Thursday, October 22, 2020

THE AGE OF IMPERIALISM: SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM RESPONSES

Harry Targ

In 1969, the Monthly Review Press published Harry Magdoff’s impactful book, The Age of Imperialism. It diagnosed the connections between the capitalist system and the global foreign policy of the United States. Earlier, diplomatic historian William Appleman Williams published narratives of the United States role in the world from the end of the Civil War until the early 1960s in The Tragedy of American History and The Contours of American History. 


What we learned from these ground-breaking books was that capitalism, economic expansion, colonialism and neo-colonialism, wars, racism, and the ideology of American exceptionalism were inextricably linked. Imperialism was a phase in history that involved particular economic processes, political institutions, militarism, and a political culture that celebrates war and violence.


Even though history is complicated and the features of  imperialism have changed over time, in part due to  global resistance, one can see a continuity of foreign policies of imperial states, particularly in the case of the United States. Three enduring United States policies remain preeminent as we approach the 2020 election:


First, military spending, particularly in new technologies, continues unabated. A 2019 Council on Foreign Relations report raises the danger of the United States “falling behind” in military technology, the same metaphor that was used by defense analysts in the past. These included the NSC-68 document distributed just before the Korean War began that advocated unlimited spending on the military. Similar warnings appeared in Gaither and Rockefeller Reports composed in the late 1950s to challenge President Eisenhower’s worry about a military/industrial complex. And in the 1960s, to further military superiority and to fight the Vietnam War, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara employed techniques of scientific management to make the Pentagon more efficient. And President Reagan’s huge increase of armaments in the 1980s was justified by an inaccurate claim that a “window of vulnerability” had developed as the United States was “falling behind” the former Soviet Union. The Trump Administration and members of both parties have recently endorsed a $740 billion defense budget. Trump is launching a “space force” and is spurring research and development of drone technology, biometrics, and other cyber security weapons.

 

Second, the United States continues to engage in policies recently referred to as “hybrid wars.” The concept of hybrid wars suggests that while traditional warfare between nations has declined, warfare within countries has increased. Internal wars, the hybrid wars theorists suggest, are encouraged and supported by covert interventions, employing private armies, spies, and other operatives financed by outside nations like the United States. Also, the hybrid wars concept refers to the use of economic warfare, embargoes, and blockades, to bring down adversarial states and movements. The blockades of Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran are examples. In short, the hybrid war concept suggests that wars are being carried out by other, less visible, means.

Third, much of the discourse on the US role in the world replicates the bipolar, super-power narrative of the Cold War. Only now the enemy is China. And imperialism needs an enemy or enemies to mobilize the citizenry to support militarism and war.

These are problems peace and justice movements will have to address beyond the 2020 election, irrespective of which candidate wins the presidency. In short, the outcome of the 2020 election will not determine whether “the age of imperialism” continues or not.


BUT, there are still reasons for peace forces to participate in the upcoming election and to oppose the reelection of Donald Trump. Along with the differences in the presidential candidates and those running for federal, state, and local offices--on domestic issues and on the ability of progressives to apply pressure on key decision-makers--there have been differences between foreign policy elites over the years that bear remembering.


One sector of the foreign policy elite, the neo-conservatives, have historically prioritized the use of military force to a greater degree than diplomacy to achieve imperial goals. From the original Committee for the Present Danger in 1950 to its rebirth in the 1970s, to the formation of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in the 1990s, these key political elites have advocated the use of military force as a primary tool to achieve US hegemonic goals in the world. Further, they have de-emphasized in their advocacy of policy the traditional tools of diplomacy to achieve national goals, tools such as cooperating with alliance partners, and utilizing international institutions such as the United Nations, regional international organizations, or specialized organizations such as the World Health Organization. Finally, and perhaps most critically, President George W. Bush articulated what was always just below the surface in terms of neo-conservative military thinking, the doctrine of preemption. This doctrine, as President Bush articulated it in 2002, indicated that the United States reserves the right to unilaterally and militarily act against enemies when they are expected to aggress against US interests, even before perceived enemies engage in aggressive acts.  In other words, military force might be used to stop an action perceived as a threat to national security before it occurs. This is a doctrine that reverses the old ideas of maintaining a military force to deter aggression from abroad or to contain adversaries.


Another sector, of the foreign policy elites, the pragmatists, take different positions on these matters which could have consequences bearing on the probability of war or peace. First, the pragmatists prioritize using diplomacy to achieve US goals. The use of force or related tools of violence are regarded as second to using diplomatic interaction to maintain US interests. Therefore, the pragmatists say, the United States should pursue common policies with allies, participate in international organizations, and even, from time to time, negotiate with adversaries. Also, the historic role of diplomacy, they say, has been to deliberate and negotiate with those nations with which disagreements exist, in addition to maintaining consensus with friends. Finally, military preparedness, while critical to national security, should be used to deter threats to US security, not to launch preemptive strikes. Again, both foreign policy factions seek to maximize the continuation and enhancement of US imperialism. But their tactical approaches vary. And it is this variation that provides an opening for peace forces to begin to reverse “the age of imperialism.”


Looking at the 2020 Democratic Platform (while recognizing the limited value of party platforms), it can be seen that several points raised fit what has been characterized as “the pragmatist” position. Along with the conventional appeals to American Exceptionalism in the document the Democratic Party Platform declares “Diplomacy should be our tool of first resort” and it calls for:

--Rejoining and “reforming” international institutions

--Ending “forever wars” in Afghanistan and Yemen

--Maintaining military capabilities “for less.” “We spend 13 times more on the military than we do on diplomacy”

--Rejoining and funding the work of the World Health Organization, particularly as it promotes world health in general and fighting the pandemic specifically

--Returning to the Paris Accords, working with others to reverse climate change

--Extending non-proliferation of nuclear weapons  including the START treaty

--Reversing Trump administration policies toward Cuba and Venezuela

--Resuming participation in the nuclear agreement with Iran

--Respecting the rights of Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East


Again, we know that platforms represent words, not promises, And we know that platforms represent compromise language designed to bring competing factions in political parties together. And we know also  that the “better nature” of these promises bely the long history of imperialism described by writers such as Magdoff and Williams. But they constitute a set of potential promises that peace forces can mobilize around if the Democratic Party wins the November, 2020 elections. No such programmatic promises have been articulated by the Trump Administration and, in fact, for most of the last four years Trump foreign policy more closely fits the neo-conservative approach to international relations.


So peace forces must come together to defeat Trump in November and mobilize to demand that the new administration act in ways to honor their promises. At the same time, the peace movement must build on opposition to continued military spending and militarism, so-called hybrid war strategies, and vehemently oppose the establishment of a new Cold War. These broader goals will inevitably lead to a reconceptualization of the historic United States role in the world which would reintroduce the theory and practice of imperialism to public discourse (much as Bernie Sanders re-popularized discussions of socialism). And, finally, developing an anti-imperial agenda could/should be conceptualized as central to the fight for social and economic justice in the United States as well as the rest of the world.

****************************************************************************

For a discussion of a possible Twenty-First Century Peace Charter see below:

https://heartlandradical.blogspot.com/2015/06/a-twenty-first-century-peace-charter_29.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bookshelf

CHALLENGING LATE CAPITALISM by Harry R. Targ

Read Challenging Late Capitalism by Harry R. Targ.