|
EDITORIAL Terrorist
Attacks and the American Response THE
REALITY OF THE "FIRST WAR OF THE 21ST CENTURY" THE INS AND
OUTS OF THE EVENTS At the moment they occurred, the
attacks perpetrated against the symbols of American capitalism on September
11, left us stupified and incredulous. We immediately made an effort to grasp
the reasons for this act of violence. With a little distance, such a
murderous occurrence should not be the occasion for surprise: it is an
integral part of the very foundations of a system that engenders only death
and destruction. And that is precisely one of the primary reasons for which
we combat it! To grasp the reasons for such
attacks, we must situate them in their global geo-political and economic
context. The attacks do not concern Afghanistan alone, and still less just
bin Laden, but rather have their roots in the whole region of the Middle-East
and Central Asia -- a zone to which we already pointed as a future area of
global destabilization at the time of the Balkan wars. It is a question of a
highly strategic region, rich in gas and oil, and also constituting the hub
through which energy will be shipped from Central Asia and the Caspian region
to Asiatic and European markets. It is an economic space that stimulates local
and international rivalries, and thereby involves economic and imperialist
interests. Economic, inasmuch as the world's biggest oil producer -- Saudi
Arabia -- and its oil-rich neighbors, as well as the republics of
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, all rich in gas too are
involved. Imperialist, inasmuch as these nations and their raw materials are
either coveted by Russia or by American and European interests. It is in this
strategic complex that Afghanistan is situated, and it is also around this
strategic complex that international interests and local interests shaped by
Islamism confront one another. For many years, The US has
pretty much had complete control over the countries of this region thanks to
the submission of local pro-American governments or majority factions of the
ruling class there. Nevertheless, that equilibrium has become increasingly
unstable because of the global economic crisis which has put extreme pressure
on fragile local economies, further impoverishing their populations and
increasing social tension. As a result, certain factions of the bourgeoisie
of these countries have been increasingly tempted to overturn American
domination. Two opposed types of reactions can be seen on the part of the
local bourgeoisie in these countries: there are factions which see their
economic strategy exclusively within the orbit of the US, and those which
seek to leave this orbit, and to challenge it. It is precisely this latter
tendency that is expressed by the present Islamist movement, a movement that
must not be seen as a mere archaic and retrograde ideological or religious
current, but rather as a political and economic phenomenon seeking to fill
the place once occupied by so-called socialist factions, which in the recent
past sought to bring about the industrialization and modernization of their
countries, and whose defeat gave a free hand to foreign investors. The
Islamist current is indeed a movement led by elements of the ruling class and
the local intelligentsia, even if it rooted in a population that economic
conditions have plunged into a growing impoverishment. These radical Islamist
factions are decidedly not expressions of a return to the past, but rather
are determined to implement modern economic policies in their different
states, all the more so as the crisis and international competition has
exacerbated economic tensions and made control of energy resources still more
crucial for the local powers. The analysis of the Islamist
current permits us to return to the events of September 11. When we seek to
understand the motivation of the terrorists, it is plausible to advance the
following hypothesis. Those who perpetrated the attacks (probably elements of
the bin Laden group, but that is not too important) sought to act on two
levels: destabilize world capital and
show that American hegemony was contestable; thanks to the foreseeable and
massive response of the US vis a vis the countries of the Middle-East,
provoke a destabilization of the pro-American factions in power to the
benefit of opposing factions defending more "national" interests.
They hoped that the situation created by the American response would produce
political and social chaos, allowing them to overthrow those in power locally
or at least to mount a serious challenge to them. In the first place, their
objective was the pro-Western regimes of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the
former because of its military and nuclear arsenal, the latter because of its
oil. The causes of the attacks, then,
have deep economic and political roots. They reflect the interests of
factions of the bourgeoisie which seek to extricate themselves from American
hegemony, retake control of their own energy resources, and even become
direct competitors of the West thanks to their new-found economic and
military trump-cards. INTER-IMPERIALIST
ASPECTS Besides the very important
economic interests at stake, the region of Central Asia concentrates
interests of a fundamental geo-strategic order. If one focuses on the
inter-imperialist dimension of the situation several questions arise. Why has
the American response focused on Afghanistan? What is the degree of cohesion
between the US and its "allies"? Are we today perhaps living in a
world without imperialist tensions; in the world of
"super-imperialism" described by Karl Kautsky? As we have already indicated,
Afghanistan is situated astride a central point for the oil and gas pipelines
linking Central Asia to the West. As a result, a more direct control of that
country represents a trump-card on the economic as well as the strategic
level. That was something well understood by the Americans at the time of the
invasion of Afghanistan by the Russians. They supported and cultivated those
who opposed the Soviet invader -- among them bin Laden and what became the
Taliban. Since then, the situation has developed in the following way: the
Taliban maintained the country in a condition acceptable to the Americans,
even as bin Laden increasingly distanced himslf from the US. In attacking the
Taliban regime and designating it as the party principally responsible for
the September 11 attacks, the Americans found a scapegoat with little support
in the region; it was the course of least resistance. The present military
operation thereby permits an effective extension of American control in this
strategic geographical zone. Ultimately, it can permit the US to increase its
presence in Central Asia, and to encircle Russia even more. The collapse of
the Soviet empire has created a void, and since 1991 the US has sought to
penetrate the region and to reduce Russian influence as much as possible. The
accord concluded between the Americans and Uzbekistan to utilize Uzbek
territory as a base for military operations is a perfect example, and
reflects the American hope to make this small republic a privileged ally and
a counterweight to Russian influence. The military operation in Afghanistan
will therefore permit the US to get a direct foothold in the region, and to
establish a durable military presence and a base for the surveillance of
Russia, Iran, and China. The present military operation can also serve as the
occasion for the Americans to correct some previous "errors:" a
segment of the American leadership sees an opportunity to bring to a
successful conclusion the action in Iraq, begun with the Gulf war, by
finishing off Saddam Hussein. What is the degree of cohesion
between the "allies"? For many states, the American reaction brings
with it certain advantages. For example, countries like China, Pakistan,
Russia, and Indonesia, see in it a green light to go ahead and crush
movements seeking self-determination within their own frontiers. On the
economic plane, the projects for the construction of oil pipelines frequently
involve international consortia, and a more significant American presence in
the region will guarantee a certain stability for Western enterprises
dependent on new sources of energy. From the ideological point of view, this
is an opportunity to attribute the effects of the present economic crisis on
terrorist attacks, and to take the drastic economic measures required to deal
with the recession. There is also the prospect of creating a state of
permanent psychosis among the civil population, making it possible to
intensify police controls and even creating a mentality in which cerain
segments of the population seek shelter under the protective wing of their respective
state apparatus. Outside of the submission of the "allied" powers
to American hegemony, there are, then, also direct interests that are shared.
It's also worth pointing to an indirect consequence of the present war: the
temporary breathing-space that an increase in armaments expenditures can
represent for the world economy. Besides these common interests, it is clear
that the US has "purchased" the support of a series of countries:
the collaboration of Russia in exchange for its membership in the World Trade
Organization, and now in its request for integration in the European Union
and cooperation with NATO. Just now, Russia has received a considerable
benefit thanks to its sale of military equipment to Iran. China's support for
the American military offensive has also had a similar price: further
integration into the world economy, entry into the WTO,and increasing foreign
investment. Nonetheless, there is also
dissent, and limits to the marge de manoeuvre available to the US in
Europe and the Orient. The American air strikes and military operations have
provoked bitterness in Muslim countries, and represent a risk of inflaming
the situation there -- an outcome surely welcomed by extremist factions
hoping for a destabilization of the factions in power in the Islamic world.
While the Taliban regime has few friends in the Muslim world, American
aggression against a "sister" community is not without its risks.
The difficulty facing the leadership of Muslim regimes that support the US is
real indeed: Pakistan faces violent civilian protests, Saudi Arabia has
prudently taken its distance, as has Iran; Uzbekistan has hidden the American
presence from its own population, while Egypt, the Sudan, and Nigeria have
witnessed sometimes violent and murderous demonstrations. These reactions
express the bitterness of the population to new manifestations of the
limitless domination of the US, as well as the strategy of the Islamist
factions which have taken advantage of the situation to attempt to
destabilize the ruling groups in these countries. This is the case in
Pakistan, where the secular and pro-American president, Musharraf, is having
a difficult time confronting the pressure from the "street" and
from Islamist factions. In addition to these reactions,
the positions that various countries take in the present war can also
heighten old conflicts: thus, the opposition between Pakistan and India over
Kashmir has been exacerbated following the virtually unconditional support
offered by the Americans to the Islamibad regime. That opposition has been
further enflamed inasmuch as India has never completely turned its back on
Russia, and China --a foe of India's on the economic and military planes --
supports Pakistan. Another element of instability
in the region is the passing of the "old `monarchs'" in Jordan and
Syria, together with the incapacity of the Saudi king. In a sense, social and
political tensions, which had been contained by the old rulers, pro-American
for the most part, are intensifying, making the situation harder to contain
for the younger generation of rulers -- who are also under pressure to run
their states in a more "modern" fashion. Finally, the abcess
represented by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, itself exacerbated by the
catastrophic state of the economy in Israel, by the economic strangulation of
the Palestinian territories, and the end of any political illusions there,
are all elements that further add to the precariousness of the regional
equilibrium. On the side of the European
"allies," if they are all singing from the same song-book as the
Americans, it is not always the same tune, and the dissonance has grown from
the get-go. Thus, if Great Britain has played its role as privileged ally by
participating in military operations in Afghanistan, the Europeans have often
distanced themselves from the overly bellicose Americans, urging moderation
upon them. Their function is above all diplomatic; the European presidency
has expended a great deal of energy to maintain support for the American strikes.
It's scarcely possible to count the number of trips by the "European
troika" to keep things in line or the pathetic speeches by Tony Blair.
Moreover, European governments must also take into account public opinion in
their respective countries. Even if the conflict opposes a professional
military to what is presented as callous and brutal terrorists in a distant
corner of the world, even if information about the conflict is disseminated
in a controlled fashion, the incessant propaganda to which the local
population is subjected, still has not left Europeans indifferent. A proof of
that is the unprecedented ideological arsenal deployed in order to keep the
populace in a state of fear that would serve to "justify" the
ongoing, unjustifiable, military operation. Finally, if for the moment,
China, Russia, and the US, have common interests, one can only wonder for how
long these competitors will be able to maintain their present entente,
especially when it is a matter of the Americans permanently installing
themselves in Central Asia. The present unity among the
"allies" should not make us forget the opposing economic and
strategic interests of the different governments. If the bourgeoisie can find
an advantage in deploying a united strategy, it is nonetheless riven by an
ever more intense economic competition; and this latter will necessarily
exacerbate imperialist tensions between rivals. The fact that these tensions
do not at the moment express themselves in open warfare between opposed
imperialist protagonists does not mean that we now find ourselves in a world
in which such tensions have been overcome; an harmonious world, administered
by a bourgeoisie unemcumbered by rivalies. The present world is anything but
harmonious; anything but a world without imperialist tensions. Even if the
globalization of the economy now pushes states to put some of their
divergences on the back-burner, these latter are still very much present,
exacerbated by the economic crisis, and indeed perceptible behind each conflict
-- the Balkans, for example, or today, the Middle-East. Imperialism is one of
the bases of the capitalist system, just like scarcity and competition! IDEOLOGICAL
ASPECTS This war has provided the ruling
class with the opportunity to give us a lesson in how to wield ideology. This
can be seen in two ways: with respect to the Muslim "allies" and
vis a vis the Western population. The ideological pressure
exercised by the US (no bombing on the day of prayer, chances given to the
Taliban to turn over bin Laden, delivery of foodstuffs, speeches stressing
respect for Islam as a faith, economic aid to Pakistan, etc.) show that Bush
has wielded the carrot as well as the stick, out of a fear of a backlash.
That dual tactic is indicative of the fragility of the situation in
Afghanistan's neighbors, of the hesitation of the Muslim allies to commit to
war, and probably of opposition within the Bush cabinet between the
supporters of military action and those who are more committed to diplomacy. In the European countries, some
anti-war demonstrations have occurred, but to our knowledge, despite the
interest and the potential of certain reactions, nothing on a scale that
would threaten existing governments has taken place. Nonetheless, the
bourgoisie does not have alot of elbow room, as can be seen by the distance
taken from the outset vis a vis the too bellicose reaction of the Americans.
If anti-war demonstrations have not been massive, there exists within the
population a generalized climate of criticism with respect to the American
action. That distance is also a reflection of the tensions provoked by the
politico-military domination imposed on Europe by the US in the face of the
European desire to create its own common military force, and thereby assert a
greater autonomy. In that context, the tension between the dollar and the
euro has intensified. It's also necessary to emphasize
the sometimes very violent opposition movements and strikes that have
occurred in Muslim countries: in Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi
Arabia. It is clear that despite the repression of those demonstrations,
discontent has grown. But, we must above all emphasize
the phenomenal ideological campaign directed at the civilian populations.
Whether it's the images of planes crashing into the Twin Towers of the World
Trade Center, people jumping from its windows, the broadcast of the last
telephone messages from victims to their families or the inordinate fear of
new attacks or bacteriological warfare which are constantly played up by the
media, we can only conclude that the bourgeoisie has already achieved a major
victory. In the period before September 11, the media were full of images of
anti-globalization demonstrators, and of police actions against them. It is
clear that any potential that the anti-globalization movement had to threaten
the functioning of the system has now been relegated to the back burner --
largely as a result of the emotional shock fed by all the tools at the
disposal of the dominant ideology. In addition, for quite some time
the bourgeoisie has presented war as a humanitarian act for the liberation of
oppressed people. Who could defend the infamous tyrant Saddam Hussein, the
abominable Milosevic, or the Taliban and their war against women? War is no
longer war, but the liberation of Kuwaitis whose land has been invaded, of
Albanians who are the victims of ethnic cleansing, and now of starving
Afghans. That vision, combined with "surgical" air strikes, is far
from the image of trench warfare and horrific slaughter that characterized
the two world wars. We must denounce this because that sort of argument now
permits the bourgeoisie to masquarade as peaceful, obstructing the
possibility of seeing the violent nature of capitalism, and preventing
opposition to military actions. It is necessary to see the terrorists and the
response to them as two sides of the same coin: the incredible violence
generated by the capitalist system. The present ideological
campaigns have had an impact on the few open reactions of opposition to this
war. We can point to the demonstrations in the European countries, which have
by no means been massive. Yet, we can also point to the fact -- which is,
indeed, positive -- that despite the media blitz justifying war, to which the
European and American populations have been subjected, we have not seen the
patriotic craze which the bourgeoisie has sought to foster. On the contrary,
the atmosphere is rather one of a certain distance from the war, which means
that the ruling class does not have the kind of ideological control that it
seeks. So, why are we not seeing more and larger anti-war demonstrations? The
demonstrations in Europe against the Austrian neo-Nazi, Haider, and the
participation of his Freedom party in the government were more massive. But,
that was opposition to a known quantity: the horror of Nazism and its death
camps. The present war does not (yet) provide us with images of similar
horror. That said, the constant ideological barrage does not in itself
explain the lack of a popular reaction to the American strikes. We also need
to acknowledge the difficulty that the working class has in articulating its
own class perspective. CONCLUSION The world of decadent capitalism
is increasingly violent and destructive. The attacks of September 11 are but
one more example of what this system has in store for us. The analysis of the
reasons for that attack make it possible to grasp the economic, strategic and
ideological stakes at issue today. More than ever, it is clear that the very
survival of humanity requires the destruction of the capitalist system and
its replacement by a new society. The project of such a new society is borne
by an international class: the proletariat, which has no specific economic,
political or strategic interest, but which is the object of capitalist
exploitation. While that class today faces numerous difficulties in perceiving
its own community of interests, even in recognizing itself as a class, and in
working out its own perpectives, the conditions of exploitation to which it
is subjected, and the expressions of class struggle that have erupted since
the beginning of the 1990's, indicate that the old mole of revolution is
still at work. ROSE October 2001 |