As a follow-up to my previous blog Nicaragua Exports More Than Coffee, I've been doing research in international opinion polling regarding the US-led "war on terror," specifically the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
While the 4th Branch of the US government (the media) would have us believe that the majority of the West - indeed, the world - supports their war on terror, the polls say otherwise. If we are citizens of democratic societies, why are our opinions largely (read: entirely) ignored? There seems to be overwhelming international opposition for the wars - both prior to and presently. Listed within are Gallup, World Public Opinion and Harris Interactive polls, expressing different opinions concerning the wars, but these are by no means the only resources available.
The Holocaust We Will Not See
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 11th January 2010
Avatar, James Cameron’s blockbusting 3-D film, is both profoundly silly and profound. It’s profound because, like most films about aliens, it is a metaphor for contact between different human cultures. But in this case the metaphor is conscious and precise: this is the story of European engagement with the native peoples of the Americas. It’s profoundly silly because engineering a happy ending demands a plot so stupid and predictable that it rips the heart out of the film. The fate of the native Americans is much closer to the story told in another new film, The Road, in which a remnant population flees in terror as it is hunted to extinction.
Avatar, James Cameron’s blockbusting 3-D film, is both profoundly silly and profound. It’s profound because, like most films about aliens, it is a metaphor for contact between different human cultures. But in this case the metaphor is conscious and precise: this is the story of European engagement with the native peoples of the Americas. It’s profoundly silly because engineering a happy ending demands a plot so stupid and predictable that it rips the heart out of the film. The fate of the native Americans is much closer to the story told in another new film, The Road, in which a remnant population flees in terror as it is hunted to extinction.
A Different Kind Of Learning
If you're one of those people who learns more by listening, here's 3 minutes of provocative thought for you. It's proof that hip hop is still a medium for political dissidence and rappers can still have something valid to say.
As far as I'm aware Immortal Technique didn't go to Palestine, but he did go to Afghanistan in 2009, read about his trip here.
As far as I'm aware Immortal Technique didn't go to Palestine, but he did go to Afghanistan in 2009, read about his trip here.
Nicaragua Exports More Than Coffee
On April 27th, 1983, Ronald Reagan professed to a nationwide audience that “violence has been Nicaragua's most important export to the world,”(1) in an attempt to bolster public support for what was effectively the first chapter in the American “war on terror.”(2)
During his inaugural address as president, Reagan had obliquely foreshadowed the war to come, by declaring that “those who practice terrorism,” - that is, what we define as terrorism - “and prey upon their neighbours” will soon be on the receiving end of American Justice. He was referring to the recent overthrow of the (US-backed) Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua by the Sandinista Liberation Front (FSLN), and their support of the left in the ongoing civil-war in El Salvador between the right-wing military leadership (also backed by the US) and the left-wing Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN).
Before continuing, it’s important to define terrorism. The US Department of Defense defines it as follows:
“The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”(3)
By any standards, we should be able to agree upon this definition or a variation of it, so long as it adheres to international law. Unfortunately, the masters of the world don’t apply this definition to themselves. Instead, we call it “counter-terrorism,” or “counter-insurgency.” The definitions are essentially the same, the difference is a matter of perspective. The typical position in the West (particularly the US) is defensive, even when they’re the occupying force, as in the cases of the Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, and so in this manipulation the West can never be wrong. To admit that we promote terrorism would be absurd.
Returning to Reagan’s denunciation of the Nicaraguan plight, the president explains that they “like to pretend that they are today being attacked by forces based in Honduras,” (this was later proven to be true) and asserts that “there is no thought of sending American combat troops to Central America. They are not needed.” (Though they did send CIA specialists to train what remained of Somoza’s supporters.)
Reagan concluded his speech by appealing to our “moral duty” and “solemn responsibility … to ourselves, our friends, and our posterity.” By the time the task was complete, the death toll in Nicaragua “in per capita terms was significantly higher than the number of US persons killed in the US Civil War and all the wars of the twentieth century combined,” and Nicaragua had gained “the unenviable status of being the poorest country in the Western hemisphere.”(4)
After enduring several years of conflict with the US-sponsored Honduran contras, economic sabotage, aerial bombardment and trade embargos, a case was presented to the International Court of Justice involving Nicaragua vs. The United States of America.(5) Of the numerous charges, the Nicaraguan government specifically cited that: US support for the contras was in violation of the UN Charter as well as the Charter of the Organization of American States, and that the US had violated Nicaraguan sovereignty. The court found that the US had breached international law on both counts. “Humanitarian aid” was also clearly defined in the proceedings, and the court found that aid to the contras was strictly military.
The US responded by refusing to participate, with claims that the ICJ had no jurisdiction to hear the case and eventually blocked enforcement by the UN Security Council, so Nicaraguan efforts for compliance remained unfulfilled. American terrorist operations in Nicaragua continued.
The United States was also requested to pay damages for their violations:
“… without prejudice to the foregoing request, the Court is requested to award to the Republic of Nicaragua the sum of 370,200,000 United States dollars, which sum constitutes the minimum valuation of the direct dollars, which sum constitutes the minimum valuation of the direct damages. With the exception of damages for killing nationals of Nicaragua …”
This request was effectively rejected in 1991 after “democratic” elections saw that the seemingly guaranteed victors (Sandinistas) were ousted. Subsequently a law was repealed by Nicaraguan National Congress which required that they seek indemnities. The suit was then withdrawn from the International Court.(6)
Interestingly, to date, Iraq has paid approximately $28 billion in war reparations to Kuwait, following the end of the first Gulf War,(7) coupling that with numerous economic sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council(8) and you begin to wonder how much of a “threat to world peace” Iraq actually posed, prior to the 2003 invasion.
The case of state-sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua is exceptional, but by no means is it entirely unique. It stands out because it is an uncontroversial example of the US flouting international law, as if it doesn’t apply to them. Similar cases that are all but buried include the state-sponsored terrorist activities in Cuba (codenamed Operation Mongoose); a program designed to undermine the Communist leadership through intensive propaganda, sabotage and psychological warfare. Operation Just Cause in Panama saw the “surgical operation” by American troops create a civilian death toll “that was at least four-and-a-half times higher than military causalities in the enemy, and twelve or thirteen times higher than the casualties suffered by U.S. troops”(9) according the Human Rights Watch. Of course it's out of the question that we in the West should abide by the same standard observation of human rights and international law which we expect of others.
The reverberations of these and other actions are still felt today, at this very moment. Aggressive foreign policy and the tendency towards abstaining from any sincere commitment to international law creates “a huge recruiting device” for would-be terrorists, to quote former US Deputy Secretary of Defense and current World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz. It seems that an excellent way to prevent global terrorism would be to stop participating in it.
--
References:
1. http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/42783d.htm
2. http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/12081a.htm
3. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/
4. Thomas Walker, Nicaragua
5. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/70/9619.pdf?PHPSESSID=1e1b228ef598fc0bc5698ecb471ab725
6. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,HRW,,NIC,467fca491e,0.html
7. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31616&Cr=iraq&Cr1=kuwait
8. http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/previous-issues-and-debate-on-iraq/sanctions-against-iraq.html
9. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1991/panama/
Sorry For Being White
Several months ago, through a heated discussion with a friend, I had what I would consider to be a psychological breakthrough. I acknowledged my considerable (albeit subliminal) shame and guilt for being lucky enough to have been born with white skin. And chances are, if you look like me, you probably suffer from a similar pathology.
The mere fact that I have white skin is enough to warrant an apology. Not for anything I’ve personally done, or for what my parents or grandparents may have done, but for the seemingly innate belief that this is a white man’s world. An apology, however, is unambiguous. What I now recognize is my own subconscious arrogance; my ignorance towards other cultures and races.
The opinion that dominates Western foreign - and for that matter, domestic - policy is that our way of life is the best possible. While this is not exclusively the opinion of a white majority, it is the dominant theme among our political and social elite - most of whom happen to be white.
We export our values by combining economic and military clout with the not so subtle manipulation of the media. As a collective, we pretentiously believe that we hold a monopoly on modernity, ethical values and the key to the future. This is wrong. The inherent privilege bequeathed to white, Western (North American, European, etc) children upon birth is too seldom acknowledged or seriously discussed. A mandatory, standardized cultural sensitivity curriculum would probably rub against the established grain. Humility is bad for business.
Consider the history of imperialism and economic competition - it’s necessary for us to believe we are superior. Without this well entrenched belief, the occupation, colonization and subjugation of inferior backwater nations - the very same we depend on for our tennis shoes, computer components, automobile parts and any number of agricultural imports - would become morally repugnant.
We have nothing to lose from a broader “live and let live” model of domestic and foreign policy, and in fact have much to gain in the way of cultural and diplomatic relations. We’re led to believe that without them, our way of life would not be possible. While this is true to a certain extent, it would require no significant sacrifice by the average Western citizen in order for a smaller nation to regain its sovereignty and national dignity.
Our way of life is superior, but our hedonism and the freedoms we enjoy - yet seldom exercise - would not be possible, were it not for our position as the capstone on top of this economic human pyramid. Virtually every major conflict in our recent - and not-so-recent - history is attributable to the necessary maintenance of our position. How many lives could have been spared, had we been raised without such nationalistic egoism?
This is not to say that attacks within our borders should be ignored or rashly forgiven, on the contrary. The attacks on 9-11, for example, were reprehensible and merited an appropriate response. However, the proper avenue would have been an international response of economic sanctions and limited military intervention. Likewise, at home, it would have been supremely useful for meaningful debates to have taken place as to the psychological origin and motivations of the attacks. Our differences are merely ideological - as merely the differences in ideology between slave and master.
So why is it important for us to be humble? Why am I sorry for being white? Because we are born privileged; because we are in a position of boundless freedoms and incomparable influence. We have choices and the opportunity to affect change. This position bestows upon us a certain amount of responsibility. We owe it to the nations we employ to become more involved in our country’s politics, and we owe it to our future generations to begin a regimen of tolerance and understanding, as opposed to the xenophobia inherent in our current system. It’s important to understand that the choices we make - vis-a-vis our lifestyles, the brands we buy, the clothes we wear, the vehicles we drive, etc - these are conscious choices, and they have potentially serious consequences, no matter how far removed we are.
We’re at the mercy of those below us in the pyramid, so it’s in our best interest to look towards flattening it out. After all, if it collapses, whoever’s on top has the farthest to fall.
The mere fact that I have white skin is enough to warrant an apology. Not for anything I’ve personally done, or for what my parents or grandparents may have done, but for the seemingly innate belief that this is a white man’s world. An apology, however, is unambiguous. What I now recognize is my own subconscious arrogance; my ignorance towards other cultures and races.
The opinion that dominates Western foreign - and for that matter, domestic - policy is that our way of life is the best possible. While this is not exclusively the opinion of a white majority, it is the dominant theme among our political and social elite - most of whom happen to be white.
We export our values by combining economic and military clout with the not so subtle manipulation of the media. As a collective, we pretentiously believe that we hold a monopoly on modernity, ethical values and the key to the future. This is wrong. The inherent privilege bequeathed to white, Western (North American, European, etc) children upon birth is too seldom acknowledged or seriously discussed. A mandatory, standardized cultural sensitivity curriculum would probably rub against the established grain. Humility is bad for business.
Consider the history of imperialism and economic competition - it’s necessary for us to believe we are superior. Without this well entrenched belief, the occupation, colonization and subjugation of inferior backwater nations - the very same we depend on for our tennis shoes, computer components, automobile parts and any number of agricultural imports - would become morally repugnant.
We have nothing to lose from a broader “live and let live” model of domestic and foreign policy, and in fact have much to gain in the way of cultural and diplomatic relations. We’re led to believe that without them, our way of life would not be possible. While this is true to a certain extent, it would require no significant sacrifice by the average Western citizen in order for a smaller nation to regain its sovereignty and national dignity.
Our way of life is superior, but our hedonism and the freedoms we enjoy - yet seldom exercise - would not be possible, were it not for our position as the capstone on top of this economic human pyramid. Virtually every major conflict in our recent - and not-so-recent - history is attributable to the necessary maintenance of our position. How many lives could have been spared, had we been raised without such nationalistic egoism?
This is not to say that attacks within our borders should be ignored or rashly forgiven, on the contrary. The attacks on 9-11, for example, were reprehensible and merited an appropriate response. However, the proper avenue would have been an international response of economic sanctions and limited military intervention. Likewise, at home, it would have been supremely useful for meaningful debates to have taken place as to the psychological origin and motivations of the attacks. Our differences are merely ideological - as merely the differences in ideology between slave and master.
So why is it important for us to be humble? Why am I sorry for being white? Because we are born privileged; because we are in a position of boundless freedoms and incomparable influence. We have choices and the opportunity to affect change. This position bestows upon us a certain amount of responsibility. We owe it to the nations we employ to become more involved in our country’s politics, and we owe it to our future generations to begin a regimen of tolerance and understanding, as opposed to the xenophobia inherent in our current system. It’s important to understand that the choices we make - vis-a-vis our lifestyles, the brands we buy, the clothes we wear, the vehicles we drive, etc - these are conscious choices, and they have potentially serious consequences, no matter how far removed we are.
We’re at the mercy of those below us in the pyramid, so it’s in our best interest to look towards flattening it out. After all, if it collapses, whoever’s on top has the farthest to fall.