In resisting the abuse of US power the Middle East has a lot to learn from Latin America, writes Rumy Hassan* Though one might hesitate to use such unfashionable terms in polite society, it remains the case that we are living in the age not only of US imperialism but of resistance to it. In The Great Transformation, a seminal work on 19th century imperialism, political economist Karl Polanyi described how the expansion of the market by imperial powers generated a "countermovement" -- or resistance. We are witnessing a modern variant of this, with the epicentre of the countermovement residing in the Middle East, above all in resistance to US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to the perennial oppression of the Palestinians by US's client, Israel -- the victory of Hamas can be seen as part of this countermovement -- and, more recently, to threats against Iran. Less noticeably, strong resistance has also taken root in Latin America, and since the election of Hugo Chavez as president in 1998, above all in Venezuela. Chavez's anti-US stance is not only having a measurable affect in other Latin American countries -- the victory of Evo Morales in Bolivia being the most notable -- but also among poor, ethnic minority communities in the US itself. For example, the black actor and political campaigner Harry Belafonte, member of a delegation of Americans that met Chavez in January of this year, made the following astonishing assault upon George Bush: "No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W Bush says, we're here to tell you not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution. We respect you, admire you, and we are expressing our full solidarity with the Venezuelan people and your revolution." Outside the confines of Muslim communities in the West no such brave -- some might say reckless -- support has been proffered by anyone to any Middle Eastern regime or resistance movement. The reason for this seems clear: that the kind resistance, ideology, and political nous offered by Chavez is far more appealing to the American poor and oppressed -- and will doubtless soon be to the dispossessed in other parts of the globe -- than that of his Middle Eastern counterparts. A key plank to Chavez's politics is the attempt to use Venezuela's oil exports for the benefit of the poor and the avowed rejection of IMF-style neo-liberal structural adjustment programmes. In an extremely astute move, Chavez devised a programme to provide discounted oil to poor Americans. Under the plan Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), and its Houston-based affiliate Citgo, will set aside up to 10 per cent of refined oil products to be sold directly to poor communities and institutions. Note that this initiative coincides with the making of record profits by US oil giants and Bush-supporters such as Exxon. This is the root of Chavez's popularity -- he seems to be putting into practice what he preaches. Like Middle East regimes Hugo Chavez is not part of the West but his ideology, integrity and commitment to social justice -- particularly the use of burgeoning oil revenues for social programmes -- is being adopted now by, in the words of Belafonte, perhaps millions of poor urban Americans. This is one reason why the Bush government is so hostile to the Chavez regime and fervently hopes for its removal. In stark contrast, the politics, ideology and means of resistance of the Middle Eastern countermovement attract very little support beyond Muslim circles in the West. On the country they -- and their supporters residing in the West -- have increasingly become part of the 'Other'. Rather than viewing this as a manifestation of 'Islamophobia', it should be seen in the context of the effective curtailing of rights and liberties to which the resistance continues to pay lip service. The resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq -- though entirely explicable and expected -- contains deeply reactionary elements. For example, many of the bombings -- including suicide bombings -- in Iraq have been directed explicitly against civilians on sectarian grounds, explicitly so in recent weeks. In contrast, sectarianism and the systematic targeting of civilians was never the policy of, say, the resistance to US troops in Vietnam. And what of Arab leaders? Whereas Chavez denounces Bush and Blair in the most unrelenting of terms Arab leaders offer barely a whisper of criticism. In practice these leaders have been ineffectual in giving real solidarity to their fellow Arabs or Muslims. Take, for example, the threat by the US and the EU to withdraw funding from the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, and by Israel to withhold customs duties. A Chavez equivalent in the Middle East, or the wider Islamic world, would immediately have stepped in to offer replacement aid; yet there has been silence and pusillanimity though the Iranian regime has now promised some funds. There has certainly not been any action on the part of oil- rich Gulf states to offer help to the Arab poor -- let alone to the poor of the US. So, though we have in formation a countermovement to the abuse of US power and Washington's myriad breaches of international law and convention, resistance in the Middle East can learn much from the resistance now emanating from Latin America, above all from Venezuela -- not least because it is based on a vision of liberation in its full sense of the word, and not solely from the yoke of US imperialism. * The writer is a senior lecturer at the University of Sussex, UK.
