November 5, 2008 - No. 158
An Obama Presidency and the Battle of
Democracy
On November 4, Senator Barack Obama was elected the 44th
President of the United States in what is being referred to as an
"Electoral College landslide." What does Barack Obama stand for? Prior
to speaking in Berlin, Germany on July 24, 2008, Obama had declared, "I
will
lead the world to combat the common
threats of the 21st century." Then, in Berlin, he presented himself as
a
"citizen of the world." What is the connection between Obama's
self-promotion as future world leader and world citizen?
To assist readers to understand what U.S.
President-elect Obama stands for, TML
is posting below a paper titled An Obama Presidency and the Battle
of Democracy. The paper deals with Obama's speech, A World
that Stands As One, delivered in Berlin before 200,000
people. The paper was presented to the 8th Congress of the
Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) held in Ottawa in August
2008.
***
In this post-Cold War period, amid the growing
all-around crisis of the world dominated by the owners of finance
capital, a profound crisis of values has set in. The monopolies and
oligopolies through governments under their control are unable to claim
legitimacy for their rule and credibility for
their plans. A vast discontent grips the world. An increasing multitude
engages in acts of conviction, revealing a broad demand for an
alternative to what's inhuman and what's against conscience. Obama's A
World that Stands as One speech was delivered as a prayer of hope
that this crisis can be
transcended. This transcendence can only succeed, according to Obama,
if the world's people accede to a world defined by "a set of ideals
that speak to aspirations shared by all people that we can live free
from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble
with whomever we choose and
worship as we please." These ideals are promoted as if independent of
the actual historical situation that gives rise to the acts of
conviction in the first place. These ideals are put forward as if
universal and not the anti-human outlook of a narrow group of
individuals wedded to a status quo in crisis. These ideals
are in defense of the "wealth that open markets have created.... Trade
has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. Together,
we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth,
with meaningful protections for our people and our planet."
On the one hand, the world exists as the great
complexity of the whole of natural and human history. Neither society
nor nature can be transcended; this is all that exists. And yet Obama's
and other's arguments for American ideals independent of time and space
and historical experience are calls
for transcendence, for something coming from beyond nature and society.
They are actually ploys for blocking insight into worldwide crisis and
making plans and formulating aims on how to transcend the limits placed
on resolving the crisis. A clash between the modern productive forces
and capitalist social relations
of production underlies the crisis facing all nations and peoples at
this time, with nature and society at threat. On the other hand are the
stands of the world's peoples and their acts of conviction. These
stands and acts are rooted in the interests, reasons and passions of
people trying to sort out the problems. In order
to do this, all peoples and nations need to bring forward their own
thinking in light of the achievements and developments of world
thought. World thought must be of such a calibre that it can provide
guidelines to action in dealing with worldwide crisis as it is
expressed in the multitude of struggles of the working
class, peoples and nations for emancipation and independence. Today,
world thought itself faces crisis as it is blocked from bringing
forward the conceptions and definitions consistent with what is
required to open society's path to progress, not in small part by the
ideals that Obama and others promote, which serve
in fact as a cover up for the war aims of the imperialists.
A central issue concerns the battle of democracy,
which is at the heart of sorting out these questions. This battle faces
at this time its own crisis. Can a modern definition of democracy be
argued out in order to sort out these stands and interests in conflict?
The notion of American ideals as put
forward by Obama is in opposition to what natural and human history are
revealing and also to negate the stands and interests of the peoples of
the world in the battle of democracy.
Importantly, these ideals are also advanced amid a
heated debate within the U.S. establishment dealing with the decline of
U.S. preponderance and their hegemonic position. On the one hand,
arguments are advanced concerning American ideals, such as the
following by Condoleeza Rice, "As in the
past, our policy has been sustained not just by our strength but also
by our values." Furthermore, "an international order that reflects our
values is the best guarantee of our enduring national interest, and
America continues to have a unique opportunity to shape this outcome.
Indeed, we already see glimpses of
this better world... Shaping that world will be the work of a
generation,
but we have done such work before." On the other hand, in Berlin,
Obama, argued that "In this new world, such dangerous currents have
swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we
cannot afford to be divided. No
one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges
alone. People of Berlin -- and people of the world -- the scale of our
challenge is great. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our
hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and
remake the world once again."
At the heart of the debate on all sides is that the only way to stave
off eventual decline is by striving for world domination. In order for
this to take place the world must be remade in the image projected by
the U.S. military and bureaucratic machinery, either unilaterally or
multilaterally. In any case, Anglo-American
ideals are at the heart of their drive for domination.
And here lies a problem for Obama and others who advance
similar arguments. All people do not share these ideals. In the period
following the end of the bipolar division of the world and the Cold
War, marked by the demise of the Soviet state system, there are no
recognized and established values
of legitimacy accepted internationally, while the international
standard of human rights is impugned by the great powers that have
usurped power by force. Nearly two decades after the end of the Cold
War, disequilibrium, anarchy and violence grow. Every historical
achievement, both in theory or practice is under
attack by forces of reaction and counterrevolution. The advances of the
millennia are trampled underfoot by imperialism led by the U.S. The
nations and peoples from the lands of most ancient developments of
civilization are either under direct aggression or are being threatened
with obliteration, as is the case with
Iran and Korea (Hillary Clinton on Iran, John Bolton on Korea, etc.) If
the results and achievements of peoples seeking independence,
enlightenment and a society fit for its members are disregarded, why
should any people find the pleas for uniting under American leadership
to be in their interest and deserving
of their consent? Might they, based on their historical experience,
advance different ideals? Moreover, why should other nations, including
big powers agree with the ideals advanced by an American, simply based
on the size of their military enterprise and position in the world?
Might not the Russians, Chinese,
Germans, French, Indians or others put forward their own values? But
more importantly, how will these questions be sorted out in the present
historical context?
U.S. political leaders past and present are demanding
that their leadership be accepted on the basis that they can establish
an international order that could bring about peace and stability. But
they cannot do away with the crisis over values. Nor can they do away
with the fact that the U.S. elites remain
in conflict among themselves. And this division takes place
notwithstanding the fact these ideals are supposed to be held in common
and are put forward as a force for uniting around a common purpose and
standard of statecraft. Furthermore, these ideals did not come out of
the struggles of the working class and
people, nor do they express the historical experiences of peoples and
nations imprisoned under the dictate of the U.S. bureaucratic and
military machinery. In fact, these ideals are put forward in order to
cover over the contradictions and conflicts that mark the world, as
well as to inflame the situation with prejudice
and preconceived notions to the advantage of the elites. Moreover, the
very existence of these so-called high ideals are rooted in attacks on
theory and knowledge and are assaults on world thought, which includes
all the advances and achievements of human history. These attacks leave
the human mind disoriented
and aimless. These attacks subvert the necessary way of looking at the
world and providing plans and a way forward; and this lies beneath the
anarchy and wrecking of political society. This perversion of theory,
knowledge and world thought underpins the dissipation of the human,
natural and energy resources
and the destruction plaguing the peoples and nations of the world. In
this sense, one of the greatest crimes of the contemporary era is the
use of the state of monopoly capitalists to deprive people of an
outlook on the world.
This criminal activity also affects the elites of the
bureaucratic and military state machinery domestically and abroad.
Faced with the incoherence of a so-called Bush Doctrine, this problem
viewed from the perspective of Anglo-American elites is addressed by
individuals such as Philip Bobbitt, a former
U.S. state functionary with ties to the British establishment and a
professor of constitutional law: "What is lacking in order to respond
to the remaking of the global strategic environment that is under way
and the emergence of market states is far more than a declaratory
policy of preemption. We need a systematic
renovation of our thinking, roughly like that which occurred during the
First World War when the U.S. emerged from isolation to become a great
power. Then, as now states were called upon to find new basis for
legitimacy, both internationally and domestically Similarly, after the
Second World War was terminated
by the use of atomic bombs, there appeared a group of intellectuals
who, in a remarkably short period of time, developed the concepts of
nuclear deterrence Now we desperately need a body of theory to
understand the Wars on Terror. It is shocking that, years after 9/11,
the U.S. government has generated no
consensus on the general nature of the struggle we face."
The Obama campaign for presidency is being used as a
means to "correct" the incoherence of the so-called Bush Doctrine by
promoting a new basis for legitimacy and a "renewal of thinking." More
to the point a key issue for the military and political establishment
is that they have no coherent doctrine
and war aim. And this above all else Obama must repair as president.
Bush argued that, "we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to
exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against
terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our
country We must be prepared to
stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to
threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States
and our allies and friends.... The greater the threat, the greater is
the risk of inaction and the core compelling the case for taking
anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if
uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." He
also argued for imposing by means of armed intervention and financial
strangulation, U.S.-engineered systems of governance in the name of
democracy and human rights. This appears to many defenders of the
American way as an incoherent
list. And with party competition pushing personal ambitions to grosser
and more perverse stands domestically and a constitution that does not
ensure the permanent continuation of any particular regime's hold on
power and claim to authority, the U.S. ruling establishment is faced
with the problem of succession
of leadership and continuity of government. Any purported doctrine
becomes fodder for an opposition. In the current world climate, this
opposition must salve the unease of the political establishment, while
not discrediting what has already been put in place. It takes several
election cycles to fit out a bureaucracy
properly for the establishment's strategic aims. In order to prevent a
complete breakdown, the electoral process must provide a vent for the
various factions demanding a say-so. This venting must be accomplished
with the promise to keep the working class and people marginalized and
deprived of political power,
while maintaining a thin veneer of democracy. These are some of the
problems that Obama faced as he spoke in Berlin.
To show he was the champion of U.S. empire worthy of
endorsement from all quarters, he was called upon to deliver a doctrine
fit for empire building in this transitional period. On the one hand,
he must capitalize on all past doctrines; the military and bureaucratic
machinery is organized on their
basis. On the other hand, a future president must put forward a
doctrine that attempts to justify what cannot be justified. Once the
past achievements and results in the battle of democracy are trampled
underfoot, and past crimes and infamies against nations and peoples are
promoted as principles, anarchy and violence
reign. Under such circumstances no pretence of legitimacy can promise
to the owners of capital that a status quo can be maintained or
salvaged from chaos. How can a U.S. president promise to be the
rightful guardian for the world capitalist system if this cannot be
achieved?
Furthermore, by appearing in Berlin, Obama hoped to make
a historical connection to the beginning of the Cold War. He proclaimed
that the world should stand as one in the manner declared
by Anglo-American imperialism at the end of World War II as they
proceeded to divide the world
based on ideological considerations of anti-communism. He sees the
beginning of the Cold War and not the achievements of the anti-fascist
war as high points in the battle of democracy. He sees the initiation
of the Cold War and the establishment of the bipolar world order as a
model to guide the efforts of government
serving the owners of monopolies and oligopolies by creating a world in
their own image. He claimed, "Partnership and cooperation among nations
is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common
security and advance our common humanity." Partnership and cooperation
are the so-called
ideals put forward by Obama. This is not simply an argument for
multilateralism in a multipolar world in opposition to the apparent
unilateralism in a unipolar world with a hegemonic 'hyperpower' at its
head, as advanced by the Bush administration. Obama puts forward, as a
model for this partnership and cooperation,
the constitutional basis of the United States. He takes from the
preamble to the Constitution the conception "to form a more perfect
union" and on that basis "to seek with other nations, a more hopeful
world."
Obama, along with others, is suggesting that from its
inception, the United States provided the basis for unity among
disparate peoples, regions and social systems. It represented the "new
world" and was called the world's "last best hope." The notion of
evolving towards "a more perfect union" has
a presupposition that the U.S. was formed as a "league of peace" that
could prevent war among the various states that formed a system of
republics within a federal arrangement according to the Constitution.
Furthermore, this basis for a system of states would ensure against
civil war and insurrection, especially
by the faction of the majority without property, according to Madison,
one of the founding fathers. On the basis of this model of union
competing social systems based on free labour and slave labour
coexisted and colonized the continent until chattel slavery was
abolished. The history "to form a more perfect union"
included acts of genocide while subjugating peoples and nations.
Obama puts forward the ideals that express this union
and its constitutional basis as an example to be imposed on the world
in order to overcome its divisions. Obama argues, "we acknowledge that
there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations
projects to the world. Will we
reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome
immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those
who don't look like us or worship like we do, keep the promise of
equality and opportunity for our people." The United States in this
view is a model of a "new world" that was
created to escape the dynastic wars, feudalism and the class struggles
of Europe. That is, the American exceptionalist outlook and model
brought forth provide the possibility to escape from history.
What is significant and should not be dismissed as mere
rhetoric is that it's a "union" based on a "promise of equality and
opportunity for all of our people." The world is seen as a network of
peoples, plagues, wars, nuclear threats, etc. The "union" projected as
an example would consist of a network
of individuals seeking opportunities, and this would form the basis of
a new world order. A "world that stands as one" is a prescription
against peoples and nations seeking their own path of progress,
upholding their own ideals. The not so hidden threat by a
self-proclaimed world leader is the negation of nations
and peoples seeking independent paths.
Obama intones, "The greatest danger of all is to allow
new walls to divide us from one another." Of course Obama is not
referring to the militarized wall which divides the Korean nation, or
the apartheid wall in Palestine, or the militarized wall of exclusion
on the Mexican border, which he supports.
He is referring to the need of political and economic elites to find a
way to bring order internationally on their own terms, but without big
power conflict and major war. Obama is basing his claim to leading the
world on the model and values which follow from the history of "to form
a more perfect union."
Why does Obama speak about "walls" that divide at this
particular historical juncture? Obama was seeking to establish his
credentials and credibility on the international stage. By attempting
to give definition to the post-Cold War period and provide it with
coherence that many felt the Bush Doctrine
blocked, Obama hoped to strike a pose akin to Churchill's at the outset
of the Cold War. In 1946 the former British Prime Minister delivered
his Fulton, Missouri "Sinews of Peace" speech, in which he claimed that
an "iron curtain" of the Soviet Union (a notion advanced by the Nazi
Goebbels) was imposed on
Europe. The speech was an important rationalization of the
Anglo-American imperialists for attacking the anti-fascist united
front, claiming that there now existed two worlds, one called 'free'
and centred around the U.S., the other called 'slave,' centred around
the
Soviet Union. Churchill, along with others, called
for an Anglo-American grand strategy (including geopolitical
considerations and war aims) linked to notions of laws and values to
combat this development. The Soviet Union subsequently conciliated with
the notion of two worlds and on this basis a bipolar world order was
created. In similar fashion, Obama hoped
to provide the outlines for an appropriate strategy, notions of
legitimacy and values in order to meet the needs of the elites.
The manner in which he addresses this problem was
highlighted in the post-Cold War period in numerous fora and by various
individuals, such as Tony Blair, who in his 1999 addresses in Chicago
and
to the North Atlantic Council said: "The basic thesis is that the
defining characteristic of today's world
is its interdependence, that whereas the economics of globalization are
well matured, the politics of globalization are not; and that unless we
articulate a common global policy based on common values, we risk chaos
threatening our stability, economic and political... 'We' is not the
West.... 'We' are those who
believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy,
liberty and human rights administered by secular courts.... We can no
more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate
changing around us."
Of course, on the basis of examining one speech it is
difficult to reach conclusions about Obama's notion of historiography,
but nonetheless this is arguably an important exercise. It would be too
easy to dismiss Obama as representing the main centre of reaction in
the world and simply say he is trying
to pull the wool over the eyes of people so that they can be more
efficiently subjugated and exploited. Or that he is simply opposing
Bush's policies to replace them with something similar or worse. Or,
for that matter, that the Bush administration marked an aberration to
and a betrayal of the U.S. constitutional
system of governance. To argue in this way misses the significance of
passing through an historical turning point in which no individual or
collective can act in the same way as before the mid-1980s. Those who
act in the old way face extinction due to the powerful historical
forces that led to the turning point and
crisis in the first place. The Soviet Union and the bipolar division of
the world have passed into history. The unravelling of the world that
emerged from WWII is not finished. Yet, nearly a quarter of a century
on, new arrangements have not been put in place, while anarchy and
violence reign.
The number of genocides in the world rooted in big power
subversion and aggression has increased significantly. Wherever people
face natural or social catastrophe, military solutions are offered.
From the perspective of the political, economic and military elites no
clear way out of the crisis appears.
After decades of attacking the very basis of theoretical work as part
of the anti-communist crusade of the Cold War period, no consensus has
been reached among them on how to ensure peace and security to the
world's peoples, and yet they claim the authority to wield political
and economic power used in their
exploitation and domination. Obama was in Berlin to put the thin veneer
of ideals forward as a solution that favours the owners of monopolies
and oligopolies. But why a speech in Germany addressed to the people of
the world? Obama's appearance in Berlin was reminiscent of the trip
made to Bitburg, Germany
by Ronald Reagan with Helmut Kohl in order to commemorate the World War
II war dead in a cemetery that included the Nazi SS. Reagan's visit was
met with all around condemnation, to which he responded that those
buried in Bitburg were as much victims as were the inmates of
concentration camps. The
blasphemous charade was orchestrated to symbolically show that a world
dominated by imperialism with the U.S. at its head was united against
communism, and that the anti-communist crusade of the twentieth century
was essential for the democracy and world order promoted by the
Americans and their allies.
When Obama appeared in Berlin he claimed that at the end of World War
II, "America, Britain, and France pondered how the world might be
remade Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each
other less than three years after facing each other on the field of
battle."
Not a word crossed Obama's lips about the defeat of
Nazism, or the creation of a world standing as one on the basis of
eradicating fascism. Instead the speech in Berlin put forward a
prescription for the post-Cold War world modeled on the anti-communist
crusades of the Cold War. However, faced
with new "historical challenges" the U.S. and other powers cannot use
the proscription of the Cold War period, the policy of containment, as
the main instrument for asserting a "preponderance of power." Today,
Obama argues the world is so intertwined that the challenges to the
rule of the monopolies and oligopolies
can be threatened by any number of "terrors," including terrorism,
nuclear proliferation, plagues, climate change, etc., and these know no
national boundaries, they cannot be contained. Importantly, from
Obama's perspective, big powers must militate against conflicts among
themselves and work out the arrangements
that prevent a repeat of the inter-imperialist wars of the twentieth
century. However, this cannot be done on the basis of simply uniting in
the UN. Not only does Obama not mention the anti-fascist war, but
without a reference to the UN, a real achievement in the battle of
democracy, he describes NATO as "the
greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security" and states
that it was born out of the "victory over tyranny." He suggests that
"If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in
a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck
in Madrid and Amman;
in London and Bali; in Washington and New York." Moreover, this "new
global partnership" would include the already existing and expanding
worldwide system of American military bases, as well as the European
responses to "critical areas" in the world. A major focus would be Asia
and the battle for control
and domination there. Furthermore, the various new "challenges" would
be faced with efforts directed on the basis of geopolitical, military
and business considerations. In other words, military blocs are ideals
according to Obama.
The battle of democracy is the earmark of the twentieth
century, and remains the identifying feature of the twenty-first
century. The history of this struggle was written in blood and at the
cost of great sacrifice of the world's people. This history identified
aspects of democracy as a feature of class
society that needed to be conceptualized and actually established
within the definite historical context of imperialist war and
proletarian revolution. The delineation of these features of democracy
was brought forward through the struggles against imperialist war and
aggression, for national liberation and independence
and in defense of rights for all.
The defeat of fascism in 1945 was a highpoint in the
battle of democracy. This struggle, led by the then socialist Soviet
Union and a united front of anti-fascist resistance forces,
crystallized a demand that fascism must be eradicated. As a corollary,
a contemporaneous conception of democracy emerged.
Democracy would not be true to itself if it allowed for the existence
of fascism. This norm of democracy was established by a world united as
one. This conclusion was a landmark in world thought. On its basis real
achievements appeared, including the notion of a world of United
Nations, established on the basis
of the recognition of the rights for all by virtue of their being
human. It should be noted that immediately, Anglo-American imperialism
carried out subversive activities to undermine the conception of rights
in general and human rights in particular to suit their self-serving
aims in the UN. Nonetheless, they could
not remove from consciousness immediately that the unity of independent
nations and peoples presupposed a definition of aggression recognized
in a new international standard, the crime against peace, which
referred to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of
aggression, or a war in violation of
international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a
common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the
foregoing."
The history of this battle of democracy must have its
summation. This summation must include what is positive and what is
negative, what is forward looking and what is regressive. Such a
summation would be an important component of what is needed most, but
is still lacking -- a modern definition
of democracy. In the contemporary world, a democrat is whosoever fights
to harmonize the conflicting interests of individuals and their
collectives, among the collectives, and of individuals and collectives
with the general interests of society. A modern definition of democracy
is needed in order to sort out the conflicting
interests to the advantage of the people so that the social fabric of
the society is not torn apart. Without such a conception, a people
cannot address the general interests of society, including a question
of deep concern: will there be war or peace? Can they remove a
government of war and militarism? Can they criminalize
leaders and organizations that commit crimes against peace? Can they
have an anti-war government? Can they have constitutional guarantees
for these rights and the enabling acts to carry them out? In short can
the people have a say so?
According to Obama's Berlin speech the answer will be
no. In a post-Cold War arrangement he claims that peoples should
"trust" the powers that be, those that promote the high ideals as put
forward by Obama and others. At one time, rising up against feudalism
and the ancient regimes of Europe,
the bourgeoisie put forward a conception of trust by which authority
would be legitimated by the consent of the governed, and on this basis
nation-states were built in their image. At this time the existence of
nations and peoples is being threatened, sovereignty and independence
is being disregarded. The nation
state, once the jewel in the eye of the bourgeoisie is now seen as a
hindrance to the rule of the monopolies and oligopolies, not least
because the existence of a polity and political association today will
compel people to demand a say so on the questions of war and peace. It
is a demand for a say so on questions
concerning destruction, violence and anarchy that can motivate people
to question the legitimacy of those in power who ask for trust.
In this light, Obama's words should be paid close
attention to because beneath the prayer of hope is a hatred of history,
the repetition of the desire to escape history viewed from the past of
former empire builders. As the writing on old New England puritan
tombstone reads, "As I am now, so shalt
thou be." Obama represents those who know sooner or later their days
are
numbered. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security advisor
and Obama supporter, pointed out, "History is a record of change, a
reminder that nothing endures indefinitely... So it will be with the
current American global preponderance.
It, too, will fade at some point...." In order to hold off this fate,
Obama is being promoted as a voice giving a summation of the past so
that the future is kept at bay. In this summation, what is sacred is
profaned. The history of the struggle of democracy is not turned upside
down, but is presented instead as a perversion,
where the people are asked to accept necrophilia, lying with the dead,
as a forward-looking vision.
It is important to point out that what was done in
Germany in 1948 by the U.S. was an essential part of reversing the
gains of the struggle against fascism and the battle of democracy. At
the conclusion of World War II, various arrangements and agreements
were made at Yalta and Potsdam concerning
the post-war world, and most importantly what should be done with
Germany. The agreed upon decisions included denazification,
decartelization and the smashing of the Nazi military industrial
complex. Germany was divided into sectors under the U.S., Britain,
France
and the Soviet Union, and was to eventually
be unified under their control until the completion of denazification.
Against all previous agreements, the U.S. and Britain demanded the
partition of Germany in order to destroy the process of denazification
and the breaking apart of the cartels of the Nazi military industrial
complex, as well as block reparations
to pursue the imperialist struggle against socialism, going as far as
threatening the possibility of a new world war in which nuclear weapons
would be used. The risk of WWIII was acceptable to the U.S. in order to
consolidate an anti-communist front and force the division of the world
on an ideological basis. This
brinkmanship was a constant feature of the Cold War decades, even as
the Soviet Union betrayed socialism, becoming a social imperialist
superpower, while acceding to the notion of two worlds, irreconcilable,
in conflict. A bipolar world order was established generated by the
contention and collusion of the two
superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. A key component of the Cold
War from the perspective of the U.S. was the constant propaganda
against the Soviet Union, which was called communist, claiming that it
stood in the way of unity of the world's people. In similar manner the
Soviet Union attributed all
problems in the world to U.S. imperialism. All questions in the world
were addressed within the framework of the bipolar division, and rights
were granted based on allegiance to one or the other superpower.
Obama promotes the events in Berlin in 1948 in order to
negate the conclusions and results reached in 1945 and afterwards in
the battle of democracy. An examination of the developments surrounding
1948 in Germany and the entire Cold War period is important in
revealing the word of the present.
Step by step the U.S. and Britain forced the partition of Germany in
order to integrate western Germany under the Marshall Plan into west
Europe and create a West German state. The Soviet Union and democratic
people everywhere opposed each manoeuvre by Anglo-American imperialism,
seeing it as the resurrection
of revanchist forces and the militarization of the situation. Germany
had been divided into four zones among the U.S., France, Britain and
the
USSR. The U.S. and Britain amalgamated their zones economically by
December 1946. Already in the summer of 1947 the Americans for the
division of Germany were
carrying out large-scale propaganda. By July 1947, western Germany was
created under the Marshall Plan. A separate currency was established
for West Germany in June 1948. By September 1948, a special
parliamentary council was convened in order to create a West German
state. Each of these steps was very
worrisome in itself. Furthermore, denazification was being brought to a
halt with Nazis being promoted into the bureaucracies, intelligence
services, etc. Teams of commercial lawyers and unelected officials of
the American government bureaucracy in secret were carrying out the
work, while a constant barrage
of propaganda pointed at Soviet intransigence. The so-called
intransigence, including the Berlin "blockade," were attempts to
prevent the violation of the agreements for denazification, land reform
and reparations. The U.S. used propaganda about the blockade to
establish their "spectre of communism" and to create
polarization in the anti-fascist ranks. All of this was taking place
within the context of the Truman Doctrine and the U.S. containment
policy. Also, significantly, the propaganda was used for promoting some
form of European and American military force. This would give rise to
the creation of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO), which again was the work of commercial
lawyers and unelected government bureaucrats in the U.S. NATO gave
impetus to the consolidation of the West German state. It also provided
one of the conduits for Nazis, including those under indictment for war
crimes, to gain military
and bureaucratic positions. The creation of NATO was also in part to
solve what was perceived by the imperialist powers as the "German
problem." On the one hand, Germany must be kept down so that a war
among the major powers would not rip apart Europe. On the other hand,
the creation of the western
German state was carried out to provide a force to be used against the
Soviet Union and the People's Democracies.
Germany continued playing this role in line with NATO
following the demise of socialism in the Soviet Union. Following the
end of the Cold War Germany participated in its first military attacks
with NATO in the former Yugoslavia, during which the military alliance
under U.S. leadership used
the aggression to, among other reasons, subvert the UN. Germany at the
time was competing for markets with the U.S. and the other powers, and
NATO provided a means of mitigating the scale of the conflicts, while
further seeking to isolate Russia. This use of NATO is providing the
grounds for deepening the
today. In the April 2008 meeting of the NATO forces in Bucharest,
Germany and the U.S. conflicted over the admission of Georgia to NATO.
Georgia, a former member nation of the Soviet Union, was among the
countries being courted to militarily and politically surround Russia.
Bush pushed hard for Georgia's
inclusion in NATO. German Chancellor Angela Merkel opposed this
admission on the basis that it would be perceived as a threat by
Russia, undermine European unification and, because of conflicts over
territories and borders, NATO would be forced to confront Russia
directly. The spectre of major war and
big power conflicts still stalks Europe. Several days ago, using the
pretext provided by Georgia and others, heavy military incursions by
Russia have resulted in many deaths. If Georgia was in NATO the
nightmare that showed its beginnings in the Balkans could still see the
light of day. The friction in NATO in
April might be considered another reason for the Obama speech. The
German problem, the Russia problem, the American problem will not quit
this world until the people have a say so over questions of war and
peace.
Following the military victory over fascism, the
Anglo-American imperialists led the fight to negate the content of the
battle of democracy by subverting the forms that were being developed
to ensure peace and democracy, including the UN, its conception of
opposing the crime against peace, and
declaration that rights belong to all by virtue of being human. First
and foremost, this negation was accomplished by transforming a world
united as one against fascism into a front against communism. The Cold
War resulted. The Cold War and the bipolar division of the world are
finished. With the end of the
polarity created by imperialism and especially the two superpowers, the
possibilities emerged of a world with the rights for all recognized.
Why was it not declared, Now that the negation of the world united
against fascism itself stands negated, let's unite on the basis of
negating the right of the oligopolies and
financial institutions? Why can there not be a world in which the
multitude of stands of peoples and nations unite in a mighty current
recognizing that the oligopolies' usurpation of the right to a monopoly
on the means of violence that routinely threatens nations and peoples
with genocide and extinction is a crime
against peace? Today, however, from the mouths of people such as Obama
comes a different view. The apologists for a world dominated by the
owners of capital fight might and mane to cover-up through their
disinformation and negate the new historical content of the battle of
democracy. The hope is that this
negation will prevent people from discovering the new forms for this
new historical content out of their own experience and thinking, while
building on the achievements and results of the past.
The ideals that Obama and others of the elite promote
are a cover up of the U.S. strategic goals and war aims. Such has
always been the case. For example, U.S. imperialism under Woodrow
Wilson entered WWI to "make the world safe for democracy," catapulting
the U.S. into the position as a
major imperialist power, which then preceded to establish its own
stranglehold on world affairs through its international financial
arrangements, contributing to the conditions for WWII. The public
declarations of the state machinery's secret arrangements and goals are
specifically promoted in opposition to others'
ideals and are put forward in such a manner to demand that discussion
be diverted from formulating other's aims and to block people from
having their own thinking. The ideals to which Obama specifically
refers are connected to the war aims and strategic goals that he and
his supporters believe should define
the international situation. A general despair exists among elites that
two decades after the Cold War, the U.S. with all its military power
cannot bring about a new international order to their advantage. If
such arrangements cannot be put in place, U.S. credibility is in
disrepute. Guarantees must be made and a
guardian for the whole system must be provided in order to avoid an
interminable crisis of legitimacy. If such a thing came to pass, big
power conflict including major war amongst them is a real possibility.
Obama is coming forward as a leader of the world in order to provide
this guardianship. In order to accomplish
this task it is important to put forward a doctrine more coherent then
the so-called Bush Doctrine.
Presidential doctrines combine so-called ideals in the
form of national interest and U.S. strategic aims with the military and
political establishments' response to international standards, as
recognized by the big powers. Presidential doctrines are the official
government policy statements dealing with
foreign affairs and military strategy. The doctrines are sources of the
war aims of the political and military establishment. They do not pass
through the Congress for approval. In fact, as pronouncements of the
President, they promote the presidency to what was recognized by the
Supreme Court as the "sole organ
of American foreign affairs." They are the result of reason of state
and as such are the public expression of what is termed national
interest or national security and are opposed to public interest.
It would prove useful to briefly review the presidential
doctrines. Since the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, when the U.S. was
referred to as the "empire of reason," a task of the presidency has
been to put forward empire-building aspirations, while maintaining a
republican form of governance for its
federal arrangement, rooted in the U.S. constitution. Specifically, the
Monroe Doctrine on the one hand lay U.S. claim to the affairs of the
western hemisphere against the European Holy Alliance and other powers
desire to colonize or monopolize markets in the Americas, including the
Caribbean. On the other
hand, the Doctrine raised the profile of the President in foreign
affairs, which in its initial incarnation covered war against the First
Nations and for the colonial expansion of the slave power across the
continent. The Doctrine provided the explicit rationale for the war
under President Polk against Mexico in 1845
and for colonizing the southwest and western parts of the continent
under the messianic banner of "manifest destiny."
At the outset of the modern imperialist epoch, Theodore
Roosevelt put forward a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904, in
which he asserted that the U.S. demanded neighbouring states be
"stable, orderly, and prosperous.... Chronic wrongdoing, or an
impotence which results in a general loosening
of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere,
ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the
Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe
Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant
cases of such wrongdoing or impotence,
to the exercise of an international police power." Specifically
Roosevelt introduced the notion of international police powers and
police actions carried out under the aegis of the U.S. President, and
on this basis promoted gunboat diplomacy worldwide in order to maintain
"open markets."
The Monroe Doctrine and its corollary were invoked
numerous times for purposes of aggression. For example, John Foster
Dulles, Eisenhower's Secretary of State, used the doctrine in 1954 to
rationalize the overthrow of the Arbenz government and the funding and
arming of anti-communist forces
in Guatemala. JFK invoked the Doctrine in relation to Cuba in 1962,
claiming, "The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President
Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would
oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere,
and that is why we oppose
what is happening in Cuba today. That is why we have cut off our trade.
That is why we worked in the Organization of American States and in
other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will
continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it."
Henry Stimson, Secretary of State under Herbert Hoover
put forward a Doctrine at the time of the Japanese invasion of China
and the establishment of the puppet government in Manchuria. Along with
references to territorial integrity and national sovereignty, the
Stimson Doctrine stressed the U.S.
Open Door policy. The Truman Doctrine was put forward in 1947 with the
granting of military aid to Turkey and Greece. The doctrine argued for
"support[ing] free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by
armed minorities or by outside pressures." The doctrine was aimed at
the destruction of the anti-fascist
unity that emerged in the world through the resistance struggles in
World War II. It was instrumental in organizing a worldwide front on
the basis of anti-communism and was used in support of the American
policy of containment. In 1957, Eisenhower advanced a new doctrine
proclaiming that the U.S. would
intervene in the Middle East if a government 'requested aid' against
communism. In 1965, Johnson formulated a doctrine that stated the U.S.
would use military force against communism and on that basis invaded
the Dominican Republic and escalated the war against Vietnam. The Nixon
Doctrine put forward
the need to support "local allies" for intervention, while furnishing
military and financial aid, and leaving aggression and subversion to
"local" anti-communist troops; it was the basis of "Vietnamization" of
the aggression in Vietnam. Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
and the Iranian Revolution, the
Carter Doctrine announced that the Persian Gulf was a vital national
interest of the U.S. If the President determined that an "assault" had
taken place on these interests, it could be opposed "by any means
necessary," which in American strategic doctrine includes the use of
nuclear weapons. The Reagan Doctrine
promoted military action with anti-communist insurgents in Afghanistan,
Nicaragua, Angola, Ethiopia, etc.
From Monroe through Reagan, presidential doctrines have
staked out a realm of independent executive action in foreign affairs
that not a few have argued are ultra vires, or beyond the
legal power and authority of the president. Since the Monroe Doctrine,
each subsequent one is built
on the previous declarations, while referring to specific cases. It
should be noted that in the U.S. presidential system of governance,
each Presidential Doctrine was accepted as a legal principle based on
the precedent of previously imposed decrees, in much the same manner as
laws are judged to be legitimate by
the Supreme Court. With the so-called Bush Doctrine, the U.S. elites
faced a crisis of credibility which threatens the legitimacy of their
system of governance. It is important to stress that this crisis is not
specifically due to the betrayal of the principles of the U.S.
Constitution or the lying connivances of the Bush
administration. Of course, such things are happening and are of dire
consequences to the peoples and nations of the world. But of greater
significance, by far, is that the very crisis of capitalism which led
to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the demise of the bipolar
division of the world, is still at work and
it will be thoroughgoing in upending everything that stands in its way.
During the Cold War period and before, the relations
internationally were among nation-states. The big powers routinely
would not recognize nations and peoples and through colonization and
genocide subjugated many. Against this onslaught, peoples seeking
independence raised the banner of national
liberation and the self-determination of nations. The working class and
peoples of various nations overthrew the rule of the owners of capital
and struck out on the path of constructing socialism. These struggles
were part and parcel of the battle of democracy. Following World War
II, as was pointed out, the U.S.
promoted the policy of containment, which was backed up by the constant
threat of nuclear holocaust. A mark of the change wrought in the
international system is the announcement by Obama and others that
imperialist containment of nation-states in the current period might
not be applicable. Obama argues by
claiming that the forces driving the current wave of what is referred
to as globalization, the centrality of the capitalist world market,
give "rise to new dangers -- dangers that cannot be contained within
the
borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean." This is not an
admission that the crime against peace
should now be punished and the rights of monopolies and oligopolies to
have their say over all the world's affairs should be restricted. This
is not recognition of the historical content of the battle of democracy
projected in the image of a world united against the aggression on
nations and peoples and support for
opening up their independent paths of development as a basis of their
flourishing. Instead, it is an admission that in the eyes of the U.S.
elite nations and peoples now stand in their way and they are
expendable. This attitude can only precipitate greater crisis. It
stands in absolute antagonism to the inexorable law
of social development, which operates independent of will and drives
the world towards the creation of new societies.
This law of social development operates through the
relations of humans and humans and humans with nature. Its cognition
allows for the new content of the battle of democracy revealing its
features. New forms must be sought for this new content. All peoples
and nations must find their own path.
In order to give direction to the creation of the new society, arguing
out modern definition of democracy is essential so as to infuse the
world with this possibility. In response to the independence of peoples
and nations, Obama argues for "cooperation and partnership" between the
U.S. and Europe. "America has
no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges
across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the
Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant
cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global
commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st
century."
At this point it should be emphasized that the creation
of the present federal arrangement of the U.S. involved the conquest of
nations and peoples. That is the expansion of the U.S. was a "foreign
affair" under Presidential control. Such had been the case since the
origins of the U.S. under its constitution.
Such was the case in 1803, when Jefferson acquired from Napoleon the
vast territories internal to the continent, home to many nations and
peoples, as a colonial transfer known as the Louisiana Purchase. And
such was the case afterwards in Florida, Mexico, Alaska, Hawai'i,
Puerto Rico, etc. From the beginning,
the path to "form[ing] a more perfect union," as it was put forward in
the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, involved what is now known as
"foreign affairs." The union was put forward as an 18th and 19th
century "league of states" whose function was to dominate and control
conflicts among states and regions
that might have their own aims and interests and hold off civil war.
Also it was to mitigate and oppose the influence of any other powers
seen as "foreign." We might surmise from the context of the
Presidential election campaign that this "union" would be a model for
uniting the world under a U.S. president as
commander in chief. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is a
different conception of arrangements than that which followed the world
war against fascism. Of course, the UN today, like all institutions, is
in need of democratic renewal and modern arrangements are needed to
ensure peace and mutual benefits
among all peoples and nations. However, the notions coming from the
U.S. are for an entirely different order, in which the crime against
peace is not recognized as an international standard and all peoples
and nations are under threat. Arguably we should understand the ideals
Obama advances as part of a presidential
doctrine that would cover U.S. grand strategy and war aims for this
post-Cold War period.
In conclusion, the machinery demands at this time a god,
a deux ex machina,
that can be guardian of their worldwide interests. The desire for world
domination through their leadership of the international order is
paramount. In order to provide this leadership, a vision must be
advanced of one world at peace. This vision
requires that the big powers not go to war against one another to
re-divide the world. It requires that the working class and people
accept that they are merely a resource for the creation of wealth
feeding the insatiable greed of the rich, who feel the shortage of
capital as a deprivation imposed on them. It requires
that people not seek independent paths for their emancipation and
development. It requires that nations and people recognize that their right
to be cannot block the movement of capital nor trump the needs of
the usurious
lust of the money markets. In order to enforce this vision and fulfill
this desire, the god from the machinery apparently must take the form
of commander in chief. The reason
for this is that from the perspective of the U.S. elites, every issue
in the world, every problem, every conflict and contradiction must be
looked at first and foremost as a
business consideration and treated primarily with a military solution
in mind.
Obama was auditioning for the role in Berlin, where he
advanced an argument for "a world that stands as one." In doing so, he
presented himself as a two faced
Janus. Janus, the two-headed god, was a gatekeeper looking backwards
with one head and forwards with the other. The one head declares, "the
world is everything that is
the case," while the other shouts "the surrounding world is different
for each of us, ...not withstanding that we move in a common world."
The one head gives voice of a
world bereft of history and the possibility of forward motion, of
opening a path of progress, of taking the high road of civilization.
The facts of the matter as presented are
all the problems of the contemporary world, that are seen as external,
existential threats and terrors to the ethos of the owners of capital
who have yet to produce their new
world order. Unite around ideals and values that are timeless, deny
your own direct historical experience, says this voice. And, most
importantly, recognize that there must
be no space for conceiving the world in any other way: it is what it
is; another world is not possible. In other words, there must be no
space for peoples to sort out the
conflicts among individuals and their collectives in a manner that
harmonizes them and also harmonizes the individual and collective
interests with the general interests of
society. There must not be democratic renewal on the basis of arguing
out modern definitions. If this happens to mean that the viability of
nations and peoples are called
into question, so be it. The other head declaims that the world is
whatever I make of it; it's my history, my experience that counts. Yes,
you too can have your quaint
experiences and cultures, but in the dangerous world of today, you must
not think through the relations of humans with humans and humans with
nature. You must not put
forward your own outlook or raise your own ideals; this will only
contribute to the already divided world. If you do so, you will be
responsible for the consequences that
follow from your differences.
Listen carefully to what is being said by Obama and
others who are put forward from the machinery: they are negating the
recognition of the crime against peace
for a reason. Their hatred is for the independence of nations and
peoples. Listen carefully when Obama says walls must no longer divide,
that these walls must come down.
It cannot be overemphasized that these walls refer to the thinking and
ideals of the multitudes of peoples of the world. Their many voices and
acts of conviction stand
necessarily antagonistic to the incoherence of those who come forward
as guardians to a world dominated by the owners of monopolies and
oligopolies. The desire of the
guardians is clear: they do not want people to read the writing on the
walls. A new world can only be based on the independence of nations and
peoples and rights that belong
to all by virtue of being human. Arguing out a modern definition of
democracy is essential. Without finding the new forms for the content
of the historical struggle for
democracy that is revealing itself, people will face the dangers of
major imperialist war without a say so.
It is said that in ancient times, mysterious writing
appeared on the wall at the court of Belshazzar: mene, mene,
tekel, u-pharsin: The days of
your kingdom are numbered and brought to an end; you have been weighed
in the scales and found wanting; your kingdom has been divided.
Read The Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|