Anti-Imperialist

Quote:

Give us a modern real-life example, Caissa.

One example that some might cite (but I wouldn't) was the Cuban involvement in Angola in the 70's. The Cubans were helping to defend the Angolan people (and providing medical support) from US, Chinese & South African backed guerrillas who were attempting to overthrow the popular MPLA government.  

Cuban support for the Grenada revolution is another example that some might cite as a form of interventionist "imperialism" but I would disagree with that too. Of course Grenada got complicated because of a split in the New Jewel movement, leading to the assassination of President Maurice Bishop and other leaders of the movement. 

Agreed on Angloa. 

If I'm not mistaken, most of the Cuban presence in Grenada was medical personnel invited by the government. The Cubans were also building a runway and that project was guarded by a small number of Cuban troops. These were not active combat troops. Nor did they fight the Yanquis when the invasion happened. 

Care to comment on the substance on my post, Gaian? I wrote it with great care and was careful not to let the usual bitterness you so frequently decry infect it, being the holiday season and all. It would be nice to engage with you on actual ideas, but you too often seem content to fume about marginalia.

Are sanctions and embargoes, uninvited ones that is, imperialistic, or does it stop at military intervention?

Unfair comment by me - retracted.

Unionist wrote:

I'm still looking for an example of a "humanitarian" intervention, uninvited by any sovereign country, which progressive folks supported.

The "sovereign" part might be under dispute, but many progressives, rightly or wrongly, see the American Civil war as in part a humanitarian intervention - though of course that is only part of the truth.

And Charles II hanging the threat of dissolution over the Massachusetts Colony in order to impose greater religious tolerance. 

I am sure some Americans think the Invasion of Montreal was a case of bringing freedom and fighting empire (and they did leave behind the printing press that started the Gazette). 

Though I think the greater question is not what is and is not imperialism, but what is appropriate and valid discourse with respect to it. 

I don't think there is any one answer to that one. This space has its set of rules and protocols, and I think most of us understand how to operate within them most of the time. 

But there is no one right answer, and how that question gets answered depends entirely on the context.

Duplicate

Oy - double post. 

Unionist wrote:

The 50-year U.S. blockade against Cuba is the epitome of imperialism. The world applying sanctions and embargoes against racist South Africa or Israel is the epitome of anti-imperialism. So it depends. 

Was this in response to something I said? Hard to tell with all the examples being tossed around.

Unionist wrote:

Here's an unfortunate example of someone who should know better getting caught up in the rush to war.

I guess it would get right to the heart of the matter if we were to ask if that article would have violated babble's later policy on anti-imperialism. In which case, perhaps the moderators should take it down, or at least add a note saying "This is something that we regret having published". Sort of like those old racist Warner Brothers cartoons I've seen on DVD, where the studio puts an intro at the beginning saying "We realize now that this stuff is highly offensive, but we're not going to pretend the cartoons never existed".

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

The 50-year U.S. blockade against Cuba is the epitome of imperialism. The world applying sanctions and embargoes against racist South Africa or Israel is the epitome of anti-imperialism. So it depends. 

Was this in response to something I said? Hard to tell with all the examples being tossed around.

 

No. It was in response to Glenl.

voice of the damned wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Here's an unfortunate example of someone who should know better getting caught up in the rush to war.

I guess it would get right to the heart of the matter if we were to ask if that article would have violated babble's later policy on anti-imperialism. In which case, perhaps the moderators should take it down, or at least add a note saying "This is something that we regret having published". Sort of like those old racist Warner Brothers cartoons I've seen on DVD, where the studio puts an intro at the beginning saying "We realize now that this stuff is highly offensive, but we're not going to pretend the cartoons never existed".

Voice of the Damned,

The article immediately opposite to the one you posted is even more blunt in advocating foreign intervention, this time from Linda McQuaig. Isn't she a regular contributor to rabble?

Quote:

Can't we spare 600 troops for Darfur?
By Linda McQuaig

| May 15, 2006

 

Some 200,000 people have already been killed and another 2 million driven from their homes.

An international intervention in Darfur could make an enormous difference, possibly even averting a Rwanda-style genocide.

While the janjaweed, mounted on horseback and camels, easily kill and terrorize the unarmed people of Darfur, they're no match for a modern army.

Peter Langille, a defence analyst at the University of Western Ontario, notes that the Canadian army's fighting vehicles, the Coyote and Lav III, are equipped with top-of-the-line sensors and firepower that could easily stop the janjaweed in their tracks.

Canada is well equipped to play a leading role in a UN mission to Darfur. Such a mission could be carried out by a special UN standby force known as SHIRBRIG, which was created in 2001 to deal with just this sort of crisis.

Canada was one of the moving forces behind SHIRBRIG, and one of 15 nations agreeing to support it. A Canadian general heads it up.

But Ottawa has refused to authorize Canadian troops for a SHIRBRIG mission to Darfur, to assist overwhelmed African Union troops.

http://rabble.ca/columnists/cant-we-spare-600-troops-darfur

voice of the damned wrote:

I guess it would get right to the heart of the matter if we were to ask if that article would have violated babble's later policy on anti-imperialism.

We're trying to have a discussion about what anti-imperialism is, how we should view it, how progressive people are not immune to the massive propaganda of the MSM, etc. You want to turn that discussion into some kind of caricature by asking what we will ban and what we won't ban for discussion. You can do better than that.

Good read, thanks Caissa for starting it and all the contributions from others. I have much to learn.

Gaian wrote:

Shit yes. Just let you imagination flow and put down fellow babblers in this fashion:

"This is far from ideal, obviously, but it's difficult to ask for anything more when our one mainstream progressive party is hailing the actions of our troops for killing Libyan civilians."

Chortle, chortle. Yes, Merry Christmas.

It's ugly, and not very festive I'll grant you that.  But is there not a ring of truth in it for you?

Getting a grip. Got it-good a-ok. And it now appears that the Gladio gang prolly fitted-up Gadaffi for that one, too. 

<a href="http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/key-lockerbie-witness-admits-perjury/">Key Lockerbie Witness admits perjury</a> wrote:

 "I am sorry for the consequences of my silence at that time, for the innocent Libyan Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahisentenced to life imprisonment, and for the country of Libya."

Just another false flag I'm afraid. There's a lot of it going around.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

We're trying to have a discussion about what anti-imperialism is, how we should view it, how progressive people are not immune to the massive propaganda of the MSM, etc.

Hmmm... Maybe we should amend that to say that progressive people are not immune to propaganda.

 

? You seem to be forwarding it. What's your elixir?

Well, generally, you've been trying to derail us off the MSM trail, no? That's what I took from your statement amendment?

If we can't start there, why are you trying to drag it back to a meta backstage discussion?

Let's have it out there in the open. Then let people decide. If you're going to remove the MSM from culpability, I can't respond in good faith.

RP

Look, I neither said nor meant any such thing.

Actually it was a comment on the Lockerbie bombing, of which yes, there are a number of alternative theories. Not to dismiss any of them, but none have been proven.

I think I have pointed out deception and bias in the media as much as anyone here. The difference is I think the mainstream media can be useful if one reads it with open eyes. And furthermore, there are many people working within it who are on our side.

But when I read Unionists post I did raise my eyebrows a little bit. Misinformation and bias come from many directions, after all, even if yes, the right wing of the media is the biggest bogeyman.

We don't all have exactly the same perspective on these issues. We shouldn't have to in order to discuss them in a reasonable manner.

And so we forge on...

The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda: The CIA's Drug-Running Terrorists and the "Arc of Crisis" Andrew Gavin Marshall

Quote:

In 1976, a coalition of intelligence agencies was formed, which was called the Safari Club. This marked the discreet and highly covert coordination among various intelligence agencies, which would last for decades. It formed at a time when the CIA was embroiled in domestic scrutiny over the Watergate scandal and a Congressional investigation into covert CIA activities, forcing the CIA to become more covert in its activities.

In 2002, the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal gave a speech in which he stated that in response to the CIA's need for more discretion, "a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting Communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran [under the Shah]."[1] However, "The Safari Club needed a network of banks to finance its intelligence operations. With the official blessing of George H.W. Bush as the head of the CIA," Saudi intelligence chief, Kamal Adham, "transformed a small Pakistani merchant bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a world-wide money-laundering machine, buying banks around the world to create the biggest clandestine money network in history."

AGM is talented young Canadian and promising anti-imperialist researcher and author in his own right.

1. When it comes to anti-imperialism, we have to focus on or start with our own country. Canada is an imperialist country in its own right; it's also entangled in a colonial history of ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide of the First Nations Peoples.

Lecturing others - whether here in Canada or elsewhere - about their failure to respect human rights while blithely ignoring the current actions or imperial legacy of this country is an approach rather typical of the most dangerous imperialist country in the world.

2. Of course I mean the USA. With its 1,000 or more military bases OUTSIDE the official territory of that militarist regime it projects the use of force, violence as a NORM of behaviour.

The overthrow of the Soviet regime led to the creation of what has been called a "unipolar" world that has been dominated by the USA. We can go over Yanqui atrocities in the former Yugoslavia, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Sudan, or Libya and the list is, well, lengthy and disturbing. The greatest threat to peace in the world today comes from this regime. I dont' care whether they elect an African-American for President or not; it's still got 1,000 military bases OUTSIDE their own damn country, etc., etc., etc..

Canada is in a military alliance with this juggernaut. We allow them to send ships into our own territorial waters and we don't even ask (since we know they won't answer and we don't wish to embarass our "friends") whether their warships are carrying deadly nuclear weapons. We are in the process of making our military forces "interoperable" with the military forces of that dread regime. Our political decisions are polluted by the political culture of that regime. Canadian governments, traitors really, have signed trade deals giving the USA equal access to our own resources. The heart of such anti-patriotism is Alberta where the current Prime Minister of Canada hails from. We have an ignomonious Yanqui bootlicker for a leader. That is the bitter truth.

3. You see how it is only now that I even have time to mention any other country? Like our former colonial master, the United Kingdom of Great "Britain" and Northern Ireland, for example? This means that if we really MEAN something by anti-imperialism, then most of our concerns SHOULD be directed at the pro-imperialist activity of our OWN government and the juggernaut it is in a military alliance with. This is just honesty and common sense; there's not much analysis required to come to such a conclusion.

4. All of this could have summed up by saying that there is a class divide in foreign policy. One way to talk about anti-imperialism is to say that those who are anti-imperialist SIDE with ``progressive``social classes (like the working class, farmers, and other social groupings) and those who are pro-imperialist SIDE with bosses and big business interests. Yes, in a very real sense, it really is that simple. And babblers should, obviously, side with ordinary people.

Of course, in a competitive battle between capitalist interests, we might find ourselves "siding" with "our own" (Canadian) business interests, i.e., with Canadian business interests. But we should be very, very careful that we are not, thereby, siding AGAINST ordinary people OUTSIDE of Canada. And that's what is typically asked of us in supporting so-called Canadian foreign policy and decisions; we are asked to support Canadian business, not against other businesses, but against classes who would be our political allies and friends were they in Canada. We shouldn't get sucked into thinking there is just "one" foreign policy.

Now it is a funny thing, but this is very difficult to do in an imperialist country like our own. What passes for common sense is pro-imperialism. The ruling ideas are from ... where? Yup, that's right. The ruling ideas come from the ruling groups (classes) in society. This too is rather obvious when you think about it.

And we could discuss at length how that is done, how successful it is, and so on, but we shouldn't allow ourselves to be too sidetracked. We know, in advance, what our orientation is, what the big problems are going to look like, and so on.

5. Yes, there are OTHER imperialist countries. And, obviously, if they're fighting over a carcass we should be wary of picking sides in such a horrific undertaking.

6. I just want to add that Canada has been a big player in the global arena when it comes to general human rights discourse. We once had many blue-helmeted UN Peace Keepers, (now, less than a bus load), a Canadian was the author of the UNHRD back in '48 or thereabouts, a Canadian PM won a big prize for UN-related activities, yadda yadda. Canada was the first country in the world to accept women as political refugees by virtue of their gender ( I think), and so on. Our Canadian political culture has been enriched by 2 decades of our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so hated by Conservatives and other misanthropes, and this splashes over into foreign policy.
This is all by way of saying that there is plenty that's good; it's not all a stream of disgusting Canadian atrocities from beginning to end. Just as in our own country we can have competing rights, so too outside of Canada we can have competing human rights and such. And we should be smart enough to pull it apart and figure things out and find a way to support those social elements who deserve our support. it's mostly going to be local populations against Canadian big business interests. That's just the way it is because of the kind of country we live in.

In a very real sense, and I mean this quite sincerely, an anti-imperialist perspective by a Canadian is the height of political consciousness. It takes a lot. Those who can't raise themselves to this level need to see that it's a worthy goal for them, and work at it, because the noblest and greatest expression of human solidarity can still, pretty well, be summed up by the words of a brilliant 19th century scribbler:

Working People of all lands, Unite!

No one has said it better.

Thanks, N.B. I just wanted to add that exchanges between you and Cueball so impressed me on my very first visits to babble a number of years ago. Yes we need a united front on the left no doubt about it.

The Globalization of War: The "Military Roadmap" to World War III ONLINE INTERACTIVE E-READER

WW III ? It doesn't sound good.

Fascism is war

Georgi Dimitrov, 1936 wrote:

The situation is now developing in such a way that to maintain peace throughout the world means first and foremost to bring about the defeat of the fascist invaders of Spain and China. They must be taught a good lesson, they must be really made to feel that the international proletariat and all progressive and civilized mankind will not tolerate their military aggression and acts of robbery, and are ready to do everything to prevent them from fulfilling their plans of igniting the flames of a new world war.

Dr Strangelove: I have a plan. Mein führer, I CAN WALK!!

ikosmos wrote:

Secrecy, while it might sometimes be justified, is mostly just an ugly enemy of democracy.

Truer words were never spoken. I like it.

The Glasnost is half full.

That departed babbler would have benefited from reading Haruki Murakami's The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle and its fuller explanation of what happend in Manchuria (and elsewhere). The Japanese are very revealing now in their admission of what took place in their relatively brief experiment in imperialism. One wonders where these "opinions" are born. :)