Is the war in Afghanistan an imperialist war? It is worth quoting the historian of imperialism D. K. Fieldhouse when he writes that ‘The essence of colonialism lay in the fact that … power to rule in these societies had been abstracted from them and vested in another state with which they had nothing in common. It was as if the ability to decide a country’s destiny, its collective mind, had been cut out surgically and transplanted to another mind in London, Paris, Brussels, The Hague or Washington.’
Whilst formal direct rule of colonies is regarded as a thing of the past, a subjugation finally overthrown by the movements of national self-determination around the Third World and more or less complete by the mid-1970s, new forms of the ‘power to rule’ bear testimony to the re-newed vitality and centrality of imperialism.
The post-first world war peace treaties effectively introduced the use of international conferences not just to dismantle the empires of the defeated but to reconstruct those empires in a new form. Such victors' conferences have become the preferred mode for the restoration of world order. Thus the Bonn conference, convened last month for the creation of a post-Taliban regime in Afghanistan, was not just the disinterested provision of a forum within which disputatious Afghan constituencies could negotiate a settlement, but rather was an assertion of the right of the 'international community' – a euphemism for the great powers – to restore domestic order in Afghanistan. At the same time it is significant that the US and UK have prosecuted the war but have left the United Nations to re-construct a peace.
In what way does it matter whether the Afghan war is an imperialist war? It is in the longer history of international relations and world order making that the Afghan war can be appreciated as an imperial war rather than a war of retribution (version a), a war of humanitarian concern (version b) or a war for freedom (version c). To the extent that one can identify patterns in the forms, character and justifications for intervention over recent decades or over longer periods of time, then the continuities of imperialism are revealed.
Recent months have witnessed the proliferation of calls made, not just by right-wing militarists but more importantly by middle-of-the-road liberals, for a new imperialism. Essentially their argument is that a range of third world states are incapable of looking after themselves and of maintaining order and the rule of law within their territories. Such failed or failing states place a 'demand' on the international community to intervene, even to put them into 'administration' - like schools, hospitals, railways at home. Thus the destiny of a people is formally placed in the hands of outsiders; abandoned is the principle of self-determination. And for how long would such administration continue? And how would such administration come to an end? These ideas are old wines in new bottles. They are a variation on the theme of the mandated territories created in the aftermath of the first world war and nominally overseen by the League of Nations. Two mandated territories which immediately spring to mind are South West Africa and Palestine. The histories of South Africa/Namibia and Israel/Palestine over the the latter half of the twentieth century should be a salutory reminder that imperialist administration cannot resolve, but only compound, the injustices of imperialism.
The new new imperialism is an ashamed imperialism. It dare not speak its name. In this manner alone it differs from the new imperialism at the end of the nineteenth century. Instead today imperial ventures are couched in the language of humanitarian intervention, of the restoration of democracy, of human rights. Our principal task must be to expose the hypocrisy, double-standards and mendacity of the new new imperialism.
And what does the future hold ? If the conduct of the war in Afghanistan was not sufficient evidence of an imperial intention to establish a world order in a fashion which fulfils the requirements of imperial interests, a quick look at ‘America’s military preparing for tomorrow’ policy documents which outlines a vision of the chillingly-titled military doctrine of ‘full spectrum dominance’ (see http://www.dtic.mil/jv2020/) will undoubtedly provoke a re-evaluation of the meaning of this war. If the peaceful twentieth century was characterised by the world order which was pax americana one can only tremble at the prospect of a new century in which 'full spectrum dominance' is to be deployed in support of enduring freedom.