|
5763: Articles posted from September 2002-September 2003
Get the real situation in Israel every day.
Waking up in America
By Jonathan S. Friedman
September 7, 2002
 Waking up each morning is a pleasant endeavor, finding myself next to my wife, who is my best friend and confidante. I get out of bed and prepare myself breakfast, eat, and go to the bathroom to brush my teeth. Until then, everything is reasonably fine (except for the brownish-color of the water). Painting from the Borders in Volors series by Silvia
I walk over to our computer, turn it on, and get on-line. Within seconds, I’m on the Internet and staring agape at the headlines of the day. Almost invariably, They speak of America’s War on Terrorism, plans to attack Iraq, and some vague clue as to the mysterious whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden. I avoid these items for a while, investigating things like Global Warming and Species Extinctions (which I find to be more unsettling) but eventually come back to the short-term events.
Then I zero-in on Iraq.
Here’s a country that’s been looking for vengeance, blinded by hatred, and led by a man whose mandate to rule has been questioned by many in his own country and in the international community. (And I’m NOT talking about Iraq.) Here in the United States we are contemplating the invasion of another country and replacing its president with a leader of our own choosing. It is said our reasoning is based on the fear that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. (Do they? Where’s the proof?) And if they do: So what? So do we. So do France and Russia. So do India, Pakistan, Israel and China. Why has Iraq and its despot Saddam Hussein suddenly become a focal point for our foreign (and domestic) policy? Why are we willing to slash our Education and Health budgets in favor of increasing our country’s militarization (which includes heightened internal surveillance on "rebellious" residents and citizens [in other words people who are actually using their Constitutional "right" of Free Speech and Free Press)? No one seems to be able to explain it. Anything goes (and everything else gets overshadowed) when it comes to our vague War on Terror and our desperate need to provide Homeland Security.
Our foreign policy (and by default, our domestic policy) has long been formulated on the basis of what is best for the United States of America in a purely economic sense. For such reasons we supported the invasion (or "intervention") of most Latin American countries in the past 100 years, and where direct employment of US troops was not undertaken, we supplied sufficient pressure as to facilitate cruel dictators to assume or retain power. Anyone who doubts this can look in a history book or in some of our country’s now-declassified secret documents. Noting more recent events, it is interesting to trace the connections between the C.I.A., the proposed oil pipeline in Afghanistan, and the failed coup attempt on the president of Valenzuela, Hugo Chávez, last April; Valenzuela is one of the largest oil-producing nations in the world, and its populist president is seen as a threat to U.S. business interests because of his unwillingness to hand over its oil industry to foreigners. Where a dictator – whether it be a Pinochet in Chile or an Ubico in Guatemala -- has been more convenient to American businesses abroad, democracy has often been thwarted. These practices are not uncommon, and they serve as a basic understanding for why so many countries feel angered and/or threatened by the "American Way of Life."
Emblematic of this philosophy of self-interest is the fact that we supported Hussein in the 1980’s when Iraq was fighting against its neighbor Iran. (Does anyone remember the "Iran-Contra" affair?) Donald Rumsfeld himself met with Hussein and other Iraqui leaders in December 1983 and March 1984 in order to provide a bulwark against the Iranian Revolution. We were and remain to be interested in the region for our own economic benefit. Look into the "Oil for Food" programs in Iraq, a practice which is unabashedly neo-colonialist. After all: When has Iraq ever attacked the United States? Yet the United States has repeatedly attacked Iraq for the past 11½ years, including Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, when bombings carried out by U.S. and British warplanes were made possible by intelligence garnered from UNSCOM weapons inspectors!
Through all this maneuvering, the U.S. has been particularly deft in its adherence to the old adage of "Divide and Conquer." While Middle Eastern countries are fearful of the U.S. presence in the region, our huge military budget (now commanding roughly half of all the tax money that citizens such as myself pay to the federal government) is making it more and more difficult for other countries around the world to voice their opposition to our policies, no matter how despotic they might be. The European Union has launched a huge array of criticism but at the same time seems to have no force to back up its complaints. As far as our own citizens, self-censorship is so widespread that it is unlikely any strong opposition to these policies would develop on the homefront.
Whether it be denial or ignorance, Americans appear to be unaware of our felonious practices overseas (and here as well, where poisoning of our air and water by large and small corporations has led to a dramatic decrease in quality of life for our and future generations; many of the laws safeguarding these protections have been struck down over the past two years, without much public outcry or attention in news media.) We assume everything we do must involve freedom and democracy. It comes as no surprise that a country that hardly recognizes its transgressions in the "peculiar institution" of Slavery and the massacre of virtually the entire indigenous American population would find it impossible to ever find itself at fault. Rarely will you see an American apologizing for something; instead, he or she will buy a gift for the aggrieved party: There is always a material solution. In this lack of consideration lies an inherent condescendence and chauvinism. Translated to National Ideology, that chauvinism and condescendence (where we really are the BEST country) is a danger to the whole world, especially since we are a chauvinist country which possesses weapons of mass destruction. I have no doubt we will be prepared to use them, but I am equally sure we will be utterly unprepared for the consequences. (Being "blown back to the Stone Age" is something that all of humanity – and not just Afghanistan and Iraq -- may have to contend with sometime in the near future.) In an extraordinarily short period of time, the U.S. is undermining what the international community took over 55 years to build.
Jose Bustani, in a statement made on April 21, 2002, declared that the "chemical weapons convention will survive only if the principles of genuine multilateralism, true fairness, and equal treatment are preserved." The next day, Mr.Bustani, a Brazilian diplomat who was Director-General for the highly-successful Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was removed from his leadership role by a U.S.-engineered complaint based upon Bustani’s "management style," "financial mismanagement," and "ill-considered initiatives." Without providing other Member States with any evidence for its allegations, the U.S. threatened to withhold its contribution to the OPCW, equivalent to roughly $12 million of the $60 million needed for the organization’s annual budget. During Mr. Bustani’s five-year term as Director-General, the OPCW was denied entry into various U.S. chemical weapons facilities, which led to a quick deterioration of relations between Mr. Bustani and the U.S. In addition, the OPCW had worked tirelessly to recommence the inspections under way in Iraq, inspections which would have served as a huge deterrence to a possible bellicose action led by the U.S.. The role of the OPCW during Bustani’s term as Director-General was thus perceived to be in direct opposition of U.S. interests. When the U.S. effectively realized its coup of the OPCW (which some in the White House may very well have termed a "regime-change") it represented the first time that the head of a multilateral agency had been removed before the finishing of his/her term.
Given a bigger picture to view, which is the real danger in today’s world: an ineffectual and limited Iraq already deprived of its mass weapons programs, lacking crucial medical supplies for its citizens, and witness to an estimated monthly death toll of 5,000 children since sanctions were imposed in 1991, or an increasingly militarized and chauvinistic United States of America? The answer is in the history books, those that have and have not yet been written. But I would wager that it’s us.
And there’s where my day is ruined, knowing that I grew up in a country which is preaching violence against its neighbors, all for the benefit of a few exploitive corporations. (Do people really want Free Trade instead of Fair Trade?) Reading the news almost seems pointless. Iraq will probably be invaded. We will kill hundreds of thousands of people while we watch it all on TV, a beer in one hand and genetically-modified fried-chicken in the other.
So I log-off and shut down the computer, get dressed and head off to work, where I’ll spend the whole day censoring myself because I’d lose my job if anyone knew how I feel about all this.
I guess that’s what being an American is all about.
Sincerely,
Jonathan S. Friedman
|
|
