Monday, June 24, 2024

Nothing but revolution can change Azerbaijan for the better: Interview with the Azerbaijani left

Murad Gattal
Ahmed Rahmanov
Togrul Veliyev
Ahmed Mammadli
25 June, 2024




First published at September.

In February 2024, Ilham Aliyev won the early presidential election in Azerbaijan with 92.12% of the votes, having been elected to the Presidency for the fifth consecutive time. With parliamentary and municipal elections scheduled later this year, there is little doubt that the victory of the ruling party and pro-government independent candidates will be equally decisive.

The authoritarian regime, which has been established in Azerbaijan and which reached its apogee after the victory in the Second Karabakh War, hardly leaves any room for the emergence of a political alternative. It is getting increasingly difficult to voice criticism: there are practically no independent radio and TV channels, newspapers, and magazines left, and all opposition press has moved online. Moreover, not only have an alarming number of journalists employed at independent internet media been detained since November 2023 but also the World Press Freedom Index, which was recently published by Reporters Without Borders, ranked Azerbaijan as 164th out of 180 states and territories, thus marking its drop by 13 positions in comparison to the previous year. Azerbaijan also consistently ranks low in international rankings that evaluate countries based on such factors as human freedom (126th), perceived corruption (154th), and LGBT equality (134th). Moreover, Azerbaijan scored 0 out of 40 possible points in the 2024 Freedom House report about the state of political freedoms in the country. As the number of political prisoners rose to 288 people in March, Azerbaijan faced the threat of being withdrawn from the Council of Europe due to suppression of freedom and human rights violations in the country. Nevertheless, Azerbaijan ranks relatively high in the economic freedoms index (having been ranked as 70 out of 184). Moreover, Azerbaijan was ranked 34th in the ease of doing business, according to the 2020 report by Doing Business.

We talked to trade union activist Ahmed Rahmanov, economist Togrul Veliyev, and ex-chairman of the Democracy 1918 movement Ahmed Mammadli about the current state of freedoms in Azerbaijan, participation of the left in public politics, opportunities to advocate for the rights of the oppressed, as well as prospects of the left movement in the country.

What is currently going on with Azerbaijani society and what role does the left play in it?

Togrul Veliyev: Back in 2019, several telling signs made us think that Azerbaijan was undergoing liberalization. First, several independent candidates won the municipal elections and some of them were even elected as heads of municipalities. Moreover, whenever participants in unauthorized protests were detained, they were released after a few hours rather than jailed. In general, the election campaign for the 2020 parliamentary election allowed for many things that were usually regarded as nearly impossible, including meeting with voters, rallies, and marches. Nothing like this is possible today. The authorities have even decided to alter the municipal legislation in order to prevent the opposition’s elected members from having any political influence. In addition to the pressure exerted by the state, another problem is that no one in the so-called ‘public sector’ has ever sought community support. That is, for instance, no one has ever attempted to rely on funding through donations instead of grants. All Azerbaijani political movements, both on the left and elsewhere, boil down to discussions at coffee shops and are, therefore, completely out of touch with the masses. Their members are educated people who enjoy arguing about Che Guevara or Stalin but have no idea about what interests the majority of people. Essentially, the ‘public sector’ forms its own clique. They shy away from the masses: instead of providing people with explanations as to why their political vision deserves support, they dismiss people with a “that is the way it should be'' response. Naturally, when the political movements faced pressure – as, for example, in the case when the authorities shut down two hundred organizations at once – the public remained indifferent.

Ahmed Rahmanov: Azerbaijani society is actually so small that one could say that everyone is related to each other. Invariably, kinship ties prevail over common sense. As a result, it is impossible to take people to the streets, even if it is for the sake of standing up for their rights or striking. One example of this would be my attempt to organize a protest for the rights of people with disabilities in front of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population. No sooner had we gathered than the police began calling relatives of the protesters and threatening them in an attempt to make them encourage the protesters to leave. And it works. It's the same with the left. We have, for instance, small organizations that translate and publish left-wing literature. However, this is not enough to construct the left movement as a political actor. In addition, many people are simply afraid to participate in public protests: although the police turn a blind eye to nationalist or pan-Turkish rallies, taking to the streets with a red flag is a sure way to get detained. Even Russia allows holding single-person pickets, but when I held such pickets here, I immediately ended up at the police station.

Ahmed Mammadli: The social and political activity of our members regularly led us to detention and arrest. The authorities did everything in their power to make it impossible for us to hold events and sustain our organization. Eventually, in September 2023 we dissolved it. However, one must not consider this self-dissolution as an act of waiving a “white flag,” so to speak. Instead, it was a demarche designed to demonstrate the country’s lack of opportunities for political activity. We knew that repressions were going to increase, and it was only natural that the authorities began to attack independent journalists. Today the regime is becoming increasingly oppressive, and I know that, had we not dissolved our organization in early September 2023, we would have issued a statement against the special operation in Karabakh, which would have certainly led to my imprisonment. Nevertheless, our activists continue their public activities, especially those aimed at the protection and support of our comrades and trade unionists who are currently under investigation or imprisoned.

Are there any leftist parties and movements in Azerbaijan?

Left-wing ideas and movements have a long history in Azerbaijan. The leftist tradition can be traced back to the foundation of the social-democratic organization “Hummet” in 1905, which became the starting point both for the founder of the Azerbaijan Communist Party and for the first leader of the Müsavat Party. On April 28, 1920, the former took over from the latter and proclaimed the establishment of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, which began the Soviet period in the history of the country. However, even “Müsavat” (full name - “Muslim Democratic Equality Party”), which dominated the government of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (1918-1920), was initially a left-nationalist party, although it subsequently drifted to the right due to its opposition to the Soviet power as well as thanks to its coalition with Azerbaijani right-wing parties. Its political programme declared the right to an eight-hour working day, the redistribution of land to the peasants, free education, and civil liberties.

A.R.: Is there a left-wing movement in Azerbaijan today? Unlike more developed countries—that is, socially rather than economically developed—all political parties in Azerbaijan, regardless of what they claim, are guilty of dividing society instead of uniting it. They do not differ from each other in anything but name. For example, during elections, their statements boil down to the idea that it is enough to replace people in power to transform society for the better. But they don’t explain what a ‘better’ society ought to look like. Not such a long time ago there were three unofficial communist parties in Azerbaijan, all of which went by the same name. I was a member of the one headed by Telman Nurullayev, once as a Komsomol and party official. Since the mid-1990s, these parties have achieved nothing and had no intentions of doing anything worthwhile. May Day demonstrations are pretty telling about the strength of the left movement. Personal ambitions of the leaders of these parties prevented the Azerbaijani left from uniting even on that day. Each party organized its own separate rally in different parts of the city and at different times. As a result, these ambitions prevented the parties espousing the same ideology to act collectively, which only alienated potential supporters. Recently, my comrades and I have created a Marxist society that got some attention from young people who reached out to us. However, it is not only reading the classics that they want. They are waiting for action, and it is something we cannot offer.

A.M.: Our Democracy 1918 movement was founded in 2013 as a centre-right movement, but with the coming of a new team in 2021 it adopted more left-wing positions. Social liberalism and democratic socialism became an integral part of our platform. It so happened that in Azerbaijan many opposition organizations have no ideology. Instead, they try to attract people of all political persuasions and all walks of life. That is, they attempt to be what one calls a “big tent,” uniting all those who are dissatisfied with the current regime. In the aftermath of the Azerbaijani independence, left-wing ideas, which were associated with the Soviet past and the Russian occupation, were unpopular. However, today more and more young people are interested in the concept of social justice. Among those who approached us were even those who had never been involved in politics before. We sought support from two traditional categories of left-wing sympathisers—the working class and the intelligentsia, including students, artists, and people of liberal professions.

T.V.: Around 60 per cent of public activists consider themselves left-wing. Of course, it must be noted that this is a rather wide category, including both Stalinists and left-wing liberals. Moreover, many of them have a shallow and simplistic understanding of ideologies. I was an activist as far back as my student years but only became involved in politics in 2015 when I joined the ReAl party.

[ReAl (“Republican Alternative Party”) is a political party in Azerbaijan that was established in 2009 as a political movement and transformed into a party in 2014. It was founded in the aftermath of a referendum that amended the constitutional law concerning the number of terms, for which a person can be re-elected as president.“ The founders of the party saw this as the destruction of the republic and set out to restore it. The party’s leader Ilgar Mammadov, who wanted to run in the 2013 presidential elections but was sentenced to seven years in prison for organizing mass riots, was released in 2018 and acquitted by the Supreme Court in 2020. That same year the ReAl Party was officially registered as a political party, and its representative Erkin Gadirlu was elected to the Parliament. Since then, the party hardly does anything in opposition to the current regime.]

It was a centrist party back then, but it was open to people with different political views. There were many leftists in it. Being a member of the party allowed me to participate in political life and develop my ideas and projects. Among other things, I served as an election observer, collected signatures, and prepared documents concerning social issues. One of the most important things that I did was to introduce into the party’s programme a demand to lower the retirement age. In 2019, however, the party leadership adopted pro-government positions. As a result, I felt obliged to leave the party. In the same year, Bayram Mammadov was released from prison by an official pardon. Some left-wing activists, including myself, began to gather around him. We considered ourselves Marxists. At that time, the left movement was scattered, and people worked in various small media and public organizations. There were about 10-15 people in our group.

[Qiyas Ibrahimov and Bayram Mammadov, known as “prisoners of the monument,” were left-wing students. In 2016, they graffitied anti-government slogans on a monument to Heydar Aliyev, the former President and father of President Ilham Aliyev. They were arrested for drug possession and imprisoned for 10 years. They were pardoned in March 2019. Bayram was found dead in Istanbul on the 4th of May, 2021. Qiyas continues to be politically active.]

We decided to participate in the parliamentary elections, which was possible due to the relative liberalization of the regime. Eventually, we put our efforts into one constituency, where I was nominated as a candidate. Our election campaign was very dynamic—perhaps the most dynamic in the country. At the peak of the campaign, our team consisted of 70 people. This could potentially transform into a full-fledged political movement. Our goal was not to win but rather to campaign and attract supporters. Nevertheless, our defeat, especially given that we demonstrated good results, left our activists disappointed. When in 2020 the pandemic led to the imposition of quarantine, it became impossible not just to hold public and personal meetings but to continue any kind of activism at all. As a result, many people lost interest and returned to their everyday lives. The final split that divided the left occurred over the issue of a military solution to the Karabakh conflict. Many activists supported the war: some voluntarily went to the front, and some even adopted nationalist positions.

What is the current state of the trade union movement?

This year marks the 120th anniversary of the trade union movement in Azerbaijan as well as its first and one of the most important victories—namely, the conclusion of a collective agreement between oil producers and field workers in 1904. This document, which went under the name of the “Mazut Constitution,” was the first collective agreement in the Russian Empire. Currently, Azerbaijan has relatively liberal legislation on trade unions and strikes, but in reality, it has no power. The Confederation of Independent Trade Unions, which unites nearly 30 industry unions, is independent in name only. In essence, however, just like in Soviet times, it is a bureaucratic organization closely cooperating with the administration of enterprises. Strikes happen mostly spontaneously, without any organization, and attempts to create genuinely militant independent trade unions are suppressed.

A.M.: Two years ago we participated in the establishment of an independent trade union confederation that we named “Worker's Table.” Its purpose was to protect the workers’ labour rights. The couriers union, which was part of it, protested against low pay and bad working conditions. Eventually, its leaders were arrested on unfair charges. As activists, we are now fighting for their release and the continuation of trade union work. We also consider it important to protect the rights of ethnic minorities, religious groups, and LGBTIQ+ people. Our organization introduced gender quotas so that at least one-fourth of the seats in the decision-making bodies are reserved for women. I consider this a correct approach.

T.V.: There was an attempt to create a delivery couriers’ union, but I only know about it from activists and not from the couriers themselves. The latter were practically unaware of it, as no one conducted any activities aimed specifically at them. My colleagues and I interviewed 200 couriers and only a few of them knew about the union. Personally, I don’t believe that unions can be organized on a “top-down” basis. It would be much harder to destroy a truly mass organization if the demand for a trade union had emerged from below.

A.R.: The Free Trade Union, founded by my comrades and myself, is not a classical trade union, but rather a public organization for the protection of workers' rights. The idea is that it is almost impossible to organize workers into a trade union, just like it is difficult for them to organize themselves into a union. For example, British Petroleum (BP), a British oil company operating in Azerbaijan, had a special system to prevent the workers from organizing for the collective defence of their rights: the company used to create temporary brigades at its sites, which were disbanded after certain periods and reshuffled. However, once the company could see that the workers didn't even try to organize, it discontinued this practice. The Free Trade Union helps people to solve problems with employers. However, we can only provide individual assistance rather than organize people for collective action.

Is political transformation possible in Azerbaijan?

Just a few years ago, the Azerbaijani left was moderately optimistic about the future. Today, however, they have a darker vision of the possibility of positive changes in the country and the movement.

T.V.: There is certainly a demand for left-wing ideas. For example, videos on social media, which depict social problems, gain a huge number of views. In fact, social issues interest people the most. This does not mean, however, that one can follow the same principles that activists did at the beginning of the 20th century. Although the left often suffers from this approach, it is necessary to study the current structure of society in order to understand what our times require.

Today, with the arrests and all other things happening in Azerbaijan, I am pessimistic about the future. Some changes will occur if there is a considerable economic crisis, as it would lead to a social explosion. However, the ‘public sector’ and political movements are not ready for it. It must be admitted that the government, on the contrary, does its best to maintain its stability and avoid escalation. For example, although the environmental protests in the village of Söyüdlü were suppressed in a very harsh manner, in their aftermath officials in other regions started to pay more attention to the interests of local communities.

A.R.: There is no left-wing movement in Azerbaijan and, most likely, there won’t be one. If we had not had Russians, Armenians, Jews—that is, a mixed group—working in oil fields in 1920, we would not have had a revolution. Despite 70 years of Soviet power, the most important thing in our people's lives is their families, and this makes it easy to pressure anyone. That's the end of the story. Moreover, our people are ready to stand up for justice for themselves (and their families), but not for justice for others. This individualism and lack of solidarity make both the collective defence of one’s rights and political action impossible. In order to change something in the country, be it in accordance with left-wing ideals or other principles, we need an impulse from the outside. Generally speaking, people from another country or maybe from another planet must come and light the fire of change.

A.M.: Although I am not a communist, I believe that nothing but a revolution can change Azerbaijan for the better. Reforms are not enough.

Translation: Vladlena Zabolotskaya

 Tariq Ali at the 18th International Book Fair in the Zócalo of Mexico City. Photo credit: Elena Poniatowska Forum

History is on our side – An interview with Tariq Ali on Ireland


“Look at the United States now and what the Israelis are doing in Gaza. A genocidal war to wipe out the Palestinian people… They could stop the war by threatening sanctions and calling on all their EU stooges to do the same.”
Tariq Ali

In Camden Town, a corner of North London well-known to many an Irish exile, Joe Dwyer sat down with the writer, journalist, and political activist, Tariq Ali.

A leading figure of the international left since the 1960s, Ali reflects on his earliest encounters with Ireland’s freedom struggle, his friendship with John Lennon, Ireland’s transition from conflict to peace, and his undiminished desire to see Irish unity.

Joe Dwyer: You came to prominence in the late-60s with the student protests and the anti-Vietnam War movement.

Tariq Ali: The atmosphere was very radical. You had a Labour government in power in Britain, from which much had been expected but which delivered little – I mean, more than these current jokers now running the Labour Party ever will! – but we were very disappointed.

The decisive factor of the sixties was the War in Vietnam. People identified with the Vietnamese, just as today, many people do with the Palestinians. But in a very different framework. In a framework where you thought global change was possible.

I remember going to speak in Belfast in 1969, at Queen’s University, and I was amazed because my Irish comrades had said ‘Tariq, this is Ireland, it hasn’t lit up as yet. So don’t expect too much!’ I went and I thought, you know, you might get 40-50 people. But to my astonishment there were about 400-500 people at Queen’s University.

Joe Dwyer: It was August ‘69.

Tariq Ali: Yes. In 1969 Ireland moved almost in tandem with the anti-Vietnam War movement. The group to which I belonged, the International Marxist Group (IMG), was very internationalist. We had a number of Irish comrades, and some Scottish comrades, who were obsessively– and I mean this in a good way– obsessively concerned with Ireland.

We produced pamphlets and Red Mole (the paper of the IMG). We were a political current that was focussed very strongly on civil liberties. The SWP (Socialist Workers Party) was as well. We worked together on the Anti-Internment League.

Then I did a public meeting in Dublin with Seán Mac Stíofáin. I had very good relations with Sinn Féin. Of course, they knew we disagreed on tactics and all that and the London bombings. But our line then used to be, do the deal, the bombings will stop. It’s true. People never want to know what the causes are. They don’t want to know in Palestine today. I mean, the number of people who don’t like what’s going on but will not open their mouths it was the same in those day with Ireland.

Joe Dwyer: Going through the old issues of Red Mole, it’s staggering that the Red Mole did stake out the position on Ireland that it did. On the left there were those dismissing it as sectarian. But Red Mole saw it in an anti-imperialist frame.

Tariq Ali: That’s how we interpreted it. I mean, that was my position. I essentially saw the Irish struggle through the anti-imperialist lens. For me, it was not a big deal. For others, it was.

God knows how many books I read on Ireland! And then I went into the cultural side of it, the poetry, and the plays. So, I got quite immersed in Irish history and culture as a result of all of that.

I always had, in later years, a real contempt for all these Irish intellectuals who became turncoats. Who were getting jobs in British universities and saying what they knew the British establishment wanted to hear. Trying to constantly underplay Irish history and the Irish struggle.

Whereas those of us who knew both Irish history and other anti-colonial, anti-British, histories from other parts of the world. We saw, you know, in retrospect, the Easter Rising as the beginning of something small which would grow very large.

Joe Dwyer: You had John Lennon famously carrying the Red Mole, and all the furore that accompanied that image.

Tariq Ali: It was John’s idea, really! I didn’t push him at all! He himself got very interested in Ireland. Largely, I have to say, through the Red Mole and reading the British Press, which angered him.

One day he rang and said, ‘Tariq, are you going to be on this demo tomorrow?’ I said, ‘John, I’m not going to be there. But that shouldn’t stop you from coming.’ I said, ‘It would be a tremendous boost. A real morale booster if you came on the demo. You know, on your own or with Yoko, whatever – just to join the comrades who won’t be expecting you. But I will warn a few people just to make sure you’re looked out for.’

And he said, ‘Ok, I’ll be there.’ And that was that.

Joe Dwyer: The British government banned the voice of Gerry Adams and other Sinn Féin representatives from the airwaves. What did you think of that?

Tariq Ali: That was amazing! You know, I remember saying once to one of the Sinn Féin leaders, I said, ‘Guys, the Brits have done you a huge, big, favour! I said, ‘Propaganda is doing pretty well these days!’ Can you imagine! What a dumb idea! And stupid! Did they think people were being hypnotised by Gerry Adams’ voice?

Joe Dwyer: And then there were the early invitations to Sinn Féin leaders by Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn to travel to London. Dialogue was critical.

Tariq Ali: A lot of my friends in Ireland, including people I would be close to were quite critical. I wasn’t. My gut response was, they have to do it at some time. The Brits have done it with every genuine liberation movement, whether they like them or not. I knew there was no other way. The Brits knew the IRA could not be defeated militarily. It was virtually impossible. I knew they had to talk. I knew the republicans had to sit down and talk with them. And once you do that, it has to be a compromise.

I mean, the big problem about the (1921) talks, which de Valera didn’t go to himself, was that they lacked authority. The Irish delegation was weak. Churchill and Lloyd George outmanoeuvred them. That mistake was not repeated, in my opinion, by Sinn Féin in these talks. They were reasonable in public but quite firm in what they were prepared to accept, what they needed, what they demanded. And they pulled it off!

Jow Dwyer: Why does the British establishment maintain its false ‘love’ for the Union?

Tariq Ali: Pure and total cynicism and opportunism. The Brits will use anything and anyone to further their own interests. And where these were furthered by using the Orange Card, and threatening the Catholic community, they did it. When it didn’t, they stopped. I mean, they have no sort of loyalty. Empires, even aging empires, have only one loyalty: imperialist interest.

Look at the United States now and what the Israelis are doing in Gaza. A genocidal war to wipe out the Palestinian people! And the reaction from the United States has been total support. They could stop the war by threatening sanctions and calling on all their EU stooges to do the same. That would end it. But structurally, I think, it is that the United States still feels that they need an allied state in the Middle East. One who can act on their behalf. That’s the real reason. I mean, there’s no affection for Israelis or anything like that

Joe Dwyer: My last question; do you think you’ll live to see a united Ireland?

Tariq Ali: I really hope I do! You know, just to see one’s lifespan getting some satisfaction from something decent happening.

Whether it was on Vietnam, or Palestine, or Ireland, I don’t regret any fundamental error that I’ve made. History has been on our side. However slowly it moves. At least it’s been moving in the right direction.


  • Tariq Ali’s biography of the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, ‘Winston Churchill: His Times, His Crimes’, is available via Verso Books and other reputable booksellers. His second volume of memoirs, ‘You Can’t Please All: Memoirs: 1980-2023’ is anticipated to be released this coming Autumn.
  • This interview was originally published by Éire Nua (Sinn Féin’s online magazine) Spring Edition.

 UK

Lakenheath: secrets and obfuscation – CND

“In 2008, after persistent popular protest, 110 nuclear bombs stored at Lakenheath were removed. Now the evidence shows they are on their way back.”

Annie Tunnicliffe, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) writes on making nuclear weapons at Lakenheath an election issue.

As we head into this General Election, delivery of US nuclear weapons to Britain is looming. We need the next government to come clean about what’s going on – and put a stop to it. So it’s time to put the question to all the parliamentary candidates: will they oppose these weapons coming back to Britain?

When it comes to nukes at Lakenheath, successive British governments have a track record of secrecy and obfuscation. In 1956, a B-47 bomber on a routine training mission from Lakenheath crashed into a storage facility containing nuclear weapons, killing four servicemen. Official US documents said it was a “miracle” that none of the bombs detonated and it was “possible part of Eastern England would have become a desert”. And when did the British people find out about it? Twenty three years later, in 1979.

Five years after that incident, in 1961, a plane loaded with a nuclear bomb caught fire following a pilot error – the bomb was “scorched and blistered” and scientists later discovered it could have detonated in slightly different circumstances. And when did the British people find out about it? Forty two years later, in 2003.

In 2008, after persistent popular protest, 110 nuclear bombs stored at Lakenheath were removed.

Now the evidence shows they are on their way back. The US Department of Defense has added the UK to a list of NATO nuclear weapons storage locations in Europe and new documents on the US Department of Defense’s procurement database reveal plans for a “nuclear mission” at RAF Lakenheath with the Pentagon ordering new equipment for the base.

The use of the term “RAF” is another obfuscation, another euphemism to cover up the facts and try to keep the British people in the dark. Despite being called an RAF base, Lakenheath is run by the USAF and only hosts US personnel, around 6,000 of them. It is the largest deployment of USAF personnel in the UK.

US nuclear weapons based here would make the UK once again a forward nuclear base for the US, thereby making us a prime target in the event of a nuclear war.


 

US Imperialism Driving Millions to Flee Their Homes World Over




The intensification of existing violent conflicts and emergence of new ones have caused a significant increase in the number of forcibly displaced people.



Sudanese refugees in Chad. Over 10 million people have been forcibly displaced in over a year of war in Sudan. Photo: Wikimedia commons

On this year’s World Refugee Day – June 20 – we must collectively reckon with the fact that more than 117 million people are victims of forced displacement. From Palestine to Sudan, Yemen to Ukraine, and the Democratic Republic of Congo to Myanmar, the specter of violence casts its long shadow across the world and results in the tragedy of death and displacement that we have become all too familiar with. According to the Armed Conflict Location and Events Data (ACLED) Conflict Index, the world is becoming more violent, as is synthesized by the fact that one in six people are estimated to have been exposed to conflict in 2024. This marks, according to ACLED, a 22% increase in political violence incidents in the past five years and begs the question, “Why is war becoming the norm around the world?”

To understand the expansion of war and violent conflict in recent years, it is necessary to look at global factors rather than focus exclusively on the causes of each conflict. When we look at the bigger picture, we find an increasingly unequal world with a burgeoning arms market and failing global governance structures. These factors are all connected to the structural crisis of capitalism and the US imperialist project which has reacted to its decline with increased aggression.

Over several decades, US actions have contributed to a state of global disorder, linked to a broader agenda aimed at establishing and maintaining unipolarity. Since the 1970s, the United States has increasingly pursued a foreign policy marked by unilateral actions and strategies designed to further its interests, often without regard for their impact on other actors, including some of its allies.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the US ruling class became convinced it had established a new unipolar order destined to endure indefinitely. Since then, the number of violent conflicts with US participation has increased and include: Panama (1989), Iraq (1990), Yugoslavia (1995), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), Syria (2014), Ukraine (2022), Palestine (2023). In some of these instances, the conflicts instigated by the United States have overflowed beyond borders, grown through the involvement of unpredictable militias, and resulted in chaos, violence, and a breakdown of state authority. This has often only led to further escalation of violence. In this way, the US effort to maintain unipolarity has heightened global conflict.

The United States has also dismantled any semblance of global governance aimed at preventing and resolving conflicts. The League of Nations (1919) and later the United Nations (1945) were established to foster peace and security by implementing a framework of international law to govern nations’ behavior. However, the US has consistently flouted these multilateral structures and international laws while shielding its close allies from repercussions for their transgressions. A significant example of this, marking a pivotal moment in undermining the rules-based order, is the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. This invasion, purportedly launched as a “preemptive” strike, lacked evidence of provocation and was based on false claims regarding Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.

By initiating a war that failed to meet internationally accepted justifications for conflict, the US set a precedent wherein the ability to wage war—coupled with control over media narratives to justify military actions—supersedes the obligation to justify military intervention under international law. This action by the United States undermined any notion of peace and security within a rules-based system. Following the largely unchallenged war in Iraq, the US proceeded to wage wars explicitly aimed at asserting its dominance and control. The 2011 NATO-led invasion of Libya epitomizes these overt attempts to dismantle and intimidate those who defy or oppose US hegemony.

Producers of weapons and war

US imperialism relies heavily on the unparalleled military dominance it has built and maintained over decades. To this end, military spending by the United States has steadily increased. Currently, the gigantic military machine commanded by the US is funded by USD 1.537 trillion (counting only US spending) and USD 2.13 trillion (including the expenditure by US allies). In percentages, the US-led military bloc is responsible for 74.3% of military spending globally. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the world’s five top arms-producing and military service companies, Lockheed Martin Corp., Raytheon Technologies, Northrop Grumman Corp., Boeing and General Dynamics Corp, are of US origin.

The US is both indirectly – by building its incredible stockpile of weapons – and directly – by producing a significant amount of the arms circling the world today – responsible for the vast amount of weapons in the world today – weapons which are instrumental to perpetuating and escalating conflicts.

The existence of readily available arms has the effect of fueling disputes that may not have escalated were weapons unavailable. This was seen in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq, where age-old differences between groups that had co-existed in relative peace for decades became bloody conflicts between tribal leaders and religious groups, due to the availability of guns and the use of these distinct groups as proxies by the US and its rivals.

As one conflict ends, its weapons quickly travel to neighboring countries, opening up new war fronts. According to the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), the “excessive accumulation and wide availability [of small arms] may aggravate political tension, often leading to more lethal and longer-lasting violence”.

Since the US project for global hegemony was inaugurated in 1945, the US has staged military interventions in over a dozen countries. Afghanistan alone was targeted by 81,638 bombs or missiles by the US and its allies between 2001 and 2021. Other countries such as Vietnam, Somalia, Laos, Kuwait, Grenada, Yemen, and dozens of others have also suffered mass destruction and devastation under US-led military interventions.

According to the global trends report of the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) there has been a steady increase in the number of forcibly displaced persons yearly. In 2023 at least 27.2 million people were forced to flee, amounting to a total of 117.3 million which remain displaced, and constituting an 8% increase from the previous year. The UNHCR reports that the numbers of conflict-related fatalities are closely correlated with the number of people displaced each year. The three countries with the largest numbers of forced displacement are all currently embroiled in armed conflict: Sudan, Palestine, and Myanmar.

Economic siege as war

But bombs are not the only means the US has to advance its agenda; it has also taken advantage of its power over the global economic system to coerce unruly nations into towing the Washington line.

Coercive and unilateral measures, or sanctions, are widely used by the US to impoverish, starve, and weaken its enemies. Currently, the US has unilaterally imposed these measures on approximately 39 nations and territories. Sanctions are war by another name, as the outcomes of these result in civilian loss of life at a scale comparable to war.

Through both military interventions and economic sanctions, the United States has shown its willingness to coerce any nation deviating from its interests. This has fostered a global environment where nations vie for power and influence. The US’s propensity to invade and punish perceived adversaries has spurred countries to bolster their military and geopolitical capabilities to safeguard their sovereignty in a world marked by violence and conflict, saturated with weaponry and lacking effective mechanisms to ensure peace.

The outcome of the US hegemonic project has been a world of constant and endless wars, whether these involve the US directly or not. Struggles for control of land and resources by diverging factions quickly escalate to armed conflict due to the readily available weapons and the willing funding of regional powers looking to build their geopolitical force. This is essentially what is happening in Sudan today, where the conflict has resulted in more than ten million displaced persons. The conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces serves to thwart the democratic process the people have been struggling for since 2018, as rival military groups struggle to control the country and its resources.

Furthermore, the proliferation of conflicts contributes to the normalization of violent conflict itself. As we are exposed to ever-increasing numbers of civilian casualties, refugee camps, and the widespread devastation of cities, our response to warfare becomes passive and minimal.

Instead, our response must be expressed in political action that addresses the root causes of the permanent state of war in which we live. Only by countering US imperialism, its disregard for international institutions, and its enormous military machine can we end the state of widespread violence and conflict that haunts humanity – and address the root of the refugee crisis that is felt around the world.

Stephanie Weatherbee Brito is part of the International Peoples Assembly (IPA). 

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch

 

World Economy Seeing Notable Diffusion of Production


Prabhat Patnaik 





The big bourgeoisie and the elite in the Global South now find themselves on the same side of the dividing line as metropolitan capital.

There has been a significant diffusion of production occurring in the world economy. Many call this phenomenon a shift from a US-led world economy to a “multipolar world economy”, but no matter what one thinks of this description, the fact of diffusion is indubitable.

In 1994, for instance, the G-7 countries (the US, the UK, Germany, France, Japan, Italy and Canada) produced 45.3% of world output while the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, together with new members Iran, the UAE, Egypt and Ethiopia) produced 18.9%, By 2022, however, the ratios had become 29.3% and 35.2%, respectively. (These are World Bank figures quoted by economist Jeffrey Sachs).

Even if we take a somewhat larger grouping, namely, the US, the UK, Canada, the EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, its share in world output has fallen from 56% in 1994 to 39.5% in 2022. The refusal on the part of the US to recognise the ramifications of this diffusion, and its attempt to retain the power it enjoyed over the world in the old days, makes it extremely aggressive vis-à-vis Russia, China, Iran and others. Indeed, its aggressiveness is pushing the world into dangerous military confrontations.

This diffusion of production has no doubt been vastly aided by the emergence of socialism. Not only was the fact of decolonisation itself aided by the existence of socialism, but the building up of domestic skills, technological ability, infrastructure and productive capacity in post-colonial societies occurred initially under the aegis of dirigiste regimes that sustained themselves against Western hostility only through significant Soviet assistance.

Later, of course, after the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and the end of Third World dirigisme, this process of diffusion was carried forward by international flows of capital-in-production that were facilitated by the neoliberal global order, but the prerequisites for such flows had in many major instances been created by the dirigiste regimes. The diffusion of production that is occurring at present to countries outside of the US-led bloc, is occurring under the aegis of capitalism (China, of course, is a separate case).

The question that arises is: in what sense can we talk of imperialism in the present context? The term imperialism has been associated with a dichotomy in the world economy, between a developed metropolis and an underdeveloped periphery; if this dichotomy is getting obliterated, if countries that belonged to the periphery are now witnessing rates of output growth even faster than the metropolitan countries themselves, then how can we still talk of imperialism?

The reality seems, on the contrary, to point toward a “convergence” among countries, where countries that belonged to the Global South are now catching up with those of the Global North, and, what is more, doing so (again except China) under the capitalist mode of production itself. Capitalism is no longer the culprit that is perpetuating a division of the world into a developed and an under-developed segment; it can no longer, therefore, be accused of imperialism. The question arises: is this correct?

First of all, while diffusion is unmistakable, any talk of “convergence” is far-fetched. This is so partly because the phenomenon of diffusion itself should not be exaggerated. The countries that have witnessed such diffusion are still few in number, and many of them may well experience reversals of fortune in the days to come; this would happen because the crisis of neoliberalism is catching them in debt-traps that would entail “fiscal austerity”, domestic deflation, and hence economic stagnation and recession.

History bears ample testimony to such reversals, which have been particularly pervasive for mineral-rich countries. Myanmar is a classic example of a country that was once considered to be on the threshold of prosperity but is now listed among the “least developed countries”. In our own neighbourhood, we see countries retrogressing because of the burden of external debt.

The second reason why “convergence” is out of the question lies precisely in imperialism. To see this, we have to note a second phenomenon that characterises the world economy but which, instead of getting the attention it so obviously deserves, is sought to be camouflaged by organisations like the World Bank that emphasise only the fact of diffusion. This consists of the fact that during the neoliberal era when there has been a diffusion of activities from the Global North to the Global South under the aegis of capitalism, and the latter has on average shown a higher growth-rate of GDP compared with the former, there has simultaneously been an increase in the extent of nutritional deprivation in the latter. And if nutritional deprivation is taken to be reflective of overall deprivation, for which at the levels of income of the Global South there is plenty of evidence, then there has been an increase in the extent of absolute poverty.

No doubt the people of the South have benefited from the better roads, electricity and other infrastructure that has been built up; but their private consumption has suffered precisely during the period when socialism and socialism-supported relatively autonomous dirigiste regimes have collapsed and the hegemony of neoliberal capitalism established over the world economy.

Postulating “convergence”, therefore, is a misreading of the situation; all that one can say is that the dividing line that existed in the capitalist world between the metropolis and the periphery has now shifted geographically to within the periphery itself.

The big bourgeoisie and the elite in the Global South now find themselves on the same side of the dividing line as metropolitan capital. They are no longer on the same side as the people of the Global South, as was generally the case during the anti-colonial struggle.

The term imperialism, however, was never meant to refer to a geographical divide; it referred to the coercion exercised by the capitalist mode of production in its surroundings. Its point of departure in other words was always political economy not geographical boundaries. It is worth recapitulating some points of this political economy.

The capitalist mode of production came of age with the Industrial Revolution which occurred in the cotton textile industry in Britain. But Britain can grow no raw cotton at all. The very coming of age of the capitalist mode, therefore, was predicated upon its having access to a whole range of primary commodities which cannot be grown within its home base, either at all, or in sufficient quantities, or all the year around. These are typically grown instead by millions of peasants and petty producers in tropical and semi-tropical regions of the world that are, and have historically been, densely populated.

These regions are broadly co-terminus with the periphery; and even when capitalism spreads to these regions, both this local capitalism and the capitalism of the metropolis are still dependent on obtaining a growing supply of a range of primary commodities from these millions of non-capitalist producers at prices which are not merely non-increasing, but which have actually shown absolute decline in unit dollar terms for decades.

Even though the exchange value of these commodities is relatively low, which is a legacy of the drastic squeeze that has been imposed on the petty producers of these commodities over the years, and which creates the totally false impression that these commodities are quite unimportant for the system, capitalism simply cannot do without them as use-values. 

Now, obtaining the requisite supplies of such commodities, especially of tropical and semi-tropical agricultural goods from a land-mass that is more or less fully utilised already, would require little coercion if the petty producers located there undertook “land-augmenting” (that is, land-yield-raising) practices and innovations. But such innovations and practices, whether irrigation, or research into and popularisation of high-yielding seed varieties, typically require substantial State effort, which capitalism, especially neoliberal capitalism, frowns upon. It does not want the State to be engaged in any activity that promotes the interests of anyone other than international capital and its local allies, the corporate-financial oligarchy of the Global South itself. It certainly does not wish the State to promote the interests of the peasants and petty producers, which is why “land-augmenting” measures are eschewed and the requisite supplies of primary commodities are obtained through compressing local incomes, and hence local demand of such commodities, within the Global South. Such compression is impossible without, at the very least, implicit coercion.

The decline in per capita foodgrain production in the Global South, and the even sharper decline in per capita foodgrain availability (owing to the diversion in recent years of foodgrains toward bio-fuels) are a consequence of this coercion, of which the observed nutritional deprivation is a manifestation. The diffusion of production to the Global South, therefore, in no way obviates the phenomenon of imperialism.

 

Three Lessons I Learned on My Visit to Cuba


Amanda Yee 


The Cuban revolution offers key lessons for progressive people in the United States about how to organize society in a way that favors the majority, and not an elite few.


Photo: Gerardo Hernandez Nordelo

Last month, I went to Cuba as part of a 20-person delegation to deliver USD 60,000 in critical life-saving cancer medications and medical supplies to two pediatric hospitals there. This delegation was organized by Hatuey Project, a volunteer-run organization that regularly brings medical and humanitarian aid to Cuba. As part of the 10-day trip, we met with representatives of different Cuban organizations, institutions, and even members of Parliament. Through these exchanges, we learned about how the people of Cuba are engaged in its ongoing revolutionary process, their project of building socialism, and the impacts of US policy on everyday life.

Here are three key lessons I drew from our delegation.

1. All of Cuban society has been impacted by the US blockade

The US blockade on Cuba, in place since the 1960s, is an act of economic warfare. The political motivations behind it have been clear since the very beginning: to make life so miserable on the island that the Cuban people will direct their frustrations against the Communist Party and overthrow it, making way for US business interests to take hold again. This has been US policy toward Cuba for over 60 years.

As representatives we spoke to emphasized, there is no sector of society that the blockade does not touch. Conditions are now worse than ever: The blockade has led to extreme shortages in food, flour, and fuel. Electrical blackouts are becoming more and more frequent.

Meanwhile, farmers cannot grow food on a mass scale, because the blockade denies them the pesticides, fertilizers, and equipment to do so. Many have relied on countries such as Mexico donating tractors, hoes, and other farm supplies.

When receiving our medical delivery, a doctor at a children’s hospital in Santa Clara relayed to us that medicine is what is most needed and yet most affected by the blockade. The blockade not only prevents crucial medications from reaching the island, but also the raw materials and science and technology needed to produce them. And as the most effective cancer treatments are often US-produced and doctors do not have access to those, they often seek alternative treatments that are not as effective. This has an obvious impact on survival rate.

The doctors also lamented that fuel scarcity makes it extremely difficult for families of patients to travel back and forth from their homes to the hospital. On top of that, food scarcity creates even more hardship for these families. As we came to understand, the blockade doesn’t just affect individual things in isolation; it creates overlapping crises with which everyday Cubans must contend.

This is the cruel price that the Cuban people continue to pay for their socialist project.

2. Cuba shows us that another world is possible

Cuba is an example that a future exists beyond capitalism, and that future is worth fighting for.

Cuba’s government represents a democracy virtually unknown to us in the United States. On our last day, we met with several members of Parliament, or the National Assembly of People’s Power—the country’s highest political body. Unlike in the US, these government representatives do not receive a salary nor do they represent any groups with certain political interests. Nor do they have election campaigns or receive campaign funding.

As one member of the Assembly told us, “Policy is not a business. It’s a responsibility of the revolutionary project we have built.”

Popular consultation between government officials and community members is an important democratic principle in Cuba. Every new potential law is debated and refined through this process, including the new Families Code passed in 2022. The high level of political participation among the Cuban people can likely be attributed to their faith in this democratic consultative process.

And in spite of the blockade, Cuba mobilizes what scarce resources it has in service of its people, especially its most vulnerable. We were constantly in awe with how much Cuba did with so little. At the hospitals we visited, our delegation—accustomed to navigating the byzantine for-profit US healthcare and insurance systems—was immensely impressed at the dedication of staff to provide comprehensive and quality care to patients despite the extreme hardships brought by the blockade.

We also visited the Quisicuaba Agricultural Camp in Artemisa Province, an assisted living center for the homeless, as well as the elderly who need support in their later years. Since landlordism was abolished in Cuba after the revolution, the conditions which drive homelessness there are different than in the US In Cuba, homelessness is usually caused by mental health issues, alcoholism, or loss of family support, rather than eviction.

Quisicuaba provides residents with accommodation, clinical and psychological treatment, three meals a day, along with workshops and daily programming. There is a farm on the camp where, together, residents grow bananas, sweet potatoes and cassava, along with livestock. The camp fosters a community setting among residents, and its primary goal is protection and rehabilitation in order for them to be reincorporated back into society. Assisted living centers like Quisicuaba are subsidized by their provincial governments.

Meanwhile in the US, over half a million people experience homelessness with no government support, and faced with the substandard conditions of most homeless shelters, they often choose to remain on the streets rather than seek refuge. This is an unconscionable reality of living in the US—our government spends billions of dollars on war and to bankroll Israel’s genocide in Gaza while homelessness skyrockets, people can’t afford basic necessities, and infrastructure crumbles.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Cuba shows us that another world is possible, one that centers humanity and dignity of life over profit.

3. We must firmly reject despair in fighting for this new world

Yet despite the hardships created by the blockade, we were struck by how warm the Cuban people were toward us, the pride they exuded when talking about their revolution, and their steadfast commitment not to kneel to US policy. One of my favorite parts of the delegation was a trip to the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, a research institute in Havana.

The scientist we spoke to there recalled that one of the proudest moments of his life was contributing to Cuba’s COVID-19 vaccine. They named that vaccine “Abdala,” after a poem written by Cuban national hero José Martí in which the titular character defends his homeland of Nubia against Spanish occupiers. Martí wrote that poem during Cuba’s Ten Years’ War against Spain. At the forefront of people’s minds is their struggle for sovereignty and national liberation, always.

The scientist told us, “When your idea is correct, you must fight to the end.”

This was a key takeaway for me as someone living in the US, especially given the level of cynicism and pessimism among some sectors of the Left here. The US blockade has now been in place for over 60 years. Most Cubans alive now have lived their entire lives under blockade. If the Cuban people remain so determined to defend the gains of their revolution, if they maintain their sense of revolutionary optimism even under the most severe of conditions, what excuse do we have to feel despair about what we are up against? About fighting US imperialism?

I believe that type of pessimism is a luxury afforded to us, but we must reject it. Despair is a shirking of our collective responsibility as those living in the heart of empire. Our own government has robbed the Cuban people of so much over the course of centuries, from occupation to the current blockade. It is our responsibility to combat the vicious policies of the US. Only when US imperialism is overturned will countries like Cuba be allowed to breathe and develop to their full potential. We do this first and foremost through getting organized, so that we can build capacity to weaken imperialism from within. That is a responsibility we all share as those living in the belly of the beast. We owe it to people in places like Cuba.

Amanda Yee is a journalist and organizer based out of Brooklyn. She is the managing editor of Liberation News, and her writing has appeared in Monthly Review Online, The Real News Network, CounterPunch, and Peoples Dispatch. Follow her on X @catcontentonly.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch