal to the US.

It is this blind belief in military power which made Bush proclaim: “We have our best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war.” The vision is of an end to “great power conflicts” with the US exercising the role of hegemon. Is this the future for the world? There are many factors which disturb this smug vision.

The spectacle of American military power with its vast technological superiority is a conscious demonstration. It is being increasingly flaunted and used by the United States to reorder the world. No doubt, it is a serious threat to the lives and securities of the peoples all around the world.

But the demonstration of this military might in Afghanistan has not exactly been an advertisement for the success of US imperial aims. The use of sophisticated guided missiles, of the stealth bombers and other hi-tech weaponry, which help minimise US casualties and help subdue the adversary’s military force, has not led to the political and social structures which America wants to put in place. In Afghanistan, this is best exemplified by the fact that the pliant ruler planted by the Americans, Hamid Karzai, has to be constantly guarded by US special forces and his writ does not run much outside Kabul. Even the much-vaunted aim of eliminating the Taliban leadership and the Al Qaeda network could not be fully accomplished.

Moreover, an attack on Iraq will be a different matter altogether. Iraq is not a backward country like Afghanistan. America’s aim is to occupy a much more developed and organised society. Military occupation without any political and social legitimacy can only lead to greater resistance and turmoil --- not only in Iraq but also in the entire region.

THE WAY PEOPLE PERCEIVE THE US

Increasingly, the rhetoric of American imperialism and its tall talk of ensuring a world free from terror, safe for democracy and human rights, are divergent from the way the people in different parts of the world perceive America. They see the imperial power as greedy for super profits, bent on cornering natural resources like oil, and trampling upon national sovereignties in pursuit of its hegemonic designs.

Thus the more the United States asserts its dominance, the more forcefully the counteracting powers would arise. Already we are seeing how the impact of globalisation has led to a series of economic crises in different parts of the world. The capitalist use of science and technology under this type of globalisation is leading to serious environmental problems and, in future, struggles are bound to erupt against the wasteful consumption and irrational use of resources by the rich countries. The assertion of national sovereignty cannot be suppressed by the tide of imperialist driven globalisation.

Hence the complacent belief that the US will be able to preside over a peaceful competition between the great powers is bound to be short-lived. Bush may have declared that he will not allow any foreign power to match America’s strength. But how the US can enforce its will over the rapidly growing might of China remains to be seen. The US is finding it difficult to get even France and Russia to fall in line on the question of its proposed aggression on Iraq.

The far-seeing imperialist ideologues are already envisaging the difficulties ahead. That is why the attack on the October Revolution and its ideals are not merely a ritual for them. It is very much an insurance policy against the future revolts to come.