Globalisation of Violence: The Death Game of New Imperialism more

Critique Vol. 38, No. 2, May 2010, pp. 309Á320 Globalisation of Violence: The Death Game of New Imperialism Barıs Coban ¸ ¸ Global capitalism uses violence as a tool of restructuring the world. Globalisation, i.e., new imperialism, tries to globalise its hegemony due to the changes in the world system. New imperialist power uses violence and terror on opposing classes and movements in order to prevent them from interrupting the process of globalisation which means poverty, oppression for them. New imperialist power globalises its ‘monopoly of violence’ and plays a death game with the cooperation of fundamentalist terrorism, the evil twin. Keywords: Globalisation; New Imperialism; Violence; Terror; Social Opposition; Fundamentalism Introduction The transformation of the globe through the globalisation of capitalism or, in other words, the new imperialism, has brought a transformation of all social practices. The new imperialism as the global form of capitalism has changed and transformed the nation-state form as well as international relations, except for the economic structure. During this period, the global dominant power has brought new forms of politics, and political violence has been put into use as one of the effective means of this process. Reintroduction of violence as an effective form of politics is directly linked with the economic structure. The new global power has been pushing the whole world to follow the economic policies modified by it and imposes acceptance of its new concept of politics. Neo-liberal policies have turned violence into an ordinary component of social life in many different ways. Accepting the uniform definition of democracy imposed by the dominant power is a pre-condition for seeing it as a democratic structure and this process pre-supposes the acceptance of neo-liberalism of the new imperialism. Structures that are, or prefer to be, out of this process are diagnosed as antidemocratic and positioned as a threat. Forms of violence utilised by the new imperialism against opposition movements that are posing a threat*armed attacks, ISSN 0301-7605 (print)/ISSN 1748-8605 (online) # 2010 Critique DOI: 10.1080/03017601003668803 310 B. Coban ¸ coup attempts, assassinations, etc.*are described as the ‘campaign for democratisation’ and the ‘war on terror.’ With effective use of new communication technologies, together with presentation of both new forms of economy and politics as the only alternative, as well as calling the resistance coming from those opposing this alternative as ‘terrorists’ and legitimisation of use of violence against this ‘terror’, i.e. the ‘war on terror’, brings the necessity of a re-discussion of definitions of violence and terror. In this sense, the globalisation process refers to both the globalisation of violence and the monopolisation of violence via imperialistic power and its allies. Power as a monopoly of violence or the modern state, like all other political unions, sociologically, can only be described in terms of its particular concrete means: power and the use of violence:1 similarly the global power has been striving to monopolise violence which has not been limited to localities but, on the contrary, has embraced the whole world. Global Power and Political Violence Violence is a form of communication; perhaps it is the most effective communication method. Through violence an individual or a community expresses itself. The emergence of violence as a form of communication is determined by the given historical period, the relations of production, etc. In this sense, searching for underlying reasons of the new forms of violence within the sphere of class relations is seen as outmoded, because in an epoch where ‘farewell to proletariat’,2 ‘the death of ideology’3 and ‘the end of history’4 have been voiced, the central issue is defined as ‘clash of civilisations’5. However, it is not possible to analyse political violence without taking into consideration the ‘neo-liberal’ policies imposed by the global dominant force. Violence refers to the structure, which determines the social conditions of its existence, violence is under the determination of the economic structure of the period and depending upon it, it is also under the determination of the ideology. In this sense, violence emerges explicitly or implicitly related to the economical and political structure within the context of a given historical period. Class, ethnic, religious, etc. components of the social structure essentially come together within the context of the problems of common life through state violence. Violence is a form of communication occurring within the context of power relations and the extent of the transformation of power relations bring about the transformation of the structure of the power. The violence apparatus, which has been kept at arm’s length by the power in the process of advancement of class struggle, is also a fundamental determinant in obtaining the consent of the masses. The power M. Weber, Sosyoloji Yazıları (Istanbul: Hurriyet Vakfı Yay, 1987). ¨ Andre Gorz, Elveda Proleterya (Istanbul: Afa Y, 1995). 3 Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1960). 4 F. Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (London: Penguin, 1992). 5 S. P. Huntington (1998). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998). 2 1 Critique 311 depends on the apparatus of violence and can only maintain itself by keeping the violence apparatus intact. The class power of the minority over the majority can only be maintained through the use of violence. Explicit and implicit use of violence depends on the form of power and class struggles of a given period. Despite claims declaring the death of classes*‘the gap between rich and poor has become too wide, too fast. The very richest are richer than ever, while the poorest are still suffering starvation deaths’6*history still continues to be a history of class struggles as it is manifested by the whole reality, and for this reason violence retains the feature of being a fundamental determinant of history. Globalisation of violence and its monopolization is inherent in the process of globalisation and it is an indispensable part of it: ‘the process of globalization and the ensuing inequality will produce social disorganization and violence’.7 Together with globalisation, similarly to old forms of power, forms of violence have also been changing. Together with the new imperialism, violence once again has become a major determinant of the political sphere; violence has been reshaped by the global power. In this sense the new imperialism is a process of ‘war’ targeting the oppressed by using the network of violence established by the global power on the basis of nation-states. The USA, as the dominant global power, has put into use new forms of violence in the context of changes and developments unfolding around the world: ‘There is a global political strategy for world management. The objective of this strategy is to bring about the greatest possible fragmentation of the forces potentially hostile to the system by fostering the breakup of the state forms of organization of society.’8 The process of globalisation necessitates globalisation of violence and also the need to think of it in a new paradigm. In this respect, global violence is an inevitable outcome of globalisation. In addition to this, global violence does not only involve the violence inflicted by the global power, but also ‘state terrorism’ inflicted by nation-states who are under the hegemony of the global power; in the process of the new imperialism, the global power is not capable of controlling the world on its own, and it needs the existence of nation-states, from the standpoint of politics*as well as from the standpoint of economic determination. In the process of the implementation of ‘neo-liberal’ policies, the nation-states and violence and terror inflicted by them on their own societies play a major role. In addition to its own military power and the international armed forces under its control, the violence of the global power also depends on the armed forces organised by nation-states against their own societies, which are based on the logic of civil war. In this context, global violence can be described as a network organised by the global power on the basis of nation-states. 6 M. Lindley, ‘Current Links between Globalization and Violence’, Journal of American Science, 3:1 (2007), p. 1. 7 W. Gillespie, (2006) ‘Capitalist World-Economy, Globalization, and Violence: Implications for Criminology and Social Justice’, International Criminal Justice Review, 16:24 (2006), p. 33 8 S. Amin, ‘Imperialism and Globalisation’, Monthly Review, 53:2. (2001), p. 80. 312 B. Coban ¸ While reshaping local powers and nation-states, the new imperialism also revised the usage of traditional policies and forms of violence: ‘The United States . . . has built a chain of military bases and staging areas around the globe, as a means of deploying air and naval forces to be used on a moment’s notice*all in the interest of maintaining its political and economic hegemony’.9 Global and local forms of violence have been redefined and international relations have been reorganised on the basis of these new definitions. As Wood has explained, peculiarities in the style of the new imperialism have just started to surface and even more importantly, in this new context the special role of the armed forces are only now starting to find their expression in an ideology of war. Also in the process of the new imperialism, violence has been assuming the character of an important determinant with regard to the reshaping of the world in a new form within the context of the theory of ‘eternal war’.10 The use of violence in an effective fashion by the global power, in tandem with the nation-states, is one of the most critical indicators of the transformation of the political structure of the world. In its operation of the new imperialism, the global power seeks to both monopolise and globalise violence. On the other hand, dissidents try to break up this monopolisation by using legitimate means of struggle* sometimes involving violence due to the character of the power struggle. However, this problematic concerning the nation-state has been implemented in the global context and hence the global dominant force has been striving to monopolise its violence and has been trying to achieve this goal by employing explicit and implicit methods as well as legal and illegal means and organisations. Giving a meaning to forms of violence is only possible if they are assessed within the context of their effect on the process of shaping social life. Collective violence aiming to solve social problems in a progressive way is contingent; for example, in an historical context, resistance to an autocratic administration must be seen as a natural right of societies.11 Peoples or classes who are suppressed by the power and deprived of the possible means to make their voices heard use violence as the only way of expressing themselves; in the social spheres oppressed groups and classes resort to violence in the context of power struggle. In this sense violence replaces discourse; social classes or groups aimed at being silenced resort to violence as a legitimate way of defending freedoms. This form of violence is a product of suppression of the discursive and of the anti-democratic political set-up. Contrary to this form of violence, terror is not based on a rebellion or a class movement, and it does not aim at social emancipation. In this respect the fundamental determinant of the question of political violence is legitimacy; if a movement employing violence as a political means does not have the support of the masses, lacks a class orientation, lacks an ideological line and in parallel lacks the purpose of achieving its political targets but 9 J.B. Foster and H. Magdoff, ‘US Military Bases and Empire’, Monthly Review, 53:10 (2004), p. 1. ˙ E.M. Wood, Sermaye Imparatorlugu (Ankara: Epos, 2006), p. 15. ˘ 11 W. Laqueur, ‘Bomba Felsefesi’, Terror (Der. C. Guzel), (Ankara: Ayrac, 2002), p. 22. ¨ ¸ 10 Critique 313 instead uses violence to target the civilian population, then all these features reveal the ‘terrorist’ structure of the movement. In the context of the relationship between the state and terror, in the case of the state being based on the domination of a minority over the majority, illegitimate legal violence, or forms of semi-legal violence, are actively being used, and as Adorno noted, society is maintained generally by the indirect threat of physical violence.12 The state uses terror to establish ‘social control’ and in the context of maintaining the order, state terrorism is presented as a legal and necessary form of violence. By utilising psychological means, including the use of the state’s sphere of communications, a discursive violence is used against dissidents. As part of authority’s attempt to shape society’s view of dissidents, every action of the oppressed, even those waged in order to defend basic human rights, is described as ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorist propaganda’. The distinction between terrorism and legitimate collective violence is hidden from the public view by the mass media outlets. When used by the state or by the organisations promoted by the state, terrorism aims to suppress opposition movements intending to take the state power and blocks social opposition: state terrorism refers to acts of terrorism conducted by governments against their people by resorting to systematic intimidation, arrests, killings and other means of repression.13 Legitimate social violence is presented as illegitimate, anti-social terrorism. In this respect the meaning of violence and terror is blurred, legitimacy of collective violence is kept in the dark. The ‘cultural industry’ under the control of the dominant power serves to this end; terrorism experts present state terrorism as legitimate violence and legitimate action of collective violence as terrorism. The United States as the centre of the terrorism industry has the power to determine the structure of terror and the course of its functioning; in this sense, the US is the managerial power of the monopoly of violence. The dominant power, who has the monopoly of defining terror and terrorists, labels massive opposition movements that are fighting against the allies of the global power and using their legitimate right to struggle against an autocratic administration as ‘terrorists’, while it portrays paramilitary forces launching illegitimate attacks on powers opposing the global force and essentially targeting civilians as ‘freedom fighters’. Issuing an international list of terrorist organisations and updating it, the global power determines which forms of violence are legal or illegal and puts pressure on dissident social movements by using global political or military organisations and the media in an effective way. As Wood has explained, for really democratic states, struggles waged to obtain rights for the sake of changing the balance of classes within the state, together with international solidarity between such democratic struggles, can pose a much bigger threat to imperial forces than they did in the past.14 To avoid this threat the global power seeks to establish a global prison for dissidents, and in all places 12 13 14 T. Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life (London: Verso, 2005), p. 182. W. Laqueur, ‘Terorizmin Yorumlanması’, Terror (Der. C. Guzel), (Ankara: Ayrac, 2002), p. 100. ¨ ¨ ¸ E.M Wood, Sermaye ˙mparatorlugu (Ankara: Epos, 2006), p. 174. I ˘ 314 B. Coban ¸ where international military intervention organisations and police apparatuses prevail dissidents are exposed to violence with the active support of the nation-states. Many organisations, parties or movements who receive social support are labelled as terrorists, although they struggle for freedom and for democracy in their respective countries. Movements seen as terrorists by the global dominant force are fundamentally the ones which still retain a class-based outlook and are aiming at national liberation with a revolutionary insight. ‘The number one super rogue power in the world, will decide who are the terrorists and who are the freedom fighters’15 and the ‘terror list’ of the global power contains movements resisting to state terrorism and in this process resorting to ‘legitimate violence’, and enjoying massive support. Many movements in Latin America and Asia, despite the fact that they are on the terror list, are important ‘social movements’ and enjoy the support of international public opinion. In spite of all attacks and atrocities committed by the state and paramilitaries in league with the state and the state terrorism targeting the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia*The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia), which has had considerable authority in Colombia for decades, the US has supported the Colombian state with every possible means in order to legitimise state terrorism within the context of the ‘fight against terror’ and it has labelled legitimate defence of the peasants as terrorism. ´ ´ Likewise, in Mexico, the EZLN (Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion Nacional*The Zapatista Army of National Liberation) is a guerrilla organisation essentially aiming to defend the rights of indigenous people and therefore targeting the liberation of the country as a whole. It adopts a political line based on the masses and uses legitimate struggle methods, which do not resort to arms, unless it becomes inevitable, and uses speech as an effective weapon.16 This movement has managed to create international solidarity by means of its anti-globalisation discourse, and has been able to utilize new communication technologies effectively. It has employed this solidarity against the state so that it enjoys the position of being the vanguard of the political struggle for the democratisation of the country, but it is described as ‘terrorist’ by the US. Also in Asia, the struggles that have been waged against anti-democratic, suppressive regimes are regarded as terrorist by the global power; for instance the NKP-M (Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)) in Nepal, which waged guerrilla warfare and managed to overthrow repressive regime of the monarchy by bringing about democratic elections, and came to power by winning these democratic elections, is on the terror list of the US. All these dissident movements are class-based and they threaten the global force as they set a good example for other oppressed nations with their accomplishments. Furthermore, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales, who make use of the democratic sphere*i.e. ground themselves on political struggle, but not armed struggle*and came to power by legitimate political elections are figures regarded as a threat by the US. Because the social movements led by these 15 16 W. Oltman, Not Guilty (Breda: Uitgeverij Papieren Tifger, 2001), p. 34. ˙ G.M. Ramirez, Ates ve Soz: 20. Ve 10. Yılında EZLN (Istanbul: Ayrıntı, 2005). ¨ ¸ Critique 315 people represent the power of the classes defending the rights of the poor and the oppressed, they constitute concrete examples regarding the illusory character of the socalled democratic discourse developed by the global power. More importantly, they demonstrate that the oppressed can take power, that a more egalitarian system is possible, and that the strength of the global force can be reduced; for these reasons these countries are on the ‘terror list’ of the global force in a different form, as ‘terrorist states’. The global force aims to divide and destroy dissident centres developing against it. In this process it provokes and promotes military coups and counter-revolutionary mass movements. The global power, which has been reorganising and reinforcing nation-states by giving a central role to violence against the build-up of the struggles waged by classbased armed organisations or legal organisations, has also been seeking to reorganise dissident movements targeting the state by using political movements based on religion and nationality to create a ‘fake opposition’. ‘The intellectual poverty of this movement makes it a perfect ideology of opposition but an impossible alternative to mainstream realism.’17 In contrast to the fact that these ‘fake dissidents’ are overemphasised by the global dominant structure and presented as a threat, and notwithstanding their sharp discourse and armed actions, even attacking the symbols representing the global force and resulting in the deaths of people, they are in fact movements exploited and manipulated by the global force. Globally they have an important function in terms of reproducing a deadlock, but not a solution. New Global Actors and Globalisation of Violence The global power overemphasises the ‘clash of civilisations’ as the central problem in order to make the fundamental contradiction of global ‘impoverishment’ invisible. Presenting the clash of religions and cultures as the fundamental determinant instead of a class contradiction, which is the fundamental determiner in an historical sense, causes the replacement of reality by fiction. In the new construction of the global imperialist force, the economy, which constitutes the starting point for the re-colonisation process, is made invisible. This moves the political sphere and particularly culture centre-stage, shifting the opposition from a class-basis into the cultural sphere; that is to say, while the class relationship is rejected, the religious and national one is overemphasised. After the crushing or retreat of class movements in the third world countries as a result of ‘state terrorism’, the opposition gap has been filled by religious movements or extreme-nationalism and this enabled nation-states and through them the global force to establish control over social movements. Violence stemming from religious fundamentalists and extreme-nationalists has been used to crush leftover elements of the social opposition, namely the class-based movements. It is also used to legitimise anti-democratic interventions and violence inflicted on societies by local and the global power. 17 R. Takeyh and N.K. Gvosdev, ‘Radical Islam: The Death Of An Ideology?’ Middle East Policy, 11:4 (2004), p. 93. 316 B. Coban ¸ Reinforcement of political Islam, religious fundamentalism and extreme nationalism in the East is a continuation of a global policy, the ‘green belt project’, designed against the Soviet system, which has been remodelled and tailored to reshape the rules of the new imperialism; ‘political Islam traps the people it victimizes and makes them powerless in the face of the challenges of liberal capitalist g1obalization, and this suits dominant capital’s purpose’.18 To revitalise religious fundamentalism, the new imperialist movement’s violence, which targets the whole Middle East, but is now hitting Afghanistan and Iraq, has the shape of a ‘crusade’, that is to say the myth of ‘going back to the Middle Ages’. This has enabled Islamist, racist-nationalist elements to gain ground politically and by creating the ‘clash of civilisations’ the global dominant force both produces global legitimacy to establish its dominance and block real dissident movements: For Muslim peoples, the reactionary ideology upon which political Islam is founded offers no viable answer to the problems of its communities and its modus operandi is unacceptable and even repellent. But it is precisely for these reasons that political Islam has always been and continues to be ‘well regarded’ by the Washington strategists to whom it has often been allied.19 It is clear that violence inflicted by the ‘organisation/organisations’ produced by the global force is ‘terrorism’, which opens the way for the global force to inflict its open violence to any country or society it wishes, rather than being a dissident response of the oppressed nations, classes etc. against the global dominant power. Organisations of this type are manipulated by the global force. Taking this into consideration allows us to understand the strategies and tactics enabling monopolisation of violence in the hands of the global power. Although ostensibly Al Qaeda is at war with the US; in reality there is no threat in question for the global power of the US. On the contrary it helps legitimise the expansion of the global power. The structures presented as ‘global terrorist’ organisations in fact don’t have any dreams regarding what is global*i.e., embracing the whole world*but rather they hide themselves in the darkness of religious fundamentalism. In reality these are structures used by the dominant power against real dissident structures as a trump card and by creating confusion amongst all of the societies. In this context, by creating a negative reaction to dissident views and by making people cling to the power more firmly in their respective countries, they play into the hands of that power. These types of structures are produced as a necessity of the historical process and are either neutralised or eliminated when their exigency comes to an end. In fact this process gives the impression that what is described above is a pre-envisaged situation, the support provided by global forces to religious fundamentalism despite its anti-Western structure is an outcome of the set up designed by the force; global violence legitimised by bringing ‘new barbarism’ into being. In regions that constitute 18 19 S. Amin, ‘US Hegemony and the Response to Terror’, Monthly Review, 53:6 (2001), p. 11. Ibid., p. 12. Critique 317 focal points of the world politics, progressive opposition has been blocked by overemphasis of the religious. The space left empty by the disintegration of the Soviet system has been abandoned to the initiative of religious groups under the control of the global force. However, while eliminating these local religious forces and restoring its control, the global force causes considerable historical, social and environmental destruction. The global power has been playing a game by waging a struggle against the ‘new barbarism’ that it created with the high-tech arms that it produced itself. It has been doing the same with its ‘new democracy’ together with new forms of violence and as a result, it drags societies into insoluble problems and violence. Together with the defeat of real socialism global capitalism entered into a new period. As organised opposition against global capitalism came to an end, reorganising the world became possible and the period of new-imperialism in which neo-liberal policies could be implemented more effectively, put violence actively again into service. Together with 11 September the question of violence was channelled into a new direction. It had a huge effect on the whole world, and forms of traditional politics and power struggle were forced to undergo a transformation process: ‘The ‘‘Global War on Terror’’ is a manifestation of this latest lethal phase of US imperialism.’20 With this process global power laid bare its legitimate reason to inflict legal violence around the world in a limitless fashion. From now on violence is turned into one of the forms of making politics by the global power at any time and anywhere. In this respect, the global dominant power acts within the borders of nation-states with no intention of illuminating them. On the contrary, by making nation-states components of the new imperialist economy, it transforms them into more repressive structures that are using violence effectively against their own societies, which carries the potential of societies revolting against the economic and political policies that are being implemented. The term ‘global opposition’ refers to a process in which the global force is the fundamental determinant. As old class-based movements have retreated, and in addition to that, as the new social movements and anti-globalisation movements lack a political, ideological line and an organised mass support that can provide a significant alternative to the global power, religion and nation has been overemphasised and put into service as new forms of dissidence. Since ‘11 September’ religious fundamentalist movements have been presented as the only ones resisting structures in which the third world expresses itself. Together with the myths created around it, Al Qaeda has been presented as an organisation comprised of people risking their lives for a cause and capable of gaining access everywhere to hit the enemy. In this process the focus of opposition had been shifted from left-wing thought, which defends class and ethnic emancipation, to religious ideology, which makes clear that its aim is to overcome this situation by replacing the ideology. This is a proof that religion is a dead-end, as well as how easy it is to 20 J.B. Foster and B. Clark, ‘Empire of Barbarism’, Monthly Review, 56:7 (2004), p. 6. 318 B. Coban ¸ manipulate the blindness of the violence it inflicts. The use of Islamic fundamentalism against left-wing dissident forces by the global and local powers within the context of the ‘green belt’ project in Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Palestine, brought about the break-up of the social structures under state terrorism and fundamentalist terrorism as well as the establishment of a suppressive regime by the power. The 11 September process will be better understood if it is assessed as a part of this reality. When the fundamentalist Al Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden that hold the illusionary image as an alternative dissident force in the world are assessed historically, they appear as actors of a set up structured under the control of the global dominant force. The Muslim world perceives Al Qaida as an alternative: ‘Al Qaida is a reaction to a world categorically refusing to listen to authentic Muslim voices expressing their protracted frustrations and demanding recognition of their human rights’.21 Al Qaeda, which has been actively publicised by the media as an invincible organisation, with Osama Bin Laden managing to survive against all attempts on his life and who has already being turned into a legendary figure impossible to capture, has been helping legitimisation of violence used by the US and is not in the interest of the poor but quite the contrary. The ‘virtual’, which makes the existence of global violence possible, enables the global power to create a fake, ‘nonexisting’ organisation and a floating enemy which makes the existence of global violence possible. The possibility of its appearance in any part of the globe terrorises the whole world. The organisation became effective on the global level with the attacks it launched first in New York on 11 September and then in London, Madrid and Istanbul; in addition to these attacks it has an effective force in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moreover, it carried out attacks in many countries in Asia and Africa: it has a strong force in a global sense. The movement has the capacity to use the media effectively and has the power of creating fear amongst the masses by using discursive violence. It plays the role of an evil sibling to the US and a spectre, which is impossible to capture and which is capable of appearing at the right place whenever it is necessary. It functions as the ‘other’ that creates the conditions for the existence of the ‘object’; the existence of the USA as the global power. The existence of Al Qaeda demonstrates an inseparable bond, like two aspects of a Moebius strip. In this respect global terrorism is a construction created by the violence of the global power. Fundamentalism, which doesn’t constitute a real alternative to the global power because it lacks an ideological line and mass support, possesses the basic conditions for establishing a ‘fake’ opposition. Here the aim is to weaken and destroy the global opposition by establishing ‘fake dissident’ structures based on inhuman violence. This process brings about the labelling of all dissidents as ‘terrorists’ and barbarians who must be either tamed or destroyed by the contingent violence of the global dominant force. Al Qaeda is an organisation targeting real dissident forces, causing societies to cling to their states even tighter by terrorising them and providing states the pretext 21 Oltman, op. cit., p. 30. Critique 319 they require to strangle all dissidents by ‘anti-terror’ legislation rather than by contributing to the existence of humanity and eliminating the conditions of existence of the global dominant force. In this respect the use of Al Qaeda, a construction of the global dominant force as a justification of anti-democratisation and violence that we are forced to live with, deserves as much scepticism because it makes the real reason invisible. Another overt reality is that the Al Qaeda lacks an ideology, a political line and a target. Political violence*jihad, as used by the local Islamist dissident movements: in Palestine, there is Hamas and Islamic Jihad; in Lebanon, Hezbollah, etc*is oriented to earthly, do-able goals. But nonetheless, Al Qaida lacks a central political goal, a political line and this floating aggressive structure targets civilians from all nations and religions and resorts to acts of violence that can cause mass deaths and draws negative reactions. As a result, the ideology and aims of al Qaeda should be questioned. No political movement can gain legitimacy and support by frightening and killing the people it aims to win over. Besides, a real rebellious movement cannot become either a local or a global force in a political sense by targeting and killing civilians. For a dissident movement the question of whose interest it serves is crucial and it is clear that the actions of Al Qaeda play into the hands of the global power. Al Qaeda, by its ‘terrorism’, beefs up the global power and, with the help of the global media, it has been transforming itself into a global actor that has been increasing its effectiveness and gaining an importance far beyond its real strength. Al Qaeda plays the role of the ‘evil’ twin sibling of the global dominant force, because the actions of the global dominant force are carried out on the basis of the struggle between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’; the hole left behind by the old evil, the Soviet Union, has been filled by the new evil and discursive, indirect and delayed forms of violence are replaced by direct forms of violence. The new imperialism has initiated a process in which violence is a fundamental determinant. In this process, Al Qaeda, rather than threatening its twin sibling with its discourse and actions, provides a reason to support its existence*it legitimises violence inflicted by the new imperialism and makes the globalisation of violence possible. Conclusion With the new imperialism, globalisation of violence and its monopolisation have become a major problem. ‘Terrorism’ of the global force is a product of an effort to realize a dystopian world in which totalitarian regimes control societies with the help of armed forces. The new imperialist power, which is the implementer of global terror, is trying to denounce dissident forms of violence by using global political organisations and forces of violence under its control and has been trying to denounce and suppress them. On the other hand, the new imperialist power has been attempting to pacify societies by terrorising the world through utilising religious and nationalist groups under its control that inflict ‘blind violence’ and ‘terror’. In this respect monopolisation of violence is a major problem. The violence that is being inflicted by the US and Al Qaeda serve the interests of the same ‘monopoly’, the same 320 B. Coban ¸ global power. The globalisation of violence permits the determination of the future by the new imperialism, or rather it means a nightmare-like future and the destruction of humanity. Global opposition has a structure which goes far beyond the limits of the structure maintained under the leadership of religious fundamentalism. To present the ideology of Middle Ages as the only alternative ideology means nothing but to leave the opposition in the hands of the global power. Religious and nationalist structures do not have the capacity to develop a dissident alternative, and historically the ‘Iranian revolution’ is one of the most explicit indicators of this fact. In addition, Al Qaeda is nothing but a dark twin sister produced by the global power itself. Al Qaeda’s violence serves not to emancipate but to expand and legitimise the global tyranny of the new imperialism. Monopolisation of violence in the hands of the global power is a reflection of the economy of the new imperialism. Globalisation is fundamentally determined by the sphere of the economy and social problems can only make sense when analysed with a class-based viewpoint and on the basis of the ideology of the oppressed. In this respect, ideology and the class struggle, which are allegedly dead, in fact still retain their importance. Building a real opposition against the new imperialism is still determined by the struggles that are and will be organised by locals within the context of class struggle as Meszaros explained, only the working and the productive classes can put an end to the destructive drift of global hegemonic imperialism of the US.22 Historically, the fundamental determinant is not ‘clash of civilisations’ but a ‘class struggle’ and this is still valid today. The structure of the global opposition focusing on localities but at the same time targeting construction of internationalist solidarity ` and unity will make it strong vis-a-vis the global force. In conclusion, to put an end to the monopolisation of violence of the new imperialism, to barbarism, to this death game, re-invigorating the class struggle, which aims to build a new world, is one of the most important tasks of the international working class movement. 22 I. Meszaros, Ya Barbarlik Ya Sosyalizm (Ankara: Epos, 2004), p. 61.