|
July 8, 2002
Tariq Ali
How the
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
The
Disastrous Foreign Policies of the United States
Part 3: A TERRIBLE MESS:
What Can We
Do About It?
by Bill Christison
Former CIA Political
Analyst
What kind of lunacy is going on in Washington?
Hatred of U.S. foreign policies intensifies
day by day in much of the world, but the present administration
is not even examining the possibility of changing those policies
to allay the hatred and reduce the likelihood of future terrorism.
Instead, the response of the Bush administration
is to dig in its heels, militarize the nation beyond rationality,
move toward preemptive warfare as a first-choice instrument of
national policy, and, with more arrogance than ever, label as
"evil" a variety of nations and groups that oppose
U.S. policies. With the alleged aim of enhancing internal security,
it is taking the first steps down a path that could easily convert
the government itself into a dictatorship--a dictatorship to
be administered primarily by the Defense Department and another
monstrous bureaucracy to be set up in a Department of Homeland
Security--a new body with the potential of becoming a combined
MVD and KGB (the huge internal security and intelligence agencies
of the former Soviet Union). To top it off, Bush, flanked before
the TV cameras by Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza
Rice, his entire top foreign-policy team except for behind-the-scenes
manipulator Cheney, has peremptorily demanded the removal of
an elected foreign leader, Yasir Arafat.
Part of what the Bush administration
is trying to accomplish through this frantic activity is to distract
us from the government's most alarming intelligence failure in
60 years, from the early failures in its "war on terrorism,"
and from widening evidence of the personal involvement of some
individuals at very high levels of the administration in an Enron
debacle that Bush wants to bury. More importantly, this activity
demonstrates once again that Bush and his associates/handlers
have no intention whatever of considering changes in the foreign
policies that caused the terrorism in the first place and that
continue to intensify hatred of the U.S.
Certainly some differences exist within
the Bush administration in the degree of willingness to consider
changes in foreign policies, but so far they don't amount to
much. Vice President Cheney and other foreign-policy formulators
in the White House, the NSC staff, and the Pentagon show no inclination
to change any policy as a way of reducing global hatreds against
the United States. Secretary of State Powell and his advisors
seem a little more receptive to change, but Powell is clearly
reluctant to force a confrontation on the issue. Bush himself
is by no means neutral in this internecine struggle. He leans
strongly toward the side of Cheney, the NSC, and the Pentagon
(as well as his political advisors like Karl Rove, and his comrade-in-arms
Ariel Sharon, Israel's Prime Minister). The only factor restraining
him from throwing his full support to these people is probably
his own desire to avoid a messy confrontation with Powell, who
after all still has something of an independent political base
in the U.S. But, to repeat, at the moment no grounds exist for
believing--or hoping--that Powell would ever allow a policy disagreement
with Bush to become a confrontation.
All of this means that no changes in
U.S. foreign policies will occur in coming months unless some
powerful new pressure intervenes to influence the administration.
Given its disdain for foreign governments and its belief that
it is pretty much all-powerful, any new pressures from abroad,
at least for the near future, are likely to have little effect.
New pressures from inside the U.S., however,
could be considerably more effective. The strongest motivating
force in the Bush administration's actions these days is probably
the desire to strengthen the Republican Party's position in Congress
this fall, followed immediately by the hope of winning an untarnished
nationwide majority in Bush's own reelection effort in 2004.
Similarly, the strongest motivations behind actions of House
and Senate candidates right now are probably their desires to
win this fall. Right now, then, is the time for a maximum effort
to exert political influence by all of us who believe that the
U.S. should change its internal security, military, and above
all foreign policies.
Nothing but clear evidence that voters
in this country are turning against current U.S. policies associated
with the so-called war on terrorism will bring about changes
that many of us think are necessary. So we need to start a campaign
to influence voters to support new policies. Many of us who agree
that Bush's policies are wrong will have different emphases and
will not have identical views on what changes are most important.
That's okay. We have to start somewhere, and the important thing
is to start NOW. Otherwise the perpetual and preemptive Bush-Cheney
wars will be upon us before we know it, and Attorney General
Ashcroft's destruction of individual freedoms will gradually
flood over all of us and drown much that is good in our society
and culture.
The task is not impossible. Those of
us who give public talks on these issues, or participate in radio
interviews or talk shows, know there are many people out there
with beliefs like ours, and many more who are willing to change
their minds when faced with facts. It is difficult to believe
that the present poll numbers showing 70 percent or higher support
for Bush's foreign policies are immutable. In fact, support for
those policies is probably quite shallow. One sign of this is
that new books now being published that criticize U.S. foreign
policies since September 11 are selling very well.
For those who think the exercise is doomed
because votes in the U.S. are rarely influenced by foreign policies,
we should emphasize that the stringent and even unconstitutional
internal security policies that now affect us all are directly
related to and caused by the foreign policies we are talking
about. All the lobbies powerful in U.S. politics--lobbies for
Israel, arms manufacturers, energy conglomerates, or any others
you want to name--cannot prevent us forever from influencing
the policies of this benighted administration. We should bring
as much influence to bear as possible on the 2002 congressional
elections, never forgetting that the combined targets of G.W.
Bush and yet another congressional election will require
an even greater effort in 2004.
Here are three suggestions of key points
we should emphasize. Let's see more proposals from others. We
should probably concentrate on only a few topics, ones on which
it is most important to gain support among voters for changes
in U.S. internal security, military, and foreign policies.
ONE:
We should oppose establishment of a Department of Homeland Security.
We should in addition press for immediate congressional revisions
of the USA Patriot Act, to abrogate all provisions therein that
the ACLU opposes.
As already mentioned, a new Department
of Homeland Security would automatically contain within itself
the potential of becoming a combined MVD and KGB. Even the Soviets
avoided that error, out of a desire to prevent establishment
of a power center capable of threatening the supreme dictator
of the moment. While President Bush has so far given lip service
in opposition to the inclusion of internal security and foreign
intelligence functions in the new organization, pressures to
do so from within his administration will surely develop, and
such pressures from elements in the congress are already evident.
Since Bush and his top advisors backed away from their earlier
and oft-expressed opposition to the very creation of a powerful
Homeland Security Department, it's not hard to believe they could
flip-flop as well on combining internal security and foreign
intelligence functions. To do so would bring the citizens and
legal residents of this country even closer to losing the remnants
of political democracy that they so far retain. Would covert
intelligence operations against American citizens be more widely
allowed if the secretary of this new, extremely powerful department
could give direct orders to both CIA covert operatives and FBI
agents? Could congressional oversight over such a department
be effective?
Given other flip-flops of this administration,
particularly on the Israel-Palestine issue (Arafat must stay
becomes Arafat must go), we can have little confidence
that no more course reversals will occur on this new department.
But even without changes, the department will probably have more
power over the daily lives of many people--particularly immigrants--than
any other arm of the government, except for the armed services,
which have full power over military personnel. Imagine how the
powers of this department might be expanded by executive order
rather than legislation if major new terrorist actions occur
within the U.S. after its creation. Or if for any reason a new
era of witch hunts emerges similar to the McCarthy years of the
1950s. Many fear that such a development is possible, and they
are right to be fearful. We should make a maximum effort to abort
this new department before it is born.
Most people don't know enough yet to
have a firm opinion on a Department of Homeland Security. That
gives an immediate campaign against it a better chance of victory.
So let's go out and slay this dragon.
We should not be distracted in this fight
by arguments that many of the functions slated for transfer should
logically be in a new department rather than where they are now.
The Secret Service, for example, is now in the Treasury Department--with
no logic at all. But it seems to have done its job pretty well
from its pad at Treasury. Having a more logical place to put
it might please a few pedants, but as a significant reason for
a new cabinet-level department, it flunks. The same can be said
for several other functions that are slated for transfer to Homeland
Security.
TWO.
We should urge U.S. voters to oppose the Bush administration's
drive for global hegemony and domination. The Bush approach of
"what we say goes" increases worldwide hatreds of the
U.S., and in no way benefits a majority of Americans.
The U.S. has markedly accelerated its
pursuit of global political domination and its own version of
big-corporation economic globalization since the collapse of
the Soviet Union a decade ago. The benefits of this domination
accrue almost exclusively to the corporate structure that really
runs this country and its military and governmental supporters,
who provide security for the corporate structure and encourage
its further expansion around the world. Average wage earners
in the U.S. receive few if any benefits, and some are actually
hurt.
The Bush administration today is militarizing
the United States to an unprecedented degree in comparison with
other nations. Four months ago, an editorial in the New York
Times on March 3 put it bluntly: "If Congress cranks up
the Pentagon's budget as much as President Bush would like, the
United States will soon be spending more on defense than all
the other countries of the world combined." These military
expenditures will clearly increase the pressure to cut spending
on domestic problems such as poverty and healthcare, and also
make it harder for the U.S. to help alleviate global poverty.
This administration will tell us that we must reduce other spending
because we are at war. The true cause, however, and we should
emphasize this fact to voters, is the pursuit of global domination
by the United States. This ultimate goal of U.S. foreign policy
is neither necessary nor desirable, and it will not in the end
be worth the cost, either in terms of money or in terms of domestic
needs that will be sacrificed.
In response to arguments that Bush's
foreign policies are not so extreme as suggested above, you should
urge that people look at a speech he gave on June 1, 2002 to
the West Point graduating class. In this speech, he explicitly
stated that "America has and intends to keep military strengths
beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races
of other eras pointless and limiting rivalries to trade and other
pursuits of peace." This is as explicit a statement as you
will ever see that the U.S. plans to dominate all other nations
and be the policeman of the world.
In the same speech, Bush said, "Our
security will require all Americans to be ready for preemptive
action." He explicitly rejected the concepts of deterrence
and containment, saying that deterrence "means nothing against
shadowy terrorist networks," and that containment "is
not possible when unbalanced dictators can deliver weapons of
mass destruction on missiles or provide them to terrorist allies."
A strategy espousing preemptive war is an integral part of the
vast U.S. militarization now underway. We should urge voters
not to abandon a policy that has worked for over 50 years, and
to oppose this preemptive-war strategy with all their might.
In fact, we should oppose ever initiating a war, because it is
as immoral as terrorists killing noncombatants. Furthermore,
unless and until the U.S. is willing to give up its own nuclear
weapons, other nations and groups around the world will continue
trying to obtain such weapons for themselves. Some of these efforts
will be successful regardless of U.S. preemptive actions. We
should support instead new multilateral negotiations aimed at
reaching an agreement that would abolish all nuclear weapons,
including those of the U.S.
THREE.
We should urge the U.S. government to change its unjust policy
of supporting and enabling Israel's continuing occupation and
colonization of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
A majority of people in almost all countries
believe that U.S. policy on Israel and Palestine is unjust and
one-sided in support of Israel. Many governments around the world
are unwilling openly to oppose the U.S. on this issue, but they
are aware of these majority views in their countries. In all
Arab and Muslim nations, these views are completely dominant
and will inevitably encourage more acts of terrorism against
the United States.
We should clearly and unemotionally convey
to friends and voters that we ourselves--not only most people
in other nations--believe U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine
has been unbalanced and unjust for many years.
Most people likely to support this will
not need advice on the factual evidence to present to friends
and potential voters. Just briefly give those facts about the
injustice of U.S. policy that you are sure are true. Limit your
comments specifically to the policies of the U.S. and
Israel. If anyone charges you with anti-Semitism, state categorically
that criticism of the policies of the Israeli or the American
government is neither anti-Semitic nor anti-American. You should
not avoid talking about your honest views because of a possible
charge of anti-Semitism. The charge is spurious.
If anyone asks what you thought of Bush's
statement on June 24, in which he practically ordered Arafat
to leave the scene, one answer would be to say that this is a
perfect example of the bias in favor of Israel with which U.S.
governmental policy has long treated the Israel-Palestine issue.
Bush said exactly what Sharon wanted him to say and thereby strengthened
his hand with Jewish voters in the U.S. It was by no means the
statement of a neutral mediator.
In this same statement, Bush also blamed
most recent problems in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process
on Palestinian terrorism. In fact, Israeli terrorism, both by
the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and by settler groups, has caused
more killings of Palestinian non-combatants and children than
Palestinian terrorism by suicide bombers has caused of Israeli
non-combatants and children. And it is not the case that the
Palestinians strike first, while the Israelis only retaliate.
Both sides, with equal justification, can claim retaliation as
the motive for their actions. Nor can the Israelis claim there
is no "moral equivalence" between Palestinian suicide
bombers who deliberately kill Israeli non-combatants, and the
"accidental" or "collateral-damage" killings
of Palestinian non-combatants resulting from Israeli military
and settler actions. There is ample evidence, from reliable sources
including Israel's own media, that many Palestinian non-combatants
are in fact deliberately killed by Israeli forces or settler
vigilantes. There is complete moral equivalence between the two
types of killings and the two types of terrorism. Both are equally
inexcusable.
For those of us who believe U.S. policy
on Israel and Palestine is indeed unjust and will increase the
likelihood of terrorism against the U.S. and its allies, it is
vital to highlight one specific point. More Americans need
to understand that a suspension or at least drastic curtailment
of U.S. aid is the most important single change that the U.S.
government should make in its policy toward Israel. Each
year congress and the president approve, with little debate,
aid (grants, not loans) to Israel now officially totaling almost
$3 billion, but when all price breaks and special benefits to
Israel are added in, the total is nearer $5 billion annually.
That aid makes it far easier than would otherwise be the case
for Israel to maintain its occupation and continue to expand
its colonization and settlement activities. It is the greatest
single element of injustice in U.S. policy toward Israel and
Palestine, and Arabs who see U.S. aircraft and other weapons
killing Palestinians on Al Jazeera TV are reminded almost every
day that these weapons are part of the U.S. aid package.
We should urge each American voter this
fall to question every single candidate for national office about
his or her position on aid to Israel, and to make the answer
a major factor in the voter's choice of a candidate. It is no
longer just a "single issue," not important enough
to determine one's vote. It is now an absolutely critical issue,
because it will be a major factor in determining whether future
terrorism against the U.S. increases or gradually subsides. If
all candidates in any electoral race refuse to support the suspension
or major curtailment of aid to Israel, we should urge people
not to vote for any of them, and to make their reasons public.
It is that important.
Bill Christison
joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis side of the
Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as National
Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of Central
Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast
Asia, South Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was
Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis,
a 250-person unit. His wife Kathy also worked in the CIA, retiring
in 1979. Since then she has been mainly preoccupied by the issue
of Palestine.
Other CounterPunch articles by Bill
and Kathleen Christison:
Kathleen Christison:
The
Story of Resolution 242 or How the US Sold Out the Palestinians, June
28, 2002
Bill Christison: The
Disastrous Foreign
Policies of the United States, Part Two: The Drive for Globalizaion May
28, 2002
Kathleen Christison:
Israel
and Ethics, May 11, 2002
Bill Christison: The Disastrous Foreign
Policies of the United States,
May 10, 2002
Kathleen Christison: Before There
Was Terrorism, May 2, 2002
Bill
Christison: Oil and the Middle East, April
6, 2002
Bill
Christison:
Why
the War on Terror Won't Work,
March 5, 2002
Today's
Features
Tariq Ali
How the
Bush Used 9/11 to Remap the World
Lori Allen
The Tugs
of War:
Palestinian Life Under Curfew
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|