From: Communist Party of Brazil
Secretaria de Relações Internacionais email to:
Date: 2011/3/31

Obama represents the old US’s imperialist policy

President Barack Obama started in Brazil a visit to three Latin American countries and announced a “new stage” in the relations between the United States of America and our continent. To PCdoB, US’s imperialism will not change the essence of its policy with the Obama administration. The concrete initiatives of US’s government contradict its rhetoric and discourses.

Many interests of the USA motivate the visit of Barack Obama, but it is mainly aimed at: trying to neutralize Brazil and the recent role of its independent and progressive foreign policy; increasing the already great asymmetry in bilateral relations in the economic, commercial and defense fields and stimulating contradictions between Brazil and other countries such as China in the economic and commercial fields; ensuring the supply of energy, especially oil from pre-salt layer; and taking actions to “clean the image” of imperialism using Obama’s charisma and the “soft power” diplomacy to launch a supposedly “new policy” for Brazil and Latin America with demagogic speeches in Brazil, Chile and El Salvador.

It is understandable that governments such as that of President Dilma Rousseff, counting with the support and participation of PCdoB, maintain diplomatic relations with sovereign countries, among which the USA. President Lula hosted President Bush twice in Brazil. However, Brazilian communists have no illusions regarding what President Obama represents. He is the chief of state of the main imperialist power, the main enemy of the peoples of the world.

Since the election of Barack Obama, the USA announced a “new policy” that in fact does not exist. Actually, it is a new formulation of the goal of recovering and broadening the world hegemony of the USA. There is now a different rhetoric, symbolic gestures amplified by efficient propaganda and a different tactics as compared to the George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations, aimed at neutralizing opponents and beguiling allies, especially NATO, in order to maintain the US’s leadership even in face of its own difficulty in dealing with several conflicts simultaneously.

That does not match Obama’s speeches in defense of peace, democracy and human rights. Also there are no “common values” uniting the Brazilian people and the government of President Dilma Rousseff, in one side, and the policy of Yankee imperialism, in the other side. Why torture is still going on in Guantanamo? How many wars of occupation aggression to the people the USA promoted in the last decades and are promoting at this very moment? How many dictatorships and coups d’état were – and still are – financed and supported by the USA, such as the current monarchic and despotic regimes of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, protected by Washington?

The new military and homeland security strategies of President Obama rhetorically promise cooperation and multilateralism. In practice, however, they follow the beaten path of imposing their interests by means of force and war.

Facts contradict rhetoric. After more than two years of the Obama administration, it is increasingly clear that the interests of that imperialist power outweigh campaign speeches. Even after recently announced cuts, the USA will spend on its armed forces in 2011 the largest budget since the end of World War II – more than the military spending of all the other countries of the world.

The USA insists in maintaining hundreds of military bases all over the globe. Together with their European allies, they change NATO’s character, which now covers all continents and seas.

There is a strong military presence of the USA in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. The USA and their NATO allies are still in Afghanistan and Pakistan, prolonging a war that is now longer than the aggression against Vietnam, and extending the military occupation in Iraq. Notwithstanding, they have not been able to curb the national and popular resistance in those countries.

At this moment the USA and NATO members are doing a military intervention in Libya after imposing on the UN Security Council a resolution that makes the aggression against the sovereignty of Libya “multilateral.” Revolutionary and progressive forces of all continents must condemn any kind of intervention or foreign military action in Libya, which will not bring a solution to the conflict and will only aggravate it. In case of the civil war unfolding in Libya, a politic and peaceful solution is necessary, one that respects the independence and territorial integrity of that country.

Obama’s policy is against the interests of Brazil and Latin America

As a general democratic and progressive trend thrives in Latin America, the decline of the influence of the US’s hegemony in the region becomes more pronounced. Although the USA still possesses great influence, it is facing a decline in face of the new political reality in Latin America.

In every country, the USA supports right-wing forces that maintain pro-imperialist stances and opposes projects of southern and Latin American integration and democratic, progressive and left-wing governments.

In Latin America, the USA reinforced media campaigns and pressures against the Cuban Revolution and threats to Venezuela, viewed by Washington’s intelligence organizations as the “main threat” against the USA in the Americas. In the meanwhile, the Colombian government follows the line drawn by the USA to become the Israel of Latin America and the Caribbean, sponsoring the murdering of popular leaders and maintaining thousands of political prisoners. Diplomatic cables from the American embassy in Brazil revealed by WikiLeaks made clear what everybody already knew – the USA did not want President Dilma Rousseff to win the election and right-wing candidate José Serra promised to realign the Brazilian foreign policy to US’s interests.

However, in the elections held in last October, the Brazilian people decided that Brazil must move forward and maintain its independent and sovereign, pro Latin America foreign policy, defending peace and the peoples’ right to development.

Imperialism is not willing to cede power without resistance. The USA, surprised by the success of the Brazil-Iran-Turkey agreement regarding the Iranian nuclear program and frustrated by the foreign policy of President Lula in several issues, such as in the resistance to the coup d’état in Honduras, resorted to all measures to isolate Brazil. Hillary Clinton, Obama’s Chief of Staff, led a tough diplomatic reaction against Brazil.

The foreign policy actions of the Obama administration is aimed at maintaining the current system of world power that is characterized by the hegemony of the USA and suffocating multipolar trends and new international roles that countries such as Brazil could play. One cannot judge political leaders such as Barack Obama by his personality or style but by what they objectively represent. Obama is the current representative of the old and well-known imperialist policy of the USA, which has always been and always will be fought by communists and democrats, patriots and internationalists in Brazil.

Renato Rabelo – National President of PCdoB

Ricardo Alemão Abreu – Secretary of International Relations of PCdoB

By James Thompson

Although details are sketchy at this point, it appears a third war is now underway with full U.S. support in spite of the wishes of the U.S. people.

Fidel Castro predicted it. U.S. Department of Defense secretary Gates argued against it. The U.S. people will surely oppose it once they understand it. However, once again, the wealthy elite are having their way. Apparently, the U.S. is participating in aggressive action against Libya which is a violation of our constitution since Congress has not authorized war. Secretary Gates has indicated aggressive action towards Libya will be an act of war. Congress has not authorized such aggressive action so this is a violation of our constitution.

All people in this country should oppose this aggressive military action which will only be in the interest of the wealthy, but not the working people of this nation.

The world is in crisis. We have a catastrophe in Japan brought about by profit driven corporations who put more value on profits than on the safety of humanity and the other inhabitants of our planet. One of my friends pointed out that very little is being done to help the working people of Japan who are suffering from this three pronged catastrophe (earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown), and yet the U.S. and its puppets are embarking on yet another military adventure in Libya which has probably already resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of working people.

We are part of a world economic crisis. Unemployment is still extremely high. Republicans are fighting to chip away every advance gained by working people since the Roosevelt administration.

Untold billions of dollars are being spent every day on the first two wars (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan) and yet there are calls to dismantle our basic public services such as public education, police and fire departments. We don’t have enough money for our people and children, but we have plenty of money to slaughter working people in foreign countries.

This third front in the class war, (for this is very clearly a war against working people), may have some positive, but unintended consequences. It may serve as a lightning rod for working people and may mobilize them and reinvigorate the moribund left and peace movement throughout the world.

Clearly the election of Obama in 2008 signaled a massive outpouring of U.S. people yearning for peace and believing that the first African American President would lead them out of war and into peace. As it turns out, our President is so beholden to the powerful ruling class dominated by the ultra-wealthy that he must fight for the interests of the ruling class and abandon those who elected him. It is clear without a doubt that Obama has chosen to stand with the interests of the wealthy and sell the working class down the river.

So, the questions now develop which will set the stage for the next level of struggle. “Which side are we on?” “Will working people stand up and fight for basic human services and oppose aggressive, imperialist wars?” “Will the peace movement get back up on its hind legs and fight for justice and against war?” “Will the Communist Party oppose imperialism or will it capitulate to the interests of the ultra-wealthy?” “Will progressives sit this one out?” “How will the working people of the world respond to this outrageous intervention in a sovereign nation?” “How is it that the imperialist powers did not intervene in all the other middle eastern and African uprisings, but chose military intervention in Libya?”

The fate of the world depends on working people now more than ever. Only working people can restore sanity in a time dominated by capitalist distortions, lies and outrages. If we working people are not united then we shall surely be divided and conquered!

PHill1917@comcast.net

By James Thompson

There have been many attempts to define fascism in an effort to understand it. Some maintain that fascism is the capitalists’ last option. Others ask, “What is fascism but the death throes of capitalism?”

Fascism has also been described as “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.” According to Georgi Dmitrov in a collection of his reports in 1935 and 1936 Against Fascism and War, fascism is “the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.”

He points out that German fascism, i.e. Nazism or National Socialism, has been the most reactionary form of fascism. He explains, “It has the effrontery to call itself National Socialism, though it has nothing in common with socialism. German fascism is not only bourgeois nationalism, it is fiendish chauvinism. It is a government system of political gangsterism, a system of provocation and torture practiced upon the working class and the revolutionary elements of the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia. It is medieval barbarity and bestiality, it is unbridled aggression in relation to other nations.”

Fascism has manifested itself in many other nations, including most notably, Italy, where Mussolini declared that fascism should be more appropriately called “corporatism” since it represents the merger of the state and corporations. It also appeared in Spain under Franco and other countries. It is important to remember that fascism can be thought of as a logical extension of capitalism. It is one of the forms of rule that can take place under capitalism. It is not an economic system in and of itself. Fascism is a form of government intended to protect the interests of the capitalists through violence and oppression.

The capitalist press has been very effective in blurring the distinction between fascism and communism. Many people in the U.S.A. equate and confuse the terms. The main difference is that fascism is a form of government which safeguards and promotes the interests of the capitalists, whereas communism safeguards and promotes the interests of working people. Fascism is anti-democratic and only allows the political will of the capitalists to be expressed, whereas communism is pro-democratic and only allows the political will of the working people to be expressed.

There has been discussion among leftists in the U.S.A. as to whether the Bush administration was a fascist government. Many maintain that the policies of Bush and his cronies were fascist in nature. Others argue that the policies were different from those seen in fascist countries between the two World Wars. Norman Markowitz in his article “On Guard Against Fascism” published in Political Affairs (May, 2004) states “The domestic policy of fascism was to destroy the independent labor movement, all socialist and communist parties and all democratic movements of the people. The foreign policy of fascism was to completely militarize the society and organize the people to fight imperialist wars and accept and glorify such wars on nationalist and racist grounds…As both ideology and policy, fascism was the rabid response of a decaying capitalism threatened by the workers’ movement at home and anti-colonial movements abroad. The forms that fascism takes can change and be updated, but these are its essential characteristics.”

Gerald Horne, in his article “Threat Needs Study” in Political Affairs (July, 2004), calls for more study of the fascist movement in this country. He points out that there are organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center which track the activities of the extreme right. He also notes that the Center for Responsive Politics tracks political donations. He suggests that donations from certain sectors of finance capital could be tracked to political candidates and organizations.

Horne points out that many scholars maintain that fascism has historically developed as a reaction to the development of strong progressive movements which support the interests of working people. He goes on to note that some academics don’t think a fascist movement is likely to develop in the U.S.A. because there is no strong progressive movement currently. Whether there is a viable progressive movement in the U.S.A. is debatable, especially considering the mass movements which have been so conspicuous in 2006. As the right wing has mounted its assault on working people, the positive achievements of the twentieth century in civil rights, education, social security and health care become more apparent. One can conceptualize the recent actions of the right wing as a reaction to the gains of the progressive movement.

From a dialectical materialist point of view, we can see that the development of capitalist, fascist, socialist and communist movements are developments in the struggle between the owners of the means of production and the workers. As Marx pointed out, “All human history hitherto is the history of the class struggle.” The interests of fascism and communism are just as opposed and irreconcilable as the interests of working people and capitalists. As capitalism weakens, its options narrow and it is more likely that it will desperately grasp for fascist methods to sustain itself. Much as a wounded animal is more likely to bite, capitalism in its final stages is more likely to use direct violence against working people. However, just as the animal ensures its own destruction through violence, so it will go for capitalism.

It is noteworthy that there are similarities between the tactics employed by Bush and fascist movements in the past. Don Sloan, in his article “The ‘F’ Word” in Political Affairs (May, 2004) does a good job of comparing fascist tactics and those of the Bush administration. Sloan warns “It can’t happen here? It can happen here? It is happening here.”

It is easy to use the label “fascism or fascist” when trying to discredit our opponents. We, the people of conscience on the left, should be careful however when we apply labels. Applying labels tends to de-humanize people and is a tactic used in military training. Soldiers are taught to think of their “enemies” as subhuman thus making it easier to kill them. We must remember that a number of people apply labels to us. Do we really want to respond to mudslinging by mudslinging ourselves? People on the left use “fascist” far too easily these days to label people promoting policies they don’t like. It would be more useful and productive to attack the policies we do not like and explain that the reason we do not like them is that they are harmful to working people. Throwing around labels and failing to use a class analysis is counterproductive at best. Such tactics may actually hurt the credibility of progressive movements who engage in such behavior.

We do not like the “fascist like” tactics employed by our government, but it is important to remember that unlike Nazi Germany, we still have trade unions, opposition political parties such as the CPUSA, and a progressive press to include the People’s World and others. Writers such as Michael Parenti and publishing companies such as International Publishers are still publishing articles and books. We have not had book burnings and university professors are not clubbed and imprisoned. No Communist in the U.S.A. has been put in a concentration camp by the Bush or Obama administrations.

Nevertheless, it will be important for people on the left to keep identifying clearly those tactics and developments that are not in the interest of the working class and mount united struggles against each and every one of them. This is already happening in the case of the War in Iraq, immigration policy, and the struggle to save social security. These struggles will move our country forward and will help build a strong progressive movement that can bring about positive social change. We cannot forget and must not abandon the gains made in the last century. Indeed, it is time to start making new gains for this century.

Bibliography

Georgi Dmitrov, Against War and Fascism, (International Publishers, New York, 1986).

Gerald Horne, “Threat Needs Study,” Political Affairs, (July, 2004).

Norman Markowitz, “On Guard Against Fascism,” Political Affairs, (May, 2004)

Don Sloan, “The ‘F’ Word,” Political Affairs, (May, 2004).