Barack Obama’s July international tour gives as much insight into what
is not important to Amerika as it tells us about what is important.
Looking at where Obama’s tour stopped, we can see some big continents
skipped: He did not visit Asia, Africa or Latin America. These regions
represent the vast majority of oppressed and exploited people in the
world. That’s not to say Obama only focused on imperialist countries,
but his visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan and Palestine underscore the
relative importance of the Middle East to imperialism right now.
The missing Third World
It is pretty clear that Amerikans are not very interested in Third World
countries as long as super profits flow back home and there is no
perception of significant threat. The Amerikan government has done a
great job of building up fear around the Middle East and its potential
danger to Amerikan people. This served to justify several recent battles
in the ongoing World War three against the Third World, and maintains
our focus on this region.
Asia is currently in the news only for the Olympics and stories about
pollution in Beijing. It is interesting that many have taken the
opportunity of the Olympics to attack China and its foreign and domestic
policies. We at MIM(Prisons) are not fans of the capitalist government
in China, but we find their policies no more objectionable than those of
the many other imperialist countries that have hosted the Olympics. And
as we’ve discussed in a previous article on Tibet
(White
Nationalism still reaching out to Tibet), the attacks on China
around this topic are regurgitation of white-washed imperialist history.
Historical example predicts that the white nationalists condemning China
will not rally for an independent New Afrika in response to Chicago’s
bid for the 2016 Olympics. Yet, New Afrikans were enslaved by amerika,
whereas Tibetans freed themselves from slavery in joining the socialist
project of the People’s Republic of China in the 1950s. The current
mayor of Chicago has overseen numerous slayings of Black residents and
many years of torture chambers run in the city’s jails, targeting New
Afrikans in particular. Mayor Daley’s father oversaw the murder and
imprisonment of Black Panthers, Vice Lords, Black P. Stone Rangers and
other organizations organizing for Black self-determination as mayor of
the city in the late 1960s. China would be hard-pressed to outdo the
city of Chicago alone in its genocidal national oppression.
Even his African heritage is not sufficient reason for Obama to talk
about that continent, much less visit there. In general Amerika is
pretty happy to ignore Africa and it is among the regions of the world
that the Amerikan public knows the least about. In Zimbabwe there is
significant turmoil over Presidential election results and subsequent
economic collapse. Imperialist hegemony relies on relative stability of
oppressed nations and so there is a lot of interest in this country
right now. The U.$. has gotten involved to the extent of calling for
sanctions on the Mugabe government but this country is not impacting the
Amerikan economy enough to merit further action. In reality this is a
good thing as attention from Amerika generally means imperialist
intervention (overt or covert) and is generally devastating for a
country. But the flip side of that is that countries already devastated
by imperialism are ignored because of the poor conditions and lack of
threat to imperialism. The U.$. is setting the stage for potential
actions against the Mugabe government in the future if that seems useful
to imperialism, and this is something anti-imperialists must remain
vigilant about fighting.
Iraq and Afghanistan
All eyes are on Iraq as Amerikans continue to fight a war that was
started under false pretenses but continues as Amerika fights for a
strong foothold in the Middle East. Obama continues to advocate a pull
out of troops within 16 months if he is elected President. But as we
reported in a
previous
article on the elections: Just because he wants to pull troops out
of Iraq doesn’t mean Obama is anti-militarist. Obama is clear that he
will use the Amerikan military to defend the Amerikan economy. From his
web site: “The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result
of a misguided war in Iraq, our forces are under pressure as never
before. Obama will make the investments we need so that the finest
military in the world is best-prepared to meet 21st-century threats.”
And he wants to expand the imperialist military: “We have learned from
Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the
strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground
forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.”
Further, Obama has called for u$ troop redeployment to Afghanistan and
into Pakistan. Essentially Obama will free up the resources to move from
one invasion to another. Meanwhile, one of Obama’s high-profile foreign
policy advisors is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who’s book detailing plans for
continued amerikan hegemony foreshadows the current occupation of
Afghanistan to secure access to the Caspian Sea. Brzezinski was a strong
backer of the Shah in Iran, and later supported military occupation of
the country to maintain stability after the Shah’s fall. The amerikan
imperialists will disagree on where to invade and who to befriend, but
they never disagree on whether to be imperialists or to promote amerikan
domination over the rest of the world.
There is really little difference between Obama’s position and that of
the current administration. Bush is now saying clearly that the
“terrorists” in Iraq are on the brink of defeat and the Iraqi government
and security forces are getting stronger, which would allow “further
reductions in our combat forces, as conditions permit.” (NYT, Aug 1,
2008) Bush is likely looking for vindication of his policies and a
“victory” before the end of his presidency, but the government also
recognizes the decreasing popularity of this war with the Amerikan
people. Earlier in July, Bush announced a plan to send more troops to
Afghanistan: “We’re going to increase troops by 2009.” (Yahoo News, July
2, 2008)
Iran
This brings us to Iran - not a stop in Obama’s world tour but a topic he
discussed several times in public speeches around the world. “A nuclear
Iran would be a game-changing situation, not just in the Middle East,
but around the world,” said Obama. “A nuclear Iran would pose a grave
threat, and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon.” “It would endanger Israel and the rest of the region, and it
could embolden terrorists and spark a dangerous arm race in the Middle
East.”
Obama is putting forward consistent imperialist rhetoric which sets the
stage for an invasion or any other attacks against Iran the imperialists
deem necessary. This is partly due to the position of the close Amerikan
buddy, Israel, a country that considers Iranian nuclear power to be a
direct threat. It is ok for Israel, a viciously aggressive country with
a bloody history of repression against Palestinians, to have nuclear
weapons, but their enemies must not be allowed to develop such tools.
Some have speculated that Israel may attack Iran, and if that happens
Amerika wants to be positioned to support their ally.
Israel
During his stop in Israel Obama told Israeli President Shimon Peres:
“I’m here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between
Israel and the United States and my abiding commitment to Israel’s
security and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether
as a U.S. senator or as president.” Obama has always been consistent in
his strong support for this imperialist ally. Joining him on his tour of
the region was Dennis Ross, a former Middle East envoy who is a
consultant for The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a
think-tank promoting the Israeli lobby under the guise of academia.
Oil
Very related to Middle East policy, with so much attention to gas prices
in Amerika, John McCain has seized on this issue as the path to the
presidency and is vocally promoting offshore drilling. Of course
invading oil-rich countries is one way to gain control of significant
stores of oil and bring down gas prices, but since that seems to be
costing more Amerikan lives and money than the Amerikan people are
willing to tolerate, environmental destruction to get at more oil is a
reasonable backup strategy for the imperialists.
A poll from the Public Policy Institute of California reported that by
the end of July Californian’s had shifted their opinions, with a slim
majority now supporting offshore drilling. California would be one of
the main sites where costal waters would be opened to drilling by the
McCain proposal. Historically public opinion has shifted with the price
of gas - as prices go up, support for drilling goes up. This is typical
Amerikan me-firstism, which leaves room for environmental protection,
national self-determination, and other policies that are good for the
majority of the world’s people only if it doesn’t impact their
pocketbooks.
McCain’s new support for offshore drilling has certainly gained him some
donations from the oil industry. But a 2007 study from the Department of
Energy suggested that new offshore leases will not lead to production of
oil until 2020 and would not impact prices until 2030.(
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html)
McCain has claimed offshore drilling could provide economic relief
within months, which contradicts these studies by his own government.
There is no doubt that oil drilling is bad for the environment. But the
Amerikan government is uninterested in adopting far sighted policies
that might protect against environmental destruction by developing
energy sources. Until the Amerikan public really feels the impact of
environmental destruction (in their pocketbooks or in their health) it
is unlikely the government will be motivated to act.
As MIM wrote back in 1996: “The root cause of environmental problems is
capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production by a
relative handful of people. This essence of capitalism is one reason why
capitalism creates environmental problems: while the majority of the
world’s people have a material interest in maintaining a healthy planet,
the small capitalist ruling class is not accountable to this majority,
except in the indirect sense that the ruling class seeks to co-opt the
demands of the majority in order to maintain the capitalist system. A
second reason why capitalism creates environmental problems is that
although the world’s resources are controlled by a relative handful of
people, planning is not centralized under capitalism. Instead,
production is anarchic; it is centered around making profits, not around
meeting basic human needs in the short or long runs. Much of what is
produced by the capitalist system is unnecessary and wasteful, and the
system is not fundamentally capable of incorporating long-term human
survival as a need. Finally, the capitalist system does not distribute
resources equitably. Under capitalism, many people do not have adequate
resources for survival. Many environmental problems stem from this root
problem….. The capitalist system of production for profit creates a
number of environmental problems which are often understood and
discussed in isolation from their root causes. Key among these is
pollution of air, water and land. Pollution, like all else under
capitalism, is unequally distributed. On a world scale, waste from the
imperialist countries is dumped in the neocolonies.” (MIM Theory 12:
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mt/mt12capenv.html)
European stops
Obama was received like a rock star in Berlin and was generally very
popular among European leaders in his tour of that region. This just
provides further evidence that Obama is a good imperialist, who works
well with his imperialist allies. Being loved by other imperialist
country populations may be considered good credentials by some voting
Amerikans, but for anti-imperialists it is just further proof of an
enemy of the people.
We have already lamented the readiness of many youth and oppressed
people to join the Obama bandwagon because of his identity. Some closer
to MIM(Prisons) are still suggesting that Obama represents progress for
our movement and that everything reported in this article is just for
show to get elected. This analysis acknowledges one important reality,
while ignoring another. It recognizes that amerikans would not vote for
someone who is working in the interests of the oppressed, and therefore
such a persyn would have to put on a show to get elected. The mistake
these people make is putting identity above a of mountain facts. We have
seen serious revolutionaries degenerate into bourgeois politics, so
don’t think dark skin and a little time in the projects in Chicago means
someone is a friend. The bourgeois theory of history upholds the idea
that individuals make history, the proletarian theory looks to social
forces on the group level to explain history and predict future
developments. The president of the united $tates is only one persyn.
Obama comes with a whole package of people, and they’re all the standard
imperialists, voted in by the same old amerikan oppressor nation.
More interesting than the theory that Obama is a progressive in
imperialist clothing is the
proposal
that he could be the nail in the coffin of the Black Nation as an
oppressed internal semi-colony. We would expect the bourgeois
internationalists to have to pull the rest of white amerika into full
integration, but we’d also expect this to require a healthy push from
the oppressed themselves.
