Imperial Power & Counter-Power

'Imperial Power & Counter-Power':

(M.A. Jamal's Remarks to the Rosa Luxemburg Conference in Germany / Jan. 10th, 2009
[SP. WRIT. 12/30/08] (C) '08 MUMIA ABU-JAMAL

If one is to address the reactions to the recent election of Illinois Senator Barack Obama to the U.S. Presidency, this can perhaps be best encapsulated by the term, exultation.

For if ever a political figure rode the currents of a stellar alignment, Barack Obama did so.

The exultation was both national and global.

In my 1/2 century of life, I can recall no presidential election that elicited so profound a political -- indeed visceral! -- response.

When one considers what role the left had in such a spectacular political event, again we must look to alignments; not of stars, but of constituencies, which converged to not only elect Obama, but to also close the door to the ruinous politics of the U.S. right wing, represented by the incumbent President, George W. Bush, and his presumed political heirs, Arizona Sen. John McCain, and Alaska's Gov. Sarah Palin of the Republican Party.

While the U.S. left was a constituent part of the larger constituency, it neither drove nor directed the forces that elected Obama. In many ways it was hostage to those forces.

Those forces were youth -- those between 18-28, who mobilized in ways never seen before; it was also African Americans who voted in unprecedented numbers for one they perceived as one of their own; add to this millions of women, some of whom felt, frankly, disrespected by the choice of Palin, who, though a woman, betrayed an astonishing lack of knowledge and expertise on issues, especially given the very real possibility that her running mate, sen. McCain, might not survive the rigors of office.

But one cannot ignore the significant segment of those who felt betrayed or disaffected by the hard-right tilt of the Republican Party -- which ran almost exclusively on the notion that Obama was a "socialist", who in Palin's oft-repeated quote, "pals around with terrorists."

For those beyond our shores, it may be necessary to briefly decode this language. The "socialist" tag was a kind of cleaned - up, classy version of 'communist', the ultimate slur in U.S. capitalist politics, only exceeded by the post 9/11 term "terrorist" (and by calling Obama a "pal" of terrorists, it was tantamount to calling him one).

The last reference was to the alleged friendship between Obama and William Ayers, a Hyde Park educator who, in the 1960's, was a leading member of the Weather Underground, student anti-war and anti imperialist activists, who engaged in acts against property, and who supported the Black liberation movements of the era.

In point of fact, Obama was, by no measure, a leftist.

In the Spring of 2008 issue of The Black Scholar, African-American studies professor, Charles P. Henry makes the point explicitly, citing both Obama's own words, as well as a political biography of him in the New York Times Magazine. (1)

Obama's quoted remarks are instructive:
The Democrats have been stuck in the arguments of Vietnam,
which means that either you're a 'Scoop' Jackson Democrat or you're suspicious of any military action. And that's just not my framework .(2)

Obama's choices were illustrative of two poles of the Democratic Party: Sen. Henry 'Scoop' Jackson was so pro-war that he was called the "Senator from Boeing". (3) ; Hayden by contrast, was a student anti-war activist, and member of S.D.S. (Students for a Democratic Society). (Interestingly, Obama never referred to himself as a Jesse Jackson Democrat either).

This leads us to the next query on the role of the U.S. anti-war movement; in a word, it is moribund.

This, paradoxically, can be traced to the massive demonstrations of Spring 2003 in protest of the imminent Iraq War. For millions of people, this was their first, and last experience of mass action. Sadly, the lesson they learned was of their impotence, not their power, for Bush promptly ignored the protests, rattled the sabers of war, and launched Operation Shock and Awe.

For many people, unused to popular protests, this short-term failure to stop the war blinded them to the rarity that such mass protests represented: never had the nation seen such mass protests before the war was begun. At this stage, the people were a Counter-Power, but they stopped far too soon.

To further analyze the question of whether the election of Obama represents a leftist surge, or if the anti-war movement is in its ascendancy we need only recall that Obama is neither a leftist nor is he anti-war. The early stages of his electoral campaign were explicitly against the Iraq War. As he ran in the later stages, his sound bites announced a troop withdrawal in Iraq was necessary to buttress U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Indeed, given the events occurring as these words are written, there will probably be more U.S. anti-war protests against the Israeli blitzkrieg on Gaza in the next 2 weeks, than there was against the U.S. occupation in Afghanistan in the last two years.

That, I think, succinctly states the case of where we are.

But where we are need not determine where we can go. For people move by inches and by leaps. This was, undoubtedly, a giant step in U.S. history. This was not a day ever envisioned by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln or even John F. Kennedy.

Yet, one of Black America's most revered historians, Vincent Harding, (author of the classic, There is a River), spoke for far more than himself when he said, "So my hopes are very much focused on him, but not on him alone. I see the energy that's been built up over these two years of campaigns, and I see the possibility that we could gather ourselves together and begin to ask, in a very powerful way, not what should Barack Obama be doing next, but where do we go from here? What is our role as committed, progressive citizens to move to the next stages?"

Harding, a close confidante of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., ended his comments on the Obama election with this fitting suggestion: "Maybe a democracy needs community organizers more than it needs commanders."(4)

Maybe so.

It appears Dr. Harding is suggesting that instead of empire, we need a republic, for if history teaches us anything, it is that the two realities are un- reconcilable. In the days of ancient Rome, the advent of empire spelled the end of the republic.

In 193 C. E., an African seized the throne of Rome. Emperor Septimius Severus extended Rome's power, and strengthened its empire. His sons succeeded him, and exceeded him in cruelty and brutality.

They didn't bring change -- they brought continuity.

Will this empire be any different?

From Mumia Abu-Jamal.

India Hots Up

Developing countries like India are officially exempt from emissions agreements. Yet the richer nations continue to point the finger of blame. Will an aggrieved India be up for compromise in Copenhagen?

This place keeps on changing, says Pradip, surveying the shifting landscape of the Sunderbans delta. The islanders on Ghoramara island haven't contributed to global warming. There are no roads here and there's no electricity. Yet their home is rapidly disappearing before their eyes. We're nervous living here, says one woman, whose house was swept away a few weeks ago, if the erosion continues, there will be no island in 10 to 20 years.

Whilst India suffers from global warming, it's also - increasingly - making the problem worse. Across India, the trappings of middle class life - and the power to pollute - are finally within reach. Once, a car was a dream for farmers and workers, says a Maruti salesman, now its an essential purchase. Increasingly the US and Australia are pushing for a commitment from India and Indian officials are outraged at what they see as finger-pointing. We will not have a deal in Copenhagen just to appease the polluting nations of the world, says activist Sunita.

India says global warming is high on the agenda, and many renewable energy schemes are planned. Yet there are powerful voices in India who now say no deal would be better than a bad deal brought about by the bullies of the world.

Produced by SBS, distributed by Journeyman

Crude Impact

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10


Crude Impact documentary film uncovers some harsh realities about our world and our relationship to fossil fuels. Yet as discussed in the film, there is cause for hope. Crude Impact is meant to inspire us to take action, because as Dr. William Rees says in the film, "this new knowledge gives us the possibility of creating a brilliant future for all us." Objective of the film is to promote positive, hopeful change in the way we source and use energy - changes that will create a more just and sustainable world.

- Peak impact : Peak oil is the point in time when the quantity of oil extracted from the earth begins to irreversibly decline. The United States reached peak oil in the early 1970s. Predictions vary, but global peak oil is anticipated as early as the year 2007.

This fragile balance of the worldwide supply and demand of oil has the potential to incite violent resource wars, where smaller, less economically developed oil-exporting nations will be at risk of both civil conflict from within and potential invasion by industrial nations from without. We may also see increased political and economic instability within these third world oil-producing nations as well as the displacement of indigenous peoples and the vast destruction of pristine environments. And with fossil fuels now such an integral part of our worldwide food production, peak oil also imperils our ability to feed the ever growing human population.

- Food impact : As the world's population has steadily increased, so have our systems of food production and our seemingly insatiable consumption levels. The development of modern agriculture in the U.S. and other industrialized nations has dramatically changed the way in which we grow, process, transport and acquire our food. The distance from farm to table has never been farther, and we now expend ten times more energy getting our food than we do consuming it. In order to offset this imbalance, we must re-localize our food economy and reduce the fossil fuel energy used in growing it by supporting local organic agriculture when buying our food.

- Earth impact : Man's overdependence on fossil fuels is a fundamental threat to the existence of all other life forms. We are currently extinguishing other species at a rate that is far greater than before the age of industrialization. Since the modern age began, humans have repeatedly taken over habitats and eliminated any competing or inconvenient organisms, in an ongoing effort to progress and expand.

Humans are now threatening the very existence of the planet by altering its climate through fossil fuel combustion, the leading contributor to the development of global warming. As a result, we have already seen the onset of more severe storms, hurricanes, tornadoes and droughts around the world. Hurricane Katrina may be just the beginning.

- Human impact : The extraction and production of oil often wreaks havoc on the lives of those who live in its midst and in its wake.

In many oil-producing less economically developed nations, indigenous people are forced to live in cancer zones where the land and the water are heavily contaminated with toxins. And in these smaller, underdeveloped countries, oil extraction has often been supported by regimes with poor human rights records, known for their corruption and abuse of civil liberties. As oil production increases, often the poverty level of regular citizens and indigenous peoples increases as well. These people rarely benefit from the wealth extracted from the land on which they live.

- Population impact : The world's population has exploded in the last hundred years, in great part due to the development of fossil fuels and the subsequent growth of modern agricultural practices and mass food production. As a result, we are straining all of the Earth's resources and crowding out all other species. This massive human population growth may be the single most powerful impact that fossil fuels have had on the planet. The only fair and proven solution to population growth lies in the empowerment of women. It has been shown that when women are given social, political and economic power, population stabilizes and may even decrease.

- Media impact : With the consequences of peak oil and our global dependence on petroleum so severe and the situation so precarious, one might wonder why so few people seem to know about it. Because American mass media outlets - which produce our TV news programs and print our newspapers - are run as profit centers rather than as a public service, the media does not thoroughly or accurately inform the American people about the impact of government's oil policies or even the dire predictions about global peak oil. And lacking proper information, we are woefully ill equipped to take action.