[Peace-discuss] Confronting the Empire

[Ricky Baldwin]

We will miss you again, Carl.  But  thanks for the
insightful account.  I'll try to bring a few copies to
the meeting.

Ricky

--- "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
wrote:
> [I won't be able to attend the AWARE meeting on 2/2,
> but in place of news
> notes, here's an extensive account of the present
> situation, delivered
> this week by Noam Chomsky at the World Social Forum
> in Porto Allegre,
> Brazil.  Note that the MST that he refers to is the
> Landless Workers
> Movement in Brazil <http://www.mstbrazil.org>, and
> the Via Campesina is
> the International Farmers' Movement
> <http://ns.rds.org.hn/via/>.  
> Regards, Carl]
> 
> 
> Confronting the Empire
> 
> by Noam Chomsky; February 01, 2003 
> 
> We are meeting at a moment of world history that is
> in many ways unique -
> a moment that is ominous, but also full of hope.
> 
> The most powerful state in history has proclaimed,
> loud and clear, that it
> intends to rule the world by force, the dimension in
> which it reigns
> supreme.  Apart from the conventional bow to noble
> intentions that is the
> standard (hence meaningless) accompaniment of
> coercion, its leaders are
> committed to pursuit of their "imperial ambition,"
> as it is frankly
> described in the leading journal of the foreign
> policy establishment -
> critically, an important matter.  They have also
> declared that they will
> tolerate no competitors, now or in the future.  They
> evidently believe
> that the means of violence in their hands are so
> extraordinary that they
> can dismiss with contempt anyone who stands in their
> way.  There is good
> reason to believe that the war with Iraq is
> intended, in part, to teach
> the world some lessons about what lies ahead when
> the empire decides to
> strike a blow -- though "war" is hardly the proper
> term, given the array
> of forces.
> 
> The doctrine is not entirely new, nor unique to the
> US, but it has never
> before been proclaimed with such brazen arrogance -
> at least not by anyone
> we would care to remember.
> 
> I am not going to try to answer the question posed
> for this meeting: How
> to confront the empire. The reason is that most of
> you know the answers as
> well or better than I do, through your own lives and
> work. The way to
> "confront the empire" is to create a different
> world, one that is not
> based on violence and subjugation, hate and fear.
> That is why we are here,
> and the WSF offers hope that these are not idle
> dreams.
> 
> Yesterday I had the rare privilege of seeing some
> very inspiring work to
> achieve these goals, at the international gathering
> of the Via Campesina
> at a community of the MST, which I think is the most
> important and
> exciting popular movement in the world. With
> constructive local actions
> such as those of the MST, and international
> organization of the kind
> illustrated by the Via Campesina and the WSF, with
> sympathy and solidarity
> and mutual aid, there is real hope for a decent
> future.
> 
> I have also had some other recent experiences that
> give a vivid picture of
> what the world may be like if imperial violence is
> not limited and
> dismantled. Last month I was in southeastern Turkey,
> the scene of some of
> the worst atrocities of the grisly 1990s, still
> continuing: just a few
> hours ago we were informed of renewed atrocities by
> the army near
> Diyarbakir, the unofficial capital of the Kurdish
> regions. Through the
> 1990s, millions of people were driven out of the
> devastated countryside,
> with tens of thousands killed and every imaginable
> form of barbaric
> torture. They try to survive in caves outside the
> walls of Diyarbakir, in
> condemned buildings in miserable slums in Istanbul,
> or wherever they can
> find refuge, barred from returning to their villages
> despite new
> legislation that theoretically permits return. 80%
> of the weapons came
> from the US. In the year 1997 alone, Clinton sent
> more arms to Turkey than
> in the entire Cold War period combined up to the
> onset of the state terror
> campaign - called "counterterror" by the
> perpetrators and their
> supporters, another convention. Turkey became the
> leading recipient of US
> arms as atrocities peaked (apart from Israel-Egypt,
> a separate category).
> 
> In 1999, Turkey relinquished this position to
> Colombia. The reason is that
> in Turkey, US-backed state terror had largely
> succeeded, while in Colombia
> it had not. Colombia had the worst human rights
> record in the Western
> hemisphere in the 1990s and was by far the leading
> recipient of US arms
> and military training, and now leads the world. It
> also leads the world by
> other measures, for example, murder of labor
> activists: more than half of
> those killed worldwide in the last decade were in
> Colombia. Close to ½
> million people were driven from their land last
> year, a new record. The
> displaced population is now estimated at 2.7
> million. Political killings
> have risen to 20 a day; 5 years ago it was half
> that.
> 
> I visited Cauca in southern Colombia, which had the
> worst human rights
> record in the country in 2001, quite an achievement.
> There I listened to
> hours of testimony by peasants who were driven from
> their lands by
> chemical warfare - called "fumigation" under the
> pretext of a US-run "drug
> war" that few take seriously and that would be
> obscene if that were the
> intent. Their lives and lands are destroyed,
> children are dying, they
> suffer from sickness and wounds. Peasant agriculture
> is based on a rich
> tradition of knowledge and experience gained over
> many centuries, in much
> of the world passed on from mother to daughter.
> Though a remarkable human
> achievement, it is very fragile, and can be
> destroyed forever in a single
> generation. Also being destroyed is some of the
> richest biodiversity in
> the world, similar to neighboring regions of Brazil.
> Campesinos,
> indigenous people, Afro-Colombians can join the
> millions in rotting slums
> and camps. With the people gone, multinationals can
> come in to strip the
> mountains for coal and to extract oil and other
> resources, and to convert
> what is left of the land to monocrop agroexport
> using laboratory-produced
> seeds in an environment shorn of its treasures and
> variety.
> 
> The scenes in Cauca and Southeastern Turkey are very
> different from the
> celebrations of the Via Campesina gathering at the
> MST community. But
> Turkey and Colombia are inspiring and hopeful in
> different ways, because
> of the courage and dedication of people struggling
> for justice and
> freedom, confronting the empire where it is killing
> and destroying.
> 
> These are some of the signs of the future if
> "imperial ambition" proceeds
> on its normal course, now to be accelerated by the
> grand strategy of
> global rule by force. None of this is inevitable,
> and among the good
> models for ending these crimes are the ones I
> mentioned: the MST, the Via
> Campesina, and the WSF.
> 
> At the WSF, the range of issues and problems under
> intense discussion is
> very broad, remarkably so, but I think we can
> identify two main themes.
> One is global justice and Life after Capitalism - or
> to put it more
> simply, life, because it is not so clear that the
> human species can
> survive very long under existing state capitalist
> institutions. The second
> theme is related: war and peace, and more
> specifically, the war in Iraq
> that Washington and London are desperately seeking
> to carry out, virtually
> alone.
> 
> Let's start with some good news about these basic
> themes. As you know,
> there is also a conference of the World Economic
> Forum going on right now,
> in Davos. Here in Porto Alegre, the mood is hopeful,
> vigorous, exciting.
> In Davos, the New York Times tells us, "the mood has
> darkened." For the
> "movers and shakers," it is not "global party time"
> any more. In fact, the
> founder of the Forum has conceded defeat: "The power
> of corporations has
> completely disappeared," he said. So we have won.
> There is nothing left
> for us to do but pick up the pieces -- not only to
> talk about a vision of
> the future that is just and humane, but to move on
> to create it.
> 
> Of course, we should not let the praise go to our
> heads. There are still a
> few difficulties ahead.
> 
> The main theme of the WEF is "Building Trust." There
> is a reason for that.
> The "masters of the universe," as they liked to call
> themselves in more
> exuberant days, know that they are in serious
> trouble. They recently
> released a poll showing that trust in leaders has
> severely declined. Only
> the leaders of NGOs had the trust of a clear
> majority, followed by UN and
> spiritual/religious leaders, then leaders of Western
> Europe and economic
> managers, below them corporate executives, and well
> below them, at the
> bottom, leaders of the US, with about 25% trust.
> That may well mean
> virtually no trust: when people are asked whether
> they trust leaders with
> power, they usually say "Yes," out of habit.
> 
> It gets worse. A few days ago a poll in Canada found
> that over 1/3 of the
> population regard the US as the greatest threat to
> world peace. The US
> ranks more than twice as high as Iraq or North
> Korea, and far higher than
> al-Qaeda as well. A poll without careful controls,
> by Time magazine, found
> that over 80% of respondents in Europe regarded the
> US as the greatest
> threat to world peace, compared with less than 10%
> for Iraq or North
> Korea. Even if these numbers are wrong by some
> substantial factor, they
> are dramatic.
> 
> Without going on, the corporate leaders who paid
> $30,000 to attend the
> somber meetings in Davos have good reasons to take
> as their theme:
> "Building Trust."
> 
> The coming war with Iraq is undoubtedly contributing
> to these interesting
> and important developments. Opposition to the war is
> completely without
> historical precedent. In Europe it is so high that
> Secretary of "Defense"
> Donald Rumsfeld dismissed Germany and France as just
> the "old Europe,"
> plainly of no concern because of their disobedience.
> The "vast numbers of
> other countries in Europe [are] with the United
> States," he assured
> foreign journalists. These vast numbers are the "new
> Europe," symbolized
> by Italy's Berlusconi, soon to visit the White
> House, praying that he will
> be invited to be the third of the "three B's":
> Bush-Blair-Berlusconi -
> assuming that he can stay out of jail. Italy is on
> board, the White House
> tells us. It is apparently not a problem that over
> 80% of the public is
> opposed to the war, according to recent polls. That
> just shows that the
> people of Italy also belong to the "old Europe," and
> can be sent to the
> ashcan of history along with France and Germany, and
> others who do not
> know their place.
> 
> Spain is hailed as another prominent member of the
> new Europe -- with 75%
> totally opposed to the war, according to an
> international Gallup poll.
> According to the leading foreign policy analyst of
> Newsweek, pretty much
> the same is true of the most hopeful part of the new
> Europe, the former
> Communist countries that are counted on (quite
> openly) to serve US
> interests and undermine Europe's despised social
> market and welfare
> states. He reports that in Czechoslovakia, 2/3 of
> the population oppose
> participation in a war, while in Poland only ¼ would
> support a war even if
> the UN inspectors "prove that Iraq possesses weapons
> of mass destruction."
> The Polish press reports 37% approval in this case,
> still extremely low,
> at the heart of the "new Europe."
> 
> New Europe soon identified itself in an open letter
> in the Wall Street
> Journal: along with Italy, Spain, Poland and
> Czechoslovakia - the leaders,
> that is, not the people - it includes Denmark (with
> popular opinion on the
> war about the same as Germany, therefore "old
> Europe"), Portugal (53%
> opposed to war under any circumstances, 96% opposed
> to war by the US and
> its allies unilaterally), Britain (40% opposed to
> war under any
> circumstances, 90% opposed to war by the US and its
> allies unilaterally),
> and Hungary (no figures available).
> 
> In brief, the exciting "new Europe" consists of some
> leaders who are
> willing to defy their populations.
> 
> Old Europe reacted with some annoyance to Rumsfeld's
> declaration that they
> are "problem" countries, not modern states. Their
> reaction was explained
> by thoughtful US commentators. Keeping just to the
> national press, we
> learn that "world-weary European allies" do not
> appreciate the "moral
> rectitude" of the President. The evidence for his
> "moral rectitude" is
> that "his advisors say the evangelical zeal" comes
> directly from the
> simple man who is dedicated to driving evil from the
> world. Since that is
> surely the most reliable and objective evidence that
> can be imagined, it
> would be improper to express slight skepticism, let
> alone to react as we
> would to similar performances by others. The cynical
> Europeans, we are
> told, misinterpret Bush's purity of soul as "moral
> naiveté" - without a
> thought that the administration's PR specialists
> might have a hand in
> creating imagery that will sell. We are informed
> further that there is a
> great divide between world-weary Europe and the
> "idealistic New World bent
> on ending inhumanity." That this is the driving
> purpose of the idealistic
> New World we also know for certain, because so our
> leaders proclaim. What
> more in the way of proof could one seek?
> 
> The rare mention of public opinion in the new Europe
> treats it as a
> problem of marketing; the product being sold is
> necessarily right and
> honorable, given its source. The willingness of the
> leaders of the new
> Europe to prefer Washington to their own populations
> "threatens to isolate
> the Germans and French," who are exhibiting
> retrograde democratic
> tendencies, and shows that Germany and France cannot
> "say that they are
> speaking for Europe." They are merely speaking for
> the people of old and
> new Europe, who - the same commentators acknowledge
> -- express "strong
> opposition" to the policies of the new Europe.
> 
> The official pronouncements and the reaction to them
> are illuminating.
> They demonstrate with some clarity the contempt for
> democracy that is
> rather typical, historically, among those who feel
> that they rule the
> world by right.
> 
> There are many other illustrations. When German
> Chancellor Gerhard
> Schroeder dared to take the position of the
> overwhelming majority of
> voters in the last election, that was described as a
> shocking failure of
> leadership, a serious problem that Germany must
> overcome if it wants to be
> accepted in the civilized world. The problem lies
> with Germany, not elites
> of the Anglo-American democracies. Germany's problem
> is that "the
> government lives in fear of the voters, and that is
> causing it to make
> mistake after mistake" - the spokesperson for the
> right-wing Christian
> Social Union party, who understands the real nature
> of democracy.
> 
> The case of Turkey is even more revealing. As
> throughout the region, Turks
> are very strongly opposed to the war - about 90%
> according to the most
> recent polls. And so far the government has
> irresponsibly paid some
> attention to the people who elected it. It has not
> bowed completely to the
> intense pressure and threats that Washington is
> exerting to compel it to
> heed the master's voice. This reluctance of the
> elected government to
> follow orders from on high proves that its leaders
> are not true democrats.
> For those who may be too dull to comprehend these
> subtleties, they are
> explained by former Ambassador to Turkey Morton
> Abramowitz, now a
> distinguished senior statesman and commentator. Ten
> years ago, he
> explained, Turkey was governed by a real democrat,
> Turgut Ozal, who
> "overrode his countrymen's pronounced preference to
> stay out of the Gulf
> war." But democracy has declined in Turkey. The
> current leadership "is
> following the people," revealing its lack of
> "democratic credentials."
> "Regrettably," he says, "for the US there is no Ozal
> around." So it will
> be necessary to bring authentic democracy to Turkey
> by economic
> strangulation and other coercive means -
> regrettably, but that is demanded
> by what the elite press calls our "yearning for
> democracy."
> 
> Brazil is witnessing another exercise of the real
> attitudes towards
> democracy among the masters of the universe. In the
> most free election in
> the hemisphere, a large majority voted for policies
> that are strongly
> opposed by international finance and investors, by
> the IMF and the US
> Treasury Department. In earlier years, that would
> have been the signal for
> a military coup installing a murderous National
> Security State, as in
> Brazil 40 years ago. Now that will not work; the
> populations of South and
> North have changed, and will not easily tolerate it.
> Furthermore, there
> are now simpler ways to undermine the will of the
> people, thanks to the
> neoliberal instruments that have been put in place:
> economic controls,
> capital flight, attacks on currency, privatization,
> and other devices that
> are well-designed to reduce the arena of popular
> choice. These, it is
> hoped, may compel the government to follow the
> dictates of what
> international economists call the "virtual
> parliament" of investors and
> lenders, who make the real decisions, coercing the
> population, an
> irrelevant nuisance according to the reigning
> principles of democracy.
> 
> When I was just about to leave for the airport I
> received another of the
> many inquiries from the press about why there is so
> little anti-war
> protest in the US. The impressions are instructive.
> In fact, protest in
> the US, as elsewhere, is also at levels that have no
> historical precedent.
> Not just demonstrations, teach-ins, and other public
> events. To take an
> example of a different kind, last week the Chicago
> City Council passed an
> anti-war resolution, 46-1, joining 50 other cities
> and towns. The same is
> true in other sectors, including those that are the
> most highly trusted,
> as the WEF learned to its dismay: NGOs and religious
> organizations and
> figures, with few exceptions. Several months ago the
> biggest university in
> the country passed a strong antiwar resolution - the
> University of Texas,
> right next door to George W's ranch. And it's easy
> to continue.
> 
> So why the widespread judgment among elites that the
> tradition of dissent
> and protest has died? Invariably, comparisons are
> drawn to Vietnam, a very
> revealing fact. We have just passed the 40th
> anniversary of the public
> announcement that the Kennedy administration was
> sending the US Air Force
> to bomb South Vietnam, also initiating plans to
> drive millions of people
> into concentration camps and chemical warfare
> programs to destroy food
> crops. There was no pretext of defense, except in
> the sense of official
> rhetoric: defense against the "internal aggression"
> of South Vietnamese in
> South Vietnam and their "assault from the inside"
> (President Kennedy and
> his UN Ambassador, Adlai Stevenson). Protest was
> non-existent. It did not
> reach any meaningful level for several years. By
> that time hundreds of
> thousands of US troops had joined the occupying
> army, densely-populated
> areas were being demolished by saturation bombing,
> and the aggression had
> spread to the rest of Indochina. Protest among elite
> intellectuals kept
> primarily to "pragmatic grounds": the war was a
> "mistake" that was
> becoming too costly to the US. In sharp contrast, by
> the late 1960s the
> great majority of the public had come to oppose the
> war as "fundamentally
> wrong and immoral," not "a mistake," figures that
> hold steady until the
> present.
> 
> Today, in dramatic contrast to the 1960s, there is
> large-scale, committed,
> and principled popular protest all over the US
> before the war has been
> officially launched. That reflects a steady increase
> over these years in
> unwillingness to tolerate aggression and atrocities,
> one of many such
> changes, worldwide in fact. That's part of the
> background for what is
> taking place in Porto Alegre, and part of the reason
> for the gloom in
> Davos.
> 
> The political leadership is well aware of these
> developments. When a new
> administration comes into office, it receives a
> review of the world
> situation compiled by the intelligence agencies. It
> is secret; we learn
> about these things many years later. But when Bush
> #1 came into office in
> 1989, a small part of the review was leaked, a
> passage concerned with
> "cases where the U.S. confronts much weaker enemies"
> - the only kind one
> would think of fighting. Intelligence analysts
> advised that in conflicts
> with "much weaker enemies" the US must win
> "decisively and rapidly," or
> popular support will collapse. It's not like the
> 1960s, when the
> population would tolerate a murderous and
> destructive war for years
> without visible protest. That's no longer true. The
> activist movements of
> the past 40 years have had a significant civilizing
> effect. By now, the
> only way to attack a much weaker enemy is to
> construct a huge propaganda
> offensive depicting it as about to commit genocide,
> maybe even a threat to
> our very survival, then to celebrate a miraculous
> victory over the awesome
> foe, while chanting praises to the courageous
> leaders who came to the
> rescue just in time.
> 
> That is the current scenario in Iraq.
> 
> Polls reveal more support for the planned war in the
> US than elsewhere,
> but the numbers are misleading. It is important to
> bear in mind that the
> US is the only country outside Iraq where Saddam
> Hussein is not only
> reviled but also feared. There is a flood of lurid
> propaganda warning that
> if we do not stop him today he will destroy us
> tomorrow. The next evidence
> of his weapons of mass destruction may be a
> "mushroom cloud," so National
> Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice announced in
> September - presumably over
> New York. No one in Iraq's neighborhood seems overly
> concerned, much as
> they may hate the murderous tyrant. Perhaps that is
> because they know that
> as a result of the sanctions "the vast majority of
> the country's
> population has been on a semi-starvation diet for
> years," as the World
> Health Organization reported, and that Iraq is one
> of the weakest states
> in the region: its economy and military expenditures
> are a fraction of
> Kuwait's, which has 10% of Iraq's population, and
> much farther below
> others nearby.
> 
> But the US is different. When Congress granted the
> President authority to
> go to war last October, it was "to defend the
> national security of the
> United States against the continuing threat posed by
> Iraq." We must
> tremble in fear before this awesome threat, while
> countries nearby seek to
> reintegrate Iraq into the region, including those
> who were attacked by
> Saddam when he was a friend and ally of those who
> now run the show in
> Washington -- and who were happily providing him
> with aid including the
> means to develop WMD, at a time when he was far more
> dangerous than today
> and had already committed by far his worst crimes.
> 
> A serious measure of support for war in the US would
> have to extricate
> this "fear factor," which is genuine, and unique to
> the US. The residue
> would give a more realistic measure of support for
> the resort to violence,
> and would show, I think, that it is about the same
> as elsewhere.
> 
> It is also rather striking that strong opposition to
> the coming war
> extends right through the establishment. The current
> issues of the two
> major foreign policy journals feature articles
> opposing the war by leading
> figures of foreign policy elites. The very
> respectable American Academy of
> Arts and Sciences released a long monograph on the
> war, trying to give the
> most sympathetic possible account of the Bush
> administration position,
> then dismantling it point by point. One respected
> analyst they quote is a
> Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for
> International Peace, who
> warns that the US is becoming "a menace to itself
> and to mankind" under
> its current leadership. There are no precedents for
> anything like this.
> 
> We should recognize that these criticisms tend to be
> narrow. They are
> concerned with threats to the US and its allies.
> They do not take into
> account the likely effects on Iraqis: the warnings
> of the UN and aid
> agencies that millions may be at very serious risk
> in a country that is at
> the edge of survival after a terrible war that
> targeted its basic
> infrastructure - which amounts to biological warfare
> -- and a decade of
> devastating sanctions that have killed hundreds of
> thousands of people and
> blocked any reconstruction, while strengthening the
> brutal tyrant who
> rules Iraq. It is also interesting that the
> criticisms do not even take
> the trouble to mention the lofty rhetoric about
> democratization and
> liberation. Presumably, the critics take for granted
> that the rhetoric is
> intended for intellectuals and editorial writers -
> who are not supposed to
> notice that the drive to war is accompanied by a
> dramatic demonstration of
> hatred of democracy, just as they are supposed to
> forget the record of
> those who are leading the campaign. That is also why
> none of this is ever
> brought up at the UN.
> 
> Nevertheless, the threats that do concern
> establishment critics are very
> real. They were surely not surprised when the CIA
> informed Congress last
> October that they know of no link between Iraq and
> al Qaeda-style
> terrorism, but that an attack on Iraq would probably
> increase the
> terrorist threat to the West, in many ways. It is
> likely to inspire a new
> generation of terrorists bent on revenge, and it
> might induce Iraq to
> carry out terrorist actions that are already in
> place, a possibility taken
> very seriously by US analysts. A high-level task
> force of the Council on
> Foreign Relations just released a report warning of
> likely terrorist
> attacks that could be far worse than 9-11, including
> possible use of WMD
> right within the US, dangers that become "more
> urgent by the prospect of
> the US going to war with Iraq." They provide many
> illustrations, virtually
> a cook-book for terrorists. It is not the first;
> similar ones were
> published by prominent strategic analysts long
> before 9-11.
> 
> It is also understood that an attack on Iraq may
> lead not just to more
> terror, but also to proliferation of WMD, for a
> simple reason: potential
> targets of the US recognize that there is no other
> way to deter the most
> powerful state in history, which is pursuing
> "America's Imperial
> Ambition," posing serious dangers to the US and the
> world, the author
> warns in the main establishment journal, Foreign
> Affairs. Prominent hawks
> warn that a war in Iraq might lead to the "greatest
> proliferation disaster
> in history." They know that if Iraq has chemical and
> biological weapons,
> the dictatorship keeps them under tight control.
> They understand further
> that except as a last resort if attacked, Iraq is
> highly unlikely to use
> any WMD it has, thus inviting instant incineration.
> And it is also highly
> unlikely to leak them to the Osama bin Ladens of the
> world, which would be
> a terrible threat to Saddam Hussein himself, quite
> apart from the reaction
> if there is even a hint that this might take place.
> But under attack, the
> society would collapse, including the controls over
> WMD. These would be
> "privatized," terrorism experts point out, and
> offered to the huge "market
> for unconventional weapons, where they will have no
> trouble finding
> buyers." That really is a "nightmare scenario," just
> as the hawks warn.
> 
> Even before the Bush administration began beating
> the war drums about
> Iraq, there were plenty of warnings that its
> adventurism was going to lead
> to proliferation of WMD, as well as terror, simply
> as a deterrent. Right
> now, Washington is teaching the world a very ugly
> and dangerous lesson: if
> you want to defend yourself from us, you had better
> mimic North Korea and
> pose a credible military threat, including WMD.
> Otherwise we will demolish
> you in pursuit of the new "grand strategy" that has
> caused shudders not
> only among the usual victims, and in "old Europe,"
> but right at the heart
> of the US foreign policy elite, who recognize that
> "commitment of the US
> to active military confrontation for decisive
> national advantage will
> leave the world more dangerous and the US less
> secure" - again, quoting
> respected figures in elite journals.
> 
> Evidently, the likely increase of terror and
> proliferation of WMD is of
> limited concern to planners in Washington, in the
> context of their real
> priorities. Without too much difficulty, one can
> think of reasons why this
> might be the case, not very attractive ones.
> 
> The nature of the threats was dramatically
> underscored last October, at
> the summit meeting in Havana on the 40th anniversary
> of the Cuban missile
> crisis, attended by key participants from Russia,
> the US, and Cuba.
> Planners knew at the time that they had the fate of
> the world in their
> hands, but new information released at the Havana
> summit was truly
> startling. We learned that the world was saved from
> nuclear devastation by
> one Russian submarine captain, Vasily Arkhipov, who
> blocked an order to
> fire nuclear missiles when Russian submarines were
> attacked by US
> destroyers near Kennedy's "quarantine" line. Had
> Arkhipov agreed, the
> nuclear launch would have almost certainly set off
> an interchange that
> could have "destroyed the Northern hemisphere," as
> Eisenhower had warned.
> 
> The dreadful revelation is particularly timely
> because of the
> circumstances: the roots of the missile crisis lay
> in international
> terrorism aimed at "regime change," two concepts
> very much in the news
> today. US terrorist attacks against Cuba began
> shortly after Castro took
> power, and were sharply escalated by Kennedy,
> leading to a very plausible
> fear of invasion, as Robert McNamara has
> acknowledged. Kennedy resumed the
> terrorist war immediately after the crisis was over;
> terrorist actions
> against Cuba, based in the US, peaked in the late
> 1970s continued 20 years
> later. Putting aside any judgment about the behavior
> of the participants
> in the missile crisis, the new discoveries
> demonstrate with brilliant
> clarity the terrible and unanticipated risks of
> attacks on a "much weaker
> enemy" aimed at "regime change" - risks to survival,
> it is no exaggeration
> to say.
> 
> As for the fate of the people of Iraq, no one can
> predict with any
> confidence: not the CIA, not Donald Rumsfeld, not
> those who claim to be
> experts on Iraq, no one. Possibilities range from
> the frightening
> prospects for which the aid agencies are preparing,
> to the delightful
> tales spun by administration PR specialists and
> their chorus. One never
> knows. These are among the many reasons why decent
> human beings do not
> contemplate the threat or use of violence, whether
> in personal life or
> international affairs, unless reasons have been
> offered that have
> overwhelming force. And surely nothing remotely like
> that has been offered
> in the present case, which is why opposition to the
> plans of Washington
> and London has reached such scale and intensity.
> 
> The timing of the Washington-London propaganda
> campaign was so transparent
> that it too has been a topic of discussion, and
> sometimes ridicule, right
> in the mainstream. The campaign began in September
> of last year. Before
> that, Saddam was a terrible guy, but not an imminent
> threat to the
> survival of the US. The "mushroom cloud" was
> announced in early September.
> Since then, fear that Saddam will attack the US has
> been running at about
> 60-70% of the population. "The desperate urgency
> about moving rapidly
> against Iraq that Bush expressed in October was not
> evident from anything
> he said two months before," the chief political
> analyst of United Press
> International observed, drawing the obvious
> conclusion: September marked
> the opening of the political campaign for the
> mid-term congressional
> elections. The administration, he continued, was
> "campaigning to sustain
> and increase its power on a policy of international
> adventurism, new
> radical preemptive military strategies, and a hunger
> for a politically
> convenient and perfectly timed confrontation with
> Iraq." As long as
> domestic issues were in the forefront, Bush and his
> cohorts were losing
> ground - naturally enough, because they are
> conducting a serious assault
> against the general population. "But lo and behold!
> Though there have been
> no new terrorist attacks or credible indications of
> imminent threat, since
> the beginning of September, national security issues
> have been in the
> driver's seat," not just al Qaeda but an awesome and
> threatening military
> power, Iraq.
> 
> The same observations have been made by many others.
> That's convenient for
> people like us: we can just quote the mainstream
> instead of giving
> controversial analyses. The Carnegie Endowment
> Senior Associate I quoted
> before writes that Bush and Co. are following "the
> classic modern strategy
> of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to
> divert mass discontent
> into nationalism," inspired by fear of enemies about
> to destroy us. That
> strategy is of critical importance if the "radical
> nationalists" setting
> policy in Washington hope to advance their announced
> plan for "unilateral
> world domination through absolute military
> superiority," while conducting
> a major assault against the interests of the large
> majority of the
> domestic population.
> 
> For the elections, the strategy worked, barely. The
> Fall 2002 election was
> won by a small number of votes, but enough to hand
> Congress to the
> executive. Analyses of the election found that
> voters maintained their
> opposition to the administration on social and
> economic issues, but
> suppressed these issues in favor of security
> concerns, which typically
> lead to support for the figure in authority - the
> brave cowboy who must
> ride to our rescue, just in time.
> 
> As history shows, it is all too easy for
> unscrupulous leaders to terrify
> the public, with consequences that have not been
> attractive. That is the
> natural method to divert attention from the fact
> that tax cuts for the
> rich and other devices are undermining prospects for
> a decent life for
> large majority of the population, and for future
> generations. When the
> presidential campaign begins, Republican strategists
> surely do not want
> people to be asking questions about their pensions,
> jobs, health care, and
> other such matters. Rather, they should be praising
> their heroic leader
> for rescuing them from imminent destruction by a foe
> of colossal power,
> and marching on to confront the next powerful force
> bent on our
> destruction. It could be Iran, or conflicts in the
> Andean countries: there
> are lots of good choices, as long as the targets are
> defenseless.
> 
> These ideas are second nature to the current
> political leaders, most of
> them recycled from the Reagan administration. They
> are replaying a
> familiar script: drive the country into deficit so
> as to be able to
> undermine social programs, declare a "war on terror"
> (as they did in 1981)
> and conjure up one devil after another to frighten
> the population into
> obedience. In the `80s it was Libyan hit-men
> prowling the streets of
> Washington to assassinate our leader, then the
> Nicaraguan army only
> two-days march from Texas, a threat to survival so
> severe that Reagan had
> to declare a national emergency. Or an airfield in
> Grenada that the
> Russians were going to use to bomb us (if they could
> find it on a map);
> Arab terrorists seeking to kill Americans everywhere
> while Qaddafi plans
> to "expel America from the world," so Reagan wailed.
> Or Hispanic
> narcotraffickers seeking to destroy the youth; and
> on, and on.
> 
> Meanwhile the political leadership were able to
> carry out domestic
> policies that had generally poor economic outcomes
> but did create wealth
> for narrow sectors while harming a considerable
> majority of the population
> - the script that is being followed once again. And
> since the public knows
> it, they have to resort to "the classic modern
> strategy of an endangered
> right wing oligarchy" if they hope to carry out the
> domestic and
> international programs to which they are committed,
> perhaps even to
> institutionalize them so they will be hard to
> dismantle when they lose
> control.
> 
> Of course, there is much more to it than domestic
> considerations - which
> are of no slight importance in themselves. The
> September 11 terrorist
> atrocities provided an opportunity and pretext to
> implement long-standing
> plans to take control of Iraq's immense oil wealth,
> a central component of
> the Persian Gulf resources that the State
> Department, in 1945, described
> as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one
> of the greatest
> material prizes in world history." US intelligence
> predicts that these
> will be of even greater significance in the years
> ahead. The issue has
> never been access. The same intelligence analyses
> anticipate that the US
> will rely on more secure supplies in the Western
> hemisphere and West
> Africa. The same was true after World War II. What
> matters is control over
> the "material prize," which funnels enormous wealth
> to the US in many
> ways, Britain as well, and the "stupendous source of
> strategic power,"
> which translates into a lever of "unilateral world
> domination" -- the goal
> that is now openly proclaimed, and is frightening
> much of the world,
> including "old Europe" and the conservative
> establishment in the US.
> 
> I think a realistic look at the world gives a mixed
> picture. There are
> many reasons to be encouraged, but there will be a
> long hard road ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com