戰爭與全球化:邁向「永久和平」?或恆久的「全球內戰」?

War and Globalization: Toward 'Eternal Peace' or Perpetual 'Global Civil War'?

在當前新自由主義的論述中，「全球化」幾乎與「全球市場」成為同義詞，全球化指涉的正是一種解除資本市場管制的過程或現象。不過，此種「去政治化」的論點無疑地遮掩了全球化發展中的不平等與權力問題。所以，在本文中，我們嘗試從「戰爭」的角度來重建對全球化的政治思考及行動，亦即，對全球化發展中所內含的權力運作機制、狀態與分佈進行更多的反思和審視。藉由古典戰爭理論家克勞塞維茲「政治－－戰爭」的命題，我們提出了兩種可能的思考模式：哈伯瑪斯的「後民族格局」以及Hardt和Negri的「帝國」。這兩種模式都是對當前全球政治秩序發展的理論回應，兩者都同樣帶有馬克思主義的批判傳統，反對新自由主義的市場勝利論。雙方在理論傳承上的不同之處在於，哈伯瑪斯繼受康德「永久和平」的啟蒙傳統，期待一個全球的民主狀態，而Hardt和Negri則是承接了傅柯的權力分析（特別是「生命權力」），而試圖描繪出「全球內戰」的世界圖像。最後，從兩者的比較分析中，我們將會發現到「美國權力」將是全球化發展中的難題。美國作為當前最具權勢的民族國家以及最重要的戰爭發動機，將與傳統的民族國家體系形成何種關係，或許會深刻地影響了全球化的未來走向。

In the view of neo-liberalists, the term 'globalization' is nearly equivalent to 'global market', which is an ongoing process of de-regulating global capital market. However, the issues of inequality and power distribution are covered by this 'de-politicizing' globalization viewpoint. This essay attempts to reconstruct the political thinking and action in globalization by focusing on 'war'. It means that we attempt to reflect and examine the deployment and distribution of power mechanism in globalization. To start with Clausewitzian 'politics-war' proposition, two theoretical models are compared: 'the postnational constellation' (Jürgen Habermas) and 'empire' (Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri). Both of them can be seen as theoretical responses to the political development of globalization. They both inherit critical tradition in Marxism and strong oppose the claim of free-market triumph. The discrepancies between two model are also examined. Habermas' 'postnational constellation' follows Kant's concept of 'eternal peace'. On the other hands, Hardt and Negri's 'empire' follows the Foucaultdian analysis of power (especially the concept of 'bio-power') to picture a 'global civil war' image. The comparison between two models is examined by focusing on the issue of 'American power' in the development of globalization, since the U.S. is the most powerful national state and war-making engine in the world. Thus, the future of globalization possibly depends on its relation to the whole system of nation-states.