"But the world isn't like that"

[pynchonoid]

Just Say No-to Imperialism 	
by Jean Bricmont 
October 10, 2002 

[...]  What is necessary first of all is an accurate
evaluation of the real relationship of forces in the
world today. The United States possesses a power of
destruction unique in history. Its vast arsenal is
constantly expanding, based on mastery of a wide range
of technologies, conventional and unconventional, from
nuclear weapons to biochemical and germ warfare
capabilities. In the Middle East, its closest ally,
Israel, is by far the strongest military power. But it
must be kept in mind that the military and economic
power of the United States is accompanied and promoted
by another unprecedented advantage: a global supremacy
in means of information and propaganda. U.S.
domination of the world's news media and entertainment
industry has long shaped public perceptions of the
United States as an essentially beneficent power,
eager only to share its domestic happiness with less
fortunate countries. Its chosen adversaries are
portrayed as villains who enjoy doing evil for its own
sake. Since it is comforting to believe that power is
good, this view persists despite evidence to the
contrary. The U.S. propaganda machine is so powerful
that it dares spin forth the absurd idea that the
United States is threatened by Iraq, when the reverse
is obvious. Since September 11, Americans have been
given a new identity as victims, which can be used to
justify endless retaliation. Certainly, not even the
Vietnamese, not to mention the millions of other
victims of U.S. foreign policy over the past half
century, have attracted so much media attention as the
approximately 3,000 people who died in the attack on
the Twin Towers. Systematic media bias in wartime is a
fact established by numerous studies. It is well known
that truth is the first casualty of war, and a peace
movement must do everything to come to the aid of this
particular victim through critical distrust of
mainstream media and an effort to seek out and provide
alternative news sources.

[...]  it is too often forgotten that the United
Nations was founded in order to "preserve humanity
from the scourge of war", justly considered the worst
of evils to afflict the human community. If the United
States succeeds, thanks to political and economic
pressure, in convincing the Security Council to
support their offensive against Iraq, this will not
mean that the war is legitimate, but rather that the
United Nations has betrayed its fundamental mission.

In light of the facts, it is absurd to present Iraq as
a major threat to peace. Despite frequently unfriendly
relations, none of its neighbors currently feels
threatened. It is Iraq's weakness rather than its
strength than may make it a tempting target today. It
is particularly cynical for Western governments that
supported Iraq in its war against Iran in the 1980s,
even providing chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, to
turn around now and cite that war to demonize their
erstwhile ally. Iraq has neither the means nor the
motive to strike the United States or Europe, nor is
there the slightest reason to suppose that its
leaders, whatever their faults, are prepared to commit
national suicide by launching attacks against far
superior powers, including Israel. After all, during
the 1991 war, Iraqi leaders never resorted to using
the non-conventional weapons which they possessed at
the time. More generally, it is not true that
governments (democratic or not) will use all weapons
at their disposal rather than face defeat. The Soviet
Union lost in Afghanistan and even dissolved itself
without ever using its huge nuclear arsenal. The same
is true for the Apartheid regime, and even the United
States, probably the most violent country of all, lost
the Vietnam war without using nuclear weapons. The
general rule is that governments will use all
necessary means to defeat weak enemies and think about
retaliation, public opinion or long term consequences
when facing stronger ones.

[...]  The peace movement needs a global perspective.
For the United States, the Cold War was far from being
a simple defensive struggle against communism. It was
part of a drive toward "opening" the world to U.S.
influence that began well before communism and
continues, stronger than ever, after communism. The
Cold War was an episode in what can be called the
Latin Americanization of the world, that is, the
replacement of Europe by the United States as the
center of the imperial system and the substitution of
neo-colonialism for colonialism. Neo-colonialism
allows the traditional pillage and exploitation of
Third World resources and labor to continue (with the
additional drain of brainpower to make up for the
deficiencies in our education system), while allowing
a formal political autonomy and as corollary, a
relative delegation of tasks of repression. A nice
definition of this system was provided by Lord Curzon,
who was the British foreign secretary after World War
I. In the Middle East, he wanted an "Arab facade ruled
and administered under British guidance and controlled
by a native Mohammedan and, as far as possible, by an
Arab staff . . . There should be no actual
incorporation of the conquered territory in the
dominions of the conqueror, but the absorption may be
veiled by such constitutional fictions as a
protectorate, a sphere of influence, a buffer state
and so on".

The U.S.-backed coups overthrowing Arbenz in
Guatemala, Mossedegh in Iran, Goulart in Brazil,
Allende in Chile, Soekarno in Indonesia and Lumumba in
Congo are only the most spectacular incidents
alongside a multitude of various pressures as well as
the mechanism of debt which have imposed "regime
change" and submission on one country after another.
In Iraq, the U.S. aim is simply progressing to more
unabashed use of force in its campaign to extend this
system to every recalcitrant country on earth. The
real question is; what will come next? The overthrow
of Arbenz and the replacement of Mossadegh by the Shah
were not particularly bloody; but the first event was
at the root of an extremely bloody civil war in
Guatemala and the other led to the overthrow of the
Shah by the present rulers of Iran, whose religious
fundamentalism is hypocritically denounced by the
West. It is doubtful that the rule of Amid Karzai, who
needs American bodyguards just to stay alive, will
lead to a stable regime in Afghanistan. After the
demise of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the British
tried to rule Iraq through an Arab facade and that is
exactly what provoked a revolution that led to the
present Baath regime. So, the real question for the
war party does not deal with the immediate future but
rather with their long term plans. How are you going
to maintain your rule? Colonialism has been tried and
collapsed almost everywhere (the only place where it
still exists is in the Occupied Territories, a
glittering success). Neo-colonialism is, in human
terms, an abysmal failure (see the model-Latin
America) and is likely to collapse, for essentially
the same reasons that colonialism collapsed. Such
collapses tend to be bloody and painful. This is then
cited by the ousted rulers to retroactively justify
their rule, while in reality it demonstrates the harm
done to societies by prolonged exploitation by foreign
powers.

[...] 

It would be a mistake to fail to speak out clearly for
fear of being isolated. The United States has never
been so strong militarily, but it is rapidly losing
any moral or intellectual credibility. The battle of
ideas can be won by those who do not hesitate to speak
the truth, without concessions to a phantom "public
opinion" created by servile media. The objections
voiced by many governments to U.S. belligerence are
mild indeed compared to the feelings of ordinary
citizens all around the world. Even in Europe, U.S.
arrogance is arousing strong opposition. In the rest
of the world, not only in Arab countries but in
Africa, Latin America and Asia, millions of people
admire bin Laden today and will hail Saddam Hussein as
a hero once he is attacked by the United States solely
because they will seem to be the strongest symbols of
resistance to the arrogance of power, to oppression
and exploitation. The only way that we in the West can
overcome such a fruitless polarization is by providing
our own clear and radical opposition to our own
governments, in terms that can lead to a fresh and
honest dialogue with Third World people revolted by
the prevailing world system as well as with
increasingly alienated immigrant populations in our
own countries. The peace movements in the rich
countries and the liberation movements in the Third
World have been debilitated by twenty years of
economic and military violence and by "humanitarian"
ideological intimidation. By coming together around
shared objectives of peace and justice, both can find
a fresh burst of strength and hope to build a
genuinely international movement for a better world.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2454







__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com