(The previous articles in the series addressed the overall situation of U.S. imperialism today and the factors behind its decline; the rivalry between the two imperialist superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union; and the contradictions developing between the U.S. and Western Europe. The final article, which will appear in the next issue, talks about what approach the American working class should take towards U.S. foreign policy.)
* * *
The third world, the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, is a turbulent, volatile region. It has the largest land mass and population on earth, and abundant natural resources. Monumental events in the third world have shaken the globe since World War II: revolutions (the Chinese, Cuban, Nicaraguan, Iranian and Zimbabwean, among others) and wars (the Korean, Indochinese and several Middle Eastern). Only a few nations still languish under colonial rule, but powerful liberation movements in areas such as South Africa and Namibia are proof that colonialism’s days are numbered. Politically most of the third world has achieved independence, and much of the third world is trying to move away from the domination of any imperialist power. The third world is beginning to step onto the stage of world history as an independent force.
Economically, however, the third world is a complicated picture. Some countries have developed economies that are playing major roles in the world economy. The third world’s proportion of the world gross output has increased from 9.1% in 1950 to 15.1% in 1978. Business Week wrote that several regions-of the third world are transforming themselves into “strong economic challenges in the global trade market.”
Other areas of the third world, though, are now worse than in the past due to imperialist exploitation. Third world countries owe an unprecedented $700 billion to foreign banks. Mexico alone owes U.S. banks $70 billion. Tanzania’s President Julius Nyerere at the recent 20th anniversary of his country’s independence stated, “We are poorer now than we were in 1972.”
And while there are shared histories, experiences and present circumstances, there are also major divisions among the countries including differences in social systems and outlooks (socialist, semi-feudal, semi-colonial) and current government structures (democratic, autocratic, militaristic). The superpowers influence or dominate certain countries, and some local conflicts are quite serious, such as the Iran-Iraq war. Although there has been progress in third world cooperation, major obstacles still block the third world from becoming a united movement.
The efforts to end imperialist domination, improve economic life, and win political freedoms are powerful in the third world. Over the last 20 years, the struggles of the third world for independence and liberation, more than any other force, have changed the face of the globe. The third world has been the main force resisting the global ambitions of the two superpowers.
In the economic arena, third world countries formed producers’ cooperatives (such as the oil-producing countries and the coffee-producing countries) that broke the imperialists’ strangle hold over some third world resources. Politically, the countries of the third world have formed independent alliances to pursue their own interests separate from the interference of the imperialists. For example, the formation of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), composed of Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, the Philippines and Indonesia, has given the member nations a stronger voice in Asian affairs.
The Non-Aligned Movement, which held its seventh summit conference in India in March, has emerged as a powerful force which the imperialists must reckon with. The March summit was the largest yet. It brought together over 100 countries of the third world to discuss the world situation and formulate a common approach to international problems.
The conference passed resolutions calling for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Afghanistan and Kampuchea (Cambodia); supporting national reunification in Palestine, Lebanon, Korea, Namibia and the rest of southern Africa; calling for an end to the arms race; and making proposals to change the current unequal international economic order. The summit helped strengthen ties among the third world countries and lessen their dependence on the superpowers.
The desire for independence, liberation and well-being continue to propel revolutionary struggle, as one can see in the revolutionary movements in El Salvador, Guatemala, the Philippines, southern Africa, Afghanistan and Kampuchea. U.S. imperialism tries to profit and take advantage of the divisions and weaknesses of the third world, but it is also profoundly worried about the situation. The historical trend is that U.S. influence in the third world is weakening, while the third world is becoming increasingly decisive in the international scene.
Recognizing the vital interests of U.S. imperialism in the third world, U.S. foreign policy-makers have given increased attention to this area. But their plans have frequently been frustrated, as in Indochina and more recently in Central America, due to the complexity of the situations, the greater ability of the third world to determine its own affairs, and the deep-seated mistrust of U.S. imperialism.
There are several areas of concern that influence specific U.S. policies towards the third world:
• Economic interests. U.S. corporations continue to have a tremendous stake in the exploitation of the third world.
U.S. corporations reap huge profits from their investments in the third world and through unfair trade. The U.S. buys raw materials cheaply from the third world and sells back expensive manufactured goods. From 1966-1978 U.S. companies invested about $11 billion in the third world, but received some $56 billion in return – a rate of profit about 50% higher than from U.S. investment in Europe. Atari Electronics recently shifted a large proportion of its production to Asia because it could pay workers there one-tenth what it pays American workers.
• Economic investment. The basic U.S. policy towards the third world is to continue to secure and stabilize investment and trade opportunities for U.S. companies. The direct involvement of International Telephone & Telegraph and Anaconda Copper Company with the CIA in the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile is a blatant example of this. Even Reagan’s highly publicized Caribbean assistance program was formulated simply to help U.S. investment opportunities in the region.
• Military factors. Most of the U.S. foreign military bases and outposts are in the third world. These installations, the far-flung naval attack fleets, the Rapid Deployment Force, the CIA, etc., are all weapons of intimidation used to protect U.S. imperialist interests in the world.
The U.S. military establishment (Pentagon, defense contractors, CIA) often have their own particular interests they wish to advance in foreign affairs. U.S. arms sales overseas amount to billions every year. The U.S. shipped over $2 billion of military hardware to Israel just last year.
Military considerations were factors during last year’s conflict between China and the U.S. over continued U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. A major argument advanced by those favoring continued sales was that the island was a perfect “permanent aircraft carrier” for U.S. forces in Asia. Abandoning Taiwan, they argued, would be sacrificing a vital U.S. strategic military outpost. Similar military considerations have recently stimulated U.S. interest in Somalia in northern Africa, the Malvinas (Falklands) in the Atlantic and various islands in the South Pacific and Indian Oceans.
• Countering Soviet activities. The U.S.-Soviet contention for world domination leads the two superpowers to try to intervene in or take advantage of every issue in the third world. Some U.S. policy-makers see Soviet involvement in anything as detrimental to U.S. interests in the third world. This objectively is not the case. Even many foreign affairs observers in the U.S. recognize that much of what happens in the third world is beyond the immediate control of either of the superpowers. Nevertheless, U.S. foreign policy towards the third world continues to be largely geared towards combating perceived Soviet activities.
In some instances, Washington fabricates or exaggerates the Soviet menace to justify or camouflage U.S. imperialist actions. In El Salvador the U.S. has falsely branded the entire revolutionary movement, composed of a variety of leftists and liberal forces, as simply Soviet puppets.
In other places, the Soviet Union or its proxies in the third world are highly involved. Afghanistan, Viet Nam, Cuba and Ethiopia, among others, are either occupied by the Soviets or closely tied in with the Soviet Union. The Vietnamese, backed by the Soviets, still occupy Kampuchea. But it is noteworthy that the U.S. has actually resigned itself (at least for the moment) to Soviet domination of these areas. The U.S. virtually ignores Viet Nam’s continued occupation of Kampuchea and is only minimally involved in the Afghan resistance to the Soviets. This stance reflects the defensive position of the U.S. towards the Soviets as well as the generally weakened position of the U.S. in the third world.
In contrast, the U.S. has focused its public pressure on small countries like El Salvador or Libya as “examples” for the rest of the world as to what the U.S. might do if its interests are challenged. In March, Reagan manufactured a story about Libya being on the verge of invading neighboring Chad. This was an excuse to deploy American warships off the Libyan coast in an attempt to provoke Libya and also to demonstrate the strength of the U.S.
Far from intimidating others, this policy has further alienated the U.S. from many third world nations and has frustrated U.S. attempts to forge a “strategic consensus” of third world countries against the Soviets. Reagan hoped some anti-Soviet agreement might be reached among some Middle Eastern nations and Israel. But this scheme has not met with success due to divisions among the countries and because of other U.S. policies that are hostile to the third world, such as opposition to the Palestine Liberation Organization and to the demand for a new international economic order.
Thus, even though its imperialist interests lead it to compete with the Soviet Union in the third world, these same imperialist interests continue to alienate people and governments, frustrate U.S. attempts to limit Soviet intrigues, and even encourage further Soviet advances. U.S. support for Britain in the Malvinas war and the U.S. desire to gain a foothold on the islands practically drove the military government of Argentina to seek Soviet assistance.
• Conflict between the U.S.’s stated concern for “democracy” and “human rights” and U.S.-supported dictatorships in the third world. Today, we no longer hear pronouncements like Jimmy Carter’s “human rights is the soul of our foreign policy.” Carter’s statement reflected a major trend in the history of U.S. foreign policy which advocates presenting the U.S. as a friend of freedom and democracy in the world. The U.S. as a world power, the State Department likes to proclaim, does not conduct its foreign policy on the basis of selfish considerations, but on a higher, moral level. From the Korean War to support for Britain in the Malvinas war, U.S. policy-makers have consistently tried to rally domestic and foreign support for their actions by appealing to “human rights.”
In reality U. S. policy is conducted on a basis very different than its hypocritical self-proclamations. Even during the height of Carter’s campaign for “human rights” in the world, Carter was increasing the military budget, creating the Rapid Deployment Force and secretly planning a military operation against Iran. His Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, began planning how to conduct a “winnable” nuclear war against the Soviet Union. While Reagan dropped references to human rights, Washington still is defensive when publicity is given to U.S. support for such despicable regimes as South Africa, south Korea, Guatemala or the Philippines, where the most elementary human rights are violated constantly by the government.
Among U.S. political leaders there are differences over the emphasis placed on human rights and support for right-wing dictatorships. But despite public debates, the U.S. is unable to substantially alter its ties with right-wing regimes in the third world. The U.S. would prefer less authoritarian regimes, as they would be more acceptable to domestic and international public opinion. But in reality this alternative is not possible.
There is too much popular discontent, economic poverty, instability, and powerful reactionary-feudal forces to allow liberal regimes. Washington realizes that most of its close allies in the third world will be anti-popular and have to rely on military dictatorships to survive. Most policy-makers know that, whether they like it or not, U.S. imperialism is wedded to the south Korean generals and Latin American military juntas.
While some congressmen might debate the morality of U.S. involvement with dozens of fascist regimes, in . terms of practical policy, U.S. imperialism has little choice but to continue to back these governments. If the U.S. did otherwise, it would open the door to change contrary to U.S. imperialist interests and shake the confidence of the other dictatorial regimes dependent upon the U.S.
It is illusory to think that U.S. imperialism can develop a liberal or democratic foreign policy towards the third world. While individual politicians may take some relatively progressive stands (such as some former congressmen who advocate U.S. recognition of the PLO) U.S. foreign policy interests are too imbedded in the current unequal, exploitative economic and political order for the U.S. to substantially change its actions towards the developing world. Only a powerful anti-U.S. imperialist movement domestically or internationally can force the U.S. to change some of its policies.
The factors described above all play important roles in four areas of current controversy in U. S. foreign policy: the Middle East, southern Africa, Central America and China.
The Middle East remains one of the most critical areas m the world today, and the U.S. bears major responsibility for perpetuating the volatile situation. The U.S. is the only major country in the world that fully backs Israel and its policies of aggression. The U.S. continues to refuse to recognize the right of the Palestinians to self-determination.
There was unprecedented criticism by American politicians of Israel last year when it invaded and occupied Lebanon. Yet, in practice, the U.S. did nothing to restrain the invasion. The U.S. government produced little more than crocodile tears when hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians were massacred in Beirut by the right-wing phalangists operating under the eyes of the Israelis.
Ever since the Israeli aggression began, the U.S. has tried to take maximum advantage of the situation. Reagan has advanced different “peace” proposals aimed at legitimizing the domination of Israel and the U.S. over the region. The U.S. has gladly accepted information from Israeli intelligence about Soviet weapons captured during the Lebanese invasion.
Despite some conflicts between Israel and the U.S., the U.S. has not deviated from its obstinate support for Israel because it continues to be the most reliable and powerful force for U.S. interests in the area. The U.S. has none of the ties with the Arab countries that it has with Israel. None of the Arab countries is in a position to force negotiations or concessions from Israel at this time.
At the same time, Israel, as dependent as it is on the U.S., does not just do what Washington dictates. It has taken actions that U.S. imperialism has felt unnecessarily antagonized the Arabs (like expanding the West Bank settlements). But the U.S. only issued some mild criticisms, recognizing that its broader interests are firmly committed to Israel. Unshakable support for Israel, with some protests, will continue to characterize U.S. policy in the Middle East for some time. The U.S. will try to use Israel to maintain its upper hand over the Arab countries and the Soviet Union in the Middle East.
The U.S. has adopted a similar stance in southern Africa. Washington has verbally opposed South African apartheid and its colonization of Namibia. But in practice, under Reagan the U.S. has stepped up its support for the racist South African regime. The U.S. has reduced its restrictions on allowing Pretoria’s military personnel into the U.S., on exporting electronic equipment to South Africa for police and military use, and on providing South Africa with advanced technology and equipment, including nuclear fuel.
U.S. imperialism sees South Africa as its most reliable ally in Africa. Washington knows that its support for the hated country antagonizes other African nations, but the U.S. believes none of the African countries can politically or militarily influence the situation for the U.S. in Africa like South Africa. In any case, the U.S. has a tremendous economic stake in South Africa’s prosperity and stability which undoubtedly influences the policy-makers. Washington has coldly calculated that the advantages it might gain from other African countries by putting more distance between itself and Pretoria would not offset the possible disadvantages that would come from an unstable or weakened South Africa.
Thus, as in the Middle East, the U.S. continues to support the established reactionary order, for it sees no other alternative that will better protect or advance its basic imperialist interests.
Central America is another area where U.S. foreign policy comes down clearly on the side of the oppressors. Unable to resign itself to the existence of an independent government in Nicaragua, the U.S. is sponsoring and training counterrevolutionaries to invade and overthrow the Sandinista government.
In El Salvador, the U.S. is stepping up its direct military support for the reactionary junta and is threatening open U.S. intervention. Even though every escalation of the American involvement generates more opposition, both internationally and in the U.S., Reagan knows that a defeat for U.S. imperialism in El Salvador will further inspire democratic revolutions in the rest of Central America. Thus he gives the junta full support.
The problem for U.S. imperialism in both El Salvador and Guatemala is that the U.S. cannot directly intervene as it did so frequently in the past. Domestic and world opinion will not allow it. Washington therefore has been forced to rely on covert operations and hated exiles in Nicaragua and the repressive government in El Salvador. It is doubtful that in either case the U.S. will achieve its ends.
The U.S. may very well soon face a hostile Central America, a region vital to U.S. economic, military and transportation interests.
Another crucial area of U.S. foreign policy is China. U.S.-China relations, after several years of improvement, cooled considerably in 1981-82. This was due in large part to U.S. insistence on supplying the Taiwan regime with advanced military equipment over the protests of Beijing. Also, the U.S. realized that China would not bow to U.S. pressures on trade and other issues. The China trade did not develop as U.S. monopolists had hoped. U.S.-China trade accounted for just over 1% of the U.S. total in 1982.
Since normalization of relations in 1979, Washington sought to entice China to U.S. policy interests through trade, cultural exchanges and high-level meetings. The U.S. hoped the China market would help ailing American business and that Beijing might be a cooperative ally against the Soviets. But Washington apparently has decided that while there have been some benefits, especially in trade, U.S. ties with Taiwan are still invaluable.
There are several different reasons why U.S. policymakers decided to continue the arms sales. They may have felt that what the U.S. was getting from the U.S.-China relationship (trade and anti-Soviet assistance) would continue despite the conflict over Taiwan. They might believe that maintaining military ties with Taiwan is an important lever over China (just as the U.S. uses Israel and South Africa over other countries). They may consider Taiwan too valuable a military location to abandon. Or they may believe that domestic support for Taiwan among conservatives is too important to cross. A combination of these factors was undoubtedly involved.
Whatever the reasons, the U.S. decision is indicative of its general reluctance to give up thinking and trying to act like a superpower. Despite its substantially changed position in the world, U.S. imperialism has not reconciled itself to the new conditions. One might say that U.S. foreign policy-makers are simply blind or pre-occupied with narrow immediate self-interests. Can’t they understand that U.S. foreign policy is not winning any friends but only gaining more adversaries?
The issue, though, is that the U.S. has few real available options if it wishes to maintain its imperialist empire. The State Department and Pentagon officials are not stupid, but are hard-headed realists. They believe that at this time U.S. imperialist interests are best served by a policy that will vigorously defend the status quo. U.S. imperialism’s dilemma, however, is that the third world ardently seeks to overthrow this “established order.”