Marvelling perhaps at the speed of the qualitative change, it is hard to experience much lightness of being and joy at the drama of the collapse of the Taliban regime in the north and west of Afghanistan. It feels to me that a sense of innocence is what we do not need at this moment. The revenge killings in Kabul could be terrible, and could set back for years the prospects of any unity between the ordinary people of the country, quite apart from being damaging to the aims of the victors.
In the first place progressives should combat the inevitable triumphalism in the victors. It will be seen in the next few days whether northern ground troops can move on into Pashtun territory and whether the combination of air bombardment and ground troops can prevent coherent resistance, or whether this is the moment when traditional leaders can see their interests are better served by breaking with the Taliban. This is the moment when crude triumphalist revenge for the WTC could be most likely. The toll of revenge could be appalling. It will also create global perceptions about the hopelessness of radical islam, which might reduce its ranks by a factor of ten but leave the remaining ten percent around the global bitter, ruthless and even more ready to resort to terrorist solutions. At this moment of triumph for the Empire we should be alert to where it is going. The narcissistic Tony Blair has stepped forward last night to declare an even more comprehensive vision of global perspectives. He declared with some truth that there are relatively rare times in politics when things can change suddenly. This then is his opportunity to do the equivalent of the forced march of the Northern Alliance into the centre of the stage. With a pointer to US delay in putting pressure on Israel he declared the necessity >to end violence in areas where "wrongs unrighted" had festered for decades. >Speaking at the Lord Mayor's Banquet at Guildhall in the City of London, >he restated the principles of interdependence, in which isolationism was >no longer a feasible option, even for the last superpower, since the >attacks on the United States. > >"One illusion has been shattered on September 11: that we can have the >good life of the west, irrespective of the state of the world. Once chaos >and strife have got a grip on a region or country, trouble will soon be >exported," >"The dragons' teeth are planted in the fertile soil of wrongs unrighted, >of disputes left to fester for years or even decades, of failed states, of >poverty and deprivation," >"New alliances or deeper alliances are being fashioned, new world views >formed. And it is all happening fast, there is a shortcut through normal >diplomacy. We should grasp the moment and move, not let our world slip >back into rigidity. We need boldness, grip and follow-through." He already has Alistair Campbell in charge of the Empire's news management. Now he intends to follow through with the shortest of shortest of shortcuts. Mentioning the need for good relations with Syria and Iran in a public speech is only a declaration of an intention to capture the outlying towns, in a war of position that globally is fast changing into a war of movement. (Blair will know the Gramscian metaphors from the influence of Marxism Today on the soft British left) The doctrine he enunciated yesterday again is of "interdependence" or "international community". (I cannot track down the precise wording from the news reports on the web.) is to my mind it reminiscent of the Brezhnev doctrine of "limited sovereignty" of the late 60's which was enunciated at the time of the suppressing of the lightness of being of the Prague spring, and the Soviet invasion, significantly of Afghanistan. Perhaps it reveals my alleged liberal-Stalinoid tendencies to see such a connection, and of course Blair's "interdependence" will have a positive New Labour presentation, which Brezhnev will not have attempted. (His successor Putin however is much more interested in presentation.) So at the moment of victory for the Empire, we should ask what version of Empire it will be. Not of course a social imperialist one. But why not a social democratic one? Will that keep the multitude under more effective control? Can the US hegemonists and the neo-liberals maintain a stable and defensible front line against this war of movement? Chris Burford London
