The New American Century by ARUNDHATI ROY

The New American Century

by ARUNDHATI ROY

 

[from the February 9, 2004
issue of The
Nation
]

Adapted from Ms. Roy’s
Jan 16, 2004 speech to the opening plenary at the World Social Forum in
Mumbai
:

In January 2003 thousands
of us from across the world gathered in Porto Alegre in Brazil and declared–reiterated–that
“Another World Is Possible.” A few thousand miles north, in Washington,
George W. Bush and his aides were thinking the same thing. 


    Our project
was the World Social Forum. Theirs–to further what many call the Project
for the New American Century. 

    In
the great cities of Europe and America, where a few years ago these things
would only have been whispered, now people are openly talking about the
good side of imperialism and the need for a strong empire to police an
unruly world. The new missionaries want order at
the cost of justice.
Discipline at the cost of dignity. And ascendancy
at any price.
Occasionally some of us are invited to “debate” the issue
on “neutral” platforms provided by the corporate media. Debating imperialism
is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape. What can we say? That
we really miss it? 


    In any
case, New Imperialism is already upon us. It’s a remodeled, streamlined
version of what we once knew. For the first time in history, a single
empire with an arsenal of weapons that could obliterate the world in an
afternoon has complete, unipolar, economic and military hegemony. It uses
different weapons to break open different markets. There isn’t a country
on God’s earth that is not caught in the cross-hairs of the American cruise
missile and the IMF checkbook.
Argentina’s the model if you want to
be the poster boy of neoliberal capitalism, Iraq if you’re the black sheep.
Poor countries that are geopolitically of strategic value to Empire, or
have a “market” of any size, or infrastructure that can be privatized,
or, God forbid, natural resources of value–oil, gold, diamonds, cobalt,
coal–must do as they’re told or become military targets. Those with the
greatest reserves of natural wealth are most at risk. Unless they surrender
their resources willingly to the corporate machine, civil unrest will be
fomented or war will be waged. 


    
In this new age of empire, when nothing is as it appears to be, executives
of concerned companies are allowed to influence foreign policy decisions.
The
Center for Public Integrity in Washington found that at least nine out
of the thirty members of the Bush Administration’s Defense Policy Board
were connected to companies that were awarded military contracts for $76
billion between 2001 and 2002.
George Shultz, former Secretary
of State, was chairman of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. He
is also on the board of directors of the Bechtel Group. When asked about
a conflict of interest in the case of war in Iraq he said, “I don’t know
that Bechtel would particularly benefit from it. But if there’s work to
be done, Bechtel is the type of company that could do it. But nobody looks
at it as something you benefit from.” In April 2003, Bechtel signed a $680
million contract for reconstruction. 


    

This brutal blueprint has been used over and over again across Latin America,
in Africa and in Central and Southeast Asia. It has cost millions of
lives. It goes without saying that every war Empire wages becomes a Just
War. This, in large part, is due to the role of the corporate media. It’s
important to understand that the corporate media don’t just support the
neoliberal project. They are the neoliberal project.
This is not a
moral position they have chosen to take; it’s structural. It’s intrinsic
to the economics of how the mass media work. 


    
Most nations have adequately hideous family secrets. So it isn’t often
necessary for the media to lie. It’s all in the editing–what’s emphasized
and what’s ignored. Say, for example, India was chosen as the target for
a righteous war. The fact that about 80,000 people have been killed in
Kashmir since 1989, most of them Muslim, most of them by Indian security
forces (making the average death toll about 6,000 a year); the fact that
in February and March of 2002 more than 2,000 Muslims were murdered on
the streets of Gujarat, that women were gang-raped and children were burned
alive and 150,000 driven from their homes while the police and administration
watched and sometimes actively participated; the fact that no one has been
punished for these crimes and the government that oversaw them was re-elected…all
of this would make perfect headlines in international newspapers in the
run-up to war. 


     
Next thing we know, our cities will be leveled by cruise missiles, our
villages fenced in with razor wire, US soldiers will patrol our streets,
and Narendra Modi, Pravin Togadia or any of our popular bigots will, like
Saddam Hussein, be in US custody having their hair checked for lice and
the fillings in their teeth examined on prime-time TV. 


    But as
long as our “markets” are open, as long as corporations like Enron, Bechtel,
Halliburton and Arthur Andersen are given a free hand to take over our
infrastructure and take away our jobs, our “democratically elected” leaders
can fearlessly blur the lines between democracy, majoritarianism and fascism. 


     
Our government’s craven willingness to abandon India’s proud tradition
of being non-aligned, its rush to fight its way to the head of the queue
of the Completely Aligned (the fashionable phrase is “natural ally”–India,
Israel and the United States are “natural allies”), has given it the leg
room to turn into a repressive regime without compromising its legitimacy. 

    
A government’s victims are not only those it kills and imprisons. Those
who are displaced and dispossessed and sentenced to a lifetime of starvation
and deprivation must count among them too. Millions of people have been
dispossessed by “development” projects. In the past fifty-five years,
big dams alone have displaced between 33 million and 55 million in India.
They have no recourse to justice. In the past two years there have been
a series of incidents in which police have opened fire on peaceful protesters,
most of them Adivasi and Dalit. When it comes to the poor, and in particular
Dalit and Adivasi communities, they get killed for encroaching on forest
land, and killed when they’re trying to protect forest land from encroachments–by
dams, mines, steel plants and other “development” projects. In almost every
instance in which the police opened fire, the government’s strategy has
been to say the firing was provoked by an act of violence.
Those who
have been fired upon are immediately called militants. 


     
Across the country, thousands of innocent people, including minors, have
been arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and are being held
in jail indefinitely and without trial. In the era of the War against Terror,
poverty is being slyly conflated with terrorism. In the era of corporate
globalization, poverty is a crime. Protesting against further impoverishment
is terrorism. And now our Supreme Court says that going on strike is a
crime. Criticizing the court is a crime too, of course. They’re sealing
the exits. 


    
Like Old Imperialism, New Imperialism relies for its success on a network
of agents–corrupt local elites who service Empire.
We all know the
sordid story of Enron in India. The then-Maharashtra government signed
a power purchase agreement that gave Enron profits that amounted to 60
percent of India’s entire rural development budget. A single American company
was guaranteed a profit equivalent to funds for infrastructural development
for about 500 million people! 


    Unlike
in the old days, the New Imperialist doesn’t need to trudge around the
tropics risking malaria or diarrhea or early death. New
Imperialism can be conducted on e-mail.
The vulgar, hands-on
racism of Old Imperialism is outdated. The cornerstone of New Imperialism
is New Racism. 

    
The best allegory for New Racism is the tradition of “turkey pardoning”
in the United States. Every year since 1947, the National Turkey Federation
has presented the US President with a turkey for Thanksgiving. Every year,
in a show of ceremonial magnanimity, the President spares that particular
bird (and eats another one). After receiving the presidential pardon, the
Chosen One is sent to Frying Pan Park in Virginia to live out its natural
life. The rest of the 50 million turkeys raised for Thanksgiving are slaughtered
and eaten on Thanksgiving Day. ConAgra Foods, the company that has won
the Presidential Turkey contract, says it trains the lucky birds to be
sociable, to interact with dignitaries, school children and the press.
(Soon they’ll even speak English!) 


    
That’s how New Racism in the corporate era works. A few carefully bred
turkeys–the local elites of various countries, a community of wealthy
immigrants, investment bankers, the occasional Colin Powell or Condoleezza
Rice, some singers, some writers (like myself)–are given absolution and
a pass to Frying Pan Park. The remaining millions lose their jobs, are
evicted from their homes, have their water and electricity connections
cut, and die of AIDS. Basically they’re for the pot. But the Fortunate
Fowls in Frying Pan Park are doing fine. Some of them even work for the
IMF and the WTO–so who can accuse those organizations of being antiturkey?
Some serve as board members on the Turkey Choosing Committee–so who can
say that turkeys are against Thanksgiving? They participate in it! Who
can say the poor are anti-corporate globalization? There’s a stampede to
get into Frying Pan Park. So what if most perish on the way? 


    
As part of the project of New Racism we also have New Genocide. New Genocide
in this new era of economic interdependence can be facilitated by economic
sanctions. New Genocide means creating conditions
that lead to mass death without actually going out and killing people.
Denis
Halliday, who was the UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq between 1997
and 1998 (after which he resigned in disgust), used the term genocide to
describe the sanctions in Iraq. In Iraq the sanctions
outdid Saddam Hussein’s best efforts by claiming more than half a million
children’s lives. 


     
In the new era, apartheid as formal policy is antiquated and unnecessary.
International instruments of trade and finance oversee a complex system
of multilateral trade laws and financial agreements that keep the poor
in their bantustans anyway. Its whole purpose is
to institutionalize inequity.
Why else would it be that the
US taxes a garment made by a Bangladeshi manufacturer twenty times more
than a garment made in Britain? Why else would it be that countries that
grow cocoa beans, like the Ivory Coast and Ghana, are taxed out of the
market if they try to turn it into chocolate? Why else would it be that
countries that grow 90 percent of the world’s cocoa beans produce only
5 percent of the world’s chocolate? Why else would it be that rich countries
that spend over a billion dollars a day on subsidies to farmers demand
that poor countries like India withdraw all agricultural subsidies, including
subsidized electricity? Why else would it be that after having been plundered
by colonizing regimes for more than half a century, former colonies are
steeped in debt to those same regimes and repay them some $382 billion
a year? 

    For all
these reasons, the derailing of trade agreements at Cancún was crucial
for us. Though our governments try to take the credit, we know that it
was the result of years of struggle by many millions of people in many,
many countries. What Cancún taught us is that in order to inflict
real damage and force radical change, it is vital for local resistance
movements to make international alliances. From Cancún we learned
the importance of globalizing resistance. 


    No individual
nation can stand up to the project of corporate globalization on its own.
Time and again we have seen that when it comes to the neoliberal project,
the heroes of our times are suddenly diminished. Extraordinary,
charismatic men, giants in the opposition, when they seize power and become
heads of state, are rendered powerless on the global stage. I
‘m
thinking here of President Lula of Brazil. Lula was the hero of the World
Social Forum last year. This year he’s busy implementing IMF guidelines,
reducing pension benefits and purging radicals from the Workers’ Party.
I’m thinking also of the former president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela.
Within two years of taking office in 1994, his government genuflected with
hardly a caveat to the Market God.
It instituted a massive program
of privatization and structural adjustment that has left millions of people
homeless, jobless and without water and electricity. 


    
Why does this happen? There’s little point in beating our breasts and feeling
betrayed. Lula and Mandela are, by any reckoning, magnificent men. But
the
moment they cross the floor from the opposition into government they become
hostage to a spectrum of threats–most malevolent among them the threat
of capital flight, which can destroy any government overnight.

To
imagine that a leader’s personal charisma and a c.v. of struggle will dent
the corporate cartel is to have no understanding of how capitalism works
or, for that matter, how power works.
Radical change cannot be negotiated
by governments; it can only be enforced by people. 


    
At the World Social Forum some of the best minds in the world come together
to exchange ideas about what is happening around us. These conversations
refine our vision of the kind of world we’re fighting for. It is a vital
process that must not be undermined. However, if all our energies are diverted
into this process at the cost of real political action, then the WSF, which
has played such a crucial role in the movement for global justice, runs
the risk of becoming an asset to our enemies. What we need to discuss urgently
is strategies of resistance. We need to aim at real targets, wage real
battles and inflict real damage. Gandhi’s salt march was not just political
theater. When, in a simple act of defiance, thousands of Indians marched
to the sea and made their own salt, they broke the salt tax laws. It was
a direct strike at the economic underpinning of the British Empire. It
was real. While our movement has won some important victories, we must
not allow nonviolent resistance to atrophy into ineffectual, feel-good,
political theater. It is a very precious weapon that must be constantly
honed and reimagined. It cannot be allowed to become a mere spectacle,
a photo opportunity for the media. 


    It was
wonderful
that on February 15 last year, in a spectacular display of public morality,
10 million people on five continents marched against the war on Iraq. It
was wonderful, but it was not enough. February 15 was a weekend. Nobody
had to so much as miss a day of work. Holiday protests
don’t stop wars.
George Bush knows that. The confidence with which
he disregarded overwhelming public opinion should be a lesson to us all.
Bush believes that Iraq can be occupied and colonized as Afghanistan has
been, as Tibet has been, as Chechnya is being, as East Timor once was and
Palestine still is. He thinks that all he has to do is hunker down and
wait until a crisis-driven media, having picked this crisis to the bone,
drops it and moves on.
Soon the carcass will slip off the bestseller
charts, and all of us outraged folks will lose interest. Or so he hopes. 


    
This movement of ours needs a major, global victory. It’s not good enough
to be right. Sometimes, if only in order to test our resolve, it’s important
to win something. In order to win something, we need to agree on something.
That something does not need to be an overarching preordained ideology
into which we force-fit our delightfully factious, argumentative selves.
It does not need to be an unquestioning allegiance to one or another form
of resistance to the exclusion of everything else. It could be a minimum
agenda. 

    
If all of us are indeed against imperialism and against the project of
neoliberalism, then let’s turn our gaze on Iraq. Iraq is the inevitable
culmination of both. Plenty of antiwar activists have retreated in confusion
since the capture of Saddam Hussein. Isn’t the world better off without
Saddam Hussein? they ask timidly. 


    
Let’s look this thing in the eye once and for all. To applaud the US Army’s
capture of Saddam Hussein, and therefore in retrospect justify its invasion
and occupation of Iraq, is like deifying Jack the Ripper for disemboweling
the Boston Strangler. And that after a quarter-century partnership in which
the Ripping and Strangling was a joint enterprise. It’s an in-house quarrel.
They’re business partners who fell out over a dirty deal. Jack’s the CEO. 


     
So if we are against imperialism, shall we agree that we are against the
US occupation and that we believe the United States must withdraw from
Iraq and pay reparations to the Iraqi people for the damage that the war
has inflicted? 


    
How do we begin to mount our resistance? Let’s start with something really
small. The issue is not about supporting the resistance in Iraq against
the occupation or discussing who exactly constitutes the resistance. (Are
they old killer Baathists, are they Islamic fundamentalists?) 


     
We have to become the global resistance to the occupation. 


    Our
resistance has to begin with a refusal to accept the legitimacy of the
US occupation of Iraq. It means acting to make it materially impossible
for Empire to achieve its aims. It means soldiers
should refuse to fight, reservists should refuse to serve, workers should
refuse to load ships and aircraft with weapons.
It certainly
means that in countries like India and Pakistan we must block the US government’s
plans to have Indian and Pakistani soldiers sent to Iraq to clean up after
them. 

    
I suggest we choose by some means two of the major corporations that are
profiting from the destruction of Iraq. We could then list every project
they are involved in. We could locate their offices in every city and every
country across the world. We could go after them. We could shut them down.
It’s a question of bringing our collective wisdom and experience of past
struggles to bear on a single target. It’s a question of the desire to
win. 


     
The Project for the New American Century seeks to perpetuate inequity and
establish American hegemony at any price, even if it’s apocalyptic. The
World Social Forum demands justice and survival. 


     
For these reasons, we must consider ourselves at war. 

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags:

About Jay Babcock

I am the co-founder and editor of Arthur Magazine (2002-2008, 2012-13) and curator of the three Arthur music festival events (Arthurfest, ArthurBall, and Arthur Nights) (2005-6). Prior to that I was a district office staffer for Congressman Henry A. Waxman, a DJ at Silver Lake pirate radio station KBLT, a copy editor at Larry Flynt Publications, an editor at Mean magazine, and a freelance journalist contributing work to LAWeekly, Mojo, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Vibe, Rap Pages, Grand Royal and many other print and online outlets. An extended piece I wrote on Fela Kuti was selected for the Da Capo Best Music Writing 2000 anthology. In 2006, I was one of five Angelenos listed in the Music section of Los Angeles Magazine's annual "Power" issue. In 2007-8, I produced a blog called "Nature Trumps," about the L.A. River. Today, I live a peaceful life in Tucson, Arizona with Stephanie Smith. https://linktr.ee/jaywbabcock