"And that's why the guerrilla movements didn't have a chance. They were
like kids going out to fight and confronting a giant Empire. Che's struggle
in Bolivia - which I write about in Street Fighting Years because I was
there at the time - was a futile struggle, completely isolated."
and/vs
"The oligarchy has been defeated three times now, and Chavez is now
using the oil monies openly to transform the social landscape of that
country: health, education, land, all these are happening and this is the
first time in the history of that country that the poor have some future. So
it's extremely positive, and this is an example for all of Latin America."
Tariq Ali
http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/features/61ufeat1.html
Seven Oaks May 3, 2005
A conversation with Tariq Ali (Part 1)
by Charles Demers
As anti-imperialists the world over celebrate the 30th anniversary of the
Vietnamese victory over American force of arms, Charles Demers of Seven
Oaks spoke with essayist, novelist, film-maker, author, playwright and anti-
war activist Tariq Ali. Unlike a number of those with whom he opposed the
war in Vietnam - are you listening, Christopher Hitchens? - Ali has
maintained a clear- headed and always-relevant analysis of imperialism that
has carried him over into Britain's (and the world's) present-day opposition
to Washington's drive to war with. everybody.
Charles Demers: Reading your autobiography of the 1960s, Street Fighting
Years, today's young activists can be forgiven for feeling as though we
missed the heyday of the anti-war movement. But do you see the movement
today as having any advantages over the movement against the war in Vietnam?
Tariq Ali: Well, I would hate for any young activist today to think that we
had it good in the sixties and what exists now is crap - that's not the case
actually. The sixties in North America were pretty different to what was
going on in Europe. It's true that in Europe, and other parts of the world -
Mexico City, Pakistan - you did have movements that went way beyond
anti-war. I mean in France the students triggered off a general strike of
ten million workers. You had a strike wave in Italy. In Portugal, you had a
revolutionary overthrow of a fifty-year-old dictatorship. So these things
happened, and that's a different experience from North America.
The main point I make is that the image you have of the sixties in the
United States in particular, of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, that is
unacceptable. It was political, it was a very political epoch. And I would
say the big difference between then and now is the following: that activists
in the sixties and seventies actually believed that they could change the
world, that they could bring about basic social transformations in the ways
in which societies were working. That I think is gone. But you know that's
because we live in a completely different epoch.
In terms of the scale of mobilizations to try and stop the Iraq War, the
pre- mobilizations before the war, there was nothing quite like that ever,
not only in the sixties but in human history. They were the largest
mobilizations to take place, but then they disappeared. And I think that the
reason for that is that the overwhelming majority of people who came out and
marched on February 15 [2003] were people who were not from the Left. They
were ordinary, average citizens who didn't believe what the politicians were
telling them, didn't believe Bush or Blair, and felt that by demonstrating
their anger against this war - they actually believed they could stop it.
And when they couldn't stop it, and the war went ahead, and Iraq was
occupied, then they lost heart and stayed indoors. They, in many cases,
began to get active in other milieus - I'm mainly talking about Europe now.
And in Spain they brought about a big defeat of a right-wing government
and the government that was elected withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq.
In Italy that could happen very rapidly, as well. And even Blair, though
there's no opposition in Britain as such, Blair could be dented in the
elections that are due on May 5, and his majority could be reduced. If it's
reduced by just 20 or 30 seats he'll just laugh, but if it's reduced by 60
or 70 seats then I think the anti-war movement will be totally justified in
claiming a victory. The war is playing very big in the British election
campaign. Even though the Conservatives supported Labour even they are
now beginning to say 'We were lied to,' whereas the Liberal Democrats, the
Scottish nationalists, the Welsh nationalists and the far left RESPECT
group are constantly attacking Blair on the war, and it's playing big in the
newspapers and television as well. So it's a very interesting election
campaign and we will see what happens. I mean, the British electoral system
is incredibly undemocratic, so you can never totally register what people
are feeling, because it's a first-past-the-post system. But we will see.
Demers: One of the developments we've seen in Vancouver is the passing of
the Cold War peace movement, which was couched in pretty apolitical terms
and nuclear disarmament, motherhood issues, and we've actually seen an
accepted discussion of U.S. Empire and imperialism. Part of that is just
that the war machine is so scattered, in Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, that an
analysis of imperialism has been necessary to oppose this war. Is this
something you're seeing in a lot of the cities you're visiting?
Ali: Yes, this is pretty universal actually. I travel all over the world and
these
questions come up everywhere: What are the aims of this Empire? Can it
succeed? How long can it last? All these questions are coming up and being
discussed and debated quite vigorously all over the world. I remember now,
we used to discuss imperialism endlessly in the sixties and seventies. You
know, the big question posed by an American radical was 'Who will bring the
mother down?' And the reply we used to give was 'the Vietnamese will bring
the mother down.' They got close to it.
But the question today is slightly different, but nonetheless it's an
interesting question. The United States is the only Empire in the world
today, and no one is strong enough to challenge it militarily. But it could
overstretch itself, and then it will start pulling out, but that doesn't
mean it will collapse; I think we have to be very clear about that. And you
know the American Empire has always tried to find local relays to do the
business for them. They only intervene when there's no other way. And then
they usually go in and put in a regime which supports them and pull out
again. And I think that is what they will try and do in Haiti and Iraq, but
I don't think it's going to work in either country. In Haiti, they removed a
popularly elected leader, and in Iraq the bulk of the population wants them
out. The room for maneuver is limited in these two places, but they've got
away with it elsewhere.
Demers: At the time of the Vietnam War the greatest threat to the American
Empire, outside of the immediate Southeast Asian war-zone, were the
revolutions of Latin America. And today that seems to the case again, that
the threat to the U.S. Empire, outside of the immediate field of battle in
the Middle East, is coming from Latin America.
Ali: Well, I think that I would go further than that. I would say that after
the Cuban Revolution, there was a long, long wait in Latin America. In fact,
if one is being ruthless and hard-headed - which I think we should always be
in analyzing political realities - one would have to say that after the
Cuban
Revolution the United States went on a counter-revolutionary offensive and
crushed all the possibilities in country after country.
Military coups in Brazil, Chile, Argentina; the Cuban Revolution really
scared the living daylights out of them. And had it not been for the
existence of the Soviet Union, for all its problems, they would have taken
Cuba back. There's no question about it. The only thing that stopped them
was that the Russians backed the Cubans in putting missiles there, so
they had to negotiate. But they certainly intervened in every other Latin
American country to stop any developments. And that's why the guerrilla
movements didn't have a chance. They were like kids going out to fight and
confronting a giant Empire. Che's struggle in Bolivia - which I write about
in Street Fighting Years because I was there at the time - was a futile
struggle, completely isolated.
So the situation in Latin America today at the beginning of the 21st century
is much more positive than it ever was in the sixties and seventies, and
people have got to understand that. You've got social movements - and
when I say social movements, I don't mean NGOs, I mean genuine big
social movements - in Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, Mexico - and what
you have in Venezuela now, the victory of the Bolivarian movement, which
totally destroys, in my opinion, all of these foolish theories, which I call
theories of virtual reality, the virtual reality world of [John] Holloway
and his
gang, which said we don't take power, we can change the world without
taking power. I mean I have never heard a more vacuous slogan being coined
by an academic, and it's ideal in the academic world, because there you can
never take power, and you can write all sorts of nonsense and it's taken
seriously because you have captive audiences of students.
But in the real world, it's a joke. The Bolivarians have now completely
destroyed that myth, but what they've done in Venezuela is started a
process. That's how we should see it, it's not a finished process, they
didn't come with preconceived assumptions. They took power, popular power,
elected by the masses, and slowly they continue to transform that society.
And the transformation could reach a level where any return to the status
quo ante will be impossible. The oligarchy has been defeated three times
now, and Chavez is now using the oil monies openly to transform the social
landscape of that country: health, education, land, all these are happening
and this is the first time in the history of that country that the poor have
some future. So it's extremely positive, and this is an example for the
whole of Latin America. The fact that at some of the sessions of the World
Social Forum the masses were chanting 'Chavez Si, Lula No' and Chavez
stopped them becau! se it was a diplomatic problem, and he said 'no I know
Lula wants to do good and when he does we must help him.'
But, you know, the models are obvious. Either you take on capitalism or you
don't. If you don't take on capitalism then you do what the IMF and World
Bank tells you. It's a global problem. Lula decided to go that route. This
is a guy with enormous prestige, a workers' leader who basically once he
came to power lost it, decided that was the way he was going to go. And
his cabinet includes many former leftists. His minister of finance is a
former
Trotskyist. These guys when they turn they really turn, you know. Because
all the dogma which they had when they were on the Left, that dogma then
becomes transferred to defending the new, the converts to capitalism. 'This
is the only route, we've got to do it, and we've got to be ruthless.'
So that's essentially what we're seeing. But in my opinion the whole
continent of Latin America is seething, it's in revolt, much more than it
ever was when Che was alive. In Bolivia today you have a gigantic social
movement where there are pictures of Che Guevara everywhere. There never
were when he was alive. The people were indifferent. The Bolivian peasants
were indifferent when Che was killed. They didn't care. Then, subsequently,
5, 10 years later, they began to understand 'this guy was fighting for us.'
Slowly his pictures began to appear and now they are everywhere. You know,
people have a memory, they don't forget. It's interesting, the situation
there is much better than it ever was, in my opinion.
Demers: You mentioned the World Bank, and I just wanted to ask you about
the appointment of the war-monger Paul Wolfowitz as the head of the World
Bank. Do you see that as a potential crisis of opportunity, making clear
the
links between the machinations of war-making and capitalism?
Ali: It's good they've appointed Wolfowitz. I don't feel that upset about
it. It's all out in the open now. You know, what's the big problem, Robert
McNamara used to head the World Bank and then in his dotage sort of said
'oh, I did too many awful things.' Maybe Wolfowitz will in forty years time,
but I doubt it, because he's made of much sterner stuff. I think what
Wolfowitz needs, though, is a strong PR officer. There will be two problems
with Wolfowitz. One, because of who he is, there will be permanent security
problems for him. I mean the head of the World Bank has to go around
meeting people all the time, you know, put on a show of doing something. But
he's a security problem. I mean from his own point of view he needs to be
guarded all the time.
So he needs a PR officer who can write his speeches, justify the
unjustifiable. And I would suggest strongly that he employs his close friend
and comrade Christopher Hitchens to act as his public face. I think
Christopher would be very good at that.
Charles Demers is an anti-war activist and founding editor of Seven Oaks
Magazine (www.SevenOaksMag.com).
_______________________________________________
Rad-Green mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Does he tell you he loves you when he's hitting you?
Abuse. Narrated by Halle Berry.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/aFQ_rC/isnJAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
