Ashcroft pushes for more death sentences

US attorney general overrules prosecution deals

Julian Borger in Washington
Friday February 7, 2003
The Guardian

The United States attorney general, John Ashcroft, has overruled his own federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty for 28 defendants, in what has been criticised as a drive to spread capital punishment into states that have resisted it.

In one case Mr Ashcroft demanded that prosecutors renege on a deal made with a defendant in a murder trial to drop their demand for the death penalty in return for testimony against a Colombian drug ring.

The attorney general, arguably the most conservative member of a rightwing administration, has also declared he will seek a death sentence for Brian Regan, an intelligence analyst arrested in 2001 for trying to sell secrets to Iraq, Libya and China. He would be the first espionage defendant to face execution since Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

Ouch...

UK war dossier a sham, say experts

British 'intelligence' lifted from academic articles

Michael White and Brian Whitaker
Friday February 7, 2003
The Guardian

Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old.

Amid charges of "scandalous" plagiarism on the night when Tony Blair attempted to rally support for the US-led campaign against Saddam Hussein, Whitehall's dismay was compounded by the knowledge that the disputed document was singled out for praise by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, in his speech to the UN security council on Wednesday.

Citing the British dossier, entitled Iraq - its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation in front of a worldwide television audience Mr Powell said: "I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities." More here








The concealment theory, allegedly constructed by Mr. Wolfowitz, being as follows, read full Institute for Strategic Studies document here:

"Iraq retains the expertise and industrial capability to produce agents quickly and in volume if desired. Moreover, Iraq has had a decade of experience countering intelligence and developing effective concealment methods."

[...]

"The UNSCOM experience demonstrates that no on-site inspections of Iraq's WMD programmes can succeed unless inspectors develop an imaginative and carefully co-ordinated counter-concealment strategy."

[...]

"While there were notable successes in defeating Iraqi concealment efforts, many others failed."

i.e. "We found some illicit material, but everything else we were hoping to find was definitely concealed." Therefore, even though they find no evidence, it's still there. This is what they're trying to suggest, can you belive it? - handy isn't it, "imaginative counter-concealment".

These are quite funny, more.

Fair enough Phil, dig, but guess I meant to say that supposing I were British, I'd feel especially misrepresented and additionally compelled to go on the street against this war and the whole damn movie, in fact. Don't regard too seriously, an unhappy formulation I suppse. Remark was directed in spirit of suggested uprising and metaphorical trial to induce emancipation in a country seemingly too concerned with figuring out how to pay the next tube fare...(instead of asking why it's so expensive) ;-) so, not directed at any "you" in blog or "them" anywhere, as much as "one" in general... was an emotional day though, it's gotta be said.

Quite amusing...

Powell Presentation

It Was Like Something Out Of Beckett
by Robert Fisk; The Independent (UK); February 06, 2003

Sources, foreign intelligence sources, "our sources," defectors, sources, sources, sources. Colin Powell's terror talk to the United Nations Security Council yesterday sounded like one of those government-inspired reports on the front page of The New York Times – where it will most certainly be treated with due reverence in this morning's edition. It was a bit like heating up old soup. Haven't we heard most of this stuff before? Should one trust the man? General Powell, I mean, not Saddam.

Certainly we don't trust Saddam but Secretary of State Powell's presentation was a mixture of awesomely funny recordings of Iraqi Republican Guard telephone intercepts à la Samuel Beckett that just might have been some terrifying little proof that Saddam really is conning the UN inspectors again, and some ancient material on the Monster of Baghdad's all too well known record of beastliness. I am still waiting to hear the Arabic for the State Department's translation of "Okay Buddy" – "Consider it done, Sir" – this from the Republican Guard's "Captain Ibrahim", for heaven's sake – and some dinky illustrations of mobile bio-labs whose lorries and railway trucks were in such perfect condition that they suggested the Pentagon didn't have much idea of the dilapidated state of Saddam's army. More

'one of this country's most useful idiots'

jesus h. christ! can't leave dem english alone for one minute!

la pregunta es: 'whom does this serve?'

her phrase above applicable to her despicable self.. ironically.. operator.. slag! she should be shot down, if only in the metaphorical sense- Jesse, good crack.. Don, i salute thy!

should anyone else want to go for literal application of the above, i'm game.. show me that ak!

In 1934, in the middle of the Great Terror, the peace-loving Wells was introduced to Stalin and decided that he had "never met a man more candid, fair and honest". These qualities explained, Wells said, Stalin's "remarkable ascendancy over the country since no one is afraid of him and everybody trusts him".

Roosevelt / Churchill?

re: below

mike, please, language! no we/they/them/you (pl.)? we are trying to transcend the ingroup/outgroup dichotomy here, especially that ludicrous ideology of the nation-state.. 'ich bin ein berliner'- we are all monkeys, and because some of us are english, all of us 'are'.. or ruandan.. or bangladeshi.. feeling that suprawe.. dig?

this is very emotional topic for me too, so please rest assured i agree fully on all points.. what a terrible place, right next door to 'old europe'.. giggle.. the founders of the liberal framework, the inventors of economic imperialism, with a policy of sending political opposition off to australia, the aristocracy reigns supreme, via capital leverage, effective control of juidical system.. i say: 'no need for conspiracy theories, it's all there'

still choking from that article! jesus! ouch! sickening!

If I were British, I'd be on the street all day protesting against this sordid business. Your country takes most of the money you earn away from you, and what you're left with doesn't suffice to pay for a quality of life comparable to other G7 nations.

And what do you get back after paying the bill for several wars? Other than being in debt all your life and living on credit (as most of the US does...) you get the NHS, British Rail, British Telewank and a state education that barely lets you read and write properly. NOTHING works in the UK, and I doubt that's an understatement. Anything that does work, you can't afford.

Yeah, let's all get a mortgage... wicked. Screwed for life.


100 RAF jets to be deployed to Gulf

Staff and agencies
Thursday February 6, 2003

Around 100 aircraft and 7,000 RAF personnel are to be deployed in the build up for a possible war against Iraq, the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, announced today.

Mr Hoon told the Commons that the "balanced and highly capable force" will include Tornado and Harrier jets, using precision-guided weapons.

In addition, he said, there would be 27 Puma and Chinook helicopters and about 1,100 personnel providing support services.

[...]

The defence secretary has already announced the deployment of a force of around 30,000 troops and commandos, as well as a 17-vessel Navy task force. This latest deployment will bring the number of UK troops in the region to nearly 40,000.

Nice take, can't take Catherine Bennett seriously really, she should stick to lifestyle topics. See a collection of her columns here. Look at the titles and realize that the links aren't worth clicking.



"You're either for the war, or clearly chummy with Saddam"

Oh yes, Burchill can't produce more than shit like: "Burchill on Beckham". These ladies are there for the jet-set section of that crap weekend mag.

Been stuck at home all day due to lack of funds. Overdraft extension has now been agreed relieved to say so can now have a drink... one of the ways i've been keeping myself busy has been sending this email in reply to the terrible guardian article i mentioned below, will let you know if i get any feedback;

Your point comparing Benn's interview with Saddam to Bashir's with Jacko is
rather trite I think. I had the feeling reading it that I picked up the
wrong newspaper by mistake - that I was reading Poly Filla in the Mail or
something.

The comparison with HG Wells is rather unfair on Benn since I don't remember
him saying anything favourable about Saddam, nothing remotely analogous
Well's remarks regarding Stalin. No-one has anything good to say about him,
that he is an evil tyrant is obviously true, we are after all reminded of
his misdeeds ten times a day.

Of course the fact of the matter will be revealed when we see the interview
but I see no reason why we shouldn't have the lies of the hitherto silent,
unelected, psychopath heard rather than those of the omnipresent, unelected,
psychopath our leader has thrown in his hat with. A broadcast interview is
not going to herald some kind of image make over but will probably offer a
rather interesting perspective.

To thrown stones at Tony Benn, the moral courage of whom no one can deny,
without foundation in this way is not something that should have a place in
the Guardian. Why not be imaginative or properly critical and mock the
charade Colin Powell performed yesterday for instance? Point out that Blair
is about to become a far bigger murderer than Saddam of civilian lives.
Point out the systematic lies peddled by the US and British adminstrations
(www.fair.org), for instance over the weapons inspectors (four years ago the
UN withdrawn them, now they're expelled).

Being against the war does not mean being for Saddam. How could you even
suggest such a thing? "it hardly helps if the most prominent faces from Stop
the War not only pride themselves on their chumminess with the torturer, but
believe that the rest of us will rejoice in their staggering credulity."
What are you trying to do become Richard Littlejohn? Sure Wade would welcome
you with open arms to her cesspool of lies, bile and garbage...

Do you think being for the war is about being for the people of Iraq? Even
ignoring the thousands of innocent lives that will doubtless be lost the
fact remains that improving the lot of the Iraqi people is not on the
agenda. Does it seem plausible to you that a fully functioning democracy
will be installed in Iraq with a bill of rights ensuring human rights are
upeheld and that the oil wealth of Iraq will benefit those who live there?
Do you think that fact that Iran is another target on the list might have an
impact on whether they allow the Sunni muslims to form a government in Iraq
(as they surely would since they make up well over half of the population)
when that would surely bring Iraq much closer to the Iranian Sunni muslim
government?

Do you think any kind of equal representation/devolution can take place to
protect the minorities of Iraq when the Kurds will want to be (and be
entitled to be) semi-autonomous considering that this is unacceptable to
human rights heroes Turkey and there own subjugated Kurdish population?

Your piece was a piss poor article about a piss poor target. Please think a
bit more deeply next time or join The Star or something - there's already
one Julie Burchill (perhaps more than enough already) for whom we can turn
to vaguely amusing ill-argued bigotry.

"Benn said the reason for his current visit to Baghdad was "to explore
possibilities of a peaceful solution to a problem, that otherwise might lead
to the most catastrophic war in which innocent people will be killed with
long-term consequences"." Reuters

If you think this makes him an ass then you definitely should get yourself
that Daily Mail column...

I really love the Guardian, it's pretty much the last mainstream place that
isn't wall to wall nonsense (like say the beeb, which is written by baboons
for the enlightenment of eight year olds) and even this organ is gradually
being destroyed and filled with the same bullshit you get everywhere else.
You can do something about it.

Nonse-cock! On the Guardisn website! Has the whole world gone crazy?

You must see this. A summary of how the world's press reacted to powell's speech.

Note contrast between US and anywhere else (except client states of course), obviously and in particular between NYT and LAT.

"The most dangerous man in the world?"

Nice LRB contribution on Mann

Love LRB. Show me something better in English (ie. something that isn't stained with neo-liberal, anglo-saxon ejaculation - sorry, am having a bad day. My political temper is suffering... the longer I stay away from the UK, the more I associate it with the US. All I can say is, I'm glad not to be American or British. I'd have to defect and change nationality. The LRB would give me some hope as to a cultural significance of a UK nationality. (no offense boys... - I know you're not being represented, which is a case in point really).

Funnily enough, Nash graduated Princeton in '50, Rumsfeld in '54.

Nash GS '50 testifies as game theory expert in DuPont case

By ELIZABETH LANDAU
Princetonian Staff Writer

University economist John Nash GS '50 used his "beautiful mind" on the witness stand at a hearing last week in Gainesville, Fla., the Associated Press reported.

Nash, winner of the 1994 Nobel Prize in economics and subject of the Oscar-winning film "A Beautiful Mind," told the AP he has never testified as a witness before.

Contacted at home, Nash said he did not want to talk about being on the witness stand and declined to comment.

The hearing was for a multimillion-dollar lawsuit by Florida farmers who are suing the DuPont Co. and their former lawyers from a previous case against DuPont involving the fungicide Benlate.

The previous lawsuit, claiming that the fungicide had damaged the growers' crops, was settled for $59 million.

The growers argue that their lawyers covertly entered into a deal with DuPont before the settlement. The lawsuit claims that the lawyers agreed to accept $6.4 million from DuPont in exchange for not filing another Benlate lawsuit.

DuPont paid Nash $500 per hour to present his work on game theory, the mathematical theory that made him famous.

Game-theory research deals with games as mathematical problems, seeking to explain the strategic behavior of individuals, governments and corporations (or rather, abused for the seeking to justify morally questionable behavior of political individuals, governments and corporations). The theory also strives to arrive at the best strategy for handling a specific situation (however ludicrous the outset...)

Another witness for DuPont, Robert Lanzillotti, former dean of business administration at the University of Florida, applied Nash's theory to the lawsuit at hand.

A judge will determine whether Nash's principles are sufficiently accepted in the economics community to be used in trial, according to a Nov. 17 article in The Gainesville Sun.

Nash is not the first University professor to be asked to present research in court. Computer science professor Andrew Appel '81 was an expert witness in an antitrust trial against Microsoft in April 2002. Appel testified against Microsoft, saying that its middleware — software such as web browsers and instant messaging programs — can be removed from the operating system of its computers. Microsoft claimed this software would be virtually irremovable.

Appel said court appearances are time-consuming but can be worthwhile.

"The issue at hand was an important matter of public policy," Appel said. "As a sufficiently interesting matter, it was worth the time."

Appel said he gets calls at least five times a year to testify for patent lawsuits but normally does not agree to go to court.

Trial will begin for the Benlate lawsuit in January.

Chomsky On The Anti War Movement
An Interview In The Guardian
by Noam Chomsky; The Guardian; February 04, 2003

Matthew Tempest
Tuesday February 4, 2003

Noam Chomsky: The [peace] demonstrations were another indication of a quite remarkable phenomenon. There is around the world and in the United States opposition to the coming war that is at a level that is completely unprecedented in US or European history both in scope and the parts of the population it draws on.

There's never been a time that I can think of when there's been such massive opposition to a war before it was even started. And the closer you get to the region, the higher the opposition appears to be. In Turkey, polls indicated close to 90% opposition, in Europe it's quite substantial, and in the United States the figures you see in polls, however, are quite misleading because there's another factor that isn't considered that differentiates the United States from the rest of the world. This is the only country where Saddam Hussein is not only reviled and despised but also feared, so since September polls have shown that something like 60-70% of the population literally think that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to their survival.

Now there's no objective reason why the US should be more frightened of Saddam than say the Kuwaitis, but there is a reason - namely that since September there's been a drumbeat of propaganda trying to bludgeon people into the belief that not only is Saddam a terrible person but in fact he's going to come after us tomorrow unless we stop him today. And that reaches people. So if you want to understand the actual opposition to the war in the US you have to extract that factor. The factor of completely irrational fear created by massive propaganda, and if you did I think you'd find it's much like everywhere else.

What is not pointed out in the press coverage is that there is simply no precedent, or anything like a precedent, for this kind of public opposition to a war. And it extends itself far more broadly, it's not just opposition to war it's a lack of faith in the leaderships. You may have seen a study released by the world economic forum a couple of days ago which estimated trust in leaders, and the lowest was in leaders of the United States. Trusted by little over quarter of the population, and I think that reflects concerns over the adventurism and violence and the threats that are perceived in the actions and plans of the current administration.

These are things that ought to be central. Even in the United States there is overwhelming opposition to the war and that corresponding decline in trust in the leadership that is driving the war. This has been developing for some time but it is now reaching an unusual state, and, just to get back to the demonstrations over the weekend, that's never happened before. If you compare it with the Vietnam war, the current stage of the war with Iraq is approximately like that of 1961 - that is, before the war actually was launched, as it was in 1962 with the US bombing of South Vietnam and driving millions of people into concentration camps and chemical warfare and so on, but there was no protest. In fact, so little protest that few people even remember.

The protests didn't begin to develop until several years later when large parts of south Vietnam were being subjected to saturation bombing by B-52s, hundreds of thousands of troops where there, hundreds of thousands had been killed, and then even after that, when the protests finally did develop in the US and Europe it was mostly focused on a side-issue - the bombing of north Vietnam which was undoubtedly a crime, it was far more intense in the south which was always the US target, and that's continued.

It's also, incidentally, recognised by the government. So when any administration comes into office the first thing it does is have a worldwide intelligence assessment - "What's the state of the world?" - provided by the intelligence services. These are secret and you learn about them 30 or 40 years later when they're declassified. When the first Bush administration came in 1989 parts of their intelligence assessment were leaked, and they're very revealing about what happened in the subsequent 10 years about precisely these questions.

The parts that were leaked said that it was about military confrontations with much weaker enemies, recognising they were the only kind we were going to be willing to face, or even exist. So in confrontations with much weaker enemies the United States must win "decisively and rapidly" because otherwise popular support will erode, because it's understood to be very thin. Not like the 1960s when the government could fight a long, brutal war for years and years practically destroying a country without any protest. Not now. Now they have to win. They have to terrify the population to feel there's some enormous threat to their existence and carry out a mircaculous, decisive and rapid victory over this enormous foe and march on to the next one.

Remember the people now running the show in Washington are mostly recycled Reaganites, essentially reliving the script of the 1980s - that's an apt analogy. And in the 1980s they were imposing domestic programmes which were quite harmful to the general population and which were unpopular. People opposed most of their domestic programmes. And the way they succeeded in ramming it through was by repeatedly keeping the population in a state of panic.

So one year it was an airbase in Grenada which the Russians were going to use to bomb the United States. It sounds ludicrous but that was the propaganda lie and it worked.

Nicaragua was "two days' marching time from Texas" - a dagger pointed at the heart of Texas, to borrow Hitler's phrase. Again, you'd think the people would collapse with laughter. But they didn't. That was continually brought up to frighten us - Nicargua might conquer us on it's way to conquer the hemisphere. A national emergency was called because of the threat posed to national security by Nicargua. Libyan hitmen were wandering the streets of Washington to assassinate our leader - hispanic narco-terrorists. One thing after another was conjured up to keep the population in a state of constant fear while they carried out their major terrorist wars.

Remember, the same people declared a war on terror in 1981 that was going to be the centrepiece of US foreign policy focused primarily on central America, and they carried out a war on terror in central America where they ended up killing about 200,000 people, leaving four countries devastated. Since 1990, when the US took them over again, they've declined still further into deep poverty. Now they're doing the same thing for the same purposes - they are carrying out domestic programmes to which the population is strongly opposed because they're being harmed by them.

But the international adventurism, the conjuring up of enemies that are about to destroy us, that's second nature, very familiar. They didn't invent it, others have done the same thing, others have done it in history but they became masters of this art and are now doing it again.

I don't want to suggest that they have no reasons for wanting to take over Iraq. Of course they do - long-standing reasons that everyone knows. Controlling Iraq will put the US in a very powerful position to extend it domination of the major energy resources of the world. That's not a small point.

But look at the specific timing. It's rather striking that the propaganda drumbeat began in September - what happened in September? Well, it's when the Congressional campaign began and it was certain that the Republicans were not going to win it by allowing social and economic issues to dominate. They would have been smashed. They had to do exactly what they did in the '80s. Replace them by security issues and in the case of a threat to security people tend to rally around the president - a strong figure who'll protect us from horrible dangers.

The more likely direction this will take [after a war with Iraq] will be Iran, and possibly Syria. North Korea is a different case. What they are demonstrating to the world with great clarity is that if you want to deter US aggression you better have weapons of mass destruction [WMD], or else a credible threat of terror. There's nothing else that will deter them - they can't be deterred by conventional forces. That's a terrible lesson to teach, but it's exactly what's being taught.

For years, experts in the mainstream have been pointing out that the US is causing weapons proliferation by its adventures since others cannot protect themselves except by WMD or the threat of terror. Kenneth Waltz is one who recently pointed this out. But years ago, even before the Bush administration, leading commentators like Samuel Huntington in Foreign Affairs, the main establishment journal, were pointing out that the United States is following a dangerous course. He was talking about the Clinton administration but he pointed out that, for much of the world, the US is now regarded as a rogue state and the leading threat to their existence. In fact one of the striking things about the opposition to the war now, again unprecedented, is how broadly it extends across the political spectrum, so the two major foreign policy journals, Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy have just in their recent issues run very critical articles by distinguished mainstream figures opposing the resort to war in this case.

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences rarely takes a position on controversial current issues has just published a long monogram on this issue by its committee on international security giving as sympathetic as possible an account of the Bush administration position then simply dismantling it line by line on very narrow grounds - much narrower than I would prefer - but nevertheless successfully.

[There is] just a lot of fear and concern about this adventurism, what one analyst called "sillier armchair fantasies". My concern is more "What's it going to do to the people of Iraq" and "What's it going to do to the region?" but these concerns are "What's it going to do to us?"

Matthew Tempest: Will the propeganda rebound if democracy is not established in Iraq after "liberation"?

NC: You're right to call it propaganda. If this is a war aim, why don't they say so? Why are they lying to the rest of the world? What is the point of having the UN inspectors? According to this propaganda, everything we are saying in public is pure farce - we don't care about the weapons of mass destruction, we don't care about disarmament, we have another goal in mind, which we're not telling you, and that is, all of a sudden, we're going to bring democracy by war. Well, if that's the goal, let's stop lying about it and put an end to the whole farce of inspections and everything else and just say now we're on a crusade to bring democracies to countries that are suffering under miserable leadership. Actually that is a traditional crusade, that's what lies behind the horrors of colonial wars and their modern equivalents, and we have a very long rich record to show just how that worked out. It's not something new in history.

In this particular case you can't predict what will happen once a war starts. In the worst case it might be what the intelligence agencies and the aid agencies are predicting - namely an increase in terror as deterence or revenge, and for the people of Iraq, who are barely on the edge of survival, it could be the humanitarian catastrophe of which the aid agencies and the UN have been warning.

On the other hand, it's possible it could be what the hawks in Washington hope - a quick victory, no fighting to speak of, impose a new regime, give it a democratic façade, make sure the US has big military bases there, and effectively controls the oil.

The chances that they will allow anything approximating real democracy are pretty slight. There's major problems in the way of that - problems that motivated Bush No 1 to oppose the rebellions in 1991 that could have overthrown Saddam Hussein. After all, he could have been overthrown then if the US had not authorised Saddam to crush the rebellions.

One major problem is that roughly 60% of the population is Shi'ite. If there's any form of democratic government, they're going to have a say, in fact a majority say, in what the government is. Well they are not pro-Iranian but the chances are that a Shi'ite majority would join the rest of the region in trying to improve relations with Iran and reduce the levels of tension generally in the region by re-integrating Iran within it. There have been moves in that direction among the Arab states and Shi'ite majority in Iraq is likely to do that. That's the last thing the US wants. Iran is its next target.

It doesn't want improved relations. Furthermore if the Shi'ite majority gets for the first time a real voice in the government, the Kurdish minority will want something similar. And they will want a realisation of their quite just demands for a degree of autonomy in the northern regions. Well Turkey is not going to tolerate that. Turkey already has thousands of troops in Northern Iraq basically to prevent any such development. If there' s move towards Kirkuk, which they regard as their capital city, Turkey will move to block it, the US will surely back them, just as the United States has strongly supported Turkey in its massive atrocities against the Kurds in the 1990s in the south-eastern regions. What you're going to be left with is either a military dictatorship with some kind of democratic façade, like maybe a parliament that votes while the military runs it behind the scenes - it's not unfamiliar - or else putting power back into the hands of something like the Sunni minority which has been running it in the past.

Nobody can predict any of this. What happens when you start a war is unknown. The CIA can't predict it, Rumsfeld can't predict it, nobody can. It could be anywhere over this range. That's why sane people refrain from the use of violence unless there are overwhelming reasons to undertake it - the dangers are simply far too great. However it's striking that neither Bush nor Blair present anything like this as their war aim. Have they gone to the security council and said let's have a resolution for the use of force to bring democracy to Iraq? Of course not. Because they know they'd be laughed at.

Bush and his administration were telling the security council back in November very openly and directly that the UN will be "relevant" if it grants us the authority to do what we want, to use force when we want, and if the UN does not grant us that authority it will be irrelevant. It couldn't be clearer.

They said we already have the authority to do anything we want, you can come along and endorse that authorisation or else you're irrelevant. There could not have been a more clear and explicit way of informing the world that we don't care what you think, we'll do what we want. That's one of the primary reasons why US leaders' authority collapsing in the World Economic Forum poll.

Other countries will presumably go along with the US war - but out of fear

Realism is only desirable if you're Thomas Crown.

"Some of my best friends are iraqis"

North Korea says it has restarted -- or is poised to restart -- the atomic plant at the heart of its suspected nuclear arms programme, a move the United States called a dangerous development by a "terrorist regime".

Didn't I see this guy selling reactor parts to north korea when he was on the board of ABB engineering? No, that must be the other Donald Rumsfeld, perhaps the one who you can see shaking hands below on this blog shaking hands with some arab called Hussein...

This is so dangerous. Once the western world believes this, there's no stopping for Adolf 2000.

Kagan's Hobbes/Kant masturbation again. NONSENSE. And anyhow, referring to Hobbes isn't exactly very advanced either. IR 101 -> Hobbes -> latent anarchic situation -> Realism, every political science undergraduate knows this. Zweckrational, morally deonotological, it's the 'what we say goes' non-ethics that makes this so suitable for US foreign policy. But that hardly was the point of Hobbesian inclusion in IR discourse. Hobbes merely illustrates the anarchic modalities of the natural state. The point is to overcome this, not with the help of Mr. Adolf Leviathan since, as Locke remarked, nobody would consent to Mr. Leviathan. "Consent? Oh, that's ok, Mr. George Leviathan doesn't need consent. 'what we say goes', you see, Hobbes 'proved' it." It's a non-agenda, it's historically constructed bullshit.

And clearly, this book is massive load of propagandaistic crap. This is politically tainted discourse with academic leverage. Sickening.

There is after all a massive propaganda mission going on - if you've noticed. The reference to Hobbes and Kant can't be more than an attempt to gain leverage with the educated public sphere that has heard of Hobbes and Kant before, vaguely seeing Kagan's point - it's totally half-baked, not a real historical grounding, just throwing with words. Same thing with the Powell speech yesterday, it's aimed at the uninformed general public in order to rally support. To anyone sitting in the UN it's clear lying and spurious propaganda.

THE NEW YORK OBSERVER, L.P.

The American political elite shows its patriotism by belittling the Europeans.
Frail Europe, Brawny America: A Mismatch With Consequences

by James Rubin

Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, by Robert Kagan. Alfred A. Knopf, 103 pages, $18.

"Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus," writes Robert Kagan in the first paragraph of his new book, Of Paradise and Power. No one can accuse him of burying the lead: That’s probably the best one-liner any foreign-policy intellectual has offered to explain perennial transatlantic disputes over the exercise of power in international relations.

[Best one liner? It's laughable. It's like saying that Europe is Barbie and the US is GI Joe]

Mr. Kagan’s well-argued thesis is twofold. First, Europeans and Americans look at the world through a completely different philosophical lens. For Americans, world politics is based on some hard truths about human nature, namely the Hobbesian notion that life is "nasty, brutish and short." Europeans, meanwhile, live in a world ruled by law, diplomacy and compromise—the paradise of perpetual peace envisioned by Immanuel Kant. After hundreds of years of war culminating in the mass destruction and holocaust of World War II, Europe learned its lesson, created the European Community, and pursued policies and practices that Europeans believe will make a return to past horrors unthinkable.

It’s Mr. Kagan’s second point that’s truly insightful. He believes that Europe has only achieved this Kantian paradise because it lives under the American umbrella [or how about the US has only achieved this Hobbesian playground via its military might, which in turn was established through half a century of state terror, the totalitarian military-industrial complex, economic protectionism and political unilateralism]. Whether it’s containing the communist menace during the Cold War [as if anti-communism was about protecting Europe - ludicrous angle to take - he above all should know better], protecting Europe’s oil supply in the Gulf War [ibid. - What balls to say this...], or leading the effort to stop ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia [No comment - ...], Europeans learned they could count on American power to protect them if real threats emerged. The existence of brawny Mars allows Europe to play frail Venus.

[Isn't it obvious that a realist position requires as a precondition a total disregard for civic rights? This is what the differences are between Europe and the US. Europe takes civil rights to be the most important - hence Kant. US takes the power of the few to be most important - hence Hobbes. Wouldn't realism a la Hobbes be completely unthinkable in a just and equal world? I think this is telling enough really... only totalitarian systems can rally the material requirements for such a position on a global scale, whilst the largest part of US citizens live under Mexican conditions]

The premise of Mr. Kagan’s book—America’s policies are a function of American power and European policies are a result of their weakness—has stung the European elite like no other argument in recent years. For the last year, his article in Policy Review, on which this book is based, has been the talk of the London, Paris, Brussels and Washington moveable feast. It has stung because much of it is true. But it has also stung because so many believe that Mr. Kagan is saying publicly what the top players in the Bush administration are saying in private.

Which is probably true. Robert Kagan is a contributing editor at The Weekly Standard, the must-read magazine of the neoconservative movement. For years, his policy views have tracked those of Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, not to mention a cadre of other top Pentagon officials, most of the Vice President’s staff and a handful of political appointees at the State Department.

It’s no accident, then, that Mr. Kagan’s one-liner suggests that European weakness makes them the females of the foreign policy trade, and Americans the alpha males. My guess is that when the doors are closed, these officials really think of themselves as modern-day Winston Churchills fighting a battle of ideas with a European leadership of namby-pamby Neville Chamberlains.

Which, sadly, is often true. As Mr. Kagan explains, "the purpose of appeasement" was "to buy time and hope that Hitler could be satisfied." And buying time has too often been the lowest-common-denominator view in Europe of how to deal with tyrants like Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein.

This book is likely to be a hit in policy circles. It comes out at a time when the American political elite is tripping over themselves to show their post–Sept. 11 patriotism by belittling the Europeans. Perhaps the most graphic example of this is one pundit’s recent attack on the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."

But there’s a problem with Mr. Kagan’s model, and it’s the problem with most models: It doesn’t quite fit the complexities of the real world.

Today, there are key European leaders who clearly hail from Mars. Of all those in power today, Tony Blair has the unique distinction of having recognized the evil of Milosevic, Al Qaeda and Iraq. And last week, the leaders of Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Poland, Denmark, Italy and Hungary have joined with Mr. Blair in supporting America politically and militarily against Iraq. No Venuses there.

Presumably Mr. Kagan is targeting the European public, where sentiment is uniformly against war in Iraq, at least on the timetable laid out by President Bush and based on the evidence the British and American government have so far presented. But it was only a few years ago that the public in most European countries—and every European government—did support what could reasonably be called an American attack on Serbia. At the time, the American people were no more hawkish than their European counterparts, and most of those who would later become top officials in the Bush administration were scornful of a war based on morality—that is, stopping Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing and genocide.

What’s really striking about European opposition to war in Iraq right now is the extent to which it reflects distrust of the United States. Indeed, last month’s World Economic Forum in Davos was a watershed for anti-Americanism; even the much-loved Secretary of State, Colin Powell, couldn’t overcome it. Having spent most of my professional life defending the United States against misguided attacks, conspiracy theories and resentment, I have to say that the feelings toward America expressed hour after hour at the Davos meeting by a normally reserved and mainstream group of businessmen and intellectuals were worse than they’ve ever been before. The contrast between last year’s meeting, held in New York just a few months after the Sept. 11 attacks, when sympathy was strong and the war in Afghanistan was going well, could not have been more stark.

Is all this because Europeans are weak? Or is it because of the way in which American leaders have been exercising their power? The truth is that if Mr. Powell were the only top official speaking for the United States day after day, much of the resentment we’re now enduring would never have been roused. It’s Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—surely the most powerful man in that post since Robert McNamara—who excites the bitter reaction of the European public. Because he exudes so much disdain for the rest of the world, because he insulted the offer of help from NATO after Sept. 11 and, most recently, because he labeled France and Germany "old Europe," Mr. Rumsfeld has needlessly stirred up virulent anger in America’s closest allies. Mr. Powell spends a lot of his time cleaning up messes created by Pentagon officials who speak out daily on foreign policy—rather than defense policy. President Bush has done nothing to put a stop to this sad state of affairs. More often than not, he seems to share Mr. Rumsfeld’s view and attitude.

To his credit, Mr. Kagan acknowledges some of this at the end of this book. Given that he’s a charter member of the Pax Americana club, it’s a remarkable admission and ought to be read very carefully in the halls of the Pentagon and the Vice President’s office: Mr. Kagan explains that the Bush administration has seen Europe "not so much as an ally but an albatross." He says the United States should "begin to show more understanding for the sensibilities of others, a little more of the generosity of spirit that characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War. It could pay its respects to multilateralism and the rule of law, and try to build some international political capital for those moments when multilateralism is impossible and unilateral action unavoidable." Some of Mr. Kagan’s friends in Washington may read those words and conclude that he’s been living in Brussels too long.

The anger we’re seeing today is the product of two years of gratuitous unilateralism. After the attacks on NATO, the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol and the Geneva Convention, just to name a few, the administration has no political capital to call on when an issue like Iraq comes up.

And for Europeans, Iraq is a much closer call than it is for Americans. Not because they’re wimps, or from Venus, or Neville Chamberlains, but because they’ve learned to tolerate a higher level of insecurity than post–Sept. 11 Americans. As President Bush himself said just days ago, prior to Sept. 11 he was pursuing a policy of smart sanctions towards Iraq. But after those terrible attacks, his administration, and much of the Congress and the American people, are not prepared to accept the inherent risk that Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction may someday fall into the hands of terrorists. Europeans are fond of saying they have been living with terrorism for years. That’s true. They’ve lived with insecurity for many years. But what’s also true is that Sept. 11 was an attack on America that has made the U.S. far more willing to risk American lives to prevent the possibility—however remote—that Saddam Hussein might ever allow such weapons to fall into the hands of a group like Al Qaeda.

Which brings us to the question of American power. Mr. Kagan’s book is all about hard power, the power of America to field the most fearsome military machine in the history of the world. Mr. Kagan believes America’s economy and global mission will allow us to maintain this military advantage for the indefinite future. And he’s surely right that the European public is unwilling to spend as much of their wealth on the military as Americans, precisely because they see war between European countries as unthinkable and rely on America to handle any other problems. But what happens after we use our hard power? Is America prepared to spend the money on peacekeeping that the Europeans are? Is it fair to say that hardened British peacekeepers who have worked in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan are from Venus? And what about the foreign assistance that’s needed after a war in the Balkans, Afghanistan or Iraq? Who will be the big spender then? Why does the United States spend less per capita on foreign aid than any other developed country? (I suspect Mr. Kagan himself wishes that weren’t true.)

Mr. Kagan gives short shrift to real threats that have nothing to do with military power. The threat of international crime, global warming, infectious disease and even terrorism cannot be solved by military power alone. In the jargon of international affairs, to relegate these issues to planet Venus, as Mr. Kagan does, is to denigrate them. Indeed, a strong case can be made that prior to Sept. 11, the Bush administration was so focused on hard power in the form of building a national missile defense that it regarded the issue of Al Qaeda and terrorism as a second-order priority. Yes, we must be prepared to use military force to root out terrorist groups. But we also need strong and determined allies to do the intelligence and law-enforcement work that will be just as important to protecting our security. And if we put all our efforts into hard power, and in the process lose our ability to persuade Europeans, Asians and Middle East countries to join us in intelligence and law-enforcement efforts, we cannot win the war against Al Qaeda.

And, on occasion, the Europeans may even have their priorities right. Mr. Kagan quotes a French official who points out that the "problem is failed states, not rogue states" like Iraq, Iran and North Korea. It’s worth remembering that it was a failed state—Afghanistan—that provided a base for the most devastating attack on American soil in 200 years.

But even while America is pressing for an immediate war in Iraq, Afghanistan is not a mission accomplished. The Bush administration’s promise of security and reconstruction there is unfulfilled. And that’s the problem with always playing Mars. America’s soft power—the power to persuade and attract others—has been squandered. When we promote democracy and human rights, when we respect civil rights and the rule of law, when we’re generous to Europe and Asia, as we were after World War II, when we show respect for the little guy all over the world, that’s when our power differs from that of the British and the Romans before us. American power doesn’t just come out of the barrel of the gun. We need not only the toughness of Mars, but also the compassion of Venus—and the wisdom of Minerva, too.

James Rubin was Assistant Secretary of State from 1997 to 2000. He lives in London.

You may reach Tanya Luhrmann via email at: tluhrmann@observer.com.
back to top

This column ran on page 7 in the 2/10/2003 edition of The New York Observer.

Print Article SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEW YORK OBSERVER

HOME PAGE OF THE NEW YORK OBSERVER

COPYRIGHT © 2003
THE NEW YORK OBSERVER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Email Article

No casus belli? Invent one! media workers against war website.. interesting group, interesting connection

loved Speer news below.. "The Führer" etc.. how did i chuckle!

Powell at UN, am just watching it. He just said: "...when the inspectors were ejected in 1998..."

Can't believe they keep saying this. Cheeky.

This is what it really is.

We were climbing one of the seemingly interminable flights of limestone steps when Speer observed an enormous ragweed, an accursed thing the size of a sequoia, sprouting from a crack in the limestone cladding covering the reinforced concrete understructure. Speer hated that particular weed. The Zeppelinfeld was hairy with them, but that was his weed, his emblem of the decay of a utopian idea, and he would not let it survive. After much tugging, during which the former Generalbauinspektor of the Third Reich went nearly purple with effort, the ragweed gave way, and Speer stood there, panting, the earth crumbling from its defeated roots. "The Führer," he said, slowly, to no one in particular, "would have been very mad at me for this poor stone quality."

After all these years still thinks of AH as "The Führer", imaginary conversations etc!

I love his Jack Straw piece below, btw, best they can do "permissive environment" - that's just beautiful! There is absolutely no knowledge of any connection between the two - straightforward intuition (secular leader versus fanatical islamist group) suggests such a connection isn't even prima facie plausible nevermind the lack of evidence - but that said a leaked intelligence doc this week suggested that there had been some contact between the two but this had quickly fizzled out since there agendas where incompatible. this points to the whopping mendacity of herr straw with his half baked "permissive environment" which is demonstrably both ideologically ludicrous and factually fiction.

Even the army don't fancy it and recognise the charade of justification;

'Serious concerns were reflected yesterday by several well-placed sources close to the Ministry of Defence who, because of the sensitivity of the issue, insisted on remaining anonymous. "There is general disquiet not just about the issue of UN resolutions but about the ethical dimension," one said. "There is a feeling that in order to attack there has to be some kind of aggression in the opposite direction. This would be a first". '

Oh yes, just to introduce Mr. Cordwell. Some of you may remember him as an old school friend of mine (Mr. Cole, think you met whilst in London, same with Jesse. Dare to assume SJ having met John too...) Anyway.

In short, clinical psychologist with a love for the criminal mind, alcoholic, experimental drug user, jazz freak, lonesome traveller and soul surfer. We opened our first philosophy books together. Plus, he surfed Indo well before me, not to speak of landmined beaches in Mozambique (you crazy fuck!). So, could be put in same drawer as the rest of us (label with 'hippie'), think any sofa will do just fine... do as if you're at home, which you are, in a sense...

Straw insists on Saddam's al-Qaida link

Staff and agencies
Wednesday February 5, 2003

The foreign secretary Jack Straw insisted today that Iraq was linked to al-Qaida, saying that Saddam Hussein allowed a "permissive environment" in which Osama bin Laden's organisation was able to operate.

I just don't get it. 'Permissive environment'? Isn't that a bit like the 'permissive environment' in the US, allowing al-Qaeda to actually learn how to fly a 767? Saddam just doesn't give a shit, basically, just as the whole west didn't give a shit pre-9/11. It's not as if these al-Qaeda operatives were anywhere else other than in the UK, US, Germany and France.

The flexibility of the notion of 'link' is what they're attempting to leverage an essentially spurious argument with.

Welcome Mr. Cordwell to our community of exiles.

This looks pretty tasty. a shame requires hard copy subscription... probably in all good libraries though.

Confronting the Empire
by Noam Chomsky; February 01, 2003

We are meeting at a moment of world history that is in many ways unique – a moment that is ominous, but also full of hope.

The most powerful state in history has proclaimed, loud and clear, that it intends to rule the world by force, the dimension in which it reigns supreme. Apart from the conventional bow to noble intentions that is the standard (hence meaningless) accompaniment of coercion, its leaders are committed to pursuit of their “imperial ambition,” as it is frankly described in the leading journal of the foreign policy establishment – critically, an important matter. They have also declared that they will tolerate no competitors, now or in the future. They evidently believe that the means of violence in their hands are so extraordinary that they can dismiss with contempt anyone who stands in their way. There is good reason to believe that the war with Iraq is intended, in part, to teach the world some lessons about what lies ahead when the empire decides to strike a blow -- though “war” is hardly the proper term, given the array of forces.

The doctrine is not entirely new, nor unique to the US, but it has never before been proclaimed with such brazen arrogance – at least not by anyone we would care to remember.

I am not going to try to answer the question posed for this meeting: How to confront the empire. The reason is that most of you know the answers as well or better than I do, through your own lives and work. The way to “confront the empire” is to create a different world, one that is not based on violence and subjugation, hate and fear. That is why we are here, and the WSF offers hope that these are not idle dreams.

Yesterday I had the rare privilege of seeing some very inspiring work to achieve these goals, at the international gathering of the Via Campesina at a community of the MST, which I think is the most important and exciting popular movement in the world. With constructive local actions such as those of the MST, and international organization of the kind illustrated by the Via Campesina and the WSF, with sympathy and solidarity and mutual aid, there is real hope for a decent future.

I have also had some other recent experiences that give a vivid picture of what the world may be like if imperial violence is not limited and dismantled. Last month I was in southeastern Turkey, the scene of some of the worst atrocities of the grisly 1990s, still continuing: just a few hours ago we were informed of renewed atrocities by the army near Diyarbakir, the unofficial capital of the Kurdish regions. Through the 1990s, millions of people were driven out of the devastated countryside, with tens of thousands killed and every imaginable form of barbaric torture. They try to survive in caves outside the walls of Diyarbakir, in condemned buildings in miserable slums in Istanbul, or wherever they can find refuge, barred from returning to their villages despite new legislation that theoretically permits return. 80% of the weapons came from the US. In the year 1997 alone, Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than in the entire Cold War period combined up to the onset of the state terror campaign – called “counterterror” by the perpetrators and their supporters, another convention. Turkey became the leading recipient of US arms as atrocities peaked (apart from Israel-Egypt, a separate category).

In 1999, Turkey relinquished this position to Colombia. The reason is that in Turkey, US-backed state terror had largely succeeded, while in Colombia it had not. Colombia had the worst human rights record in the Western hemisphere in the 1990s and was by far the leading recipient of US arms and military training, and now leads the world. It also leads the world by other measures, for example, murder of labor activists: more than half of those killed worldwide in the last decade were in Colombia. Close to ½ million people were driven from their land last year, a new record. The displaced population is now estimated at 2.7 million. Political killings have risen to 20 a day; 5 years ago it was half that.

I visited Cauca in southern Colombia, which had the worst human rights record in the country in 2001, quite an achievement. There I listened to hours of testimony by peasants who were driven from their lands by chemical warfare – called “fumigation” under the pretext of a US-run “drug war” that few take seriously and that would be obscene if that were the intent. Their lives and lands are destroyed, children are dying, they suffer from sickness and wounds. Peasant agriculture is based on a rich tradition of knowledge and experience gained over many centuries, in much of the world passed on from mother to daughter. Though a remarkable human achievement, it is very fragile, and can be destroyed forever in a single generation. Also being destroyed is some of the richest biodiversity in the world, similar to neighboring regions of Brazil. Campesinos, indigenous people, Afro-Colombians can join the millions in rotting slums and camps. With the people gone, multinationals can come in to strip the mountains for coal and to extract oil and other resources, and to convert what is left of the land to monocrop agroexport using laboratory-produced seeds in an environment shorn of its treasures and variety.

The scenes in Cauca and Southeastern Turkey are very different from the celebrations of the Via Campesina gathering at the MST community. But Turkey and Colombia are inspiring and hopeful in different ways, because of the courage and dedication of people struggling for justice and freedom, confronting the empire where it is killing and destroying.

These are some of the signs of the future if “imperial ambition” proceeds on its normal course, now to be accelerated by the grand strategy of global rule by force. None of this is inevitable, and among the good models for ending these crimes are the ones I mentioned: the MST, the Via Campesina, and the WSF.

At the WSF, the range of issues and problems under intense discussion is very broad, remarkably so, but I think we can identify two main themes. One is global justice and Life after Capitalism – or to put it more simply, life, because it is not so clear that the human species can survive very long under existing state capitalist institutions. The second theme is related: war and peace, and more specifically, the war in Iraq that Washington and London are desperately seeking to carry out, virtually alone.

Let’s start with some good news about these basic themes. As you know, there is also a conference of the World Economic Forum going on right now, in Davos. Here in Porto Alegre, the mood is hopeful, vigorous, exciting. In Davos, the New York Times tells us, “the mood has darkened.” For the “movers and shakers,” it is not “global party time” any more. In fact, the founder of the Forum has conceded defeat: “The power of corporations has completely disappeared,” he said. So we have won. There is nothing left for us to do but pick up the pieces -- not only to talk about a vision of the future that is just and humane, but to move on to create it.

Of course, we should not let the praise go to our heads. There are still a few difficulties ahead.

The main theme of the WEF is “Building Trust.” There is a reason for that. The “masters of the universe,” as they liked to call themselves in more exuberant days, know that they are in serious trouble. They recently released a poll showing that trust in leaders has severely declined. Only the leaders of NGOs had the trust of a clear majority, followed by UN and spiritual/religious leaders, then leaders of Western Europe and economic managers, below them corporate executives, and well below them, at the bottom, leaders of the US, with about 25% trust. That may well mean virtually no trust: when people are asked whether they trust leaders with power, they usually say “Yes,” out of habit.

It gets worse. A few days ago a poll in Canada found that over 1/3 of the population regard the US as the greatest threat to world peace. The US ranks more than twice as high as Iraq or North Korea, and far higher than al-Qaeda as well. A poll without careful controls, by Time magazine, found that over 80% of respondents in Europe regarded the US as the greatest threat to world peace, compared with less than 10% for Iraq or North Korea. Even if these numbers are wrong by some substantial factor, they are dramatic.

Without going on, the corporate leaders who paid $30,000 to attend the somber meetings in Davos have good reasons to take as their theme: “Building Trust.”

The coming war with Iraq is undoubtedly contributing to these interesting and important developments. Opposition to the war is completely without historical precedent. In Europe it is so high that Secretary of “Defense” Donald Rumsfeld dismissed Germany and France as just the “old Europe,” plainly of no concern because of their disobedience. The “vast numbers of other countries in Europe [are] with the United States,” he assured foreign journalists. These vast numbers are the “new Europe,” symbolized by Italy’s Berlusconi, soon to visit the White House, praying that he will be invited to be the third of the “three B’s”: Bush-Blair-Berlusconi – assuming that he can stay out of jail. Italy is on board, the White House tells us. It is apparently not a problem that over 80% of the public is opposed to the war, according to recent polls. That just shows that the people of Italy also belong to the “old Europe,” and can be sent to the ashcan of history along with France and Germany, and others who do not know their place.

Spain is hailed as another prominent member of the new Europe -- with 75% totally opposed to the war, according to an international Gallup poll. According to the leading foreign policy analyst of Newsweek, pretty much the same is true of the most hopeful part of the new Europe, the former Communist countries that are counted on (quite openly) to serve US interests and undermine Europe’s despised social market and welfare states. He reports that in Czechoslovakia, 2/3 of the population oppose participation in a war, while in Poland only ¼ would support a war even if the UN inspectors “prove that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.” The Polish press reports 37% approval in this case, still extremely low, at the heart of the “new Europe.”

New Europe soon identified itself in an open letter in the Wall Street Journal: along with Italy, Spain, Poland and Czechoslovakia – the leaders, that is, not the people – it includes Denmark (with popular opinion on the war about the same as Germany, therefore “old Europe”), Portugal (53% opposed to war under any circumstances, 96% opposed to war by the US and its allies unilaterally), Britain (40% opposed to war under any circumstances, 90% opposed to war by the US and its allies unilaterally), and Hungary (no figures available).

In brief, the exciting “new Europe” consists of some leaders who are willing to defy their populations.

Old Europe reacted with some annoyance to Rumsfeld’s declaration that they are “problem” countries, not modern states. Their reaction was explained by thoughtful US commentators. Keeping just to the national press, we learn that “world-weary European allies” do not appreciate the “moral rectitude” of the President. The evidence for his “moral rectitude” is that “his advisors say the evangelical zeal” comes directly from the simple man who is dedicated to driving evil from the world. Since that is surely the most reliable and objective evidence that can be imagined, it would be improper to express slight skepticism, let alone to react as we would to similar performances by others. The cynical Europeans, we are told, misinterpret Bush’s purity of soul as “moral naiveté” – without a thought that the administration’s PR specialists might have a hand in creating imagery that will sell. We are informed further that there is a great divide between world-weary Europe and the “idealistic New World bent on ending inhumanity." That this is the driving purpose of the idealistic New World we also know for certain, because so our leaders proclaim. What more in the way of proof could one seek?

The rare mention of public opinion in the new Europe treats it as a problem of marketing; the product being sold is necessarily right and honorable, given its source. The willingness of the leaders of the new Europe to prefer Washington to their own populations “threatens to isolate the Germans and French,” who are exhibiting retrograde democratic tendencies, and shows that Germany and France cannot “say that they are speaking for Europe.” They are merely speaking for the people of old and new Europe, who – the same commentators acknowledge -- express “strong opposition” to the policies of the new Europe.

The official pronouncements and the reaction to them are illuminating. They demonstrate with some clarity the contempt for democracy that is rather typical, historically, among those who feel that they rule the world by right.

There are many other illustrations. When German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder dared to take the position of the overwhelming majority of voters in the last election, that was described as a shocking failure of leadership, a serious problem that Germany must overcome if it wants to be accepted in the civilized world. The problem lies with Germany, not elites of the Anglo-American democracies. Germany’s problem is that “the government lives in fear of the voters, and that is causing it to make mistake after mistake” – the spokesperson for the right-wing Christian Social Union party, who understands the real nature of democracy.

The case of Turkey is even more revealing. As throughout the region, Turks are very strongly opposed to the war – about 90% according to the most recent polls. And so far the government has irresponsibly paid some attention to the people who elected it. It has not bowed completely to the intense pressure and threats that Washington is exerting to compel it to heed the master’s voice. This reluctance of the elected government to follow orders from on high proves that its leaders are not true democrats. For those who may be too dull to comprehend these subtleties, they are explained by former Ambassador to Turkey Morton Abramowitz, now a distinguished senior statesman and commentator. Ten years ago, he explained, Turkey was governed by a real democrat, Turgut Ozal, who “overrode his countrymen’s pronounced preference to stay out of the Gulf war.” But democracy has declined in Turkey. The current leadership “is following the people,” revealing its lack of “democratic credentials.” “Regrettably,” he says, “for the US there is no Ozal around.” So it will be necessary to bring authentic democracy to Turkey by economic strangulation and other coercive means – regrettably, but that is demanded by what the elite press calls our “yearning for democracy.”

Brazil is witnessing another exercise of the real attitudes towards democracy among the masters of the universe. In the most free election in the hemisphere, a large majority voted for policies that are strongly opposed by international finance and investors, by the IMF and the US Treasury Department. In earlier years, that would have been the signal for a military coup installing a murderous National Security State, as in Brazil 40 years ago. Now that will not work; the populations of South and North have changed, and will not easily tolerate it. Furthermore, there are now simpler ways to undermine the will of the people, thanks to the neoliberal instruments that have been put in place: economic controls, capital flight, attacks on currency, privatization, and other devices that are well-designed to reduce the arena of popular choice. These, it is hoped, may compel the government to follow the dictates of what international economists call the “virtual parliament” of investors and lenders, who make the real decisions, coercing the population, an irrelevant nuisance according to the reigning principles of democracy.

When I was just about to leave for the airport I received another of the many inquiries from the press about why there is so little anti-war protest in the US. The impressions are instructive. In fact, protest in the US, as elsewhere, is also at levels that have no historical precedent. Not just demonstrations, teach-ins, and other public events. To take an example of a different kind, last week the Chicago City Council passed an anti-war resolution, 46-1, joining 50 other cities and towns. The same is true in other sectors, including those that are the most highly trusted, as the WEF learned to its dismay: NGOs and religious organizations and figures, with few exceptions. Several months ago the biggest university in the country passed a strong antiwar resolution – the University of Texas, right next door to George W’s ranch. And it’s easy to continue.

So why the widespread judgment among elites that the tradition of dissent and protest has died? Invariably, comparisons are drawn to Vietnam, a very revealing fact. We have just passed the 40th anniversary of the public announcement that the Kennedy administration was sending the US Air Force to bomb South Vietnam, also initiating plans to drive millions of people into concentration camps and chemical warfare programs to destroy food crops. There was no pretext of defense, except in the sense of official rhetoric: defense against the "internal aggression" of South Vietnamese in South Vietnam and their "assault from the inside" (President Kennedy and his UN Ambassador, Adlai Stevenson). Protest was non-existent. It did not reach any meaningful level for several years. By that time hundreds of thousands of US troops had joined the occupying army, densely-populated areas were being demolished by saturation bombing, and the aggression had spread to the rest of Indochina. Protest among elite intellectuals kept primarily to “pragmatic grounds”: the war was a “mistake” that was becoming too costly to the US. In sharp contrast, by the late 1960s the great majority of the public had come to oppose the war as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not “a mistake,” figures that hold steady until the present.

Today, in dramatic contrast to the 1960s, there is large-scale, committed, and principled popular protest all over the US before the war has been officially launched. That reflects a steady increase over these years in unwillingness to tolerate aggression and atrocities, one of many such changes, worldwide in fact. That’s part of the background for what is taking place in Porto Alegre, and part of the reason for the gloom in Davos.

The political leadership is well aware of these developments. When a new administration comes into office, it receives a review of the world situation compiled by the intelligence agencies. It is secret; we learn about these things many years later. But when Bush #1 came into office in 1989, a small part of the review was leaked, a passage concerned with “cases where the U.S. confronts much weaker enemies” – the only kind one would think of fighting. Intelligence analysts advised that in conflicts with “much weaker enemies” the US must win “decisively and rapidly,” or popular support will collapse. It’s not like the 1960s, when the population would tolerate a murderous and destructive war for years without visible protest. That’s no longer true. The activist movements of the past 40 years have had a significant civilizing effect. By now, the only way to attack a much weaker enemy is to construct a huge propaganda offensive depicting it as about to commit genocide, maybe even a threat to our very survival, then to celebrate a miraculous victory over the awesome foe, while chanting praises to the courageous leaders who came to the rescue just in time.

That is the current scenario in Iraq.

Polls reveal more support for the planned war in the US than elsewhere, but the numbers are misleading. It is important to bear in mind that the US is the only country outside Iraq where Saddam Hussein is not only reviled but also feared. There is a flood of lurid propaganda warning that if we do not stop him today he will destroy us tomorrow. The next evidence of his weapons of mass destruction may be a “mushroom cloud,” so National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice announced in September – presumably over New York. No one in Iraq’s neighborhood seems overly concerned, much as they may hate the murderous tyrant. Perhaps that is because they know that as a result of the sanctions “the vast majority of the country’s population has been on a semi-starvation diet for years,” as the World Health Organization reported, and that Iraq is one of the weakest states in the region: its economy and military expenditures are a fraction of Kuwait’s, which has 10% of Iraq’s population, and much farther below others nearby.

But the US is different. When Congress granted the President authority to go to war last October, it was “to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” We must tremble in fear before this awesome threat, while countries nearby seek to reintegrate Iraq into the region, including those who were attacked by Saddam when he was a friend and ally of those who now run the show in Washington -- and who were happily providing him with aid including the means to develop WMD, at a time when he was far more dangerous than today and had already committed by far his worst crimes.

A serious measure of support for war in the US would have to extricate this “fear factor,” which is genuine, and unique to the US. The residue would give a more realistic measure of support for the resort to violence, and would show, I think, that it is about the same as elsewhere.

It is also rather striking that strong opposition to the coming war extends right through the establishment. The current issues of the two major foreign policy journals feature articles opposing the war by leading figures of foreign policy elites. The very respectable American Academy of Arts and Sciences released a long monograph on the war, trying to give the most sympathetic possible account of the Bush administration position, then dismantling it point by point. One respected analyst they quote is a Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who warns that the US is becoming “a menace to itself and to mankind” under its current leadership. There are no precedents for anything like this.

We should recognize that these criticisms tend to be narrow. They are concerned with threats to the US and its allies. They do not take into account the likely effects on Iraqis: the warnings of the UN and aid agencies that millions may be at very serious risk in a country that is at the edge of survival after a terrible war that targeted its basic infrastructure – which amounts to biological warfare -- and a decade of devastating sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands of people and blocked any reconstruction, while strengthening the brutal tyrant who rules Iraq. It is also interesting that the criticisms do not even take the trouble to mention the lofty rhetoric about democratization and liberation. Presumably, the critics take for granted that the rhetoric is intended for intellectuals and editorial writers – who are not supposed to notice that the drive to war is accompanied by a dramatic demonstration of hatred of democracy, just as they are supposed to forget the record of those who are leading the campaign. That is also why none of this is ever brought up at the UN.

Nevertheless, the threats that do concern establishment critics are very real. They were surely not surprised when the CIA informed Congress last October that they know of no link between Iraq and al Qaeda-style terrorism, but that an attack on Iraq would probably increase the terrorist threat to the West, in many ways. It is likely to inspire a new generation of terrorists bent on revenge, and it might induce Iraq to carry out terrorist actions that are already in place, a possibility taken very seriously by US analysts. A high-level task force of the Council on Foreign Relations just released a report warning of likely terrorist attacks that could be far worse than 9-11, including possible use of WMD right within the US, dangers that become “more urgent by the prospect of the US going to war with Iraq.” They provide many illustrations, virtually a cook-book for terrorists. It is not the first; similar ones were published by prominent strategic analysts long before 9-11.

It is also understood that an attack on Iraq may lead not just to more terror, but also to proliferation of WMD, for a simple reason: potential targets of the US recognize that there is no other way to deter the most powerful state in history, which is pursuing “America’s Imperial Ambition,” posing serious dangers to the US and the world, the author warns in the main establishment journal, Foreign Affairs. Prominent hawks warn that a war in Iraq might lead to the “greatest proliferation disaster in history.” They know that if Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, the dictatorship keeps them under tight control. They understand further that except as a last resort if attacked, Iraq is highly unlikely to use any WMD it has, thus inviting instant incineration. And it is also highly unlikely to leak them to the Osama bin Ladens of the world, which would be a terrible threat to Saddam Hussein himself, quite apart from the reaction if there is even a hint that this might take place. But under attack, the society would collapse, including the controls over WMD. These would be “privatized,” terrorism experts point out, and offered to the huge “market for unconventional weapons, where they will have no trouble finding buyers.” That really is a “nightmare scenario,” just as the hawks warn.

Even before the Bush administration began beating the war drums about Iraq, there were plenty of warnings that its adventurism was going to lead to proliferation of WMD, as well as terror, simply as a deterrent. Right now, Washington is teaching the world a very ugly and dangerous lesson: if you want to defend yourself from us, you had better mimic North Korea and pose a credible military threat, including WMD. Otherwise we will demolish you in pursuit of the new “grand strategy” that has caused shudders not only among the usual victims, and in “old Europe,” but right at the heart of the US foreign policy elite, who recognize that “commitment of the US to active military confrontation for decisive national advantage will leave the world more dangerous and the US less secure” – again, quoting respected figures in elite journals.

Evidently, the likely increase of terror and proliferation of WMD is of limited concern to planners in Washington, in the context of their real priorities. Without too much difficulty, one can think of reasons why this might be the case, not very attractive ones.

The nature of the threats was dramatically underscored last October, at the summit meeting in Havana on the 40th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis, attended by key participants from Russia, the US, and Cuba. Planners knew at the time that they had the fate of the world in their hands, but new information released at the Havana summit was truly startling. We learned that the world was saved from nuclear devastation by one Russian submarine captain, Vasily Arkhipov, who blocked an order to fire nuclear missiles when Russian submarines were attacked by US destroyers near Kennedy’s “quarantine” line. Had Arkhipov agreed, the nuclear launch would have almost certainly set off an interchange that could have “destroyed the Northern hemisphere,” as Eisenhower had warned.

The dreadful revelation is particularly timely because of the circumstances: the roots of the missile crisis lay in international terrorism aimed at “regime change,” two concepts very much in the news today. US terrorist attacks against Cuba began shortly after Castro took power, and were sharply escalated by Kennedy, leading to a very plausible fear of invasion, as Robert McNamara has acknowledged. Kennedy resumed the terrorist war immediately after the crisis was over; terrorist actions against Cuba, based in the US, peaked in the late 1970s continued 20 years later. Putting aside any judgment about the behavior of the participants in the missile crisis, the new discoveries demonstrate with brilliant clarity the terrible and unanticipated risks of attacks on a “much weaker enemy” aimed at “regime change” – risks to survival, it is no exaggeration to say.

As for the fate of the people of Iraq, no one can predict with any confidence: not the CIA, not Donald Rumsfeld, not those who claim to be experts on Iraq, no one. Possibilities range from the frightening prospects for which the aid agencies are preparing, to the delightful tales spun by administration PR specialists and their chorus. One never knows. These are among the many reasons why decent human beings do not contemplate the threat or use of violence, whether in personal life or international affairs, unless reasons have been offered that have overwhelming force. And surely nothing remotely like that has been offered in the present case, which is why opposition to the plans of Washington and London has reached such scale and intensity.

The timing of the Washington-London propaganda campaign was so transparent that it too has been a topic of discussion, and sometimes ridicule, right in the mainstream. The campaign began in September of last year. Before that, Saddam was a terrible guy, but not an imminent threat to the survival of the US. The “mushroom cloud” was announced in early September. Since then, fear that Saddam will attack the US has been running at about 60-70% of the population. “The desperate urgency about moving rapidly against Iraq that Bush expressed in October was not evident from anything he said two months before,” the chief political analyst of United Press International observed, drawing the obvious conclusion: September marked the opening of the political campaign for the mid-term congressional elections. The administration, he continued, was “campaigning to sustain and increase its power on a policy of international adventurism, new radical preemptive military strategies, and a hunger for a politically convenient and perfectly timed confrontation with Iraq.” As long as domestic issues were in the forefront, Bush and his cohorts were losing ground – naturally enough, because they are conducting a serious assault against the general population. “But lo and behold! Though there have been no new terrorist attacks or credible indications of imminent threat, since the beginning of September, national security issues have been in the driver’s seat,” not just al Qaeda but an awesome and threatening military power, Iraq.

The same observations have been made by many others. That’s convenient for people like us: we can just quote the mainstream instead of giving controversial analyses. The Carnegie Endowment Senior Associate I quoted before writes that Bush and Co. are following “the classic modern strategy of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert mass discontent into nationalism," inspired by fear of enemies about to destroy us. That strategy is of critical importance if the "radical nationalists" setting policy in Washington hope to advance their announced plan for "unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority," while conducting a major assault against the interests of the large majority of the domestic population.

For the elections, the strategy worked, barely. The Fall 2002 election was won by a small number of votes, but enough to hand Congress to the executive. Analyses of the election found that voters maintained their opposition to the administration on social and economic issues, but suppressed these issues in favor of security concerns, which typically lead to support for the figure in authority – the brave cowboy who must ride to our rescue, just in time.

As history shows, it is all too easy for unscrupulous leaders to terrify the public, with consequences that have not been attractive. That is the natural method to divert attention from the fact that tax cuts for the rich and other devices are undermining prospects for a decent life for large majority of the population, and for future generations. When the presidential campaign begins, Republican strategists surely do not want people to be asking questions about their pensions, jobs, health care, and other such matters. Rather, they should be praising their heroic leader for rescuing them from imminent destruction by a foe of colossal power, and marching on to confront the next powerful force bent on our destruction. It could be Iran, or conflicts in the Andean countries: there are lots of good choices, as long as the targets are defenseless.

These ideas are second nature to the current political leaders, most of them recycled from the Reagan administration. They are replaying a familiar script: drive the country into deficit so as to be able to undermine social programs, declare a “war on terror” (as they did in 1981) and conjure up one devil after another to frighten the population into obedience. In the `80s it was Libyan hit-men prowling the streets of Washington to assassinate our leader, then the Nicaraguan army only two-days march from Texas, a threat to survival so severe that Reagan had to declare a national emergency. Or an airfield in Grenada that the Russians were going to use to bomb us (if they could find it on a map); Arab terrorists seeking to kill Americans everywhere while Qaddafi plans to “expel America from the world,” so Reagan wailed. Or Hispanic narcotraffickers seeking to destroy the youth; and on, and on.

Meanwhile the political leadership were able to carry out domestic policies that had generally poor economic outcomes but did create wealth for narrow sectors while harming a considerable majority of the population – the script that is being followed once again. And since the public knows it, they have to resort to “the classic modern strategy of an endangered right wing oligarchy” if they hope to carry out the domestic and international programs to which they are committed, perhaps even to institutionalize them so they will be hard to dismantle when they lose control.

Of course, there is much more to it than domestic considerations – which are of no slight importance in themselves. The September 11 terrorist atrocities provided an opportunity and pretext to implement long-standing plans to take control of Iraq's immense oil wealth, a central component of the Persian Gulf resources that the State Department, in 1945, described as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history." US intelligence predicts that these will be of even greater significance in the years ahead. The issue has never been access. The same intelligence analyses anticipate that the US will rely on more secure supplies in the Western hemisphere and West Africa. The same was true after World War II. What matters is control over the "material prize," which funnels enormous wealth to the US in many ways, Britain as well, and the "stupendous source of strategic power," which translates into a lever of “unilateral world domination” -- the goal that is now openly proclaimed, and is frightening much of the world, including “old Europe” and the conservative establishment in the US.

I think a realistic look at the world gives a mixed picture. There are many reasons to be encouraged, but there will be a long hard road ahead.