Next Left Notes - A News Magazine Devoted To Participatory Democracy and Direct Action

Next Left Notes Is A News Magazine Devoted To Direct Action

By Chris Mays

Chris Mays is a DAT activist, organizing in Connecticut

Since the Iraqi elections, there has been a lot of talk in the media about a democratic revolution that is sweeping through the Middle East. Many “liberal” pundits have flip-flopped and given Bush’s war grudging approval, citing the vast humanitarian improvements that will benefit the oppressed and impoverished people of the Middle East. Those who supported the war point to recent developments as complete justification for the death and destruction our nation has suffered and inflicted in Iraq. They are right. Dramatic changes are taking place that will improve life for millions of oppressed and impoverished people. Unfortunately, my misguided liberal dogmatism prohibits me from joining the party. Instead I must ruin everyone’s good time by nitpicking over two insignificant factual errors that fail to even chip the surface of Bush’s grand democratic vision. The first is an issue of geography: these dramatic humanitarian improvements are taking place in South America, not the Middle East. The second is an issue of politics: the Bush administration is not responsible change in South America. It is strongly opposed to them. In fact, Donald Rumsfeld is making ominous criticisms of Venezuelan arms purchases, and the American media is drumming up charges of dictatorship and suppression of free speech.

The contradiction between The Bush Administration’s approach towards Iraq and Venezuela gets to the heart of a troubling but predictable foreign policy. When Bush shared his vision of spreading democracy throughout the world there were many who were critical of certain glaring inconsistencies, such as Bush’s amiable relationship with Saudi Arabia or his inability to take a hard line with the undemocratic policies of Russia and China. These inconsistencies were generally interpreted as necessary compromises, or merely trademarks Bush buffoonery. The reality is that President Bush has no interest in advancing democracy around the world, only in advancing American (corporate) interests. When viewing the administration’s policies from this perspective, there is none of the dissonance that is created when reality is juxtaposed with the administration’s stated foreign policy. Reality with Bush imperialism resounds with perfect clarity. There is a term for this harmony between physical reality and an idea. It is an archaic notion referred to by ancient philosophers as the truth. Unfortunately, while we may have figured out how to play the piece correctly, the music stinks.

First, there is the issue of the true nature of the glorious democracy we have created in Iraq. The overwhelming reaction of Americans to the Jan. 30 elections was one of awe and inspiration. One would find it odd that Americans would be so inspired by an election when the American media reported nothing on what issues were being addressed in the election and how they would affect the lives of Iraqis. Instead of coverage of issues, the American media reported on Sunni/Shiite, secular/fundamentalist breakdowns. When President Bush talks about the elections, he pays a similar inattention to concrete humanitarian changes. He prefers to remain firmly rooted in ideology, and “insisting the Iraq elections would have a ripple effect in the broader region inspiring democratic reform.” (Bill Sammon, Washington Times) Essentially, democracy is an end in and of itself. It is the end justifying war, and once a democracy is established we need not pay any attention to how that democracy works to improve the lives of its citizens, or what freedom it is granted to make those improvements by its occupying country. Most people would certainly find such an exercise in pointlessness to be exactly that. Taking into account the nature of American elections, in which two identical corporate sponsored candidates fight to edge out a slim victory by creating the strongest Pavlovian response using advertisements featuring evocative animals, the fact that Americans would be in awe of such pointlessness is not suprising at all.

In spite of American media, there were actually real issues addressed in the Iraqi election. While American’s see Iraqi election as a clear sign of our benevolence, public opinion overwhelmingly views the American military as an occupying force. This was clear in the election, in which two issues transcended religious and ethnic divides: withdrawal of American troops and using some of the profits of Iraqi oil to improve the welfare of Iraqi citizens. (The Nation) George Bush has made no indication that American troops will leave any time soon, and the notion that the American government will allow Iraqi oil profits to go anywhere except to American corporations is absurd. It has been reported by Harper’s Magazine that the Bush administration began to create a plan for the distribution of Iraqi oil within weeks of Bush’s inauguration. Not only does this reveal oil as a clear motive for the Bush administration, but there is no evidence in the reports that there was any intention of using the oil to improve the welfare of Iraqi citizens. Finally, the administration originally had no plan to have the elections that have become the basis for the war. The only reason the elections were held was because of the threat of massive Shiite uprisings. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the dictatorship of Saddaam Hussein. It was merely a fortunate coincidence that in this particular case, the demands of imperialism happened to coincide with the toppling of a brutal dictator. Essentially, there is no democratic revolution sweeping through the Middle East. There is only the age-old scenario of profiting through the exploitation of others. This is a impulse that is inherent in the nature of the nations-state, but our better leaders manage to curb that impulse. So far, President Bush has only shown that there is no price too high for profit and domination. It is clear what price he is willing to pay: 1,500 American Soldiers, 100,000 innocent Iraqis, and a piece of our humanity? Will he establish a price that is too high, or, given the opportunity, will he follow in the footsteps of other leaders who could not curb personal or national ambition?

Meanwhile, drowned out in the American media by the cacophony created over Terry Schiavo, Michael Jackson, and all things seedy and pointless, South America is making substantial advances. Looking at South America is important for two reasons. First, its geographical location and certain particulars of its situation are reminiscent of another episode of American interventionism: the destruction wrought in Central America by the Reagan administration and its client states during the 1980s. Second, like Iraq, Venezuela has oil, which gives it tremendous potential for either improvement or American exploitation. Shifts towards socialism are being seen throughout the region. Venezuela and Bolivia have taken decisive steps towards socialism, and Peru may be soon to follow. On a regional level, this trend has shown itself in the upcoming election for the Organization of American States. Francisco Flores, the American-favored candidate, has dropped out of the race, having failed to gain support. One of the emerging front runners is Miguel Insulza, a socialist from Chile. (Beth Sheridan, Washington Post) Such a shift is not at all suprising. Contrary to American conventional wisdom, socialism has proven a successful development model for impoverished nations. Capitalism does not keep national resources within third-world countries, instead, resources are sucked out by foreign corporations, whose mandate to increase profit prohibits returning anything but the bare minimum to the exploited nation. Socialism’s ability to keep resources within the nation make it simultaneously a viable alternative to capitalism and a scourge upon American corporations and, therefore, American government. This phenomenon is made clear in the Central American tragedy of the 1980s. The socialist Sandanista government in Nicaragua had made such remarkable social improvements that it was commended by the UN. Unfortunately, US funded contras and US backed embargoes aimed at restoring US-friendly capitalism left the country in ruins, as US-friendly client states in surrounding countries slaughtered hundreds of thousands of their citizens to maintain their power, while free-market capitalism failed to bring the region out of overwhelming poverty. With this precedent, as well as the recent invasion of Iraq in mind, things look ominous for socialism in South America, particularly Venezuela, the fifth largest oil exporter in the world. While a full-scale military invasion of Venezuela seems unlikely considering the current stress on the American military, there are a variety of actions America can take to undermine and Venezuela and its socialist president, Hugo Chavez. While the drums of aggression are not beating loudly enough to be heard over the constant roar constantly surrounding gruesome crimes and sensational trials, they are forming a slow, steady rhythm for those who listen. Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice have both made statements critical of Venezuela for buying weapons or interfering with other countries on the region. Of the two charges, the former is frivolous and the latter is false. (Washington Post) The “liberal media” has begun an assault on Chavez, citing, among other things, suppression of the media, a charge that is ironically echoed by opposition papers in Venezuela. Furthering the irony, the level of rhetoric of these opposition papers reaches levels that would never be tolerated in America, where free speech is rendered impotent by the massive power of corporate sponsored media.

If Venezuelan oil should prove important enough to this administration or the next to warrant an invasion, it might be harder to sell to the American people than Iraq. Venezuela has only bought assault rifles, not imaginary WMDs, and, unlike Iraq, it is not both run by a brutal dictator and defy American interests. Given the distortions that have already been perpetrated against Venezuela, there is not doubt that more will follow, aimed at depicting Chavez as a monstrous cross between Sadaam Hussein and Josef Stalin. While his socialist ideals, ties to Cuba, anti-American rhetoric, and weapons purchases might make him controversial and his use of Venezuelan oil to improve Venezuela might make him an anathema to American corporations, he is a far cry from the political monsters of America’s collective memory. First of all, he passes the all-important American litmus test: he has been democratically elected, by a distinct margin. While in office he was briefly removed from power in a coup that many believe to be US-backed. The party that came to power though the coup disbanded many of Venezuela’s democratic institutions. While the level of US involvement in the coup is not certain, it recognized the dictatorship as a legitimate government- a sharp contrast to Bush’s stated policy of spreading democracy through the world. (Gordon Laxer, Vive le Canada) This alone is a clear indication of the Bush administration’s true plans for the world. In addition to having popular sovereignty, Chavez has done a lot to improve conditions for the citizens of Venezuela. He has used state-run oil companies to spend billions on social programs “which range from a discount supermarket chain to literacy classes for the country’s poor majority.” (Associated Press) Contrary to capitalist dogma, this social spending has not hurt Venezuela’s economy, proving that tax cuts to the wealthy are not the only way out of a recession. In fact, Venezuela had a growth rate of 17.3 percent in 2004 (Reuters) and may have a budget surplus in 2005. In light of these substantial improvements, the suggestion that Venezuelans have any national interest in reopening their country to the competition and exploitation of the global free market is absurd. The allegations concerning arms purchases are also absurd. There is a notion in the United States that countries we invade do not have the right to defend themselves. We destroy countries that do not submit to capitalist exploitation, such as Nicaragua, and then when other countries that do not want to submit to capitalist exploitation arm themselves out of fear of US aggression, we use that as a rationalization for our aggression. Hopefully Venezuela won’t become another example used to illustrate victims of that twisted logic, which serves as only a paper-thin disguise for the reality of US foreign intervention. There is no contradiction between the Bush policy in Iraq and the Bush policy towards Venezuela. The same consistency unifies every facet of his administration, from drilling in ANWR to tax cuts for the wealthy to the recent bankruptcy legislation, even the Patriot Act. His policies are not about national security, promoting democracy, stimulating the economy, or saving social security. George Bush himself is hardly capable of developing a system with such perfect unity, and he hasn’t. He is merely a pawn of the elite few, and his every action is designed to increase and secure their absolute power and domination over America and the world.

Beware. Today, Venezuela, tomorrow…..YOU
Home

Next Left Notes
(c) 2004,2006 Thomas Good

Verbatim copying and distribution of entire articles is permitted
without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.