Many regard the sudden rise and fall of H. Ross Perot as a passing electoral phenomenon: here today, gone tomorrow. But it has another dimension that has been neglected or obscured. It has to do with the struggle within the capitalist establishment to reorient the foreign policy of U.S. imperialism in the light of the new world situation set in motion by the counter-revolution in the USSR.Perot's bid for the presidency is the third in this century by the head of a billionaire empire. The first was by Henry Ford. It was not very serious although, again like Perot, Ford attained considerable momentary popularity, mostly fostered by lavishly spending millions of dollars.
The presidential bid of the Rockefellers was far more serious. Nelson Rockefeller had been elected governor of New York and had assiduously cultivated a liberal image. This of course did much to raise his stature as a presidential candidate. But in the end it became clear, as with Ford and Perot, that the ruling summits of finance capital are more wary of one of their own dynastic cliques taking over the administration of the capitalist state than of getting someone from outside the ruling monopoly groupings.
With Perot in particular, they fear he may be more likely to "shake down" the capitalist government than shake it up to their satisfaction. This was undoubtedly a factor in his withdrawal from the race. But his foreign policy inclinations and the positions he allegedly holds are what should engage our attention.
Importance of Nitze's resignation
A great deal of publicity was given to the resignation of Perot's campaign manager, Edward Rollins, and his assistant. By contrast, there was scarcely any publicity around the earlier resignation of Paul H. Nitze, a member of Perot's foreign policy advisory committee. Nitze's resignation may have had a lot more to do with Perot's withdrawal than one would assume from the published reports in the capitalist press.
Paul H. Nitze is not just another foreign policy expert from the ruling capitalist establishment. He is from the inner core of the military-industrial complex. While not known to be an official of any of the huge corporate complexes among the military contractors, he was co-founder and chairperson of the notorious Committee Against the Present Danger. In the early 1980s this grouping initiated and organized the campaign to put the U.S. military machine on a war footing that became essential to the Reagan program.
The pretext for this committee's campaign was the USSR's intervention in Afghanistan in December 1979 to thwart an attempted counter-revolution by pro-imperialist forces.
Hundreds of billions of dollars were subsequently spent on reorganizing and modernizing the U.S. war machine. Obviously Nitze's initiative on behalf of the military-industrial complex was very significant. That he should have been a principal adviser for the Perot campaign says a lot about Perot's foreign policy. Nitze's resignation says a great deal more.
According to the July 16 New York Times, Nitze said he "decided not to continue on the advisory committee because he was appalled at some of the positions that Perot was reportedly contemplating." Nitze said, "Perot felt that the United States should declare itself to be a Pacific and Asian power and pay less attention to Europe. ...
"That's undoubtedly true," Nitze said, "They can take care of themselves. But that doesn't mean we don't have an interest in maintaining relations with Europe."
Right-wing extremist on foreign policy?
What does all this signify? If even a right-winger like Nitze is appalled at Perot's positions, does it mean the emergence of a new, extreme-right-wing grouping in the military-industrial complex similar to the old, discredited isolationists who appeared in the months before the World War II? The old isolationists were said to be anti-British and partly pro-German, but were driven most of all by unbridled anti-communism. Their isolationism consisted of wanting to stay out of the war that had already started in Europe. This new grouping is not isolationist, but rabidly interventionist and obsessed with the perspective of U.S. domination in the Pacific and all of Asia.
Rule over the Pacific is old-line Big Navy talk, supported by the military contractors for whom the Navy is a source of super-profits. Such talk constitutes a provocation to the Asian masses and should be denounced by all progressive and anti-imperialist working class organizations as a dangerous development. Why should the U.S. military be able to roam the world, or even the Western Hemisphere? It should be confined to the territory of this country.
It is unlikely that this position on Asia and the Pacific represents the view of Perot alone. It smacks of a substantial section of the capitalist establishment.
The continuing ascendancy of Japan as the industrial and technological leader in Asia is undoubtedly the factor motivating this group. Even more so is their fear of a revitalized revolutionary China. It may not be a prospect at this time but is certainly inherent in the situation, given the fact that no full-scale counter-revolution has taken place in China. Even the continuing flow of capitalist investment into China strengthens the U.S. militarists' fears that it will all redound to the benefit of a reinvigorated Chinese socialist republic.
Europe's importance to U.S. capital
Who is for abandoning Europe? That's a canard in the first place. But it is best to know who has the strongest interest and fears concerning Europe. It is the oil monopolies. They rely on European imperialism to guard the vast oil riches of the Middle East, where two-thirds of all the known oil reserves of the world are located. In the final analysis, it is the European imperialist powers and the Israeli puppet state that stand guard against the millions of Middle Eastern people, whose anti-imperialist hostility can only grow as U.S. domination continues.
But the oil monopolies and the U.S. capitalist class as a whole fear the rivalry of the European imperialists, particularly Germany and France. British imperialism is of course a junior partner of U.S. imperialism.
It is difficult to believe that there is any substantial grouping in the U.S. ruling class that would be for abandoning U.S. interests in Europe. We regret that Nitze has not made himself available for questioning so that the public would know more about the foreign policy grouping Perot assembled around himself. Therefore, we must proceed by deduction and inference.
We believe there is a substantial grouping that is very solidly for maintaining the strongest interest in Europe and at the same time fostering the deepest antagonism with it.
Such a grouping is capable of vociferously promoting peace in all areas of the globe and at the same time supporting counter-revolution in any and all oppressed countries. It is the kind of grouping that can be on all sides of an issue and yet maintain an Olympian aloofness above it all, as though it has no interest whatever.
Such a grouping is Big Oil.
It should never be forgotten that Germany has no oil resources of its own. The U.S. does not want Germany or France to become oil powers in their own right; instead they must be kept dependent on U.S., British and Dutch oil.
The problem, of course, is not that there's a shortage of oil. Rather it is overproduction and the struggle over markets. And now with the collapse of the USSR, its resources as well are beginning to be geared toward export.
Acting behind the scenes
For too long the giant oil monopolies have been inconspicuous in the political arena. Even after a bloody war was fought against Iraq in their interest, not one congressional committee called any of these companies to testify or present its position. The last one to do so was headed by Sen. Frank Church. Since his death, there's been no investigation of Big Oil.
What large corporation can lay off 8,500 workers and cause barely a ripple in the capitalist press? Amoco. Who can lay off 2,000 workers and get even less publicity? Mobil. Unocal just let 1,000 go. If the editors of the New York Times wanted to be really objective, they would criticize Mobil, which places an ad every week on the page facing their editorials.
What is most interesting about these layoffs is that they came in the midst of the Democratic Convention. A hundred years ago, the Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil company could never have done this without bringing a political attack on itself. But did anyone at the Democratic Convention take note of these significant layoffs by the most powerful corporate entities in the U.S.? With all the sloganeering about jobs by both Democrats and Republicans, has anyone remembered to bring up the role of Big Oil in the current unemployment situation?
Imperialism's broader interests
While there are innumerable groups exclusively linked to Europe or to Asia and the Pacific, the overriding reality is that monopoly capitalism's historical destiny is to stretch its tentacles all over the globe. Where there are narrow economic interests geared exclusively to one geographical area or another, the big banks generalize and seek to harmonize them in the interest of super-profits.
By finance capital, we usually mean the banks and industrialists. But key among them, especially of late, are the oil monopolists that dominate many of the banks. They have pulled the rug out from under Perot. We don't know the details, but the many recent hostile articles in the capitalist press can only have come from the inner capitalist establishment, not just from individual reporters.
Most of the world's energy resources are being used by a small portion of the population in the West. A great number of oppressed, underdeveloped countries don't have this resource. The majority of the human race is being deprived of sufficient energy resources.
Oil is a strategic, vital resource produced internationally. It should be taken out of the hands of the monopolies and internationalized under workers' control with a view toward promoting working-class and socialist solidarity. It then could be distributed worldwide on an equitable and socialist basis.