Category: Politics and Economics

Oh, this is sweet. I only just now read it, but three weeks ago, Will Hutton wrote a column in the Guardian on the abuse of freedom as a concept, in particula with regard to countryside campaigners claiming “Liberty to hunt”:

“[…] they pass a threshold which in practice and theory represents real constitutional and substantive liberty: you only have to think of the struggles against apartheid or communism to know what real liberty means. The idea that hunting with dogs ranks alongside such values is laughable, but because those championing the cause think it does they arrogate themselves the right to civil disobedience and disruption.”

Historian Linda Colley in The Guardian on parellels between the USA and the British Empire. (via Mitch Ratcliffe). See also Ratcliffe’s brief article on the new “Bush Doctrine.”

I heard about this on the news on the radio on Friday, but didn’t have the time to look any further into it at that point. On Saturday, Charlie Stross kindly provided links to an article in the Guardian and the original document (PDF).

Just last weekend, the Sunday Herald had run a story about an earlier document, called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century”. It’s about two years old–written for King George before he took the throne. In it, a right-wing think tank (“Project for the New American Century”) provided a series of plans for reinforcing the US’s hold on superpower status, and ensuring that no-one could rise to challenge that position. In the Herald story, Neil MacKay called it a “blueprint for US global domination”. Which it is.

Coincidentally, the week before that, Charlie Stross had written a short piece about being critical of one’s sources. This was in the context of a hateful anti-American article that had been blown out of all proportion by a group of people with an interest in vilifying Muslims. Charlie wrote: “As every agitator since Josef Goebbels knows, the most effective form of black propaganda is to identify an unpalatable truth about your enemy and shout it from the rooftops.”

So when the “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” document emerged, and was trumpeted as yet more proof of the wickedness of the right-wing regime in America, I thought it was the same thing, but from the opposite side. I called it “far-out, right-wing, mouth-foamings of a group of fascist nutters.”

And it may even have been the case that the Herald was just beating the anti-American drum to keep an effective opposition going to all of the nonsense being spouted by the Bush administration, and being echoed by Blair’s government. But this new document, “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” shows that the Herald wasn’t just crying wolf. It shows that the people currently in charge of the USA really are a gang of far-out, right-wing, fascist nutters.

Please note that I am not using the word “fascist” in its modern debased form, meaning “anyone in power with whom I strongly disagree”. I am using it as historians, philosophers, and political theorists commonly agree on it. For some definitions, just Google for “Definition of fascism.” Here’s a typical quote:

“Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power.”

(from What is Fascism? by Matthew N. Lyons)

Oh, but Bush knows how to coat the unacceptable reality with a layer of patriotic sweetness. In his three-page, 1300 word introduction to the document, he uses the words “free”, “freely” and “freedom” no less than 25 times. More than twice per paragraph, on average. And “freedom,” of course, equates to “good”.

The concept that people have a right to “freedom”, which (inter alia) has led to the abomination of modern “free trade” Capitalism, is such a powerful meme because it allows people to treat their selfishness as a virtue. Freedom to pay our third world workers a pittance. Freedom to drive gas-guzzling SUVs without a care for climate change. Freedom to pick and choose which UN resolutions and institutions we’ll support, and which we’ll ignore.

Yes, the whole Western world plays this game. But the USA plays it so much better than everyone else because freedom is enshrined in its beloved foundational documents: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If you’re an American, and you love your country, then you must love freedom. Conversely, anything that limits that freedom is unpatriotic. Un-American. Evil.

(Fascism, you see, invites individuals to identify strongly with the state, its leaders and its ideals.)

The USA and its citizens already have too much freedom. Internally, they have their Bill of Rights; externally, they have their capitalist empire. What they don’t have is a Bill of Responsibilities. Nor have they realized that they have now become the colonial oppressors, and that their subjects are just as pissed of with them as they were with the British two hundred years ago.

To say that those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it, is a cliché. It is nonetheless true. America is acting like its former colonial masters, and like the Roman Empire before them. (Also coincidentally, given the release of the US’s National Security Strategy, Channel 4 broadcast a documentary last night, called “The Model Empire.” It showed how the Roman Empire established itself, and kept itself going for so long, and showed the parallels with the USA. It’s scary, how close they are.)

Is it any wonder, then, that when Germany’s Justice minister is quoted as comparing Bush’s political tactics with those employed by Hitler, this resonates with the German (and European) public? She repudiates the quote, but no matter whether she said it, its work is done. The German voters seem to approve of this stance; and the unutterable has now been said and noticed at international levels. The German government can now happily deny it, knowing that the seed has been planted.

Welcome to the New World Order. Welcome to the resistance.

Whatreallyhappened.com: “The history the government hopes you DON’T learn!”

Quite rabidly anti-government (US), but they do have a number of very interesting links and stories. Just bear in mind that one should be critical of one’s sources.

As a companion quote to Abi’s new posting in her “Serious Thoughts” series, here’s a little something from Rush’s song “Witch Hunt” (from the 1981 album Moving Pictures):

Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear
Walk hand in hand

If it weren’t for copyright, I’d quote the whole song. But you can pick it up through Google.

So Iraq has agreed to allow UN weapons inspectors back within its borders. The news seems to have spoken of very little else today. (Well, except perhaps for Channel 4’s report on the new Peter Gabriel album. Monkeys?)

Looking at this move in retrospect, it seems like an obvious, yet bold one. Many commentators have emphasised this turn of phrase: it’s a move in a game of politics. Normally, I would say “stuff and nonsense” to that: calling this political manoeuvering a game is to belittle the seriousness of the conflict. In games, people don’t die in their hundreds or thousands when you lose.

But somehow this decision does seem like a move in an high-stakes game of chess. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s because I feel like I understand it now, whereas a lot of modern political machinations pass straight over my head until I see the summary on the History Channel several years later.

The US is clamouring for Saddam Hussein’s head, pure and simple, while the rest of the world wants to rake him over the coals for violating UN resolutions. If Iraq starts to comply with the resolutions, the US finds a substantial chunk of its support taken away from it. Russia and China are applauding this change in Iraq’s attitude, and as they are part of the UN Security Council, their opinion really does carry weight.

Iraq’s neighbours, some of whom have been reluctantly bowing to US pressure, now have reason to think again. As I’ve said before, Iraq’s prime interests are local. Saddam Hussein will piss off his neighbours (and mightily) when it is opportune for him to do so, but right now he needs their support. And if he can’t have their support, he needs to remove their active opposition.

Many (if not most) nations are opposed to the US’s blood hunt, and insistence on “regime change” in Iraq. But they do support the enforcement of UN resolutions. By complying with the resolutions, Iraq is now forcing the US to discard a number of cards from its hand, because they are no longer effective. But the US has gone too far in its national mobilisation for war to back down at this point, so George Bush is must now find other ways to justify an attack and his ultimate euphemistic goal of “regime change”.

Bush has overplayed his hand–for now. He has been aiming for an attack very soon, and now he must delay this. Even if it only takes days for his spin doctors to come up with a new platform for opposing Saddam Hussein, and for his diplomats to build support for it, the fact is that Iraq just gave the US a political bloody nose.

This is being downplayed by all the media–as it must.

There are a number of reasons for that. Iraq has a history of dicking the UN inspectors about. So this new found spirit of compliance may just be a sham. If I wanted to be cynical, I could say that the media are primarily controlled by US interests, and so editors have publishers breathing down their necks.

But also, look at this in terms of a game again. What are the goals of the opposing players? Saddam Hussein wants to stay in power in Iraq. The George Bush wants Hussein out. So long as those remain the stated goals, there is no possibility of a “draw”. There is no solution that allows both parties to walk away and claim their own version of victory.

For Saddam Hussein to relinquish power, there must be war. I don’t think there is any alternative there. A war will result in thousands of deaths, and if it happens even after Iraq’s compliance with the UN resolutions, the US will suffer, both as a result of impoverished international relations, and also as a result of more terrorist attacks on American soil. (Terrorism is like guerrilla warfare: sooner or later, no matter what your precautions, someone will break through your perimeter, and they’ll have a bomb strapped to their chests. Ask Britain. Ask Israel.) So even if George Bush wins, he loses. (But will he care?)

For Hussein to stay in power, George Bush must do a U-turn. And what are the chances of that happening? What would it take for him to stand down US forces, and admit he was wrong?

In his time as president, Bush has proved himself to be incredibly arrogant in the international arena. And he is surrounded by a cabinet of cronies who also believe they walk on water. (Colin Powell probably excepted. Every time I see him on TV, he seems to be more uncomfortable about being the town crier abroad for Bush’s policies.)

Yet if war is to be avoided, Bush must climb down. And this will not be achieved by acting all amused over this tactical diplomatic victory on Iraq’s part. Bush must be given some way of saving face. Much though I might like to see egg all over it, he must be able to claim his own victory. He must end up with something to show for all of this posturing, otherwise he’ll be sodead in the water domestically that he might as well just resign before his term is up.

But what could this be? I don’t know. I wish I did.

In the mean time, one wonders about Russia and China. They must be loving this. They know that ultimately their best interests will be served by siding with the US. (Which country is more important to them, strategically and economically?) Yet right now they can legitimately claim to be on Iraq’s side. The US must know that they’ll come over to their side, but now they must be offered sweeteners to do so.

So if you trace the diplomatic lines back through the last few weeks, you can see that those (and other) nations were pushing for Iraq to comply with the regulations not because they wanted to avoid another war in the Middle East, but because they knew that by following that strategy, they would eventually end up with a bunch of concessions from the US.

When you look at it in that way, it does seem a lot like a game, doesn’t it?