Syria and the Neo-Imperial Interest

If we agree that we want a world in which nation-states do not use chemical weapons against their peoples, or a world in which chemical and other WMD use does not spread in interstate or other conflict situations, and the only way to ensure that worthy goal is to assert and enforce a transnational imperative, then we are neo-imperialists, and the only reason we do not confess as much is that we have inherited an ideological-terminological allergy.

Friend of the blog Elias Isquith, in a thoughtful piece on prospective U.S. intervention in Syria posted at the League, refers to “the pivot point at which an international action to stop an atrocity becomes something much closer to regular old imperialist meddling.” The problem, for Isquith and others, is that, by political necessity, any intervention on behalf of the Syrian rebels, especially as justified on the basis of the crimes of the Assad regime, becomes objectively intervention requiring defeat of the Assad regime, just as intervention in the Balkans objectively meant the eventual fall of Milosevic and company, and intervention in Libya meant the fall of Gaddafi.1 Put broadly: War remains war, and any justification of intervention is finally a justification for the defeat of an enemy, in effect at all costs just as it will be truly at all costs to everyone who kills or dies, in Syria as anywhere else – or will be no true justification at all.2

Isquith concludes by pointing to the contradiction or apparent contradiction, a classic contradiction, between human rights protection and anti-imperialism, both of which interests he treats as non-controversially sound, in other words consensual and universal:

I know there’s  some naivety in thinking the United States — or any major power — would put the kind of prestige on the line that comes with armed conflict and not expect out-and-out victory in return. But that’s what the Responsibility to Protect demands; and if the project of stopping the kinds of evil we saw in Rwanda and the Balkans during the 90s is going to succeed, the liberal interventionists need to disentangle the interests of the individual nation-states from those of the broader international community.

Otherwise interventions on behalf of human rights will continue to be seen by many — and not unreasonably — as neoimperialism’s trojan horse.

Isquith’s difficulty provides us with an opportunity to re-consider the notion of a positive neo-imperial interest somewhat more concretely, though my remarks will remain somewhat generalized, since connecting this most general of interests, a global or world-historical interest, to particular facts on some particular ground is a more complex operation than I have the time or ambition to attempt today.

What may be “unreasonable” is any belief that in the final analysis hard and fast distinctions along Isquith’s lines – between a human rights regime and a neo-imperial regime – can ever remain very hard or fast, or sustainable at all. Put differently, “Responsibility to Protect” may be inherently and objectively imperialistic or neo-imperialistic, may presuppose a global state and global guardian of its interests, but saying so may confirm that the neo-imperial interest, which most of us may embrace more or less unconsciously, includes values, goals, and norms that we consider universal and as a matter of irrevocable and foundational commitment.

We can view the same matter in (so far) non-military spheres as well.3 So, climate change: If we presume that cooperative and coordinated international and transnational action involving leadership by the major industrial powers, including especially the world’s militarily and economically most powerful nation, is necessary to cope with and eventually halt ecological destruction crossing all borders, and will require relinquishment of elements of national sovereignty as understood traditionally, then combating climate change will be an authentically “neo-imperial” project. We will have declared neo-imperialism, under whatever name makes us most comfortable or seems most practical, a good. (We are setting aside those who might rather see the world destroyed than have their perfect freedoms pried from their cold dead hands etc.)

Likewise, if we agree that we want a world in which nation-states do not use chemical weapons against their peoples, or a world in which chemical and other WMD use does not spread in interstate or other conflict situations, and the only way to ensure that worthy goal is to assert and enforce a transnational imperative, then we are neo-imperialists, and the only reason we do not confess as much is that we have inherited an ideological-terminological allergy. We want to be neo-imperialists, but to be able to call what we do liberal internationalism or human rights activism or pure ecological reason. Whatever names we use, a global state of affairs in which human rights are guaranteed, or chemical weapons use is constrained, or ecological apocalypse is prevented requires and would actually constitute a global state, whether or not we sing a global anthem and vote for a global president.

We seem to have found that the system that works best or at all, in other words practically, is the one in which the nation geographically least suited to occupation and for related reasons best suited to power projection – the United States of America – handles the role of global hegemon or neo-hegemon, or neo-imperial power, producing an equilibrium between nation-state and global-state responsibilities. The latter are partially, but unevenly, shared with weak, possibly nascent, possibly hollow international institutions that also provide venues for less well-suited candidates for “world cop” to join forces and somewhat peaceably establish rough accountability and restraint. The overall picture happens to be a bloody, complicated, uneven, contradictory, and difficult one, since it is the equivalent of the administration of all of human history, including future history, in real time, but the only alternative we, as in Homo sapiens sapiens, have known is an international (or pre-national) state of nature, which was already often very remarkably savage and destructive even under pre-modern technological and economic conditions, and has been reasonably judged intolerably dangerous under modern ones.

Notes:

  1. Afghanistan may appear to be an exception, but, if so, it is a typical one: A muddled war muddled to a muddled non-finish. We might suggest instead that the real war ended with the killing of Osama bin Laden. Alternatively, we might consider the peculiar nature of shadow war or 4th Generation war against non-state or crypto-state actors. []
  2. Justification for war is either the assertion of a universal and indispensable necessity, greater than any mere “interest,” or it is not even an interest. The assertion of a universal and indispensable necessity is always implicitly the assertion of a universal state, the underlying impetus of world history as “world history.” []
  3. In a truly “global” analysis every sphere and every factor of power or every power potential relates to every other. []

WordPresser
Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

7 comments on “Syria and the Neo-Imperial Interest

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

    • You have a way, don, of starting off the majority if not the overwhelming majority of your comments with unclear references. For instance, I am not sure what the antecedent of “that” in “that’s a silly notion” is supposed to be. If people are often puzzled by your comments, I think that’s often the reason. In the present instance, I’m not quite sure whom to defend against the charge of silliness.

  1. Well the argument put forth by Elias, is all encompassing, the objection is not about the general concept of intervention but the particulars, Russian involvement in Syria, the FSA vs, the Nusra front,

    • Mr. I seems to me to remain left-oriented but politically bi-curious. So he observes Marshall’s blanket anti-interventionism and reflexive “anti-imperialism” sympathetically, but can’t avoid referring to contradictions and complexities inconvenient for the straight political life. If you read the WSJ backgrounder (below), seems clear that it’s as important in present calculations for U.S. not to let Assad/Russian/Iran “win,” which also would quite possibly amount to an al-Nusra win as well, as to ensure a rebel win. But it’s also probably true that Assad now must lose.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324049504578545772906542466.html

  2. Yes, I read the piece, the key is Qatar’s running the operation, and their preference for Al Nusra, as with Bel Hadj and Bin Qumu, in the last outing, is the key.

  3. Which seems to be the subtext for much of the current discussion, but rarely, at least in my earshot or purview the actual point of consideration. Should this continue to be the case. Kerry all but says this, the anti’s all but don’t say it.

    We seem to have found that the system that works best or at all, in other words practically, is the one in which the nation geographically least suited to occupation and for related reasons best suited to power projection – the United States of America – handles the role of global hegemon or neo-hegemon, or neo-imperial power, producing an equilibrium between nation-state and global-state responsibilities

    Can’t quite work out the parallel , but somehow TWS Liberty Valence seems apt. “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend”.

    • I agree with you that it is very difficult for us to consider the forest when there are so damn many big impressive trees and stands of trees and mountains of trees and logging operations to investigate. Am working on a new piece attempting to respond to recent events and the public discussion. The President and all the President’s persons are in the perhaps unenviable position of trying to do the same thing, but to political effect, for a world of tree-hugging forest-haters.

3 Pings/Trackbacks for "Syria and the Neo-Imperial Interest"
  1. […] we last discussed Syria policy, before I went on Summer blog strike, I restricted myself to general observations, but, in the […]

  2. […] our theory of the Syria Crisis as a system crisis, the so-called Russian initiative points to the potential removal of a key, rarely recognized […]

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →

So, does Mitchell make any money on the work, which has been shared so many times? He uploaded a high-res image of the symbol and granted permission for anyone to use it personally for free. But for those who want to support his work or simply want something readymade, you can also buy T-shirts, sweatshirts, mugs, and journals emblazoned with the symbol through Threadless.“I really just want to spread the image as much as possible and cement it in history,” Mitchell says. “In all honesty, the amount I’ve made from my Threadless shop so far is still less than my hourly rate, so I don’t really see it as a big deal. If you look at my Twitter, half the replies are people wanting to know where they can buy a shirt. Threadless is happy to help them out with that, and so I’m happy to let that happen.”Now that the symbol has flooded our streets and our timelines, Mitchell just has one request: “Impeach this idiot already,” he says.

Comment →

This is a Waterloo moment for Trump, the tea party and their alliance. They have been stopped in their tracks not only by Democratic opposition but because of a mutiny within their own ranks. Although never particularly liked or respected, it is now clear that they are no longer feared. The bankruptcy of their ideas and their incompetence have been exposed. Their momentum has been dissipated. Their rejection of political norms has itself been scorned. Our long national nightmare may finally be coming to an end.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins