Peter Engelmann You interpret the contemporary practices of globalized capitalism as a new form of imperialism. You say that now, capitalism no longer creates colonies but rather destabilizes states; that’s where you locate the difference between old and new imperialism. To you, this destabilization is one of the reasons, or even the main reason, for migration, which is confronting so many people with problems at the moment, both those who are forced to leave their home countries and those who have to take them in and come under enormous political pressure as a result. That leads to very different reactions. My first question is, why is it in the interests of globalized capitalism today to destabilize states, rather than colonizing countries?
Alain Badiou First of all, one has to look at the classic form of imperialism. The classic form of imperialism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is actually the idea of dividing up the world between the major imperialist powers. At a particular point in time, this division took place primarily between France and Britain. One of the reasons that led to the outbreak of both world wars, incidentally, was the fact that Germany, that the Germans were excluded from this division although they wanted to be part of it at all costs. So that gave rise to what one called ‘empires’. That’s why one speaks of imperialism. Empire means that the dominant powers – Britain, France and, in part, also smaller countries like Holland or Spain – divide up the world among themselves and exert political power over the countries that are part of their empire. To put it another way, they held immediate power, and ultimately the major political decisions affecting these countries were made in Paris and London. They were large, centralized empires with local administrations that were answerable to the central government. As a result, economic decisions – who had the right to take part in plundering resources, extracting oil and so on – were made by the major imperial powers, which naturally helped themselves before offering the rest to the big businesses.
So why did this system gradually become weaker? I think there are two main reasons. Firstly, the weakening of the great European metropolises, which were severely ravaged after the two world wars; and secondly, the emergence of new powers – I’m thinking of the United States, of course – that hadn’t participated in dividing up the world, but now wanted to intervene equally powerfully in world events, which meant breaking with their tradition of ‘isolationism’. This power of the United States, which had gradually proved greater than the military and colonial capacities of France and Britain, started having a considerable impact on European history after the First World War. That was the first factor. The second was the revolts, uprisings and wars of liberation in all countries of the British and French empires that were encouraged by this exhaustion, especially after the Second World War. These included the Indian uprising under Gandhi’s leadership, the Algerian War, the war in Indochina and so on. So there were several wars of liberation in which the colonial powers ultimately failed to preserve their administrative power, and which ultimately forced them to enter independence negotiations and all the rest. In that way, the old powers were gradually defeated.
So what happened then? The whole world entered a competition for the control, plundering and exploitation of natural resources. This new situation resulted either in weak, corrupt states that obediently served the colonial powers, or in attempts to create stronger states that could show greater resistance to imperial pressure, or finally in what I call ‘zones’: areas from which the state has entirely or almost entirely disappeared. It was in this system of state destabilization that imperialism found its new mode of existence. A zone largely or entirely devoid of state structures is essentially open to those with the most capital, the most mercenaries and the greatest capacities for intervention. Thus the majority of African territories today are being fought over by different imperialist groups: one finds Chinese forces in Sudan and Cameroon, there are rivalries between China and France in central Africa and so on. I call that ‘zoning’: a new form of imperialism that, instead of installing states that are tied to a colonial power and completely subordinate to it, either creates weak states that are susceptible to corruption and, with support from the metropolis, use the police to oppress the populace, or – if the respective state has behaved rebelliously and is not trusted – completely open zones. We know that states like Libya under Gaddafi, Iraq under Saddam Hussein or also Syria under Bashar Al-Assad were not really susceptible to the influence of Western powers, because they had long established various alliances of their own, as well as having more distant relations with Russia.
PE But let’s not forget the imperialism of the period between the Second World War and the fall of the Soviet Union, the phase of imperialism in which the West and the East formed two opposing blocs in Africa.
AB Of course, but as soon as it became apparent that the weakening of the USSR would also weaken its allies, these states were simply destroyed. The new situation was exploited to destroy them. I completely agree with you. But this led to a complete dissolution of state structures. This ultimately resulted in ravaged zones that were controlled by armed gangs, and the powers tried their best to negotiate with them. Whole sections of Africa are in this state: the entire eastern Congo, the south of Sudan, large parts of Cameroon, Rwanda, Somalia and now also Libya. All of these zones are completely at the mercy of military interventions by local and foreign powers. With this form of politics, which I call the ‘new imperialism’, one could say that the open battle for control of natural and local resources has begun anew.
PE And do the capitalists profit from this new imperialism?
AB Without a doubt! The problem is how to gain relative sovereignty over a state or a particular zone in order to profit from its natural resources. Let’s take an example: there’s still oil being sold along the border between Sudan and South Sudan, and who the buyers are depends on which military powers are involved.
PE ISIS also sells oil.
AB Exactly, ISIS constantly sells oil, especially to Turkey. There are still entire oil convoys en route to Turkey. The maxim in this situation is ‘business is business’. There are also political questions like occupation and so forth, but business remains business. Actually, it’s often easier for the large firms to deal with local military factions than with states, because firstly, they sell more cheaply, and secondly, they cause less work.
PE So could one say that there are two consequences of this new imperialism and the destabilization of states – terrorism and migration?
AB Yes, there’s no question! Even though I said last time that – as a communist – I support a controlled dismantling of the state, I’m still convinced that there’s currently nothing worse for a people than the absence of the state. I think both things are true. If there’s no state, the people are helpless in the face of the worst. That’s been the case since the Middle Ages. The result is that lawless armed gangs roam the land while the civilian population is at their mercy – and not only at the mercy of these gangs, but also exposed to the bombs of Western states. The people can’t live under these conditions, which naturally causes enormous waves of migration. Nonetheless, these movements don’t have a particularly disruptive effect on business.
I remember an interview with some Chinese people in South Sudan that I saw in a film. They settled there after the separation of Sudan and South Sudan to extract oil. In the interview, these Chinese people – who are much more cynical and honest than the Americans in this respect – say that the only nuisance in this region is that there are still people there. Because essentially it’s disadvantageous for what they plan, and to find what they’re looking for, if people are living there. That’s the problem. There are still people there, but the situation in the region is absolutely appalling! The civil war is horrific, villages have been burnt down, but there are still people trying to survive there. In reality, the conditions for oil extraction are highly favourable in a region that’s completely deserted.
Although I don’t want to say that we’ve already reached this point, it does take us rather close to the genocides carried out during colonialism: we can observe the occupation of regions by colonialist gangs who see the native population purely as a tiresome nuisance and are entirely content for them either to go into exile or even to be killed. Let’s not forget that this was precisely the approach of the United States! The Americans settled in a country and started by getting rid of the entire population. And then they founded democracy on that!
PE What part do the terrorist gangs play in this situation?
AB In my opinion, the armed gangs are actors on the global market. I’m not saying that they’re negotiating partners of the existing political states; it’s a little more complicated than that. They’re parasites that feed off the global market. That is, ISIS couldn’t survive if it didn’t sell oil or works of art – because for all the destruction it has wreaked, it’s clever enough to spare the art – and it also sells large amounts of cotton confiscated in Syria. So it’s a trader on the global market. And people know very well that no one asks a trader on the global market to prove that they are respectable or civilized; all that counts is the price of the goods. All terrorist gangs currently live off looting, and it’s well known that one of the major goals of these gangs is to gain control over a part of the oil wells. What’s notable is that these armed gangs almost only exist in regions where there’s oil: there are oil reserves in Libya, and also in Iraq or northern Nigeria, where the terrible group Boko Haram is wreaking havoc. So what happens to the oil when there’s no more state? How does the oil get sold? The answer is very simple: by the gangsters!
PE Is this development actually in the interests of the capitalists in Western countries?
AB I hardly think it bothers them. Perhaps it bothers the public, and that leads to unpleasant complications because one has to explain to them what’s happening there, and is forced to tell lies. Because if one closely examines things, for example, what’s happening in central Africa, one can see that the whole state propaganda is a lie and completely hides matters of public interest, as well as the activities of the major companies and even the true aims of the military interventions by states.
PE But isn’t there a certain discrepancy between the states and the capital owners? Because if France intervenes in Mali, for example, that happens in the name of the populace, in the name of democracy.
AB It does, but we know very well that it happens just as much in the name of the big French capitalists! Because there’s a threat to Areva, for example. Areva is a company that occupies a whole portion of Africa and has its own mercenary soldiers. Nonetheless, the French state is forced to protect this business, because it supplies the uranium resources for practically the entire French nuclear industry. Of course the French army intervened in part to protect Areva. But you won’t read very much about that in the press. Because, as I told you last time, the press is largely in the hands of people who have invested in Areva and in all the other French companies. So they won’t report on that, but instead they’ll declare that France is intervening to protect the populace and fight against the armed gangs. And that’s partly true, but it’s not the real reason for the intervention. What’s at the bottom of the whole thing is the question of how to safeguard the economic profitability of these zones in Africa and the Middle East by military means.
PE And the price of this destabilization is migration and terrorism?
AB Absolutely! There’s no doubt about it! During the time when Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi were in power – leaving aside what one thinks of Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi in other respects, that’s a different issue – during their reign there were neither large migration movements in the Middle East nor armed gangs. That’s a fact! Because they were still acting within state structures, at least! They simply fell out of favour because they turned out to be unreliable partners. From time to time they leaned towards Russia, and so on. In addition, Gaddafi made two suggestions that were completely unacceptable to the Western allies: firstly, he had the idea of setting up an African currency, and this plan was directed precisely against France, which had established the African franc.1 And that was one of the main reasons for France to attack Gaddafi. It’s important to realize that! Secondly, in a long speech at the United Nations, Gaddafi suggested a range of political solutions for different problems, including a one-state solution for Israel and Palestine. So he didn’t play by the rules. He had to be taken out of action, and that’s exactly what happened. To this day, Libya is a completely lawless zone. There are two rival governments, ISIS has settled in one part of the country – and business continues as usual!
PE What are your predictions for this region? Will it be destabilized further?
AB I think it’ll continue like that for quite a while. Especially now that all the major powers have interfered in the matter, and everyone has their own vision that differs from those of the others. It reminds me very strongly of the situation in the Balkans before the First World War – the chaos, the weakened regimes, the local conflicts and the three Balkan wars, as well as the interventions of France, Britain, Russia and Turkey. One mustn’t forget that the First World War started in Sarajevo, with the Balkan affair. Today there are Russian, American and French planes circling over Syria. The only major power in the region that hasn’t been defeated is Iran, and Iran has very complex relations with the entire world.
So the situation is highly unstable and confronts us with the very real possibility of a war that could break out although no one really wants it – simply because the situation might reach such an impasse that it will become inevitable. No one really wanted the First World War either. People are still arguing about this: who really wanted the First World War? Entire books have been written on the subject. Was it the Germans? The French? Or was it the British? In reality, no one wanted the war, but it broke out because it gradually became impossible to solve the Balkan question. That’s why the current situation troubles me, not only because I find it terrible and disastrous and because it’s claiming countless victims, but because I think it holds a very real danger of war. And the fact that a war wouldn’t really be in anyone’s interests certainly doesn’t mean that it can’t break out. The First World War proves that. So we should remind ourselves of the old maxim formulated by Jean Jaurès, who was certainly no extremist: ‘Imperialism bears war within it, just as the cloud bears the storm.’2