Downing Street, UN and Ideology
It is interesting to note how attitudes about the UN have been manipulated by ultra-nationalists in this country (US). All one had to do was pay some attention to the debacle that led to the invasion of Iraq, and the disastrous consequences for the international community, to see the bankruptcy of this position. The Bush administration was acting with such singular self-interest that it is hard to believe it went largely unnoticed here (but not elsewhere). Initially uninterested in even going to the UN, Bush later acquiesced claiming he was listening to Colin Powell's advice. Once at the UN, policy was presented as a concern for WMD and the need for inspections. A series of demands were made on Iraq, and surprisingly Saddam relented on every point (under pressure to be sure). The inspectors went in and were doing their job, but the Bush administration would have none of it. In fact they started a PR campaign to discredit the inspectors. Likewise, every time they raised the bar on Saddam, they got what they wanted so they had to pretend that somehow Saddam was playing tricks on them. Thus, they decided the only response to Saddam's perfidy was war. (A decision made in advance it is now obvious.) The French, and others, acting in good faith with the original presentation to the UN offered to expand the inspections and the pressure on Saddam to avoid immediate war. But Bush would have none of it, war was the answer, and the US would go it alone if necessary. Blaming the French for standing in the way of US desires became the convenient scapegoat. We are now immersed in a global insurgency as Bush continues to throw gasoline on the fire in the Middle East.

The attitude that the UN should do only what the US says, whether right or wrong, seems to be a truism of populist speech. The fact that there are so many at the UN who do not always vote with the US is seen as a good reason to pick up our marbles and go home. This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the original intent and reason for creating the UN. Proposed by the US after two world wars in the last century, this was to be a place where nations with differing viewpoints could resolve issues without the need for war--or at least that was the hope. Necessarily all nations must participate, no matter what their position, for such a thing to work. The fact that US desires are not immediately rubber-stamped may say more about US positions than about the other nations. If the US would listen a bit more, we may not have progressed to the place we are today. We have become the international bully. Other nations do not look to us for leadership any longer, we are not seen as willing to do other than what is beneficial for the US. The days of an international community working to solve world problems and aid in the spread of democracy are probably over. It takes too much in the way of vision, diplomacy and leadership--all things the reliance on war as the answer to all problems has negated. Our present fundamentalist ideology has firmly planted us on the path to self-destruction. Forget blaming the French or the UN--an inaccurate, cheap shot anyway.

For more on the decisions that led up to the invasion of Iraq see www.afterdowningstreet.org

Next time more on the fundamentalist ideology that is killing us.

Hersh, Klein, Greider
For those concerned with the cost, in dollars, of the War in Iraq, the Defense Department has just released estimates that it will reach $700 billion, making it the most costly since WWII--surpassing Vietnam.

A series of interesting articles appear on the www.truthout.org website--two that deserve special attention are:
Seymour Hersh's article that charges the Bush administration, even though promises were made to Congress not to, worked behind the scenes to manipulate the recent elections in Iraq. Why should it be any different there than here? Is this the picture of democracy we want to give to the rest of the world?
Naomi Klein has a good article on a story that is being shielded from US eyes--Haiti. Another indication how little democracy matters in the expansion of US interests.

Another well kept secret is how the global economy, at least the Washington Consensus, is crumbling. William Greider has a relevant op-ed in today's "New York Times" www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/opinion/18greider.html?h&emc=th

There are those who say that the era of globalization is actually over; the new era will be dominated by a series of resource wars. Meanwhile the rich nations continue to push new agreements, like CAFTA, that will only continue the problems. Check out www.nlcnet.org for some good perepective.

Government in Iraq
Has anyone noticed the absence of Ayatollah al-Sistani from the news about Iraq? He is the leader of the majority Shia community, and he is the one who forced the elections, threatening to withdraw his cooperation with the occupying forces if they were not held (over Bush's objections--though Bush now claims it as one his great successes). More recently, he is once again criticizing and threatening to withdraw support over handling of the elections, questions about the legitimacy of the outcome and make-up of the new government. Not something the domestic audience needs to hear? The core of many jokes being passed around in Baghdad today refers to the absence of government officials in the country--it seems they all spend most of their time outside Iraq's borders.

China is presently trying to invest in a US oil company, something that is decried as a threat to our national security in Congress. Some complain that the Chinese government is helping to subsidize the private company making the bid. But this has never stopped us. Latin American countries have for years been complaining about the destruction of local farms by the heavily subsidized US agricultural goods. And aren't we the ones who have invented the global marketplace, insisting on the good that comes from foreign investment. Some say we went into Iraq to keep the Chinese from getting access to all that oil from Saddam (instead of us).

To keep updated on the smashing of democracy in Haiti seewww.haitiaction.net

A Response to the President
In your speech to the nation, supposedly an update from the White House concerning the invasion and occupation of Iraq, you constantly referred to a desire to bring freedom and democracy to that country (as well as the rest of the world). But this raises several questions that I do not think you adequately answered, or did not address at all.

Do you believe freedom to be a separate issue from democracy? As you pursue democracy for the people of Iraq, why have you participated in kidnapping and ousting from power the popular and democratically elected leader of Haiti? Why do you continue to plot and scheme against the popular and democratically elected leader of Venezuela? It is true that both leaders, Aristide and Chavez, have not been overwhelming supporters of your economic agenda, choosing to turn their attention to their poor rather than give 100% service to foreign economic dictates. Is this a matter of economic policy trumping freedom and democracy?

What if the people of Iraq do not want to turn their economy over to foreign corporations? Will you decide on another regime change? What if they do not want the bases you are building, or the largest embassy in the world being constructed in Baghdad? What if they think this smells of extended occupation and interference in their freedom? Can two concepts of freedom exist at the same time?

Bur the most important question of all: why did you not spend more time considering alternatives to war for the removal of Saddam? As we now know, and most experts thought at the time, the sanctions were working--even as imperfect as they were. Why did you not try to work with others to improve the international pressure being applied? Others suggested doing as much--the French, the Chinese, the Russians. Reports have surfaced that claim you went to war without knowing much if anything about the country--like the differences between the various sects. Is there more to this occupation than you are telling us?

The Comedians
We hear the talk of the need to send Bolton to the UN to "kick some butt", after all it is so corrupt, and an example used is the oil-for-food program. A good report of US complicity in the corruption--the US turned a "blind eye to extensive sanction-busting" selling of oil in prewar Iraq--larger than any allegation against UN staff or European politicians. And for whom was the US fronting? US oil companies, of course. See www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051705Z.shtml Extending the argument should we clean up our own house? Maybe Bolton should be set loose to "kick some butt" here.

Condoleezza Rice proclaimed to the troops in Iraq during her recent trip that "This war came to us, not the other way around." What? The Iraqis forced us to invade their country? Remember she was the one who assured the US public that the aluminum tubes could only be used in the nuclear fuel process. Experts knew they were inadequate for any such usage.

A Venezuelan citizen, Luis Posada Carriles, has been hiding in the US in order to avoid prosecution in his country for terrorism. He is alleged to have participated in blowing up a Cuban plane killing 73 people. Recently declassified documents show he used to work for the CIA. What was it Bush said about countries that harbor terrorists? Illegal governments that are ripe for preemptive action wasn't it? See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4556263.stm. Why is Bolton leaving now that we need him so badly here?

Government Against the People
Around the world today we are faced with governments that do not function in the interest of the 'common good'; this is just as true in democratic countries as it is in more authoritarian nations. In the US, the self-proclaimed guardian of freedom and democracy, estrangement from government on the part of the average citizen has been increasing for years, if not decades. Record low turn-out for elections (even in close presidential contests) combined with a respect for politicians that ranks them at the bottom (somewhere between used car salesmen and telephone solicitors), reflects a realization that little will be forthcoming from appeals to government. A common complaint is that it has become a two-party system with a one-party ideology. That ideology can be summed up as a government of the international corporations, by the international corporations and for the international corporations.

This is not an entirely new situation; Rutherford B. Hayes expressed similar sentiments in the campaign of 1876, though his quote does not contain the adjective 'international'. The Gilded Age was renowned for corruption of the political process, with legislators openly accepting suitcases of cash in exchange for their votes. A succession of pro-business presidents facilitated the Robber Barons in their drive to create an empire. The result was a boom-and-bust economy that pitted the workers against the captains of industry.

After a short change in the national philosophy following the Crash of 1929, we are now in an era with an all-too-familiar set of sound bites--"the rich deserve all the benefits, they create the economy", "give tax cuts to the the top and it will trickle-down", "get government off our backs", and "the market is better at running the economy than any government". Thus, the middle and working classes are asked to shoulder the burden once again, as the divide between the top and everyone else grows wider daily and jobs and benefits evaporate. How has it been so easy to convince us that democracy is now the problem--our government is a democracy after all. And unions are written off as anti-American. So fewer and fewer people vote or get involved, and each year the rich get more and more tax cuts, while corporations get more loopholes.

A great danger lurks in public alienation and apathy. All to often, the consequences of such a deep divide between the elite who rule the country and the general population is not revolution, or the emergence of a wise leader to set things straight, rather it is totalitarianism--as events in 20th century Europe demonstrate.

NSC 68 and Nominations/Part 2
The language of NSC 68, written in 1950, contains all the familiar rhetoric of Cold War hysteria. In an effort to set the tone for domestic thinking, a picture of the other major power to emerge from WWII was constructed with purposeful hyperbole. The document states, the Soviet Union "is animated by a fanatic faith, anti-thetical (sic) to our own, and seeks to impose its absolute authority over the rest of the world." This is in contrast with the US whose "fundamental purpose is to assure the integrity and vitality of our free society, which is founded upon the dignity and worth of the individual." The Soviet Union sees the US as a threat to its ability to impose "slavery under the grim oligarchy of the Kremlin" and the "implacable purpose of the slave state" is to "eliminate freedom". This dichotomy between "slave state" and "free state" is used throughout the document. "Thus unwillingly our free state finds itself mortally challenged by the Soviet system. No other value system is so wholly irreconcilable with ours, so implacable in its purpose, no other so skillfully and powerfully evokes the elements of irrationality in human nature everywhere, and no other has the support of a great and growing center of military power."

The claims concerning Soviet military ability go to the heart of the domestic agenda of the time--increasing military spending. "The Soviet Union actually possesses armed forces far in excess of those necessary to defend its national territory," it is asserted. Further, it is stated that the Soviet military could overrun Western Europe, "drive toward the oil-bearing areas of the Near and Middle East" and, with atomic weapons, could attack selected targets in the US and Canada. It is true the Soviets had, at this point, developed an atomic bomb, but they held no large stockpile of warheads. It was also known at the time that at least half of the standing army was still being serviced by horse-drawn wagons. After WWII, the Soviet Union was an economy and a society trying to recover from a devastating war fought in large part on their soil. Consolidation of power at home, rebuilding the country and maintaining a 'buffer zone' against the West were much more the concerns of the time than invading other countries. This is not an argument for the banality of the Soviet system, but the wild claims of NSC 68 were an obvious exaggeration. The report goes on to say that there is a huge difference in US and Soviet attitudes toward the use of military force; the Soviets do not hesitate to "use military force aggressively" while the US only uses force when provoked. And yet, it was acknowledged in the report that a "peace policy" had been announced at the Soviet Party Congress, believing this strategy would be "a more advantages form of fighting capitalism." But this was rejected in NSC 68 as a ploy, a device to "divide and immobilize the non-Communist world." Paranoia would remain a constant feature of the Cold War.

The decades of struggle engaged in by these two power centers left a wake of death and destruction around the globe. With little regard for the populations, countries were invaded, governments overthrown and economies shattered in the name of making the world safe for one or another of the competing ideologies. It is not unusual for conflict to unleash totally unexpected consequences, and this era was no exception. The terrorism we see in the world today is directly related to the actions of the US and the USSR during the Cold War. Many CIA analysts identify the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran, by the US in the early 50s, as the starting point of terrorism in the Middle East. The mujahedin in Afghanistan, which produced Usama bin Laden and the Taliban, was not an home grown movement, it was precipitated and supported by the two battling behemoths.

Similar over-hyping of facts has served the domestic purpose of later presidents. John Kennedy campaigned on the claim that there was a huge "missile gap" between the US and the USSR. It was a false statement, and known to be so at the time, but it played well at home. Ronald Reagan made claims that the West was losing the arms race with the Russians in his presidential run. In short time the Soviet system collapsed and it was obvious their military ability was minuscule compared to that of the US.

There are inherent dangers in having a leadership that bases foreign policy on ideological assumptions rather than rational principle. Advancing Bolton, Wolfowitz, Khalilzad, Negroponte and other neocon hardliners into international and higher positions should give pause to consider what might be the likely consequences. All of the above mentioned individuals have been involved in distorting intelligence to fit policy needs, of intimidating those who raise a cautionary voice and brand any who object to their false claims as traitors. Documents were made public during the recent hearings to confirm John Negroponte as intelligence czar that support many of the points argued by critics of his role in Reagan's secretive wars in Latin America. Memos and letters written by Negroponte while he was ambassador to Honduras in the mid-80s show that he consistently whitewashed the human rights abuses of military figures he was overseeing in the US attempts to overthrow the Sandinista government. His reports reflect what was wanted: truth be damned. Similar distortions and lies have allowed Wolfowitz, Zhalilzad and others in the Bush administration to mislead the majority of the US population in the run up to the Iraq invasion about the reasons for that invasion. Truth is too easily dismissed by this gallery of perpetual warriors, in the belief that the end justifies the means. With the political upheaval in Russia, they feel the way has been cleared for the US to take charge of the international order through the use of the military. This is an administration that has demonstrated an almost uncritical belief in the myth of the US as the world's super cop. Negotiation, diplomacy, coalitions are entered into only when useful to that overriding purpose. Comparing the hyperbole of world domination in NSC 68 to the present day, it is easy to wonder if the author's words have finally come true? But did he realize they might apply to us?

A recent report from Afghanistan: President Karzai suggests that the US should become a permanent partner in Afghanistan.

National Defense Strategy/Part 1
The recent nominations (Bolton to the UN, Wolfowitz to the World Bank, Zalimay Khalilzad as Ambassador to Iraq and Negroponte as the new intelligence czar) have generated much controversy on the domestic side and bewilderment on the international. To be kind is to call these men hardliners, while some are using terms like "obnoxious ideologues" or "neocon hit men". All are seen as aggressive proponents of US preeminence in the global world order. In an effort to shed some light on these nominations, it is useful to review public statements on the intent and scope of US foreign policy.

The 'Bush Doctrine' was released in September, 2002 under the title "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America". It is commonly regarded as the first significant update of previous defense strategy, in place since the Truman administration. The April, 1950 document, called NSC 68, was written by Paul Nitze (in cooperation with Dean Acheson) and is the defining document which lays the groundwork for Cold War policy. Both documents make some curious declarations, presented without analysis as truisms. No need of verification or further explanation, they are just presented as fact.

Bush's statement begins: "The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom--and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise." And the further, "This is also a time of opportunity for America. We will work to translate this moment of influence into decades of peace, prosperity, and liberty. The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests." Even a casual reading should give pause for the sweeping generalizations being articulated. We have always been comfortable with messianic attitudes concerning our value to the rest of the world, believing the superiority of our culture a fine starting point for foreign policy. Will "peace and prosperity" be brought to the world through a policy based on a "union of our values and our national interests"? We know that there are many in the Bush administration who vehemently deny that there is such a thing as an international community--in spite of an occasional public statement to the opposite. (John Bolton is such a man.) Is peace to come about by the rule of one country? Few would call this democracy.

The "model" for success--"freedom, democracy, and free enterprise"--contains an internal contradiction. As practiced in today's world, free enterprise (often referred to as the global economy) is not viewed by developing countries as bringing freedom or democracy to the worker. In Argentina, "The Model" is a disparaging appellation used to refer to the IMF and World Bank version of mercenary capitalism that, working with the local elite, has destroyed the country's economy. The 'bosses' and the politicians raked foreign capital and loans into their pockets to the point of causing national bankruptcy. The workers were left without jobs and without bank accounts--in other words, they financed the owners' greed. This is a process that has been repeated, to a greater or lesser degree, throughout the region. As the divide between the rich and poor continues to increase, resentment toward the "values" of first world countries also continues to increase. Likewise, workers are watching their wages and benefits evaporate even in the first world, at the same time as corporate profits and management salaries go through the roof. The "success" of this "model" is quite possibly a premature assessment.

"The enemy is terrorism--premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents....The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them." It is remarkable that it does not occur to the greater majority to question such historical events as the funding and support of the Contra war when statements like this are made. A group of brutal leftovers from the Samoza regime attempted to bring down the populist Sandinista government, with all the attendant massacres of civilians and human right violations and disruption of the economy that left the country in ruin. Nor any of the other pathetic, ideological incursions that resulted in so many scandals centered around lies by our leaders and massive human rights abuses--a collective burying of our heads in the sand. We, to this day, have Latin American murderers receiving sanctuary in this country, even though their countries have constantly pressed for their extradition. Do not the populations of these Latin American countries count as "innocents"?

"While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country." This is the most controversial update to NSC 68--the concept of preemption. What if every country in the world would follow our lead--declare their right to invade or do violence against any country they suspected might be thinking about doing something?

Part 2: Language of NSC 68 and the new nominees' agenda.

Reasons for War
The reasons given for going to war are numerous--border concerns, security concerns, economic inequalities, etc.--but an acknowledged primary incitement is an imperial or colonial national policy. A major fear of the founders of the US Republic was that the new nation might follow the lead of the European powers and become bogged down in imperial, oppressive gamesmanship. They had witnessed firsthand the destructive effects of foreign occupation. The first three presidents--Washington, Adams, Jefferson--all admonished against "foreign entanglements".

The desire to impose one's ideology or culture on others has been the defining feature of empires throughout history. Feelings of superiority and nationalism have spurred populations to follow their leaders into battle, while these feelings are easily manipulated by those in power in the service of more self-serving concerns--power and greed. It is interesting to note that the major conflicts of the 20th century were justified by claims of "liberating" the people in the countries being attacked. This was voiced by the Japanese as they went into China to save the people there from a corrupt government, and, in like manner, "racial superiority" was the cornerstone of the Nazi regime. The Cold War was a battle of dueling ideologies designed to save the world from the evils of the other.

Dick Cheney put together an energy task force shortly after taking office in 2000 under the pretext of forming an energy policy for the US. It was a secret meeting attended by many of the top energy and oil producers, including Enron, and in spite of repeated demands for minutes of the proceedings by Congress, it remains off-limits to the public. Nevertheless, some facts have come to light; maps depicting the Iraqi oil fields have been leaked. The outstanding feature of these maps is that they show Iraq's oil divided among various US and international energy corporations. It has also been reported that an ambitious plan to exert control over other oil sources was contemplated--Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others.

It is now well understood that the world's oil reserves have reached their peak in ability to produce and coupled with exponential population growth over the last decades, there is reason for concern. Oil is what keeps the global marketplace open. Almost all products traded today are related in some way to petroleum. The US military, always there in the background ready to keep the world safe for trade, runs on oil. The years ahead will certainly test one of the fundamental assumptions of free-market ideology--that trade and corporate expansion can proceed ad infinitum.

Spreading Democracy
If it had been understood, prior to the invasion of Iraq, that there were no stockpiles of WMD, that the US was not in danger of imminent attack, that the nuclear weapons program was in hibernation and there was little, if any, connection to al Qaeda, would the US population have supported a war to 'liberate' the people of Iraq? I do not believe this is a purely academic question. And, whether answered in the affirmative or negative, a host of further questions arise--some of the most important centering on the degree of information available to the average citizen.

If the proposal to invade had been presented in such a singular fashion--liberation--I think the case for immediate violent action would have evaporated. First, the question of "Why Iraq?" rather than numerous other brutal regimes would not have been so easily dismissed. Without the 'link to al Qaeda' or the 'imminent threat' arguments the suspicion that there might be a more reasoned approach would have been more vociferously expressed. Throwing the country into chaos, with the attendant high civilian casualty rate, would have been viewed with skepticism. The reluctance on the part of the average citizen to go to war is well-understood and is summed up in a well-known quote from Hermann Goering: "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

If the stated desire to spread democracy is genuine, and if it is deemed a necessary ingredient to combat terrorist cells in the Middle East, the process itself becomes all-important. Democratic movements succeed best when built from the bottom up, rarely do they succeed when imposed with the barrel of a gun. And it becomes expedient to engage the international community and regional governments to build and support enthusiasm for self-rule across the region, not to rely solely on regime change in one country. Attitudes must change in the ruling class not just the man at the top. Regime change without the institutional support and a willing public does not have the smell of longevity.

We have for decades now been pursuing a so-called realist foreign policy. Any compliant government is considered a "friend", others are ripe for intervention. Issues of democracy and human rights are used for cover in public speechs. In reality, a more realistic concern than democracy has been world stability, after all this is a major requirement for a free-market. Trade and business are the centerpiece of US foreign policy, especially so since WWII. Countries willing to give us easy access to their oil are "friends". Thus, it is all but ignored that 14 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis not Iraqis. Over ten years after the liberation of Kuwait, there is little movement toward democracy in that country. We have removed democratically elected leaders if they appeared to be too nationalistic--something we equate with antagonism to our national interest. So has the realist approach to foreign policy finally run its course? Are we about to change emphasis and stress democracy over stability?

None of the relevant policy issues or historical facts were ever much of a factor in the public dialogue in the run-up to invasion. In a recent radio interview Judith Miller, a NEW YORK TIMES reporter, defended her articles from Iraq against the accusation of being one-sided propaganda pieces. She relied on one source, Ahmed Chalabi, for perspective on events in that country. Thus, every rumor of a weapons find became the discovery of WMD--only to be withdrawn later. Likewise, the political interpretation of Chalabi and his Washington handlers was broadcast unchallenged. Miller makes the claim that she did not question this view since an opposition to this position was not visible at that time. This is pure nonsense. Experts were appearing on alternative radio stations (like KPFA) and posting articles on web sites continuously prior to and during the invasion. One such expert, Scott Ritter, a former marine officer and arms inspector for the US and UN, was debating the Bush administration spin on almost a daily basis. (He has since been proven right by events.) Miller went on to assert that journalists are only as good as their sources. No suggestion that they should independently investigate the events, or know anything about the issues in advance in order to keep from being taken for a ride by con-men like Ahmed Chalabi.

Scott Ritter continues to add to the debate. In recent interviews he has indicated that he has sources claiming that there are grave questions about the vote count in the Iraqi election. Stay tuned. Check out http://colorado.indymedia.org or go to www.flashpoints.net for a replay of a radio interview of 3/16/05.

Another appointment designed to confound those who listened to the public statements concerning a intention to start working with others by the Bush administration is that of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank. Does moving hardliner exponents of the neocon position out of Washington and into international organizations suggest a desire for democracy? Or for greater US hegemony?

Headline of the week..."Congress Slams Baseball's Integrity"...who says reporters do not have a sense of humor?