Richard Phillips | ukwatch.net

Anti-imperialism: what’s in a name?

JamieSW — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:11:07 +0000

In summer 2003, Tariq Ali, Tony Benn and other leading figures in Stop the War Coalition published a ‘guide for the movement’ boldly titled Anti-imperialism. The subject was more controversial than might have first appeared.

When the Stop the War Coalition was founded in late 2001, some activists proposed that resistance to imperialism should be formalised in its constitution, but their motions were defeated, not only in London but in other meetings in cities such as Cardiff. Persuasive and empowering to some, ‘anti-imperialism’ seems problematic to others. Who was – and is – talking about imperialism and can the term be usefully deployed by the anti-war movements? New research undertaken by the University of Liverpool has attempted to find out some of these answers.

According to Martin Empson, of Tower Hamlets Stop the War, ‘the phrase imperialism … is something that’s become commonplace in a way that it wasn’t five, ten years ago.’ Then, imperialism was the stuff of radical newspapers, activist summits and dissident intellectuals. It still is, of course, with sessions on imperialism at Marxism and European Social Forums, and many other conferences dedicated to the subject. At such events, speakers can be heard arguing that imperialism – once dismissed as a closed chapter in history – lives on in globalisation and the war on terror.

But as Empson observed, imperialism has a currency today that it lacked in the past. A few months ago, Financial Times (FT) columnist Gideon Rachman posted notes on his website asking, ‘whether it is analytically useful to think of America as an imperial power.’ Many readers emailed in with their own understandings of imperialism and thoughts on the existence of an ‘American Empire’, with some posts conjuring up images of men in pinstripe suits, stopping for some critical reflection on global capitalism.

Empire lives on

Perhaps we should worry when the FT picks up on this debate: has it become so unthreatening to the neoliberal establishment, a mere conversation piece? Certainly, the left has never had a monopoly over this. The new imperialism was trumpeted by both neoconservative architects of the war on terror and by their allies in the academy. Niall Ferguson, the historian of British imperialism, counsels Americans to embrace their own ‘empire’, accepting the responsibilities as well as the privileges of power. Ferguson has done well out of the British and American Empires: they have got him a chair at Harvard, a job presenting Channel 4 documentaries about ‘how Britain made the modern world’, lucrative publishing contracts linked to his television work and, most recently (in September 2007), a consultancy with the hedge fund GLG partners, which takes his advice on the lessons of imperial history for contemporary investments.

With many different voices on imperialism, we might expect people to be using the term in a variety of ways, and indeed they are. Many on the left, including those in the SWP who took the helm of Stop the War Coalition both nationally and in many local branches, cite orthodox Marxist sources. Lenin and Bukharin’s theories of imperialism as the final stage of capitalism, and as a process engendering self-destructively violent competition between capitalist nation states, is brought forward most systematically by SWP activist Alex Callinicos in books such as The New Mandarins of American Power, and by other revolutionary socialists including David Harvey, author of The New Imperialism.

These readings of imperialism are challenged by others on the left – or rather, others who redefine the left. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argue, somewhat confusingly, that imperialism as we know it is dead, but that ‘Empire’ lives on, and with it global inequalities of unprecedented proportions. Hardt and Negri’s arguments, advanced in Empire (2000) and Multitude (2005), are warmly received by those who recognise their analysis of contemporary capitalism: a global system of accumulation said to have transcended nation states and assumed slippery new forms.

Imperialism and related ideas such as Empire are not entirely theoretical for socialists, of course. In Britain the left has not simply applied itself to anti-imperial projects; to an extent it has defined itself through them, both intellectually and practically. Pressure groups such as the Movement for Colonial Freedom and political organisations including the (radical wing of the) Labour Party and the Communist Party agitated for decolonisation in the middle of the twentieth century.

The meanings of imperialism multiply further by studying other groups involved in the antiwar movements. Muslims, whose involvement was formalised through the partnership between Stop the War Coalition and the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), bring understandings of their own to this term. Many have a firsthand experience of imperialism, as migrants and descendants of migrants from former British colonies including Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Daud Abdullah, Deputy Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, traces his understanding of imperialism to his own experiences in Grenada, and to longer histories. ‘We in Latin America and the Caribbean identify with people in Africa with their struggles against imperialism and we share common pain.’ His embracing of Islam in Grenada in 1975 helped him, he said, rebuild an identity that had been assaulted by colonialism. The philosopher Tariq Ramadan argues that resistance to western colonialism has been one of the fundamental threads of political Islam, or Islamism, in the modern period.

Multiple meanings

Since imperialism means different things to different people, it is not surprising that some activists find it a poor political compass. For Dr Azam Tamimi, who led MAB into partnership with Stop the War Coalition, it deflects attention from substantive political issues: ‘Even to us, imperialism wasn’t very clear’ he told me. ‘We were talking about more specific issues. For us Palestine was an issue.’

Others see difficulties in following ideas in general, arguing instead for politics with tangible, understandable and achievable goals. Glyn Robins, Chair of Respect in Tower Hamlets, remembers feeling ‘impatient’ with those who proposed the anti-imperial motion at Stop the War’s inaugural meeting. They seemed to be wasting crucial time ‘arguing about the nature of imperialism’ when the priority should have been to ‘get out there and oppose this imperialism.’

These reservations about anti-imperialism could imply that the notion is no longer of any use. But is that it? In fact, though antiwar activists have different and avowedly imperfect understandings of the term, it is part of the common ground we share in forming a united front.

Superficially, it might seem that now, as the fortunes of US neoconservatives are waning – the Project for the New American Century is already looking last century – imperialism and the need to resist it may seem happily anachronistic. Geographer Neil Smith has argued, on the contrary, that the essence of neo-colonialism remains: in the actions and the more coded language of neo-liberalism, which ‘has always been conservative’ and, at least implicitly, imperialist. Tracing US imperialism beyond its recent overt form, advanced in the second Bush presidency, Smith stresses continuity not only with the obvious precursors of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – US covert and military interventions from Chile to Vietnam – but also the economic globalisation of the Clinton era. So anti-imperialism is needed now just as it was when Bush was in the ascendancy.

As a very general idea, anti-imperialism enables us to think broadly: about global power and inequality. As Martin Empson explains, ‘people have started to talk about a political and economic system as a totality,’ and this understanding is fostered by understandings of imperialism: ‘people start to see why America would want the oil because of what’s happening to its own economy and so on and then the phrase makes sense and takes on a wider importance.’ The very generality of imperialism means that this way of thinking cannot be too narrowly prescriptive: it must continuously be reinterpreted, as we are forced to decide what we mean by it, what we want it to mean. No single group or theorist should attempt to define the term conclusively, as that would only close it down, making it a clearer but a more limited idea.

So, to speak of imperialism is not necessarily to speak very precisely, but it is both to describe the unequal and often violent world in which we live, and to find common purpose with others in changing it.

Guantanamo Court Ruling

Alex Doherty — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:09:00 +0000

In a politically embarrassing decision for the Australian government, a British High Court has ruled that Australian citizen David Hicks, who has been incarcerated in Guantánamo Bay for almost four years, has the right to a UK passport.

Justice Lawrence Collins told a London court on December 13 that Home Secretary Charles Clarke had no power in law to deprive Hicks of a British passport and that he must be registered as soon as possible. The decision overrules the Blair governments attempts to prevent the Australian, whose mother was born in England, from obtaining UK citizenship.

Hicks was captured by Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan in December 2001 and handed over to the US military for a $15,000 bounty. He has been charged with attempted murder, conspiracy and aiding the enemy, and is due to face a Guantánamo trial next year, pending a Supreme Court appeal hearing on the legality of the US military hearings.

Hicks, who has been subjected to ongoing interrogation and physical and psychological abuse, has courageously protested his illegal incarceration and pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The attempt to secure a British passport for 30-year-old Hicks is because he has been totally abandoned by Canberra. From the outset, the Howard government has actively collaborated in the illegal detention of the young Australian as part of its total commitment to the Bush administrations so-called war on terror.

Canberra has sanctioned the incarceration of Hicks in Guantánamo, most of it in solitary confinement, slandered him as a member of Al Qaeda, a dangerous terrorist and worse, and rejected overwhelming evidence that US interrogators tortured him. These violations of Hickss basic rights constitute war crimes under the Geneva Conventions.

The Howard government has taken unprecedented legal action to prevent Freedom of Information access to its correspondence with Washington on Hickss detention. Appeals to the government by his father, as well as military and civilian lawyers and the Australian Law Council, have fallen on deaf ears.

Canberra has also unconditionally endorsed Hickss prosecution in a US military commission, claiming that the show-trial procedures will be fair. In fact, with the exception of the Bush administration, it is the only government in the world to have publicly supported these blatantly undemocratic hearings.

New obstacles

Lawyers for Hicks have declared the British court ruling an important legal victory and that the Blair government was now obliged to demand his release from Guantánamo as it had previously done with nine other British prisoners.

Major Mori, Hickss American military lawyer, said: Hopefully he is one step closer to ending this nightmare that has existed for him for the past four years….

I dont want to speculate on what the [US] administrations decisions are going to beall I know is the UK says military commissions are not tolerated for their citizens. David Hicks will now be a British citizen and he should be afforded the same benefit, Mori said.

Hickss Australian lawyer, David MacLeod, told the media that if Hicks could secure entry to Britain it would be quickly discovered that he was not guilty under UK laws. He could then return to Australia.

Terry Hicks, Davids father, however, was more cautious: Im not going to jump up and down yet until he walks through the front door. I think weve still got a battle on our hands, although I hope Im wrong.

The tactic of seeking Hickss freedom from the Guantánamo Bay hellhole by becoming a British citizen is fraught with problems.

The Blair government has already announced that it will appeal the court decision, effectively delaying further action on Hickss citizenship until early next year. Even if the government loses this appeal, further obstacles could be placed in his way.

Before he can be considered a UK citizen, Hicks must be visited in Guantánamo and officially sworn in by a British government official. No civilians, however, are allowed into the US military jail or to see any prisoner without Pentagon permission. US officials could therefore prevent British officials from seeing Hicks for months.

Last month, for example, the Bush administration refused to permit UN representatives to visit Guantánamo simply because they wanted to speak with inmates. Such are the conditions inside the prison that an estimated 200 inmates are involved in a hunger strike over their illegal detention and ongoing isolation. One of the protesting prisoners has become so desperate that he has reportedly attempted suicide on ten different occasions.

The Blair government could also attempt to revoke Hickss citizenship, using unsubstantiated US allegations to claim that he constitutes a security risk in Britain.

While Hickss lawyers point to the release of UK prisoners from Guantánamo, this only occurred because the Blair government came under considerable pressure from detainees families, as well as human rights organisations and a section of the legal establishment.

Moreover, the Blair government has drawn a distinction between British citizens and longstanding British residents. It has ignored appeals to assist residents even if they have lived most of their lives in Britain. There are at least six UK residents involved in the Guantánamo hunger strike.

Howard government urges speedy trial

The Howard government responded to the UK court ruling by declaring the issue a matter for Britain but it quickly called for Washington to begin the military trials without delay.

We would like to see him before the military commission as soon as possible, Prime Minister John Howard told the media on December 14. In other words, the Pentagon should quickly activate its show trials and hand down its pre-determined verdict, thereby circumventing any possibility of Hicks being released as a British citizen.

These sentiments were repeated a day later by Human Services Minister Joe Hockey and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, along with new smears against Hicks.

Hockey declared that Hicks should not be allowed into Australia until or unless he faced a US military trial. Without a shred of evidence, he declared: This guy trained to blow up Australian citizens and other citizens of the world.

These unsubstantiated allegations are a continuation of the Howard governments concerted efforts to vilify Hicks.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, who has regularly denounced Hicks as dangerous terrorist, told ABC radio that the government would block any attempt by Hicks to reenter Australia if he secured British citizenship. In so far as hes a British citizen, then he would have to make application to come to Australia if he wished to do so and thats something we would consider if the circumstances ever arose, he said.

Downers comments are yet another example of the Howard governments contempt for democratic rights. In his determination to persecute Hicks, Downer is now calling into question the status of thousands of Australians who currently hold dual citizenship and come and go from Australia as they please.

These rash declarations indicate that the Howard government is rather nervous about the British court ruling. It faces increasing opposition over its refusal to defend Hicks and other Australian citizens and is still smarting from the Pentagons sudden release of Australian citizen Mamdouh Habib from Guantánamo Bay on January 28.

Habib was captured by Pakistani police while visiting that country in October 2001 and then illegally transferred or rendered by US forces to Egypt, where he was beaten and subjected to electric shock, water torture, drugs and forced to sign false confessions. He was eventually transferred to Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay in 2002, where he was held for almost three years and again subjected to physical and psychological abuse.

White House officials had assured Australian government officials that Habib would be charged and put before a military commission trial. Having spent three years demonising Habib, Canberra was unexpectedly told by the Pentagon that it could not charge the 50-year-old father of four from southwest Sydney and that he would be freed.

Late last week, a few days after the British court ruling on Hicks, Habibs lawyers launched high court action against the Howard government, Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation Director General Dennis Richardson and Australian Federal Police Commission Mick Keelty alleging the complicity of their officers in his kidnap, false imprisonment and torture.

Habib is suing these officials and seeking compensation for injuries and psychological shock and distress caused by his illegal detention. He has also named Alistar Adams, an Australian consular official in Pakistan, who, Habib claims, was a witness to his imprisonment and torture in Pakistan in October 2001.

Habibs statement of claim asserts that because he was an Australian citizen, the government had a legal responsibility to take all reasonable steps to stop him being kidnapped, abducted, wrongfully arrested, assaulted, tortured, unlawfully interrogated or inhumanely treated during his detention without charge by foreign governments.

While the case will not be heard until next year, it could well reveal more damning information about the Howard governments complicity in Washingtons criminal actions against Australian citizens.