|
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: gleupp@tufts.edu
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
/
|