08) MODERN IMPERIALISM'S "WHITE MAN'S BURDEN"

 

As this issue went to press, Canadian Peace Congress president Dave McKee was preparing to attend a World Peace Council "Forum for the World of Equals", taking place in Belgrade, on the theme of "Global Peace vs Global Interventionism and Imperialism". The following is an excerpt from Dave McKee's presentation in Belgrade, titled "The `Responsibility to Protect' - Modern Imperialism's `White Man's Burden'".

 

            It is significant that we are examining the question of "peace vs. imperialism" on this 15th anniversary of the 1999 NATO war against Yugoslavia, as many aspects of imperialism's current orientation were developed, tested and codified in the context of that aggression. These features can be roughly encapsulated in NATO's 1999 New Strategic Concept document, which was formally adopted in April of that year, and which the following key policy formulations:

 

- a shift from focus on "collective defense" of member states in the North Atlantic arena, toward explicit sanction of NATO out‑of‑area action on a range of security and politico‑economic concerns;

 

- articulation of NATO action as independent from the UN Security Council deliberations, sanction and oversight;

 

- discarding NATO's 1991 statement that "none of its weapons will ever be used except in self‑defense";

 

- commitment by NATO members, in their effort to defense of "common security interests", to participate in operations beyond alliance territory;

 

- reiterated commitment to expansion in Europe.

 

            While these policy statements did not fundamentally change the nature and character of NATO as an aggressive, imperialist military alliance, they represented a dramatic and deliberate shift in how the organization projected its role in the world.

 

            To understand why the NATO states would commit to this sweeping reorientation, it is useful to review the key events of the time. In the early 1990's, most of the capitalist world was struggling with a severe and lengthy economic crisis that had begun around 1987 and continued into the mid‑1990's.

 

            In Canada, this developed into a long period of economic recession, exacerbated by trade liberalization with the United States. In general, capitalist globalization (related to huge developments in technology) was on the rise, and this meant huge changes to economies around the world. The comprehensive economic restructuring meant that, in some national economies, entire sectors were decimated and some new sectors emerged and grew. These developments sparked extensive discourse between corporate boardrooms and imperialist governments, about how to reorient in order to identify and exploit new global opportunities.

 

            Perhaps the central development at this time was the sudden demise of the Soviet Union and socialist community of states, and massive geopolitical changes that followed. Huge areas of the world were now viewed as "opened up" to Western capitalism (whose members were fighting amongst themselves for positions of competitive advantage ‑ for control of resources and markets at the expense of their imperialist competitors).

 

            The end of the Cold War meant the sudden loss of NATO's pretext for existing, and it embarked on a long search for a new identity and role.

 

            In Canada, a key moment in this ongoing discussion about changing foreign policy in the "post‑Soviet" era is represented by the 1999 Symposium of the Conference of Defence Associations (CDA). The CDA is an old and extremely influential advocacy group, whose membership is made up of over 50 military organizations. It is large, well‑funded and well‑connected. Part of its funding comes from the Department of National Defence, so it is clear that when CDA speaks the government listens.

 

            The 1999 symposium was focused on changing strategic assessment within the context of the massive geopolitical changes mentioned above. Specifically, the symposium identified the following strategic issues:

 

- the pressing need for reorientation in Canadian foreign policy (military and economic) in light of the demise of the Soviet Union;

 

- the rise of China as a political and economic world power, a rise characterized as "the most serious challenge to Western interests in the Pacific";

 

- the importance of retaining and developing NATO as a counter-balance to changing geopolitics that challenge Western interests;

 

- the destabilization of the central Asian states as a strategic and economic opportunity, and specific opportunities for Canada in the vast energy reserves of the Caspian Sea Basin and central Asian region;

 

- the necessity for Canada to integrate military and economic issues within foreign policy discussions, in order to exert global influence and reap economic benefit;

 

- the government of Iraq ‑ characterized as a "rogue state" ‑ as a barrier to securing Western interests in the central Asian region.

 

            Virtually all of the above concerns were under discussion at the same time by other Western states. These preoccupations are reflective of two of the key concerns of imperialism: the territorial division and re‑division of the world amongst the most powerful states, and the military force required to achieve, enforce and maintain such a division.

 

            As imperialist states discussed ‑ individually and collectively, in moments of collusion and moments of competition ‑ how to confront the twin challenges of the economic crisis and the geopolitical shifts, Yugoslavia emerged as the immediate practical arena in which new policy directions were tested and clarified. This engagement was continued, in rapid succession, through the aggressions against Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

            The loss of the socialist community of states provided imperialism with a conundrum. On the one hand, two important opportunities emerged. First, a massive region of the world was now deemed to be "opened up" to capitalism ‑ resources, markets and trade routes were available for control and plunder. Second, the absence of the Soviet Union at the international table meant that the main obstruction to imperialist ‑ especially US ‑ expansion was removed.

 

            On the other hand, the end of the Cold War also meant that the "spectre of communism" was lost as an justification for huge military expenditures. The peoples of the NATO countries moved quickly, especially in the context of economic crisis, to demand a "peace dividend" ‑ large reductions in military budgets and reinvestment in social programs and infrastructure. Without the endorsement, or at least passivity, of public opinion, imperialist states would have difficulty in securing the resources necessary for the implementation and consolidation of their new plans.

 

            Imperialism desperately needed to find a new pretext for continued militarism, aggression and war. Part of the answer to this search was provided by the "war on terror". But another part came in the form of the doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect", and this involved a comprehensive rewriting of the foundations of international law.

 

            While the specific doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect" (or "R2P") was codified in 2001, its roots lay in the broad notion of "humanitarian intervention" (or "HI"). HI emerged as a theme in international relations in the early 19th century, in the context of competition among the major European powers for influence and control over the territories of the declining Ottoman Empire. Its use during this period was characterized by depictions of Ottoman repression of minorities, coupled with extensive liberal agitation for military intervention to prevent atrocities. To be effective, HI had to be invoked in a sophisticated manner that could grasp hold of public opinion. Part of this involved highlighting the supposed virtue of the imperialist nation while demonizing the character of the target state, and positing a war of "humanitarian intervention" as a moral duty...

 

            Throughout the 19th century, as humanitarian intervention was repeatedly used by each imperialist state to justify their drive to re‑divide the world, it became deeply embedded in the dominant ideology and had various cultural reflections. One of the most famous imperialist writers of this era was the English poet, Rudyard Kipling. His 1899 poem, "The White Man's Burden", celebrated the seizure of the Philippines by the United States, from Spain. The poem portrayed such colonization as a noble enterprise that carried out the moral responsibility of European and American imperialists ("Whites") to reign over the other peoples of the world. ..

 

            Of course, US seizure of the Philippines did not yield Kipling's imagined goals of social, economic and cultural development. Instead, it resulted in the Filipino‑American War, in which an estimated 1.4 million Filipinos died, followed by decades of occupation and repression. Far from its noble pretext of humanitarianism, the American invasion of the Philippines was clearly motivated by, and enormously important to, the drive by US imperialism to establish and expand its control over foreign resources and markets.

 

            In the course of the 20th century, imperialism continued to use "humanitarian intervention" as a pretext for expansion but was often held in check, to varying degrees, by a range of factors. These included:

 

- Public opinion: Despite comprehensive and sustained ideological assaults, campaigns against imperialist policies emerged early on and continued to grow. The American Anti‑Imperialist League, for example, was formed in 1898 with the purpose of opposing US seizure of the Philippines. Within a year, it had organized over 100 local committees across the country and had a membership of over 25,000. The League was able to sustain its work against imperialist foreign policies for two decades and is one example among several similar movements, in countries all over the world.

 

- Institutionalization of state sovereignty in international law: While it is legally rooted in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the concept the territorial integrity of states was confirmed and codified by the League of Nations and, to a greater extent, the United Nations. Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, for example, compels member states to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Humanitarian intervention routinely violated this article.

 

- The Soviet Union: As suggested earlier, this was perhaps the single most significant obstacle to imperialist expansion. The October Revolution served as a powerful magnet for workers and progressives, and it inspired the birth of many powerful anti‑imperialist movements all over the world. Furthermore, as the Soviet Union developed, it emerged as a powerful political‑diplomatic force that was capable, to some extent, of containing imperialism.

 

            By the late 20th century, in the wake of the end of the Cold War and in the context of deep economic crisis, imperialism was presented with both the need and the opportunity to reorient.

 

            The NATO states revisited the idea of humanitarian intervention and began updating it. As in the 19th century, the competitive imperialist drive to re‑divide the world was justified through the moral imperative of humanitarian intervention. However, the obstacle of the sovereignty of states remained.

 

            (The conclusion of Dave McKee's presentation will be in the next issue of People's Voice.)

 

(The above article is from the March 16-31, 2014, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading socialist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $30/year, or $15 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $45 US per year; other overseas readers - $45 US or $50 CDN per year. Send to People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, BC, V5L 3J1.)