Contribution to the 13th
International Communist Seminar
Brussels, 2-4 May 2004
www.icsbrussels.org , ics[at]icsbrussels.org
Lebanese Communist Party
Lebanon
Remarks of Dr.Moufid Kuteish,
Head of Department of International Relations
of the Lebanese Communist Party,
Brussels, Belgium, May 2-4, 2004
This historical moment which our world and its peoples are currently passing through is without doubt the most complex and dangerous since the end of World War II. At the end of the second millennium globolised capitalism has been experiencing the structural crisis of capitalism primarily as the result of the over-production phenomenon in a new neo-liberal environment. Nowadays, the neo-liberal tendencies of capitalism tend to increase their intensity and scope pursuing the policy of militarization, destabilization, and provocation.
However, the world’s peoples are seeing these processes through the heavy veil of imperialist US-backed propaganda that is based on three ‘D’ techniques, namely, that of disinformation, distortion and demagogy. The duplicity of US strategy, that the American administration has been taking advantage of since the 1990ies, reveals essential contradictions and the policy of double standards which can be summarized as follows:
However, recently, this demagogy has reached its apogee in the so-called Project for the Greater Middle East (GME) that has been put forward for discussion by the USA at the June 2004 G-8 summit in Sea Land. The Project even in its draft form has aroused confusion, rejection, and increase in hatred towards the US Administration in the region. What caused such a strong upsurge of feelings and emotions in the Arab World?
The US is pursuing a consistent and well-planned policy in achieving its global and local objectives. The main focus of its global and local policy is to guarantee and gain control of the worldwide markets, free of any national regulatory controls. In this context the GME Project tends to be just a particular example of the overall US national security strategy that aims at safeguarding US national security by means of direct intervention into domestic affairs of other countries of the world. The ultimate goal of this ‘American era’ plan is clearing away the obstacles that can hinder the implementation of the plan and facilitation of free mobility of capital across national frontiers.
It is equally obvious that in the long run this aggressive strategy seeks to facilitate the establishment of a monopole world under the dictatorship of the USA. To this end, the US is prepared to ruthlessly force through economic, political, and even military means all states and peoples to accept its global role as the only superpower; otherwise they will face a total collapse in future.
Despite the demagogic claims of imperialist forces that they strive to promote stability and democracy in the world, recent world events have clearly revealed that, in reality, US imperialism attributes quite the opposite role to instability in different countries and regions of the world in its agenda. At root, in order to guarantee its own national security US imperialism or US-backed regional forces seek to provoke instability igniting domestic conflicts and civil wars worldwide.
Although the end of the Cold War period, which brought victory to the USA and its allies, has potentially provided possibility of ensuring stability, security, and social welfare worldwide, as a result of its Neo-Liberal agenda the US Administration embarked on a completely different strategy; namely, the strategy that caused the atmosphere of misbalance, insecurity and instability throughout the world. Functionally, this strategy has been implemented since then as an efficient instrument in directing and regulating mankind development, as well as in manipulating the conditions of life reproduction on earth. Needless to say, such a strategy contradicts in principle the demands of stable development and clearly reveals the zealous intention of the Cold War winners to extend their rule worldwide. In brief, the USA not only ignores the present intensifying instability in the world, but on the contrary, it welcomes such a situation as it best suits the US ambitions to become the only world superpower under the veil of a peacekeeper.
Contrary to the expectations of reinforced security and stable growth as a consequence of the end of Cold War, the US imperialism has bombarded the economic systems of countries of Eastern and South-Eastern Asia; waged a war in former Yugoslavia in order to dismantle it as an independent state completely and to replace it with a string of small, highly unstable mini-states which can be easily dominated economically, politically and military; waged a full-scale war against Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban regime that had been nurtured by the USA; set up a net of military bases in Central Asia; occupied Iraq after its total devastation; has been sending menacing signals to North Korea; has been exerting considerable pressure on Syria and Iran; has been silencing the elimination of the Palestinian people; has been intervening in the domestic affairs of Latin American countries. Would it be a mistake to define all these actions and crimes as the third World War against the whole world? What is the most sensible explanation for such a strategy and tactic? Let us look into the arguments.
The first reason that can stand for such a policy is strong doubt in the US prevalence over the rest of the world. Even though the USA has won the Cold War battle, it keeps eliminating the heritage of the past on the grounds of ‘the end of the world’ illusion that is believed to ensure a complete victory of the US capitalism, American extreme liberalism, as well as proclaiming the USA the world vanguard and the Americans – the world elite. In order to accomplish such a task in full, it is viewed compulsory by Americans that the past heritage should be completely destroyed.
Moreover, this strong doubt is reinforced by a range of scientific and statistical reports and research that predict possible and foreseeable economic breakthroughs on behalf of such countries as China, India, and Russia which might considerably threaten the US world dominance. The fact that the US, though it is an advanced capitalist and imperialist country, is not shielded from the impacts of globalization, should not be overlooked.
The second reason can be interpreted as the ‘growth limits’ what makes any war a much more profitable and beneficial activity than any gradual economic domestic development. In case with the US, this tendency is especially essential, as US economy has been suffering from a severe cyclic economic crisis. The present critical state of US economy is believed to be the result of the fact that it is experiencing the decreasing stage of the Kondratiev’s cycle which might last till the 2020ies. Logically, it excludes the possibility of a rapid technological breakthrough nowadays that can make up for the setbacks of the intensive development type; on the other hand, it turns the extensive development type, that entails extended exploitation of natural resources, not only into more efficient but into the only possible panacea available.
Consequently, it seems obvious that Americans are trying hard to take control of the world’s natural resources store. However, recent research in this field has clearly shown that, on the one hand, the world natural resources store is limited; on the other hand, some kinds of them are at the edge of exhaustion and complete extinction. Naturally, according to the American vision of the problem such a considerable shortage of natural resources makes it completely impossible to warrant a just and equal progress of all mankind what in turn threatens the stability and progress of the US economy itself. Therefore, US Administration is facing a number of possible options to resolve the problem of natural resources shortage and exhaustion. Let us consider them one by one:
1. Substitution of natural resources by new artificially-manufactured ones. However, this option seems to be impossible to be implemented as a result of the crisis of the intensive development type what hinders to make considerable technological breakthroughs.
2. Imposing restrictions on consumption. Yet, it seems unrealistic that an average American or a European consumer would agree on this condition
3. Taking charge of and complete control by the US over the world natural resources stores, exploration, exploitation, and consumption by means of eliminating their legal owners.
Despite the fact that there is a range of possibilities to combat this common for the whole world problem, the US has chosen the last option that entails ensuring access to natural resources at all costs and by all means. Even though so far the market mechanism has been quite successfully warranting the stable and sufficient supply of natural resources to the US by means of open economies, open frontiers, or privatization, US Administration is trying now to confiscate world natural resources by means of force for free. Needless to say, this aggressive policy would lead to colonization of the territories in question; consequently, war is viewed by imperialist powers as unavoidable and inevitable.
In accordance with its disinformation and demagogy strategy, US imperialism has invented a number of cliché excuses for its aggressive policy; namely, civilization clashes; weapons of mass destruction hunt; observance of human rights; terrorism. In addition to this, by a simple coincidence all the aforementioned ‘sins’ are detected in close vicinity of oil exploration sites. Following the same logic, Islamic countries rich in natural resources are found guilty either in supporting or exporting terrorism all over the world.
Thus, the currently unfolding US-initiated war can be defined as the third World War that is characterized either by direct military actions, intervention, and occupation in some cases, or by a latent form of a civil-war type in others. Yet, the main goal of this war is utterly clear and can be summarized as follows: it aims at getting rid of excessive numbers of resources’ consumers and uncompetitive, easily vulnerable or underdeveloped human resources. In more detail, this war is an ambitious attempt to take complete control of the whole world and its resources in order to create the society of ‘gold billion’. Likewise, this war entails mopping up of those social classes that are considered by the war masters useless. As a consequence, such a scenario requires complete disarmament of whole nations as they have to be deprived from any means of self-defense such as the national army, state welfare, national ideology, and the unity of state and its people.
As a result of the aforementioned reasons the USA is ready to involve the world in an endless bloody war until it can establish its world hegemony that in turn would exclude any opportunity for democracy, sovereignty and pluralism in a new US-led world. In order to achieve its goal the US has been intimidating other world countries taking advantage of the policy of blackmailing, menace and skillfully-tailored threats. Let us look into these threats in greater detail:
Logically, US is in great need of permanent conflicts between national elites and peoples; countries involved in civil wars; extension and spread of instability in the world because the US believes that such a tense situation in the world turns it in the only possible and indispensable at present guarantor of stable world order and growth.
On these grounds US sees as its primary task disarming peoples, forming local comprador elites, creating debt-states, and introducing pro-American security mechanisms along with US-led international organizations that would ensure in these countries both the introduction of open-society lifestyle and establishment of open society which would pave the way for globalised capital into the countries in question.
This is the policy of instability pursued by the US based on the principle of threatened minority. There are two ways of its implementation:
1. The peaceful way that involves establishment of new local elites whose duty is to rule their countries by means of US-adopted reforms along with privatization of natural resources, countries’ sovereignty and borders with the purpose to open their societies in front of imperialism. The experience of former Soviet Republics serves as a vivid example of such a ruthless and aggressive policy.
2. The policy of force is implemented in those cases when imperialism is opposed with direct resistance and rejection. Then it realizes the strategy of direct intervention and occupation, hypocritically taking advantage of any suitable pretext at their disposal. We have witnessed such a shameful and inexcusable policy in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and recently in Iraq.
Unfortunately, we have to admit that US has achieved a considerable success in implementation of its scenario. Let us have a look at its consequences: the tragic break up of former Yugoslavia; bankruptcy the economies of East Asia countries; destruction and occupation of Iraq.
It is worth noting that in case of the war in Iraq, it has awakened progressive forces of mankind, including the European elites, which clearly admitted their concern and responsibility for the future of mankind. All these factors along with an intensive national resistance in Iraq have forced US Administration partially to reconsider its former policy of complete rejection of the UN mission in Iraq, and to admit a unique role of this organization in this country in the context of the US-initiated Greater Middle East Project.
When it comes to the Greater Middle East project, it should be interpreted in the wider context of the present world tendencies; namely, in the context of rapidly developing imperialistic globalization. Firstly, in this context the GME initiative can be viewed as an implementation plan that has as its primary goal integration of Arab countries into the process of imperialistic globalization under the US dictatorship. Secondly, this project has to be interpreted holistically along with other US-initiated strategic plans and initiatives, i.e. toppling of present political regimes in Arab countries, putting into power new national elites which are expected to be capable of reforming the political and economic systems of their countries in order to ensure a safe and legal access for globolised imperialism.
In brief, the GME project as a formal document is expected to provide a materialistic and legal basis for US imperialism intervention in the domestic affairs of Arab countries.
Unfortunately, this project and its implementation is not a utopia or a question of the nearest future; on the contrary, it is a reality. Even though the project as a formal document is expected to be discussed only in June 2004 in Sea Land; however, recently we have been able to witness it in action in Afghanistan and Iraq. Needless to say, the overall task of this project is to pave the way for globolised imperialism by means of direct and indirect changes in these countries in favour of capitalism.
A closer look on the text of the GME project document directly reveals its demagogy and hypocrisy in its motives, aims, and methods. First of all, the project is statistically based on two reference sources, namely, two United Nations Arab Development Reports (AHDR) in 2002-2003. However, though these documents provide comprehensive evidence of the critical situation in these countries and deficits in education and women’ rights and freedoms, the reasons they offer for such a situation tend to be domestic ones. They explain the existing deficits by domestic reasons ignoring the responsibility of the West for their appearance. Moreover, on the basis of this highly limited socio-economic data the GME project developers come to the conclusion that such a critical situation in Arab countries directly leads to unemployment, emigration, and terrorism what can in turn create direct dangers and hazards to the stability and security of the G-8 members. Logically, it is viewed highly reasonable that the situation within these countries should be improved by outside forces.
In its theoretical rationale this project clearly and holistically represents an integration of principles, ideas, and approaches that have been explicated a number of times by US Administration, on the whole, and W.Bush Junior, Richard His, Colin Powell, Gondoliza Rice, Dick Cheney and others, in particular.
When it comes to the tactics and methods of the Project implementation, it offers a range of changes within Arab countries: changes of political, economic, social, jurisdictional, and educational systems. Likewise, the Project strongly backs the idea of Greater Middle East that presupposes establishment of a new Middle East state that would cover the vast territory from Afghanistan and Turkey to Morocco. However, instead of real integration on the basis of historical, socio-political, and socio-cultural similarities, tradition, and tendencies the Project aims at hindering it and establishing the US dictatorship and hegemony in the region.
Moreover, the Project implementation scenarios are far from being innovative; on the contrary, these scenarios are out-of-date recommendations put forward by such international organizations as IMF,MB, and WTO. These recommendations include the policy of monetary stabilization and structural reforms; privatization; liberalization of financial markets; creation of favorable investment climate; and reforms of the educational system.
Though the Project states the fact of underdevelopment of the region, its policy makers and developers ignore the problem of profound responsibility of the former colonizers for the current situation in Arab countries representing it as a currently unfolding crisis.
Furthermore, the Project policy makers try to restrict all the problems and deficits to technical problems; therefore, their recommendations have an obviously restrictive character. However, it has been done purposefully. First of all, the Project policy aims at diverting attention of the peoples of the world from criminal acts in Palestine and Iraq in order to concentrate it on technical problems that, according to the Project, are the only source of all conflicts and tragedies in the region. Secondly, the Project clearly explicates the US warning to those countries in the region that would put forward any kind of resistance to the US-initiated scenario of region development.
On the other hand, the Project seems to pose a threat not only to the Middle East region, but for the Euro-Mediterranean partnership as well. While US Administration, in general, and W.Bush J., in particular, strive to make a rapid progress in West-East relationships with quite a pragmatic goal in mind; namely, after a series of failures and losses in Iraq they urgently need positive developments in this region in order to improve their image in the course of Presidential election campaign.
The Project has been actively studied and discussed recently in Arab countries and Europe. The reactions to the Project cover the whole continuum from full acceptance to total rejection. Let us look at them in greater detail.
When it comes to the reaction of the ruling elites in Arab countries, they have received the Project with a strong protest and criticism. However, their rejection concerns only that part of the Project that strongly advocates radical political reforms and democracy extension in their countries, what in their opinion, considerably violates their interests. On the other hand, they deliberately ignore the Project’s recommendations for the economic, social, and educational fields. It seems quite natural that there is nothing to be commented on as the main Project’s recipes in these areas have already been put into practice. In sum, the reactions of ruling Arab elites seem to be restricted to criticism and protests not against the selfish US appeals, but against the major demands of the patriotic forces of Arab countries aimed at democratic and genuine reforming of the present situation in the region.
The reaction of Europe to the US-backed initiative was quick and efficient. The first response came from Germany and France in the form of a contra-American initiative; the second step was the proposal to hold a European Summit in Brussels on the issue in question. However, despite the fact that the European initiative considerably differs from the American one it has some key points in common with the former one. First, it suggests the same vision of the Middle East situation, secondly, it ignores the responsibility of colonialism for the present underdeveloped state in the region, and thirdly, it supports the idea of implementation of radical reforms in Arab countries.
Yet, in comparison with the unilateral making-decision process and actual implementation actions on behalf of the US, the European initiative presupposes active participation of the Arab leaders in discussions and implementations of the mutually agreed plan of actions. Likewise, the European project pays special attention to Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its resolution that is seen possible only along with parallel reforms in other Arab countries.
Even though Europeans do not reject the idea of cooperation with the US in implementation of the Middle East Project, they claim independence and freedom of actions. All the aforementioned points clearly reveal a considerable contradiction between the US-backed GME Project and the European-Mediterranean Partnership Initiative.
When it comes to the reaction of the progressive forces of Arab countries, the GME Project has been heavily criticized and rejected on the grounds that this plan is a new form of neocolonialism which aims at new occupation of the region and subsequent confiscation of its natural resources. Though the progressive forces do not reject the positive slogans put forward by the Project, such as, democracy, observance of human rights, establishment of the society of knowledge, anti-terrorism fight, they reject exploitation of these slogans and problems for the sake of selfish and aggressive goals of intervention into domestic affairs of Arab countries.
Throughout the recent history the image of America has been jeopardized with terrifying crimes of violence and oppression, and consequently, associated with indifference to human values, selfishness, and disrespect towards other peoples’ interests. Therefore, it seems the least likely that this country would radically change its policy and the means of its implementation. Moreover, its aggressive and selfish policy is comprehensibly confirmed in the formal documents issued by the US Administration.
It would be naïve to believe that the US would like to spread and promote democracy in the Arab World because this can logically entail active participation of the Arabs in the resolution of their problems what, in turn, may lead to a considerable increase in the number of people engaged in the fight against American hegemony. The US democracy in practice entails establishment of new US-backed elite that would serve its interests in the region.
Needless to say, it is highly unlikely either to expect the US to promote really efficient economic reforms which should radically change the role of Arab countries in the international labour division, because such reforms would considerably hinder confiscation of natural resources.
Furthermore, we cannot expect the US to establish and safeguard stability in the region on two accounts. First, it is instability that would cause massive brain leak from the region, migration of production factors, and hindering withdrawal of billions of dollars from the US-based banks. Secondly, stability would require an urgent and fair solution of Israeli-Palestinian conflict instead of its deepening, and transfer of power in Iraq to the Iraqis instead of devastation of Iraqi cities.
It seems also unlikely that Americans would be able to eradicate terrorism for two main reasons. First of all, it is the US that should be held responsible for the establishment and spread of terrorism in the world because all terrorist organization have been financed and politically backed by the US, including Ben Laden’s organization. Secondly, terrorism came to life as a response to the process of Americanization of the world.
However, it does not mean that progressive forces of Arab countries reject the US-backed slogans and issues completely. These forces have got their own programs of reforms in their native countries. In the course of the last half of the century they have been fighting for their implementation. But it is the US and its support for the pro-American forces has hindered considerably to realize the reforms in full. Needless to say, it is right liberal elites of Arab countries who have ensured the access of imperialistic forces to rob these countries out of their treasures. As a consequence, progressive forces see as their most immediate and pressing task, on the one side, the fight against imperialism and neocolonialism and, on the other hand, promotion of democratic reforms that would in turn benefit the accomplishment of the first task, namely, anti-dictatorship and anti-colonialism fight.
Progressive forces of Arab countries see a possible solution of the region problems as a set of interrelated actions, and relate the opportunity of a rapid progress in their countries with:
I,Realization of socio-economic reforms
II stablishment of democratic states
III ntegration of the Arab World
IV stablishment of the Palestinian independent state
V. Liberation of Iraq from American occupants.
It will not be amiss to notice that fight against the US-backed Project and its realization in the region should not be separated and solved in isolation from the worldwide fight of world progressive forces and democracy as the Project in question represents a particular case in the US antidemocratic file. Being a form of globolised imperialistic strategy the US policy tends to have similar features worldwide from Latin America to the Middle East. Therefore, the fight against such a coherent and unified strategy should be consolidated and well-coordinated in order to oppose it and beat it in the long run saving the world from the threat to be colonized under the American rule. At present there is no one in the world who can avoid being under a harsh American political, economic, or socio-cultural influence. Therefore, integration of the world progressive forces who are deeply concerned about the future of mankind is seen as the key priority in the present historical stage.
Arab progressive forces are fighting for changes in social, political, economic, and cultural conditions in their countries. They see as their priority the task of bringing down the ruling classes, who have led their countries to the existing state, from power. To achieve a just and stable future in the region progressive forces have been fighting for a cohesive and well coordinated action plan that correlates a number of interrelated tasks: realization of genuine political, economic, and social reforms; implementation of socio-economic development that would entail making use of natural and human resources at full capacity; realization of economic integration within the Arab world; establishment of the sovereign Palestinian State; putting an end to a shameful and inexcusable US occupation of Iraq.
Moreover, progressive forces of Arab countries are trying to win on their side honest and progressive world forces to ensure their understanding and support. We think that in order to oppose the hegemonic ambitions of US, it is high time to establish Left and Euro-Mediterranean Partnership in opposition to the partnership that has been proposed by official Europe. We are bound to propose more democratic model of partnership than the one being implemented by the EU.
Thus, the most urgent undertaking in this regard at present is the building of a powerful international movement that can efficiently oppose the US-led world order by means of well-coordinated, cohesive and unified plan of anti-imperialist, anti-colonialism, and anti-imperialist globalization actions. We think that the failure of monopole order and establishment of a politically diverse world is the common task of all mankind.