Obama: Imperialism That Smiles

In early 2009, when Barack Obama assumed the presidency, various analysts confirmed that this was the beginning of a new historic period, marking an end to the past administration’s unilateralism and gaining an opportunity to put into effect a global multi-polar system.

The arguments were very convincing. The most powerful empire of all time was leaving behind the Bush doctrine and abandoning the absolutist vestments used to negate the most ancient fundamental rights of men: the civil and political rights consecrated by international law.

Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, among others in Latin America, ceased being safe havens for the designs of American capital, thanks to the advancement of progressive forces in the region. Old routes were redefined: The direction of political impulse in the continent ceased to be guided toward stabilizing governments that collaborated with larger corporations. This gave way to governments that put the interests of their people first, redefining priorities in developing their international politics.

In his first speech after the election, Obama summarized the symbolic significance of his journey to the presidency: “If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.”

The recent stance of the United States government in Honduras — supporting an election that legitimizes the coup on the pretext that “how these elections are conducted will inevitably affect conditions for overcoming the political divisions in the country” — demonstrates that historic opinions about desired subservience have been based on conjectured analysis that underestimates the dynamic internal forces of the American Right and its capacity to recuperate and re-establish the agenda of imperial hegemony. The “pre-emptive war” has given way to the “just war,” confirming Fidel Castro’s diagnosis about the “domestication” of Obama.

There is a central issue that must not be forgotten. In the absence of any sort of organized resistance posed by the working class in the U.S., the margin for dominant sectors of imperialism to recover from the economic crisis — without paying any political or social cost that its competitors have to face — is a comparatively colossal advantage.

In addition, James Petras [Binghamton University] reminds us that the empire, due to its far reaches in the world, continues to be in a position that allows it to take advantage of benefits from other countries “through its political-military contacts, thus maintaining its advantage over Europe and Asia on an ever-increasing scale.”

A quick assessment is necessary to discuss a crisis of hegemony:

The backpedaling of the time frame to close the military prison in Guantanamo bay; the installation of military bases in Colombia; the escalation of war (with an increase of 10 to 15 thousand soldiers to “finish the job” in Afghanistan); the ambiguous talks about Iraq, not to mention the lack of concrete propositions at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, not merely tarnish hopes and illusions, but also sound an alarm that cannot be ignored by those who desire a new international order.

It will not be discussions about protocols, replete with well-intentioned petitions that will deter what the U.S. judges to be its “mission to civilize.” In a Latin America that screams and revolts, the coup’s victory in Honduras presents itself as a historic opportunity for the Left. By modernizing ideas and classifications, it is time to develop a program that presents itself as an irrefutable counter-hegemonic strategy.

Obama never ignored the correlation of internal powers that limit the possibility of reversing external North American policies. In the same inaugural address, the president was very emphatic in affirming that “we are ready to lead once more.” To interpret this statement as a lapse or an outburst of an inexperienced leader is much too dangerous for those who do not want the old axiom confirmed: that Latin America goes round and round without moving out of place. It is necessary to pay close attention to what the “elect of the world” say. One thing is certain: The humor is in excessively bad taste and should be cast away immediately.