May 1, 2003

POWER POLITICS OR STATESMANSHIP?



While looting was still going on in "liberated" Baghdad, and her citizens lingered without water and electricity, our Pentagon neoconservatives were already busy talking about the next liberation. We were told that Syria is now the repository of a massive arsenal of WMD's which has in addition been bolstered by Saddam's cache. This is why we a) couldn't find them in Iraq and b) why Syria has to be eliminated. Iran, as another source of chronic evil also has to be dealt with immediately before the mullahs get the bomb. Little Kim Jong Il, on the other hand, has to be treated diplomatically, rather than militarily, because we assume he already has the potential to do us significant harm. It thus becomes obvious that we chose our evils wisely. We use our military against those states we can readily defeat but become considerably more cautious in our ambitions when the stakes are raised.

In the previous installment on "The Neocons' Leviathan" I have detailed the reasons why the mentioned people think the way they do and how the fruits of their thoughts are carried out in actual practice. The key word was "Power" and by that these thinkers mean only military power. The power of the human spirit eludes them and one is reminded of Stalin's quip: "How many divisions does the Pope have?" Stalin's successors found out, and the legions of the Prophet our neocons are inadvertently recruiting are likely to be increasingly heard from. It'll just take time but that is precisely what our "policy makers" don't seem to have. This is not altogether unreasonable because in a republic like ours there is always the specter of an election which might send a given group of oligarchs out to pasture in order to be replaced by another one. Nevertheless one idea seems to be common to Republicans and Democrats alike: America is at the zenith of her power and this power must be preserved and secured come what may. A Pax Americana will now be imposed upon the world and whoever doesn't like it will be made to feel the consequences.

Although I had read the literature which gave rise to last month's article I was still somewhat hesitant to believe that the course laid out by the neoconservatives and their friends will indeed be followed. I was, therefore, genuinely puzzled when I read in The Salt Lake Tribune a brief note under the headline: "Poland. $3.5 billion deal for F-16 is biggest defense contract since Cold War." The short blurb stated in part,

"Prime Minister Leszek Miller, who attended the signing ceremony, said the package reflected 'our partnership with the United States in political and military areas, but also in the economy.' With its complexity and scope, the package underscored strong U.S.-Polish strategic ties, reinforced in recent months by Warsaw's help in the war in Iraq."

When I read this note I wondered "what is this all about?" As a reward for sending a couple of hundred hapless young Poles into battle in Iraq the Polish people are now allowed to buy themselves with their tax money F-16 s? To put this bargain in perspective let us remember that already in the year 2000 (the last year for which I have readily available figures) Poland's economy was in shambles with a per capita income of $6,500 and a trade deficit of $14.3 billion. Due to the world-wide recession since then the numbers can only have gotten worse and the current unemployment rate stands at 18 per cent. Under those circumstances one is surely entitled to ask: What do the Poles need fighter jets for? Against whom are they to be used, since their traditional enemies the Russians and the Germans are no longer a threat?

For the answer to that question I am again indebted to my brother who had sent me as an Easter present the German edition of a book by the French author Emmanuel Todd which was published in 2002 and has already been translated into 11 languages. The original title was Après l'empire. Essai sur la décomposition du systéme américaine, which might be literally translated as: "After the empire. An essay upon the disintegration of the American system." The German translation carried the title Weltmacht USA. Ein Nachruf, which could be rendered as "U.S. world power. An obituary." Well, it's obviously too early to write an obituary but that isn't quite what the Frenchman had said anyway. Nevertheless, his thesis is so striking that amazon.com has so far not put an English translation on the market.

Todd says that America is no longer at the zenith of her power but has begun the downhill slide. Although her military might is currently undisputed, her economic strength has been eroded and she hides this weakness by throwing her military weight around in the world. America has become a debtor nation with a massive trade imbalance, and internal deficit, while Europe is recovering from the disasters of her two civil wars, WWI and WWII. Europe including Russia as well as Japan, China and South Korea are net exporters of goods while America has been relegated to the role of consumer. This, in the long run, is incompatible with America's continued role as the world's only remaining superpower. Thus, a balance between the combined strength of Europe and Asia and that of the Americas is likely to evolve in the future.

Now the pieces of the puzzle fall into place and the emphasis on military power by the neoconservatives and their allies all of a sudden makes perfect sense. If one sees America as the empire which is destined to enforce its values around the globe one must do everything in one's power to prevent other countries from gaining the possibility to challenge one's rule. This means that Europe must not be allowed to unite but the "new Europe" has to be set against the "old Europe." The Euro, which has steadily been gaining strength and now trades again, after the dollar's brief rally during the Iraq campaign, about ten percent higher than the dollar, must be weakened. Poland's entry into the Euro zone is undesirable and the country has to be kept tied to the dollar. Petro-dollars will also have to become greenbacks again. Russia, practically a continent with immense potential natural resources, must be left in economic doldrums and chastised as being undemocratic. Every effort will also have to be made to create unrest in China because this colossus of more than a billion and a quarter intelligent people is bound to challenge, in the long run, America's hegemony over East Asia. This can only be avoided when, under the banner of "human rights violations," the Soviet Union's fate is meted out to China and she sinks again into competing fiefdoms of warlords. Divide et impera, divide and conquer, served the Romans well and the idea seems to be that what worked two thousand years ago will work just as well now.

Under these circumstances Poland being forced to buy herself fighter jets makes also perfect sense. The American economy has to be stimulated and there isn't all that much manufactured paraphernalia we have to sell. Computers, cars and other technology one can buy cheaper from Asia but in military hardware we are unsurpassed. That is also the reason why Kagan, in his article which was mentioned last month, insisted that Europe needs to re-arm. Why? I asked myself, when I read it. Whom are the Europeans supposed to shoot, kill, and bomb? Al Quaeda terrorists, the IRA, Basques? The answer is now obvious. It doesn't matter that the Europeans are sick of war, have no external enemies, and don't really need a new arsenal. What does matter is that they buy our lethal equipment and thereby not only stimulate our economy but also create fear, dissension and instability around the world.

There's only one problem where the new Rome and its Pax differ fundamentally from the old one. Neither Hannibal, Mithridates nor any of the other enemies of Rome had the bomb! It can no longer be de-invented and we have to live with it. This ought to be a sobering thought for would-be imperialists. Pakistan has the bomb and its "democracy" is unstable. China has the bomb and Russia's arsenal is also still relatively intact. We have no monopoly on power politics and if we want to "pre-empt," sooner or later others are bound to do so also. We will then indeed have an Armageddon of unheard of proportions. But it is highly doubtful that at the end of it Jesus is going to arrive with his army of Saints and set up an enlightened despotism. Yet this seems to be precisely what some of our fellow citizens seem to have in mind.

If America continues to pursue the political course she has embarked upon and continues to use the September 11 tragedy as a mask to hide imperial ambitions there cannot be even a semblance of peace in this world. The chimera of a messianic kingdom where one power rules eternally is a bedtime fantasy for children. It cannot come to pass on this earth because the laws of physics and motion are against it. Force produces counter-force and the only constant is eternal change. Statism has never existed and can never exist on this planet.

In previous installments on the "Deconstruction of America" and "From Homo Sapiens to the Naked Ape" I have already documented how far America has strayed from the path she had set out upon in 1945 at the height of her glory. It was America who had proposed, although subsequently not endorsed, the Kantian principle of a League of Nations under Wilson, and its successor the United Nations under Roosevelt. Recently I re-read the Preamble of its Charter and there is hardly anything else that needs to be said in order to show how far we have departed. Here are just a few highlights to jog our collective memories,



"We the people of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and for these ends

To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and

To unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

To insure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

To employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims [bold print added]."



Although the U.S. has not yet repudiated the UN and its principles de jure it has done so de facto. In last year's speech before that body our President made it quite clear that the UN is relevant only as long as the member nations agree with and help carry out, our policies. America's right to act independently of the UN was also enshrined in a document signed by President Bush on September 17, 2002 entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America." While the introductory letter pays lip service to international cooperation the document itself spells out quite clearly that we shall use international cooperation on our terms only and reserve the right to initiate military policies without regard to international agreements when we feel that it is in our interest. The same applies to international treaties which deal with other global matters such as the environment or the International Criminal Court.

It is obvious that the UN has never lived up to its high principles but no human institution has ever been able to live up to lofty ideals. Power politics has prevented it and is likely to continue to do so. Nevertheless, to abandon the road of international law, as we seem to be in the process of doing, can only bode ill for the future. The UN, flaws and all, is still the only representative organization where all countries big or small, democratic or authoritarian have a forum and their concerns can first be listened to and subsequently, hopefully, acted upon with the blessings of the majority of that body. We seem to be tempted to walk out on the UN because our wishes can be vetoed in the Security Council. But if we do so we sign its death warrant and the real WWIII (I don't agree with the Pentagon's assessment that the Cold War represented WWIII) becomes inevitable. This is the reason why European scholars, like Emmanuel Todd, regard America as the most dangerous country in the world today. No longer able to dominate economically she has to do so militarily and thereby violate the established legal international order.

True statesmanship would require the insight that no empire is immortal and that the strength we still possess should be used to create, by peaceful means, conditions around the world which take the wind out of the sails of would-be terrorists or "rogue states." Our political moralizing, which divides the world between the good and the evil is not only hypocritical but harmful because it is bound to backfire. We cannot live up to the image of goodness we are trying to project, for a variety of reasons. But one which is paramount in the eyes of the Arab world is our unwillingness and/or inability to solve the Palestinian question. President Bush has announced that after the Iraq war he will not only unveil, but in concert with the EU, Russia and the UN, enforce his "road map for peace" in that troubled region of the world. He may genuinely believe that he will be able to do this but the experience of his father in this respect should tell us that this outcome is far from assured.

Let us step back to spring and summer 1991. In a spectacular 100 hours campaign the Iraqi army was routed from Kuwait and President Bush I enjoyed an unheard of popularity rating. This was not limited to the American public but represented a widespread feeling around the world. The invasion of another country had been stopped and UN values, which do not allow for annexations through force, had been upheld. President Bush then tried to translate this military success into a political one by bringing an end to the Israeli-Palestinian war. While Secretary of State, James Baker, worked feverishly to bring Arabs and Israelis together for the Madrid conference, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was working just as hard to convince Congress to give Israel a $10 billion loan guarantee to help with the absorption of the new immigrants from the Soviet Union. Inasmuch as this "loan guarantee" - a polite word for donation - would likely have been used for the creation and expansion of settlements in the occupied territories the elder Bush balked. Arabs would obviously have been in no mood to negotiate when we are seen as blatantly favoring Israel at that critical juncture. Bush was not against the loan guarantees per se but he did want a postponement of 120 days. Inasmuch as AIPAC's efforts were, however, all but assured of success President Bush gave on September 12, 1991 a special press conference where he went over the heads of Congress. J.J. Goldberg in his book Jewish Power. Inside the American Jewish Establishment relates what happened. After Bush had made his pitch for Congress to delay action on the bill

"he said, that he was 'up against some powerful political forces' bent on thwarting his will. Congress, in fact, appeared on the verge of approving the loan guarantees without him.

'I heard today there were something like a thousand lobbyists on the Hill working the other side of the question,' the president barked, pounding his fist on the podium with an anger usually reserved for foreign despots and congressional Democrats. 'We've got one lonely little guy down here doing it.'

The 'political forces' confronting the president at that moment were about thirteen hundred leaders of local Jewish organizations from across the country."

Goldberg tells us that this was merely the culmination of AIPAC's four months long campaign and Bush saw himself threatened to have to use "the first veto override of his presidency." Bush won that battle. Support on the Hill dwindled but he was made to pay a bitter price. The White House was deluged with angry letters and phone calls from irate Jewish citizens who felt that their right to petition Congress had been infringed upon and within five days the President had to write an apologetic letter to Ms. Shoshana Cardin of Baltimore who was at the head of "the powerful forces." The apology was grudgingly accepted but the damage was done and efforts began immediately to deny President Bush his re-election, which had seemed all but assured. Goldberg writes,

"On November 5, 1991, seven weeks after Bush's fateful press conference, America went to the polls for an off-year election that should have held few surprises. The one interesting race was a shoo-in contest in Pennsylvania, where a U.S. Senate seat had been opened up the previous spring by the accidental death of John Heinz, an attractive, moderate young Republican. The GOP's candidate was the popular ex-governor, Richard Thornburgh, another moderate and one of President Bush's closest allies. . . . His Democratic opponent was a little-known college professor, Harris Wofford, who had once served in the Kennedy administration. As of September 17, Thornburgh was forty-four points ahead in the polls."

Within one week after President Bush's press conference the flow of money began to reverse course in the Pennsylvania electoral campaign. While on October 16 Thornburgh still had a two to one fund-raising lead the situation reversed itself completely in the final weeks before the election. "Donors with Jewish surnames who had made up nearly 10 per cent of Thornburgh's October 16 filing, were almost totally absent from his final report. . . .  What had happened was that from all across the country, outraged Jews (and some passionately pro-Israel Christians) were focusing their anger at George Bush on his friend Dick Thornburgh. The accidental beneficiary was Professor - soon to be Senator - Harris Wofford."

After his loss at the polls Thornburgh told Bush that he was the sacrificial canary Pennsylvania coal miners use to check the air in the mine shaft. Goldberg relates the conversation, “‘Mr. President, I'm your canary. You've got a leak, and if you don't do something about it, it's going to get you too.’” Well we know what happened thereafter. President Bush dragged Prime Minister Shamir screaming and kicking to Madrid which later on led to the ill-fated "Oslo peace process," and by November 1992 Clinton was voted in as the next President of the U.S. The official story line was that Bush had lied to the American people about not raising taxes, when he found himself pressed to repudiate his promise, and that the economy was in dire straits. While these were some factors they were not necessarily the determining ones. As the currently well known James Carville, who was then Wofford's campaign manager and who went on to be Clinton's thereafter, is quoted as saying "the press conference did indeed 'hurt Thornburgh bad.' . . . It hurt Republicans in Jewish fund- raising. And we started raising a lot more money.' "

When the 1992 votes were tallied Bush had received 12 percent of the Jewish vote, Perot 10 per cent and Clinton 78 per cent. One may argue that Jewish voters favor Democrats anyway but in the 1988 election Bush had received 35 per cent while his opponent governor Dukakis, who even had a Jewish wife, was relegated to 64 per cent. Obviously it is not the individual American Jewish voters who swing an election but the fund-raising efforts and the allegation of anti-Semitism against those who don't toe the line, can surely have an impact.

This little lesson of history may not be lost on George W. The current $9 billion loan guarantee had smooth sailing in Congress but that does not make the "road map to peace" any easier. Jewish voters are still, by and large, adamantly pro-Israel and so is one of the President's core constituencies the evangelical right. If President Bush wants to avoid the fate of his father he cannot afford to alienate either of these two groups and "leaning on Israel" does not seem to be a viable option. This is the political reality in America.

In Israel the situation is hardly different. Although Israelis are sick of war they want peace on their terms rather than a solution which is equitable for both sides. Prime Minister Sharon has recently said that a Palestinian state is inevitable, and that painful concessions will have to be made, but it seems apparent that these words are for public consumption rather than indicating a genuine change of heart within his party. The Likud party program www.jewishsf.com/bk990514/iparties.shtml prior to the 1999 elections which swept Sharon into office stated,

"PEACE PROCESS

Likud rejects the creation of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. The party will honor all international agreements signed by previous governments. The party will work to strengthen settlements and prevent their dismantling. Jerusalem will remain the united capital. There will be no negotiations over the city's future. There will be increased Jewish settlements in all parts of Jerusalem. No diplomatic activities will take place in Orient House [Palestinian Authority headquarters in Jerusalem]. The Israeli police presence in eastern Jerusalem will grow."

This was the platform Sharon campaigned on and which led him to win two elections. In spite of the fact that this party program is in direct violation of the UN charter and International Law it was adhered to. Jewish settlements in the occupied areas, including east Jerusalem, proceeded at a rapid pace so that the Palestinians now have to live in disconnected islands. They cannot readily go from one town or village to another without crossing specified checkpoints and the main highways in the West Bank, the so-called "bypass roads," are for Israelis to travel on but off limits to Palestinians. The difficulties Bush's "road map for peace" is confronted with can be readily appreciated when one looks at a genuine tourist road map as advertised in the Jerusalem Post. Characteristically the map is called "Carta's Map of Judea, Samaria & the Gaza Strip,” because Israel refuses to acknowledge the UN principle that acquisition of territory by military power is illegal. First the term "occupied territories" was abandoned in official Israeli parlance, then the word "territories" also disappeared, and now there is only "Judea, Samaria and Gaza Strip!" It was hoped to create facts on the ground which will make a meaningful contiguous Palestinian state for all practical purposes impossible. The Carta map, which shows on its title fold a nice shiny car traveling along a modern highway between hills dotted with trees and settlements, reveals the success of these policies and the resultant break-up of Palestinian lands. It is highly regrettable that this map is not shown by the American media, including television, because the American public is thereby kept in ignorance of the true facts and can readily be misled by skillful propaganda. Once the "road map to peace" collapses, just like the Oslo peace process did, the blame will, in all likelihood, be placed again at the feet of the Palestinians for their stubborn refusal to appreciate Israeli generosity and for the persistence in their fight for liberation from occupation.

Our current President loves to think in terms of "good and evil" but he might be well advised to remember what happened to Adam and Eve when they gorged themselves with “the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil." They lost their paradise and since our president regards himself as a "born again Christian" it might also be useful for him to recall Satan's temptation of Jesus. In the wilderness Jesus was promised power over all the kingdoms of the world if he were to fall down and worship Satan. Our president now has this power for a fleeting moment of history. Will he give in to the seducers around him who offer even more glory? Or will he say "No, enough bloodshed! Henceforth we go the way of cooperation with others rather than that of domination?" That would be statesmanship!

Although Mr. Bush is not likely to ever read these lines I do have a suggestion for him. On one of his Sunday mornings at Camp David he might want to sit down in the woods with a copy of the New Testament and ponder Luke 11:24-26. We know that he quoted the preceding verse 23, "He that is not with me is against me,” but the subsequent ones are of even greater personal importance for his soul. They contain the story of a man from whom an unclean spirit had gone out. After this particular demon had wandered around restlessly he decided that he might as well visit his former host again and found the house "clean and garnished. The he goes and takes to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. " I am not saying that our president will resort to the solace of alcohol again, from which he regards himself as having been redeemed by Jesus; but I am saying that he finds himself now in dire danger of some so-called friends and advisers who will try to use him for their pet projects. History is not only made by social forces, as Marx claimed, but by people whom fate has thrown up into executive positions with vast powers over the rest of us and that is where Satan and his guile becomes relevant. The frequently cited words of Lord Acton "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," ought to be the warning to be heeded.
 
 
 
Feel free to use statements from this site but please respect copyright and indicate source. Thank you.
 
 

Please E-mail this article to a friend

Return to index!