Jaime Ballesteros(*)

1. The United States policies for the world hegemony come from a long time. The north- American intervention at the Cuban war for independency (1898) determines the beginning of its imperialist interventions, of its imperialist decisions. The strange and not already clarified explosion of the American ship at Havana’s harbor, that the United States have attributed to Spain, was used as an excuse to intervene in this war, intending to get Cuba.

The old Yankee doctrine of the “Manifest Destiny” used in the 19th century to wide its frontiers, announced its later imperialists wishes. The United States supported that they had an evident imperial destiny, which was already aiming for expanding to the Latin America and to the Western (Oceania and Asia).

Actually, the 20th century could be contemplated as the century of the people’s fights for independency, democracy and socialism – Asia and Africa’s anti-colonial fights, in Latin American, against the neocolonialism, soviet’s revolution, Chinese’s, Vietcong’s, Cuban’s …, antifascist fight in the world etc, but also could be contemplated as the century of the increase and consolidation of the great north-American imperialism in the world.

So, during the I World War in 1914-1918, we watch the Austrian-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. Later, during the World War II, from 1939 till 1945, the German and Japanese’s empires get debilitated, both defeated, but also the British and French, as a result of the war and later by loosing their overseas possessions. From this war, comes the bipolar world, USA and the Soviet Union, which balance of power, balance of nuclear terror, however, in the end, “balance”, has dominated for decades. In 1991, the Soviet Union is toppled, and the USA become the only superpower in the world.

It is sure that, mainly Germany and Japan who have been recovering themselves, the famous Triad exists: the USA, Japan and the European Union, but these two lasts, economically recovered, need political-military power. The great imperialism, not only the economic one but also the political-military that comes from the 20th century, is, with no doubt, the north-American imperialism. Since the United States intervention at the Cuban independency war in 1898, till the Soviet Union’s fall and the current Bush’s policy, the 20th century has been creating this great imperialism that today is, with no doubt, the biggest danger to the humanity, perhaps due to its failure and decadence or precisely because of this, as Benstein analyzed.
This historical process of the imperialism is the other side of the process of the peoples fights for independency, for democracy and for the socialism that the last century has crossed, big Amazonas river which strong water running flows in this 21st century with as much strength as the monster of the north American imperialism. It is the big fight between two concepts of the universal: the exploitation, the wars, the misery, the dependency, the new obscurantisms, in one side; and in the other side, the peoples’ freedom, the States’ independency, the social conquests, the equality, the reason and the culture, in one word – the socialism. It is the local and global fight between two concepts of the universal, fight that should be solved in this 21st century.

We know that during the 20th century the aggressiveness, the cynicism and the brutality were part of the United States international policies – and talking about its intern policies with an exaggerated racism, the McCarthyism and the social abandonment of extensive popular layers, while being the richest country in the world, all in the exercise of normal democracy. Since its intervention at Cuba’s independency war till Bush’s appointment, the United States have not been a country that exercises democratic policies in the international plan. It has been an imperialist country of great aggressiveness. Destabilized governments, provided fascists military strikes, invaded, bombed countries. In the Latin America there is a big experience of all of this.

2. After the Soviet Union’s failure, the United States with the Great Britain have spread to the world the neo-liberalism doctrine, proclaimed just a few time before.

Its goals were clear:

- The “free-market”, which is, that the other countries in the world open their markets to the rich countries, specially the USA, even if they reserve to themselves the right of establishing barriers to the products that they do not want to enter their markets and subsidize the exportation of those products that would not be competitive in the global market without this subsidy.
- That the other countries debilitated themselves because of this free market under the powerful countries’ control, specially the United States, while the north-American State fortifies itself at its best.

- That the capitalism cancels the social conquests where the peoples’ fight was able to impose itself.

- That the capitalism acquires in good conditions the States’ companies that are profitable, leaving to the State the one that are in deficit.
In reality, the “free market” ideology does not search other goals than these ones.

But the neo-liberalism, in its walks, has always acted with two legs. One, of all these measures that we will call economic ones, even if evidently they are more than economic, they are oriented to the market’s domain over the politics; but the neo-liberalism controlled also the other leg, the one of the military force, of the blocks to the peoples, of the bombings, of the destabilizing and States’ strikes all over the world. The neo-liberalism’s political and economical theory was walking with two legs, sometimes kicking with the political-economical leg, and sometimes kicking with the leg of the political-military violence.

The United States used to send their products and their transnational companies, but also used to send their marines, their blocks and their bombings with depleted uranium.

The neo-liberalism has been causing a big increase in the inequalities and with them the misery, the hunger, the infirmities, the illiteracy, the death and the despair all over the world. At the same time, the neo-liberalism started the task of destroying the International Laws. So, we have seen how the right of intervention was proclaimed in other States, including the military right, using as excuses the fight against the ethnic cleaning, the democracy’s defense, the human rights’ defense etc, objectives very ambiguous to interpret them as the powerful conveniences. For example, the attack against Yugoslavia was aiming to divide it and establish military basis there.
The Human Rights, the ones of political character, have been used as a marketing tool in pre-warlike occasions to humiliate, isolate and then attack, if necessary, the ones that do not submit themselves to the United States’ control. This way of using the human rights is commanded by the rich countries, in first place the United States. But when they proclaim the human rights, they do not remember about the shackles of the foreign debt, of the increase of misery, of hunger, of illnesses, of children deaths, of the lack of work, lack of medical assistance and of education in the world. These other rights, constantly violated, are not considered the reason to condemn a regime as not democratic, and even less to condemn those countries that are the reason or accomplices of these situations in the present world.

During this period we have been living what we can call “Neo-liberal Despotism ”.

3. But this “Neo-liberal Despotism” that moved forward sometimes with the leg of the economical politics’ violence and other times directly with the leg of political-military’s violence, with Bush in the control, it assumes a more aggressive way. And it is necessary to emphasize it, not because of the September 11th. Things come from earlier times. We are in front of an ultra-elaborated policy and decided much time before the attacks and besides them.

Let’s remember that in 1982, during the Reagan government, some assistants of Bush-father had created a project on foreign policy, which has not found at that time the exact atmosphere to be approved. It has been forgotten, apparently, till 2000, when the ultra-conservative association called “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC), closely linked to Bush-son, has called up a meeting with 27 specialists and ideologists who have made the report “Rebuild the United States’ defenses for the New Century”. The editors of this report have realized that they owned something to the 1982 project.

The new report exposed clearly Bush-son and his group’s intentions: to militarily control the Gulf region, being or not Saddam Hussein in power, as an important step to his strategy to exercise the military, economical and political controls in the world. The document expressed in its text: “For decades, the United States have searched to represent a more permanent role in the Gulf’s regional security. Even if the still non-solved conflict with Iraq offers an immediate justification, the necessity of a substantial presence of the United States’ army forces at the Gulf region transcends the subject of the Saddam Hussein’s regime”. It was claimed that, for the new tasks, “the United States political leadership was more demanded than the United Nations’.”

It was recommended that the United States installed their military basis where there weren’t any, in the Middle East, in the Latin America, in the Southwest European and in the Southeastern Asia. The United States were advised to abandon the “Treat on Limitation of Anti-Ballistics Missiles Systems”, signed in 1972 with the Soviet Union. When reaching the Presidency, Bush-son did so. They pointed to Iraq, North Korea and Iran as the regimes that should be defeated in very short time. And that later would be called “axle of evil”.

It’s necessary to mention that this strange September 11th - not considering the analysis of its authors- has played the same role as the fire of the Reichstadt letting Hitler to come up with his policy. The same role that has played the sinking of Maine at Havana’s Harbor in 1898 so that the United States could intervene on war, starting its imperialists actions.
Taking advantage of the favorable atmosphere created by the terrible attacks, the 2000 extreme-right report, mentioned above, could assume the official form of the current document named “United States’ National Security Strategy”, from September 2002, which guides the present north-American aggressiveness. Repeats and establishes the guidelines of the previous documents that I have mentioned earlier. This was the extreme-right’s enhanced strategy, with which the old theory of the Manifest Destiny of the United States was updated.

So, even the decision of invading Iraq and the other possibly interventions in the region, the extension of the north American military basis and presence in some regions of the world, including the Latin America, and the United Nations’ dispense if their goals are different from the United States’, all this policy comes from a long time ago. It is the policy that the ideologists and strategists of the more extreme and ferocious sectors of the great north-American imperialism, very closely linked to the oil producing and weapons companies, have been making. It is called the “Bush’s doctrine”, incubated for all these years.

This big north-American strategy, this dictatorial offensive to the whole planet, should be put in practice “as soon as it will be possible in the near future”. The propitious and opportune September 11th in 2001 has created an appropriated political atmosphere to transform these events from an imperialist policy of extreme character to the United States official doctrine.
The neo-liberal despotism that was reigning moves a step forward, becoming more aggressive and dangerous.

This is the present point of the north-American imperialism. Its highlight is the worseness of its aggressiveness, of its decision of controlling the whole world. And, to be able to get it, its conscious wish of applying any methods that are necessary for that. With Bush, the unilateralism imposes itself in a totalitarian way, with a clear tendency of using the war where they believe there is no capability of military response. The war, with the Bush’s doctrine, becomes directly the politics, not its prolonging.

The neo-liberal despotism has become a kind of a neo-liberal new-fascism.

4. I want to remember that traditionally, the ones who have gotten certain age can remember, we used to define the fascism, and I think it was a very correct definition, as the way of terrorist government of the most reactionaries sectors of the capitalism. And so, this is what is being produced now in the great north-American imperialism. The most reactionaries sectors, willing to govern the world mostly with terrorist methods, have been empowered with Bush. Of course this attempt of new-fascism does not act in the same stile and way of the classic fascism. And either the Latin-American militaries dictatorships did not do so, introduced with the United States’ help.
They will not go out to the streets protesting. We are living another time. There are some liberal forms, parliamentary forms, but tending to reduce the liberties, and in the international field, with an aggressiveness of the worse period of the fascism.

It is time to ask ourselves: how can we describe the United States as being neo-fascist if it is a democratic State?

It is appropriate that we hold for a second on what we should understand as a Democratic State. And I do not refer to the old discussion between the formal democracy and the real one, neither between the bourgeois democracy and the popular one. They are discussions that point to important problems but that, in my opinion, have suffered deformity from one and other parts. I refer to what today is not possible to qualify as a Democratic State (using this expression in the way it is used in the academic and communications environments, by the international organizations and by the most part of the world’s popular opinion, that is, in the way that a State is democratic when it is related to the parliamentary liberal classic pattern, with liberty to the political parties, rights of gathering, association, expression etc.); a State cannot be qualified as democratic by evaluating exclusively the way it is organized inside the country, even if its policies and its international acting have no characteristics of democratic, but the opposite, be definitely dictatorial.

It has been used very often and in a very dangerous way the classification of a country if it is democratic or dictatorial, without taking in account that, in a world getting more and more global, establishing more and more relations between the States, its international action, democratic or not, has a growing role.

The United States are a country with a democratic constitutional form, beyond the abundant perversions that misshape its democracy. An example is Bush’s election, with manipulations, not to say traps, until he was finally proclaimed president, and we see many other things, the huge power of money, a master on perverting the democracy, all we already know. But, constitutionally, the United States are a democracy, in the liberal meaning of the word, but a democracy. But, in the international arena, they seem much more, when to qualify them, as a country that has nothing democratic, in the international field, they work definitely as a fascist country. As a country that imposes by force its criteria, bombs and invade countries, runs over the International Laws, acts as a partial judge and destroys the United Nations, to whom imposes its criterion: or they do what is interesting to the United States, or simply they do not respect their agreements, treating their allies with disdain, and intends to impose to the world the immunity of its soldiers and agents. Brutal cynicism, that together with a nuclear potential and all kinds of sophisticated mass and nature’s destruction weapons, supposes the worse danger that the humanity has already have in its long history.
In a increasingly global world where we live, the parameters to judge if a state is democratic or not must take in account, in the international arena, more than how much its domestic organization is democratic, about what, we repeat, there would have many things to say, because nobody can deny that we live a deep crisis of the parliamentary liberal democracy.

A country that internationally acts with dictatorial and truthfully fascists criteria, cannot be classified as democratic. And vice-versa: if a country, in its domestic form, or because it does not follow the traditional form of democracy or even if it is a dictatorship of one or other type, but that in its international behaving is definitely democratic in all of its actions, it cannot be classified as a dictatorship, specially if it shows up a concern with the social rights.

With the globalization, I insist, it is necessary to start using new parameters, more scientific, to qualify the countries as democratic or non-democratic, new and different parameters from the ones that have been used in the big communications environment and between the ideologists of the unique thinking that controls the world. These old parameters are, nowadays, a dangerous weapon of the neo-liberalism, of its new-fascist dictatorship.

5. Reaching this point, comes the question: Why has this power been produced in the United States? Why did the United States put ahead of the country the most reactionaries, most terrorists and adventures sectors? Why did they concluded that the neo-liberal despotism, with its arsenal of violence, wasn’t enough that it had to use more extreme forms?
In reality, it was a range of elements that was accumulating and which was concerning seriously many powerful sectors in the north-American society.

- Before all, a general and growing crisis of the neo-liberalism, becoming more serious each day.

- In the Latin America, the neo-liberalism’s crisis has produced struggles, advances, progressive candidates triumphs. Venezuela, rich in petrol, develops its Bolivarian revolution. Brazil, the great Brazil, with Lula’s government, fights for an alternative democracy to the neo-liberalism. The left. Colombia, where there were growing the force and prestige of FARC (Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces), Equator, Peru, Bolivia, all the Andes region is subjected to a deep crisis. In a way or another, the Latin America lives a peak of struggles, sometimes, with important electoral results, live popular hopes and searches of regional alternatives for neo-liberalism and of getting free from the United States control.

- Cuba continues resisting among many difficulties. When the Soviet Union and the socialist countries from the East European have toppled, many have thought that Cuba’s failure would happen in some days. But Cuba, against winds and tides, and despite all the Yankees provocations and now the indignant block of the European Union and the non less indignant “condemnation” of the left sectors, keeps resisting, giving an example to the world of its resistance capability to the great north-American imperialism.
- China, the huge China, where lives one of each five humans in the world, not only consolidates itself but also develops itself with strength, without letting the tricks of the Asian economic crisis stop its economy. China is, with no doubt, one of the United States biggest concerns for the future.

- In a big part of the world, has risen the neo-liberal anti-globalization movement, which has blew proclaiming the deep injustice of the current international society, and that another world is possible, by fighting with the domain of the neo-liberal international institutions.
- At OPEC, Iraq, with its powerful petrol reserves, has abandoned the petrodollar using the Euro. This could prophesy serious dangers to the petrodollar, in an OPEC where there was Venezuela, a State with a progressive and popular government. The danger of being broken the petrodollar domain in the international petrol’s commerce could cause a serious economic strike to the United States.
- Also the European process for unification, even if today it is a process for capitalist unification, and not only capitalist, but imperialist, concerns the United States because it could be not only an economic competition, but also political. The unification process of a group of countries in which most of them the anti-Americanism increases not only among the peoples. We have seen this in the whole fight against the war in Iraq, including in the high-capitalism sectors.
- I would add also the restart of the Intifada. The new Intifada revealed a problem: that it was not that easy to control the Palestinian revolution. That the Palestinian reality was still acting with a lot of strength.
- And other problems, without forgetting those that affect the north-American economy.
All of this accumulation of problems was seriously concerning the great imperialism. Consequently, opting for Bush was a more prompt strategy of the world’s domain than the one of the neo-liberal despotism that was reigning until now, despite all the violence, never left behind. The dominants forces in the United States, which have the firm decision to control the world, to domain the raw-materials, to stop any country that could get closer to them in military potential, put Bush ahead of the empire, after doubtful elections, his doctrine and team, opting to continue with his intentions.
These are the causes why the neo-liberal despotism has become into a neo-liberal neo-fascist.

Consequently, Bush and his team are willing to solve, the sooner they can, some of these problems. And aim for two regions in the world that are their present goals, without forgetting other regions that are also their object of attention. Have as their target the whole Middle East region, since the Red Sea until the central part of Asia. Aim and invade Afghanistan, by positioning troops at China’s borders, a strategic point also for the petrol world controlling. Few months later, there was the invasion of Iraq, with its huge petrol reserves, decisive country in the region’s control, which could provide an intern exit from Palestine. And there are still some threats to Syria, Iran and other countries in the region.

The other target is the Latin America, all in crisis and instability, since Central America till Argentine. I have referred, formerly, to the United States concerns about the independent, political and social peaks of the Latin-American continent. The United States response is to accelerate the implementation of FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas), each day getting more opposition, and to wide their military presence in a grid that covers the whole continent.

Bush will dare to continue new invasions at the same rhythm as the other two, despite the instability in Iraq with an active resistance, that is creating serious problems to Bush, who has won the war militarily but can finish loosing it politically; resistance to the imperialist invader, that, by the way, helps all of us; resistance, finally, that deserves the solidarity of all peoples of the world? Today, the Bush’s political wear and tear and the United States’ imperialism failure depend on the fight and victories of the Iraqi resistance and on the global solidarity with it.

The Bush’s doctrine texts mention about being possible to do many wars at the same time, but the truth is that this is much easier to have in a text than in practice. The jaw can bit anything, but cannot chew and digest a whole cow, the bigger could be the desire of doing it. Bush will have to predict his different steps. And will have to attend all the political and economic problems that may appear in his rear, in the north-American society.
The mad dream of Bush will have, and it is already having, some very serious hitches.

6. What is becoming very clear, not only for the peoples but also to many sectors in the world, is that the United States is the fundamental enemy now. This is the main fundamental contradiction that the humanity has on its future.

And to solve this fundamental contradiction is necessary to go ahead to establish a new relation of forces in the world. This is essential at the world’s present situation and to the global march to the socialism. And it will be necessary for a long time. Or the relations of powers in the world be changed or many solutions of democratic, progressive and socialist characters will find severe obstacles. At this time, it is necessary to break the unilateralism into a more democratic and progressive sense.

This causes that the countries that are authentic regions of the world and because of their size, strength, economic possibilities, population etc, play a more important international role. And at the same time, it is necessary that continents and regions in the world move forward together to a democratic and not neo-liberal regionalism processes, in order to get stronger, being able to deal, with better possibilities, with the serious problems of their peoples. It is necessary to search for multilateral mechanisms.
Of course, the regionalism’s processes can move forward to one or other parts of the world in a neo-liberal way, the European Union is an example. In these cases, they will accept a subordinated role as vice-kings of the United States, or in the case of developed countries, they will opt to be an economic and military imperialism with all their consequences and hazards of future nuclear inter-imperialists war. In this case, we could be very close to the planet and humanity’s end.

When we refer to the necessity of regionalizing the world, surely we are talking about not neo-liberal processes, but democratic and progressive processes, that are independent of the great and dominant capitalism, of the imperialism.

In these processes, as in other fights against the north-American neo-fascism, for example the fight for peace – which I will refer later-, there will not be only the peoples, there will be a range of classes and social sectors, of ideologies, organizations, cultures, States, with different interests, what will cause many contradictions, but all of them converging to the opposition of the implacable United States’ control, on its planetary voracity. Some of them, criticizing the unilateral government that the USA exercise, their methods ahead the capitalist society, choosing different forms of governing the present capitalist system. Others, fighting against the great power of the north-American imperialism and the global system that it governs, searching not neo-liberal solutions to their peoples. Others, convinced that it is necessary to defeat the capitalism. There will be serious and difficult intern contradictions in these regionalism processes, there will be opposition of the most reactionary and conservative sectors, including internal fascist threats.

But the fact is that the United States are the most important and strong enemy, the great imperialism is the head and the highest power of the capitalist system. And it is necessary to accumulate big and huge strengths to be able to change the relation of powers in the local, regional and global levels.

Changing the relations of power in the world is the decisive goal of a global strategy running to socialism. It is a global objective of strategic necessity in the way to the socialism.

I am convinced that the way the changes on the relations of power move forward, the way the five developing countries in the world, including Brazil, play a more active role, and the way a regionalism with a democratic, independent and progressive character, with its changes, moves forward, and that the events in the world start following this way, huge forces of democratic, progressive and revolutionary character will be set free in the world. Forces that are necessary to make this process stronger, that could influence on this process so that the perspective on the system’s changes will not be interrupted, so that they do not stay stuck in intermediaries phases or goes back, but that forces and experiences be accumulated to go ahead, in a more democratic way, more free and human, and with a more equal distribution of the money in the world. That the process be socialized and that the big revolutionary battles which, with no doubt will happen, could be won.

Finally, I will express two issues that in this perspective I think have special importance:

First issue: the importance of restoring, in the present world and with all its value, the principle of the coexistence of different regimes. This principle is in the basis of the United Nations’ Letter, even with the United States trying to cancel it. They want to impose another principle, the one that is possible to have coexistence only between those countries classified as democratic, according to the classification that at every moment can be established by the United States and their allies. I have previously mentioned this classification, about who is democratic and who is dictatorial. But now it is in another way. It refers to the idea that in the international community there is place only for the “democracies”, idea that have not other objective than to defeat the countries that are against the United States orders. Because there will be the United States and their allies that will define who is not democratic and so should be condemned, while at the same time, the dictatorships allied with the north-American imperialism will be protected.

Those who intend to accept the democracies only in the international community are those who intend to legitimize the right of bombing and invading the countries which the United States