[Marxism] Conn Hallinan on liberal interventionism

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Old-timers on the US left will probably recognize the name Conn
Hallinan. His brother Terrence "Kayo" Hallinan was a CP leader on the
west coast in the 1960s who eventually became DA for the city of San
Francisco. Their father was Vincent Hallinan, an attorney who ran for
president on the Progressive Party ticket in 1952 and defended Harry
Bridges from deportation. Conn is a provost at the University of
California, Santa Cruz. The Hallinan boys do have a knack for getting
ahead in the world.

I have no idea whether Conn himself was a CP'er but his article in
today's Counterpunch sounds an awful lot like the People's Daily World
article that Jose Perez dissected.

Daniel Rubin wrote in that article:

"Some on the U.S. left complain that the UN is a tool of U.S.
imperialism or of imperialism in general. That case could have been made
when the UN General Assembly endorsed the U.S. aggression against North
Korea in 1950. Now the UN is the scene of major struggles between the
forces for peace and progress in the world and those for war and
reaction, headed by the U.S. Not every battle is fully won, but the UN
has been resisting U.S. dictation on Iraq. There was evidence of the
change in three recent votes of the General Assembly. These condemned
the Sharon government of Israel for threatening the life of President
Arafat, for assassinating Palestinians and for building the separation
wall. Only Micronesia and the Maldives joined Israel and the U.S. in
opposing those resolutions."


full: http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/4857/1/204/

Meanwhile, Conn's article, which is an attack on Bush's "unilateralism"
particularly as in evidence in Haiti, states:

"There are some who dismiss the OAS, and even the UN, as little more
than cat's paws for U.S. policy, and certainly both organizations have
served as its hand maidens in the past. Supporting the criminal
sanctions against Iraq was a shameful blot on the UN's history, and the
OAS should have suspended the U.S. for supporting the military coup in
Venezuela.

"But both organizations have independent streaks that appear to be
strengthening. In any case, they are the only game in town, and the UN
has scored some notable successes. It helped end the Iran-Iraq war,
facilitated the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and has overseen
elections in El Salvador, East Timor, and Eritrea. It also had
disastrous failures in Rwanda and Bosnia. In the long run, however, it
is the only serious solution to international crises."

full: http://www.counterpunch.org/hallinan03022004.html

This is basically a leftish version of John Kerry's foreign policy. The
main difference between Kerry and Bush is not over goals, but how to
achieve those goals. Here is Hallinan's formula for what might have been
achieved in Haiti under a more progressive foreign policy:

"If one could turn back the clock, and transform the 20,000 American
troops into a UN peacekeeping force, working from the beginning in close
conjunction with the OAS and the Caribbean Community (Caricom), the
outcome might have been different. The Republicans would still have
sabotaged the U.S. part of the aid package, but international aid would
have kept flowing since there would have been a real regional and
international commitment to the liberal intervention. As it was, the
U.S. insisted from the beginning on total control of the peacekeeping
venture. When U.S. political will for the peacekeeping and
nation-building missions waned, there was no multilateral commitment to
ensure that the democratic transition was consolidated."

Unfortunately, Haiti has been subjected to "liberal interventions"
throughout the 20th century. In 1915 Woodrow Wilson sent in the Marines
to protect the assets of the National City Bank of New York (Citibank
today).

A telegram from Admiral Caperton to Navy Department in August 2, 1915
stated:

"Large number Haitian revolutions largely due existing professional
soldiers called cacos, organized in bands under lawless and
irresponsible chiefs...Believe can control Congress. Can prevent any
cacos outbreak after arrival regiment of marines...Stable government not
possible in Haiti until cacos are disbanded...Such action now imperative
Port au Prince if United States desires to negotiate treaty for
financial control Haiti. To accomplish this must have [additional]
regiment of marines...Majority population well disposed and submissive..."

Things haven't changed very much and I doubt if they will with UN or OAS
participation. Last night on the Lehrer news hour, Luigi Einaudi was
interviewed. He is assistant secretary general of the Organization of
American States, and point man for the OAS on Haiti. He said:

"One of the reasons why Haiti had broken down so badly is that the rule
of law really was not being followed. So the key test here is, on the
one hand, stabilize the situation in terms of security, ending the
looting and so forth, and I think that that has improved somewhat, but
don't believe it because underneath there's a terrible problem. And the
way to control the underneath problem is to try to do what Haiti hasn't
had, and what the international community didn't bring itself to do
before, which is to try to ensure a participative system in which
Haitians of different political persuasions work together in a legal
manner. We're talking about building up the center."

I leave it up to your imagination to figure out what Einaudi means by
"building up the center". The OAS had the same exact goal with respect
to Sandinista Nicaragua all during the 1980s and look what happened.
Haiti is the poorest nation in the Hemisphere and Nicaragua runs a close
second. If these nations are going to be free, it will be despite
liberal interventionism and as a result of socialist revolution.

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism