| Number 355 | December 8, 2006 |
|
This Week: The Elections, Iraq, Democrats, Etc
|
|
Greetings, I promised I would say a few words about the recent elections, so that's mostly what this issue of the Notes is about. As you will see, I'm not too excited about the victory of the Democrats, but I also don't think that the difference between a Democrat-controlled Congress and a Republican-controlled one is insignificant. At the end of this issue, I say that I will talk in a future issue about what could be called a "huge difference in approach." Now that IS exciting! I hope that this "future issue" will be the next one, but I've learned not to make specific promises like that! New things are always coming up, after all. But I dearly hope that it will appear before the end of the year, in any case. So, stay tuned. No "Quote" of the Week this week—I ran out of room. Sorry. I had a bunch of them ready, too! Crunched for time and space, I remain, Nygaard |
|
I debated whether to call this item "News of the Weird" or "Off the Front Page," and I really couldn't decide. See what you think. The subject is a remarkable USA Today (USAT) article of November 10th headlined "U.S. Will Train Latin American Militaries; Ban Lifted to Offset Trend Toward Left." USAT actually had this on the front page, but I consider it eligible for Off the Front Page status because no other news outlet in the country covered the story, on any page, as far as I know. The lead paragraph went like this: "Concern about leftist victories in Latin America has prompted President Bush to quietly grant a waiver that allows the United States to resume training militaries from 11 Latin American and Caribbean countries." (As I always remind people, the White House can only do something "quietly" if the media is failing to do their job, but leave that alone for now.) Some background: It all has to do with the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The ICC is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: the Court can only exercise its jurisdiction when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes, thus being a ‘court of last resort'." (That brief summary is from Wikipedia; learn more about the ICC from the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, http://www.iccnow.org/ ) Despite fierce U.S. opposition, 139 countries have agreed to participate in the Court and the Court is now up and running. The U.S. response to this has been to pass something called the "American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002," which Human Rights Watch says "is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court. The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague [Netherlands]. This provision, dubbed the ‘Hague invasion clause,' has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands. In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty..." This is the "ban" that was "lifted" of which USA Today speaks. I don't know how many countries have been denied "military assistance"
under the act, but So, what's weird about this? Well, the "ban" on training was intended to be a punishment for not going along with the U.S. and their desire to be immune from prosecution (many would call this "extortion."). However, some of you may know that the U.S. has historically used military-to-military "assistance" to destabilize Latin American democracies (Chile 1973; Guatemala 1954; Venezuela 2002; Colombia to the present; and more. See "Killing Hope, by William Blum for much detail.) So, when USAT says in their second paragraph that "The [Bush] administration hopes the training will forge links with countries in the region and blunt a leftward trend," it needs to be translated. Here is the Nygaard Notes translation: "The Bush administration hopes to destabilize any democratically-elected governments it doesn't like, in part by developing covert channels and relationships between the most reactionary, anti-democratic military officers in those countries and the various covert operatives in the United States that are skilled in these sorts of ‘black operations.'" THIS sounds like punishment, if you ask me, although the ban itself was supposed to be the punishment. See what I mean? As it was reported, it's a really weird story. But, as it COULD have been reported, it deserves front-page treatment. All in all, a riddle inside an enigma wrapped in a conundrum. |
|
My own opinion about the November 7th U.S. elections mirrors that of William Blum, writing in the excellent newsletter Counterpunch on November 25th. His piece, entitled "New Congress, Same Quagmire," started out with these words: "The good news is that the Republicans lost. The bad news is that the Democrats won." And there you have it, in a nutshell. I basically said as much in Nygaard Notes #352 ("Election 2006: A Word About Voting"). Still, while neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are prepared to initiate anything like the big changes we need to keep us safe, healthy, and prosperous, it would be absurd, and very provincial, to say that there is no difference between a government run by people in full "attack mode" and one where the leadership is less determined to build up the "Business Government" at the expense of the "Popular Government." Certainly many people around the world were thrilled that the U.S. elections—which were widely seen as a referendum on The World According to Bush—came out the way they did. For example, the 201-member European Parliament Socialist Group on November 8th called the election results "the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world" and described the Bush administration as "seriously weakened." A commentator in a British newspaper wrote: "The cheering can be heard not just in America itself but around the planet." I, myself, agree with commentator Nicola Nasser, who said in a piece on the Media Monitors Network that "their optimism seems premature." Still, it should be noted that the Democratic majority has promised
to do a few things that actually will make a difference in the lives
of a lot of people. These are issues of domestic policy, things like
preventing the so-called "privatization" of Social Security,
raising the minimum wage, expanding Pell grants for college students,
making college tuition tax deductible, and lots more. The Democrats
have something they call their "6 Point Plan for 2006," which
I think is sort of a pale imitation of the famous "Republican Contract
With America" of 1994 that had something to do with that party's
takeover of Congress in that year's elections. Both the "Contract"
and the "Plan" can be seen online, and are interesting to
compare. Find the first one at The Republicans have released what they call a "Contract With America RENEWED" that spells out their goals—very specifically and in great length—in regard to the 2007 federal budget. That document can also be seen online, at http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/RSC_2007_BUDGET.pdf At 75 pages, it's more than most of you will want to read, I know, but it's filled with major changes in federal spending, and reflects what they call "a legislative platform of freedom and opportunity, of getting spending under control, reducing the tax burden, and shrinking the size of the federal government." Like it or not, it is a visionary document—it's addressed "To The American People"—and stands in stark contrast with the Democrats' "Plan," which is vague and general, and addressed to nobody in particular. When we get to the point where there we have the option of voting for a major party—one that might actually hold majority power in this country—that can formulate a visionary, yet detailed, plan that is based on the values of Solidarity, Compassion, Justice, and Democracy, then we can start getting excited about elections. Until then, it's a good idea to be realistic about elections, and save our excitement for other things. So, in that light, here's a little exercise for readers of Nygaard Notes: Keeping in mind that the latest national polls show that the top priorities for United Statesians these days are Iraq, The Economy, Health care, Terrorism, and Immigration... 1. Take each of those issues and come up with a policy that YOU would
push for if you were a new member of Congress; |
|
Polls show that the single most important issue in the recent election was "Iraq." Exactly what people mean by "Iraq" is not clear. The morality of the U.S. invasion and occupation? Maybe. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed or maimed by the forces unleashed by the occupation? Maybe. The draining of immense financial resources into a quagmire with no end in sight? Maybe. A rejection of U.S. imperial ambitions and the resulting military-industrial complex that makes such wars inevitable? Probably not. But, whatever people were thinking when they voted, they were thinking about Iraq, and thinking that things have to change. So, they voted against Republicans. So, what can we expect when the new Congress convenes? I'll give one hopeful comment, and a few less-hopeful comments. (I'm hopeful by nature, but I think the "less-hopeful" crowd is more realistic in their assessments.) The hopeful comment comes from Binghamton University sociology professor Immanuel Wallerstein, from a November 15th commentary on the Republican defeat: "The one thing that is sure is that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq as we approach the 2008 elections. The voters and the military made that clear in the 2006 election. Of course there will be a massive blame game—among Republicans as to who lost the 2006 elections, and between Democrats and Republicans as to who lost Iraq. But the word on everyone's mind is ‘lost.' "We can also be sure that bombing either North Korea or Iran is off the real agenda (including for Israel). The U.S. armed forces and the U.S. electorate will not tolerate it (not to speak of the rest of the world). Where will this leave the United States as a world power? It will probably result in a big push towards drawing inward. Already, in the 2006 elections, many candidates won by opposing ‘free trade' and Iraq was a dirty word. The political temptation will be to go local in emphasis. One of the major side effects will be a notable reduction in U.S. support for Israeli foreign policy, which will be wrenching for Israel. To read more of Wallerstein's commentaries, visit http://fbc.binghamton.edu/cmpg.htm ** Less-hopeful Comment 1: Here is a concise post-election "Statement of the Socialist Equality Party" that I found on the World Socialist Website on November 16th: "One week ago, in an election broadly acknowledged to have been a referendum on the war in Iraq, the American people made clear their emphatic opposition to the occupation of that country and their desire for the rapid withdrawal of all US forces... "The internal debates within the policy-making establishment—Democratic and Republican—are aimed at forging a new strategic consensus on the future conduct of American policy in the Middle East. While the depth of anti-war sentiment expressed in last week's elections came as something of a shock to both parties, their leaders are not in the least inclined to allow the attitude of the broad mass of the American people determine the foreign policy objectives of the United States." ** Less-hopeful Comment 2: From the essential Internet news site "Electronic Iraq" of 13 November comes this: "A number of Democrats, like Congressman John Murtha, have spelled out their own plans for getting us out of the Iraq fiasco. But the Democrats as a party have not yet come close to agreeing on a single, clear alternative policy—no less a story to tell about it. They've merely played on our cognitive dissonance about the Bush administration's losing war by telling us what they are against. So a midterm vote against the administration could not have been in favor of any specific Iraq policy." ** Less-hopeful Comment 3: Lest anyone think that the Socialist Equality Party and Electronic Iraq are too far to "one side," and thus not credible in their assessments, how about this, from the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) on November 12th in an article headlined: "Q&A: Minnesotan Benson Whitney, U.S. Ambassador To Norway:" "Minnesotan Benson Whitney, the U.S. ambassador to Norway, agreed recently to answer the questions of ordinary Norwegians through an Oslo newspaper's Internet chat line..." (Whitney, the son of mega-millionaire and former GOP gubernatorial candidate Wheelock Whitney, "led President Bush's reelection campaign in the state in 2004. Bush appointed him ambassador to Norway in 2005..." Someone in Norway asked: "How can the election result affect the war in Iraq?" And Benson gave the following, quite accurate, answer: "There is a tremendous amount of continuity in U.S. foreign policy, regardless of party of administration. Historically, elections have not brought major changes in foreign policy. Even in the case of Iraq, if you take away the loud campaign rhetoric on all sides, I don't think you will see a huge difference in approach." What would be a "huge difference in approach"? That will be the subject of a future Nygaard Notes.
|
