BobKKKindle$
10th August 2008, 11:01
Written by the OP
In the United States and throughout the developed world, young people have celebrated the nomination of Barack Obama as Democratic candidate, and eagerly anticipate a Democratic victory in the upcoming presidential election, which is scheduled to take place in November of the current year. This popular support amongst the youth is generally based on the assumption that Obama will not conduct foreign policy in the same way as the Republican administration, and will instead pursue a strategy of engagement with foreign states, and so help to change the way America is seen in the world. This support is actually based on a misunderstanding, not only of Obama's position, but also the historic record of the Democratic party, which has often attracted support during periods of military expansion as an ostensibly more peaceful alternative. This is most clearly demonstrated by Obama's position on the issue of Iran.
In March 2007 Obama incurred criticism by presumptive Republican candidate John McCain for saying he would negotiate with Iranian leaders, but Obama has repeatedly emphasized that he would keep “all options,” including the threat of military attack against Iran, “on the table.” Obama has also described the Iranian government as a "threat to all of us" and condemned the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejahd, as "reckless" (1). This, in combination with Obama's recent affirmation of his support for Israel, indicates that Obama has not abandoned the imperialist agenda of previous administrations, and continues to uphold the principle of "american exceptionalism" or the idea that America alone has the right to intervene overseas and is not bound by the obligations which regulate the behavior of other states. The United States has consistently accused Iran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons by pretending to develop an energy program for civilian use. There has thus far been no conclusive evidence to show that this accusation is actually true, and Iran has even been willing to make concessions to prove that the nuclear program is based solely on a desire to develop an alternative source of power generation - for example, by offering to use centrifuges which destruct if they are used to produce uranium beyond the level of concentration required for civilian use (2). The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has consistently reported that there is no evidence of military intent, and has also condemned the aggressive stance of the United States, as posing a threat to the stability of the Middle East (3).
Given the absence of supporting evidence, the accusations of the United States are problematic, but the mere fact that this accusation has even been made demonstrates an absurd degree of hypocrisy - the United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in a military confrontation (the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War, resulting in the deaths of around 230,000 innocent civilians, despite the fact that the Japanese government had already offered to surrender and would not have been able to continue the war even if the attacks had not taken place) retains the largest nuclear arsenal in the entire world (10,000 warheads, according to most estimates (4)) despite the legal obligation to reduce the size of the arsenal under the terms and provisions of the NPT (the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, signed in 1968 to regulate the production and ownership of nuclear arms) and is actively engaged in the development of new weapons with enhanced destructive power, such as "bunker-busting" bombs which are able to penetrate underground facilities. In addition, Israel has already developed a nuclear arsenal and has also refused to become a signatory member to the NPT. Even if Iran did attempt to develop nuclear weapons, however, there would still be no justification for attack, because Iran has the right to develop the means to defend itself against the threat of imperialist attack, especially given recent Israeli military exercises in preparation for an invasion (5), and developing nuclear arms is one of the only ways a country is able to retain national sovereignty, in a world dominated by an aggressive superpower.
Obama's aggression against Iran (which is shared by other major politicians) disproves the assertion that the election of Obama would mark a radical break with the past. Unfortunately, as noted above, there have always been those who have turned to the Democratic Party during periods of military expansion, hoping that the Democrats would be able to restore peace and avoid further aggression. However, a close examination of the history of American foreign policy under the Democrats shows that this idealistic hope is ultimately unfounded, as the Democrats have consistently exhibited a commitment to imperialism. In 1962, under the Democratic presidency of John F. Kennedy, the United States provided military aid to Cuban rebels who later launched an invasion of Cuba to overthrow the government of Fidel Castro, who had triumphed against the corrupt dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in 1959 and was in the process of implementing a series of progressive reforms (such as the abolition of foreign land ownership - seventy five percent of the most fertile arable land was owned by foreign firms or individuals before the revolution) when the invasion took place. Although the invasion was a complete failure, US support for the invasion is an example of the imperialism of the Democratic Party. Furthermore, in 1979, Jimmy Carter (who was also a Democratic president) provided financial support and training to islamist rebels (who later become known as the Mujahideen, which translates as someone who is engaged in a struggle against an enemy of Islam) who were fighting against the government of Hafizullah Amin in Afghanistan. The support was intended to disrupt the political stability of Afghanistan and provoke a Soviet invasion (which occurred in December 1979, when the decision to provide support had already been taken, not before, as American officials have subsequently attempted to argue (6)) and the islamists were later found to have committed numerous atrocities, such as throwing acid in the faces of schoolteachers who had helped young girls learn how to read and write, and shooting women who refused to wear the veil. These atrocities make a mockery of contemporary claims that the United States invaded Afghanistan to liberate women from the chains of islamist oppression, and is a further affirmation of the imperialism of the Democrats.
How then, should people act on Obama's statements, and the historical record of the Democrats? The proletariat must make a decisive break from the Democrats, and fight for their own class interests, by building a revolutionary vanguard capable of sweeping away the imperialist order and the brutal system of exploitation through socialist revolution. Imperialism is not the product of individual leaders or the ideology of an administration, but the dynamics of the capitalist system (especially the drive to obtain profitable destinations for the export of capital) and imperialism can only be abolished with the overthrow of capitalism by the revolutionary proletariat. If Iran does face attack, socialists must call for the unconditional military defense of Iran, without giving political support to the reactionary Iranian government, which hangs homosexuals and forces women to wear the veil when they go out in public. As the world enters economic depression, and the threat of renewed American expansion grows ever greater, the need to develop revolutionary leadership with a principled opposition to all imperialism, is vital.
(1) http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article (Obama: Iran threatens all of us)
(2) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/irans-message-is-softly-spoken-yet-clear-it-will-enrich-uranium-458614.html
(3) http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/28/america/NA-GEN-US-Iran.php (UN nuclear watchdog chief expresses concern about anti-Iran rhetoric from US)
(4)http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_us_nuclear_weapon.php
(5) http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/20/america/20iran.php (US says exercise by Israel seemed directed at Iran)
(6) http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/brzezinski.html (Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinsk from Le Nouvel Observateur)
In the United States and throughout the developed world, young people have celebrated the nomination of Barack Obama as Democratic candidate, and eagerly anticipate a Democratic victory in the upcoming presidential election, which is scheduled to take place in November of the current year. This popular support amongst the youth is generally based on the assumption that Obama will not conduct foreign policy in the same way as the Republican administration, and will instead pursue a strategy of engagement with foreign states, and so help to change the way America is seen in the world. This support is actually based on a misunderstanding, not only of Obama's position, but also the historic record of the Democratic party, which has often attracted support during periods of military expansion as an ostensibly more peaceful alternative. This is most clearly demonstrated by Obama's position on the issue of Iran.
In March 2007 Obama incurred criticism by presumptive Republican candidate John McCain for saying he would negotiate with Iranian leaders, but Obama has repeatedly emphasized that he would keep “all options,” including the threat of military attack against Iran, “on the table.” Obama has also described the Iranian government as a "threat to all of us" and condemned the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejahd, as "reckless" (1). This, in combination with Obama's recent affirmation of his support for Israel, indicates that Obama has not abandoned the imperialist agenda of previous administrations, and continues to uphold the principle of "american exceptionalism" or the idea that America alone has the right to intervene overseas and is not bound by the obligations which regulate the behavior of other states. The United States has consistently accused Iran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons by pretending to develop an energy program for civilian use. There has thus far been no conclusive evidence to show that this accusation is actually true, and Iran has even been willing to make concessions to prove that the nuclear program is based solely on a desire to develop an alternative source of power generation - for example, by offering to use centrifuges which destruct if they are used to produce uranium beyond the level of concentration required for civilian use (2). The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has consistently reported that there is no evidence of military intent, and has also condemned the aggressive stance of the United States, as posing a threat to the stability of the Middle East (3).
Given the absence of supporting evidence, the accusations of the United States are problematic, but the mere fact that this accusation has even been made demonstrates an absurd degree of hypocrisy - the United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in a military confrontation (the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War, resulting in the deaths of around 230,000 innocent civilians, despite the fact that the Japanese government had already offered to surrender and would not have been able to continue the war even if the attacks had not taken place) retains the largest nuclear arsenal in the entire world (10,000 warheads, according to most estimates (4)) despite the legal obligation to reduce the size of the arsenal under the terms and provisions of the NPT (the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, signed in 1968 to regulate the production and ownership of nuclear arms) and is actively engaged in the development of new weapons with enhanced destructive power, such as "bunker-busting" bombs which are able to penetrate underground facilities. In addition, Israel has already developed a nuclear arsenal and has also refused to become a signatory member to the NPT. Even if Iran did attempt to develop nuclear weapons, however, there would still be no justification for attack, because Iran has the right to develop the means to defend itself against the threat of imperialist attack, especially given recent Israeli military exercises in preparation for an invasion (5), and developing nuclear arms is one of the only ways a country is able to retain national sovereignty, in a world dominated by an aggressive superpower.
Obama's aggression against Iran (which is shared by other major politicians) disproves the assertion that the election of Obama would mark a radical break with the past. Unfortunately, as noted above, there have always been those who have turned to the Democratic Party during periods of military expansion, hoping that the Democrats would be able to restore peace and avoid further aggression. However, a close examination of the history of American foreign policy under the Democrats shows that this idealistic hope is ultimately unfounded, as the Democrats have consistently exhibited a commitment to imperialism. In 1962, under the Democratic presidency of John F. Kennedy, the United States provided military aid to Cuban rebels who later launched an invasion of Cuba to overthrow the government of Fidel Castro, who had triumphed against the corrupt dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in 1959 and was in the process of implementing a series of progressive reforms (such as the abolition of foreign land ownership - seventy five percent of the most fertile arable land was owned by foreign firms or individuals before the revolution) when the invasion took place. Although the invasion was a complete failure, US support for the invasion is an example of the imperialism of the Democratic Party. Furthermore, in 1979, Jimmy Carter (who was also a Democratic president) provided financial support and training to islamist rebels (who later become known as the Mujahideen, which translates as someone who is engaged in a struggle against an enemy of Islam) who were fighting against the government of Hafizullah Amin in Afghanistan. The support was intended to disrupt the political stability of Afghanistan and provoke a Soviet invasion (which occurred in December 1979, when the decision to provide support had already been taken, not before, as American officials have subsequently attempted to argue (6)) and the islamists were later found to have committed numerous atrocities, such as throwing acid in the faces of schoolteachers who had helped young girls learn how to read and write, and shooting women who refused to wear the veil. These atrocities make a mockery of contemporary claims that the United States invaded Afghanistan to liberate women from the chains of islamist oppression, and is a further affirmation of the imperialism of the Democrats.
How then, should people act on Obama's statements, and the historical record of the Democrats? The proletariat must make a decisive break from the Democrats, and fight for their own class interests, by building a revolutionary vanguard capable of sweeping away the imperialist order and the brutal system of exploitation through socialist revolution. Imperialism is not the product of individual leaders or the ideology of an administration, but the dynamics of the capitalist system (especially the drive to obtain profitable destinations for the export of capital) and imperialism can only be abolished with the overthrow of capitalism by the revolutionary proletariat. If Iran does face attack, socialists must call for the unconditional military defense of Iran, without giving political support to the reactionary Iranian government, which hangs homosexuals and forces women to wear the veil when they go out in public. As the world enters economic depression, and the threat of renewed American expansion grows ever greater, the need to develop revolutionary leadership with a principled opposition to all imperialism, is vital.
(1) http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article (Obama: Iran threatens all of us)
(2) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/irans-message-is-softly-spoken-yet-clear-it-will-enrich-uranium-458614.html
(3) http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/28/america/NA-GEN-US-Iran.php (UN nuclear watchdog chief expresses concern about anti-Iran rhetoric from US)
(4)http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_us_nuclear_weapon.php
(5) http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/20/america/20iran.php (US says exercise by Israel seemed directed at Iran)
(6) http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/brzezinski.html (Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinsk from Le Nouvel Observateur)