The alternative is Exodus from Empire: An ethical and political reorientation from Global Empire to Global Community

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 counterhegemonic 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”). 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.28 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 disenfranchised 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 globalization 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.32 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).33 It excludes the majority of classes and groups within 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 good news is that as the effects of this kind of 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 alliance against the US Global Empire is 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.”34