Who can explain the chaotic affairs of today's world?
Samir Amin for one. Fatemah Farag interviews Egypt's most famous
Marxist theorist
As the world prepares itself for an imminent American/British
military onslaught against Iraq, the "clash of civilisations" paradigm
continues to hold sway. Be it Samuel Huntington or predominant Islamist
discourse the message is one of the inevitable conflict between Arabs and
Muslims on the one hand, and the West on the other. 9/11, Israel's brutal
occupation and repression in Palestine, the mess in Afghanistan, which has
spread into south and east Asia, the ongoing devastation of Iraq and its
promised destruction, the rise of political Islam and the fundamentalist
Christian right all play their part.
It is all nonsense, and Professor Samir Amin is the man who will tell you
in great detail how and why; the current state of the world is not about
culture, national identity and religion but about imperialism, capitalist
development and underdevelopment and, ultimately, class.
Amin, along with such equally renowned names as Emmanuel Walerstein,
Giovanni Arrighi, Gunder Frank and others, is viewed as among the founders of
the "world systems" school of thought which gained tremendous influence in the
late sixties and seventies, not just in academia but also as guiding framework
to the left-wing activism that overwhelmed the world's campuses during those
times.
For them, the basic analytical framework for the political, economic and
social questions of any society is the world system.
A leading writer and thinker who has focused his life's work on theorising
the increasing polarisation between the developed and developing world, Amin
for all his international renown is a rare commodity in Egypt. Born in Port
Said, he is one of a generation of Egyptian thinkers and writers who studied
in Paris in the '40s -- among them Anwar Abdel-Malek and Ismail Sabri
Abdallah. But since 1960 he has lived in self- imposed exile -- leaving the
country after Nasser's major clampdown on the Egyptian communist movement --
only returning on occasional visits which began in 1982.
And so we went to see the man whose works include the early L'Egypte
Nasserienne (1961); his most famous works: Accumulation on a World
Scale (1970) and Unequal Development (1973); Delinking: Towards
a Polycentric World (1989), Maldevelopment (1990) and The Crises
of Arab Society (1985). Among the posts he has held are director of the
Third World Forum and the director of the African Institute for Economic
Development and Planning.
Thin with longish white hair slicked back, Amin pulls out his Gauloise
cigarettes while his French wife makes us coffee. "I am totally against
Huntington and religious fundamentalists. I am not at all the type who
believes in the war of civilisations. The wars of the past four to five
centuries have not been wars of civilisations but wars within civilisations,"
argues Amin adding the dismissive "The colonial wars were marginal."
So where to begin in considering the chaotic events of today's world?
Looking back through history, Amin explains that "With World War II the major
powers appeared to be totally unified with a boss: the United States. The
argument was that they have succeeded in building a common front against
communism. It appeared reasonable. But after the war the US had tremendous
overweight in terms of power. US industrial production in 1945 was 50 per cent
of global industrial production which gave it great economic advantage over
the rest of the world. Also they had a monopoly on nuclear weaponry -- which
they used (not like Saddam Hussein who if he has it has not).
"However, this advantage was cancelled over time by the gigantic progress
made by Europe and Japan in the mid- '60s and so the issue of competition once
again came to the fore. The first crises of capitalism on the cultural
political level came in 1968. But the first blow to the economy came in 1971
when the link between the US dollar and gold was abandoned. When we look back
at the literature we see that this was the time of the decline of the US.
"Now suddenly in the '80s and the '90s we have the come back of the United
States in a very arrogant and aggressive manner. And the triad between Europe
(Germany, France and Britain), Japan and the United States seems to
continue to operate on both the economic and geo-political level (all accept
neo-liberal patterns of economic development, all ascribe to the World Bank
(WB) -- which I call the Ministry of Propaganda -- the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) -- the Colonial Monetary Agency -- and the World Trade Organisation
(WTO) -- the Economic Club of Transnationals). After the first war in
Yugoslavia in April 1998, Europeans have accepted NATO led arrogantly by the
US as an instrument for insuring governance at a global level."
The increasingly militaristic and aggressive nature of the US-led world
system comes as no surprise to Amin. "The fall of the Soviet Union and the
victory of capitalism on a global scale ushered in discourse to the effect
that democracy equals the market. This is total nonsense and has nothing to do
with the lessons of history or scientific analyses of the facts."
He goes on, "It is no surprise to me that the victory of capitalism led not
to peace but to more wars and a retreat from democracy, even within the United
States itself which is currently witnessing a new McCarthyism."
Amin refers to his 1991 Empire of Chaos , "the materials of which
had been prepared even before the Soviet Union came down. My vision, explained
in that book, is that over the many years of capitalist global expansion,
imperialism has always been a component -- and not as Lenin argued a stage --
of capitalist development. Instead, it is the character of each stage of
imperialism that has changed. The trend has been towards greater polarisation.
It has taken different guises: the Cold War, North vs. South -- at the end of
the day, however, what is essential is that there continues to be a growing
gap between the centres and the peripheries."
What is new about this stage, argues Amin, is not summed up by the much
touted technological and communications revolutions nor even the corporate
management of the global economy. "This is a discourse from which the idea
that the nation state is losing its power and legitimacy is derived as well as
ideas related to our need of the growth of civil society, NGOs etc. All of the
afore- mentioned are only aspects. The problem is that these aspects are
brought together in a way that ignores the real questions, namely how the
whole system works."
And how is that? "My argument is that there is a higher degree of
concentration of capital and transnationals are incapable of developing within
one market -- even if it is a very large market such as that of the United
States or even Europe. They require a global market. Previously, within
oligarchies or monopolies, there were basically national areas of influence:
colonial or semi-colonial areas. But to compete and generate profit today,
this is no longer sufficient."
And this is where US hegemony comes into the picture. "The world system is
based on an increasing conflict between a unified centre and the rest of the
world and yet there is the growth of contradiction -- a new imperialism if you
will. Major areas in the peripheries, such as much of Latin American, have
entered into industrialisation. And so the conflict centres on who is in
control, which is not necessarily linked to ownership. The message is: you can
cooperate, or you can be bombed. And this is a system that by definition will
not move towards disarmament but in the other direction. So the system needs
military power to keep global order and the US's real advance over its
partners is military might."
Indeed, Amin is adament that the aggressive and military nature of US-led
imperialism is in fact a function of US relative economic weakness within the
centre.
"It is often said by people that the US has had a miraculous comeback in
all fields. This is totally incorrect. The US 'economic miracle' of the
nineties is nonsense. Growth occurred in the financial sector but in services,
trade, and the social sectors growth rates have not been better than Europe
and the trade balance has moved towards growing deficit.
The US economy is at a disadvantage, Amin argues, which is why the military
card is imperative to assure a transfer of assets to the US. "Who is paying
for US military aggression? The rich of the world and the poor of the world,
even Burundi. So in fact the US is using its military prowess to finance the
deficit and cover-up their decline. The military choice is not the result of
strength, but a measure to balance a weakness."
According to Amin, military action is being resorted to by the US to
mobilise its partners and terrorize the rest of the world; and that is the
crux of the war against terrorism. The events of 9/11 are simply a conjuncture
that serve the ongoing purpose. "I sometimes wonder if the whole thing [9/11]
was not fabricated. I mean the fact that the FBI is unwilling to release
information to the American Congressional Commission is an indication that
there is much that is unclear. And then considering the degree of the
stupidity of the likes of Bin Laden he was successfully exploited within the
plan of the US military control scenario."
Part of that scenario is also the control of oil sources not only in the
Middle East but also, and perhaps more importantly, in Central Asia. "The US
also wants to give itself the advantage of controlling the sources of oil upon
which Europe and Japan -- its competitors within the centre -- are dependent.
This way they can put continuous pressure on both. Iraq is a gateway to Iran
and Central Asia and this is a strategy decision taken by the American
government as early as 1990."
Amin is frustrated that many intellectuals in the Arab world cannot see the
war for what it really is. "Central Asia is Muslim but this is not a war
against Islam -- it is for economic domination, profit and improved
competitiveness. Bin Laden is not the target, Central Asian oil is. The target
is not the Arab countries either. All of this talk of wanting to take control
of the Egyptian market is unrealistic." He goes on to argue that "Cultural
identity politics diverts people's attention from the real issues. Solidarity
should not be argued for within the ranks of Muslims or Arabs in particular,
but within the ranks of Arabs, Africans, Central Asians etc. Within the ranks
of the people of the periphery countries. Otherwise, cultural identity
politics are just compensation for desperate people. It works against what we
need most."
Arabs are targeted not as Arabs or as Muslims but because they are weak.
"The Region is made up of weak countries. We are reminded of this every day in
Palestine," says Amin.
It does not have to be so, however. "If you ask me whether this is a viable
system I will answer with an absolute no. It is very destructive and it is a
system that will not come down by itself and will for some time in the future
appear to be all powerful. They will bomb Iraq and kill thousands. Genocide
will continue to take place in occupied Palestine. I am not optimistic about
the short and visible future. But where does it all lead? In the end this
course of action will not compensate for the decline within the US system."
It is a bleak scenario, even if it is only "short term". Amin, however,
prefers to face the facts head on. He pulls on yet another cigarette and adds
"In the near future I see the failure of US policy in Iraq. To run Iraq they
must invade it. And while the Iraqi people will not fight to protect Saddam --
for very obvious and legitimate reasons -- they will not sit and accept US
domination. What are the options? A Karzai-type puppet who will get
assassinated sooner or later? The integral system will break down as these
current measures are simply cosmetic measures."
Eventually, Amin sees new alliances developing. Closer relations between
Russia and Europe for example. "Three- quarters of Russia's trade is with
Europe and Europe is the major outlet for Russian oil. Also Russia, India and
China are coming closer to resist the geo- political pressure of US presence
in Central Asia."
Also, with regards to the situation in Europe -- in which Amin makes the
distinction between governments and people -- he explains that "The United
States is based on two values: liberty and property. When you put them
together you get a cowboy. The Europeans also have two values: liberty and
equality but these come into conflict. And so I think that a large sector of
the European left will organise around a growing anti- Americanism."
This trend has already manifested itself in a growing anti-globalisation
and anti-war movement. Not that Amin is comfortable with the label. "I
personally do not like qualifying the movement as anti-globalisation which is
unfortunately the term used, because it is short and appealing. It is in fact
a very dangerous label. We are not anti-globalisation but anti the pattern of
current globalisation. After all we are universalists both culturally and
politically. Globalisation is as old as human kind. It is the neo- capitalist
hegemonised militarily form that we are against."
Amin has been heavily involved in the movement since 1998 when the movement
came to being in conjunction with the meeting of the World Economic Forum in
Davos, Switzerland.
"At the time we asserted the fact that we represent the real world. We are
against liberal capitalist globalisation and we are against militarisation.
Beyond that people think differently. There are socialists and progressive
religionists. We will have to see."
Amin acknowledges that the movement "is weak in Egypt and in the region at
large. Of course, this is a region which has governments that are less
democratic than others in the world such as India for example. Also this is a
region that has been polarised by the Palestinian question and of course there
is Islamic political ideology. All of this combined does not help to build
alliances. But this is the responsibility of the Egyptian left."
He is more than ready, however, to take on his share of the responsibility
both locally and globally. Amin is tenacious. "Another world is possible",
even more urgently today, than it was in the '70s when a then much younger
Egyptian scholar and activist was in Paris authoring works that would be
translated into most of the world's languages and provide inspiration and
intellectual direction to tens of thousands of activists across the globe.
� Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights
reserved.
