MIM Notes 191 August 1 1999 Imperialist bombing is not humanitarianism As the active bombing of Yugoslavia transitions into imperialist occupation of Kosovo MIM continues to campaign against u.s. intervention in the Balkans. While many activists lost interest as soon as the bombing stopped, MIM is still on the streets telling people that World War III has not ended. In Boston throughout the month of June we spent many hours on the streets distributing literature about the war and on June 24th we held an event exposing the lie that the u.s. is intervening in Yugoslavia for humanitarian reasons. A key point underlying much of our presentation about the u.s. and it's supposed humanitarian interests was the need in so many countries around the world for so many humanitarian missions. Nations are being attacked by other stronger nations, many of them with fascist or fascist- leaning governments, people are starving to death, and governments are abusing their people all over the world. Our first question is why would the u.s. feel compelled to help the Albanian people of Kosovo but not the people of so many other countries and nations. In fact, to understand why the u.s. is in Yugoslavia it is important to first look at the history of u.s. imperialism around the world. A few examples of the u.s. involvement in various countries are useful. Historically there is the case of South Africa where the u.s. not only did not invade to stop apartheid, but it actually sent the white fascists weapons to help them keep power. Similarly in Chile after the democratic election of President Allende the u.s. backed a military coup to put the fascist Pinochet into power. He rounded up and killed thousands of people. Now we hear about Pinochet being charged with war crimes for what he did but no one talks about the u.s. role for which MIM says the u.s. should also be charged with war crimes. More closely related to the situation in Yugoslavia is the case of Indonesia. Since the 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor the u.s. has sold more than $1.1 billion in weapons to Indonesia. This invasion, which enjoyed not only financial support but also political approval from the u.s., resulted in the massacre of more than 200,000 East Timorese people who, in spite of these tremendous losses, continue to fight for their independence to this day. In fact, according to the U.S. State Department, 90% of the weapons used during the Indonesian invasion of East Timor were u.s. supplied. Interestingly, in 1993 and 1994, in a small concession to the strong protests of many people in the u.s., the u.s. congress passed a vote banning the sale of certain weapons to Indonesia. This is the closest the u.s. has gotten to humanitarianism in Indonesia and East Timor: cutting back a small amount on their support for the regime. Meanwhile, the dictator of Indonesia who the u.s. so strongly supported, Suharto, was recently forced to resign after huge protests by the people of Indonesia. Similar to the war in Yugoslavia, the u.s. uses humanitarian concerns to justify their invasion and on- going bombing of Iraq. To this day the u.s. maintains that they are defending the Kurdish people against attacks by the Iraqi government. Yet the u.s. sent a total of $5.3 billion in aid to Turkey between 1986 and 1996 while Turkey was carrying out a Wide-scale war against the Kurdish people. To this day Turkey continues its war against the Kurdish people with u.s. financial and military backing. Around the world the u.s. has rewarded dictators with financial benefits when they take harsh actions to repress their people. In Mexico when President Zedillo declared war on the EZLN in 1995 the imperialists responded by sending a $50 billion "bailout aid package" to him. The u.s. imperialist support for the starvation and death of Third World people extends beyond just backing fascist and repressive regimes. The very system of capitalism is built on the exploitation and oppression of the majority of the world's people. Humanitarian interests are counter to capitalist interests. One blatant example of this is found in finance capital. One half of all Third World debt is owed directly to the U.$., Britain, Canada, Germany and Italy. Most of the rest is owed to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund which are finance organizations run by the imperialists. Africa spends four times the amount of money on debt repayment as it spend on health care. And now, Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) which are being required by the lending institutions because countries are having a hard time paying back all the interest and the debt they owe, are requiring Third World countries to cut what few social programs they have. The United Nations Development Program said in 1997 that the lives of 21 million children could be saved if the money for debt service was put into health and education. That would have been 134,000 children a week. Now, in Yugoslavia the finance capitalists are tripping over themselves to offer huge loans to help rebuild what the military arm of imperialism destroyed. What they are really offering is same dependency that has destroyed the economies of so many other countries. A recent example of exactly this same kind of military and economic imperialism was seen a few years ago in Haiti. After invading to "restore democracy" in 1994 the U.$. was sending $28 million in food assistance and programs to Haiti each year. This adds up to 100 million metric tons of food aid each year. The U.$. programs forced Haiti's agrarian economy to shift to production for export and export-based assembly work. Haitian markets were flooded with cheap foreign food, a strategy used by imperialist countries around the world to undercut locally grown products and force a change in the agricultural economy away from self- sufficiency under the guise of "aid." In 30 years, with "aid" from the U.$., Haiti went from near self-sufficiency in food production to depending on imports for half of its needs. Similar to the situation in Haiti, the u.s. policy of "food aid" has kept Somalia dependent and kept their agricultural industry from producing necessary food. At the same time wars in Somalia are funded by u.s. military aid. But since most people in the u.s. are not aware of this, it was easy for Timothy Wirth, the u.s. representative to the Cairo population conference in 1994, to pretend to take a humanitarian interest in Somalia and talk about the importance of population control to address the tragedy of the people starving. The take home message from all these examples of u.s. imperialism acting counter to humanitarian interests around the world is that it would be better for the u.s. imperialists to stop arming anti-people dictatorships and conducting police operations than to attempt to carry out humanitarian interventions. The workers and peasants of the Third World very much want to lead lives not plagued by the threat of starvation, earning 50 cents an hour, and fearing military attacks. Maoists have faith in the people: they can and will overthrow oppressive governments and set up their own governments. But u.s. imperialism is forcefully stopping the people from liberating themselves. The greatest contribution the u.s. could make to national self- determination and humanitarian goals and to stop all intervention, both financial and military, around the world. Our job here with in u.s. borders is to fight against u.s. intervention and to support national liberation struggles. Discussion at the event in Boston quickly turned to the question of how we can best fight against the anti- humanitarian actions of the u.s. One person advocated studying the question thoroughly and having a clear plan of action because, as he said, those without a clear plan will fail. MIM agrees with this and pointed out that this is why we produce theory journals and in fact this is why we are Maoists. We have studied the history of the world and determined that the best way forward for the majority of the worlds people, and the most successful way to defeat imperialism, is through Maoist revolution. Another audience member said that he thought it was too difficult to support revolutionary struggle and that the easier way is to support electing more progressive leaders. Several people quickly refuted this argument by pointing to the example of Chile already cited as well as the history of the Paris Commune from which we learn that the bourgeoisie will not give up their positions of power without a fight.