|  Home
Subscribe
The Rediscovery
of Imperialism
by John Bellamy
Foster
Stephen Jay Gould—What Does it Mean to
Be a Radical?
by Richard C. Lewontin
and Richard Levins
Counter–Intelligent: The Surveillance
and Indictment of Lynne Stewart
Lynne Stewart Interviewed
by Susie Day
|
On September 10, of this year, an interview
entitled, “Nelson Mandela: The U.S.A. is a Threat to World Peace,”
appeared as a Newsweek web exclusive,
http://www.msnbc.com/news/806174.asp.
In this interview, Mandela reviewed some of the history of U.S. interventions
in the Middle East—including U.S. support of the Shah of Iran, which led
to the Islamic revolution in 1979, and U.S. arming and financing of the
mujahedin in Afghanistan, which led to the rise of the Taliban. He went on to
say, “If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that
the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace.
Because what [America] is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the
Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the
sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending the world.
That must be condemned in the strongest terms.” Later, on September 16,
when Washington condemned as mere duplicity Iraq’s offer to allow
unconditional inspection of its weapons facilities by U.N. inspectors, and
again threatened war, Mandela asked: “What right has Bush to say that
Iraq’s offer is not genuine? We must condemn that very strongly. No
country, however strong, is entitled to comment adversely in the way the U.S.
has done. They think they’re the only power in the world. They’re not
and they’re following a dangerous policy. One country wants to bully the
world” (Guardian, September 19, 2002).
No doubt Mandela, despite the fact that he is probably the most universally
respected statesman in the world, will be privately ostracized, and, if
politically feasible, publicly vilified by the ruling circles in the United
States, for having the audacity to challenge the global projection of U.S.
power in this way. But there is little doubt that the vast majority of the
people in the world would agree with his statements. That the United States
under the Bush administration is firmly committed to military, political, and
economic expansion is written in red letters in the administration’s new
National Security Strategy, transmitted to Congress on September 20.
This document attempts to justify the belligerent posture of the United States
toward states in the periphery, and the use of its full military force on
recalcitrant third world states and societies, in the name of the defense of
the United States and its military installations around the world. A few quotes
from this document aptly illustrate Mandela’s point that “the
attitude of the United States of America [at present] is a threat to world
peace”:
- The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states, like
Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong
states.
- While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the
international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to
exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such
terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.
- At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq’s
designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran and
its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and
biological agents. In the past decade North Korea has become the world’s
principle purveyor of ballistic missiles, and has tested increasingly capable
missiles while developing its own WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] arsenal.
Other rogue regimes seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well.
These states’ pursuit of, and global trade in, such weapons has become a
looming threat to all nations.
- 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.
- Counterproliferation [in relation to weapons of mass destruction] must be
… integrated into the doctrine, training, and equipping of our forces and
those of our allies to ensure that we can prevail in any conflict with
WMD-armed adversaries.
- The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to
counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat,
the greater is the risk of inaction—and the more 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. To forestall or prevent such
hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act
preemptively.
- The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging
threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression.
- [T]he United States will require bases and stations within and beyond
Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for
the long-distance deployment of U.S. forces.
- The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any
attempt by an enemy—whether a state or non-state actor—to impose its
will on the United States, our allies, or our friends…. Our forces will be
strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military
build-up in hope of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.
- We will take actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our
global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the
potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International
Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which
we do not accept. We will work together with other nations to avoid
complications in our military operations and cooperation, through such
mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral agreements that will protect U.S.
nationals from the ICC.
- In exercising our leadership … we will be prepared to act apart when
our interests and unique responsibilities require.
After reading these statements, it would be difficult for any objective
analyst to avoid the conclusion that this new national security strategy is in
fact the declaration of a new imperial order to be backed up not only by the
threat but also the aggressive employment of overwhelming
military force. As Mandela declared in his September 10 interview, “There
is no doubt that the United States now feels that they are the only superpower
in the world and they can do what they like.”
Our colleague and comrade W. H. Locke Anderson died after a long illness
last September 22, aged sixty-eight. Locke came to MR in the late 1980s, first
as the author of “Apologizing For Capitalism,” which appeared in this
magazine in March 1987. It was followed by a number of pieces distinguished
both by their critical insight and their clarity. Within the year, Locke was
invited by Paul Sweezy and Harry Magdoff to join MR as associate editor and
took on a range of editorial assignments, including criticizing manuscripts,
doing substantive and textual editing with authors, and, in general, became an
invaluable member of the MR family.
Locke graduated from Williams College and went on to do graduate work at
Harvard University where he was a teaching fellow and instructor in the
economics department. He received his Ph.D. in 1960. From there he moved to the
University of Michigan where he was a professor of economics for the next
twenty-eight years. In 1963–1964, he served as a Senior Staff Economist on
President Lyndon Johnson’s Council of Economic Advisers, and in 1965 was a
visiting professor at Texas Christian University.
Locke Anderson’s academic career was distinguished by any measure. But
as time went by, Locke found himself increasingly critical of U.S. domestic and
foreign policies and of the academy as it supported and colluded with these
policies. As a consequence he became increasingly estranged from the tradition
of neoclassical economics in which he had been trained. Like many of his
contemporaries in the 1960s, he turned to the left; and, like a smaller number
of them, he came to understand that only Marxism provides the intellectual
equipment needed to understand the reality of a modern capitalist society.
While at Michigan, Locke joined with colleagues from all over the country to
organize what became the Union of Radical Political Economists. Finally, in
1988, he decided it was time to leave the university and seek more effective
ways of using his energies. With this in mind, he took early retirement and
moved to New York. On arrival, he came to see Magdoff and Sweezy at MR. Locke
had met them earlier in Ann Arbor, which led to his writing for MR. This was
the beginning of a relationship that ripened into an editorial collaboration
lasting more than a decade, and ending only with Locke’s illness. During
his years in New York, Locke was involved in a variety of community activities,
working with his partner Beth Reed on behalf of the homeless with hands-on work
in an organization called El Guapo. He was also a member of the Abyssinian
Baptist Church and was active in the church’s social ministry.
|
