Is Jagdeo living in La La Land?

May 10, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – This column does not respond to criticisms, except where there is misrepresentation of what was said within the column.

Yesterday Vice President Jagdeo sought to imply that this column was calling for the retaining of Marxism-Leninism within the PPP’s constitution.

This column has made no such argument. What it has done is to expose the naivety of Jagdeo who had sought to justify the removal of references to Marxism-Leninism from the party’s constitution, on the grounds that it was part of the party’s response to the ending of the Cold War.

Jagdeo will one day have to explain what stance he personally took years ago when Khemraj Ramjarran sought to pilot a motion to do exactly what the PPP did last Sunday: remove references to Marxism-Leninism and socialism from the party’s constitution. He will get his time to answer whether he did not think then that the Cold War had ended.

Jagdeo does not see the ongoing tussle between the USA, China and Russia, its destabilization of Cuba and Venezuela and its assault on left-wing governments in Central America and South America as a new form of the Cold War. He sees, for example, the tensions between the USA and China as a tussle for global domination.

Vice President Jagdeo is not alone in viewing and interpreting these tensions as a struggle for global dominance between China and the United States. In recent times the relationship between China and the USA has been marred by escalating tensions.

While power dynamics certainly play a role in the strained relations between China and the United States, any attempt at reducing this conflict to mere competition for supremacy overlooks a crucial aspect: ideological contestation. Those who argue otherwise, like Jagdeo, miss the deeper ideological currents shaping international relations today.

The growing rift between China and the USA cannot be reduced to mere competition for global power. At its core lies an ideological contestation between authoritarianism and liberal democracy that shapes their respective worldviews and policy choices. Those, like Jagdeo, who overlook this ideological dimension are at sea when it comes to understanding the dynamics of international politics

At the heart of the China-US conflict lies a clash of ideologies that goes beyond mere power politics. On one side, China champions its brand of authoritarian and State capitalism, blending state control with market mechanisms. This model challenges the Western narrative of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism. The clash between these ideological paradigms underpins much of the tension between the two powers.

Firstly, China’s rise challenges the Western belief in the universality of liberal democracy. While the USA sees democracy as the pinnacle of political evolution, China’s success under an authoritarian regime challenges this notion. Beijing’s ability to deliver economic growth and maintain social stability without embracing Western-style democracy poses a fundamental challenge to the ideological hegemony of the West. As such the West is determined to engage in an ideological war with China.

China’s assertive foreign policy, characterized by initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), reflects its vision of a world order shaped by its values and interests. This challenges the USA’s vision of a liberal international order based on democratic principles, human rights, and free trade. The clash between these competing visions fuels geopolitical competition and exacerbates tensions between the two powers.

The ideological contestation extends to technological dominance, with China challenging American technological supremacy. The USA accuses China of intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, and unfair trade practices to advance its technological ambitions. This underscores not just a competition for economic power but also an ideological struggle over the future direction of technological innovation and governance.

Human rights issues such as China’s treatment of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang and crackdown on dissent in Hong Kong underscore the clash between authoritarianism and liberal values. The USA and its allies criticize China’s human rights record, framing it as a moral issue and highlighting the ideological gulf between the two powers.

America also opposes the emergence of a multipolar world. Therefore, it persists in its efforts to integrate Europe into its economic sphere while isolating China. This strategy entails implementing measures to hinder trade with China. The aim is to prevent Europe from becoming part of the emerging Chinese sphere of influence.

It can be argued that America lacks significant strategic economic interests in Ukraine. Yet it persists in financing Ukraine’s military machine with the aim of depleting Russia’s military stockpiles and arsenals, thereby weakening its longstanding rival.

If what is taking place in the world is a struggle for global power and not an extension of the old Cold War, how does this explain the ongoing suffocation of Cuba by the United States and US attempts to create regime change in Venezuela?

Perhaps, the answer to Jagdeo’s dilemma was reflected in the pause he was forced to take during his press conference yesterday to allow the din caused by the overflying jet fighters to dissipate. But perhaps he too cannot see how his government and Guyana are being inexorably drawn into becoming a US sidekick.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of this newspaper and its affiliates.)

---

• Cold War, Constitution, Khemraj Ramjarran, Marxism-Leninism, response

---