The Decline of the American Empire: To the CIA, it’s Still Just a Film

Economist Samir Amin deciphers the latest CIA report on the state of the world. These are works that show that the agency’s intelligence experts see only one thing on the horizon: dominance of the American model. In this first part, Samir Amin evokes the liberal blindness of the experts.

The American establishment’s experts are only interested in the “possible” choices of the leading classes of “countries that count” (for instance, China, followed by Russia and India, then Iran and the Gulf states, and finally Brazil).

Europe, in their opinion, does not exist (and in this case they are certainly right). For this reason, it will necessarily remain aligned with Washington’s choices. The illusion the experts hold with regard to the Gulf countries is instructive: Because they are “rich,” these countries must “count;” the idea that one could be rich but insignificant (which I believe is the case for those leading classes) does not strike them as “imaginable.”

I had nevertheless written an amusing critique of the Dubai project before its foreseeable collapse. Their fears concerning Iran, not because of its “Islamic regime,” but because this large nation does not accept resignation, are indeed founded.

Europe and Africa are Forgotten

There is certainly still a whiff of racism in these experts’ judgment about the futures of Africa and Latin America.

Africa will never count, but will remain available for the pillage of its resources. The only problem for [the experts] here is that the United States (and their subaltern European allies) will, from now on, find themselves in tough competition with the appetites of China, India and Brazil. Their fear is not unfounded.

It does not strike them as worthy of reflection that there could be a South-South relationship linking the “emerging countries” (China, India and Brazil) and Africa, which, while not very different in nature from the imperialist relations of classic pillage, could help Africa out of its current situation as a “marginalized” region (“programmed exclusion”) and finally enter the industrial age.

Latin America, for its part, does not worry Washington. The only “emergent” nation — Brazil — will remain “well-behaved.” The model of irreversible integration in a space dominated by the United States, as is already the case for Mexico, seems, to the experts, to be the inevitable destiny of the continent in the long run.

The “advanced” revolutionaries (Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia) are thought to be destined to fail. In these conditions, the “scenarios” the report sketches out are more reflective of the limits of U.S. thinking than the probability of their realization.

The Specter of the “Yellow Peril”

The first of these scenarios is devoted to China’s stunning victory as a new “hegemonic power,” dragging along in its wake a renewed Russia (that is to say, having succeeded in diversifying and modernizing its industries, with its leading industries now founded on a system of educational performance, Russia is finished having its status reduced to that of a mere exporter of oil and gas), an autonomous but resigned India, and an Iran (“Islamist” or not) that has become a dominant actor in the Middle East.

The victorious “Shanghai Conference” significantly reduced the status of NATO — and thereby rendered it ridiculous — forcing it to definitively renounce its plans for “military control of the planet” and its interventions under the pretext of a “war on terrorism.” The alliance of Shanghai guarantees China and India access to 70 percent of the oil and gas the Middle East produces.

This image — outrageously forced — fulfills an obvious ideological function. That would be to stir up the specter of the “yellow peril” and mobilize Europeans and Arabs (particularly from the Gulf) in support of Washington’s “resistance” plan. The image is forced because China (meaning its leading classes — so-called “pro-capitalist”) does not have the ambition to become a global “hegemonic” power. Beijing is realistic enough to know that that would be an insanely unrealistic goal.

However, that is precisely because China knows the means it can deploy to force the United States, Europe and Japan to respect its rights (access to petrol, among others) are limited. Beijing could conceive that its power would be reinforced if it managed to bring the whole of the South along as equals (and not as subsidiaries).

The second “scenario” is dedicated to the contrary — the resounding failure of the “Shanghai plan,” the implosion of the ephemeral BRIC group, the mounting India-China conflict, the stagnation of Russia and the abrupt end to Iran’s nationalist project. Nothing about this is firmly impossible. It remains that this “total” success of the United States is much too similar to what Washington would wish for to be credible.

Another Social Point of View

The analysis I propose as a counter-weight to Washington’s ranting (and the many other rants inspired by that same train of thought) is based on another principle of reflection and is overtly associated with the goal of the “transformation” of the world (that is to say, both in terms of the social order in the countries concerned and of global balances of power), as we wish to promote. This method demands that we give “another point of view” — one that responds to the interests of the popular classes and nations — the place it deserves.

A “better world” implies both internal social balance within each national system most favorable to the popular classes, as well as a negotiated international order more favorable to countries of the South, “emerging” or “marginalized.” The only question raised is: Who are the possible agents that can move us in this direction, and what strategies are they able to deploy to this end?

In this spirit, the “North-South” conflict and the fight for socialism to overtake capitalism are inseparable, from the point of view of the peoples, even if they are in fact “separated” in the strategies the leading classes of the South can deploy from their commanding positions.

All of the “advances” — even the modest ones, still fragmented and partial — that advance our hopes and wishes must be supported. For example, the reorientation of development gives more space for an internal market and less decisive importance to exports. Or, for example, the reinforcement of cooperative relations among the countries of the South must be encouraged.

But it remains necessary to go beyond the first steps we have already seen, here and there, in response to the crisis, in particular with regard to new South-South cooperation. This will make sense only if it allows countries that are still “excluded” (Africa, in particular) to enter an inevitable industrial era.

To associate the strengthening of domestic social progress in these nations and the strengthening of autonomy in international relations necessarily implies democratic advancement.

But democratization occurs here through class conflict, which is the only way the popular classes can impose their wider participation in the decision-making centers. The popular classes cannot influence their government by strengthening the power of the “middle class” with a “Western-style” representative democracy — the only type of democracy that the American establishment’s experts know.