|
America's
Invisible Empire
By The Economic and Political Weekly
| The American
imperial empire has remained largely invisible: only
very recently have Americans just begun to learn
about their imperial history. But information about
empire is fragmented and extensively filtered and
the American public remains by and large unaware of
the reality and costs of empire. Until empire is
placed on the public agenda, it can never be
effectively criticised or made an object of basic
policy change. David Ludden |
10/30/04 "EPW"
---- In the old days of imperialism, before 1945, citizens
of imperial nations learned about their empires in school; they
imbibed imperial anxiety and pride, and discussed and debated
empire publicly. It was never thus in America, where US empire
remains mostly invisible. Americans are just now starting to
learn about their imperial history, amidst its current crisis,
but there is pervasive resistance to such learning, which
contradicts patriotic truths about American national character.
Resistance to learning supports a national denial of reality
that keeps Americans ignorant of the empire built, maintained,
and defended in their name. This ignorance helps explain the
cognitive shock - as distinct from the emotional and ethical
horror - of events on September 11, 2001. For most Americans,
the animosity in those planes appeared literally out of nowhere.
National ideology only begins to explain the gap between
America's identity in the world and its self-understanding. In
the world of national states that emerged after 1945, the old
meaning of 'empire' became archaic, because no country could
then legitimately administer another country. In addition,
America itself emerged from an anti-imperial struggle; and it
supported national movements elsewhere, from 19th century Latin
America to 20th century Africa, Asia, and west Asia. Support for
nationalist struggles could not be offered to communists,
however; they had to be constructed as aliens in their own
lands, no matter how indigenous their roots, most notably, in
Vietnam, where France and America drew a line between north and
south that made liberation forces in the north seem alien
invaders, while Americans backed 'native' nationalists in the
south. Embracing this kind of ideological history, Americans can
never admit to being imperialists.
After 1945, imperialism acquired a new format under American
leadership. First, the cold war allowed the US to expand
military, economic, and political power around the world, posing
as a crusader against communism, committed to liberal
modernisation. In 1989, the cold war ended; then economic
globalisation, global security, and a war on terrorism came to
justify more US expansion. Since 1945, US power has expanded
steadily and dramatically; it now covers the world of nations,
but does not deploy the formal discourse of imperialism. Rather,
the US sees itself as the world's leader. Americans lead global
progress, facing enemies and obstacles everywhere. In this
guise, America uses its power inside international institutions,
like the UN, but strikes on its own when necessary. America
refuses to allow international laws to operate inside US borders
unless they conform to US law. Thus, US power projects itself
onto the world, but the world cannot respond; this imbalance is
typical of the imperial settings, but Americans think of it
instead as a natural state for the 'world's only superpower'.
A flurry of books has appeared recently in America using the
term 'empire' to describe US power. The term is beginning to
appear flattering in some circles. The growth of an American
empire built on the old repertoire of 'indirect rule' had been
obvious outside America for decades before 'empire' began to
appear in US public discourse, after the conquest of Iraq
without international legitimacy. Nevertheless, the idea that
the US is an imperial power is not popular among Americans.
Journalists, scholars, teachers, students, analysts, and
politicians prefer to depict the US as a nation pursuing its own
interests and ideals. The phrase 'American empire' will not
appear in 2004 election debates, where voters will focus on
domestic and foreign policy issues. The war in Iraq is a bigger
issue with each passing day, not because of Iraqi suffering, but
because of American deaths. Wars come home when bright young
people return dead; and to make matters worse, people do not
understand the war in Iraq, which most people supported out of
patriotic fervour, trusting their president to lead. Now, US
'intelligence' is under scrutiny. Everyone knows Bush lied about
'weapons of mass destruction.' The war in Iraq appears now to
have been a mistake, but the US cannot simply back out, and
Kerry along with all but one US Senator voted for the war, and
Kerry says the US must stay to see the job done.
Living conditions in Iraq are not a political issue in America.
Few people even know what they are. Only bombing and death are
in the news, sometimes called features of 'resistance' to a US
occupation that must seem to most Americans not as popular in
Iraq as US propaganda once portrayed it. No one in the US could
now believe that ordinary Iraqis want Americans there, based on
reading or watching the news. US voters will never see in the
news the vast suffering in Iraq caused by American empire;
instead they will see security threats and policy options. The
cost of empire at home is not open for discussion. The war
budget is called a 'defence budget' and continues to soar,
without protest. The empire continues to operate out of public
view. A tiny proportion of decisions that sustain the empire
ever come under public scrutiny.
Fears, Then and Now
This imperial condition contrasts sharply with that of Britain
in the old days. US taxpayers and voters pay the entire cost of
the America empire, and so must be kept in the dark about its
operations. The British people never paid for the empire that so
many loved because it was funded by Asians and Africans. If
Americans ever engaged in a cost-benefit analysis of the US
empire, who knows what would happen. But you can be sure, that
will not happen soon, because Americans do not see their empire;
what they see is an ever-more-pressing, ever-more-expensive need
for national security. Global threats to America must be
magnified as much as possible to keep the empire going despite
its rapidly rising cost and surely diminishing returns. Bill
Clinton began scaring Americans about terrorism. But 9/11 was
the biggest gift imaginable for American imperialists: it buried
the empire out of sight under the iconic rubble and dust of the
Twin Towers.
Once upon a time, Americans believed that Soviets would attack
them with nuclear missiles. In the 1950s, we as school children
hid under our desks for air raid drills once a week. Families
built bomb shelters in their basements. In classrooms, cinema
halls, and TV cartoons, Americans learned that a 'communist
menace' roamed the world and that only strong, brave American
soldiers could defend the world against the 'Soviet threat'.
America was like Superman, called to duty when evil reared its
head, and otherwise living as a 'mild-mannered reporter', Clark
Kent. The idea that America is essentially good, caring,
innocent, even naïve, like Clark Kent, has managed to survive
inside US popular culture despite virtually continuous US
imperial warfare since 1945.
Not only do Americans wear ideological blinders, they daily
imbibe information filtered and fed by media barons,
politicians, scholars, and educators who collaborate in
imperialism for different reasons, typically unknowingly.
Individualism combined with expert specialisation creates
incoherently fragmented images of an imperial reality that looks
like an elephant groped by four blind men: one feels the feet
and calls it a tree; another feels the trunk and calls it a
snake; and each in turn is convinced by his own palpable facts,
but as a group they cannot describe what is there. In the same
way, some Americans focus on Islamic ideology; some, on nuclear
threats; some, on evil rulers; some, on the ghostly al-Qaeda;
some, on military options; and others, on civilian and economic
issues. Many Americans are humanitarians concerned with
suffering. But each group having gathered its own data on its
specialised topic, and each struggling daily with work and
family - 'just making a living,' as we say - their
understandings do not add up to a coherent picture. Empire
appears to be a piecemeal scattering of individual facts and
events, never a coherent product of a democratic political
system where many people might oppose empire, if they could, but
where voting against it is not an option.
The ideological composition of American knowledge also leads
Americans into raging debates among blind men, instead of into a
serious search for better information. Foreign information and
opinions are discounted, as in other countries. Non-nationals
are always kept away from the levers of public opinion. Because
the US has such a heavy impact on so many countries, this
nationalist resistance to foreign opinion might be usefully
compared to a father discounting cries of pain from his family
and neighbours. A US national structure of intellectual work and
debate sets firm limits on factual input and applies appropriate
filters. Most Americans never learn anything about any other
country except what is deemed relevant to the American national
context by American experts and defenders. Americans learn a lot
about the world, but not what people in other countries want
Americans to learn. Rather, Americans learn how every country
fits into the American scheme. Some fit better than others, and
those that do not fit need fixing. The world appears to be a
collection of countries where people emulate America, and where
people who can migrate come to America to thrive inside an
absorbent American culture that seems to provide a workable
model of the world, a much better model, indeed, than the United
Nations. In the American model, all cultural diversity fits
neatly inside a politics of identity that revolves around the
white elites who prescribed the US constitution, assay US
values, and dominate all major US institutions. Most Americans
believe that people everywhere would be better off adopting the
American model of cultural and political stability and economic
progress.
The confidence with which American feminists promoted the
criminalisation of the Taliban and conquest of Afghanistan is a
good indication of how liberal Americans support imperial
expansion. Liberal democrats led the fight against communism at
home and abroad. Liberals and conservatives equally support the
US empire, whose name they dare not speak in public. The empire
will not be undone until its reality and costs become visible to
Americans who might think about dismantling it, if they could
only see it. Until empire is on the public agenda in America, it
can never be effectively criticised or made an object of basic
policy change. Effective challenges will not appear on the
battlefield, let alone among the rubble of suicide bombers; they
will begin in newspapers, magazines, books, schools, email,
blogs, chat rooms, drinking halls, churches, and dinner parties;
then they will move into the streets and finally into election
campaigns.
Americans can eventually imbibe the wisdom of the world and
engage in dialogue with people who experience US empire from the
other side. It is critically important to write books based on
experience outside America to sell in America; to get citizens
of the world and foreign students in America to bear witness in
public to the US empire at work in the world at large; and to
organise programmes for action around the world that make sense
in America yet change the way Americans think. Obstacles to all
these critical endeavours are formidable and mounting under the
paranoid national security regime in America today.
© Copyright 2001 The Economic and Political Weekly. All rights
reserved.
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|