|
Coming
in August!
Dime's
Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils
Order Now!
Today's
Stories
July
24 / 25, 2004
Alexander
Cockburn
The Democrats and Their Conventions:
Part One
July
23, 2004
Lee
Sustar
Revolution in Nicaragua: 25 Years
On
Dave
Lindorff
Battle for NYC: Bush 1, Protesters
0
Saul
Landau
Zaniest President in US History: Bush
Beats Reagan
Mike
Whitney
The 9/11 Whitewash: Blaming No One
Mickey
Z
Get On the Bus: 150 Years After Elizabeth
Jennings
Gary
Leupp
The 9/11 Commission and the Looming
War on Iran
July
22, 2004
M.
Junaid Alam
Ten Ways to Build a Better Democrat
Brian
McKinlay
Rusted On Down Under: Howard, Bush and Sharon
Jason
Leopold
Cheney Lobbied for Easing of Sanctions on Terrorist Regimes While
CEO of Halliburton
Chris
Floyd
Mob Rule: Ripping the Lid Off of America's Pious Myths
Uri
Avnery
Chirac v. Sharon
July
21, 2004
Paula
J. Caplan
The Emotional Casualities of War: Psychologists
Can't Heal All the Damage
Joshua
Frank
Nader Sleeping with the Enemy? Let's be Fair
Ron
Jacobs
American Exceptionalism
Reza
Ghorashi
The Elections, Iran and al--Qaeda
Amy
Martin
Will Congress Rearm the Guatemalan Generals?
John
Ross
Bush May Lose, But His Wars Will Go On and On
Sex,
Drugs & the Blues!
Serpents in the Garden
CounterPunch's Sizzling
New Book on Culture and Sex is Now Available
Click here to purchase
July
20, 2004
Stan
Cox
The Bush / Kerry War Ticket
Chris
Randolph
An Open Letter to Dr. Ehrenreich: It's Over, Barb!
Forrest
Hylton
The Ghosts of Gonismo: "Popular Patricipation"
and Bolivia's Gas Referendum
Mark
Scaramella
It's Official! Mendocino County is Crazier and Fatter Than the Rest
of California
Sam
Bahour
The World is Knocking on Israel's Door
George
Reiter
A Defense of David Cobb
John
Ross
Burying Iraq, Burying Bush
John
L. Hess
Girlie Stuff: Media Tolerance of Arnold & Co.
Website
of the Day
This Land is Your Land
July
19, 2004
Uri
Avnery
Marie and the Ghosts: the Hoax of Paris
Col.
Dan Smith
What Has Been Accomplished?
Mike
Whitney
Allawi: Our Puppet with a Pistol
Karyn
Strickler
Just Marriage, Not Gay Marriage
Robert
Fisk
The Crisis of Information in Baghdad
David
Swanson
Media Blackout of US Labor Opposition to Iraq
War
Jennifer
van Bergen
The Death of the Great Writ of Liberty
July
17 / 18, 2004
Gary
Leupp
Apocalypse Now: Why the Book of Revelations is
Must Reading
Ghada
Karmi
Vanishing the Palestinians
Lenni
Brenner
When Cattle Unite, Lions Go Hungry: Notes for Ralph Nader
Ben
Tripp
Man on a Bridge: a Ghost Story
Brandy
Baker
What Would Elizabeth Cady Stanton Make of John Kerry?
M.
Shahid Alam
Israel Builds Another Wall
Sasan
Fayazmanesh
Nuclear Hypocrisy: Israel, Iran and the IAEA
Patrick
Bond
The George Bush of Africa
Fred
Gardner
Politics of Marijuana: Cannabiniod Therapuetics
William
Blum
Bush and Thucydides
Ben
Terrall
Carter and the Indonesia Elections: "I Don't See Anything Wrong
with a General Running the Country"
Tom
Barry
John Lehman on the War Path
David
Vest
Dylan Without the Music
Phyllis
Pollack
Return to Sin City: Keith Richards Does Gram Parsons
Ron
Jacobs
Smearing Muhammad Ali: Bob Feller Strikes Out
Joshua
Frank
Kerry to Edwards: "Let's Lose!"
David
Nally
A Call for Sudan: Our Georgraphical Blindspot
Toni
Solo
Bolivia's Gas Referendum
Landau,
Hassan, Prashad & Lindorff
Three Reviews of Moore's F911
Poets's
Basement
Ford, Smith and Albert
July
16, 2004
Dave
Zirin
Adonal Foyle: Master of the Lefty Lay--Up
Shervan
Sardar
Dershowitz, the ICJ and Jim Crow Laws
Ron
Jacobs
The Lil' Engine That Couldn't: Kucinich Surrenders on Anti--War Plank
Robert
Fisk
Iraq, According to Edgar Allen Poe: Coffin Bombs
in Baghdad
Greg
Moses
The Forts of Iraq
Mickey
Z.
Ad Infinitum?: Presidential Campaigns in the Age of TV
Dan
Bacher
A Landmark Win for Salmon and the Tribes
Dave
Lindorff
The Mumia Case: Support from NAACP, But a Movement
in Shambles
Paul
McGeough
Did Allawi Shoot Inmates in Cold Blood?
Website
of the Day
10 Reasons to Fire Bush (and 9 Reasons Kerry Won't Be Any Better)
| Weekend
Edition
July 24 / 25, 2004
An Interview
with Tariq Ali
What's at
Stake in Venezuela
By
CLAUDIA JARDIM
and JONAH GINDIN
Tariq
Ali is a veteran political activist, filmmaker, and author of numerous
books, both fiction and non-fiction. He was born in Lahore, Pakistan,
and now lives and works London, England where he is an editor of
the British journal New Left Review. His most recent political texts
include The Clash of Fundamentalisms (Verso, 2002) and Bush in Babylon:
Recolonizing Iraq (Verso, 2003). Claudia Jardim and Jonah Gindin
talked with him during a recent trip of his to Caracas, where he
participated in the presentation of a statement of solidarity from
numerous Brazilian intellectuals. This interview originally appeared
in Venezuelanalysis.com
How do you explain the explosion in social movements against
neoliberalism in Latin America?
I
think the reason for this is that Latin America was used as a laboratory
by the United States for a long, long time. Everything the US wanted
was experimented in Latin America first. When they wanted military—on
the political level—when they wanted to crush popular movements
by unleashing military dictatorships they did it in Latin America
first: Brazil, Argentina, Chile; three of the most brutal dictatorships
we have seen. Then, after the collapse of the communist enemy, they
relaxed on the political front but they got Latin America in a grip
economically, and they said ‘this is the only way forward.’
We can summarize it like this: the laboratory of the American Empire
is the first to rebel against the Empire. So many many different
and interesting processes are happening in Latin America and I think
where the left is weak is in its inability to bring these together
and to refound the Latin American left.
What
began to happen in Latin America is a process of de-industrialization;
foreign investments coming in. In the most classic examples were
Chile under Pinochet, then Brazil under Cardoso and Argentina under
successive governments. They de-industrialized the country, they
thought that the country could function in a bubble—an economic
bubble created by a false boom, a boom which was largely fuelled
by foreign investment, foreign moneys coming into banks where there
were low interest rates. So people used to use this to invest, but
whenever the investments got risky they used to take them out—international
capital. They had absolutely no motivation for building Brazil or
Argentina so you gradually began to have the rise of a new social
movement which arose from below: peasant movements, landless peasant
movements, unemployed working class movements which began to challenge
this initially on a micro-level, in villages, in one town, in one
locality, in one region. And then gra! dually it began to spread.
The result was continent wide protests...
You
had an uprising in Cochabamba in Bolivia against the privatization
of water. You had a struggle of the peasants of Cuzco in Peru, against
the privatization of electricity. On both struggles the government
made repression first and then they had to retreat. Then you had
an unbelievable collapse in Argentina, where within three weeks
I think 4 or 5 presidents came and fell. That began to demonstrate
very graphically the crisis of neoliberal capitalism. Then you had
Brazil. In Brazil you had a situation where Cardoso had de-industrialized
the country completely. There was no national bourgeoisie left,
there were no national traditions within the capitalist sphere left,
and the country began to suffer.
Do
you see the US Empire absorbing this energy by trying to propose
a softer version of neoliberalism?
I
don’t think they are, at the moment, prepared to do that.
They will only do that if they feel threatened. And they don’t
feel threatened at the moment. And one reason—I have to be
very blunt here—they don’t feel threatened is because
there is an idealistic slogan within the social movements, which
goes like this: ‘We can change the world without taking power.’
This slogan doesn’t threaten anyone; it’s a moral slogan.
The Zapatistas—who I admire—you know, when they marched
from Chiapas to Mexico City, what did they think was going to happen?
Nothing happened. It was a moral symbol, it was not even a moral
victory because nothing happened. So I think that phase was understandable
in Latin American politics, people were very burnt by recent experiences:
the defeat of the Sandinistas, the defeat of the armed struggle
movements, the victory of the military, etc., so people where nervous.
But I think, from that point of view, the Venezuelan example is
the most interesting one. I! t says: ‘in order to change the
world you have to take power, and you have to begin to implement
change—in small doses if necessary—but you have to do
it. Without it nothing will change.’ So, it’s an interesting
situation and I think at Porto Alegre next year all these things
will be debated and discussed—I hope.
Without
adequately addressing state power, what alternative to neoliberalism
is the Global Social Justice movement offering?
No,
they have no alternative! They think that it is an advantage not
to have an alternative. But, in my view that’s a sign of political
bankruptcy. If you have no alternative, what do you say to the people
you mobilize? The MST[1] in Brazil has an alternative, they say
‘take the land and give it to the poor peasants, let them
work it.’ But the Holloway[2] thesis of the Zapatistas, it’s—if
you like—a virtual thesis, it’s a thesis for cyber space:
let’s imagine. But we live in the real world, and in the real
world this thesis isn’t going to work. Therefore, the model
for me of the MST in Brazil is much much more interesting than the
model of the Zapatistas in Chiapas. Much more interesting.
Brazil's
Landless Rural Workers Movement (MST) has been pressuring the Workers
Party (PT) to deliver on its promises of delivering land to Brazil's
poor. What do you make of the impasse that has been reached between
the grassroots and the government in Brazil?
I
think the problem in Brazil is the following: the PT[3] captured
the aspirations of the people, especially the poor. They captured
them, but they couldn’t deliver anything—so far, they
have delivered nothing. In fact, the repression against the MST
in the first year of Lula has been much higher than in any single
year of the Cardoso government. The farmers and the police have
victimized and killed far more MST militants. Now, this will end
badly. Why has it happened? It’s happened because, in my opinion,
the PT had not prepared itself in a serious way to even think about
any real alternatives. Publicly they said, ‘yes we’ll
give land to the landless, yes will do this, yes we will do that,’
but they had not made any real preparation. And Lula, I’m
afraid, is a weak leader. A weak leader who is so excited at being
in power, that he forgets why he is. The same thing happened to
Lech Walesa in Poland when the big mass movement Solidarnosc threw
him up and he finally was electe! d. What did he deliver? Nothing.
And he was voted out by the people, and that will happen to Lula.
Refounding
the Brazilian left...
I
think that, in my opinion, what we need in Brazil is a movement
to refound the Brazilian left. And this movement must include, broadly
speaking, those people inside the PT including many members of parliament
and senators and grassroots members, a very key component that should
include the MST and it should include that layer of Brazilian socialist
intellectuals who are now very disillusioned. These three components
are very important to refound the Brazilian left, it’s foolish
to do it by just a few people walking out and declaring ‘we’re
a new party.’ You need a new different sort of a movement
and a different sort of a party than the PT. In these conditions
the bulk of the Brazilian working class is now an informal working
class—it’s not the case as it was when the PT was founded.
And so you have different priorities. You have to refound a Brazilian
left which is in accord with these new priorities and realities
of Brazil today, not some mythological picture of the past.
Before
the elections in Brazil, I was in Ribeirao Preto at a festival,
and they asked me ‘if you were a Brazilian, who would you
vote for?’ And I said I would vote for Lula with the majority
of the poor of Brazil. But I said my big worry was that Lula will
forget who has voted him into power and he will cater to the policies
of those who did not vote for him—the IMF and the World Bank
and the international financial institutions. They did not vote
for Lula, but they’re the people who’s policies are
being carried out. And I said that would be a tragedy, and people
gasped but that’s exactly what’s happened. And for me
the relation between Lula and Cardoso is the relation between Thatcher
and Blair. Blair followed Thatcher, Lula is following Cardoso. It’s
intertwined, and this is the tragedy of Brazil and in four or five
years time there will massive disillusionment; the right will probably
win again and we will have to start the fight from the beginning.
In Colombia, for example, there has been a huge militarization
that is very similar to cold war U.S strategy in Latin America.
Where does this fit in with a new strategy that, as you have pointed
out, is largely economic?
Colombia
is exceptional at the moment, and of course Venezuela where they
tried to push through a new coup d’état which failed.
They
will do that if nothing else succeeds. Where they feel democracy
doesn’t serve their interests they will return to the military—that’s
obvious. But at the moment the problem is: how to devise a society
in which you can push through projects, social-democratic projects
for the poor. That’s the key in my opinion, that’s why
Venezuela is very important. Before Lula was elected a possibility
emerged, an image emerged of the following: Argentina had collapsed,
in Venezuela there was Chávez that if you had a Bolivarian
federation, of Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela and
Cuba, together you could produce a completely different way of looking
at the world and a different form of society, which would not be
repressive, which would not be vicious, which would transform the
everyday lives of the poor.
That
has not happened because…Kirchner, in my opinion, is better
than Lula; he’s trying to resist on some levels. The big disappointment
has been the Brazilian PT, big disappointment. But that doesn’t
mean we stop thinking like that because in a small way it’s
what I said at the press conference today: 10,000 Cuban doctors,
thousands of poor Venezuelan kids going to Cuba to learn to be doctors.
Here you take advantage of each other’s strengths, not each
other’s weaknesses. So it’s very good that Venezuela
and Chávez are taking advantage of the strengths of Cuba,
rather than their weaknesses. The social structure they have created,
health, education that’s something that Brazil could do as
well, but they don’t do it.
In
the wake of strong opposition to the Free Trade Area of the Americas
might the US use bilateral trade agreements to achieve its economic
goals in Latin America?
I
think the United States, you have to understand, always acts in
its own interests, and its own interests are to stop a regional
force from emerging in Latin America without the presence of the
United States; to stop a regional force emerging in the far east—China,
Japan, Korea, without the presence of the United States; to stop
Europe from becoming a strong political economic power. So, the
United States will permit concessions where it suits their interests,
as long as they feel that this doesn’t threaten them politically
or economically. They can make many concessions, but by and large
they prefer bilateral deals. ‘Deal with us. Don’t deal
with us as a collective, deal with us one-to-one. That’s what
suits us.’ That’s always been their policy.
The
Global Justice Movement is wary of Chávez’ populism,
his military background, and what they fear may become a top-down
‘revolution’ that excludes the grassroots. How do you
think the GJM and Chávez can be reconciled?
As
long as the poor in Venezuela support this government it will survive,
when they withdraw their support it will fall. But I think it will
be useful if the Global Justice movement—and there are many
different strands in it—came and saw what’s going on
here. What’s the problem? Go into the shantytowns, see what
the lives of the people are, see what their lives were before this
regime came into power. And don’t go on the basis of stereotypes.
You cannot change the world without taking power, that is the example
of Venezuela. Chávez is improving the lives of ordinary people,
and that’s why it’s difficult to topple him—otherwise
he would be toppled. So it’s something that people in the
Global Justice movement have to understand, this is serious politics.
It’s pointless just chanting slogans, because for the ordinary
people on whose behalf you claim to be fighting getting an education,
free medicine, cheap food is much much more important than all the
slogans put together.
What
do you think of the Venezuelan example of participatory democracy?
I
think it needs to be strengthened. I think it’s weak, I think
the movement here needs to institutionalize on every level—the
level of small pueblos, the level of the towns, the level of different
quarters—organizations, which can be very broad: Bolivarian
Circles, whatever you want to call them, which meet regularly, which
talk with each other, which discuss their problems, which aren’t
simply a response to calls from above. It’s very very important,
because you know, Chávez is an unusual guy in Latin America—very
special—and he is young and long may he live, but he has to
create institutions which outlast him for the future of this country.
What
is at stake in Venezuela? Whose interests? And can Venezuela survive
alone? What does Venezuela mean to the US?
Venezuela
is an example which the Americans wish to wipe out. Because if this
example exists, and gets stronger and stronger and stronger, then
people in Brazil, in Argentina, in Ecuador, in Chile, in Bolivia
will say ‘if Venezuelans can do it, we can do it.’ So
Venezuela, from that point of view, is a very important example.
That’s
why they’re so worked up. That’s why the Americans pour
in millions of dollars to help this stupid opposition in this counry;
an opposition which is incapable of offering any real alternative
to the people, except what used to exist before: a corrupt, a servile
oligarchy. That’s what Venezuela means, and I think that one
weakness, till recently, of the Bolivarian revolution has been that
it has not done more towards the rest of Latin America, because
it’s been under siege at home. But I think, once Chávez
wins the referendum, and then the local elections I hope, and the
mayoralty of Caracas in September, I hope then a big offensive is
made for th! e rest of Latin America too. From that point of view,
the model of the Cuban doctors is a very good one. I mean, a Venezuelan
doctor—in five years Venezuelans will come back [from Cuba]
as doctors, they can help both their own country, and they can go
to other countries to work in the shantytowns. They are small things,
but in the world in which we live they are very big things. Fifty
years ago they would have been small, today they are very big. And
that’s why we have to preserve and nurture them.
The
mainstream private media plays an important political role in Venezuela.
How can this disinformation be combated?
What
we lack in Latin America is means of communication, we need a satellite
channel like Al Jazeera, and I said we’ll call it ‘Al
Bolivar’ if you want. But you need one which reports regularly—what
the right is saying, what the left movements are saying, which gives
an account of what it is the MST wants, which challenges Lula, but
which does it quite independently, without being attached to any
state. And I think this satellite channel could be very important
for the whole of Latin America, to challenge the BBC World, and
CNN and have a Latin American channel. And the Venezuelans, and
the Argentineans, etc. it’s in their own interests to do it.
What
do you think opposition and US strategy will be in the event of
a Chávez victory come A-15?
Well,
I think the only strategy left then is to try and overthrow him
by a military coup. So the fact that the military seems to be supporting
him, and after the previous coup it was a warning to him as well:
you can’t simply rely on the military without educating people.
I think without the military in Venezuela, they can’t do anything—they
cannot topple him. I think the opposition, quite honestly, if they
lose this referendum—which was their big demand for years,
‘oh, he’s not allowing a referendum,’ forgetting
that he has given you a constitution according which you want this
referendum, without this constitution you couldn’t have had
this referendum—so if he wins this referendum the opposition
will be fractured, I think they will be completely demoralized,
it’s foolish.
Do
you think opposition strategy might be to claim there was fraud
in order to deligitmize Chavez´victory?
Well,
look: we have to fight that when it happens, but I think this is
why the process should be transparent, and I think lots of observers
will be coming. And if that happens, the government has to go immediately
on the offensive, and say ‘this was a clear victory, you want
you go into the whole country and talk to every single voter.’
One hasn’t got to be defensive about that. Go completely on
the offensive and say, ‘this isn’t Florida.’
In
any case, one shouldn’t worry permanently, be paranoid, you
know one should depend on the strength of the people. If the people
vote him in, and he wins the referendum they will be big celebrations
all over the country. And it will be obvious, what has happened.
[1] Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Tera—Landless
Rural Workers Movement, Brazil.
[2] John Holloway, Change the World Without Taking Power: The Meaning
of Revolution Today, Pluto Press: 2002.
[3] Partido dos Trabalhadores—Workers Party, Brazil.
Weekend Edition July 17 / 18, 2004
Gary
Leupp
Apocalypse Now: Why the Book of Revelations is
Must Reading
Ghada
Karmi
Vanishing the Palestinians
Lenni
Brenner
When Cattle Unite, Lions Go Hungry: Notes for Ralph Nader
Ben
Tripp
Man on a Bridge: a Ghost Story
Brandy
Baker
What Would Elizabeth Cady Stanton Make of John Kerry?
M.
Shahid Alam
Israel Builds Another Wall
Sasan
Fayazmanesh
Nuclear Hypocrisy: Israel, Iran and the IAEA
Patrick
Bond
The George Bush of Africa
Fred
Gardner
Politics of Marijuana: Cannabiniod Therapuetics
William
Blum
Bush and Thucydides
Ben
Terrall
Carter and the Indonesia Elections: "I Don't See Anything Wrong
with a General Running the Country"
Tom
Barry
John Lehman on the War Path
David
Vest
Dylan Without the Music
Phyllis
Pollack
Return to Sin City: Keith Richards Does Gram Parsons
Ron
Jacobs
Smearing Muhammad Ali: Bob Feller Strikes Out
Joshua
Frank
Kerry to Edwards: "Let's Lose!"
David
Nally
A Call for Sudan: Our Georgraphical Blindspot
Toni
Solo
Bolivia's Gas Referendum
Landau,
Hassan, Prashad & Lindorff
Three Reviews of Moore's F911
Poets's
Basement
Ford, Smith and Albert
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax----Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links / |