|
Barack Obama marked his clinching of the Democratic Party presidential nomination
with a speech making clear his determination to be the best warmaker
Washington ever had.
The June 4 venue was the meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC), an annual opportunity for candidates, legislators,
and presidents to pledge their continued support for the most important
U.S. client regime.
The most publicized part of Obama's speech, and the most controversial,
was his announcement that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of
Israel, and it must remain undivided." Both "remains"
fly in the face of fact and international law.
In 1995 the U.S. Congress passed a law saying that Jerusalem was the
capital of Israel and it should not be divided, but every president
since then has refused to move the U.S. embassy out of Tel Aviv. After
passage of a UN resolution in 1980 denouncing Israel's claim that an
undivided Jerusalem was its capital, the only countries with embassies
in Jerusalem—13 Latin American nations—moved them to Tel Aviv.
If Jerusalem "remains" undivided, that is only because it has
been occupied, in flagrant violation of international law and UN
resolutions, for 41 years. As in the West Bank, Israel is constantly
creating facts on the ground to try to keep it so, like the 900 new
homes for Jews only, announced the week before Obama's speech—about
which he has yet to say a word.
The Jerusalem quote was a crowd-pleaser. Obama had received scattered
boos at last year's conference, but this year received repeated
standing ovations for this and other statements backing the most
hard-core anti-negotiations stances of Zionist politicians.
The Bush White House immediately distanced itself from Obama's remarks,
saying final decisions on this matter were for Israel and the
Palestinians to make on their own.
Obama's statements evoked universal denunciation among Arabs, from the
masses to the most cravenly pro-U.S. politicians. Palestinian Authority
Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said: "We will not accept a Palestinian
state without Jerusalem as the capital." Hamas official Sami Abu
Zuhri told Reuters: "Obama's comments confirm that there will be
no change in U.S. foreign policy."
The next day Obama partially backtracked, with contradictory positions
that will allow future wiggle room. A campaign adviser said Obama
believes that the status of Jerusalem has to be negotiated—but only if
"Jerusalem remains [again, remains!] Israel's capital, and it's
not going to be divided." It might also, he added, serve as the
capital of a Palestinian state, or at least there might be
"Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods."
With his original statement Obama seemed to send a clear signal that he
has no interest in a peace deal, as everyone knows not even someone as
craven as Abbas could relinquish claims on Jerusalem. But his
statements should be put in the context of his own multiple roles—as
legislator, as candidate, and as hopeful White House resident—as well
as his broader foreign policy positions.
Congress often passes resolutions so extreme that they make the State
Department appear uncomfortable. But this is just part of a hard
cop-soft cop routine. With the executive branch limiting itself to
diplomatically acceptable stances, and pontificating about its desire
for peace, it frees up Washington to do what both Congress and the president
care most about: providing billions in military aid, as well as
political support for concrete Israeli actions such as military
aggression against its neighbors, tightening and expanding of the
occupation, the genocidal blockade of Gaza, and repression and murder
of those resisting these moves.
And, of course, claiming to be for a "shared" Jerusalem is
good diplomatic cover for refusal to take concrete steps toward
"peace" agreements that might actually be accepted by the
Palestinians.
At the AIPAC conference Obama, while delivering the standard
reassurances that Washington would continue to support Israel's
aggressions against its neighbors (i.e., to protect its
"security" and "defensible borders"), also
supported its right to remain an apartheid state, to "preserve
[its] identity as a Jewish state."
Obama declared he would "work to help Israel achieve the goal of
two states." Notice it is "Israel" that will achieve the
goal; a semantic slip—or an admission of the true character of U.S.
diplomacy? Clearly the latter, as Washington has always worked with
Israel to try to impose "peace" deals on the Palestinians.
Hard line on Iran, Syria, and
Lebanon
He also provided further evidence that his arguments against the war in
Iraq flow not from a belief that it was unjust, but rather that it was
unwinnable, and therefore a diversion from more important battles to
preserve the Empire. He complained that the war on Iraq had interfered
with the fight against "terrorists" elsewhere, hindered efforts
to isolate or even launch war against Iran, and hamstrung efforts to
ram a "peace" deal down the Palestinians' throats.
Obama complained that recent foreign policy has not made Israel more
secure, pointing to the increased strength of Hamas and Hezbollah. And
"because of the war in Iraq, Iran—which always posed a greater
threat to Israel than Iraq—is emboldened, and poses the greatest
strategic challenge to the U.S. and Israel in a generation."
He denied that Israel's aggressive and racist policies had anything to
do with mass support for Hamas and Hezbollah: "And then there are
those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the
doorstep of Israel and its supporters." And he termed
"bigoted" calls for divestment from Israel.
Obama talked of the joint work of Jews and Blacks in the U.S. civil
rights movement, ignoring the fact that the rulers of Israel mimic the
performance of Jim Crow enforcers like Bull Connor by beating, jailing,
and shooting in cold blood Jews and Palestinians who stand side-by-side
in nonviolent resistance to the apartheid wall, to Jews-only
settlements and roads, and to other racist practices.
He pledged to ensure Israel's "qualitative military
advantage" by providing $30 billion in assistance over the next
decade and increased cooperation on missile defense.
While claiming he supported recent moves for talks between Israel and
Syria, he expressed support for "enforcement of Security Council
Resolution 1701 in Lebanon," the resolution aimed at the militias
of Hezbollah and others who drove Israeli invaders out of the country.
He also called for "a stop to Syria's support for terror"
(i.e., Syria's support for those same militias and for opponents of the
pro-U.S. prime minister, Fouad Siniora).
Obama trotted out the bipartisan Arab-bashing
rhetoric about "free[ing] ourselves from the tyranny of oil.
Petrodollars pay for weapons that kill American troops and Israeli
citizens."
"Finally," he said, "let there be no doubt: I will
always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our
security and our ally Israel." Obama also supported Israel's
refusal to negotiate with Hamas, and said the elections that Hamas won
fair and square should never have been held.
Obama says not a word, of course, about the sanctions imposed by the
“Quartet” (U.S., the EU, Russia, and the UN) after the elections, and
the blockade by Israel, which together have left the overwhelming
majority of Gazans dependent on handouts, and have sent malnutrition
and mortality rates through the roof.
After excoriating the Palestinian Authority (without naming it) for
"corruption," and Arab regimes for not being friendly to
Israel, he urged the latter to "take steps to ease freedom of
movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West
Bank, and refrain from building new settlements—as it agreed to with
the Bush administration at Annapolis."
But Israel need only do so, he said, if such steps are "consistent
with its security"—the reason Israel always gives for not doing
so.
Obama also repeated the lies about Syria's "pursuit of weapons of
mass destruction," and praised the Israeli air strike on Syria
last November. We can be sure a unilateral attack by Israel on alleged
Iranian nuclear facilities will win his support.
Obama naturally said nothing about Israel's nuclear weapons.
Ironically, just the week before, ex-President Jimmy Carter became the
first mainstream political figure to say on the record what everyone
knows: that Israel possesses at least 150 nuclear weapons.
Carter denounced the policies of the Quartet, including the cut-off of
trade with Gaza and its support for Israel's blockade. Carter described
Gazans as "imprisoned" and said the strangulation of Gaza was
"one of the greatest human rights crimes on Earth." He also
repeated his calls for direct negotiations with Hamas—a call for which
Obama denounced Carter by name.
Obama repeated his call for talks with Iran, but repeated the lies
about its alleged nuclear weapons program, and his support for the use
of military force against it: "There is no greater threat to
Israel than Iran," which "supports violent extremists and
challenges us across the region. It raises the prospect of a transfer
of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust
and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. My goal will be to eliminate
this threat."
Here too, he showed that his supposed opposition to the war in Iraq is
because it jeopardizes maintenance of the Empire as a whole: "We
knew in 2002 that Iran supported terrorism, had an illicit nuclear
program, and posed a grave threat to Israel. But we ignored this threat
and instead invaded and occupied Iraq."
Obama pledged not to ignore the “threat.” “I will do everything in my
power,” he declared, “to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,”
a line he used three times to standing ovations.
And in any case diplomacy is just a tool to justify military action:
"If we must use force, we are more likely to succeed and will have
far greater support at home and abroad if we have exhausted our
diplomatic efforts." Sound familiar?
He pointed proudly to a bill he introduced in 2007 encouraging
divestment from companies that do business in Iran, and repeated his
labeling of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
In contradiction to his own claims that he would reverse Bush's
go-it-alone approach, he said the United States, not Europe, should
lead talks with Iran over its nuclear program.
Withdrawal from Iraq?
Some accuse Obama of pandering to AIPAC. There's an element of truth to
this. By the same token, Republican candidates pander to their own
favorite right-wing groups. But once in office candidates of both
parties retreat to the narrower, mutually agreed-upon division of labor
used to set actual policy.
For this reason what's most important about Obama's remarks to AIPAC is
how they fit into his overall conception of what's necessary to
preserve U.S. imperialism's supremacy.
The mass enthusiasm for Obama rests on several factors: the possibility
that he could become the first Black president, belief in his vacuous
calls for change among a populace suffering decades of economic and
social setbacks, and his alleged support for withdrawal from Iraq.
On Jan. 17 the Boston Globe reported that a review of his votes
"shows he was not one of the most outspoken opponents of Bush
policy until he began preparing to run for president."
Despite his antiwar speech in 2002 as an Illinois state senator, and a
pledge during his run for U.S. Senate in 2004 to vote against $87
billion in war funding under consideration, since taking office in
2005, Obama has voted repeatedly to support Iraq funding, to the tune
of over $300 billion. He has used the typical Democratic excuse: he is
"supporting our troops."
In 2006, says the Globe, "Obama voted against a proposal by
Senator John Kerry to remove most troops within a year, calling it an
'arbitrary deadline' that could 'compound' previous US missteps. He
first voted against war funding in May 2007, after declaring his candidacy."
Obama says he will remove one brigade of combat troops a month and
"have all of combat brigades out within 16 months." But he
would leave tens of thousands of troops there for
"counterinsurgency" and "training" operations, as
well as all the mercenaries—and in fact may increase the latter as
troops are withdrawn. And of course tens of thousands of troops would
have to stay to provide protection for all the above.
In addition all withdrawals are contingent on no increase in fighting
by "al-Qaeda" (by which, like Bush, he means any resistance
to the U.S.). Withdrawals will also depend on Iraq's puppet
government’s performing up to Obama's standards.
Before her firing, Obama adviser Samantha Powers said that Obama would
re-evaluate troop withdrawals based on "developments on the ground
that he couldn't foresee as a candidate." Many on the blogosphere
speculate that this admission, rather than her insulting Hillary
Clinton, was the reason she was fired.
Obama, who often complains about an over-stretched military, says he
will increase the size of ground forces by 92,000 to facilitate
intervention elsewhere. Troop cuts in Iraq will aid in "finishing
the fight in Afghanistan." In a previous issue we detailed Obama's
call for sending troops into Pakistan "with or without the
permission of President Pervez Musharraf."
Such illegal interventions won't be limited to that country, as he
pledges to go after the "the tens of thousands of terrorists who
have made their choice to attack America," by "build[ing] our
capacity to track down, capture, or kill terrorists around the world.
... Our military [will] become more stealthy, agile, and lethal."
ABC News called Obama's foreign policy "more aggressive than that
of President Bush."
Democrats: the pro-war party
Despite all the evidence, many war opponents cling in desperation to
his vague antiwar rhetoric. There is a real danger that illusions in
Obama will weaken efforts to mobilize large numbers for antiwar
protests this fall and next spring. Obama supporters will argue for
postponing action in favor of hustling votes for him, and if he wins
will want to grant him the same honeymoon period followed by excuses
for pro-war policies that were granted the Democrats when they regained
control of the House and Senate in 2006.
The Democrats have always been a party that
both launches wars and sucks war opponents off the streets. Thus Lyndon
Johnson, who qualitatively expanded the size of the troop force
introduced by John F. Kennedy into Vietnam, was elected as someone who
would supposedly save the country from the mad warmongering of Barry
Goldwater.
Woodrow Wilson won the election of 1916 by promising to keep the U.S.
out of World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt won election in 1940 with
the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War" (World War II). These two
wars were what enabled the United States to become the dominant
imperialist power.
It was Democrat Harry Truman who dropped atom bombs on Japan, and
Democrat John Kennedy who blockaded Cuba, launched the Bay of Pigs
attack, and repeatedly tried to assassinate Castro, while aiding
murderous right-wing regimes throughout Latin America.
It was Democrat Bill Clinton who killed tens of thousands in air and
missile attacks on Yugoslavia, the Sudan, and Iraq, and who murdered
hundreds of thousands more through sanctions against Iraq.
It was Democrat Jimmy Carter whose Carter Doctrine declared, "An
attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region
will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the U.S., and
such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including
military force."
It was Carter who, on the advice of Zbigniew Brzezinski, now an Obama
advisor, had the CIA arm and train every right-wing fundamentalist
force they could find in order to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
Obama's antiwar rhetoric has another purpose besides fooling those
genuinely against the war: to reassure the growing segment of the
ruling class worried that sloppy warmaking threatens U.S. global
dominance. But with the deepening global economic crisis and the
instability created by the "war on terror," it's likely that
whoever takes office will not only be unable, even if he's willing, to
shift forces from Iraq to other hotspots, but will feel compelled to keep
them there and launch even more, and riskier, military adventures.
Advocates of voting for the "lesser evil" think they're
getting a candidate who will commit fewer murders, increase spending a
little less, engage in a little "fairer" diplomacy. They're
wrong on two scores. The Democrats have committed as many if not more
war crimes than Republicans. And the Democrats are a greater threat in
demobilizing the movements that alone can stay Washington's hand.
The Democrats willingly accept that role because they are firm
supporters of the capitalist system, which such wars are launched to
protect. For that reason we recommend Fidel Castro's article, "My
Questions for Obama," on page 10 of this issue of Socialist
Action.
The counterposition of values couldn't be clearer. On the one hand, the
hypocrisy of politicians like Obama who justify murder and military
spending behind rhetoric about "democracy,"
"freedom" and "human rights." On the other hand,
the concrete acts of a tiny, poor, but egalitarian country that shares
its doctors, teachers, and scientists with the rest of the world in a
spirit of solidarity.
That spirit of solidarity is one shared by the working class of the
U.S., a solidarity which will be made manifest once we free ourselves
of illusions in tricksters like Barack Obama.
|