|
TARIQ ALI
veteran political activist, filmmaker,
and author of numerous books
|
Sunday, August 15th from
4:00 - 6:00pm
PST, KPFK
will broadcast a special
program on the Venezuelan Recall Referendum with exit polls, election
results, interviews with Venezuelan government officials, opposition
representatives, journalists, and activists, with live simultaneous
translation when necessary.
Interview with Tariq Ali
Venezuela: Changing the World by Taking Power
Thursday, Jul 22, 2004
By: Claudia Jardim and Jonah Gindin - Venezuelanalysis.com
Tariq Ali is a veteran political activist,
filmmaker, and author of numerous books, both fiction and non-fiction.
He was born in Lahore, Pakistan, and now lives and works London,
England where he is an editor of the British journal New Left Review.
His most recent political texts include The Clash of Fundamentalisms
(Verso, 2002) and Bush in Babylon: Recolonizing Iraq (Verso, 2003).
Claudia Jardim and Jonah Gindin talked with him during a recent
trip of his to Caracas, where he participated in the presentation
of a statement of solidarity from numerous Brazilian intellectuals
(see: Brazilian Intellectuals and Artists Declare Support for Venezuela's
Chavez).
How do you explain the explosion in social
movements against neoliberalism in Latin America?
I think the reason for this is that Latin
America was used as a laboratory by the United States for a long,
long time. Everything the US wanted was experimented in Latin America
first. When they wanted military—on the political level—when
they wanted to crush popular movements by unleashing military dictatorships
they did it in Latin America first: Brazil, Argentina, Chile; three
of the most brutal dictatorships we have seen. Then, after the collapse
of the communist enemy, they relaxed on the political front but
they got Latin America in a grip economically, and they said ‘this
is the only way forward.’ We can summarize it like this: the
laboratory of the American Empire is the first to rebel against
the Empire. So many many different and interesting processes are
happening in Latin America and I think where the left is weak is
in its inability to bring these together and to refound the Latin
American left.
What began to happen in Latin America is
a process of de-industrialization; foreign investments coming in.
In the most classic examples were Chile under Pinochet, then Brazil
under Cardoso and Argentina under successive governments. They de-industrialized
the country, they thought that the country could function in a bubble—an
economic bubble created by a false boom, a boom which was largely
fuelled by foreign investment, foreign moneys coming into banks
where there were low interest rates. So people used to use this
to invest, but whenever the investments got risky they used to take
them out—international capital. They had absolutely no motivation
for building Brazil or Argentina so you gradually began to have
the rise of a new social movement which arose from below: peasant
movements, landless peasant movements, unemployed working class
movements which began to challenge this initially on a micro-level,
in villages, in one town, in one locality, in one region. And then
gradually it began to spread.
The result was continent wide protests...
You had an uprising in Cochabamba in Bolivia
against the privatization of water. You had a struggle of the peasants
of Cuzco in Peru, against the privatization of electricity. On both
struggles the government made repression first and then they had
to retreat. Then you had an unbelievable collapse in Argentina,
where within three weeks I think 4 or 5 presidents came and fell.
That began to demonstrate very graphically the crisis of neoliberal
capitalism. Then you had Brazil. In Brazil you had a situation where
Cardoso had de-industrialized the country completely. There was
no national bourgeoisie left, there were no national traditions
within the capitalist sphere left, and the country began to suffer.
Do you see the US Empire absorbing this
energy by trying to propose a softer version of neoliberalism?
I don’t think they are, at the moment,
prepared to do that. They will only do that if they feel threatened.
And they don’t feel threatened at the moment. And one reason—I
have to be very blunt here—they don’t feel threatened
is because there is an idealistic slogan within the social movements,
which goes like this: ‘We can change the world without taking
power.’ This slogan doesn’t threaten anyone; it’s
a moral slogan. The Zapatistas—who I admire—you know,
when they marched from Chiapas to Mexico City, what did they think
was going to happen? Nothing happened. It was a moral symbol, it
was not even a moral victory because nothing happened. So I think
that phase was understandable in Latin American politics, people
were very burnt by recent experiences: the defeat of the Sandinistas,
the defeat of the armed struggle movements, the victory of the military,
etc., so people where nervous. But I think, from that point of view,
the Venezuelan example is the most interesting one. It says: ‘in
order to change the world you have to take power, and you have to
begin to implement change—in small doses if necessary—but
you have to do it. Without it nothing will change.’ So, it’s
an interesting situation and I think at Porto Alegre next year all
these things will be debated and discussed—I hope.
Without adequately addressing state power,
what alternative to neoliberalism is the Global Social Justice movement
offering?
No, they have no alternative! They think
that it is an advantage not to have an alternative. But, in my view
that’s a sign of political bankruptcy. If you have no alternative,
what do you say to the people you mobilize? The MST [1] in Brazil
has an alternative, they say ‘take the land and give it to
the poor peasants, let them work it.’ But the Holloway [2]
thesis of the Zapatistas, it’s—if you like—a virtual
thesis, it’s a thesis for cyber space: let’s imagine.
But we live in the real world, and in the real world this thesis
isn’t going to work. Therefore, the model for me of the MST
in Brazil is much much more interesting than the model of the Zapatistas
in Chiapas. Much more interesting.
What do you make of the impasse that has
been reached between the grassroots and the government in Brazil?
I think the problem in Brazil is the following:
the PT [3] captured the aspirations of the people, especially the
poor. They captured them, but they couldn’t deliver anything—so
far, they have delivered nothing. In fact, the repression against
the MST in the first year of Lula has been much higher than in any
single year of the Cardoso government. The farmers and the police
have victimized and killed far more MST militants. Now, this will
end badly. Why has it happened? It’s happened because, in
my opinion, the PT had not prepared itself in a serious way to even
think about any real alternatives. Publicly they said, ‘yes
we’ll give land to the landless, yes will do this, yes we
will do that,’ but they had not made any real preparation.
And Lula, I’m afraid, is a weak leader. A weak leader who
is so excited at being in power, that he forgets why he is. The
same thing happened to Lech Walesa in Poland when the big mass movement
Solidarnosc threw him up and he finally was elected. What did he
deliver? Nothing. And he was voted out by the people, and that will
happen to Lula.
Refounding the Brazilian left...
I think that, in my opinion, what we need
in Brazil is a movement to refound the Brazilian left. And this
movement must include, broadly speaking, those people inside the
PT including many members of parliament and senators and grassroots
members, a very key component that should include the MST and it
should include that layer of Brazilian socialist intellectuals who
are now very disillusioned. These three components are very important
to refound the Brazilian left, it’s foolish to do it by just
a few people walking out and declaring ‘we’re a new
party.’ You need a new different sort of a movement and a
different sort of a party than the PT. In these conditions the bulk
of the Brazilian working class is now an informal working class—it’s
not the case as it was when the PT was founded. And so you have
different priorities. You have to refound a Brazilian left which
is in accord with these new priorities and realities of Brazil today,
not some mythological picture of the past.
Before the elections in Brazil, I was in
Ribeirao Preto at a festival, and they asked me ‘if you were
a Brazilian, who would you vote for?’ And I said I would vote
for Lula with the majority of the poor of Brazil. But I said my
big worry was that Lula will forget who has voted him into power
and he will cater to the policies of those who did not vote for
him—the IMF and the World Bank and the international financial
institutions. They did not vote for Lula, but they’re the
people who’s policies are being carried out. And I said that
would be a tragedy, and people gasped but that’s exactly what’s
happened. And for me the relation between Lula and Cardoso is the
relation between Thatcher and Blair. Blair followed Thatcher, Lula
is following Cardoso. It’s intertwined, and this is the tragedy
of Brazil and in four or five years time there will massive disillusionment;
the right will probably win again and we will have to start the
fight from the beginning.
In Colombia, for example, there has been
a huge militarization that is very similar to cold war U.S strategy
in Latin America. Where does this fit in with a new strategy that,
as you have pointed out, is largely economic?
Colombia is exceptional at the moment, and
of course Venezuela where they tried to push through a new coup
d’état which failed. They will do that if nothing else
succeeds. Where they feel democracy doesn’t serve their interests
they will return to the military—that’s obvious. But
at the moment the problem is: how to devise a society in which you
can push through projects, social-democratic projects for the poor.
That’s the key in my opinion, that’s why Venezuela is
very important. Before Lula was elected a possibility emerged, an
image emerged of the following: Argentina had collapsed, in Venezuela
there was Chávez that if you had a Bolivarian federation,
of Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba, together
you could produce a completely different way of looking at the world
and a different form of society, which would not be repressive,
which would not be vicious, which would transform the everyday lives
of the poor. That has not happened because…Kirchner, in my
opinion, is better than Lula; he’s trying to resist on some
levels. The big disappointment has been the Brazilian PT, big disappointment.
But that doesn’t mean we stop thinking like that because in
a small way it’s what I said at the press conference today:
10,000 Cuban doctors, thousands of poor Venezuelan kids going to
Cuba to learn to be doctors. Here you take advantage of each other’s
strengths, not each other’s weaknesses. So it’s very
good that Venezuela and Chávez are taking advantage of the
strengths of Cuba, rather than their weaknesses. The social structure
they have created, health, education that’s something that
Brazil could do as well, but they don’t do it.
In the wake of strong opposition to the
Free Trade Area of the Americas might the US use bilateral trade
agreements to achieve its economic goals in Latin America?
I think the United States, you have to understand,
always acts in its own interests, and its own interests are to stop
a regional force from emerging in Latin America without the presence
of the United States; to stop a regional force emerging in the far
east—China, Japan, Korea, without the presence of the United
States; to stop Europe from becoming a strong political economic
power. So, the United States will permit concessions where it suits
their interests, as long as they feel that this doesn’t threaten
them politically or economically. They can make many concessions,
but by and large they prefer bilateral deals. ‘Deal with us.
Don’t deal with us as a collective, deal with us one-to-one.
That’s what suits us.’ That’s always been their
policy.
Tariq Ali says that Venezuela is an example
which the Americans wish to wipe out. "If this example exists,
and gets stronger and stronger and stronger then people in Brazil,
in Argentina, in Ecuador, in Chile, in Bolivia will say 'if Venezuelans
can do it, we can do it'"
Credit: Claudia Jardim - Alia2
The Global Justice Movement is wary of Chávez’
populism, his military background, and what they fear may become
a top-down ‘revolution’ that excludes the grassroots.
How do you think the GJM and Chávez can be reconciled?
As long as the poor in Venezuela support
this government it will survive, when they withdraw their support
it will fall. But I think it will be useful if the Global Justice
movement—and there are many different strands in it—came
and saw what’s going on here. What’s the problem? Go
into the shantytowns, see what the lives of the people are, see
what their lives were before this regime came into power. And don’t
go on the basis of stereotypes. You cannot change the world without
taking power, that is the example of Venezuela. Chávez is
improving the lives of ordinary people, and that’s why it’s
difficult to topple him—otherwise he would be toppled. So
it’s something that people in the Global Justice movement
have to understand, this is serious politics. It’s pointless
just chanting slogans, because for the ordinary people on whose
behalf you claim to be fighting getting an education, free medicine,
cheap food is much much more important than all the slogans put
together.
What do you think of the Venezuelan example
of participatory democracy?
I think it needs to be strengthened. I think
it’s weak, I think the movement here needs to institutionalize
on every level—the level of small pueblos , the level of the
towns, the level of different quarters—organizations, which
can be very broad: Bolivarian Circles, whatever you want to call
them, which meet regularly, which talk with each other, which discuss
their problems, which aren’t simply a response to calls from
above. It’s very very important, because you know, Chávez
is an unusual guy in Latin America—very special—and
he is young and long may he live, but he has to create institutions
which outlast him for the future of this country.
What is at stake in Venezuela? Whose interests?
And can Venezuela survive alone? What does Venezuela mean to the
US?
Venezuela is an example which the Americans
wish to wipe out. Because if this example exists, and gets stronger
and stronger and stronger, then people in Brazil, in Argentina,
in Ecuador, in Chile, in Bolivia will say ‘if Venezuelans
can do it, we can do it.’ So Venezuela, from that point of
view, is a very important example. That’s why they’re
so worked up. That’s why the Americans pour in millions of
dollars to help this stupid opposition in this counry; an opposition
which is incapable of offering any real alternative to the people,
except what used to exist before: a corrupt, a servile oligarchy.
That’s what Venezuela means, and I think that one weakness,
till recently, of the Bolivarian revolution has been that it has
not done more towards the rest of Latin America, because it’s
been under siege at home. But I think, once Chávez wins the
referendum, and then the local elections I hope, and the mayoralty
of Caracas in September, I hope then a big offensive is made for
the rest of Latin America too. From that point of view, the model
of the Cuban doctors is a very good one. I mean, a Venezuelan doctor—in
five years Venezuelans will come back [from Cuba] as doctors, they
can help both their own country, and they can go to other countries
to work in the shantytowns. They are small things, but in the world
in which we live they are very big things. Fifty years ago they
would have been small, today they are very big. And that’s
why we have to preserve and nurture them.
We are an overflown river" says the
banner at a Pro-Chavez rally outside the Presidencial Palace in
Caracas.
Credit: Jonah Gindin - Venezuelanalysis.com
The mainstream private media plays an important
political role in Venezuela. How can this disinformation be combated?
What we lack in Latin America is means of
communication, we need a satellite channel like Al Jazeera , and
I said we’ll call it ‘ Al Bolivar ’ if you want.
But you need one which reports regularly—what the right is
saying, what the left movements are saying, which gives an account
of what it is the MST wants, which challenges Lula, but which does
it quite independently, without being attached to any state. And
I think this satellite channel could be very important for the whole
of Latin America, to challenge the BBC World, and CNN and have a
Latin American channel. And the Venezuelans, and the Argentineans,
etc. it’s in their own interests to do it.
What do you think opposition and US strategy
will be in the event of a Chávez victory come A-15?
Well, I think the only strategy left then
is to try and overthrow him by a military coup. So the fact that
the military seems to be supporting him, and after the previous
coup it was a warning to him as well: you can’t simply rely
on the military without educating people. I think without the military
in Venezuela, they can’t do anything—they cannot topple
him. I think the opposition, quite honestly, if they lose this referendum—which
was their big demand for years, ‘oh, he’s not allowing
a referendum,’ forgetting that he has given you a constitution
according which you want this referendum, without this constitution
you couldn’t have had this referendum—so if he wins
this referendum the opposition will be fractured, I think they will
be completely demoralized, it’s foolish.
Do you think opposition strategy might be
to claim there was fraud in order to deligitmize Chavez´victory?
Well, look: we have to fight that when it
happens, but I think this is why the process should be transparent,
and I think lots of observers will be coming. And if that happens,
the government has to go immediately on the offensive, and say ‘this
was a clear victory, you want you go into the whole country and
talk to every single voter.’ One hasn’t got to be defensive
about that. Go completely on the offensive and say, ‘this
isn’t Florida.’
In any case, one shouldn’t worry permanently,
be paranoid, you know one should depend on the strength of the people.
If the people vote him in, and he wins the referendum they will
be big celebrations all over the country. And it will be obvious,
what has happened.
[1] Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Tera —Landless
Rural Workers Movement, Brazil.
[2] John Holloway, Change the World Without
Taking Power: The Meaning of Revolution Today , Pluto Press: 2002.
[3] Partido dos Trabalhadores —Workers
Party, Brazil. |
|