The Anti-Empire
Report
Some things you need to know before the world ends
September
25, 2006
by William
Blum
"Thank you for not putting a bomb in your
luggage."
"President Bush said the United States is still under
the threat of
attack and will continue to be right up until Election
Day." -- Jay Leno
Hand-in-hand with his threat warnings, Bush keeps telling us how his War
on Terror has made us so much safer, bragging that there hasn't been a terrorist
attack in the United States in the five years since the one of September
11, 2001. Marvelous. There wasn't a terrorist attack in the United States
in the five years before that day either. But thanks to the War on Terror
-- particularly the bombing, invasion, occupation, and torture of Afghanistan
and Iraq -- numerous new anti-American terrorists have been created since
that historic day. The latest confirmation of this, if any more were needed,
is the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate conclusion that "the
American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation
of Islamic radicalism and ... the overall terrorist threat has grown since
the Sept. 11 attacks."[1]
Since the first strike on Afghanistan in October 2001
there have been literally scores of terrorist attacks against American
institutions and individuals in the Middle East, South Asia and the Pacific,
more than a dozen in Pakistan alone: military, diplomatic, civilian, Christian,
and other targets associated with the United States, including the October
2002 bombings of two nightclubs in Bali, Indonesia, which killed more than
200 people, almost all of them Americans and citizens of their Australian
and British war allies; the following year brought the heavy bombing of the
US-managed Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, the site of diplomatic
receptions and 4th of July celebrations held by the American Embassy; and
other horrendous attacks on US war allies in recent years in Madrid, London,
and elsewhere.
A US State Department report of 2004 on worldwide terrorist
attacks -- "Patterns of Global Terrorism" -- showed that the year 2003 had
more "significant terrorist incidents" than at any time since the department
began issuing statistics in 1985, even though the figures did not include
attacks on US troops by insurgents in Iraq, which the Bush administration
explicitly labels as "terrorist".[2] When their report for 2004 showed an
even higher number of incidents, the State Department announced that it was
going to stop publishing the annual statistics.[3]
It is extremely difficult and threatening for US and
UK officials to accept the correlation between their foreign policies and
the rise of terrorists. A spokesman for the Blair government recently declared:
"Al-Qaida started killing innocent civilians in the 90s. It killed Muslim
civilians even before 9/11, and the attacks on New York and Washington killed
over 3,000 people before Iraq. To imply al-Qaida is driven by an honest
disagreement over foreign policy is a mistake."[4] Vice President Dick Cheney,
on more than one occasion, has also pointed out that terrorists were attacking
American targets even before 9-11. |
The "reasoning" behind such thinking is odd; it's as
if these esteemed gentlemen believe that there was no Western foreign policy
in the Mideast before September 11, 2001. But of course, even in modern times,
there were decades of awful abuse, including the US overthrow of the Iranian
government in 1953, multiple bombings of Libya and Iraq, sinking an Iranian
ship and shooting down an Iranian passenger plane, habitual support of Israel
against the Palestinian people, and much more.[5]
It can't be emphasized too often or too strongly that
terrorism is a political act, it is making a political statement, a statement
that can often be summed up in a single word: "retaliation"; terrorism is
what people with bombs but no air force have to resort to. The Bush and Blair
administrations can not admit to the correlation of terrorism with their
policies, but those opposed to their wars should never allow them to avoid
the issue. Here are some of the latest examples of this retaliation
phenomenon:
From a New York Times report on the UK group arrested
for allegedly planning to blow up multiple planes headed to the US: "'As
you bomb, you will be bombed; as you kill, you will be killed,' said one
of the men on a 'martyrdom' videotape" ... "One of the suspects said on his
martyrdom video that the 'war against Muslims' in Iraq and Afghanistan had
motivated him to act." ... "The man said he was seeking revenge for the foreign
policy of the United States, and 'their accomplices, the U.K. and the
Jews'."[6]
From a review of the new book, "The Inside Story of the
9/11 Commission" by its chairmen, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton: "In looking
into the background of the hijackers, the staff found that religious orthodoxy
was not a common denominator since some of the members 'reportedly even consumed
alcohol and abused drugs.' Others engaged in casual sex. Instead, hatred
of American foreign policy in the Middle East seemed to be the key factor."
... "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States," said
Supervisory Special Agent James Fitzgerald. "They identify with the Palestinian
problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe
they tend to focus their anger on the United States." ... "Lee [Hamilton]
felt that there had to be an acknowledgment that a settlement of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America's long-term relationship
with the Islamic world, and that the presence of American forces in the Middle
East was a major motivating factor in Al Qaeda's actions."[7]
But the War on Terrorism paints terrorists as only
irrational madmen or those who loathe freedom, democracy and Western culture,
or doing what they do just for the pure, America-hating thrill of it, and
so the US and the UK continue to look for military solutions. Writer David
Rees predicted a few years ago: "Remember when the United States had a drug
problem and then we declared a War on Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs
anymore? The War on Terrorism will be just like that."[8]
Cold War Myths
It's become a commonplace for critics of the wall being built by the United
States along the Mexican border to equate it to the Berlin Wall. The same
highly negative comparison is evoked in speaking about the Israeli wall being
built alongside and through Palestine. Just as the Holocaust is the standard
against which acts of mass murder and atrocities are conventionally compared,
the Berlin Wall is the standard for judging the erection of a physical barrier
which restricts freedom of travel for large numbers of people. The Wall is
also employed by conservatives as a symbol of the wickedness and the failure
of communism. But what was the Berlin Wall actually about?
During the 1950s, American coldwarriors in West Germany
instituted a crude campaign of sabotage and subversion against East Germany
designed to throw that country's economic and administrative machinery out
of gear. The CIA and other US intelligence and military services recruited,
equipped, trained and financed German activist groups and individuals, of
West and East, to carry out actions which ran the spectrum from juvenile
delinquency to terrorism; anything to make life difficult for the East German
people and weaken their support of the government; anything to make the commies
look bad. It was a remarkable undertaking. The United
States and its agents used explosives, arson, short circuiting, and other
methods to damage power stations, shipyards, canals, docks, public buildings,
gas stations, public transportation, bridges, etc; they derailed freight
trains, seriously injuring workers; burned 12 cars of a freight train and
destroyed air pressure hoses of others; used acids to damage vital factory
machinery; put sand in the turbine of a factory, bringing it to a standstill;
set fire to a tile-producing factory; promoted work slow-downs in factories;
killed 7,000 cows of a co-operative dairy through poisoning; added soap to
powdered milk destined for East German schools; were in possession, when
arrested, of a large quantity of the poison cantharidin with which it was
planned to produce poisoned cigarettes to kill leading East Germans; set
off stink bombs to disrupt political meetings; attempted to disrupt the World
Youth Festival in East Berlin by sending out forged invitations, false promises
of free bed and board, false notices of cancellations, etc.; carried out
attacks on participants with explosives, firebombs, and tire-puncturing
equipment; forged and distributed large quantities of food ration cards to
cause confusion, shortages and resentment; sent out forged tax notices and
other government directives and documents to foster disorganization and
inefficiency within industry and unions ... all this and much more.
Throughout the 1950s, the East Germans and the Soviet
Union repeatedly lodged complaints with the Soviets' erstwhile allies in
the West and with the United Nations about specific sabotage and espionage
activities and called for the closure of the offices in West Germany they
claimed were responsible, and for which they provided names and addresses.
Their complaints fell on deaf ears. Inevitably, the East Germans began to
tighten up entry into the country from the West.
At the same time, the West was bedeviling the East with
a vigorous campaign of recruiting East German professionals and skilled workers,
who had been educated at the expense of the Communist government. This eventually
led to a serious labor and production crisis in the East.[9]
By August of 1961, the East Germans had had enough. They
began the building of their infamous wall. This was not erected to keep their
citizens from "truth" or "freedom" -- before the wall many Easterners had
commuted to the West for jobs each day and then returned to the East in the
evening. But in the Cold War atmosphere every possible means of scoring
propaganda points was exploited by both sides and thus was born the legend
of the Evil Commie Wall.
"Appeasement" is another Cold War myth dredged up recently
by the Bush administration in its desperate attempt to find an argument for
the Iraq war that more than 30% of the American population will swallow.
There's been more than one occasion of our old friend Rumsfeld labeling as
"fascists" anti-American terrorists and those who resist American occupations,
and calling Democrats and others not in love with the war "appeasers";[10]
you know, like Britain allowing the Nazis to devour the Czechs in the hope
that Hitler would leave the West alone. The appeasement analogy has long
been a favorite of American politicians when it suited their purpose; Eisenhower
and Johnson both personally used it, to name but two.
But what happened in 1938 in Munich wasn't so much
"appeasement" as it was "collusion". One of Adolf's qualities that appealed
so much to the West was his fervent anti-communism. Britain, the United States
and other Western governments were counting on the Nazis to turn eastward
and put an end once and for all to the Bolshevik menace to God, family and
capitalism.[11]
If to Donald Rumsfeld opposing the war in Iraq is the
moral equivalent of appeasing Hitler, to Condoleezza Rice it's the moral
equivalent of tolerating slavery in 19th century America. Here she
is at her desperate best: "I'm sure that there are people who thought that
it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the
emancipation of slaves would hold. I'm sure that there were people who said
... why don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave
the South with slaves."[12]
Let freedom and cash registers ring
US Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez has proposed that Cubans hold
an internationally monitored referendum to decide whether they want to be
ruled by dictators or live in a democracy.[13]
So what do you think Carlos M. Gutierrez -- formerly
a corporate CEO and now a man who goes around the world promoting corporate
investment and trade -- means by "a democracy"? Can he imagine a "democratic"
society not dominated by corporations which turn everything into a commodity?
Is Gutierrez really concerned about the Cuban people having a say over the
decisions that affect their lives? Given that so many basic decisions that
affect Americans' lives are not made in legislatures but in corporate boardrooms,
does he know for a fact that Cubans have any less say over such decisions
than Americans do?
The usual American definition of democracy has to do
in major part with elections. But even if we accept this simple, and simplistic,
definition, the fact remains that, contrary to what Gutierrez, and most Americans
assume, Cuba holds elections on a regular basis.
The elections, which observe universal suffrage and a
secret ballot, are for seats in the Municipal Assemblies, the Provincial
Assemblies, and the National Assembly. There is direct nomination of candidates
by the citizenry, not by the Communist Party, which does not get involved
in any stage of the electoral process. All candidates have the same public
exposure, which is the publication and posting of a biography listing their
qualities and history, in very accessible and commonly visited places in
the community. There is one deputy in the Municipal Assembly for each 20,000
of population. Candidates must receive over 50% of the vote to be elected,
if not in the first round then in a run-off. The 609 members of the National
Assembly elect the 31 members of the Council of State. The President of the
Council of State is the Head of State and Head of Government. Fidel Castro
is repeatedly chosen for this position, purportedly because of his sterling
qualities.
I don't know enough detail about the actual workings
of the Cuban electoral system to point out the flaws and shortcomings of
the above, which most likely exist in practice. But can it be more deadening
to the intellect, the spirit, and one's idealism than the American electoral
system? From the splashy staged nominating conventions to the interminable
boring and insulting campaigns to the increasingly questionable voting and
counting processes, all to select one or the other corporate representative
... are the Cubans ready for this? If they were to institute any kind of
electoral system in which those candidates with the most money to spend had
an advantage, what would keep the CIA from pouring in money-without-end to
get their people into office?
This is what we're up against
I recently heard a California farmer interviewed on National Public Radio
about the very worrisome e-coli outbreak in spinach. At one point he said
that "The United States has the safest agricultural products in the world."[14]
Hmmm. I wondered how one measured such a thing and whether
the guy had actually made a global study of this and could cite any statistics
or credible sources. It reminded me of several radio interviews I've had
in which I was being very critical of US foreign policy (no surprise there)
leading to someone calling in and asking me if I could name a better country.
My standard reply has been: "Better in what respect?"
"In any respect," is the standard reply from the caller.
"Well," I say, "what about health care? There are many
countries that provide health care to a much larger percentage of their citizens
than the United States does and at much cheaper cost, sometimes even for
free, like in Cuba. And it's the same with university education."
This is effectively the end of any such conversation.
What condition, I wonder, would have to exist in the
US for such people to relinquish their childhood love affair with that magical
place called "America"? I have on occasion asked people who reject
virtually any criticism of US foreign policy: "What would the United States
have to do in its foreign policy to lose your support? What, for you, would
be too much?" I've yet to get an answer to that question. I suspect it's
because the person is afraid that whatever they say I'll point out that we've
already done it.
Author Michael Lewis has observed: "One of the qualities
that distinguish Americans from other people is their naive suspicion that
any foreigner with half a brain would rather be one of them. ... The most
zealous Japanese patriot doesn't for a minute think that other peoples actually
want to be Japanese. Ditto the French."
But don't despair, gang. As I've mentioned before, my
(very) rough guess is that the people I speak about here constitute no more
than 15 percent of the population. I suggest that we concentrate on the rest,
who are reachable, and in the past three years countless of them have indeed
been reached.
Discovered at last! A difference between the Democrats
and the Republicans on foreign policy
This just in! Republican leaders in the House have proposed legislation that
will require that anti-war protestors be sterilized. Democrats are refusing
to roll over and play dead. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi -- who recently
called Hugo Chavez a "thug" for his UN speech -- insists her party will support
the measure only if a right of appeal is included.
NOTES
[1] New York Times, September 24, 2006, the wording it a Times paraphrase
[2] Washington Post, June 23, 2004 and June 28, p.19
[3] "Bush Administration Eliminating 19-year-old International Terrorism
Report",
Knight Ridder Newspapers, April 15, 2005
[4] The Guardian (London), August 12, 2006
[5] For more information see Blum's essay at:
http://members.aol.com/superogue/terintro.htm
[6] New York Times, August 28, 2006, p.1
[7] Review by James Bamford, New York Times, August 20, 2006, p.15
[8] David Rees, "Get Your War On", (Soft Skull Press), p.2
[9] For further details, see William Blum, "Killing Hope: US Military and
CIA Interventions
Since World War 2", chapter 8
[10] "Rumsfeld says threat to U.S. is from 'a new type of fascism'", Associated
Press, August 29, 2006
[11] See, for example, Christopher Hitchens, "Chamberlain: Collusion, not
appeasement", Monthly
Review (January 1995), a review of Clement Leibovitz, "The Chamberlain-Hitler
Deal" (1993)
[12] Interview, Essence magazine, October 2006 issue, p.187
[13] Associated Press, September 15, 2006
[14] NPR, Day-to-Day, September 18, 2006, 12:10 PM
To make a financial donation to support the work
of the
Anti-Empire Report you can use the following address.
But if you are not in pretty good shape
financially, please
do not donate. Thanks.
William Blum
5100 Connecticut Ave., NW #707
Washington, DC 20008-2064
William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions
Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
Portions of the books can be read, and
copies purchased, at <www.killinghope.org >
Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.
To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an
email to <bblum6@aol.com> with "add" in the subject line. I'd like
your name and city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city
only in case I'll be speaking in your area.
Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the opposite.
Any part of this report may be disseminated without
permission. I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned.