Before delving deeper into "netwar" and "infowar" I need a moment to think about conflict after the Cold War and how neoliberalism has destabilized the power of nation-states to react to new revolutions.
Current insurgencies –Hamas, FARC, Movimento ser Terra, al Qaeda,Zapatistas– are sited not to be founded in the "class struggles" of Marxist revolutions in the 70's and 80's demanding new state power structures to equalize capital dispersement, but in issues such as cultural autonomy and a shift towards more active forms of democracy. They are less about people's right to cash and more about people's rights to self-govern and maintain tradition. Globally, these ideals are expressed differently –armed conflict, terror, protest– but the message is the same "We want control over our lives and cultures!"
Why are nations scrambling to quell uprisings when the obvious military power is one-sided? While neoliberalism open markets, it forces nation-states into direct competition with each other restricting the amount of participation in national decisions can be delegated to the masses through democratic means. This disempowerment of people's demands at the national level and the homogenation of culture has led to the rise in local insurgencies that promise people power and a voice. Because of the disagrigated nature of these insurgencies (netwar), nation-states must engage these movements with radically new methods, while maintaining the visage of peace and control to stay competitive in the global economy.
Comment your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Great post, Tim. This is something I think you should flush out of the bushes even more.
I think a large part of the real problem with a lot of the conflicts that exist between the powers of the entrenched and that of the insurgency or rebellion is the disinclination to a moderate solution on either side. Probably a part of this is the need (or perceived need) to maintain national unity and relevancy.
To vastly over-generalize, I look at just your cited examples of insurgency and tune the microscope in even more on the two I am currently most familiar with: Hamas and al Qaeda.
What do Hamas and al Qaeda want? Well, largely I think they want exactly what you mentioned: Control over their lives and culture. However, not everyone in the areas in which they operate wish to be ruled in the manner these groups propose.
Nation-states have consistently refused to allow these groups a geographical area to operate as the popular majority may wish to. This absolutism is a mistake which only begets a reaction of absolutism on the part of the insurgent group. Neither the nation-state nor the insurgency wins in this situation.
I don't want to live under Shariah Law. That's fine, but I respect that some people DO wish to live under such a moral code. What we need is an environment in which both lifestyles can be accomidated, either in concert or separately.
I disagree that social status and economic injustice is a non-factor, if that's in fact what you meant to indicate. While the ideological factors are of primary importance, economic disaffection is most certainly a part of the issue as well. Someone much smarter than me once cited hunger as a key factor of revolution, and that's spot on. Hamas, al Qaeda, and other such groups often only have the opportunity to attract the more moderate in a society because they don't have prosperity or hope of it.
Iraq is a perfect example of this. Factor al Qaeda out of the example, because they would have never belonged if not for our occupation. Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds were forced to be countrymen by the British, who arguably created a country deliberately which was sure to fail. Add the flight of the educated and the middle class and you have a country ripe for insurgency. The ONLY solution in Iraq is to allow what should happen naturally: A division of the country allowing those who share the same culture and lifestyle to live and govern amongst their own. And yet, once again this solution does not seem to be anywhere on or approaching the table.
Solid points. I did not mean that socio-economic factors are not a factor, and currently at the core in many cases, of a lot of the conflicts currently, merely that the Marxist critiques have been moved into the ranks along with these other cultural-political ideologies. No longer is it a conflict between the bourgeois and the proliteriate, but a more complex oleo of competing ideologies and political motivations.
I can't speak much to the Al Qaeda and Hamas, but from my experience, it appears a large part of the Zapatista movement is to provide schools, hospitals, and infrastructure (along with land sovereignty which directly connects to filling tummies) outside of a corrupt national system of resource distribution. The idea is that these resources are rights of the people within a nation and it is the nation's responsibility to provide these equitably to the people.
I can't speak much to the Al Qaeda and Hamas, but from my experience, it appears a large part of the Zapatista movement is to provide schools, hospitals, and infrastructure (along with land sovereignty which directly connects to filling tummies) outside of a corrupt national system of resource distribution.
Interesting that you say this, because this is exactly a portion of what Hamas and al Qaeda provide which makes them so revered by a good portion of the applicable populace. It's also the single most ignored facet of both organizations when they are discussed by the Western media.
Someone much smarter than me once cited hunger as a key factor of revolution, and that's spot on.
While very true, these are not spontaneous uprising and insurgencies by the poorest and hungriest people. Both Marcos and Osama bin Laden come from wealth and are both very well educated. It is from these ideologues with time to think and plot that these plans of revolution spring up and not necessarily from those toiling in the fields.
Post a Comment