Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 20:13:00 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The nexus and the olive tree


Eric/Rod/All

A couple of issues to raise. What does it mean to be anti-american? 
Isn't it to over-simplify the notion of Negri&Hadrt's 'Empire' to 
suggest that because the US is the largest economy and with its own 
unique neo-colonial needs the logic of 'Empire' is not close to being an 
adequate addition to our understanding of the present.

Recently the issue of anti-americanism has been discussed at an absurbly 
trivial level in the European media.  What does it mean to be 
anti-american seems a very appropriate question. I had thought that what 
the phrase meant was simply a refusal to be subservient to the USA 
socio-cultural-economic dominance but it occurs, especially after beinjg 
told by Blair that we should 'love america' note the phrase 'america' 
that perhaps it's quite legitimate to be anti-american. Especially given 
the self-loathing of american citizenship apparant in recent emails. To 
place this in an intellectual context I am thinking also of Sartre's 
attitudes to France and Europe in Colonialism and Neocolonialism and 
especially his justification for anti-colonial violence. "...you will 
know that, in their time of powerlessness, murderous madness is the 
collective uinconscious of the colonized..."  There is much I could say 
here but won't...

On the Empire issue I am interested in the thought that whereas I had 
been reading the text in terms that suggested growing uniformity and 
equivilance across the G20 countries perhaps this is a naive approach. 
Perhaps the 'soft' version of power mentioned below is precisely the 
level at which we are presently and that whilst the 'weak' exist power 
will continue to function as softly as it does now. Given the equivilant 
sizes of the economies in question, in the last instance everything may 
be material and economic, then the US one will remain predominant and 
always paranoid of its losing it's primary status....

responses are required - silence signifies acquiesnce... not to me but 
to those who prepare for war

regards
steve



Eric wrote:

>Rod,
>
>I read your notes with great interest and sympathy. The state of
>paranoia in these United States is all too real these days. I am here to
>tell you that you are not alone in your resistance to the "Invasion of
>the Body Snatchers." Not everyone in America has become a pod.
>
>Recently, there was a commemorative gathering at the place where I work
>to remember 9/11. Red, white and blue label ribbons were given out to
>the participants. I felt it would inappropriate to wear mine, given the
>current situation. It was an eerie feeling, however, to realize I was
>practically the only one in the room who wasn't wearing a ribbon.
>
>I have some friends who are Hindus from India. Their car sports a large
>American flag.  When I first saw it, part of me wanted to take them to
>task for being so jingoistic at a time like this. Then the realization
>struck me. If I was a person with dark skin from that part of the world,
>wouldn't I do something similar, if only for reasons of protective
>camouflage? Perhaps the underlying motivation was not really patriotism,
>but fear.
>
>Given the current economic climate, where the ranks of the unemployed
>and the uninsured are rising, people naturally have an instinct to
>maintain their security. The climate is far more repressive than it was
>a year ago and people are afraid to step out of line, to do anything
>that would allow them to be snuffed out by the powers that be.
>
>We are rapidly approaching the times of Orwell when EUSASIA tells us
>that slavery is freedom and war is peace. A non-elected coalition of
>elite interests rules the state and the media transmits a barrage of
>sophistry, half-truths and lies under the guise of entertainment. A
>gullible public allows itself to be manipulated. It is ultimately a form
>of seduction, played to the music of the Mephisto waltz.
>
>The questions of "Why Iraq?" and "Why Now?" appear to offer three basic
>answers, as far as I can determine.
>
>1. Geo-Political - The situation in Saudi Arabia has become more
>precarious, now that citizens are beginning to clamor for more
>democratic reforms. Ten years ago, Hussein could be permitted to remain
>in power because he was seen as a stabilizing force in the region, and
>much better for U.S. interests than the alternatives.  Now, this is no
>longer the case.  The control of Iraq would give the U.S. a more
>strategic foothold in the region, and, along with the presence of Israel
>and Afghanistan, allow the U.S. to create a kind of triangulation in the
>region and consolidate its power in the face of current opposition.
>
>2. Oil - After Saudi Arabia, Iraq has the largest oil reserves in the
>Middle East, and has recently entered into a number of deals with Russia
>and China.  There is a fear that, given the current unstable climate,
>the control of the oil fields could incur a slippage which would result
>in a loss of U.S. hegemony. With a regime change in Iraq, however, the
>current agreements could then be reneged upon, or in any case
>renegotiated, and the U.S. could securely maintain its position as
>oil-broker-to-the-world successfully into the near future.
>
>3. The Palestinian Problem - Sharon has, at various times, indicated he
>would like to eliminate the Palestinians by means of Diaspora into some
>other region such as Jordan. Then Israel could finally establish itself
>as an all-Jewish state.  The current attempted erosion of the leadership
>of Arafat appears to be merely the first step towards this final
>solution. Without any organized resistance, the Palestinians would be
>more pliable, especially if a regime change in Iraq created a greater
>U.S. presence to act as a buffer.
>
>Admittedly these objectives, as I have outlined them, are somewhat
>speculative.  The real intentions of the U.S. in the current situation
>remain muffled. It strikes me, however, that the current U.S. regime is
>knowingly playing a dangerous and desperate game.  The obvious thrust of
>world affairs is towards greater globalization, what Negri and Hardt
>have called Empire. The specter of this emergent order is one that is
>governed by 'soft' power and international law.  The reality is,
>however, that once this development occurs, the U.S. can no longer
>maintain its current role as the sole ruling power.
>
>The counter-strategy appears to be this. If the U.S. can assert its
>military might and maintain its control of the oil fields, then the next
>decade of the new millennium would belong to the U.S., and Empire would
>then wear an American mask. These seem to be the ultimate stakes of the
>game that is currently being played. 
>
>Whether the rest of the world will simply passively submit to this
>strategy is the free variable of the situation; and the results, thus
>far, remain indeterminate. The risk, as always, when a nation acts so
>aggressively to secure its own naked interest is that a blowback will
>occur and greater violence may result. 
>
>The hope, as always, remains that Bush and his cowboy imperialism will
>fail and, with his demise, the promise of Globalism will ultimately be
>fulfilled. One day, perhaps, a more just, and, a more peaceful
>international order will be established.  
>
>We are all Globalists now!
>
>eric      
>    
>