Posted on June 17, 2017

Note: This is the first in a serious of six posts, posted from June 17 to July 5, 2017, reflecting on Donald Trump’s announcement on June 16, 2017 of a change of policy toward Cuba.

     Donald Trump announced a new policy toward Cuba on June 16, 2017 in the “Little Havana” section of Miami.  The speech was broadcast in its entirety on Cuban educational television (with high quality simultaneous verbal translation) the same evening, so I had a chance to view the spectacle.  I was astonished at the profound ignorance of Cuba that the speech displayed.  Trump’s view of Cuba appears to have been shaped by the distorted views of the extreme Cuban-American Right, which have been constructed to advance a political agenda of a sector of the Cuban-American community in Miami, and they have little semblance to actual Cuban reality.  Trump, for example, seems to believe that Cuban “dissidents” have some level of influence or viability in Cuba, when in fact high officials in the U.S. government have acknowledged on various occasions that the “dissidents” have no influence and are more interested in making money from their U.S. connections than in building any kind of credible opposition.  The anti-communist rhetoric of Trump, focusing on repression and so-called political prisoners, seemed to be uttering a discourse that was discovered in a time warp.

      Barack Obama also wanted to undermine the Cuban Revolution.  But he had the intelligence to listen to some people who knew something about Cuba, and he thus concluded that it was political folly to continue to speak of repression and “dissidents.”  Appreciating that Cuba was expanding opportunities for small-scale private entrepreneurship and was expanding Internet, Obama hoped to take advantage of these changes in order to expand the middle class, which eventually would form a viable political force in support of capitalism, and perhaps would form useful alliances with U.S. capital (see various posts in March 2016 on the Obama policy with respect to Cuba, found in the category Cuba Today).  Given that Cuban leaders at all levels and in a wide variety of institutions understood that such was Obama’s intention, the success of the plan confronted serious obstacles. Nonetheless, it certainly was more intelligent that continuing a dysfunctional blockade that damages U.S. prestige throughout the world.  
       
       In his speech, Trump announced that the Obama agreement with Cuba, in which the United States gained nothing, is cancelled.  But other than invoking ill-informed tough language, it is not clear how the Trump policy will be different.  Diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba will continue, and the wet-feet/dry-feet immigration policy remains dead.  Trump announced that U.S. companies will be prohibited from doing business with companies or entities tied to the military, but there are few state companies in Cuba that have such ties. The commercial relations that have been forming under the Obama policy change, such as the Verizon agreement with the Cuban state Internet company, would not seem affected.  On the other hand, if Trump plans to clamp down on tourism in a way that reduces U.S. tourist projections, this may affect U.S. airlines that have been developing commercial flights between the United States and Cuba.  I will be studying U.S. documents and declarations in the upcoming days, seeking to discern the specifics of the new policy.

     Although Trump presented Cuba as dominated by the military forces, this is far from the case.   The great majority of Cuban state enterprises are not part of the military.  Among the largest and most important enterprises are the state-owned petroleum and telephone/Internet companies, neither of which has ties to the military. The most important sectors of the Cuban economy are tourism, sugar, mining, and pharmaceuticals.  In these sectors, the principal companies are state-owned, some in joint ventures with foreign capital (mostly from Europe and Canada), and none of which are connected to the military. One important retail chain is owned and managed by the armed forces, but this is an exception to the general pattern in the economy.

      Nor is there military dominance of the political process.  The highest political authority in the nation is the National Assembly of Popular Power, which is elected by the municipal assemblies, which are nominated and elected by the people without the participation of any political parties and without the distorting effects of campaign financing. The National Assembly elects the thirty-one members of the Council of State, a few of whom are members of the military, but the great majority of whom are not.  Voter participation is routinely in excess of ninety percent, and the political process enjoys high legitimacy among the people.  It is without question a nation with civilian rule, and the civilians come from and are elected by the people, for which they serve as delegates and deputies.  There is in Cuba nothing comparable to a military-industrial complex and to corporate influence over politicians and public discourse.

     Following Trump’s speech, the Cuban government released a statement, read in its entirety on Cuban television, and it will be printed in its entirety today in Cuban newspapers.  The Declaration noted that, although Obama’s intention of undermining the Cuban Revolution was obvious, Obama at least invoked a language that was respectful and that formally treated Cuba as an equal and sovereign state.  The Trump speech lacked these formal virtues.  Moreover, noting that Trump expresses concern with human rights in Cuba, the Declaration (correctly) maintained that Cuban has a better record than the United States with respect to human rights; it does not need to be instructed on this issue.  The Declaration affirmed in conclusion that it remains open to mutually respectful communication, with the hope of improving relations, but that Cuba will not in any way compromise its sovereignty in order to move toward the normalization of relations with the United States.

The subsequent five posts reflecting on Trump’s Cuba policy are as follows:
“What is Trump changing with his Cuba policy?” 6/19/2017;
“Cuba responds to Trump” 6/21/2017;
“Trump’s distortions of Cuban reality” 6/28/2017;
“The logic of Trump” 6/29/2017; and
“Responding to Trump’s Cuba policy” 7/5/2017.

Posted June 19, 2017

     President Trump announced on June 16 that his administration’s new Cuba policy will prohibit direct transactions with entities related to the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services.  A number of commentators in the United States have written that this restriction could place serious restrictions on future U.S. commerce with Cuba, because the military, intelligence and security sector is a significant part of the economy.  For example, an editorial by the New York Times asserted that “American companies and citizens will be barred from doing business with firms controlled by the Cuban military or its intelligence services, thus denying Americans access to critical parts of the Cuban economy, including much of the tourism sector.”  Making a similar argument, Ben Rhodes, who played a central role in the Obama opening with respect to Cuba, writes that “large swaths of the Cuban economy [are] controlled by the military.”

      Such commentaries are simply mistaken, as a matter of fact.  The Revolutionary Armed Forces and the Ministry of the Interior, which directs intelligence and security, are a part of the Cuban government; but they in no sense control the government or the economy, nor are enterprises controlled by them an important sector of the economy. There are some enterprises owned and managed by the armed forces in such areas as the tourist and retail sectors, but there are many state enterprises in these and other sectors that are not tied to the military. After reading the commentaries, I talked with members of the Cuban Communist Party, and they all confirmed my previous understanding that the great majority of Cuban state companies in a variety of economic sectors, including tourism, communications, transportation, energy and mining are not tied to the military or to the Ministry of the Interior.  Their sense was that it would not be difficult for U.S. companies to find trading and/or investment partners that would not be included in the new prohibitions.

      Another specific changed announced by the Trump administration is the elimination of the individual people-to-people authorization for travel to Cuba.  The people-to-people program had been developed years ago, on the basis of the belief that the people of the United States, interacting with the Cuban people, would influence thinking in such a manner that the people would push for changes in the socialist political-economic system.  Prior to Obama, U.S. travelers in the people-to-people program were required to go through specific agencies, mostly in the Miami area, that had been authorized to conduct the program. These agencies were expected to conduct a full program of activities that involved interchanges with the people, and not with government representatives.  The Obama administration modified the program, permitting U.S. travelers to travel and develop their activities on their own, with the same guidelines, but self-administered.  With Trump’s elimination of the individual people-to-people program, U.S. travelers to Cuba wanting to use the people-to-people program will have to go through authorized agencies in the United States.  No doubt, given that the number of U.S. travelers to Cuba has accelerated rapidly since the Obama opening, these agencies will launch advertising campaigns to attract travelers.  In light of the growing number of direct commercial flights between the United States and Cuba, which the Trump prohibition does not touch, and the expanding number of hotels and rental rooms in Cuba, such expansion of the group people-to-people program is a definite practical possibility.

      The biggest difference between the Trump and Obama programs is rhetoric.  The Obama administration spoke in a respectful tone, but it in fact moved slowly in easing restrictions.  The Trump administration invokes a hostile rhetoric, but it leaves intact the important changes initiated by Obama, and it leaves open the continued possibility of step-by-step improvement in relations between the two countries.  It is possible that Trump’s rhetoric will slow the process of expanding relations, but given the number of forces that are in motion, the process will likely continue to evolve.

     The difference in rhetoric, however, is not insignificant.  It is a difference in projection: the Obama administration anticipated a normalization of relations, without demanding changes from Cuba; whereas the Trump administration insists on changes in the Cuban political-economic system as a condition for easing or eliminating the “embargo.”  We should keep in mind, of course, that for the Unites States of America, normal relations include interference in the affairs of other nations, seeking to ensure access to raw materials and markets, as is evident today with respect to progressive Latin American governments.  Accordingly, Obama, like Trump, wanted to change the Cuban system, because it is a system that is not designed to respond to U.S. interests.  But Obama was trying a different strategy, recognizing that the embargo has not been effective in promoting U.S. interests.  Obama intended to affect changes in Cuba through measures that would expand the growth of small private enterprise, with the expectation that this sector would be a natural ally of U.S. interests in relation to Cuba.

      Cubans overwhelmingly view the Trump June 16 speech as a “show” and as full of comments about Cuba that are entirely inconsistent with Cuban reality.  Some dismiss him as an “idiot;” others, as a “clown.”  A joke is going around that, since there is a shortage of clowns for the Cuban circus, perhaps Trump would be interested.

      But it would be a mistake to dismiss Trump as a clown or a jerk, either in Cuba or in the United States.  In certain respects, the Trump “show” of June 16 was politically shrewd.  It was a move to consolidate his right-wing base by obtaining the support of political actors who not only demand a tougher rhetoric against Cuba but also play a central role in the U.S. aggressive policy toward progressive governments in Latin America, a policy pursued by the Obama administration.  The rhetoric against socialist Cuba is more consistent with U.S. policy toward Latin America as a whole.  Moreover, the Trump policy avoids conflict with those businesses that want to develop commerce in Cuba, by leaving intact new structures and new possibilities for commerce and travel to the island.  At the same time, the hostile rhetoric appeals to an important sector of U.S. public opinion.  Trump presents himself as defending U.S. interests in Cuba, overturning an agreement with Cuba in which the United States gained nothing (other than improvement in its international image).  Trump declares himself to be defending America, unlike the rest of the political establishment. Moreover, his speech recalls the former days of American glory, when the United States stood proud as a defender of democracy in the world, thus invoking an image that distorts international reality but that continues to have much popular appeal, inasmuch as it never has been effectively delegitimated by progressive tendencies in the United States.

      Beyond the issue of U.S. policy toward Cuba, the Trump project as a whole has a certain logic, even though it ensures the continued decline of the United States and constitutes a threat to humanity.  I will discuss further the logic of Trump in a subsequent post.
        
   

Posted June 21, 2017

     As we have seen (“Trump’s speech on Cuba” 6/17/2017), immediately following Donald Trump’s June 16 speech on Cuba, the Revolutionary Government of Cuba issued a declaration.  It affirms that Cuba remains open to negotiations with the United States, on a basis of mutual respect, but that it will not compromise its sovereignty in order to improve relations with the United States.  Any changes in the Cuban political-economic system, regularly occurring as its socialism evolves, are made by Cuba as a sovereign nation, and they never will be made because of conditions established by a foreign power.

     At a press conference on June 19, Bruno Rodríguez, Cuban Minister of Foreign Relations, read a prepared statement.  Rodríguez is a dignified man with a conservative manner, always careful in his choice of words.  However, anger could be discerned as he denounced the June 16 “show,” which he characterized as a grotesque spectacle.  He observed that Trump was surrounded by “old henchmen and thieves of the Batista dictatorship, mercenaries of the Bay of Pigs brigade, and terrorists.”  Among those who were at Trump’s side were: a terrorist detained in California in 1995 with an arsenal of arms, who was involved in an attempt against Fidel Castro; a member of an armed group that infiltrated Cuba in 1974; and a third who committed terrorist acts of piracy against Cuban fisherman between 1972 and 1975.  Rodríguez noted that among those with Trump was the wife of a Batista dictatorship torturer, who had subsequently financed a series of bombings in Cuban tourist facilities in 1997.  “I strongly protest before the government of the United States this . . . offense to the Cuban people, to the world, and to the victims of terrorism everywhere.”   

     Rodríguez also noted that the show included frequent mention of “the father of an out-of-tune violinist who played the U.S. national anthem.”  He pointed out that Trump omitted mention of the fact that Capitan Bonifacio Haza had murdered the Cuban youths Carlos Díaz and Orlando Carvajal in the last days of the Batista dictatorship; and that Haza had participated in the assassinations of the well-known revolutionary organizer and activist Frank País, his comrade in struggle Raúl Pujol, and in a later moment, his younger brother Josué País.  

     Rodríguez maintained that the measures announced by Trump are a backward step in U.S.-Cuban relations.  Further, he expects that they will adversely affect U.S.-Latin American and Caribbean relations, and that they will seriously damage the credibility of U.S. foreign policy. 

     Rodríguez reaffirmed Cuban willingness to dialogue, but on a basis of mutual respect.  “I reiterate the will of Cuba to continue respectful dialogue and cooperation in areas of mutual interest and to negotiate pending matters with the United States, on the basis of equality and absolute respect to our independence and sovereignty.”

     He maintained that Cuban sovereignty must be respected.  “Cuba will not make concessions inherent to its sovereignty and independence; it will not negotiate its principles nor accept conditions, as it never has, never, throughout the history of the Revolution.”  He made reference to the recent discussion among the Cuban people and the Communist Party of Cuba of a new economic and social model. With respect to any such internal discussions, Rodriquez insisted that “any necessary changes in Cuba will be decided in a sovereign manner by the Cuban people, and only the Cuban people, as always has been done.  We do not ask anyone’s opinion, nor do we ask anyone for permission.”

      In the subsequent taking of questions from the press, Rodríguez was asked, by a representative of Prensa Latina, why Cuba continues with its posture of willingness to dialogue, when there is not a counterpart disposed to dialogue.  The Minister responded:

​      The National Secretariat of the Cuban Federation of Workers (CTC for its initials in Spanish) also issued a declaration.  Some 99% of Cuban workers, including professional workers like medical doctors and university professors, are members of CTC, and the workers elect the leaders of CTC at local, provincial and national levels.  CTC is a self-financing non-governmental organization, but it is not anti-governmental, as a result of the fact that the government actively supports the rights of workers in all occupations and professions, including the right to organize.  The elected leaders of Cuban workers declared:

​     At the same time, the Secretariat of the Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba has called upon North American writers, artists, academics and friends of Cuban culture to denounce the new policy of Trump as well as the brutal blockade that Cuba has suffered for nearly sixty years.

Posted June 28, 2017

     In his June 16 speech in Miami announcing a new Cuba policy, and in the “National Security Presidential Memorandum on Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba” issued on the same date, President Donald Trump made a number of comments that distort Cuban reality.  

     Trump described Cuba as ruled by a brutal communist regime that suppresses freedom and human rights, denies democracy and free enterprise, arbitrarily arrests dissidents and peaceful protestors, prosecutes religious practices, does not recognize alternative political parties and does not have elections.  He further maintained that the military forces and intelligence and security services are at the core of the regime.  

     In these commentaries, the President of the United States displayed a stunning ignorance of the nation concerning which he was announcing policy.  In fact, the Cuban Revolution has developed an alternative system of democracy, a system of popular democracy, structurally different from representative democracy (see “The Cuban revolutionary project and its development in historical and global context”).  Cuba developed the alternative system as a result of its adverse experiences with representative democracy during the U.S.-dominated neocolonial republic from 1902 to 1959.  It found that democracy “made in the U.S.A.” was unable to protect the sovereignty of the nation or to respond to the social and economic needs of the great majority.  So after the triumph of the revolution, it worked on developing an alternative system of democracy, which was established in the Constitution of 1976, a decade in which the U.S.A.-Cuba conflict had abated and in which the revolution institutionalized a number of revolutionary practices.  

     The Cuban system of popular democracy is developed on a foundation of secret and direct elections in voting districts of 1000 to 1500 voters, which elect delegates to 169 local assemblies throughout the nation.  The delegates are elected from among two or more candidates who are nominated directly by the citizens in a series of neighborhood assemblies.  The elected delegates to the local assemblies in turn elect the delegates to the fifteen provincial assemblies as well as the deputies to the National Assembly of Popular Power, which then elects the thirty-one members of the Council of State (the executive branch).  The ministries of the armed forces and the interior (security and intelligence) are only two of various ministries in the executive branch, and they are under the jurisdiction of the Council of State and the National Assembly.

     The electoral process, from nomination to election, occurs without the participation of political parties, without political campaigns, and without campaign financing.  All citizens 16 years of age or older are eligible to vote, and the participation rate is in excess of 90%.  All citizens are eligible to be delegates and deputies, regardless of ideology or political party affiliation.  In the nomination process, qualities of the candidates are discussed, rather than issues.  Issues are discussed in ongoing meetings of the people in neighborhoods and places of work and study, separately from the electoral process. People are entirely free to express their views on a variety of subjects, although counterrevolutionary views are so contrary to the prevailing popular consciousness that open expression of them generally leads to a decline in influence among fellow citizens.  And as in any society, no one has the right to engage in violent protest, nor the right to engage in disruptive behavior under the employment of representatives of a foreign power.

      Trump spoke of “dissidents,” but one doubts that he or any of his advisors had previously read an interesting book on the “dissidents,” in spite of the fact that an English translation is available.  The book consists of interviews of Cuban agents who had infiltrated counterrevolutionary groups in Cuba.  The agents describe the tendencies in the groups toward: using connections with the United States as a basis for improving personal economic situation; very limited influence among the people, who generally view them as U.S. servants; deliberating fabricating false news stories that damage the image of Cuba; and engaging in violent and illegal activities.  The book exposes the weak and decadent character of Cuban political dissidents.

     Trump spoke of the Cuban dissidents in such terms that, from the Cuban perspective, it appeared that he was converting terrorists into heroes. This aspect of the June 16 “show” has provoked the most indignation in Cuba.  Cuban television news has been presenting news stories concerning specific persons who were lauded by Trump, explaining who these people are.  For example, one woman praised by Trump was identified in Cuban news as involved in the “banditry” in the mountains of south-central and western Cuban from 1959 to 1965.   The story of the banditry is little known in the United States, but far from forgotten in Cuba.  The bandits were operating as counterrevolutionary guerrillas, with logistical and financial support from the CIA. But a guerrilla troop cannot function without the support of the locals, and these counterrevolutionary forces did not have popular support.  So they became bandits, and their activities included murdering civilians, including peasants as well as young teachers in the revolutionary literacy program in the mountains.  Cuban scholars maintain that nearly 200 people were killed during the six-year campaign, which was brought to an end by revolutionary militias who tracked down the gangs and disabled them.  The woman embraced by Trump was tried in Cuban courts for her involvement in these activities, and was sentenced to 18 years in prison, serving 14 years before being released.  She subsequently emigrated to the United States, and attained some fame as an “independent journalist” in opposition to the Cuban government. Cuban journalists say that she received payment in excess of fifty thousand dollars for writing articles defaming the five Cuban security agents who had infiltrated counterrevolutionary terrorist groups in Miami. (The five subsequently became internationally renowned political prisoners in the United States before being released by Obama as part of the normalization of relations).  Whereas Trump referred to this “independent journalist” as an ex-political prisoner, Cuban journalists and government officials view her as an ex-terrorist who today receives payment for disseminating false information about her native country.  

     Trump believes that Cuba is not alone in its alleged shortcomings, for he declared that “communism has destroyed every single nation where it has ever been tried.”  But he has revealed no understanding of what communism is, especially in its Third World manifestations. In the Third World, there has emerged during the past 100 years leaders who are intellectually prepared, politically astute, and morally committed; and who constructed syntheses of Marxism-Leninism with national traditions of anti-colonial struggle for national liberation.  As the Third World project of national and social liberation evolved, it arrived to forge a common vision of a more just, democratic and sustainable world, and to formulate the fundamental principles of a more just world-system. Trump knows nothing of this historically evolving social project, and therefore he is not qualified to offer a reasonable view on whatever its shortcomings may or may not be.  But in fact, the Third World project is pointing toward the necessary road, if humanity is to emancipate itself from the dominating global structures that promote conflict, generate extreme inequalities and extreme poverty, and threaten the survival of the human species.

     Although Trump lacks the knowledge to lead in an enlightened form, he possesses a certain political instinct that enables him to touch upon the concerns of the people, who are ill at ease with globalism, post-modernism, and neoliberalism.  I will discuss this logic of Trump in the next post.


References
 
Elizalde, Rosa Miriam and Luis Baez.  2003. “Los Disidentes”: Agentes de la Seguridad Cubana Revelan la Historia Real.  La Habana: Editora Política.

Posted June 29, 2017

       As we have seen, Trump describes Cuba in a manner that has no relation to Cuban reality (“Trump’s distortions of Cuban reality” 6/28/2017).  However, Trump’s distorted formulation is fully consistent with the prevailing view of U.S. popular consciousness.  For the most part, the people of the United States believe that Cuba is not a democratic society, that it at least to some degree violates human rights, and that it does not have elections.  

      Trump has formulated a foreign policy guide of “principled realism.”  He maintains that U.S. policy realistically and with common sense ought to promote and defend U.S. interests in the world, but in a form that is rooted in our values and principles.  His new Cuba policy is a perfect example:  he condemns the (supposed) human rights violations of Cuba, in accordance with our democratic values; but realistically recognizing U.S. commercial interests in Cuba, his policy permits the regulated expansion of commerce with Cuba, building upon the opening initiated by Obama.

      His concession to realism and U.S. economic interests is aided by a clever rhetorical maneuver.  He (falsely) presents the Cuban “regime” as dominated by the military forces and security and intelligence services.  This portrayal enables him to take a hard line against the military, security and intelligence sectors, prohibiting any commerce that would involve these sectors; yet to permit commerce that is seen as benefitting the people and their free enterprise activities.  Formulating a policy on this basis permits significant commerce with Cuba, with both the small-scale private sector and the many state-owned enterprises that are not connected to the military. Accordingly, the Trump memorandum of June 16 suggests the expansion of possibilities for sale of U.S. agricultural and medical products as well as the maintenance and expansion of bilateral agreements with respect to science, the environment, and air travel, and cooperation in telecommunications and Internet; with the stipulation that the agreements do not include the participation of Cuban enterprises connected to the military and security services.

     If Congress were to pass a law permitting commerce in certain sectors, such as agricultural exports to Cuba, but specifying that the transactions cannot involve the participation of Cuban enterprises connected to the military, this would be the legal basis for the expansion of commerce with Cuba in a form consistent with Trump’s policy.  Trump could sign the law with great fanfare, noting that it benefits U.S. farmers without benefitting the Cuban military, which supposedly is the core of the Cuban “regime.”  

      Thus, Trump is defending and promoting democracy in Cuba, insisting that Cuba change, but establishing definitions and regulations that in fact permit growing commerce with Cuba, thus satisfying the demands of U.S. companies that want to do business in Cuba. Rejecting the tolerant discourse of Obama with respect to a supposed military dictatorship that denies human rights, the Trump policy nevertheless anticipates expansion of commerce with Cuba, in accordance with the interests of U.S. producers and exporters; and it allows for controlled tourism.  

     The Trump democratic rhetoric has resonance among a certain sector of the people.  Many of our people feel of sense of loss, in that that the nation is not what it once was.  Trump responds by proclaiming, “Let us make America great again.”  And one of the dimensions of our former greatness was our moral position as the leader of the “Free World,” with the economic, political and military capacity to defend democracy in the world.

      Even though the image of American greatness is based on false premises and historical omissions, it is effective political discourse. The leaders and the great majority of the people believed it during the historic moment of American power and glory, and many believe it now, albeit less so.  In the context of the prevailing popular consciousness, drawing upon the image of America defending democracy connects our people to the discourse of our foreparents, who invoked the rhetoric to explain, justify and promote American expansionism and imperialism.

      In the context of U.S. political discourse, it does not matter much that the U.S. blockade of Cuba has been condemned repeatedly and universally.  In the United States, international public opinion scarcely is taken into account.  Indeed, there is a certain sector among the people that maintains that world opinion should not matter to us.  We know what is right, and we have the military strength to ensure that our will prevails.  The people and governments of the world may protest, but they know much less about the meaning of democracy than we do. Let us act in the world with force and will, as we once did.  Consistent with this conception, the Trump policy mandates rejection of the world condemnation of the U.S. embargo of Cuba as a component of the policy itself. 

     Trump also has formulated the concept of regional spheres of influence, where the major powers are responsible for order and stability in their respective regions.  This implies a move toward disengagement from Europe and the Middle East, and a greater involvement in Latin America, which already is evident with respect to Cuba and Venezuela.  In light of the disregard for international opinion and the increase in U.S. military expenditures, the Latin American engagement likely will utilize military interventions and economic sanctions, with these policies justified by claims of violations of human rights as well as connections to drug trafficking and trafficking in persons, with the mass media supporting distorted claims.  With respect to Europe and Asia, if Trump were to take seriously his idea of spheres of influence, he would be focused in the long term on developing commercial relations that intelligently benefit U.S. interests, and less inclined to costly military interventions.

     Trump stands as the voice of American pride and power, not only defending democracy in Cuba and Latin America, but also: promoting an economic nationalism that induces U.S. corporations to invest in production in the United States; supporting American production against the idealism of ecologists; increasing military strength; and protecting borders from an uncontrolled illegal immigration.  He seeks support for this nationalist project with a populist rhetoric that includes the scapegoating of immigrants and Muslims (see “Reflections on Trump” 3/17/2017 in the category Trump).  If the Trump project can maintain itself with the firm support of 25% or 30% of the people, it would have a viable and important presence in U.S. political dynamics. Given the absence of an alternative project that responds to popular anxieties, it could grow in influence.

     To be sure, the Trump project confronts major political obstacles. There are important sectors of the people for whom such a message has little resonance: African-Americans, those oriented to “identity politics,” and the white middle class of the urban Northeast, Midwest and West Coast.  Some popular sectors will remain strongly opposed, offended by Trump’s scapegoating, anti-ecology discourse, and disregard for humanity beyond U.S. borders.  In addition, the project challenges the neoliberal global elite, which favors multicultural discourse and seeking profits anywhere in the world, without concern for the well-being of the nation or its people.  This sector of the elite controls the major newspapers and media of communication, such that its opposition is significant in influencing the people.  

     The Trump project, however, has appeal in the smaller cities and towns in the South, Midwest and Rocky Mountain states.  And in light of the increase in military expenditures, it should have the support of the arms industry and the military-industrial complex.

      The battle is joined between the neo-nationalism and neofascism of Trump and the globalism, multiculturalism, and neoliberalism of Clinton-Bush-Obama.  The people and the elite are in the midst of political-cultural-ideological war.  Neither band has an understanding of the necessary direction in the context of the sustained national and global crises.  The “Left” in the United States ought to propose an alternative national narrative and direction, which thus far it has failed to do.  I will discuss the necessary response to Trump in the next post.

Posted July 5, 2017
 
      There have been criticisms everywhere of Donald Trump’s June 16 speech announcing a hardening of the Cuba embargo, as it is called in the United States.  The criticisms of Trump’s Cuba policy reveal the limited understanding and influence of the so-called Left in the United States, and the narrow perspective and strategy of the opponents of the “embargo.”

      Some have argued that the embargo violates the rights of U.S. citizens to engage in commerce and to travel.  However, we ought to appreciate that the rights to trade and travel are not without limit. Governments reasonably and necessarily regulate them, and they have the authority to restrict them, if there are compelling reasons.  In defense of its embargo, the U.S. government has claimed that the Cuban government is undemocratic and denies human rights.  If this were true, a case reasonably could be made that the U.S. government has the authority to impose restrictions on its citizens with respect to Cuba, as a dimension of a foreign policy promoting democracy in the world.

     Therefore, the legitimacy of the U.S. government’s restrictions of its citizens with respect to Cuba depends upon the validity of its claim that Cuba is not democratic.  Yet many of those who oppose the embargo assume that Cuba has an undemocratic political process, and they do not analyze the U.S. government’s claim to this effect.  They in effect are saying, “It may be that Cuba violates human rights, but our farmers and agricultural enterprises want to sell there, and our citizens want to travel there, so let’s ignore violations of human rights.”  This is a weak and unprincipled argument.  Trump has the moral upper hand when he calls for a return to a Cuba policy that makes clear a commitment to democratic values and for an end to tolerance of violations of human rights.

     Those who oppose the economic and financial blockade of Cuba should challenge the fundamentally false assumption, held by both defenders and opponents of the embargo, that the Cuban political process is undemocratic and that Cuba denies human rights.  Such an argument would go beyond pointing to the excellent and universal systems of health and education in Cuba.  It would explain the Cuban alternative structures of popular democracy, which function without electoral parties and without campaign contributions.  These structures were developed in the 1970s by the revolutionary project as an alternative to representative democracy, which the revolutionary leadership perceived as a form of democracy that benefits those with greater financial resources.  The outstanding health and educational systems are a consequence of popular democracy.  Inasmuch as the elected delegates to the National Assembly of Popular Power are not dependent on the campaign contributions of a corporate class to sustain their political careers, they are free to address the social and economic rights of the people, to the extent that limited resources permit.  Once this is understood, one could not reasonably deny that Cuba has exemplary norms and practices with respect to democracy and human rights; and the deceptions and distortions of the politicians and political intellectuals who created and have maintained the embargo would stand exposed.  

     The embargo should be ended not because it restricts the trade and travel of U.S. citizens, but because it was established and is maintained on false premises.  Presenting such an argument requires knowledge of the Cuban political process and its structures of popular democracy, However, for the most part, the U.S. opponents of the blockade have not informed themselves of the Cuban political process and the historical development of its structures, which would provide them with a potent arm in the battle of ideas.

     Some have argued that the “embargo” has not worked, so we need to use other strategies in undermining the Cuban Revolution.  They ask, “What other strategies could we try?”  They do not ask, “Why has the embargo failed?”  If they were to reflect on the latter question with seriousness and persistence, they eventually would arrive to awareness that the Cuban Revolution is a popular democratic revolution, capable of invoking the people to material sacrifice in defense of their revolution.  

     If they subsequently were to ask, “Was our mistaken policy with respect to Cuba simply a misunderstanding of the particular situation in Cuba, or have we opposed democracy in other nations as well?” Serious and persistent investigation of this question would lead to awareness that U.S. opposition to popular democratic revolutions and governments is the general norm in U.S. foreign policy, even as the United States persistently claims that its actions promote and protect democracy.  If such awareness were combined with commitment to the proposition that U.S. foreign policy ought to be based in democratic values, it would lead to a search for a democratic reformulation of foreign policy, based on the principle of respect for the sovereignty of all nations, rejecting imperialism in its various manifestations.

      Barack Obama was among those who argued that the Cuba embargo is not working, and he sought an alternative strategy for undermining the Cuban Revolution.  The Obama strategy was to promote the expansion of an entrepreneurial middle class, which would ally itself with U.S. economic interests and seek changes in Cuba that would facilitate greater possibilities, with less regulation, of foreign investment in Cuba.  Like his ten predecessors, Obama assumed that Cuban political processes and structures are undemocratic.  And like all U.S. presidents from William McKinley to George W. Bush, Obama pursued imperialist policies with respect to Cuba, Latin America, Asia and Africa, seeking to secure markets for U.S. goods and capital.  The Obama opening was characterized by a turn to a different imperialist strategy, keeping intact the goal of undermining the Cuban popular democratic socialist revolution.  At the same time, the U.S. Left did not seize the moment of the opening with Cuba to ask the necessary relevant questions that would expose and delegitimate the essentially anti-democratic character of U.S. foreign policy.

      Some have argued that the June 16 discourse of Trump is a return to the outdated language of the Cold War.  It is true that Trump’s anti-communist rhetoric seemed like it belonged to an earlier time.  But the Cold War had distinct dimensions.  Insofar as it was a confrontation between hostile and competing empires, the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European socialist bloc.  But the Cold War also had its manifestations in the Third World, and the issues at stake in the Third World did not disappear with the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Although U.S. foreign policy during the second half of the twentieth century was driven by an anti-communist ideology, U.S. opposition to certain Third World governments was not based in reality upon their communist or socialist tendencies, actual or fabricated.  What really was at issue for the United States was the insistence of these Third World governments on their national sovereignty.  They laid claim to the right of all nations to be truly independent, and accordingly, to develop their own policies with respect to domestic forms of property, distribution of land, and regulations concerning foreign investment and international capital flow.  They maintained that they had the right to exercise their sovereignty, without interference by foreign powers. Moreover, they influenced many other Third World governments to join in affirming certain principles that should guide international affairs, such as the rights of all nations and peoples to self-determination and development.  From the vantage point of the United States and the European ex-colonial powers, such pretensions to national sovereignty were an unacceptable threat to the neocolonial world-system, which depends on the subordination of the nations of the world, masked by formal political independence.  The rhetoric of the Cold War was invoked by the neocolonial powers as justifications for interfering in the affairs of nations, but this was an ideological maneuver that functioned to obscure that the issue at stake was the intention of some governments to establish the true sovereignty of their nations.

      The collapse of the Soviet Union placed independent-minded Third World governments at a political disadvantage; and external debt and the neoliberal project placed the Third World in an increasingly disadvantaged position economically.  With the anti-communist rhetoric less effective, the neocolonial powers turned to other ideological frames for justification of their interventionism, including the “War on Drugs” and terrorism, with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 providing the basis for launching the “War on Terrorism.”  During the last two decades, as progressive and socialist governments in Latin America sought an autonomous road to development, the United States has justified its interventionism with any workable pretext, with allegations of violations of human rights and participation in drug trafficking being the most common.  The June 16 anti-communist discourse of Trump with respect to Cuba is fully consistent with the U.S. rhetorical distortions and interventionist policy toward progressive and socialist governments in Latin America today.   Trump’s rhetoric distorts, but it is not outdated

     The opponents of the Cuba embargo have to go beyond “it violates the rights of U.S. citizens,” “it hasn’t worked,” and “Trump uses an outdated rhetoric.”  They should condemn the policy in an integral form, making the case that the failure of the Cuba embargo, like the U.S. defeat in the Vietnam War, is a symptom of a larger problem.  In essence, that problem is the fundamentally undemocratic structures of the world-system, rooted in European conquest and colonial domination of vast regions of the world; and the imperialist policies of the United States, which are designed to preserve world-system structures and to secure a U.S. position of dominance in the neocolonial world-system. The embargo of Cuba has failed because it has been integral to an effort by a global power to preserve undemocratic world structures, standing against a revolution that proclaimed its democratic rights to sovereignty and self-determination.  The people of Cuba, led and formed by revolutionary leadership, understood this, and as a result, they have been willing to persistently sacrifice in defense of their revolution, finding in such persistence a sense of meaning and purpose, as each contributed in a modest way in making the world more democratic.  

      The persistence of the Vietnamese in the face of the barbarous attacks by U.S. military forces led to questioning of U.S. policy in Vietnam, which for many of us led to awareness of the essentially imperialist character of U.S. foreign policy.  Similarly, the persistence of Cuba in the face of the fifty-five year embargo establishes the possibility for popular education with respect to the essentially imperialist and undemocratic character of U.S. foreign policy, if progressive and Leftist activists and intellectuals were to explain it in these terms.  

      The people of the United States feel a sense of loss, for the nation is not what it once was.  Accordingly, they are susceptible to the influences of a Donald Trump, who speaks of making America great again.  He speaks of an America that once again defends democracy in the world, without ambiguity in its moral proclamations.  He wants to expand American military strength, thus investing in the nation’s strongest industry.  He calls upon U.S. corporations to invest in production at home, and he intends to free productive processes in the United States from excessive environmental regulations that result from the claims of idealist ecologists.  He wants to protect the U.S. border from illegal immigrants, who possibly include terrorists and drug dealers.  The Trump discourse recalls the memory of a great power that once was, a nation that sees itself as the most democratic, powerful, and wealthy nation in human history, and that acts in the world with confidence and decisiveness.

      The Left dismisses, but has never effectively debunked, the prevailing American grand narrative.  The Left should be working on a reconstruction of the American grand narrative: explaining the historical and economic reasons for the U.S. ascent and its relative decline; lifting up heroes from the history of popular movements in the United States, connecting the people to visionaries of the past and to historic popular struggles for democracy; and indicating the necessary national direction in the context of the sustained global crisis, in solidarity with the movements and peoples of the Third World.  Trump and his neoliberal opponents should be delegitimated by an informed public discourse that exposes the false premises of both, with respect to Cuba, the meaning of democracy, and the relation of the United States to Latin America and the world.

       From February 20 to March 16, I published a series of nineteen posts on the Trump administration.  The posts describe the project of Trump and his team as characterized by: continuation of the post-2001 “war on terrorism,” with its ahistorical and ethnocentric assumptions; enforcement of immigration laws, overruling the interests of some corporations in the superexploitation of illegal immigrant labor; reduction in legal immigration, with reforms orientated toward admission of applicants with higher skills; an economic nationalism that protects U.S. industries and that induces U.S. corporations to invest in production in the United States; a taking of the corporate side in the six-decade conflict between corporations and the ecology movement; an increase in military capacity; greater support for law enforcement agencies; and populist rhetoric.  

     I maintain that the Trump project has components in common with twentieth century European fascism, which was characterized by military expansionism, suppression of structures of representative democracy, scapegoating, repression of religious and ethnic minorities and political dissidents, populist and nationalist rhetoric, economic nationalism, and alliance with the corporate elite.  The Trump project, however, is different from twentieth century fascism, in that its scapegoating is more subtle, its political propaganda and manipulation is more sophisticated, and it allows minorities and women to assume leadership roles.  It thus should be understood as fascism in a new form, or neo-fascism.

     The posts also maintain that the rise of Trump is in part a consequence of the failure of the Left to formulate a narrative that is an alternative to the mainstream American narratives, be they liberal, neoliberal or neo-fascist.  With the coming to power of Trump, the Left more than ever has a duty to formulate an alternative narrative that would reframe the issues.  The posts seek to indicate the necessary lines for a politically effective and analytically sound alternative narrative of the Left.

     The posts are as follows:
“Trump and the war on terrorism, Part One” 2/20/2017; 
“Trump and the war on terrorism, Part Two” 2/21/2017; 
“Trump on immigration” 2/22/2017; 
“Let’s build houses in Mexico” 2/23/2017; 
“Trump’s economic nationalism” 2/24/2017; 
“Trump, corporations, and the environment” 2/27/2017; 
“Trump’s populism” 2/28/2017; 
“Trump and US militarist foreign policy” 3/1/2017; 
“Trump’s neo-fascist project” 3/2/2017; 
“A grand narrative from the Left” 3/3/2017; 
“An alternative epistemology of the Left” 3/6/2017; 
“The Third World grand narrative” 3/7/2017; 
“A Left narrative on the Third World” 3/8/2017; 
“A Left narrative on immigration” 3/9/2017; 
“A narrative on morality in international affairs” 3/10/2017; 
“An integral and comprehensive narrative” 3/13/2017; 
“The function of government” 3/14/2017; 
“Trump’s masterful speech” 3/15/2017; 
“Power to the people!” 3/16/2017.

     Please scroll down to find the posts.

Posted February 20, 2017
​
     I begin today, thirty days after the taking of the presidential oath of office by Donald Trump, a series of nineteen posts on the Trump administration.

      The Executive Order emitted by Donald Trump on January 27, temporarily prohibiting people from seven Islamic-majority countries from entering the United States, has provoked a conflict between a number of organizations (including the American Civil Liberties Union, Islamic organizations, technology corporations, and scientific associations) and the executive branch of the federal government.  For the moment, the judicial branch has stayed the order.  The people are divided, with slightly more support for the Executive Order than opposition, according to opinion polls.  In this debate, the issues that are at stake, their root causes, and their solutions are not addressed, and they will not be addressed.  As C.J. Hopkins notes in an excellent and somewhat satirical article, the conflict in essence is between the neoliberal establishment and a neo-nationalist insurrection, and thus the terms of the debate are limited (Hopkins 2017).  

      The Executive Order touches upon two complex and emotional issues, terrorism and immigration, that are scarcely understood by the politicians or by the people in the United States, and the Left has failed to provide an historically and globally informed explanation and proposal.  Both issues are signs of the profound structural crisis of the world-system.  I will discuss terrorism in this and the following post, and immigration in the subsequent.

      Since 1967, there has emerged a “distinctive genre of violence” as a social phenomenon (Ansary 2009:332) that we know today as terrorism.  It is different from the classical strategy of terrorism that was debated internally in popular and nationalist movements, which was far more limited.  Classical terrorism involved the assassination of officials of the state, especially those known for their brutality; or the assassination of collaborators with the regime.  Moreover, although classical terrorism was debated within revolutionary movements and apparently was adopted in some cases, it was used on a very limited scale, even in cases in which the struggle took the form of a guerrilla war.  The Communist International took an explicit position against terrorism, and prohibited its member parties from practicing it.  The Cuban Revolution rejected the practice as immoral and unethical and as a dysfunctional political strategy.  

     The terrorism that has emerged since 1967 as a new social pattern involves a much higher level of violence.  It kills civilians intentionally, not an as an accidental byproduct; and it kills indiscriminately, without selecting the people that are its victims on the basis of their specific role in the political and social system.  

      The deliberate indiscriminate killing of civilians by clandestine groups also is different from the numerous examples of the mass murder of civilians in the modern era, which were carried out by armies and other agents of nation-states.  Examples include: wars of conquest by European nations directed against the nations and peoples of America, Asia and Africa from the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries, which murdered civilians on such a massive scale that it in some cases constituted genocide; the massive bombing raids against densely populated areas of cities carried out by the United States, Great Britain and Germany during World War II; and the bombing of Vietnam by the United States from the period 1965 to 1972.  Such mass murder of civilian populations by nation-states took a far greater number of victims than the new form of terrorism.  But they belong to a different category, because they were carried out by nation-states seeking to increase or preserve power and wealth in the world-system; whereas terrorism, in both its classical and new forms, has been carried out by clandestine groups tied to popular movements.  Because of this fundamental political difference, mass murder by nation-states and terrorism by clandestine groups are perceived differently by the people; and we historians, social scientists and philosophers also should maintain an analytical distinction between these two forms of violence against innocent people.

     The deliberate indiscriminate killing of civilians by clandestine groups occasionally occurred prior to 1967.  For example, an underground Jewish militant group bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing ninety-one civilians, which remained the most destructive single act of terrorism until 1988, when Libyan terrorists brought down a commercial flight in Scotland, killing 270 people.  But after the Six Day War of 1967, the new form of terrorism emerged in the Arab world as a social phenomenon, occurring with a degree of regularity.  Although the clandestine groups adopting the new terrorist strategy take the Islamic concept of jihad and present themselves as Muslims, their understanding is very different from the great majority of Muslims, so they should be referred to as “jihadists,” rather than “Islamists” or Islamic radicals.  Following the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1979, jihadists from the Arab world and Pakistan flocked to support the Afghan guerrilla resistance, supplied with money and arms by the oil-rich Arab states and the United States. As jihadism grew during the 1980s, it spread to the non-Arab Islamic world, and it increasingly turned to the killing of civilians, with citizens of Western nations included among its victims.  Jihadism promoted and created an apparent clash between Western and Islamic civilizations, casting aside the effort since the 1950s by Third World nations, including those of the Islamic world, to forge universal human values through various international organizations, including the United Nations and the Non-Aligned Movement (Ansary 2009:321-22, 332, 344; Huntington 1997:19-39; Prashad 2007:272-73).
. 
      Why did the social phenomenon of the deliberate indiscriminate killing of civilians by clandestine groups emerge?  If one’s viewpoint is limited by the assumptions and beliefs of the American grand narrative, understanding the answer to this question is impossible, because the American grand narrative ignores fundamental historical and social facts.  It overlooks the role of European colonial domination of the world during the course of five centuries in creating the present world-system, which has evolved to a neocolonial world-system.  It does not grasp the connection between colonial/neocolonial domination and the spectacular ascent of the United States.  It does not see the historic struggles of the nations and movements of the Third World, seeking to transform the colonial structural foundations of the world-economy, reaching its height in the Third World proposal for a New International Economic Order.  It does not know that the Third World proposal for a New International Economic Order, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974, was ignored by the global powers.  It is only superficially aware that the most revolutionary of the Third World governments, those most strongly committed to true sovereignty and to economic and cultural autonomy, were attacked through any and all means by the global powers, with the intention of undermining their political and economic viability.  And it does not take into account the fact that, beginning with the imposition of the neoliberal project in 1980, the sovereignty of even accommodationist Third World governments was undermined, resulting in even higher levels of poverty and social dislocation for the peoples of the world.  

       In the Arab world, the Third World project of national and social liberation was most fully represented in the 1950s and 1960s by Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt.  In 1952, Nasser led a group of young military officers in overthrowing a corrupt monarchy that was subservient to European interests.  The officers represented various strains of Egyptian political thought, including nationalism, Islamic modernism, the Muslim Brotherhood, communism, and Pan-Arabism.  Once in power, Nasser forged the ideology of Arab socialism or Islamic socialism, by which he meant a classless society built on a foundation of the principles of Islam.  The Egyptian revolutionary government of Nasser: nationalized the Suez Canal; nationalized foreign companies and banks; refused to participate in military alliances against the Soviet Union; purchased arms for the modernization of its army from Czechoslovakia, avoiding the political conditions that were tied to the U.S. offer of arms; and recognized the Popular Republic of China.  Egypt became a center for solidarity organizations from Africa and Asia as well as for nationalist organizations from the Arab world, and Cairo hosted the Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Conference in 1957.  Nasser was one of the leading voices (along with Sukarno of Indonesia, Nehru of India, and Tito of Yugoslavia) in the founding of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961. During the period 1956 to 1967, Nasserism was the hope of the Arab world (Ansary 2009:324-26; Prashad 2007:31-34, 51-52, 96-99, 148; Schulze 2000:148-52).

       Nasserism represented a form of Islamic modernism, taking a middle position between accommodation to the West and Islamic traditionalism.  It envisioned independent, modern and republican nation-states, synthesizing the basic concepts of Third World nationalism, Western bourgeois democratic revolutions, Western socialism and Islam (Ansary 2009:261-68; Schulze 2000:148-49, 174-75).  It was a fully reasonable proposal, consistent with the principle of the sovereign equality of nations advocated by the Third World project and affirmed by the UN Charter.  

      These basic historical facts with respect to the Arab world and the Islamic world are overlooked by the American grand narrative.  At the same time, the Left has failed to formulate an alternative to the American grand narrative.  It has failed to explain the reasons for the emergence of a new form indiscriminate violence against civilians, and it has failed to propose an alternate strategy.  As I will develop further in subsequent posts in the series of posts on Trump, the Left ought to formulate a narrative that explains the new terrorism as a symptom of the sustained structural crisis of the world system and that proposes a strategy of cooperation with the governments and movements of the world in order to participate in the development of a more just and sustainable world-system, in accordance with the common interests of humanity.  

     The limited, partial understanding of the American grand narrative leaves the people confused before the new phenomenon of the indiscriminate killing of civilians by clandestine groups.  The failure of the Left to formulate an alternative grand narrative contributes to the confusion, and it has left the people vulnerable to the scapegoating and ultranationalist discourse of Trump.  In Part Two of this post, which I will publish tomorrow, I will try to point to an understanding of the reasons for the emergence of the new form of terrorism, drawing upon a horizon beyond the American grand narrative and the superficial discourse of the Left.

References
 
Ansary, Tamim.  2009.  Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes.  New York: Public Affairs.
 
Hopkins, C.J. 2017.  “The Resistance and Its Double,” www.counterpunch.org, January 30.
 
Huntington, Samuel P.  1997.  The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order.  New York:  Simon Schuster, Touchstone Edition.
 
Prashad, Vijay.  2007.  The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World.  New York: The New Press.

​Schulze, Reinhard.  2000.  A Modern History of the Islamic World.  New York: New York University Press.

Posted February 21, 2017

      As the European colonial empires fell, the strategy of the West was to block the creation of the more just world-system advocated by the revolutionary Third World project of national and social liberation, whose leaders possessed moral and political authority among their peoples, as a result of their leadership of anti-colonial popular movements that had attained the political independence of their nations.  As a dimension of this strategy, the West supported the Third World sector that was tied to Western interests and advocated an accommodationist nationalism, subordinate to the interests of the West.  In the Arab world, this took the form of support for a limited project of development directed by the Arab elite, as an alternative to the liberation project of Nasser.

      The limited project of “development” directed by the Arab elite promoted a form of religious fundamentalism known as Wahhabism, named for the eighteenth century Arabian cleric Abdul Wahhab. In the aftermath of the European domination of the Islamic world, Wahhab called upon Muslims to eliminate Western influences and to return to the pure, original form of Islam.  As it developed, Wahhabism preached that Muslims ought to follow literally and exactly the Islamic laws on prayer, fasting and alms-giving.  It taught that jihad, the struggle to defeat the enemies of Islam, is a religious obligation; and it defined enemies to include Muslims who loosely followed Islamic laws, who were hypocritical in their Islamic professions, or who introduced innovations into Islamic theology and practice.  Wahhabism attained enormous influence throughout the Islamic world by the beginning of the twentieth century, particularly among the rural poor (Ansary 2009:249-57, 306-7).  During the course of the twentieth century, it increasingly would be promoted by the elite of the Islamic world, offering it to the poor as an alternative to the emerging project of Third World national and social liberation.

     Among those schooled in Wahhabism was Crown Prince Faysal of Saudi Arabia, who created the World Muslim League in 1962.  The League was organized to “disrupt the growth of Third World nationalism and its secular sense of community, and to recall in its place the sublime bonds of religion.”  It established an international Islamic news agency and Islamic cultural centers, and it held regular conferences for the purpose of consolidating the struggle against Third World nationalism and communism.  In creating the World Muslim League, Faysal acted in accord with the wishes of leaders in the Islamic world who “rejected Third World nationalism, its secularism and its socialism as well as its type of modernity,” because “Third World nationalism was ideologically predisposed to the dismissal of hierarchy, and the domination of certain classes and clans.”  Whereas “Nasserism and Communism promised equality, the Saudis proffered a celestial equality” that “accepted the hierarchy of the world” (Prashad 2007:260-62; Schulze 2000:173). 

      Throughout the Islamic world, the established upper social classes promoted literal interpretations of Islam such a Wahhabism, seeking to derail the progressive and socialist readings of the Islamic tradition that were integral to the Nasserist Third World agenda.  This ideological strategy was supported by the United States, which also gave full political, economic and military support to monarchies and dictatorships in the region, as alternatives to Nasserism (Ansary 2009:340; Prashad 2007:267-68; Schulze 2000:128-29, 138, 151-52).

       In the 1960s and early 1970s, the World Muslim League was still limited in influence.  Its role was to provide comfort and support for “scholars and activists who felt beleaguered in their societies for their anachronistic ideas about modernity and statecraft” (Prashad 2007:268).  However, it soon would grow rapidly.  

     Following the defeat of Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the Six Day War of 1967, Saudi Arabia emerged as the regional leader, taking the place of Egypt.   With oil wealth and U.S. political and military backing, Saudi Arabia funded Wahhabis Islamic organizations throughout the world.  One organization that benefitted from the resurgent Islamic literalism was the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by an Egyptian schoolteacher in 1928.  Envisioning a transnational Islamic unity, it opposed the division of the Islamic World into separate nation-states.   It stood against nationalist leaders in the Islamic world, whether they be accommodationist nationalists dependent on Western elites, or autonomous nationalists allied with the Third World project of national and social liberation.  With a strong following among the urban working class poor, the Muslim Brotherhood expanded as urbanization and industrialization caused the growth of this demographic sector.  The Brotherhood evolved into “a pandemic low-level insurgency—seething against secularism and Western influence, seething against its own modernist elite, against its own government, against all nationalist governments in Muslim countries, even against the apparatus of democracy to the extent that this reflected Western values” (Ansary 2009:310).  Since the 1930s, the Brotherhood had been a thorn in the side of autonomous nationalist leaders, who found themselves simultaneously battling imperialism from above and Islamic insurgency from below.  As the Muslim Brotherhood spread throughout the Arab World after 1967, it began to sprout increasingly radical offshoots that gave emphasis to the concept of jihad as a duty for true Muslims (Ansary 2009:308-10, 326-27, 331-32).   

     Islamic literalism spread at a rapid pace for various reasons: the limited gains of the revolutionary Third World project of national and social liberation, blocked by the West; the limited capacity of the Nasserist project to deliver on its promise of autonomous national economic and social development, inasmuch as it was hampered by Western opposition and sanctions; the decline in prestige of the Nasserist project that resulted from the Six Day War; the growing class inequalities generated by accommodationist governments; the subordination of accommodationist nationalism to the West; and the increasing obviousness of the hypocrisy of accommodationist politicians with respect to nationalist aspirations and Islam.  Islamic literalism was a turn to the past, driven by a loss of faith in the future that Nasser had envisioned; and by a rejection of accommodationism, for its lack of dignity.  In the 1970s, developmentalism and modernism remained the dominant motif as national liberation states attempted to reform from below the neocolonial world-system, but Islamic literalism has become influential among the excluded (Ansary 2009:342).

     In the 1980s in Afghanistan, the United States turned to direct support of the Islamic insurgency, not only indirectly through support of Saudi Arabia.  The Islamist guerrilla resistance was backed with money and arms by the Saudi-financed World Muslim League, which generally supported Islamic literalists; and by the CIA, which hoped to involve the Soviet Union in an unwinnable war.  The eight-year anti-Soviet guerrilla war “totally empowered the country’s Islamist ideologues” and “attracted Islamist zealots from around the Muslim world, including jihadists from the Arab world” and Pakistan (Ansary 2009:344), who repackaged themselves as freedom fighters.  With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Afghan communists, the United States disengaged from Afghanistan, making no effort the rebuild the war-torn country.  The jihadists made Afghanistan, now reduced to a rubble, as their base of operations for a war against the West.  They helped to develop the Taliban (Ansary 2009:344-7; Prashad 2007:271-72; Schulze 2000:229-33).      

     Long-term global trends also favored the decline of the Third World project of national and social liberation and the rise of Islamic insurgency.  As the global powers turned to the neoliberal project and as the International Monetary Fund pushed states toward the abandonment of social services in health, education and relief, the Islamic organizations affiliated with the World Muslim League filled the void, thus expanding exponentially.  With the imposition of neoliberal globalization on the world, the sovereignty of states was undermined, and the idea of nationalism and patriotism was severed from a context defined by the “secular-socialist nationalism of the Third World agenda” and placed in a worldview formed by a cultural nationalism imbued with traditional religious concepts (Prashad 2007:274).  By the 1980s, it had become clear that Islamic leaders of the Left could not make their dreams real, and Islamic literalism thrived among the excluded people of the lower classes (Ansary 2009:343-44; Prashad 2007:271, 273-74; Schulze 2000:248-49).

     Taking into account the recent history of the Arab and Islamic worlds, let us ask:  What has caused the emergence of this new form of terrorism characterized by the indiscriminate and deliberate killing of civilians?  The answer is logical, even if scarcely acknowledged in the discourses of the North: the blocking by the global powers of all reasonable political efforts by the peoples and movements of the Third World to protect their national sovereignty and to establish economic and cultural autonomy; and the adoption of strategies by the United States that gave space to those ideological sectors in the Islamic world most inclined to adopt extremist measures.  In using any and all means to block reform from below of the neocolonial world-system, the global powers gave credibility and legitimacy to extremist violence.

      However, when the United States confronted the new form of terrorism, it did not react with a reassessment of its persistent effort to preserve the structures of the neocolonial world-system.  It did not turn to a recognition of the political, economic and ecological unsustainability of the world-system and of the need for humanity to develop a more just, democratic and sustainable world-system.  It made no effort to understand the phenomenon in global and historical context, and it proclaimed a “war on terrorism.”  

     The war on terrorism is a permanent war.  It has included: military invasions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya; military attacks in Yemen and Pakistan; military support for “opposition groups” in Syria; prisons that violate due process rights, including the use of torture; and increased vigilance on U.S. citizens.  

    The Trump Executive Order places itself in the “war on terrorism” that the United States has waged since 2001.  It declares its intention “to protect the United States and its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States” by placing a temporary halt on immigration from seven countries that the Obama administration previously had defined as characterized by high levels of terrorism.  With the goal of developing a permanent policy, the Order directs the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence to determine what information is needed from any country to judge if a person seeking admission to the United States is a security or public-safety threat.  It gives them 30 days to report, including a list of countries that do not provide the necessary information.

      In the U.S. political discourse, the “war against terrorism” is understood in the context of the American grand narrative that sees the nation as a model of democracy.  The proclaimed war casts terrorism as a threat to democracy, and it has justified military action as necessary to fight terrorism and to defend democracy.  The “war against terrorism” has created a climate of fear with respect to terrorist acts, thus generating greater popular support for military expenditures and interventions.  And it has fostered an association of Islam with terrorism, thus converting Muslims into convenient scapegoating targets.  Such an ideological war that defines external and internal enemies has been convenient for the global powers, in that, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of communists, the global powers were in need of a threatening menace that was everywhere present, but invisible.

      When the new form of terrorism emerged as a social phenomenon in the 1990s, the “war on terrorism” was one possible response for the societies of the North.  But another response was possible, one based on recognition of the fact that the inequalities and injustices of the neocolonial world-system have consequences even for the societies of the North, and thus these injustices have to be addressed.  Here is where the Left in the North should have been prepared, explaining the political, economic, financial and ecological unsustainability of the neocolonial world-system, and proposing North-South cooperation for the construction of a just, democratic and sustainable world-system. The Left should have been proposing cooperation with the Third World project of national and social liberation as the best way to eliminate terrorism.  

     The new form of terrorism will be overcome though international cooperation and solidarity and support for the Third World project of national and social liberation.  It will be overcome through the creation a world-system that respects the sovereignty and equality of all nations, allows economic and cultural autonomy, supports international programs for the protection of the social and economic rights of all citizens of all nations, and promotes laws and programs that are designed to protect nature.  It won’t help much to block the entrance to the United States of people from certain nations, to build a wall along the southern frontier, or to deport illegal immigrants.  And when such efforts are undertaken with an attitude that ignores rights of due process, they are not only wrong-headed but also egregious.

     I will reflect further on a possible alternative narrative of the Left in subsequent posts in this series of post on Trump.

References
 
Ansary, Tamim.  2009.  Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes.  New York: Public Affairs.
 
Prashad, Vijay.  2007.  The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World.  New York: The New Press.

Schulze, Reinhard.  2000.  A Modern History of the Islamic World.  New York: New York University Press.

Posted February 22, 2017
​
      The problem of immigration is, more precisely, a problem of uncontrolled international migration.  Some political leaders have reacted to the problem with proposals of exclusion, while others focus on inclusion and respecting the rights of the immigrants.  Neither band analyzes or proposes solutions to the global problem of uncontrolled international migration.  

     In his first month in office, President Donald Trump has taken decisive steps toward controlling and reducing immigration to the United States and deporting undocumented immigrants, consistent with his campaign rhetoric.  The measures taken by the Trump administration, although they have generated a high level of conflict and controversy, respond to concerns and fears of the people, inasmuch as there is widespread belief that the government has not been taking sufficient steps to control illegal immigration, and that the United States does not have sufficient employment or social services to receive immigrants, legal and illegal, from the impoverished and conflicted areas of the world.  

       Popular concerns are to some extent fed by the sometimes cavalier attitude with respect to immigration laws on the part of some of the defenders of the rights of the immigrants.  David Bacon, for example, criticizes the U.S. government for its enforcement (during republican and democratic administrations) of immigration laws, and he advocates direct action resistance against them.  He maintains that the firing and deportation of undocumented workers, in accordance with immigration laws, functions to ensure low-wage labor, because it leads to greater use of guest worker programs, which typically are limited to one year of employment (Bacon 2017).  Such commentary implies that nations do not have a right to enact laws controlling migratory flows, and to enforce them.   

      To be sure, immigration policies should not be driven by an orientation to providing a cheap labor supply and maximizing corporate profits.  But governments ought to control immigration, adopting policies that are designed to serve the good of the nation and the world; and to this end, all governments must enact, and should enforce, immigration laws.  

      The current demands of the Left for non-enforcement of immigration laws and its orientation to direct action resistance give the impression to the people that the Left does not recognize the right and the duty of government to enact and enforce immigration laws.  They give an impression of immaturity, irresponsibility, and idealist disconnection from real problems.  In this and in many issues, the Left conveys an image that does not inspire confidence, thus ensuring its limited influence among the people.  

      In the raging conflict, many have viewed the Trump anti-immigrant measures as a violation of a tradition in the United States of receiving immigrants.  Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, for example, declared that “there are tears running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty.”  However, comments of this kind ignore the fact that the situation today is fundamentally different from the great migrations of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  The world-economy has become stagnant since the 1970s, having overextended its geographical limits; and the U.S. economy has declined since the 1970s, relative to other core economies.  The immigrants today to the countries of the North are not being pulled by expanding economies; rather, they are being pushed by the increasing deterioration of economic and social conditions in peripheral and semiperipheral zones of the world-economy, and by the violence and chaos resulting from wars of aggression and interventions by the core powers.  

     The world situation is today out of control, with poverty and violence in many regions of the world, and uncontrolled migration from the most desperate countries.  The political elite, committed primarily to the defense of its interests and those of corporations, does not respond adequately to the situation.  Living in an exclusive manner, the members of the power elite are less adversely affected by the problems that the people face, such as that of uncontrolled international migration, so they have little interest in addressing them. This is sensed by the people of the United States, who do not have good understanding of global dynamics, but they do have the commonsense intelligence to intuit that the global situation is out of control and that the elite is responding only to its own particular interests.  This is why the anti-immigrant messages and actions of Trump are attractive to many of the people.

       In this situation, the Left does not have an adequate response.  It defends the rights of the immigrants, which of course is demanded and required by ancient prophetic calls of justice for the poor, the oppressed, and the foreigner.  But defending the rights of legal and illegal immigrants is not enough.  What is required is a credible and workable alternative to the anti-immigrant discourse and policies of the Right.  The Left, however, does not come close to offering an alternative.  It dismisses the concerns of the people as symptoms of xenophobia.  It does not take seriously the concerns of the people and propose solutions to address them.  

     The Left should recognize the right of governments to enact and enforce immigration laws, and it should propose more just immigration laws, designed from the vantage point of the well-being of the people and the nation.   The guest worker program, for example, could be reformed, such that, instead of a maximum of one year, the worker’s participation could be renewed for a period of five to seven years, following which the worker would be eligible for permanent residence and citizenship.  The reform could include guarantees for the protection of the workers’ rights, including minimum wage and the right to organize.  It also could establish that criminal behavior would give the government the right to deport the worker.  The reform of the guest worker programs could be the basis for a controlled, orderly and legal migration that responds to: the need for workers in fields where labor is in short supply; the desire of persons to migrate to the United States; and the concerns of people in the United States with respect to the existing uncontrolled nature of immigration.  Such specific proposals for immigration reform should be at the forefront of the Left’s presentation, for they would convey a much more mature and responsible image to the people than do calls for non-enforcement of laws and direct action resistance.  It is a question of having the political intelligence to propose solutions to problems and having the patience and the capacity to educate the people on the reasonableness of the proposed solutions.

     In addition, the Left should be explaining to the people that uncontrolled international migration is one of several symptoms of the sustained structural crisis of the neocolonial world-system, which demonstrate its unsustainability.  It should make clear that, in the long run, the problem of uncontrolled international migration will be overcome when the regions from which the migrants come experience economic and social development.  Accordingly, the governments of the North should be cooperating with the governments and movements of the Third World, seeking to promote the development of peripheral and semiperipheral regions, so that a just, democratic and sustainable world-system can emerge.  

     I will have further commentaries on the need of the Left to formulate an alternative discourse in subsequent posts in the series of posts on Trump.

​

​Reference
 
Bacon, David.  2017. “What Donald Trump Can and Can't Do to Immigrants,” NACLA Newsletter, February 6.