NATO and Imperialism may 2022final (002).odp
SOME OLD MEMORIAL DAY STUFF
Send a salami to the troops.
Naborhood* Bagel and Delicatessen
Join Naborhood and
the USO Sending
A Salami to the Troops
(*Fictitious name.)
My first reaction was to laugh. This sign sounded pretty funny. But on
reflection I began to ask myself what it meant. I began to think of different
responses to the question and, after I sent out a picture of the sign, some of
my friends offered their views on the subject as well.
One interpretation, the patriotic one, suggests that the delicatessen wishes to
mobilize all its customers to support our troops in Afghanistan. From a
delicatessen point of view, sending salamis is a way that it could support the
troops. Salamis could reflect support for the troops alone or for the troops
and the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.
Another, perhaps more neutral, interpretation is about selling salamis, using
the patriotism in the old neighborhood to make a few extra bucks. Since the
salamis they sell are really good, it could entice troops and Afghan peoples to
want more salamis. Before you know it, they could be hooked on them. Who knows:
bagels could be next. But this view, I think, is unfairly harsh in its
evaluation of the motivations of the delicatessen; too economistic.
Finally, it can be argued, and frankly this was my first thought, that the
delicatessen saw the U.S. war in Afghanistan as a mistake that had to be ended
as soon as possible. The salami, from this perspective, was a metaphor for a
“dud,” a smelly, greasy, and heavy food that can lead to ulcers or heartburn.
The 10-year war in Afghanistan therefore was a colossal heartburn in the body
politic. (One of my friends wrote that Bush and Obama already had sent Afghanistan
the salami.)
This intellectual puzzle, I realized, reflects the various ways in which the
sign could be interpreted. Perhaps the delicatessen owners wanted to create a
mental construct that could be appreciated by every side of the issue.
That is classic American politics. I bet the Democrats and Republicans who are
debating resolutions on the war in Afghanistan in Congress right now would love
to come up with a metaphor like this. Maybe Congress should pass an
appropriations bill, HR 111: The U.S./Afghanistan Military Nourishment and
Rehabilitation Act, or the Send Salamis to Afghanistan Act.
This Memorial Day, as we reflect on the pain and suffering that our wars have
caused, perhaps we would all agree that sending salamis overseas is preferable
to sending drones and bombs.
WORKERS' MEMORIAL DAY, 2014: WHAT WORKERS NEED
Harry Targ, Sunday, April 27, 2014
Progressive America Rising via Diary of a Heartland Radical
In the hog room,108 degrees. Kerchiefs, bound around their
foreheads to keep the sweat from running down into eyes and blinding, become
saturated; each works in a rain of stinging sweat. Almost the steam from the
vats seems cloud-cool, pure, by contrast. Marsalek falls. A heart attack. (Is
carried away, docked, charged for the company ambulance.) Other hearts pound
near to bursting. Relentless, the conveyor paces on.
Slow it, we got to slow it. (Tillie Olsen, Yonnondio: From the Thirties, 1974)
American
workplaces from the dawn of the industrial revolution to the recent past were
living hells for workers.
Novelist
and essayist Tillie Olsen described working conditions in meat-packing plants
in the 1930s. Others have written about auto assembly lines, mines, textile
assembly plants, and food-processing plants. Analysts such as Harry Braverman,
in Labor and Monopoly Capital (1974), pointed out that employers
have usually sought to control the minds and motions of workers. Profit-making
has been seen as tied to controlling every movement of workers, the speed-up of
production, and cutting costs for health and safety. After years of labor
mobilization, the Occupational Safety and Health Act passed in 1970 to begin to
address the problem of how dangerous it was to go to work each day.
Every
April 28, workers across North America assemble to remember those workers who
died or were injured on the job. Workers’ Memorial Day, initiated in the United
States by the AFL-CIO in April, 1989, celebrates the inauguration of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1970). Workers’ Memorial Day is
about remembrances, reviews of progress toward safety and health, and
re-commitment to making the workplace safer.
In
April, 2013 the AFL-CIO issued its annual data-based report, “Death on the Job:
the Toll of Neglect,” to review the current state of worker health and safety,
given the administration of OSHA rules initiated over forty years ago. “Since
that time, workplace safety and health conditions have improved. But too many
workers remain at serious risk of injury, illness or death as workplace
tragedies continue to remind us.” These tragedies have occurred in mines, oil
refineries, fertilizer plants, meat-packing plants, manufacturing facilities,
and on construction sites.
The
AFL-CIO report indicated that 4,693 workers were killed on the job in 2011 (13
workers per day). Over 3.8 million work-related injuries were reported with
unofficial estimates of such injuries doubling or tripling that total.
Particular sub-groups, such as Latino workers and those born outside the United
States, experienced excessively high injury rates, presumably because of their
fears of raising safety concerns within the workplace.
The
report indicated that workplace inspections had decreased over the years
because of budget constraints limiting the hiring of inspectors. Given the
numbers, federal OSHA employees could be expected to investigate a workplace
once every 131 years and state OSHA inspections can be expected every 76 years.
Penalties for workplace violations also are inadequate to deter violations.
The
Report indicated that budget allocations for OSHA must be dramatically
increased, more laws must be passed to regulate the complex reality of
workplace dangers, and worker rights to protest dangerous conditions at the
workplace must be strengthened.
This
year, Workers’ Memorial Day events will highlight demands to address
contemporary issues of concern such as
-defending
the OSHA process from political campaigns to reduce workplace regulations.
-requiring
employers to establish work-site safety and health programs with worker
participation to address enduring hazards.
-adding
safeguards against respiratory diseases from silica, combustible dust, and
Black Lung.
-protecting
workers who seek to challenge workplace safety hazards, particularly for
immigrant workers.
-passing
more legislation such as the Protecting America’s Workers Act to expand
protection for workers not yet covered by OSHA rules.
-increasing
worker voices on the job including creating an environment that would allow
workers to freely choose to form unions.
Earl
Cox, Community Services Liaison, Northwest Central Labor Council, Indiana
AFL-CIO, concluded as he announced the 2014 event that legislators must be made
aware of workplace health and safety “…so when a vote comes up to slash funding
for OSHA, they vote to protect workers and not corporate interests.” The
AFL-CIO believes that “safety laws and regulations don’t kill jobs—but unsafe
jobs kill workers.”
(For those living in Tippecanoe County, Indiana Workers’ Memorial
Day events will occur April 28, Inside the Depot, Riehle Plaza, Lafayette at
5:15 p.m.)
REMEMBER THOSE WHO
PROTESTED WAR ALSO!
"In a society where it is normal for human beings to
drop bombs on human targets, where it is normal to spend 50 percent of the
individual's tax dollar on war, where it is normal...to have twelve times
overkill capacity, Norman Morrison was not normal. He said, 'Let it
stop.' "(a gravesite speech by John Roemer at the funeral of Norman
Morrison quoted in Hendrickson, Paul. The Living and the Dead. New York:
Alfred Knopf, 1996).
On November 2, 1965, Norman Morrison brought his daughter with him to the Pentagon.
Outside the office of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, Morrison set
himself on fire to protest the escalating war in Vietnam. His daughter, Emily,
somehow was passed to others and survived the flames. Morrison, however, died
as he had lived, protesting the bombing of villages in South Vietnam, killing
innocent men, women, and children.
I was part of an educational tour to Vietnam last March. We were taken to a
powerful museum, known as the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City. On the
second floor an exhibit featured images of international solidarity with the
Vietnamese people during the American war. Included there was a framed copy of
an American newspaper account of Morrison’s self-immolation. Earlier, in Hue,
we had seen an exhibit of the automobile used by a Buddhist Monk, Thích Quảng Đức,
who killed himself in protest of the brutality of the Diem regime in South
Vietnam. Presumably this act inspired Morrison’s tragic protest.
I had forgotten Morrison’s dramatic act, and the acts of several others who
bravely sacrificed their bodies and lives to oppose the murderous war in
Vietnam. Today, Memorial Day, 2011 I thought about Morrison, the exhibit at the
Vietnamese Museum, and parallel acts of self-sacrifice.
First, on reflection, I am in awe of the courage and self-sacrifice of the acts
of these brave and principled people. Yet, I wish they had not made the
ultimate sacrifices they did and had put their courage and willingness to
sacrifice to the long-term struggles of the peace movement to end war.
However, I believe we must “take back” Memorial Day from those who celebrate
war, see sacrifice only from those who kill and die, and ignore the bravery of
the men and women everywhere who fight to end war. We mourn those who were sent
off to fight in ignoble wars in the name of the United States. Also we must
declare Memorial Day as a day to remember all the Norman Morrison’s who have
said “no” to war and empire.
Harry Targ
And, in the
midst of the escalating tensions and finally the Russian invasion of Ukraine,
the significant Biden program of substantial social, economic, and
environmental changes has been allowed to flounder and die. Now Congress and
the Administration eagerly legislate more money for the military and more
money for our beleaguered Ukrainian ally (the latest over $40 billion) and
increasingly remind the population that China, the real enemy, is lurking in
the global background. Biden’s efforts this week to resuscitate an Asian trade
bloc and warnings about the US commitment to defend Taiwan are the most recent
examples. Health care, debt relief for students, shifts to a Green Jobs Agenda,
tax reform, raising the minimum wage all need to be put off for another day.
Last year the New Poor Peoples Campaign showed in an informative flyer how money projected for the military could be used for human needs.
https://ips-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/PPC-BBB-fact-sheet.pdf
And elsewhere the NPPC pointed out that:
“Since
Vietnam, the United States has waged an ongoing war against diffuse enemies,
siphoning massive resources away from social needs. Out of every dollar in
federal discretionary spending, 53 cents [go] towards the military, with just
15 cents on anti-poverty programs.”
Many of us remember the dramatic policies proposed, some implemented, of the Great Society. And twenty-five years earlier, during World War and before “the Great Society,” Henry Wallace, spoke of the the prospect of creating the “Century of the Common Man,” the absence of war, social and economic justice, and freedom. President Roosevelt called for a “New Economic Bill of Rights,” in 1944 embodying economic security and justice for all, and even Harry Truman advocated for a national health care system.
And what
happened every time, the 1940s, the 1960s, the 1990s, and now-threats of war,
demands for preparations for war, escalating military expenditures. The tragedy
of how war and the mythology of its inevitability is vividly reflected in the
defeat of the Great Society programs.
In sum, since
the establishment of the permanent war economy in the 1940s millions of
proclaimed “enemies” have been killed and seriously injured, mostly in the
Global South. Permanent physical and psychological damage has been done to U.S
soldiers, predominantly poor and minorities as they too are victims of war.
In addition, military spending has distorted national priorities and invested
U.S. financial resources in expenditures that do not create as many jobs as
investments in construction, education, or healthcare. And, as Andrew Bacevich,
Seymour Melman and others have called it, “the permanent war economy” has created a
culture that celebrates violence, objectifies killing, dehumanizes enemies, and
exalts super-patriotism through television, music, video games, and educational
institutions.
There is no
doubt that there is an inextricable connection between war-making abroad and
human suffering at home. Now is the time for peace and justice movements to act
on these connections.
WHERE SHOULD THE PEACE MOVEMENT STAND? IMPERIALISM, WAR, AND/OR DIPLOMACY
Harry Targ
“Not every conflict was averted, but the
world avoided nuclear catastrophe, and we created the time and the space to win
the Cold War without firing a shot at the Soviets…. Now, when I ran for
president eight years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to
war in Iraq, I said that America didn’t just have to end that war. We had to
end the mindset that got us there in the first place. It was a mindset
characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mindset
that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building
international consensus, a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the
intelligence supported.” (Barack Obama, “Full
text: Obama gives a speech about the Iran nuclear deal,” The Washington
Post, August 5, 2015).
The peace movement has often been faced with a
dilemma. Should it channel its energies in opposition to imperialism, including
economic expansion and covert operations, or should it mobilize against war, or
both. The problem was reflected in President Obama’s August 5, 2015 speech
defending the anti-nuclear proliferation agreement with Iran. On the
one hand he defended diplomacy as the first tool of a nation’s foreign policy
and on the other hand his defense included the argument that through diplomacy
the United States “won” the Cold War, and thereby defeated a bloc of states
that opposed capitalist expansion. The implication of his argument was that
pursuing imperialism remained basic to United States foreign policy but
achieving it through peace was better than through war.
The speech was presented at American University 52
years after President Kennedy called for peaceful competition with the former
Soviet Union. In June, 1963, nine months after the Cuban Missile Crisis, which
nearly led to nuclear war, and weeks after Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s
call for “peaceful coexistence,” President Kennedy responded by urging the use
of diplomacy rather than war in the ongoing conflict with the Soviet
Union.
A small but growing number of scholars and activists
at that time had begun to articulate the view that the threat of nuclear war,
growing U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia, and repeated covert interventions
in Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, and the Congo, had to do with U.S. imperialism. The
dilemma for the peace movement in 1963 then as it is in 2015 is how to respond
to United States imperialism at the same time as supporting the use of
diplomacy to forestall wars.
In the context of political discourse in 2015,
dominated by “neoconservative” and “humanitarian interventionist” factions of
the foreign policy elite, the danger of war always exists. Therefore, any
foreign policy initiative that reduces the possibility of war and arguments
about its necessity must be supported. The agreement with Iran supported by
virtually every country except Israel constitutes an effort to satisfy the
interests of Iran and the international community and without the shedding of
blood and creating the danger of escalation to global war.
Neoconservatives, celebrants of war, have had a long
and growing presence in the machinery of United States foreign policy. James
Forrestal, the first Secretary of Defense in the Truman Administration, was a
leading advocate for developing a militaristic response to the Soviet Union in
the years after World War II. As historian Andrew Bacevich pointed out,
Forrestal was one of the Truman administrators who sought to create a
“permanent war economy.” He was, in Bacevich’s terms, a founding member of the
post-World War II “semi-warriors.”
Subsequent to the initiation of the imperial response
to the “Soviet threat”--the Marshall Plan, NATO, wars in Korea and Vietnam, the
arms race--other semi-warriors continued the crusade. These included the Dulles
brothers (John and Alan), Air Force General Curtis LeMay, and prominent Kennedy
advisors including McGeorge Bundy and Walter Rostow, architect of the
“noncommunist path to development,” in Vietnam.
Key semi-warriors of our own day, Donald Rumsfeld,
Dick Cheney, Elliott Abrams, Robert Kagan, and others who formed the Project
for a New American Century (PNAC) in the 1990s, gained their first experience
in the administrations of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. The PNAC view of how
the United States should participate in world affairs is to use military
superiority to achieve foreign policy goals. The key failure of Clinton foreign
policy, they claimed, was his refusal to use force to transform the world. For
starters, he should have overthrown Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
The neoconservative policy recommendations prevailed
during the eight years of the George Walker Bush administration. International
organizations were belittled, allies were ignored, arms control agreements with
Russia were rescinded and discourse on the future prioritized planning for the
next war. And concretely the United States launched long, bloody, immoral wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Humanitarian interventionists, more liberals than
conservatives, argued that the United States should use force, but more
selectively, to achieve various goals. These goals included interventions that
allegedly defended the quest for human rights. Advocates of humanitarian
interventionism argued that the United States must use all means available,
military and diplomatic, to maximize interests and values. And force need not
be the first or only instrument of policy.
But in the end the humanitarian interventionists
encouraged bombing Serbia, intervening in a civil war in Libya, funding rebels
perpetuating war in Syria, expanding military training and a U.S. presence in
Africa, and funding opposition elements against the government in Venezuela. In
addition, with advice from humanitarian interventionists, the United States
increased the use of drones to target enemies of U.S. interests in East Asia,
the Persian Gulf, and the Middle East.
Neoconservatives and humanitarian interventionists
(and in earlier times anti-communists) have led the charge for war-making in
the United States since World War II. Between the end of the war and the 1990s,
10 million people died in wars in which the United States had a presence.
Hundreds of thousands of young men and women serving in the armed forces of the
United States have died or been permanently scarred by U.S. wars. And the
physical landscape of Southeast Asia, the Persian Gulf, Central America, and
the Middle East has been devastated by war. And in the United States, foreign
policy elites, politicians, and think tank experts still advocate violence to
address international problems.
Therefore, in the context of a huge arms industry and
global economic and political interests, any presidential initiative that uses
diplomacy rather than force, declares its opposition to unilateral action, and
challenges the war mindset deserves the support of the peace movement. Given
the long and painful United States war system, the battle to secure the
agreement between the P5 plus 1 nuclear agreement with Iran is worthy of
support.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is
deplorable and the issues between all contending parties are more intractable
today than the negotiations with Iran referred to above. However, Russia’s
engaging in violence and destruction, and the United States and NATO supplying
arms to Ukraine, can only lead to more death, hunger, and the danger of
escalation to nuclear war.
Harry Targ
Secretary
of State Anthony Blinken endorses negotiations between contending nations in
Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda August 9, 2022
And the Ukraine?
“The United States is doing everything it can to support the very important African-led mediation efforts, in particular the processes that are being led by Kenya and Angola, to bring peace, security and stability to the eastern Congo. We are not only following this very closely and carefully, we’re engaged in it,” he said. (Jean-Yves Kamale “Blinken calls for end to Congo violence, backs negotiations” Associated Press, August 9, 2022.)
As a Marxist teaching Peace Studies I always made light of sections of my course and text that dealt with bargaining and negotiation.
However, reflecting on the war in Ukraine and the seething tensions and competing arguments (even among us on the left) I was drawn to this bargaining and negotiation literature I long since forgot. Why? Because I do believe the first priority of the peace movement should be to organize around stopping the killing. We can put off for now debates over the role of NATO, great power chauvinism, self-determination of Ukrainians including those in the Donbas region, and the role or not of neo-Nazi's. In my opinion the first priority is how to get the killing to stop, hopefully coupled with a withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine.
So I recalled the writings and research of a social psychologist, Charles Osgood, who developed his strategy of Graduated Reciprocation in Tension Reduction or GRIT. He claimed it worked during the Cuban Missile Crisis and others have claimed that it has worked in other conflict situations such as US/Iranian negotiations. https://savinghumans.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/building-a-spiral-of-trust-through-grit/
GRIT’s basic point is to get one side, in this case US/NATO/Ukraine, to make some serious but not risky unilateral moves inviting the other side to reciprocate. (And that is where peace movement activism and demands come in.) And such de-escalatory moves should be continued but not to endanger the security of the initiating party. (And the conversation between Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Russian Defense Ministery Sergey Shoygu may be a start).
Hopefully, Osgood would have suggested, the Russians would eventually stop the killing, perhaps order troops in place, and/or pull back some troops. One critical goal would be to get a number of nations to send representatives to negotiate a ceasefire and further tension-reduction. In this case the Minsk Accords might be a starting place.
GRIT may not work, but in my opinion it is worth a try. And if one looks at the GRIT strategy for tension-reduction US policy is now doing just the opposite; that is the US is escalating by word and deed more threats, more demands, more arms, and more calls for expanding the scope of the conflict.
So, while social psychology is not political economy or realpolitik, it might help end the killing. And we all agree that is the first priority for the Ukrainians and is vital for reducing, rather than increasing, the threat of global nuclear war.
MAY 5, 2022 BY A PUBLIC AFFAIR
For today’s show,
Thursday host Allen Ruff turns his attention to the history of NATO with
political scientist Harry Targ.
: https://www.wortfm.org/harry-targ-nato-history/
They discuss the war
in Ukraine, imperialism, the “global NATO,” and Harry’s recent article in CovertAction
Magazine, “Peace Movement Needs
to Demand Dismantling of NATO.”
Harry Targ is a peace activist and emeritus
professor of political science at Purdue University, where he taught foreign
policy, US–Latin American relations, international political economy, and
topics on labor studies. He blogs at Diary of a Heartland Radical.
Did you enjoy this story? Your funding makes
great, local journalism like this possible. Donate here
Sorry for reposting but the rumors of the overthrow of Roe v. Wade makes me outraged. The US claims to be a model for democracy worldwide but is about to deny it to women at home. HT
Often politicians using religious dogma as their rhetorical tool, support public policies that punish poor women, women of color, and progressive women in general.Vivay Prashad, in his fascinating book, The Darker Nations, traced the rise and subsequent demise of the Third World Project from the 1950s to the 1980s. The Third World Project, mainly the mobilization of poor and marginalized peoples around the world, envisioned the construction of progressive governments that would provide for basic social and economic needs and institutionalize democratic participation in political life.
Read Challenging Late Capitalism by Harry R. Targ.