rise of imperialism and the pursuit of world power. This game has gone through two major transformations since
the days of Russian-British rivalry, with the rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing
The main themes of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games include:
* US imperial strategy as an outgrowth of British imperialism, and its transformation following the collapse of
the Soviet Union;
* the significance of the creation of Israel with respect to the imperial project;
* the repositioning of Russia in world politics after the collapse of the Soviet Union;
* the emerging role of China and Iran in Eurasia;
* the emerging opposition to the US and NATO.
As the critical literature on NATO, the new Russia, and the Middle East is fragmented, this work brings these
elements together in historical perspective with an understanding from the Arab/ Muslim world's point of view, as it
is the main focus of all the "Great Games". It strives to bridge the gap between Western, Russian and Middle
Eastern readers with an analysis that is accessible and appeals to all critical thinkers, and at the same time
provides the tools to analyze the current game as it evolves.
The Great Games of yore Britain vs. Russia and their empires in the 19th century, and the US vs. the Soviet Union
in the 20th century no longer translate merely as the US vs. Russia or Russia/ China. A major new player is a
collective one, NATO, which today is as vital as the emperor's clothes to justify the global reach of US imperialism.
Today, the "playing field" the geopolitical context is broader than it was in either the 19th or 20th century games,
though Eurasia continues to be "center field", where most of the world's population and energy resources lie.
The existence of Israel is an anomaly which seriously complicates the shaping of the geopolitical game. Its roles in
the Great Games as both colony and an imperial power in its own right, is analyzed in the context of the history of
Judaism and its relations with both the western Christian and the Muslim worlds.
Related collections and offers
|Publisher:||Clarity Press, Incorporated|
|Edition description:||New Edition|
|Product dimensions:||5.90(w) x 9.00(h) x 0.70(d)|
About the Author
Toronto and Cambridge in economics, he has been writing on East-
West relations since the 1980s, He has lived in both the Soviet Union and Russia, and then Uzbekistan, as a UN adviser, writer, translator and lecturer. Presently a writer for the foremost Cairo newspaper, Al
Ahram, he is also a regular contributor to Counterpunch, Global Research, and Al-Jazeerah. His articles also appear in Russian, Spanish, German and Arabic.
Read an Excerpt
The ideological dispute that arose after 9/11 between Fukuyama's "end of history" and Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations" is really just a disagreement over sound bytes. The former trumpeted the victory of the West as ushering in a new era based on western market/political principles, in keeping with the triumphalism of the winners of the Cold War. That no such new era has consolidated itself is supposedly due to unfortunate cultural anachronisms. In a post-geopolitical world, it is "cultural conflict ... with alien civilizations" that leads to "confrontation". This "cultural resistance to capitalism and modernity" divides the world. "Civilizations unite and divide mankind ... blood and belief are what people identify with and what they will fight and die for." Only the West values individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, the rule of law, democracy, free markets.
The two most menacing cultural throwbacks are Islam and Confucianism (read: oil and Chinese exportsand if they unite, "they would pose a threat to the existence of the core civilization." Disdain for Islam has been part of the western cultural discourse for over a century now, as Said made clear in Orientalism and elsewhere. We can add Confuscianism as the other main oriental frame of mind. The "end of history" thus still involves some residual "confrontation".
Ideological contempt for Islam turned into a reckless use of Islamists throughout all the games, culminating in the Great Game II endgame. The communist knights and rooks were defeated in the mountains of Afghanistan, the bishopsthe communist ideologuesdiscredited, and the communist pawns in revolt. Finally the king was checkmated, swept from the board, and the team disbanded. The world expected a new era free of the threat of war, a peace dividend that would improve the lot of people everywhere, ensuring that the material imperative behind war was eliminated. But the triumph of empire has never led to an end to empire, and strengthening empire has never led to improving the lot of the periphery. This was clear in both Great Games I&II, where the periphery was impoverished at the expense of the center. There is no reason to believe GGIII could be any different, even Bush I's postmodern variant, and indeed, the impoverishment of all who are not part of the center/periphery elite has only accelerated.
Meanwhile, the new enemy had been prepared and was loudly declared.