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
