Read
Why It Happened!
Dime's
Worth of Difference:
Beyond the
Lesser of Two Evils
Order Here!
Today's
Stories
December
7, 2004
Dave
Lindorff
American Fantasies: Psst! Hey Buddy,
Did You Hear How Well the War's Going?
James
Petras
Latin America: the Empire Changes Gears
December
6, 2004
Paul
Craig Roberts
Paranoia and Pre-emption: Is the
Bush Administration Certifiable?
December
4 / 6, 2004
Alexander
Cockburn
Politicize the CIA? You've Got to
be Kidding
Joe
Bageant
Dining with the Rhinos
Alan
Maass
Reporting from the Ground in Iraq: an Interview with Patrick
Cockburn
Brian
Cloughley
Democracy, Bush-style, in the Gulf
Laura
Carlsen
Latin America Shifts Left
Lenni
Brenner
Jefferson, Madison, Bush and Religion
Anna
Ioakimedes
Brazil's Haitian Mission: Doing God's Work or Washington's?
Uri
Avnery
Widow of Opportunity?
Fred
Gardner
Supreme Court Hears Medical Pot Case
Dave
Zirin
Steroids to Heaven
Jackie
Corr
Mining Camp Blues: the Red State Variation
Don
Fitz
Will Greens Abandon IRV?
Lucy
Herschel
"Art can be a Weapon of the Oppressed": an Interview
with Artist Anthony Papa
Richard
Oxman
No Angels in America: Bashing the Gay Play
Ron
Jacobs
Holiday Greeting Card
Poets'
Basement
Collins, Albert, LaMorticella
December
3, 2004
Dave
Lindorff
Lie Then Escalate
Ben
Tripp
Fun With Boycotts: How to Shop in a
Time of Crisis
Joe
Allen
Murder in El Salvador: the Assassination of Teamster Organizer
Gilberto Soto
Matthew
B. Riley
Human Rights Court Fails Lori Berenson
Meir
Shalev
In the End, It is the Violin that Wins
Bob
Wing
The White Elephant in the Room: Race and Election 2004
Christopher
Brauchli
When McCain Bit His Tongue
Sasan
Fayazmanesh
The EU, the US, Israel and Iran
December
2, 2004
Tito
Tricot
No Justice in Chile: I'm a Torture
Survivor in a Country Where Torturers Still Run Free
Behzad
Yaghmaian
The Murder of Theo Van Gogh and Muslim Migration
Dr.
Susan Block
Lana and Me: Meetings with Remarkable Apes
Frank
/ Chowkwanyun
Liberalism and Its Bounds
Lee
Sustar
Standoff in Ukraine: the Bad v. the Corrupt
Patrick
Cockburn
Another Grim Record in Iraq
Mark
Engler
Seattle at Five
Michael
Donnelly
Something Stinks in South Bend: the Firing of Tyrone Willingham
Nate
Collins
The Bay Area Mall on an Ohlone Burial Grounds
Saul
Landau
The Assassination of Danilo Anderson
December
1, 2004
Phillip
Cryan
Associated with Whom? Rightist Bias
in Wire Coverage of Colombia
Dave
Zirin
What's the Matter with "Leon"?:
Budweiser's Racist Commercial
Ghali
Hassan
Iraq's Health Care Under the Occupation:
200 Children Die Every Day
Donna
J. Volatile
Beware Western Nations Threatening "Democracy"
Patrick
Cockburn
How Saddam Tried to Arm the Insurgency
Nick
Meo
Chemical War Over Afghanistan
Mike
Ferner
The Battle of Toledo
Mokhiber
/ Weissman
Shame and Determination on Global AIDS Day: 40 Million and Rising
Kathy
Kelly
Looking the Other Way: the Real Crimes
of the UN in Iraq
November
30, 2004
Jennifer
Van Bergen
The Veil of Secrecy
Toni
Nelson Herrera
Meeting Kurtz: When Art is a Crime
Paul
Craig Roberts
The Bush Delusions: Successful at Incompetence
Patrick
Cockburn
The Insurgency Strikes Back: There Are No Safe Havens in Iraq
Chuck
Munson
WTO Protests Five Years Later: Seattle Weekly Trashes Anti-Globalization
Movement
Adam
Williams
Citizenship Sold: Back to Business in Indiana
Gregory
Elich
A Dangerous Turn in the US Plans for
North Korea
Website
of the Day
Read Lynne Cheney's Lesbian Novel Online!
November
29, 2004
Dave
Lindorff
Blowback in Ukraine: The Hand of
the CIA?
Omar
Barghouti
"The Pianist" of Palestine:
Roadblock Concerto at Gunpoint
Mike
Whitney
The US Media and Fallujah: How to
Market a Siege
Uri
Avnery
The Abu Mazen Style: "Give Me
Some Credit!"
Matt
Vidal
Globalization and Economic Inequality: a Look at the Numbers
Patrick
Cockburn
An Interview with Iraq's Foreign
Minister
Alan
Farago
Sex Change and Salvation: God, Girly Men and Endocrine Disrupters
Justin
Huggler
Bhopal 20 Years Later
Antony
Loewenstein
How Australia Reported Arafat's Death and Legacy
Gary
Leupp
Ukraine: Poll Results Aren't the Real
Issue
Website
of the Day
Mosul: Images from a Kill Zone
November
27 / 28, 2004
Peter
Linebaugh
Torture & Neo-Liberalism with
Sycorax in Iraq
Alexander
Cockburn
What Happened to O'Reilly's Loofa?
Fred
Gardner
Ashcroft v. Raich: Medical Marijuana and the Supreme Court
Kathy
Kelly
What We Can Control
Diane
Christian
The Other Cheek: "Empire Doesn't Analyze, It Acts"
Gary
Leupp
One More Neocon Target: South (Yes, South) Korea
Lenni
Brenner
Equality and Rights of Return: Jefferson Instructs the New York
Times
Ron
Jacobs
Death Squads and Iraq's Elections: the Mysterious Murders of
the AMS Clerics
Joshua
Frank
An Interview with Kevin Zeese on Nader, Kerry and the ABB Crowd
Toni
Solo
The Murder of Danilo Anderson
Saul
Landau
Fallujah, the 21st Century Guernica
JoAnn
Wypijewski
Matthew Shepard Case 6 Years Later: Why Hate Crimes Laws are
No Cure for Homophobia
Justin
Taylor
Empire's Lawless Opportunities
Amos
Harel
The Case of Captain R.
Walter
A. Davis
Tabloid Justice
Stephen
Hendricks
God's Kind of Men
Poets'
Basement
Albert, LaMorticella and Ford
November
26, 2004
Peter
Feng
Gavin Newsom: Man or Machine?
Greg
Moses
It's the White Vote, Stupid
Liaquat
Ali Khan
The Devil's Work: Bush's Minority Appointments
Michael
Mandel / Gail Davidson
Why Bush Should Be Banned from Canada: a Memo to the Ministry
of Immigration
Dave
Lindorff
Nation of Sheep, Turkey of an Election: Urkrainians Show the
Way
Gary
Corseri
When Black Friday Comes...
Paul
Craig Roberts
Whatever Happened to Conservatives?
Website
of the Day
Iraq Pipeline Watch
November
25, 2004
Willliam
Loren Katz
Giving Thanks to Whom?: "Thanks
to God We Sent 600 Heathen Souls to Hell Today"
Mitchel
Cohen
Why I Hate Thanksgiving
Mike
Ferner
An Uncommon Mom
November
24, 2004
Gila
Svirsky
License to Kill: the Example of Violence
is Set by the State
Winslow
T. Wheeler
The
Other Mess in Congress
Christopher
Brauchli
The Company He Keeps: the Syndicate of Tom Delay
Dave
Lindorff
Double Standards on Exit Polls: Hypocrisy Sans Irony
Ron
Jacobs
The Occupation of Iraq is the Root of t he Problem
Ken
Sengupta
Witnesses: War Crimes in Fallujah
Diana
Barahona
The Final Holocaust or Why I Voted for Ralph Nader
John
L. Hess
Safire the Shameless
Jason
Leopold
Did Harvard Hire (Another) War Criminal?
Jeffrey
St. Clair
The Mark of McCain: the Senator Most Likely to Start a Nuclear
War
Map
of the Day
Now and Then: 2004 v. 1860
November
23, 2004
Forrest
Hylton
Bush and Uribe at the Beach
November
22, 2004
Dave
Zirin
Fight Night in the NBA: Selective Outrage
in Detroit
Paul
Craig Roberts
On to Iran: We Won't Get Fooled Again?
Michael
Mandel / Gail Davidson
Why Bush Should be Banned from Canada
Kathie
Helmkamp
Our Son: a Marine Who Won't Kill
Ken
Sengupta
The Triangle of Death: "This is Now the Most Dangerous Place
in Iraq"
Mike
Whitney
Greenspan's Hammer
Roger
Burbach
Why They Hate Bush in Chile
Website
of the Day
Fed Up with Government Lies and Corporate Spin?
November
20 / 21, 2004
Alexander
Cockburn
The Poisoned Chalice
Todd
May
Religion, the Election and the Politics of Fear
Abbas
Ahmed Ibrahim
The Horrors of Fallujah: a First-Hand Account
Kevin
Zeese
Mishandling Nader
Landau
/ Hassen
After Arafat
Tom
Barry
The Vulcans Consolidate Power: The Rise of Stephen Hadley
Fred
Gardner
Pot Shots: Ask Dr. Todd
Justin
E.H. Smith
Triumph of the Will: the Sequel
Carl
Estabrook
Where We Are Now
Gary
Leupp
Imperial History-Making vs. Reality-Based Thought: a Dialogue
Dave
Lindorff
Apocalypse Soon
Jenna
Michelle Liut
Plans Colombia and Patriota: Wanton Wastes of Money, Manpower
and Lives
Mickey
Z.
The Granma Moses of Radical Writing: an Interview with William
Blum
Greg
Moses
The Same Old Struggle Against Imperial America
Sharon
Smith
Abortion Rights and the Election: What Now?
Ron
Jacobs
Sandwiches and Car Bombs
Ben
Tripp
Raising d'Etre: Finding Money in Hollywood These Days
Richard
Oxman
Basketbrawl Two Pointer: Iraq Rules!
Gilad
Atzmon
Politics and Jazz
Poets'
Basement
LaMorticella, Albert, Ford, & Anon.
Website
of the Day
Voice of the Forest
Hot Stories
Alexander Cockburn
Behold,
the Head of a Neo-Con!
Subcomandante
Marcos
The
Death Train of the WTO
Norman Finkelstein
Hitchens
as Model Apostate
Steve Niva
Israel's
Assassination Policy: the Trigger for Suicide Bombings?
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click
Here for More Stories.
|
December 7, 2004
Latin America
The
Empire Changes Gears
By
JAMES PETRAS
The history of US empire-building in
Latin America has combined a great deal of political flexibility
along with extremely rigid economic principles. Washington in
its political dealings has come to terms, on a grand scale and
for over two decades with a great variety of regimes, which to
less knowledgeable observers would seem eminently pragmatic.
Over the past 15 years, Presidents from both parties have established
strong ties and positive relations with "nationalists"
in Argentina (Peronist President Menem), "socialists"
in Chile (Socialist Party President Lagos), "populists"
in Ecuador (President Gutierrez), "laborites" (President
Da Silva of Brazil). The key to understanding this apparent
contradiction is to recognize that the political labels reflected
pre-presidential or past political commitments, and were totally
irrelevant to the operational behavior of these politicians once
they took office (or even when they were campaigning for office).
Washington was less concerned
with the past political positions, current "radical"
labels or popular social background of these Latin American presidents
than with their contemporary commitments to collaboration with
imperialist policymakers. The key to the ascendancy to the Presidency
by these ex-progressive politicians and parties is their embrace
of the economic and political postulates of US empire building:
the continuation and deepening of privatization and de-nationalization
of national public enterprises, the elimination of trade and
investments controls, the prompt installment payment of foreign
debt, long term guarantee of existing property relations (regardless
of the corruption of the original transaction), the irreversibility
of long-term resource extraction contracts no matter now unfavorable
to the country of origin (see the World Bank Report 2004).
Washington was not in the least
bothered by occasional inconsequential rhetorical exhortation
to the "developed countries" about poverty and hunger,
correctly perceiving it as symbolic gestures for international
consumption. Nor were imperial policy makers disturbed by the
occasional discrepancies on particular aspects of trade negotiations.
In the end Washington understood that it would have to make some
concessions to their elite counterparts in the client state.
Washington's flexible adaptation
and vigorous support of ex-Leftist parties and presidents has
been a powerful force in sustaining and expanding imperial economic
and military power in Latin America in the face of devastating
social and economic results of two-decades of neo-liberal policies.
The combination of political
flexibility and imperial economic rigidity has provided an inconsequential
safety valve for popular discontent while tightening US imperial
control over wealth, resources, markets, labor and military bases.
The Nature
of Political Flexibility
By imperial flexibility, I
mean that US policymakers are not averse to working with ex-leftists,
ex-guerrillas, demagogic populists, or even "anti-neoliberals"
providing they govern in the interests of the US MNC, pay
the foreign debt and implement IMF diktats. US policymakers
are less interested in past politics and class origins, than
they are with current and future policies and structural commitments.
Washington supports military coup and military intervention
against regimes which oppose US imperial foreign policy (Chavez
in Venezuela) or refuse to implement IMF privatization program
(Aristide in Haiti). At the same time it supports electoral
regimes like Toledo in Peru, Lagos in Chile, Gutierrez in Ecuador,
Lula in Brazil, Fox in Mexico and others. In Colombia, Washington
works closely with the death squad paramilitary and military
forces assassinating opponents to elected President Uribe.
These are not "contradictory"
policies but rather reflect a clear and coherent class and imperial
analysis, where friends and foes are defined in terms of strategic
military, political and economic interests.
There have been several 'realignments'
in US political tactics since the Second World War:
Post-Fascist 1945-48
Washington combined support
for electoral regimes and center-left coalitions in Costa Rica,
Guatemala and Chile with support for traditional dictatorial
clients (Somoza) and opposition to popular nationalists in Argentina.
Cold War 1948-60
Washington shifts to military
dictatorships, coups and repressive rightwing civilian regimes
(Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela and Cuba).
Cuban Revolution 1961-63
The Alliance for Progress combines
support for 'reformist electoral politics' and counter-insurgency
(Venezuela), coups (Dominican Republic) and military invasion
(Cuba).
Phase I Counter-Revolution
1964-71
There are Right-wing coups
in Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, and Ecuador and repressive civilian
counter-insurgency regime (Colombia, Venezuela), reformist anti-communist
(Chile Christian Democrats).
Phase II Counter-Revolutionary
Politics 1972-1982
These are the politics of savage
repression, with terrorist regimes in Chile, Argentina, El Salvador,
Nicaragua, Uruguay, Brazil and Bolivia
Consolidation of Empire: Political
Realignment Part I 1983-1994
There is a shift form decaying
military regimes to conservative neo-liberal electoral regimes
in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia, etc.; deepening
military intervention in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Grenada,
and Panama; and continued alignment with repressive civilian
regimes in Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador.
From Neo-Colonies to Colonies:
Political Realignment Part II 1995-2005
This features the conversion
of the center-left to pro-colonial politics in Brazil, Bolivia,
Ecuador, Argentina,Uruguay and Chile and military coups and intervention
in Venezuela (2002, 2003 and 2004) and Haiti (2004).
First, there are no uniform,
tactical political positions, they vary with the particular international
political period and more important with levels of class and
national struggles in each country.
Second, within each period
there are important variations in US imperial politics depending
on the political situation in each country.
Third, political realignments
of US policy are determined by the opportunities within Latin
America (depending on the level of national and class struggle
and the correlation of forces) and the availability of viable
pro-US alternatives.
Fourth, the shift from civilian-electoralists
to dictatorship in the 1940's-50's was shaped by the Cold War
needs of absolute submission to US foreign policy, high demand
for cheap resources and excess capacity of US corporations going
'international'.
Fifth, the partial and brief
realignment with reformist-electoral politics in the early 1960's
leading to the withdrawal of support to vulnerable tyrants like
Trujillo and support for Christian Democrats in Chile, Belaunde
in Peru, while retaining the close ties with the military and
future coup makers was a response to the revolutionary challenge
of the Cuban Revolution and allied forces in Latin America.
Sixth, "Political Flexibility"
ended in the mid 1960's with the build-up toward total war in
Indo-China and the strengthening of the military option: coups
in Argentina and Brazil, the invasion of the Dominican Republic
and the offensive against the populist-nationalist movements
throughout the continent.
Seventh, the partial breakdown
of the electoral strategy in the early 1970's under pressure
of mass struggles led by Washington's embrace of mass terror
regimes especially in Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Salvador, Guatemala
and Uruguay. There was a total restructuring of economy, state
and society to conform to the neo-liberal model.
Eighth, in historical perspective
the mission of the military regimes was to murder leaders of
mass movements, domesticate electoral oppositionists and change
the parameters of politics, economy and society. In that sense
the military regimes, despite their brutality and tenacity in
retaining power, were seen by imperial policymakers as instruments
toward the strategic goal of transforming their economies into
US satellites and negotiating the return of civilian electoral
politics within the new rigid economic boundaries dictated by
Washington, Wall Street, the IMF and the local business and banking
elite.
Ninth, Washington successfully
engineered the transition from dictatorial military regimes to
neo-liberal electoral regimes which would complete the colonial
restoration. Washington's realignment took place in specific
sets of circumstances where the electoral processes were managed
and the competing parties and politicians were completely under
US hegemony. Where hegemony did not exist, Washington maintained
the military strategy until favorable accords and circumstances
occurred as in Nicaragua and El Salvador.
Tenth, Washington succeeded
in deepening and extending its imperial economic policies throughout
Latin America in the 1980's and into the mid 1990's and the results
were extremely favorable: record profits, interest payments,
privatizations of strategic economic sectors and market penetration.
The deterioration of the "first
waves" of neo-liberal regimes and the resurgence of mass
movements, popular insurrections and the overthrow of some of
Washington's most loyal client regimes led to "secondary
realignments" Washington's shift from rightist civilian
regimes to ostensible "center-left" regimes which however,
even prior to taking office, had given iron-clad guarantees to
further and deepen their support for US strategic interests.
The Empire's "flexible political tactics" especially
in pivotal conjunctures has dealt harsh blows to emerging leftist
movements. First in the period of the "transition"
from military regimes, Washington seized the initiative, cultivating
center-left politicians, academics, ideologues and journalists
to serve as the new instruments for deepening colonial control.
Imperial foundations were extremely
active in recruiting, financing and promoting the writings and
speeches of the "new democrats" who disguised
their abject colonial servility with doctrines of "pragmatism",
"democracy" and "citizenship" and the "inevitability
of globalization". The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations,
the Inter-American Dialogue, the Kennedy School, the Kellogg
Center and a host of other centers served as transmission belts
and platforms to integrate the new colonial politicians and intellectuals
into the Empire.
Inevitably, the colonial policies
and pillage of public treasuries by local vassals led to a new
wave of unrest. In some cases Washington was not prepared to
intervene and in others Washington lacked alternatives to pre-empt
mass rebellion. I am referring to the uprisings of 2000 in Ecuador,
of December 2001 in Argentina and Bolivia in October 2003. In
the most strategic country, Brazil, Washington, with its liberal
"unofficial apparatus" and formal representatives in
the major financial institutions, was able to easily cow the
unexpectedly servile Da Silva Administration. rule.
Unlike many on the Left, in
Latin America, Europe and North America, Washington cut through
political rhetoric and got to the heart of the matter, with Lula,
Toledo, Gutierrez, Kirchner, and Mesa: Do they or don't they
pay the foreign debt to US and European banks; do they or don't
they respect the privatization of strategic industries; do they
or don't they promote new privatizations; do they or don't they
keep their markets open to overseas exporters; do they support
the dollar against the euro by holding their reserves in dollars;
do they or don't they pass regressive labor, pension and minimum
wage legislation; do they sign and abide by IMF agreements and
impose austerity programs and regressive tax laws?
The New Clients: 2004, A Year
of Infamy
Washington has registered extraordinary
successes in consolidating its economic control and even deepening
its stranglehold over Latin America during the past 5 years (1999-2004)
despite several popular rebellions and the fall of several client
regimes. 'ALCA' trade agreements are already in place or about
to be signed in most of the Andean countries (Colombia, Ecuador,
Peru, Bolivia and Chile), debt payments have exceeded past records,
especially in Brazil and Mexico, US military forces have increased
and extended their presence throughout the region (with the exception
of Venezuela) and, most important, Washington has succeeded in
securing a Latin American military and police force engaged in
the occupation and repression of a formerly independent country,
Haiti, subsequent to a US invasion, and kidnapping and forced
exile of an elected President, Aristide.
While most of the Left has
focused exclusively on US militarization of the region, the impositions
of the IMF and ALCA, they have largely ignored the political
process which has made the aforementioned events possible. And
when we write of the big political changes we are referring to
the elections of a new set of political client regimes in almost
all of the strategic countries in the region. The emphasis on
Washington's "electoral successes" is not meant to
understate or dismiss the continuing role of military violence
and political-economic blackmail in US imperial policy. By focusing
on imperialism's successes via the electoral process, we mean
to highlight the importance and success of this tactic at this
particular moment in time.
Brazil under Cardoso and Lula
is the biggest success story in recent imperial history. Cardoso
began the process of dismantling the edifice of a national-statist
economy, selling off the most lucrative public enterprises,
and opening financial markets to foreign takeovers and diminishing
living standards. Elected Presidents "radicalized"
the process of imperial pillage and appropriation, transferring
tens of billions of dollars to creditors, promoting large-scale
and super profitable speculation, agro-business exports and profits
while diminishing wages, salaries, employment and land distribution.
Brazil took the lead in promoting ALCA, by splitting Latin America
among "light" and "heavy" subordination.
Lula provided the biggest military contingent and the military
leadership to Haiti, to protect the US puppet regime and repress
mass anti-colonial resistance. Brazil under Lula has provided
legitimacy and physical presence to the long-sought US strategic
goal of an "inter-American military force" capable
of intervening to sustain US strategic interests. Today it is
Haiti, tomorrow it can be Venezuela or any other country which
challenges US imperial clients. Let us be absolutely clear about
the significance of Brazil, Argentina and Chile's military role
in Haiti: it has occurred after Washington intervened against
a legitimately elected President who was kidnapped at gun-point.
The Latin American military entered Haiti after notorious US-trained
and armed death squads and paramilitary groups invaded the country
in alliance with the US marines and proceeded to assassinate
popular leaders throughout the country. The Brazilian-led forces
have joined with the Haitian gangsters in murdering scores of
Aristide supporters in all the major slums of the capital with
the political endorsement of UN appointed, former Chilean foreign
minister Gabriel Valdes. Da Silva, Kirchner and Lagos, the electoral
crème de la crème of Latin America have forcefully
assumed the role of gendarmes of the Empire and have a political
and organizational precedent for future imperial interventions.
The collaboration of elected
politicians with the most brutal and violent instruments of empire
building raises important questions for anti-imperialists about
electoral processes, and especially elected politicians. Equally
important, the "leading role" of Brazil in backing
US strategic goals of Latin American gendarmerie, ALCA, agro-mineral
export strategy and the rest of the policies complementing US
imperial interests, has led Washington to consider raising Brazil's
"international status", by giving it a prominent role
in international forums and in specific instances a 'partnership'
in exploiting poorer and smaller countries in the region. Secretary
of State Powell suggested Brazil might be worthy of a place on
the UN Security Council, after it demonstrated its "responsible
behavior" in promoting two-track ALCA, and defending US
puppets in Haiti. Equally important, Brazil's big energy multi-national
Petrobras has joined with the US embassy in Bolivia and European
and US MNCs in resisting any attempts by the vast majority of
Bolivians to increase their share of their country's energy earnings.
Petrobras has the total support of the Lula regime.
In Bolivia the US was able
to overcome the brief threat posed by the popular uprising of
October 10-17, 2003 by supporting the assumption to power of
Vice President Carlos Mesa, after the flight of his predecessor
Sanchez de Losada. This delicate operation was make possible
thanks to the conversion of peasant leader, Evo Morales, to electoral
politics and his political backing of Mesa. The Mesa-Morales-US
Embassy triangle ensured the continuity and temporary consolidation
of the Mesa regime and subsequent electoral victory of a hydrocarbon
referendum reaffirming MNC control of Bolivia's strategic energy
resources. Mesa proceeded to encourage Morales to split the
opposition and they joined forces to defend the elitist electoral
system against the new participatory forms of "assembly
democracy" practices in the urban neighborhoods of El Alto,
Cochabamba and La Paz, the workers' assemblies in the mining
communities and the peasant-coca farmer-landless peasant assemblies
in the countryside. Once Mesa had succeeded in dividing the
mass opposition he turned against Morales and launched a full-scale
offensive against the cocaleros ,eradicating coca plants
in accordance with the publicly pronounced fiats of the US Embassy.
The Embassy tactics toward Morales combined promises to "respect
the electoral process" and threats of US backing for a military
coup if Morales expressed solidarity with the mass movements.
Enticed by his vision of a "golden future" as an elected
President, Morales fit the profile of an ideal client for imperialism
a "charismatic" leader of popular origin with
a long history of leadership in the class struggles, an ambitious
upwardly mobile petit-bourgeois politician who demonstrated his
willingness to jettison past class allies to embrace the new
upper middle class politicians in the Presidency and Congress.
In Argentina, Washington combined
support for the traditional rightwing Peronists and 'new liberals'
and, failing that, embraced the heterodox and more eclectic 'new
Peronism' of Kirchner. The latter has been far more successful
than the Pentagon in diminishing, dividing and weakening the
unemployed workers' "piquetero" movement. Through
shrewd combination of special funding and co-optation Kirchner
has incorporated a substantial section of the movement to his
so-called "transversal" politics which however
remains firmly in the hands of Kirchner's Peronist loyalists.
Kirchner has sustained prompt and full debt payments to all
major lenders except private bondholders. He has set aside 3%
budget surplus to meet the debt obligations, respected all the
privatizations by his predecessors, allowed the foreign-owned
petrol companies to reap windfall profits, promoted the agro-industrial
sector at the expense of the rural poor, and has successfully
resisted workers and public employees efforts to recover wage
and salary levels lost during the crisis. In foreign policy,
Kirchner has been eminently successful in projecting a posture
of "independence" from the IMF, while signing and implementing
agreements (minus the most extremist measures that would jeopardize
his strategic political coalition). Kirchner has supported ALCA
provided he can secure concessions for the agro-business elite.
More significantly, Kirchner has joined the new US project for
colonization, by sending troops to defend the US appointed puppet
regime in Haiti and to repress the Haitian people protesting
the US invasion and occupation.
It is clear the Kirchner is
a heterodox client, with a degree of relative independence from
the US based on Argentina's need to promote its agro-export elite
and provide some degree of protection to its national industrialists.
Moreover, Kirchner's effort to build a new political apparatus
led by neo-liberals and supported by populist social leaders
forces him to combine macro-economic liberalism with micro-economic
'welfare' projects.
Whatever the occasional difference
between the US and Kirchner, it is clear that he has accomplished
one of the primary conditions for US domination he has
demobilized the movements and taken the country out of the 'danger
zone' of a popular upheaval against the neo-liberal system constructed
during the 1990's. The revival of strong growth, largely the
result of a commodities boom resulting from the Chinese double
digit industrial growth, has provided Kirchner with sufficient
resources to incrementally increase social spending and provide
some increases in pensions and minimum wages. Substantial growth
and social palliatives, co-opted social leaders and effective
'nationalist'-populist rhetoric have papered over the fundamental
continuities of Argentine policy, particularly its subordinate
role in the US Empire.
Among the 'new clients', the
Peruvian and Ecuadorian cases illustrate the facile "selling"
of superficially "populists" to a weak, opportunist
and disoriented left which in turn projected the image
of "President of the People" to their mass followings.
In Peru, the anti-Fujimori movement was quickly and smoothly
converted into the channels of electoral politics. Within that
arena, Toledo long in tow to US interests from his professors
at Stanford to his bosses at the IMF was presented in peasant
costume and billed as the "successful" shoeshine boy.
Once elected Toledo pressed forward with Washington's agenda
of privatization, de-regulation, debt payments and primary sector
exports. Toledo supported every colonial initiative from Plan
Colombia to ALCA, against the vast majority of the population.
Washington's new client, however was immersed in continuing
corruption scandals which weakened his effectiveness in implementing
Washington's agenda. Nevertheless, at the crucial moment of
the "transition" from a deteriorating dictatorship
and rising mass movement, Toledo gave a magnificent performance
in manipulating populist images to channel popular discontent
into the safe territory of elite electoral-parliamentary-Presidential
politics.
Finally Washington found in
Ecuador a very "available" and easily won client in
Lucio Gutierrez, a former military official who by quirk of history
found himself in the leadership of a peasant-indian uprising
in the year 2000. Christened the "people's candidate"
by the Left, he was backed by the major left political parties
(Pachakutic, MPD), social movements (CONNAIE and others) and
the leading trade unions (petroleum, electrical workers etc).
After indulging in the usual vacuous populist rhetoric and electoral
promises, Gutierrez traveled to Washington to guarantee Washington's
agenda on ALCA, Plan Colombia, the Manta military base, the privatization
of petroleum and other issues of import to Washington. In return
he received Washington's certificate of good conduct. In less
than 2 months, President Gutierrez began implementing his "Washington"
agenda. The leftist petit bourgeois ministers, secretaries and
other lesser functionaries stayed on until they were eventually
forced to retire from the Administration, but nor before they
had totally mislead their mass followers, lost credibility among
the many and facilitated Gutierrez role as a colonial client
of Washington.
Conclusion
Washington's "new clients"
are of great tactical importance in a time of imperial crisis,
system breakdown and mass conflict. The "new clients"
of Washington have several significant differences from the previous
clients. In the first place, they do not have the same political
trajectory; in many cases they are "outsiders", who
have not been part of the governing or ruling class. One thinks
of the contrast between Gutierrez, a petit bourgeois ex-military
official and political 'rebel' versus ex-President Noboa, a millionaire
businessman; Carlos Mesa, an affluent middle-class professional
versus his predecessor ex-President Sanchez de Losado a capitalist
millionaire; Lula Da Silva, petit bourgeois long-term Workers
Party functionary (ex-metal worker) versus affluent upper middle
class Fernando Cardoso. Washington has recognized that prospective
clients include upwardly mobile petit bourgeois as well as those
already in the elite. It is the case that these "new clients"
have gone beyond the "old clients" neo-liberal agenda
and have driven their countries into the colonial framework.
Da Silva had far surpassed Cardoso in setting the budget surplus
to meet the demands of overseas creditors, extended privatization
to all the major infrastructure and even handed over oil exploration
rights to foreign corporations (Shell, Exxon etc) of areas which
the national enterprise, Petrobras, has identified as possessing
billions of barrels of oil.
The "new clients"
extremist pro-imperial behavior results from their desire to
demonstrate to their imperial overlords that they have truly
broken from their populist/leftist past and former mass allies,
that they are completely in line with imperial policies and institutions.
The ostentatious display of identification with the ruling class
is found in the numerous entourages of big business people who
accompany the new clients in their overseas trips. Lula, for
example, invited 400 bankers, traders, agro-business people,
mine owners and industrialists on his trips to Asia and Europe.
They complement their pro-imperial policies, by engaging in
sweeping rhetorical exercises in international forums, voicing
concern about poverty but forgetting to link poverty with the
wealth, power and pro-imperial policies which they pursue.
Washington's re-alignment with
'outsiders' is a well-calculated move, based on serious analysis
of the direction in which their new disciples are moving, not
on where they were in the past. They are more impressed by their
new alliances with the elites than their past alliances with
the social movements. Above all they are impressed by concrete
actions taken with regard to their strategic interests
on the economy, geopolitical alignments and state institutions.
Washington's realignment policy
is much closer to a Marxist class analysis (Marxism for the ruling
class) than the diagnosis of left academics, journalists and
social movement leaders who embrace these 'outsiders' on the
basis of past memories, electoral rhetoric and inspirational
illusions. The Left has to study imperialist politics to re-learn
Marxist class politics only this time in the interests
of the urban workers, unemployed, Indians, peasants and working
women.
Imperialism has no permanent
alliances with these 'new clients' as it did not retain its ties
to the 'old clients'. Imperialism has permanent interests in
extending the empire, enriching its ruling class, extending its
military power, dominating its competitors. When and if, sooner
or later, the new clients use up their credibility, the capacity
to implant imperial policies, Washington will once again exercise
its flexibility whether it involves returning to the established
governing/ruling classes or recruiting a 'new' outsider. Re-alignments
from the 'outsiders' to the 'insiders' usually take place once
a crisis in imperial domination has been overcome and the imperial
system is stabilized. The 'new clients' thus make every effort
to assimilate into the political establishment on the basis of
their ties to the imperial institutions. However once they lose
their "political capital" the ability to control substantial
sectors of the populace, they are no longer of strategic value
to the policymakers of the empire they become expendable.
The 'new clients' perception
of their new imperial partners is quite different. They believe
they have forged a strategic alliance, a long-term durable working
relation. They assume a high level of reciprocity of mutual
support on the basis of 'common interests'. They are almost
always rudely shocked when their political support among the
masses deteriorates and their imperial 'partners' look toward
a shift of alignments toward the old clients in the elite classes
or the recruitment of a new outsider.
Despised and distrusted by
their old allies in the mass movements, abandoned by their "strategic"
allies in the empire, the 'outsiders' converted into new clients,
lose their political prominence and either sink into oblivion,
accepting a fellowship to the Harvard University Kennedy School
of Government, or a minor post in the OAS or taking up residence
in Miami.
James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at
Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50 year membership in
the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless
in brazil and argentina and is co-author of Globalization
Unmasked (Zed). He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu
Weekend Edition
Features for November
27 / 28, 2004
Peter
Linebaugh
Torture & Neo-Liberalism with
Sycorax in Iraq
Alexander
Cockburn
What Happened to O'Reilly's Loofa?
Fred
Gardner
Ashcroft v. Raich: Medical Marijuana and the Supreme Court
Kathy
Kelly
What We Can Control
Diane
Christian
The Other Cheek: "Empire Doesn't Analyze, It Acts"
Gary
Leupp
One More Neocon Target: South (Yes, South) Korea
Lenni
Brenner
Equality and Rights of Return: Jefferson Instructs the New York
Times
Ron
Jacobs
Death Squads and Iraq's Elections: the Mysterious Murders of
the AMS Clerics
Joshua
Frank
An Interview with Kevin Zeese on Nader, Kerry and the ABB Crowd
Toni
Solo
The Murder of Danilo Anderson
Saul
Landau
Fallujah, the 21st Century Guernica
JoAnn
Wypijewski
Matthew Shepard Case 6 Years Later: Why Hate Crimes Laws are
No Cure for Homophobia
Justin
Taylor
Empire's Lawless Opportunities
Amos
Harel
The Case of Captain R.
Walter
A. Davis
Tabloid Justice
Stephen
Hendricks
God's Kind of Men
Poets'
Basement
Albert, LaMorticella and Ford
|