A trap set for protesters

Thoughts on Hardt 
 
Hardt wrote:

It is unfortunate but inevitable that much of the energies that had been
active in the globalisation protests have now at least temporarily been
redirected against the war. We need to oppose this war, but we must also
look beyond it and avoid being drawn into the trap of its narrow political
logic. While opposing the war we must maintain the expansive political
vision and open horizons that the globalisation movements have achieved. We
can leave to Bush, Chirac, Blair, and Schröder the tired game of
anti-Europeanism and anti-Americanism.

What was useful about this piece was that I think it clearly highlights 
some of the tensions between 'waring (imperialist) brothers' fears, 
suspicions etc that blight national and international ruling classes..of 
course we see greater unity amongst them when say faced with an anti-
capitalist movement/mobilisation-the G8 summit in Genoa being a  case in 
point. Also I think he adds to the debate that the impending war isn't 
just about oil 

However, it is inevitable that the competitive nature of global capitalism 
forces national states  (independently or in blocks eg the EU- within which 
other tensions inevitably exist)  to fight, to varying degrees, over the 
spoils of the booty and for spheres of interest Whilst they may want to act 
in unity for the better of capitalism per se they will fight amongst each 
other to protect and represent national interests (both private ie Blair on
 behalf BAE in securing arms deals over say foreign rivals and Chirac for 
TotalFina the state oil company-hence the state is not irrelevant as a 
political and economic agent as some leftists still seem to believe). 

Is not what we are witnessing in Iraq (and elsewhere) the military face of 
'globalisation.  And here I think their is a blindspot in  Hardt's piece-
seperating the drive to war, militarism, and  capitalist social relations-
much like liberals sush as Giddens do.  I don't see the autonomy between 
militarism and capitalism, and the state for that matter, that others do.  
However, and here was the big fight in the European Social Forum: some such 
as the ATTAC leadeship wanted to ignore the war and not make it an issue at 
the ESF. ( I remain to be convinced that there are no links between neo-
liberalism, competition and war.)  If that had been the case the amazing 
global day of action last week would perhaps not have taken place or have 
been as big.  

This, I think,  is linked to the related issue of the connections between 
the anti-war and anti-capitalist movement.  Whilst Hardt suggests they are 
separate I think the movements and issues are umbilically connected and at 
the heart of the anti-war movement have bene many anti-capitalist activists.  
Indeed, it is noteworthy that the site of some of the biggest anti-capitalist 
demonstrations ie Italy, Spain and to a lesser degree the UK were also the 
site of the biggest anti-war demonstrations, I don't this is an accident.  

Hardt is right to say we need to look beyond war but we wll never be able 
to do so if we somehow suggest that the drive to war is not inherent to 
capitalism and that somehow the 'fight' to prevent war is separate to the 
fight against capitalism and 'another world'. Indeed, is it unreasonable 
to suggest that perhaps a new generation or a reactivated generation (old 
and new young and old) has been created by the anti-war movement, who is 
to say that sharp debates will not be taking place about a myriad of issues, 
not least, as Tariq Ali points about the role of the UN, because the anti-war 
movement in places does have a 'soft underbelly'.  

If many more people come out of last weekends demonstrations having met 
other activists, groups and others, being exposed to ideas, people etc 
they may not otherwise have been if sat at home or not involved in the 
movement...having discussed (no doubt an on-going process) the issues 
surrounding the drive to war, not least the issue of the UN, is that not 
useful in and of itself?

Perhaps one task for those of us involved, in varying degrees, is to engage 
others about the such issues, debating the links and to work with those who 
agree, try to debate with those that don't, but perhaps then try to engage 
them on other matters.  In the UK the fight against the rise of the fascist 
BNP has been strengthend as linking up with new people to prevent the rise 
of the BNP has become slightly easier through meeting thsoe who are against 
the war and anti-racist-ie the anti-war movement has, of itself,  created 
as space for like minded activsts and people to meet and begin to work more 
cloesly together on other issues-this is neither inevitable or mechanical, 
but a potential that activists have to argue for by taking other issues 
into organisational forums developed around the war-genuine united fronts 
make this possible ( BTW the ever populist BNP told people to march against 
the war!!) ) (here  think was the weakness of the anti-war mobilisations in 
South Africa in that they did not pursue vigorously enough the opportunity 
to forge links, mobilsie disgruntled ANC activists and supporters angry 
about the war and so trying to generalise around the war to pertinent 
issues in South Africa-indeed the Durban demo looked purely like a 'Muslim' 
demo or issue) 

The point is despite what Hardt may say or belive I think we can (if 
links conceptually, organisatioanlly, individually etc are pursued) come 
out of this anti-war movement (even if war starts) with a bigger, stronger, 
more coherent (as far as possible) anti-capitalist movement. Seperating 
the issues and movements (and in South Africa organisations) as Hardt does 
will not aid that process and so weakens the movement. 

Peter

Peter Dwyer
Post-Doctoral Researcher,
Centre for Civil Society,
University of Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa.
Tel (031) 260 2116 or  0847694133
www.nu.ac.za/ccs

************

A trap set for protesters

Michael Hardt
Friday February 21, 2003
The Guardian

There is a new anti-Europeanism in Washington. The United States, of
course, has a long tradition of ideological conflict with Europe. The old
anti-Europeanism generally protested against the overwhelming power of
European states, their arrogance, and their imperialist endeavours. Today,
however, the relationship is reversed. The new anti-Europeanism is based on
the US position of power and it protests instead against European states
failing to yield to its power and support its projects.

The most immediate issue for Washington is the European lack of support for
the US plans for war on Iraq. And Washington's primary strategy in recent
weeks is to divide and conquer. On one hand, Defence Secretary Rumsfeld,
with his usual brazen condescension, calls those European nations who
question the US project, primarily France and Germany, "the old Europe",
dismissing them as unimportant. The recent Wall Street Journal letter of
support for the US war effort, on the other hand, signed by Blair,
Berlusconi and Aznar, poses the other side of the divide.

In a broader framework, the entire project of US unilateralism, which
extends well beyond this coming war with Iraq, is itself necessarily
anti-European. The unilateralists in Washington are threatened by the idea
that Europe, or any other cluster of states, could compete with its power
on equal terms. (The rising value of the euro with respect to the dollar
contributes, of course, to the perception of two potentially equal and
competing power blocs.) Bush, Rumsfeld and their ilk will not accept the
possibility of a bi-polar world. They left that behind with the cold war.
Any threats to the uni-polar order must be dismissed or destroyed.
Washington's new anti-Europeanism is really an expression of their
unilateralist project.

Corresponding in part to the new US anti-Europeanism, there is today in
Europe and across the world a growing anti-Americanism. In particular, the
coordinated protests last weekend against the war were animated by various
kinds of anti-Americanism - and that is inevitable. The US government has
left no doubt that it is the author of this war and so protest against the
war must, inevitably, be also protest against the United States.

This anti-Americanism, however, although certainly justifiable, is a trap.
The problem is, not only does it tend to create an overly unified and
homogeneous view of the United States, obscuring the wide margins of
dissent in the nation, but also that, mirroring the new US
anti-Europeanism, it tends to reinforce the notion that our political
alternatives rest on the major nations and power blocs. It contributes to
the impression, for instance, that the leaders of Europe represent our
primary political path - the moral, multilateralist alternative to the
bellicose, unilateralist Americans. This anti-Americanism of the anti-war
movements tends to close down the horizons of our political imagination and
limit us to a bi-polar (or worse, nationalist) view of the world.

The globalisation protest movements were far superior to the anti-war
movements in this regard. They not only recognised the complex and plural
nature of the forces that dominate capitalist globalisation today - the
dominant nation states, certainly, but also the International Monetary
Fund, the World Trade Organisation, the major corporations, and so forth -
but they imagined an alternative, democratic globalisation consisting of
plural exchanges across national and regional borders based on equality and
freedom.

One of the great achievements of the globalisation protest movements, in
other words, has been to put an end to thinking of politics as a contest
among nations or blocs of nations. Internationalism has been reinvented as
a politics of global network connections with a global vision of possible
futures. In this context, anti-Europeanism and anti-Americanism no longer
make sense.

It is unfortunate but inevitable that much of the energies that had been
active in the globalisation protests have now at least temporarily been
redirected against the war. We need to oppose this war, but we must also
look beyond it and avoid being drawn into the trap of its narrow political
logic. While opposing the war we must maintain the expansive political
vision and open horizons that the globalisation movements have achieved. We
can leave to Bush, Chirac, Blair, and Schröder the tired game of
anti-Europeanism and anti-Americanism.

-------------

· Michael Hardt is professor of literature at Duke University, North
Carolina, and co-author with Antonio Negri of Empire

hardt@duke.edu