July 22, 2008

Shifts and Faultlines in the World Economy and Great Power Rivalry What Is Happening and What It Might Mean

 by Raymond Lotta

This is the second in a series of articles about major transformations taking place in the world imperialist system.

Part 1 of this series discussed how the balance of international economic power is shifting among the major imperialist powers and how new geoeconomic blocs of countries are taking shape. The potential is growing for various powers, or alliances of powers, to gain greater geopolitical capacity to challenge U.S. dominance—not necessarily through direct confrontation in this period but nonetheless in increasingly strategic ways. These developments are interacting with other contradictions, conflicts, and struggles in the world.

The U.S. still occupies the primary position in the imperialist world economy. It is the largest economy; the financial glue of the whole world system; and the political-military “guarantor” of a global order that benefits, at least for now, all the big powers.

The U.S.’s economic position in the world has been declining. But U.S. imperialism possesses unparalleled military strength relative to rivals and would-be rivals. And since 2001, it has been pressing this advantage—mounting a global military offensive, focused in Iraq and Afghanistan, to secure unchallengeable dominance for decades to come.

But the United States is encountering difficulties in pursuing its global agenda. Its financial system has been experiencing growing turmoil. The shifts and changes in world economics are impacting U.S. imperialism’s freedom of maneuver.

In short, the imperialist system is in flux. And China is a highly dynamic element in the equation.

The nature of China’s development, and the implications of China’s rise in the world imperialist system, is the topic of this article.

I. INTRODUCTION: NOT A SOCIALIST SOCIETY, A COMPLEX DYNAMIC OF DEVELOPMENT

Many people assume that China is a socialist society—after all, its leaders describe their system as socialist and there is, in name, a ruling communist party. But socialism no longer exists in China. It was overthrown in October 1976. Deng Xiaoping and other leading neo-capitalist forces within the Chinese Communist Party carried out a military coup soon after Mao Tsetung died. These forces moved quickly to arrest the Maoist leadership core and to suppress revolutionary opposition.

Glossary:

Accumulation of capital. The production of surplus value (the source of profit) based on the exploitation of wage labor; and the investment and reinvestment of profit by competing capitals on an expanding, cost-cheapening, and technologically more advanced (and productive) basis. This is a process, as Marx said, of the accumulation of wealth at one pole and misery and agony of toil at the other.

Capital export. The outward flow of investment capital from one country to another. Capital export consists of foreign direct investment in an existing enterprise of the host country or the building of new facilities (as when GM opens a factory in China), and other forms, such as bank loans, investments in stocks and bonds, etc.

Imperialism. The stage of development of capitalism as a world system of exploitation reached in the late 1800s. We live in the age of imperialism. Imperialism involves five key features: a) the dominance of monopoly (large, highly centralized, and powerful units of ownership and control) over the organization of production and distribution; b) the merging of banking and industrial capital into huge financial blocs; c) the central importance of the export of capital to overall profitability; d) the economic division of the world by large corporations, cartels, and the great powers into spheres of influence; and e) the complete territorial division of the world by the imperialist powers into colonies, neocolonies, and zones of influence, so that struggle between the leading imperialist powers will involve the re-division of the world.

The bourgeoisie. The ruling class of capitalist society. This modern exploiting class commands private control (ownership) over large-scale, highly developed, social productive forces—workable only by the collective efforts of a class, the proletariat which, dispossessed of means of production, must sell its labor power in order to survive. The bourgeoisie embodies the capitalist imperative to expand or die. It stands in antagonistic relation to the proletariat. It enforces its rule over society through control of the state and its organs of repression and force.


A new capitalist class rules China. It is subordinate to and dominated by imperialism. Indeed, imperialism has deeply penetrated Chinese society and economy: through investments by transnational corporations…through the activities of global finance…through the influence of imperialist-controlled institutions like the World Bank and World Trade Organization…and through channels of culture and ideology.

China is dependent on imperialism: on massive inflows of investment capital into the Chinese economy; and on access to the export markets of the advanced capitalist countries, like the U.S., Japan, and Germany. This is what has been and what is now most determining of China’s capitalist development.

At the same time, precisely because China has been such a profitable arena for imperialist investment—based on its vast supply of super-exploitable labor, which is China’s “competitive advantage” in the world system—China’s economy has been growing rapidly. As this has continued, and as China’s rulers have acted to strengthen their base of power and initiative, China has gained increasing influence and leverage. This is occurring in a framework in which imperialism, particularly U.S. imperialism, dominates China.

China’s rulers are, increasingly, seeking to carve out space and pursue their own geostrategic interests within this framework and on the same underlying basis: the savage exploitation of wage labor. But in pursuing their interests, China’s capitalist rulers are presenting challenges to a framework that has largely benefited U.S. imperialism.

China may in fact be in transition to becoming an imperialist power. But whether it does, or does not, will not just be a function of economic factors, and certainly not simply those internal to China. Rather, this will turn on different and interpenetrating economic, political, and military developments in the world system, including unexpected developments: crises, wars, class struggles in China and the world, and revolutions.

Overall, a complex dynamic of dependency and growing strength is shaping China’s development and rise in the world imperialist system—and reacting back on this system. How this plays out is not predetermined. But it is already a major and defining faultline in the world.  

II. CHINA’S RAPID GROWTH: DRIVEN BY FOREIGN CAPITAL, EXPORT-DEPENDENT

China is now the world’s second-largest economy after the United States. China’s rate of growth has been the fastest among all major economies in the world, averaging close to 10 percent growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the last two decades. By contrast the imperialist countries’ average annual growth rate was 2-4 percent. China’s GDP, its output of goods and services, doubled between 1990 and 2005. China, however, remains a poor country, with output (and income) per person far below that of the advanced capitalist countries.

China’s exceptionally high and sustained rate of growth and industrialization over the last two decades may well be without precedent in the history of capitalism. More to the point, this sustained growth is a) leading to an enormous buildup of productive capacity in China; b) profoundly influencing the trajectory of global capitalist development; and c) contributing to China’s rapid rise as a world economic power.

A. China in the World Economy

China is becoming the center of gravity of world manufacturing. In recent years, China has been among the top five major destinations for foreign investment, and it is the main destination for foreign industrial investment in the world. China has been a growth engine for the imperialist world economy. China consumes some 20 to 25 percent of the global supply of iron, steel, aluminum, and copper. China accounts for one-third of the world’s rise in demand for oil.[1]

China is deeply involved in the world economy. It is the world’s largest non-U.S. holder of dollars. It is engaged in competitive struggles for raw materials and energy resources in Africa and elsewhere with the U.S. (and other imperialist powers). China is emerging as a growing and increasingly assertive geoeconomic force in the world. And U.S. imperialism, for its part, has been increasingly targeting China as a potential long-term competitor and adversary.

China’s rapid growth is inextricably bound up with huge inflows of foreign investment capital:

* Foreign capital controls the majority of assets of 21 of China’s 28 leading industrial sectors.[2]
* By the early 2000s, transnational corporations, like General Electric, accounted for over one-third of China’s industrial output.[3]
* Enterprises in which foreign capital is invested account for almost 60 percent of China’s imports and exports.[4]

Investment by foreign capital in China has spawned the development of vast new production complexes in China’s coastal areas, where 80 percent of all foreign investment goes. And in the last twenty years, some 200 million rural laborers have relocated to the urban areas to find work.[5] This super-exploitable army of migrant labor, facing low pay in work and discrimination in housing and services, feeds the labor requirements of these production complexes.

Foreign capital in China is heavily invested in low-cost, low-value manufactured goods, like garments. China is also producing electronics and information technology (IT) goods—and is now the biggest exporter to the U.S. of computers, computer electronics, and other IT goods. But a high proportion of those exports involve assembly in foreign-owned plants in China or operations contracted to local Chinese capitalists of high-tech components manufactured outside of China.[6] This is an example of China’s distorted development.

China is the largest recipient of direct foreign investment in the Third World. And overseas firms derive exceptionally high profits from their operations in China. As Chart 1 shows, rates of return on U.S. manufacturing investments in China are twice the level of comparable investments in the European Union (EU) countries, and higher than in Latin America.

Another example of imperialist-led development: when imperialist capital contracts out to Chinese firms, the flow of profits is disproportionately towards imperialism. Take an iPod sold in the United States for $299. Only $4 stays in China with the firms that assemble the devices, while $160 goes to American companies that design, transport, and retail the iPods.[7]

International capital has molded China’s economy into, and integrated it as, a key link in an East Asian regional system of high-profit, export-oriented production.

China relies heavily on the U.S. market, which is its top export destination. Thus China’s economic vitality hinges crucially on growth of demand in the U.S. market, demand that is increasingly financed by debt. China is also dependent on export markets in another way: it must exponentially expand exports to pay for its rising bill for imports of energy, minerals, food, semifinished goods, capital goods (like machinery), and luxury goods catering to its new affluent classes.

B. Some Historical Perspective and the Crimes of China’s New Capitalist Rulers


In the 19th century, Western capitalism came to dominate China—through wars, the imposition of unequal treaties, and the splicing up of China into foreign spheres of influence. The economic and military penetration by foreign powers brutally continued: the U.S.’s economic pressure to “open up” the Chinese market, Japanese aggression and occupation in the 1930s, and U.S backing of the corrupt and reactionary Chiang Kai-shek forces in China’s civil war of 1945-49. China had lost its sovereignty, and economic development in China was twisted and stunted by imperialist domination.

The Chinese revolution of 1949-76 changed all of this. It broke the vise-grip of foreign control. It destroyed the foundations of exploitative and corrupt landlord and bureaucrat-capitalist rule. China’s resources now served the needs of all-around development. Under Mao’s leadership, China constructed a self-reliant and balanced economy. A modern industrial base was built. Transport and power stations, part of a new infrastructure created by the collective efforts of society, served this balanced development. Industry was spread to towns and villages. Communes were established in the countryside: farming was carried out cooperatively at different levels, peasants joined together to construct vast irrigation and flood control systems, health services and education were provided at low cost. A skilled and healthy labor force was the result.

After overthrowing socialism in 1976, China’s new capitalist rulers basically opened China up and delivered it over to foreign capital. Imperialism, together with the new capitalist rulers in China, plugged into and transformed China’s past socialist development to serve the accumulation of capital. The new regime stripped workers of rights and turned them into wage slaves for foreign and new domestic capital. They dismantled the communes; and peasants dispossessed of land or unable to support themselves in agriculture migrated out of desperation (and the lure of higher incomes) to the cities in the booming coastal regions to become a caste of flexible, super-exploitable, and disposable workers. The infrastructure built up during the socialist period functioned as a kind of subsidy for imperialist-led development.

C. China’s Bourgeoisie and the State Sector


A state-based section of the ruling class is at the core of power in China and rules through its political instrumentality, the Chinese Communist Party—which has nothing in common with socialism or communism. This core fraction of the Chinese bourgeoisie has control over key levers of the Chinese economy. It regulates monetary and tax policy. It is closely linked to and dependent on foreign capital, and it is integrated with large domestic private capital. And it commands the military and repressive force of state power—and uses this power brutally against the masses, as we saw in the suppression of students and workers during the Tiananmen Square upheaval of 1989.

The state economic sector includes government-owned industrial enterprises and banks, and accounts for about 35 percent of China’s economy. The private capitalist sector of the economy is growing much more rapidly—and much of the state sector has been privatized. Since 1995, China’s state sector has undergone considerable restructuring. It has shed a vast number of firms and tens of millions of employees. But a core of state enterprises dominates much of heavy industry and key service sectors.[8] And the state sector remains an economic base of power of this leading fraction of China’s bourgeoisie.

State control remains very strong in the banking and insurance sectors, even as they have sold shares to private international investors.

Within the framework of imperialist domination and dependency on imported technology, the Chinese state has, to some degree, been strategically steering China’s development. One of its goals is for China to “move up” the manufacturing ladder to more sophisticated production. China is producing more capital-intensive goods, engaging in more modular (technologically advanced, standardized) manufacturing, and so forth.

China’s ruling class is attempting to expand and diversify China’s industrial-technological base and to influence patterns of development.

An auto industry, spearheaded by foreign capital (companies like Volkswagen and General Motors), is now rapidly developing in China. But as a condition of entry into the China market, the Chinese government is requiring unprecedented technology transfers from transnational corporations. The regime has insisted that its domestic automotive makers maintain joint ventures with its competing foreign partners.

Very importantly, China is investing in large-scale and long-term research and development. And the government is promoting national private and state companies to be national frontrunners in industries like computers and telecommunications.

China’s rulers are seeking to turn imperialist, foreign-dominated development into a base to fortify China’s position as a world economic power and from which to project and amplify that power on a world scale.

Still, China’s high-speed development as it has unfolded remains dominated by foreign capital and reliant on international markets. It is vulnerable to fluctuations in world market demand. It must attract foreign capital—which is constantly looking for even more low-cost zones of production—from Mexico…to China…to Vietnam. This project requires and puts a premium on social and political stability in society and the economy but has, at the same time, produced extreme and acute agricultural-industrial distortions and vast regional and social inequalities. The gap in incomes between China’s urban and rural areas is, by some statistical reckonings, greater than in any other country in the world, and this is profoundly destabilizing.[9]

D. Reality Check

Cost-minimizing, high-profit, rapid growth is a key objective of China’s ruling class. It is based on the exploitation of wage labor and peasant labor—on the blood and bones of the Chinese people. It is chaotic, ruinous, and environmentally disastrous economic development.  

Five of the ten most polluted cities in the world are in China. The Three Gorges Dam project, the scale of which is unparalleled in human history, has massively destroyed ecosystems and uprooted huge populations. Ravenous commercial development is destroying farmland at a quickening pace (farmers are pressured by local government officials to sell their land-use rights and are barely compensated). China has now lost half of its wetlands. Capitalist development is an ecological disaster. It has been estimated that air pollution, water pollution, and other forms of environmental degradation are responsible for disease and premature deaths claiming the lives of some 400,000 people in China each year.[10]

China’s economic development is a human disaster:
The Sichuan earthquake in the spring of 2008 took a far greater toll among China’s poor: shoddily built schools for the less affluent collapsed and many children died unnecessarily. Peasants must pay fees for medical services and schooling. A recent survey of the Chinese health system concluded. “The less well-off increasingly go without health care altogether.”[11]

In urban China, it is not unusual for low-paid wage laborers in the export sector to work 80-hour work weeks in factories with abominable health and safety conditions. In the West, we hear about the lead paint in toys produced in China, but not about the toxic fumes being inhaled, the injuries suffered, and limbs lost by the workers in those toy factories. According to one Chinese government survey, 72 percent of the country’s nearly 100 million migrant workers are owed unpaid wages—and this is an important source of capital accumulated by private and foreign firms.[12]

Significantly, China’s economic boom of 1990-2002 actually led to a decline in formal wage employment in the urban sector (that is, regular jobs with certain protections and standards), as the state sector sought to achieve greater efficiency and profitability. Much of the new job creation has been in the private sector and especially in what is called the informal sector: insecure and unregulated jobs, casual labor on the construction crews of China’s mega-projects (skyscrapers in the cities, infrastructure for the 2008 Olympics, dam construction in river areas), street trading, and illegal activities.[13]

One expression of these trends is China’s burgeoning “sex industry.” Some women’s groups estimate that China now has some 20 million sex workers, most of whom come from the rural areas to work in red-light districts in the sprawling new industrial and commercial centers.[14]

Rural women face new burdens, with husbands and sons migrating to cities. Their life opportunities are restricted. One of the saddest and least reported social developments in China’s countryside is that women—young women—are committing suicide in unprecedented numbers. This is a far cry from Maoist China, when the struggle against the oppression of women was a central focus of the continuing revolutionary transformation of society.[15]

III. China as Rising Economic Power with Strategic Goals

The rapid development of capitalism in China is cohering a China-centered regional grid of capitalist production in East Asia, in which Japanese imperialism plays a major organizing role. East Asia is the most dynamic manufacturing region in the world. China’s rulers are fostering greater economic-political linkages throughout East Asia. China is also building up its capacity to project military power in the region. And it is pushing outward into other parts of the world.

A. Growing Financial Leverage

China has become a major actor in world currency and financial markets. China holds $1.8 trillion in foreign exchange reserves—a store of wealth that is also used as a means of international payments. Foreign exchange reserves come from export earnings as well as from other investment earnings. And China is an extraordinary export machine—the United States imports more goods from China than from any other country. China has now surpassed Japan as the world’s largest holder of foreign exchange reserves. Most of these reserves (for now) are kept in dollars—invested in U.S. treasury securities, U.S. government agency debt, and other financial instruments.

China’s dollar holdings are a source of considerable financial leverage in the world imperialist economy. The U.S. has huge government deficits (it spends more on its wars, social programs, interest payments, etc. than it collects in taxes). The U.S. has huge trade deficits (it imports more than it exports). It borrows huge amounts of capital to cover its international financial imbalances. And, critically, the U.S. depends on countries like China continuing to finance its debt.

In 2007-08, China’s “sovereign wealth funds”—these are vast pools of financial wealth managed by governments—were looked to by weakened Wall Street financial and brokerage firms, like Morgan Stanley, to provide them with much needed capital.

China is a huge importer of fuels and minerals, accounting for nearly 40 percent of world market growth for these goods since 1995. Because of China’s high-speed and globally oriented development on a less-developed technological foundation than exists in a country like Japan—China uses seven times as much energy for the same volume of production as does Japan (and three times as much as India).[16]

And China is seeking to secure access to raw materials to feed its industrial machine. In Latin America and Africa, China is investing in extractive industries and buying up firms. China’s foreign direct investment increased from $1.8 billion in 2003 to $16.1 billion in 2006. About half of this is in natural resource industries.[17]

A competitive scramble is beginning to take shape in Africa for control over oil and mineral supplies. U.S. oil companies have been stepping up their investments in countries like Angola, Nigeria, and Equatorial Guinea. In 2007, the U.S. military also established a new unified Africa Command, AFRICOM. (Prior to this, military deployments were coordinated by commands outside of Africa.) This is a major initiative by U.S. imperialism both to secure oil supplies and control over other natural resources and to incorporate more parts of Africa in America’s “war on terror.” As part of this, the U.S. has been stepping up arms transfers and military support agreements with various African governments.

Since the mid-1990s, China has been stepping up its activities in Africa. China is now Africa’s third largest trading partner. China’s state-owned oil company acquired a controlling share in Sudan’s leading oil company. It has become an investor in Algeria’s oil industry. And it has been making its own investment forays into the oil sectors of Angola and Nigeria. Africa now provides about 30 percent of China’s oil import requirements. Chinese mining firms in search of cobalt, uranium, copper, and other industrial minerals, supported by the Chinese state, have been investing in, extending financial assistance, and forging closer ties with the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, and Zambia.[18]

All this investment and maneuvering on China’s part is miniscule compared to the involvement of the U.S. and Europe in Africa. But there is intensifying rivalry in Africa, and a scramble increasingly involving China is underway.

China is utilizing political and diplomatic ties, weapons sales and training agreements, and low-interest loans to advance its interests. It is ideologically positioning itself in parts of the Third World by criticizing U.S. domination and some of the U.S. policies that squeeze Third World countries. And it is taking advantage of the fact that the U.S. is focused and tied down in the Middle East, where its wars for greater empire are now being waged.

U.S. imperialism has been increasingly targeting China as a strategic competitor. Since 2006, the U.S. Defense Department in its annual survey of China has put competition with China over resources on par with conflict over Taiwan as a potential spark for a U.S. war with China.[19]

It is in the context of China’s rise in the world economy and rivalry with China that we can begin to see U.S. demonization and scapegoating of China: for exporting unsafe foods and medicines, for intellectual property-rights infringements, for human rights violations, and for increasing its military spending.

B. Geopolitical Ambitions and the Russia-China Connection

China’s fast-paced, resource-scarce, and anarchic economic growth, under the dominance of imperialist capital, is objectively driving its emergence as a world power with geopolitical ambitions.

China’s military spending has increased three-fold in the past decade according to estimates by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. In 2006, it surpassed Japan as the largest military spender in East Asia, and China now has the third largest military budget in the world.[20] China has been upgrading its naval capabilities, improving its ballistic missile arsenals, and entering high-tech arenas like militarization of space. China’s military spending is incredibly dwarfed by that of U.S. imperialism, but China’s military power is a growing factor in international relations, especially in East Asia.

Coming from a perspective of how to advance the interests of U.S. imperialism, two former U.S. government policy advisers reflect a certain aspect of reality in their depiction of the changing geopolitical situation confronting the United States in this critical region: “After 60 years of U.S. domination, the balance of power in Northeast Asia is shifting. The United States is in relative decline, China is on the rise, and Japan and South Korea are in flux. To maintain U.S. power in the region, Washington must identify the trends shaping this transition and embrace new tools and regimes that broaden the United States’ power base.”[21]

One of the features of the current situation is the growing convergence of interests of China and Russia in key arenas and the multiplication of Sino-Russian ties and cooperation. In 2006, China became the number one economic partner of Russia, and China has also been financing important Russian pipeline projects—which will be discussed in the next installment of this series.

Both China and Russia are providing arms to oil and gas producers in the Third World. Both are increasing their military capability in key energy producing regions. And both powers joined together in 2001 to form the Shanghai Cooperation Organization of Central Asian countries.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is a major development in world relations. China’s economic growth and rise in the world economy are increasingly finding expression in the geopolitical and military realms. The SCO is a regional energy alliance and a regional security alliance in Central Asia. Its core member states are China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

The SCO is bringing together Chinese economic strength with Russian military capability and energy resources. In the summer of 2007, the SCO conducted its first military exercises. This was also the first time that Chinese airborne troops were deployed outside Chinese territory.[22]

The SCO is clearly aimed at reducing and countering U.S. influence in Central Asia and at concentrating certain strengths, and overcoming certain weaknesses, of Russia and China—and drawing others around them. This is a fledgling but significant vehicle of rivalry in a volatile, energy-rich region of the world.

C. Some New Questions

Some new questions are posed by China’s rapid ascent in the world economy.

Could China “decouple” (the phrase is used by financial as well as by geopolitical analysts) from its reliance on the U.S. export market and abandon its willingness to finance U.S. deficits?

In the short run, the answer seems to be a resounding no—given the huge shocks this could set off (China would stand to lose billions if it quickly bolted the dollar and caused the value of the dollar to plummet) and the fact that China’s dependent and distorted development requires export markets on a huge scale. It appears that China cannot easily switch to stimulating domestic demand as a substitute for Western export markets.

In the intermediate and longer term, the possibilities for “decoupling” look rather different, especially in connection with other world economic and geopolitical shifts.

China’s high rate of growth and the profitability it has afforded imperialist capital have been a vital stimulus to the world economy, including U.S. imperialism. At the same time, a more cohesive and competitive West European economic bloc, the European Union, is now playing a more major role in the world economy and world finance.

Still, as mentioned at the start of this analysis, the U.S. occupies the primary position in the imperialist world economy. And owing to China’s deep immersion in the imperialist world economy, if it suffers the full brunt of what might be an unfolding global economic downturn this could have huge and destabilizing feedback effects, both on China and on the world economy. How China and the U.S. respond to and come out of the 2008 financial crisis may have long-term, geopolitical ramifications.

China has been able to sustain high growth rates. But it is a capitalist economy. It is not immune to instability and crisis. It is estimated that 75 percent of China’s industries are plagued by overcapacity, that is, too much investment relative to markets.[23] Inflation is heating up in China. Social polarization is widening: strikes, protests and confrontations in the countryside over corruption, land takeovers, and environmental damage have multiplied in recent years.

The dynamics of China’s rise are complex. There is, however, a shaping contradiction: dependency and growing economic strength. China is dependent on foreign capital and foreign markets. But China has also emerged as a world economic power, a center of world manufacturing. It has accumulated vast foreign exchange reserves, and gained considerable financial leverage—increasingly over the dollar. And China is more aggressively seeking markets in the Third World and exporting capital beyond its borders.

Stepping back, what seems to be guiding the Chinese ruling class is a long-term, strategic, and competitive orientation: to diversify and fortify a domestically rooted industrial base, to extend international economic and financial reach, and to strengthen military capabilities but to do so without provoking direct showdowns with U.S. imperialism.

Could China evolve into an imperialist capital formation? It is a question that cannot be dismissed out of hand, though neither is it a straight-line, foregone conclusion. But it is a real possibility—China may be in a stage of transition to becoming an imperialist power. How likely is such a qualitative development, and by what pathways might it proceed? These are historically contingent matters that will turn on the interaction of the motion and development of Chinese capitalism; with the class struggle in China; with larger shifts, displacements, and eruptions in world economics…and with big and unexpected developments in world politics, including wars and other conflicts, as well as revolutionary struggles.

Next, Part 3: The European Union, Russia, Japan, and India


Footnotes:


1. Keith Bradsher, “Labor Costs Soar in China, So Its Neighbors Beckon,” New York Times, June 18, 2008; John C.K. Daly, “Feeding the Dragon: China’s Quest for African Minerals,” China Brief, January 31, 2008, jamestown.org; Energy Information Administration, Country Analysis Briefs: China, August 2006, eia.doe.gov.[back]

2. Wu Qi, “China Regulates Foreign Mergers for More Investment,” September 11, 2006, china-embassy.org.[back]

3. Wang Zile, “Foreign Acquisition in China: Threat or Security,” China Security, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring 2007), p. 90.[back]

4. U.S.-China Business Council, Forecast 2008: Foreign Investment in China, p. 1.[back]

5. U.S.-China Business Council, Forecast 2008: Foreign Investment in China, p. 3; CIA, World Fact Book: China, cia.gov.[back]

6. Nicholas Lardy, “Trade Liberalization and Its Role in China’s Economic Growth,” imf.org.[back]

7. Charlemagne, “Winners and losers,” The Economist, March 1, 2008, p. 56.[back]

8. On the state sector, see Arthur Kroeber and Roselea Yao, “Large and in charge,” Financial Times, FT.com, July 14, 2008.[back]

9. Mobo Gao, The Battle For China’s Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution (London: Pluto, 2008), pp. 160, 179; Joseph Kahn and Jim Yardley, “Amid China’s Boom, No Helping Hand for Young Qingming, New York Times, August 1, 2004.[back]

10. Elizabeth Economy, “China vs. Earth,” The Nation, April 19, 2007; Jim Yardley, “China’s Turtles, Emblems of a Crisis,” New York Times, December 5, 2007; L. Alan Winters and Shahid Yusuf, eds., Dancing with Giants (Washington D.C.: World Bank, 2007), p. 14.[back]

11. Li Onesto, “The Capitalist Ground Shaken by the Earthquake in China,” Revolution #131, June 1, 2008, revcom.us; Sanjay Reddy, “Death in China: Market Reforms and Health,” New Left Review 45, May-June 2007.[back]

12. Anita Chan, “A `Race to the Bottom,’” China Perspectives, no. 46 (March-April 2003), p. 43; David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (London: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 148.[back]

13. Martin Hart-Landsberg and Paul Burkett “China, Capitalist Accumulation, and Labor,” Monthly Review, May 2007, pp. 28-29.[back]

14. Howard W. French, “The Sex Industry is Everywhere But Nowhere,” New York Times, December 14, 2006, cited in Hart-Landsberg and Burkett, p. 29. [back]

15. Robert Weil, “Were Revolutions in China Necessary,” Socialism and Democracy, Vol. 21, July 2007, pp. 20-22.[back]

16. Winters and Yusuf, Dancing with Giants, p. 14; Parag Khanna, The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order, New York: Random House, 2008, p. 313fn.[back]

17. PPI, “Chinese Direct Investment Abroad Has Grown Twenty-Fold Since 2000,” October 21, 2007, ppionline.org. [back]

18. On great power competition for resources in Africa and China’s growing economic presence in Africa, see Michael T. Klare, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2008), Chapter 6; Jian-Ye Wang and Abdoulaye Bio-Tchane, “Africa’s Burgeoning Ties with China,” Finance and Development (IMF), March 2008, Vol. 45, No. 1; David H. Shinn, “Africa, China, The United States, and Oil,” Africa Policy Forum, forums.csis.org. [back]

19. Michael T. Klare, “The New Geopolitics of Energy,” The Nation, May 1, 2008, thenation.com.[back]

20. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Recent trends in military expenditure (Stockholm: 2008), sipri.org. [back]

21. Jason T. Shaplen and James Laney, “Washington’s Eastern Sunset: The Decline of U.S. Power in Northeast Asia,” Foreign Affairs, November-December 2007, online edition, summary, p. 1, foreignaffairs.org. [back]

22. On the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, see Bates Gill and Mathew Oresman, “China’s New Journey to the West” (Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2003), pp. 5-12; See also, Klare, “New Geopolitics of Energy.” [back]

23. Review of International Political Economy, 15:2, May 2008, p. 159.[back]
Posted by Kalovski at 00:37:02 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

July 08, 2008

Arroyo Welcomes More US Participation in the "Killing Fields" of the Philippines in the Guise of Humanitarian Intervention

Reprint from E. San Juan Jr's article on the Philippines - K.I.

by E. San Juan, Jr.

A historic event worthy of the Guinness Book may have occurred in Washington in the last week of June.  The worst "torture" president that the United States has ever had met the most corrupt and brutal president ever inflicted on the Filipino people.  Grotesque or farcical?  Bush is now credited with the horrendous deaths of nearly a million Iraqis, over four thousand American soldiers, the cruelties of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and a severe economic recession.  Arroyo claims the distinction of having scored several thousand victims of paramilitary violence (903 extra-judicial killings and193 enforced disappearances, according to the Philippine human-rights monitor KARAPATAN), open bribery of officials by raiding the public treasury,  unscrupulous cheating in elections, and untold kickbacks from government transactions (such as the ZTE Broadband scandal, among many) -- all with impunity.

Scourge of Human Rights

International groups, from Amnesty International and the World Council of Churches to the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the International Association of People's Lawyers, have all concurred on the outrageous truth of the "killing fields" in the US neocolony.  An editorial of The Philippine Star (6 June 2007) noted that the country is one of the "least peaceful countries in the world, ranking 100th among 121 in the first-ever Global Peace Index drawn up by the Economic Intelligence Unit."  United Nations Special Rapporteur Philip Alston reported to the 8th session of the UN Human Rights Council that Arroyo's "state security forces have been involved in many of the killings of left-wing activists, indigenous leaders, trade union and farm leaders and civil society organization members and that the military remains in a 'state of denial' over these killings" (see E. San Juan, US Imperialism and Revolution in the Philippines, New York, 2007).  "Not a single soldier has been convicted," Alston added, urging the Arroyo regime to end the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) policy of "systematically hunting down the leaders of [legal and open] leftist organizations" such as BAYAN MUNA and assassinating their members (see the Web site of UN Human Rights Council).

The Arroyo regime recently defied the UN's Universal Periodic Review session by rejecting the recommendation to strengthen the Witness Protection Program and approve the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.   In its comprehensive survey "Scared Silent: Impunity for Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines,"   Human Rights Watch observed that in spite of public-relation ploys such as the Melo Commission and Arroyo's refrain that there is "no state policy of killing people," not one case has been solved, not a single military officer or soldier prosecuted for the murders and disappearances of activists such as Jonas Burgos, Luisa Posa Dominado, Shirley Cadapan, Karen Empeno, and thousands more (Inquirer.net. 5 October 2007).

Last year the Permanent People's Tribunal concluded its meticulous appraisal of massive evidence with the judgment that the Arroyo regime and its sponsor, the Bush administration, were guilty of "gross and systematic violation of human rights, economic plunder and transgression of the Filipino people's sovereignty."  The first session of the Tribunal on the Philippines in 1980 unequivocally condemned "the dominant economic and political role of the US in the Philippines and in the region through the implementation of an imperial policy" (PPT Verdict 2007).  Arroyo's ritual obeisance to Washington may be cited as one more proof, falling in line with a tradition of subservience of the Filipino oligarchy since the time of Commonwealth president Manuel Quezon to the first president of the 1946 Philippine Republic Manuel Roxas up to presidents Ramon Magsaysay (sponsored by the CIA) and Diosdado Macapagal (Arroyo's father) to the notorious Marcos dictatorship and its unconscionable successors.  No wonder both McCain and Obama parroted worn-out clichés about "Asia's first democracy," the Philippines as a faithful client regime during the Cold War and the current crusade against terrorists personified by politically informed combatants of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and  the New People's Army.

Subaltern Medicancy Forever


Winding down as a tiresome fiasco and farcical boondoggle, Arroyo's roadshow to the Empire's heartland this June may have been cursed by the sinking of the Philippine ferry MV Princess of the Stars and the ravages of the deadly typhoon Frank.  Thousands of victims and their families await her sycophantic pilgrimage with cries of help and anger.  After wasting at least $1.5 million of public funds and getting a promised aid of $100,000 from State Dept. bureaucrat John Negroponte, infamous for organizing mass carnage in Central America, the Arroyo entourage is returning a the feckless attempt at fanfare.  One episode of de facto president Arroyo's visit strikes this writer as particularly telling.  George W. Bush surpassed his father's "I-love-your-democracy" apologia for the despot Marcos when he praised "the great talent" of "Philippine-Americans" whenever he dines at the White House -- a nod to Filipina chef Chris Comerford.  Arroyo's pathetic "thank you" sums up over a century of gruesomely asymmetrical "US-Philippines" relations so beloved by US experts on the Philippines and their Filipino acolytes.  Sadly hilarious but also infuriating to those out in Manila streets demonstrating against the brutality and injustice of Arroyo-US neoliberal privatization program.

Meanwhile, we learn that on June 17, retired Maj. General Antonio Taguba (not one of Bush's talented 'Philippine Americans"), in his testimony to the US Senate Armed Services Committee, accused Bush and his henchmen of committing war crimes by authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques.  Taguba headed the committee that investigated the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.  Subsequent inquiries by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have revealed the scale and depth of the current administration's violation of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights and the Geneva Convention on the treatment of what the US calls "unlawful" enemy combatants, otherwise considered political prisoners.

Arroyo's trip was ostensibly made to lobby for the passage of the Veterans Equity Bill -- Senate Bill 1315, approved by the Senate but pending at the House.  This bill would set aside $350 million (out of $1 billion) for ten years to pay for the basic needs of thousands of Filipino veterans of World War II, most of whom are now dead, who were denied their rightful veterans' back pay.  Without Arroyo's help, local organizers (such as the National Federation of Filipino American Associations) have mobilized enough support for the passage of the bill in the Senate.  So Arroyo's opportunistic appearance in Washington is clearly intended to prop up her severely damaged image after Senator Barbara Boxer, chair of the US Senate sub-committee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and several congressmen chided her last year for her intolerable record of flagrant human-rights violations.

Just as Arroyo's early trip in August 2005 was besieged with indignant protests, likewise her visit last week was met with numerous "lightning" demonstrations by outraged Filipino-Americans decrying her insensitivity to the plight of thousands of disaster victims, and the millions suffering from the rice shortage, fuel crisis, and unemployment brought about by the short-sighted neoliberal policies of the regime.  With over half of 90 million citizens subsisting on $2 a day, the Philippines exports daily 3,000 contract workers to 186 countries around the world, getting in return $10 to $12 billon in overseas remittances, enough to pay the heavy foreign debt.  In 2007 the US Congress allocated $30 million of citizens' tax dollars for the beleaguered AFP on condition that Arroyo implements UN rapporteur's Alston's recommendations, a condition still unfulfilled in deeds up to now.  The aid rocketed by 1,111% when Bush declared the Philippines the "second front" in his war after 9/11 (IBON Media Release, 21 Sept 2006).  Between 2000 and 2003, US loans and grants to Arroyo increased by 1,176%, primarily funding for counter-terrorist schemes in addition to USAID spending for livelihood projects and infrastructure -- activities that camouflage intelligence or special police operations in communities sheltering NPA or MILF partisans.

Pentagon to the Rescue


Less to pacify Arroyo's entourage and more to threaten Myanmar's junta, China, North Korea, and other recalcitrants -- Al Qaeda supporters -- in the Asia-Pacific region, Bush ordered the deployment of the strike group led by the nuclear-armed carrier USS Ronald Reagan to the Philippines.  The alleged task of this armada of aircraft carrier, cruiser, three destroyers, and a frigate is to assist in the rescue of the survivors of the capsized MV Princess of the Stars, now being attended to by the Philippine Coast Guard.  This may be the first time in military history that a nuclear-powered carrier has been assigned to perform distribution of relief goods in a situation far smaller in scope than the cyclone disaster in Myanmar or the earthquake destruction in China.  But again, it's a war against those unruly subjects, impoverished peasants and workers, including the Moros and the Filipino communists, that justifies this illegitimate intrusion.

Senator Rodolfo Biazon questioned the utility of an aircraft carrier of that size (with 6,000 crew and numerous F-18 airplanes) designed mainly for combat and rescue of distressed airplanes.  As of this writing, the USS Ronald Reagan was moored near the coast of northwest Panay, clearly within Philippine territorial boundary (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 28 June 2008).  In addition, the US Embassy revealed that the USNS Stockham and US Navy P-3 planes are on standby to provide maritime surveillance and other security needs (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 26 June 2008).  This substantiates once more public suspicions of the sustained complicity of the US with the AFP campaigns against Moro insurgents, in particular the Moro Islamic Liberation Front  (MILF) -- including the notorious bandit-group with ties to local military and politicians, the Abu Sayyaf -- and the Communist Party-led New People's Army (NPA) guerillas active in Panay and Negros, the two islands that suffered the most from the typhoon Frank.  This intrusion of the USS Ronald Reagan is an outright violation of the Philippine Constitution and bilateral treaties with the US

A local group, PAMALAKAYA (Fishermen's Group of the Philippines), accused Arroyo of committing an impeachable crime: the Philippine Constitution expressly prohibits the entry of nuclear weapons into the country.  While Arroyo's spokesmen claimed that the USS Ronald Reagan is only "nuclear-powered," the US Embassy is silent on the presence of nuclear weapons in the possession of the task force group.  Fernando Hicap, PAMALAKAYA's chair, charged that the presence of the US naval group is intended not only "to warn and provoke the local armed resistance groups [NPA, MILF] but also to score a psywar victory against China and North Korea that Washington is capable of shifting and redeploying US troops at any given situation or time" (GMANews.TV, 26 June 2008).  At present, the US stations over 100,000 troops in Asia and the Pacific under its Pacific Command, with 80,000 troops based in Japan and Korea, and several hundreds at any one time in the Philippines.

Terms of Mutual Endearment?

How did this happen?  The peculiarity of the presence of US combat troops in the Philippines may be explained by the leech-like stranglehold of the US on the Filipino ruling class and its military/paramilitary establishment.  A series of unequal bilateral treaties sealed this toxic partnership.  Obama correctly pointed to the 1954 Manila Pact that "formed a cornerstone of U.S policy in Southeast Asia during the Cold War."  But that was only the beginning.

The real key to US control may be found in the Military Bases Agreement of March 14 and March 21, 1947 between the two governments.  The first allowed the US extensive military facilities in the Philippines for 99 years, chief of which were Clark Air Base (130,000 acres) and Subic Naval Base which housed nuclear-armed submarines for decades until both were scrapped in 1992.  Thereafter 14,000 US troops left the Philippines.  This agreement prohibited the Philippines from granting base rights to any other country.  It put no restrictions on the use of the bases or on the types of weapons the US could store or deploy in them.  Despite minor amendments, this agreement allowed the US to use the bases as springboards for unlimited US intervention in Asia, such as the aggression in Korea, Vietnam, and lately Afghanistan and Iraq (see Civil Liberties Union, A Question of National Security, Manila 1983).  The second agreement allowed the US to provide military aid to the Philippines on the condition that a US. military advisory group be assigned to supervise the AFP and that Filipino military personnel be sent to the US for training.  It also prohibited the Philippines from accepting military aid or advisers from any other nation without the consent of Washington.  In the context of the campaign against the Huks, communist-led peasants fighting for land and justice at the time, the weapons and advisors supplied by Washington were used to suppress and kill Filipino "subversives" and preserve oppressive oligarchic rule, as well as subsidize the Marcos dictatorship and its repressive sequels.  Under the framework of the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951, the Joint RP-US Military Advisory Group (JUSMAG) continues to this day to be one crucial agency in perpetuating the reactionary, anti-people orientation of the AFP and its cognate institutions, the state security personnel of every administration up to Arroyo (see the relevant documents conveniently catalogued in Daniel Schirmer and Stephen Shalom, The Philippines Reader, Boston, 1987, including details of military aid to Marcos).  It may be added here that a JUSMAG/ CIA functionary, Col. Nick Rowe, was slain by rebel forces on April 21, 1989, while allegedly shadowing "Cuban" advisors helping the NPA in South-Central Luzon.

Although the bases were shut down in 1992, the US maintains its dominance through JUSMAG and the Philippines-US Mutual Defense Board (established in 1958), which operates as a "new bilateral defense consultative mechanism" to oversee military cooperation between the two countries.  These two mechanisms were reinforced by the Security Engagement Board (SEB) in 2006 designed to deal with nontraditional security threats such as terrorism, piracy, natural disasters (for example, the recent ferry sinking and typhoon), bird flu, and the like not falling under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty that calls for battling external security threats in either countries.  This was supplemented by the Mutual Logistics and Support Agreement (MLSA) signed in November 2002.

Very few know the details of this notorious MLSA.  Its salient provision is its mandating the Philippine government to supply all the logistical support and supplies needed by the Pentagon during its exercises and redeployment.  Pretty much a bargain compared to the costly Clark and Subic bases of the good old days.  Of course, the humanitarian services performed by the troops are only a pretext for the US to interfere in local civil wars in the region, labeling them "international terrorism."  This agreement with the client regime thus insures a virtually un-evictable presence of the US military as police watchdog to promote and secure US economic and geopolitical interests -- from profits in oil, energy, and mineral resources to safeguarding the Malacca Straits where 25 percent of all globally traded oil passes.

Immediately after 9/11, the US State Dept promptly labeled the NPA as terrorist organization so that Arroyo can call on US troops to help her counterinsurgency campaign, even though the Philippine Constitution (Art. II, sec. 3) prohibits foreign troops' involvement in internal security matters.  Aside from infringing on Philippine sovereignty, the SEB allows the US (to quote IBON, 26 May 2006) "to maintain a prolonged military presence in the country which suits the US military's current strategy of seeking temporary access to facilities in foreign countries that enable US forces to conduct training and exercises" rather than spending for permanent physical bases.  Moreover, the Philippines functions as an important link in the security chain of the US in the Western Pacific.  The SEB enhances the US's limited infrastructure for refueling and logistics needed in its operations in the Arabian Gulf and Western Pacific areas.  Mindanao and Sulu islands have been considered strategic locations for monitoring developments in Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. where there is a rising trend of "Islamic revivalism," of which the MILF is an instance.

There are also numerous clandestine partnerships allowed by executive "understandings" and philanthropic channels.  But it is primarily the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) that legitimizes unrelenting US intervention in the Philippines.  Initiated by former president Fidel Ramos under the rubric of "Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement" drawn up by the Pentagon, the VFA was finally approved during the Estrada administration (Daniel B. Schirmer, Fidel Ramos: The Pentagon's Philippine Friend, 1992-1997, Cambridge, MA, 1997).

Made fully operational after September 11, 2001, the VFA makes up for the loss of Subic and Clark in a much more efficient way.  It allows the Pentagon to land anywhere in the country without entailing the cost of maintaining physical structures and insuring environmental safety.  It also has no responsibility in whatever damage it can cause by its joint exercises with the host country.  While the MLSA (renewed for another 5 years) permits the US to use the Philippines as a launching pad for wars of aggression through the pre-positioning of war material in "virtual bases," the VFA allows the unhampered entry of US troops for covert operations in the course of "Kapit-Bisig" war games and "Balikatan" joint exercises with its surrogate army, the AFP.  Sara Flounders' sharp analysis of this new Pentagon concept of "Cooperative Security Locations" -- 5,458 discrete military installations around the world -- highlights its key features: facilities with rotational US presence, containing prepositioned equipment, rapidly scalable and expandable, offering bilateral and regional training.  One virtue is the overwhelming influence gained by the US on smaller and developing nations, verified by former US Pacific commander Admiral Thomas Fargo who explained in March 2003 that "relationships built through exercises and training are 'our biggest guarantor of access in time of need'" (Sara Flounders, "Expansion of U.S. Bases Spurs Philippine Resistance," International Action Center, 29 March 2008).

The virtually permanent presence of US troops in the Philippines can be accounted for by the VFA, MSLA, and other instrumentalities enforced by a subservient government parasitic on US military aid and political sponsorship.  The Arroyo regime easily fits the bill.  Because other countries in the region (Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia; Myanmar has rebuffed US humanitarian offers) cannot tolerate US ships or troops stationed in its territory, the US has no alternative but to support authoritarian rulers like Marcos and Arroyo if it wants to curb Al Qaeda influence, check China's expansion, and project its military might in the Asia-Pacific geopolitical sphere.  Surely, the splintered tiny Abu Sayyaf always used to rationalize US troops in the Philippines is no threat to US global hegemony.  US military basing in the Philippines can only be explained by the long-range global strategy of preserving US superpower status by preventing the rise of competitors such as China (Herbert Docena, "In the Dragon's Lair," Foreign Policy in Focus, 26 February 2008).

Carnage and Mayhem All Around


Immediately after 9/11, the Pentagon announced that it would be sending 3,000 troops to the Philippines for joint operations against the Abu Sayyaf.  Over 1,000 troops were eventually sent to participate in "Balikatan 2002" that took place in the combat areas of Basilan and Zamboanga where guerillas of the MILF were operating.  This differed from previous exercises since it was now located in war zones, with soldiers using live ammunition, with no time constraints.

In July 2002, an International Solidarity Mission conducted a thorough fact-finding mission that led to three important conclusions: "1) American soldiers were directly involved in the raiding and shooting of an unarmed civilian in his house; 2) human rights abuses are continuing unabated under the Arroyo regime and are abetted by US military forces; and 3) the US military support operations that displace and violate the rights of Moro people and other Filipinos, including women and children" (Solidarity Mission Statement, July 2002).  Because of such incidents, Sen. Aquilino Pimentel accused the regime of "treason," turning the country into a deadly laboratory for the testing of the effectiveness of US troops, tactics and weaponry against the so-called terrorists" (Ellen Nakashima, "Philippines Debates US Combat Role against Rebels," Washington Post, 23 Feb. 2003).

Another involvement of US troops in counterinsurgency plots may be cited here.  In 2004, US troops made the University of Southeastern Mindanao as their temporary camp, an area claimed by the MILF as their territory.  The US in effect converted civilians into human shields, potential collateral damage, in the event of armed confrontation between known antagonists in the region.  This was part of the annual "Balikatan" exercise, this time in Carmen, North Cotabato.  The humanitarian medical missions, distribution of toys, and building of Gawad Kalinga homes all serve as cover for US military intelligence-gathering and other tactical operations.  In 2006, the "Balikatan" exercise from February to March was the biggest, involving 5,500 US troops and 2,800 Filipinos.  This took place in the hotly contested regions of Jolo, Maimbung, Patikul and Panamao, Sulu, and North Cotabato.

A recent incident reveals how deeply entangled the US is in local counterinsurgency programs of the neocolonial state.  In the town of Ipil, Sulu, last February 4, the AFP killed eight non-combatants (women and children), including a soldier on vacation.  The widow of the slain soldier testified that she saw four US soldiers in a Navy boat.  Subsequently, General Ruben Rafael, commander of Philippine troops in Jolo, stated in an interview that "a U.S. military spy plane circling high above the seaside village provided the intelligence that led to the February 4 assault" and that "the crew of the P-3 Orion turboprop, loaded with a sophisticated array of surveillance equipment pinpointed the village as a stronghold and arms depot for the radical Islamist Au Sayyaf movement" (Paul Watson, "U.S. Role in Philippine Raid Questioned," Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2008).  This same P-3 Orion spy planes was mentioned by the US Embassy as ready to be used for the disaster relief in Panay and Negroes where the NPA guerillas are vigorously challenging AFP terrorism.  US embassy spokesperson Karen Schinnerer in Manila admitted that "an aerial reconnaissance vehicle" gathered intelligence over Sulu "at the request of Philippine forces."

Heavy saturation bombings in Barangays Buansa and Cagay, a camp of the MILF in Indanan, Sulu, were carried out for five hours on April 30.  Early last year, US troops participated in attacks on the Moro resistance fighters in this region.  Witnesses of this latest genocidal foray attested to US-supplied "smart bombs" dropped by OV-10 airplanes, slaughtering many members of the 360 families who fled the area.  Based on the research of Alexander Martin Remollino, US troops in Sulu belong to the Joint Special Operations Task-Force-Philippines that employs US Special Forces, Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations personnel "to conduct deliberate intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in very focused areas, and based on collection plans, to perform tasks to prepare the environment and obtain critical information requirements" (Bulatlat, 4-10 May 2008).  In lay idiom, this means clearing the area of enemy forces by spying and utilizing all weapons and logistics necessary to "neutralize" hostile elements.  Although the AFP claims that those attacks were aimed at the Abu Sayyaf  and the Jemayah Islamiyah, an Indonesian-based group, the MILF has responded by declaring that the territory involved is theirs and that no other group is allowed to operate from within the premises.

What is happening in the southern Philippines is clearly a carefully designed war to occupy and sanitize a whole region rich in natural and human resources, as well as a potential strategic base for military adventures.  The problem is that it is inhabited by Moros, aboriginal peoples, and other Filipinos resisting US imperial conquest and oligarchic despotism.  Prodded by the International Monitoring Team headed by Malaysia that helped enforce a ceasefire, the MILF and the Arroyo government were close to signing an agreement last February on wealth-sharing and ancestral domain.  But the US-Arroyo attacks have worsened the displacement of 75,000 Moro civilians -- the loss of property, farmland, and livelihood, not to speak of innocent lives -- and permitted more extra-judicial killings, illegal detentions, and torture of Moro dissenters and ordinary citizens (Sandra R. Leavitt, "Pressure Brings Continued Progress in Mindanao Peace Negotiations," Shigetsu Newsletter No. 912, 18 Feb. 2008).

Approaching the Endgame


What is the future for Arroyo's brutal authoritarian rule?  Collaborating with the torture president in the White House and his deceptive "iron fist and hand of friendship" policy, Arroyo has dug herself a grave deeper than all her corruption and ruthless political maneuverings can.  If US troops succeed in building infrastructure -- presumably better roads, schools, clinics, ports, which testifies to the failure of local governance -- will that wipe out Moro separatists, local civilians who demand jobs, dignity, social services, and a measure of communal autonomy that are due them under Philippine laws and the UN Charter?  A BBC reporter displayed her ignorance of the fraught history of US colonial domination of the Philippines -- its civic culture, social practices, and institutions -- when she reduced the whole complex fabric into a question-begging dilemma: "If Philippine government bodies could manage their resources to shelter and assist their own people, maybe all those special forces [US troops] could go home" ("US Plays Quiet Role in the Philippines," 28 March 2008).

But how can this moribund state apparatus controlled by US-loving oligarchs and their self-serving intelligentsia and bureaucrats manage to do that?  The economic crisis gripping the country seems irresolvable by Arroyo's handouts and paltry rhetoric.  The undefeatable MILF is withdrawing from peace talks with the Arroyo regime, just as the National Democratic Front (together with its "terrorist" affiliate, the NPA) has postponed negotiations unless the US-decreed stigma of "terrorist" is repudiated and extra-judicial killings halted.  Surely, ninety million Filipinos, with their long tradition of fierce insurrections, will not allow the shameless puppetry of the Arroyo regime, with her generals and kowtowing officials, to continue for another hundred years.  As a UPI Asia Online forecast puts it, the decrepit Arroyo band-wagon faces "bigger, bolder insurgency" in the years to come, despite the super-power's "humanitarian" schemes and grotesque patronage.
E. San Juan, Jr. was recently a visiting professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.  His recent books are In the Wake of Terror (Lexington Books) and US Imperialism and Revolution in the Philippines (Palgrave Macmillan).  He will be a fellow of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute, Harvard University, in Spring 2009.

Posted by Kalovski at 01:33:21 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |