Debate: What Strategy for the movements? March 19th?

international | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis Tuesday March 15, 2005 10:41 by rory hearne - iawm

Strategy for the movements –March 19th- uniting the struggles against war and neo-liberalism

At the European Social Forum in Florence in November 2002 a debate emerged within the alter-globalisation movement over whether building opposition to Bush’s global war was a diversion from opposing corporate globalisation. The debate - in terms of developing a strategy for the movement - is centred on identifying the key issue or challenge that the movement should focus on. This is an essential task if the movements are to win and not just oppose or resist.

In this piece I highlight how US imperialism is the global police that enforce neo-liberal globalisation. Therefore, any weakening of the US Empire’s ability to enforce neo-liberalism strengthens those resisting privatisation and corporate greed. For example the current weakness of the US empire being over extended in Iraq is giving a space for resistance against neo-liberalism to spread across Latin America, without fear of the US police intervening to the same extent as in the 1980s and 1990s.This demonstrates the inseparable links between neo-liberalism and imperialism. The consequence of this is that the defeat of US imperialism and anything that can hasten that coming about, such as the mobilisations against the Iraq war and the demonstrations on March 19th (and beyond), should remain a central strand to the movement against neo-liberalism.

The development of the Movement

The movement of movements, referred to as the ‘alter-globalisation’, anti-capitalist, global justice etc was inspired by, amongst other movements and events the Zapatista uprising in Mexico in 1994 and the protests which shut down the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle in November 1999. We have protested at G8 summits like Genoa (where we saw the true nature of democracy that is enforced through the batons and bullets of the state protectors; the police and the army) and Evian and at IMF meetings such as Washington and Prague.

After September 11th the Financial Times declared our movement dead. They stated that those who continued to oppose globalisation and US corporations were equivalent to terrorists. Some in the movement got cold feet and pulled back. Some, such as Bernard Cassan from ATTAC France argued that building opposition to the war was a diversion from building opposition to corporate globalisation. However many organisations and individuals recognised the importance of opposing George Bush’s new ‘war on terror’. Anti-war activists and organisations such as the Socialist Workers Party, Refundazione Communista in Italy and others argued that the neo-cons would use the attacks on 9/11 to put in place the ‘Project for a New American Century’. Events have shown that analysis to be correct.

The purpose of that project is to re-shape the Middle East and global geo-political power in order to maintain US corporate and political hegemony in the context of the decline in US economic power. The extent to which the neo-cons are determined to carry out their project through permanent global war has been demonstrated in Afghanistan, Iraq and now it seems they have their sights fixed on Syria and Iran.
But on February 15th 2003 a new force of opposition to US imperialism and the neo-cons project emerged. It was the millions of people across the world who went out and marched against Bush’s war. The global anti-war movement was born.


The emergence of resistance inside Iraq and at home in the US.


The neo-cons project is in deep trouble despite the propaganda from Bush and the compliant western media. The reality is the US is loosing the military war in Iraq and the propaganda war inside the US. Walden Bello, Director of Focus on Global South said recently:

“The reality is that the old game of domination and occupation continues, and the US is not winning. The triumphalism that accompanied George W. Bush's tour of "Old Europe," with his brand new Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, at his side, was a public relations effort to counter the reality of the spread of a wide and deep resistance in Iraq”.

(See www.focusweb.org)

Last week the US lost its 1,500th soldier in Iraq.

Though still small, there are increasing numbers of US soldiers publicly questioning the war and some even refusing to return to fight (see www.ivaw.net). The sense of doom following the (re)election of Bush has been replaced in recent months with a re-energised anti-war movement that is increasing pressure at home for withdrawal of the troops (this will be evident on March 19th).

The biggest problem Bush, his side kick Blair and neo-cons face is that they have already lost the battle for legitimacy in the hearts and minds of the majority of people inside Iraq and across the world. No WMDs were found in Iraq and the torture and abuses in Abu Gharib and the massacre at Falluja showed how hollow talk of liberation was.

Now they are desperately using the unfair Iraqi elections and recent elections in Palestine, Saudia Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon to prove that all along they were really engaged in a war for democracy. Now they claim they are winning! But I thought it was about finding those behind the 9/11 attacks. Weren’t they looking for someone called Bin Ladin at some stage?

Now their mission is bringing ‘democracy’. But it’s only for those regimes whose policies aren’t in line with those of the US, its only democracy of the free-market capitalist kind and it doesn’t apply to dictatorships which are US allies.

But Bush faces the problem of real democracy from below. Inside Lebanon the half a million mobilised by Hezbollah are a problem for Bush. The Iraqi resistance and resistance inside the US are a more profound problem. Bush’s brave face is hiding a deep worry over such resistance and movements. This worry extends throughout the US ruling elite.


Bush’s tour not a victory tour


Bush toured Europe not as a victor but as a dog with his tail between his legs. He was forced into it because he is trying to win back the hearts and minds that were lost due to the horrific occupation of Iraq.

The underlying motivation for the neo-cons’ Project for a New American Century is the greatest challenge that faces the US ruling elite. The fact is that US capitalism is historically weak, reflected in the spiralling trade and budget deficits and the weakening dollar. It faces increasing competition from the emerging economies such as China, Brazil and India and from new trading blocks such as the EU. It is increasingly reliant (just as Argentina was before the crash in 2001) on international capital flows to fund the deficit and support the dollar. The extreme dependency on imported oil means rising oil prices signal further economic problems. The process of globalisation has made the US much weaker and more dependent on the world than it has ever been since WW2.

The US ruling establishment feels like a rabid dog in a corner. Caught but lashing out ever more fiercely to avoid accepting the fact that it is trapped. And so the plans to attack Iran and Syria are laid. As Chavez said “When imperialism feels weak it resorts to brute force- the attacks on Venezuela are a sign of weakness.


Corporate globalisation leading to imperialism


This intensified corporate competition has inevitably led to intensified military competition. The US government went to war in Iraq and is in the process of engaging in permanent global war in order to compensate for its weakening economic power and to ensure its corporations remain at the top of the neo-liberal world order. This is what the war in Iraq is about. US imperialism is the military face of corporate globalisation. They are the two sides of the same coin.

The US army, navy and military might are the global police who enforce this corporate neo-liberalism. As Thomas Friedman wrote ‘you cannot have McDonalds spreading out across the world without McDonald Douglas the arms manufacturer to back up its expansion’. Countries are forced to pay back debts to the IMF despite the need for health and education funding because if they default they face US intervention or sanctions. Across the world we are told we cannot fight privatisation or demand higher wages (whether in Intel in Leixlip or in the maquiladoras on the US-Mexican border) because we will frighten away US investment or we will become a ‘rogue state’ and face intervention from the global police. In this way US military might (US imperialism) is the power that enforces this corporate globalisation.


But they face a new resistance


The post WW2 US project of spreading neo-liberalism across the globe has been successful in pulling every country of the globe into the global capitalist system. But as a political project it has failed in the eyes of the world’s population. The revolts across Latin America, the opposition to privatisation and bin tax protests here in Ireland demonstrate this. Compare the numerous revolts in the last five years in Latin America with the previous twenty years. Chavez, in another statement said “Nowadays almost nobody defends neo-liberalism.”

Yes, those in power and the social democrats (or social neo-liberals) are still driving the neo-liberal agenda forward. But now a new wave of resistance has emerged that is confronting neo-liberalism.

The important aspect about the movements of resistance in Latin America is that unlike during the 1970s and 1980s the movements have not been crushed by dictatorships or US-sponsored coups (although they were attempted in Venezuela). The flames of resistance are spreading across Latin America, and unlike past situations, the US, because it is tied down in Iraq and suffering from over extension (with troops immediately intervening in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti) cannot intervene directly.

The resistance in Latin America (and the confidence of movements against neo-liberalism and corporate globalisation) is increasing because the US, the promoter of corporate globalisation is loosing militarily, and has lost the battle for hearts and minds in Iraq. This is why victory for the popular Iraqi resistance is so important. This is why the complete defeat of US imperialism is so important. In order for the movements against neo-liberalism internationally to gain confidence and win battles, the US military must be loosing. And right now it is.


Conclusion


Our movements are deepening and in Latin America in particular are winning. Neo-liberalism and US imperialism are far, far from defeated. But, despite the bravado from Bush we have them very worried and they have not yet intervened militarily in Venezuela, Syria or Iran.

When US imperialism is considerably weakened (and hopefully defeated) it opens up a much wider space for the oppressed and exploited to gain confidence in their on-going struggle for liberation. This is why the key fault line (or challenge) in global politics is to weaken and defeat US imperialism.

Every fight against privatisation and against the collusion of our leaders with the neo-cons’ permanent global war is a blow against the imperial project. Therefore, our job is to ensure that Bush’s frantic attempts to recover the legitimacy for the occupation of Iraq end in failure. It is millions of people on the streets saying no to war and no to US occupation that remove this legitimacy, just like the Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Feb 15th global anti-movement have done.

This makes the size of the mobilisations on March 19th and at the G8 Summit in Scotland in July very important. The larger the demos the more we remove the legitimacy and consequently the ability to continue the occupation and launch more wars. Ultimately, we must, therefore put as a priority the ending of our government’s support for the US imperial project through the use of Shannon Airport.

Rory Hearne contact hearner@yahoo.co.uk