Online at: http://politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5044/1/250/

Things Fall Apart: China and the Decline of US Imperialism

By Gerald Horne
Archives - Dates and Topics 2007 – print April click here for related stories: imperialism/globalization

3-27-07, 1:00 pm


When historians of the future look back, they may very well conclude that 2007 marked the time when the crisis of US imperialism became so obvious that even the dimmest bulb could detect it. For it is evident that imperialism is about to suffer a staggering and transformative defeat in Iraq as this illegal and criminal invasion has stretched the military to the breaking point, alienated allies and emboldened the lengthening list of foes of US imperialism.

At the same time, China, still ruled by a Communist Party, has accumulated an eye-popping $1 trillion in foreign currencies, a figure never before attained by any nation. This sum is so formidable, so huge, that there is a palpable fear in Washington that Beijing may develop a version of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, rendering both of these imperialist dominated vehicles irrelevant. In the so-called “backyard” of Washington, socialist Cuba has not been slowed down by the hospitalization of President Fidel Castro and continues to move from strength to strength. Cuba and China in turn serve as anchors for Africa, Asia and Latin America in their ongoing attempt to break the chains of imperialist bondage. All this suggests that the crisis of US imperialism continues unabated.

The declining prestige of Washington was no better revealed than when the human rights watchdog of the United Nations rebuked the US for violations of international law at home and abroad, especially in connection with its so-called “war on terror.” Adding to a growing cascade of criticism, singled out were the secret detention facilities where torture is the norm and the failure to provide prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba with due process of law. But what really captured attention were the sharp criticisms of US domestic policy. Washington’s draconian asylum and immigration policies, the promiscuous deployment of the death penalty and life imprisonment and police brutality, were all condemned in no uncertain terms.

This international body of experts seconded by the UN oversees implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and chose 2006 to examine US compliance with this document for the first time since 1995. Predictably Washington reacted angrily to this rebuke. Ironically, the nation that has taken it upon itself to evaluate nations near and far and the extent to which they have complied with Washington’s version of “democracy” and “freedom,” now cries foul when the “script is flipped.”

US imperialism finds it hard to ignore this complaint from the UN for George W. Bush recognizes that it is precisely his malfeasance in the global arena that may very well jeopardize not only his legacy but his freedom of movement as well. For as the noted University of Virginia law professor, Rosa Brooks, put it recently, the US Supreme Court ruling in the case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, concerning a so-called “enemy combatant,” suggests that Common Article Three of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with al Qaeda. But more than this, the high court holding makes high-ranking Bush administration officials – including the president -– potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.

What this suggests is that US imperialism cannot escape the grasp of global forces, no matter how well it is able to bludgeon domestic opposition. More than this, even sectors of the US ruling elite have come to recognize that conservatism, which has served this class so well to this point, may be very well incapable of protecting its interests as the 21st century unfolds. For example, how can one expect the US right wing to subdue the rudimentarily conservative force that is so-called Islamic fundamentalism when historically they have been in the same trench, e.g. during the war in the 1980’s in Afghanistan that turbo-charged religiosity?

The bold posture of the UN is emblematic of how the international community has come to recognize that US imperialism is a primary threat to international peace and security. Similarly, this is suggestive of how the erosion of the strength of US imperialism has made Washington more susceptible to being influenced by global trends. In the first place, the tax cutting mania of the Republican right – without the concomitant muscle to slash social programs proportionately – has made this nation more dependent on capital flows from Asia in particular to curb escalating deficits. As foreign nations have grabbed a larger stake in the US government and economy, understandably they have become more concerned about their investments here – which provides more incentive for them to rein in Washington.

Of late, China and Russia on the UN Security Council have banded together to curb the more horrific and lunatic plans of Washington, e.g. imposing severe sanctions on Iran due to its attempt to develop civilian nuclear energy. Still, disturbing plans continue to emerge about Washington’s plans to bomb Iran – which would be akin to opening the gates of hell.

Resort to bloody war has been the ultimate sanction held out by US imperialism for those so bold as to ignore their diktat but the catastrophic conflict in Iraq has shown that this threat is not as meaningful as it seems. The puncturing of this threat has plunged sectors of the US ruling elite into crisis mode. This melancholy was not assuaged when Israel proved unable to overpower Lebanon during its disastrous 33-day war that unfolded during the summer of 2006. Israel was encouraged by US imperialism to contribute to its ill-conceived “war on terrorism” by seeking to eliminate Hezbollah with the conflict over detention of Israeli soldiers as a pretext. But Israel was unable to accomplish this task, which diluted its importance in the eyes of US imperialism, with consequences that continue to be tallied. In a column for the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami argued that since “US deterrence and respect for the superpower have been eroded unrecognizably,” this means that “an exclusive ‘Pax Americana’ in the Middle East is no longer possible because not only is the US not an inspiration today, it does not instill fear.”

As regimes globally sense that US imperialism may be weakening, there is a ripple effect in diverse areas. In the first place, it has called into question the utility of the dollar, the viability of which has obviated the necessity of making the tough decisions on fiscal matters that this nation’s debt and deficits would ordinarily mandate. For example, in 2006 the United Arab Emirates, which had accumulated a treasure trove of dollars, announced that it has moved 10 percent of its $29 billion in foreign exchange reserves into euros, the common currency of the European Union, the erstwhile ally cum competitor of US imperialism, which has dreams of global domination all its own. Certainly the controversy in March 2006 when Dubai Ports World was blocked from taking over the interests in the US of another foreign entity, Britain’s P&O, soured many Arabs on the reliability of US imperialism.

Other sober analysts transnationally are weighing a flight from the dollar as well, which if implemented could have disastrous consequences for US imperialism. In August 2006, China and Japan, Asia’s two economic giants and rivals, developed what was termed an “unusual consensus” in support of an ACU or an Asian currency unit to – as noted in the Financial Times – “reduce their reliance on a weakening dollar.” Speaking in Australia, Fan Gang, a leading Chinese economic theorist, called for a sharp devaluation of the dollar as a way to bring health to the global economy. Of course, this could mean a sharp rise in prices for all manner of US imports including toys, automobiles, clothes, consumer electronics, and the like. The ACU has many hurdles to overcome before becoming reality, but the fact that Tokyo and Beijing could agree on its importance is suggestive of the crisis of US imperialism.

Even sectors of the US ruling class are now joining with progressives in calling for the ouster of the Bush regime. Calling for the ouster of this criminal regime and actually accomplishing this task are two different matters. For like the towering government debt and deficits that have accumulated under his watch, Bush has left many land mines behind, which will be bedeviling this nation for decades to come and are quite susceptible of exploding at any moment. There are many examples of this but what quickly comes to mind is the fact that the overstretched US military, pressed for recruits, has allowed the infiltration of their ranks by neo-Nazis. Such is the conclusion of the well-respected Southern Poverty Law Center, which has reported the disturbing news that Aryan Nations graffiti can now be found in Baghdad, along with numerous soldiers with fascist tattoos. As the neo-Nazis see it, joining the military allows them to gain military training, which could be critical in coming years. Moreover, it allows them to “legally” slaughter those not of European descent. Purging the military of this vermin and scum has to be seen by progressives as a top priority.

Certainly their presence does little to halt the desperate belligerence that today characterizes US imperialism and increasingly this hostility is targeting China which is both “non-European” and ruled by a Communist Party, thus attaining the “daily double” of right-wing hate politics. It is true that a number of Fortune 500 corporations have invested heavily in China, which serves as a restraint on the bellicosity of US imperialism toward Beijing. But it should not be forgotten that as I write a roiling and fierce debate is unfolding in the ranks of the elite National Association of Manufacturers over trade with China. The split in their ranks pits smaller US manufacturers who are being hammered – as they see it – by Chinese factories against their larger counterparts, some of whom are benefiting from what is seen as an undervalued Chinese currency. “China is waging a mercantile war,” claimed M. Brian O’Shaugnessy, President of Revere Cooper Products, Inc. of Rome, New York, “and we’re being pacifists.” These smaller corporations are threatening to leave the NAM unless it takes a tougher stance against Beijing; of course, though these smaller companies make up 74 percent of the NAM membership, they only contribute 23 percent of the dues – so the whales are expected to prevail over the guppies. Still, one cannot easily expect these forces to go silently into the night if they are defeated.

A weakened US imperialism inevitably will be seeking scapegoats for the decline of the self-proclaimed “sole remaining superpower” in Beijing, e.g. accusations about China’s currency manipulations already have gained traction and, of late, led to serious debate in the Congress about slapping an astonishing 27.5 percent duty on their exports to this country. Moreover, China’s relations with Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), the remaining members of the so-called “axis of evil,” are already the cause for anguished commentary in Washington.

Beijing has strengthened its relations with Tehran significantly, for example, signing several long-term energy exploration production and delivery contracts since 2004 with Iran worth more than $100 billion. In 2006 China invested in Iran’s domestic oil-refining industry, agreeing to expand the country’s gasoline output significantly.

China and the DPRK have long been close allies. Recall, for example, the latter stages of US imperialism’s bloodthirsty invasion of the Korean peninsula in the 1950’s, when it was common wisdom that these two Asian nations were as “close as lips and teeth.” Concerns about the DPRK‘s attempt to develop nuclear energy have caused Washington to try cajoling China into pressuring its ally. The fact that South Korea is lukewarm at best about sanctioning its northern neighbor is suggestive of the point that Koreans from north to south are looking forward to reunification and have little interest in bending to the intimidation of Washington.

China and Syria also have strong commercial ties, as Beijing has invested substantially in the development of this Arab state’s transportation infrastructure, as well as in energy exploration and production. China is also a key supplier of military equipment to Syria.

China has become a major investor in Venezuela’s energy sector and is also investing in this nation’s transportation infrastructure, including railroads, ports and crude oil tankers, not to mention telecommunications, mining and agriculture. Caracas is directing more and more of its oil exports to China, which has not made Washington happy. In 2004 this figure amounted to 12,000 barrels of oil per day to China but by 2006 this figure had jumped to 200,000 and is slated to rise to 500,000 by 2009. China also has supported the attempt by Venezuela to obtain a coveted seat on the UN Security Council.

China has invested heavily in US Treasury securities and other US assets to the tune of about $800 billion. It is also true that if China were to devalue its currency as some in Washington are demanding this could reduce the value of China’s foreign assets by a hefty $200 billion. Why should China – the creditor – yield to the demands of the US, the debtor?

Drunk with national and racial chauvinism, there are those in Washington who have yet to understand fully the comparative decline of US imperialism and its inability to impose its diktat. There seems to be little realization that China possesses countermeasures of its own. Beijing could liquidate its massive holdings of US Treasury securities, pushing US interest rates higher and the value of the dollar much lower against other major currencies. This could mean higher taxes – or dramatic slashes in government programs.

What is striking about this developing relationship between Beijing and Washington is that, in some ways, it is coming to mirror the cold war. Increasingly Washington is taking umbrage at the fact that the world’s most populous nation is developing interests globally. Washington seems to be particularly concerned with Beijing’s incursions in Africa, which the US and Western Europe alike have long seen as its own private preserve and has long been a major petroleum supplier to both. Of late, this tendency has been manifested in overheated press coverage in the US about China’s role in Africa. Typical was an August 2006 New York Times article which spoke wondrously of Dakar, Senegal, long a bastion of French influence, but which now is
home to Chinese merchants who sell shoes, electronics, plastic jewelry and toys…. China, it seems, is suddenly everywhere in Africa, not just in oil-rich states. Trade between Africa and China has almost quadrupled since 2001 and last year reached almost $40 billion… in Sierra Leone Chinese companies have built and renovated hotels and restaurants. In Mozambique, Chinese companies are investing in soybean processing and prawn production. At the African Union summit meeting in Banjul, Gambia last month, the Chinese delegation dwarfed the ones sent by France, Britain and the United States.


This reference to “oil rich states” was not coincidental since Nigeria, Gabon and Angola are among the major petroleum producers globally. Also, not coincidentally, the Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, General James Jones announced in May 2003 that in the future US naval forces under his command would spend much less time in the Mediterranean. Instead, he predicted: “I will bet they will spend half the time going down the West Coast of Africa.” That same year, a senior Pentagon official was quoted as saying that a “key mission for US forces [in Africa] would be to ensure that Nigeria’s oilfields, which in the future would account for as much as 25 percent of all US oil imports, are secure.”

Unsurprisingly, in January 2005 the US Navy commenced a two-month Gulf of Guinea deployment with participation by the USS Emory, carrying about 1,400 sailors and marines; port calls were made in Douala, Cameroon (close to Nigeria); Sekondi, Ghana; and Port Gentil, Gabon. Reportedly being considered as a potential site for a US military base is the island state of Sao Tome and Principe, close by the major oil producers and a former entry point for the unlamented African slave trade.

The so-called “war on terror” is also the stated rationale for Washington’s increasingly large footprint in Africa. Algeria, the supplier of huge amounts of liquefied natural gas to North America, has been critical in this regard. Algiers has been the recipient of significant amounts of military assistance from the US but this has not quelled – and, in fact, may be heightening – regional instability, as suggested by the coup in Mauretania, Tuareg revolts in Mali and Niger and continuing unrest in southern Algeria itself.

Indeed, there is concern throughout Algeria about the peculations of Halliburton, which has been bleeding the nation white. Surely this misbehavior only serves to underscore why more and more African nations are looking to Beijing as a counterweight to US imperialism, just as they once looked to Moscow.

No doubt Zimbabwe is viewing things through this lens. Heavily sanctioned by London and Washington, not least due to its expropriation of farmers from the European minority, Harare has decided to “Look East” and, as a result, China has become this African nation’s second largest supplier of imported goods. In 1998 China ranked only 11th in Harare’s roll call of importers. Now it accounts for 6 percent of Zimbabwe’s imports. One informed estimate is that there are at least 15 to 20 sizable Zimbabwe-China business deals, mostly involving state enterprises.

This nervousness about the global reach of Beijing illuminates as well the panic about Venezuela that has gripped the US ruling class. Unquestionably, Caracas has sought to use its oil wealth for progressive purposes, e.g. its alliance with Argentina that has led to development of a regional bank targeting nations frustrated with the domineering International Monetary Fund. Caracas also has purchased $3 billion in Argentine bonds, not to mention $25 million in Ecuador’s debt. Just as China has tightened ties with Iran, Venezuela has acted similarly. On the banks of the Orinoco River in this South American nation is a sprawling factory that churns out 40 tractors a week; this is a joint venture between Tehran and Caracas with a bus factory and a cement plant soon to come. Iran plans to invest a sizeable $9 billion in 125 projects in Venezuela.

Caracas’s close ties to Havana are a matter of public record. Cuba, which has invested heavily in human capital, has supplied Venezuela with 14,000 doctors who now provide free treatment to the poor. This is not to mention the 3,000 Cuban medical staff who were deployed to South Asia recently in the wake of the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan. Within 48 hours of Hurricane Katrina Cuba offered to send 1,600 doctors to the Gulf Coast, plus 36 tons of medical supplies – but this urgent offer went unanswered. Hundreds died, mostly poor and Black, due to a lack of aid and treatment. That China has tightened relations with Cuba of late, has provided Havana with even more flexibility in making such generous offers.

What is of ultimate concern to US imperialism is that an alternative power center is developing in Beijing, which makes it difficult for Washington to bring to heel nations like Venezuela, Iran, the DPRK, Cuba and Zimbabwe. Yet instead of a calm and calculated assessment that would reveal that this turn of events is due to the weakening position of US imperialism and the disastrous decisions it has made over the years, including invading Iraq, aligning with China against the former USSR some three decades ago and generally seeking to stem the inexorable tide of history, Washington has sought scapegoats and China’s ascension inevitably has attracted jealous attention.

This mordant concern reached an apogee in October 2006 when Bush signed a new national space policy that rejects future arms control agreements that might limit US flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone “hostile to US interests.” This chilling document, which reads like something out of bad science fiction, stresses national security, encourages private enterprise and characterizes the role of US space diplomacy largely in terms of persuading other nations to support US policy. Worried observers argued that this initiative was simply a prelude to introducing weapons systems into the orbit of planet Earth.

Thus, as recent as 2004 the Air Force announced a doctrine that detailed how protecting US satellites and spacecraft may require “deception, disruption, denial, degradation and destruction” targeting various foes. When in September 2006 the US military leaked the alleged secret that Beijing supposedly had tried to disrupt the orbit of a US satellite, it came clear even to the most obtuse who this new space initiative was targeting: China, of course.

It is difficult to overestimate the abject danger of this latest turn in the military strategy of US imperialism. It is not enough to jeopardize life on Earth, now Washington seeks to place the entire solar system in peril. But like global bullies of the past, US imperialism will discover to its dismay that it is much too late to play King Canute seeking to stem the tides of history. China’s rise is inexorable, as is the crisis of US imperialism.

--Gerald Horne is a contributing editor of Political Affairs. Send your letters to the editor to pa-letters@politicalaffairs.net


| | Seed Newsvine | Save Page to del.icio.us


» Home » Online Edition April Print Edition » Subscribe

Receivers email:

*

Your email:

*



| Send to friend |