[Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali/Anthony Arnove comments
Morton K. Brussel
brussel4 at insightbb.com
Fri Oct 20 11:33:35 CDT 2006
Aside a few errors (such as billion instead or trillion), insightful
comments. Tariq Ali will be in Evanston in November for a talk at
Northwestern, Oct. 24, 5pm, Dept of French and Italian. --mkb
Tariq Ali and Anthony Arnove on...
The challenge to the empire
October 20, 2006 | Page 8
TARIQ ALI is a veteran opponent of war and imperialism who rose to
prominence as a leader of the anti-Vietnam War movement in Britain in
the 1960s. Since then, he has written numerous books, including the
just published Pirates of the Caribbean: Axis of Hope.
ANTHONY ARNOVE is the author of Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal,
forthcoming this January in an updated paperback edition from
Metropolitan Books’ American Empire Project Series. He is a member of
the International Socialist Organization and is on the editorial
board of Haymarket Books and the International Socialist Review.
Tariq and Anthony answered Socialist Worker’s questions about the
development of a challenge to the U.S. empire--most directly with
Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, but evident in the opposition in every
corner of the globe to American imperialism.
What else to read
Tariq Ali’s new book Pirates of the Caribbean: Axis of Hope studies
the rise of Hugo Chavez’s challenge to the neoliberal consensus and
U.S. foreign policy, in the context of a continent-wide shift to the
left. His many other books include The Clash of Fundamentalisms:
Crusades, Jihads and Modernity and his memoirs Street-Fighting Years:
An Autobiography of the Sixties.
Tariq will be speaking this month in New York City; Cortland, N.Y.;
Washington, D.C.; Chicago and San Francisco. Click for the details of
where and when.
Anthony Arnove’s Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal makes an impassioned,
categorical case for why the U.S. should get out of Iraq now. He also
coedited, with Howard Zinn, Voices of a People’s History of the
United States, a companion volume to Zinn’s classic book.
A recent issue of the International Socialist Review contained
remarks by both Tariq and Anthony on the issue of U.S. withdrawal
from Iraq, in the context of a debate about the Iraqi resistance.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AFTER HUGO Chávez’s United Nations (UN) speech in September, the U.S.
media either denounced him or treated him with derision. Does Chávez
deserve to be dismissed as a madman?
Tariq Ali
In a world deep in neoliberal sleep, any person who tries to disturb
this sleep and to wake people up is denounced and traduced.
Hugo Chávez, who I have met and talked with on several occasions, is
an extremely intelligent and enlightened political leader. In the
public arena, he uses a language that is no longer considered
acceptable by the proponents of the Washington consensus. The U.S.
media has, in the main, been so slavish toward the Bush regime that
Chávez appears extreme.
What he says, in fact, is the common sense of large swathes of world
public opinion. He represents it in the global arena. That’s why they
carry his portraits on demonstrations in Beirut. In a crazy world of
imperial wars and occupations, and the economic fundamentalism of the
IMF and the WTO, anyone who speaks up against this is denounced as
insane.
In the last decades of the Soviet Union, the decaying bureaucrat
Leonid Brezhnev used to have dissidents locked up in mental asylums.
The apologists of the American empire seem to be gripped by the same
logic--and let’s hope with the same results.
Chávez has been denounced non-stop as an “authoritarian,” “a crazy
dictator,” etc. If only there was a U.S. media as opposed to its
president as its Venezuelan equivalent is to Chávez, U.S. democracy
would be greatly enhanced.
Anthony Arnove
For officials in the Bush administration to call other political
leaders “mad” is sheer hypocrisy. But this is nothing new. The U.S.
government has always demonized its political enemies, whether Chávez
in Venezuela, Mossadegh in Iran, Castro in Cuba, or Aristide in Haiti.
The converse of this fact is that the crimes of the friends of
Washington do not exist. Central Asian, Middle Eastern and Latin
American dictators who are allied with the United States are
“moderates,” “reformers” and “friends.”
For many years, Saddam Hussein, “The Butcher of Baghdad,” was a
friend of Washington, even as he carried out his worst human rights
abuses--which years later would be trotted out as part of the reason
why the United States had to overthrow his regime. Manuel Noriega in
Panama was an ally on the CIA payroll before he was declared a “madman.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHY DO you think the U.S. political establishment views Chávez as a
threat?
Tariq Ali
Primarily because Venezuela is the richest oil-producer in South
America, and is using this oil to improve the conditions of the poor
in Venezuela; to help Bolivia and Cuba; and even to offer cut-price
gas and heating oil to the poor in the United States.
It’s this combination that Washington and its global acolytes hate.
You can see exactly the same type of attacks on Chávez in the New
York Times, the Financial Times, The Economist, Le Monde, El Pais,
the London Sunday Times, Folha in Sao Paulo, etc. The global elite
doesn’t like the Venezuela program of structural reforms.
Add to this Chávez’s campaign against imperialism, and you have a
complete picture. This is an alternative they do not want to
encourage, which is why they tried to topple him on three separate
occasions.
If you compare how Chávez has used the oil wealth of Venezuela with
the venal U.S. protectorates in the Arab world, the contrast is
startling. The Arab elites have enough money to educate and provide
free health facilities for the entire Muslim world. They can’t even
do it in their own part of the world.
And the West is surprised by the support for radical Islam. Not that
this current has spent its money well--the class polarization in Iran
produced Ahmadinejad, but until now, the clerics have not let him
implement his program.
Anthony Arnove
Tariq is absolutely right to stress the importance of Venezuela’s oil
reserves. Keep in mind that the United States imports most of its oil
not from the Middle East but from Canada and Venezuela. So Washington
sees a real threat of Venezuela using oil as a weapon.
But the main concern, I think, is the “threat of a good example”--the
danger that other governments will follow Venezuela’s lead in
confronting neoliberalism and U.S. imperialism.
Venezuela alone can’t counter U.S. imperial designs in Latin America
or globally. But aligned with other countries, it could be part of a
challenge to U.S. hegemony. And, most worrying of all for those in
Washington, it could inspire a revival of movements for more radical
change.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHÁVEZ CRITICIZED the U.S. for waging war in the name of democracy,
but imposing the opposite. Can you talk about that?
Anthony Arnove
The U.S. rationale for invading Iraq has gone through so many
permutations, it’s sometimes hard to keep track: weapons of mass
destruction, the alleged connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, Saddam
Hussein’s human rights abuses. But the one justification you still
hear repeated the most--and which the establishment media has never
questioned -- is that Washington is “bringing democracy” to Iraq.
If Bush and Co. are bringing democracy to Iraq, then let’s ask the
Iraqi people what they think about the occupation. That’s democracy--
the Iraqi people should decide. And the answer is absolutely clear.
Even polling by the U.S. State Department has found that a strong
majority of Iraqis want the occupation to end immediately.
But that outcome isn’t acceptable to the U.S. So much for democracy,
then.
The bottom line is that the United States is occupying Iraq to deny
democracy and self-determination to the people of Iraq, just as it
has long undermined democratic movements elsewhere in the region and
the world. The United States doesn’t want democracy. It wants
military bases, control of energy resources and a client government
in Baghdad. And the lives of millions of Iraqis mean nothing compared
to those goals.
Tariq Ali
Nobody in their right mind can say that Iraq and Afghanistan are
democratic states. It’s a sick joke when you see what’s happening in
both countries.
Iraq is on the verge of disintegration. Its structures have
collapsed. Hundreds of thousands of children are no longer receiving
an education. Water and electricity are cut off for several hours
each day. Everyday life has become a torture for most Iraqis. And
real torture carries on inside the prisons of the occupation. The
fact that the U.S. media does not report this on a regular basis is a
disgrace.
In Afghanistan, the NATO gangs have resorted to indiscriminate
killings usually reported as “200 Taliban killed,” etc. There is a de
facto Balkanization of the country, and Karzai is a joke figure, seen
as such even by his own side. Meanwhile, poppy fields flourish, and
the output has increased dramatically since the NATO occupation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DO YOU think the difficulties U.S. imperialism faces in its different
wars--Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon--relate to the fundamental injustice
of the imperialist project?
Tariq Ali
This is the case. Apart from the Kurds, who are happy to be the
Gurkhas of the American empire, nobody has benefited.
In Lebanon, the imperialist project suffered a heavy blow with the
inability of the supposedly invulnerable Israel Defense Force to
destroy Hezbollah. The IDF has, in fact, given an enormous political
boost to Hezbollah, which is, at the moment, the most popular
political organization in that country. Hezbollah leader Hassan
Nasrallah’s demand for a new general election to replace the current
government echoes majority public opinion.
The UN force (Plan B) is designed to curb Hezbollah and stop the flow
of weapons. But this organization has a will and capacity far
superior to anything in Iraq or Palestine. Its disarmament is
virtually impossible.
The Israeli failure also represented a defeat for Egypt, Saudi Arabia
and Jordan, which had eagerly supported the assault.
Anthony Arnove
In some ways, the U.S. government has confronted the limits of empire
in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan. In all three countries, the U.S.
faces serious defeat, especially in light of the exaggerated claims
of what its interventions would achieve.
We have been reminded of the fact that--as we saw in Vietnam--no
imperial army is all-powerful, especially when confronting popular
indigenous forces opposed to occupation and foreign intervention.
Unfortunately, the Vietnam analogy shows us something else: When
faced with the prospect of defeat in Vietnam, the United States did
not withdraw, but intensified its destruction of Vietnam and expanded
the war to Laos and Cambodia, killing millions of people in the process.
The fundamental injustice of the imperial project is on full display
in each of these countries. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has
restricted the discussion to questions of “poor planning,” “mistakes”
and “good efforts gone awry.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE DEMOCRATS have restricted their criticism of the Bush
administration’s wars mainly to tactics--for example, Rep. John
Murtha’s plan for “redeployment” in Iraq representing a different
strategy, rather than the end of the occupation. Is that enough?
Anthony Arnove
The Democrats offer no alternative. They are just proposing to manage
the empire more effectively than Bush has. The real alternative will
have to come from below, from a patient rebuilding of the anti-
imperialist current in the left in the United States and
internationally.
The antiwar movement in the United States has to declare its
independence from the Democratic Party. We have to challenge both the
Republicans and the Democrats, who have a bipartisan consensus on the
fundamental aims of U.S. empire.
This isn’t an abstract question. We saw the complete collapse of the
antiwar movement in the last presidential election, as groups like
United for Peace and Justice mobilized support for pro-war candidates
like John Kerry. Millions of dollars and hours have been wasted
supporting a party that has nothing but contempt for the politics and
aims of the antiwar movement.
Tariq Ali
The Democrats must be one of the more pathetic political parties on
the planet. The Clinton makeover neutered this party completely, and
its failure to oppose Bush on the war and related civil liberty
issues has turned out to be a disaster. Some of the Democratic worms
have begun to turn, but late in the day, and the leadership remains
ineffective.
As even elements within the Pentagon are arguing for a quick
withdrawal (probably alarmed by Henry Kissinger nipping in and out of
the White House), the fact that this demand finds no echo in official
politics reflects a crisis for U.S. democracy. We already noticed
this in the case of the invasion of Lebanon, where, unlike Europe,
the U.S. TV networks showed no images of women and children being
killed. This censorship is designed to further depoliticize the
population.
Meanwhile, Iraq burns, its people die, U.S. soldiers are still
getting killed every day, and the U.S. antiwar movement is virtually
nonexistent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHY DO you think the antiwar movement--most obviously here, but
internationally--hasn’t advanced further?
Tariq Ali
I think the reason for this is that the war is being fought by a
volunteer army. So the country as a whole, especially the white
middle-class sectors, remains unaffected.
Secondly, the media censorship (in sharp contrast here to the
coverage of the Vietnam War) means that the U.S. population is not
getting a real picture of what is happening on the ground. Third, the
dominant neoliberal culture is one of consumerism and individualism,
and this bubble seals people off from reality.
Fourth, there is no section of official politics that is seriously
antiwar. Fifth, the way of organizing utilized by the principal
coalition against the war fails to understand the period in which we
live.
This could change quickly if something unexpected happened on the
battlefields or in U.S. politics. Because the tragedy is that public
opinion against the war seems to be reflected nowhere.
Incidentally, with the partial exception of Britain, this applies to
the antiwar movement elsewhere as well. Neoliberalism is the grammar
of politics in most parts of the globe and induces an
institutionalized apathy. Imaginative, nonviolent guerrilla antiwar
actions seem to be the only solution.
Anthony Arnove
I think we will also need to connect the war abroad to the war at
home--a war on poor people, a war on working people, a war on civil
liberties.
The indirect economic costs of the Iraq occupation are now more than
$1.6 trillion, according to a study by Columbia University economist
Joseph Stiglitz. Communities across the country are seeing cuts in
education, health care, veterans programs, libraries, job training
programs.
And we are seeing, in effect, a backdoor draft of reservists who are
being sent to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan--many of them held past
their service obligations through the “stop-loss” program, others
being sent for three or four tours of duty.
And now Congress is removing habeas corpus protections, taking us
back to 1214, the year before the Magna Carta.
One only has to watch a few minutes of Spike Lee’s phenomenal
documentary When the Levees Broke to see the reality of race and
class in the United States today. It should be required viewing.
Lee’s film shows vividly how what happened on the Gulf Coast in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is intimately related to what’s
happening in the Persian Gulf today.
In addition, I think it’s really important that we support those
soldiers who are speaking out against the war. Groups like Iraq
Veterans Against the War are playing a crucial role and need wider
support.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHÁVEZ SAID in his UN speech that the world was “waking up” and
“rising up against the empire.” What do you think is needed for this
resistance to truly deal a blow to imperialism?
Tariq Ali
It’s true, the world is waking up, but very slowly.
If you look at China, you see the new workshop of the world, whose
economy has led to structural alterations in the world market
reminiscent of Victorian England much more than the Gilded Age. This
country is locked in a tight embrace with the United States, its
economy even more dependent on the U.S. market than Japan’s. To
expect anything vaguely progressive from the Chinese elite is to
daydream.
Latin America is waking up, but the rest of the world is still in
deep, neoliberal sleep, with Russia ruled by a neo-authoritarian
regime, doing well thanks to the world commodities boom and finding
it more and more irritating to simulate democratic niceties (not
completely unlike Bush and Blair).
In Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan there is an armed resistance, but
which lacks the social vision needed to have an impact inside the
United States. In Palestine, the picture looks bleak as the PLO has
become a 100 percent collaborationist outfit.
The left must not exaggerate what is going on. At the same time, it
shouldn’t lose its nerve.
Anthony Arnove
Around the globe, we see signs of people rejecting the values of the
so-called Washington consensus. In Ecuador, in Bolivia, in Brazil, in
Spain, in Italy and many other countries, we have seen people
expressing a strong desire for an alternative.
Here at home, a majority now believes it was wrong to invade Iraq.
More than 70 percent of active-duty U.S. troops in Iraq say they want
to come home. Bush’s approval rating is abysmal. His popularity with
African American voters is 2 percent. That’s unprecedented.
But around the world, we also see an enormous gap between popular
aspirations and the political leadership and organization that can
help build movements to challenge those in power and build a real
alternative.
In the absence of that organization, the most likely outcome is the
spread of feelings of atomization, alienation and cynicism. The sense
that we can’t have an impact on those in power--or that we’ll just
end up, like in Brazil or South Africa, with more of the same.
I think one of the reasons so many people responded positively to
Hugo Chávez’s speech at the United Nations was the feeling that,
finally, someone was speaking up. Someone was challenging Bush and
telling the truth.
Noam Chomsky’s book Hegemony or Survival became the number-one book
on Amazon.com and shot up to number five on the New York Times
bestseller after Chávez recommended it in his UN General Assembly
speech. I think that’s a sign of the fact that people want an
alternative and are open to radical ideas.
But we still need to overcome the poisonous legacy of Stalinism,
which has led so many people to associate radicalism--and
specifically socialism--with dictatorship and repression. That will
take time. Movements for change always take time.
On the other hand, I think more and more people are becoming aware of
the fact that our time may be limited. The direction capitalism is
taking the planet is unsustainable. The evidence is mounting every
day that we are destroying the environment in ways that are
potentially catastrophic. The invasion of Iraq has also pushed us
closer the brink of nuclear war, which could also wipe out humanity.
So there’s an urgency now that’s hard to exaggerate. We can’t look to
saviors from on high to get us out of this mess, though. We have to
do it ourselves.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20061020/5db009f0/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list