Militarism and the fiction of 'free trade'

Najma Sadeque

The average South Asian - which means people from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka - does not associate war, aggression or a militarist culture with trade. Here one refers to foreign trade, not internal trade of which there was plenty. That is because, historically, South Asia was (and still is) such a resource-rich territory that it never needed to cross beyond its borders to acquire essential commodities, whether by fair means or foul.
It was not that South Asians did not trade overseas, but they constituted a tiny minority, and they dealt with finished, sophisticated luxury and novel goods, not basics which foreigners with their limited or poor agriculture could not give them enough of. South Asian traders usually followed overland routes broken by shorter routes by seas when crossing over, mainly to North Africa Europe and the Near East. They were not dependent on government policy or special incentives or preferential treatment to succeed in trade. All this the average Pakistani, including the businessman, industrialist and exporter, has forgotten to his own and his country's detriment.
Today's average Pakistani merchant appears to suffer serious misconceptions if not a suppressed inferiority complex in that he grossly underestimates his country's true potential through their own means which are based on historically established knowledge systems. The latter has been completely displaced by western models because the wealth, the advancement in technologies and standards of living which are viewed as proof of western superiority and the success of capitalism.
Because most people are ignorant of history, especially the finer details of western colonialism, they don't realise how capital accumulation was made possible. Most of the capital utilised both in the past and in the present was and is stolen capital, whether from colonised people or one's own countrymen. It has little to do with 'free' trade which stopped being 'free' (at least for South Asia) since the onset of colonialism, and now persists in disguised forms such as the World Bank and IMF and other IFIs, the international commercial financial system, the WTO and the Intellectual Property Rights and other agricultural and environmental and labour deals under it.
To a large extent, the Europeans have learned a valuable lesson from the colonialism they once practised for 500 years, the last couple of hundred or so extended to South Asia. Colonialism was essentially - and nothing less than -- the acquisition (a polite term for wholesale theft) of resources through brute force, that is, militarized means. It was this trade under colonialism - which was forced, not free, trade. It was forced - the appropriation of others goods against their will at a pittance. Trade was simply not voluntary between countries as equals, the exceptions among the locals being the local royalty or chiefs who exploited their own people on behalf of the colonisers in exchange for protection and privilege.
What is also forgotten is that all this was done by a corporation, the first in the region, sanctioned and backed by the British Crown and its military might. Today people are still unaware that most of today's multinational corporations, especially American ones, and especially those involved in oil and other mineral resources, rely heavily on the unofficial but compelling military backup of their home government (often supplemented by mercenaries) to weaken the resistance of the countries they prey on. This does not mean that foreign soldiers armed to the teeth prowl all over our country to protect the interests of their country's multinational corporations. In today's world that pretends to be almost universally democratic, the methods are far more subtle than that.
During colonialism, the foreigners occupied the country directly and physically with or without the help of the local royalty or elite. But then, because the foreign intruder was visible at all levels, the people recognised the enemy. Over time, all colonisers (including American who people forget were worse than the British) began to realize that visibility of a foreign occupier is inconvenient -- because the resistance could keep a watch on them even and plot against them and a resistance can grow over time into a revolution and total overthrow of the oppressors.
Colonizing others was a huge and expensive responsibility. But by extending independence and using diplomacy, it was no longer necessary for foreign intruders to subject themselves to such constant risk. Instead, 'independent' countries could be compromised by corrupting or arm-twisting their governments in a variety of ways. In fact, almost without exception, the governments of newly-independent countries inculcated and indulged in the elitism of their former colonisers, compromised themselves and their countries by aping western models, theories, strategies, all of which continued to serve the interests of the west, not the newly-liberated apart from the middle-class and elite.
Today, the foreign - essentially American - military force is so globe-encompassing, vast, lethal, merciless and totally without principles, that it is no longer necessary to be visible. The threat of sheer force is more than enough. -- Because the government, if not the people, of the host country are made acutely aware of what the dire consequences would be if the locals tried to resist the unwanted activities of the outsiders in their country. Today, the US has more than 700 overseas military bases (and American military bases are never small) in more than a hundred countries - an average of 7 in each country, although bigger countries have far more than smaller ones. Plus 6,000 bases within its own borders and territories under its control. No other country, not even the combined European countries comes anywhere near such a scale or power.
Such military power in itself is pointed out by many as proof of American superiority. Does this mean the world is going to be condemned to American dominance in perpetuity? Did it come from American technology and genius, as usually claimed? Here it is worth remembering that there have been plenty of other powerful empires held together by military means throughout history. They ruthlessly put down resistance whether of those they conquered or from those among their own people. Whether or not the term 'trade' is mentioned or not, the objective was the appropriation of other peoples' commodities and wealth. Yet, ultimately, all these empires, including that of Hitler, crumbled. It is important to note that none of them were democratic.
The question therefore arises then, when and how did this supposed superiority, or rather dominance, arise, and how was it made possible? Some of it was sheer luck. At the end of the Second World War, the Americans found themselves in an enviable position. They were already in possession of one of the world's richest and vastest expanses of territory - all of it stolen and most of its original inhabitants massacred - so that they did not have to worry about investment debts or compensation. They abounded in natural capital and there was still so much left to be exploited. The great distance from the rest of the world kept them safe from the outfall of World War II even while they participated in it. And when the war was over and much of Europe was destroyed despite victory, the Americans found themselves in the unique position of extending almost unlimited means to help Europe rebuild itself and therefore, to subtle impose its terms of dominance. Europe was in no position to resist.
Since then, while Europe has put the idea of Empire behind them and has accommodated itself to a varied world where everyone and every country has sovereignty and rights, it is not the same case with the US. The World War II made America's decision-makers determine they were the cat's whiskers. Since then, the US has been determined to maintain its dominant position in the world for all time to come. To maintain that position requires vast amounts of mineral and biological resources. The more advanced the technology, and the higher the standard of living becomes -- even though much of it is wasteful and unnecessary -- the more resources that are needed.
Although America possesses enough essential resources to satisfy much more than just the needs of its own population, there is no answer to human greed. But there are other resources required by modern industrial production, such as minerals, that America does not have enough of. There is no difficulty in obtaining these through fair trade. But America and some other countries - if in the shape of the multinational corporations that originate there - are not interested in fair trade but free trade. The two are not one and the same thing. Fair trade means getting a fair price or desired goods in exchange. 'Free' trade, on the other hand, turns out to be qualified to mean a free-for-all in which only the strongest win and take all at a price so low that it is not worthwhile for the losers who are cheated and left poorer than ever before.
WTO and globalisation created and touted by American interests, multinational corporations and elitist institutions and the Pentagon, are what their version of free trade is all about. One has only to go through the past century of America's history of self-provoked wars with countries big and small but all weaker than itself, to see the close and inseparable relationship between militarism and US trade and trade policy. It has never bothered with any country that has not had something they want. - It could be any raw material, whether agricultural or mineral, or desirable 'human resources' - once upon a time they were captured and brought in as slaves; today the multinationals prefer foreign labour to remain in their own countries while the corporations locate or shift their factories there to take advantage of dirt-cheap wages and the incentives and tax-breaks handed out to foreign investors.
There is a country or two seen as having nothing or little to offer. But even if such a country is not resource-rich, it doesn't mean it has nothing to 'offer'. It could be that its geography is important. Maybe it happens to be located next to or amongst other countries that are hostile to America. Maybe it is an unavoidable stepping-stone to other countries. But the country itself, its government not particularly strong either militarily nor morally, prefers to play safe - or has no choice -- and to maintain a balancing act with the varied countries it is surrounded as well as the US that seeks to meddle with them all. And why are these other countries important to the US. Only because of their resources which the US wishes to access, and which have to be obtained under the cover of trade, even if it is unwilling trade on the part of the countries where the resources lie Therefore an excuse for internal armed conflict has to be engineered from outside through infiltrators and mercenaries from within the country's own society. Or reasons are manufactured to justify Bush-style 'pre-emptive' war, namely, the dubious 'war on terror.
While all this may make the rest of the world's 200-odd countries seem helpless before the single superpower that's left, it is not a situation that can last forever, even though the seven decades since the end of World War II has already been far too much. For the sake of oil, a conscienceless president and his military cronies destroyed Iraq, the most advanced of Muslim countries that held the legacy of one of the greatest civilizations of all times. But America has finally bitten off more than it can chew, as all empires have historically one before they fell. It has not only unnecessarily earned the ire of almost the entire world, it has also compromised itself financially and trade-wise that will not allow to sustain its grandiose and arrogant dreams without having its own people turn on it.