It's a tried-and-tested torture technique: strike fear into your victims, deprive them of cherished essentials and then eradicate their memories. In 2003, the US applied this on an enormous scale for its invasion of Iraq. And then, after Saddam's regime crumbled, Washington set out to rebuild the traumatised country through a disastrous programme of privatisation and unfettered capitalism, as Naomi Klein shows in this exclusive extract from her new book
When the Canadian citizen Maher Arar was grabbed by US agents at JFK airport in 2002 and taken to Syria, a victim of extraordinary rendition, his interrogators engaged in a tried-and-tested torture technique. "They put me on a chair, and one of the men started asking me questions ... If I did not answer quickly enough, he would point to a metal chair in the corner and ask, 'Do you want me to use this?' I was terrified, and I did not want to be tortured. I would say anything to avoid torture." The technique Arar was being subjected to is known as "the showing of the instruments," or, in US military lingo, "fear up". Torturers know that one of their most potent weapons is the prisoner's own imagination - often just showing fearsome instruments is more effective than using them.
As the day of the invasion of Iraq drew closer, US news media outlets were conscripted by the Pentagon to "fear up" Iraq. "They're calling it 'A-Day'," began a report on CBS News that aired two months before the war began. "A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight." Viewers were introduced to Harlan Ullman, an author of the Shock and Awe doctrine, who explained that "you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes". The anchor, Dan Rather, ended the telecast with a disclaimer: "We assure you this report contains no information that the Defense Department thinks could help the Iraqi military." He could have gone further: the report, like so many others in this period, was an integral part of the Department of Defense's strategy - fear up.
Iraqis, who picked up the terrifying reports on contraband satellites or in phone calls from relatives abroad, spent months imagining the horrors of Shock and Awe. The phrase itself became a potent psychological weapon. Would it be worse than 1991? If the Americans really thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, would they launch a nuclear attack?
One answer was provided a week before the invasion. The Pentagon invited Washington's military press corps on a special field trip to Eglin Air Force Base in Florida to witness the testing of the Moab, which officially stands for Massive Ordnance Air Blast, but which everyone in the military calls the "Mother of All Bombs". At 21,000lb, it is the largest non-nuclear explosive ever built, able to create, in the words of CNN's Jamie McIntyre, "a 10,000ft-high mushroom-like cloud that looks and feels like a nuclear weapon".
In his report, McIntyre said that even if it was never used, the bomb's very existence "could still pack a psychological wallop" - a tacit acknowledgement of the role he himself was playing in delivering that wallop. Like prisoners in interrogation cells, Iraqis were being shown the instruments. "The goal is to have the capabilities of the coalition so clear and so obvious that there's an enormous disincentive for the Iraqi military to fight," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld explained on the same programme.
When the war began, the residents of Baghdad were subjected to sensory deprivation on a mass scale. One by one, the city's sensory inputs were cut off; the ears were the first to go.
On the night of March 28 2003, as US troops drew closer to Baghdad, the ministry of communication was bombed and set ablaze, as were four Baghdad telephone exchanges, with massive bunker-busters, cutting off millions of phones across the city. The targeting of the phone exchanges continued - 12 in total - until, by April 2, there was barely a phone working in all of Baghdad. During the same assault, television and radio transmitters were also hit, making it impossible for families in Baghdad, huddling in their homes, to pick up even a weak signal carrying news of what was going on outside their doors.
Many Iraqis say that the shredding of their phone system was the most psychologically wrenching part of the air attack. The combination of hearing and feeling bombs going off everywhere while being unable to call a few blocks away to find out if loved ones were alive, or to reassure terrified relatives living abroad, was pure torment. Journalists based in Baghdad were swarmed by desperate local residents begging for a few moments with their satellite phones or pressing numbers into the reporters' hands along with pleas to call a brother or an uncle in London or Baltimore. "Tell him everything is OK. Tell him his mother and father are fine. Tell him hello. Tell him not to worry." By then, most pharmacies in Baghdad had sold out of sleeping aids and anti-depressants, and the city was completely cleaned out of Valium.
Next to go were the eyes. "There was no audible explosion, no discernible change in the early-evening bombardments, but in an instant, an entire city of 5 million people was plunged into an awful, endless night," the Guardian reported on April 4. Darkness was "relieved only by the headlights of passing cars". Trapped in their homes, Baghdad's residents could not speak to each other, hear each other or see outside. Like a prisoner destined for a CIA black site, the entire city was shackled and hooded.
Next it was stripped. In hostile interrogations, the first stage of breaking down prisoners is stripping them of their own clothes and any items that have the power to evoke their sense of self - so-called comfort items. Often objects that are of particular value to a prisoner, such as the Qur'an or a cherished photograph, are treated with open disrespect. The message is "You are no one, you are who we want you to be," the essence of dehumanisation. Iraqis went through this unmaking process collectively, as they watched their most important institutions desecrated, their history loaded on to trucks and disappeared.
The bombing badly injured Iraq, but it was the looting, unchecked by occupying troops, that did the most to erase the heart of the country that was.
"The hundreds of looters who smashed ancient ceramics, stripped display cases and pocketed gold and other antiquities from the National Museum of Iraq pillaged nothing less than records of the first human society," reported the Los Angeles Times. "Gone are 80% of the museum's 170,000 priceless objects." The national library, which contained copies of every book and doctoral thesis ever published in Iraq, was a blackened ruin. Thousand-year-old illuminated Qur'ans had disappeared from the Ministry of Religious Affairs, which was left a burned-out shell. "Our national heritage is lost," pronounced a Baghdad high-school teacher. A local merchant said of the museum, "It was the soul of Iraq. If the museum doesn't recover the looted treasures, I will feel like a part of my own soul has been stolen." McGuire Gibson, an archaeologist at the University of Chicago, called it "a lot like a lobotomy. The deep memory of an entire culture, a culture that has continued for thousands of years, has been removed".
Thanks mostly to the efforts of clerics who organised salvage missions in the midst of the looting, a portion of the artefacts has been recovered. But many Iraqis were, and still are, convinced that the memory lobotomy was intentional - part of Washington's plans to excise the strong, rooted nation that was and replace it with their own model. "Baghdad is the mother of Arab culture," 70-year-old Ahmed Abdullah told the Washington Post, "and they want to wipe out our culture."
As the war planners were quick to point out, the looting was done by Iraqis, not foreign troops. And it is true that Rumsfeld did not plan for Iraq to be sacked - but he did not take measures to prevent it from happening either, or to stop it once it had begun. These were failures that cannot be dismissed as mere oversights.
During the 1991 Gulf war, 13 Iraqi museums were attacked by looters, so there was every reason to believe that poverty, anger at the old regime and the general atmosphere of chaos would prompt some Iraqis to respond in the same way (especially given that Saddam had emptied the prisons several months earlier). The Pentagon had been warned by leading archaeologists that it needed to have an airtight strategy to protect museums and libraries before any attack, and a March 26 Pentagon memo to coalition command listed "in order of importance, 16 sites that were crucial to protect in Baghdad". Second on the list was the museum. Other warnings had urged Rumsfeld to send an international police contingent in with the troops to maintain public order -another suggestion that was ignored.
Even without the police, however, there were enough US soldiers in Baghdad for a few to be dispatched to the key cultural sites, but they weren't sent. There are numerous reports of US soldiers hanging out by their armoured vehicles and watching as trucks loaded with loot drove by - a reflection of the "stuff happens" indifference coming straight from Rumsfeld. Some units took it upon themselves to stop the looting, but in other instances, soldiers joined in. The Baghdad International Airport was completely trashed by soldiers who, according to Time, smashed furniture and then moved on to the commercial jets on the runway: "US soldiers looking for comfortable seats and souvenirs ripped out many of the planes' fittings, slashed seats, damaged cockpit equipment and popped out every windshield." The result was an estimated $100m worth of damage to Iraq's national airline - which was one of the first assets to be put on the auction block in an early and contentious partial privatisation.
Some insight into why there was so little official interest in stopping the looting has since been provided by two men who played pivotal roles in the occupation - Peter McPherson, the senior economic adviser to Paul Bremer, and John Agresto, director of higher education reconstruction for the occupation. McPherson said that when he saw Iraqis taking state property - cars, buses, ministry equipment - it didn't bother him. His job, as Iraq's top economic shock therapist, was to radically downsize the state and privatise its assets, which meant that the looters were really just giving him a jump-start. "I thought the privatisation that occurs sort of naturally when somebody took over their state vehicle, or began to drive a truck that the state used to own, was just fine," he said. A veteran bureaucrat of the Reagan administration and a firm believer in Chicago School economics, McPherson termed the pillage a form of public-sector "shrinkage".
His colleague John Agresto also saw a silver lining as he watched the looting of Baghdad on TV. He envisioned his job - "a never-to-be-repeated adventure" - as the remaking of Iraq's system of higher education from scratch. In that context, the stripping of the universities and the education ministry was, he explained, "the opportunity for a clean start," a chance to give Iraq's schools "the best modern equipment". If the mission was "nation creating," as so many clearly believed it to be, then everything that remained of the old country was only going to get in the way. Agresto was the former president of St John's College in New Mexico, which specialises in a Great Books curriculum [which emphasises an education based on broad reading]. He explained that although he knew nothing of Iraq, he had refrained from reading books about the country before making the trip so that he would arrive "with as open a mind as I could have". Like Iraq's colleges, Agresto would be a blank slate.
If Agresto had read a book or two, he might have thought twice about the need to erase everything and start all over again. He could have learned, for instance, that before the sanctions strangled the country, Iraq had the best education system in the region, with the highest literacy rates in the Arab world - in 1985, 89% of Iraqis were literate. By contrast, in Agresto's home state of New Mexico, 46% of the population is functionally illiterate, and 20% are unable do "basic math[s] to determine the total on a sales receipt". Yet Agresto was so convinced of the superiority of American systems that he seemed unable to entertain the possibility that Iraqis might want to salvage and protect their own culture and that they might feel its destruction as a wrenching loss.
This neo-colonialist blindness is a running theme in the war on terror. At the US-run prison at Guantánamo Bay, there is a room known as "the love shack". Detainees are taken there after their captors have decided they are not enemy combatants and will soon be released. Inside the love shack, prisoners are allowed to watch Hollywood movies and are plied with American junk food. Asif Iqbal, one of three British detainees known as the "Tipton Three," was permitted several visits there before he and his two friends were finally sent home. "We would get to watch DVDs, eat McDonald's, eat Pizza Hut and basically chill out. We were not shackled in this area ... We had no idea why they were being like that to us. The rest of the week we were back in the cages as usual ... On one occasion Lesley [an FBI official] brought Pringles, ice cream and chocolates; this was the final Sunday before we came back to England." His friend Rhuhel Ahmed speculated that the special treatment "was because they knew they had messed us about and tortured us for two and half years and they hoped we would forget it".
Ahmed and Iqbal had been grabbed by the Northern Alliance while visiting Afghanistan on their way to a wedding. They had been violently beaten, injected with unidentified drugs, put in stress positions for hours, sleep deprived, forcibly shaven and denied all legal rights for 29 months. And yet they were supposed to "forget it" in the face of the overwhelming allure of Pringles. That was actually the plan.
It's hard to believe - but then again, that was pretty much Washington's game plan for Iraq: shock and terrorise the entire country, deliberately ruin its infrastructure, do nothing while its culture and history are ransacked, then make it all OK with an unlimited supply of cheap household appliances and imported junk food. In Iraq, this cycle of culture erasing and culture replacing was not theoretical; it all unfolded in a matter of weeks.
Paul Bremer, appointed by Bush to serve as director of the occupation authority in Iraq, admits that when he first arrived in Baghdad, the looting was still going strong and order was far from restored. "Baghdad was on fire, literally, as I drove in from the airport. There was no traffic on the streets; there was no electricity anywhere; no oil production; no economic activity; there wasn't a single policeman on duty anywhere." And yet his solution to this crisis was to immediately fling open the country's borders to absolutely unrestricted imports: no tariffs, no duties, no inspections, no taxes. Iraq, Bremer declared two weeks after he arrived, was "open for business". Overnight, Iraq went from being one of the most isolated countries in the world, sealed off from the most basic trade by strict UN sanctions, to becoming the widest-open market anywhere.
While the pickup trucks stuffed with loot were still being driven to buyers in Jordan, Syria and Iran, passing them in the opposite direction were convoys of flatbeds piled high with Chinese TVs, Hollywood DVDs and Jordanian satellite dishes, ready to be unloaded on the sidewalks of Baghdad's Karada district. Just as one culture was being burned and stripped for parts, another was pouring in, prepackaged, to replace it.
One of the US businesses ready and waiting to be the gateway to this experiment in frontier capitalism was New Bridge Strategies, started by Joe Allbaugh, Bush's ex-head of Fema [Federal Emergency Management Agency]. It promised to use its top-level political connections to help US multinationals land a piece of the action in Iraq. "Getting the rights to distribute Procter & Gamble products would be a gold mine," one of the company's partners enthused. "One well-stocked 7-Eleven could knock out 30 Iraqi stores; a Wal-Mart could take over the country."
Like the prisoners in Guantánamo's love shack, all of Iraq was going to be bought off with Pringles and pop culture - that, at least, was the Bush administration's idea of a postwar plan.
Ewen Cameron was a psychiatrist who performed CIA-funded experiments on the effects of electric shock and sensory deprivation on patients, without their knowledge, in the 1950s. When I was researching what he did I came across an observation made by one of his colleagues, a psychiatrist named Fred Lowy. "The Freudians had developed all these subtle methods of peeling the onion to get at the heart of the problem," he said. "Cameron wanted to drill right through and to hell with the layers. But, as we later discovered, the layers are all there is." Cameron thought he could blast away all his patients' layers and start again; he dreamed of creating brand-new personalities. But his patients weren't reborn: they were confused, injured, broken.
Iraq's shock therapists blasted away at the layers too, seeking that elusive blank slate on which to create their new model country. They found only the piles of rubble that they themselves had created, and millions of psychologically and physically shattered people - shattered by Saddam, shattered by war, shattered by one another. Bush's in-house disaster capitalists didn't wipe Iraq clean, they just stirred it up. Rather than a tabula rasa, purified of history, they found ancient feuds, brought to the surface to merge with fresh vendettas from each new attack - on a mosque in Karbala, in Samarra, on a market, a ministry, a hospital. Countries, like people, don't reboot to zero with a good shock; they just break and keep on breaking.
Which, of course, requires more blasting - upping the dosage, holding down the button longer, more pain, more bombs, more torture. Former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, who had predicted that Iraqis would be easily marshalled from A to B, has since concluded that the real problem was that the US was too soft. "The humane way in which the coalition fought the war," he said, "actually has led to a situation where it is more difficult to get people to come together, not less. In Germany and Japan [after the second world war], the population was exhausted and deeply shocked by what had happened, but in Iraq it's been the opposite. A very rapid victory over enemy forces has meant we've not had the cowed population we had in Japan and Germany ... The US is dealing with an Iraqi population that is un-shocked and un-awed." By January 2007, Bush and his advisers were still convinced that they could gain control of Iraq with one good "surge". The report on which the surge strategy was based aimed for "the successful clearing of central Baghdad".
In the 70s, when the corporatist crusade began, it used tactics that courts ruled were overtly genocidal: the deliberate erasure of a segment of the population. In Iraq, something even more monstrous has happened - the erasure not of a segment of the population, but of an entire country; Iraq is disappearing, disintegrating. It began, as it often does, with the disappearance of women behind veils and doors, then the children disappeared from the schools - as of 2006, two-thirds of them stayed home. Next came the professionals: doctors, professors, entrepreneurs, scientists, pharmacists, judges, lawyers. An estimated 300 Iraqi academics have been assassinated by death squads since the US invasion, including several deans of departments; thousands more have fled. Doctors have fared even worse: by February 2007, an estimated 2,000 had been killed and 12,000 had fled. In November 2006, the UN High Commission for Refugees estimated that 3,000 Iraqis were fleeing the country every day. By April 2007, the organisation reported that 4 million people had been forced to leave their homes - roughly one in seven Iraqis. Only a few hundred of those refugees had been welcomed into the United States.
With Iraqi industry all but collapsed, one of the only local businesses booming is kidnapping. Over just three and a half months in early 2006, nearly 20,000 people were kidnapped in Iraq. The only time the international media pays attention is when a westerner is taken, but the vast majority of abductions are Iraqi professionals, grabbed as they travel to and from work. Their families either come up with tens of thousands in US dollars for the ransom money or identify their bodies at the morgue. Torture has also emerged as a thriving industry. Human rights groups have documented numerous cases of Iraqi police demanding thousands of dollars from the families of prisoners in exchange for a halt to torture. It is Iraq's own domestic version of disaster capitalism.
This was not what the Bush administration intended for Iraq when it was selected as the model nation for the rest of the Arab world. The occupation had begun with cheerful talk of clean slates and fresh starts. It didn't take long, however, for the quest for cleanliness to slip into talk into "pulling Islamism up from the root" in Sadr City or Najaf and removing "the cancer of radical Islam" from Fallujah and Ramadi - what was not clean would be scrubbed out by force.
That is what happens with projects to build model societies in other people's countries. The cleansing campaigns are rarely premeditated. It is only when the people who live on the land refuse to abandon their past that the dream of the clean slate morphs into its doppelgänger, the scorched earth - only then that the dream of total creation morphs into a campaign of total destruction.
The unanticipated violence that now engulfs Iraq is the creation of the lethally optimistic architects of the war - it was preordained in that original seemingly innocuous, even idealistic phrase, "a model for a new Middle East". The disintegration of Iraq has its roots in the ideology that demanded a tabula rasa on which to write its new story. And when no such pristine tableau presented itself, the supporter of that ideology proceeded to blast and surge and blast again in the hope of reaching that promised land.
· Extracted from: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein, published by Allen Lane on September 20, priced £25. © Naomi Klein 2007. To order a copy for £23 with free p&p go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0870 836 0875.
· Naomi Klein will be discussing The Shock Doctrine at the Queen Elizabeth Hall, Southbank Centre, London SE1 this Thursday at 7.30pm. Alfonso Cuarón will also be introducing his short film which is a companion to the book, which will be screened.
www.shockdoctrine.com
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Monday, September 03, 2007
Are We ‘Good Germans'? By Ed Ciaccio
A shirt I recently bought from Old American Century (www.oldamericancentury.org ) has the figure of Uncle Sam, steely-eyed, fists on hips, and under it, the following text:
Regardless of whether you choose to believe that both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections were stolen (and there is ample evidence; see, for example http://www.gregpalast.com/one-million-black-votes-didnt-count-in-the-2000-presidential-election-rnits-not-too-hard-to-get-your-vote-lost-if-some-politicians-want-it-to-be-lost/ and http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen ), there are many other disturbing facts about our nation which no longer need to rest on faith to be “believed” because they are now part of the historical record.
Among them are the following:
Bush and his administration had many warnings before the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks (http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html )
War on Iraq for “regime change” was planned long before the 9/11 attacks (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1203-21.htm , http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html , and http://pnac.info/index.php/2003/4-years-before-911-plan-was-set/ )
Intelligence about Iraq was “fixed” starting in 2002 to support Bush and Blair’s decision to attack Iraq (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/ and http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI505A.html )
The U.S./U.K. invasion and occupation of Iraq is illegal and constitutes the supreme war crime, that of an unprovoked, preventive war of aggression similar to Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm , http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/13670 , and http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman09172003.html )
Over one million Iraqis died, including over 500,000 children, as a result of the sanctions imposed by George H.W. Bush after the 1991 Gulf War and then maintained by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush until the U.S./U.K. invasion in March, 2003 (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm#summary , http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/418625.stm , http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/270307Iraq_toll.htm , and http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright ) as all three administrations tried to provoke “regime change” in Iraq
Detainees held in U.S. prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq have been tortured (http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html and http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=us_torture_abuse )
CIA “Rendition” (kidnapping) of terrorist suspects to nations known to torture started in the Clinton administration, continued and increased under Bush, and was known by “top officials” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678155.shtml and http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510512006 )
U.S. forces have committed war crimes by using weapons such as napalm (Mark 77 firebombs), depleted uranium, white phosphorous, and cluster bombs in Iraq (http://www.brusselstribunal.org/WMD.htm , http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/was-there-napalm-in-fallujah/ , http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11020.htm , and http://www.consumersforpeace.org/pdf/war_crimes_iraq_101006.pdf )
Between 600,000 and one million Iraqis have died since the March, 2003 illegal U.S./U.K. invasion and occupation* (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?ex=1318219200&en=516b1d070ff83c15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss , http://pressesc.com/news/99409082007/one-million-iraqis-killed-us-invasion )
In spite of prior warnings, Bush failed to have the New Orleans levees repaired or see New Orleans was properly prepared for Hurricane Katrina (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,372455,00.html and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/ )
Bush admitted he broke the FISA law, an impeachable offense (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm , http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html , and http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/19/1515212 )
*If you consider the one million Iraqis who died as a result of the 1991-2003 sanctions and the one million who have died since the 2003 invasion, the word genocide comes to mind. If you consider the four million Iraqi refugees resulting from our invasion and occupation, and the resulting sectarian violence causing the creation of unprecedented sectarian enclaves in Iraq, the term ethnic cleansing comes to mind.
As Americans, supposedly believing in the rule of law, supposedly believing in fairness and compassion, what do we do now that we know these facts?
Do we deny them because they clash with our view of America as the “greatest country in the world”?
Do we shrug and say, “Well, every country has its dark side”?
Do we throw up our hands and complain that we can’t do much because Cheney and Bush have so much power and, besides, they’ll be out of office soon?
Or do we simply turn the page and see what else is on TV?
The “Good Germans” who did nothing had similar reactions while Hitler destroyed Europe and murdered 6 million Jews, and 5 million Poles, Russians, Communists, homosexuals and other “non-Aryans” in his death camps. They denied, or accepted and approved, or said they didn’t know, or (justifiably for many) feared punishment or death in Hitler’s dictatorship.
But we don’t live in a dictatorship.
And we DO know what has been done in our name.
So who are we? What have we become?
Right now there are three massive U.S. aircraft carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf, and B-1 and B-2 bombers and many fighters on airfields in countries surrounding Iran. They are there waiting for Bush, with Cheney’s urging, to give the signal to repeat “shock and awe’, this time on the Iranian people.
Right now another propaganda campaign, similar to that which preceded our 2003 Iraq invasion, is beginning, but this time charging Iran with unproven “evils” against our troops in Iraq. Again it is accepted without challenge by our compliant, corporate mainstream media with its many links to the so-called “defense” industry. Meanwhile, that same media distracts us with “coverage” of Larry Craig’s men’s room saga, or the death of Princess Di ten years later, or John Edwards’ haircuts, or Britney, or Lindsay, or Paris, or…
And right now, Iranian forces are accused, with little, if any, solid evidence, of helping kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Meanwhile, ignored by our media, U.S. special forces and CIA operatives are in Iran selecting targets for our planes, drones, and cruise missiles and supporting anti-Iranian government groups there. In effect, we have been waging war on Iran from inside Iran for almost two years already (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4180087.stm and http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm ).
And now Bush wants our always-accommodating Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to declare a part of Iran’s military as “terrorists.” This will enable him to attack Iran without Congressional authorization.
These are also facts.
So what will you do about this?
Will you be a “Good German”?
“If you had told me a few years ago that we would have secret prisons through out the former Soviet republics, tortured our enemies, and used chemical weapons on civilians, I’d have thought you were crazy. But I also didn’t think you’d let Bush steal another election.”
Regardless of whether you choose to believe that both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections were stolen (and there is ample evidence; see, for example http://www.gregpalast.com/one-million-black-votes-didnt-count-in-the-2000-presidential-election-rnits-not-too-hard-to-get-your-vote-lost-if-some-politicians-want-it-to-be-lost/ and http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen ), there are many other disturbing facts about our nation which no longer need to rest on faith to be “believed” because they are now part of the historical record.
Among them are the following:
Bush and his administration had many warnings before the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks (http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html )
War on Iraq for “regime change” was planned long before the 9/11 attacks (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1203-21.htm , http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html , and http://pnac.info/index.php/2003/4-years-before-911-plan-was-set/ )
Intelligence about Iraq was “fixed” starting in 2002 to support Bush and Blair’s decision to attack Iraq (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/ and http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI505A.html )
The U.S./U.K. invasion and occupation of Iraq is illegal and constitutes the supreme war crime, that of an unprovoked, preventive war of aggression similar to Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm , http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/13670 , and http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman09172003.html )
Over one million Iraqis died, including over 500,000 children, as a result of the sanctions imposed by George H.W. Bush after the 1991 Gulf War and then maintained by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush until the U.S./U.K. invasion in March, 2003 (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm#summary , http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/418625.stm , http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/270307Iraq_toll.htm , and http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright ) as all three administrations tried to provoke “regime change” in Iraq
Detainees held in U.S. prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq have been tortured (http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html and http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=us_torture_abuse )
CIA “Rendition” (kidnapping) of terrorist suspects to nations known to torture started in the Clinton administration, continued and increased under Bush, and was known by “top officials” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678155.shtml and http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510512006 )
U.S. forces have committed war crimes by using weapons such as napalm (Mark 77 firebombs), depleted uranium, white phosphorous, and cluster bombs in Iraq (http://www.brusselstribunal.org/WMD.htm , http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/was-there-napalm-in-fallujah/ , http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11020.htm , and http://www.consumersforpeace.org/pdf/war_crimes_iraq_101006.pdf )
Between 600,000 and one million Iraqis have died since the March, 2003 illegal U.S./U.K. invasion and occupation* (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?ex=1318219200&en=516b1d070ff83c15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss , http://pressesc.com/news/99409082007/one-million-iraqis-killed-us-invasion )
In spite of prior warnings, Bush failed to have the New Orleans levees repaired or see New Orleans was properly prepared for Hurricane Katrina (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,372455,00.html and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/ )
Bush admitted he broke the FISA law, an impeachable offense (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm , http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html , and http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/19/1515212 )
*If you consider the one million Iraqis who died as a result of the 1991-2003 sanctions and the one million who have died since the 2003 invasion, the word genocide comes to mind. If you consider the four million Iraqi refugees resulting from our invasion and occupation, and the resulting sectarian violence causing the creation of unprecedented sectarian enclaves in Iraq, the term ethnic cleansing comes to mind.
As Americans, supposedly believing in the rule of law, supposedly believing in fairness and compassion, what do we do now that we know these facts?
Do we deny them because they clash with our view of America as the “greatest country in the world”?
Do we shrug and say, “Well, every country has its dark side”?
Do we throw up our hands and complain that we can’t do much because Cheney and Bush have so much power and, besides, they’ll be out of office soon?
Or do we simply turn the page and see what else is on TV?
The “Good Germans” who did nothing had similar reactions while Hitler destroyed Europe and murdered 6 million Jews, and 5 million Poles, Russians, Communists, homosexuals and other “non-Aryans” in his death camps. They denied, or accepted and approved, or said they didn’t know, or (justifiably for many) feared punishment or death in Hitler’s dictatorship.
But we don’t live in a dictatorship.
And we DO know what has been done in our name.
So who are we? What have we become?
Right now there are three massive U.S. aircraft carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf, and B-1 and B-2 bombers and many fighters on airfields in countries surrounding Iran. They are there waiting for Bush, with Cheney’s urging, to give the signal to repeat “shock and awe’, this time on the Iranian people.
Right now another propaganda campaign, similar to that which preceded our 2003 Iraq invasion, is beginning, but this time charging Iran with unproven “evils” against our troops in Iraq. Again it is accepted without challenge by our compliant, corporate mainstream media with its many links to the so-called “defense” industry. Meanwhile, that same media distracts us with “coverage” of Larry Craig’s men’s room saga, or the death of Princess Di ten years later, or John Edwards’ haircuts, or Britney, or Lindsay, or Paris, or…
And right now, Iranian forces are accused, with little, if any, solid evidence, of helping kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Meanwhile, ignored by our media, U.S. special forces and CIA operatives are in Iran selecting targets for our planes, drones, and cruise missiles and supporting anti-Iranian government groups there. In effect, we have been waging war on Iran from inside Iran for almost two years already (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4180087.stm and http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm ).
And now Bush wants our always-accommodating Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to declare a part of Iran’s military as “terrorists.” This will enable him to attack Iran without Congressional authorization.
These are also facts.
So what will you do about this?
Will you be a “Good German”?
History Will Not Absolve Us - Leaked Red Cross report sets up Bush team for international war-crimes trial by Nat Hentoff
Nat Hentoff
If and when there's the equivalent of an international Nuremberg trial for the American perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Guantánamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the CIA's secret prisons, there will be mounds of evidence available from documented international reports by human-rights organizations, including an arm of the European parliament—as well as such deeply footnoted books as Stephen Grey's Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program (St. Martin's Press) and Charlie Savage's just-published Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy (Little, Brown).
While the Democratic Congress has yet to begin a serious investigation into what many European legislators already know about American war crimes, a particularly telling report by the International Committee of the Red Cross has been leaked that would surely figure prominently in such a potential Nuremberg trial. The Red Cross itself is bound to public silence concerning the results of its human-rights probes of prisons around the world—or else governments wouldn't let them in.
But The New Yorker's Jane Mayer has sources who have seen accounts of the Red Cross interviews with inmates formerly held in CIA secret prisons. In "The Black Sites" (August 13, The New Yorker), Mayer also reveals the effect on our torturers of what they do—on the orders of the president—to "protect American values."
She quotes a former CIA officer: "When you cross over that line of darkness, it's hard to come back. You lose your soul. You can do your best to justify it, but . . . you can't go back to that dark a place without it changing you."
Few average Americans have been changed, however, by what the CIA does in our name. Blame that on the tight official secrecy that continues over how the CIA extracts information. On July 20, the Bush administration issued a new executive order authorizing the CIA to continue using these techniques—without disclosing anything about them.
If we, the people, are ultimately condemned by a world court for our complicity and silence in these war crimes, we can always try to echo those Germans who claimed not to know what Hitler and his enforcers were doing. But in Nazi Germany, people had no way of insisting on finding out what happened to their disappeared neighbors.
We, however, have the right and the power to insist that Congress discover and reveal the details of the torture and other brutalities that the CIA has been inflicting in our name on terrorism suspects.
Only one congressman, Oregon's Democratic senator Ron Wyden, has insisted on probing the legality of the CIA's techniques—so much so that Wyden has blocked the appointment of Bush's nominee, John Rizzo, from becoming the CIA's top lawyer. Rizzo, a CIA official since 2002, has said publicly that he didn't object to the Justice Department's 2002 "torture" memos, which allowed the infliction of pain unless it caused such injuries as "organ failure . . . or even death." (Any infliction of pain up to that point was deemed not un-American.) Mr. Rizzo would make a key witness in any future Nuremberg trial.
As Jane Mayer told National Public Radio on August 6, what she found in the leaked Red Cross report, and through her own extensive research on our interrogators (who are cheered on by the commander in chief), is "a top-down-controlled, mechanistic, regimented program of abuse that was signed off on—at the White House, really—and then implemented at the CIA from the top levels all the way down. . . . They would put people naked for up to 40 days in cells where they were deprived of any kind of light. They would cut them off from any sense of what time it was or . . . anything that would give them a sense of where they were."
She also told of the CIA interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, who was not only waterboarded (a technique in which he was made to feel that he was about to be drowned) but also "kept in . . . a small cage, about one meter [39.7 inches] by one meter, in which he couldn't stand up for a long period of time. [The CIA] called it the dog box."
Whether or not there is another Nuremberg trial—and Congress continues to stay asleep—future historians of the Bush administration will surely also refer to Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality, the July report by Human Rights First and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
The report emphasizes that the president's July executive order on CIA interrogations—which, though it is classified, was widely hailed as banning "torture and cruel and inhuman treatment"—"fails explicitly to rule out the use of the 'enhanced' techniques that the CIA authorized in March, 2002, "with the president's approval (emphasis added).
In 2002, then–Secretary of State Colin Powell denounced the "torture" memos and other interrogation techniques in internal reports that reached the White House. It's a pity he didn't also tell us. But Powell's objections should keep him out of the defendants' dock in any future international trial.
From the Leave No Marks report, here are some of the American statutes that the CIA, the Defense Department, and the Justice Department have utterly violated:
In the 1994 Torture Convention Implementation Act, we put into U.S. law what we had signed in Article 5 of the UN Convention Against Torture, which is defined as "an act 'committed by an [officially authorized] person' . . . specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering . . . upon another person within his custody or physical control."
The 1997 U.S. War Crimes Act "criminalizes . . . specifically enumerated war crimes that the legislation refers to as 'grave breaches' of Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Conventions], including the war crimes of torture and 'cruel or inhuman treatment.'"
The Leave No Marks report very valuably brings the Supreme Court— before Chief Justice John Roberts took over—into the war-crimes record of this administration. I strongly suggest that Human Rights First and Physicians for Social Responsibility send their report—with the following section underlined—to every current member of the Supreme Court and Congress:
"The Supreme Court has long considered prisoner treatment to violate substantive due process if the treatment 'shocks the conscience,' is bound to offend even hardened sensibilities, or offends 'a principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.'"
Among those fundamental rights cited by past Supreme Courts, the report continues, are "the rights to bodily integrity [and] the right to have [one's] basic needs met; and the right to basic human dignity" (emphasis added).
If the conscience of a majority on the Roberts Court isn't shocked by what we've done to our prisoners, then it will be up to the next president and the next Congress—and, therefore, up to us—to alter, in some respects, how history will judge us. But do you see any considerable signs, among average Americans, of the conscience being shocked? How about the presidential candidates of both parties?
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. -- Edward R. Murrow
If and when there's the equivalent of an international Nuremberg trial for the American perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Guantánamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the CIA's secret prisons, there will be mounds of evidence available from documented international reports by human-rights organizations, including an arm of the European parliament—as well as such deeply footnoted books as Stephen Grey's Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program (St. Martin's Press) and Charlie Savage's just-published Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy (Little, Brown).
While the Democratic Congress has yet to begin a serious investigation into what many European legislators already know about American war crimes, a particularly telling report by the International Committee of the Red Cross has been leaked that would surely figure prominently in such a potential Nuremberg trial. The Red Cross itself is bound to public silence concerning the results of its human-rights probes of prisons around the world—or else governments wouldn't let them in.
But The New Yorker's Jane Mayer has sources who have seen accounts of the Red Cross interviews with inmates formerly held in CIA secret prisons. In "The Black Sites" (August 13, The New Yorker), Mayer also reveals the effect on our torturers of what they do—on the orders of the president—to "protect American values."
She quotes a former CIA officer: "When you cross over that line of darkness, it's hard to come back. You lose your soul. You can do your best to justify it, but . . . you can't go back to that dark a place without it changing you."
Few average Americans have been changed, however, by what the CIA does in our name. Blame that on the tight official secrecy that continues over how the CIA extracts information. On July 20, the Bush administration issued a new executive order authorizing the CIA to continue using these techniques—without disclosing anything about them.
If we, the people, are ultimately condemned by a world court for our complicity and silence in these war crimes, we can always try to echo those Germans who claimed not to know what Hitler and his enforcers were doing. But in Nazi Germany, people had no way of insisting on finding out what happened to their disappeared neighbors.
We, however, have the right and the power to insist that Congress discover and reveal the details of the torture and other brutalities that the CIA has been inflicting in our name on terrorism suspects.
Only one congressman, Oregon's Democratic senator Ron Wyden, has insisted on probing the legality of the CIA's techniques—so much so that Wyden has blocked the appointment of Bush's nominee, John Rizzo, from becoming the CIA's top lawyer. Rizzo, a CIA official since 2002, has said publicly that he didn't object to the Justice Department's 2002 "torture" memos, which allowed the infliction of pain unless it caused such injuries as "organ failure . . . or even death." (Any infliction of pain up to that point was deemed not un-American.) Mr. Rizzo would make a key witness in any future Nuremberg trial.
As Jane Mayer told National Public Radio on August 6, what she found in the leaked Red Cross report, and through her own extensive research on our interrogators (who are cheered on by the commander in chief), is "a top-down-controlled, mechanistic, regimented program of abuse that was signed off on—at the White House, really—and then implemented at the CIA from the top levels all the way down. . . . They would put people naked for up to 40 days in cells where they were deprived of any kind of light. They would cut them off from any sense of what time it was or . . . anything that would give them a sense of where they were."
She also told of the CIA interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, who was not only waterboarded (a technique in which he was made to feel that he was about to be drowned) but also "kept in . . . a small cage, about one meter [39.7 inches] by one meter, in which he couldn't stand up for a long period of time. [The CIA] called it the dog box."
Whether or not there is another Nuremberg trial—and Congress continues to stay asleep—future historians of the Bush administration will surely also refer to Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality, the July report by Human Rights First and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
The report emphasizes that the president's July executive order on CIA interrogations—which, though it is classified, was widely hailed as banning "torture and cruel and inhuman treatment"—"fails explicitly to rule out the use of the 'enhanced' techniques that the CIA authorized in March, 2002, "with the president's approval (emphasis added).
In 2002, then–Secretary of State Colin Powell denounced the "torture" memos and other interrogation techniques in internal reports that reached the White House. It's a pity he didn't also tell us. But Powell's objections should keep him out of the defendants' dock in any future international trial.
From the Leave No Marks report, here are some of the American statutes that the CIA, the Defense Department, and the Justice Department have utterly violated:
In the 1994 Torture Convention Implementation Act, we put into U.S. law what we had signed in Article 5 of the UN Convention Against Torture, which is defined as "an act 'committed by an [officially authorized] person' . . . specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering . . . upon another person within his custody or physical control."
The 1997 U.S. War Crimes Act "criminalizes . . . specifically enumerated war crimes that the legislation refers to as 'grave breaches' of Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Conventions], including the war crimes of torture and 'cruel or inhuman treatment.'"
The Leave No Marks report very valuably brings the Supreme Court— before Chief Justice John Roberts took over—into the war-crimes record of this administration. I strongly suggest that Human Rights First and Physicians for Social Responsibility send their report—with the following section underlined—to every current member of the Supreme Court and Congress:
"The Supreme Court has long considered prisoner treatment to violate substantive due process if the treatment 'shocks the conscience,' is bound to offend even hardened sensibilities, or offends 'a principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.'"
Among those fundamental rights cited by past Supreme Courts, the report continues, are "the rights to bodily integrity [and] the right to have [one's] basic needs met; and the right to basic human dignity" (emphasis added).
If the conscience of a majority on the Roberts Court isn't shocked by what we've done to our prisoners, then it will be up to the next president and the next Congress—and, therefore, up to us—to alter, in some respects, how history will judge us. But do you see any considerable signs, among average Americans, of the conscience being shocked? How about the presidential candidates of both parties?
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. -- Edward R. Murrow
Trinkets and treasure: China tames the US By Julian Delasantellis
August in Seattle sees the arrival of Seafair, the city's annual midsummer entertainment and cultural festival. A traditional part of Seafair has been the arrival of a number of US Navy warships for the "parade of ships" through Puget Sound, then to dock in Seattle for tours by the large numbers of local citizenry who wait to board the ships for hours under the hot sun - in contrast to everything you might have heard, it rains very infrequently in Seattle during midsummer.
The parade of ships for Seafair 2007 was not all that impressive; just a few smaller navy combat and support ships. All the big capital ships of the navy's Pacific fleet are currently in the Persian Gulf, steaming around in circles, waiting to bump into something with an Iranian flag on it so the American neo-conservatives can manufacture a casus belli for a future catastrophic war in Iran that will divert Americans' attention from the current catastrophic war in Iraq.
But Seafair in the summer of 2001, in that last, innocent idyllic US summer of blissful ignorance of how a lot of the world really felt about it, that parade of ships was grand. At the ranch, President George W Bush chopped wood, and as the only lethal foreign threat heading toward the US homeland reported by the media from overseas was that of sharks, the navy sent a particularly impressive contingent for the parade of ships.
Led by the 100,000-ton nuclear aircraft carrier USS John C Stennis, and accompanied by a number of major combat support ships, it was a particularly impressive sight as it sailed in from the northern Pacific Ocean through the Strait of Juan de Fuca toward Seattle.
I remember that year I was watching the ships' transit from a bluff above Puget Sound. There I saw them paced, and then passed, by the actual greatest naval power existent then, and even more so now, on Earth: the great imperial battle fleet of the navy of the People's Republic of China.
Box it and ship it
In saying that I am in no way, shape or form referring to the actual People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy. What I mean, what I saw that day, were the real dreadnoughts of modern-day Chinese naval power, the huge containerized cargo ships, some Chinese, most not, full of Chinese manufactured goods, making another one of their visits to the port of Seattle, the same way they do to hundreds of other Western ports every single day.
English economist John Maynard Keynes once marveled that, even in the conditions of the nascent globalization of the early 20th century, he could, as a fine English gentleman, sit in his garden in the morning and enjoy the benefits of all manner of fruits and delicacies from all over the world. This is more so now; these days, the world's middle classes have ready access to products they barely knew existed, from countries that themselves barely existed only half a century ago.
Today, you don't have to be a fine English gentleman with a manservant to enjoy fruit from Turkey or prawns from Vietnam - being a middle-class North American or European with a charge card will do just as nicely.
No politician or ideology has accomplished this transformation; in reality, globalization's true avatar is now the containerized shipping unit, those standard 20-to-40-foot rectangular cargo boxes that are seamlessly transferred from oceangoing ships to inland transit, either by trains or trucks, or to inland-waterway transport on barges.
This phenomenon started in the mid-1920s with US Midwestern railroads working with converted railroad boxcars; in 1929, the Seatrain lines brought this concept to sea by driving railroad boxcars on to ships for transport from the US northeast to Cuba.
The advantages of containerized shipping are obvious: massive cranes rapidly handling the containers obviate the need for expensive work crews to offload and reload each cardboard box of cargo at each transfer point of the transport process (ie, from ship to train, then from train to truck); also, the locked containers mean that it is far less likely that expensive plasma TVs or fur coats might once again just happen to "fall off the truck" to wind up in someone's house.
A relatively recent phenomenon is the fitting of the containerized units with self-contained electric refrigeration units. This is the manner in which many of these exotic delicacies and sweetmeats find their way on to the dining tables of the West; stores and restaurants are just not making enough money selling prawns at US$20 a kilo to justify flying them in fresh in the cargo hold of a Boeing 747.
Some 4,000 containerized cargo ships sail the world's oceans. Mostly, this transport is reserved for finished, manufactured products; other cargo, such as petroleum products or wheat, move in their own, specially dedicated cargo ships.
The largest container-ship companies in the world are Denmark's Maersk, Germany's Hapag-Lloyd and MSC from Belgium. China's two state-owned shipping companies, China Ocean Shipping (Group) Co (COSCO) and China Shipping Container Lines Co Ltd (CSCL), are currently respectively the sixth- and eighth-largest shipping companies in the world.
This makes the power currently accruing to China from the world shipping process even more remarkable. China is dominating the world with a fleet it does not own, that it sacrificed no treasure to build.
Unhealthy addictions
About 600 years ago, China attempted to do naval supremacy the old-fashioned way. In the early 15th century, as the great British navy to come was tied down supporting British ground forces fighting across the English Channel in France in the Hundred Years' War, and while the greatest naval power in the Mediterranean was that of the Ottomans, the Ming Dynasty's Yongle Emperor, Zhu Di, possessed the largest and most powerful navy on Earth.
With almost 200 ships, nearly twice the fleet of the great Spanish Armada almost two centuries later, the Chinese fleet dominated the waters of the western South Pacific and Indian oceans, all the way to the east coast of Africa.
In his 2006 book 1421: The Year that the Chinese Discovered America, Gavin Menzies argues that the emperor's chief admiral, Zheng He, actually sailed up the east coast of South America to the Caribbean, "discovering" the New World (the one that native Americans had discovered thousands of years earlier) 71 years before Christopher Columbus.
But it was all for naught. Court intrigue, along with the cost of maintaining a navy of some 27,000 sailors, led the great Chinese navy of the Ming Dynasty eventually to wither away and die; it was argued at court that the treasure being expended on the navy was doing nothing to protect China from the land-based armies of the remnants of the Mongol Empire. From that point forward, the concept of a "Chinese navy" was just about the closest thing you could come to a textbook oxymoron, something on the order of "giant shrimp" or "military intelligence".
Until now.
You frequently see containerized cargo ships making their way down Puget Sound to the port facilities in Seattle, completing their two-week high-seas journey from the massive Hong Kong and Shenzhen port complexes in southern China.
Most of the time, as they complete these voyages in from the Pacific, they ride low in the water, right down to the waterline. On these ships, the thousands of containers visible on deck, and the many more you don't see under the decks (the largest container ship in the world, the Maersk Line's Emma Maersk, can hold more than 14,000 individual 20-foot container units) are chock full, with TVs, washing machines and appliances, tires, toys and trinkets; the full catalogue of rapidly depreciating disposables over which North America is sacrificing its treasure.
As the containerized cargo ships leave Seattle, or San Francisco, or Long Beach, San Diego, Vancouver, all the way north to the newly bustling port of Prince Rupert, British Columbia, the ships ride a lot higher in the water. Most of the cargo containers are empty; they're being sent back to China to be refilled.
With the Chinese trade surplus with the US now running at about $150 billion a year, there's a lot more stuff coming into the US west coast than leaving. (And much of the value of what the US does export to China comes from either Boeing jetliners or intellectual properties, such as first-run teen-slasher movies, neither of which gets much transported to China on containerized cargo ships.)
Or maybe it just seems that way. What really is being transported back to China in those empty containers is power.
In the middle of the 19th century, first Britain, then Britain allied with France, fought two wars with China. These are called the Anglo-Chinese Wars in China; in the West, they are more frequently called the Opium Wars.
In a historical circumstance that those contemporaneous historians such as Niall Ferguson who wax about the boundless beneficence of the British Empire don't talk much about, the Opium Wars were fought over the Western powers' demand that China allow free license for British and French companies, particularly the British East India Company, to import and sell opium in China.
The Chinese government at the time well knew of opium's destructively addictive effects, but it was powerless to fight off the by then technologically superior Western powers. The Chinese defeat in the First Opium War in 1843 led to China ceding its control of, and British rule over, Hong Kong for 154 years; the 1860 Treaty of Tianjin that ended the Second Opium War was a virtual unconditional surrender by the Chinese: besides allowing the opium trade, it also allowed large Western military outposts (including those of the United States) to be set up in Beijing, as well as giving Western navies free access to navigate up the Yangtze River.
For at least the next century, the humiliation and subjugation of the Opium Wars burned in the heart of all Chinese nationalists.
One hundred and fifty years ago, the West subjugated China by addicting it to opium. Today, that power dynamic has been reversed. It is the West, especially the United States, that has become addicted, to an equally or even more addictive substance, cheap consumer products, and, more important, the profits that accrue from them.
Wal-Mart is a grand example of this phenomenon. Some 100 million Americans, one-third of the US population, passes through its happy doors every week. Between 15% and 20% (in sectors such as electronics and toys the percentages are closer to 50%) of all US consumer expenditure is rung up on Wal-Mart's registers. There may be a steamrolling public panic about the safety of Chinese consumer products but, as yet, there are still weeds growing in the cracks of the sidewalks of all those small downtown toy boutiques that sell locally produced US toys. Americans are still overwhelmingly going for the Wal-Mart price.
As Wal-Mart spread out of the southern United States in the early 1990s, its advertising campaign prided itself on the true-blue US origin and manufacture of its products; it has not used that pitch for quite a while. At least 10% of the US-China trade deficit represents Wal-Mart's China tab, but that does not mean that all the rest of the US consumer sector has taken up the flag for endangered American workers and manufacturers.
From the "big box" retailers Target, Sears and Kmart to the "category killers" of Circuit City and Best Buy, there are plenty of containers sailing east across the Pacific with barcodes that will have them sent to those establishments as well.
But the real source of China's power lies not with American consumers reclining in their Barcaloungers, with their Wal-Mart-bought chips and soft drinks, watching the latest Adam Sandler digital video disc that they picked up at the checkout counter while waiting to pay for the Wal-Mart big-screen TV. Americans may be unable to control their addiction to Chinese consumer products; it's a lot more important that the US ruling corporate sector is equally or more addicted to Chinese profits.
Just as a religious believer might trumpet the growth in a society's virtue, a believer in the religion of free-market capitalism holds no value higher than growth in productivity. Productivity growth, making an equal quantity of a product with less cost, or making a larger quantity of a product with the same quantity of value of input, is capitalism's glorious bright Elysium; it is the core process by which profit is generated.
Wal-Mart and other US retailers have managed to keep many of their prices stable in an era of general 2-4% retail inflation. Others have declined; they actually have been at Wal-Mart. However, this has only been accomplished through the enormous reduction in labor input costs made possible through non-unionized Chinese labor; save 80% or more on your labor costs, you can roll back prices on a $3 tube of toothpaste a few quarters and still make out like bandits. It is this process, the globalization two-step, fire in the US and hire in China, that is in large part responsible for the massive shift in US national income away from wages and salaries toward profits: the US profit-wage ratio is at its most extreme value since 1966.
Seen this way, the addiction of the US corporate class to profits from ships arriving from China represents perhaps the most significant great-power naval victory since Jutland in World War I. The addiction of the US consuming classes is nice but, ultimately, it has its limits; once you have two or three plasma TVs in your house, your appetite for more is probably moving toward being slaked.
However, for the corporate classes that comprise America's ruling elite, there will always be that one bigger next artificial high, be it from a grander beach house, a shinier Ferrari, a faster private jet, an older classical painting or a younger trophy wife, that continuing to mainline the Chinese profit needle might get one closer to. On the unlikely possibility that there still are a few communists left in the Chinese Communist Party, they must find the irony nothing short of ambrosial - once again, just as Vladimir Lenin said they would, communists are selling capitalists the rope with which they will hang themselves.
Looking after vested interests
The operation and effectiveness of the new Chinese power paradigm has been well demonstrated in President George W Bush's China policies. The self-proclaimed chief executive officer president, a man who seems to wake up every day with a burning desire to make rich people richer, who once described his political base as "the haves and have mores", has repeatedly proved, through his actions, that he well sees the value in using China to advance his unique cause.
On April 1, 2001, in the air above the waters near China's Hainan island, a US Navy EP-3 Orion maritime surveillance plane collided with a Chinese PLA F-8 fighter. The US aircraft, with 24 sailors, was forced to make an emergency landing at the PLA's Lingshui air base on Hainan; the Chinese pilot perished.
Both sides claimed the crash was the result of the other side's pilot doing his best Top Gun pilot imitation. American conservatives and militarists were outraged: they demanded an immediate return of the crew and plane; they also demanded that no Chinese nationals board the plane, claiming it to be sovereign US territory.
Some American neo-conservatives, trying out the themes they would find so devastatingly effective just a few months later, actually called for US military air strikes on China to effect the release of the plane, claiming that would provide the new president (Bush) with the requisite macho bona fides to get his domestic agenda passed in Congress.
China took a hard line. It boarded the plane and demanded an official US apology for the incident and the death of the PLA pilot before either the plane or crew would be released. American conservatives were aghast; they said Bush and his United States must never apologize for anything, a point that would be repeatedly proved during the nation's upcoming misadventure in Iraq.
The US State Department hemmed and hawed for a while, before finally producing an apology so obsequious that it bordered on abject groveling. The US even apologized for the plane's emergency landing on Hainan without prior ground clearance, something akin to a mugging victim apologizing for having his face get in the way of the mugger's truncheon. The crew was released after 12 days; the plane was released a few months later, but the Chinese demanded that it not be flown off the island but cut into little pieces and crated. They also demanded that the US pay reparations for damages done to the airfield as a result of the EP-3's emergency landing. The US acquiesced to both these demands.
Conservatives were thus even more outraged; they demanded, at the very least, US economic sanctions be applied to China, starting with blocking China's then-pending membership to the World Trade Organization. The Bush administration would hear none of it. For it, Chinese membership in the WTO would be a virtual Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for US industrialists hoping to shed their US workforce to hire much cheaper labor in China.
China's accession to the WTO went forward on schedule that September.
Since then, the major bilateral issue in US-China relations has been the artificially low level at which China has kept its currency, the yuan. The theory of the floating exchange regime that has governed the world's currency markets since 1973 states that countries such as China with massive trade surpluses should see their currencies appreciate in value against the currencies of the countries with which they are running surpluses. This has not happened with the yuan-US-dollar exchange rate: it was fixed by the Chinese government until the summer of 2005; since then, its controlled appreciation against the dollar has been modest at best.
It is obvious to everyone that China is keeping the yuan rate artificially low to maintain its competitiveness; a number of members of the US Congress, most notably Democratic Senators Charles Schumer and Max Baucus and Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Chuck Grassley, have tried to get legislation moving that would impose economic sanctions on China that would punish it for the artificial suppression of the yuan's value.
The Bush administration will hear nothing of this either. Even though a yuan appreciation would greatly increase the chances that US manufacturing workers who still have their jobs might be able to keep them, Bush has announced that he will veto any attempt to punish China for its currency-management regime, and the pro-sanctions forces are not even close to having the required two-thirds vote in Congress to override a veto.
China does not have to lobby US congressional representatives to look after its interests; the US industrial elite does that quite well on its own. In much the same way that Nazi Germany established Vichy France to further its interests without actually occupying the country, the US corporate elite's desire to use China to enrich its wealth further has allowed China to create Vichy America.
That Taiwan problem ...
The major strategic contingency the Chinese military must plan for is the possibility that one day the political leadership might task it with the conquest of Taiwan.
The relations of China and the US over Taiwan have been governed by the "Shanghai Communique", signed at the end of president Richard Nixon's historic trip to Beijing in 1972. This had the US in essence denying Taiwan's claim that it was a separate state independent from China, in return for vague Chinese assurances that it would not force the issue militarily.
Very few observers believe that China will just tear up the Shanghai Communique and invade without provocation. However, if Taiwan did commit some provocation that questioned China's sovereignty over the island, if the situation were ambiguous enough, China just might send its fleet across the Taiwan Strait.
The only force that could check this move would be the US military, both the US Navy's 7th Fleet, based in Yokosuka, Japan, and the Pacific Air Force, primarily operating out of bases in Japan and South Korea.
Here can be seen the true genius of the Chinese plan to subdue the US with trinkets and treasure. To counter the US militarily would be hugely expensive, and probably beyond China's current technological capacity. Far better to do it the way it has, with trade. The Chinese could have America's industrial elite, fearing a shutoff of the China wealth spigot, whisper in the ears of American policymakers that they should lay off any military countering of a Chinese move against Taiwan.
Give China 10 days to two weeks of unhindered military access to the Taiwan Strait, and it'll put the flag of the People's Republic of China over the Presidential Palace in Taipei. This is the classic "indirect approach" of mid-20th-century English military strategist Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart; instead of facing the US at its strongest, its technological superiority, China has attacked the US at its weakest point, its acquisitive, materialist, greedy soul.
Cold War relics
In the early 1980s, the same people who are now warning against the menacing Chinese military threat were issuing just about the same warning about the Soviet military threat. Seen as a particularly ominous development was the Soviet construction of two "aircraft carriers" (in reality, the only aircraft they carried were helicopters, and a small number of the limited-range and -capability Yak 38 vertical-takeoff fighters), the Kiev and the Minsk.
Even though there were only two of these ships, as compared with the 12 aircraft carriers of the US Navy, and even though the Kiev and the Minsk were less than half the size of the big US carriers, warnings were still issued that this new development would soon represent a serious threat to America's century-long dominance of the oceans. Or, as the Ronald Reagan Pentagon argued before Congress, you better increase our budget.
The Kiev and the Minsk never really represented any threat to the US; they were unreliable and expensive to operate and, after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, there wasn't even any money to pay the sailors who crewed them.
In 1996, the Kiev was sold to China; in 2006, so was the Minsk. This also raised a few eyebrows among US militarists: were the Chinese, in buying the old Soviet navy on the cheap, going to use them to resuscitate the Soviet naval threat under the Chinese flag?
Nothing of the sort has happened. The Kiev and Minsk have been retired to be the prime attractions at a military theme park in Shenzhen. (There was some talk that the Minsk would face the wrecker's ball, or maybe, in the ultimate metaphor for the futility of expending national treasure in the modern world on expensive military equipment, it would be sunk to provide an artificial reef for marine life - in other words, the once-mighty warship would be deliberately turned into a snack for barnacles.) A recent photo in The Economist showed the Kiev tied up at dock beside a family at a picnic table under a Pepsi-Cola umbrella.
Nothing better illustrates the success of the Chinese strategy. For all the good they'll do for you in today's world, you might as well turn actual naval assets into money-making tourist attractions; you'll even be able to get some product-placement loot out of US beverage companies.
Real power now lies in those cargo ships forever steaming inexorably to the American heartland. In a couple of years, the United States will conclude its (by then) million-death, trillion-dollar misadventure in trying to subdue a few spits of green land between the Tigris and Euphrates. It will discover that, even if General David Petraeus' "surge" might have won the battle of al-Anbar, back home the US ruling elite has surrendered to China in the battle for the United States, without even firing a single shot.
Julian Delasantellis is a management consultant, private investor and educator in international business in the US state of Washington. He can be reached at juliandelasantellis@yahoo.com.
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
The parade of ships for Seafair 2007 was not all that impressive; just a few smaller navy combat and support ships. All the big capital ships of the navy's Pacific fleet are currently in the Persian Gulf, steaming around in circles, waiting to bump into something with an Iranian flag on it so the American neo-conservatives can manufacture a casus belli for a future catastrophic war in Iran that will divert Americans' attention from the current catastrophic war in Iraq.
But Seafair in the summer of 2001, in that last, innocent idyllic US summer of blissful ignorance of how a lot of the world really felt about it, that parade of ships was grand. At the ranch, President George W Bush chopped wood, and as the only lethal foreign threat heading toward the US homeland reported by the media from overseas was that of sharks, the navy sent a particularly impressive contingent for the parade of ships.
Led by the 100,000-ton nuclear aircraft carrier USS John C Stennis, and accompanied by a number of major combat support ships, it was a particularly impressive sight as it sailed in from the northern Pacific Ocean through the Strait of Juan de Fuca toward Seattle.
I remember that year I was watching the ships' transit from a bluff above Puget Sound. There I saw them paced, and then passed, by the actual greatest naval power existent then, and even more so now, on Earth: the great imperial battle fleet of the navy of the People's Republic of China.
Box it and ship it
In saying that I am in no way, shape or form referring to the actual People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy. What I mean, what I saw that day, were the real dreadnoughts of modern-day Chinese naval power, the huge containerized cargo ships, some Chinese, most not, full of Chinese manufactured goods, making another one of their visits to the port of Seattle, the same way they do to hundreds of other Western ports every single day.
English economist John Maynard Keynes once marveled that, even in the conditions of the nascent globalization of the early 20th century, he could, as a fine English gentleman, sit in his garden in the morning and enjoy the benefits of all manner of fruits and delicacies from all over the world. This is more so now; these days, the world's middle classes have ready access to products they barely knew existed, from countries that themselves barely existed only half a century ago.
Today, you don't have to be a fine English gentleman with a manservant to enjoy fruit from Turkey or prawns from Vietnam - being a middle-class North American or European with a charge card will do just as nicely.
No politician or ideology has accomplished this transformation; in reality, globalization's true avatar is now the containerized shipping unit, those standard 20-to-40-foot rectangular cargo boxes that are seamlessly transferred from oceangoing ships to inland transit, either by trains or trucks, or to inland-waterway transport on barges.
This phenomenon started in the mid-1920s with US Midwestern railroads working with converted railroad boxcars; in 1929, the Seatrain lines brought this concept to sea by driving railroad boxcars on to ships for transport from the US northeast to Cuba.
The advantages of containerized shipping are obvious: massive cranes rapidly handling the containers obviate the need for expensive work crews to offload and reload each cardboard box of cargo at each transfer point of the transport process (ie, from ship to train, then from train to truck); also, the locked containers mean that it is far less likely that expensive plasma TVs or fur coats might once again just happen to "fall off the truck" to wind up in someone's house.
A relatively recent phenomenon is the fitting of the containerized units with self-contained electric refrigeration units. This is the manner in which many of these exotic delicacies and sweetmeats find their way on to the dining tables of the West; stores and restaurants are just not making enough money selling prawns at US$20 a kilo to justify flying them in fresh in the cargo hold of a Boeing 747.
Some 4,000 containerized cargo ships sail the world's oceans. Mostly, this transport is reserved for finished, manufactured products; other cargo, such as petroleum products or wheat, move in their own, specially dedicated cargo ships.
The largest container-ship companies in the world are Denmark's Maersk, Germany's Hapag-Lloyd and MSC from Belgium. China's two state-owned shipping companies, China Ocean Shipping (Group) Co (COSCO) and China Shipping Container Lines Co Ltd (CSCL), are currently respectively the sixth- and eighth-largest shipping companies in the world.
This makes the power currently accruing to China from the world shipping process even more remarkable. China is dominating the world with a fleet it does not own, that it sacrificed no treasure to build.
Unhealthy addictions
About 600 years ago, China attempted to do naval supremacy the old-fashioned way. In the early 15th century, as the great British navy to come was tied down supporting British ground forces fighting across the English Channel in France in the Hundred Years' War, and while the greatest naval power in the Mediterranean was that of the Ottomans, the Ming Dynasty's Yongle Emperor, Zhu Di, possessed the largest and most powerful navy on Earth.
With almost 200 ships, nearly twice the fleet of the great Spanish Armada almost two centuries later, the Chinese fleet dominated the waters of the western South Pacific and Indian oceans, all the way to the east coast of Africa.
In his 2006 book 1421: The Year that the Chinese Discovered America, Gavin Menzies argues that the emperor's chief admiral, Zheng He, actually sailed up the east coast of South America to the Caribbean, "discovering" the New World (the one that native Americans had discovered thousands of years earlier) 71 years before Christopher Columbus.
But it was all for naught. Court intrigue, along with the cost of maintaining a navy of some 27,000 sailors, led the great Chinese navy of the Ming Dynasty eventually to wither away and die; it was argued at court that the treasure being expended on the navy was doing nothing to protect China from the land-based armies of the remnants of the Mongol Empire. From that point forward, the concept of a "Chinese navy" was just about the closest thing you could come to a textbook oxymoron, something on the order of "giant shrimp" or "military intelligence".
Until now.
You frequently see containerized cargo ships making their way down Puget Sound to the port facilities in Seattle, completing their two-week high-seas journey from the massive Hong Kong and Shenzhen port complexes in southern China.
Most of the time, as they complete these voyages in from the Pacific, they ride low in the water, right down to the waterline. On these ships, the thousands of containers visible on deck, and the many more you don't see under the decks (the largest container ship in the world, the Maersk Line's Emma Maersk, can hold more than 14,000 individual 20-foot container units) are chock full, with TVs, washing machines and appliances, tires, toys and trinkets; the full catalogue of rapidly depreciating disposables over which North America is sacrificing its treasure.
As the containerized cargo ships leave Seattle, or San Francisco, or Long Beach, San Diego, Vancouver, all the way north to the newly bustling port of Prince Rupert, British Columbia, the ships ride a lot higher in the water. Most of the cargo containers are empty; they're being sent back to China to be refilled.
With the Chinese trade surplus with the US now running at about $150 billion a year, there's a lot more stuff coming into the US west coast than leaving. (And much of the value of what the US does export to China comes from either Boeing jetliners or intellectual properties, such as first-run teen-slasher movies, neither of which gets much transported to China on containerized cargo ships.)
Or maybe it just seems that way. What really is being transported back to China in those empty containers is power.
In the middle of the 19th century, first Britain, then Britain allied with France, fought two wars with China. These are called the Anglo-Chinese Wars in China; in the West, they are more frequently called the Opium Wars.
In a historical circumstance that those contemporaneous historians such as Niall Ferguson who wax about the boundless beneficence of the British Empire don't talk much about, the Opium Wars were fought over the Western powers' demand that China allow free license for British and French companies, particularly the British East India Company, to import and sell opium in China.
The Chinese government at the time well knew of opium's destructively addictive effects, but it was powerless to fight off the by then technologically superior Western powers. The Chinese defeat in the First Opium War in 1843 led to China ceding its control of, and British rule over, Hong Kong for 154 years; the 1860 Treaty of Tianjin that ended the Second Opium War was a virtual unconditional surrender by the Chinese: besides allowing the opium trade, it also allowed large Western military outposts (including those of the United States) to be set up in Beijing, as well as giving Western navies free access to navigate up the Yangtze River.
For at least the next century, the humiliation and subjugation of the Opium Wars burned in the heart of all Chinese nationalists.
One hundred and fifty years ago, the West subjugated China by addicting it to opium. Today, that power dynamic has been reversed. It is the West, especially the United States, that has become addicted, to an equally or even more addictive substance, cheap consumer products, and, more important, the profits that accrue from them.
Wal-Mart is a grand example of this phenomenon. Some 100 million Americans, one-third of the US population, passes through its happy doors every week. Between 15% and 20% (in sectors such as electronics and toys the percentages are closer to 50%) of all US consumer expenditure is rung up on Wal-Mart's registers. There may be a steamrolling public panic about the safety of Chinese consumer products but, as yet, there are still weeds growing in the cracks of the sidewalks of all those small downtown toy boutiques that sell locally produced US toys. Americans are still overwhelmingly going for the Wal-Mart price.
As Wal-Mart spread out of the southern United States in the early 1990s, its advertising campaign prided itself on the true-blue US origin and manufacture of its products; it has not used that pitch for quite a while. At least 10% of the US-China trade deficit represents Wal-Mart's China tab, but that does not mean that all the rest of the US consumer sector has taken up the flag for endangered American workers and manufacturers.
From the "big box" retailers Target, Sears and Kmart to the "category killers" of Circuit City and Best Buy, there are plenty of containers sailing east across the Pacific with barcodes that will have them sent to those establishments as well.
But the real source of China's power lies not with American consumers reclining in their Barcaloungers, with their Wal-Mart-bought chips and soft drinks, watching the latest Adam Sandler digital video disc that they picked up at the checkout counter while waiting to pay for the Wal-Mart big-screen TV. Americans may be unable to control their addiction to Chinese consumer products; it's a lot more important that the US ruling corporate sector is equally or more addicted to Chinese profits.
Just as a religious believer might trumpet the growth in a society's virtue, a believer in the religion of free-market capitalism holds no value higher than growth in productivity. Productivity growth, making an equal quantity of a product with less cost, or making a larger quantity of a product with the same quantity of value of input, is capitalism's glorious bright Elysium; it is the core process by which profit is generated.
Wal-Mart and other US retailers have managed to keep many of their prices stable in an era of general 2-4% retail inflation. Others have declined; they actually have been at Wal-Mart. However, this has only been accomplished through the enormous reduction in labor input costs made possible through non-unionized Chinese labor; save 80% or more on your labor costs, you can roll back prices on a $3 tube of toothpaste a few quarters and still make out like bandits. It is this process, the globalization two-step, fire in the US and hire in China, that is in large part responsible for the massive shift in US national income away from wages and salaries toward profits: the US profit-wage ratio is at its most extreme value since 1966.
Seen this way, the addiction of the US corporate class to profits from ships arriving from China represents perhaps the most significant great-power naval victory since Jutland in World War I. The addiction of the US consuming classes is nice but, ultimately, it has its limits; once you have two or three plasma TVs in your house, your appetite for more is probably moving toward being slaked.
However, for the corporate classes that comprise America's ruling elite, there will always be that one bigger next artificial high, be it from a grander beach house, a shinier Ferrari, a faster private jet, an older classical painting or a younger trophy wife, that continuing to mainline the Chinese profit needle might get one closer to. On the unlikely possibility that there still are a few communists left in the Chinese Communist Party, they must find the irony nothing short of ambrosial - once again, just as Vladimir Lenin said they would, communists are selling capitalists the rope with which they will hang themselves.
Looking after vested interests
The operation and effectiveness of the new Chinese power paradigm has been well demonstrated in President George W Bush's China policies. The self-proclaimed chief executive officer president, a man who seems to wake up every day with a burning desire to make rich people richer, who once described his political base as "the haves and have mores", has repeatedly proved, through his actions, that he well sees the value in using China to advance his unique cause.
On April 1, 2001, in the air above the waters near China's Hainan island, a US Navy EP-3 Orion maritime surveillance plane collided with a Chinese PLA F-8 fighter. The US aircraft, with 24 sailors, was forced to make an emergency landing at the PLA's Lingshui air base on Hainan; the Chinese pilot perished.
Both sides claimed the crash was the result of the other side's pilot doing his best Top Gun pilot imitation. American conservatives and militarists were outraged: they demanded an immediate return of the crew and plane; they also demanded that no Chinese nationals board the plane, claiming it to be sovereign US territory.
Some American neo-conservatives, trying out the themes they would find so devastatingly effective just a few months later, actually called for US military air strikes on China to effect the release of the plane, claiming that would provide the new president (Bush) with the requisite macho bona fides to get his domestic agenda passed in Congress.
China took a hard line. It boarded the plane and demanded an official US apology for the incident and the death of the PLA pilot before either the plane or crew would be released. American conservatives were aghast; they said Bush and his United States must never apologize for anything, a point that would be repeatedly proved during the nation's upcoming misadventure in Iraq.
The US State Department hemmed and hawed for a while, before finally producing an apology so obsequious that it bordered on abject groveling. The US even apologized for the plane's emergency landing on Hainan without prior ground clearance, something akin to a mugging victim apologizing for having his face get in the way of the mugger's truncheon. The crew was released after 12 days; the plane was released a few months later, but the Chinese demanded that it not be flown off the island but cut into little pieces and crated. They also demanded that the US pay reparations for damages done to the airfield as a result of the EP-3's emergency landing. The US acquiesced to both these demands.
Conservatives were thus even more outraged; they demanded, at the very least, US economic sanctions be applied to China, starting with blocking China's then-pending membership to the World Trade Organization. The Bush administration would hear none of it. For it, Chinese membership in the WTO would be a virtual Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for US industrialists hoping to shed their US workforce to hire much cheaper labor in China.
China's accession to the WTO went forward on schedule that September.
Since then, the major bilateral issue in US-China relations has been the artificially low level at which China has kept its currency, the yuan. The theory of the floating exchange regime that has governed the world's currency markets since 1973 states that countries such as China with massive trade surpluses should see their currencies appreciate in value against the currencies of the countries with which they are running surpluses. This has not happened with the yuan-US-dollar exchange rate: it was fixed by the Chinese government until the summer of 2005; since then, its controlled appreciation against the dollar has been modest at best.
It is obvious to everyone that China is keeping the yuan rate artificially low to maintain its competitiveness; a number of members of the US Congress, most notably Democratic Senators Charles Schumer and Max Baucus and Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Chuck Grassley, have tried to get legislation moving that would impose economic sanctions on China that would punish it for the artificial suppression of the yuan's value.
The Bush administration will hear nothing of this either. Even though a yuan appreciation would greatly increase the chances that US manufacturing workers who still have their jobs might be able to keep them, Bush has announced that he will veto any attempt to punish China for its currency-management regime, and the pro-sanctions forces are not even close to having the required two-thirds vote in Congress to override a veto.
China does not have to lobby US congressional representatives to look after its interests; the US industrial elite does that quite well on its own. In much the same way that Nazi Germany established Vichy France to further its interests without actually occupying the country, the US corporate elite's desire to use China to enrich its wealth further has allowed China to create Vichy America.
That Taiwan problem ...
The major strategic contingency the Chinese military must plan for is the possibility that one day the political leadership might task it with the conquest of Taiwan.
The relations of China and the US over Taiwan have been governed by the "Shanghai Communique", signed at the end of president Richard Nixon's historic trip to Beijing in 1972. This had the US in essence denying Taiwan's claim that it was a separate state independent from China, in return for vague Chinese assurances that it would not force the issue militarily.
Very few observers believe that China will just tear up the Shanghai Communique and invade without provocation. However, if Taiwan did commit some provocation that questioned China's sovereignty over the island, if the situation were ambiguous enough, China just might send its fleet across the Taiwan Strait.
The only force that could check this move would be the US military, both the US Navy's 7th Fleet, based in Yokosuka, Japan, and the Pacific Air Force, primarily operating out of bases in Japan and South Korea.
Here can be seen the true genius of the Chinese plan to subdue the US with trinkets and treasure. To counter the US militarily would be hugely expensive, and probably beyond China's current technological capacity. Far better to do it the way it has, with trade. The Chinese could have America's industrial elite, fearing a shutoff of the China wealth spigot, whisper in the ears of American policymakers that they should lay off any military countering of a Chinese move against Taiwan.
Give China 10 days to two weeks of unhindered military access to the Taiwan Strait, and it'll put the flag of the People's Republic of China over the Presidential Palace in Taipei. This is the classic "indirect approach" of mid-20th-century English military strategist Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart; instead of facing the US at its strongest, its technological superiority, China has attacked the US at its weakest point, its acquisitive, materialist, greedy soul.
Cold War relics
In the early 1980s, the same people who are now warning against the menacing Chinese military threat were issuing just about the same warning about the Soviet military threat. Seen as a particularly ominous development was the Soviet construction of two "aircraft carriers" (in reality, the only aircraft they carried were helicopters, and a small number of the limited-range and -capability Yak 38 vertical-takeoff fighters), the Kiev and the Minsk.
Even though there were only two of these ships, as compared with the 12 aircraft carriers of the US Navy, and even though the Kiev and the Minsk were less than half the size of the big US carriers, warnings were still issued that this new development would soon represent a serious threat to America's century-long dominance of the oceans. Or, as the Ronald Reagan Pentagon argued before Congress, you better increase our budget.
The Kiev and the Minsk never really represented any threat to the US; they were unreliable and expensive to operate and, after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, there wasn't even any money to pay the sailors who crewed them.
In 1996, the Kiev was sold to China; in 2006, so was the Minsk. This also raised a few eyebrows among US militarists: were the Chinese, in buying the old Soviet navy on the cheap, going to use them to resuscitate the Soviet naval threat under the Chinese flag?
Nothing of the sort has happened. The Kiev and Minsk have been retired to be the prime attractions at a military theme park in Shenzhen. (There was some talk that the Minsk would face the wrecker's ball, or maybe, in the ultimate metaphor for the futility of expending national treasure in the modern world on expensive military equipment, it would be sunk to provide an artificial reef for marine life - in other words, the once-mighty warship would be deliberately turned into a snack for barnacles.) A recent photo in The Economist showed the Kiev tied up at dock beside a family at a picnic table under a Pepsi-Cola umbrella.
Nothing better illustrates the success of the Chinese strategy. For all the good they'll do for you in today's world, you might as well turn actual naval assets into money-making tourist attractions; you'll even be able to get some product-placement loot out of US beverage companies.
Real power now lies in those cargo ships forever steaming inexorably to the American heartland. In a couple of years, the United States will conclude its (by then) million-death, trillion-dollar misadventure in trying to subdue a few spits of green land between the Tigris and Euphrates. It will discover that, even if General David Petraeus' "surge" might have won the battle of al-Anbar, back home the US ruling elite has surrendered to China in the battle for the United States, without even firing a single shot.
Julian Delasantellis is a management consultant, private investor and educator in international business in the US state of Washington. He can be reached at juliandelasantellis@yahoo.com.
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
Padilla's Kangaroo Court By Chris Stevenson
This presidential administration will go down as having taken the most liberties with dirty tricks as any other administration in history. The fact that they can detain an "enemy combatant" and torture him to the point where he can't competently defend himself against some of the most serious charges in US history is pure cowardice. To loosely connect him to the horrific events of September 11th 2001 and get away with it is astounding. Yet this is what many are made to believe regarding Jose Padilla; a man essentially no worse than an inner city gang-banger. Gang-banger convicted by gangsters. It wouldn't be out of line to recall the immortal words of Billy Batts in "Goodfellas" and tell this batty administration to "go home and get your F—kin' shine-box."
This is the man whose conviction is supposed to make us think we got payback for 9/11? This guilty verdict is supposed to make us breath a sigh of relief? I think not. If you run across Bush in a theater sneaking into the compassionate conservative section, ask him why he didn't have Luis Posada – a man with a record of killing – detained, tortured and prosecuted? And while his face is twitching (as it always does) ask him how the bin Laden search is going. Surely he must remember him; the man initially blamed for the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The charges of Padilla meeting bin Laden and planning to detonate a "dirty bomb" were never substantiated (according to NPR). Undaunted, Bush trudged on with other charges he that he felt would stick.
Padilla was originally held as a material witness on a warrant issued in the state of New York stemming from 9/11. On 6/9/02 the President ordered then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant. District Court Judge Michael Mukasey may have been on the verge of questioning and ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, but he was then transferred to a military brig in South Carolina.
It was the Authorization for use of Military Force (AUMF) that legally justified the detention because it states you can use all "necessary force against… such nations, organizations or persons" under the opinion or based on opinion that a US citizen is an enemy combatant. No I don't know Padilla, I know he's not a saint, but this is the stuff of Kangaroo courts.
Accusations of being "light on evidence" and requests to drop some charges by the presiding judge add to the suspicious nature of the trial. Eventually it would be some wiretapped conversation with a co-defendant that would play a major role in his guilty verdict. It was assumed that plans between Padilla and co-defendant Adham Hassoun for a family outing at an amusement park was code language regarding plans for a domestic attack. Prosecutors (make that co-persecutors) played 70 intercepted phone calls, 7 of those calls actually had Padilla's voice on them. The notorious Chicago gang-banger was convicted by a jury of his "peers;" 5 Blacks, 4 whites, 3 Latinos and 0 Muslims, obviously all from south Florida. You'd think they'd at least flew in a couple of Chicanos from IL who owed him 20 bucks to sit in. The real kicker is Padilla wasn't even fit to stand trial, psychiatrist Angela Hegarty said that after 22 hours of examination he was mentally unfit, plus he exhibited a "facial tic." Hey, so does Bush. Perhaps he should have been on trial.
--Chris Stevenson is a columnist for the Buffalo Criterion .Contact him at pointblankDTA@yahoo.com
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
This is the man whose conviction is supposed to make us think we got payback for 9/11? This guilty verdict is supposed to make us breath a sigh of relief? I think not. If you run across Bush in a theater sneaking into the compassionate conservative section, ask him why he didn't have Luis Posada – a man with a record of killing – detained, tortured and prosecuted? And while his face is twitching (as it always does) ask him how the bin Laden search is going. Surely he must remember him; the man initially blamed for the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The charges of Padilla meeting bin Laden and planning to detonate a "dirty bomb" were never substantiated (according to NPR). Undaunted, Bush trudged on with other charges he that he felt would stick.
Padilla was originally held as a material witness on a warrant issued in the state of New York stemming from 9/11. On 6/9/02 the President ordered then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant. District Court Judge Michael Mukasey may have been on the verge of questioning and ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, but he was then transferred to a military brig in South Carolina.
It was the Authorization for use of Military Force (AUMF) that legally justified the detention because it states you can use all "necessary force against… such nations, organizations or persons" under the opinion or based on opinion that a US citizen is an enemy combatant. No I don't know Padilla, I know he's not a saint, but this is the stuff of Kangaroo courts.
Accusations of being "light on evidence" and requests to drop some charges by the presiding judge add to the suspicious nature of the trial. Eventually it would be some wiretapped conversation with a co-defendant that would play a major role in his guilty verdict. It was assumed that plans between Padilla and co-defendant Adham Hassoun for a family outing at an amusement park was code language regarding plans for a domestic attack. Prosecutors (make that co-persecutors) played 70 intercepted phone calls, 7 of those calls actually had Padilla's voice on them. The notorious Chicago gang-banger was convicted by a jury of his "peers;" 5 Blacks, 4 whites, 3 Latinos and 0 Muslims, obviously all from south Florida. You'd think they'd at least flew in a couple of Chicanos from IL who owed him 20 bucks to sit in. The real kicker is Padilla wasn't even fit to stand trial, psychiatrist Angela Hegarty said that after 22 hours of examination he was mentally unfit, plus he exhibited a "facial tic." Hey, so does Bush. Perhaps he should have been on trial.
--Chris Stevenson is a columnist for the Buffalo Criterion .Contact him at pointblankDTA@yahoo.com
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
Why the US and Israel Should Lose Middle East Wars - By Bill Christison (Former CIA Analyst)
08/27/07 "Counterpunch" -- -- George W. Bush has once again thrown down the gauntlet. The Mideast wars of the United States, he announced to the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention on August 22, must end only with a U.S. victory. He has not wavered in this position since September 11, 2001. The unspoken but real purpose of his efforts has been and will be to concentrate increasing power over the Middle East in the hands of the small group of rich and greedy elites who rule the U.S. and Israel today, and perhaps he will achieve this goal. The more important result, however, will be the elimination of any movement toward greater global justice, stability, and peace in the world for decades to come.
It is past time to challenge the arrogant Mr. Bush directly.
For overwhelming moral reasons, I do not want the U. S. and Israeli governments to be victorious in any present or future Middle East wars. I want them to lose such wars.
U.S. policies in the Middle East since 9/11 have already caused a million or so killings and have created more injustice in the world than existed formerly. Every day results in more killings, more injustice. Unless might does indeed make right, we have no right whatever to win these wars. We should lose them.
If the U.S. were to "win" these wars, whatever that means, more of the world's people than at present would be ruled by the U.S. Most of these people do not want to be ruled by the U.S. -- which makes the wars themselves anti-democratic. That fact alone is reason enough to conclude that our country should lose these wars.
My personal belief is that the United States and Israel will inevitably lose these wars over time in any case. If this loss is in fact inevitable, conventional wisdom would argue that it is better for the loss to happen rapidly in order to hold casualties down. In a continuing civil war over which outsiders have limited control, however, conventional wisdom may not apply.
Nevertheless, a truly rapid -- meaning within the next six months -- acceptance of defeat by the U.S. and Israel of their own Mideast policies would probably offer the only possibility of mitigating the blame assigned to these two nations by the rest of the world for future mass killings of human beings throughout this unstable area.
Much of global public opinion will in any case correctly attribute a large residual responsibility to the U.S. and Israel for the utterly disproportionate and one-sided killings already carried out since 9/11 in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank. Further killings that occur during even a short and rapid transition to inevitable U.S. and Israeli defeat will only enlarge this residual. But a short, quick, and determined acceptance of defeat will still reduce to some extent the charges of U.S. responsibility for future killings.
A lasting peace in the Middle East will only happen, of course, if the U.S. and Israel are wise enough publicly (and honestly) to end their drive for joint imperium over the Middle East and Central Asia and also to cease their efforts to bring about regime change in Iran and Syria. In other words, as has long been the case, the U.S. and Israel will need to make serious long-term changes in their own foreign policies if they wish to avoid a conflict lasting for generations that ultimately they cannot win.
As of now, no evidence exists that either country is willing even to consider such policy changes, and no evidence exists that either the Republican or Democratic Parties in the U.S., any political parties in Israel, the military-industrial complexes of the U.S. and Israel, the Israel lobby in the U.S., the U.S. Protestant Christian Right, the Catholic Church, or the ruling elites of any EU states will bring one jot of meaningful pressure to bear on the Israeli or the U.S. government to change their policies.
If change is to come, it must come from ordinary voters, particularly in the U.S., applying pressure on the various groups listed above, or from ordinary people succeeding in setting up new groups or parties that will succeed in bringing greater pressure to bear. The pressures must be very strong and very explicit. People must emphasize day after day to both Democratic and Republican members of Congress and to every presidential candidate that the U.S. must first and foremost change its own policies. And people must emphasize to all politicians that the Israel lobby is one of the strongest forces pressing both Democrats and Republicans not to change U.S. policies, thereby preventing healthy political debate in the country. This must stop.
Finally, my hope is that sensible U.S. voters will agree with the opinions summarized here and in addition create a groundswell of support for the immediate impeachment and conviction of Bush and Cheney. This is the only action, in my view, that opens up the possibility of rapidly bringing about the necessary changes in U.S. policies.
Other Considerations
Let's say it bluntly. War with Iran is inevitable before January 2009 unless Bush and Cheney are both impeached first. New Israeli-U.S. hostilities in Lebanon are also likely. Either warfare or covert actions conducted by the U.S. and/or Israel to bring about regime change in Syria are also probable.
But those of us in the U.S. who claim to be peace activists ought to be ashamed. With rare exceptions, the powers in the movement are confident that things are already going our way, what with the Democratic Party's success in the 2006 congressional elections and the continuing disaster the Bush administration faces in Iraq. Most self-labeled peace activists think the odds so favor further Democratic victories that, as a group, we do not need to run any risks or do anything new to take the presidency away from the Republicans in 2008. It's old hat, maybe, but the best thing to do, most peace activists believe, is just to keep talking about withdrawal from Iraq, while patting ourselves on the back and emphasizing to each other that we are being admirably mature and responsible in not moving too fast toward actual withdrawal.
So let's admit that many of us sustain ourselves with hot air even when the subject is limited to Iraq. Let's admit too that few want to discuss the role Israel played in encouraging the U.S. to invade Iraq in 2003, because that would be unnecessarily criticizing Israel. In fact, both the Israel lobby and the Israeli government probably concluded as early as May 2003 that they had already achieved their own principal objectives in Iraq, and that it was counterproductive for them to waste their own credibility by continuing to oppose every aspect of the U.S. peace movement's criticism of the war. Even before things began going wrong in the war's execution, Israeli propagandists were soft-pedaling their own top officials' support for the war. But underneath, the support was definitely there, hard and firm.
When it comes to matters in the Middle East other than Iraq, most peaceniks are even less willing to address questions of the Israel lobby's involvement in U.S. policymaking. Talking about this would be the surest way to reveal the disunity and embarrassing differences within the so-called peace movement. In order to avoid an open discussion, it is easier for most of us simply to ignore the voluminous evidence that both the lobby, and senior U.S. officials who are in effect part of the lobby, are pushing the U.S. toward war, particularly with Iran, but also toward regime change in Syria and resumed hostilities in Lebanon. If it comes to war with any or all of these countries, most peace types note that they are not pushing for it, and they will silently hope more wars do not erupt, but they will not make a lot of noise about stopping such wars before they start. In this, they are simply following most of the leaders of the Democratic Party.
All of this, of course, is logically nonsensical. Take a minute and think of the mess the peace movement has created. First, the very name reflects the movement's shallowness. What good is a hypocritical, utterly out-of-touch and ineffective "peace movement," when beyond question ordinary people on this earth want justice before they want peace? The U.S. government and its ultra-close ally Israel actually want more unjust colonial wars and covert action to strengthen their own already unjust influence over a major part of the globe, in this case the Middle East. Peace above all is for those who support the status quo, but if you're in that category you're in a small minority. So let's banish the peace movement and get a global justice movement going. Peace may be all right long-term, but if you're one of the angry billions on this earth constantly surrounded by a stench of injustice that smothers all hope, chances are that, in your mind, peace should follow justice, not precede it. Chances are, in fact, that you have no favorable thoughts of any type about U.S. peaceniks.
Let's look at another question that is not just about the Middle East but is about the broader Islamic world as well. It seems clear that Samuel Huntington's concept of a clash of civilizations has expanded its intellectual appeal since September 11, 2001. We do indeed seem to have an example of a clash of civilizations that has become a growing force today. This force is nourished by the desire of Muslims for real freedom from the increasing political domination over the Islamic peoples by Western (Christian and Jewish) parts of the world. The principal Islamic motivation has little to do with "hatred of our freedoms." The Islamic hatred (and it does exist) is aimed at U.S., Israeli, and Western policies.
Huntington's book was published in the mid-1990s, and the events of September 11 can be seen as a major example of this type of clash of civilizations. The point to be made here is that ideas in the book, conveniently titled The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, lend themselves to being twisted fairly easily into ideas that the neocons, the Israel lobby, recent Israeli governments, EU elites, the Catholic Church, the Protestant Christian Right in the U.S., and the Bush administration itself all have established as part of their own views toward the Islamic world. The book therefore becomes an object of considerable value to the present rulers of the United States and Israel, since it can be seen as providing intellectual justification not only for the special relationship between these two nations, but also for the newly cordial ties of the European Union to U.S. and Israeli policies.
Those among us who wish to counter the notion that a clash of civilizations justifies what the U.S. and Israel are doing in the Middle East today should stand up and state their opposition loudly and directly. Supporters of the concept that the "clash" is a significant part of the present global political system seem to suggest that the very existence of the clash makes unjust, oppressive treatment of Islamic people somehow acceptable. But we should point out that the existence of a real clash is questionable, and that in any case injustice and oppression are never acceptable. People everywhere should realize that in this increasingly globalized world the importance of nationalism is beginning to fade. All of us should begin thinking much more about what are the best policies for the entire world to pursue, not what are the best policies for their own nations. To start this ball rolling, those who happen to live in the U.S. should stop thinking of themselves as exceptional. Americans are perfectly average -- no better and no worse than average people everywhere else. There are some -- a few -- exceptional people anywhere you look, but most of us do not make the cut.
We should emphasize that in today's world a Middle East empire dominated jointly by two nationalist powers, the U.S. and Israel, is not only anti-democratic, but is impossibly anachronistic as well
Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. He can be reached at kathy.bill.christison@comcast.net.
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
It is past time to challenge the arrogant Mr. Bush directly.
For overwhelming moral reasons, I do not want the U. S. and Israeli governments to be victorious in any present or future Middle East wars. I want them to lose such wars.
U.S. policies in the Middle East since 9/11 have already caused a million or so killings and have created more injustice in the world than existed formerly. Every day results in more killings, more injustice. Unless might does indeed make right, we have no right whatever to win these wars. We should lose them.
If the U.S. were to "win" these wars, whatever that means, more of the world's people than at present would be ruled by the U.S. Most of these people do not want to be ruled by the U.S. -- which makes the wars themselves anti-democratic. That fact alone is reason enough to conclude that our country should lose these wars.
My personal belief is that the United States and Israel will inevitably lose these wars over time in any case. If this loss is in fact inevitable, conventional wisdom would argue that it is better for the loss to happen rapidly in order to hold casualties down. In a continuing civil war over which outsiders have limited control, however, conventional wisdom may not apply.
Nevertheless, a truly rapid -- meaning within the next six months -- acceptance of defeat by the U.S. and Israel of their own Mideast policies would probably offer the only possibility of mitigating the blame assigned to these two nations by the rest of the world for future mass killings of human beings throughout this unstable area.
Much of global public opinion will in any case correctly attribute a large residual responsibility to the U.S. and Israel for the utterly disproportionate and one-sided killings already carried out since 9/11 in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank. Further killings that occur during even a short and rapid transition to inevitable U.S. and Israeli defeat will only enlarge this residual. But a short, quick, and determined acceptance of defeat will still reduce to some extent the charges of U.S. responsibility for future killings.
A lasting peace in the Middle East will only happen, of course, if the U.S. and Israel are wise enough publicly (and honestly) to end their drive for joint imperium over the Middle East and Central Asia and also to cease their efforts to bring about regime change in Iran and Syria. In other words, as has long been the case, the U.S. and Israel will need to make serious long-term changes in their own foreign policies if they wish to avoid a conflict lasting for generations that ultimately they cannot win.
As of now, no evidence exists that either country is willing even to consider such policy changes, and no evidence exists that either the Republican or Democratic Parties in the U.S., any political parties in Israel, the military-industrial complexes of the U.S. and Israel, the Israel lobby in the U.S., the U.S. Protestant Christian Right, the Catholic Church, or the ruling elites of any EU states will bring one jot of meaningful pressure to bear on the Israeli or the U.S. government to change their policies.
If change is to come, it must come from ordinary voters, particularly in the U.S., applying pressure on the various groups listed above, or from ordinary people succeeding in setting up new groups or parties that will succeed in bringing greater pressure to bear. The pressures must be very strong and very explicit. People must emphasize day after day to both Democratic and Republican members of Congress and to every presidential candidate that the U.S. must first and foremost change its own policies. And people must emphasize to all politicians that the Israel lobby is one of the strongest forces pressing both Democrats and Republicans not to change U.S. policies, thereby preventing healthy political debate in the country. This must stop.
Finally, my hope is that sensible U.S. voters will agree with the opinions summarized here and in addition create a groundswell of support for the immediate impeachment and conviction of Bush and Cheney. This is the only action, in my view, that opens up the possibility of rapidly bringing about the necessary changes in U.S. policies.
Other Considerations
Let's say it bluntly. War with Iran is inevitable before January 2009 unless Bush and Cheney are both impeached first. New Israeli-U.S. hostilities in Lebanon are also likely. Either warfare or covert actions conducted by the U.S. and/or Israel to bring about regime change in Syria are also probable.
But those of us in the U.S. who claim to be peace activists ought to be ashamed. With rare exceptions, the powers in the movement are confident that things are already going our way, what with the Democratic Party's success in the 2006 congressional elections and the continuing disaster the Bush administration faces in Iraq. Most self-labeled peace activists think the odds so favor further Democratic victories that, as a group, we do not need to run any risks or do anything new to take the presidency away from the Republicans in 2008. It's old hat, maybe, but the best thing to do, most peace activists believe, is just to keep talking about withdrawal from Iraq, while patting ourselves on the back and emphasizing to each other that we are being admirably mature and responsible in not moving too fast toward actual withdrawal.
So let's admit that many of us sustain ourselves with hot air even when the subject is limited to Iraq. Let's admit too that few want to discuss the role Israel played in encouraging the U.S. to invade Iraq in 2003, because that would be unnecessarily criticizing Israel. In fact, both the Israel lobby and the Israeli government probably concluded as early as May 2003 that they had already achieved their own principal objectives in Iraq, and that it was counterproductive for them to waste their own credibility by continuing to oppose every aspect of the U.S. peace movement's criticism of the war. Even before things began going wrong in the war's execution, Israeli propagandists were soft-pedaling their own top officials' support for the war. But underneath, the support was definitely there, hard and firm.
When it comes to matters in the Middle East other than Iraq, most peaceniks are even less willing to address questions of the Israel lobby's involvement in U.S. policymaking. Talking about this would be the surest way to reveal the disunity and embarrassing differences within the so-called peace movement. In order to avoid an open discussion, it is easier for most of us simply to ignore the voluminous evidence that both the lobby, and senior U.S. officials who are in effect part of the lobby, are pushing the U.S. toward war, particularly with Iran, but also toward regime change in Syria and resumed hostilities in Lebanon. If it comes to war with any or all of these countries, most peace types note that they are not pushing for it, and they will silently hope more wars do not erupt, but they will not make a lot of noise about stopping such wars before they start. In this, they are simply following most of the leaders of the Democratic Party.
All of this, of course, is logically nonsensical. Take a minute and think of the mess the peace movement has created. First, the very name reflects the movement's shallowness. What good is a hypocritical, utterly out-of-touch and ineffective "peace movement," when beyond question ordinary people on this earth want justice before they want peace? The U.S. government and its ultra-close ally Israel actually want more unjust colonial wars and covert action to strengthen their own already unjust influence over a major part of the globe, in this case the Middle East. Peace above all is for those who support the status quo, but if you're in that category you're in a small minority. So let's banish the peace movement and get a global justice movement going. Peace may be all right long-term, but if you're one of the angry billions on this earth constantly surrounded by a stench of injustice that smothers all hope, chances are that, in your mind, peace should follow justice, not precede it. Chances are, in fact, that you have no favorable thoughts of any type about U.S. peaceniks.
Let's look at another question that is not just about the Middle East but is about the broader Islamic world as well. It seems clear that Samuel Huntington's concept of a clash of civilizations has expanded its intellectual appeal since September 11, 2001. We do indeed seem to have an example of a clash of civilizations that has become a growing force today. This force is nourished by the desire of Muslims for real freedom from the increasing political domination over the Islamic peoples by Western (Christian and Jewish) parts of the world. The principal Islamic motivation has little to do with "hatred of our freedoms." The Islamic hatred (and it does exist) is aimed at U.S., Israeli, and Western policies.
Huntington's book was published in the mid-1990s, and the events of September 11 can be seen as a major example of this type of clash of civilizations. The point to be made here is that ideas in the book, conveniently titled The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, lend themselves to being twisted fairly easily into ideas that the neocons, the Israel lobby, recent Israeli governments, EU elites, the Catholic Church, the Protestant Christian Right in the U.S., and the Bush administration itself all have established as part of their own views toward the Islamic world. The book therefore becomes an object of considerable value to the present rulers of the United States and Israel, since it can be seen as providing intellectual justification not only for the special relationship between these two nations, but also for the newly cordial ties of the European Union to U.S. and Israeli policies.
Those among us who wish to counter the notion that a clash of civilizations justifies what the U.S. and Israel are doing in the Middle East today should stand up and state their opposition loudly and directly. Supporters of the concept that the "clash" is a significant part of the present global political system seem to suggest that the very existence of the clash makes unjust, oppressive treatment of Islamic people somehow acceptable. But we should point out that the existence of a real clash is questionable, and that in any case injustice and oppression are never acceptable. People everywhere should realize that in this increasingly globalized world the importance of nationalism is beginning to fade. All of us should begin thinking much more about what are the best policies for the entire world to pursue, not what are the best policies for their own nations. To start this ball rolling, those who happen to live in the U.S. should stop thinking of themselves as exceptional. Americans are perfectly average -- no better and no worse than average people everywhere else. There are some -- a few -- exceptional people anywhere you look, but most of us do not make the cut.
We should emphasize that in today's world a Middle East empire dominated jointly by two nationalist powers, the U.S. and Israel, is not only anti-democratic, but is impossibly anachronistic as well
Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. He can be reached at kathy.bill.christison@comcast.net.
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
A Basic History of Zionism and its Relation to Judaism
Hanna Braun, London
First Published: September 2001: In order to understand the circumstances that led to the birth of Zionism I shall sketch an outline of the history of Judaism and the Jews.
Since biblical times Jewish communities lived in Arab lands, in Persia, India, East and North Africa and indeed in Palestine. With the destruction of the Temple and the final fall of their state in 70 AD many Jews were taken out of Judea and hence to Rome and the Diaspora. Many poorer Judeans, however (such as subsistence farmers), were able to stay in Palestine. (Some of them had converted to Christianity and were one of the earliest Christian groups.) Modern research suggests that when Islam arrived in the area in 633 AD many of these Jews converted and that they form a considerable part of today's Palestinians. These various communities were on the whole well integrated into their respective societies and did not experience the persecutions that later became so prevalent in Europe. In Palestine, for instance, Muslims repeatedly protected their Jewish neighbours from marauding crusaders; in one instance at least, Jews fought alongside Muslims to try and prevent crusaders from landing at Haifa's port, and Salah al-Dinl-din, after re-conquering Jerusalem from the crusaders, invited the Jews back into the city.
The Jews in Spain under Moorish rule flourished and experienced a renaissance mirroring that of the great Islamic civilisation and culture at the time. As Christianity spread from the north of Spain, Jews were again protected by Muslim rulers until the fall of Granada - the last Moorish kingdom to pass into Christian hands - when both Jews and Muslims were expelled at the end of the 15th century (Jews in 1492 and Muslims 10 years later). Most of the Jews from the Iberian peninsula settled in North Africa and the lands under Ottoman rule, including Palestine, and continued their peaceful co-existence with Muslims in those countries. The bulk of Portuguese "converted" Jews (these were forced conversions and such Jews were called Marranos, i.e. pigs, by Jews who had fled or who preferred to die for their faith) settled in Amsterdam, presumably because they had long established trading connections in that city. In 1655 they were invited to Britain by Oliver Cromwell. Most of them were glad to resettle since at the time the Netherlands had just freed itself from the Spanish yoke and the shadow of the dreaded inquisition was still uncomfortably close.
The fate of Jewry in European countries was very different: persecutions, killings and burnings were widespread and Jews were forced to live in closed ghettos, particularly in the Russian Empire, where they were confined to the "Pale of Jewish" (?) settlement, an area which consisted of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Byelarus or White Russia. Anyone who wished to move outside these borders needed special permission. However, by the mid-19th century some of the more progressive Jewish communities had established themselves in the big cities of St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev.
In central and western Europe religious tolerance, followed by the granting of full citizen rights and emancipation, came relatively early, in the wake of general liberalization. However, Russian rulers remained opposed to any liberalization, including religious tolerance and emancipation, and as late as 1881 Tsar Alexander the third initiated a series of particularly vicious pogroms to divert unrest amongst the population, at a time when Britain, for instance, boasted of a Jewish prime minister.
Total segregation was not always imposed from outside, however; frequently it was enforced from within by highly authoritarian rabbis who exercised absolute power over their congregations, often including the right to life and the imposition of the death penalty. Thus it was a major decision for anyone to leave these congregations and to look for a broader education (known as "enlightenment"). In eastern Europe enlightenment was a relatively late phenomenon and it found expression initially in the mid-19th century, in a revival of Hebrew language and literature and in the modern idea of Jews seeing themselves as a people.
This distinction between a people and a religion was of course disapproved of by the Orthodox Jews, who still today regard Hebrew as a sacred language to be used solely for prayers and religious studies and the Jewish people and religion as indivisible. The concept of the Jews as people closely mirrored the relatively new European idea of a homogeneous nation state. An exception to this was the socialist "Bund" organisation whose members rejected nationalism and later Zionism.
Some of these early proto-Zionists, calling themselves "Hovevei Zion" (Lovers of Zion), started the first settlements in Palestine in the 1870's, and a larger number of immigrants followed after the Russian pogroms of 1881-82. These settlers distinguished themselves by their deliberate segregation from the indigenous population and their contempt for local customs and traditions. This naturally aroused suspicion and hostility in the locals. This exclusivity was largely based on a sense of superiority common to Europeans of the time, who believed they were the only advanced and truly civilised society and in true colonial fashion looked down on "natives" or ignored them altogether. However, beyond that there was also a particular sense of superiority of Jews towards all non-Jews. This belief in innate Jewish superiority had a long tradition in religious Jewish thinking, central to which was the notion of the Jews as God's chosen people. Moshe Ben Maimon (Maimonides) had been an exponent of this theory and quite often thinkers with a more humane outlook, e.g. Spinoza, were excommunicated. The accepted thinking in the religious communities was that Jews must on no account mix with gentiles for fear of being contaminated and corrupted by them. This notion was so deeply ingrained that it quite possibly still affected, albeit subconsciously, those Jews who had left the townships and had become educated and enlightened. Thus the early settlers from eastern Europe transferred the "Stettl" (townlet) mentality of segregation to Palestine, with the added belief in the nobility of manual labour and in particular soil cultivation. In this they had been influenced by Tolstoy and his writings.
The "father" of political Zionism, Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), came from a totally different perspective. Dr. Herzl was a Viennese, emancipated, secular journalist who was sent by his editor to Paris in 1894 to cover the Dreyfus affair. Dreyfus had been a captain in the French Army who was falsely accused and convicted of treason (although he was acquitted and completely cleared some years later). The case brought to light the strength of a strong streak of anti-Semitism prevalent in the upper echelons of the French Army and in the French press, with profound repercussions in emancipated Jewish circles. Herzl himself despaired of the whole idea of emancipation and integration and felt that the only solution to anti-Semitism lay in a Jewish Homeland. To that end he approached various diplomats and notables, including the Ottoman Sultan, but mainly European rulers, the great colonial powers of the time, and was rewarded for his efforts by being offered Argentina or Uganda by the British as possible Jewish Homelands.
Herzl would have been quite happy with either of these countries, but when the first Zionist Congress was convened in Basle in 1897, he came up against Eastern European Jewry, by far the greatest majority of participants, who, although broadly emancipated and enlightened, would not accept any homeland other than the land of Zion. Not only had some of them already settled in Palestine, there were strong remnants of the religious/sentimental notion of a pilgrimage and possibly burial in the Holy Land. The last toast in the Passover ceremony is "Next year in Jerusalem"; although this was a religious rather than a national aspiration, it was common amongst the Orthodox communities to purchase a handful of soil purporting to come from the Holy Land to be placed under the deceased's head. (Orthodox Jews at that time completely rejected any Jewish political movement and did not attend the congress.)
Herzl was quick to realise that unless he accepted the "Land of Zion", i.e. Palestinian option, he would have hardly any adherents. Thus the Zionist movement started with a small section of Jewish society who saw the solution to anti-Semitism in a return to its "roots" and in a renewal of a Jewish people in the land of their ancestors. In his famous book "Der Judenstaat" (The State of the Jews) Herzl wrote that the Jews and their state will constitute "a rampart of Europe against Asia, of civilisation against barbarism," and again regarding the local population, "We shall endeavour to encourage the poverty-stricken population to cross the border by securing work for it in the countries it passes through, while denying it work in our own country. The process of expropriation and displacement must be carried out prudently and discreetly--Let (the landowners) sell us their land at exorbitant prices. We shall sell nothing back to them."
Max Nordau, an early Zionist, visited Palestine and was so horrified that the country was already populated that he burst out in front of Herzl: "But we are committing a grave injustice!" Some years later, in 1913, a prominent Zionist thinker and writer, Ahad Ha'am (one of the people), wrote: "What are our brothers doing? They were slaves in the land of their exile. Suddenly they found themselves faced with boundless freedom ... and they behave in a hostile and cruel manner towards the Arabs, trampling on their rights without the least justification ... even bragging about this behaviour." But the dismay of Nordau and others at the injustices to, and total lack of recognition of, the indigenous population was silenced and indeed edited out of Jewish history and other books, as was some of Herzl's writing. The Zionist slogan of "a land without people for a people without land" prevailed and within a matter of a few years the immigrants became "sons of the land" (Bnei Ha'aretz), whereas the inhabitants became the aliens and foreigners.
Following renewed efforts and lobbying after Herzl's death, the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which granted Zionists a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, set the official seal of approval on their aspirations. Protests and representations by local Arab leaders were brushed aside. Lord Balfour wrote in 1919: "In Palestine, we do not even propose to consult the inhabitants of the country. (Zionism's) immediate needs and hopes for the future are much more important than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who presently inhabit Palestine."
Settlements grew slowly for a long time, but the systematic buying up of land, frequently from absentee landlords, which left tenant farmers homeless, contributed to the first Palestinian uprising in 1921-22 and other outbursts of hostilities. The worst was a massacre of some 65 Jews in Hebron in 1929, after orthodox Jews from Eastern Europe had founded a "Yeshiva" (a religious study centre) in the town and had aroused the suspicions and hostility of the indigenous population, who prior to this had lived in peace and harmony for hundreds of years with their non-European Jewish neighbours. Another contributing factor to growing Arab hostility was the Zionists' policy of not employing Arabs or buying their produce.
For many years Zionism remained a minority movement of mainly Eastern European Jews, excluding the whole religious establishment, most central and western European Jews and, last but not least, all non-European Jews who, unbeknown to Herzl and his co-founders, form the majority of us. These communities were ignored by early Zionists, who had little interest in their aspirations until the establishment of the state of Israel after the "independence" war of 1948-9. After this the new state unleashed a massive propaganda campaign to induce the Sephardi and Oriental Jews to "ascend" to the land of their ancestors, mainly for demographic reasons--in 1948 only about one third of the population and about 6% of the land were Jews or in Jewish hands--but also as cannon fodder. This also happened in the 1980's with the Jews of Ethiopia. However, upon arrival these non-European newcomers were treated very much as inferior second-class citizens. This European dominance is still prevalent in modern Israel where, for example, the national anthem speaks about Jewish longing for the East towards Zion, whereas for many of the non-European communities Palestine lies to the West. Sadly, this has led to some groups of Sephardi (non-European) or Oriental Jews becoming extreme right-wing chauvinists, so as to "prove" their credentials.
Immigration ("Aliyah"--ascent in Zionist parlance) took off in seriously large numbers with the rise of Hitler, who initially declared himself quite sympathetic to Zionism, as had other right-wing anti-Semites before him. New Jewish settlements mushroomed, leading to a bitter and prolonged Palestinian uprising from 1936 till 1939, when it was crushed by the British mandatory powers. But it was not until the end of the 2nd World War and the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 that Zionism started to win the hearts and minds of the majority of Jewish society. Since that time we have witnessed an increasing and deliberate confluence of Judaism and Zionism, to the extent that today it is widely regarded as treason and self-hate for a Jew to criticise the state, let alone Zionism.
In my view, this development was almost inevitable given the preconception of an exclusive Jewish state. Could we realistically conceive of a France purely for the French? England only for the English? (Unless, of course we belong to the National Front or similar groups.) In a post-colonial world the notion is completely unacceptable and ridiculous. How then, can Israel and the majority of its citizens justify their claim and yet remain convinced that theirs is a modern, democratic society? The last resort, when all logical justifications fail, is that God has promised the land to his people, namely us. (This rather begs the question of where this leaves a non-believing Jew.) I have found over the years, and particularly in the last 30 or so years, that the numbers of young people wearing the skullcap and generally observing at least some of the religious laws has increased dramatically, and I believe this is no coincidence.
The religious establishment has gone along with the general flow and has, indeed, profited from it. Since the late 50's there has also been a notable and frightening change in the Orthodox community, which led to the establishment in 1974 of the "Gush Emunim" (the block of the faithful), initiated by Rabbi Tsvi Yehuda Kook the younger. This is the fundamentalist movement which believes in accepting the state of Israel and striving to make it entirely and exclusively Jewish. Prior to this time Orthodox Jewry played no important role in politics except in pressuring successive governments to introduce more Jewish religious regulations into state law. The ultra-orthodox group "Neturei Karta" (the landless) has never recognised the state of Israel, and its members are exempt from army service.
Although Gush Emunim is small in numbers, it wields disproportionate influence since successive Israeli governments covertly (and sometimes almost overtly) have endorsed its aspirations. Gush Emunim's followers have been allocated to special army units so as to enable them to observe Jewish religious laws and rituals in every detail (although even in the regular army only Kosher food is served and the Sabbath is observed as far as possible). These units have a reputation as dedicated, crack troops. What is less well known but silently condoned is their refusal to give medical aid or even drive wounded persons to the hospital on the Sabbath unless they are Jews.
In my view this is an extremely short-sighted and dangerous road, leading in the end to a fundamentalist theocracy much like that of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The fundamentalists' belief is that the Messianic age is already upon us and that any obstacles to a total elimination of any non-Jews in the promised land, i.e. the whole of what was Palestine including the Holy Mount, is God's punishment for sinful Jews, namely all those who are westernised and secular. This fully exonerates, and indeed sanctifies, a man like Baruch Goldstein who murdered 29 Palestinians praying in the Ibrahimi mosque, as well as the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Like the Hamas movement, which was initially encouraged by Israel's secret services, this is another genie which, having been let out of the bottle, can no longer be controlled.
It seems a bitter irony that a movement that initially saw itself as progressive, liberal and secular should find itself in an alliance with, and held to ransom by, the most illiberal reactionary forces. In my view this was inevitable from its inception although the founders, and most of us (including even people like myself, growing up in Palestine in the thirties), did not foresee this and certainly would not have wished it.
Nowadays the deliberate blurring of the distinction between Zionism and Judaism, which includes a rewriting of ancient as well as modern history, is exploited to stifle any criticism of Israel's policies and actions, however extreme and inhuman they may be. This, incidentally, also plays directly into anti-Semitic prejudices by equating Israeli arrogance, brutality and complete denial of basic human rights to non-Jews with general Jewish characteristics.
Zionism has now assumed the all-embracing mantle of righteousness. It claims to represent and to speak for all Jews and has adopted the slogan of "my country right or wrong." The West tolerates Israel's continuous breaches of human rights--violations that it would not tolerate if perpetrated by any other country. Few Western states and not many Jews dare take a stand against Israel, particularly as many of the former still feel a sense of unease and guilt about the holocaust which Zionist Jews inside and outside Israel have exploited in what to me seems an almost obscene manner. In the USA, the Jewish Zionist lobby is still strong enough to keep successive governments on board. Moreover, the USA regards Israel as an important strategic ally in its fight against Middle Eastern "rogue" states which have supplanted the Soviet Union as the great satanic enemy of the free world.
I fear that unless and until Israel is judged by the same criteria as other modern states, this is unlikely to change. It is the duty of all Jews with a sense of justice and a conscience to speak out against the falsifications of history by the Zionist lobby, and the dangerous misconceptions it has led the West to accept.
Hanna Braun, London, September 2001
Bibliography:
Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion
Israel Shahak, Fundamental Judaism in Israel
Ilan Halevi, A History of the Jews, Ancient and Modern
Michael Prior (ed.), Western Scholarship and the History of Palestine
First Published: September 2001: In order to understand the circumstances that led to the birth of Zionism I shall sketch an outline of the history of Judaism and the Jews.
Since biblical times Jewish communities lived in Arab lands, in Persia, India, East and North Africa and indeed in Palestine. With the destruction of the Temple and the final fall of their state in 70 AD many Jews were taken out of Judea and hence to Rome and the Diaspora. Many poorer Judeans, however (such as subsistence farmers), were able to stay in Palestine. (Some of them had converted to Christianity and were one of the earliest Christian groups.) Modern research suggests that when Islam arrived in the area in 633 AD many of these Jews converted and that they form a considerable part of today's Palestinians. These various communities were on the whole well integrated into their respective societies and did not experience the persecutions that later became so prevalent in Europe. In Palestine, for instance, Muslims repeatedly protected their Jewish neighbours from marauding crusaders; in one instance at least, Jews fought alongside Muslims to try and prevent crusaders from landing at Haifa's port, and Salah al-Dinl-din, after re-conquering Jerusalem from the crusaders, invited the Jews back into the city.
The Jews in Spain under Moorish rule flourished and experienced a renaissance mirroring that of the great Islamic civilisation and culture at the time. As Christianity spread from the north of Spain, Jews were again protected by Muslim rulers until the fall of Granada - the last Moorish kingdom to pass into Christian hands - when both Jews and Muslims were expelled at the end of the 15th century (Jews in 1492 and Muslims 10 years later). Most of the Jews from the Iberian peninsula settled in North Africa and the lands under Ottoman rule, including Palestine, and continued their peaceful co-existence with Muslims in those countries. The bulk of Portuguese "converted" Jews (these were forced conversions and such Jews were called Marranos, i.e. pigs, by Jews who had fled or who preferred to die for their faith) settled in Amsterdam, presumably because they had long established trading connections in that city. In 1655 they were invited to Britain by Oliver Cromwell. Most of them were glad to resettle since at the time the Netherlands had just freed itself from the Spanish yoke and the shadow of the dreaded inquisition was still uncomfortably close.
The fate of Jewry in European countries was very different: persecutions, killings and burnings were widespread and Jews were forced to live in closed ghettos, particularly in the Russian Empire, where they were confined to the "Pale of Jewish" (?) settlement, an area which consisted of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Byelarus or White Russia. Anyone who wished to move outside these borders needed special permission. However, by the mid-19th century some of the more progressive Jewish communities had established themselves in the big cities of St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev.
In central and western Europe religious tolerance, followed by the granting of full citizen rights and emancipation, came relatively early, in the wake of general liberalization. However, Russian rulers remained opposed to any liberalization, including religious tolerance and emancipation, and as late as 1881 Tsar Alexander the third initiated a series of particularly vicious pogroms to divert unrest amongst the population, at a time when Britain, for instance, boasted of a Jewish prime minister.
Total segregation was not always imposed from outside, however; frequently it was enforced from within by highly authoritarian rabbis who exercised absolute power over their congregations, often including the right to life and the imposition of the death penalty. Thus it was a major decision for anyone to leave these congregations and to look for a broader education (known as "enlightenment"). In eastern Europe enlightenment was a relatively late phenomenon and it found expression initially in the mid-19th century, in a revival of Hebrew language and literature and in the modern idea of Jews seeing themselves as a people.
This distinction between a people and a religion was of course disapproved of by the Orthodox Jews, who still today regard Hebrew as a sacred language to be used solely for prayers and religious studies and the Jewish people and religion as indivisible. The concept of the Jews as people closely mirrored the relatively new European idea of a homogeneous nation state. An exception to this was the socialist "Bund" organisation whose members rejected nationalism and later Zionism.
Some of these early proto-Zionists, calling themselves "Hovevei Zion" (Lovers of Zion), started the first settlements in Palestine in the 1870's, and a larger number of immigrants followed after the Russian pogroms of 1881-82. These settlers distinguished themselves by their deliberate segregation from the indigenous population and their contempt for local customs and traditions. This naturally aroused suspicion and hostility in the locals. This exclusivity was largely based on a sense of superiority common to Europeans of the time, who believed they were the only advanced and truly civilised society and in true colonial fashion looked down on "natives" or ignored them altogether. However, beyond that there was also a particular sense of superiority of Jews towards all non-Jews. This belief in innate Jewish superiority had a long tradition in religious Jewish thinking, central to which was the notion of the Jews as God's chosen people. Moshe Ben Maimon (Maimonides) had been an exponent of this theory and quite often thinkers with a more humane outlook, e.g. Spinoza, were excommunicated. The accepted thinking in the religious communities was that Jews must on no account mix with gentiles for fear of being contaminated and corrupted by them. This notion was so deeply ingrained that it quite possibly still affected, albeit subconsciously, those Jews who had left the townships and had become educated and enlightened. Thus the early settlers from eastern Europe transferred the "Stettl" (townlet) mentality of segregation to Palestine, with the added belief in the nobility of manual labour and in particular soil cultivation. In this they had been influenced by Tolstoy and his writings.
The "father" of political Zionism, Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), came from a totally different perspective. Dr. Herzl was a Viennese, emancipated, secular journalist who was sent by his editor to Paris in 1894 to cover the Dreyfus affair. Dreyfus had been a captain in the French Army who was falsely accused and convicted of treason (although he was acquitted and completely cleared some years later). The case brought to light the strength of a strong streak of anti-Semitism prevalent in the upper echelons of the French Army and in the French press, with profound repercussions in emancipated Jewish circles. Herzl himself despaired of the whole idea of emancipation and integration and felt that the only solution to anti-Semitism lay in a Jewish Homeland. To that end he approached various diplomats and notables, including the Ottoman Sultan, but mainly European rulers, the great colonial powers of the time, and was rewarded for his efforts by being offered Argentina or Uganda by the British as possible Jewish Homelands.
Herzl would have been quite happy with either of these countries, but when the first Zionist Congress was convened in Basle in 1897, he came up against Eastern European Jewry, by far the greatest majority of participants, who, although broadly emancipated and enlightened, would not accept any homeland other than the land of Zion. Not only had some of them already settled in Palestine, there were strong remnants of the religious/sentimental notion of a pilgrimage and possibly burial in the Holy Land. The last toast in the Passover ceremony is "Next year in Jerusalem"; although this was a religious rather than a national aspiration, it was common amongst the Orthodox communities to purchase a handful of soil purporting to come from the Holy Land to be placed under the deceased's head. (Orthodox Jews at that time completely rejected any Jewish political movement and did not attend the congress.)
Herzl was quick to realise that unless he accepted the "Land of Zion", i.e. Palestinian option, he would have hardly any adherents. Thus the Zionist movement started with a small section of Jewish society who saw the solution to anti-Semitism in a return to its "roots" and in a renewal of a Jewish people in the land of their ancestors. In his famous book "Der Judenstaat" (The State of the Jews) Herzl wrote that the Jews and their state will constitute "a rampart of Europe against Asia, of civilisation against barbarism," and again regarding the local population, "We shall endeavour to encourage the poverty-stricken population to cross the border by securing work for it in the countries it passes through, while denying it work in our own country. The process of expropriation and displacement must be carried out prudently and discreetly--Let (the landowners) sell us their land at exorbitant prices. We shall sell nothing back to them."
Max Nordau, an early Zionist, visited Palestine and was so horrified that the country was already populated that he burst out in front of Herzl: "But we are committing a grave injustice!" Some years later, in 1913, a prominent Zionist thinker and writer, Ahad Ha'am (one of the people), wrote: "What are our brothers doing? They were slaves in the land of their exile. Suddenly they found themselves faced with boundless freedom ... and they behave in a hostile and cruel manner towards the Arabs, trampling on their rights without the least justification ... even bragging about this behaviour." But the dismay of Nordau and others at the injustices to, and total lack of recognition of, the indigenous population was silenced and indeed edited out of Jewish history and other books, as was some of Herzl's writing. The Zionist slogan of "a land without people for a people without land" prevailed and within a matter of a few years the immigrants became "sons of the land" (Bnei Ha'aretz), whereas the inhabitants became the aliens and foreigners.
Following renewed efforts and lobbying after Herzl's death, the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which granted Zionists a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, set the official seal of approval on their aspirations. Protests and representations by local Arab leaders were brushed aside. Lord Balfour wrote in 1919: "In Palestine, we do not even propose to consult the inhabitants of the country. (Zionism's) immediate needs and hopes for the future are much more important than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who presently inhabit Palestine."
Settlements grew slowly for a long time, but the systematic buying up of land, frequently from absentee landlords, which left tenant farmers homeless, contributed to the first Palestinian uprising in 1921-22 and other outbursts of hostilities. The worst was a massacre of some 65 Jews in Hebron in 1929, after orthodox Jews from Eastern Europe had founded a "Yeshiva" (a religious study centre) in the town and had aroused the suspicions and hostility of the indigenous population, who prior to this had lived in peace and harmony for hundreds of years with their non-European Jewish neighbours. Another contributing factor to growing Arab hostility was the Zionists' policy of not employing Arabs or buying their produce.
For many years Zionism remained a minority movement of mainly Eastern European Jews, excluding the whole religious establishment, most central and western European Jews and, last but not least, all non-European Jews who, unbeknown to Herzl and his co-founders, form the majority of us. These communities were ignored by early Zionists, who had little interest in their aspirations until the establishment of the state of Israel after the "independence" war of 1948-9. After this the new state unleashed a massive propaganda campaign to induce the Sephardi and Oriental Jews to "ascend" to the land of their ancestors, mainly for demographic reasons--in 1948 only about one third of the population and about 6% of the land were Jews or in Jewish hands--but also as cannon fodder. This also happened in the 1980's with the Jews of Ethiopia. However, upon arrival these non-European newcomers were treated very much as inferior second-class citizens. This European dominance is still prevalent in modern Israel where, for example, the national anthem speaks about Jewish longing for the East towards Zion, whereas for many of the non-European communities Palestine lies to the West. Sadly, this has led to some groups of Sephardi (non-European) or Oriental Jews becoming extreme right-wing chauvinists, so as to "prove" their credentials.
Immigration ("Aliyah"--ascent in Zionist parlance) took off in seriously large numbers with the rise of Hitler, who initially declared himself quite sympathetic to Zionism, as had other right-wing anti-Semites before him. New Jewish settlements mushroomed, leading to a bitter and prolonged Palestinian uprising from 1936 till 1939, when it was crushed by the British mandatory powers. But it was not until the end of the 2nd World War and the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 that Zionism started to win the hearts and minds of the majority of Jewish society. Since that time we have witnessed an increasing and deliberate confluence of Judaism and Zionism, to the extent that today it is widely regarded as treason and self-hate for a Jew to criticise the state, let alone Zionism.
In my view, this development was almost inevitable given the preconception of an exclusive Jewish state. Could we realistically conceive of a France purely for the French? England only for the English? (Unless, of course we belong to the National Front or similar groups.) In a post-colonial world the notion is completely unacceptable and ridiculous. How then, can Israel and the majority of its citizens justify their claim and yet remain convinced that theirs is a modern, democratic society? The last resort, when all logical justifications fail, is that God has promised the land to his people, namely us. (This rather begs the question of where this leaves a non-believing Jew.) I have found over the years, and particularly in the last 30 or so years, that the numbers of young people wearing the skullcap and generally observing at least some of the religious laws has increased dramatically, and I believe this is no coincidence.
The religious establishment has gone along with the general flow and has, indeed, profited from it. Since the late 50's there has also been a notable and frightening change in the Orthodox community, which led to the establishment in 1974 of the "Gush Emunim" (the block of the faithful), initiated by Rabbi Tsvi Yehuda Kook the younger. This is the fundamentalist movement which believes in accepting the state of Israel and striving to make it entirely and exclusively Jewish. Prior to this time Orthodox Jewry played no important role in politics except in pressuring successive governments to introduce more Jewish religious regulations into state law. The ultra-orthodox group "Neturei Karta" (the landless) has never recognised the state of Israel, and its members are exempt from army service.
Although Gush Emunim is small in numbers, it wields disproportionate influence since successive Israeli governments covertly (and sometimes almost overtly) have endorsed its aspirations. Gush Emunim's followers have been allocated to special army units so as to enable them to observe Jewish religious laws and rituals in every detail (although even in the regular army only Kosher food is served and the Sabbath is observed as far as possible). These units have a reputation as dedicated, crack troops. What is less well known but silently condoned is their refusal to give medical aid or even drive wounded persons to the hospital on the Sabbath unless they are Jews.
In my view this is an extremely short-sighted and dangerous road, leading in the end to a fundamentalist theocracy much like that of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The fundamentalists' belief is that the Messianic age is already upon us and that any obstacles to a total elimination of any non-Jews in the promised land, i.e. the whole of what was Palestine including the Holy Mount, is God's punishment for sinful Jews, namely all those who are westernised and secular. This fully exonerates, and indeed sanctifies, a man like Baruch Goldstein who murdered 29 Palestinians praying in the Ibrahimi mosque, as well as the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Like the Hamas movement, which was initially encouraged by Israel's secret services, this is another genie which, having been let out of the bottle, can no longer be controlled.
It seems a bitter irony that a movement that initially saw itself as progressive, liberal and secular should find itself in an alliance with, and held to ransom by, the most illiberal reactionary forces. In my view this was inevitable from its inception although the founders, and most of us (including even people like myself, growing up in Palestine in the thirties), did not foresee this and certainly would not have wished it.
Nowadays the deliberate blurring of the distinction between Zionism and Judaism, which includes a rewriting of ancient as well as modern history, is exploited to stifle any criticism of Israel's policies and actions, however extreme and inhuman they may be. This, incidentally, also plays directly into anti-Semitic prejudices by equating Israeli arrogance, brutality and complete denial of basic human rights to non-Jews with general Jewish characteristics.
Zionism has now assumed the all-embracing mantle of righteousness. It claims to represent and to speak for all Jews and has adopted the slogan of "my country right or wrong." The West tolerates Israel's continuous breaches of human rights--violations that it would not tolerate if perpetrated by any other country. Few Western states and not many Jews dare take a stand against Israel, particularly as many of the former still feel a sense of unease and guilt about the holocaust which Zionist Jews inside and outside Israel have exploited in what to me seems an almost obscene manner. In the USA, the Jewish Zionist lobby is still strong enough to keep successive governments on board. Moreover, the USA regards Israel as an important strategic ally in its fight against Middle Eastern "rogue" states which have supplanted the Soviet Union as the great satanic enemy of the free world.
I fear that unless and until Israel is judged by the same criteria as other modern states, this is unlikely to change. It is the duty of all Jews with a sense of justice and a conscience to speak out against the falsifications of history by the Zionist lobby, and the dangerous misconceptions it has led the West to accept.
Hanna Braun, London, September 2001
Bibliography:
Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion
Israel Shahak, Fundamental Judaism in Israel
Ilan Halevi, A History of the Jews, Ancient and Modern
Michael Prior (ed.), Western Scholarship and the History of Palestine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)