[R-G] Reflections on 2003: Ideologues and prophets, left and right

[Macdonald Stainsby]

Reflections on 2003: Ideologues and prophets, left and right
by James Petras
Rebelion
December 25, 2003

2003 was not a year of Historic Victories or Historic Defeats; it was a 
year of constantly shifting relations of power between imperialism and 
popular resistance movements. The US empire and its Israeli colonial 
partners were able to conquer new countries and territories but were not 
able to consolidate rule in the face of increased popular resistance. The 
US economy did not decline or collapse as some leftists predicted, but 
expanded and gained momentum as the year progressed even as the "economic 
fundamentals" deteriorated, particularly the deficit in current accounts 
and in the budget. Both the leftwing and rightwing oracles were mistaken: 
the US experienced neither a terminal crisis nor irreversible triumphs. 
Year to year forecasts are problematic, long term forecasting is as 
accurate as astrology.

On the right the prophets of successful colonial wars, beginning with Iraq, 
Palestine and then advancing to Iran, Syria and Lebanon were quickly 
discredited. First by the heroic Palestinian resistance fighters whose 
sacrifice and dedication blocked Sharon's totalitarian vision of an 
ethnically pure Jewish state. In Iraq, the massive popular resistance after 
the colonial conquest, inflicting thousands of injuries and hundreds of 
deaths to the occupying power put the lie to the Rumsfeld-Zionist cabal in 
the Pentagon, undermining their authority everywhere, even in parts of the 
Washington establishment. There were no decisive military victories for the 
US or successful political victories: 2003 was a year of transition. The 
major losers were the Zionists, like Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith who projected 
a series of US wars to destroy or undermine all of Israel's adversaries in 
the Middle East and Europe. The high cost, isolation and resistance in Iraq 
has imposed severe constraints on new US colonial invasions. Imperialist 
"realists" like James Baker (former Secretary of State under Bush Father) 
with links to conservative Arab oil interests, reject the Zionist 
ideologues linked to Sharon who advocate US wars to impose pro-Israeli 
"regime changes".

The fraudulent claims emanating from Wolfowitz and other Sharonistas 
regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as a justification for war was 
the high point in the unprecedented power of the Zionist influence on US 
politics. The disgrace and the partial exposure of this self-styled 'cabal' 
led to at least a temporary decline in public presence of this sector of 
the Bush Administration. The US empire is divided between ideologues with 
dual national loyalties and 'realists' linked to US and Arab oil interests 
and European banks. These differences will be played out in 2004 and will 
influence whether the US will share imperial spoils with Europe, Russia and 
the Arab elite or pursue the politics of blind military colonialism.

2003 was the year when the dynamic emergence of the Chinese economy became 
the center of world politics. China, the third biggest economy in the 
world, has a huge trade surplus with the US and growing and powerful links 
with all the major and minor countries of Asia and Oceania. US imperialism 
cannot survive in Asia without coming to terms with China. Once again the 
imperial policymakers are divided. The 'realists' propose a long-term 
strategy of accommodation, complementary and gradual assimilation, based on 
hundreds of billions of US investments, exports and imports as well as 
large-scale Chinese purchases of US bonds. The "confrontationalists" are 
made up of the uncompetitive backward sectors of US industry, the trade 
union bureaucracy and the militarist ideologues who clothe their aggressive 
policies in 'human rights', 'unfair trade' and 'sweatshop labor' rhetoric. 
Apart from some pseudo- populist electoral rhetoric, the 'realists' seem to 
be directing imperial relations with China, forcing the ideologues to focus 
on creating conflicts with North Korea and Taiwan.

In regard to Latin America, both the right and left wing oracles failed to 
recognize the deeper structural factors that influenced political events. 
At the beginning of the year it was the left that was celebrating a 
hemispheric wave of political victories in a triumphalist fashion. The 
election of Lucio Gutierrez in Ecuador, Inacio Lula Da Silva in Brazil, 
Kirchner in Argentina, the massive presence in the world Social Forum in 
Porto Alegre were described as major political 'turning points' leading to 
the defeat of ALCA, the end of neo-liberalism and a rejection of the US 
empire. The extreme right in the US, particularly the Cuban émigrés in 
the Bush Administration (especially Otto Reich) also predicted dire days 
ahead. It was only a few months into the new year before Lucio Gutierrez 
declared his total subservience to the IMF, ALCA, Plan Colombia, and 
support for price increases, salary reductions and the privatization of 
petroleum and electricity. Da Silva followed suit: applying IMF 
prescriptions to extreme; appointing right wing neo-liberal bankers, 
corporate executives and ideologues to all the key economic positions; 
supporting a modified version of ALCA and establishing a non- functional 
"Friends of Venezuela Committee" dominated by Latin American Presidents 
openly opposed to President Chavez. In Argentina, newly elected President 
Kirchner, under intense pressure from the mass social movements, combined 
progressive judiciary changes limiting immunity for human rights violators, 
with a reduction in debt payments, and political tactics to divide and 
weaken the militant unemployed workers movements.

The left prophecies were not fulfilled - the relations between the US and 
Latin America at the state level did not change: ALCA moved forward with 
minor changes, neo-liberal economic policies continued to be applied and 
poverty deepened.

The major defeats of the US empire at the state level took place in 
Venezuela and Cuba. In both countries the US intervention and support for 
an "executives lock out" (Venezuela) was defeated and in Cuba, US backed 
terrorists and paid propagandists were neutralized.

Within Latin America, imperial power continued to deteriorate and 
anti-imperial resistance gained strength despite some political limitation. 
In Bolivia, US client Sanchez de Losado was overthrown, pro-privatization 
referendums in Uruguay and Colombia were decisively defeated, in Ecuador a 
massive popular march reminiscent of the uprising of 2000 is planned 
demanding the ouster of Gutierrez, while in Peru Toledo is opposed by over 
84% of the population and seems unlikely to finish his term of office.

The MST in Brazil, despite Da Silva's broken promises, has engaged in over 
330 land occupations involving over 55,000 families. In Argentina, over 
50,000 piqueteros marched to commemorate the December 19/20, 2001 uprising. 
Clearly the socio- political movements have not been paralyzed by the 
pro-imperialist reversals of the pseudo-populist elected presidents. But it 
is also clear that these powerful popular movements have the power to 
defeat imperial clients but have not demonstrated the power to replace the 
incumbent reactionaries with new leaders from the popular movements. This 
is evident even in the case of the Bolivian insurrection of Oct 2003: The 
new President Carlos Meza is a lifelong neo-liberal, who supported Sanchez 
de Losado up to the last days in office. Since taking office, Meza has 
continued to attack and arrest coca farmers, expressed support for ALCA and 
has taken no initiative to change the gas and oil agreements (except 
ambiguous promises). 2003 was a year of mass mobilizations and perhaps a 
dress rehearsal for social revolutions in 2004. However, for that to 
happen, we have to realize that political instruments and leaders capable 
of assuming power with critical view of the pitfalls of electoral politics.

There is no systematic rollback of US power - while it loses in Venezuela 
with Chavez, it wins with Da Silva in Brazil. What it wins in defeating and 
capturing Saddam Hussein, it loses in the face of the costly and prolonged 
people's war during the occupation. International financial meetings are 
disrupted, but bilateral and regional free trade agreements are signed. 
Resistance increases the cost of conquest but the empire and its mercenary 
satraps become more savage. Over Christmas the US bombed Baghdad, thousands 
of young men were rounded up in razzias and herded, hooded into overcrowded 
prison camps to be interrogated and tortured. Israel builds apartheid walls 
deep in Occupied Palestine, routinely assassinates Palestinian children and 
activists, under the benign protection of their Likud "brothers" in the 
Pentagon. The superstructure of the empire, Bush, Chaney etc. is challenged 
but the foundations (military budgets, oil interests) are not questioned. 
The "economic crisis" does not explode - it remains latent. The US 
continues to borrow; Asian capital still flows to the US allowing it to 
consume beyond its capacity to pay. Predictions of decline or 
"overextension" were exaggerated. Washington is buying and training 
thousands of Iraqi mercenaries, and securing others from Eastern Europe and 
private security companies. US intellectual critics are more influential 
abroad than they are within the US. The dynamics for change of imperial 
politics is clearly abroad - in Iraq, Latin America, perhaps in parts of 
Europe.

The year 2003 tells us that the reality of the relationship between 
Imperialism and popular resistance is too complex and contradictory to 
pigeonhole with neat general linear formulae. What we can conclude is that 
the US empire is not omnipotent but dangerously violent; that popular 
movements can successfully challenge colonial rule and dump client regimes; 
that the US economy can temporarily recover even if its economic 
foundations continue precariously. 2003 also suggests that the left would 
gain more from patient study of the complex and contradictory realities of 
class and national struggle than it would from grandiose long-term global 
prophecies disengaged from the popular movements.

www.rebelion.org/petrasenglish.htm
-- 
Macdonald Stainsby
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
In the contradiction lies the hope
		--Brecht.