Neocons and neocolonials
Neocon ideas have dominated foreign policy in the United States for the last 30 years or so. Neocons wish to perpetuate American hegemony in the world using the idea of a unilateral promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, and they are prepared to use military force to achieve this end.
No empire lasts forever. The center of gravity of the world economy is back in Asia after a brief blip of 200 years in the West. China became the world’s foremost trading nation a decade ago and other Asian countries have also roared back into world rankings.
The US is being challenged by China by its Road and Belt Initiative around the world, and by Russia in erstwhile Soviet states and also in Syria, Iran, and Africa. It is not surprising that the Ukraine War to attrite Russia is fully supported by the neocons of both the Democratic and Republican parties.
In spite of the confrontation with China and Russia, the neocons believe that the West can and should continue its hegemony through resoluteness and boldness, and in the process preserve the American Empire.
American and British exceptionalism
Neocons rationalize their view based on the idea of American exceptionalism, the beginnings of which are seen by some in John Winthrop’s affirmation to his fellow New England colonists: “We shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.” But, in fact it is simply a continuation of British exceptionalism in Europe and Asia that was based on military power, ideas of liberty, industrial and economic power, and white culture.
The British imagined themselves as island people that stood alone against a succession of (European) enemies, that theirs was the birthplace of parliamentary democracy, and that the English are inherently free.
The idea of freedom was central since Britain’s global economic supremacy was achieved through its nineteenth-century policy of “open seas”. Winston Churchill once famously said: “Each time we must choose between Europe and the open seas, we shall always choose the open seas.”
To the neocons, Pax Americana is the successor to the British Empire, which at one time controlled one-quarter of the area of the globe as well as quarter of the population. When the British started the East India Company (EIC) in 1600, which was the instrument for the creation of the empire, England’s own population was just over 4 million whereas the Indian subcontinent, which was to become the jewel of the empire was over 150 million. The neocon reasoning is this: If EIC had the audacity to conquer India and rule most of it for nearly 200 years, and even expand British influence into China and Southeast Asia, America can keep its empire going indefinitely notwithstanding the shift in the world economy and despite whatever China or Russia might do.
Britain‘s success was built on bold policy, superior management and organization. In the late 18th century, the EIC began illegal opium exports to China to finance the rising tea imports. The Chinese government was displeased, but Britain spoke of the sanctity of free trade and this led to the First Opium War (1839–42), which ended in Chinese defeat and the expansion of British trading privileges. The Second Opium War (1856–60) further improved trading terms for the British and other Europeans.
By the end of the 18th century, the EIC accounted for half of the world’s trade in commodities such as cotton, silk, sugar, salt, spices, and tea. At its peak, the company was the largest corporation in the world and had its own army that was twice the size of the British army at the time.
Factories and NGOs
The EIC created the British Empire by doing whatever it needed to stay ahead of other competitors, and this included ferrying slaves, trading opium, protectionism at home, and insistence on free trade elsewhere. The company got its foothold in India through its trading posts called factories with main trading settlements at Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta, together with subordinate factories at other places. Initially it had no such concession in China and trading had to be done from the ships at Canton and one objective of the Opium Wars was to obtain trading posts.
What can America do in 21st century that is equivalent to the British factories which were the wedge that opened up the empire?
Information is both the commodity and the opium of the 21st century, and NGOs supported by the West are analogous to the factories of the colonial period. If the colonial factories assembled and sold goods, the NGOs disseminate Western ideas. The primary instrument of expansion for the company was the Sepoy employed by it, and now it is the journalist, academic, and the activist comprador who is paid through overt and covert networks.
Just as the factories had a useful function, so do the NGOs, but their main purpose is to do things that are aligned with the objectives of the West. The stated purpose of the NGOs is to promote democracy and human rights, which is traced back to Wilsonian idealism so that the odium of the British Empire may be overlooked.
The factories of the colonial age were staging stations to overthrow local kings and sultans, now the NGOs in the Global South are to bring about regime change in the interests of the empire. They can also be used to shut down companies of competitor nations using environmental issues as was done in the case of Vedanta-owned Sterlite copper plant in Tamil Nadu.
If the principle of free trade was used to justify drug wars, the principle of free ideas and democracy is the justification for recent interventions. If the colonial era conflicts were over deciding the rules for the trading of commodities, the current-day conflicts are to ensure that information stays in the control of American companies.
The interests and objectives of neocons and neocols (neocolonials) have converged and overlap completely.
NGOs were used in the Color Revolutions in many places, especially in post-Soviet states of Yugoslavia Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. Likewise, the Arab Spring served to bring down governments in Arab countries such as Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen. Since the Arab Spring wasn’t successful in Syria, it has had to endure a never-ending civil war. Recently, there was a regime change in Bangladesh.
To the critics of the use of NGOs to topple governments, the neocons say that any mature state should be resilient and be able to respond to such pressures and to make reforms wherever necessary. They say that if not for them a worse ideology, such as one seeking totalitarian control, might win.
But the neocons are not being totally honest because they are forever complaining of Russian interference in American elections, presumably by the use of “misinformation” on social media. The neocons don’t see an irony in this for they insist that it is self-evident that they are for freedom and democracy while their opponents are not.
