Acknowledgments

In the course of writing this book I have been able to reach back 30 years for the benefit of educational experiences and the contributions of professional friends and acquaintances. In that regard, I am grateful to all of the professors and col­leagues that I have served with in the cause of progressive politics and peace. As a student, I benefited greatly from the liberal arts education I received at San Diego State University. In the early 1970s, I was engaged in both study and the anti-war movement with respect to Vietnam. My course of studies at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago allowed me to write my thesis o­n liberation the­ology in Latin America, as well as obtain a Master of Theological Studies degree. While attending the University of San Diego School of Law, I found my under­standing of human and civil rights expanding under the guidance of Professors Sheldon Krantz in the area of prisoners' rights, Willard Wirtz in the area of labor law, and Roy Brooks in the areas of civil rights and employment discrimination.

In my professional life, I taught at a variety of community colleges and then went o­n to work for three NGOs. The Council o­n Hemispheric Affairs (СОНA) is where I began as a research associate and now serve as a senior research associate. Its director, Larry Birns, has worked indefatigably across the decades in the task of monitoring human rights abuses and trends in Latin America. Headquartered in Washington, DC, the work of COHA serves as a constant reminder and resource to those who govern that US policies in Latin America, as well as those of the IMF and World Bank, have done more harm than good. I am grateful to Larry and to COHA for providing me with a forum during President Reagan's rampage of Central America in the early 1980s, as El Salvador was wracked by civil wars and CIA-trained death-squads while, at the same time, Nicaragua was subjected to US-sponsored terrorism at the hands of the CIA-supported Contras.

I also served for four years as the National Chancellor of the United States for the International Association of Educators for World Peace (IAEWP). I am grateful to its president, Dr. Charles Merceica, for the opportunity to build up the United States branch of an organization that is active in over 100 nations around the globe—dedicated to the tasks of advancing the cause of peace education, nuclear disarmament, protection of the environment, and the advancement of human rights.

During my term of office, I had the privilege of working in conjunction with the World Conference of Mayors for Peace o­n nuclear disarmament. I am grateful to the Mayor of Hiroshima, Mr. Tadatoshi Akiba, who serves as President of the World Conference of Mayors for Peace. I share their disappointment and con­tempt for the Bush-2 regime as it has actively worked to undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). I share the same contempt for the Bush-2 regime's scuttling the 1972 ABM Treaty and the 1967 Outer Space Treaty in order to filter tens of billions of dollars into the coffers of its corporate supporters work­ing o­n National Missile Defense (NMD) (Raytheon, TRW, Lockheed-Martin, and General Dynamics).

My work o­n the issue of nuclear disarmament has been enhanced by my professional association with Mr. John Burroughs, director of the Lawyers' Committee o­n Nuclear Policy. Under his guidance, I am working with the Association of World Citizens and the International Association of Educators for World Peace to distribute recently released copies of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission entitled, Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms.

I am grateful to Professor Bill Fitrakis who published my entire indictment of NMD in an edited collection o­n the subject—The Fitrakis Files: Star Wars, Weather Mods & Full Spectrum Dominance. I am also grateful to Mel Hurtig for generously quoting from my indictment in his book, Rushing to Armageddon. Finally, I am grateful to Marcus Raskin of the Institute for Policy Studies. Dr. Raskin published my essay entitled, "The Nuclear Crucible: The Moral and International Law Implications of Weapons of Mass Destruction" in his book, In Democracy's Shadow: The Secret World of National Security.

Last, but not least, I am grateful to the Association of World Citizens (AWC) and its president, Doug Mattern. The AWC is active in over 60 countries and involved with dozens of Nobel Prize Laureates in seeking nuclear disarmament and abolition. Working with the AWC has afforded me the opportunity to attend a week-long peace conference in Taiwan, the UN World Summit o­n Sustainable Development in South Africa, and a conference o­n global civil society in Geneva. Now, in my capacity as vice president for the AWC, I can return to writing and research o­n a more full-time basis. Due to this new role, I was able to complete my most current book, Exodus From Empire.

My professional life has been enriched by my association with Professor Richard Falk, Professor Bill Wickersham, and Professor Brian Foley. Their work and insights have contributed mightily to this book. I am especially grateful to Professor Falk for the many insights and suggestions that I received from him in the course of writing my first book—Achieving Inclusionary Governance—and the Foreword he wrote which graces its introduction.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank my publisher, Pluto Press, and its editor in chief—Mr. Roger van Zwanenberg. His appreciation of my book has allowed it to see the light of day. I also want to thank my friends who have done so much to enhance my life and encourage me over the course of this most recent effort. They are: Matthew Dawson, Curt Hatch, Jared Nelson, William Sims, and Rosemary Ferguson. For all of them, I want to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude.

Terrence E. Paupp July 20, 2006.

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

                                                    Preface to Exodus from Empire

Within the United States all too few realized that the nation had transitioned from being a functional democracy into an empire. However, throughout the Global South (Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East) America's transition into an imperial force was abundantly clear. The US Empire's influence was experi­enced in the forms of direct military intervention, financial dominance, through economic hegemony, or a combination of all three. The economic model of neoliberalism has bankrupted many economies in the Global South or left them mired in a status of permanent debt repayment to the IMF and World Bank. In order to overcome this cruel oppression and exploitation, many nations through­out the Global South have sought to leave this system behind them and embark upon a path of genuine national and regional development. This phenomenon is what is intended to be conveyed by the title of the book, Exodus From Empire.

The Title: The Biblical account of the exodus from Egypt remains a powerful image for the oppressed leaving the bondage of an imperial system. The idea of embarking upon an "exodus from empire" conveys a sense of directionality about history as it evolves. The status quo can be overcome and the imperial bondage can be broken. In order to convey this notion, the book outlines the means and meth­ods through which the US Empire has exercised its power in placing itself o­n a course toward world domination. Under the Bush-2 regime, the US Empire has used the doctrine of preemptive war to illegally invade and occupy Iraq. Yet, this move has o­nly served to expose its failure and powerlessness to project and impose its imperial vision abroad. In the alternative, there has emerged a rising global chorus of opposition that has come from European allies, disaffected Arab and Islamic states, alienated social movements throughout Latin America, the bankrupted states of Africa, as well as from Russia and China. Hence, the subtitle of the book employs the words "failure" and "rise" to present the reader with a sharp contrast between the failure of the US Empire and the force of a rising Global Community in opposition to the US imperial drive for global hegemony.

The Terminology. As the US Empire spirals into greater financial crisis through rising deficits, the costs of maintaining bases and imperial garrisons, investments in the military-industrial complex, its own citizens have become the victims of a growing fascist state. The Patriot Act has been used to shred constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. The National Security Agency has been allowed to collect billions of pieces of data o­n American citizens in order to monitor dissent. President Bush has claimed that the executive branch is all-powerful under the theory of the "unitary executive" and that both congress and the courts cannot curtail or restrain its actions or the sweep of its mandates. As a result, the American system of checks and balances has collapsed under the weight of empire. Abroad, torture is routinely employed in clear violation of US law and the Geneva Convention. Military tribunals have suspended the reach of civilian courts and constitutional protections in the course of conducting a "war o­n terror." In combination, all of these actions are expressions of the crumbling of the US Empire (failure).

In opposition to the US Empire, the peoples of the Global South, as well as Europe, China, and Russia are moving toward more inclusive forms of governance and resistance that place "Global Community" o­n the ascendancy (rise). In the past, the term "Global Civil Society" has been used to depict the idea of a cross-national world citizenship. By definition, civil society is representative of all aspects of a society that are nongovernmental. In contrast, the term Global Community incorporates the resistance of social movements throughout civil soci­ety with a change of their governments into what I have called the "Inclusionary State" and "inclusive forms of governance." Hence, the term Global Community serves to identify the growing trend toward putting new governments in place that are more inclusive in their decision-making processes and policies, reject the neoliberal economic model, and are opposed to the US Empire's attempt at hegemonic domination.

History is in the midst of changing. The change is predicated o­n the notion that the citizens of the Global South are part of a Global Community who can be viewed as a cohesive community of oppressed and exploited peoples who are seeking an "exodus from empire." As I use the term, it allows me to write of the peoples and governments of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, as well as Russia and China, coming together in a national, regional, and interna­tional counter-hegemonic alliance against the US Empire. We already see this process evolving in the 2006 political and economic alliance struck between President Morales of Bolivia, President Chavez of Venezuela, and President Castro of Cuba. It is also evident in the 2001-mutual security pact between Russia and China. Further, it can be seen in China's Africa-strategy insofar as Beijing has enjoyed considerable success in Africa, building close ties with countries from Sudan to South Africa, becoming a vital aid donor, and developing military rela­tionships with many of the continent's powers. In short, the rise of Global Community is taking place in response to the aspirations of peoples for genuine national and international development.

The Thesis'. If genuine national and international development is to be achieved, it can o­nly be realized through a process of embarking upon an exodus from empire. International law's notion of the "equality of states" has been made into a mockery by the Bush-2 regime's assertion of absolute and unilateral power in international affairs. In the world of the Bush-2 regime, some states are "more equal than others." Such a view is characteristic of the imperial mind-set. It is a view that makes the world into a conflict-ridden war zone with no end in sight. For example, the Bush-2 regime has announced that the "war o­n terror" will go o­n for decades. This assertion is based o­n the fundamental feature of the power of global finance under US hegemony—its militarization. This reality is discovered in both the aggressive expansion of US military bases around the world, as well as by the growing presence of transnational corporations within the military-industrial complex.

On the economic side of the equation, the process of militarization is linked to globalization. In this world, the name of globalization is imperialism and imperialism is more openly enforced by war. Finance is at war against whoever tries to carry out or affirm autonomous development. The capitalist class can no longer retain its power except by war. Yet, the Global Community has increasingly rejected this historical trajectory as predetermined or inevitable.

Social movements have demanded more democratic constraints o­n their national governments. In turn, electoral outcomes around the globe have led to more progressive leaders and policies being placed into power that are at odds with the dictates of the US Empire. The regional alliances that have been developing in Latin America give concrete testimony to the fact that billions of people have decided not to allow the continuation of capitalism's economic and military dic­tatorship over their lives continue any longer. At the regional level, not merely economic alliances are being constructed, but clearly political o­nes as well—that have as their goal the end of dominance by the US Empire.

Not o­nly have more democratically elected governments been installed, but accountability to the people now encompasses meeting the needs of the poor, pro­tecting the rights of workers and labor, and expanding human rights claims by centralizing them in the national agenda. Similarly minded states are working with o­ne another across the international spectrum. In short, an ever-expanding national-regional-international counter-hegemonic alliance to the US Empire is making possible an exodus from empire and the rise of Global Community.

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

Introduction

Exodus from the Bondage of Empire

RECESSIONAL (1897)

God of our fathers, known of old—

Lord of our far-flung battle line—

Beneath whose awful Hand we hold

Dominion over palm and pine—

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet

Lest we forget—lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies—

The Captains and the Kings depart-

Still stands Thine ancient Sacrifice

An humble and a contrite heart

Lord of Hosts, be with us yet,

Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away—

On dune and headland sinks the fire—

Lo, all our pomp of yesterday

Is o­ne with Nineveh and Tyre!

Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,

Lest we forget—lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust

In reeking tube and iron shard—

All valiant dust that builds o­n dust,

And guarding calls not Thee to guard—

For frantic boast and foolish word,

Thy mercy o­n Thy People, Lord!

Rudyard Kipling

Kipling's hymn was written o­n the occasion of the Jubilee celebrations honoring the 60th anniversary of Queen Victoria's reign and the greatness of her empire

The path out from the bondage of empire must be rediscovered. If we fail to embark upon an exodus from empire we shall surely invite the fate against which Albert Camus warned of when he described those who supported the death penalty as both victims and executioners. The pursuit of empire becomes a version of the death penalty insofar as its pursuit often ends in both the death of imperial delu­sions and the death of thousands of victims caught in the vice grip of the imperial project. Empires have been notorious for their ruthless subjugation of peoples. After all, the imperial mentality is at odds with the recognition of human rights. Because the task of empire building is narrowly focused o­n the domination of peo­ple and their resources, the historical impact of empires o­n those peoples who are the objects of the quest for domination is o­ne that is filled with tragedy.

The British experience in Kenya provides o­ne such example. British settlers began displacing native Kenyans as early as 1900. The British appropriated the most fertile Kenyan land at the beginning of the twentieth century, precipitating an exodus of Kenyans to urban areas where poverty and discontent festered— especially among the Kikuyu people. In the economic depression that followed World War II, the ardent nationalism of the Kikuyu-based Mau Mau attracted new recruits at a pace that few could have imagined. A brutal war resulted between the insurrectionist Mau Mau and the colonial government. During that time, and in later historical accounts, there was a genuine dishonesty in failing to distinguish between terrorists and political insurgents. In the course of suppressing the Mau Mau revolt, Kenya's British rulers were responsible for thousands of unjustifiable killings, for gross abuses of both their own law and the laws of war, and for what are possibly the most brutal episodes of legal and physical oppression in twenti­eth century imperial history. The British, with the knowledge of both Winston Churchill and Harold Macmillan, committed untold atrocities against the Kenyan people, putting over 700,000 in prison camps and sending hundreds to the gallows without proper trial.

The truth is that the Kikuyu rebels killed o­nly 32 white colonists and that the real aggressors in this "dirty war" were the high-ranking members of the British government. From 1952 to 1960, the British detained and brutalized hundreds of thousands of Kikuyu—the colony's largest ethnic group—who had demanded their independence. In the eyes of the British colonizers, the men and women who fought in the insurgency were not freedom fighters but rather savages of the low­est order. The British felt justified, in the name of civilization, in crushing all those who challenged colonial rule, even if it meant violating their basic human rights. Later, in an effort to cover up this stain o­n its past, the British government ordered all documentation relating to detention and torture during its last days in Kenya destroyed. The destruction of these records should come as no surprise given the nature and extent of the British occupation. The British detained nearly the entire Kenyan population—some o­ne and a half million people—for more than eight years. Inside the detention camps and barbed-wire villages, the Kikuyu lived in a world of hunger, fear, and death. Their o­nly hope for survival was a full denunciation of their anti-British beliefs.

In this regard, Britain's gulags in Kenya could be compared with the twenty-first century American occupation of Iraq and the nature of the US Global Empire's "war o­n terror." From its military base in Guantanamo, Cuba to "black sites" throughout Eastern Europe in old communist gulags, torture has been a tool of war for the United States. America's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and military have employed torture as a tool in their "war o­n terror." With the approval 0f President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, places of torture such as Abu Ghraib Prison have now entered into the historical lexicon of Bush's "war o­n terror." In reality, the US Global Empire's "war o­n terror" can be more appropriately understood as a war of terror. The policies of the US Global Empire, under the command of the leadership of the Bush-2 regime, are dramatically transforming both America, as a nation, and the nature of its Global Empire in both theory and practice. By removing all previous conventions and norms guiding State behavior, by its inten­tional abandonment of virtually all legal constraints o­n the use of power, by trans­forming the mission and purpose of American power in the world, under the leadership of the Bush-2 regime the United States has become the embodiment of what is implied by the term rogue nation? By shredding the prohibitions against torture as contained in the Geneva Convention, of which the United States is a sig­natory, the neoconservative leadership of the Bush-2 regime effectively declared their own war of attrition upon international law, human rights treaties and covenants, the UN Charter, and the mandates of the US Constitution itself.

THE FATE OF EMPIRES AND THE RISE OF COMMUNITY

All empires have two elements in common: first, their shared reliance upon oppression through militarism and, second, their shared capacity to inspire wide­spread resistance among those whom they seek to conquer, control, and exploit. To rediscover the path out from this bondage is to rediscover the truth that lies behind the first recorded exodus from empire—the departure of Hebrew slaves from servitude in Egypt's Empire. Its theme of liberation from oppression and imperial power has continued to be relevant through the centuries.

The exodus from Egypt was an historical event. It also remains paradigmatic for later generations. Infused within it are lessons that expose religious, political, economic, and social truths about the repressive nature of imperial power. In the twentieth century, Latin American liberation theologians often used the story of the exodus event as a powerful paradigmatic tool to preach and teach about a Judeo-Christian perspective o­n struggle in the world that would be shaped not o­nly by the force of divine intervention but also by the free and conscious participation of human beings. In order to more accurately frame the sociological aspects of their political oppression, liberation theology employed a Marxist critique. When combined with a Marxist critique of their repressive and exclusionary societies, the liberation theologians of Latin America found that the exodus event gained a contemporary currency and vitality due to similar historical experiences in dealing w*th oppression.

This viewpoint constitutes a method of understanding history. As a method, it as allowed many theologians o­n different continents and in different periods of time to more effectively comprehend the nature of political oppression and the "joral duty to oppose it. For example, Howard Thurman (1900-1981) was o­ne of the m°St respected and Prolific religious figures of the twentieth century. As an fncan-American, the deep spirituality of the African-American community resonated within his psyche. After meeting Gandhi, he returned to the United States with a deep appreciation of the lessons of nonviolence. He also understood that self-actualized people are socially and psychologically whole. They cannot be whole if the socioeconomic and political structure under which they live is oppres­sive. That message resonated in the psyche of Thurman's most famous student, Martin Luther King, Jr. In their critique of racial, political, and economic oppression, both Thurman and King sought to use the strategy of nonviolence as a means to induce people of conscience to realize that noncooperation with an evil system is a moral imperative.6

Based o­n this perspective, King was able to develop a view of civil disobedi­ence that made a distinction between just and unjust laws—Any law that degrades the human personality is unjust. Segregation and the Jim Crow laws that upheld this system of racial apartheid were unjust because it is a system that not o­nly degrades the victims, but the perpetrators as well. To be truly liberated within American society requires that there be an interpersonal venture of cooperation and responsibility. Thus, while integration and liberation are analytically distinct, in practical terms they are inseparable.7 With this perspective, both King and Thurman taught that it was necessary for America to embrace the ideal community—the beloved community.

Common themes in Thurman's and King's treatment of the actualization of community include: evil and sin as barriers to community, community as the norm and goal of the moral life, love as the means of actualization for community, and the nature and role of the moral agent in the creation of community.8 Given these requirements for the realization of both national and Global Community, it is not difficult to see why King opposed the Vietnam War. The US Global Empire's war against the people of Vietnam was destroying the hope of building a just society in America just as it was destroying the underlying requirements for realizing a just Global Community. The tools of empire—war and violence—are thoroughly incapable of building just communities or building the necessary bonds of love between people to create community. Therefore, King made it clear that while the bombs that America dropped were dropped in Vietnam, they exploded in the cities of America. America's wealth and treasure was being diverted from the needs of the poor, the cities, and the task of building a just community for people of all races within the United States itself. The cost of empire exacted a heavy price upon both combatants and noncombatants. The cost of empire exacted not o­nly a financial expenditure, but also an expenditure of moral and political capital. In the mid- to late 1960s it was becoming clear to many that the ever-increasing death toll of innocent Vietnamese civilians was a war crime in violation of the Nuremberg Charter. From King's perspective, the entire moral order—at the national and global levels—was under attack by the US Global Empire.

In 1965, under President Lyndon Johnson, the United States initiated a war of aggression against the people of Vietnam in the name of democracy. In 2003, the Bush-2 regime would launch another war of aggression in the name of democracy—-this time against the people of Iraq. In so doing, the legal and moral dilemmas of empire are o­nce again exposed. Some critics of the US Global Empire began to refer to its preoccupation with military force as the Superpower Syndrome. The as meant to address the fact that from the Vietnam War era through the invasion of Iraq, the leadership of the US Global Empire never questioned their supposed right to exercise indiscriminate power in the service of maintaining and extending their empire. Rather, the architects of empire within the Bush-2 regime embarked upon a course to actualize their vision for another American Century.

The neoconservatives had already drafted their version for this world. Their outline for this undertaking is laid out in a document entitled, Project for the Next American Century (PNAC). To ensure American hegemony over the world for the next 100 years, the authors concluded that it would have to be a century under the military domination of the US Global Empire. And, o­nce again, the contagion of war, like a disease, has been framed in global terms—a global war o­n terrorism. In the case of the Vietnam War, the leaders of the US Global Empire claimed that they were engaged in a global struggle against the forces of godless Communism. In the case of the Iraq War, the leaders of the US Global Empire claim that they are engaged in a global struggle against both a godless version of Islam and Islamic terrorists. Instead of embracing the goal of working toward a postimperial America (my term), this neoconservative clique came to power in order to domi­nate the executive and legislative branches of the US government. Bush's inner-circle viewed the world from the perspective that the twenty-first century would involve an inevitable clash of civilizations.

Yet, rather than defining the post-9/11 world as an era for the clash of civilizations, I have argued throughout this book that the twenty-first century is an era for the convergence of civilizations (see: Chapter 4, Clash or Convergence!). By the use of the word convergence I do not mean to imply that the unique aspects of the world's cultures or religions will collapse into o­ne homogenized brand. Rather, by the use of the word convergence I mean to communicate the idea that an inherent commonality, contained in the world's greatest faiths and identities, will finally emerge. Despite their distinctiveness, these faiths and identities still have the capacity to point toward a common ground for discourse, reflective of a growing global consciousness of humanity's shared fate and shared concerns. It is this real­ization that gives rise to the phenomenon of convergence—of community in the midst of diversity.

The good news is that nations, faiths, and cultures do not have to evaporate in order for a global discourse to arise that embodies a spirit of acceptance, inclu­sion, and a more complete recognition of the worth and needs of the other. Common needs and challenges already provide the objective circumstances for this convergence to take place. For example, the challenge of global warming and climate change, the AIDS pandemic, the continuing threat of nuclear war, the angers of terrorism (state-sponsored and group-sanctioned), higher degrees of inequality and poverty, all constitute a common environment for the convergence of peoples and nations to forge a sustainable Global Community.9 In fact, the rise Global Community is predicated upon such a convergence occurring. I would argue that this convergence has already been initiated as indigenous peoples have been responding the exclusionary nature of globalization and the clash of property versus human rights. Recognizing that the neoliberal order is unsustainable, indigenous peoples are in the process of working with other progressive social movements toward the transformation of the imperial global order.

Alternatives to empire, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank are yet to be fully determined. Still, it is becoming increasingly evident that gen­uine alternatives will have to encompass the task of forging regionalized econom­ic and political structures such as the European Union. In fact, progressive and indigenous social movements have already been joined in common cause by 15 European heads of state that condemned the US invasion of Iraq as illegal and asserted the primacy of the United Nations (UN) in the international order.10 Throughout the 1990s and right up to the eve of the illegal invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2003, the UN has taken o­n the role of conflict prevention. Indeed, conflict prevention is a central goal of the UN system.11 It is also a central prerequisite for building a sustainable Global Community.

The continually evolving bonds of Global Community may also be seen in the advances of customary international law norms in symmetry with the teachings and insights of the world's great religions. The convergence of an emerging internation­al consensus around inclusive and humane world order values points toward a global desire to constrain and restrain the use of force.12 The evolving bonds of Global Community may also be seen in new theoretical and practical approaches to development. Increasingly, human rights-based approaches to development are re­inventing the entire concept of the role of human rights in the discourse o­n develop­ment. With a global recognition that the denial of human rights is invariably linked to impoverishment, vulnerability and conflict, UN agencies (UNDP, UNICEF), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), and international development agencies (Care, Oxfam), along with local grassroots non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and social movements, are transforming development practices. A new emphasis upon human rights is now linked to peace-building efforts in Northern Ireland. The practical solutions of rights-based approaches to legal and justice reform are responsible for advancing the reforms that benefit poor people. The human right to food and sustainable nutrition is contributing to strategies for combating infant malnutrition.13 In short, the power of nonviolence, the growth of progressive social movements, and the unsustainable nature of the US Global Empire are all factors that point toward the rise of Global Community.

The idea that there are currently evolving bonds of Global Community is no longer a theoretical abstraction. It is an historical phenomenon. We may begin to trace these evolving bonds by appreciating the central role played by NGOs in the emergence of development of a comprehensive world polity. In this respect, a new world polity perspective may be contrasted to other approaches for understanding globalization, including world-system theory and interstate competition theory. What a world polity perspective provides is an assessment of transnational organizing. No longer are politicians, State bureaucrats, bankers and lenders, and multinational corporations the o­nly actors o­n the global stage. So, in this respect, the work of NGOs in transnational organizing can be understood as part of an his­torical process for the purpose of creating global rules and norms. These norms and rules will change over time, but the important fact that remains is that transna­tional organizing will continue to have identifiable effects o­n social organization at the national and local levels. Some of the component elements of transnational organizing include environmental groups, women's rights organization, the Esperanto Movement, and the International Red Cross. Other emerging compo­nents of transnational organizing are found in technical and economic bodies, including development organizations, population policy groups, and international professional science associations.14 Together, they form part of an incipient Global Community. The rising power of this Global Community may be at least in part attributable to the role that these NGOs play in helping to develop a world polity perspective.

THE COLLAPSE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY UNDER THE MANTLE OF EMPIRE

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, America's experiment with democracy and constitutional government has largely collapsed under the mantle of empire. With the inauguration of the Bush-2 regime, the quality and degree of American democracy is not merely obscured, but purposefully repressed. The Patriot Act, illegal presidential wiretapping without benefit of court-ordered warrants, large scale domestic spying by the FBI and CIA, and a right wing ideological drift throughout the government and nation as a whole, has left the citizens of America as citizens of a democracy in name alone.

Some commentators have diagnosed a national malady that they have termed attention deficit democracy.15 It has become an America where there is a rising level of ignorance among the electorate. Fear is produced by a constant mantra by members of the Bush-2 regime that America faces an imminent terrorist attack. Under Bush, America has become the breeding ground for a kind of messianic democracy that engages in deceit and the manipulation of foreign governments in the name of spreading democracy. It is rather ironic that after defeating totalitari­an and fascist governments in the 1940s, the United States would begin to follow in the footsteps of those it had defeated and judged as war criminals at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials. Perhaps it is the price that must be paid when a dem­ocratic nation based o­n constitutional law and a system of checks and balances discards those benchmarks of democratic practice in order to become a National Security State and a Global Empire. It was a process that began as soon as World War II ended. Yet, it would not be until the Bush-2 regime that the United States would be fully transformed into a militarized Global Empire.

The end of World War II left the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) as two superpower rivals struggling for hegemony. During the course of the Cold War, the nations of the global South were used as proxies and as battlegrounds for this rivalry to be played out.16 The Korean War, Vietnam War, •druggies for mastery over the resources of Africa, struggles for the markets of Latin America and Asia characterized the extent of this Cold War struggle. Terms such as low-intensity conflict were employed to describe wars throughout the hird World that were nonnuclear confrontations between the United States and USSR during the 50-year Cold War struggle. By the time the Cold War ended in l989, the United States was the o­nly Superpower left standing. In a spirit of triumphalism a new age dawned for the United States—its Global Empire would enter a new phase.

Capitalism had defeated socialism by outspending it o­n weapons of war in an unending nuclear arms race. Now, with the USSR out of the way, market capitalism was touted as the means to lift Russia. Eastern Europe, and the rest of the global South out of a financial dark ages and into a neoliberal dawn of wealth, develop­ment, and peace.17 It was also a world in which the military bases and garrisons of the US Global Empire now spanned the globe, making it a global enforcer of American priorities. The newly empowered American Establishment sought to expand its global dominion beyond the constraints of a bipolar world and a poli­cy of communist containment. The ideology of America first and an amorphous idea labeled globalization were embraced in order to sell a neoliberal economic model to the world. Empire and globalization would drive each other, influence each other, and feed off each other. The US Global Empire would use its financial clout to make the rules. The institutional task of making the "magic of the mar­ket" turn a profit for the corporations of the empire was augmented not o­nly by the standard bearers in the Bretton Woods Institutions but also by the new rule makers for the global trading game in the World Trade Organization (WTO). If their rules were not followed, sanctions and penalties could be imposed, credit could be cut off, and in a worst case scenario the American military could be called into service in order to enforce the empire's commands. What this ultimately meant was that the Atlantic Alliance would no longer constrict the deci­sion makers in Washington as they pursued their new version of America's foreign policy (see: Chapter 2, The Occupations of Empire).

The administration of President George W. Bush (hereinafter referred to as the Bush-2 regime) adopted a posture of conducting unilateral foreign policy abroad, while suppressing constitutional liberties at home. In the pursuit of the dream (delusion) of making the twenty-first century into another American century, the neoconservatives of the Bush-2 regime embarked upon dismantling international law in order to remove it as a restraining force upon their policies and conduct in the world. The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was discarded by presidential fiat in early 2002 when Bush's executive branch decided that funding National Missile Defense (NMD) meant more to America's security—and corporate profits—than maintaining a viable nuclear nonproliferation regime. In much the same way, the Bush-2 regime withdrew its support from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in April 2004. Now, the administration and the Pentagon were free to talk about their new doctrine for planetary control by investing in new weapons systems for outer space, land, sea, and air—full spectrum dominance. This perspective has resulted in what some commentators have called the Superpower Myth—the idea that America could solve any foreign policy through military means.

As inheritors of Britain's empire during the 1940s, o­ne would have thought that American policymakers and leaders would have learned the lessons from the British experience. These lessons have clearly been forgotten, even though they remain relevant. In the early stages of World War II, the vast crescent of British-ruled territories stretching from India to Singapore appeared as a massive Allied asset. It served to provide great quantities of raw materials and helped present a seemingly impregnable global defense against the Axis. Yet, with a few weeks in 1941-l942. a Japanese invasion destroyed all of this, sweeping through south and Southeast Asia to the Indian frontier, and provoking the revolutionary struggles that would mark the beginning of the end of British domination in the East. It would result in the death of British rule in south and Southeast Asia.

As the Bush-2 regime sought to extend its version of empire into the Middle East, it has had to confront the remnants of democratic dissent at home. Therefore, in order to stifle democratic dissent at home, the Bush-2 regime produced and, with a compliant Congress, imposed the so-called Patriot Act upon its own citi­zens in the aftermath of the events of 9/11. The Patriot Act was ostensibly put into place to combat the threat of domestic terrorism within the United States. However, its real effect amounted to nothing less than a direct assault upon Constitutional protections guaranteed to American citizens in the Bill of Rights. Further, the USA Patriot Act has had the effect of undermining the most basic principles of the Constitution with respect to the nation's war power by helping to invest the Executive branch with virtually absolute power. The shredding of America's system of checks and balances became o­ne of the hallmarks of neoconservative governance in the Bush-2 regime. Further, by asserting the theo­ry of the unitary executive (the theory that the Executive branch could declare and conduct a war o­n terrorism without regard to the system of checks and balances that mandates Congress and the Courts to be involved as coequal participants in such decisions), the Bush-2 regime actually advocates a centralized presidency. According to this view, power and accountability in government and in the Executive branch should be moved more toward the top, giving the president and his staff greater ability to make decisions themselves. Legal proponents of a strong unitary presidency usually do not outline a comprehensive policy defense of the legal position but rely more o­n doctrinal justifications and related policy arguments.

The theory of the unitary executive fit easily into the power plays of the Bush-2 regime. Using doctrinal justifications and policy arguments instead of being con­strained by a functioning democratic system of checks and balances, the Bush-2 regime has sought to hide executive abuses and unconstitutional actions under the rubric of an unending global war o­n terror. This approach has had the simultaneous advantage of ending democratic accountability within the homeland of the empire and eviscerating the role of international law in the empire's foreign policy and practices. Hence, torture is employed by executive fiat abroad in the Middle East and Europe, while illegal spying o­n American citizens, the jailing of enemy com­batants without charges for years, and wiretaps without warrants characterize the Bush-2 regime's misuse of power at home.

In January 2005, relying o­n the theory of the unitary executive, President Bush declared that he had the constitutional right to order his administration to engage in illegal domestic surveillance and wiretapping under the rubric of national security. In the years after the events of 9/11 the National Security Agency (NSA), under Bush's orders, spied, wiretapped, and engaged in domestic surveillance to a degree unknown even in the Nixon years. Both Bush and his Department of Justice not o­nly admitted to carrying out these acts under color of law but also asserted that such a power was inherent in the Executive by virtue of the presi­dent's wartime authority as Commander-in-Chief.

In the foreign policy arena, the Bush-2 regime decided—even before 9/11—to invade the Middle East in order to secure its oil resources and to obtain a geopolit­ical advantage over potential rivals such as China and Russia (see: Chapter 5, The Hidden Politics of Empire). The Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf, and oil rich states such as Iraq were areas seen as essential to making the twenty-first century into another American Century. This was the position of Zbigniew Brezinski, National Security Advisor to President Carter. In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Brezinski outlined a strategy that the Bush-2 regime and PNAC group endorsed as a blueprint for US foreign pol­icy. A central premise in Brezinski's argument was to assert that while hegemony is as old as mankind, ''America's current global supremacy is distinctive in the rapid­ity of its emergence, in its global scope, and in the manner of its exercise."

When it comes to exerting US Empire's global supremacy, the general consen­sus among the elites of the US Global Empire seems to be that the American empire should do whatever it takes to "perpetuate America's own dominant posi­tion for at least a generation and preferably longer still."²² In so doing, the fabric of international law was shredded by the Bush-2 regime at the same time that the constraints of constitutional government were removed by the aristocratic claims of a president who saw himself in the role of the unitary executive—as the titular head of the American National Security State. In this role, President Bush essen­tially embarked upon a role that he believed left him above the law and virtually unaccountable to congress, the courts, or the American people (see: Chapter 3, When the Law of the Land Becomes Lawless). The mantra of national security provided the same rationale for any action taken by the executive branch. In the task of extending the empire into another American Century the administration's ready reference to national security was touted out to provide a convenient justi­fication for any executive action.

Having been spoiled by the luxuries of their consumer culture, most Americans were content to let the US Global Empire protect their way of life. For far too many Americans, it mattered little that the "American way of life" was largely made possible by their empire's continued exploitation, oppression, subjugation, and sacrifice of other peoples. The realities of hunger, poverty, and disease throughout the global South were all too easily blamed o­n the people and govern­ments of the global South—without any regard given to the realities of their unequal power relationship with the US Global Empire. Very few Americans gave much thought to offering their blind adherence to an imperial system that counte­nanced even deeper economic and political divisions between peoples and cultures. After all, Americans lived in the belly of the beast. Why should they question the policies of their empire? The last thing that most Americans wanted was the burden of choice, the responsibility of having to choose between main­taining the status-quo through their tax dollars to the empire or, in the alternative, questioning and challenging the policies and practices that the US Global Empire was undertaking in their name. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, structural hierarchies of exclusion and lomination remain in place within the US Global Empire and throughout all too many of the nations of the global South.²³ The creation of such an international order was the result of the work of America's first generation of empire builders in the 1940s. The post-World War II period came to reflect the views of American elites and policymakers who were dogmatically committed to the idea that the resources of the global South ultimately belonged to the United States. After all, the United States was the defender of the Free World. The dominant status of the United States in world affairs was also seen by these elites as the necessary pre­condition to any kind of viable world order (see: Chapter 1, From Precedence We Come).

Yet, at the same time, the post-1945 world witnessed the Third World's revolu­tion of rising expectations. Seeking freedom from colonialism would soon be understood as a natural consequence of the end of a world war that was fought to overcome totalitarianism, slavery by a foreign power, and imperial ambition. During the Cold War years, it would matter little to the peoples of the Third World whether the Soviets or the Americans wanted to impose their imperial ambitions o­n the nations of the global South. What mattered most to the peoples of the global South was the international recognition of their sovereignty, their desire for economic justice and development, an appreciation of their cultures and tradi­tions, and their ability to peacefully coexist in a world that now lived under a nuclear sword of Damocles. So, in the 1950s and again in the 1960s and 1970s, nationalist movements throughout the Third World actively sought to be non-aligned with either superpower.

As far as the people and leadership of the global South were concerned, the East-West conflict mattered, but so did overcoming the global disparities found in the North-South divide. Therefore, the Non-Aligned Nations Movement (NAM) and advocates for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) focused upon the Third World's exodus from the bondage of all empires and imperial quests. As early as the 1950s, the people of the global South wanted to have their rights to self-determination acknowledged by the United States and USSR.

For the majority of citizens throughout the global South, the ideological system espoused by either of the Superpowers mattered very little. As it was expressed in various conferences among and between the leaders and representatives of Third World nations, the majority of nations and peoples throughout the global South were, without reservation, actively seeking to build a Global Community in which there would be a recognition of human rights attributed to entire groups of peo­ples rather than just to individuals. This catalog of rights included the rights to development, peace, a clean environment, and humanitarian assistance.²⁶ They wanted to bring an end to the dangers associated with an uncontrolled nuclear arms race. They sought an open discourse between the United States and the USSR that would be capable of sustaining the transition to a more peaceful global order. This more peaceful order would have to be premised upon the overcoming °f gross inequalities, poverty, hunger, lack of educational opportunities, and the ever-present threat of war both within and between nations. In short, the primary goal for over two-thirds of humankind was to move the direction of international life away from a Cold War competition between two rival empires and toward the evolution of Global Community. Until that path became an objective possibility, the global consensus was that a path of nonalignment with either superpower was the most prudent choice for the peoples of the global South.

Unfortunately for the global South, the leadership of America's Global Empire in the 1950s and 1960s did not want nonalignment to become a part of the geopo­litical equation. As Secretary of State John Foster Dulles saw it, the possibility of Third World states acting in unison would mean that the balance of power would drift toward the Soviets and leave the United States with diminished power. What was equally unfortunate was the US failure to give substance to the much-quoted but studiously ignored notion reflected in Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which "everyone is entitled to a social and internation­al order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized." The result of this failure is summed up in Philip Alston's observation: 'The connotation of solidarity, of a duty to cooperate, and of the need for mecha­nisms to achieve an o­ngoing international redistribution of wealth linked to human rights obligations, have for too long been anathema to Western governments."

For decades, many nations throughout the global South have fought wars of liberation from empire. As with America at its own founding, nations throughout the global South vehemently opposed the goals of empire builders. During the nineteenth century, Great Britain, France, and Germany had embarked upon colonial interventions into the global South in an attempt to control both the resources and peoples of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. o­n every continent where the empire builders appeared, liberation struggles emerged to confront them. However, in the aftermath of World War II, with the birth of the UN and the global reach of its Charter, it was clear that colonialism—as it was practiced— could not survive as a governing strategy for the empire builders. The UN's global structure of conflict prevention, the enforcement of human rights norms, and inter­national law's continuing adherence to the norm of sovereignty, all combined to eliminate justifications for either colonialism or imperialism. Hence, the post-1945 period was to become the age of decolonization and anti-imperialism. The nations of the global South were supposed to be recognized under the banner of international law as having sovereign equality with the Great Powers.

Yet, o­n the road to the New World Order, the US Global Empire took o­n the imperial mantle from the British in 1945. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the United States presented itself as the defender of the Free World. The o­nly problem was that the Free World was not really free—in the sense of civil and political lib­erties. Rather, the Free World contained US-sponsored dictatorships, as with Marcos in the Philippines, Samoza in Nicaragua, and the Shah of Iran. It was a world in which the door was held open for corporations and business interests that continually sought unbridled access to the nations of the global South in order to secure control over their natural resources, labor forces, and markets. In 2001, the Bush-2 regime began to use its global war o­n terror as an extension and new revised version of the Free World idea, insofar as the concept of an unending global war could easily mask the empire's abuses at home and abroad. The unhindered imperial project could then proceed without reference to law, human rights, the doctrine of sovereignty, or democratic constraints.

In the decades after the American exodus from Vietnam (1974), US-dominated institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and WTO would attempt to manage the world economy, without having to call upon the military forces of the US Global Empire to enforce the imperial consensus. This strategy worked until the last half of the 1990s when the so-called Washington Consensus—the neoliberal econom­ic model of the Reagan era—collapsed at the end of the Clinton presidency. When the Bush-2 regime took office in 2001, the process of globalization was incapable of maintaining or securing American global hegemony without the use of military force. Resource wars were already underway for the control of oil and pipelines throughout the Middle East. Both China and Russia were seen by elites in Washington as rivals for the world's dwindling energy resources.

The failure of the neoliberal economic model was evident throughout East Asia in the aftermath of the economic meltdown of 1999. The East Asian tigers became the victims of a domino effect linked to the forces of uncontrolled globalization and faulty neoliberal economic prescriptions. Additionally, Africa remained an economic basket case, with very few exceptions. Latin America, which had never really recovered from its decade of debt, was now locked into a downward cycle of increasing levels of poverty along with worsening socioeconomic inequalities. Despite Latin America's embrace of democratic governments, it was still relatively no better off. Angered and alienated citizens would continue to vote out previous governments, while social movements continued to demand concessions from the State and an end to neoliberal economic prescriptions which had failed them miserably.

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, Latin America was a continent still enslaved by IMF conditionality agreements that strangled economic growth and development. It was a problem that was further exacerbated by an uncritical reliance o­n the economic mantra of markets, privatization, and deregulation. By surrendering to the laws of the market without maintaining the ability of the State to intervene o­n behalf of the victims of the market, many Latin American nations witnessed a worsening of the degree of inequalities and poverty (see: Chapter 6, Claiming A "Right of Peace": Moving Beyond the "Empire Syndrome").

No longer able to completely control the nations of the global South through its institutions of economic coercion (IMF, World Bank, US Transnational Corporations), the Bush-2 regime decided to rely predominantly upon its doc­trines of resurgent militarism and preemption to reassert American hegemony. Armed with the doctrine of nationalism and resurgent militarism as its strategy of first choice, the Bush-2 regime embarked upon its version of how to capture the wenty-first century and make it into another American Century. The difference between the twentieth century period of American dominance and the projected twenty-first century period of American dominance was that the US Global Empire in the twenty-first century was willing to adopt a more fascist approach in attempting to maintain its hegemonic position (see: Chapter 2, The Occupations of Empire).

LIBERATING THE GLOBAL SOUTH FROM GLOBAL EMPIRE

For the advocates of human rights, for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the international law principle of the sovereign equality of nations, and for the goal of building a humane and inclusive global order, the o­nly viable alternative to anoth­er American Century is the vision and promise of a rising Global Community. Throughout this book, I argue that the best strategy for realizing a rising Global Community would have to be o­ne that was dedicated to abandoning neoliberal economic models, building strong South-South regional alliances, and incorpo­rating the people power of social movements into a national/international counter-hegemonic alliance to the US Global Empire. Indeed, the power of a rising Global Community would be most dramatically and effectively manifested as the prod­uct of an emerging national/international counter-hegemonic alliance to the US Global Empire (see: Chapter 6, Claiming A "Right of Peace"—Moving Beyond the "Empire Syndrome'⁴).

In what could easily be the most succinct preamble for any document announcing the nature of this counter-hegemonic alliance, Boaventura de Sousa Santos observes:

Although neo-liberal globalization—the current version of global capitalism— is by far the dominant form of globalization, it is not the o­nly o­ne. Parallel to it and, to a great extent, as a reaction to it, another globalization is emerging. It consists of transnational networks and alliances among social movements, social struggles, and non-governmental organizations. From the four corners of the globe, all these initiatives have mobilized to fight against the social exclu­sion, destruction of the environment and biodiversity, unemployment, human rights violations, pandemics, and inter-ethnic hatreds, directly or indirectly caused by neo-liberal globalization.

In short, there are two globalizations at work in our age. The first type of globalization is supportive of the US Global Empire and the imperial project. The second type of globalization is a reaction against the US Global Empire and sup­portive of a variety of constituencies and issues that make possible the realization of Global Community. To comprehend the difference between these two alterna­tive paths of globalization is to begin to understand the core thesis of this book.

The main theme of my book—finding an exodus from empire—follows the gen­eral outline of analysis (as set forth above) by Santos. That is because our research and our perspective converge o­n how to define, conceptualize, and analyze the nature of the worldwide system of the US Global Empire. Additionally, we con­cur that another globalization is emerging—one that is accountable to human rights and human needs within a rising Global Community. Being able to grasp the role converging social movements in opposition to neoliberal capitalism makes it possible for us to recognize the reality that neoliberal globalization has come into open conflict with the agenda of emerging transnational networks and alliances. Throughout the global South, the poor, the unemployed, the disenfran-hised and excluded are demanding that the sovereign equality of their nation within the Global Community be respected. It is no longer tolerable for the US Global Empire, the IMF and World Bank, or the WTO to dictate what their respective developmental paths will be in the absence of effective democratic representation.

This view embodies a recognition that is increasingly common among progres­sive thinkers around the globe. For example, Anne Orford has noted: "Economic alobalization has made the fictitious nature of state sovereignty apparent to all but the most myopic observer of international relations and international law."²⁹ If state sovereignty is not an effective barrier to imperial intervention, then the entire world is simply left open to exploitation by the best-armed Superpower.

In Chapter 6, I detail how the financial axis of the empire, such as the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, operate in conjunction with the Washington/Wall-Street Alliance. I demonstrate how the purpose and conduct of these institutions is designed to facilitate the flow of wealth and resources out of the nations of the global South. As a consequence, the resulting collateral damage done by these institutions is to leave billions of people worse off than they were prior to the imposition of the neoliberal model and the destruction of their sovereignty.

The IMF and World Bank have had a significant impact o­n the policies of gov­ernments in those states seeking to make use of their resources in two ways. First, the IMF and World Bank influence government policy through the imposition of conditions o­n access to credits and loans.³⁰ Second, the IMF and World Bank do not comply with the obligation to ensure that the model of development adopted by states is o­ne in which all human rights and freedoms can be fully realized.³¹ Given this disempowerment of states, I outline a strategy for states, throughout the global South, to renew and remake their governments and societies in accordance with a model of governance that I have labeled the Inclusionary State (IS) (see: Chapter 6). The importance of the IS model is that the leadership of social move­ments, and all the major groups and classes within civil society, can finally be accorded a formal place at the table of decision making.

My advocacy of an inclusionary state may be seen as a key component of an exit strategy from the US Global Empire and its institutions of exploitation. That is because the effect of World Bank and IMF policies is to strip the state of most of its functions, except for maintaining law and order while, at the same time. facilitating private investment. When a state becomes stripped of its power to engage in protecting the rights of its citizens, as well as the course and direction of its own economy, it then becomes transformed into what I have called the "exclusionary state" (ES). It excludes the majority of classes and groups with- in the nation because the leadership of an ES state appears to address o­nly the interests of international economic institutions and corporate investors. That is the bad news. The g°°^{d newsis that as the effects} °^{f this kind} °^{f limited} representation of interests^{becomes clear to labor} unions, the unemployed, the victims of human rights abuses, and social movements in opposition to the neoliberal model, a transnational counter-hegemonic allianceagainsttheUSGlobalEmpireis beginning to emerge. That is because the vulnerability, insecurity, and frustration of the people increases and with these symptoms of exploitation and a recognition of their ultimate cause. With rising levels of discontent comes a tide of global oppo­sition in the form of violent protests, political destabilization. and the growth of populist nationalism. These are the societal consequences that emerge when ES in the global South appear to be accountable to o­nly foreign investors, the IMF, and the World Bank.

Throughout this book, when I speak of an exodus from empire. I am also speak­ing of the need for the nations of the global South to embark upon an exodus from the influence, pressures, and coercion of both the IMF and the World Bank. Despite the fact that the 1997 World Development Report spoke of the need to bring the state closer to the people, the reality was that there was no significant shift in the World Bank's commitment to policies of privatization and state restructuring based o­n a narrow model of economic development that continued to exclude the needs of the poor and human rights concerns. The situation is o­ne that remains much the same as it was in the late 1990s when John Gray noted: "At the global level, as at that of the nation-state, the free market does not promote sta­bility or democracy. Global democratic capitalism is as unrealizable a condition as worldwide communism."

In this regard, some scholars have noted: "International institutions must make some changes in order to adapt to the human rights legal framework. But the insti­tutions cannot change without a change in the international system itself, o­ne of the main elements being the actual economic and financial system based o­n neo-liberal rules."³⁵ So, despite the World Bank and IMF giving lip service to poverty reduction through new partnerships, we find: 'The new poverty reduction part­nerships are based o­n consensus and the idea of mutual interest among state and donor actors. The partnership idea is not far from new, nor is it politically neutral. Indeed ... 'partnership' is commonly invoked when the more powerful party to an asymmetrical relationship feels threatened by impending hostilities and confrontation."³⁶ The impending hostilities and the dangers of widespread violent confrontations, feared by the IMF and World Bank actually emerge from a combina­tion of factors. The two most evident factors are: (1) progressive social movements making new political advances within and between nations and, (2) the growing force of a national/international counter-hegemonic alliance in opposition to the US Global Empire.

Even in the face of these impending hostilities the IMF continues to deny that human rights protection is an area of activity with which it should legitimately concern itself. The IMF has remained adamant in asserting that the protection of human rights is outside of its scope and is a responsibility that remains the con­cern of individual governments. Yet, the very fact that it imposes conditionally requirements upon governments accepting its loans makes the IMF into a force that dictates the degree to which human rights will be protected and advanced or ignored. Even when the IMF considers the impact of its own policies, it still treats human rights as a matter that is outside of the Fund's mandate. It should be no wonder that there are impending hostilities against the IMF. It has been increas­ingly seen as just o­ne more institutional bastion of Western power that continues to emasculate the right of the global South to embark upon a path of humane and inclusive development. It has effectively ignored the UN's Millennium Development Goals and protests against its conduct from the human rights community.

Despite the IMF and World Bank, and the militarism of the US Global Empire, the fact remains that the path toward the realization of Global Community, as well as humane and inclusive development, is more accessible than ever before in recorded human history. In large measure it is because the norms of a human rights culture have become universal. It is also because the failures and limitations of Global Empire are more apparent. Military force cannot generate global compliance to the demands of a Global Empire any more than a dictatorship can inspire the loyalty of those who are subjugated by it. Neither can an economic dictatorship, under the global guidance of the IMF and World Bank, result in a reduction of poverty and inequality or open the door for an exodus from empire. These insights have inspired people around the world to recognize that Another World Is Possible.

In January 2001, in Porto Alegre, Brazil, 20,000 activists, students, and film­makers assembled together in order to exchange ideas about confronting the US Global Empire. That was the birth of the now historic World Social Forum. At the center of most of the discussions held at that time was the fact that the IMF and World Bank bear the greatest responsibility for the plunder of entire commu­nities. That is also the reason why, throughout this book, I have gone to great lengths to make a connection between the Washington/Wall-Street Alliance of the US Global Empire and its primary financial institutions—the IMF and World Bank. In opposing the empire, an incipient national and international counter-hegemonic alliance must find alternatives to these forces. With the articulation of alternatives a global discourse can be accelerated that should lead to projects of emancipation and liberation—an exodus from empire.

At Porto Alegre, a general agreement was reached o­n the need for an alterna­tive system of global governance. Some participants invoked the term de-globalization to describe this alternative. Walden Bello clarified the meaning of the term by noting that: "We are not talking about withdrawing from the interna­tional economy. We are speaking about reorienting our economies away from the emphasis o­n production for export and towards production for the local market."³⁸ At the top of his list, he suggested: "Drawing most of our financial resources for development from within rather than becoming dependent o­n foreign investment and foreign financial markets."³⁹ Following that fundamental principle, he added that it would be necessary to carry out long-postponed measures of income redis­tribution and Land redistribution in order to create a vibrant internal market. Such a path would allow nations throughout the Global Community to de-emphasize growth and work instead toward maximizing equity in order to radically reduce environmental disequilibrium. Another benefit of taking this path would be strate­gic economic decisions would not be left to the market but make them subject to democratic choice. In furtherance of democratizing nations, the private sector and the state should be subjected to constant monitoring by civil society. Yet, for all this to take place and succeed, it will o­nly be possible if it takes place within an alternative system of global governance. That alternative system is what I am calling Global Community.

In the four years since the first World Social Forum, the state of struggle against the US Global Empire has spanned the globe and encompassed the energies of millions of people. Social movements against neoliberal capitalist intrusion have sprung up throughout the Arab world, South Africa, East Africa, Australia, Central Asia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, East and Southeast Asia, rural China, and throughout Latin America.⁴⁰ Social movements are a central part of a worldwide struggle, helping to accelerate the global process of creating an alter­native system. When viewed in combination, these struggles are all part of a dynamic convergence between nations, cultures, and ideas (see: Chapter 4). The World Social Forum served as an important platform for opening the door to the creation of a counter-hegemonic globalization. Other examples of convergence may be cited in the form of a global anti-war movement, the trade union movement, and the struggles of over three billion peasants for a decent life.

A global mobilization against neoliberal hegemony has taken many forms, but it has a common objective—the defeat of Global Empire and the establishment of a viable Global Community.⁴¹ The extent of this mobilization and the diversity of these struggles have just begun to be documented. Yet, it is undeniable that millions of people have become active in rejecting corporate globalization, the intrusions of Global Empire, and the IMF and World Bank. In all of these efforts, millions of people around the globe are developing alternatives to the current system. They are actively engaged in a process that will Jay the groundwork for an exodus from empire.

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

 

Terrence E. Paupp

Exodus From Empire: The Fall of America’s Empire and the Rise of the Global

Community (London: Pluto Press, 2007, 423.)

 

The Cold War world which began in 1945 and lasted until 1990 was basically a bipolar world, stabilized as well as threatened by the nuclear balance. The post-Cold War world in which the USA seemed to dominate the global scene both economically and strategically lasted from 1990 to 2008. Some saw this period as the belle époque of the American Empire. The empire collapsed in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan. The US-led ‘warm o­n terror’ failed to produce a sense of limits or guidelines. Terror could express itself through Al’Qaeda, the Taliban, Palestinian suicide-bombers, South American narco-terrorists or Chechen separatists. The war o­n terror was an open-ended struggle which failed to focus o­n the historical and political context in which violence is generated and terror becomes a tactic.

 

Paupp stresses opposition to the USA as a main reason for the fall of empire. “History is in the midst of changing. The change is predicated o­n the notion that the citizens of the Global South are part of a Global Community who can be viewed as a cohesive community of oppressed and exploited peoples who are seeking an ‘exodus from empire’. As I use the term, it allows me to write of the peoples and governments of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, as well as Russia and China, coming together in a national, regional, and international counter-hegemonic alliance against the US Empire.” As with past empires, there are limits to what military might can do. Today, while there are many US military overseas, they are not trained as colonial administrators, and even the formation of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan goes poorly. Among Americans there were few empire builders. Unlike the French, the English or the Russians, few Americans wanted to leave home in order to administer foreign lands. There have always been ‘overseas Americans’ especially in the business world, and there have been Americans in education, health and religion. Yet they have not been called upon to establish public order and to oversee the daily work of ‘the natives’. In the spirit of the saying ‘What if we gave a war and no o­ne came?’ we can say ‘What if we created an empire, and no administrators followed?’

 

Every nation has a story — a narrative it tells itself and others to explain its place in the flow of history and to give meaning to its actions. Pushing the frontier westward is a key part of the American narrative. The creation of an empire is not. There can be mythic covers for empire, and some see in ‘globalization’ a cover for US interests, a way of seeking markets for its global reach and for its economic productivity. Certainly, globalization does not go against US economic and political interests but globalization is a combination of trends and currents that the USA does not control and goes well beyond US interests.

 

Thus, the short American Empire will not be replaced by a different national empire, but rather by institutions, values and practices which will help to structure globalization. The United Nations provides the framework for this transition to world law, human rights, and inclusive forms of government. The United Nations is the symbol and the motor for “inclusive ideas, principles, traditions and practices that highlight the centrality of human cooperation, ethical reason, and sociability.” This international community is not yet embodied in a single, global, democratic, constitutional order, but the United Nations has the capacity to grow and to develop democratization to its universal dimensions based o­n the rule of law. The world society has a commonality of interests and values to which the USA has contributed, but the USA is not the exclusive guardian of the world society. It is likely that what we are seeing is not the ‘fall’ of the American Empire but its passing as a new world-wide social, economic, and political structure is being put into place.

Rene Wadlow