Violence in the service of empire

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bush's speech in Whitehall last week (thanks for posting) was seen in
Britain as a sophisticated working of his audience. Apart from one Freudian
slip (see below) he was fluent in addressing the issues and dilemmas that
have split the European powers over Iraq.

One problem for Blair has been that the clips of Bush are usually when he
is playing to a US domestic audience. This speech was thought to flatter our
intelligence.

The speech contains the term "violence" 7 times. But all in the context of
the enemy. It was seen on BBC2's Newsnight as an argument for the measured
use of force in the world.

One passage makes clear the empire-creating mission:

>>
The United States and Great Britain share a mission in the world beyond the
balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest. We seek the advance of
freedom and the peace that freedom brings. Together our nations are standing
and sacrificing for this high goal in a distant land at this very hour. And
America honors the idealism and the bravery of the sons and daughters of
Britain.
<<<

and later

>>>Our first choice, and our constant practice, is to work with other
responsible governments. We understand, as well, that the success of
multilateralism is not measured by adherence to forms alone, the tidiness of
the process, but by the results we achieve to keep our nations secure.
The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the willingness of
free nations, when the last resort arrives, to retain* {sic} aggression and
evil by force. There are principled objections to the use of force in every
generation, and I credit the good motives behind these views.

Those in authority, however, are not judged only by good motivations. The
people have given us the duty to defend them. And that duty sometimes
requires the violent restraint of violent men. In some cases, the measured
use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force.
<<<



Overall a remarkably explicit discussion of force and violence. Who bears
arms, is a key question of global power, as of state power, as Edward
Shevardnaze has just conceded in his desire to resign to "avoid bloodshed".

Bush signalled to Britain a willingness to consider a more multi-lateralist
agenda, but this week they reaffirmed their commitment to violence in
enforcing global empire, in remarkably explicit terms, although most of the
rhetoric is about human rights.

None of this will be new to readers of this list, but I thought it was worth
emphasising how compatible the analysis is with the traditonal marxist
theory of the state, (minus the question of class of course).


Chris Burford

London