Energy independence or emergence of U.S. oil imperialism?

It’s become crystal clear that controlling oil access is the cornerstone of U.S. Middle East policy. But now, given the tough situation Washington is facing in the region in response to its continuous attempts to transform the region, planning regime changes in many states, laying hands on the Middle East and the Arab world oil wealth proved difficult than the Bush administration and previous U.S. governments have predicted.

Seeking a “democratic” or in other words “puppet” government in Iraq was the U.S. goal to lay hands on the country’s oil resources, up until it ousted the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

But this was only part of a larger plan that includes usurping the entire Middle East’s riches.

The path the American President adopted in achieving this goal is “engendering the kind of resistance that is actually undermining America’s aims,” stated a recent article on Intervention Magazine.



And the result is that the U.S. now is sacrificing enormous sums of blood and treasure, while making itself more vulnerable in the process.

Many political experts and recent polls confirmed that the majority of the American public disagrees with Bush’s insistence to “stay the course” in Iraq.

That’s probably because everybody now knows that the reasons Mr. Bush presented as justification to invade Iraq were fake.

Iraq had been the core of the Neoconservative’s plans to insure America’s economic predominance for long decades.

By deciding to invade Iraq in March 2003, the U.S. President hoped to preserve the U.S. hegemony over Iraq’s oil which would keep oil prices in the $15 - $20 a barrel rangem, and that by ensuring low oil prices he would break the back of the OPEC oil cartel.

He also hoped that low oil prices would keep troubled U.S. auto manufacturers like Ford and GM alive, and that leading American oil firms, like Exxon and Mobil would regain lost ground, after they saw their share of the world’s oil reserves they control dwindle in comparison to foreign competitors. Bush also hoped that the U.S. influence in the oil-rich country, Iraq, would give it great leverage over competitors such as China and Europe, and that the U.S. control over Iraq’s oil would insure oil continuing to be priced in dollars and not Euros, the article further stated.

The U.S. attempted, by invading Iraq, to make sure American consumers could continue “to afford gas guzzling trucks and SUVs churned out by Ford and GM”; the article said, and thus make sure U.S. oil giants like Exxon/Mobil profit from China’s petroleum fueled economic expansion; and that the U.S. dollar stays the world’s reserve currency, not to mention the enormous advantages U.S. financial firms would gain.

U.S.’s automakers, oil industry, and financial firms stand for “the axis-of-influence” that makes up the American government’s political base. But this axis-of-influence is tied to an axis-of-ills, which includes high oil prices and declining supplies which threaten the long-term prospects of the U.S. automakers and oil firms.

Replacing the U.S. dollar with another currency would deal a major blow to the U.S.’s financial sector.

Debt links the U.S.’s aging petroleum-industrial complex with the financial sector. And it is a well known fact that the America’s auto manufacturers are crippled with debt. The huge amount of debt accumulated by the American consumers and the U.S. government could be one of the key reasons that will lead to the collapse of the dollar’s primacy.

Launching Iraq war in March 2003 with the aim of protecting U.S. hegemony over Iraq’s oil intended to alleviate the ills the U.S.’s sclerotic petroleum-related infrastructure is suffering as well as the financial sector.

By invading Iraq, the U.S. President's Middle Eastern maneuver has actually worsened those ills instead of addressing them.

But the U.S. military presence in Iraq has inadvertently strengthened its chief adversary in the region; Iran.

The U.S. decision to invade Iraq, although it had no proof that the country's toppled leader did possess Weapons of Mass Destruction, provoked Iran hasten its nuclear developments to avoid facing a similar fate.

Iran recognized the lessons of Iraq. Iran knew that carrying the nuclear card is the most effective way to stop the U.S. President from even thinking of using force against it one day.

With the current heated situation in the Middle East, one power, either Iran or the United States, can dominate the Persian Gulf and the region’s oil wealth.

Iran had in the past also warned that Gulf Arab oil would be endangered by any U.S. attack on its nuclear facilities.

First such threat was made in 2005 when a leading Iranian official raised the prospect of Iranian retaliation against Middle East oil exports.

Iranian Expediency Council secretary Mohsen Rezai was once quoted as saying that such Persian Gulf oil states as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia could be threatened.

"An attack on Iran will be tantamount to endangering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and "in a word" the entire Middle East oil," Rezai said.

And by invading Iraq, the U.S. has not only increased the chances of a confrontation with the Islamic Republic.

America now has at least fourteen military bases in Iraq to boost its ability to carry out military strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites from Iraq. But those bases had as well exposed the American forces to a possible Iranian retaliation.

As explained many military experts, it’s almost impossible for any country to bomb the Islamic Republic’s nuclear sites, given the fact that Iran’s nuclear facilities are dispersed all over the country.

And recent news reports indicated that the U.S. government might consider using nuclear weapons to knock down Iran’s nuclear program.

But invading Iran, a country that is more populous and more powerful than Iraq carries new threats to the U.S.

The mess the U.S. created in the Middle East is slowly but surely strangling its vitality. America's involvement in the region is linked to the woes facing its aging petroleum-industrial complex. “As a result, Iran has America over the proverbial barrel,” the article further stated.

It’s noteworthy that 40 percent of the world's crude oil shipments passes through the two-mile wide channel of the strategic Straits of Hormuz, where massive Iranian forces are deployed serving as a protection barrier.

If attacked, Iran could easily block the Straits of Hormuz and use its missiles to strike tankers and GCC oil facilities. In a few weeks, the entire world would be starving for oil and Iran would then be the world’s no. 1 oil exporters.

Cheney hints at possible war with Iran

Addressing a joint news conference Saturday with Prime Minister John Howard, visiting U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney stepped up threats against Iran, saying that the U.S. would consider "all options" to stop Tehran, which has defied UN deadline to stop its nuclear activities, from acquiring what Washington claims are nuclear weapons.

"They have made some fairly inflammatory statements," Cheney said, in reference to the Iranian leader, adding "they appear to be pursuing the development of nuclear weapons."

"We are deeply concerned and have made it very clear we're deeply concerned about Iran's activities."

Cheney made his remarks two days after Tehran had announced its refusal to meet a UN deadline to halt uranium enrichment.

The UN nuclear Watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Thursday that Iran had failed to respect a UN Security Council ultimatum to stop all activities related to uranium enrichment; instead it had expanded its nuclear program, which Iran asserts is solely aimed at peaceful purposes, setting up hundreds of centrifuges.

Also Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly vowed to challenge international threats led by Israel and the United States to stop Iran from pursuing its legal right, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to develop nuclear technology, and never to show weakness by acceding to Western demands.

It’s of no importance if countries did not believe Iran's assertions that its nuclear program is peaceful, the Iranian leader said, adding that his government would resist "all bullies."

• "Deeply concerned"

The U.S. Vice President said that Washington was "deeply concerned" about Iran's activities, including what he described as "aggressive" sponsoring of Islamist groups in the Middle East, specially the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah.

"We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations, “Cheney said, claiming that solving the matter through diplomacy is “still our preference".

"But I've also made the point, and the President has made the point, that all options are on the table," he said, leaving open the possibility of war with Iran.

• “Potential clout”

On the other hand, Australian PM said that efforts to prevent Iran from becoming more influential would fail if the U.S. troops in Iraq lost the war, arguing that a sudden withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would only bolster Iran's hegemony in the Middle East.

"I can't think of a country whose influence and potential clout would be more enhanced in that part of the world than Iran's would be," if the U.S. forces were suddenly pulled out from Iraq, Howard said.

"That would be a nightmare scenario," he added.

-- AJP and agencies

Apa kesudahanya orang Melayu.

Bangsa Melayu terkenal dengan sifat merendah diri, lemah-lembut, sopan santun dan kuat beragama. Namun akhir-akhir ini kita dapat melihat perubahan pada orang-orang Melayu dengan cara yang mendadak. Perubahan ini bukan dari segi kenaikan taraf hidup ataupun kejayaan. Perubahan pada orang-orang Melayu ini pada kerutuhan akhlak, keciciran, keganasan serta perbuatan-perbuatan yang tidak senonoh.

Selama mana kita akan menghadap semua ini? Orang-orang Melayu semakin hari semakin leka, orang-orang Melayu semakin hari semakin malas, orang Melayu semakin hari semakin bodoh. Apa yang boleh kita banggakan dengan anak-anak Melayu sekarang ini? Sedikit pun tiada apa yang boleh di banggakan. Melepak sana-sini tanpa tujuan. Merewang sana-sini. Membuat kacau bilau umpama seluruh kawasan mereka yang punya. Anak-anak sekolah berpeleseran di kompleks-kompleks membeli-belah, menhisap rokok tanpa segan-silu, berperangai tak tentu hala bagai orang yang kurang siuman. Mana pergi orang-orang Melayu yg takut pada tuhan, yang sopan santun dan yang berakhlak? Siapa yang harus kita persalahkan?

Aku orang Melayu, aku sedih dengan bangsa ku, aku rintih melihat anak-anak bangsa ku yang keciciran. Siapa nak aku salahkan? Bangsa yang dahulunya kaya dan bermartabat tapi sekarang menjadi bangsa merempat dan bangsat. Aku malu dengan bangsa ku. Apakah ini warisan bangsa yang hendak kita banggakan? Bangsa bangsat bukan bangsa aku. Bangsa merempat bukan warisan ku. Melayu makin hari makin layu. Kutu-kutu jalanan yang bekudis dikaki, berkurap dibadan kebanyakannya bangsa Melayu. Samseng-samseng bermotosikal berlumba saban hari kebanyakannya bangsa Melayu. Inilah bangsa yang bangsat. Mak bapak tak tahu nak nasihat, dah terjerat baru nak ingat. Bohsia-bohsia betina lepak-melepak ditepi-tepi tembok, kebanyakannya bangsa Melayu. Hari-hari tunggu masa untuk ditebuk. Bila dah gemuk baru terjeguk-jeguk nak cari mana dia siberuk.

Melayu tak ada maruah tapi cerita macam gah. Apa cerita orang Melayu? Nak menipu tak sudah-sudah……Aku Melayu, tapi malu nak mengaku Melayu.....Rintihan JATT

US troops terrorize Baghdad in “Operation Law and Order”

By Kate Randall
20 February 2007

Thousands of US troops went house to house through mostly Shiite areas in northeastern Baghdad February 13 in the opening phase of Operation Law and Order, the “surge” plan announced by the Bush administration January 10.

The plan aims to deploy an additional 21,500 US combat troops, the vast majority going to the Iraqi capital. The operation reportedly will involve a similar number of US support troops.

Additional Kurdish and Iraqi troops are being brought in from other parts of the country. At least 3,000 US troops and 2,000 Iraqis have arrived thus far, with the full increase in troop numbers not expected until May.

The aim of Operation Law and Order is to move into strongholds of resistance throughout Baghdad, arrest or kill insurgents, and occupy the neighborhoods.

The “surge” is part of US imperialism’s broader effort to extend its domination over the entire Middle East. The US has two aircraft carrier groups stationed in the Persian Gulf, the largest military presence since 2003, and Patriot missile defenses have been installed in other Gulf states as the US ratchets up its preparations for a military strike against Iran.

Early Monday, an attack by three suicide car bombers killed two American soldiers and eight Iraqi officers at an Iraqi police headquarters that is being used as a US base in Tarmiya, 25 miles north of Baghdad. The US military also confirmed that 17 US troops had been injured in what it referred to as a “coordinated attack.”

Attacks on such vulnerable bases—and the deaths of more US troops—can be expected to increase as the US counterinsurgency operation proceeds. The death toll of US troops now stands at 3,144.

The vast majority of Iraqis see the American military as their enemy and occupier. Recent polls show that the majority of Iraqis believe that killing American soldiers is justified.

Despite these well known facts, the US government and a compliant American media portray the US operation as a benevolent effort to protect the Iraqi people from what they often call “anti-Iraqi forces.” The absurd premise is that the American military, which is ultimately responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, is “pro-Iraqi,” while those Iraqis who resist the colonial conquest of their country and oppose the US-backed puppet government are, by definition, terrorists and criminals.

As the counterinsurgency operation got underway, with thousands of US troops sweeping through neighborhoods, supported by US fighter jets flying overhead, thunderous booms could be heard across the city. American forces set up small bases in the middle of communities, where they will be stationed instead of returning to their fortified bases in the Green Zone and elsewhere.

New checkpoints were set up around the city, with individuals frisked at gunpoint and cars and motorbikes searched from top to bottom. The US military announced on day two of the operation that it had cleared several areas of the capital in “intelligence-focused searches.”

British and Iraqi forces closed two border crossings with Iran in southern Iraq, blocking the gates with large metal shipping containers. They also expanded coastal patrols to monitor maritime traffic into southern Iraq. Basra, Iraq’s second largest city, was ringed with checkpoints in an operation the British military said would last for 72 hours.

In preparation for a major assault, security forces sealed off Sadr City, the densely populated Shiite slum in Baghdad that is a bastion of support for the Madhi Army of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Haidar Karam described to the Los Angeles Times how some 50 troops suddenly emerged and circled his Shaab neighborhood in the city’s northeast. About 15 minutes later, a half dozen Humvees arrived and US snipers took up positions on rooftops. Troops stopped vehicles from moving. The US military reported capturing 16 suspects and seizing three Kalashnikovs in the largely Shiite neighborhood.

The predominantly Sunni Dora neighborhood was also one of the first to be hit, with US troops targeting the Abu Disheer Shiite enclave. With Humvees and armored vehicles protected by aircraft, US troops set off stun grenades before smashing down doors and storming houses in search of insurgents.

The Los Angeles Times reported that in Sadiya, a nearby Sunni neighborhood, an Iraqi soldier searched a home for weapons, harassing a woman in her 70s. “What, grandma,” he said, “don’t you have any rocket-propelled grenades or roadside bombs?”

In the downtown Yarmouk district, streams of unmarked SUVs filled with masked security officers drove by, pointing assault rifles at motorists. Police pickup trucks patrolled the streets, with plates of armor attached in makeshift fashion to the vehicles’ sides.

American officials have released no estimate on the total number of arrests and casualties in the Baghdad operation.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a surprise half-day visit to Baghdad on Saturday to underscore the Bush administration’s determination to carry through the operation in the face of popular opposition in the US and a non-binding resolution passed the previous day by the House of Representatives opposing the escalation. Her visit was also intended to increase pressure on the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Mouri al-Maliki. “How the Iraqis use the breathing space that [the operation] might provide is what’s really important,” she said during a 10-minute address in the heavily fortified Green Zone.

Those assembled for Rice’s brief talk included Maliki, a Shia, President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, and Vice President Tariq Hashimi, a Sunni. The US has long demanded that Maliki confront the Mahdi Army and Al Sadr, upon whose support the prime minister has depended to retain his shaky hold on power.

Rice reiterated administration warnings that the “surge” would produce increased bloodshed. “There are going to be bad days for the Baghdad security plan,” she said, “when violence is up—not down.”

While in the initial days of the operation sectarian violence and deaths appeared to decline, by Sunday the death toll was nearing the 100-per-day Baghdad residents have come to expect. Three car bombs exploded in mainly Shia areas of the city, killing at least 67 and injuring more than 120.

The increased violence followed a video conference with President Bush last Friday in which Prime Minister Maliki described the first days of the operation as a “brilliant success.”

Since the US invasion, some 2 million Iraqis have moved outside the country and another 1.7 million have been internally displaced The International Organization for Migration reported last Friday that another 1 million Iraqis could be expected to flee the country by the end of 2007 as a result of the unrelenting violence and the economic and social catastrophe resulting from the US occupation.

The US media has provided virtually no coverage of the actions of American soldiers in Operation Law and Order The major media outlets are colluding with the Bush administration to keep the true nature of the operation from the American people.

Nevertheless, there is considerable anxiety within sections of the US ruling elite over the policy being pursued by the Bush administration Earlier this month, the Council on Foreign Relations published a policy brief entitled “After the Surge: The Case for US Military Disengagement from Iraq.” The statement noted that the US intervention in Iraq “triggered the collapse of the Iraqi state, plunged the country into a civil war that brought about the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, wrecked the country’s already debilitated infrastructure, and spurred violence sectarian rivalries that threaten to spill over into the broader Middle East.”

It continued, “The crisis has now moved beyond the capacity of Washington to control on its own. The results of the midterm elections show that public support for the present course has buckled. The United States lacks the military resources and the domestic and international political support to master the situation.”

The main factor on which the war cabal around Bush depends in pursuing its reckless and incendiary policy is the cowardice and complicity of the Democratic Party. Leading Democrats, even as they criticize Bush’s “surge” on tactical grounds, repeatedly avow their “support for the troops” and opposition to a cutoff of funds for the war.

US 'empire' in crisis Pt 4

Iran
Over Iran, the US has been compelled to reverse its policy of 27 years in offering talks with a regime described by Bush as one of the "axis of evil". Although US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, declares that there is no 'grand bargain' on offer to Iran, it is clear that the US has miscalculated. Its sabre-rattling has not succeeded in eliminating Iran's nuclear programme. One observer commented that the US's approach towards Iran over its nuclear programme and the possibility of nuclear weapons in the future amounted to an ultimatum: "Please hand over your gun and then I'm going to shoot you."

Although there is mass internal opposition to the mullahs' regime in Tehran, given the history of imperialist intervention and the nationalist resistance to this by the Iranian people, the majority of Iranians are implacably opposed to the threats of Bush and US imperialism.

Contrary to the expectations of Bush, the intervention in Iraq, rather than weakening Iran, has enormously strengthened its position as a regional power in the Middle East. Through its contacts with Hezbollah and because of the retreat of Syria from Lebanon, it is now a major player there. It has also stepped in to finance Hamas in its conflict with the Palestinian authority.

Record oil prices and an increase in trade with Russia, China and India have allowed Iran to shrug off the pressure of the US to give up its nuclear programme. There are sections of the US administration - led, it seems, by Vice-President Cheney - who still wish to resort to a military solution. But a full-scale military invasion of Iran, three times the population of Iraq, is ruled out. The bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, however, is still an option which 'remains on the table', such is the deranged outlook of the Bush administration.

However, due to the opposition of other capitalist powers, the US looks as though it has been forced to put even this plan into cold storage, preferring to rely on Europe in particular, and China and Russia, to pressurise Iran to come to some kind of compromise.

We oppose the resort to nuclear energy by Iran, never mind the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, it is sheer hypocrisy for the US to denounce the Iranian regime while Iran is surrounded on all its borders by nuclear powers - some, like Israel, armed to the teeth by US imperialism.

Weakening
The changed approach of the US over Iran signifies the weakening of its position, a setback for the underlying philosophy of the Bush administration of unilateralism and 'pre-emptive strikes' against the perceived enemies of the US.

Its military prowess is not underwritten, as was the case in the past, by its dominant economic situation. It has been enormously weakened by the hollowing out of its economy through deindustrialisation and its dependency on Asian capitalism, particularly China, to plug the 7% deficit in the US's balance of trade by buying up its dollar assets. How long this will continue is another matter, as we have explained in previous issues of the socialist.

One thing is clear: the writ of US imperialism has not gone unchallenged, either in the neo-colonial world or elsewhere. In fact the world design of US imperialism's domination has been severely checked. The mass strikes on the issue of immigration in the US, together with the growing discontent of the American workers, are also indications of the colossal social opposition which is brewing domestically in the US. Internationally, protests in France and now Chile show the massive worldwide opposition to capitalism and imperialism.

This is fuelled by the huge wealth divide, which is now being challenged by workers and the mass opposition demonstrated towards the Iraq War and the bellicose international actions of US imperialism. This has not yet found an organised political expression in the formation of a distinct mass workers' party of the US working class, but the actions of the Bush regime are preparing the ground for precisely such a development.

The brutal Roman Empire provoked the slaves' revolt - this modern 'empire' will do likewise. However, the slaves of Rome could not offer a higher form of production and development of society. The modern wage-slaves of capitalism, both in the 'advanced' and the neo-colonial worlds, represent human progress, the future of socialism and a world planned economy in answer to the militarism and barbarity of US imperialism and the world system it defends today.

US 'empire' in crisis Pt 3

Hatred
Iraq will never be democratic or free on a capitalist basis. This was underlined by Bush's visit to Iraq on 13 June. He told the new Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki: "I have expressed our country's desire to work with you but I appreciate you recognise the fact that the future of the country is in your hands." Yet, the 'independent' Iraqi prime minister received precisely five minutes notice of Bush's flying visit, a clear demonstration of the relationship between 'Caesar' and his pro-consul in Iraq.

However, neither the Iraqi people nor the neo-colonial masses that were meant to be brought to heel by the 'war on terror' have been cowed by this. The slogan of Roman leaders towards their colonial slaves was "let them hate us as long as they fear us" (oderint dum metuant). This was the real philosophy of Bush and his gang in the aftermath of 9/11. As a consequence of the US's actions since then, the masses in the neo-colonial world continue to hate the US even more intensely but they no longer fear them!

Somalia
Events in Iraq, Somalia, Afgh-anistan, Iran and elsewhere, underline this. The victory of the 'Islamists' in Somalia, backed by the local capitalists and the masses desperate for any alternative to the unending chaos, represents "a staggering defeat for the US strategy of counter-terrorism by proxy" in the Horn of Africa [the Guardian].

Since the ousting of the dictator Mohammed Siad Barre in 1991, the country has been under the heel of corrupt warlords who have accumulated vast wealth through the control of ports, roads and airfields with no recognised national authority. The US backed these despots to the hilt because of the fear of the danger of the 'Talibanisation' of Somalia. Their miscalculation now threatens to achieve precisely the outcome they wished to avert.

Bush has made threatening noises about preventing a "new base for al-Qa'ida" but after the ignominious retreat of US forces from Somalia under Clinton in 1994 it will not be able to directly intervene militarily. The Islamists, on the other hand, will no more be capable of opening up a new road of peace and prosperity for the suffering Somali people than the Taliban were able to do in Afghanistan.

American and British military intervention in Afghanistan was supposed to extirpate all remnants of the barbaric Taliban, smash the power of the warlords and sweep away the feudal rubbish, including the persecution and discrimination against women. Yet, four and a half years after the invasion, 'Iraq' has spread to Afghanistan, with suicide bombers in Kabul, poppy production fuelling the drugs trade at its highest ever and the return of the Taliban in the south.

Afghanistan
The writ of President Karzai, contemptuously described as the 'Mayor of Kabul', does not run beyond the capital. In the south and the border country between Afghanistan and Pakistan, "the Taliban rule the night". Medieval barbarism has returned as schools have been burnt down and terrorised women are forced back into their homes. The thin line of US and British troops are incapable of holding the situation in the battle against the Taliban. Therefore the Karzai government, in desperation, is attempting to forge an alliance with the 'narco-warlords' and their militias to combat the Taliban.

The 23,000-strong US contingent of troops, together with 9,000 NATO troops, are incapable of securing the country. In fact, it is estimated that a 'foreign legion' of 150,000 troops would be necessary just to hold the south of Afghanistan! The complete collapse of the charade of 'democratic' government under the Karzai administration, propped up as it is by US and British bayonets, is posed. In desperation, Karzai is attempting to come to an agreement with the Taliban, or a section of it in the south, much as Pakistan has done.

US 'empire' in crisis Pt 2

Civil war
Yes and no. A widespread nationalist resistance exists in Iraq, as in Vietnam, reflected in the insurgency.

However, at present the insurgency involves the predominantly five million Sunni Iraqi Arabs. The killing of al-Zarqawi - who in any case played a minor role in the resistance - will do nothing to quell this movement, as even Bush and Blair have conceded. At the time of the capture of Saddam Hussein and the death of his sons they sang a different song however, claiming it was a turning point.

The Kurds and the Shias, who constitute the majority of the population of Iraq, have for different reasons either supported the US-led invasion (the Kurds) or tolerated it (the Shias). The Shia elite, in particular, have gone along with Britain and the US as the means of finally realising their power. But now "Shia animosity towards the American and British forces is... beginning to look like that of the Sunni at the beginning of the guerrilla war". [Patrick Cockburn, The Independent, 24 May.]

At the same time, the communal conflict between the Shias (60% of the population), the Sunni and the Kurds is intractable on a capitalist basis, and is reflected in the tit-for-tat 'civil war' which has riven the country.

This is the crucial difference with Vietnam. The opposition to US imperialism was united in the main behind the predominantly Stalinist nationalist forces of Ho Chi Minh and the National Liberation Front, which also reflected a programme of social liberation for the peasant masses in particular.

No such force exists in Iraq which US imperialism could 'hand over' to, 'declare victory' and come home. There is a clear recognition that the 132,000 American troops backed by a small of force of British troops are incapable of holding the situation in check.

British soldiers have been attacked at a rate of 60 times a month, since the beginning of the year. A thousand British soldiers have gone absent without leave (AWOL) for more than 30 days since the beginning of the war in 2003.

The US is therefore attempting to stitch together an Iraqi 'national army', which stands at 230,000 personnel at present but is projected to rise to 320,000 by the end of next year. But, as commentators in capitalist newspapers such as The Independent have recognised, "the allegiance of these forces is to the Sunni, Shia and Kurdish communities, and not to the central government. The problem has always been loyalty rather than training."

Impasse
This sectarian impasse cannot be solved on a capitalist basis. This, incredibly, is not recognised by the alleged leaders of the 'Stop the War' movement in Britain.

The Socialist Party demands the immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq, so that the Iraqi people can decide their own fate. Yet, a complete unilateral withdrawal is unlikely to be undertaken by the US. It invaded Iraq to secure the oil and, while most of its troops (alongside those from Britain and other 'coalition' partners) could be formally withdrawn, it is highly unlikely they will immediately give up all of the 110 bases which they occupy in Iraq.

Only an effective, non-sectarian movement of workers - Kurds, Shias and Sunni, as well as Turcomen and others - can fully and lastingly break the military and economic stranglehold over Iraq exercised by US imperialism. This movement would have to be linked to the idea of a socialist Iraq organised on the basis of a democratic confederation, guaranteeing the rights of all the peoples of Iraq, including the minorities.

Nothing is more utopian than the arguments of some 'socialists' who maintain that just by withdrawing the troops the Iraqi people would then live in amity, peace and understanding. Left to their own devices, they undoubtedly would.

But on the basis of capitalism, with a historical legacy of division fomented by imperialism and capitalism and exploited by the elites in all the different communities, these sectarian divisions can grow, as the experiences of Northern Ireland and, perhaps more tragically, the Balkans have demonstrated.

Some of the siren voices that restrict themselves to the slogan 'withdraw the troops' adopted the same position in relation to Northern Ireland in the past. Withdraw British troops and Protestants and Catholics would live peacefully. Their utopian experiment was never put to the test as British imperialism, although it would have liked to have withdrawn its forces from Northern Ireland, understood that this could trigger a sectarian civil war - created by their own past policies. Therefore, despite the bombings and casualties, they settled in for the long haul against the IRA.

Similar arguments are now raised within the ranks of US imperialism to justify the continued military, and particularly economic, subjugation of Iraq, even if the troops are 'formally withdrawn to bases'. The task of the Iraqi workers and farmers, therefore, is to forge a class alliance that can show a way out of the horrors inflicted upon them by imperialism and the different communal elites who are struggling for power.

US ‘empire’ in crisis Pt 1

The US is the world’s only superpower yet, despite its overwhelming military might, in relation to Iraq, Afghanistan and now Somalia it has become embroiled in situations that it cannot control. Peter Taaffe examines the perspectives for US imperialism.

The United States is the strongest power the world has ever seen.
Peter Taaffe, General Secretary, Socialist Party, England and Wales

It has an army of more than one and a quarter million men and women, with half a million soldiers, spies, technicians, teachers, dependants and civilian contractors deployed in other nations. It also has just under a dozen carrier task forces in all the oceans and seas of the world and, through its doctrine of ‘full military spectrum’, intends to dominate space as well.

This new Rome – called an ‘empire of bases’ by the perceptive US commentator Chalmers Johnson – has 725 officially recognised bases throughout the world; unofficially there are at least 1,700 of these military institutions. Its arms expenditure, bloated enormously since 9/11, is equal almost to the total spending of the rest of the world put together.

The new Rome
Following the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001, US imperialism sought to unilaterally deploy this force to establish a ‘unipolar world’, in which its power remained unchallenged.

Indeed, one commentator proclaimed that “there was hardly a single prominent figure [in the US] who found fault with the notion of the United States remaining the sole military superpower until the end of time”. Even before 9/11, another asserted: “America is no mere international citizen. It is the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome. Accordingly, America is in the position to reshape norms, alter expectations and create new realities. How? By unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will.”

Al-Qa’ida’s attack on the US gave Bush precisely the excuse to realise this dream of the ‘neo-conservative’ cabal that surrounded him from his first day in office. The first target was Afghanistan, then Iraq, to be followed by the bringing to heel of Iran and the subjugation of the whole of the Middle East. This was part of the ‘grand plan’ of transforming the United States’ ‘informal empire’ into an open ‘New Rome’.

It took centuries for the Roman Empire to collapse, yet in less than a decade Bush’s imperial presidency is disintegrating in the sands of Iraq, the mountains of Afghanistan and the chaos of Somalia. The reasons for the record headlong retreat of US imperialism were anticipated by the Socialist Party and the Committee for a Workers’ International. We argued that the use of overwhelming military power alone could not succeed. It would conjure up a massive national and social revolt that would rebound within the borders of the US itself, resulting in what capitalist commentators themselves call ‘blowback’.

Opposition
The effects of this are seen in the unprecedented slump in Bush’s ratings – standing at 31% in May. He is the most unpopular president since 1945 apart from the hated Nixon, who was driven from office as a result of the Vietnam War and its repercussions in Watergate.

There is no foreseeable end to the horrors of Iraq. The horrible massacre at Haditha inevitably conjures up the similar atrocities of the Vietnam War, symbolised by the massacre of over 500 men, women and children at My Lai. The difference this time is that the revelations of Haditha have come out much more quickly than those of My Lai.

Also, American opposition to the Iraq war is now greater than it was at the time of the Vietnam atrocities, with six out of ten Americans already believing that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a ‘mistake’. This has compelled normally hawkish senators such as John Murtha to demand a speedy withdrawal of the US from Iraq. However, it is one thing to go into a quagmire but much more difficult to extract oneself from it.

The Independent commented on the bayoneting and shooting of women and children at Haditha: “Clearly, with every passing day, the war that Iraq resembles is Vietnam.”

Peace Holds at Beirut Demo

February 14, 2007 3:38


The demonstration in Beirut on the second anniversary of the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was quite calm. Lebanon's army and police were out in such force that one checkpoint was being run by the Judiciary Police. Clearly, the government was taking no chances and put every available man on the street.

The major concern was that the pro-goverment coalition that has formed around Hariri's followers and other anti-Syrian groups would clash with the Hizballah-led pro-Syrian opposition that is camped out not far away.

Downtown Beirut has become contested space. Hariri is buried besides the huge Amin mosque, which he himself commissioned. Hariri was murdered on Valentine's Day 2005 in a massive car bombing that his supporters blame on Syria. (A preliminary report by the subsequent UN investigation implicated top Syrian officials.) The demonstrations that followed his death took place in the adjacent empty lot, coincidentally known as Martyr's Square. The biggest protest, on March 14th of that same year, helped push the Syrian army out of Lebanon, an event dubbed the Cedar Revolution by the US State Department.

So naturally, the March 14th forces -- as the US-backed anti-Syrian coalition is now known -- wanted to demonstrate today in the same place. This was practically asking for trouble, however, considering that the opposition has been living in tents just a stone throw away for the past two months. They accuse Hariri's followers of collaborating with an American-Israeli plan to re-make the Middle East through military aggression.

So the solution for today was a dense no-man's land of barbed wire and armored personnel carriers between the two sides. Though the turnout at today's event -- wire services said that the crowd numbered in the "tens of thousands" -- was less than the million-strong marches of the past few years, it was still impressive that so many people weren't scared off by the threat of violence. Two bombs that exploded yesterday in a mountain town north of Beirut were probably meant to keep people at home. Yet many families showed up today with all generations represented.

Hebron Blues

February 14, 2007 9:04

In Hebron recently, I met one of the 500 Jewish settlers who live surrounded by 120,000 Arab neighbors. It's tense. In Hebron, the Arabs and the Jews fear and hate each other, and so do their children. One settler said that a few days before, an Arab --a robber or a terrorist, he wasn't sure which, but presumed that the intruder was a terrorist--- had broken into an apartment a few steps away from where his daughter and her kids lived.

What sort of impact did this permanent state of seige have on the children of Jewish settlers, I asked. None, replies one of the settler leaders. "Our kids have platinum nerves," he says confidently. "Our children will grow into the next generation of Israeli leaders."

That's a scary prospect for many Israelis. A few weeks ago, Israeli TV showed one of these "platinum-nerved" future leaders, a young settler woman, named Yifat Alkobi, in her early twenties. She and her child had corraled a Palestinian schoolgirl at the entrance to her house and were cursing her, in Arabic, as a "slut" and a "whore." These are not the future leaders that most Israelis want; Alkobi’s televised rage provoked universal revulsion.

Not long ago, I ventured into Hebron to speak with the family of the Palestinian girl reviled by the settler woman. I wanted to see what they thought of their Jewish neighbors. On this street, winding up a hill, it was easy to spot the Arab houses. Their windows and doors were covered in metal grills to protect them from stones, rotten fruit and the occasional gunshot coming from settlers living across the road. Over the years, a few Jewish settlers had also been shot by Palestinian militants, and Israeli soldiers had cordoned off this section, emptying life from the heart of old Hebron.

The Arab houses were easy to spot for another reason. The settler kids had spray- painted a Star of David on walls of all the Arab houses. A religious symbol used for intimidation. I found this distrubing, like seeing the Klu Klux Klan's cross blazing on a black man's lawn.

The patriarch Abu amir Abu Aisha greeted me. He showed me a few bulletholes in his ceiling, from Jewish settlers across the lane, he claimed. He was in his late seventies, old enough to remember when his father saved their Jewish neighbors from being massacred by Arabs during the 1929 Hebron riots, which, some historians say, were instigated by the British.

"At first, we welcomed back the Jews," he says. "We gave them fruit from our trees and vegetables. But now they are harassing us to leave our homes.”

Faced with settlers’ abuse and the Israeli army’s one-sided efforts to keep the peace between Jewish settlers and the Arabs, six neighboring families of Abu Aisha have vacated their homes. He shrugs when I mention the incident of the settler woman cursing his young daughter. "That's nothing," he says. From inside his robes he takes out a wad of complaints about the intimidation he has received from his Jewish neighbors, none of which the Israeli police have acted upon, he says. Then he adds, somewhat perplexed, "These are not like the Jewish people that I remember from my youth. I don't know what's happened."

PERU'S PEAKS IN PERIL

As the ice atop the Cordillera Blanca, the largest glacier chain in the Tropics, continues to melt, Peru's "White Mountain Range" may soon be in for a name change.

Due to rising tempretures, the once snowy-white caps of the glacier chain are turning brown, underlining the growing effects of global warming on the worls's glaciers.

Scientist say this trend is also endangering future water supplies to the arid coast where most Peruvians live.

Melting is also visible in the other Andean countries- Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.

A question about water

FORMER Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad arrived in Johor Bahru a few days ago to speak to his supporters after staying quiet for a few months.


Besides directing his attack s at Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, he raised the water issue again, which had affected relations between Malaysia and Singapore.

He said Malaysia sold raw water to Singapore at only three sen per 1,000 gallons and, in turn, the Republic sold treated water to Johor at 30 sen per 1,000 gallons, making a high profit.

Johor is now self-sufficient in treated water with its own water plants, without having to depend on Singapore. Tun Dr Mahathir felt that Malaysia was in a more favorable position now in negotiations on water pricing because it was not afraid that Singapore would take advantage of it and ask for higher price for treated water sold to Johor if Malaysia raised the price of raw water.

Unfortunately, the water talks stopped after the scrapping of the bridge project.

Hence, the price of water Malaysia sells to Singapore stands at three sen.

Tun Dr Mahathir raised a question worth pondering: Who is smarter? Who is not smart enough?

Undoubtedly, he has succeeded in stirring up a “sense of patriotism” in the participants, but some of his arguments are open to question.

First, Tun Dr Mahathir did not tell us one fact: Singapore has “four water taps”, so the Republic may not compromise much on water prices. The four water taps refer to two traditional sources- local water catchments and water from Malaysia- as well as NeWater produced by a plant built in 2003 through reverse osmosis and desalinated water from a plant built in 2005 to meet the island’s goal of water self-sufficiency.

Need we ask, “Who is smarter?”

Second, treated water sold by the private water company to [Johor] costs seven times more than what Singapore sells to Johor. Water tariffs in the state have increased three times over the past three to four years, so much so that they are probably the highest in the country today.

The biggest irony is that Kluang and Batu Pahat experienced a shortage of water for a few months two years ago after the water-privatization project and water tariff hike.

Capitalism Unleashed by Andrew Glyn

Review
Since the early 1980s, world capitalism has followed a trajectory based on globalisation and neo-liberal policies. In Capitalism Unleashed, Andrew Glyn analyses this turn to fundamentalist, free-market policies and examines its impact on economic growth and stability, and on the distribution of wealth between the super-rich and the working class. Reviewed by Lynn Walsh.

Since the early 1980s, world capitalism has followed a trajectory based on globalisation and neo-liberal policies.

Lynn Walsh, editor, Socialism Today

Capitalism unleashed begins with a succinct analysis of the capitalist crisis that followed the end of the long post-war upswing in 1973. Productivity growth slowed, corporate profits were squeezed, inflation took off. Organised workers, strengthened by boom conditions, challenged the bosses’ power in the workplaces. The capitalist system itself was shaken by waves of militant industrial struggles, and left-reformist leaders put forward radical policies to extend public ownership and improve the ‘welfare state’.

After a period of turmoil (1973-79), the capitalist ruling class launched a counter-offensive against the working class. Their aim was to claw back many of the economic concessions of the Keynesian era, to discipline the workers through higher unemployment, and attack trade union rights. Under Reagan in the US and Thatcher in Britain in the 1980s this offensive went under the banner of ‘monetarism’. Subsequently, monetarism was broadened into a generalised programme of free-market fundamentalism, or ‘neo-liberalism’.

Andrew Glyn’s excellent book follows on from an earlier study of post-war capitalism (Armstrong, Glyn and Harris, Capitalism since 1945, published in 1991). Austerity, Privatisation and Deregulation provides an overview of the neo-liberal counter-revolution. It recounts the dramatic free-market shift in government policy, the retreat from state intervention, the growing power of finance capital, and the intensified drive for short-term profits. Andrew’s analysis is based on very useful, carefully compiled statistics.

One weakness of his analysis of the neo-liberal turn, in my view, is neglect of the role of technological change. Andrew refers to the exhaustion of Fordism (p14), the mass production system associated with big concentrations of strongly organised workers. But there is no analysis of the interaction of rapid technological change (especially information and communications technology based on microprocessors) that facilitated the global dispersal of production with changes in corporate management techniques and government policy.

There is no doubt that the neo-liberal counter-revolution was carried through on the basis of an intense ideological and political struggle on the part of the ruling class, but it was not just a question of political action (that would be a voluntarist explanation). The changed policy was based on changed relations of production that arose from qualitative changes in techniques of production. The policy reinforced new trends in the interests of big business. The neo-liberal/technological changes of the 1980s were of course accelerated in the 1990s after the collapse of Stalinism, after which the bourgeoisie felt it had a completely free hand to move against the working class.

Two chapters recount the impact of the counter-revolution on the working class. Labour’s Retreats deals with the effect of new technology and policy changes on wages, conditions, unemployment, and especially the effect of new technology on the unskilled sections of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries.

Welfare and Income Equality deals with the growth of inequality (wealth and income inequality, wage differentials, etc), especially in the US and other economies following the ‘Anglo-Saxon model’. The picture of taxation and welfare spending is complex, as it is affected by demographics (especially the ‘ageing’ of some societies) and the effect of income distribution on tax revenues. One thing is clear, however. Everywhere, the wealthy elite, who resent paying taxes and don’t need state education, healthcare, etc, are engaged in a ruthless struggle against state provision for the majority of society.

At the heart of the book are the chapters on Finance and Ownership, Globalisation, and Growth and Stability which analyse the structure and dynamic of the contemporary world capitalist economy.

Globalisation & the US-China axis
ONE OF THE most significant trends since the 1990s has been the enormously increased role of finance capital, most dramatic in the US and other ‘Anglo-Saxon’ economies. In the US aggregate profits of financial corporations were about one-fifth as big as non-financial profits in the 1970s and 1980s. By 2000 they were more than half as big. This development reflects one of the basic trends of the neo-liberal phase. On the one side, there was a restoration of profitability (through intensified exploitation of workers); on the other, a stagnation of global accumulation (with notable exceptions such as China). Profit levels in major OECD economies in the 1990s returned to the peak levels of the 1960s. Yet the growth of fixed capital stock was only half the level of the 1960s. More and more profits have been channelled into financial speculation rather than productive investment. The international, short-term capital flows associated with speculation are extremely volatile, and increasingly threaten to destabilise economies

The finance houses, of course, channel some of their investments into manufacturing, construction, and infrastructure developments. But their drive for the maximisation of profits, often judging results on a quarter-to-quarter basis, puts intense pressure on corporate managers to squeeze as much as possible from their workers, as quickly as possible. Short-termism reigns.

This is dressed up as the search for so-called ‘shareholder value’. But share ownership is in fact highly concentrated and financial institutions (investment banks, insurance companies, mutual funds, hedge funds, etc) wield immense power over corporate bosses and governments. Their drive for short-term gain reinforces the underlying polarisation of wealth within society.

Top corporate managers are embroiled in this process. Not only are they paid huge salaries and bonuses, they make huge gains from stock options – allocations of their companies’ shares, which they can trade for huge gains on the stock exchange. Many of the recent business scandals in the US and Europe have been linked to ‘insider trading’ by corporate executives, who in many cases manipulated the price of their companies’ shares to their own advantage. No wonder that in the top 500 US companies the ratio of CEO pay to production worker earnings rose from 30 in 1970 to 570 in 2000. (p58)

The increase in international economic integration is analysed in Globalisation, as well as the crucial relationship between the US and China. Deregulated financial markets have virtually become a single global casino. World trade has also dramatically increased, with the ratio of world exports to GDP doubling since 1960 to around 25% of world GDP (p97). Andrew notes that, for both the US and Europe, the ratio of exports to GDP in 1913 was only exceeded at the end of the 1960s. However, the relocation of corporate production facilities from the advanced capitalist countries to a number of developing countries (especially China) has dramatically changed the structure of the world economy. Over half world output is now produced outside the old OECD economies (p153). Moreover, the threat of relocation to cheap-labour countries is increasingly being used as a threat against workers in the advanced economies to cut wages and jobs.

Foreign direct investment (FDI), used to build factories and purchase overseas companies, surged during the 1990s. More recently, there has been an increase in more volatile ‘portfolio investment’ (mainly via mutual and hedge funds, commercial banks, etc) into ‘emerging markets’ (stocks, currencies, property, commodities, etc). These investment flows have become increasingly speculative.

During the second half of the 1990s capital flooded in to both the US and China. It was attracted to US markets by the surge in profitability. Inflows pushed up the dollar, depressing US exports but bringing a steady increase in imports. This has resulted in an unsustainable trade deficit now around 7% of GDP. This is financed by the surplus countries, mainly China, Japan and South Korea, buying up US government stocks and other assets.

In 1980 China accounted for only 0.8% of world exports of manufacturers. By 2003 it accounted for 7.3%. This massive export boom was based on the huge flow of capital into China, as well as increased internal investment. The new industries have been able to draw on vast reserves of workers willing to work 80 hours a week for around $80 a month. It is estimated that there are 150 to 300 million rural workers who could potentially be drawn into industry. This would not only stimulate further growth in China, but continue to exert downward pressure on wages in the advanced economies.

China has "the potential to carry this process a great deal further" (p92), writes Andrew. But there are many potential obstacles to uninterrupted growth. There is the decisive dependence on the US consumer market. Any slowing of export growth will mean that China can no longer meet its rising bill for imported food, materials, fuel, semi-finished manufactures, capital goods, etc. Within China, social instability could lead to a political breakdown that could cut across economic growth. A breakdown on either side of the US-China axis would have a devastating effect on the world economy.

Prospects for capitalism?
What is Andrew Glyn’s assessment of the world economy under the neo-liberal regime? What are the prospects for capitalism? In Growth and Stability, he shows, on the one side, that the increased weight of the financial sector has promoted volatility, including a series of unstable bubbles. The Asian currency crisis (followed by the collapse of the Russian rouble and bankruptcy of the US hedge fund, LTCM) and the worldwide stock exchange crash of 2001 were major convulsions. On the other side, however, in terms of output growth he shows that "the period after 1993 has been the most stable post-war decade, with the output of both advanced and less developed economies being around one third less volatile than during the 1950s and 1960s". (p149) This relative stability, he comments, is "somewhat paradoxical".

The main explanation, suggests Andrew, is that central banks, no longer fearing an explosion of inflation, have not felt compelled to resort to credit squeezes during the recent period. The weakened bargaining position of workers and the deflation of prices through globalisation, worked against inflationary pressures, at least in most advanced capitalist countries. Faced with potential crisis (the 2001 dotcom crash and the 9/11 shock), the central banks (led by the US Federal Reserve) injected massive liquidity into the world economy, producing new bubbles. These fed through to consumer demand, but at the same time produced an even higher mountain of debt.

Despite this relative stability of output growth, however, output per head has been growing more slowly since 1990 than even during the 1973-79 period of stagflation. The annual per capita growth rate of the major OECD economies has been about 2% compared to 4% during the 1960s and early 1970s. Japanese capitalism stagnated, while Europe enjoyed only very feeble growth. Capital accumulation has also been weak. Fixed capital stock in industrial countries grew by 3.3% per annum in the 1990s compared with 5% per annum in the 1960s. It may also be added that the aggregate figures presented by Andrew tend to smooth out major regional and local upheavals (for example, Southeast Asia in 1997, Argentina in 2000-03).

"But [asks Andrew Glyn] does this constitute a ‘crisis’ for capitalism in the rich countries? Only by diluting the original meaning of the term which refers to ‘the point in the progress of a disease when an important development or change takes place which is decisive of recovery or death’ (Oxford English Dictionary)…" (p151)

Although lower than the ‘golden age’ period of 1950-73, productivity per hour has grown in the range of 1% to 2.5% a year, which is in line with the growth typical of the most developed capitalist economies since 1970 (with the exception of the golden age). "Nor does there seem compelling evidence for presuming that there will be a decisive shift in productivity growth from the long-run norms over the next decade or two". (p151)

So what are the prospects for capitalism? The capitalist system has not reached the ‘end of history’, says Andrew Glyn, and growth and stability are not assured. Nevertheless, his assessment appears to be that capitalism is far more resilient than many on the left might have expected.

Clearly, according to the dictionary definition of a recovery/death conjuncture, there is not currently a crisis in the world economy. Financial markets are still buoyant (despite some recent tremors). GDP growth in China continues to race ahead, with relatively robust but erratic growth in the US and weaker but continuing growth in Europe and Japan. So things are not so bad for capitalism?

But we have to look beneath the surface to forces that will propel change in the future. "Trying to work out more or less likely long-term scenarios is just peering into a highly uncertain future", says Andrew. Yet surely we have to look beyond the present conjuncture, recognising that the current system of politico-economic relations (the prevailing neo-liberal regime) will not last indefinitely, and is in fact preparing its own downfall? Should we not try to identify those trends that, through their "most astounding contradictions" (Marx), will give rise to a new conjuncture, most likely one of dislocation and crisis? Precise scenarios are of course not possible. But projection of current trends, with possible variant developments, is possible – and necessary, unless we simply resign ourselves to ‘wait and see’.

Analysing the development of the economic and political crisis of the 1970s (p2), Andrew writes that "the very success of the golden age seems to have undermined its basis". The neo-liberal period undoubtedly has very different characteristics from the ‘golden age’. Nevertheless, there are internal contradictions which will just as surely undermine its basis and provoke crises. Economically, all the conditions of crisis are being prepared. Besides, neo-liberal economic policies are generating social crisis throughout the capitalist world, which will create the explosive materials for political upheavals.

All the ingredients of future crisis can be found in Capitalism Unleashed. The expanded role of finance capital, the short-sighted search for short-term profit. Debt dependency. Reliance on a series of bubbles (overvalued shares, houses, currency trading, commodities, emerging markets, etc) to sustain growth. "The US economy, and thus the world economy as a whole, is very vulnerable to a sudden reversal of the US consumption boom". (p137) "Current macroeconomic stability is highly vulnerable to financial crises" (p150) – and many similar comments. Nevertheless, in my view, Capitalism Unleashed does not give sufficient weight to the catalytic elements of future crises.

At a basic level, the cutting back of the working class’s share of the wealth will further restrict the market for capitalism (in spite of more rapid growth in countries like China, India, etc). Global growth, moreover, has come to depend more and more on the US-China axis. The US provides a massive credit-fuelled market for consumer goods, while China supplies ever-cheaper products. At the same time, China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc, finance the US external deficit by buying up US government bonds and other US assets.

China’s phenomenal growth of output and investment is also driven by multiple bubbles: massive inflows of capital, over-investment in industrial capacity, a speculative housing boom, and colossal, debt-financed investment in infrastructure projects in the industrial regions. While the US dollar is overvalued, despite US capitalism’s unprecedented external deficit, the Chinese currency (yuan or rmb) is undervalued (at least in relation to China’s industrial regions). Andrew, however, tends to stress the phenomenal growth and its impact on the advanced economies, while paying little attention to the uneven, contradictory character of China’s growth. The regime itself recognises that its stability is threatened by massive corruption and lawlessness, as well as frequent protests which in many cases take on an almost insurrectionary character.

These bubbles and the associated imbalances in the world economy are unsustainable, as most serious capitalist economists admit. Some of the most alarmist commentaries, for instance, come from market analysts like Stephen Roach of the investment bankers, Morgan Stanley. The only real question is when there will be a ‘realignment’ of currencies and adjustment of the imbalances, and how rapidly and painfully it will occur. One thing is certain: the longer the ‘correction’ is postponed, the more severe it will be.

Geopolitical shocks
Capitalism unleashed IS an excellent anatomy of the world capitalist economy. Its main weakness, in my view, is that it does not sufficiently link economic trends to social and political developments, from which economics cannot realistically be separated.

Sharpening inter-capitalist tensions reflect underlying economic competition and pose a threat to the neo-liberal economic regime. Steady world economic growth – together with the demise of a rival social-economic bloc in the form of the (Stalinist) Soviet Union and the transition of China to a form of capitalism – has not produced harmony in world relations. Recent conflicts in the Eurasian ‘arc of crisis’ have dramatically increased world tensions. There is a scramble for control of oil and gas reserves, pipelines, and strategic transportation routes. The Doha round of WTO negotiations are stalled, and agreement appears doubtful. The US and the EU have continually wrangled over agricultural subsidies, aircraft production (Airbus v Boeing), cross-border mergers and acquisitions, regulatory powers, and so on. So far, most of these disputes have been smoothed over or postponed – but they reflect underlying national antagonisms which are likely to become much sharper in the event of a world economic downturn. The US-China symbiosis is the core of current global growth, yet the Bush administration has designated China as its main strategic rival and is manoeuvring against China in Asia.

These tensions, together with increased rivalry between regional powers, recall the situation before the first world war. Then, a period of accelerated globalisation and sustained growth in the world economy came to a catastrophic end in 1914, with the eruption of the first world war. Today, world war between the major powers is ruled out by the possession of nuclear weapons. But economic conflicts and pursuit of rival interests through proxies engaged in regional and civil wars are likely to multiply.

Under the neo-liberal regime, there has been a shift in the distribution of wealth and income in favour of the capitalist class (reversing the mild levelling trend of the ‘golden age’). GDP growth no longer ‘lifts all the boats in the harbour’. Throughout the advanced capitalist countries, and especially in the USA and other economies based on the ‘Anglo-Saxon model’, output growth has produced increased inequality and in some cases an absolute increase in the numbers living in poverty. At the same time, cuts in welfare benefits and pensions, and the trimming of social spending, especially in relation to the needs of an ageing population, have reinforced the growth of inequality.

There are symptoms of growing social crisis in all the advanced capitalist countries. In Britain and France, for instance, attention has been focused on urban riots associated with Muslim communities, but essentially rooted in the poverty and alienation of the inner cities (Bradford, etc) and the French banlieue (outer-city ghettos). The intensification of exploitation at work, increased insecurity, and the reduction of job opportunities for the least skilled section of workers (described and quantified in the book), have all contributed to the increase in alienation and social tension and, in some cases, violent conflict.

Socialism: a serious competitor?
All the conditions of a deep social-economic crisis are being prepared. This will not be a repetition of past crises. It will undoubtedly be very different from the 1973-79 ‘crisis of capitalism’. Challenged by mass workers’ struggles, "the very stability of the capitalist system seemed to be under serious threat". Then (as Andrew rightly comments), "the apparent viability of planned economies [the Soviet Union and its satellites] also made more credible a range of proposals from the labour movements of the rich countries for radical constraints on free-market capitalism". (p2)

Today, in contrast, "the collapse of central planning and the political system which supported it" means that "demands for greater state intervention, let alone for transformation in a socialist direction, have been beaten back… Capitalism as a system in the rich countries is not at present threatened by serious competitors". (p151)

This is so. The collapse of the Stalinist system (centrally planned economies ruled by a totalitarian bureaucracy) had a devastating impact on workers internationally. As Andrew says, it appeared to shatter the idea of the viable alternative to the capitalist market. The collapse led to ideological disarray in labour movements throughout the world. The disappearance of Stalinism as a counterweight to capitalism undermined the social and political basis of reformism. The capitalist ruling class no longer felt the need to make concessions to the working class over wages, trade union rights, and social provision.

The leaders of the traditional workers’ parties (social democratic, labour, and communist) rapidly moved to the right, embracing the market as the only possible system. Changes in the structure of production and globalisation undermined the strength of many of the ‘big battalions’ of the working class in manufacturing industry. The hollowing out of the traditional workers’ parties effectively undermined the political representation of the working class.

This process was exemplified by recent events in France. The upsurge of mass struggle in March and April 2006 against renewed attacks by the Chirac-Villepin government in many ways resembled the May events of 1968. Bold action by students led to clashes with the police, five days of action, one of them involving over three million. Villepin was forced to retreat, withdrawing his new youth labour law.

Yet there was also a sharp contrast with May 1968. Then, there was a powerful ideological alternative to capitalism, with millions of workers supporting the idea of socialist change or even revolution. Recent struggles were defensive, lacking mass support for an alternative to capitalism. Indeed, the feature of recent struggles sweeping both the advanced capitalist countries and the neo-colonial lands has been mass opposition to the effects of neo-liberal capitalism, but a political vacuum in terms of an alternative.

Yet the fact that the capitalist system is not currently facing an ideological challenge as it did in the 1960s and early 1970s, that it is "not at present threatened by serious competitors", does not mean that it is not facing the prospect of profound social and economic crisis. True, the weakness of the workers’ movement, especially the weakness of class consciousness, has allowed the ruling class to take free-market policies much further than they dreamed they could in the early 1980s. But this extreme "reassertion of the fundamental workings of the capitalist economy" is already undermining the basis of the global neo-liberal order. The bourgeoisie’s lack of restraint will rebound on them with a vengeance.

It is impossible, of course, to say exactly when and where, but capitalist fundamentalism will assuredly provoke political explosions. The events in France, the revolutionary movement in Indonesia triggered by the 1997 Asian crisis, and recent mass struggles against privatisation of gas and water in several Latin American countries are overtures to even bigger events to come.

Andrew Glyn quotes the Japanese Marxist economist, Makoto Itoh, as commenting that "capitalism seems to be running the film of history backwards by ‘melting down’ the sustained trend of a century, and returning to an older stage of liberalism". (p23)

It is a return, in fact, to a more brutal form of capitalism, shorn of more and more of the reformist cushioning of the post-war upswing. Under continuous assault by the capitalist class and disarmed by its own mass leaders, the working class has undoubtedly suffered setbacks and been weakened in terms of organisation and especially class consciousness. Nevertheless, the proletariat remains a powerful social force internationally and is actually being strengthened in some of the developing countries. Under the impact of the neo-liberal counter-revolution, the working class will reorganise, rearm itself politically, and reassert its power as a decisive political force. Freedom from the bureaucratic fetters and perverted ‘Marxism’ of Stalinism will be an advantage.

Socialist ideas are already attracting many freshly politicised young people, and they will win wider support in the next few years. Socialism – specifically Marxism – will become a ‘serious competitor’ to capitalism. Why? Because Marxism is the only ideology capable of consistently expressing the interests of workers and other exploited and oppressed classes. It provides the theoretical tools for a fundamental critique of capitalism. Above all, it offers a programme for the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of a higher form of society based on international solidarity, planned production, social equality, and radical democracy based on workers and other exploited strata.

Room for reforms?
In the last chapter (Welfare and Income Inequality), Andrew Glyn asks "whether we have much choice left in the economic and social policies which our governments can implement? Are the economies of the rich countries rapidly converging under pressure from globalisation on the US model with an increasingly inegalitarian income distribution, minimal welfare state and long working hours? Within the confines of capitalism are there still real choices about who gets what and who does what?". (p155)

While his analysis of economic trends is clear, Andrew’s answers to these questions are very tentative. Of course, he favours defending the welfare state and fighting to improve it. He shows that economic performance (productivity growth, output growth, employment levels, etc) are certainly no worse in ‘welfare’ economies (like the Nordic states) than in those following the US-led ‘Anglo-Saxon model’.

But he misses two crucial points. First, the capitalist class is not concerned with "good economic performance" in general. They are determined, even in the Nordic countries, to cut back the public sector, to curb egalitarian tax-and-spend policies, and to enlarge the social sphere open to corporate profit-making. Yes, they want productivity growth, higher GDP output, but above all they want a healthy ‘bottom line’ – maximum profits.

The second point is that the Nordic governments have already abandoned defence of the social democratic ‘welfare state’ in favour of free-market measures. In this respect, Andrew’s analysis is lagging behind recent developments.

Sweden is a clear example. The social democratic government of Persson carried through sweeping privatisation measures and big cuts in welfare provision, especially pensions. Neo-liberal conditions imposed on the labour market have created massive insecurity among workers. These changes account for the defeat of Persson’s government in the recent general election (see Socialism Today No.104). A majority voted against Persson’s neo-liberal policies, but in the absence of a viable left alternative, mainly voted for the (conservative) Moderates. The new government, of course, will now carry neo-liberal policies much further, and will become equally unpopular in time.

A specific proposal put forward by Andrew is for a Basic Income (p180). "Under a Basic Income scheme each person would receive a regular and unconditional cash grant from the state. It would be… received by everyone irrespective of other income or whether they were in work or not, and it could be spent on whatever the recipient wished". (p181) This would end many means-tested benefits, getting rid of the poverty trap for low-paid workers. Unemployed workers would be able to work part time without losing benefit. Tax rates for higher paid workers would have to increase to pay for the Basic Income. Andrew describes it as a "recasting of elements of the welfare state in an egalitarian direction…" The scheme would also allow some workers to reduce their working hours to achieve a better work-life balance. Andrew recognises that there could be widespread opposition to the idea on the grounds that benefits would be paid to employed workers who "do not really need them". "For reasons of political acceptability, Basic Income would probably have to be introduced at a relatively austere level".

But "where will the money come from?" (p183) Big business is pressing for further reductions of corporate taxation. The majority of wage earners are understandably resistant to any increase in their tax burden. This ‘fundamental question’ is raised in the last paragraph of Capitalism Unleashed – and left unanswered.

We should fight to defend all past gains and for new reforms – which can only be achieved through struggle in this period. Nevertheless, it has to be recognised that the era of a stable, expanding welfare state and of comprehensive trade union and civil rights has gone for good. It was a phase of capitalism that arose during a particular historical conjuncture. It rested on relations of production and a particular balance of class forces that have completely changed. We are operating within a new, regressive phase of capitalism which will not readily concede an increased share of the wealth to the working class. There is no scope for lasting reforms within unleashed capitalism – which is why the fight to defend living standards and rights has to be linked to the need for a fundamental reorganisation of society.

Capitalism Unleashed by Andrew Glyn

Oxford University Press, 2006, £16.99

From Socialism Today, magazine of the Socialist Party, cwi in England and Wales

STEREOTYPING

Those unjustly maligned Malays are some of the nicest folks in the world. At least those I befriended. I've been to the remotest of kampungs and always get invited into a stranger's home for a meal or a cuppa. Try knocking on a Chinese farmer's door and he'll probably take aim at you with a wild boar hunting rifle.

Of late, even some of those sweet Malays are turning and tossing in bed at night thinking: Are we really the whinest, laziest assed, poison penning, idle gossiping, pyramid scheming, under acheiving, daughter banging, bickering hypocrites some made us out to be?
For half a century, politicians would woo them with mental representations of a supreme race of the land, using popular catchphrases like ketuanan and maruah. They were handed crutches, loans and scholarships as reassurances. Then, every once in a while, a brave Malay leader thrashes them as ingrates and try to scare them with the globalisasi word.

Of course it is not easy making wake-up calls when there is a snooze button that runs forever. Even the indefatigable Tun Mahathir admitted he failed to transform the Malays after 22 years. Actually he was being humble. He created a handful of instant billionaires in his time, the fast track way.

No one told the Malays that the two satellites in our sky belong to an Indian. And that the richest man in the country is also an Indian and not a greedy Chinaman as they were brought up to believe. Then, there's the unfulfilled need for a Malay hero. Hang Tuah was a thug who probably never existed. Worse still, the Chinese are now spreading e-mails casting aspersions on good old Tuah's roots. They are now claiming he was Chinese! Chinese Malaysians need a hero badly too, I think.

The other dubious historical contender was someone who stabbed a British Resident in the back, literally. The last remaining hero, P Ramlee, is fortunately a lover not a fighter. He brandished a keris only on three occasions in real life; on his wedding days. Yet, the non-violent icon is now being demonised by the moral police for his joget culture and unwitting promotion of figure-hugging kebayas.

So one Malay thought up a brilliant and lazy plan: let's manufacture new heroes with government funds and awards. Just when they were about to reach the pinnacle of supremacy, up on a mountain somewhere, a pair of tactless Indians came from behind and snatched the glory. Serve those two Indians right. No land, cash rewards, bungalows, datukships, cars, single-digit car plates or even a kompang welcome party for them.

The clueless duo are still wondering what went wrong till today. The optimistic and irrepressible Malays moved on to cheer a sailor with a broken mast and a swimmer in a cage. But wait, they also just purchased a rocket ticket and discovered a lost ancient city, didn't they? They are back on a roll, thankfully. Otherwise, on the next party General Assembly, the non-Malays will be the handy beating boys yet again.

When a bunch of well-connected Malay scotch and bourbon aficionados got busted recently for close proximity with Jack & Johnny, they screamed bloody murder. What about the thousands of non-Malay partygoers who get herded into trucks and made to squat en-masse routinely? I like the fact that there are now more boozing Malays in town than any other race. The city's safer with less of those Samurai sword-swinging Chinese clubbers and bottle-throwing Indian patrons.

by TV Smith

Letter of Introduction to the CWI

Thank you for contacting the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) for more information and for taking an interest in our ideas and activities.

The CWI is an international socialist organisation fighting for the interests of working class people, across the globe, with affiliated parties and organisations in nearly 40 countries, and on all continents.


The purpose of this letter is to give you a short introduction to our ideas, programme and how we campaign. This is not an exhaustive explanation. We urge you to also visit our website at www.socialistworld.net, to find out more about our ideas and activities and to read our articles from around the world.

If you agree with what you read and want to help build the CWI, or want more discussion or clarification, please contact us, as soon as possible.

A world of disorder and wars

Instead of a new world order of peace and prosperity, which the rulers of this world promised to us after the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern European regimes, we face a new world disorder. This means more imperialist wars and imperialist occupations, military and ethnic conflicts, environmental disasters, and a widening of the gap between rich and poor. The adoption of a neo-liberal agenda on a world scale has had devastating effects on the living standards of the working class and the poor masses in the neo-colonial world, in particular, but also in the so called “advanced” world.

In almost every country in Europe - as well as in other parts of the world - the former workers’ parties, e.g. the social Democratic and ‘Communist’ parties, which were originally formed to fight for socialism, have been transformed into capitalist parties.

This has left the working class and youth internationally without any political organisations with mass support and without a programme to fight the increased attacks on their living standards.

We have, therefore, concluded that it is necessary to build the forces of revolutionary socialism and to rebuild the workers’ movement by campaigning for the need to set up new workers’ parties internationally, with mass support.

Daily struggles

The CWI, and its affiliated parties and organisations, have a proud record of participating in daily struggles of workers and youth against the horrific effects of capitalism.

We played a key role in mobilising young people against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. By setting up Youth Against the War (YAW) in several countries, we were able to organise massive school strikes.

In recent years in Ireland, we played a key role in fighting an unjust refuse tax (bin tax). Joe Higgins, Socialist Party member of the Irish Parliament, and Clare Daly, a Socialist Party councillor in Dublin, were sent to prison for weeks because they had, together with anti-bin-tax activists, participated in blockading rubbish collection lorries.

The Irish section and Joe Higgins recently took up the case of a Nigerian school student who was forcibly deported from Ireland, and won the case. Also, Joe Higgins and the CWI in Ireland and internationally, took up the case of over 300 Turkish immigrant workers in Ireland – the Gama workers – who were owed wages. So far, many significant concessions have been won from Gama, marking an important victory.

In Nigeria, the CWI is the largest socialist organisation. This most populous country in Africa has seen many general strikes since 2000 against the horrendous rise in fuel prices. The CWI has argued that a successful general strike requires the full involvement and mobilisation of the working class and the poor masses.

In Sri Lanka, the CWI consistently fights for the rights of the Tamil-speaking minority in the country. We are the only socialist organisation that publishes a paper in Tamil and in Sinhala. Along with help from the CWI across the world, the CWI in Sri Lanka organised essential practical aid to areas badly hit by the tsunami disaster at the start of 2005 – a catastrophe made much worse due to poverty, poor infrastructure and the corruption and incompetence of the Sri Lankan government and authorities.

A workers’ representative on a worker’s wage

In many countries, the CWI initiates or helps in the establishment of rank and file fighting platforms inside the trade unions to transform them into fighting organisations of the working class, instead of instruments of co-management for the bosses.

In the unions, the CWI campaigns for workers’ representatives to live on an average worker’s wage. The same principle applies to CWI members elected to public positions. Joe Higgins, our member in the Irish parliament, lives on a worker’s wage, and donates the rest of his income to the building of the workers’ movement.

Furthermore, we are actively involved in building the movement against capitalist globalisation. The CWI initiated setting up International Socialist Resistance (ISR), an independent socialist youth organisation with affiliates in Europe and also in Brazil, South Africa, Australia and Kashmir. In addition to that, our members are engaged in the struggle against racism and against the oppression of women. CWI sections developed programmes against all forms of discrimination and victimisation on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, religious belief or nationality.

In 1992, we set up Youth against Racism in Europe (YRE), which mobilised 40,000 youth internationally to demonstrate on the streets of Brussels against the rise in racism and fascist attacks.

In the past few years we also seen the beginning of the the revival of the workers’ movement, with strikes and general strikes in European countries, such as Greece, Spain, France and above all in Italy. As well as that, we have seen a revolt of the masses in almost every country in Latin America. It has brought down governments in Argentina and Bolivia and has enabled Lula in Brazil, Chavez in Venezuela or Kirchner in Argentina to come to power. Movements like that have developed almost spontaneously. The CWI has welcomed them and is inspired by the heroism of the workers, poor peasants and youth.

Nevertheless, these movements, despite having been of an insurrectionary nature in some countries, were also an illustration of what can be achieved is fairly limited if the leadership of the movement has not got a rounded-out socialist programme and method. Hugo Chavez has, to a certain degree, taken a stand against the neo-liberal policies of capitalist institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. The Brazilian working class had huge expectations when Lula came to power that he would be a radical change but, because he is not ready to break with capitalism, Lula attacked the working class and the poor.

This has led to the setting up of a new party, the PSoL, which Socialismo Revolucionario, the Brazilian section of the CWI, is part of, and has a member on the PSoL national body.

We fight for every demand that can improve the conditions and the life of working class and poor people. But we link the struggles of today with the overall aim of the complete socialist transformation of society, not only nationally but internationally. History has shown that the bosses always try to take back with one hand what they have given with the other. Improvements in living standards, and democratic rights, won by the working class through mass struggle, are under attack. The ruling elites are eager to let the workers pay for the crisis their system has brought about.

Method of Marxism

The methods that the CWI uses to analyse events and to organise our parties and campaigns, are basically those worked out by Marx and Engels, and later developed by Lenin and Trotsky. We base ourselves on the experience of the 1917 Russian Revolution and the history and lessons of the international workers’ movement. We share Trotsky’s analysis of Russia’s degeneration into a ‘deformed workers’ state’. Due to the isolation of the Russian Revolution, a bureaucratic elite with dictatorial powers emerged in Russia, which controlled and consumed a larger share of the wealth the working class produced. We refer to ourselves as Marxists. Marxism is not a dogma but a method that helps us to understand the world and is therefore a guide to action.

Our approach assists us in developing the struggle for a just and better world - a socialist world which meets the needs of working and poor people and the youth, and not those of a tiny, greedy minority that live a life of luxury at our expense. To achieve a socialist world, we think it is necessary to overthrow capitalism and to bring the big companies and multinationals under workers’ control and management. The economy could then be democratically planned, taking into account all available human and natural resources.

To be successful, the struggle against capitalism requires ideas, a political programme, and an organisation that is able to unite workers and oppressed people across the globe. We aim to build such an organisation. We think that organised workers in their millions are stronger than millionaires. That is why we need more people to join our struggle!

Please do not hesitate to contact us again and ask any further and more specific questions. We are very interested in discussing them with you and are very interested in your point of view, and your opinion of events and developments in your country and worldwide.

For more information, you can also visit our website on www.socialistworld.net

George Galloway's speech to Parliament, January 2007

Fidel's Final Victory

CUBA AFTER CASTRO?

Ever since Fidel Castro gained power in 1959, Washington and the Cuban exile community have been eagerly awaiting the moment when he would lose it -- at which point, the thinking went, they would have carte blanche to remake Cuba in their own image. Without Fidel's iron fist to keep Cubans in their place, the island would erupt into a collective demand for rapid change. The long-oppressed population would overthrow Fidel's revolutionary cronies and clamor for capital, expertise, and leadership from the north to transform Cuba into a market democracy with strong ties to the United States.

But that moment has come and gone -- and none of what Washington and the exiles anticipated has come to pass. Even as Cuba-watchers speculate about how much longer the ailing Fidel will survive, the post-Fidel transition is already well under way. Power has been successfully transferred to a new set of leaders, whose priority is to preserve the system while permitting only very gradual reform. Cubans have not revolted, and their national identity remains tied to the defense of the homeland against U.S. attacks on its sovereignty. As the post-Fidel regime responds to pent-up demands for more democratic participation and economic opportunity, Cuba will undoubtedly change -- but the pace and nature of that change will be mostly imperceptible to the naked American eye.

Fidel's almost five decades in power came to a close last summer not with the expected bang, or even really a whimper, but in slow motion, with Fidel himself orchestrating the transition. The transfer of authority from Fidel to his younger brother, Raúl, and half a dozen loyalists -- who have been running the country under Fidel's watch for decades -- has been notably smooth and stable. Not one violent episode in Cuban streets. No massive exodus of refugees. And despite an initial wave of euphoria in Miami, not one boat leaving a Florida port for the 90-mile trip. Within Cuba, whether Fidel himself survives for weeks, months, or years is now in many ways beside the point.

In Washington, however, Cuba policy -- aimed essentially at regime change -- has long been dominated by wishful thinking ever more disconnected from the reality on the island. Thanks to the votes and campaign contributions of the 1.5 million Cuban Americans who live in Florida and New Jersey, domestic politics has driven policymaking. That tendency has been indulged by a U.S. intelligence community hamstrung by a breathtaking and largely self-imposed isolation from Cuba and reinforced by a political environment that rewards feeding the White House whatever it wants to hear. Why alter the status quo when it is so familiar, so well funded, and so rhetorically pleasing to politicians in both parties?

But if consigning Cuba to domestic politics has been the path of least resistance so far, it will begin to have real costs as the post-Fidel transition continues -- for Cuba and the United States alike. Fidel's death, especially if it comes in the run-up to a presidential election, could bring instability precisely because of the perception in the United States that Cuba will be vulnerable to meddling from abroad. Some exiles may try to draw the United States into direct conflict with Havana, whether by egging on potential Cuban refugees to take to the Florida Straits or by appealing to Congress, the White House, and the Pentagon to attempt to strangle the post-Fidel government.

Washington must finally wake up to the reality of how and why the Castro regime has proved so durable -- and recognize that, as a result of its willful ignorance, it has few tools with which to effectively influence Cuba after Fidel is gone. With U.S. credibility in Latin America and the rest of the world at an all-time low, it is time to put to rest a policy that Fidel's handover of power has already so clearly exposed as a complete failure.

CHANGE IN THE WEATHER

On July 31, 2006, Fidel Castro's staff secretary made an announcement: Fidel, just days away from his 80th birthday, had undergone major surgery and turned over "provisional power" to his 75-year-old brother, Raúl, and six senior officials. The gravity of Fidel's illness (rumored to be either terminal intestinal cancer or severe diverticulitis with complications) was immediately clear, both from photographs of the clearly weakened figure and from Fidel's own dire-sounding statements beseeching Cubans to prepare for his demise. Across the island, an air of resignation and anticipation took hold.

The dead of August, with its intense heat and humidity, is a nerve-racking time in Cuba, but as rumors sped from home to home, there was a stunning display of orderliness and seriousness in the streets. Life continued: people went to work and took vacations, watched telenovelas and bootlegged DVDs and programs from the Discovery and History channels, waited in lines for buses and weekly rations, made their daily black-market purchases -- repeating the rituals that have etched a deep mark in the Cuban psyche. Only in Miami were some Cubans partying, hoping that Fidel's illness would soon turn to death, not only of a man but also of a half century of divided families and mutual hatred.