________________________________
Online at: http://politicalaffairs.net/article/view/5044/
Things Fall Apart: China and the Decline of US Imperialism
By Gerald Horne
________________________________
Archives - Dates and Topics 2007 April click here for related stories:
Imperialism/Globalization
________________________________
3-27-07, 1:00 pm
<http://www.pww.org/subscribe>
When historians of the future look back, they may very well conclude that
2007 marked the time when the crisis of US imperialism became so obvious
that even the dimmest bulb could detect it. For it is evident that
imperialism is about to suffer a staggering and transformative defeat in
Iraq as this illegal and criminal invasion has stretched the military to the
breaking point, alienated allies and emboldened the lengthening list of foes
of US imperialism.
At the same time, China, still ruled by a Communist Party, has accumulated
an eye-popping $1 trillion in foreign currencies, a figure never before
attained by any nation. This sum is so formidable, so huge, that there is a
palpable fear in Washington that Beijing may develop a version of the
International Monetary Fund and World Bank, rendering both of these
imperialist dominated vehicles irrelevant. In the so-called backyard of
Washington, socialist Cuba has not been slowed down by the hospitalization
of President Fidel Castro and continues to move from strength to strength.
Cuba and China in turn serve as anchors for Africa, Asia and Latin America
in their ongoing attempt to break the chains of imperialist bondage. All
this suggests that the crisis of US imperialism continues unabated.
The declining prestige of Washington was no better revealed than when the
human rights watchdog of the United Nations rebuked the US for violations of
international law at home and abroad, especially in connection with its
so-called war on terror. Adding to a growing cascade of criticism, singled
out were the secret detention facilities where torture is the norm and the
failure to provide prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba with due process of
law. But what really captured attention were the sharp criticisms of US
domestic policy. Washingtons draconian asylum and immigration policies, the
promiscuous deployment of the death penalty and life imprisonment and police
brutality, were all condemned in no uncertain terms.
This international body of experts seconded by the UN oversees
implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and chose 2006 to examine US compliance with this document for the first
time since 1995. Predictably Washington reacted angrily to this rebuke.
Ironically, the nation that has taken it upon itself to evaluate nations
near and far and the extent to which they have complied with Washingtons
version of democracy and freedom, now cries foul when the script is
flipped.
US imperialism finds it hard to ignore this complaint from the UN for George
W. Bush recognizes that it is precisely his malfeasance in the global arena
that may very well jeopardize not only his legacy but his freedom of
movement as well. For as the noted University of Virginia law professor,
Rosa Brooks, put it recently, the US Supreme Court ruling in the case of
Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, concerning a so-called enemy combatant, suggests that
Common Article Three of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with
al Qaeda. But more than this, the high court holding makes high-ranking Bush
administration officials including the president - potentially subject to
prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.
What this suggests is that US imperialism cannot escape the grasp of global
forces, no matter how well it is able to bludgeon domestic opposition. More
than this, even sectors of the US ruling elite have come to recognize that
conservatism, which has served this class so well to this point, may be very
well incapable of protecting its interests as the 21st century unfolds. For
example, how can one expect the US right wing to subdue the rudimentarily
conservative force that is so-called Islamic fundamentalism when
historically they have been in the same trench, e.g. during the war in the
1980s in Afghanistan that turbo-charged religiosity?
The bold posture of the UN is emblematic of how the international community
has come to recognize that US imperialism is a primary threat to
international peace and security. Similarly, this is suggestive of how the
erosion of the strength of US imperialism has made Washington more
susceptible to being influenced by global trends. In the first place, the
tax cutting mania of the Republican right without the concomitant muscle
to slash social programs proportionately has made this nation more
dependent on capital flows from Asia in particular to curb escalating
deficits. As foreign nations have grabbed a larger stake in the US
government and economy, understandably they have become more concerned about
their investments here which provides more incentive for them to rein in
Washington.
Of late, China and Russia on the UN Security Council have banded together to
curb the more horrific and lunatic plans of Washington, e.g. imposing severe
sanctions on Iran due to its attempt to develop civilian nuclear energy.
Still, disturbing plans continue to emerge about Washingtons plans to bomb
Iran which would be akin to opening the gates of hell.
Resort to bloody war has been the ultimate sanction held out by US
imperialism for those so bold as to ignore their diktat but the catastrophic
conflict in Iraq has shown that this threat is not as meaningful as it
seems. The puncturing of this threat has plunged sectors of the US ruling
elite into crisis mode. This melancholy was not assuaged when Israel proved
unable to overpower Lebanon during its disastrous 33-day war that unfolded
during the summer of 2006. Israel was encouraged by US imperialism to
contribute to its ill-conceived war on terrorism by seeking to eliminate
Hezbollah with the conflict over detention of Israeli soldiers as a pretext.
But Israel was unable to accomplish this task, which diluted its importance
in the eyes of US imperialism, with consequences that continue to be
tallied. In a column for the Israeli daily Haaretz, former Israeli Foreign
Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami argued that since US deterrence and respect for the
superpower have been eroded unrecognizably, this means that an exclusive
Pax Americana in the Middle East is no longer possible because not only is
the US not an inspiration today, it does not instill fear.
As regimes globally sense that US imperialism may be weakening, there is a
ripple effect in diverse areas. In the first place, it has called into
question the utility of the dollar, the viability of which has obviated the
necessity of making the tough decisions on fiscal matters that this nations
debt and deficits would ordinarily mandate. For example, in 2006 the United
Arab Emirates, which had accumulated a treasure trove of dollars, announced
that it has moved 10 percent of its $29 billion in foreign exchange reserves
into euros, the common currency of the European Union, the erstwhile ally
cum competitor of US imperialism, which has dreams of global domination all
its own. Certainly the controversy in March 2006 when Dubai Ports World was
blocked from taking over the interests in the US of another foreign entity,
Britains P&O, soured many Arabs on the reliability of US imperialism.
Other sober analysts transnationally are weighing a flight from the dollar
as well, which if implemented could have disastrous consequences for US
imperialism. In August 2006, China and Japan, Asias two economic giants and
rivals, developed what was termed an unusual consensus in support of an
ACU or an Asian currency unit to as noted in the Financial Times reduce
their reliance on a weakening dollar. Speaking in Australia, Fan Gang, a
leading Chinese economic theorist, called for a sharp devaluation of the
dollar as a way to bring health to the global economy. Of course, this could
mean a sharp rise in prices for all manner of US imports including toys,
automobiles, clothes, consumer electronics, and the like. The ACU has many
hurdles to overcome before becoming reality, but the fact that Tokyo and
Beijing could agree on its importance is suggestive of the crisis of US
imperialism.
Even sectors of the US ruling class are now joining with progressives in
calling for the ouster of the Bush regime. Calling for the ouster of this
criminal regime and actually accomplishing this task are two different
matters. For like the towering government debt and deficits that have
accumulated under his watch, Bush has left many land mines behind, which
will be bedeviling this nation for decades to come and are quite susceptible
of exploding at any moment. There are many examples of this but what quickly
comes to mind is the fact that the overstretched US military, pressed for
recruits, has allowed the infiltration of their ranks by neo-Nazis. Such is
the conclusion of the well-respected Southern Poverty Law Center, which has
reported the disturbing news that Aryan Nations graffiti can now be found in
Baghdad, along with numerous soldiers with fascist tattoos. As the neo-Nazis
see it, joining the military allows them to gain military training, which
could be critical in coming years. Moreover, it allows them to legally
slaughter those not of European descent. Purging the military of this vermin
and scum has to be seen by progressives as a top priority.
Certainly their presence does little to halt the desperate belligerence that
today characterizes US imperialism and increasingly this hostility is
targeting China which is both non-European and ruled by a Communist Party,
thus attaining the daily double of right-wing hate politics. It is true
that a number of Fortune 500 corporations have invested heavily in China,
which serves as a restraint on the bellicosity of US imperialism toward
Beijing. But it should not be forgotten that as I write a roiling and fierce
debate is unfolding in the ranks of the elite National Association of
Manufacturers over trade with China. The split in their ranks pits smaller
US manufacturers who are being hammered as they see it by Chinese
factories against their larger counterparts, some of whom are benefiting
from what is seen as an undervalued Chinese currency. China is waging a
mercantile war, claimed M. Brian OShaugnessy, President of Revere Cooper
Products, Inc. of Rome, New York, and were being pacifists. These smaller
corporations are threatening to leave the NAM unless it takes a tougher
stance against Beijing; of course, though these smaller companies make up 74
percent of the NAM membership, they only contribute 23 percent of the dues
so the whales are expected to prevail over the guppies. Still, one cannot
easily expect these forces to go silently into the night if they are
defeated.
A weakened US imperialism inevitably will be seeking scapegoats for the
decline of the self-proclaimed sole remaining superpower in Beijing, e.g.
accusations about Chinas currency manipulations already have gained
traction and, of late, led to serious debate in the Congress about slapping
an astonishing 27.5 percent duty on their exports to this country. Moreover,
Chinas relations with Iran and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea
(North Korea), the remaining members of the so-called axis of evil, are
already the cause for anguished commentary in Washington.
Beijing has strengthened its relations with Tehran significantly, for
example, signing several long-term energy exploration production and
delivery contracts since 2004 with Iran worth more than $100 billion. In
2006 China invested in Irans domestic oil-refining industry, agreeing to
expand the countrys gasoline output significantly.
China and the DPRK have long been close allies. Recall, for example, the
latter stages of US imperialisms bloodthirsty invasion of the Korean
peninsula in the 1950s, when it was common wisdom that these two Asian
nations were as close as lips and teeth. Concerns about the DPRKs attempt
to develop nuclear energy have caused Washington to try cajoling China into
pressuring its ally. The fact that South Korea is lukewarm at best about
sanctioning its northern neighbor is suggestive of the point that Koreans
from north to south are looking forward to reunification and have little
interest in bending to the intimidation of Washington.
China and Syria also have strong commercial ties, as Beijing has invested
substantially in the development of this Arab states transportation
infrastructure, as well as in energy exploration and production. China is
also a key supplier of military equipment to Syria.
China has become a major investor in Venezuelas energy sector and is also
investing in this nations transportation infrastructure, including
railroads, ports and crude oil tankers, not to mention telecommunications,
mining and agriculture. Caracas is directing more and more of its oil
exports to China, which has not made Washington happy. In 2004 this figure
amounted to 12,000 barrels of oil per day to China but by 2006 this figure
had jumped to 200,000 and is slated to rise to 500,000 by 2009. China also
has supported the attempt by Venezuela to obtain a coveted seat on the UN
Security Council.
China has invested heavily in US Treasury securities and other US assets to
the tune of about $800 billion. It is also true that if China were to
devalue its currency as some in Washington are demanding this could reduce
the value of Chinas foreign assets by a hefty $200 billion. Why should
China the creditor yield to the demands of the US, the debtor?
Drunk with national and racial chauvinism, there are those in Washington who
have yet to understand fully the comparative decline of US imperialism and
its inability to impose its diktat. There seems to be little realization
that China possesses countermeasures of its own. Beijing could liquidate its
massive holdings of US Treasury securities, pushing US interest rates higher
and the value of the dollar much lower against other major currencies. This
could mean higher taxes or dramatic slashes in government programs.
What is striking about this developing relationship between Beijing and
Washington is that, in some ways, it is coming to mirror the cold war.
Increasingly Washington is taking umbrage at the fact that the worlds most
populous nation is developing interests globally. Washington seems to be
particularly concerned with Beijings incursions in Africa, which the US and
Western Europe alike have long seen as its own private preserve and has long
been a major petroleum supplier to both. Of late, this tendency has been
manifested in overheated press coverage in the US about Chinas role in
Africa. Typical was an August 2006 New York Times article which spoke
wondrously of Dakar, Senegal, long a bastion of French influence, but which
now is
home to Chinese merchants who sell shoes, electronics, plastic
jewelry and toys
. China, it seems, is suddenly everywhere in Africa, not
just in oil-rich states. Trade between Africa and China has almost
quadrupled since 2001 and last year reached almost $40 billion
in Sierra
Leone Chinese companies have built and renovated hotels and restaurants. In
Mozambique, Chinese companies are investing in soybean processing and prawn
production. At the African Union summit meeting in Banjul, Gambia last
month, the Chinese delegation dwarfed the ones sent by France, Britain and
the United States.
This reference to oil rich states was not coincidental since Nigeria,
Gabon and Angola are among the major petroleum producers globally. Also, not
coincidentally, the Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, General James Jones announced in May 2003 that in the future
US naval forces under his command would spend much less time in the
Mediterranean. Instead, he predicted: I will bet they will spend half the
time going down the West Coast of Africa. That same year, a senior Pentagon
official was quoted as saying that a key mission for US forces [in Africa]
would be to ensure that Nigerias oilfields, which in the future would
account for as much as 25 percent of all US oil imports, are secure.
Unsurprisingly, in January 2005 the US Navy commenced a two-month Gulf of
Guinea deployment with participation by the USS Emory, carrying about 1,400
sailors and marines; port calls were made in Douala, Cameroon (close to
Nigeria); Sekondi, Ghana; and Port Gentil, Gabon. Reportedly being
considered as a potential site for a US military base is the island state of
Sao Tome and Principe, close by the major oil producers and a former entry
point for the unlamented African slave trade.
The so-called war on terror is also the stated rationale for Washingtons
increasingly large footprint in Africa. Algeria, the supplier of huge
amounts of liquefied natural gas to North America, has been critical in this
regard. Algiers has been the recipient of significant amounts of military
assistance from the US but this has not quelled and, in fact, may be
heightening regional instability, as suggested by the coup in Mauretania,
Tuareg revolts in Mali and Niger and continuing unrest in southern Algeria
itself.
Indeed, there is concern throughout Algeria about the peculations of
Halliburton, which has been bleeding the nation white. Surely this
misbehavior only serves to underscore why more and more African nations are
looking to Beijing as a counterweight to US imperialism, just as they once
looked to Moscow.
No doubt Zimbabwe is viewing things through this lens. Heavily sanctioned by
London and Washington, not least due to its expropriation of farmers from
the European minority, Harare has decided to Look East and, as a result,
China has become this African nations second largest supplier of imported
goods. In 1998 China ranked only 11th in Harares roll call of importers.
Now it accounts for 6 percent of Zimbabwes imports. One informed estimate
is that there are at least 15 to 20 sizable Zimbabwe-China business deals,
mostly involving state enterprises.
This nervousness about the global reach of Beijing illuminates as well the
panic about Venezuela that has gripped the US ruling class. Unquestionably,
Caracas has sought to use its oil wealth for progressive purposes, e.g. its
alliance with Argentina that has led to development of a regional bank
targeting nations frustrated with the domineering International Monetary
Fund. Caracas also has purchased $3 billion in Argentine bonds, not to
mention $25 million in Ecuadors debt. Just as China has tightened ties with
Iran, Venezuela has acted similarly. On the banks of the Orinoco River in
this South American nation is a sprawling factory that churns out 40
tractors a week; this is a joint venture between Tehran and Caracas with a
bus factory and a cement plant soon to come. Iran plans to invest a sizeable
$9 billion in 125 projects in Venezuela.
Caracass close ties to Havana are a matter of public record. Cuba, which
has invested heavily in human capital, has supplied Venezuela with 14,000
doctors who now provide free treatment to the poor. This is not to mention
the 3,000 Cuban medical staff who were deployed to South Asia recently in
the wake of the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan. Within 48 hours of Hurricane
Katrina Cuba offered to send 1,600 doctors to the Gulf Coast, plus 36 tons
of medical supplies but this urgent offer went unanswered. Hundreds died,
mostly poor and Black, due to a lack of aid and treatment. That China has
tightened relations with Cuba of late, has provided Havana with even more
flexibility in making such generous offers.
What is of ultimate concern to US imperialism is that an alternative power
center is developing in Beijing, which makes it difficult for Washington to
bring to heel nations like Venezuela, Iran, the DPRK, Cuba and Zimbabwe. Yet
instead of a calm and calculated assessment that would reveal that this turn
of events is due to the weakening position of US imperialism and the
disastrous decisions it has made over the years, including invading Iraq,
aligning with China against the former USSR some three decades ago and
generally seeking to stem the inexorable tide of history, Washington has
sought scapegoats and Chinas ascension inevitably has attracted jealous
attention.
This mordant concern reached an apogee in October 2006 when Bush signed a
new national space policy that rejects future arms control agreements that
might limit US flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to
space to anyone hostile to US interests. This chilling document, which
reads like something out of bad science fiction, stresses national security,
encourages private enterprise and characterizes the role of US space
diplomacy largely in terms of persuading other nations to support US policy.
Worried observers argued that this initiative was simply a prelude to
introducing weapons systems into the orbit of planet Earth.
Thus, as recent as 2004 the Air Force announced a doctrine that detailed how
protecting US satellites and spacecraft may require deception, disruption,
denial, degradation and destruction targeting various foes. When in
September 2006 the US military leaked the alleged secret that Beijing
supposedly had tried to disrupt the orbit of a US satellite, it came clear
even to the most obtuse who this new space initiative was targeting: China,
of course.
It is difficult to overestimate the abject danger of this latest turn in the
military strategy of US imperialism. It is not enough to jeopardize life on
Earth, now Washington seeks to place the entire solar system in peril. But
like global bullies of the past, US imperialism will discover to its dismay
that it is much too late to play King Canute seeking to stem the tides of
history. Chinas rise is inexorable, as is the crisis of US imperialism.
--Gerald Horne is a contributing editor of Political Affairs. Send your
letters to the editor to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
