Anti-Imperialist

I don't know, Glenl. Who do you think should have done what there?

And what about Congo? Or Rwanda today? Should someone intervene? How, and who?

Why, hello. This is a good discussion. Thanks, Caissa, for starting it, and thanks for the productive contributions from y'all, especially SJ, Unionist and votd for your thoughtful contributions (and Winston, I'm not officially on hols till Friday--I won't be checking in at all after then!).

The moderator line I've been taking generally has been pretty timid: don't let babblers mock other babblers who bring strong anti-imperialist analysis to the discussions we have here. This is far from ideal, obviously, but it's difficult to ask for anything more when our one mainstream progressive party is hailing the actions of our troops for killing Libyan civilians while the stench from the steaming monstrosities that are the Iraq and Afghanistan is still so fresh.

While it may not be obvious (and we may not always succeed), the primary goal of moderating interventions is to request and educate: here is why what you said can offend our allies, here is why your language participates in the same strategies of othering, marginalization or exclusion mainstream society uses to create an unjust world. It has been my experience--on babble and elsewhere--that such a request can lead to disproportionately violent reactions. Privilege can be a tough armour to pierce.

So it's easy to see how anti-imperialism dovetails with this dynamic. My definition of anti-imperialism would start with the understanding that the world is an unjust place, and that the ruling classes have a standing interest to maintain that inequality and enjoy manifold resources with which to do so. That's the imperialism part: the ways, militaristically, culturally, and discursively the ruling powers maintain their grip on hegemony. It also starts with the understanding that seeing how this works closest to us--the ways in which we--meaning babblers too!--are implicated and complicit in this ongoing practice is the hardest to see; or, as Unionist so succinctly put it: anti-imperialism begins at home!

So anti-imperialism, for me, means any way we disrupt these strategies and practices. It means opposing foreign wars of intervention. It means opposing false narratives spoon fed us by our craven media outlets who merely serve as stenographers of power. It means emphasizing that those hurt more by any conflict--be it military, verbal, legal or cultural--are always, always, always the world's poorest and most vulnerable (and disproportionately women. It's no accident that rape is one of war's most vicious weapons). It means remaining most sceptical when those in power seem to be acting most benevolently. It means never dissolving our critical lens in the soft, warming waters of patriotism, fervour, dogmatism, or loyalty--that is, of ideology.

So I'm not interested or invested in making sure that babblers have the "right" view of imperialism (or patriarchy, or racism, or homophobia or whatever)--mods have often been caricatured as such, but it's simply not the case--I'm invested in making sure that we have the sort of discussions babble was created to have. As always, we're a long way from that yet, but as a wise man once said, hope is better than fear, optimism is better than despair.

I don't agree, Glenl. It's the same argument that justifies intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. And will one day be used on North Korea, Iran, wherever. The same Romeo Dallaire, who whined and wept for the people of Rwanda, was a staunch supporter of the Afghan "mission". If someone supports the Afghan "mission", and the bombing and regime change in Libya, more power to them. But don't call them anti-imperialist, or the word loses all meaning.

I proposed a definition above. I'm not wedded to it, but I'd appreciate some feedback.

ETA: Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention that Senator Dallaire was demanding Canadian troops on the ground in Libya back on March 2, 2011. A true anti-imperialist.

I certainly don't support Iraq or Afghanistan, and I can see those having imperialistic agendas. Rwanda felt different to me, maybe it was more personal. Is there no way of preventing genocide that is not imperialistic?

I wonder if anti-imperialism always requires an anti-interventionist perspective? Is it an approach that argues that nation-states must deal with their own issues internally without external intervention? I also wonder how this squares with a belief in international human rights and internationalism? These are questions I have been pondering. If anyone could help me wrestle with them I would be greatly appreciative.

Libya started off well intentioned. The road to hell kinda thing. If it was going to turn into another Rwanda then I'm honestly torn about it. No one knows what would have happened until after the fact. It certainly didn't work out very well. I guess I go along with (what was ) the NDP position on it, try to do something but don't make it worst. We should send food to avoid famines, hell we should send food before there is a famine as well as agricultural aid to avoid hunger. That's an intervention, should we try to avoid mass murders?

Glenl, do you know how many were killed in Libya: (a) before the military intervention; (b) after the military intervention?

Do you know how many people have been killed in Congo in a decade of war, much of it spurred by the "good guys" from Rwanda? Hint: There's a dispute as to whether it's 5.4 million, or "only" somewhat less than 3 million. Why are you talking about intervention in Rwanda, when Congo is right next door?

Why did the U.S. defend Saddam Hussein when he was accused of using weapons of mass destruction to commit mass slaughter against his own people - but then they made up fairy tales about WMD to invade and overthrow him when he was doing nothing of the sort?

I've got lots of other questions, but only one answer: Until someone can clearly set out a process whereby the world can intervene in sovereign countries to stop human rights violations in a consistent and coherent way, in a way which puts all countries (all countries) on an equal plane of decision-making, and in a way which excludes any control or domination of the joint effort by the great colonial powers of past or present - then I'll take my chances with shaking hands with the devil.

Thanks, Unionist. I'll reflect on your answer.

There aren't too many examples in modern times of imperialist intervention where the U.S. or the U.K. or Canada or France or Russia declare: "We're marching in to pillage, rape, plunder, conquer, and dominate!"

Naw, they usually always find something terrible happening or about to happen to innocent civilians, women, children... Why, do you recall why Hitler invaded the Sudetenland? and Poland? It was because of radio reports of ethnic Germans being killed, about to be killed, being thought about in a killing way...

So, let's go slowly. Give me an example of a humanitarian intervention where there was no request from a sovereign state for assistance. Then I can think about what, hypothetically, might have happened in Rwanda if someone intervened (we don't yet know who).

Good example. While South Africa was invading its neighbours, or financing movements to undermine their regimes, the world simply stopped dealing with these fascist creeps - until the people of South Africa flushed them down the toilet. I'm fine with that.

But think about the U.S. raising cries of "genocide" in Darfur in recent years, and getting ready to invade. That would have been a nice one, eh?

Speaking of Darfur, does anyone wonder why the screaming for intervention to prevent "genocide" has stopped?

And isn't it interesting how we only talk about stuff when the MSM trumpets it on the front pages?

Here's an unfortunate example of someone who should know better getting caught up in the rush to war. That was February 2005. I wonder when he last wrote/worried about Darfur. This isn't a personal slam. It's a comment on how anti-imperialism has been battered and beaten to the ground. How else could Nycole Turmel make her obscene display on welcoming the conquering heroes?

We have to learn to think for ourselves.

Yeah, but in Angola, the legitimate recognized government invited Cuban assistance. Cuba didn't butt in unasked, nor did it install some puppet regime which then issued an "invitation".

Angola was like republican Spain, whose legitimate elected government invited international help against a fascist foreign-backed rebellion.

Grenada - I have no clue what happened there. Did Cuba send troops? Who invited them? I don't remember at all, except the assassination. My bad.

I'm still looking for an example of a "humanitarian" intervention, uninvited by any sovereign country, which progressive folks supported.

Excerpt from 'The CIA's Greatest Hits': Grenada 

Care to comment on the substance on my post, Gaian? I wrote it with great care and was careful not to let the usual bitterness you so frequently decry infect it, being the holiday season and all. It would be nice to engage with you on actual ideas, but you too often seem content to fume about marginalia.

Unfair comment by me - retracted.