RACE FOR POWER: REPARATIONS AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
According to certain polls, something like 75% of those in the U.S. are opposed to reparations to African-Americans. This should not be deemed surprising in a nation with a Euro-American majority that has been birthed and suckled on the notion that Blacks receive “preferential treatment” via affirmative action programs that—in truth—mostly benefit Euro-American women.[1]
Yet stating this bald fact both presents a dilemma and a historical perspective for examining this all-important question of reparations. The dilemma is simple: how does one obtain an objective that an overwhelming majority does not support? But the historical perspective provides an answer to this otherwise nettlesome dilemma: consider that if a plebiscite had been held in the Deep South on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, most likely the Euro-American majority would have voted against that too.
The “secret” to whatever African-American advance that has occurred in this nation has been support from the international community that has then compelled the majority in the U.S. to “do the right thing.” Historians now acknowledge, for example, that the Cold War had everything to do with the erosion of Jim Crow in the 1950s and the 1960s. How could Washington credibly charge Moscow with human rights violations, pose as a paragon of human rights virtue and win ‘hearts and minds’ among ‘colored’ peoples globally, as long as peoples of color in this nation were treated so atrociously? [2] Jim Crow had to go and those Euro-Americans who objected to this epochal transition were dragged to an accommodation scratching and flailing all the while by the force of the international community.
Consequently, the proposition that a majority of those in the U.S. may oppose reparations should not detain or derail us; to the contrary, it should cause us to heighten our lobbying efforts within the constituency that ultimately matters: the international community. It was decades ago that W.E.B. Du Bois reminded us that “the Negro problem in America is but a local phase of a world problem….”[3] This remains true but too often of late many African-Americans---perhaps intoxicated with their only recently proclaimed citizenship rights—have acted as if this was solely a local problem only worth ventilating in domestic circles. But this approach has not worked for some time now—it has reached a point of virtual exhaustion-- and, minimally, should be subjected to severe reconsideration.
Those who may have doubts about this thesis should do no more than examine the movement against the death penalty. Majorities have been registered for years in favor of this draconian measure, though routinely African-Americans are the disproportionate victim of this policy, despite the suggestion that those who kill African-Americans are less likely to get the death penalty—which means our lives are worth less than those of others. Evidentiary of the bi-partisan support for the death penalty is the fact that both the Democratic and Republican presidential standard bearers in 2000 both supported execution as the price for committing certain crimes. Yet, as international condemnation of the death penalty mounts—including fervent protests from the likes of Germany and the European Union—it is apparent that second thoughts about this measure are growing. This helps to explain why former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal has yet to be executed and why a death penalty moratorium was called by a Republican Governor in Illinois.
In any event, it is well that we begin to look abroad for just as contradictions between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. created an opening for the emergence of a movement against Jim Crow, similar contradictions between the U.S. and its growing list of opponents world-wide may do the same for the movement in favor of reparations. There is some evidence to suggest that it might be possible to take advantage of the emerging contradictions between the burgeoning European Union and the U.S., for example. Some time ago, it was reported that certain E.U. nations-- leading members of which were prominent in the slave trade—may be open to heeding a call for reparations from the descendants of enslaved Africans in the U.S. but less enthusiastic about reparations to African nations, which would have to come from the coffers of e.g. London, Paris, Lisbon, the Hague and Brussels in the first place. [4] Of course, it would be unwise for the reparations movement to selfishly and incorrectly opt for reparations in the Western Hemisphere while leaving the African continent to fend for itself. On the other hand, it would be quite appropriate to seek to take advantage of emerging tensions between the two major forces in the global economy—the E.U. and the U.S.—on behalf of the reparations movement.
Certainly, it appears that the U.S. government is seeking to leverage elements of the international community against the reparations movement. Thus, it has been reported the U.S. protest about condemning Zionism and/or Israel at the United Nations sponsored World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) in Durban, South Africa during the summer of 2001, may have had motives that were less than transparent. As one usually well-informed journal put it, “Some believe the U.S. action regarding Israel is a convenient way for Washington to prevent discussion of the slavery issue, which could have deep political and financial implications.” A leading “diplomat” affirmed this hypothesis in declaring, “’For the U.S. slavery is far more important and Israel is a smokescreen.’”[5] Thus, although sectors of the reparations movement may have forgotten about the international community, the international community has not forgotten about the reparations movement.
Hence, the question becomes not whether the reparations movement should survey the international community for openings and leverage but how to go about it.
A useful first step in that regard is to examine what used to be called the “global correlation of forces” or the “balance of power” in order to ascertain what are the pressure points to be probed.
* * *
As the comment above suggests, it would be a mistake to assume that there are no differences between and among the member states of the E.U. and the U.S. A quick perusal of the twentieth century finds that the U.S. has waged war on a number of E.U. states more than once, principally Germany—the locomotive of this developing super-state. Though France has been allied in the U.S. in major wars, it is important to note that Paris has been a moving force behind the “euro,” the common European currency, which bids fair to challenge—if not replace—the dollar, which could have disastrous impact on the U.S. economy. That is not all. Raging disputes between Washington and Brussels (capital of the E.U.) continue to boil on matters as disparate as beef, barley, cinema, aerospace—and more. Thus, Airbus, the European plane manufacturer has been challenging Boeing, particularly in the lucrative realm of constructing jumbo jets, which are worth tens of millions of dollars. France, along with a number of other E.U. member states, is irate about the fact that Hollywood has both invaded the French and European market, while successfully throwing up barriers to curb the influx of their films into the U.S.[6]
Indeed, in the wake of the tragic events of 11 September 2001, it is evident that in the long term the value of the dollar will fall—as the idea of the U.S. as a safe haven sinks under the rubble of the World Trade Center—and the value of the “euro” will rise. The increased U.S. reliance on the EU—and, indeed, the international community—to wage its war against “terrorism,” also suggests that Washington will become more reliant on the world and, thus, will have to heed clarion calls coming from abroad.
The position of Germany in this context is striking. Compared to Britain and France, Germany was not a major colonial power—in Africa or elsewhere; indeed, one of the major causes of the two blood-lettings called World War I and World War II was Berlin’s effort to gain a larger share of the division of the world that would be more in line with what its ruling elite saw as the nation’s actual power. The end result was that Germany wound up losing what colonies it had, particularly in Namibia, SouthWest Africa, which—after Berlin’s ignominious defeat in World War I—was handed over to South Africa. Interestingly, though the WCAR was boycotted by most high-level representatives of North America and Western Europe, Germany dispatched its Foreign Minister who expressed contrition for slavery and colonialism.
Not only is the E.U. embroiled in furious conflicts with the U.S. over all manner of bread and butter issues—issues which have served as a pretext for war in different times—but, as well, there are sharp ideological disputes between the two giants as well. The Foreign Minister of Germany is a member of the Green Party—a party not unlike the party of the same name represented by the much reviled Ralph Nader during the 2000 presidential race—and the Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder is a Social Democrat. “Socialism” is not a dirty word in the E.U. as Social Democrats play a leading role in Brussels, the “capital” of the EU. Many in Europe look askance at the U.S. and its “cowboy capitalism” that Washington has sought to foist on the rest of the planet by dint of its leading role in multi-lateral institutions, e.g. the World Bank (led by the Australian-American, James Wolfensohn) and the International Monetary Fund. Many Europeans look down their nose at George Bush, present occupant of the White House, as a Bible-quoting, gun-toting, abortion obsessed, environment polluting, Toxic Texan. They resent his seeking to gun international treaties on global warming, small arms, the International Criminal Court, etc. Just as there are those in Washington who no doubt find it convenient to have leverage against Germany because of Holocaust lawsuits, there are those in Europe who would like to have leverage against the U.S. because of reparations claims. Indeed, those seeking to file lawsuits about U.S. reparations would be well-advised to look into the possibility of filing such claims in European courts, just as those non-governmental organizations seeking leverage should also be peering across the Atlantic.
The Prime Minister of France, Lionel Jospin, is not only a Socialist but a former Trotskyite. Interestingly, he recently endorsed the potentially far-reaching “Tobin Tax,” named after Yale professor James Tobin, which would place a tax on cross-border capital movements the funds from which could then be deployed on behalf of the developing world. Thus far, President Fidel Castro of Cuba—another prominent defender of reparations—has been one of the few international leaders bold enough to endorse this measure. That Jospin of France would do so is indicative of how quickly political currents can shift—something reparations advocates should keep in mind. Of course, the “Tobin Tax” has been a non-starter on this side of the Atlantic, not worthy of mention in polite circles. Yet, its redistributive nature is not unlike reparations and is animated by the same spirit.[7] Also worthy of note is that Berlin—at the prompting of Paris—also has taken the “Tobin Tax” under advisement.
Similarly, at the Durban conference, the French Minister of Co-operation, Charles Josselin, declared, “The French parliament has unanimously adopted a law recognizing that slavery, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, perpetrated from the 15th century against Africans, Amerindians, Malagasies and Indians, constitutes a crime against humanity.” One awaits a similar declaration from the U.S. Congress.
In the meantime, it would be quite useful for advocates of reparations to establish firm linkages with the so-called anti-globalization movement, which has shaken the foundations of the leading powers from Seattle to Quebec City to Prague to Genoa. One idea that reparations advocates could usefully bring to anti-globalization circles is the idea that protecting sovereignty—particularly U.S. sovereignty—is not necessarily and always a value worth defending. As noted here, often it has been necessary to override U.S. sovereignty-e.g. to protect the human rights of peoples of color, particularly African-Americans. In fact, this notion that anti-globalization means upholding U.S. sovereignty is possibly one reason why participation of peoples of color in the massive anti-globalization marches have been up to par.
In any case, the reparations movement must engage with the European Union in order to advance its worthy goals. Keep in mind that a number of leading members of the E.U. were neither slave trading nations nor colonizing powers—the Scandinavian nations, whose foreign aid to Africa is proportionally higher than that of the U.S., come quickly to mind. Social Democrats too play a leading role in this region. And just as the Communist Party-USA has special ties to ruling Communists in Cuba and Vietnam, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)—which has included former Congressman Ronald V. Dellums among its leaders--has special ties to European Social Democrats that are well worth exploring.
In that regard, reparations advocates should not only pursue such ties but should also move forthwith to dispatch delegations to leading E.U. capitals to engage in intensive discussions with political parties and other organs of civil society. This is nothing new. During the era of slavery, Frederick Douglass spent a considerable amount of time touring Europe drumming up opposition against the lords of the lash—the demon slave-owners of the South. That Britain did not intervene on behalf of the South during the Civil War—though breaking up and weakening the U.S. had been a long-term goal of London, at least since the War of 1812—did not occur, not least because of the influence wielded in the U.K. by lobbyists like Douglass. Likewise, the turning point for the crusade against lynching spearheaded by Ida B. Wells-Barnett took place when she toured Europe, bringing to the attention of a larger audience the heinous extra-judicial crimes then being perpetrated against (mostly) African-Americans.