Obama: Change or continuity? (I)

By
Eliades Acosta Matos                                                     Read Spanish Version  

First
in a four-part series.

The
people of the United States have voted for Barack Obama for president
and the establishment’s Olympus has approved, more because of a
selfish calculation than because of a democratic vocation. In a way,
the Rubicon has been crossed. A new era begins for that country and
the rest of the world, not better, but probably less bad.

There
was no alternative. An eventual victory by John McCain would have
meant the continuity of Bushism, that insane neoconservative suicide
that has cost more than a million dead in Iraq alone, has left the
United States without allies or international prestige and has
promoted the worst financial crisis in modern times. Not
surprisingly, Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel laureate in economics, said
that "the Wall Street crisis is to market fundamentalism what
the fall of the Berlin Wall was to communism. It tells the world that
this form of economic organization is unsustainable." (1)

It
must be acknowledged that that conclusion was reached prior to
November by many gurus of the system, those invisible and accurate
personages who, from the shadows, pull the strings of their country’s
politics and of much of the world’s politics. They are the people who
determine how many pounds you must lose if you want to be a winner,
what books you must read, and what movies you must see during your
vacation. Used to heavy betting, to making predictions out loud, and
to always having a "Plan B," they have once again played
the cards of continuity and change. That’s what Barack Obama means as
the new President of the United States: an expected and orderly
retrenchment, so that there will be no panic during the sinking.

During
the Middle Ages, Christian exegetes used to say that the ways of the
Lord are infinite. Something similar could be said today by the
political strategists who designed the Obama Play, which, as you
could assume, cannot be improvised or left to chance in U.S.
politics. Shrewdly, a young and little-known man, from humble
origins, black, and fathered by a Third-World citizen has been
promoted as the Messiah of the system. Thus is re-edited the story of
Christ, the Saviour, predestined to bring to mankind the Good News of
redemption, a man who came to the world into the family of a pariah.
But, unlike what the New Testament says, let us not hope for any
spectacular miracle here.

Latin
America, a continent immersed in a transcendental process of change,
constitutes a challenge for the new president of the United States.
The most elemental logic indicates that the man who turned the word
"change" into his political campaign slogan should show
special sensitivity and sympathy for peoples who have began to move
precisely because of the urgent need for change. "I believe that
the United States continues to be the best hope for the rest of the
world and that whoever is elected must assume that role and carry it
forward," declared the President-elect on April 23, 2007 (2).
But in the collective imagination and the historical memory of Latin
Americans, the previous governments of that country which dreams of
becoming an archetype to imitate are the same who intervened
repeatedly in the region with their military forces, who have
subverted and overthrown democratic governments elected by their
people, who have installed and protected bloodthirsty dictators who
caused thousands to die or disappear and who, through pitiless
plunder, have obstructed the development of nations.

In
his "Statement About Latin America," read to the Senate on
March 8, 2007, the then-Senator from Illinois acknowledged that
successive U.S. governments had neglected relations with their
hemispheric neighbors and that this would be one of the priorities of
his administration, if he reached the White House. "To help the
people [of Latin America] to emerge from poverty is part of our
interests and values," he said. "When our neighbors suffer,
we all suffer. […] Our commitments must be expressed with actions,
not with words. […] We must maintain our support for democracy,
social justice and opportunities for our neighbors to the south. The
Western hemisphere is too important to our principles and economic
and security interests to threaten it with negligent and ill applied
policies." (3)

But
these beautiful and hopeful promises from the newly elected president
(which, to be taken seriously, must become concrete actions beginning
on Jan. 20, 2009) contrast with some of his statements toward the
Cuban Revolution and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. At that
point, the kindly rhetoric of change falters and once again the old
days of pressure, warnings and scoldings surface. In the first
instance, while he has acknowledged the need to lift the existing
restrictions so Cuban-Americans may visit the island and send
unlimited remittances to their relatives, he has also said that he
will apply a "strong, intelligent and principled diplomacy to
bring real change to Cuba" (4), advocating the retention of a
blockade "that provides advantages at the time of negotiation"
(5). Never mind that this measure has failed or that it causes pain
and suffering to the people on the island, or has been rejected year
after year by the United Nations General Assembly because of its
illegal and immoral nature. In the case of Venezuela, he has said
that Chávez "is not the kind of neighbor we want" (6)
when, strictly speaking, that is something that has been repeatedly
decided at the polls by the Venezuelan people, whose decision it is.

These
little sparks, amid the sigh of global relief that greeted the
results of the Nov. 4 election, cast doubt on whether the new
administration will really bring back to the White House —
profoundly and truly — the sanity that was lost, and if the nation
can resume the path from which it deviated for so long.

The
key to the problem is to define what Barack Obama understands as
"changes" and to what extent he is willing to carry them.
We also need to know how far he can (and will be allowed to) go to
make them. To answer these questions, we’ll have to delve deep into
the strategic ideas that move around him and the philosophy that lies
behind his bright political career. And that leads us not to the
squares and streets filled with fervent supporters of "change"
or to the heated speeches with which this fine orator won the hearts
of his compatriots and much of the world but to certain offices and
cabinets where the script for this strange U.S. perestroika was
drafted in silence some time ago.

When
Barack Obama talks about an "intelligent policy" — and his
brand-new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeats it before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee as if it were a mantra — we are
looking not at a rhetorical playing card but something a lot more
essential, whose analysis could throw some light on the extent and
depth of the "change" Obama claims to incarnate. Because
behind Obama is the "theory of soft and smart power"
promoted by a Washington think tank, the CSIS (Center for Strategic
and International Studies), just as behind Bush were the
neoconservative concepts of the Project for a New American Century.

What
differentiated Obama from McCain and earned him the support of the
American voters was that he presented himself with a kindly face and
a human discourse that contrasted strongly with the permanently knit
brows of his opponent and his apocalyptical preference for war,
military expenditure and iron-fisted policies.

"If
I become the visible face of U.S. foreign policy and power, I shall
make the strategic decisions with prudence, will handle the crises,
emergencies and opportunities in the world in a sober and intelligent
manner" promised presidential candidate Barack Obama. (7)

Obama
embodies the clever empowerment of the universal hope of a world
tired of death, hunger, epidemics and tragedies. That does not mean
that he questions the hegemonic — and, why not say it, imperialist
— role in which his country projects itself. It means that, in the
best tradition of the CSIS, he bets on soft, diplomatic methods that
generate consensus and voluntary obedience, that allow the
now-exhausted system of global domination to take a breather,
avoiding whenever possible the always costly and unpopular wars.

Obama
now embodies the suave ways with which the world’s capitalist system
counterattacks, attempting to emerge from the crisis and to regain so
much lost ground. He embodies those delicate yet strong strategies
(always preferable to the preventive attacks of the neoconservatives)
with which capitalism attempts to achieve the same but without so
much fuss. As it was always done in the good old days.

And
I don’t know why, while re-reading his speeches, I’ve begun to
re-read the novel "El
Gatopardo," by
Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, that says that "if we want
everything to remain as is, it is necessary for everything to
change."

By
the way, did someone speak of changes?

Elíades
Acosta Matos is a Cuban writer and essayist. He has written numerous
essays and books, among them "Apocalypse According to St.
George," and "From Valencia to Baghdad." His latest
book, "21st-Century Imperialism: The Cultural Wars" will be
presented at the 2009 Havana Book Fair. Acosta was chief of the
Cultural Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
of Cuba.

***************

[1]
Joseph Stiglitz interviewed by Nathan Gardels, El País, Sept. 21,
2008.

[2]
"Senator Obama’s statements about Latin America," March 8,
2007 (www.obama.senate.gov)

[3]
"Obama’s policy for Cuba and Latin America," Político, May
23, 2008.

[4]
Idem.

[5]
"Obama: Chávez is a manageable threat," Reuters news
agency, June 11, 2008.

[6]
James Traub: "Is (His) Biography (Our) Fate?" The New York
Times Magazine, Nov. 4, 2007.