|
|
The ‘US empire’ after Bush
The two terms of George W Bush have been
characterised by the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the brutality
of Guantánamo Bay and ever increasing inequality in US society. Now, he
is presiding over a deepening global recession. With the Democrat
candidate, Barak Obama, clear favourite to win the race to the White
House, TONY SAUNOIS assesses what this new situation means for US
foreign policy.
THE US PRESIDENTIAL election campaign has opened a
new chapter for US imperialism. The overwhelming opposition to the
policies of the Bush regime and the onset of a deep and serious
recession has seen a mass demand for ‘change’. Massive enthusiasm and
high expectations have been aroused, especially among young people and
Afro-Americans in the Democratic candidate, Barak Obama. At the time of
writing, he is clearly ahead in polls and is the most likely victor. The
enthusiasm and hopes of what his presidency will mean goes well beyond
the USA. In poll after poll in Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa,
Obama is by far the favoured candidate.
While the outcome of the elections to the Congress
and scale of the Democrat majority, especially in the House of
Representatives, will be important factors in determining what Obama
actually does in some spheres of US intervention, one thing is clear:
Obama is coming to power in an entirely different world situation than
when Bush and the neo-cons took power in 2000. The question of US
foreign policy in the post-Bush era is being posed sharply.
When Bush and the neo-cons seized power, they
unleashed the economic and military might of the only real super-power
which remained following the collapse of the former Stalinist Soviet
Union in 1989-90. The ‘empire’, as Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez
dubbed it, tried to impose its massive military and economic power
internationally. The invasion of Iraq, stepping up the intervention in
Afghanistan, Plan Colombia, and others were the reality of the
‘unipolar’ world of the neo-cons. The catastrophes which have been
rained down on the peoples of the world through these and other
interventions, while demonstrating the power of US imperialism, have
also demonstrated the limitations of that power. While a powerful
‘empire’ has been constructed, it is not like the Roman empire in its
ascendancy. It has more in common with the period of the decline of
Rome.
The disasters that have followed the neo-con reign
have revealed the fact that US imperialism, although it remains the
largest economic and military power, is a historically waning power. The
entry of the emerging capitalist China onto the world arena poses a new
challenge to it economically and militarily. Russia has also played a
more assertive role than in the immediate period following the collapse
of the former Soviet Union. It has sought to establish its own sphere of
influence which has brought it into conflict with the European Union
states and US imperialism.
These conflicts between the main blocs of the US,
EU, China, Japan and Russia represent a change in international
inter-imperialist relations compared with the period following the
collapse of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Such conflicts
and clashes of interests are set to increase with the onset of a global
recession. It is this trend, and the relative waning power of US
imperialism, together with the legacy of the crisis left behind by the
neo-con intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and Asia,
that will shape US foreign policy in the coming years.
Despite its reduced power, however, US imperialism
remains by far the largest power. This is reflected in its military
budget which stood at $547 billion in 2007, compared to $59 billion for
China and $36.7 billion for Russia. China’s defence bill is estimated on
current trends to rise to $360 billion by 2020. Yet it is unlikely that
China will be able to achieve this or surpass the US given the onset of
a deep, prolonged world recession which will have devastating
consequences economically and socially in China.
Russia has benefited from the oil bonanza in recent
years which has been partly used to retool and re-equip its military.
The fall in world oil prices which is taking place inevitably will have
devastating consequences and cut across its recent economic and military
expansion. It remains a shadow of the power of the former Soviet Union.
The fact that the US remains the largest imperialist power will compel
it to intervene where necessary, albeit from a weakened position.
A waning power
HOWEVER, THE CHANGED international background and
the crises which have engulfed the neo-cons, together with the waning
power of US imperialism, will mean that the new presidency will not be a
mere ‘Bush mark II’ – even in the event of a victory for John McCain
which, at the time of writing, seems unlikely. These new features will
force the new incumbent of the White House to adopt a more ‘multipolar’
policy which is more ‘consensual’. The ideology of ‘liberal imperialist
intervention’ is set to dominate the new administration. Even in the end
game of the Bush presidency, the old unipolar doctrine of the neo-cons
has been largely abandoned. The fact that the Bush regime was compelled
to negotiate with North Korea, has failed, so far, to back an attack on
Iran, and could not intervene in the Russia/Georgia crisis reflect this.
The Georgian president, Mikhail Saakashvili, was advised by Condoleezza
Rice, US secretary of state, not to attack South Ossetia. However, the
Georgian government felt confident enough to go ahead, encouraged by
some dissident voices in Washington who gave a ‘nod and a wink’.
However, this intervention and Russia’s response illustrate the weakened
position US imperialism finds itself in.
The current economic crisis also illustrates the
change that has taken place since Bush arrived in the Oval office. That
the main imperialist powers in the G7 were compelled to come together
and agree a strategy to deal with the crisis reflected this. However,
this does not mean that the US and other capitalist powers will not
revert to breaking ranks and adopting protectionist or interventionist
measures if they decide it is their own interests to do so. They will
also adopt a similar approach towards foreign policy in their own
spheres of interest if they are able to.
The waning power of US imperialism has been revealed
by the abandonment of the neo-liberal, non-state intervention ideology
which has dominated world politics for the last 25 years as the
imperialist powers reacted to try and avert a catastrophe. Generally in
the post-1945 era, US imperialism tried to impose its position and use
its economic might on international economic policy. For example, it led
the way in laying down the Bretton Woods agreement following the second
world war. Significantly, it has been trailing the EU countries in
agreeing to bank bail-out packages and the partial nationalisation of
the banking system.
Throughout the neo-colonial world, as well as in
Europe, hostility towards the USA as a consequence of Bush’s policies
has increased dramatically. Bush will leave the White House with the
international authority and credibility of the US at record low levels.
The devastating failure of the US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and now the abandonment of neo-liberal policies when faced with the
potential collapse of the world finance system, have encouraged the
masses in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Having suffered the brutal
consequences of the neo-con economic and foreign policy, the evident
failure of them has boosted the morale of the masses in these continents
as they see the imperialist powers plunge into crisis and Bush exposed
as a ‘dead duck’ president.
High hopes in Obama
AT THE SAME time, there are undoubtedly high
expectations and illusions about what an Obama presidency will usher in.
In Europe, Obama is overwhelmingly the favoured candidate. The hope that
a new Democratic presidency, especially a black president, will adopt
far more radical, improved, ‘humane’ policies is overwhelmingly the view
in Latin America, Africa and Asia.
Although Obama will be compelled to adopt a ‘multipolar’,
‘consensual’ foreign policy, the crucial issue is what it will mean in
practice for the masses on these continents. Such a change in policy
will be done to try and more effectively defend the interests of US
imperialism and capitalism in decline. The shift is being forced onto US
imperialism as the limits of its powers have been revealed in the
military and social catastrophes which have unfolded in the Middle East
and Asia. In Latin America, the failure, until now, to remove Chávez in
Venezuela, or defeat Evo Morales in Bolivia, represents a further
setback and may result in a possible change of policy by the new US
administration. The clear failure of US policy in Cuba, which has
strengthened Castro’s regime, combined with the steps towards capitalist
restoration by Raúl Castro, have also increased the pressure and demand
for an alternative policy to be adopted there.
It is not the first time that such hopes have
existed in what a new ‘radical’ Democratic presidency would mean.
Indeed, it is possible that this is more pronounced in the neo-colonial
world, at this stage, following the experience of two terms of George W
Bush. However, there were also big expectations after the election of
Bill Clinton, following the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George
Bush senior. However, it should not be forgotten that the more
‘consensual’ approach from Clinton did not prevent US military
intervention in Serbia or Somalia. Neither will Obama refrain from
military intervention where it is judged to be in the interests of US
imperialism and where it has the military capacity to do so.
As Obama put it: "We can neither retreat from the
world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by
deed and by example..." Yet the masses of the world do not want to be
led by US imperialism. If they cannot be convinced "by deed and by
example", Obama continued, "we must also become better prepared to put
boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and
highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale". (Foreign Affairs,
July/August 2007) In the same article, he went on to call for the
expansion of US ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and
27,000 to the marines. The National Guard, he urged, should have
sufficient funding to "regain a state of readiness".
The ongoing crisis in the Middle East, especially
Iraq and Iran, together with the worsening situation in Pakistan and
Afghanistan, will be at the centre of US foreign policy in the coming
months and years. Bogged down in the Iraq quagmire, Obama has supported
the withdrawal of US combat troops. However, the prospect of a full
withdrawal is not a likely perspective due to the conflicts and
divisions which have been opened up following the invasion of Iraq and
the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Despite the recent
claims of some commentators that the troop ‘surge’ has allowed US
imperialism to stabilise the situation and reduce levels of violence,
the situation remains extremely volatile with the prospect of an upsurge
in ethnic clashes between Sunni and Shia peoples. At the same time, new
conflicts have recently opened up. The outgoing commander of US troops,
general David Petraeus, warned: "The US still faces a long struggle in
Iraq and recent security gains are not irreversible". This is despite an
apparent drop in sectarian violence and the number of US casualties. The
US army is currently losing more troops in Afghanistan than Iraq.
While the Shia-led government, headed by prime
minister Nouri al-Maliki, has strengthened its position, underlying
tensions and conflicts remain which could erupt at any time. The
government has pledged to integrate up to 20,000 armed Sunni fighters
and take over the Sunni Awakening Councils, in which the US paid Sunni
fighters to turn against the insurgency. Despite Maliki’s pledge, there
are already signs that his regime is orchestrating a campaign to harass
and intimidate many of them. Moreover, up to 100,000 Sunni fighters had
been paid by the US. The recent arrests of Sunni leaders have led to
increased Shia-Sunni tensions and a spate of bombings. Fear of a
reignited Sunni-Shia conflict was what lay behind Bush’s recent limited
withdrawal of just 8,000 troops – a lower number and at a slower rate
than many commentators were anticipating.
In addition to these tensions, Maliki’s decision to
send Iraqi troops into the mostly Kurdish town of Khanaquin – ostensibly
as part of a broader military operation against al-Qaida forces – has
inflamed the Kurds who saw it as a power play by Maliki and the Iraqi
government. This intervention has made any prospect of a negotiated
settlement over the status of oil-rich Kirkuk even more improbable.
The possibility of these conflicts erupting is
further heightened by the world economic recession and the consequences
it will have on Iraq and throughout the Middle East, especially with the
fall in oil prices. Against this background, the prospect of the
break-up of Iraq, or at least its fragmentation into a series of
patchwork divisions of the Shia, Sunni, Kurdish and other peoples, is
what the US and other imperialist powers are likely to confront in the
near future. While a reduction of US troops from the current level of
140,000 is likely if the new occupant of the White House decides to
escalate the offensive in Afghanistan, it will leave a series of heavily
fortified garrisons in Iraq to protect US interests, especially the
oilfields.
Downward spiral in Afghanistan
OBAMA’S OBJECTIVE OF scaling down military
intervention in Iraq while stepping it up in Afghanistan, and Pakistan
if necessary, rather than strengthening imperialism in the region, is
certain to become as big a disaster as Iraq, and probably worse. Even
before a major reduction of US forces in Iraq, the Pentagon has planned
to boost the number of troops in Afghanistan from 33,000 to 47,000
because of the clear failure of the intervention. Far from stabilising
the situation, a renewed offensive will boost Taliban resistance even
further. During 2008, the US has lost more troops in Afghanistan than at
any time since the occupation began in 2001. All 16 US spy agencies
agreed in a recent report by the National Intelligence Estimation (NIE)
on Afghanistan, the publication of which has been postponed until after
the presidential election, that the US and NATO forces faced a "downward
spiral".
Overwhelming hostility to the US and NATO troops has
given the insurgents greater support and sympathy. This has been
re-enforced by the sea of corruption and nepotism which the government
of Hamid Karzai is swimming in and by a collapse in security. With
reports of local people having to go to the Taliban to receive ‘justice’
against crooks and thieves, because they cannot get it from the official
state apparatus, the Karzai regime is rapidly losing any confidence or
legitimacy it may have had among big sections of the population. A
desperate situation exists with a surge in violence and lack of security
in Kabul and other cities. Rodric Braithwaite quoted Afghan journalists,
former Mujahideen professionals: "They were contemptuous of president
Hamid Karzai, whom they compared to Shah Shujah, the British puppet
installed during the first Afghan war. Most preferred Mohammad
Najibullah, the last communist president. Things were better under the
Soviets. Kabul was secure, women were employed, the Soviets built
factories, roads, schools and hospitals… Even the Taliban were not so
bad: they were good Muslims, kept order…" (Financial Times, 16 October
2008)
With warlords switching sides to the highest bidder,
and with over 50% of national income coming from the booming opium
trade, the British writer, Max Hastings, commented that, "the highest
aspiration" must be for a "controlled warlordism". (The Guardian, 13
October 2008) Stepping up the military offensive will only result in a
greater disaster which will drag US and NATO forces deeper and deeper
into the swamp that is further destabilising the already explosive
situation in neighbouring Pakistan.
Tensions between the US & Pakistan
THE ROTTEN PERVEZ Musharraf was finally removed from
power, much to the irritation of US imperialism which had rested on his
regime as its main ally in the region in the ‘war on terror’. For nine
years, US imperialism backed his regime, lavishing it with an estimated
$11 billion aid in return for its support. This policy of Musharraf, who
was a quisling of US imperialism, served to undermine his support.
Pakistan, awash with grinding poverty, corruption and national
oppression, has evolved into a virtual failed state. Pakistan is on the
edge of an implosion and even a possible break-up as a consequence of
the economic and social disintegration which is taking place. Many
staple food prices have rocketed by 100% in a few months. Power supplies
are frequently interrupted, causing devastation for the masses and
crippling businesses which cannot function. The NIE concludes that
Pakistan is "on the edge". A US diplomat said that Pakistan has "no
money, no energy and no government". (The Guardian, 17 October 2008) The
new coalition government, headed by Asif Ali Zadari – renowned for
corruption and known as ‘Mr 10%’ because of the bribes he has been
accused of accepting – threatens to be short lived.
The border regions with Afghanistan, North and South
Warizistan, overwhelmingly made up of Pashtoons, and the North West
Frontier Province (NWFP) have become the main base for Taliban and other
insurgent forces which operate in Afghanistan. Warizistan has become
what one diplomat described as a "terrorism supermarket", where Taliban
forces arm, train and launch attacks into Afghanistan. In North and
South Warizistan, the white pennants of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, a
local Islamist force, fly from government buildings. The capital of NWFP,
Peshawar, was virtually encircled by its armed militias. In addition, an
explosive situation exists in Baluchistan. When the murderous bombings
that rock Karachi, and the armed gangs and warlords which operate in the
rural Sind are added to this, the scale of the disaster facing the
peoples of Pakistan cannot be overstated.
The opposition to US imperialism among the masses in
NWFP and North and South Warizistan has fuelled the growth of Taliban
and other insurgent forces in these areas. The Pakistani security
services, ISI, and sections of the army are riddled with sympathisers of
the insurgents who oppose collaborating with the US and its ‘war on
terror’.
It is against this background that Bush has
authorised the use of special operations units and incursions from
Afghanistan into Pakistan. Admiral Mike Mullen, speaking to Congress on
behalf of the chiefs of staff, along with defence secretary, Robert
Gates, urged that these be stepped up. This strategy has been backed by
Obama and the Democrats: "I will join with our allies in insisting – not
simply requesting – that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue
Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all
terrorist groups". (Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007)
This has raised tensions between the US and
Pakistan’s new prime minister, Zadari. These incursions recently
resulted in the Pakistani army opening fire on US forces. The dangers of
US military operations on Pakistani territory were clearly spelt out in
an article by lieutenant general Shahid Aziz, a former chief of staff
under Musharraf. He accused Musharraf of "inviting the Americans to
fight their war on Pakistani territory, without consulting the army…
Militants will multiply by the thousands. The Pakistani army will not be
able to support US operations. Financial crisis and street unrest will
create chaos in the country and the war will spread". (The Guardian, 16
September 2008) This policy is backed by Obama who raised the question
of using US troops in Pakistan prior to Bush authorising recent
incursions. The recent clashes have opened a deep rift in Zadari’s
government. One coalition partner, Jamiat-Ulama-i-Islam, has even
proposed that the Taliban address the parliament following a report
being presented by the military.
A combination of the Afghan crisis and events in
Pakistan threaten a nightmare for US imperialism and will have horrific
consequences for the people of the entire area. Obama’s policy of
putting more ‘boots on the ground’ will only fan the flames of the
insurgency and make an explosive situation even more unstable.
An arc of crisis
TO THE CRISIS engulfing Pakistan, Afghanistan and
Iraq must be added Iran which, together, embroil US and western
imperialism in an ‘arc of crisis’ spanning the entire area. When the
plight of the Palestinian peoples is added, along with the prospects of
the overthrow of the pro-western regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, as
well as a series of upheavals throughout the Gulf and the Middle East,
the scale of the problems facing US and western imperialism in this area
alone are immense. Now, they are facing them from a weakened position.
There has been much speculation about the prospects
of an attack on Iranian nuclear sites. The consequences of such a
military strike would be to set the whole of the Middle East in flames.
Moreover, the Iranian regime would certainly retaliate by blockading the
Straits of Hormuz, thereby cutting off the lion’s share of oil supplies
to the west. The consequences of such an attack, and the effort and
resources being poured into Iraq and Afghanistan, have so far deterred
the Bush regime from supporting such a strike despite intense pressure
from Israel. The Israeli regime is determined to prevent Iran developing
a nuclear weapons programme and undertook a series of military
manoeuvres to demonstrate its capacity to launch such an attack,
although it would probably need assistance from the US to carry it out.
Moreover, even Bush has been prepared to modify his stance, taking steps
to establish low level diplomatic openings. These, however, have now
been put on hold until after the presidential elections.
While Bush and his regime have so far been checked
from unleashing a bombing raid, although not probable, it cannot be
excluded that Israel could act unilaterally, at a certain stage. Social
crisis in Israel can drive the Israeli ruling class to use this as a
means of ‘rebuilding national unity’ against a common enemy. On the
other hand, the threat of such a strike has been used by the Iranian
regime to try and bolster its own support. Faced with such pressure, it
is possible that Obama would apply his ‘consensual’ foreign policy and
open up negotiations, either openly or behind the scenes. Yet, as he has
warned, this will be backed up by the application of even tougher
sanctions against Iran, the price of which will be paid for by the
Iranian people.
A new era
HOWEVER, IN LATIN America, it is possible that Obama
will adopt a different approach to that of the neo-cons, especially in
relation to Cuba and, possibly, Venezuela and Bolivia. This reflects the
failure of US policy towards Cuba since the revolution in 1959 and the
attempts by Raúl Castro to move towards capitalist restoration, together
with a more open attitude by a second and third generation of Cubans and
Latinos in Florida and other US states. As part of the process, it is
possible that the trade sanctions will be eased. Some commentators have
speculated that this could be done in return for ‘free elections’ at
some point in the future with no specified date. However, the onset of
world recession will complicate further the process of full capitalist
restoration in Cuba.
It is not excluded that Obama may make some
overtures to both Morales and Chávez, both of whose governments will
face increased pressure and turmoil as a consequence of the fall in oil
and other commodity prices. At the same time, the determination of the
right-wing in these countries to remove both governments and the
prospect of even greater social explosions by the masses demanding more
radical anti-capitalist policies than have so far been introduced, could
easily derail Obama’s hope to ‘reopen a dialogue’ with these
governments. Moreover, the prospect of even greater upheavals in other
Latin American countries, such as Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, is
certain to open up new conflicts with US imperialism as more radical,
combative social movements emerge that can pressurise new governments to
take even more radical measures that bring them into collision with US
imperialism.
US imperialism is the only major imperialist power
with a border directly with a neo-colonial country – Mexico. The Mexican
government has been prepared to adopt pro-capitalist policies and
collaborate with US imperialism. How long it can continue to do this is
another question which will confront Obama. With 80% of Mexican exports
destined for the US and $25 billion sent back every year by Mexicans
working in the US, the developing recession is already having
devastating consequences. The prospect of major social and class
upheavals in Mexico will have important repercussions within the US
itself.
The new inter-imperialist relations which are
developing will open a new era, with growing tensions between the main
blocs and within them, as has recently been shown in the EU during the
economic crisis. The idea that is being propagated of a new Bretton
Woods agreement does not correspond to the new realities which exist for
global capitalism. The Bretton Woods agreement was undertaken when US
imperialism was the clearly dominant world power. The existence of an
alternative social system, the former Stalinist regimes in the Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe, with planned economies ruled by bureaucratic
dictatorships, provided a ‘glue’ which bound the other imperialist and
capitalist countries together. With the collapse of these regimes no
such glue exists today and the resources available to world capitalism
in a period of deep recession are very different to those which existed
following the second world war when an upturn of capitalism was taking
place.
While temporary agreements are possible between the
various imperialist powers, these will not offer a return to the
relative stability which followed the Bretton Woods agreement. The
bloody carnage in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and the Caucasus cannot
be resolved under capitalism and imperialism. Despite its weakened
position, the US, as the largest imperialist power, will be compelled to
intervene in some of these crises. The prospect of increased conflict
and war is what the new era of capitalism and imperialism will mean –
until the working class and others exploited by capitalism replace it
with socialism, the only way to resolve the conflicts and horrors that
are the product of imperialist intervention and capitalism.
|