Tariq Ali: “For Obama, ‘Yes We Can’ Means ‘Keep on Doing As Before’!”
Published in Marianne
(France) on 25 November 2010
by Christophe Ventura (link to original)
(France) on 25 November 2010
by Christophe Ventura (link to original)
Translated from
by Yobouet Thostao.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
According to Tariq Ali, a committed left-wing intellectual since the 1960s, Barack Obama did not measure up to the hope the whole world put in him. No sooner had he been elected than he started following in Reagan and Clinton’s footsteps with regards to the economy, international relations, politics… The writer of “Obama Goes to War” is taking a gloomy stock of the work done by the American president.
Christophe Ventura: For you, Barack Obama places his actions in the political tradition of Ronald Reagan and William Clinton. What are you hinting at?
Tariq Ali: The consensus set by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher continues governing the United States and the world. It’s a question of a mix of neoliberalism and war. Remember that one of the first changes in regime these recent decades was the “Contra” war of Nicaragua, backed by the United States. At a national level, it was a question of making privatization and deregulation policies. Those are the policies Ronald Reagan adopted. The outcome of that circle is the Wall Street crash of 2008. In his addresses and books, Barack Obama speaks highly of Reagan as a model president who united the country. There was also Obama’s goal: bipartisanship. Again, he’s in direct keeping with Clinton’s legacy. But his electoral victory and the outbreak of the most colossal economic crisis since the Great Depression coincided. Consequently his own followers were expecting more bipartisanship. As for his opponents, they hate him and don’t trust him. The results of the midterm elections showed that prevailing atmosphere in the United States.
In the newspapers, Barack Obama is referred to as the new hope for the United States, the embodiment of hope for peace in international relations. Your criticism toward him is clear: He’s an opportunist and wily politician, “a president of rhetoric” who practices “the politics of slogans” and tries “to bring together contradictions.” What does it mean?
It means he’s good at useless things and bad at setting true policies capable of helping the unemployed and the non-privileged. The disparities regarding access to health care arose again in 2009. Obama’s first year in power favored the rich! As in Europe, there was austerity for workers and the poor, but luxury for the rich. The background music has changed at the White House. But that’s all, as the background music has no effect on those 15 million unemployed Americans and the Iraqi, Afghan and Palestinian population. Yet, there are few illusions left with the American liberals and their European “avid followers” from the moderate left. The Europeans thought that if they had to grovel to the hegemonic great power on the other side of the ocean, it would have been better for it to have happened with the emperor of the Holy Roman Europe rather than his disastrous predecessor. For the European élite, the change in the background music counts more than any other real change.
In your book, you defend the idea that Barack Obama is nothing but “the most inventive shape the Empire succeeded in giving itself.” Karl Marx believed that sometimes, the bourgeoisie requires a new political leader capable of giving the impression of a renewal in the labor relations in order to reinforce the system. Do you mean these are Barack Obama’s functions?
Exactly! Obama might be on the eve of his 18th Brunaire. It’s important to understand that by choosing Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, Obama sent a clear message: We’ll keep doing what we did in the past for the world. Robert Gates is the man who planned the “Contra” in Nicaragua! The war in Afghanistan discredited the Obama presidency. The situation there is getting worse but General Petraeus is not ready to leave his strategy.
What do you think of the Obama administration in Latin America today; does the United Nations play a practical role in destabilizing progressive governments in Venezuela, Ecuador or Bolivia? And what are the objectives and strategies in Brazil and Cuba?
The coup against Hugo Chavez was backed by the United States and Spain. The ridiculous attempted coup against Rafael Correa in Ecuador, some weeks ago, would not have been possible without the approval of the United States Embassy in Quito. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, in spite of their words, backed the Honduran army which removed an elected president from office. The “Colombian Plan” is designed to destabilize the Bolivarian government in Venezuela. In Cuba the United States has an objective: total change of the regime to return to the previous status quo. They’re waiting for the death of the Castro brothers to conduct their offensive, which will be financial, not military. They want Cuba to turn into a new Las Vegas once they have come to corrupt some Cuban generals and apparatchiks of the party. Many of them have a mentality close to the one of their former equivalents in eastern Europe. They’re known old party leaders who beg for money with European businessmen. But one never knows; maybe the post-Castro leaders will have closer cooperation with China and follow the model of Beijing.
In Brazil, the Labor Party refused to fall into line with Washington at an international level except during the intervention in Haiti, which was a complete disaster. The illusions Lula had regarding Obama quickly fell through. At a national level, Brazil keeps a neo-liberal approach, excepting the “Bolsa Familia” program, which is profitable but insufficient. Education, housing and health conditions call for structural changes.
Obama’s 10-day visit in Asia peaked with the G-20 summit in Seoul, where he especially launched an appeal regarding establishing good relations with Muslims in Indonesia. What do you think of the final words of the G-20, which disapproved of the United States’ proposals on monetary and trade issues?
No politics is done with kind words only. Good relations with Islam in Indonesia, but not in Afghanistan or in Palestine? The G-20 in Seoul refused to accept U.S. pressure to isolate China. It’s the only interesting thing to remember of the summit, which was also useless as usual. This indicates the impact of the crisis on the main actors of the international scene. The summit wasn’t beneficial for Africa, and Brazilians were right in refusing to take part in the ground meetings. We need meetings on a continental scale: South America, Central and South Asia, Eastern Asia and Africa, and of course the United States and the European Union.
According to you, what is the balance of power between the United States and China? What can the Empire do faced with that new power?
As far as the economy is concerned, as we know, China is the new building site of the world. But politically and militarily, it cannot compete with the United States. Actually, it’s not expressing any sign of wanting to do so. Chinese leaders defend their national interests, and these determine their strategies. So far the Chinese economy is closely linked to that of the United States. A longtime recession in the United States will affect Chinese capitalism.
Two years after his popular victory, Obama seems to have lost all possibilities of reforming — if that was his will — the country in a more progressive direction. After the unforgettable defeat of the Democrats in the midterm elections (and even though they managed to hold the majority in the Senate, this was still a crushing defeat), can we expect a change in Obama's actions?
No. As I explain in my book, he was turning to the right before his own victory.
His “reform” of the health policy was, in fact, a capitulation to the giants of the pharmaceutical industry and insurances. “Yes we can” meant, in fact, “yes we can keep on doing as before.” The health policy of Nixon was actually more radical than this one!
How can you explain the defeat of Democrats and the fact that Democratic voters seem to be disillusioned?
As I said, the defeat can be explained by the fact that many Obama supporters stayed at home. The dice were loaded. Even George Soros opposed Obama from the left in saying, with Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, that Wall Street determines the country’s economic policies. The political instincts of Obama are pathetic. A recent article by William Galston in the The New Republic revealed that in spring 2009, Obama approved the bankers’ bonuses without considering it could incense people. He simply adheres to the viewpoints of Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner. Soros, contrary to Geithner, would like more actions from the government and the development of infrastructure projects capable of boosting the economy. He’s right. Europe, Greece and Ireland teach a thing or two in that respect.
Today who’s weakened, Obama or the Empire?
Obama. The Empire faced problems, but not serious ones. Remember that after the Vietnamese victory in 1975, lots of people were saying that the United States was on the wane and could no longer intervene militarily anywhere. But they did so again, in the last moment, with the help of the Europeans. No country of Western Europe sent troops to Vietnam. General de Gaulle criticized that war very much. Today the European elites, divided over the invasion of Iraq, all the same backed its occupation. Besides, in other situations, the Europeans lost any sense of independence. They follow the Holy Emperor without asking themselves who wears the crown.
Since the United States is facing a serious crisis and international instability, can they get away with a new military venture?
It’s possible, but it would not be as easy. The Israelis are pressing for destruction of Iranian nuclear reactors in order to maintain their monopoly on nuclear technology in the area. For Washington, accepting that option could be dangerous for its own interests.
The Pentagon is still hostile to the idea, and this can be justified. It may imply the end of the game in Iraq as the Shiite parties, which have been collaborating with the occupying force, may turn against them. Iran could have done the same in Afghanistan and Lebanon. Thus, a new war is not as evident as it seems to be. Of course, Angela Merkel has already said she would back it, as have Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, but the Pentagon is still not convinced of such an option.
Tariq Ali is the writer of “Obama Goes to War,” La Fabrique éditions, Paris 2010, 15 Euros.
Christophe Ventura: For you, Barack Obama places his actions in the political tradition of Ronald Reagan and William Clinton. What are you hinting at?
Tariq Ali: The consensus set by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher continues governing the United States and the world. It’s a question of a mix of neoliberalism and war. Remember that one of the first changes in regime these recent decades was the “Contra” war of Nicaragua, backed by the United States. At a national level, it was a question of making privatization and deregulation policies. Those are the policies Ronald Reagan adopted. The outcome of that circle is the Wall Street crash of 2008. In his addresses and books, Barack Obama speaks highly of Reagan as a model president who united the country. There was also Obama’s goal: bipartisanship. Again, he’s in direct keeping with Clinton’s legacy. But his electoral victory and the outbreak of the most colossal economic crisis since the Great Depression coincided. Consequently his own followers were expecting more bipartisanship. As for his opponents, they hate him and don’t trust him. The results of the midterm elections showed that prevailing atmosphere in the United States.
In the newspapers, Barack Obama is referred to as the new hope for the United States, the embodiment of hope for peace in international relations. Your criticism toward him is clear: He’s an opportunist and wily politician, “a president of rhetoric” who practices “the politics of slogans” and tries “to bring together contradictions.” What does it mean?
It means he’s good at useless things and bad at setting true policies capable of helping the unemployed and the non-privileged. The disparities regarding access to health care arose again in 2009. Obama’s first year in power favored the rich! As in Europe, there was austerity for workers and the poor, but luxury for the rich. The background music has changed at the White House. But that’s all, as the background music has no effect on those 15 million unemployed Americans and the Iraqi, Afghan and Palestinian population. Yet, there are few illusions left with the American liberals and their European “avid followers” from the moderate left. The Europeans thought that if they had to grovel to the hegemonic great power on the other side of the ocean, it would have been better for it to have happened with the emperor of the Holy Roman Europe rather than his disastrous predecessor. For the European élite, the change in the background music counts more than any other real change.
In your book, you defend the idea that Barack Obama is nothing but “the most inventive shape the Empire succeeded in giving itself.” Karl Marx believed that sometimes, the bourgeoisie requires a new political leader capable of giving the impression of a renewal in the labor relations in order to reinforce the system. Do you mean these are Barack Obama’s functions?
Exactly! Obama might be on the eve of his 18th Brunaire. It’s important to understand that by choosing Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, Obama sent a clear message: We’ll keep doing what we did in the past for the world. Robert Gates is the man who planned the “Contra” in Nicaragua! The war in Afghanistan discredited the Obama presidency. The situation there is getting worse but General Petraeus is not ready to leave his strategy.
What do you think of the Obama administration in Latin America today; does the United Nations play a practical role in destabilizing progressive governments in Venezuela, Ecuador or Bolivia? And what are the objectives and strategies in Brazil and Cuba?
The coup against Hugo Chavez was backed by the United States and Spain. The ridiculous attempted coup against Rafael Correa in Ecuador, some weeks ago, would not have been possible without the approval of the United States Embassy in Quito. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, in spite of their words, backed the Honduran army which removed an elected president from office. The “Colombian Plan” is designed to destabilize the Bolivarian government in Venezuela. In Cuba the United States has an objective: total change of the regime to return to the previous status quo. They’re waiting for the death of the Castro brothers to conduct their offensive, which will be financial, not military. They want Cuba to turn into a new Las Vegas once they have come to corrupt some Cuban generals and apparatchiks of the party. Many of them have a mentality close to the one of their former equivalents in eastern Europe. They’re known old party leaders who beg for money with European businessmen. But one never knows; maybe the post-Castro leaders will have closer cooperation with China and follow the model of Beijing.
In Brazil, the Labor Party refused to fall into line with Washington at an international level except during the intervention in Haiti, which was a complete disaster. The illusions Lula had regarding Obama quickly fell through. At a national level, Brazil keeps a neo-liberal approach, excepting the “Bolsa Familia” program, which is profitable but insufficient. Education, housing and health conditions call for structural changes.
Obama’s 10-day visit in Asia peaked with the G-20 summit in Seoul, where he especially launched an appeal regarding establishing good relations with Muslims in Indonesia. What do you think of the final words of the G-20, which disapproved of the United States’ proposals on monetary and trade issues?
No politics is done with kind words only. Good relations with Islam in Indonesia, but not in Afghanistan or in Palestine? The G-20 in Seoul refused to accept U.S. pressure to isolate China. It’s the only interesting thing to remember of the summit, which was also useless as usual. This indicates the impact of the crisis on the main actors of the international scene. The summit wasn’t beneficial for Africa, and Brazilians were right in refusing to take part in the ground meetings. We need meetings on a continental scale: South America, Central and South Asia, Eastern Asia and Africa, and of course the United States and the European Union.
According to you, what is the balance of power between the United States and China? What can the Empire do faced with that new power?
As far as the economy is concerned, as we know, China is the new building site of the world. But politically and militarily, it cannot compete with the United States. Actually, it’s not expressing any sign of wanting to do so. Chinese leaders defend their national interests, and these determine their strategies. So far the Chinese economy is closely linked to that of the United States. A longtime recession in the United States will affect Chinese capitalism.
Two years after his popular victory, Obama seems to have lost all possibilities of reforming — if that was his will — the country in a more progressive direction. After the unforgettable defeat of the Democrats in the midterm elections (and even though they managed to hold the majority in the Senate, this was still a crushing defeat), can we expect a change in Obama's actions?
No. As I explain in my book, he was turning to the right before his own victory.
His “reform” of the health policy was, in fact, a capitulation to the giants of the pharmaceutical industry and insurances. “Yes we can” meant, in fact, “yes we can keep on doing as before.” The health policy of Nixon was actually more radical than this one!
How can you explain the defeat of Democrats and the fact that Democratic voters seem to be disillusioned?
As I said, the defeat can be explained by the fact that many Obama supporters stayed at home. The dice were loaded. Even George Soros opposed Obama from the left in saying, with Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, that Wall Street determines the country’s economic policies. The political instincts of Obama are pathetic. A recent article by William Galston in the The New Republic revealed that in spring 2009, Obama approved the bankers’ bonuses without considering it could incense people. He simply adheres to the viewpoints of Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner. Soros, contrary to Geithner, would like more actions from the government and the development of infrastructure projects capable of boosting the economy. He’s right. Europe, Greece and Ireland teach a thing or two in that respect.
Today who’s weakened, Obama or the Empire?
Obama. The Empire faced problems, but not serious ones. Remember that after the Vietnamese victory in 1975, lots of people were saying that the United States was on the wane and could no longer intervene militarily anywhere. But they did so again, in the last moment, with the help of the Europeans. No country of Western Europe sent troops to Vietnam. General de Gaulle criticized that war very much. Today the European elites, divided over the invasion of Iraq, all the same backed its occupation. Besides, in other situations, the Europeans lost any sense of independence. They follow the Holy Emperor without asking themselves who wears the crown.
Since the United States is facing a serious crisis and international instability, can they get away with a new military venture?
It’s possible, but it would not be as easy. The Israelis are pressing for destruction of Iranian nuclear reactors in order to maintain their monopoly on nuclear technology in the area. For Washington, accepting that option could be dangerous for its own interests.
The Pentagon is still hostile to the idea, and this can be justified. It may imply the end of the game in Iraq as the Shiite parties, which have been collaborating with the occupying force, may turn against them. Iran could have done the same in Afghanistan and Lebanon. Thus, a new war is not as evident as it seems to be. Of course, Angela Merkel has already said she would back it, as have Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, but the Pentagon is still not convinced of such an option.
Tariq Ali is the writer of “Obama Goes to War,” La Fabrique éditions, Paris 2010, 15 Euros.