Empire and The Third World War
30 March 2006
War is the most concentrated form of politics of re-structuring of power relations. The national, regional and global dimensions of war are key to the reading of the re-structuring of power relations and positioning of actors in these relations, although they do not make any change in the conceptualization of �war’. The Iraq war has the features of neither a national nor a regional war. By transgressing (aufheben) these features, the war restructures a new global power which organizes all power relations and actors in its own terms. It is a world war and history evolves through the Third World War.The Third World War cannot be regarded as the third split war, unlike the First and Second World War. Hence it is necessary to analyze the socio-historical reality which goes beyond it. There is a transition from a dependency relation based on a world market centered on national economies to a dependency relation of regional market structure centered on world economy. We live through the Capitalist Empire within which dilemma of inside and outside is abolished by embodiment of the Third World . The concept of �state’ is still the most important instrument of the power mechanism. But it should be seen that it is structured through re-functionalization in accordance with the socio-historical power mechanism. We have passed from a world working with the conflicts between power structures dependent on imperialist state centers structured in terms of nation state, to a conflictual world determined by power relations dependent on power mechanism of Capitalist Empire. We move from a world power structure shaped by multi-centered relations between one-centered power structures to a world structure that is based on one-centered relations and that is structured with multi-centers. In this context, the Iraqi War represents the crisis of legalization and structuring of power mechanisms of Empire, with the accumulated problems of transition from imperialist to the Imperial era of capitalism.
In the working of capitalist Empire, there is no nation-state or national borders to defend; there are only the interests of the Empire. The socio-historical conditions of democracy based on national sovereignty are being ruled out and replaced by the global democracy discourse of the Empire. It is concretized in the sublimation of national sovereignty and dissolution of national states. Instead, economic, social and political norms of global democracy are being structured. In this context, in G-20 countries, which have accomplished the material and ideological infrastructure of modernity due to the dependency relations of neocolonialism in the imperialist era, national sovereignty is shattered and nation-states are dissolving. However, the nation-state mechanism of Islamic countries, which have not accomplished the material and ideological infrastructure of modernity, hinders and resists the power mechanisms of Empire. The Iraqi war is declared against all those nation-states resisting the Empire. The Empire does not recognize the relations of national sovereignty which hinders (or will hinder) the power relations, and considers military intervention as an imperial right. This is one of the constitutional principles of the Empire approved by the imperial centers of the Empire ( USA , EU, Russia , China , etc.). Those who perceives the Iraqi war in terms of power relations of imperialist era of capitalism, considers it to be the imperialist occupation of USA, or those unsatisfied with this analysis perceives the war as a matter of structuring of the US Empire and narrows the cause of the war with oil conflict. Naturally, this approach considers the crises within NATO, UN and EU as the contradictions and conflicts of the imperialist era. And they argue that the NATO, UN and EU are paralyzed and will disintegrate, and envisage the rise of new military-political poles. However, these imperialist contradictions do not culminate to explicit military conflict between imperialist states. To the question of why an explicit war does not break with the imperialists, they reply that a third world war will not break due to issue of the nuclear weapons. This situation represents the weakest point of all the approaches that argue that we live through the imperialist era. In this context, the discourse of �Down with Imperialism� is directed towards political agitation, rather than political pioneering.
In the era of Capitalist Empire, the ontological paradigm of politics is based on a well-interpretation of global monopolies, the working of law of unequal development within the global market; as a result the concentration of competition, market struggle and crisis, the actors that will manage this crisis and the relations between them, as well as the recognition of the revolutionary potentialities, created by the process of Empire. At this point, the power mechanisms of Empire have some aspects are clear, where as some have vagueness that will be clarified in the process. That the global monopolies legalize the power relations of the Empire is clear. The question is not only the oil conflict. It is a matter of both disarmament of the world in a way that would not threaten the Empire except the Imperial centers, and commercialization, marketization and incorporatization of the whole social spheres in order to pave the way for global monopolies within the conditions of economic recession that the Empire as a whole goes through.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union , east Europe , Caucasians, Central Asia and Middle East can be considered as problematic in terms of geopolitics. It is obvious that the problems that would arise from these regions, transcend their regionality to such an extent that they will have a crucial effect on all over the world. What we want to emphasize strongly is that the global capital is weak-spirited, fragile and panicked under the neo-liberal economic policy of Empire. The stability of political power is vital to the existence and self-realization of the Empire. The global monopolies have no life-chance if not guaranteed by the stability of political power. In the imperialist era, this guarantee has been provided by the imperialist nation-states. In the era of Empire, this does not suffice and there is a need for a global power ( potenza ) that is structured with multi-centers and that functions with single-center. For the Empire, this situation is vital and sine qua non. In this context, the expectation that the world will be more democratized in the era of Empire is wrong. Within the power mechanism of Empire, politics will be more militarized than it was in the era of imperialism.
It would be useful to mention briefly the institutional powers that intervenes with the regions that threatens the Empire and the balance of power between them: NATO, EU, UN, Russia and China . The US, Britain , France, Russia and China are the five countries that have veto right in the UN. The interventions since 1990 have been authorized by UN and NATO. The problem between UN and NATO is that Russia and China which have veto right in the UN, are not involved in NATO. As in the case of intervention in Kosovo, the decision was authorized by NATO in order to bypass the veto of China and Russia in the UN. By the affiliation of East European countries in the NATO and UN, both the power of Empire and its multi-centered hierarchical structure is guaranteed in this region.
The intervention in Afghanistan is the intervention of UN under the security of the NATO. Within this process, Russia gained status in NATO and China is admitted to the WTO. Russia and China have taken important steps in their strategy of involvement in the hierarchy of multi-centered structure of the Empire.
We have arrived at the Iraqi war by the 1991 Gulf War and the interventions of Somalia , Bosnia-Herzigova, Kosovo and Afghanistan . All of these interventions have been authorized by the power of Empire within a short time of twelve years. The world has been passing through interventions from 1990’s up to present and the daily life continues in an indifferent way. It is due to the central interventions of the Empire on the basis of consensus of the imperial powers. The fact that the US is a leading figure is considered as a matter of the US imperialism. This leads to not understanding the body-power of Empire, that functions with single-center on the multi-centered structure; a holistic anti-capitalist political line can not be formed and emphasizing the US imperialism legitimizes the other imperial powers.
The Empire, with the Gulf War, has handed over its political power to the military power of the US under the supervision of the UN and NATO in order to structure and protect its global interests. The US is the Bonaparte of the Empire. Bonapartism represents temporality, rather than permanency. With the present Iraqi War, the US tries to turn its temporality into permanency. With this war, the US wants to declare to the Capitalist Empire that it is the king of the Empire. The multi-centered structure of the Empire resists the US declaration of central kingdom and the support given to the military power of the US is being held back. At the moment, the US nothing other than a military power, devoid of the political power of the Empire. No matter how the process develops, the Empire will put down the US from the horse of the Bonaparte and turn it into a cowboy on a donkey.
The anti-American opposition centered by Germany , France and Russia in the UN and NATO is not against a war on Iraq . What they oppose is the self-centered declaration of kingdom of the US . However there lies a political intelligence behind their opposition. This intelligence is the risk of leading the power of the Empire to political instability through a long and difficult war that would paralyze the global monopolies. This risk can only be undertaken by the consensus of the Empire on the basis of the UN and NATO. It is important to read the crisis in NATO and UN ad its reflection on the EU carefully. Neither NATO, nor UN, nor EU will collapse. These international institutions have been established according to the needs of the imperialist era of capitalism. Although the necessity for their re-functionalization and re-structuring according to the needs of the Empire is known, this problem is left to be solved in the process. The Iraqi crisis of the Empire, has unfolded the necessity of solving this problem with voluntary intervention, rather than leaving to its spontaneity. NATO has overcome the crisis of Turkey , but the problem remains unsolved. After the Iraqi crisis has been overcome in UN, the problem will hold its actuality. By the overcoming of the Iraqi crisis, the NATO and UN will be structured and functionalized, in accordance with the needs of the Empire.
What is important for the revolutionaries is to unfold the revolutionary potentialities and to interpret the historical moments that create these revolutionaries potentialities carefully. Some historical moments invite revolutionaries to the platform, stage and to the streets. Like 1848 Europe , the October revolution and the 68 movement� Like the global oppositional movement that starts with Seattle and continues with February 15� There is no more duality between internal and external dynamics. The political concept of world revolutionary dynamics has become common: capitalism and war.
‘Another world is possible’ where all the armies are abolished, all the weapon factories are shut down, all borders are eliminated, where everyone is a world citizen.
February 2003