Since today is Labor Day in North America, I wanted to take this opportunity to mark the holiday. Labor Day was created not as a symbolic last day of summer but to honor the contributions of working men and women. The holiday was created by the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity and well-being of our country.
We can thank labor unions for many things most (admittedly not all) North American workers of today take for granted, whether they are unionized or not. Such as worker safety regulations, workmen's compensation laws, overtime pay, company-provided benefits and the weekend.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Vanishing moderates, vanishing hope
Mohammad Khatami was a moderate who served eight years as Iran's head of state. His reformist efforts were consistently undermined by the conservative theocratic clergy and judiciary which really controls the country. He eschewed the anti-American vitriol favored by some of his predecessors and his successor. In short, he's exactly the kind of leader we should want more of in the Middle East (since in most other countries, the president has power).
Khatami recently stated the obvious: the policies of the Bush administration have only served to create a greater terrorist threat. It has only fanned the flames of Islamic extremism, something that benefits neither Khatami and other moderates in the Middle East nor Americans and other westerners.
"The policies of the neo-conservatives have created a war that creates more extremists and radicals," he told the UK Independent in Chicago. "The events of 9/11 gave them this ability to create fear and anxiety ... and to create new policies of their own and now events are creating an expansion of extremists on both sides. A struggle is under way to dominate this world multilaterally ... We are a witness to war - with suppression from one side and extremist reaction in the form of terror from the other."
Khatami recently stated the obvious: the policies of the Bush administration have only served to create a greater terrorist threat. It has only fanned the flames of Islamic extremism, something that benefits neither Khatami and other moderates in the Middle East nor Americans and other westerners.
"The policies of the neo-conservatives have created a war that creates more extremists and radicals," he told the UK Independent in Chicago. "The events of 9/11 gave them this ability to create fear and anxiety ... and to create new policies of their own and now events are creating an expansion of extremists on both sides. A struggle is under way to dominate this world multilaterally ... We are a witness to war - with suppression from one side and extremist reaction in the form of terror from the other."
Saturday, September 02, 2006
The junior senator from New York
It's very rare that my hometown makes it into a big national newspaper, especially a west coast one. So I was surprised to see the byline Glens Falls, NY on a Los Angeles Times article.
The LAT did a piece on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the prospects for her presumed run for the White House in 2008.
The article points out that while she's seen nationally as a staunch liberal, in the state she represents, many see her as a bipartisan problem-solver who has never seen an issue too parochial for her concern.
Contrary to her image as a paragon of all liberal causes, Clinton the senator has been a typical corporate Democrat. This is hardly surprising. Her career was that of a corporate lawyer and she was on the board of directors for Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation.
Nevertheless, the Hillary case is quite complex. There is probably no politician in America, with the possible exception of the president, who has a smaller 'undecided' rating in the polls. Everyone either loves her or hates her.
The right will always hate her because of her role in her husband's administration. She tried to revamp health care (which pissed off the right) with a proposal that didn't really change much (which pissed off the left) and tried to do it all in secret (which pissed off everybody).
Some of the left opposes her for her enabling of and continued support for the Iraq aggression. Many suspect that in her brain, she knew it was a terrible idea but didn't have the guts to do what was right because she feared her presidential chances. Now that her support for Iraq is weakening because the aggression is increasingly unpopular among the public, that only appears to confirm such suspicions.
Many feminists will blindly support her for various reasons. They rationalize that
anyone who dislikes her must do so because she's a successful woman. Others feel that she was the real victim of the Republican sexual witchhunt that impeached her husband.
Such ardent feminist support for Mrs. Clinton baffles me. After all, her rise to prominence was based almost entirely on who her husband was. This seems the antithesis of feminist ideals.
While she is certainly very intelligent and driven and politically skilled, would she have gone from a corporate law firm in Little Rock to the US Senate from Westchester County, NY if her husband had been a schoolteacher or bus driver? Possibly, but it would've taken a lot longer.
Of course, having powerful relatives is often a vehicle for political careers. Just ask the current president. But at least the current president doesn't profess any belief in meritocracy. Mrs. Clinton is a feminist icon.
It baffles me that Democrats think she is their best chance of recapturing the White House in 2008. No matter how much of a corporatist senator she is, a good chunk of the nation will always see her as an evil feminist.
Her support is just as fanatical as her opposition and a Republican like McCain will be happy to present himself as a unifying alternative to the divisive Clinton.
Then, being divisive got Bush eight years in the White House so maybe that's the strategy she'll follow instead.
First, she has to win re-election to the Senate. It seems like a pretty good bet. The corporate media is ignoring Jonathan Tasini, her anti-war primary challenger as well as her Green opponent Howie Hawkins. The Republicans in the race have run two of the most farcical campaigns ever waged for statewide office on a major party line.
There was hope that Tasini might be able to pull off an upset like Ned Lamont did in neighboring Connecticut. After all, Lamont and Tasini were both anti-war challengers to pro-war corporate incumbents. Both New York and Connecticut are resolutely blue states where the war is highly unpopular.
But there have been some major differences. One, Lamont has money. He is a cable executive; Tasini is a consultant. As a result, Lamont was able to buy a lot of publicity which in turn leads to free publiclity in the lemming news media. Tasini has been able to do neither. The other is that blind support of Hillary by a good chunk of liberals. Lieberman was always to insufferably self-righteous to engender such loyalty.
Sen. Clinton has refused to debate Tasini. This is a typical strategy from an incumbent. But more disgustingly, it was enabled by the Time Warner channel NY1. NY1 refused to host a debate between the two Democrats because Tasini had not raised enough money.
According to them, a candidate must raise $500,000 AND be at least 5 percent in the polls. Tasini was at 13 percent, but hadn't raised enough money.
By contrast, NY1 did allow Tom Suozzi to participate in a gubenatorial debate against front running Democrat Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. Suozzi was at only 9 percent in the polls, well below Tasini's 13 percent. But since Suozzi had raised a lot of money, the Time Warner channel allowed him to debate.
This is a great example of how the corporate media ignore not only smaller party candidates, but even candidates within the biggest parties.
Why was NY1 afraid to allow Tasini to debate? Why are the rules rigged against candidates without huge campaign war chests? Do they want to disqualify anyone who doesn't have a ton of money to spend on commercials on NY1?
Presumably, the Time Warner channel would say they have such rules to prevent debates which are so large and unwieldy as to be useless. They may say that they want to keep out 'fringe' candidates; but they may not say, even though it might be their goal, because they want to pretend to objectivity, they want pretend they 'don't make news, just report it.'
This is a bogus argument.
There are only two Democratic candidates for US Senate. Surely, NY1 knows how to handle a two person debate. A guy at 13 percent is a heavy underdog but if his ideas actually get press exposure, who knows if he'd win or not.
Furthermore, state election law requires candidates to receive a large number of petition signatures just to get on the ballot in the first place. These regulations alone would prevent huge, unwieldy debates.
I wonder if Time Warner being a big campaign contributor to Clinton's campaign has anything to do with it.
The LAT did a piece on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the prospects for her presumed run for the White House in 2008.
The article points out that while she's seen nationally as a staunch liberal, in the state she represents, many see her as a bipartisan problem-solver who has never seen an issue too parochial for her concern.
Contrary to her image as a paragon of all liberal causes, Clinton the senator has been a typical corporate Democrat. This is hardly surprising. Her career was that of a corporate lawyer and she was on the board of directors for Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation.
Nevertheless, the Hillary case is quite complex. There is probably no politician in America, with the possible exception of the president, who has a smaller 'undecided' rating in the polls. Everyone either loves her or hates her.
The right will always hate her because of her role in her husband's administration. She tried to revamp health care (which pissed off the right) with a proposal that didn't really change much (which pissed off the left) and tried to do it all in secret (which pissed off everybody).
Some of the left opposes her for her enabling of and continued support for the Iraq aggression. Many suspect that in her brain, she knew it was a terrible idea but didn't have the guts to do what was right because she feared her presidential chances. Now that her support for Iraq is weakening because the aggression is increasingly unpopular among the public, that only appears to confirm such suspicions.
Many feminists will blindly support her for various reasons. They rationalize that
anyone who dislikes her must do so because she's a successful woman. Others feel that she was the real victim of the Republican sexual witchhunt that impeached her husband.
Such ardent feminist support for Mrs. Clinton baffles me. After all, her rise to prominence was based almost entirely on who her husband was. This seems the antithesis of feminist ideals.
While she is certainly very intelligent and driven and politically skilled, would she have gone from a corporate law firm in Little Rock to the US Senate from Westchester County, NY if her husband had been a schoolteacher or bus driver? Possibly, but it would've taken a lot longer.
Of course, having powerful relatives is often a vehicle for political careers. Just ask the current president. But at least the current president doesn't profess any belief in meritocracy. Mrs. Clinton is a feminist icon.
It baffles me that Democrats think she is their best chance of recapturing the White House in 2008. No matter how much of a corporatist senator she is, a good chunk of the nation will always see her as an evil feminist.
Her support is just as fanatical as her opposition and a Republican like McCain will be happy to present himself as a unifying alternative to the divisive Clinton.
Then, being divisive got Bush eight years in the White House so maybe that's the strategy she'll follow instead.
First, she has to win re-election to the Senate. It seems like a pretty good bet. The corporate media is ignoring Jonathan Tasini, her anti-war primary challenger as well as her Green opponent Howie Hawkins. The Republicans in the race have run two of the most farcical campaigns ever waged for statewide office on a major party line.
There was hope that Tasini might be able to pull off an upset like Ned Lamont did in neighboring Connecticut. After all, Lamont and Tasini were both anti-war challengers to pro-war corporate incumbents. Both New York and Connecticut are resolutely blue states where the war is highly unpopular.
But there have been some major differences. One, Lamont has money. He is a cable executive; Tasini is a consultant. As a result, Lamont was able to buy a lot of publicity which in turn leads to free publiclity in the lemming news media. Tasini has been able to do neither. The other is that blind support of Hillary by a good chunk of liberals. Lieberman was always to insufferably self-righteous to engender such loyalty.
Sen. Clinton has refused to debate Tasini. This is a typical strategy from an incumbent. But more disgustingly, it was enabled by the Time Warner channel NY1. NY1 refused to host a debate between the two Democrats because Tasini had not raised enough money.
According to them, a candidate must raise $500,000 AND be at least 5 percent in the polls. Tasini was at 13 percent, but hadn't raised enough money.
By contrast, NY1 did allow Tom Suozzi to participate in a gubenatorial debate against front running Democrat Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. Suozzi was at only 9 percent in the polls, well below Tasini's 13 percent. But since Suozzi had raised a lot of money, the Time Warner channel allowed him to debate.
This is a great example of how the corporate media ignore not only smaller party candidates, but even candidates within the biggest parties.
Why was NY1 afraid to allow Tasini to debate? Why are the rules rigged against candidates without huge campaign war chests? Do they want to disqualify anyone who doesn't have a ton of money to spend on commercials on NY1?
Presumably, the Time Warner channel would say they have such rules to prevent debates which are so large and unwieldy as to be useless. They may say that they want to keep out 'fringe' candidates; but they may not say, even though it might be their goal, because they want to pretend to objectivity, they want pretend they 'don't make news, just report it.'
This is a bogus argument.
There are only two Democratic candidates for US Senate. Surely, NY1 knows how to handle a two person debate. A guy at 13 percent is a heavy underdog but if his ideas actually get press exposure, who knows if he'd win or not.
Furthermore, state election law requires candidates to receive a large number of petition signatures just to get on the ballot in the first place. These regulations alone would prevent huge, unwieldy debates.
I wonder if Time Warner being a big campaign contributor to Clinton's campaign has anything to do with it.
Friday, September 01, 2006
I Spy
Some might think that there are frosty relations between the US and Zimbabawe's strongman Robert Mugabe. Don't forget that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice referred to Mugabe's regime as an 'outpost of tyranny.'
But maybe when all is said and done, maybe the Bush administration has more influence on Harare than anyone realizes. After all, where do you think Mugabe got this inspiration for this?
But maybe when all is said and done, maybe the Bush administration has more influence on Harare than anyone realizes. After all, where do you think Mugabe got this inspiration for this?
Thursday, August 31, 2006
This is the domestic terror threat?
A recent essay in the influential Foreign Affairs journal argues that the domestic terrorist threat is over. The author argues that the reasonable -- but rarely heard -- explanation is that there are no terrorists within the United States, and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad.
This raised hackles of fury from the perpetual war crowd who, in the absence of a serious counterargument, resorted to the usual intonation of the numbers 9 and 11.
I'm not sure if the domestic terrorist threat is really over. Given the explosion of anti-American hatred created by the Bush administration's disastrous policies, it's hard to believe that the will isn't there. Perhaps the means are there but then again, the last terrorist attack in the US required not fancy weaponry, but box cutters.
Then again, we've certainly sacrificed our own freedoms in response to the perceived threat to a far greater extent than the terrorists would ever be able to achieve directly. The self-imposed hysteria is so fanatical, it makes you wonder if the actual threat isn't really minimal.
Just look at some of the hysteria in the news. I read for example that a human rights activist was banned from boarding a plane. Not because he said some weapons or chemicals. But because he was wearing a t-shirt. The t-shirt had words in Arabic and English. Not 'Death to America' or 'Hail Osama.'
The English words were "We will not be silent." The Arabic words said the same thing.
Apparently the presence of Arabic letters freaked out some of the other passangers and officials.
One of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (or Islamofacists or Muslim Barbarians or whatever the vapid fearmongering catchphrase of the day happens to be) has arrived and he was wearing an anti-war t-shirt.
Send him to Gitmo!
One of the morons in charge of 'security' reportedly told the passenger that "going to an airport with a T-shirt in Arabic script is like going to a bank and wearing a T-shirt that says, `I'm a robber.'"
I know 'we will not be silent' is a radical statement in a country where silent obedience to a 'war president' was the social expectation for several years. (Or since the administration's insistent demands for imperial powers, perhaps it's only the word president that should be in quotes)
However, if the most dangerous thing airport security people have to worry about is some inoncuous t-shirt, then are we really on the verge of Armageddon? All these millions spent on security and they're going after a guy wearing a t-shirt?
I suppose it sounds coherent enough to be a plan of this administration. I'm sure Bush apologists will praise the 'restraint' of officials for not summarily executing the guy on the spot.
Admittedly, I'm not a security expert. But if people really are trying to blow up planes, I don't think they'd be able to hide them in the silk-screen printing of Arabic (but not English) letters on a t-shirt.
What's next? Are they going to arrest someone for wearing a 'Peace on Earth' t-shirt? Oh wait, that's already happened.
If you want to convince me that there's a real terror threat to citizens in this country, you're going to have to find something more substantive than a darker skinned guy wearing a human rights t-shirt with squiggly letters.
Update: A friend of mine, who travels a lot internationally, took issue with parts of this essay. He pointed out a suspicious incident that he'd observed while in German airport that was dealt with by officials there. One of the important differences between what he witnessed was suspicious ACTIONS by a passenger while the above essay deals with a t-shirt.
Recently, I read an article in The Boston Globe on airport security in Israel, which of course has a lot of experience in combatting potential terrorism. Israeli officials don't deal in RACIAL profiling. This makes sense because terrorists are nothing if not adaptable and will use non-Arabs if Arabs only are profiled. After all, Richard Reed was an Anglo and Jose Padilla a Hispanic.
Instead, they use COMPORTEMENT profiling. Focusing not on people who look suspicious but people who ACT suspicious. That makes far more sense. Israel's pristine record on airline security seems to back that up.
This raised hackles of fury from the perpetual war crowd who, in the absence of a serious counterargument, resorted to the usual intonation of the numbers 9 and 11.
I'm not sure if the domestic terrorist threat is really over. Given the explosion of anti-American hatred created by the Bush administration's disastrous policies, it's hard to believe that the will isn't there. Perhaps the means are there but then again, the last terrorist attack in the US required not fancy weaponry, but box cutters.
Then again, we've certainly sacrificed our own freedoms in response to the perceived threat to a far greater extent than the terrorists would ever be able to achieve directly. The self-imposed hysteria is so fanatical, it makes you wonder if the actual threat isn't really minimal.
Just look at some of the hysteria in the news. I read for example that a human rights activist was banned from boarding a plane. Not because he said some weapons or chemicals. But because he was wearing a t-shirt. The t-shirt had words in Arabic and English. Not 'Death to America' or 'Hail Osama.'
The English words were "We will not be silent." The Arabic words said the same thing.
Apparently the presence of Arabic letters freaked out some of the other passangers and officials.
One of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (or Islamofacists or Muslim Barbarians or whatever the vapid fearmongering catchphrase of the day happens to be) has arrived and he was wearing an anti-war t-shirt.
Send him to Gitmo!
One of the morons in charge of 'security' reportedly told the passenger that "going to an airport with a T-shirt in Arabic script is like going to a bank and wearing a T-shirt that says, `I'm a robber.'"
I know 'we will not be silent' is a radical statement in a country where silent obedience to a 'war president' was the social expectation for several years. (Or since the administration's insistent demands for imperial powers, perhaps it's only the word president that should be in quotes)
However, if the most dangerous thing airport security people have to worry about is some inoncuous t-shirt, then are we really on the verge of Armageddon? All these millions spent on security and they're going after a guy wearing a t-shirt?
I suppose it sounds coherent enough to be a plan of this administration. I'm sure Bush apologists will praise the 'restraint' of officials for not summarily executing the guy on the spot.
Admittedly, I'm not a security expert. But if people really are trying to blow up planes, I don't think they'd be able to hide them in the silk-screen printing of Arabic (but not English) letters on a t-shirt.
What's next? Are they going to arrest someone for wearing a 'Peace on Earth' t-shirt? Oh wait, that's already happened.
If you want to convince me that there's a real terror threat to citizens in this country, you're going to have to find something more substantive than a darker skinned guy wearing a human rights t-shirt with squiggly letters.
Update: A friend of mine, who travels a lot internationally, took issue with parts of this essay. He pointed out a suspicious incident that he'd observed while in German airport that was dealt with by officials there. One of the important differences between what he witnessed was suspicious ACTIONS by a passenger while the above essay deals with a t-shirt.
Recently, I read an article in The Boston Globe on airport security in Israel, which of course has a lot of experience in combatting potential terrorism. Israeli officials don't deal in RACIAL profiling. This makes sense because terrorists are nothing if not adaptable and will use non-Arabs if Arabs only are profiled. After all, Richard Reed was an Anglo and Jose Padilla a Hispanic.
Instead, they use COMPORTEMENT profiling. Focusing not on people who look suspicious but people who ACT suspicious. That makes far more sense. Israel's pristine record on airline security seems to back that up.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin"
I often use the phrase 'Theocracy Brigade' in reference to practitioners of American politicochristianity. Maybe I should use the phrase 'Christianism' since it mirrors Islamism, which is politicized Islam.
In any case, I've been occasionally criticized for my use of the phrase 'Theocracy Brigade.' Such people really don't exist, I'm told. Just because people are Christian doesn't mean they are theocrats.
And of course, that goes without saying. Though many have implied that all Muslims are terrorists, I've never said or implied that all Christians are theocrats. Though about 3/4 of Americans describe themselves as Christians, certainly not all of them are theocrats.
However, it's flies in the face of reality to deny that such people exist. Being a theocrat doesn't mean being Christian. Being a theocrat means believing your religion should be the basis for public policy in this country.
A good example of such a person is Rep. Katherine Harris, who's running for the US Senate.
Harris first became infamous for her role in the controversial 2000 presidential election race, in which she, as Florida's supposedly neutral secretary of state, aided fellow theocrat George W. Bush.
Recently, she launched a scathing attack on opponents of the Theocracy Brigade.
According to The Washington Post, Harris said this week that God did not intend for the United States to be a "nation of secular laws" and that the separation of church and state is a "lie we have been told" to keep religious people out of politics.
This is one of the most delusional statements I've ever heard. All I can say is that if the separation of church and state was designed to keep religious people out of politics, it's failed miserably. The US has the most religious-tinged political climate of any western country. (Think of it this way: can you imagine an avowed atheist being elected president)
She went one step further. She said that non-Christian legislators are responsible for all the immoral laws on the books; that non-Christian legislators are incapable acting in a moral law.
"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," she explained.
I have no problem with Christians serving as public officials. I do not believe that you must check your religion at the door, especially since religion has a large influence on the morality and conscience of believers. Personally, I was raised a Catholic and it helped define a large chunk of my moral code, particularly with respect to issues of social justice.
To check your religion at the political door is in many cases tantamount to checking your morality at the door. Too many politicians, especially self-proclaimed Christian ones, do that already and one only needs to look at Iraq and Lebanon for the consequences.
However, a legislator's job is to represent the best interest of his or her constitutents. ALL of the constitutents, not just the Christian ones. Any person who's so fanatical as to equate electing non-Christians with legislating sin is completely unfit to serve as dog catcher, let alone as a US Senator.
The Harris campaign defended her comments by stating, "Congresswoman Harris encourages Americans from all walks of life and faith to participate in our government."
Except apparently for those sin-promulgating non-Christians.
The fact that someone like Katherine Harris has a good chance of winning a statewide election in one of America's most populous states is proof that the Theocracy Brigade is no figment of anyone's imagination.
In any case, I've been occasionally criticized for my use of the phrase 'Theocracy Brigade.' Such people really don't exist, I'm told. Just because people are Christian doesn't mean they are theocrats.
And of course, that goes without saying. Though many have implied that all Muslims are terrorists, I've never said or implied that all Christians are theocrats. Though about 3/4 of Americans describe themselves as Christians, certainly not all of them are theocrats.
However, it's flies in the face of reality to deny that such people exist. Being a theocrat doesn't mean being Christian. Being a theocrat means believing your religion should be the basis for public policy in this country.
A good example of such a person is Rep. Katherine Harris, who's running for the US Senate.
Harris first became infamous for her role in the controversial 2000 presidential election race, in which she, as Florida's supposedly neutral secretary of state, aided fellow theocrat George W. Bush.
Recently, she launched a scathing attack on opponents of the Theocracy Brigade.
According to The Washington Post, Harris said this week that God did not intend for the United States to be a "nation of secular laws" and that the separation of church and state is a "lie we have been told" to keep religious people out of politics.
This is one of the most delusional statements I've ever heard. All I can say is that if the separation of church and state was designed to keep religious people out of politics, it's failed miserably. The US has the most religious-tinged political climate of any western country. (Think of it this way: can you imagine an avowed atheist being elected president)
She went one step further. She said that non-Christian legislators are responsible for all the immoral laws on the books; that non-Christian legislators are incapable acting in a moral law.
"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," she explained.
I have no problem with Christians serving as public officials. I do not believe that you must check your religion at the door, especially since religion has a large influence on the morality and conscience of believers. Personally, I was raised a Catholic and it helped define a large chunk of my moral code, particularly with respect to issues of social justice.
To check your religion at the political door is in many cases tantamount to checking your morality at the door. Too many politicians, especially self-proclaimed Christian ones, do that already and one only needs to look at Iraq and Lebanon for the consequences.
However, a legislator's job is to represent the best interest of his or her constitutents. ALL of the constitutents, not just the Christian ones. Any person who's so fanatical as to equate electing non-Christians with legislating sin is completely unfit to serve as dog catcher, let alone as a US Senator.
The Harris campaign defended her comments by stating, "Congresswoman Harris encourages Americans from all walks of life and faith to participate in our government."
Except apparently for those sin-promulgating non-Christians.
The fact that someone like Katherine Harris has a good chance of winning a statewide election in one of America's most populous states is proof that the Theocracy Brigade is no figment of anyone's imagination.
'Democracy promotion' in action
The Nation ran a good column this week on the Israel assault on southern Lebanon, an assault which was disastrous for everyone (Israelis and Lebanese civilians) except for Hezbollah.
A year ago, Lebanon's opposition leader and former prime minister was assassinated and this provoked a popular uprising (called the Cedar Revolution) that forced out Syrian troops, which had been occupying the country for over a decade. The Nation piece reminded readers that when the Cedar Revolution broke out, neo-conservatives seized on it to claim it was a shining vindication of the Bush administration's foreign policy.
The 'liberation' of Iraq was to be only the first step in their so-called democracy promotion efforts. According to them, a democratic Iraq would inspire the rest of the Arab world to rise up and liberate themselves. The Cedar Revolution was supposedly the first manifestation of this.
Ironic then that the Bush administration would be complicit in the destruction of the this country that supposedly vindicated its strategy. The only country in the Arab world which is both democratic and pro-western.
In reality, this demonstrates how democracy promotion was never really an objective of the Bush administration in the first place.
There are three more or less democratically governments in the Arab world. Lebanon, the occupied Palestinian Territories and Iraq.
Lebanon is in ruins and its democratic government seriously destabilized.
The Palestinian Territories face an international embargo because the western world didn't like their democratic choice. The Palestinians learned that having a democracy doesn't mean choosing a government that you want; it means choosing a government that the western world wants. (Of course, the Israelis and Americans consistently undermined the previous, less ideological Fatah government as well, a weakening which lead to that election of Hamas. Yet another policy that backfired.)
Iraq is in civil war.
And then there are repressive dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Egypt who remain US allies.
Ordinary Arabs look at what's happening in their world, they associate authoritarianism with stability and democracy with destruction, starvation and chaos.
Americans like to equate democracy with freedom and dictatorship with Evil. But the Bush administration's actions is sending the exact opposite message.
A year ago, Lebanon's opposition leader and former prime minister was assassinated and this provoked a popular uprising (called the Cedar Revolution) that forced out Syrian troops, which had been occupying the country for over a decade. The Nation piece reminded readers that when the Cedar Revolution broke out, neo-conservatives seized on it to claim it was a shining vindication of the Bush administration's foreign policy.
The 'liberation' of Iraq was to be only the first step in their so-called democracy promotion efforts. According to them, a democratic Iraq would inspire the rest of the Arab world to rise up and liberate themselves. The Cedar Revolution was supposedly the first manifestation of this.
Ironic then that the Bush administration would be complicit in the destruction of the this country that supposedly vindicated its strategy. The only country in the Arab world which is both democratic and pro-western.
In reality, this demonstrates how democracy promotion was never really an objective of the Bush administration in the first place.
There are three more or less democratically governments in the Arab world. Lebanon, the occupied Palestinian Territories and Iraq.
Lebanon is in ruins and its democratic government seriously destabilized.
The Palestinian Territories face an international embargo because the western world didn't like their democratic choice. The Palestinians learned that having a democracy doesn't mean choosing a government that you want; it means choosing a government that the western world wants. (Of course, the Israelis and Americans consistently undermined the previous, less ideological Fatah government as well, a weakening which lead to that election of Hamas. Yet another policy that backfired.)
Iraq is in civil war.
And then there are repressive dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Egypt who remain US allies.
Ordinary Arabs look at what's happening in their world, they associate authoritarianism with stability and democracy with destruction, starvation and chaos.
Americans like to equate democracy with freedom and dictatorship with Evil. But the Bush administration's actions is sending the exact opposite message.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Bush should be prosecuted for aggressive war: Nuremburg prosecutor
President Bush should stand trial for starting a war of aggression. This assertion was made not by some far left agitators but by an American chief prosecutor at the Nuremburg war crimes trials of former Nazis.
A lot of people think that punishing crimes against humanity was the sole purpose of the Nuremburg trials. In fact, holding the Nazis account for their wars of aggression were in fact a main objective of the trials.
Benjamin Ferencz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam (Hussein) should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Clearly, the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, for excuses that were dubious even at the time and throughly discredited now, constituted an aggression. A "pre-emptive" war against a non-imminent threat is, by definition, a war of aggression.
Ferencz deplored the US government's hostility toward international institutions.
If the United States showed more of an interest in building an international justice system, they could have put Saddam Hussein on trial for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
He noted that any effective semblance of an international justice system must treat all violations equally, not based on the global power of the perpetrators.
Forget boogeymen like Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks. When the guy who convicted Nazis thinks you belong in the dock, that's a pretty serious indictment.
A lot of people think that punishing crimes against humanity was the sole purpose of the Nuremburg trials. In fact, holding the Nazis account for their wars of aggression were in fact a main objective of the trials.
Benjamin Ferencz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam (Hussein) should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Clearly, the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, for excuses that were dubious even at the time and throughly discredited now, constituted an aggression. A "pre-emptive" war against a non-imminent threat is, by definition, a war of aggression.
Ferencz deplored the US government's hostility toward international institutions.
If the United States showed more of an interest in building an international justice system, they could have put Saddam Hussein on trial for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
He noted that any effective semblance of an international justice system must treat all violations equally, not based on the global power of the perpetrators.
Forget boogeymen like Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks. When the guy who convicted Nazis thinks you belong in the dock, that's a pretty serious indictment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)