|
July 9, 2002
Stanton and Madsen
God,
Incorporated
Kurt Nimmo
IDF,
Gangbanging with Tanks
Bill Christison
Disastrous Foreign
Policies
of the US Part 3:
What Can We Do About
It?
July 8, 2002
Rick Mercier
Yucca
Mountain Bound
Lev Grinberg
The
BUSHARON Global War
Tariq Ali
How Bush
Used 9/11 to Remap the World
Lori Allen
The Tugs
of War:
Palestinian Life Under Curfew
July 7, 2002
Alexander Cockburn
White
House Crooks
July 6, 2002
Gavin Keeney
Loose
Lips:
Liberty, Democracy & Bush
Michael Neumann
What's
So Bad About Israel?
Steve Baughman
Ashcroft's
Vendetta:
Lynching John Lindh
July 5, 2002
Ahmad Faruqui
Bush Freezes Peace
Process
Todd May
Independence and
Terrorism
Rahul Mahajan
Why I
Won't Celebrate the Fourth of July This Year
July 4, 2002
S. Brian Willson
What
the Flag Means to Me
Philip Farruggio
Independence Day and
the Working Poor
Tom Gorman
The
Uncommon Pledge
of Allegiance
Chris Floyd
Jungle
Fever:
Bush's Bolivian Mercenaries
July 3, 2002
Francis Boyle
The
Death of the Oslo Accords
Mokhiber / Weissman
Cracking Down on
Corp. Crime
Robert Jensen
Lynne
Cheney's Primer
Behzad Yaghmaian
An
Alternative to the G-8s Africa Initiative
Toward a Global AIDS Fund and
a Living Wage
John Borowski
Public Schools Under
Seige
Norman Madarasz
Brazil, the Workers'
Party and the Financial Times
July 2, 2002
Leah Wells
The
Wedding Was a Bomb
CounterPunch Wire
Trial of
the SOA 37
Edward Hammond
Bombing the
Mind:
The Pentagon's Drug Warfare
Sam Bahour
Ramallah
Occupied:
Uninvited Guests Become Neighbors
July 1, 2002
Norman Madarasz
Brazil's
Triumph
June 28/30, 2002
Kathleen Christison
The True Story of
Resolution 242 or How the US Sold Out
the Palestinians
Cockburn / St. Clair
Death, Juries and
Scalia
Tarif Abboushi
Bush's
Double Standard
on Israel
N.D. Jayaprakash
Seething with
Rage:
The Palestinian Saga
Michael Yates
Taking
the Pledge:
Teachers and the Flag
Stephen Zunes
Bush's
Speech a Setback
for Peace
Walt Brasch
The
Pledge v. The Constitution
Cockburn / St. Clair
Strikers as
Terrorists?
Tom Ridge Calls Longshoremen
Resources:
100s of Links About
9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete Coverage of
9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch Online
at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published March 15, 2002
Read Whiteout and Find Out How the CIA's
Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most Robust Heroin Market
and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban and Osama bin
Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the Press
by Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St.
Clair
The Memphis Blues Again:
Six Decades of Memphis Music
Photographs
Photos by Ernest
Withers
Text by Daniel Wolff
The New Intifada:
Resisting Israel's
Apartheid
Edited by Roane
Carey
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad
Guys
by James
Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas
Valentine
Al Gore:
A User's
Manual
by Cockburn
and St.
Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's
Manual
|
July 8,
2002
European Worries and Bush's
Terror War
by Gary Leupp
The
United Kingdom and the United States are, to use that rather disturbing
Chinese expression, "as close as lips and teeth." Their governments rarely
disagree in public. Yes, there was that Suez Affair way back when, and
some difference in approach to the Falklands War, at least for a few days,
during the Reagan-Thatcher years, but for the most part it's been the
coziest of relationships. Tony Blair's administration, almost alone among
foreign governments, has even endorsed Bush's call for war against Iraq,
not, one suspects, out of any genuine enthusiasm, but out of desire to
maintain the "special relationship" that suits its long-term interests. So
it's significant when unnamed, high-ranking officials in the British
administration tell the London Telegraph (June 30) that the
Bush team is "rather unpleasant," "protectionist and self-interested," and
even (in vetoing the UN Security Council's mandate to maintain
international forces in Bosnia) "crazy." Or when "leading British civil
servantsmainstream, small-c conservative figures whose work, in its
different ways, sometimes depends on maintaining good relations with the
Americans," tell the Telegraph's John Simpson that Mr. Bush is
"puerile," "absurdly ignorant" and "ludicrous." (The British have been
erring on the side of civility, compared with the other
Europeans.)
Governments that endorsed the U.S. bombing of
Afghanistan, and are conscientiously conducting police operations against
alleged al-Qaeda cells in Europe, have become deeply worried about where
the "War on Terrorism," and U.S. policy in general (it's getting hard to
separate these two), are heading. That, I submit, is a very good thing.
The Europeans are like the sober ones at the family gathering, who first
smile nervously at the troubled drunk whose loud chatter and abrasive
behavior offends all assembled. They know he's just suffered a terrible
loss and so are inclined to treat him with indulgence. But finally, after
exchanging worried glances, they decide to say something.
The turning point was January 29, when President
Bush in his State of the Union speech said things so offensive to the
intelligence of educated continentals (those whom the Rumseld-Wolfowitz
cabal disparages as "European élites") that they just had to
deliberately distance themselves from his statements. Recall, this was the
high-profile "address" in which Dubya made no reference at all to Osama
bin Laden, and only passing reference to al-Qaeda, while stoking fears
that "tens of thousands" of evildoers trained in Afghan camps, and now
dispersed throughout the world, posed an infinite threat. (Colin Powell,
with the greater eye for detail, and perhaps some sensitivity to the
ridicule really foolish misstatements produce on the diplomatic front,
reportedly questioned the numbers. About 30,000 foreign Muslims trained in
CIA and Saudi-financed camps in Afghanistan in the 1980s. But it's not at
all clear how many of them are currently linked to the al-Qaeda network.
Some in the U.S. government think al-Qaeda as such is down to a few
hundred.) More importantly, Bush labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea an
"axis of evil" threatening the U.S., and hinted at a unilateral U.S.
strike against Baghdad.
Former President Jimmy Carter broke tradition in
denouncing the standing president's "axis" formulation as "overly
simplistic and counterproductive," and opined that "it will take years
before we can repair the damage done by that statement." European reaction
was similarly negative. Chris Patten, the European Union's de facto
minister of foreign affairs, said, "I find it hard to believe that's a
thought-through policy." French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine told
reporters, "We are friends of the United States, we are friends of that
people and we will remain so. But we are threatened today by a new
simplism which consists in reducing everything to the war on terrorism."
Referring to implicit plans to attack Iraq, he added, "Europeans are
unanimous in not supporting the Middle East policy of the White House."
German deputy foreign minister, Ludgar Vollmer, stated, "We Europeans warn
against [attacking Iraq]. There is no indication, no proof that Iraq is
involved in the terrorism we have been talking about for the last few
months... this terror argument cannot be used to legitimize old
enmities."
On February 2, at an international security
conference in Munich, the European moderator politely asked U.S. Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to explain the meaning of the "axis of
evil." Wolfowitz's clipped and cryptic response: "Countries must make a
choice." (Now what's that supposed to mean to an allied government
that sympathizes with post-Sept. 11 America, and endorses the campaign in
Afghanistan, but thinks an attack on Iraq would be---as Nelson Mandela, a
fairly respectably "mainstream" figure, put it on December 3---"a
disaster"? It means: "Look, we have the wherewithal to destroy, at our own
pace, all the Evil in the world. You can cooperate; or you can stand
aside, but if you do so, you'll face our contempt and wrath.")
At the same time, Bush adviser, Richard Perle said
of the "War on Terrorism": "This is total war. We are fighting a
variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there ... If we just let
our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't
try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our
children will sing great songs about us years from now." (Yes. Imagine
the stirring ballads one might compose, about the incineration of Baghdad,
Basra, Karbala, Mosul and the subsequent distribution of Iraq's oil assets
to the several corporations best represented in the Bush cabinet. Worthy
of the harps of the minstrels of Rivendell!)
Fortunately the arrogant language has not
intimidated all U.S. allies, who continue to pointedly question the White
House's wisdom. On March 15, Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said,
"We feel that Iraq should not be the subject of military attacks because
it would upset the whole Middle East Since the Gulf War, Iraq has been
under strict control It is under constant surveillance, so it is not in a
position anymore to inflict any harm on its neighbors or even against its
people." (Turkey was joined by Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, all of
whom have insisted they do not feel threatened by Iraq). German
chancellor Gerhard Schröder stated Germany would not support a unilateral
US strike against Iraq, while a French government spokesperson declared,
"Any kind of military operation should of course exist within that
existing UN framework. France agreed to support the U.S. attacks in
Afghanistan after September 11 because the situation was new, there was
clear proof that al-Qaeda was operating there. The country had been
warned, and the strikes were targeted. [But] Iraq is different." Even the
British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, warned colleagues of "major
disturbances both internationally and in Britain" if the U.K. were to back
a U.S. strike.
On March 17, German Foreign Minister, Joschka
Fischer, and the Defense Minister, Rudolf Scharping both announced that
German participation in a second Gulf War would not be desirable or
feasible. British Minister for International Development Clare Short
declared her opposition to new Gulf War, threatening to resign from
Blair's cabinet if it supported an attack on Iraq. Two days later, the
leader of the British House of Commons and former Foreign Secretary, Robin
Cook, spoke out against war with Iraq. Former Cabinet member Mo Mowlam
accused Blair of disregarding domestic opinion, writing in The Sunday
Mirror: "Blair seems to be making it clear that he has more sympathy
with the wishes of Washington and their reckless attitude than he does for
his own party and even members of his Cabinet." 130 members of British
House of Commons signed a motion against war with Iraq. (In a not
unrelated development, a miffed Rumsfeld complained March 28 that U.S.
allies weren't doing enough to keep the peace in Afghanistan. The subtext
was: They just complain, while we do the dirty work.)
My point is not to glorify these European officials
for expressing doubts about U.S. simplisme and Dubya's apparent
appetite for infinite global war. Surely there are aspects of
inter-imperialist rivalry here. Some imperialist countries would suffer
greater damage than others should the rage felt in the Arab/ Islamic
street spin totally out of control, and their governments are more
concerned about that issue than the moral question of bombing more kids.
My point, rather, is that contention between the U.S. and Europe at this
point seems to have delayed implementation of the Defense Department
warmongers' "total war" vision, and that provides some hope.
On July 5 the New York Times reported on a
blueprint prepared by the Defense Department for a three-pronged attack on
Iraq to occur next year, based principally in Kuwait but involving eight
surrounding countries in all. A Reuters dispatch based on the Times
report noted in passing that none of the countries whose cooperation
was posited had "yet been consulted" about their involvement in the war.
Despite repeated statements by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, even Kuwait,
that they do not feel threatened by Iraq; and despite strong Arab League
denunciations of U.S. war plans, the acquiescence of sovereign nations to
U.S. diktat is merely assumed. The Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz cabal smugly
assures us that "behind the scenes" U.S.-friendly regimes are cooperating
with the war plans, or will be threatened or cajoled into compliance.
Maybe, indeed, they will; and perhaps Europe, too, will be bullied into a
supportive role, promised in exchange some slices of the (postulated)
postwar pie. (There has, for example, been some talk about garnering
Turkish cooperation in return for some border adjustments that will give
Ankara the oil fields of Mosul.)
But there's another scenario. The U.S. may indeed go
it alone. Europe may decide to be neither "for or against" bullying
America, but remain anxiously neutral, fearing that Washington's terror
war on Iraq might explode into World War III, pitting the Muslim world
(about 20% the world's population, with many decades of accumulated---and
thoroughly legitimate---anger towards imperialism) against the West.
Mainstream politicians may then (appropriately) intensify their criticisms
of the puerility and craziness prevalent across the Atlantic, and the
mainstream European press (routinely derided in this country as
"anti-American") may then really take off the gloves (not because it's
really very leftist or radical, but just, in a relative sense, sane
at this point). NATO may suffer a fatal blow. All of this, totally
fine.
The worst scenario involves Europe, alongside
Japan and the oil sheikdoms of the Arab world, marching lockstep into an
unjustified war (with no "legitimatising" link to Sept. 11), guaranteed to
revolt and provoke not only Muslims, but the masses of the Third World.
(These of course include people of all faiths, and of no faith, who know
all too well the terror of imperialist attack and subjugation.) This is
the scenario of a truly apocalyptic and elemental war: Imperialism
versus the Human Beings of the Planet Earth.
Europeans (and "their" governments) should "just say
no" to the terror war plans. If they do, perhaps, years from now, their
children will compose great songs about them.
Gary Leupp is an an
associate professor, Department of History, Tufts University and
coordinator, Asian Studies Program
He can be reached at: [email protected]
Today's
Features
Stanton and Madsen
God,
Incorporated
Kurt Nimmo
IDF,
Gangbanging with Tanks
Bill Christison
Disastrous Foreign
Policies
of the US Part 3:
What Can We Do About It?
home / subscribe
/ about us / books / archives / search / links /
|