ALAI-AMLATINA, 17/03/2003, Oakland, CA —
For some years now the United States has been mired in a crisis with multiple dimensions, a crisis that is getting deeper and more complex all the time. First of all, over the past few decades American industry has been suffering from a drop in its competitiveness viz a viz Europe and Asia. And beginning with the end of the cold war, the traditional allies of the U.S. have been gradually distancing themselves from their former patron. The U.S. also has an internal crisis of legitimacy of the co-called neoliberal model, formerly called Reaganomics but now official doctrine of both parties, thanks to rising social polarization (unemployment, crime, corruption) and scandals like Enron, WorldCom, etc. Finally, there are President Bush’s crisis of electoral legitimacy, and the current deep recession of the U.S. economy.
With so many problems, should we be surprised that the powers that be are launching a war? One of the oldest tactics of American presidents is to use war to stimulate the economy and distract people’s attention from problems at home. But by looking a little deeper, we also find close links between the war and accompanying militarization, and the fanatical American push for so-called “free trade” policies at any cost.
In reality, the U.S. is seeking to recover its preeminent position in the world- preeminent economically, politically and militarily-by both military and commercial means. Thus we might ask: what are the aims behind the recent U.S. construction of military bases in Latin America, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Asia? And behind the war in Iraq? In the first place, and very evidently in the case of oil, there is control over strategic resources. And of course there is the old need to “make the world safe for US corporations and investors”, giving military protection to capital investments and the untrammeled accumulation of profits. The war against Iraq fulfills a double purpose. In addition to distracting the American electorate, the U.S. wants to control the petroleum resources of the Middle East while at the same time issuing a warning to other nations of the South, who once again are surrounded by American bases. “Behave yourselves, or you may be next!” is the message. This is not a localized war. This is a truly global war, a war for the recolonization of the South.
Now, if we analyze the goals of recent and pending free trade agreements (the WTO, FTAA, NAFTA and bilateral accords), we find a great similarity with the above mentioned purposes of the war and militarization. By means of these agreements, northern corporations are to be guaranteed access to Southern markets, eliminating all barriers to the repatriation of profits, and they would also gain control over key resources like oil, water, and germplasm by means of privatization. In other words, recolonization, pure and simple. Thus we might say that trade liberalization is really war by other means.
This leaves us with a question. If the WTO already exists, why does the US also need the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)?
That’s simple. If the current round of WTO agreements are signed at the next Ministerial meeting to be held in Cancun, Mexico, in September 2003, it would essentially signify the consolidation of all countries within one global economy. In this global economy, American industry would have to face up to its problems of competitiveness when faced with competitors from Europe, Japan and China. In this context, the U.S. wants to assure itself of an edge, in effect by having ’private reserves’ where its corporations have greater access than others. These private reserves are the FTAA, NAFTA and the bilateral accords the U.S. wants to force on individual countries. In these free trade areas, American corporations will have privileged access over their European and Asian counterparts.
With the war on Iraq, with new military bases spread far and wide, and with the FTAA, NAFTA and bilateral trade accords, the USA is seeking the advantage over its competitors in the new war for recolonization of the Third World. A war combining military might with free trade. A war which, in addition to the terrible toll taken on Southern populations, also has a devastating impact at home. As a result of “free” trade, the family farm is virtually a thing of the past in rural America, while unemployment and inner city desperation are on the rise. With the additional cutbacks of social programs that will inevitably result from the war on Iraq, these problems will intensify. Seen in this context, at this moment in history, it is essential that we link-up anti-war movements in the South and in the North both with each other, and also with the world-wide movement against neo-liberal globalization as represented by free trade agreements. “Free” trade is nothing less than war by other means, a war against all peoples, North and South.