Chris writes
>Empiricism is the idealism that comes from
>restricting oneself to fragmentary empirical data.
and then
>Intervening in Sierra Leone will be extremely difficult but it is not
>primarily being done for imperialist reasons. Nor was the intervention in
>East Timor.
>
>Chris Burford
>
This is empiricism. By restricting your vision to the fragmentary evidence
of 'peacekeeping' and selectively filtering imperialism to mean just
'financial gain' you miss the point of these wars and interventions. The
nexus of imperialism is its rivalry. When imperialist states go to war with
each other the eventual victor consolidates its position in terms of their
lesser allies and the defeated. This arrangement will last up and till the
rivalries re-emerge and take new forms- the defeated may rebuild their
position, productivities do not remain static, former allies may come into
conflict over who polices particular regions etc- and eventually the
arrangement gets re-written as the rivalries spill over into war and a new
victor emerges.
To avoid this happening, or at least to postpone it as long as possible, the
onus is on the victor to maintain their hegemony. The onus on the rivals is
to both take part in AND challenge this hegemony. (There's a dialectic here
Chris.)
The concrete form of this hegemony today is the UN. Its role was, is and
will remain so until the arrangement spirals into full-blown barbarism once
more, to maintain Pax Americana: i.e. the US as world policeman and with the
UK as its foamin' guard dog with a fond memory of the bones of Pax
Britannica. That this role gets played out as self-trumpeted 'peacekeeping
missions' should not fool anyone who can see beyond the fragments.
Russell
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
