5-26-06, 10:26 am
On the third anniversary of United States aggression against Iraq, the world is on the verge of another international political crisis and a new war waged by the world’s biggest superpower against another sovereign nation, Iran. Fierce economic, political and social contradictions are being manifested in a concentrated manner, especially in the Middle East and in Latin America. A scenario of rapid degeneration and crisis is becoming more evident, painted in very strong and vivid colors, one that is distinct in every manner from the soft and fuzzy reality as viewed through the lenses of reformist social democracy, which continues to dream of the world stability that would supposedly result from US economic hegemony and the ability of its system to regenerate. On the other hand, it is a worldview that counts on the appearance of a new international balance of powers, a kind of 'assertive multilateralism' that would mitigate the devastating effects to world order which have emanated from President Bush’s unilateralism, as well as from his policy of preemptive war. But these are unfeasible hypotheses, in some cases the illusions of intellectuals who are disconnected from reality, in others the self-interested propaganda of those in the service of imperialism - a new kind of ideological Trojan horse in the ranks of the left.
The government of President Bush chose the third anniversary of the war to define its ideological position both in theory and practice. The days that preceded the this anniversary of war and occupation were days of horror for the civilian population of the Iraqi city of Samara, an exercise in terror with which the occupation forces intended to display their capacity to control the situation and further their objective of keeping Iraq under US rule. To do so, they perpetrated further crimes against humanity, as they had already done during the genocidal assault on Fallujah, and in countless other raids that have massacred the Iraqi civilian population. For this they will one day be judged as the worst terrorists of all, without compare in the annals of human history.
During these very days, Washington issued a new document entitled 'The National Security Strategy of the United States.' It is an updated version, in fact a reiteration, of the strategy adopted in 2002 a few months before the offensive against Iraq was unleashed, one which Communists have tirelessly denounced as a plan for ruling the world by means of wars of aggression, a strategy which puts at risk democracy, the national independence of peoples, security and peace, and in fact the very survival of humankind. The most recent document, issued in March 2006, reaffirms that the Bush administration's mission is to defeat terrorism and tyranny by means of endless war and 'preventive wars.' The document begins with the affirmation that 'America is at war,' and that 'such is the strategy of national security in times of war demanded by the serious challenges we are facing now,' in a clear demonstration of the militarist and belligerent option taken by United States imperialism.
To say that conduct of modern international relations and diplomacy that began with the 17th-century Peace of Westphalia is facing its demise in the Bush era is not a figure of speech, not a mere sectarian departure, and by no means dogmatic nonsense. The death toll for the United Nations and 'multilateralism' began to ring when former Secretary of State Colin Powell characterized the UN as 'irrelevant,' since it had 'failed in its responsibilities' by not authorizing the attack against Iraq. The epilogue to this attack on the United Nations was the Azores Summit, in which the right-wing Portuguese government served as an accomplice. From then on, the farcical character of the so-called Pax Americana and the multilateralism of the imperialist powers became completely evident as a way of achieving an international balance in an era of globalization.
United States imperialism has turned into a formidable war machine. The superpower's annual military budget is now nearing $500 billion. Its troops and military bases are scattered throughout every corner of world. There are more than half a million soldiers, technicians and instructors outside US national borders in 725 bases and military missions, officially acknowledged, in 38 countries. As normally happens when it is a matter of putting the machine into action, theorizations about humanitarian war, the fight against terrorism, unseating tyrannies, assertive multilateralism, balance of power, etc. begin to surface. But what matters in practical terms is the use of force.
The belief that it is possible to build a world order based on transparent rules, global cooperation, progressive administration, effective and efficient multilateral organizations, solid and applicable juridical institutions, and self-regulating political and economic mechanisms is but a feeble illusion, or in other words it is obvious propaganda. Such a world does not and cannot exist and exist except by means of a revolutionary break with the current state of things.
Another issue is the objective appearance of new national economic and political centers, either in the camp opposing imperialism or within the context of inter-imperialist contradictions. From a Leninist perspective, depending on the political situation and the character of the regimes involved in the competing countries, the current situation is characterized either by the presence of inter-imperialist contradictions, or by contradictions between antagonistic social and political systems. The launching of a new national security strategy by the United States demonstrates that, three years after the occupation of Iraq, the world is no longer safe, for we are yet again on the eve of a new world crisis. 'We face no greater challenge than Iran, a country that sponsors terrorism, threatens Israel, peace in Middle East and provokes the rupture of the democratic process in Iraq', reads the White House document. At this very moment Washington is taking moves to first isolate and then attack Iran. It invokes the 'nuclear threat' supposedly deriving from that country, as it pushes the approval of an anti-Iran resolution in the UN Security Council, mobilizes its allies, and directly links management of the Iraq crisis to the objective of attacking Iran.
The hypocrisy of the Bush administration speaking out against nuclear threats is revealed by the recent US-Indian nuclear agreement, a key effort in acquiring strategic allies to promote the objectives of us imperialism in Asia. Laying the groundwork for an attack on Iran is viewed by Bush as a chief part of his second-term mandate, proclaimed both at the Republican Party convention and at the presidential inauguration: the plan to restructure the Middle East according to a clear neocolonialist pattern. Washington either needs governments that are completely submissive or it must engage in direct intervention in the region. This also explains the threats against Syria, unconditional support for Israel, and the sabotage against the new Hamas government leading the Palestinian National Authority. What the Bush administration is presenting is nothing new. It is merely reiterating the rhetoric and behavior that pose threats to countries and peoples in the Middle East, stimulating an environment of war.
None of these developments were unforeseeable. Such strategies have been outlined previously, and the preemptive wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the 'war on terrorism,' and other steps taken by the Bush administration lie within their scope. The recently issued document reiterates that 'winning the war on terrorism demands winning the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq.' The current episode involving Iran and other threats of intervention point to an escalation and a persistent policy of war.
It is the perception of impending defeat that forces even sectors of the United States right wing to demand the immediate end to the 'lunacy in Iraq.' The failure in Iraq is coupled with the fiasco of the Bush administration's plans regarding the Palestinian issue. The 'Road Map,' marred by Israeli intransigence and their Zionist persistence in a repressive and expansionist policy, has utterly failed, just as every peace plan will likewise fail that does not stipulate total withdrawal from the occupied territories and the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
The National Security Strategy launched by the White House insists on the concept of 'rogue states,' which become the focus of aggressive action by the United States. Besides the aforementioned Iran and Syria, the United States' government has its sights on North Korea, 'which keeps defying the region and the international community,' as well as Zimbabwe, Byelorussia and Myanmar, where it promises to oust 'despotic governments,' and issues awkward insults against Russia and China, accusing the great Asian socialist nation of practicing a 'closed economy,' 'violating human rights' and developing military programs in secrecy.
Latin America is also the focus of a United States offensive. The rhetoric and gestures of the Bush administration are particularly threatening to socialist Cuba and revolutionary Venezuela. In regard to Cuba, the document states that 'a dictator keeps oppressing his people,' in an undisguised show of bitterness caused by the realization that after more than 40 years of blockade and countless attempts at destabilization and assassination they have not been able to destroy the Revolution, which displays political and ideological health and the capacity to overcome economic difficulties.
Today Venezuela is of special concern to the White House: 'A demagogue full of oil money poses a threat of regional instability,' reads the document. A few weeks earlier, Condoleezza Rice exhorted the countries in the region to take action against Venezuela, and made laughable statements denying the democratic character of the recent Venezuelan elections, which were successfully carried out and resulted in undeniable victories for Chávez and the political forces of the Bolivarian Revolution.
The evolving political situation in Latin America is an eloquent sign of the defeat of United States imperialism. Besides the consolidation of the Cuban Revolution and the triumph of the Bolivarian Revolution, the electoral victories of democratic, patriotic and popular forces constitute a very progressive sign, with promising political results in several countries on the continent, the most outstanding recent example being the new government of Bolivian Indian leader Evo Morales. One should not take too monolithic a view of the political process now taking place in Latin America, since national peculiarities have enormous influence, being very different among such varying realities as the Venezuelan, Brazilian, Bolivian, Argentinian, and the Uruguayan. However, there is no doubt that, in general terms, what is taking place throughout the region has a strongly anti-imperialist character. Therefore, it is a grave mistake to counterbalance these processes and support one and condemn another. Any right-wing victory, especially if it takes place in a country as important as Brazil, will have a serious negative effect on the whole anti-imperialist movement on the continent. Acknowledging that phenomenon with acuity, President Chávez, before the social movements gathered in Caracas during the polycentric World Social Forum that took place last January, made an important assessment of the progressive character of the evolving movements, not only in Venezuela, but also in President Lula's Brazil, in President Tabare Vázquez's Uruguay, and in President Kirchner's Argentina, among others, although the objective and subjective limitations of the evolving processes in the region are clear.
It is a significant fact, with extraordinary historical meaning, that United States imperialism is being contested in such a sharp manner in a region it has always considered its backyard, and that was presented in the very recent 1990s as the symbol of a 'new renaissance,' a phrase coined by one of the most pro-American and pliant statesmen of that time, former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Likewise, it is of great importance that the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), a gigantic neocolonialist scheme, has been firmly rejected up to now, as a result of the peoples' struggle, the anti-neoliberal resistance of social movements, the firmness of Chávez's Venezuela, which said NO to the FTAA from the very first moment, and the dexterity of the political and commercial diplomacy of the Lula administration, which skillfully dismantled one of the most perverse inheritances it had received the FTAA negotiations. Thus, the 'Peoples' Summit' in Mar del Plata, which was characterized by the 'FTAA's burial,' enters history as a great event signaling a bitter defeat for the United States' plans. It is at the same time an important experience from which we can draw important lessons. If the people can achieve a similar victory against the proposed neoliberal policies of the World Trade Organization (WTO), as put forward by the great economic powers in the so-called Doha round, the process of neoliberal globalization will be adversely affected in regard to the two things it holds most dear: 'Free trade' and deregulation
The evolution of events in the Middle East and Latin America, with the defeats suffered by United States imperialism and the increasing resistance of the peoples, is evidence that there are alternatives and that imperialism is not invincible. During a decade and a half (the 1990s and the first half of the current decade), the popular movement was indoctrinated by hegemonic left-of-center forces with the thesis that imperialism and neoliberalism was inexpugnable due to their immense powers of destruction and the control of the world economy by financial capital. This myth of nonexistent alternatives was promulgated in order to provide cover and justification for an ideological posture of adaptation and, in the end, capitulation. The remarkable events that have occurred in France in recent months (which deserve an individual analysis in another article) constitute another good example that there are other paths of resistance that can be taken to fight against and defeat neoliberal right-wing policies.
Three years after the beginning of the preemptive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the world is less safe and imperialism is more threatening. On the other hand, the peoples are more experienced and willing to fight. The anti-imperialist struggle, the most pressing issue of current times, will be a long-term struggle. It will steadily gather momentum if it is accompanied by a broad-based radicalism that raises banners bright enough to mobilize the creative energy of the peoples, such as the banners of peace opposing imperialist war, along with the banners of political and social freedom, unfurled against the anti-social, anti-democratic offensive of neoliberalism. These are the proud flags that champion the sovereignty of every nation, unfurled against the policies of neocolonialism and imperialist domination.
-- José Reinaldo Carvalho is an international politics specialist, journalist and writer, author of 'International conflicts in a globalized world' and 'The anti-imperialist struggle versus the United States' hegemony.' He is the International Relations Secretary of the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB) and Director of Cebrapaz, the Brazilian Center of Solidarity to the Peoples and Struggle for Peace.
