Showing posts sorted by date for query IMPERIALISM. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query IMPERIALISM. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Western literature serves Israeli colonisation, US publishers must cut ties

Books Against Genocide explain how Western publishers play a key role in funding the Zionist project. As workers they are organising to force companies to stop.

Perspectives



Books Against Genocide
19 Nov, 2024
THE NEW ARAB

While well over 40,000 Palestinians have been martyred, publishing has perpetuated a propagandised Zionist narrative, write Books Against Genocide. [GETTY]

“The effort to become a great novelist simply involves attempting to tell as much of the truth as one can bear, and then a little more.” —James Baldwin

The American book industry sees itself as the keeper of this truth, as the arbiter of literature, as the necessary gatekeeper of a sanctified canon. Yet time and again, it doubles down on the status quo and props up the powerful, championing not the voices of the many but the interests of a few.

Never before has the true nature of US publishing been so apparent as during the past year of the Zionist entity’s genocidal bombardment of Gaza. Western literature and publishing are instrumental to the colonisation of Palestine, from their foundational role in the inception of Zionist ideology to present-day investments in “Israeli” technology.

Behind the scenes at most major publishing houses (which, it’s important to note, are subsidiaries of multinational media empires like NewsCorp and Paramount), the climate is hostile to anyone with a conscience. Official company statements following October 7 condemned the Al-Aqsa Flood, relegating Hamas, the armed resistance and elected government of Gaza, to “terrorists,” and offering no acknowledgment of the Zionist entity’s illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

NewsCorp, Paramount (parent companies of HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster respectively at the time), and Penguin Random House pledged significant contributions to the United Jewish Appeal-Federation, an organization that from October 2023 to December 2023, donated $64.2 million to illegal settlers of "Israel" and $0 to the people of Palestine.

Macmillan’s CEO, Jon Yaged, did not even have the decency to name Palestine in his email to the company, instead opting for “the Middle East.” And well before October 7, Holtzbrinck and Bertelsmann (German parent companies of Macmillan and Penguin Random House respectively) were embracing their Nazi roots by investing millions in “Israeli” tech, AI, surveillance, and security technologies.

While well over 40,000 Palestinians have been martyred, publishing has perpetuated a propagandised Zionist narrative, publishing titles trafficking in myths of mass-rape like Black Saturday by Trey Yingst, and defence of settler colonialism like On Settler Colonialism by Adam Kirsch.

In the last year, a junior Big Five employee was laid off less than two weeks after speaking out against a planned Zionist book. Other acts of individual defiance by authors, booksellers, and beyond are also met with retaliation, while publishing industry DEI taskforces facilitate “antisemitism education" trainings, a manipulative deflection under the guise of “equity” with collaborators such as Project Shema, a proxy to the racist Anti-Defamation League whose founder denies the ongoing genocide of Palestinians.

In response to industry complicity, a movement of book workers arose to insist on literature’s power to liberate, including Books Against Genocide (BAG), a collective of Big Five publishing professionals demanding our companies end all relationships with the Zionist project, along with writer-led coalitions like Writers Against the War on Gaza (WAWOG) and KidLit4Ceasefire – the latter two having called on Joe Biden to declare a permanent and unconditional ceasefire and demanded their industry colleagues uphold the Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott (PACBI).

WAWOG has since organised sustained boycotts against both PEN America and the New York Times. Just last month, 500 international publishers demanded that the Frankfurt Book Fair cut ties with “Israel.”

Related
Palestinian liberation does not need Western approval
Perspectives
Mjriam Abu Samra

The publishing establishment is no match for this new movement, which has targeted one shamelessly hypocritical group within the vast Zionist ecosystem of mainstream publishing: alleged “free-speech” advocacy organization PEN America. PEN America claims to stand “at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression worldwide” but refused to call for a ceasefire or address the systematic assassinations of writers and journalists in Gaza.

After Israeli Occupation Forces unlawfully arrested Palestinian freedom fighter and author Ahed Tamimi, PEN America released (and then redacted) an egregiously insensitive statement calling on her family to “investigate” the antisemitic post that was fabricated to justify said arrest, and they forcibly removed Palestinian American author Randa Jarrar from protesting a PEN event with Zionist actor Mayim Bialik.

More than 1,300 prominent writers across genres denounced PEN America's performative “humanitarian” charade with an open letter. Twenty-one writers nominated for various PEN awards withdrew from consideration. This sustained pressure led to the cancellation of the PEN World Voices Festival and the PEN Jean Stein award, redirecting the latter’s $75,000 prize money to the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund.

Ultimately, one cannot deny literature’s inextricable link to modern revolutionary movements, which is why the Zionist entity kills Palestinian poets and writers with the same strikes as it does Palestinian resistance fighters. And now, these various efforts in publishing are beginning to coalesce, broadening the monetary and ideological divestment from Israel to not only ensure Zionism’s obsolescence in publishing, but also to project a new vision for the industry’s future: a unified community of authors, literary agents, publishing workers, booksellers, librarians, and readers bound by their commitment to justice and powerful enough to unseat the existing status quo.

Books Against Genocide is a coalition and campaign of book workers pressuring US "Big 5" trade book publishers to end their relationships with the Zionist project called "Israel."


JCB's literature prize sponsors violence from India to Palestine

British construction company JCB's literature prize masks its ongoing role in genocide from India to Palestine and Kashmir, says Ananya Wilson-Bhattacharya.

Voices
Ananya Wilson-Bhattacharya
21 Nov, 2024
THE NEW ARAB

The JCB prize for literature is an indicator not only of the ever-presence of corporates in India’s cultural world, but also of ongoing British imperialism under Modi’s fascist government, writes Ananya Wilson-Bhattacharya [photo credit: Getty Images]

On November 23, the winner of India’s JCB Prize for Literature is set to be announced.

The prize — an award of 2,500,000 rupees (almost $30,000) — is overseen by British construction company JCB and its eponymous literature foundation.

However, JCB has also played a disturbing role in carrying out the Hindu supremacist (or Hindutva) agenda of India’s central government, led by Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Ahead of the announcement, an open letter on the literature prize has been signed by 120 high-profile authors across India, the UK and globally. The letter condemns the ‘hypocrisy’ of the prize in failing to acknowledge the widespread use of JCB equipment in the destruction of Muslim homes and places of worship. The demolitions have also targeted Dalits and other oppressed communities.

This so-called ‘bulldozer justice’ taking place in Modi’s India is a clear step towards ethnic cleansing, in line with the openly stated aim of government ministers to make the country a Hindu state, with some even calling for the genocide of the Muslim population.

Related


Narendra Modi is fashioning India in his own, despotic image
Perspectives
Ashok Swain

As the open letter states, JCB is likewise fuelling Israel’s continued attempts at ethnic cleansing of Palestinians through ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank, even as the genocidal war on Gaza continues.

Amnesty International found large-scale evidence of the repeated use of JCB bulldozers and backhoe loaders in demolitions of Palestinian homes, due to contracts between JCB’s dealer, Comasco Ltd, and the Israeli Ministry of Defence.

Meanwhile, in Indian-occupied Kashmir - the world’s most heavily militarised region - JCB machines have consistently been used in house demolitions during large scale evictions, despite many residents providing proof of ownership. This is just one aspect of a broader regime of human rights violations of the Kashmiri people by the Indian state, particularly since 2019, when the limited autonomy of the state of Jammu and Kashmir was revoked by the Indian government.

The open letter forms part of the wider campaign "JCB: Stop Bulldozer Genocide", which demands that JCB must end its relationship with the Israeli Ministry of Defence and cease all activities in occupied Palestine.

In terms of India, the campaign demands that JCB commit to ensuring that its products are not used for human rights violations in India and Kashmir through robust monitoring and prevention systems. This includes making compulsory the use of its existing LiveLink technology to trace and locate JCB machines.
JCB's dirty record

JCB is deeply intertwined with corruption amongst the wealthy UK establishment. Its chairman Anthony Bamford has close ties with the UK Conservative Party and particularly with former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, having even hosted Johnson’s wedding in 2022 — making up part of the complex web of connections between the UK and India’s respective far right regimes.

The JCB empire is owned by Bamford and controlled by the Bamford family trusts, which have been involved in offshore tax scandals.

The empire is also a major donor to the Conservative Party, to which it gave £300,000 in 2024 alone. Furthermore, this month the former Conservative Party energy minister, Claire Coutinho, faced claims of conflict of interest after it was found she had accepted donations from Lord Bamford whilst overseeing the awarding of millions to JCB businesses in green grants - a classic example of government and corporate greenwashing.

The website for the literature prize mentions JCB’s desire to "communicate to readers everywhere the full diversity of India’s literature" a sentiment directly contradicted by the company’s role in destroying the homes of marginalised communities on behalf of Hindutva forces.

Mita Kapur, director of the literature prize, told Scroll.in that the books on the longlist for the prize represent "a diverse array of Indian fiction", echoing the prize’s emphasis on diversity. Notably, however, the candidates shortlisted for the prize are nearly all Hindu, and four out of five are men, despite the prize being overseen by a team of women.

The blurb of one book on the longlist, Of Mothers and Other Perishables by Radhika Oberoi, includes an apparently climactic point in the text when "protestors swarm the streets, hollering against a new bill that persecutes the Muslim community".

This is seemingly a reference to the real mass resistance to the Citizenship Amendment Act and accompanying laws, which were first introduced by Modi’s government in late 2019 and attempt to disenfranchise India’s Muslims. Tellingly, Oberoi’s novel has not made it to the JCB prize shortlist.

The letter comes as many writers across the globe have distanced themselves from Israel in recent weeks and signed letters pledging to boycott Israeli cultural institutions.

The JCB prize for literature, however, is particularly insidious, since the company’s role in destruction of lives and livelihoods - and fuelling ethnic cleansing in India, Palestine and Kashmir - remains relatively little known.

Despite the reliance of Indian literature on corporate sponsorship - as a result of a broad lack of arts funding - this is not the first time Indian authors have targeted a literary initiative with unethical corporate connections. For example, the Jaipur literary festival was widely boycotted in 2016 on account of its sponsorship by Vedanta, a mining company responsible for the widespread displacement of indigenous communities.

Indian author Asad Zaidi, a signatory of the open letter, said: "[JCB] machines have come to symbolise displacement and destruction in contemporary India. Unsurprisingly, JCB has been trying to charm and lure the cultural intelligentsia, including writers and translators, into its image-building exercise as a protector and promoter of high cultural values. Its literary and translation prizes are part of this charade."

Another signatory, Dalit poet Cynthia Stephens said:

"Heavy earthmoving equipment is like a knife. It can be used to build infrastructure for human comfort, but in recent years has been more used to destroy the lives of the poor and marginalised. We condemn such hypocrisy on the part of the company and those administering the prize."

Whilst India’s Supreme Court ruled against ‘bulldozer justice’ just over a week ago, declaring that authorities cannot demolish someone’s home merely because they have been accused of a crime, it is unclear whether this will be implemented in practice and popular opposition remains crucial.

Challenging the literature prize is fundamental to the ongoing campaign against bulldozer genocide.

Related
India port workers' anti-colonial solidarity strike for Gaza
Perspectives
Ananya Wilson-Bhattacharya

Through the literature prize, JCB is attempting to maintain its image as a source of both cultural and economic prosperity in India.

The website for the prize emphasises the company’s role in creating jobs for Indian workers, citing JCB’s "substantial and longstanding involvement in the country’s social and economic life". This involvement, in fact, includes the destruction of the livelihoods of some of India’s most marginalised people.

The JCB prize for literature is an indicator not only of the ever-presence of corporates — including those complicit in genocide — in India’s cultural world, but also of ongoing British imperialism under Modi’s fascist government.

As author Siddhartha Deb put it: "If the JCB Prize is intended to support Indian writing, that means Indian writing is complicit in British racism, Hindu fundamentalism, and Zionist ethnic cleansing."

Alongside the global boycott of Israeli cultural institutions, it is more urgent than ever to connect the dots and condemn the JCB prize in solidarity with those facing demolition and displacement — both in Palestine under Israeli occupation and in India and Kashmir amidst the steady rise of Hindutva fascism.

Ananya Wilson-Bhattacharya is a writer, activist and editor. She is interested in arts and culture and social movements.

Follow her on X: @AnanyaWilson

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff, or the author's employer.



 

The logic of imperialism’s ‘Maritime Great Game’ in the Southeast Asian Sea


Published 
Email
Anti-imperialism protest in the Philippines

First published at Amandla!.

The states with a coastline adjoining the Southeast Asian Sea are all facing a sharply rising regional quagmire. They are witnessing a soaring economic-diplomatic-security confrontation between the world’s top two imperialist powers. The United States of America and the People’s Republic of China are destabilising Southeast Asia by forcefully projecting their respective geostrategic objectives throughout the area. And by doing so, the region’s social majority — its working-class masses — are now becoming dangerously embroiled in this escalating great power collision.

A strategic competition

This imperialist rivalry is defined by the intensifying strategic competition between the US and China. They are both aiming to secure increased regional hegemony. So, they have unleashed parallel initiatives to thwart each other’s sweeping geopolitical designs for the immense Afro-Eurasia-Indo-Pacific as a whole — the Eastern Hemisphere.

In fact, these imperialist states are in relative decline. Only through international rivalry can they negate their weakened domestic conditions. Their reactions aim to protect their bourgeois socioeconomic formations from the fallouts of the chronically ruptured global capitalist system of production.

What is SEAS?

The Southeast Asian Sea is the vast expanse of salt water that lies within the southeastern region of Asia. Given its location, using the name ‘Southeast Asian Sea’, or ‘SEAS’, is more precise than the traditional name, the ‘South China Sea’. Another reason to use the name is to counter lingering inter-state frictions, which are encouraged by the use of nationalist-oriented place names for this marine realm. This readily breeds the reactionary phenomenon of national chauvinism and its destructive behaviours.

The Southeast Asian Sea remains one of planet Earth’s most diverse biospheres. It is a colossal aquatic ecosystem, covering approximately three and a half million square kilometres. It has over two hundred coral islets, an abundance of hydrocarbon deposits, and huge amounts of marine life. This organic wealth of natural resources is enough to sustain these states’ economies.

The Southeast Asian Sea is also a historically strategic marine domain that connects the Indian and Pacific oceans. As the region’s preeminent maritime corridor, its natural sea lanes provide crucial passage daily to enormous volumes of the world’s seaborne trade. It has key chokepoints in the straits of Malacca, Sunda and Lombok, and therefore acts as a vital channel for the trade between the economies of Europe, Africa and West Asia, and those of East Asia. And as a strategic sea spanning a zone of the Eastern Hemisphere, there is also a massive amount of shipping trade originating from the Western Hemisphere (i.e., North/Central/South America and the Caribbean).

Maritime Southeast Asia has consequently become a focus area for the competing interests of the world’s imperialist powers. Its regional security environment is now a turbulent arena of contestation for the major powers. They essentially seek to carve out additional space for capital accumulation through military means. This has turned the SEAS into an acute, perilous, global flashpoint.

A struggle between two imperialisms

The imperialist competition between the US and China is a particular manifestation of a generalised systemic crisis materially rooted in the inherent contradictions of the prevailing imperialist world system. Southeast Asia is being impacted by a strategic shift underpinning the bourgeois international order.

This great power engagement is unlike the last century’s Cold War. It is clearly not an international struggle between opposing ideological poles, supporting the strategic visions of contending socioeconomic systems. The first Cold War (1946-1991) was a clash of starkly counterposed systems — the capitalist camp (led by American imperialism) versus the communist camp (led by the former Soviet Union).

In contrast, the contemporary inter-imperialist conflict is being waged through a singular ‘capitalist unipolar order’. The contesting imperialist powers belong to the same capitalist pole. Together, they principally direct the monopoly capitalist agenda of the global core — albeit in an adversarial way.

Neither of them challenges the fundamentals of the capitalist system of production and distribution. Neither of them opposes globalised finance-monopoly capitalism’s exploitative norms of extracting surplus value through unequal exchange mechanisms to guarantee incessant capital accumulation for the imperialist core. Nor do they even attempt, in any serious way, to break imperialism’s circuits of global capital that oppressively control the periphery. Both American and Chinese imperialisms openly support the capitalist logic of guaranteeing the net flow of value (wealth) from the dominated countries to the centres of world capital.

Imperialist competition is mainly driven by the slow global pace of capitalist development due to stagnant growth with falling rates of profit. These negatives are made worse by other disruptive factors of the capitalist world economy, especially its generalised crisis of overproduction, along with overaccumulation, chronic underutilisation of capacity linked to constant mass unemployment, and global conditions of uneven and combined development. Thus, the central dynamics fueling this neo-Cold War moment stem from the contradictions intrinsic to the imperialist world system itself.

This system principally functions through the logic of super profits based on the eternal accumulation of capital. Its structure is built on exploitative and oppressive systems based on a global core-periphery model. In plain terms, this comprehensive socioeconomic formation supports and reinforces the capitalist, unipolar order.

The imperialist struggle for domination

Inside the global core lies a very small group of advanced capitalist economies. They are arranged into contending blocs led by the leading imperialist powers. These imperialist blocs directly compete with each other for economic control and political dominance over most of the world’s dependent semi-colonial states, which lie at the periphery. The power struggle between the US and China represents the current phase of the international system.

The imperialist blocs continually seek to increase the scope of their power through constantly expanding their respective spheres of influence and domination. In advancing their schemes for predominance, the imperialists try to reshape the international division of labour to favour their own geostrategic goals and interests. As a result, worldwide disputes, strife and wars inevitably erupt between them as they fight for global ascendancy.

These imperialist powers are always prepared to wage relentless acts of aggression beyond their frontiers. They do so to achieve a competitive advantage for their ruling classes. They engage in harmful and destructive economic competition, political schemes, and aggressive wars worldwide, regardless of the social cost. This is a general characteristic of monopoly capital. And during crisis moments, the imperialist states readily strike at each other in attempts to attain economic-political-security superiority for their own financial-oligarchic national regimes.

Unquestionably, the world suffers from the consequences of global polycrisis, which results from this in terms of the economy, politics, security, health, and climate emergency.

Following the ‘global capitalist crisis-depression’ that flared in September 2008, the US worked to regain and stabilise its international strategic position. It pursued this by strengthening its regional spheres of influence via attempts at reshaping the global economic and political order to align with its interests.

US strategy

US imperialism’s main goal remains the rejuvenation of American capital, chiefly through a revitalised global network of ever-expanding national markets in pivotal regions of the world. Combined with this, US imperialism robustly restimulates and weaponises monopoly capitalism for higher growth. It does so by producing enormous amounts of war materiel and using it in wars overseas. After the conflicts end, American capital then rebuilds the devastated countries. Through this coercive cycle, Washington aims to continually reshape the capitalist world order to maintain its global dominance. 

In functional terms, American imperialism currently advances a redesigned, long-range, foreign-security policy framework. Driven by the Biden regime’s central mantra, “We are in a competition with China to win the 21st Century”, the US’s geostrategy is based on building strong regional economic and military alliances to counter China in the Asia-Indo-Pacific region. Guided by its dual 2022 geostrategic blueprints — the ‘National Security Strategy’ and the ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy’ — Washington’s main goal is to secure ‘free and open’ access to the region’s air and maritime arenas while limiting China’s opportunities for expansion.

By now, US imperialism has effectively extended the ambit of NATO into the Asia-Indo-Pacific. In also promoting market access initiatives, the ‘globalised NATO’ project aligns American monopoly capital’s economic and military priorities. To implement this strategy, Washington integrates the neoliberal Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF), along with alliances like the Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS), Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), and the Japan-Philippines-US political-military partnerships. Together, these coordinated efforts jointly form American imperialism’s battering ram to oppose Chinese imperialism in the region.

China’s strategy

To foil this, China has built up its own network. These include the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Maritime Silk Road (MSR), the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA), the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and the BRICS (Brazil/Russia/India/China/South Africa) grouping.

China’s comprehensive national power is not just a counterbalance to that of the US; it is also aimed at maintaining the global bourgeois system along imperialist lines.

Despite this, the US is succeeding in enticing other East Asian states to join its imperialist project to deny/degrade/damage the Chinese imperialist bloc’s regional strategic agenda. Integral to this, Washington regularly affirms its diplomatic narrative of “upholding the rules-based international order” (a code phrase for globally propping up US imperialist interests). So, it enlists blatantly pro-American states — like the Philippines — to openly provoke China. This is exemplified by the deployment of American troops and weaponry inside US-controlled military bases on Philippine territory.

The Philippines as a puppet in the struggle

Washington has a clear strategic plan, but Manila’s foreign policy planners fail to consider how China’s leadership thinks. Filipino leaders assume China will see their actions as harmless, even when the Philippines cooperates with the US. However, what really matters is how China (as a great power) views its external security environment — not what Manila claims. This allows Washington to strongly take advantage of Manila’s blind loyalty to the US to provoke China.

China’s social-chauvinist militarism in the Southeast Asian Sea should be condemned. Equally, the international communist movement must also denounce the joint US-Philippines military manoeuvres. Clearly, all imperialist wars of aggression must be opposed.

At present, US imperialism is already preparing for a possible limited war with China, using the Philippines as a trigger point to reshape Southeast Asia’s geopolitical landscape. Washington aims to strengthen its influence in the region to boost American economic growth and power. This will lead to a risky and significant shift in the ongoing imperialist competition within the area. And so, today, this is now Southeast Asia’s ‘Maritime Great Game’.

Rasti Delizo is a global affairs analyst. He is a member of the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP/Solidarity of Filipino Workers); BMP is a revolutionary socialist political centre of the Filipino working-class movement.

 

Geopolitical conflicts, anti-imperialism and internationalism in times of ‘reactionary acceleration’


Published 

TwitterEmail
Kicking over the table graphic

First published in Spanish at Viento Sur. Translation from Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières.

Within the general framework of the multidimensional crisis in which we find ourselves, now aggravated by the stimulus that Trump’s recent electoral victory represents for the rise of an extreme right on a global scale, it seems even more evident that we are witnessing a profound crisis of the international geopolitical (dis)order, as well as of the basic rules of International Law that have been established since the end of the Second World War. The most tragic manifestation of this crisis (which calls into question even the future of the UN) is found in the genocidal war against Gaza (Awad, 2024), to which are currently added around 56 wars across the planet.

In this context, the imperialist hierarchical system based on US hegemony is openly questioned and challenged by other major powers, such as China and Russia, as well as by others on a regional scale, such as Iran. This global geopolitical competition is clearly evident in certain war conflicts, the evolution of which will determine a new configuration of the balance of power within this system, as well as of the blocks present or in formation, such as the BRICS. In light of this new scenario, in this article I will focus on a summary description of the current panorama, then characterise the different positions that appear within the left in this new phase and insist on the need to build an internationalist left that is opposed to all imperialisms (main or secondary) and in solidarity with the struggles of the attacked peoples.

Polycrisis and authoritarian neoliberalisms

There is broad consensus on the left regarding the diagnosis we can make of the global crisis that the world is currently going through, with the eco-social and climate crisis as a backdrop. A polycrisis that we can define with Pierre Rousset as “multifaceted, the result of the combination of multiple specific crises. So we are not facing a simple sum of crises, but their interaction, which multiplies their dynamics, fueling a death spiral for the human species (and for a large part of living species)” (Pastor, 2024).

A situation that is closely related to the exhaustion of the neoliberal capitalist accumulation regime that began in the mid-1970s, which, after the fall of the bloc dominated by the USSR, took a leap forward towards its expansion on a global scale. A process that led to the Great Recession that began in 2008 (aggravated by austerity policies, the consequences of the pandemic crisis and the war in Ukraine), which ended up frustrating the expectations of social advancement and political stability that the promised happy globalization had generated, mainly among significant sectors of the new middle classes.

A globalization, it must be remembered, that was expanded under the new neoliberal cycle that throughout its different phases: combative, normative and punitive (Davies, 2016), has been building a new transnational economic constitutionalism at the service of global corporate tyranny and the destruction of the structural, associative and social power of the working class. And, what is more serious, it has turned into common sense the “ market civilization” as the only possible one, although this whole process has acquired different variants and forms of political regimes, generally based on strong States immune to democratic pressure (Gill, 2022; Slobodian, 2021). A neoliberalism that, however, is today showing its inability to offer a horizon of improvement for the majority of humanity on an increasingly inhospitable planet.

We are therefore in a period, both at the state and interstate level, full of uncertainties, under a financialized, digital, extractivist and rentier capitalism that makes our lives precarious and seeks at all costs to lay the foundations for a new stage of growth with an increasingly active role of the States at its service. To do so, it resorts to new forms of political domination functional to this project that, increasingly, tend to come into conflict not only with freedoms and rights won after long popular struggles, but also with liberal democracy. In this way, an increasingly authoritarian neoliberalism is spreading, not only in the South but increasingly in the North, with the threat of a “reactionary acceleration” (Castellani, 2024). A process now stimulated by a Trumpism that is becoming the master discursive framework of a rising far right, willing to constitute itself as an alternative to the crisis of global governance and the decomposition of the old political elites (Urbán, 2024; Camargo, 2024).

The imperialist hierarchical system in dispute

Within this context, succinctly explained here, we are witnessing a crisis of the imperialist hierarchical system that has predominated since the fall of the Soviet bloc, facilitated precisely by the effects generated by a process of globalization that has led to the displacement of the center of gravity of the world economy from the North Atlantic (Europe-USA) to the Pacific (USA, East and Southeast Asia).

Indeed, following the Great Recession that began in 2007-2008 and the subsequent crisis of neoliberal globalization, a new phase has begun in which a reconfiguration of the global geopolitical order is taking place, tending to be multipolar but at the same time asymmetrical, in which the United States remains the great hegemonic power (monetary, military and geopolitical), but is weakened and challenged by China, the great rising power, and Russia, as well as by other sub-imperial or secondary powers in different regions of the planet. Meanwhile, in many countries of the South, faced with the plundering of their resources, the increase in sovereign debt and popular revolts and wars of different kinds, the end of development as a goal to be achieved is giving way to reactionary populisms in the name of order and security.

Thus, global and regional geopolitical competition is being accentuated by the different competing interests, not only on the economic and technological level, but also on the military and values level, with the consequent rise of state ethno-nationalisms against presumed internal and external enemies.

However, one must not forget the high degree of economic, energy and technological interdependence that has been developing across the planet in the context of neoliberal globalisation, as was clearly highlighted both during the global pandemic crisis and the lack of an effective energy blockade against Russia despite the agreed sanctions. Added to this are two new fundamental factors: on the one hand, the current possession of nuclear weapons by major powers (there are currently four nuclear hotspots: one in the Middle East (Israel) and three in Eurasia (Ukraine, India-Pakistan and the Korean peninsula); and, on the other, the climate, energy and materials crisis (we are in overtime!), which substantially differentiate this situation from that before 1914. These factors condition the geopolitical and economic transition underway, setting limits to a deglobalisation that is probably partial and which, of course, does not promise to be happy for the great majority of humanity. At the same time, these factors also warn of the increased risk of escalation in armed conflicts in which powers with nuclear weapons are directly or indirectly involved, as is the case in Ukraine or Palestine.

This specificity of the current historical stage leads us, according to Promise Li, to consider that the relationship between the main great powers (especially if we refer to that between the USA and China) is given through an unstable balance between an “antagonistic cooperation” and a growing “inter-imperialist rivalry”. A balance that could be broken in favour of the latter, but that could also be normalised within the common search for a way out of the secular stagnation of a global capitalism in which China (Rousset, 2021) and Russia (Serfati, 2022) have now been inserted, although with very different evolutions. A process, therefore, full of contradictions, which is extensible to other powers, such as India, which are part of the BRICS, in which the governments of its member countries have not so far questioned the central role of organizations such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, which remain under US hegemony (Fuentes, 2023; Toussaint, 2024).

However, it is clear that the geopolitical weakening of the United States — especially after its total fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan and, now, the crisis of legitimacy that is being caused by its unconditional support for the genocidal State of Israel — is allowing a greater potential margin of manoeuvre on the part of different global or regional powers, in particular those with nuclear weapons. For this reason I agree with Pierre Rousset’s description:

The relative decline of the United States and the incomplete rise of China have opened up a space in which secondary powers can play a significant role, at least in their own region (Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, etc.), although the limits of the BRICS are clear. In this situation, Russia has not failed to present China with a series of faits accomplis on Europe’s eastern borders. Acting in concert, Moscow and Beijing were largely the masters of the game on the Eurasian continent. However, there was no coordination between the invasion of Ukraine and an actual attack on Taiwan (Pastor, 2024).

This, undoubtedly facilitated by the greater or lesser weight of other factors related to the polycrisis, explains the outbreak of conflicts and wars in very different parts of the planet, but in particular those that occur in three very relevant current epicentres: Ukraine, Palestine and, although for now in terms of the cold war, Taiwan.

Against this backdrop, we have seen how the US took advantage of Russia’s unjust invasion of Ukraine as an excuse to relaunch the expansion of a NATO in crisis towards other countries in Eastern and Northern Europe. An objective closely associated with the reformulation of NATO’s “new strategic concept”, as we were able to see at the summit that this organisation held in Madrid in July 2022 (Pastor, 2022) and more recently at the one held in Washington in July of this year. At the latter, this strategy was reaffirmed, as well as the consideration of China as the main strategic competitor, while any criticism of the State of Israel was avoided. The latter is what is showing the double standards (Achcar, 2024) of the Western bloc with regard to its involvement in the war in Ukraine, on the one hand, and its complicity with the genocide that the colonial State of Israel is committing against the Palestinian people, on the other.

Again, we have also seen NATO’s growing interest in the Southern flank in order to pursue its racist necropolitics against illegal immigration while continuing to aspire to compete for control of basic resources in countries of the South, especially in Africa, where French and American imperialisms are losing weight against China and Russia.

In this way, the strategy of the Western bloc has been redefined, within which US hegemony has been strengthened on the military level (thanks, above all, to the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and to which a more divided European Union with its old German engine weakened is clearly subordinated. However, after Trump’s victory, the European Union seems determined to reinforce its military power in the name of the search for a false strategic autonomy, since it will continue to be linked to the framework of NATO. Meanwhile, many countries in the South are distancing themselves from this bloc, although with different interests among them, which differentiates the possible alliances that may be formed from the one that in the past characterized the Non-Aligned Movement.

In any case, it is likely that after his electoral victory, Donald Trump will make a significant shift in US foreign policy in order to implement his MAGA (Make America Great Again) project beyond the geoeconomic level (intensifying his competition with China and, although at a different level, with the EU), especially in relation to the three epicentres of conflicts mentioned above: with regard to Ukraine, by substantially reducing economic and military aid and seeking some form of agreement with Putin, at least on a ceasefire; with regard to Israel, by reinforcing his support for Netanyahu’s total war; and finally by reducing his military commitment to Taiwan.

What anti-imperialist internationalism from the left?

In this context of the rise of an authoritarian neoliberalism (in its different versions: the reactionary one of the extreme right and that of the extreme centre, mainly) and of various geopolitical conflicts, the great challenge for the left is how to reconstruct antagonistic social and political forces anchored in the working class and capable of forging an anti-imperialism and a solidarity internationalism that is not subordinated to one or another great power or regional capitalist bloc.

A task that will not be easy, because in the current phase we are witnessing deep divisions within the left in relation to the position to maintain in the face of some of the aforementioned conflicts. Trying to synthesize, with Ashley Smith (2024), we could distinguish four positions:

The first would be the one that aligns itself with the Western imperial bloc in the common defense of alleged democratic values against Russia, or with the State of Israel in its unjustifiable right to self-defense, as has been stated by a majority sector of the social-liberal left. A position that hides the true imperialist interests of that bloc, does not denounce its double standards and ignores the increasingly de-democratizing and racist drift that Western regimes are experiencing, as well as the colonial and occupying character of the Israeli State.

The second is what is often described as campism, which would align itself with states such as Russia or China, which it considers allies against US imperialism because it considers the latter to be the main enemy, ignoring the expansionist geopolitical interests of these two powers. A position that reminds us of the one that many communist parties held in the past during the Cold War in relation to the USSR, but which now becomes a caricature considering both the reactionary nature of Putin’s regime and the persistent state-bureaucratic despotism in China.

The third is that of a geopolitical reductionism , which is now reflected in the war in Ukraine, limiting itself to considering it to be only an inter-imperialist conflict. This attitude, adopted by a sector of pacifism and the left, implies denying the legitimacy of the dimension of national struggle against the occupying power that the Ukrainian resistance has, without ceasing to criticize the neoliberal and pro-Atlanticist character of the government that heads it.

Finally, there is the one that is against all imperialisms (whether major or minor) and against all double standards, showing itself ready to stand in solidarity with all attacked peoples, even if they may have the support of one or another imperial power (such as the US and the EU in relation to Ukraine) or regional power (such as Iran in relation to Hamas in Palestine). This is a position that does not accept respect for the spheres of influence that the various major powers aspire to protect or expand, and that stands in solidarity with the peoples who fight against foreign occupation and for the right to decide their future (in particular, with the leftist forces in these countries that are betting on an alternative to neoliberalism), and is not aligned with any political-military bloc.

This last position is the one that I consider to be the most coherent from an anti-capitalist left. In fact, keeping in mind the historical distance and recognizing the need to analyze the specificity of each case, it coincides with the criteria that Lenin tried to apply when analyzing the centrality that the struggle against national and colonial oppression was acquiring in the imperialist phase of the early twentieth century. This was reflected, in relation to conflicts that broke out then, in several of his articles such as, for example, in “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination,” written in January-February 1916, where he maintained that:

The fact that the struggle for national freedom against an imperialist power can be exploited, under certain conditions, by another ’great’ power to achieve equally imperialist ends cannot force social democracy to renounce recognizing the right of nations to self-determination, just as the repeated cases of the use of republican slogans by the bourgeoisie for the purposes of political fraud and financial plunder (for example, in Latin countries) cannot force social democrats to renounce their republicanism (Lenin, 1976).

An internationalist position that must be accompanied by mobilisation against the remilitarisation process underway by NATO and the EU, but also against that of other powers such as Russia or China. And which must commit to putting the fight for unilateral nuclear disarmament and the dissolution of military blocs back at the centre of the agenda, taking up the baton of the powerful peace movement that developed in Europe during the 1980s, with the feminist activists of Greenham Common and intellectuals such as Edward P. Thompson at the forefront. An orientation that must obviously be inserted within a global eco-socialist, feminist, anti-racist and anti-colonial project.

References

Achcar, Gilbert (2024) “Anti-fascism and the Fall of Atlantic Liberalism”, Viento Sur, 19/08/24.

Awad, Nada (2024) “International Law and Israeli Exceptionalism”, Viento Sur, 193, pp. 19-27.

Camargo, Laura (2024) Discursive Trumpism . Madrid: Verbum (in press).

Castellani, Lorenzo (2024) “With Trump, the Age of Reactionary Acceleration”, Le Grand Continent, 11/08/24.

Davies, William (2016) “Neoliberalism 3.0”, New Left Review , 101, pp. 129-143.

Fuentes, Federico (2023) “Interview with Promise Li: US-China Rivalry, ’Antagonistic Cooperation’ and Anti-Imperialism”, Viento Sur, 191, 5-18. Available in English at https://links.org.au/us-china-rivalry-antagonistic-cooperation-and-anti-imperialism-21st-century-interview-promise-li

Gill, Stephen (2002) “Globalization, Market Civilization and Disciplinary Neoliberalism”. In Hovden, E. and Keene, E. (Eds.) The Globalization of Liberalism. London: Millennium. Palgrave Macmillan.

Lenin, Vladimir (1976) “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”, Selected Works, Volume V, pp. 349-363. Moscow: Progreso.

Pastor, Jaime (2022) “NATO’s New Strategic Concept. Towards a New Permanent Global War?”Viento Sur, 07/02/22. Available in English at https://links.org.au/towards-new-permanent-global-war-natos-new-strategic-concept

— (2024) “Interview with Pierre Rousset: World Crisis and Wars: What Internationalism for the 21st Century?”, Viento Sur, 04/16/24. Available in English at https://links.org.au/global-crisis-conflict-and-war-what-internationalism-21st-century

Rousset, Pierre (2021) “China, the New Emerging Imperialism”, Viento Sur, 10/16/21. 

Serfati, Claude (2022) “The Age of Imperialism Continues: Putin Proves It”, Viento Sur, 04/21/22. 

Slobodian, Quinn (2021) Globalists. Madrid: Capitán Swing. 

Smith, Ashley (2024) “Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism Today”, Viento Sur, 06/04/24. Available in English at https://links.org.au/imperialism-and-anti-imperialism-today

Toussaint, Eric (2024) “The BRICS Summit in Russia Offered No Alternative”, Viento Sur, 10/30/24. 

Urbán, Miguel (2024) Trumpisms. Neoliberals and Authoritarians . Barcelona: Verso.

 Netherlands

Amsterdam riots and the wolf who cried antisemitism

Wednesday 20 November 2024, by Alex de Jong

Israel’s Maccabi Tel Aviv fans ignited violence in Amsterdam, but the far-right is victimising them to repress Palestine solidarity, writes Alex de Jong.

Amsterdam’s liberal mayor Femke Halsema declared that the clashes which followed the Maccabi Tel Aviv and AFC Ajax match at the end of last week were the result of ‘a toxic cocktail of antisemitism, hooliganism and anger over the war in Palestine and Israel’. Whilst the description is not wholly false, it is certainly misleading. This was made clear by the municipal council’s own executive report in which Halsema wrote the above statement.

Now, the Dutch right is using a distorted interpretation of the violence in the city, and weaponising antisemitism, to further its racist agenda and to justify a crackdown on Palestine solidarity.

Already, prior to the game on Thursday evening, it was clear that Maccabi supporters had come to Amsterdam looking for a fight. They trooped through the city singing racist and genocidal chants and harassing people they assumed to be Muslim or Arab. Furthermore, given Amsterdam is generally a left-leaning city with a substantial Muslim community, it is not uncommon to see Palestinian flags hanging from balconies or in windows. Videos circulated showing Maccabi fans went around tearing them down.

Things further escalated when Tel Aviv team’s fans assaulted a taxi-driver, provoking a response from a closely knit and quickly mobilised group.

Tensions had run so high before the match, that the Amsterdam municipal council executive even considered banning it. However, they decided against this out of fear that the hundreds of Maccabi fans in the city would become even more uncontrollable. Instead, the executive tried to reach out to football clubs to ask their supporters to calm down. The Israeli ambassador was also asked to make a statement that football and politics should not mix, but whether he responded to this has not been made public.

Double standards

This entire situation was the result of blatant hypocrisy on the part of Dutch authorities when it comes to the suffering of Palestinians. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Russian teams were banned, yet when similar requests were made by Palestine solidarity organisations to ban Israeli teams, they were ignored. The Amsterdam executive even claimed that Maccabi fans, who in Greece had hospitalised a man for wearing a Palestine scarf, were not known to be dangerous.

When the match in Amsterdam finally started, Maccabi fans loudly disrupted the minute silence for the victims of the flooding in Spain. This is perhaps no surprise as the Spanish government is one of the more outspoken European states when it comes to being critical of Israel’s war.

After the match, houses with Palestinian flags were again beleaguered by groups of Maccabi fans.

Things escalated that night as groups of local youth got into fights with the Maccabi fans, seeking them out across the city. 62 people were arrested, ten of them were Israeli. After a day in which the police mostly took a hands-off approach to the Maccabi supporters, arrests disproportionately targeted local youth instead. The Jewish anti-Zionist group Erev Rav released a statement criticising the police force for targeting local young people of Moroccan background while ’Maccabi fans who initiated provocations faced no consequences’.

Erev Rav had initially planned to commemorate the 1938 pogrom in Germany last weekend, but cancelled their event. They explained that they had little trust in the Amsterdam police keeping anti-zionist Jews safe from the Maccabi supporters. The group also denounced the instrumentalizing of Jewish identity by Maccabi supporters.

The Dutch far-right unsurprisingly saw an opportunity in all of this. After the match, Geert Wilders, leader of the largest party in the Dutch parliament, declared that what had happened was a ’pogrom of the worse kind’ and called for Halsema to be sacked. He claimed that she had supposedly failed to protect Jews against antisemitic violence. It is undeniable that some people involved in the clashes threw around antisemitic insults and it was said that people who ’looked Jewish’ were ordered to show their passports, all of which must absolutely be condemned, but to call this a pogrom is totally disproportionate.

In reality, the right is instrumentalizing the issue of antisemitism by equating all Jews with the state of Israel - the same tactic often used by the Israeli government that cynically deploys it against its critics. Wilders knows well that antisemitic statements are unfortunately not unknown in Dutch football, but he seems to pick and choose when to speak out against it. For example, a particularly infamous chant that is often hurled at Amsterdam team Ajax, calls for the gassing of all Jews. But because this form of antisemitism comes from mostly white football supporters, there has been far less interest from the Dutch right which puts its energy towards linking antisemitism to Islam and migrants.

Wilders is also not the only culprit. Upon returning from visiting far-right Hungarian leader Viktor Orban, Dutch PM Dick Schoof declared that antisemitism results from ’a failure to integrate’ into Dutch society. For him, the problem is migrants, not the racist and fascist far-right rhetoric being peddled across Europe.

Where are left-wing politicians?

In the aftermath of the match the situation grew more tense. On Monday people clashed again with the police. This came after the executive had banned all demonstrations and a protest on Sunday had been dispersed. Between Sunday and Wednesday, scores of protesters were detained during heavy handed dispersals of demonstrations by the police. Activists had called a rally in defence of democratic rights and in solidarity with Palestine.

Despite all of this repression, the parliamentary left has been mostly absent. Though this comes as no surprise. There have been significant Palestine solidarity efforts in the Netherlands from demonstrations to sit ins, yet left-wing parties – with the exception of the small radical party BIJ1 – have hardly been involved. Worse still, large parts of the Dutch Labour Party have also historically been strongly pro-Israel.

The silence of the parliamentary left is making it easier for the right to whip up a climate of hatred against migrants, to link antisemitism with Islam, and to label Palestine solidarity as hostility to Jews.

Green party Mayor Halsema has only added fuel to the fire in her insistence on comparing the events over the recent days with pogroms. Her imposition of the ban on protests in Amsterdam is also clearly an attempt to avoid further criticism from the right, but this has only legitimised an authoritarian crack down on Palestine solidarity in particular.

The longer term consequences of the recent events remain to be seen, but the general trajectory is clear. Aided by the silence and opportunism of the centre-left, the far-right has been the main beneficiary.

A moral panic has taken hold in the country, and once again, Muslim youth, especially those of Moroccan descent, have been declared an existential threat to Dutch society. This time, it’s over their supposed innate antisemitism. As Right-wing parties float the idea of stripping them of Dutch nationality (at least for those who hold a dual nationality), as a punitive measure, the hooliganism by Maccabi supporters and their glorification of Israel’s genocide has fallen to the wayside.

In the coming weeks and months attempts to criminalise Palestine solidarity will likely to grow, and supporting Palestine liberation will be increasingly synonymous with antisemitism. Already just last month, a spokesperson from the Palestine solidarity organisation Samidoun was banned from the country and the Dutch cabinet has asked for the organisation to be entirely banned.

The only way to resist the right’s authoritarian policies and racism, is for the left and solidarity activists to stick together, tell the whole story of what happened in Amsterdam and defend the rights to organise and speak out in solidarity with Palestine.

New Arab

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.



International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.