[Peace-discuss] Reminders from William Blum

[Morton K. Brussel]

The Anti-Empire Report
Read this or George W. Bush will be president the rest of your life
                                           November 6, 2007
                                            by William Blum
                                       www.killinghope.org

In a sound-bite society, reality no longer matters.
Last month, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told assembled world  
leaders at the United Nations that the time had come to take action  
against Iran. "None disagrees," she said, "that Iran denies the  
Holocaust and speaks openly of its desire to wipe a member state -  
mine - off the map. And none disagrees that, in violation of Security  
Council resolutions, it is actively pursuing the means to achieve  
this end. Too many see the danger but walk idly by - hoping that  
someone else will take care of it. ... It is time for the United  
Nations, and the states of the world, to live up to their promise of  
never again. To say enough is enough, to act now and to defend their  
basic values."[1]

Yet, later the same month, we are informed by Haaretz, (frequently  
described as "the New York Times of Israel"), that the same Foreign  
Minister Tzipi Livni had said a few months earlier, in a series of  
closed discussions, that in her opinion "Iranian nuclear weapons do  
not pose an existential threat to Israel." Haaretz reported that  
"Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that [Israeli] Prime  
Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb,  
claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by  
playing on its most basic fears."[2]

What are we to make of such a self-contradiction, such perfect  
hypocrisy?

And here is Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International: "The  
one time we seriously negotiated with Tehran was in the closing days  
of the war in Afghanistan, in order to create a new political order  
in the country. Bush's representative to the Bonn conference, James  
Dobbins, says that 'the Iranians were very professional,  
straightforward, reliable and helpful. They were also critical to our  
success. They persuaded the Northern Alliance [Afghan foes of the  
Taliban] to make the final concessions that we asked for.' Dobbins  
says the Iranians made overtures to have better relations with the  
United States through him and others in 2001 and later, but got no  
reply. Even after the Axis of Evil speech, he recalls, they offered  
to cooperate in Afghanistan. Dobbins took the proposal to a  
principals meeting in Washington only to have it met with dead  
silence. The then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he says,  
'looked down and rustled his papers.' No reply was ever sent back to  
the Iranians. Why bother? They're mad."[3]

Dobbins has further written: "The original version of the Bonn  
agreement ... neglected to mention either democracy or the war on  
terrorism. It was the Iranian representative who spotted these  
omissions and successfully urged that the newly emerging Afghan  
government be required to commit to both."[4] ... "Only weeks after  
Hamid Karzai was sworn in as interim leader in Afghanistan, President  
Bush listed Iran among the 'axis of evil' -- surprising payback for  
Tehran's help in Bonn. A year later, shortly after the invasion of  
Iraq, all bilateral contacts with Tehran were suspended. Since then,  
confrontation over Iran's nuclear program has intensified."[5]

Shortly after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran made another  
approach to Washington, via the Swiss ambassador who sent a fax to  
the State Department. The Washington Post described it as "a proposal  
from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax  
suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation  
on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of  
Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups." The Bush  
administration "belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally  
complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax." Richard  
Haass, head of policy planning at the State Department at the time  
and now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the  
Iranian approach was swiftly rejected because in the administration  
"the bias was toward a policy of regime change."[6]

So there we have it. The Israelis know it, the Americans know it.  
Iran is not any kind of military threat. Before the invasion of Iraq  
I posed the question in this report: What possible reason would  
Saddam Hussein have for attacking the United States or Israel other  
than an irresistible desire for mass national suicide? He had no  
reason, and neither do the Iranians. Of the many lies surrounding the  
invasion of Iraq, the biggest one of all is that if, in fact, Saddam  
Hussein had those weapons of mass destruction the invasion would have  
been justified.

The United States and Israel have long strived to dominate the Middle  
East, viewing Iraq and Iran as the most powerful barriers to that  
ambition. Iraq is now a basket case. Iran awaits basketization. And,  
eventually perhaps, the omnipresent American military bases, closing  
the base-gap between Iraq and Afghanistan in Washington's  
encirclement of China, and the better to monitor the flow of oil from  
the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea areas.

There was a time when I presumed that the sole purpose of United  
States hostile policy toward Iran was to keep the Iranians from  
acquiring nuclear weapons, which would deprive the US and Israel of  
their mideast monopoly and ultimate tool of intimidation. But now it  
appears that destroying Iran's military capability, nuclear and  
otherwise, smashing it to the point of being useless defensively or  
offensively, is the Bush administration's objective, perhaps along  
with the hope of some form of regime change. The Empire leaves as  
little to chance as possible.


Cuba and Original Sin
Since the early days of the Cuban Revolution assorted anti-communists  
and capitalist true-believers around the world have been relentless  
in publicizing the failures, real and alleged, of life in Cuba; each  
perceived shortcoming is attributed to the perceived shortcomings of  
socialism -- It's simply a system that can't work, we are told, given  
the nature of human beings, particularly in this modern, competitive,  
globalized, consumer-oriented world.

In response to many of these criticisms, defenders of Cuban society  
have regularly pointed out how the numerous draconian sanctions  
imposed by the United States since 1960 are largely responsible for  
most of the problems pointed out by the critics. The critics, in  
turn, say that this is just an excuse, one given by Cuban apologists  
for every failure of their socialist system. However, it would be  
very difficult for the critics to prove their point. The United  
States would have to drop all sanctions and then we'd have to wait  
long enough for Cuban society to recover what it's lost and  
demonstrate what its system can do when not under constant attack by  
the most powerful nation in the world.

The sanctions (which Cuba calls an economic blockade), designed to  
create discontent toward the government, have been expanding under  
the Bush administration, both in number and in vindictiveness.  
Washington has adopted sharper reprisals against those who do  
business with Cuba or establish relations with the country based on  
cultural or tourist exchanges; e.g., the US Treasury has frozen the  
accounts in the United States of the Netherlands Caribbean Bank  
because it has an office in Cuba, and banned US firms and individuals  
from having any dealings with the Dutch bank.

The US Treasury Department fined the Alliance of Baptists $34,000,  
charging that certain of its members and parishioners of other  
churches had engaged in tourism during a visit to Cuba for religious  
purposes; i.e., they had spent money there. (As George W. once said:  
"U.S. law forbids Americans to travel to Cuba for pleasure."[7])

American courts and government agencies have helped US companies  
expropriate the famous Cuban cigar brand name 'Cohiba' and the well- 
known rum "Havana Club".

The Bush administration sent a note to American Internet service  
providers telling them not to deal with six specified countries,  
including Cuba.[8] This is one of several actions by Washington over  
the years to restrict Internet availability in Cuba; yet Cuba's  
critics claim that problems with the Internet in Cuba are due to  
government suppression.

Cubans in the United States are limited to how much money they can  
send to their families in Cuba, a limit that Washington imposes only  
on Cubans and on no other nationals. Not even during the worst  
moments of the Cold War was there a general limit to the amount of  
money that people in the US could send to relatives living in the  
Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe.

In 1999, Cuba filed a suit against the United States for $181.1  
billion in compensation for economic losses and loss of life during  
the first forty years of this aggression. The suit held Washington  
responsible for the death of 3,478 Cubans and the wounding and  
disabling of 2,099 others. In the eight years since, these figures  
have of course all increased. The sanctions, in numerous ways large  
and small, makes acquiring many kinds of products and services from  
around the world much more difficult and expensive, often impossible;  
frequently, they are things indispensable to Cuban medicine,  
transportation or industry; or they mean that Americans and Cubans  
can't attend professional conferences in each other's country.

The above is but a small sample of the excruciating pain inflicted by  
the United States upon the body, soul and economy of the Cuban people.

For years American political leaders and media were fond of labeling  
Cuba an "international pariah". We don't hear much of that any more.  
Perhaps one reason is the annual vote at the United Nations on a  
General Assembly resolution to end the US embargo against Cuba. This  
is how the vote has gone:

            Yes-No
1992     59-2   (US, Israel)
1993     88-4   (US, Israel, Albania, Paraguay)
1994   101-2   (US, Israel)
1995   117-3   (US, Israel, Uzbekistan)
1996   138-3   (US, Israel, Uzbekistan)
1997   143-3   (US, Israel, Uzbekistan)
1998   157-2   (US, Israel)
1999   155-2   (US, Israel)
2000   167-3   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands)
2001   167-3   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands)
2002   173-3   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands)
2003   179-3   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands)
2004   179-4   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau)
2005   182-4   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau)
2006   183-4   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau)
2007   184-4   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau)

Cuba's sin, which the United States of America can not forgive, is to  
have created a society that can serve as a successful example of an  
alternative to the capitalist model, and, moreover, to have done so  
under the very nose of the United States. And despite all the  
hardships imposed on it by Washington, Cuba has indeed inspired  
countless peoples and governments all over the world.

Long-time writer about Cuba, Karen Lee Wald, has observed: "The  
United States has more pens, pencils, candy, aspirin, etc. than most  
Cubans have. They, on the other hand, have better access to health  
services, education, sports, culture, childcare, services for the  
elderly, pride and dignity than most of us have within reach."

In a 1996 address to the General Assembly, Cuban Vice-President  
Carlos Lage stated: "Each day in the world 200 million children sleep  
in the streets. Not one of them is Cuban."

On April 6, 1960, L.D. Mallory, a US State Department senior  
official, wrote in an internal memorandum: "The majority of Cubans  
support Castro ... the only foreseeable means of alienating internal  
support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic  
dissatisfaction and hardship. ... every possible means should be  
undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba." Mallory  
proposed "a line of action that makes the greatest inroads in denying  
money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to  
bring about hunger, desperation and the overthrow of the government."  
Later that year, the Eisenhower administration instituted the embargo. 
[9]


Hugo the demon dictator strikes again
The latest evidence that Hugo Chavez is a dictator, we are told, is  
that he's pushing for a constitutional amendment to remove term  
limits from the presidency. It's the most contentious provision in  
his new reform package which has recently been approved by the  
Venezuelan congress and awaits a public referendum on December 2. The  
lawmakers traveled nationwide to discuss the proposals with community  
groups at more than 9,000 public events[10], rather odd behavior for  
a dictatorship, as is another of the reforms -- setting a maximum six- 
hour workday so workers would have sufficient time for "personal  
development."

The American media and the opposition in Venezuela make it sound as  
if Chavez is going to be guaranteed office for as long as he wants.  
What they fail to emphasize, if they mention it at all, is that  
there's nothing at all automatic about the process -- Chavez will  
have to be elected each time. Neither are we enlightened that it's  
not unusual for a nation to not have a term limit for its highest  
office. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, if not all of Europe  
and much of the rest of the world, do not have such a limit. The  
United States did not have a term limit on the office of the  
president during the nation's first 175 years, until the ratification  
of the 22nd Amendment in 1951. Were all American presidents prior to  
that time dictators?

Is it of any significance, I wonder, that the two countries of the  
Western Hemisphere whose governments the United States would most  
like to overthrow -- Venezuela and Cuba -- have the greatest national  
obsession with baseball outside of the United States?


Reason Number 3,467 for having doubts about our God-given free- 
enterprise system
I recently bought my first cellphone and took it with me to  
Burlington, Vermont, only to discover that it didn't work there. It  
seems that AT&T/Cingular doesn't have cellphone towers in that area.  
But other phone companies do have towers there and their subscribers'  
phones work. Is that not a really clever system?

To have a single national telephone system with all towers available  
for use by everyone would presumably upset libertarians and others  
who worship at the shrine of competition.. So instead we're given  
another charming "market solution", and the beauty of competition is  
preserved. Why stop there?  Just imagine the advantages in being able  
to call around to find out which fire station will give you the best  
rate should your house suddenly go up in flames.


An unwelcome guest at the table of respectable opinion
In the September edition of this report I presented a review of New  
York Times reporter Tim Weiner's new book "Legacy of Ashes: The  
History of the CIA". It was rather critical of the book, particularly  
as to what has been left out about CIA operations and the effect upon  
foreign peoples of these operations. The net result of these numerous  
omissions is to paint a picture of US foreign policy that  
significantly downplays the actions most destructive to the peace,  
prosperity, and happiness of the world.  It's an old story -- the  
media decide which issues to cover in the first place; they then  
decide how many sides there are to an issue; and then they decide  
what type of coverage is "balanced". The major ideological problem of  
the American media is that they do not believe that they have any  
ideology.

But I wondered if I was not being somewhat unfair to Weiner in one or  
more cases; perhaps he had a good reason for some of his omissions;  
perhaps in the 700 pages, including 155 pages of small-type notes, I  
had missed something I thought had been omitted. I decided to send a  
copy of the review to him, hopefully to get his reaction, and wrote  
to the Times asking for his email address. I got back an email from  
Weiner himself which read, in full:

"Dear Mr. Blum: I read your review several days ago. And I've read  
all your books. best wishes, tw"

No challenges to anything I said; no corrections. I'd be surprised if  
he's done more than skim a few pages of any of my books. His letter  
is his way of saying: "I really don't want to hear from you again.  
Our worlds are not designed for mingling. Our truths are not the  
same, and neither my publisher nor the New York Times pays me to  
disseminate yours."


NOTES
[1] Haaretz.com (Israeli newspaper), October 1, 2007

[2] Haaretz.com, October 25, 2007; print edition October 26

[3] Newsweek, October 20, 2007

[4] Washington Post, May 6, 2004

[5] Washington Post, July 22, 2007, p.B7, op-ed by Dobbins

[6] Washington Post, June 18, 2006, p.16

[7] White House press release, October 10, 2003

[8] Press release from the Cuban Mission to the United Nations,  
October 17, 2007, re this and preceding three paragraphs.

[9] Department of State, "Foreign Relations of the United States,  
1958-1960, Volume VI, Cuba" (1991), p.885

[10] Washington Post, October 31, 2007, p.12

William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20071106/cd31d792/attachment-0001.html