3. Context & History
Historical Evaluation of the United States
In order to fully understand the current position of the United States and its perceived ‘enemies’, we must understand the conditions of production of the neo-conservative ideology, and subsequently, the Project for the New American Century. In is absolutely essential that we, however briefly, examine the group’s context and that we re-evaluate the historical record. The PNAC report and the group itself must be understood within this context, in order to make clear both its aims and its position within the continuity. Although, the United States is by no means a totalitarian dictatorship, as in the early stages of the twentieth century with Germany’s Adolph Hitler and Russia’s Joseph Stalin; but, rather than being driven by an individual, the United States is driven by an ideology that spans across many generations, that has become increasingly dominant over time, and that has become increasingly determined and favoured by the reproductive cycles of capitalism.
The United States emerged from the Second World War as the first global atomic superpower. It acquired the status of Empire from the ailing British, who had been economically and militarily decimated by the war in Europe. The dropping of two atomic warheads over Japanese communities – Hiroshima and Nagasaki – was a testament to the United State’s unprecedented new military power and their willingness to employ it against their ‘enemies’. This trend continued as the United States faced off against the world’s only other standing super-power in the Soviet Union. The middle-east also became a territorial battleground, with British forces gradually withdrawing from the region and American forces moving in. This also involved the creation of the state of Israel by the Anglo-American alliance. This was colonialisation on a large scale aimed at creating a ‘homeland’ for the displaced Jewish peoples. The subsequent ‘intifada’ resulted in the slaughter of the native Palestinian people as the new settlers, armed by the U.S. military[1], occupied Palestinian territories. This conflict set the fundamental pretext for the Islamic backlash in the 21st century, including the creation of the necessary conditions for an endless and very profitable war.
The other facet of the United States that aims to enhance its position in the world, aside from the military, is the Central Intelligence Agency[2] (C.I.A.) again created in the post-war era. The C.I.A. is, either directly or indirectly, responsible for numerous atrocities in Latin America and South America, Africa and South East Asia. This includes their involvement along with the military in what we know as the ‘Vietnam War’.
However, the fall of the Soviet Union left the United States in the precarious position as the world’s only nuclear superpower. The Project for the New American Century aimed to exploit this advantage. As the group’s opening statement declares: ‘At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.’ (PNAC, 2000:ii). The key words here being “to preserve and extend” that are within the same semantic range as ‘to command and conquer’.
Contextual Evaluation
With the fortitude of hindsight, Fairclough (2006:8) argues that current US foreign policy, often labelled the ‘War on Terror’, can ‘also be interpreted in a broader frame as the centrepiece of a longer-term shift on the part of the USA, with the support of a number of allies (especially Britain), from ’soft power’ to ‘hard power’, in response to pressures on ‘globalism’ which began to build up from the mid-1990’s (Steger 2005).’ Fairclough (2006:8) notes that this ‘shift from ’soft’ to ‘hard’ power is a shift from persuasion and relatively discreet and indirect pressures to change, to open use of economic and military power.’ In Althusserian terms, this represents a shift from reliance on the ideological state apparatuses to the overt use of the repressive state apparatuses, namely the military, invading sovereign states such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and the use of law enforcement, intelligence services and the judiciary to enforce consent both at home and also to enforce ‘order’ in occupied territories once control has been established. But, the distinction here is that the United States is using these RSA’s on a global scale, not only to dominate its own population, but also to dominate other nations. As Fairclough (2006:8) argues: the ‘American ‘neo-conservativism’ which is associated with this shift combines open and if need be unilateral use of US military superiority to achieve its national interests, and a continuing commitment to neo-liberalism.’
It can also be argued that this correlates with the emergence of the corporation and the ideology, or perhaps meta-ideology, of corporatism. Corporations exist as individuals and act as autonomous entities, seemingly infinite, unreachable and untouchable. Although a passing CEO may have influence, the corporation will long outlive any individual. Capitalism implicitly supports corporatism and corporatism must reproduce the conditions of capitalism in order to reproduce itself and prolong its ‘existence’. As such the social, cultural and political conditions must remain the same, the social order must be replicated through ideology, and it is this ideology, arguably one of nationalism and corporatism, which has expressed itself through the Neo-Conservative agenda represented by the PNAC and its members.
Obviously, the critical analysis of the PNAC document will reveal far more about the Neo-Conservatives ideological perspective through the discourse practices that they engage in and the language that they use. Discourse plays an important role in reproducing and empowering this ideology. For example, Fairclough (2006:8) points out that word ‘freedom’, in the context of US foreign policy, means ‘’economic liberty’ as well as political freedom or democracy and ‘open markets’, and certainly not the complete freedom of the individual. Similarly, the word ‘terrorism’ ‘is used by advocates of the ‘war on terror’ to lump together forms of violence which others see as morally different while excluding state violence’ unless this involves ‘nation-states which fail to accommodate to the globalist agenda’ (Fairclough, 2006:8). Of course, any act of murder is morally indefensible and judgement should be based on the act itself and not the alleged intention.
Fairclough (2006:9) also argues that ‘the ‘war on terror’ can be interpreted as an element of the USA’s strategy to preserve its own hegemonic position, partly by responding aggressively to threats to globalization in its globalist form, which it sees as according with its interests.’ American corporate hegemony is partly achieved through globalisation and the use of the state’s apparatuses at an international level to regulate and influence world affairs. For example, institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and NATO, are all regulated by the United States. Hegemony is also created with and upheld through discourse.
It can be argued that ‘globalisation’ is the sanitised euphemism that has replaced ‘colonialisation’ and this also marks the naturalisation of the colonial ideology as a seemingly inevitable, purely economic process, or even, as a progressive force that brings ‘freedom’ and stability. The fact that the U.S. is also a ‘former’ colony itself, that it was built upon colonial ideas, and that the original European settlers have achieved complete dominance over the native tribes – who have been either exploited for their cheap labour-power, driven out of the continent or, in some cases, completely eradicated – is also a crucial factor in the development of the Neo-Conservative ideology and American Conservativism in general. Chomsky (1992) makes a similar argument and to summarise his position, he believes that the U.S. is a failed democratic state that must pursue a globalist agenda in order to sustain itself.
Although, in conjunction with this increased aggression there has also been, as Fairclough (2006:9) points out: an ‘emerging international movement in opposition to’ this form of globalisation. Part of this ‘opposition’ has come on the crest of the electronic revolution, and in many ways the electronic revolution has enabled and empowered this opposition[3]. But, in any case, there must have also been something in the text itself in order to cause this reaction.
[1] See Chomsky, N., 1992. Deterring Democracy. Pages 55-56
[2] See Chomsky, N., 2003a. Hegemony or Survival. Pages 89-111
[3] See Chapter 6: The Electronic Revolution. Page 17.
Leave a Reply