The Outlook for 2009

Ignacio Ramonet

“Bullets for the young, money for the banks.” This expressive and angry cry, shouted by demonstrators in Greece, may well be heard in European cities throughout 2009, because the year that has just begun will be characterized, due to the massive firings caused by the crisis, by a strong social discontent. And this discontent will lead to strikes, demonstrations and confrontations that the European elections set for June will not quiet them.

Numerous young people students and nonstudents are aware that their fate is to end up in the sea of precariousness (‘generation 700 euros’) or in unemployment. They wish to start anew. Some feel again attracted by libertarian movements.

In the atmosphere of social struggle that approaches, the ranks of anarchism could grow (1) just like in the 1930s.

Although in international politics there is no room for superstition, the years ending in 9 are often convulsive. Suffice it to say that, throughout 2009, we shall commemorate:

10 years of the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela (in February);

20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the implosion of the Soviet bloc (November);

30 years of the Islamic revolution in Iran (February);

40 years of the Libyan revolution of Colonel Qaddafi (September);

50 years of the Cuban revolution (January);

60 years of the Chinese revolution (October);

70 years of the defeat of the Spanish Republic in the Civil War (April) and

80 years of the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.

No doubt, the economic recession will also be the principal characteristic of the year now beginning, because the effects of the triple Crash in construction, banking and the stock exchanges will batter the real economy head-on.

In that context of social discontent, does the new President of the United States, Barack Obama, represent a beacon of hope? Less than we thought, because his economic team, which includes several ultraliberal personalities who are partly responsible for the current crisis — such as Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner — will not be in a position to change things.

Besides, it seems evident that Obama’s new administration will be to the right of center, that is, farther to the right than the new Congress that emerged from the November 4 Elections. (2) This augurs stronger-than-anticipated tensions between the Executive and the Legislative.

The new Democratic members of Congress will echo the impatience of the voters who were harshly affected by the crisis and profoundly irritated by the giant fraud committed by swindler Bernard Madoff, as well as the massive aid offered by the government to the bankers. In sum, today’s enthusiasm for the new president could, as the year progresses, change into disillusionment, frustration — and anger.

His foreign-policy team — consisting of Hillary Clinton, Robert Graves and Gen. Jim Jones — is also much too conservative for someone who promised he would stop imposing democracy at the point of a bayonet.

The world’s “focus of disturbance” will continue to be the Middle East, as shown by the recent tragic events in Gaza. In Iraq, the forces of Britain and the other allies of the United States will withdraw in spring. American combat troops will stop patrolling towns and cities and will hunker down in their barracks. And their withdrawal will accelerate. Violence will erupt again.

The shoes thrown by journalist Muntazer Al Zaidi at President Bush on December 14 in Baghdad give an idea of the anger of part of the Iraqi people toward U.S. occupation. Will the new and corrupt Iraqi Army manage to impede the country’s dislocation?

Decisive elections will take place in Israel, for the post of Prime Minister, on February 10, and in Iran, for the presidency, on June 12. The tension between these two countries will reach incandescent levels.

Will it lead to an open conflict? Nobody should wish it, because the geopolitical consequences would be unforeseeable. Not to mention the economic consequences, because the prices of crude oil could rise to US$150, thus worsening the current crisis.

As to Afghanistan, a country that Barack Obama wants to turn into the military priority of his mandate, if Washington intensifies its intervention it will have to multiply its illegal attacks against Pakistan, a demographic giant and nuclear power.

That will provoke a possible destabilization of Asif Zardari, president of that bankrupt state, which is being threatened by its powerful neighbour, India, after the attacks in Bombay on November 26.

Washington would then enter into a new interventionist mode that could favor a swift return to the Pentagon of the “hawks,” who favor a harsh and domineering imperialism. In Kabul, the Americans will try to impose a “presentable dictator.” That will mean a return to political realism (i.e., cynicism) and the abandonment of the ethical project defended by Obama during his electoral campaign.

Another giant who might spring surprises is China, because the crisis (which will translate to a general increase in protectionism worldwide and the consequent reduction in exports) will hit it harder.

Thousands of factories will close and there will be massive firings of workers, most of whom lack social security and health care. Protests will grow. Will the authorities in Beijing manage to maintain social peace? At what price?

In Latin America, the big question is whether Barack Obama will accept the olive branch tendered by Cuban President Ra£l Castro and if he will finally negotiate an end to the commercial embargo against the island.

We shall find out on April 17, when, on the occasion of the Summit of the Americas in Port-of-Spain (Trinidad and Tobago), the U.S. president will define his new policy toward the hemisphere.

Meanwhile, the weather crisis will continue to worsen. Everything indicates that 2009 will be the year of all perils, because one era is dying — neoliberalism — and a new paradigm begins to stumble along. It should be the moment for all opportunities. A time to begin to build, finally, a better world.

The writer is the editor of Le Monde Diplomatique