Fw: negating non-intervention

   The below post by John Gulick on the lbo-list, says much more cogently,
my thoughts on the potential direction of the Bush foreign policy. Any
thoughts?

Michael Pugliese
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/1715.html
Re: negating non-intervention
From: John Gulick (jlgulick@sfo.com)
Date: Mon Jan 01 2001 - 17:17:39 EST

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


What do folks make of the following ill-formed diagnosis ? Colin, Rumsfield,
Condi and Co. are urging that US withdraw troops from Balkans in order to
reallocate military resources to Latin America (to fight the ELN/FARC and
to destabilize Chavez, using the former to do the latter and justifying
doing
the latter b/c of his reputed support of the ELN/FARC). This emergent shift
in geographical orientation of US imperialism reflects not only Kissingerian
(instead of corporate liberal) approach of Republican foreign policy
establishment but also the likely increae in inter-imperialist tension when
US' economy tanks -- and thus the world economy tanks. US will no longer be
engine of growth in world economy like it has been since mid-1990's; EC and
Asia will have less interest in allowing US access to EC and Asian markets
when
US markets are shrinking and the dollar is falling. The notion that there is
now
a coherent and self-conscious global capitalist class will be tested and
pressures for protectionist bloc formation will increase. Bush and Co.
anticipate this and are looking to apply US muscle more forcefully in "our
"backyard" -- especially given Bush's ties to Mexico, Fox's recent election
there, etc. Condi Rice likes to point out that Brazil is as big an export
market
for US capital as is the PRC, etc. Aggressive embrace of national missile
defense as a big "fuck you" to the ABM treaty and its exponents among the
elites of Asia and the EC, etc.


John Gulick




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----