[Peace-discuss] Notes from the inestimable William Blum

[Brussel Morton K.]

Another report by Blum, this time on Obama and with reflections on  
the partiality of the ICTY:

The Anti-Empire Report
by William Blum
www.killinghope.org

Obama and the Empire
The New Yorker magazine in its July 14 issue ran a cover cartoon that  
achieved instant fame. It showed Barack Obama wearing Muslim garb in  
the Oval Office with a portrait of Osama bin Laden on the wall. Obama  
is delivering a fist bump to his wife, Michelle, who has an Afro  
hairdo and an assault rifle slung over her shoulder. An American flag  
lies burning in the fireplace. The magazine says it's all satire, a  
parody of the crazy right-wing fears, rumors, and scare tactics about  
Obama's past and ideology.

The cartoon makes fun of the idea that Barack and Michelle Obama are  
some kind of mixture of Black Panther, Islamist jihadist, and Marxist  
revolutionary. But how much more educational for the American public  
and the world it would be to make fun of the idea that Obama is even  
some kind of progressive.

I'm more concerned here with foreign policy than domestic issues  
because it's in this area that the US government can do, and indeed  
does do, the most harm to the world, to put it mildly. And in this  
area what do we find? We find Obama threatening, several times, to  
attack Iran if they don't do what the United States wants them to do  
nuclear-wise; threatening more than once to attack Pakistan if their  
anti-terrorist policies are not tough enough or if there would be a  
regime change in the nuclear-armed country not to his liking; calling  
for a large increase in US troops and tougher policies for  
Afghanistan; wholly and unequivocally embracing Israel as if it were  
the 51st state; totally ignoring Hamas, an elected ruling party in  
the occupied territory; decrying the Berlin Wall in his recent talk  
in that city, about the safest thing a politician can do, but with no  
mention of the Israeli Wall while in Israel, nor the numerous  
American-built walls in Baghdad while in Iraq; referring to the  
Venezuelan government of Hugo Chávez as "authoritarian", but would he  
refer similarly to the Bush government for which the term is more  
appropriate, even "police state"?; talking with the usual  
disinformation and hostility about Cuba, albeit with a token reform  
re visits and remittances. But would he dare mention the outrageous  
case of the imprisoned Cuban Five[1]  in his frequent references to  
fighting terrorism?

While an Illinois state senator in January 2004, Obama declared that  
it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly  
failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." But speaking as a  
presidential candidate to a Cuban-American audience in Miami in  
August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president  
because it is "an important inducement for change."[2]  He thus went  
from a good policy for the wrong reason to the wrong policy for the  
wrong reason. Does Mr. Obama care any more than Mr. Bush that the  
United Nations General Assembly has voted -- virtually unanimously --  
16 years in a row against the embargo?

In summary, it would be difficult to name a single ODE (Officially  
Designated Enemy) that Obama has not been critical of, or to name one  
that he has supported. Can this be mere coincidence?

The fact that Obama says he's willing to "talk" to some of the  
"enemies" more than the Bush administration has done sounds good, but  
one doesn't have to be too cynical to believe that it will not amount  
to more than a public relations gimmick. It's only change of policy  
that counts. Why doesn't he simply and clearly state that he would  
not attack Iran unless Iran first attacked the US or Israel or anyone  
else?

As to Iraq, if you're sick to the core of your being about the  
horrors US policy brings down upon the heads of the people of that  
unhappy land, then you must support withdrawal –- immediate, total,  
all troops, combat and non-combat, all the Blackwater-type killer  
contractors, not moved to Kuwait or Qatar to be on call. All bases  
out. No permanent bases. No permanent war. No timetables. No approval  
by the US military necessary. No reductions in forces. Just OUT. ALL.  
Just like what the people of Iraq want. Nothing less will give them  
the opportunity to try to put an end to the civil war and violence  
instigated by the American invasion and occupation and to recreate  
their failed state.

George W. Bush, 2006: "We're going to stay in Iraq to get the job  
done as long as the government wants us there."[3]
George W. Bush, 2007: "It's their government's choice. If they were  
to say, leave, we would leave."[4]
Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie, 2008: "said his  
government was 'impatiently waiting' for the complete withdrawal of  
U.S. troops."[5]
Barack Obama, 2008: We can "redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a  
pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months."[6]

Obama's terms of withdrawal equals no withdrawal. Literally. Has he  
ever said that the war is categorically illegal and immoral? A war  
crime? Or that anti-American terrorism in the world is the direct  
result of oppressive US policies? Instead he calls for a troop  
increase and "the first truly 21st century military ... We must  
maintain the strongest, best-equipped military in the world."[7]  Why  
of course, that's what the people of the United States and the people  
of Iraq and Afghanistan and the rest of the people in this sad world  
desperately desire and need -- greater American killing power!  Obama  
is not so much concerned with ending America's endless warfare as he  
is with "succeeding" in them, by whatever perverted definition of  
that word.

And has he ever dared to raise the obvious question: Why would Iran,  
even if nuclear armed, be a threat to attack the US or Israel? Any  
more than Iraq was such a threat. Which was zero. Instead, he has  
said things like "Iran continues to be a major threat" and repeats  
the tiresome lie that the Iranian president called for the  
destruction of Israel.[8]

Obama, one observer has noted, "opposes the present US policy in Iraq  
not on the basis of any principled opposition to neo-colonialism or  
aggressive war, but rather on the grounds that the Iraq war is a  
mistaken deployment of power that fails to advance the global  
strategic interests of American imperialism."[9]

He and his supporters have made much of the speech he delivered in  
the Illinois state legislature in 2002 against the upcoming US  
invasion of Iraq. But two years later, when he was running for the US  
Senate, he declared: "There's not that much difference between my  
position and George Bush's position at this stage."[10]  Since taking  
office in January 2005, he has voted to approve almost every war  
appropriation the Republicans have put forward. He also voted to  
confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity  
in the Bush Administration's false justifications for going to war in  
Iraq. In doing so, he lacked the courage of 12 of his Democratic  
Party Senate colleagues who voted against her confirmation.

If you're one of those who would like to believe that Obama has to  
present moderate foreign policy views to be elected, but once he's in  
the White House we can forget that he lied to us repeatedly and the  
true, progressive man of peace and international law and human rights  
will emerge ... keep in mind that as a US Senate candidate in 2004 he  
threatened missile strikes against Iran[11], and winning that  
election apparently did not put him in touch with his inner peacenik.

When, in 2005, the other Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin, stuck his  
neck out and compared American torture at Guantanamo to "Nazis,  
Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others --  
that had no concern for human beings", and was angrily denounced by  
the right wing, Obama stood up in the Senate and ... defended him?  
No, he joined the critics, thrice calling Durbin's remark a "mistake". 
[12]

One of Obama's chief foreign policy advisers is Zbigniew Brzezinski,  
a man instrumental in provoking Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in  
1979, which was followed by massive US military supplies to the  
opposition and widespread war. This gave rise to a generation of  
Islamic jihadists, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and more  
than two decades of anti-American terrorism. Asked later if he had  
any regrets about this policy, Brzezinski replied: "Regret what? That  
secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing  
the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The  
day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to  
President Carter, in substance: We now have the opportunity of giving  
to the USSR its Vietnam war."[13]

Another prominent Obama adviser -- from a list entirely and  
depressingly establishment-imperial -- is Madeleine Albright, who  
should always wear gloves because her hands are caked with blood from  
her roles in the bombings of Iraq and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

In a primary campaign talk in March, Obama said that "he would return  
the country to the more 'traditional' foreign policy efforts of past  
presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald  
Reagan."[14]  Use your imagination. Bloody serial interventionists, all.

Why have well-known conservatives like George Will, David Brooks, Joe  
Scarborough, and others spoken so favorably about Obama's candidacy? 
[15]  Whatever else, they know he's not a threat to their most  
cherished views and values.

Given all this, can we expect a more enlightened, less bloody, more  
progressive and humane foreign policy from Mr. Barack Obama? Forget  
the alleged eloquence and charm; forget the warm feel-good stuff;  
forget the interminable clichés and platitudes about hope, change,  
unity, and America's indispensable role as world leader; forget all  
the religiobabble; forget John McCain and George W. Bush ... All that  
counts is putting an end to the horror -- the bombings, the  
invasions, the killings, the destruction, the overthrows, the  
occupations, the torture, the American Empire.

Al Gore and John Kerry both took the progressive vote for granted.   
They themselves had never been particularly progressive. Each  
harbored a measure of disdain for the left. Both paid a heavy price  
for the neglect. I and millions like me voted for Ralph Nader, or  
some other third-party candidate, or stayed home. Obama is doing the  
same as Gore and Kerry. Progressives should let him know that his  
positions are not acceptable, keeping up the anti-war pressure on him  
and the Democratic Party at every opportunity. For whatever good it  
just might do.

I'm afraid that if Barack Obama becomes president he's going to break  
a lot of young hearts. And some older ones as well.

Writer Norman Solomon has written: "These days, an appreciable number  
of Obama supporters are starting to use words like 'disillusionment.'  
But that's a consequence of projecting their political outlooks onto  
the candidate in the first place. The best way to avoid becoming  
disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place."


Victors' justice and impunity
So, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic has finally been  
apprehended. He's slated to appear before the International Criminal  
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, Netherlands,  
charged with war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. And  
now all the law-abiding governments of the world, and all the right- 
minded media of the world, and all the decent citizens of the world  
join together in celebrating this triumph of justice.

The ICTY was created by the United Nations in 1993. Its full name is  
"The International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons  
Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law  
Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991".  
Notice the "who" -- "Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of  
International Humanitarian Law". Notice the "where" -- "Territory of  
the Former Yugoslavia". This is all spelled out in the statute of the  
Tribunal.[16]

In 1999, NATO (primarily the United States) bombed the Yugoslav  
republic of Serbia for 78 consecutive days, ruining the economy, the  
ecology, power supply, bridges, apartment buildings, transportation,  
infrastructure, churches, schools, pushing the country many years  
back in its development, killing hundreds or thousands of people,  
traumatizing countless children who'll be reacting unhappily to  
certain sounds and sights for perhaps the remainder of their days;  
the most ferocious sustained bombing of a nation in the history of  
the world. Nobody has ever suggested that Serbia had attacked or was  
preparing to attack a member state of NATO, and that is the only  
event which justifies a reaction under the NATO treaty. But Serbia  
was guilty of a greater crime: It had refused to happily fall under  
the dominion of the US/NATO/European Union/World Bank/IMF/WTO world  
government. The quasi-socialist Serbian state was Europe's last  
communist holdout. Moreover, post-cold war, NATO needed to  
demonstrate a raison d'être if it was to remain alive as Washington's  
enforcement thug.

The ICTY has already held one high-level trial in an attempt to  
convince the world of the justice of the NATO bombing -- former  
Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, who died in the Hague prison  
while trying to defend himself against charges that remain unproven.  
Radovan Karadzic is now next. When will the Western leaders behind  
the bombing of Serbia be tried for war crimes, as called for by the  
Tribunal's own statute?

Shortly after the bombing began in March, 1999, professionals in  
international law from Canada, the United Kingdom, Greece, and the  
United States began to file complaints with the ICTY charging leaders  
of NATO countries with "grave violations of international  
humanitarian law", including "wilful killing, wilfully causing great  
suffering and serious injury to body and health, employment of  
poisonous weapons and other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering,  
wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, unlawful attacks on  
civilian objects, devastation not necessitated by military  
objectives, attacks on undefended buildings and dwellings,  
destruction and wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to  
religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences."

The Canadian suit named 68 leaders, including William Clinton,  
Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Tony Blair, Canadian Prime  
Minister Jean Chretien, and NATO officials Javier Solana, Wesley  
Clark, and Jamie Shea. The complaint also alleged "open violation" of  
the United Nations Charter, the NATO treaty itself, the Geneva  
Conventions, and the Principles of International Law Recognized by  
the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.

The complainants' briefs pointed out that the prosecution of those  
named by them was "not only a requirement of law, it is a requirement  
of justice to the victims and of deterrence to powerful countries  
such as those in NATO who, in their military might and in their  
control over the media, are lacking in any other natural restraint  
such as might deter less powerful countries." Charging the war's  
victors, not only its losers, it was argued, would be a watershed in  
international criminal law.

In a letter to Louise Arbour, the court's chief prosecutor, Michael  
Mandel, a professor of law in Toronto and the initiator of the  
Canadian suit, stated:

Unfortunately, as you know, many doubts have already been raised  
about the impartiality of your Tribunal. In the early days of the  
conflict, after a formal and, in our view, justified complaint  
against NATO leaders had been laid before it by members of the  
Faculty of Law of Belgrade University, you appeared at a press  
conference with one of the accused, British Foreign Secretary Robin  
Cook, who made a great show of handing you a dossier of Serbian war  
crimes. In early May, you appeared at another press conference with  
US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, by that time herself the  
subject of two formal complaints of war crimes over the targeting of  
civilians in Yugoslavia.[17]
Arbour herself made little attempt to hide the pro-NATO bias she wore  
beneath her robe. She trusted NATO to be its own police, judge, jury,  
and prison guard. Here are her own words:

I am obviously not commenting on any allegations of violations of  
international humanitarian law supposedly perpetrated by nationals of  
NATO countries. I accept the assurances given by NATO leaders that  
they intend to conduct their operations in the Federal Republic of  
Yugoslavia in full compliance with international humanitarian law.[18]
The ICTY on its website tells us: "By holding individuals accountable  
regardless of their position, the ICTY's work has dismantled the  
tradition of impunity for war crimes and other serious violations of  
international law, particularly by individuals who held the most  
senior positions."[19] US/NATO leaders, however, are immune not only  
for the 1999 bombings of Serbia, but the many bombings of Bosnia in  
the period 1993-95, including the use of depleted uranium. Impunity  
indeed.

NOTES

[1] William Blum, "Cuban Political Prisoners ... in the United  
States" -- http://members.aol.com/bblum6/polpris.htm

[2] Washington Post, February 25, 2008; p.A4

[3] New York Times. December 1, 2006, p.1

[4] White House press conference, May 24, 2007

[5] Washington Post, July 9, 2008

[6] Obama's website: www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

[7] Speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, April 23, 2007

[8] Haaretz.com (leading Israeli newspaper), May 16, 2007

[9] Bill Van Auken, Global Research, July 18, 2008 -- http:// 
www.globalresearch.ca/

[10] Chicago Tribune, July 27, 2004

[11] Chicago Tribune, September 25, 2004

[12] Congressional Record, June 21, 2005, p.S6897

[13] For the full Brzezinski interview see http://members.aol.com/ 
bblum6/brz.htm

[14] Associated Press, March 28, 2008

[15] See, for example, Peter Wehner, "Why Republicans Like Obama",  
Washington Post, February 3, 2008, p.B7

[16] http://www.un.org/icty/legaldoc-e/basic/statut/statute-feb08-e.pdf

[17] This and most of the other material concerning the complaints to  
the Tribunal mentioned here were transmitted to this writer by Mandel  
and other complainants. See also: Michael Mandel, "How America Gets  
Away With Murder" (2004)

[18] Press Release from Chief Prosecutor Louise Arbour, The Hague,  
May 13, 1999

[19] http://un.org/icty/cases-e/factsheets/achieve-e.htm


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
Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at  
<www.killinghope.org >
Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website at "essays".
To add yourself to the mailing list for the Anti-Empire Report simply  
send an email to <bblum6 at aol.com> with "add" in the subject line. I'd  
like your name and city in the message, but that's optional. I ask  
for your city only in case I'll be speaking in your area.
       Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the opposite.
       Any part of this report may be disseminated without  
permission.  I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080815/0bcc37f3/attachment.htm