Trump & Geopolitics

We are living in fascinating times. It is becoming more and more obvious that the unipolar order of the post-Cold War world is unraveling. Amerikkkan chauvinists and imperialists, in many ways, have already begun to write their own obituaries, lamenting the loss of their unchallenged empire.

TOPIX DENMARK BUSH

boo hoo

Those of us who look forward to multipolarity on the world stage see the opportunity plainly. It is of the utmost importance that we are able to trace the contours of the emerging network of power accurately, in order to identify and promote desirable outcomes

Dumbass Trump is, through his sheer incompetence and immaturity, unintentionally dismantling unipolarity. It is possible that the pundits are right here (which, in and of itself, is a cause for celebration) and we are watching the decline of the Amerikkkan Empire.

Let’s take, for example, Trump’s racism.

The racism with Trump is bizarre (but certainly not unique). It’s bizarre in its overtness.

Everyone knows the Bushes, the Clintons, and the Reagans were all racist, for example. But they never openly said it. Instead, they used coded language, sleight-of-hand politics, and obscure policies to get their racism institutionalized.

Dotard Trump does not even pretend to play the classic rhetorical games of previous presidents – he does not differentiate between the general and the specific in his speeches.

When he talks about “radical Islamic terrorism”, he threatens all Muslims, not just those engaging in terrorism.

When he threatens North Korea, he threatens the entire country, not just the government.

When he lets Puerto Rico languish without power and communication, he’s making sure the Puerto Rican people suffer. Intentionally.

This is a particular type of dumbass, who doesn’t understand the hegemonic objectives of nuance and subtlety. Obviously, it would be better for White Amerikkka to have a figurehead who didn’t spew his bile all over the podium at the United Nations.

It’s more difficult for the state to function smoothly with a bloated, fascist rodent as its public face.

Amerikkkan Flag

Trump, the least sophisticated of all mammals, has proven time and time again that he is incapable of using even basic logic and reasoning. It is clear that if he was more secretive about his wet-dream to rebuild the Third Reich, then every member of the rational bourgeoisie would be happier. He’s certainly not benefiting the United $tates, ironically enough.

This is an asset for those of us who wish to see the end of a unipolar geopolitical landscape.

Trump may succeed where countless leftists have failed.

Trump may single-handedly bring about the end of the Amerikkkan Empire.

Advertisements

The Role of the U.S. In the Rwandan Genocide and the Congo Wars

In my last post comparing the death tolls under Joseph Stalin and Bill Clinton, I decided to include the deaths of the Rwandan Genocide and the Congo Wars.

I took the position here that Clinton and the administration in Washington acted (or failed to act) out of either gross negligence or perhaps out of interest in allowing both the genocide and the wars to occur (at least in the way that they did).

Clinton Kagame

“I won’t tell if you won’t!”

With regards to the Rwandan genocide, there are generally two competing narratives. The dominant narrative has been very public: the administration (and Clinton himself) expressed time and again that they made an egregious mistake by not intervening. So, if we accept this narrative, then I think it’s fair to include the deaths that they admit that they didn’t stop.

However, if we accept an alternative narrative, presented in books like The Politics of Genocide by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, then the U.S. intervened fairly heavily. For example, according to Herman and Peterson, the United States was very involved in helping the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) assassinate Habyarimana in 1994 and then militarily conquer the country and subsequently massacre Hutus, Pygmies, and even Tutsis in reprisal killings, which, they argue, probably outnumber the 800,000 killed in the genocide. By accepting this narrative, although much more controversial, we would be able to attribute far more deaths to Paul Kagame and, by extension, Bill Clinton.

This is why I decided to include the death toll of the events in Rwanda under Clinton’s name.

Following this, Kagame and Yoweri Museveni in Uganda decided to invade Zaire in order to remove Mobutu from power. This is what is referred to as the First Congo War. As is discussed very in depth in Africa’s World War by Gérard Prunier, the U.S. very heavily backed Kagame and Museveni during the First Congo War. Prunier argues that Clinton saw an opportunity to get rid of Mobutu, of whom the U.S. was embarrassed for supporting throughout the Cold War. In fairness, pretty much everyone was in favor of ousting Mobutu in 1996/1997 and Kagame and Museveni got support from pretty much everyone except France.

"Our Guy" in Africa

“Our Guy” in Africa

Rwanda and Uganda installed Laurent-Désiré Kabila as president, who renamed the country as the Democratic Republic of Congo and who proved to be an uncooperative puppet in Kinshasa.

The Second Congo War began when Kagame and Museveni agreed to get rid of puppet #1 and try to set up puppet #2. This war, however, was much more complicated and the sides were much more convoluted – with Angola, Zimbabwe, and Sudan maintaining their support of Kabila. The big players officially took a much more hands-off approach during the Second Congo War. Nevertheless, both the RPA and the Ugandan government were able to rely on their backing of the U.S.

This is obvious, because Clinton could have roped in Kagame and Museveni (both during the genocide and the subsequent wars). Or he could have continued to give aid to the DRC. But instead he traveled himself to Rwanda in 1998 and sent officials to Kigali and Kampala after the most brutal parts of the wars. Bill Clinton could have made sure that the United Nations thoroughly investigated Kagame and the Rwandan Patriotic Army. But instead, he actively blocked UN investigations to continue with regards to RPA’s massacres in the Kivus and their reprisal killings.

Those are the reasons I decided to include his involvement as sharing responsibility for the deaths in Rwanda and the DRC.

Ultimately, comparing the death tolls was an exercise in showing the absurdity of “death counts” in the way they are commonly used. When I was teaching, I often heard students repeat the completely ludicrous claim that “Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler”. This, of course, is nonsense. Nazi Germany, as shown by even anti-communist historians, killed many millions more than the Soviet Union.

It seems to me that a huge fallacy is being made when we decide to attribute deaths to state leaders. When we analyze deaths, both as the direct and indirect result of state policy, they need to be placed in their greater context – especially during the 20th century, where “death counts” often lead to counter-intuitive assessments.

The highest example of this is shown by Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze in their book Hunger and Public Action, where they argue that there have been more deaths from low-level hunger in India than from the largest famines under Mao and that fewer people would have died if India had pursued similar (communist) policies as the People’s Republic of China. They even conclude “that every eight years or so more people die in India because of its higher regular death rate than died in China in the gigantic famine of 1958-61. India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame.”

The Liberation of Afghanistan

I once heard a description of the recent history of Afghanistan begin, “Under the communists, women appeared on television uncovered. Under the Mujahideen, women appeared on television covered. Under the Taliban, there were no televisions.”

The dominant narratives regarding Afghanistan in the West possess the unfortunate characteristic of neglecting basic facts. Instead, the timeline goes a little something like this:

1. I don’t know anything about Afghanistan before I need to.

2. The evil Soviet Union invaded.

3. The heroic United States supported the freedom fighters.

4. Something, something, something.

5. TALIBAN!

6. The heroic United States kicked out those bad Taliban and gave Afghanistan democracy.

This timeline might even be giving too much credit to people (including the numbskull in the white house) who feel qualified to talk about Afghanistan, despite knowing next to nothing about one of the countries that has defined so much of last century (directly and indirectly).

That should terrify you. It should also give us a moment to think about the Liberation of Afghanistan and what that ought to mean.

At different points in history, one might point to an Afghanistan that has been called “liberated”. In 1919, Afghanistan wins its independence from the British Empire. Many have called this “liberation”. As the Kingdom of Afghanistan, the country is pushed through slow waves of modernization and conservative push-back. In 1978, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan takes power and pushes through real modernization efforts. Many have called this “liberation”. Under quick succession, Nur Muhammad Taraki, Hafizullah Amin, and Babrak Karmal try to push through sweeping land reforms, women’s rights, and social programs. This is, of course, met with terrible resistance from the “traditional” power structures and clan networks throughout the country.

It was during this period, by admission of Zbigniew Brzezinski, that Amerikkka begins funding the Mujahideen, who fight against the socialists on behalf of these misogynistic, feudal power structures.

After the Mujahideen receive support from the U$, the Soviet Union decides to send troops on December 24th, 1979 to intervene in the budding civil war. Many have called this “liberation”. Following the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, the country is pulverized by becoming a flashpoint of the Cold War.

From 1979 on, there has essentially been endless civil war up until today.

In 1996, the Pakistan-backed Taliban (remember Benazir Bhutto) gains power and uses that power to destroy huge swaths of the country. Many have called this “liberation”. The remaining parts are destroyed by the U$-backed Northern Alliance. Many have called this “liberation”. And, most spectacularly, the full-fledged Amerikkkan imperialist occupation begins in 2001. Indeed, many have called this “liberation”.

At every major point in Afghan history, we’ve heard many say that “this (finally, this!) is the Liberation of Afghanistan.” However, pretty much every time, the deception became apparent almost immediately. To paraphrase Zizek in one of his essays after 9/11, one of the most grotesque and tragic states of existence is that of the family in Afghanistan who, when a plane passes overhead, does not know if it will drop bombs or containers of food and supplies in some faux humanitarian gesture.

The few bright moments in Afghanistan over the past century were always quickly dimmed by bullets and bombs. Afghanistan has been thrown into chaos and tragedy unequivocally due to the Amerikkkan Empire – anyone who doesn’t admit this is either lying or stupid. As Malalai Joya said in her interview above with Democracy Now!: “Imperialism and Fundamentalism have joined hands.”

The Liberation of Afghanistan, if it is ever to be a reality (rather than merely a name without that reality), will never come about as long as Amerikkka is involved. The Liberation of Afghanistan will come from the Afghan people alone, not from imperial machinations designed for the benefit of oil and gas pipelines and regional instability.

Imperialist occupation is never the solution to any problem.

When the incoherent fascist in Washington spews his bile, we should keep in mind that when he says, “The Amerikkkan people are weary of war without victory” – he means that he intends to continue this occupation by any means necessary.

We should fight exclusively for the Liberation of Afghanistan and against Dumbass Trump’s infinite stupidity.

Venezuela’s Problem is Capitalism

No matter what people are saying, the economic crisis in Venezuela is clearly rooted in capitalism, not socialism. Anyone who wants to say that this crisis is strictly a result of the social-democratic policies of the Venezuelan government is manipulating the facts.

The most obvious fact dispelling this is the other left social-democratic economy: Bolivia. At the moment, Bolivia’s economy is thriving, due to a boom in the demand for minerals.

evo-shhh

Evo’s little secret

As the price of minerals has shot up, the price of oil has plummeted. Oil, of course, has been the primary mover in making the social programs in Venezuela possible. The collapse of oil prices was not because of Venezuela’s social system, but rather because of the world market and geopolitics.

The policy crystallizes when we take a look at the words of Ali al-Naimi, who was the Minister for Petroleum and Mineral Resources in Saudi Arabia: “As a policy for Opec – and I convinced Opec of this, even Mr al-Badri [Opec secretary general] is now convinced – it is not in the interest of Opec producers to cut their production, whatever the price is.”

If you refer to the above links (both of which are BBC, hardly a leftist news outlet), we can see that the levels of production maintained by OPEC are entirely intentional. Oil prices are artificial, as OPEC countries over-produce. The rationale for such a move is, according to the BBC, the Gulf states’ attempt to keep their market-share.

However, that article also clearly demonstrates who the losers are when over-production happens: Russia, Iran, and Venezuela are at the top of the list.

Where does that leave us? Is it reasonable to assume that the drop in oil prices is entirely manufactured in order to not only maintain Gulf states’ market-share but also to destabilize countries that don’t nicely fit into U.S. global hegemony?

We shouldn’t take the right-wing baiting that Hugo Chavez’s mistake was nationalizing industries – Chavez’s mistake was rather assuming that the global powers weren’t intent on destroying his gains.

Chavez’s mistake was that he didn’t completely do away with capitalism in Venezuela.

Since the beginning of the social programs instituted by the Bolivarian government under Chavez, the West sought to undermine ever step of progress – even to the point of attempting to overthrow him in 2002.

Remember that throughout all of this:

The U.$. doesn’t hate Venezuela for the bad things it has done, but for the good things it has done.

Obama Legacy in Latin America