Posted October 9, 2013

     By the end of the presidency of George W. Bush, the neoconservative orientation was questioned by the people, largely as a consequence of the war in Iraq and the financial crisis of 2008.  In this context, Barack Obama won the elections of 2008, promising “change.” Consistent with the norms of the electoral process of the United States, Obama did not outline a specific program. However, the message of change created the possibility that Obama would seek a fundamental turn in US foreign policies.

     There was indeed a change from the administration of George W. Bush, which had pursued a policy of aggressive pursuit of US interests through unilateral military action.  In the view of the Obama administration, this strategy had backfired, because it alienated US allies, and thus weakened US influence.  So the Obama administration adopted a new approach that came to be known as “smart power.” However, this was more a change of tone rather than a change of policy.  Claudia Cinatti writes that the Obama strategy “is nothing more than the old recipe of combining the use of military and  economic power with diplomacy and negotiation in order to attain the support of allies, semi-allies, and partners of convenience in the attaining of the national interests of the United States.  Concretely, it implies an ordered withdrawal of the United States from ‘extravagant’ objectives—like installing ‘democracy’in failed states or dedicating itself to ‘nation building’ in Iraq or Afghanistan—in order to concentrate on intervening where imperialist interests are truly at stake” (2010:74-75).

     Accordingly, when Obama took office, the aggressive and arrogant tone of Bush was abandoned, and Obama adopted a different rhetoric, making friendly gestures toward the Islamic world. However, the imperialist policies of the Bush administration in essence continued. “Beyond the gestures and the words, in relation to the principal issues, the foreign policy of the government of Obama represents more continuity than change from the government of Bush:  it pursued the essential components of the ‘war against terrorism;’ it maintained troops in Iraq; it tripled military presence in Afghanistan; it extended the conflict to Pakistan; and it found a new target in Yemen in order to combat the Al Qaida network and Islamic radicalism” (Cinatti 2010:75).

     The continuity of the policy of Obama can be seen in the region of Southwest Asia, where the basic goal has been to reaffirm US power in the region and to gain access to the petroleum and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Sea.  The Obama plan has been: to consolidate a stable government in Iraq; to prevent the retaking of power in Afghanistan by groups hostile to the United States, transferring troops from Iraq to Afghanistan in order to attain this objective; to limit the influence in the region of radical Islamic groups that seek to establish Islamic states, which have been emerging in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Kirgizstan; to reduce the influence of Russia in the region and in Europe, which depends on Russia for its supply of natural gas, by means of the construction of a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, facilitating supply of the world market via the Indian Ocean (Cinatti 2010:63).

     The attack on Libya also demonstrates the continuity of Obama’s policies.  From 1969 to 2012, Muammar Qaddafi led a revolutionary process in Libya that sought economic and social development and the establishment of structures of popular participation under the guidance of a philosophy that synthesized Islam with revolutionary nationalism/socialism.  During the Reagan, Qaddafi was declared evil by the government of the United States, but tension between Libya and the United States was reduced during the 1990s, due to Qaddafi’s accommodation to the neoliberal project.  However, his explorations toward African unity and alliances with progressive governments in Latin America during the Obama administration led to a reemergence of malicious portrayals of Qaddafi by the core powers, culminating in the NATO attack that brought down his government and led to his death.  
 
    In relation to Latin America, imperialist policies continue under Obama.  The blockade against Cuba continues.  The United States ultimately legitimated the 2009 coup d’état in Honduras, and there possibly was US involvement in the failed coup d’état in Ecuador in 2010.  The United States signed an agreement in 2009 with the government of Colombia for the installation of seven new military bases, and subsequent agreements for military bases were made with Panama and Costa Rica.  Moreover, the United States continues to support the opposition in Venezuela and Bolivia and opposes the process of reform and revolution underway in Latin America (Cinatti 2010:76; Regalado 2010; Ceceña 2010).


 References

Ceceña, Ana Esther.  2010.   “América Latina en la encrucijada: restauración sistémica o alternativa civilizatoria,” Curso de actualización: América Latina: entre el cambio y la restauración conservadora, Centro de Investigaciones de Política Internacional, La Habana, Cuba, November 25, 2010.

Cinatti, Claudia.  2010. “El imperialismo en la era Obama,” Estrategia Internacional, N° 26 (March), Pp. 55-78.

Regalado, Roberto.  2010.  “Gobierno y poder en América Latina hoy,” Curso de actualización: América Latina: entre el cambio y la restauración conservadora, Centro de Investigaciones de Política Internacional, La Habana, Cuba, 22 de noviembre de 2010.   
 

Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Obama


 

Posted October 10, 2013

     In various posts since September 18, we have explored US imperialism.  Let us conclude our reflection on the theme.

     The period of 1898 to 1932 saw the consolidation of imperialism as a basic principle of US policy.  Imperialism sought the attainment of new markets for surplus US production through military interventions and “dollar diplomacy.”  In establishing itself, imperialism had to overcome a strong tendency toward isolationism in US political culture.  This isolationist tendency was a consequence of a prevailing view that the United States was different from and more democratic than the nations of Europe, and there was a consequent desire to avoid entanglement in European wars.  Isolationism was an important factor in US delays in entering the two World Wars, although in both cases the United States provided supplies to allies from the outset. In US public discourse of the period, conservatives were isolationists, and liberals promoted imperialist interventions in Latin America.

     In the period of 1933 to 1945, imperialism adopted a softer strategy, seeking to appear as a “good neighbor.”  The quest for new markets, for control of existing markets, and for access to cheap raw materials continued, but the forms of intervention in Latin America were more indirect.  This softer form of imperialism was promoted by liberals, personified by the powerful figure of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt envisioned significant reforms in the world-system for the post-World War II period, but his vision was eclipsed by the Cold War.  
 
      In the period of 1945-79, the United States emerged as the hegemonic core power of the neocolonial world-system, and US imperialist interventions became more global in scope.  The Cold War provided a justification for more active intervention than was characteristic of the “good neighbor” era.  But important components of the previous period were preserved, such as depending primarily on military repression by the neocolonial state, with direct US military intervention applied only when necessary.  Conservatives promoted an aggressive Cold War approach, but liberals shared the basic premises of the Cold War and imperialist policy, forming a liberal-conservative consensus.  Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress was a short-lived and unsuccessful reformist approach, but even during the Kennedy Administration the Cold War assumptions that justified indirect and sometimes barbaric interventions in the Third World prevailed. 
 
      In the context of the deep structural crisis of the world-system and the US fall from hegemony, the nation has turned to the right since 1980.  The neoliberal project was imposed, taking advantage of external debt, through free trade agreements and international finance agencies. Military intervention in pursuit of US interests has been constant.  These policies have been justified on the grounds that they defend democracy, understood in the liberal and limited sense of political rights and economic liberty. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc, US national political leaders struggled to find an enemy that could be portrayed as a threat to democratic values.  The attacks of September 11, 2001 made possible the establishment of the “war on terrorism” as the prevailing ideological frame for the justification of imperialist interventions. 

      Thus we can see that imperialism has been a policy actively pursued with continuity by US governments from 1898 to the present. During the course of the twentieth century, when Latin American reformers and revolutionaries spoke of“Yankee imperialism,” they were not merely inventing popular political slogans.  They were naming an important component of the relation between the two Americas, a relation that promoted the development of the America to the north as it promoted the underdevelopment of the America to the south.  Since 1933, imperialist policies have been presented with a democratic face. But imperialist policies, in essence, have involved the pursuit of markets, raw materials and sources of profits, without regard for the consequences for the sovereign rights of formally independent nations or for the social and economic rights of their citizens.

     Imperialist policies have practical objectives, and they have provided concrete material benefits to the people of the United States. They have been a significant factor in providing the United States with additional markets, new sources of investment and profit, and access to cheap raw materials, and they therefore were central to the ascent of the United States from 1898 to 1968.  
 
      However, the imperialist polices of the global powers are no longer practical.  When the world-system reached the geographical limits of the earth around the middle of the twentieth century, a new situation was created.  In the present historic moment, the aggressive quest for control of the raw materials, labor and markets of the planet by the global powers creates political instability in the world-system, generating endless conflicts and wars, and it threatens the ecological balance of the earth.  If the world-system continues to accept the notion that powerful nations have the right to promote and defend their interests, without concern for the interests and needs of other nations and peoples, it will collapse into chaos.

      And imperialism is no longer in the interests of the people of the United States. The expansion of military expenditures, necessary for the implementation of imperialist policies, diverts limited resources away from investments in new and sustainable forms of economic production that would provide concrete benefits to the people.  Furthermore, paying for military expenditures through government debt financed with foreign sources of capital undermines the sovereignty of the nation.

      Therefore, in the present historic moment, we the people of the United States have the duty to form a popular movement that would intend to take power and to adopt policies that responsibly promote the interests of the popular sectors, including anti-imperialist policies that seek cooperation with the movements and governments of the Third World in creating a more just, democratic, and sustainable world-system. 


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, just democratic sustainable world

Posted April 22, 2015

     When Barack Obama addresses Latin American audiences (1), he expresses the view that we should not be trapped by the past and that we should look to the future; and he claims to be less interested in ideological and theoretical debates that in the solution of practical problems.

     Such points of view are common in the United States.  They also reflect an implicit epistemology that is profoundly conservative and reactionary, especially when expressed in the context of a discussion of relations between the United States and Latin America; for if we leave the past behind when we think about current challenges, we implicitly are accepting the structures that the history of colonialism and neocolonialism has created, structures that sustain inequality between the two Americas of North and South, and that increasingly deepen underdevelopment and poverty in the America of the South. 

     Present inequalities cannot be understood without explanations of the origin and development of existing patterns of production and distribution and their evolution through adaptation to new developments, including popular social movements.  Informed by such understanding of the systemic sources of underdevelopment, the current structures of domination can be transformed.  When Latin American and Caribbean leaders repeatedly refer to colonialism, neocolonialism and imperialism, they are seeking to explain that these historic processes of domination have shaped their present reality, and they are maintaining that the United States continues to control and exploit, as it has done in the past, and as can be seen from the prism of the past.

     As Obama expressed his “leave the past behind” and “end of ideology” view at the Seventh Summit of the Americas (2), his counterparts from Latin America and the Caribbean were speaking from an alternative set of epistemological premises.  They believe that history explains the present, and that historical interpretations require theoretical analysis and evaluations of right and wrong.  In contrast to Obama, they believe that addressing practical problems requires examination of history, theoretical debates, and ideological reflection.

     Raúl Castro, for example, in his address to the Summit, traced the history of the relation between the United States and Cuba, in which the United States has never respected the sovereignty of Cuba.  He maintains that if the United States and Cuba are to enter a new era, it must be on a basis of mutual respect for the sovereignty of each, overcoming the patterns of the past.

     Nicolás Maduro, President of Venezuela, in insisting that his nation is a threat to the national security of no country, and in expressing the long-standing desire of his people for true independence, quoted a letter by Simón Bolívar, written 200 years ago.  Clearly, this former bus driver, whose education was acquired through the experience of union leadership, does not want to lead the past behind.

     Cristina Fernández, President of Argentina, took issue with Obama’s expressed desire to avoid ideology.  She maintained that the expression of values and the formulation of ideology are the most important weapon of the oppressed peoples.  I am in agreement with the epistemological perspective of la Presidenta Cristina.  The poor do not have nuclear weapons and smart bombs, nor do they control corporations and banks.  But they do have the capacity to discern and express what is right and wrong, to do so in social organization and social movement, and therefore, in a powerful collective voice, to demand a world in which the global powers act in accordance with the values that they themselves proclaim, albeit without reflection or commitment.

     Obama, in his remarks, responded to the address by Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, who had observed that the United States had no moral authority to lecture the peoples of Latin America, given the long US history of systemic violation of the rights of the people of Latin America and also the people of the United States.  In his response, Obama focused on the historic denial of the political and civil rights of African-Americans and the overcoming of this injustice nearly fifty years ago.  With this focus, Obama conveniently ignored the denial of the social and economic rights of African-Americans, continuing in the present; and the century-long implementation of imperialist policies with respect to Latin America, continuing in the present, with some new and creative techniques, as Cristina Fernández pointed out.

    In the new political reality of Latin America and the Caribbean, many of the presidents and heads of state have been brought to power by popular social movements, and they express themselves on the foundation of an alternative epistemology that reflects the quest by the colonized, the exploited and the poor for an alternative world.  Not so Obama.  He was brought to power through the campaign contributions of the wealthy.  His epistemological assumption that history and ideology are not important for the resolution of the global crisis serves the interests of transnational corporations and the global powers, precisely in an historic moment in which the survival of humanity requires a reflection from below.

     Whereas Obama wants to leave history behind, Latin American leaders are unable to forget history, and they consider it their duty to remember it, if they are to understand the present and act with justice.

     We, the people of the United States, should do what the peoples of Latin America have done since 1995.  We should create a popular movement that, informed by study and intellectual work, discerns the characteristics of a just, democratic and sustainable world-system, and that seeks to put into positions of political power those charismatic leaders who will have the capacity and the commitment to speak on a foundation of an epistemology from below, relegating to the past political leaders who reflect an implicit imperialist epistemology.


Notes

1. See, for example, “Remarks by the President and the Summit of the Americas Opening Ceremony,” Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 2009; “Remarks by President Obama at the First Plenary Session of the Summit of the Americas,” Panama City, Panama, April 11, 2015.
2. Held in Panama City, Panama, April 11-12, 2015.