This publication was once known as the Latin America and Empire Report. “Imperialism” and “empire” had largely dropped out of the left’s political lexicon by the end of 1970s. “Empire” was dropped from the NACLA Report’s name in 1977. But the current War on Terrorism in the context of economic globalization makes clear that the “specter of imperialism” is not simply caricature.
We are caught in a strange paradox: At the moment in which the United States acts as the chief executive officer of history’s largest and most powerful empire, the narrative to frame this reality becomes ever more obscure. While the right now proudly celebrates the imperial status of the United States, those on the left struggle to find a language to continue their critique of interventionism while acknowledging the genuine threat posed by the sinister fanaticism of the likes of Osama bin Laden and gang. There are various ways to counter the violence and poverty of the current world order. One important way is tackling the roots of the current crises, and understanding the structures and groups that benefit from the existing order. After 35 years, NACLA continues to make an important contribution to this debate by providing critical analysis on U.S. intervention specifically in the Americas.
Questions of intervention and empire were on my mind as I headed to Lebanon this summer to volunteer in a Palestinian refugee camp. I had signed up with the Canadian–Palestinian Educational Exchange before I was called to interview for the position of NACLA’s director. By the time I left for Beirut, though, I knew that I would soon be moving from Canada to New York to join NACLA. After years of being an activist on Latin American issues in Canada and an avid reader of NACLA Report, I was thrilled to be joining such a committed community of people. I headed to the Middle East much more sensitive to perceptions of “America” from the “other side” of the war on terrorism.
It may seem quite a leap to go from a Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut to Latin American solidarity in New York, but understanding how North Americans are perceived in the Arab world provides useful clues both to mistakes being made in our foreign policy and to how links may be forged with justice oriented groups in various corners of the globe. In the same way that McDonalds speaks of a “glocalization” in its marketing strategies, solidarity networks are emerging cross-regionally which reflect a global awareness in the framing of local issues. My young Palestinian students were impressively aware of changes taking place in Latin America and reflected on the Chávez and Lula stories. A group of teachers I met in Beirut were on their way to the UN Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa looking to establish contacts with European and African groups working with youth.
Economic globalization and the War on Terrorism are changing political narratives and reshaping strategies for political action. In the 21st century, critiques of the empire emerge from the least expected places. In a recent conversation with Brazilian reporter Clóvis Rossi, financier and philanthropist George Soros commented, “In ancient Rome, only Romans voted. In modern global capitalism, only Americans get to vote, Brazilians do not.” The “centering” of left and redistributive parties across the globe from the ANC in South Africa to the Worker’s Party in Brazil speaks to this changing reality. Whatever language we use to frame this new state of affairs, critics from across the spectrum seem to be in agreement on at least some of the basic parameters.
As we head into 2003, it seems that there is at least a little less resistance to a critical vision of U.S. foreign policy than there was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The “Not in Our Name” campaign has given a respectful flavor to the anti-intervention movement and the battle to define “American values.” As recent demonstrations in New York and Washington have shown, the peace and anti-globalization movements have united in the fight to stop the U.S. government from once again playing globo-cop in the Middle East. If there is a new anti-imperialism, it faces the challenge of uniting very diverse struggles in the name of a democratically oriented global order. But in a post-modern world, issues such as global resource management in particular, and the biophysical limits to growth in general, may also force us to confront the consumption patterns and lifestyles which the “Empire” supports. The NACLA community of scholars, activists and journalists will continue to play a key role in mapping out these new theoretical and practical problems from the perspective of the Americas.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Terry Gibbs is the NACLA director
