Palestine
Where is US imperialism going?
As the Israeli military smashes though the West Bank, piling up the bodies and destroying the infrastructure needed to sustain life – water, electricity, medical facilities, civil administration – the one power with the means to stop it, the USA, refuses to do so. ALAN THORNETT looks at the direction of US policy.
Empty gestures are made, like the visit of Colin Powell, which are cynically designed to give the impression of concern, but which in reality allow Sharon a free hand to continue the slaughter.
The reasons for this are not difficult to see. For Bush, and for his lapdog Blair, the overarching issue is their so-called war against terrorism – which is in reality a war to increase the military, economic and geo-political, and ideological dominance of US imperialism still further.
Nothing could have illustrated this more clearly than the recent meeting of Bush and Blair at Bush’s ranch in Texas. Designed to finalise the main lines of their battle plan for an invasion of Iraq, it took place as Palestine erupted into a blood-bath. This bloodbath was the direct result of US policy since September 11, which not only gave the green light to Sharon to step up the offensive against the Palestinians, but the political justification he needed as well.
If it was right for the US to use whatever military force was necessary against Bin Laden, they claimed, then it was right for Israel to use similar military force against the PLO and Arafat. Israeli spokespersons repeat this mantra everyday.
Far from being thrown off course by the staggering resistance of the Palestinians and the reaction of the Arab countries to Sharon’s naked brutality, Bush and Blair proceeded to discuss and complete their battle plans as if all-out war in Palestine did not exist.
They emerged to announce that a "regime change" was necessary in Iraq, and made it clear how they would provoke the necessary war to effect it.
Saddam would be told that Iraq must implement all UN resolutions or face military action. This at the very moment when Sharon had rejected yet another UN resolution to withdraw from Palestinian territory.
Iraq would also be told that it must accept UN weapons inspectors "at any time in any place and by any one" – conditions chosen consciously because they would be unacceptable.
Why are Bush and Blair so keen to invade Iraq? The first reason is US strategic interests in the region in terms of oil reserves. These exist in Iraq in a way that they did not and do not exist in Afghanistan.
This is also the reason that the US bankrolls Israel, as guardian of those strategic interests. Israel is an utterly reliable regional imperialism for the US – unlike the Arab bourgeois regimes who would dearly love to play that role but – as the recent wave of huge demonstrations throughout the Arab world has shown – have to contend with populations with a very different outlook.
The second reason is the drive for even greater US global hegemony world-wide. Invading Iraq would allow the US to engineer a massive escalation of the war drive whilst simultaneously bolstering its regional interests.
There is of course a price to be paid. As invasion of Iraq would shatter the coalition which was got together (through various levels of persuasion) for the invasion of Afghanistan, and it would destabilise the region.
Bush is prepared for that, provided he has Tony Blair and new Labour shoulder to shoulder with him – both for political support and for Britain’s strategic air force bases. Blair is prepared to face down opposition in the Parliamentary Labour Party in order to provide this.
For Bush the priority is to take advantage of the opportunities for US imperialism opened up by the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact in the early 1990s. Their collapse was a result of internal crises, with the West sitting back as a spectator, but this left the USA as the sole world super-power.
It was not the only imperialist power, but was emerging as overwhelmingly the dominant one, shaking off the Vietnam syndrome which had prevented it from taking military action abroad for nearly 20 years. The military domination attained by the US today is greater than any imperialist power in history.
The 1990s were marked by the rise of US military power towards this pinnacle, building on Reagan’s military build-up. More precisely, it saw the rise in Washington’s ability to use its military power.
The most important landmarks in this were the Gulf war of 1992 (which never quite achieved a new world order) and then the bombardment of Serbia in 1997. They were carried out with the increasing use of air power and with a growing sophistication of the US military.
This is now further bolstered by a $48 billion increase in military spending next year. At the same time Bush is setting out to make the use of nuclear weapons acceptable as a battlefield option. He has a contingency for using nuclear weapons in Iraq if they are needed. A new generation of weapons is being developed alongside the star wars project, which would allow the US to use them without the fear of retaliation.
The 1990s were also marked by the rise of US economic hegemony. This was the US’s longest period of expansion, whilst its principal economic rival of the 1970s, Japan, went into long term recession. At the same time it saw the success of its neo-liberal economic model which characterised a new a rapid period of capitalist globalisation.
The fightback against this process of neo-liberal globalisation began in the mid 1990s. In Europe this took the form of mass strikes in France and other European countries against austerity packages designed to meet the criteria for the introduction of Maastricht and the single European currency.
But in South Korea, in India, in Mexico and in many other places radicalisation and mobilisation was taking place against the effects of globalisation itself. The growing instability of global capital was shown by the crisis in the South East Asian economies, which threatened the stability of the whole system.
Seattle triggered the anti-globalisation movement as we know it today, with mass demonstrations every time the international organisations of globalised capital meet to discuss their project. But it was always more than these demonstrations. It was, and remains, rooted in the escalating inequalities which flow directly out of neo-liberal globalisation – both between nation states and within nation states – and in the mass movements in the third world.
Bush’s "war on terror" after September 11 was designed to reverse the growing anti-globalisation forces and send them into reverse. It was also designed to further change the balance of forces in the world further to the advantage of the USA and to use the might of the US military to strengthen US geo-political interests and shore up the instability of its political system.
What emerged was a super-power on the rampage. An unchallengeable military machine in the control of Bush and the Republican right, and with political conditions in the USA which would allow them to use it on an unprecedented scale and in an unprecedented way.
A war against Iraq will create a new and much bigger antiwar movement. There is a radicalisation in Europe which is expressed most importantly in the Italian working class and radical movements.
The Vietnam syndrome – which inhibited the use of the military option – had been purged. The US military is now operating in 100 countries, and intends to operate in even more. There has been a huge expansion of special forces and secret services.
The result has been not only the slaughter of tens of thousands in Afghanistan and war against the Palestinians, but more repression in Chechnya and the introduction of the US military into a series of countries where it would not have been able to deploy before.
We have also seen a massive attack of civil and human rights in series of countries across the globe. In short the world has become a much more dangerous place since September 11 – particularly if you are a Muslim, or a minority, or part of a struggle for national or democratic rights.
So how has the balance of power changed in the world seven months after the attack on the twin towers?
That many more people are dying at the hands of the US military and those supported, promoted and encouraged by them is clear enough; and this is likely to continue and escalate – particularly once Iraq is invaded.
That the balance of power has changed to the advantage of US imperialism is also beyond dispute, but its stability is another matter entirely.
We have seen in Argentina that the mass movement has been able to bring down three governments. The unbelievable struggle of the Palestinians represents not just a defence of their national rights but a direct response to the war drive of Bush and Blair as it is carried though by Sharon.
The Palestinians are at this moment the front line fighters against this war. Their remarkable fightback shows that attacks will provoke fightbacks … and fightbacks increase instability. A price will be paid at every stage by the war mongers.
Pictures of Israeli tanks smashing through Palestinian refugee camps brought masses on the streets, from Egypt to Indonesia.
Then there is the anti-war and anti-capitalist movement. The Brussels demonstrations in December were very big: 80,000 on the trade union demonstration and 30,000 the following day on the demonstration of the anti-capitalist left.
Porto Alegre was twice as big this year as last, with 80,000 attending. The demonstration of 500,000 in Barcelona, far bigger than the organisers expected, was living proof that the movement is not only surviving but is taking new steps forward and is taking the struggle to a new level.
At the level of the trade union struggle, moves by Berlisconi to clamp down on the Italian trade union movement – in alliance with Blair who is advocating British-style labour relations throughout Europe – were confronted by a mobilisation of 3 million on the streets of Rome last month … the biggest mobilisation of the Italian trade unions since the war.
This does not mean that the fightback at the present time cancels out the huge and barbaric offensive of US imperialism, or that it is about to be driven onto the defensive. But it does mean that the fightback is real, and that it is here to stay.
Nor does today’s dominance of US imperialism mean that we are necessarily facing a resurgence of US power for an extended period. Not only is the economic basis of US power unstable, but the backlash against this power and its use is unpredictable and may become uncontainable.
At the same time the world is changing. The US faces an economic challenge from European capitalism reorganised within the EU. The Japanese and Pacific rim economies may well rise as a new and more serious challenge, and China is a rapidly rising economic power with a huge population and potential resources.
At the moment the answer of the Bush administration is to use its military might to create the geo-political conditions to counter these challenges. The US war drive is indeed the military wing of the neo-liberal global offensive.
This is effective in the short and medium term but a long term solution to the problem of US capitalism is another matter.
All this means that there is now a great opportunity as well as a great responsibility placed on the left.
A war against Iraq will create a new and much bigger anti-war movement. There is a radicalisation in Europe which is expressed most importantly in the Italian working class and radical movements.
The European Social Forum in Naples in October can help to generalise these experiences.
In Britain there is a modest but important increase in trade union struggle alongside a strong anti-war and anti-globalisation movement. We have to ensure that this is linked into the movement at a European and international level.