|
" Thank you for not putting a bomb in your
luggage."
"President Bush said the
United States is still under the threat of attack and
will continue to be right up until Election Day."
--
Jay Leno
 Hand-in-hand with his threat
warnings, Bush keeps telling us how his War on Terror has
made us so much safer, bragging that there hasn't been a
terrorist attack in the United States in the five years
since the one of September 11, 2001. Marvelous. There wasn't
a terrorist attack in the United States in the five years
before that day either. But thanks to the War on Terror --
particularly the bombing, invasion, occupation, and torture
of Afghanistan and Iraq -- numerous new anti-American
terrorists have been created since that historic day. The
latest confirmation of this, if any more were needed, is the
recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate conclusion
that "the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has
helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and ...
the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11
attacks."[1]
Since the
first strike on Afghanistan in October 2001 there have been
literally scores of terrorist attacks against American
institutions and individuals in the Middle East, South Asia
and the Pacific, more than a dozen in Pakistan alone:
military, diplomatic, civilian, Christian, and other targets
associated with the United States, including the October
2002 bombings of two nightclubs in Bali, Indonesia, which
killed more than 200 people, almost all of them Americans
and citizens of their Australian and British war allies; the
following year brought the heavy bombing of the US-managed
Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, the site of diplomatic
receptions and 4th of July celebrations held by the American
Embassy; and other horrendous attacks on US war allies in
recent years in Madrid, London, and elsewhere.
A US State
Department report of 2004 on worldwide terrorist attacks --
"Patterns of Global Terrorism" -- showed that the year 2003
had more "significant terrorist incidents" than at any time
since the department began issuing statistics in 1985, even
though the figures did not include attacks on US troops by
insurgents in Iraq, which the Bush administration explicitly
labels as "terrorist".[2]
When their report for 2004 showed an even higher number of
incidents, the State Department announced that it was going
to stop publishing the annual statistics.[3]
It is extremely
difficult and threatening for US and UK officials to accept
the correlation between their foreign policies and the rise
of terrorists. A spokesman for the Blair government recently
declared: "Al-Qaida started killing innocent civilians in
the 90s. It killed Muslim civilians even before 9/11, and
the attacks on New York and Washington killed over 3,000
people before Iraq. To imply al-Qaida is driven by an honest
disagreement over foreign policy is a mistake."[4] Vice President Dick
Cheney, on more than one occasion, has also pointed out that
terrorists were attacking American targets even before 9-11.
|
The "reasoning" behind such thinking is odd; it's as if
these esteemed gentlemen believe that there was no Western
foreign policy in the Mideast before September 11, 2001. But
of course, even in modern times, there were decades of awful
abuse, including the US overthrow of the Iranian government
in 1953, multiple bombings of Libya and Iraq, sinking an
Iranian ship and shooting down an Iranian passenger plane,
habitual support of Israel against the Palestinian people,
and much more.[5]
It
can't be emphasized too often or too strongly that terrorism
is a political act, it is making a political statement, a
statement that can often be summed up in a single word:
"retaliation"; terrorism is what people with bombs but no
air force have to resort to. The Bush and Blair
administrations can not admit to the correlation of
terrorism with their policies, but those opposed to their
wars should never allow them to avoid the issue. Here are
some of the latest examples of this retaliation
phenomenon:
From a New York Times report on the UK group
arrested for allegedly planning to blow up multiple planes
headed to the US: "'As you bomb, you will be bombed; as you
kill, you will be killed,' said one of the men on a
'martyrdom' videotape" ... "One of the suspects said on his
martyrdom video that the 'war against Muslims' in Iraq and
Afghanistan had motivated him to act." ... "The man said he
was seeking revenge for the foreign policy of the United
States, and 'their accomplices, the U.K. and the Jews'."[6]
From a review of the
new book, "The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" by its
chairmen, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton: "In looking into the
background of the hijackers, the staff found that religious
orthodoxy was not a common denominator since some of the
members 'reportedly even consumed alcohol and abused drugs.'
Others engaged in casual sex. Instead, hatred of American
foreign policy in the Middle East seemed to be the key
factor." ... "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against
the United States," said Supervisory Special Agent James
Fitzgerald. "They identify with the Palestinian problem,
they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and
I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United
States." ... "Lee [Hamilton] felt that there had to be an
acknowledgment that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict was vital to America's long-term relationship with
the Islamic world, and that the presence of American forces
in the Middle East was a major motivating factor in Al
Qaeda's actions."[7]
But
the War on Terrorism paints terrorists as only irrational
madmen or those who loathe freedom, democracy and Western
culture, or doing what they do just for the pure,
America-hating thrill of it, and so the US and the UK
continue to look for military solutions. Writer David Rees
predicted a few years ago: "Remember when the United States
had a drug problem and then we declared a War on Drugs, and
now you can't buy drugs anymore? The War on Terrorism will
be just like that."[8]
Cold War Myths
It's become a commonplace for
critics of the wall being built by the United States along
the Mexican border to equate it to the Berlin Wall. The same
highly negative comparison is evoked in speaking about the
Israeli wall being built alongside and through Palestine.
Just as the Holocaust is the standard against which acts of
mass murder and atrocities are conventionally compared, the
Berlin Wall is the standard for judging the erection of a
physical barrier which restricts freedom of travel for large
numbers of people. The Wall is also employed by
conservatives as a symbol of the wickedness and the failure
of communism. But what was the Berlin Wall actually about?
During the 1950s, American coldwarriors in West Germany
instituted a crude campaign of sabotage and subversion
against East Germany designed to throw that country's
economic and administrative machinery out of gear. The CIA
and other US intelligence and military services recruited,
equipped, trained and financed German activist groups and
individuals, of West and East, to carry out actions which
ran the spectrum from juvenile delinquency to terrorism;
anything to make life difficult for the East German people
and weaken their support of the government; anything to make
the commies look bad. It was a remarkable undertaking. The
United States and its agents used explosives, arson, short
circuiting, and other methods to damage power stations,
shipyards, canals, docks, public buildings, gas stations,
public transportation, bridges, etc; they derailed freight
trains, seriously injuring workers; burned 12 cars of a
freight train and destroyed air pressure hoses of others;
used acids to damage vital factory machinery; put sand in
the turbine of a factory, bringing it to a standstill; set
fire to a tile-producing factory; promoted work slow-downs
in factories; killed 7,000 cows of a co-operative dairy
through poisoning; added soap to powdered milk destined for
East German schools; were in possession, when arrested, of a
large quantity of the poison cantharidin with which it was
planned to produce poisoned cigarettes to kill leading East
Germans; set off stink bombs to disrupt political meetings;
attempted to disrupt the World Youth Festival in East Berlin
by sending out forged invitations, false promises of free
bed and board, false notices of cancellations, etc.; carried
out attacks on participants with explosives, firebombs, and
tire-puncturing equipment; forged and distributed large
quantities of food ration cards to cause confusion,
shortages and resentment; sent out forged tax notices and
other government directives and documents to foster
disorganization and inefficiency within industry and unions
... all this and much more.
Throughout the 1950s, the
East Germans and the Soviet Union repeatedly lodged
complaints with the Soviets' erstwhile allies in the West
and with the United Nations about specific sabotage and
espionage activities and called for the closure of the
offices in West Germany they claimed were responsible, and
for which they provided names and addresses. Their
complaints fell on deaf ears. Inevitably, the East Germans
began to tighten up entry into the country from the West.
At the same time, the West was bedeviling the East with a
vigorous campaign of recruiting East German professionals
and skilled workers, who had been educated at the expense of
the Communist government. This eventually led to a serious
labor and production crisis in the East.[9]
By August of 1961, the
East Germans had had enough. They began the building of
their infamous wall. This was not erected to keep their
citizens from "truth" or "freedom" -- before the wall many
Easterners had commuted to the West for jobs each day and
then returned to the East in the evening. But in the Cold
War atmosphere every possible means of scoring propaganda
points was exploited by both sides and thus was born the
legend of the Evil Commie Wall.
"Appeasement" is another
Cold War myth dredged up recently by the Bush administration
in its desperate attempt to find an argument for the Iraq
war that more than 30% of the American population will
swallow. There's been more than one occasion of our old
friend Rumsfeld labeling as "fascists" anti-American
terrorists and those who resist American occupations, and
calling Democrats and others not in love with the war
"appeasers";[10] you know,
like Britain allowing the Nazis to devour the Czechs in the
hope that Hitler would leave the West alone. The appeasement
analogy has long been a favorite of American politicians
when it suited their purpose; Eisenhower and Johnson both
personally used it, to name but two.
But what happened
in 1938 in Munich wasn't so much "appeasement" as it was
"collusion". One of Adolf's qualities that appealed so much
to the West was his fervent anti-communism. Britain, the
United States and other Western governments were counting on
the Nazis to turn eastward and put an end once and for all
to the Bolshevik menace to God, family and capitalism.[11]
If to Donald Rumsfeld
opposing the war in Iraq is the moral equivalent of
appeasing Hitler, to Condoleezza Rice it's the moral
equivalent of tolerating slavery in 19th century America.
Here she is at her desperate best: "I'm sure that there are
people who thought that it was a mistake to fight the Civil
War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves
would hold. I'm sure that there were people who said ... why
don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South,
but leave the South with slaves."[12]
Let freedom and
cash registers ring
US Secretary of Commerce Carlos M.
Gutierrez has proposed that Cubans hold an internationally
monitored referendum to decide whether they want to be ruled
by dictators or live in a democracy.[13]
So what do you think
Carlos M. Gutierrez -- formerly a corporate CEO and now a
man who goes around the world promoting corporate investment
and trade -- means by "a democracy"? Can he imagine a
"democratic" society not dominated by corporations which
turn everything into a commodity? Is Gutierrez really
concerned about the Cuban people having a say over the
decisions that affect their lives? Given that so many basic
decisions that affect Americans' lives are not made in
legislatures but in corporate boardrooms, does he know for a
fact that Cubans have any less say over such decisions than
Americans do?
The usual American definition of democracy
has to do in major part with elections. But even if we
accept this simple, and simplistic, definition, the fact
remains that, contrary to what Gutierrez, and most Americans
assume, Cuba holds elections on a regular basis.
The
elections, which observe universal suffrage and a secret
ballot, are for seats in the Municipal Assemblies, the
Provincial Assemblies, and the National Assembly. There is
direct nomination of candidates by the citizenry, not by the
Communist Party, which does not get involved in any stage of
the electoral process. All candidates have the same public
exposure, which is the publication and posting of a
biography listing their qualities and history, in very
accessible and commonly visited places in the community.
There is one deputy in the Municipal Assembly for each
20,000 of population. Candidates must receive over 50% of
the vote to be elected, if not in the first round then in a
run-off. The 609 members of the National Assembly elect the
31 members of the Council of State. The President of the
Council of State is the Head of State and Head of
Government. Fidel Castro is repeatedly chosen for this
position, purportedly because of his sterling qualities.
I don't know enough detail about the actual workings of the
Cuban electoral system to point out the flaws and
shortcomings of the above, which most likely exist in
practice. But can it be more deadening to the intellect, the
spirit, and one's idealism than the American electoral
system? From the splashy staged nominating conventions to
the interminable boring and insulting campaigns to the
increasingly questionable voting and counting processes, all
to select one or the other corporate representative ... are
the Cubans ready for this? If they were to institute any
kind of electoral system in which those candidates with the
most money to spend had an advantage, what would keep the
CIA from pouring in money-without-end to get their people
into office?
This is what we're up against
I
recently heard a California farmer interviewed on National
Public Radio about the very worrisome e-coli outbreak in
spinach. At one point he said that "The United States has
the safest agricultural products in the world."[14]
Hmmm. I wondered how
one measured such a thing and whether the guy had actually
made a global study of this and could cite any statistics or
credible sources. It reminded me of several radio interviews
I've had in which I was being very critical of US foreign
policy (no surprise there) leading to someone calling in and
asking me if I could name a better country. My standard
reply has been: "Better in what respect?"
"In any
respect," is the standard reply from the caller.
"Well,"
I say, "what about health care? There are many countries
that provide health care to a much larger percentage of
their citizens than the United States does and at much
cheaper cost, sometimes even for free, like in Cuba. And
it's the same with university education."
This is
effectively the end of any such conversation.
What
condition, I wonder, would have to exist in the US for such
people to relinquish their childhood love affair with that
magical place called "America"? I have on occasion asked
people who reject virtually any criticism of US foreign
policy: "What would the United States have to do in its
foreign policy to lose your support? What, for you, would be
too much?" I've yet to get an answer to that question. I
suspect it's because the person is afraid that whatever they
say I'll point out that we've already done it.
Author
Michael Lewis has observed: "One of the qualities that
distinguish Americans from other people is their naive
suspicion that any foreigner with half a brain would rather
be one of them. ... The most zealous Japanese patriot
doesn't for a minute think that other peoples actually want
to be Japanese. Ditto the French."
But don't despair,
gang. As I've mentioned before, my (very) rough guess is
that the people I speak about here constitute no more than
15 percent of the population. I suggest that we concentrate
on the rest, who are reachable, and in the past three years
countless of them have indeed been reached.
Discovered at last! A difference between the Democrats and
the Republicans on foreign policy
This just in!
Republican leaders in the House have proposed legislation
that will require that anti-war protestors be sterilized.
Democrats are refusing to roll over and play dead. House
minority leader Nancy Pelosi -- who recently called Hugo
Chavez a "thug" for his UN speech -- insists her party will
support the measure only if a right of appeal is included.
FOOTNOTES
[1]
New York Times, September 24, 2006, the wording it a Times
paraphrase
[2] Washington Post, June 23, 2004 and June
28, p.19
[3] "Bush Administration Eliminating 19-year-old
International Terrorism Report", Knight Ridder Newspapers,
April 15, 2005
[4] The Guardian (London), August 12,
2006
[5] For more information see Blum's essay at:
http://members.aol.com/superogue/terintro.htm
[6] New
York Times, August 28, 2006, p.1
[7] Review by James
Bamford, New York Times, August 20, 2006, p.15
[8] David
Rees, "Get Your War On", (Soft Skull Press), p.2
[9] For
further details, see William Blum, "Killing Hope: US
Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2", chapter
8
[10] "Rumsfeld says threat to U.S. is from 'a new type
of fascism'", Associated Press, August 29, 2006
[11] See,
for example, Christopher Hitchens, "Chamberlain: Collusion,
not appeasement", Monthly Review (January 1995), a review of
Clement Leibovitz, "The Chamberlain-Hitler Deal" (1993)
[12] Interview, Essence magazine, October 2006
issue
[13] Associated Press, September 15, 2006
[14]
NPR, Day-to-Day, September 18, 2006, 12:10
PM
 |
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Well done