The general thesis of this article is that the U.S. attack on
Afghanistan is an effort to reverse the relative decline of U.S.
empire and to re-establish its domination in conflictual regions.
The war in Afghanistan is only part of a general imperial
counter-offensive which has several components
(1) to re-establish the subordination of Europe to Washington
(2) to reassert its total control in the mid-East and Gulf
region
(3) to deepen and extend military penetration in Latin
America and Asia
(4) to increase military warfare in Colombia and project
power throughout the rest of the continent
(5) to restrict and repress protest and opposition against
the multi-national corporation (MNC) and international financial
institutions (IFI) like the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization by replacing
democratic rights with dictatorial powers (6) to use state
spending on weapons and subsidies for near bankrupt MNCs
(airlines, insurance, tourist agencies) and regressive tax
reductions to halt a deepening recession, which would undermine
public support for the empire-building project.
The second thesis is that the preparations for the imperial
counter-offensive followed a planned three part sequence:
Phase 1: Sept. 11-Oct. 6 - A massive propaganda effort which
magnified and distorted the nature of the attack on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon in order to secure world political
support. The anti-terrorism campaign created the appearance of a
"world consensus" in favor of Washington.
Phase 2: Oct. 7-to the present - A massive military attack
was launched, actively supported by the hard core of U.S.
supporters (England, Turkey, Pakistan, France, Italy, Japan,
Spain, etc.). Political, psychological and legal barriers to
involvement in the war were demolished in the U.S., Japan and
Germany. This set the stage for new military interventions,
heightened domestic repression and increased profiteering, under
the pretext of "permanent war" conditions.
Phase 3: Involves a general military offensive against real
or potential adversaries and critics, using intimidation (the
threat of massive bombing as in Afghanistan) and increased
military presence to extend and deepen control in crises regions
like Columbia.
The third thesis is that there are three "international
crises"
(1) Military-Political Crises: The open-ended war declared by
Washington which seeks to unilaterally restore its power, by
imposing new client states;
(2) Economic crises: The decline and challenge to
Euro-American imperial power derived from the world recession
(and possible depression) and the growing opposition movements
in and out of the imperial states;
(3) The crises of the Left Opposition. The U.S.
counter-offensive has forced a new set of issues before the
popular movements: greater repression, increased militarization,
a monolithic and massive propaganda effort and general fear/and
anger.
The imperial new order creates many challenges, dangers and
opportunities for resistence, if the Left can overcome its current
disorientation. This triple international crises that affects both
the empire and the opposition poses several possible outcomes
which grow out of their respective contradictions.
The logic of this essay will proceed by first identifying the
context for the imperial counter-offensive, namely the relative
decline of U.S. power. We will then examine the imperial
advantages of extended open-ended war (as a solution to
political-economic crises) and its contradictions.
Finally we will look at the war as part of the crises and its
impact on popular opposition as well as the potentialities for a
new resurgence of popular power.
Relative Decline of Empire and "the Need for a New
Imperialism"
The commonly heard statement, "After September 11, 2001
the world has changed," has been given many different
meanings. The most frequent sense explicitly stated by Washington,
echoed by the European Union, and amplified by the mass media is
that as a result of September 11, a whole new era is ushered in, a
new "historical period" in which a new set of
priorities, alliance and political relations are
"established."
Washington's perspective of periodicizing a new historical era
from September 11, however reflects its own losses and
vulnerabilities. From the perspective of the Third World (and
perhaps beyond) the "new era" starts on October 7, 2001,
the date of the massive U.S. intervention and carpet bombing of
Afghanistan. October 7 is important because it signals the start
of a major world wide offensive against adversaries of the U.S.
under a very elastic and loose definitions of
"terrorism", "terrorist havens", and
"terrorist sympathizers". It clearly marks a new
military offensive against opponents and competitors to U.S.
imperial power, including domestic dissent.
It is important to understand the meaning of the term "new
epoch" because, much of what is happening is not new but
rather a continuation and deepening of ongoing imperial military
aggression which precedes September 11, and October 7. Likewise
the popular liberation struggles in many parts of the world
continue unabated despite September 11 and October 7, despite some
significant changes in context.
In brief while September 11 and October 7 are significant
events, it is an open question whether the events following these
dates mark a qualitatively new historical period.
I would argue that it is more useful to analyze the
inter-relationship between events and historical processes before
October 7 and after, in order to separate what is new and
significant from what is ephemeral or established.
Several significant factors establish the parameters and
content for our discussion. The first is the relative decline in
U.S. political and economic power throughout the 1990s in key
areas of the world, particularly in the mid-East/Gulf region,
Latin America, Asia, and Europe accompanied by an increase in U.S.
influence in the less important Balkan states of Kosova, Macedonia
and Serbia.
The second factor is the vast expansion of U.S. economic
interests via its multinational corporations and banks into the
Third World and the gradual weakening of the client regimes
supporting that expansion. Clearly the international financial
institutions (IFI) like the World Bank (WB) and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) had so drained the wealth of local economies
via their structural adjustment policies, free trade doctrines and
privatization directives that the client states were fragmenting
and weakening and rife with corruption as private sector elites
and politicians pillaged the treasury. The weakening of the
imperial "control structure" meant that the traditional
almost exclusive dependence on the IFIs for surplus extraction was
becoming inadequate. The decline of "indirect" imperial
control over the impoverished and devastated Third World states
required a "new imperialism", according to Financial
Times journalist Martin Wolf (FT, Oct. 10, 2001, p. 13). In
laconic terms bombs and marines supplemented IMF functionaries and
SAP in "restructuring" economies and ensuring the
subordination of Third World States. As Wolf argues "To
tackle the challenge of the failed [pillaged and depleted] state
what is needed is not pious aspirations but an honest and
organized coercive force." In other words imperial wars, like
in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia etc., must be accompanied by new
imperialist conquests - recolonization is the "new
imperialism", a process already underway in Latin American
air, land and sea space.
From the end of the Gulf War and the Bush (Senior) Presidency
to October 7, 2001, the U.S. won military conflicts in the Balkans
and Central America (peripheral regions) and suffered a serious
loss of influence in strategic regions. Similarly the U.S. economy
went through a miniature speculative boomlet between 1995-1999 and
then suffered a deepening recession entering the new Millenium.
The combined peripheral victories and speculative bubble hid the
deepening structural weakness.
The losses in U.S. influence can be briefly summarized. In the
Middle East, the U.S. strategy of overthrowing or isolating the
Iranian government and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was a
total failure. The regimes not only survived but effectively broke
the U.S. boycott. U.S. sanctions against Iran were, de facto,
broken by most of U.S. "allies" including Japan, EU, the
Arab states etc. Iran was accepted among the revitalized OPEC
countries and signed nuclear power agreements with Russia, oil
contracts with Japan. Iran signed investment and trade agreements
with every major country except the U.S. and even there U.S.,
MNCs, working through third parties became involved in Iranian
trade.
Iraq was reintegrated into OPEC, was accepted as a member at
meetings of the Gulf States, at Arab summits and international
Islamic conferences. Iraq sold million of "clandestine"
barrels of oil via 'contrabandists' through Turkey and Syria,
clearly with the foreknowledge of the 'transit regimes' and the
Western European consumers.
The Palestinian uprising and the unanimous support it received
from Arab regimes (including U.S. clients) isolated the U.S. which
remained closely tied to the Israeli state. In North Africa, Libya
developed strong economic ties with EU and their oil companies,
particularly with Italy and diplomatic relations with many NATO
countries.
Thus three strategic oil producing countries labeled as prime
targets of U.S. policy, increased their influence and ties with
the rest of the world, thus weakening the U.S. stranglehold in the
region immediately following the Gulf War. Clearly Bush Senior's
"New World Order" was in shambles, reduced to
mini-fiefdoms, in the backward, mafia infested Albanian provinces
in the Balkans.
Another major sign of declining U.S. power was found in the
massive growth of trade surpluses accumulated in Asia and the EU
at U.S. expense. In the year 2000 the U.S. ran up a $430 billion
trade deficit. Western Europe's 350 million consumers increasingly
purchased European-made goods - over 2/3 of EU trade was
inter-European. In Latin America, European MNCs, particularly, the
Spanish outbid U.S. competitors in buying up lucrative privatized
enterprises.
Politically, especially in Latin America, the U.S. dominance
was being severely tested particularly by the formidable guerrilla
movements in Colombia, by Venezuela's President Chavez and the
mass movements in Ecuador, Brazil and elsewhere. The collapse of
the Argentine economy, the general economic crises in the rest of
the Continent and the significant loss of legitimacy of U.S.
client regimes were other indicators of a weakening of U.S. power
in its neo-colonized provinces.
The massive growth of the "anti-globalization
movement" particularly its "anti-capitalist"
sectors throughout Western Europe, North America and elsewhere
challenged the power of Washington to impose imperial friendly new
investment and trading rules.
Faced with its declining influence in strategic regions, a
growing economic crises at home, the end of the speculative (IT,
biotech, fiber optic) bubble, Washington decided to begin
militarizing its foreign policy (via Plan Columbia) and to
aggressively pursue comparative advantages via unilateral state
decisions: abrogating treaty agreements (ABM missile agreement
with Russia, Kyoto Agreement, the International Human Rights
Court, anti-biological warfare and anti-personnel/mining
agreements, etc.) Unilateral action was seen as a way of reversing
the relative decline, combining regional military action and
economic pressure. To counter the decline of U.S. influence in
Latin America and increase its control, Washington pushed the
Latin American Free Trade Agreement (ALCA in Spanish) to limit
European competition and increase U.S. dominance. However
opposition was strong in four of the five key countries in the
region; Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia and Argentina.
September 11, (following the bombing of the U.S. battleship
Cole in Yemen, the attacks on the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
and the previous attempt to bomb the World Trade Center) was
another indication of the relative decline in U.S. power, this
time of Washington's incapacity to defend the centers of financial
and military power within the empire.
September 11 is and is not a significant date. It is not
because it continued to mark the relative decline of U.S.
influence. It is because it becomes the turning point for a major
counter-offensive to reverse the decline and reconstruct a U.S.
centered "New World Order".
The Counter Offensive: October 7
Washington's declaration of war against Afghanistan has two
important phases: the engineering of a U.S. dominated broad
alliance based on opposition to the terrorist attack on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, and later the conversion of this
anti-terrorist front into a political instrument to support the
U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan and beyond. The clear
intent of the Bush Administration was to launch a worldwide
crusade against opponents of U.S. power, and in the process,
reverse the decline in order to rebuild a new imperial order. From
the onset, the massive bombing attacks and the invasion by
hundreds of Special Forces, on kill and destroy missions, were
intended to obliterate domestic objections to future ground wars
and new military interventions. Equally important the massive
slaughter and displacement of millions of civilians served the
explicit purpose of political intimidation directed at forcing
real or imagined state adversaries to accept U.S. dominance and
control over their foreign and domestic policies, as well as to
threaten social movements that the same violence could be directed
against them.
In a word the declining effectiveness of the IFI as instruments
of U.S. hegemony has led Washington to increasingly rely on raw
military force and high intensity violence. The overt threat of a
series of military assaults is explicitly contained in the
Administrations referral to Afghanistan Invasion as phase one,
with the clear implication that other imperial wars will follow.
Most prominent is Washington's threat to launch another full scale
military assault against Iraq, and other "safe-havens"
for "terrorists."
The so-called "anti-terrorist alliance" has been
melded into a War Alliance (including all the major NATO
countries). All the major military and political decisions down to
the tactical level are taken exclusively and without the least
consultation by Washington. In other words, the War Alliance is a
continuation of Washington's previous unilateralism, only now they
have successfully re-asserted dominance over the EU countries.
While Tony Blair's hyper-kinetic activity on behalf of
Washington's war has elicited praise from the President and the
U.S. mass media, it has not in the least led to any sharing of
decision-making power.
At least in this first phase of the U.S. counter-offensive,
Washington has reasserted its domination over Europe. Taking
maximum advantage of its strongest card in the inter-state system,
military power, Washington has sought to militarize
political-economic realities. By making "anti-terrorism"
the dominant theme in every international and regional forum
(APEC, UN, OAS) Washington hopes to undermine horizontal divisions
between rich and poor countries and classes and replace it with a
vertical ideological-military polarization between those who
support or resist U.S. defined "terrorist" adversaries
and military intervention.
Many regimes have already seized upon this military definition
of socio-economic realities to repress popular and left movements
and liberation organizations in the Middle East, Latin American
and Central Asia. The multiplication of "anti-terrorist"
purges by several client regimes serves Washington's policy
perfectly, as long as the newly labeled terrorist movements also
oppose U.S. policy and as long as their authoritarian clients
accept the New Imperial Order.
Washington's threat of indefinite and extended wars of imperial
conquest has been predictably accompanied by repressive
legislation which in effect confer dictatorial powers to the
President. All Constitutional guarantees are suspended and all
foreign born terrorist suspects become subject to military
tribunals in the U.S. - no matter what their particular
geographical location. There is a broad consensus that the
war-making powers assumed by the Executive violate the letter and
intent of the Constitution and the norms of a democratic regime.
The argument by the defenders of authoritarianism that these
clearly dictatorial measures are temporary is not convincing given
the President's position that we are in for a long and extended
period of warfare.
In other words, authoritarianism and engagement in aggressive
imperialist wars go together, obliterating the democratic
republican vision of the U.S. revolution.
History teaches us that imperial wars are always costly, the
economic benefits are unequally distributed and the burdens are
borne by the wage and salaried workers. The authoritarian measures
serve to repress or intimidate, those who question the patriotic
rhetoric: who begin to interpellate the war slogan United We Stand
by adding Divided We Benefit.
The resurgence of empire building at a time of deepening
economic recession is a problematic strategy. While the
Administration slashes taxes for the rich, the war increases
expenditures - putting deep strains on the budget and mass of
taxpayers. Military Keynesianism may stimulate a few sectors of
the economy but will not reverse the sharp decline in profits for
the capitalist sector as a whole. Moreover, stretching the
repressive apparatus of client regimes to secure their
acquiescence with the global empire building project will not
expand overseas markets for U.S. exports. In fact, overseas
conflicts will shrink markets deepening the negative external
accounts of the U.S. economy.
More significantly the current military approach to empire
building in the post Afghan period (phase 2) threatens to
destabilize the economies of Europe, Japan and the U.S.'s mid-
East states. A military attack and occupation of Iraq will
certainly disrupt the flow of oil to Europe and Japan, destabilize
domestic politics in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf and Middle-
Eastern countries. Fear of the destabilizing effects of phase two
of empire building has already led to dissent even among
Washington's most servile European followers in England.
Nevertheless, given Washington's imperial vision, unilateral
approach and its access to alternative sources of oil (Mexico,
Venezuela, Ecuador, Alaska, Canada, etc.) a military attack on
Iraq could serve two strategic objectives - weaken European
competitors and eliminate Iraq as a potential regional rival.
Bombing Iraq would damage EU economies and alienate its two major
Arab clients (Saudi Arabia and Egypt) but Washington has
demonstrated it can brush off European objections and still secure
their acquiescence.
A new U.S. war however could create uncertainty among investors
world-wide, and the weakening of Europe would repercute negatively
against the U.S. economy at a time of negative growth. A war
induced European decline might improve the relative position of
the U.S., but its economy would decline in absolute terms.
In focusing exclusively on pursuing a handful of supposed
terrorists, President Bush strains at gnats and swallows camels.
The overall damage to both EU and the U.S. economies resulting
from a new war far exceeds any possible losses resulting from
terrorists. The imposition of the Bush Administration's military
definition on the political-economic conflicts in the Third World
resonates with the state terrorist policies of the Israel (against
the Palestinians) Algeria (against the Berbers) and Turkey
(against the Kurds) in the Middle East and North Africa and no one
else.
The Ariel Sharons in Washington (advocates of permanent war for
empire building) have given virtually no thought to the economic
consequences of military intervention in the Middle East. The
collapse of the financial architecture and energy supplies of
imperial states can bring down an empire far more quickly and with
greater certainty than any real or imagined terrorist network.
The Counter-Offensive: Latin America
The imperial counter-offensive is world-wide. In the hierarchy
of regions to reconquer Latin America stands out as second, after
the Middle East. It is the region that has provided the U.S. with
its only favorable trade balances. Its ruling and affluent classes
have drained hundreds of billions in illegal transfers to U.S.
banks, and the U.S. economy has received almost a trillion dollars
in profits, interest payments, royalties and other transfers over
the last decade. Latin American's client regimes usually servilely
follow U.S. positions in international forums and provide nominal
military forces in its interventionary forays thus providing a fig
leaf for what are in effect unilateral actions.
Washington identified the Colombian peasant based guerrilla
movements (the FARC/ELN), the most powerful challenge to its
dominance in the Hemisphere as a "terrorist" group.
Controlling or influential in over fifty percent of the country
municipalities by the mid- 1990s, the advance of the FARC/ELN,
together with the independent foreign policy of Chavez regime in
Venezuela, and the revolutionary government in Cuba represent an
alternative pole to the servile Peon Presidents of the Continent
serving the empire.
Beginning in the late Clinton's Presidency and deepening during
the Bush Administration, the U.S. declared total war on the
popular insurgency. Plan Colombia and later the Andean Initiative
were essentially war strategies which preceded the Afghan War but
served to highlight the new imperial counter-offensive. Washington
allocated 1.5 billion in military aid to the Colombian military
and its paramilitary surrogates. Hundreds of special Forces were
sent to direct operations in the field. U.S. mercenary pilots were
subcontracted from private firms to engage in chemical warfare in
the poppy fields of Colombia. Paramilitary forces multiplied under
the protection and promotion of the military command. Air space,
sea coasts and river estuaries were colonized by U.S. armed
forces. Military bases were established in El Salvador, Ecuador
and Peru to provide logistical support. U.S. officials established
a direct operational presence in the Defense Ministry in Bogota.
The world-wide counter-offensive of October 7 deepened the
militarization process in Colombia. Under U.S. direction the
Colombian air force violates the airspace over the demilitarized
zone where the FARC and the Pastrana regime negotiate. Illegal
cross border forays into the zone led to conflicts. The State
Department labeling the FARC/ELN as "terrorists" puts
them on the list of targets to be assaulted by the U.S. military
machine. Under the Bush-Rumsfeld Doctrine, half of Colombia is a
haven for terrorists and thus subject to total war.
The imperial war fever caused the State Department to send an
official delegation to Venezuela to bludgeon the Chavez government
to support the imperial offensive. According to officials in the
Venezuela Foreign Ministry when Chavez condemned terrorism and the
U.S. war, the State Department threatened the government with
reprisals in the best traditions of Mafia Dons.
The key dimension of Washington's empire building project in
Latin America is the proposed Latin America Free Trade Agreement.
This proposal will give U.S. MNCs and banks unrestrained access to
markets, raw materials and labor while limiting European and
Japanese entry and protect U.S. markets. This neo-mercantilist
imperialist system is another unilateral initiative, taken in
agreement with the satellite regimes in the region, without any
popular consultation. Given the high levels of discontent already
in the region, under the neo- liberal regimes, the imposition of
neo-mercantilist imperialism will likely lead to explosive social
conditions and the re-emergence of nationalist and socialist
alternatives. Washington's anti- terrorist military doctrine, with
its threats of violent interventions and its active and direct
military presence, serves as a useful ideological weapon to impose
the neo-mercantilist empire.
Latin America is today half colonized: its bankers,
politicians, generals and most of its bishops stand by and for the
Empire. They want deeper "integration". The other half
of Latin America, the vast majority of its workers, peasants,
indians, lower middle class public employees and above all its
tens of millions of unemployed who are exploited by the empire
reject and resist it. The imperial counter-offensive is directed
at intervening, in order to sustain its colonial clients and to
cower the other half of Latin America - that owns no property but
represents the historical interests of the region.
We are entering a period of intensified warfare, constant
military threats, savage bombings, wholesale massacres, and tens
of millions of displaced persons. The sites of violent social
conflict are no longer confined to the Third World, though that is
where the people will pay the heaviest price. Will this period of
war also be a period of revolutions - as in the past? Can the U.S.
economy sustain a sequence of wars, without undermining its own
economy? Can it survive by destabilizing its European and Japanese
competitors but also its trading and investment partners?
Centrality of the Imperial State
There are clear indications that the economic bases of the U.S.
empire are weakening for economic and political reasons.
Economically the U.S. manufacturing sector has been in recession
for 18 months and continuing into 2002. Hundreds of billions of
dollars invested in information technology, fiber optics and
biotech ventures have been lost. As revenues plummet thousands of
firms go bankrupt. Both the "old" and "new"
economies are in deep and prolonged crises. The financial and
speculative stock market sectors are heavily dependent on volatile
political-psychological circumstances in the U.S. and in the world
economy. The vertical decline in the stock market following
September 11, and the sharp recovery following October 7, reflect
the volatility. More specifically, U.S. stock and bond markets
depend heavily on overseas investors, as well as local
speculators. These wealthy investors as well as their U.S.
counterparts, invest in the U.S. as much for political as for
economic reasons: they seek safe and stable havens for their
private fortunes. September 11, shook their confidence, because it
demonstrated that the very centers of economic and military power
were vulnerable to attack and destruction. Hence the massive
flight.
The October 7 attack, the massive world-wide counter-offensive
of the Empire, and the destruction of Afghanistan, restored
investor confidence and led to a significant influx of capital and
the temporary recovery of the stock market. The total war strategy
adopted by the Pentagon was as much to restore investor confidence
about the invincibility and security of imperial power as it was
for any political reason or even future oil pipeline. Stock market
behavior, particularly large scale, long term foreign investors in
the U.S. stock and bond market, seem to be influenced as much by
"security and safety reasons as the actual performance of the
U.S. economy. Hence the paradox of the inverse relation between
the stock market and the real economy: while all the economic
indicators of the real economy decline, toward negative growth,
the stock market temporarily recovered its pre-September 11
levels.
There are limits however to this political bases of investment.
Prolonged negative growth and declining profits (or increasing
losses) will most certainly eventually end the recovery and
produce a sharp decline in the stock market.
The theoretical point is that as the economic foundations of
empire weaken, the role of the imperial state increases. The
empire becomes even more dependent on state intervention,
revealing the close ties between the imperial state and investors,
including the MNCs. Equally significant the military components of
the imperial state play an increasingly dominant role in re-
establishing "investor confidence", by smashing and
intimidating adversaries, buttressing faltering neo-colonial
regimes, imposing favorable economic accords (LAFTA) for U.S.
investors and prejudicial to Euro-Japanese competitors (by
military action in the Gulf and Middle East).
The old imperialism of the 1980-90s that depended more on the
IFI's (WB and IMF) is being supplanted and/or complemented by the
new imperialism of military action: the Green Berets replace the
bow tie functionaries of the IMF/WB.
Washington led NATO extends its dominion from the Baltic client
states to the Balkan satellites, and beyond Turkey and Israel to
the Central and Southern Asian (ex-Soviet) Republics. The missing
link in this imperial chain is the strategically important Gulf
states: Iran and Iraq. While this imperial chain is militarily
significant it is more a cost to empire than a source of revenue:
it borders great riches but does not produce them, at least as
yet. This is clear to the Bush Administration which is more
interested in destroying regional powers than in large scale
investments in building colonial states, as is seen in the meager
resources invested in the Balkans, Central Asia and is likely to
be the case in Afghanistan.
The centrality of the imperial state in conquering and
expanding U.S. power has refuted the assumptions of those leading
theoreticians of the anti-globalization movement like Susan
George, Tony Negri, Ignacio Ramonet, Robert Korten, etc. who think
in terms of the "autonomy of global corporations". Their
emphasis on the central role of the world market in creating
poverty, dominance and inequality is in the present context an
anachronism. As the Euro American imperial states send troops to
conquer and occupy more countries, destroy, displace and
impoverish millions, there is a great need to shift from
anti-globalization to anti- imperialist movements, from the false
assumptions of autonomous MNC dominated "superstates" to
the reality of multinational corporations tied to imperial states.
The worldwide counteroffensive led and directed by the U.S.
imperial state has as its goal the reconstruction of the failed
"New World Order" of the post-Gulf War period. Today in
the face of economic crisis and growing popular resistance, the
multinationals do not have the will or resources to act
"autonomously" via market forces. The new imperialism is
based on military intervention (Afghanistan/Balkans), colonization
(military bases), terror (Colombia). From the wars in Iraq, the
Balkans, to Afghanistan, the imperial juggernaut advances, each
more horrendous human catastrophe justified by an even greater
barrage of propaganda of humanitarian missions.
The imperial offensive after October 7 is based on strategic
and economic imperatives and has nothing to do with the
"clash of civilizations". The U.S. empire includes
Muslim states (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco,
Bosnia, Albania, etc.), Jewish states (Israel), as well as
secular, nominally Christian, regimes. What defines the U.S.
imperial offensive is not permanent allies (of one
religion/civilization or another), but permanent interests. In the
Balkans and earlier in Palestine and Afghanistan, Washington
promoted fundamentalist Muslims and drug traffickers against
secular nationalists and socialists. Yesterday's Muslim clients
(Taliban) are, in some places, today's enemies. The thread that
unifies these changing alliances is the need to defend imperial
spheres of domination. The apparent "hypocrisy" or
"double standard" of the imperial elites is only in the
eyes of the beholder who mistakenly believed in the original
propaganda of the empire and now feel "betrayed" by the
switch in imperial clients.
The U.S. military advances in Afghanistan is preparing the way
for new wars. The military alliance in Afghanistan is built around
rival tribal warlords, who live off of contraband, drug
trafficking and the pillaging of booty from local wars. Elsewhere
severe structural contradictions and crises are looming on the
horizon.
Contradictions of Empire
The U.S. imperial offensive faces two types of contradictions
which are conjunctural and structural. In the present context the
Afghan War polarized the Muslim states between their pro-empire
leaders and the mass of sympathizers for the Afghan people and
Osama Bin Laden. This polarization has not yet produced any
serious organizational challenge to the client rulers, though the
key Saudi monarchy is most vulnerable. The military victory of the
U.S. and its client "Northern Alliance" and the
resultant Muslim coalition regime could dissipate the purely
Muslim amorphous mass opposition. The opposition of the EU and
Arab states will only be activated if Washington extends its war
to Iraq and destabilizes the European oil suppliers. These and
other secondary conjunctural contradictions will not undermine
Washington's imperial drive, though it may isolate it
diplomatically, particularly in some international venues.
The more profound long-term structural contradictions of the
"New Imperialism" are found in the military expansion in
a time of deepening economic recession, both locally and
worldwide. Military Keynianism – increased war spending -- has
not and will not reverse the recession, as few sectors of the
economy are affected and the industries which may receive some
stimulus -- aerospace are hard hit by the recession in the
civilian airline market.
While the military machinery of the imperial state promotes and
defends the interests of U.S. MNC's, it is not the most
cost-efficient service provider. The multi-billion dollar overseas
expenditures far exceed the immediate benefits to the MNC's and do
not reverse the declining rate of profits nor open new markets,
particularly in the regions of maximum military engagement.
Military intervention expands the regions of colonization without
increasing the returns to capital. The net result is that imperial
wars, in their current form, undermine non- speculative capitalist
investment, even as it symbolically assures overseas investors.
As in Central America, the Balkans and now in Afghanistan and
Colombia, the U.S. is more interested in destroying adversaries
and establishing client regimes than in large-scale, long-term
investments in "reconstruction". After high military
spending for conquest, budget priorities shift to subsidizing U.S.
MNC's, and lowering taxes for the wealthy -- there are no more
"Marshall Plans". Washington leaves it to Europe and
Japan to "clean up the human wreckage" after U.S.
military victories. Post-war reconstruction does not intimidate
possible adversaries, B-52 carpet bombing does. The military
victor in the present conjuncture leaves unsettled the
consolidation of a pro-imperial client regime. Just as the U.S.
financed and armed the fundamentalist victory over the secular
nationalist Afghan regime in 1990 and then withdrew, leading to
the ascendancy of the anti-western Taliban regime, today's victory
and withdrawal is likely to have similar results within the next
decade. The gap between the high war-making capacity of the
imperial state and the weakness of its capacity to revitalize the
economies of the conquered nations is a major contradiction.
An even more serious contradiction is found in the aggressive
effort to impose neo- liberal regimes and policies especially when
the export markets which they were designed to service are
collapsing and external flows of capital are drying up.
The deepening recession in the U.S., Japan and the EU has
severely damaged the most loyal and subservient neo-liberal
client-states, particularly in Latin America. The prices of the
"specialized" exports which drive the neo-liberal
regimes have collapsed: exports of coffee, petrol, metals, sugar,
as well as textiles, clothes and other manufactured goods
elaborated in the "free trade zones" have suffered from
sharp drops in prices and glutted markets. The imperial powers
have responded by pressing for greater "liberalism" in
the South while raising protective tariffs at home and increasing
subsidies for exports. Tariffs in the imperial countries on
imports from the Third World are four times higher than those on
imports from other imperial countries, according to the World Bank
(Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries 2002,
www.worldbank.org). Support to agricultural MNC in the imperial
countries was $245 billion in 2000 (F.T., Nov. 21, 2001, p. 13).
As the World Bank Report points out, "the share of subsidized
exports has even increased [over the past decade] for many
products of export interest to developing countries."
The neo-liberal doctrine of the Old Imperialism is giving way
to the neo-mercantile practice of the New Imperialism. State
policies dictate and direct economic exchanges and limit the
markets' role to a subsidiary role -- all to the benefit of the
imperial economy.
The highly restrictive nature of neo-mercantilist policies in
the past and in the present polarize the economy between local
producers and the imperial state backed monopolies. The decline
and collapse of overseas markets prejudice 'neo-liberal' export
sectors. The highly visible role of the imperial state in imposing
the neo-mercantilist system politicizes the growing army of
unemployed and poorly paid workers, peasants and public employees.
The collapse of overseas markets means that less foreign exchange
can be earned to pay foreign debts. Less exports sold, means less
capacity to import essential foodstuffs and capital goods to
sustain production. In Latin America the export strategy upon
which the whole imperial edifice is built is crumbling. Unable to
import, Latin America will be forced to produce locally or do
without. However, the definitive rupture with the export strategy
and subordination to empire will not come about because of
internal contradictions -- it requires political intervention.
Opportunities and Challenges for the Left
In the short run ("conjuncture") the left faces the
full thrust of Washington's imperial counter-offensive, with all
that implies in terms of increased bellicosity, threats and
greater subservience from ruling client elites. Nevertheless,
while this new military-led imperialist effort at
"re-conquest" is underway, it faces serious practical,
ideological and political obstacles.
For one thing, the offensive takes place in the face of a major
political resurgence of the left in various strategic countries
and a serious decline in the neo-liberal economies. In Colombia,
Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador and Bolivia, powerful socio-political
movements have emerged and have consolidated influence over
important popular constituencies, while the incumbent client
regimes are deeply discredited, in many cases with single digit
popularity ratings.
This situation presents dangers and opportunities. Dangers from
the increasingly militarized and repressive response pushed by
Washington and echoed by its Latin client regimes, as witnessed by
the Ibero-American Conference Declaration in November 23, 2001 on
Terrorism (La Jornada, Nov. 24, 2001). Opportunities from the fact
that the resurgent left has not suffered a major defeat in this
period (comparable to 1972-76) and is in a strong position to make
the leap from protest to power. Neo-liberal regimes have failed to
find overseas markets, in order to sustain domestic production or
locate new flows of capital to compensate for the vast outflows in
debt payments, profit remittances, etc. The prolonged depression
in Argentina is emblematic of the direction in which all of Latin
America is heading.
The current crisis is systemic, in that it not only affects
workers and unemployed -- by increasing poverty, unemployment and
inequalities -- but the very mechanisms of capital accumulation.
What capital is accumulated in Latin America is stored in overseas
accounts as "dead wealth". It is evident to any but the
most willfully blind academics -- of which there are not a few --
that neo-liberalism is dead and that the new neo-mercantilist
imperial system offers no room for 'market choices'.
In this perspective, what is essential for converting these
objective opportunities into substantial structural changes is
political power. The social movements have mobilized millions,
they have realized innumerable changes at the local level, they
have created a new and promising level of social consciousness and
in some cases they control or influence local governments and have
secured concessions via mass pressure from the dominant classes.
However there are several as yet unresolved issues before these
movements can be said to pre-figure a political alternative to
state power.
First, politically the movements espouse a series of
programmatic demands and alternatives -- which are positive and
important -- but lack a theoretical understanding of the nature of
the evolving imperial system, its contradictions and the nature of
the crisis.
Secondly, there is disunity, uneven development between urban
and rural movements, between the interior and the coast, and
within some of the movements rivalries based on personalities,
tactics, etc. The aggregate existing movements, if unified in a
coherent single movement, would be significantly closer to
challenging for state power.
Thirdly, many of the movements engage in militant tactics and
articulate radical programs, but in practice engage in constant
negotiation to secure very limited concessions, thus reducing
their movements to pressure groups within the system rather than
protagonists to overthrow the regime. The challenge is how to
develop a transition program adapted to the immediate demands of
the people but which put in the center of the struggle in the
construction of a socialist alternative. The growing
authoritarianism of the imperial directed client regimes requires
the building of mass democratic and anti-imperialist movements.
The U.S. imperial strategy of militarization to impose a
neo-mercantilist empire requires greater capacity for
incorporating new allies and the need to prepare for diverse forms
of struggle. The imperial strategists have selected Colombia as
the testing ground for the "New Imperialism" because it
is Colombia where they face their greatest politico-military
challenge. All the reactionary forces in the hemisphere have been
mobilized against the guerrilla armies as well as the growing mass
movements. All the peon presidents of the hemisphere have signed
onto the anti-terrorist crusade and the FARC/ELN are designated by
the empire as terrorists. Military success in Colombia will
accelerate and encourage the military conquest and colonization of
Latin America, just as the U.S. directed military coup in Brazil
(1964) was followed by invasions (Dominican Republic 1965) and
subsequent military coups in Bolivia (1971), Uruguay (1972), Chile
(1973) and Argentina (1976).
A victory or prolonged war by the guerrillas in Colombia will
provide breathing room for the rest of the left. Thus it is
essential that maximum support and solidarity be extended to the
Colombian struggle. Internationalism is not only the solidarity
network against the new imperial military offensive, in general,
but in support of the Colombian peasants and workers organized in
their 'Peoples Army'.
These are dangerous and hopeful times -- dangers which cut both
ways: for the Empire and for the left. The struggle continues.
