Harry Targ
[Source:
countercurrents.org]
“Hardly a day goes by without evidence that the
liberal international order of the past seven decades is being
eroded. China and Russia are attempting to fashion a world in their
own illiberal image… no matter who takes the Oval Office, it will demand
courage and difficult decisions to save the liberal international order. As a
new report from the Center for a New American Security points out,
this order is worth saving, and it is worth reminding ourselves why: It
generated unprecedented global prosperity, lifting billions of people out of
poverty; democratic government, once rare, spread to more than 100 nations; and
for seven decades there has been no cataclysmic war among the great powers. No
wonder U.S. engagement with the world enjoyed a bipartisan consensus.”
The Washington Post editorial
of 2016 quoted above still clearly articulates the dominant view envisioned by
U.S. foreign policy elites: about global political economy, militarism, and
ideology.
First, it is inspired by the necessity of 21st century capitalism to defend neoliberal globalization: government for the rich, austerity for the many, and deregulation of trade, investment, and speculation.
Second, the Post vision of a New World Order is built upon a reconstituted United States military and economic hegemony that has been a central feature of policymaking at least since the end of World War II even though time after time it has suffered setbacks.
In addition, despite recent setbacks, grassroots mass mobilizations against neoliberal globalization and austerity policies have risen everywhere, including in the United States. However, The Washington Post speaks to efforts to reassemble the same constellation of political forces, military resources, and concentrated wealth, that, if anything, are greater than at any time since the establishment of the US “permanent war economy” after the last World War.
Historian, Michael Stanley, in an essay entitled “‘We are Not Denmark’: Hillary Clinton and Liberal American Exceptionalism,” (Common Dreams, February 26, 2016) pointed to the ideological glue that has been used by foreign policy elites, liberal and conservative, to justify the pursuit of neoliberal globalization and militarism; that is the reintroduction of the old idea of American Exceptionalism. The Biden administration conceptualization of this ideology is presented as the struggle between “democracy versus authoritarianism.”
American Exceptionalism presumes the world has little to offer the United States. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy is whether the exceptionalism still exists and must be maintained or has dissipated requiring the need to “make America great again.” Leaders of both parties, however, support the national security state, high military expenditures, and a global presence—military, economic, political, and cultural.
Techniques of Empire Today
[Source: wilayah.info]
In the last week of June,
2022, three months after the Russian invasion of Ukraine starting the recent
and ongoing war, the long-advertised NATO summit opened. Before the meeting the organization’s
Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced that it would increase NATO’s
“high-readiness military forces from 40,000 to over 300,000,” an increase of
troop levels by 650 percent over the past.
NATO director Jens Stoltenberg advocated for more NATO funding at NATO summit. [Source: foreignpolicy.com]
Subsequent to the
announcement, leaders of NATO countries met in Madrid from June 29-30 and made
key decisions to advance the organization and militarism in Europe and around
the world. According to a NATO document the 30-nation military alliance identified
“Russia as the most significant and direct threat to Allied security” and
referred to “China for the first time,” and included “other challenges like
terrorism, cyber and hybrid.”
Perhaps most troubling from a peace point of view was the document’s announcement that deterrence and defense would be enhanced by “more troops and more pre-positioned equipment and weapon stockpiles in the east of the Alliance, enhancing NATO’s eight multinational battlegroups…” Diplomacy was not discussed.
NATO plans included recommitments of each member country to provide 2 percent of their GDP to the organization’s budget and invitations to new members, Sweden and Finland. NATO documents refer to the Russian threat and “China’s growing influence and assertiveness.”
For the first time other attendees included representatives from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the Republic of Korea presumably in regard to the China “threat.” In addition, the NATO press release referred to a recommitment “to the fight against terrorism and addressed NATO’s response to threats and challenges from the Middle East, North Africa, and the Sahel.” And finally, the NATO partners made long term financial commitments to addressing the climate crisis.
At the closing press conference, the NATO Secretary General indicated that “we face the most serious security situation in decades.” Subsequent to the NATO Summit the war in Ukraine, on all sides, escalated.
The Asian Pivot
In 2011, U.S. spokespersons announced that the country would shift resources and attention to Asia from the Middle East, an area with demanding security and economic interests. Although U.S./Chinese dialogue continues the United States has criticized China’s repositioning of what it regards as its possessions in the South China Sea and threatens any Chinese actions in relation to Twaiwan.. The United States has expanded military relations with Vietnam, reestablished military bases in the Philippines, and has generally avoided criticizing efforts by ruling Japanese politicians to revise their constitution to allow for a full-scale remilitarization. The United States has threatened North Korea over their military maneuvers and has bolstered the South Korean military. Dee Knight has described recent Biden Administration policy proclamations concerning China.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III bumps elbows with Vietnam’s Defense Minister Phan Van Giang in Hanoi, July 29, 2021. [Source: thediplomat.com]
The Middle East
Most American politicians express their belief that the U.S. must maintain a special relationship with the state of Israel. One of the few active mobilizations for peace today is the worldwide campaign to demand governments, corporations, and other institutions boycott, and divest holdings in what is regarded as an apartheid state, Israel, which oppresses its Arab population and those living in the Occupied Territories. The campaign is so effective that along with national politicians, governors and state legislatures have taken stands against the BDS campaign. Israel continues to expand its occupation of Palestinian land, repress Palestinians within Israel, and is currently not distributing the covid-19 vaccine to Palestinian people, while other Israel citizens are inoculated.
Next to the historic U.S. ties to Israel, Syria, Libya, Yemen and other countries have been torn apart by civil war fueled by western, primarily U.S. intervention, continuing U.S. support of Saudi Arabian militarism, and the fractionalization of states in the region. The Trump administration increased the threat of war with Iran. President Biden, open to returning to the Nuclear Treaty with Iran from which Trump withdrew, has achieved little success in reducing tensions with Iran.
The Saudi Arabian war on Yemen with U.S. support continues and Biden visited Saudi Arabia to secure increasing production of oil, in demand since the onset of the war in Ukraine.
Protest outside White House
against Saudi bombing of Yemen. [Source: bbc.com]
Africa
Nick Turse has described the growing U.S. military presence on the African continent. A special command structure, AFRICOM, was established in 2008 to oversee U.S. security interests on the continent. Initially, Turse reported, the Pentagon claimed that it had one larger base, Camp Lemonier in Djibouti. But enterprising researchers discovered that the U.S. military had a dense network of “cooperative security outposts,” bases and other sites of military presence, at least 60 across the continent, in 34 countries. The U.S. has defense attaches in 38 countries.
Turse and colleagues reported on data indicating that the United States has been engaged in secret military training of personnel in many countries, what they called ‘a shadowy network of U.S. programs that every year provides instruction and assistance to approximately 200,000 foreign soldiers, police, and other personnel.” (Douglas Gillison, Nick Turse, Moiz Syed, “How the U.S. Trains Killers Worldwide,” Portside, July 13, 2016). In addition, as Richard Dunn reported, on April 27, Congress overwhelmingly passed the “Countering Malign Russian Activities in Africa Act” warning of the need for greater US military presence and support of African nations against a “Russian threat.” In December 2022, President Biden hosted African leaders to announce modest “development” assistance and to warn of China’s exploitative intentions on the African continent.
Map of U.S. Special Forces operations in Africa. [Source: theintercept.com]
Latin America
The influence of the United States in the Western Hemisphere has weakened since the onset of the Bolivarian Revolution in the early part of the 21st century. Also Latin Americans oppose the long-standing efforts of the US to isolate Cuba. However, during the Trump Administration Obama era “soft power” approaches toward Cuba were reversed. Trump initiated 243 new economic sanctions against the island. Biden has not lifted most of them. Cuba solidarity activists estimate, the economic blockade of Cuba is more severe now than any time since its initiation in 1960.
June 6-10, 2022, the United States orchestrated a “Summit of the Americas,” excluding invitations for Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Several Hemisphere nations refused to participate in the meetings in protest. Mexico and other countries in the region have called for the revitalizing of regional economic and political organizations without United States participation and interference. In the United Nations General Assembly all Latin American countries and virtually all countries in the Global South vote annually to condemn the US blockade of Cuba. While governments in Colombia, Bolivia, and elsewhere have emerged to resume the “Pink Tide,” coups in Peru and Argentina suggest that the right in Latin America (and the United States) are attempting to push back against it.
[Source: mronline.org]
The Idea of the National Security State
[Source: twitter.com]
The contradiction that still needs an explanation is the fact that for the most part the American people oppose wars and intervention. This is particularly so in the twenty-first century when so much pain and suffering has been caused by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The answer can be found in a variety of explanations of United States imperialism including what Mike Lofgren has called the “deep state.” Lofgren defined the “deep state” as “… a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.” (Mike Lofgren, “Anatomy of the ‘Deep State’: Hiding in Plain Sight,” Online University of the Left, February 23, 2014).
Power to make critical decisions reside not in the superstructure of the political process; the place were competitive games are played for all to see, but in powerful institutions embedded in society that can make decisions without requiring popular approval. In the end these institutions have involved the United States in death and destruction all across the globe.
And Military Spending Continues
("The spending on contractors continues today at the same rapid clip, accounting for more than half of average Pentagon spending each year. And with Congress poised to approve a $778 billion one-year spending package… Democrats are slashing the Build Back Better bill from $3.5 trillion to $1.75 trillion over ten years. Meanwhile, Pentagon contractors have received $3.4 trillion over the past decade." (Lindsay Koshgarian, "U.S. Military Contracts Totaled $3.4 Trillion Over 10 Years,” Institute for Policy Studies, October 28, 2021).
So Where Does the Peace Movement Go From Here?
Analyses of what is wrong are easier to develop than thinking through ways to respond. This essay opened with a dilemma, a dispersed peace movement locally and nationally. It then argued that the foreign policy elites have had a hegemonic vision of the role of the United States in the world yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And these elites and institutions of the national security state have at their disposal 21st century military technologies to maintain their power in the world.
But a revitalized peace movement can respond to the complexities of “the time of day”. Approaches the peace movement can take in the near term include the following:
1.Articulate a theory, a conceptual scheme, that foregrounds two main elements. First, this “theory” should make crystal clear that there are fundamental interconnections between the economic system of capitalism, militarism, and the ideology of American exceptionalism. The peace movement might work on single issues and aspects of the war problem as circumstances dictate at particular times, but in the main such movements must unabashedly show how economics, politics, ideology, and the war system are interconnected and to end war and militarism, all of the elements must be seen together.
One way to articulate these connections graphically is to think about a diamond shaped figure. At the base is an economic system, at this point-in-time finance capitalism and the exploitation of workers. Above the base at the two side points are militarism on one side and racism, sexism, and American exceptionalism on the other. At the top add destruction of nature. Conceptualizing the war problem in this way we begin to see the connections between the 21st century state of capitalism as a global system and war, racism, sexism, ideology, and environmental destruction.
Second, this “theory”
should encourage a shift in thinking about international relations as an issue
of the relations among powerful states to a way of thinking that conceptualizes
economics and militarism as a “North/South” problem.
Theorists like V. J. Prashad have argued that “older” models of international relations have overemphasized big power conflict at the expense of understanding how the countries of the Global North have exploited, invaded, and transformed the economic and political life of what Prashad has called “The Darker Nations.” To some extend Eurocentric models of international relations have limited the peace movements’ understanding that the object of wars and competition have largely been about countries and peoples of the Global South. (For a useful comparison of a G7 versus BRICS view of the world see https://fb.watch/ebp1ie-34t/)
Vijay Prashad [Source: wikipedia.org]
2.Use the theory or schema to develop an educational program that begins with efforts to understand the fundamentals of the war system, that is connecting economics, to class, race, gender, ideology, and the environment. Relate the specific issue at hand: Israel/Palestine, Ukraine, undermining regimes in Latin America for example, to the diamond.
3.Participate in grassroots organizing in solidarity with others, linking issues to the war/peace paradigm. Particular attention should be given to articulating the connections between domestic issues and the war system.
4.Engage in global solidarity. The analysis above has emphasized the forces of global hegemony, or imperialism. Introduce to peace and justice struggles ideas about “North/South connections. That is, the deep structure of international relations for hundreds of years has been primarily about violence and exploitation of peoples of the Global South by nations, particularly from Europe and North America, in the Global North. For the vast majority of humankind economic inequality, starvation, disastrous climate change and a host of interrelated problems take precedence over conflicts in Europe. As V J Prashad has pointed out “war is a crime” and war includes structural as well as direct violence. https://youtu.be/Lg9c0jv6wTA
The tasks of a
21st century peace movement are not different from those of the past. They
involve education, organization, and agitation. With the growth of worldwide
resistance to neoliberal globalization, austerity, racism, sexism, and
destruction of nature, it seems natural to incorporate concerns for peace
and the right to national and personal self-determination to the budding
radical movements of our day.
( An earlier version of this paper appeared as “US Foreign Policy, International Relations, and Militarism Today” 103-116, Contested Terrains: Elections, War &Peace, Labor, Dialogue and Initiative,2022, Changemaker Publications).
