'Imperial America'

Is America inaugurating a new stage in its "imperial" future asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed

---

In timing their attacks on London's transport system to coincide with the opening of the G8 summit hosted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair in Gleneagles, Scotland, the terrorists may not have succeeded in scuttling the summit altogether but they did succeed in deflecting it, if only temporarily, from its predetermined course. They also cast doubt on how effective such gatherings can be in countering global terrorism which, along with poverty and environmental degradation, faces humanity with its gravest challenge in the 21st century.

One of the main items on the summit agenda was the issue of global warming. It is an issue on which the attitude of the United States, which has only recently -- and reluctantly -- conceded that climatic changes could be linked to human activities, is informed primarily by economic considerations. It is no secret that the Bush administration has close ties with big business, and that it was under pressure from powerful industrialists that Bush backed out of the Kyoto treaty. Under its provisions, US industries were required to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming, a move they vehemently opposed as it would have reduced their profit margins.

The G8 has set itself up as a council of elders empowered to speak for the world at large. But how acceptable is this self-appointed guardian of world order to the wards whose interests it claims to uphold and protect? What is the source of its legitimacy? Does it derive from the UN Charter and the composition of the Security Council -- more precisely from the prerogatives enjoyed by the veto- holders in the Council in their capacity as victors in WWII?

This raises the question of why nations that won a war 60 years ago should continue to enjoy a privileged status today solely on the strength of their victory. Or, for that matter, why nations defeated in that war but which have since become economic power houses should be excluded from permanent membership in the Security Council. By no stretch of the imagination can Germany and Japan continue to be regarded as defeated countries. Similarly, the Soviet Union, which no longer exists, cannot be considered a victorious country.

But the WWII yardstick does not apply to the composition of the G8, which included Germany, Japan and Italy, all vanquished in the war, Canada, which is not a permanent member of the Security Council, and Russia which, though it did not exist under that name during the war, was invited to join for a number of reasons, not least because it owns a nuclear arsenal comparable to that of the United States. In addition to the core members of the G8, a number of other countries were invited to the Gleneagles summit, including India, China, South Africa, Nigeria, Brazil and Mexico. The inclusion of developing countries in a meeting of advanced industrialised countries reflects an awareness that elitist decisions cannot be imposed from on high without the cooperation of those whose interests they will affect.

Much has been heard in recent years about the urgent need to reform the United Nations. The one certainty to emerge from the debate is that the international organisation cannot go on operating as it has done in the past, and everyone agrees that its restructuring has become a necessity. However, sharp differences over how it should be restructured remain a major obstacle impeding the achievement of that goal any time soon. Meanwhile, the present world order remains shaky and without the means to become a force of stability in the world.

Both stability and legitimacy were under attack in the spate of terrorist bombings that shook the world last week. In the space of 48 hours, terrorists struck in London and Baghdad, killing scores of innocent civilians. In a separate incident. Egypt's ambassador to Iraq, Ihab El-Sherif, was abducted and executed as a warning to other countries to recall their diplomatic missions from Baghdad and to isolate Iraq diplomatically in the Arab world.

The issue of legitimacy in its different aspects has become the object of many questions. Was the Gleneagles summit looking for a new international legitimacy? Was it aimed at endowing a group made up from he eight most advanced industrialised countries with the legitimacy and authority to decide the fate of the world? Is the G8 seeking to replace the United Nations as the ultimate arbiter of world affairs? That is, to turn a de facto situation into one in which it is recognised de jure as the body empowered to deal with the most intractable crises? In the context of the current world order, the G8 does not enjoy such sweeping legitimacy, but by providing a forum for direct -- and informal -- talks between the top world leaders, it creates conditions conductive to helping them reach satisfactory compromise solutions.

Such legitimacy as the G8 does enjoy is not derived from the existing order, or from any order enjoying legitimacy. The only common denominator between its members is that they are the most industrially developed countries in the world. The feature they all share is power more specifically, military power. How valid a yardstick is this when it comes to determining who is best qualified to conduct world affairs, to monopolise the political decision-making process and to implement democracy worldwide?

In a way, the US attributes to itself imperial power, to give credence to its status as the sole superpower in the world and endow it with some form of legitimacy. We must be careful not to confuse "imperial" with "imperialistic". The distinction is essential. The phenomenon now observed is post- imperialistic. While imperialism had its historical legitimacy, that is not the case of "imperial" power.

Both Bush and Blair have an interest in ensuring the success of the G8 summit to improve their image after the Iraqi war failure. This explains Blair's spearheading the "end poverty in Africa" campaign, as well as the pledge by the G8 to raise up to three billion dollars for the future construction of the Palestinian state.