The State Of The Union And The New Cold War

Any who doubted the characterization of the war on terrorism as a new ColdWar had only to listen to the State of the Union address, Bush's mostdepressing speech since he launched his unlimited war with his address to ajoint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

The following points, all stunningly reminiscent of the 1950's and early1960's, are easily discerned from the text of the speech:

We are once again a beacon of civilization, on a higher moral plane thanothers, opposing absolute evil -- not only did Bush refer twice to the"civilized world," meaning us and our close allies, we also learn thatIran, Iraq, and North Korea, along with their "terrorist allies"constitutean "axis of evil." In a stunning display of hypocrisy, Bush evenindictedIraq for attempting to weaponize anthrax, something the United States hasbeen doing itself. Although couched in universalist terms -- "the rule oflaw, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, private property,free speech, equal justice and religious tolerance" -- this renewed, overtcultural supremacism is no less odious than that of the supposedly bygonecolonial era.

We assert as forcefully as we did in the days of fighting the"international Communist conspiracy," that the war on terrorism allowsusto intervene wherever we like, if we so choose -- "some governments will betimid in the face of terror. And make no mistake: If they do not act,America will." Once again, any development anywhere is a potential threatto our national security, and "all nations should know: America will dowhat is necessary to ensure our nation's security."

We need permanently higher military budgets in order to "defend"ourselves(with useless and expensive high-tech programs like missile defense and thejoint-strike fighter, not with ways to defend against realistic terroristattacks) -- "My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending intwo decades, because while the price of freedom and security is high, it isnever too high: whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay it."Bush's proposed new military budget is $379 billion, an increase of $48billion over the already unexpectedly high 2001 budget -- the increasealone is larger than any other nation's military budget.

We are once again beset by internal enemies -- "And as government workstobetter secure our homeland, America will continue to depend on the eyes andears of alert citizens." This is not yet at the level of the HouseUn-American Activities Committee hearings and pamphlets on how to tell ifyour neighbor is a communist that characterized the 1950's, but it is asignificant step closer.

Our "economic security" is essential to our national security, sodisagreements on economic policy and on how high corporate profit should bemust be submerged to an artificial national unity. Congress must pass anenergy policy that involves more drilling for oil in the United States,must give the president Trade Promotion Authority (popularly known asfast-track) in concluding "free trade" agreements, and must make theBushtax cut permanent -- all in the name of security.

We are called once again to sacrifice for a very particularly conceived"national good" -- "My call tonight is for every American tocommit atleast two years  4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime  to theserviceof your neighbors and your nation. " The newly created USA Freedom Corpsneeds volunteers to help preserve our "homeland security." The callforcitizens to do some form of public service, in itself, is not a bad thing,but the choice to ask them to prepare for possible terrorist attacksinstead of trying to provide education, housing, and social services topeople who need them is about attempting to mobilize the time and energy ofthe people in the service of the existing power structure and aboutco-opting other kinds of popular mobilization.

In sum, the war on terrorism will involve more frequent militaryinterventions, with less of an attempt to placate internationalsensibilities, and with the constant excuse of protecting Americansecurity. It will involve more overt appeals to Western cultural supremacy,although couched in universalist terms. It will involve more armsproliferation and a growth of military spending, and a lessening ofdemocracy in this country, both in terms of the public's ability to affectdecisions and in terms of individual freedom to dissent from the courseadvocated by dominant institutions.

If this were the whole story, it would be a very depressing one. But excessinevitably produces a reaction and empires sooner or later overreachthemselves.

This country has already seen an antiwar movement spring up withunprecedented speed, in the aftermath of September 11. Twin upcomingevents, the planned protests at the World Economic Forum in New York, andthe gathering of an estimated 50,000 people at the "alternative" WorldSocial Forum (in its second year already far larger than the WEF) willsignify the depth and breadth of resistance to the renewed projects ofAmerican imperial domination and domestic social control articulated inBush's speech.

If the power fantasies of the Bush administration are met with renewed andincreased popular mobilization, the frightening world envisioned in theState of the Union address may not come to pass.

(Rahul Mahajan serves on the National Boards of Peace Action and theEducation for Peace in Iraq Center, and is a member of the NowarCollective. He is the author of the forthcoming TheNew Crusade: America's War on Terrorism, out in March from Monthly ReviewPress. He can be reached at rahul@tao.ca)