Wars abroad, wars at home PDF Print E-mail
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 00:00

Our last issue filled most of its pages addressing the war against Afghanistan. Since then, the US government has gained a speedy victory in the first phase of its ongoing war. But the orgy of celebration disguised underlying problems that have already begun to emerge.
 
The period we have entered over the past months is one of volatility and instability - economically, politically, and militarily. Not only is the US economy mired in recession, but the world economy faces recession for the first time since the mid 1970s.
 
Bush's skewed spending priorities, pushed post-September 11, have only exacerbated the growing bitterness over the economic inequality that characterises US society.
 
The Enron scandal is already revealing the way in which the intersection of politics and economics can potentially undermine the presidency.
 
Moreover, the economic collapse and revolt in Argentina bring once again to the fore the bankruptcy of the corporate globalisers' agenda.
 
With this issue of Socialist Review, we continue to examine the consequences of the new US "war on terrorism" at home and abroad - the attempt to use the war on terror as the rationale to buttress and further US interests. We also take up questions within the antiwar movement that we believe must be addressed to make it more effective in taking on the warmongers.
 
Revolt
We cover the crisis in Argentina, with Tony Hartin looking at the background to Argentina's revolt.
 
Already there are signs of revival in the movement against corporate globalisation. The interaction between the economic crisis and the war is making it crucial for activists to develop an understanding of the connection between US economic and military domination. This will help the movement find its legs again.
 
The war abroad
The victory in Afghanistan was both military and ideological. Within the space of two months, the US dragooned most of the world's governments into its "coalition against terrorism," routed the Taleban government, smashed much of the al-Qaeda apparatus, and installed a friendly government in Afghanistan. It won a military victory with US firepower and an ideological victory with scenes of Afghans celebrating the Taleban's defeat.
 
As the war winds down into a "mop up" operation, the US may face problems in shaping the situation completely to its will. But it will take away a clear sense of victory, with massive popular support behind it. A belligerent US ruling class now believes it can reorder the world to do America's bidding. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer urged Bush and Co. along:
 
The psychology in the region is now one of fear and deep respect for American power. Now is the time to use it to deter, defeat, or destroy the other regimes in the area that are host to radical Islamic terrorism.
Hence Stage Two. No, not Iraq yet. It surely is the worst terrorist threat, but because it is the worst and the most difficult, it will require more planning, and more political and military preparation. Now is the time to go for the low-hanging fruit: giving the Philippines assistance in crushing their own al-Qaeda guerrillas.
Telling the thugs running Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen to cease and desist, to shut down the training camps, to cough up the terrorists - "or else," as the president so delicately puts it.
And then on to Iraq.
Devastation
As the propagandists of the Right get dizzy with success, it's worth considering what the B-52s left behind in Afghanistan. A country that was already devastated is even more so. The government that Washington installed parallels almost to the person the government of warlords, thugs, and drug dealers that ran the country before the Taleban took over in 1996.
 
US bombs almost certainly killed more Afghan civilians than the numbers who died in the September 11 attacks, according to a careful analysis by University of New Hampshire professor Marc Herold. Hundreds of thousands remain on the verge of starvation. After laying waste to Afghanistan, the economic aid promised by the US and the "international community" has slowed to a trickle. "The response so far is absolutely scandalous," a diplomat in Kabul told the Financial Times. "It is discouraging people and its is worrying what is going to occur in terms of the international response."
 
If the US was short on resources for the Afghan government, perhaps it was because it devoted them to continued bombing and to building half a dozen military bases inside the country. The US ignored repeated calls from the Afghan government to halt the bombing - which only goes to show who really calls the shots in Afghanistan.
 
From its bases in Afghanistan and its newly established footholds in the Central Asian states, the US has achieved geopolitical aims that it has sought for a decade. Now that the US has what it wants in the region, the talk about "feeding starving Afghans," "liberating Afghan women," "capturing bin Laden," and "taking back their country from the Taleban" can be forgotten.
 
Licence to attack
Beyond the borders of Afghanistan, Bush's "war on terrorism" has given licence to regimes around the world to attack internal oppositions under the guise of "fighting terrorism." For example, Russia continues its scorched earth campaign against Chechen rebels with the West's blessing. But even in countries that haven't the remotest connection to Islamic fundamentalism, governments have used Bush's war to attack their foes.
 
In Bolivia, the government charged trade union leader Oscar Olivera and several of his comrades with "sedition, conspiracy, incitement to public disturbance, and criminal association." Olivera is no more a terrorist than Martin Luther King was. His big crime was having led a mass movement in 2000 that defeated government plans to privatise the country's water.
 
In Colombia, the Pastrana government is using the war on terrorism to step up its war against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and the Bush administration is discussing how to increase its support for counterinsurgency operations there.
 
The most serious developments to emerge from the Pandora's box Bush opened have taken place in Palestine and South Asia. Declaring Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat "our bin Laden," Israel's war criminal, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, has stepped up Israel's campaign of assassinations, bombardments, and house demolitions against Palestinians. The US has given Israel the green light.
 
"With us or against us"
But the US is alarmed at the prospect of a war between India and Pakistan, which India characterises as a response to Islamic terrorism. Following a December 13 attack on India's parliament, India declared war on Pakistani "terror."
 
Reading from the US script, India accused - without offering a shred of proof - Pakistan-backed militant groups of sponsoring the attack. It mobilised nearly one million troops to its border with Pakistan. Indian defence officials casually discussed plans to use tactical nuclear weapons. All of this was certainly more than the US bargained for when Bush warned the world's governments that they were either "with us, or with the terrorists."
 
This is the world that Bush's "war on terrorism has left behind." Instead of making the world more secure, this war has already spawned more war and destruction. Instead of addressing the poverty that leaves billions hungry and desperate, the US sends bombers. As the US moves on in search of "low-hanging fruit," it will leave more destruction in its wake.