28 March - 3 April 2002
Issue No.579
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 28 March - 3 April 2002 Issue No.579 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Dropping the big one
Washington's militarism and unilateralism threaten world peace and stability, writes Michael Jansen from Washington
No one likes us, don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
All around even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one, see what happens ...This bitterly ironic song, composed and performed by Randy Newman, a native of New Orleans who has been in the music business for 30 years, sums up the attitude of many US citizens. With this ditty, entitled "Political Science," Newman anticipated the decision of the Bush administration to draw up contingency plans for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against seven countries. The hit list includes not only the three states Bush recently classified as the "axis of evil" -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- but also Russia, China, Libya and Syria, antagonising all of them.
This decision, leaked to the Los Angeles Times on 10 March, amounts to a departure from US Cold War policy of using nuclear devices as deterrents rather than weapons of attack. Thus, the Bush administration has moved from regarding nuclear bombs as unusable "weapons of last resort" to developing them as "weapons of choice."
This policy amounts to a reversal of Washington's stance on the ban of nuclear weapons testing, on reducing nuclear arsenals and on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Thoughtful US commentators, like Ann Scott Tyson in The Christian Science Monitor of 14 March, have argued that "critics at home and abroad" consider that this policy "represents the worst unilateralist tendencies of the Bush presidency."
The first eight months of President George W Bush's term in office were marked by similar, less dramatic unilateralist initiatives. Bush rejected the Kyoto protocol on global warming, the international agreements regulating weapons of mass destruction, the ban on land mines and the international criminal court. The 11 September attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon forced the administration to reach out to the rest of the world for succour and support and to listen to advice from allies. But this did not last long.
On the Afghan front, Washington insisted on "calling all the shots" by deciding on when and how allied troops should be deployed and on the course of the battle. The US also single-handedly took the highly controversial decision to transport prisoners captured in Afghanistan to the Guantanamo base in Cuba. There they are being held in cages and subjected to illegal interrogations and prosecution before a military court.
Thus, the Bush administration took only a few weeks to shift from an initial post-11 September multilateralist stance to one of rampant unilateralism. The International Herald Tribune's William Pfaff, writing on 14 March, accused the administration of "making use of the 11 September tragedy to do what the neo-conservative right has wanted for a long time, which is to renounce inconvenient treaties, junk arms control, build and test nuclear weapons, attack Saddam Hussein and abandon multilateralism, cooperation with international organisations and compromise with allies, all in order to aggrandise American international power and deal expediently with those who challenge it."
The latest unilateralist action to antagonise the international community was Bush's decision to impose punitive tariffs on steel imports. Russia promptly retaliated by banning the import of chickens from the US, while Europe, which accused Washington of violating World Trade Organisation rules, has decided to respond by imposing duties on US steel, citrus fruit and textiles. Europe's tariffs which target Pennsylvania steel companies and Florida and California citrus growers are designed to harm the prospects of Bush's Republic Party in key states in this year's mid-term Congressional elections.
The hard-right faction in the administration gets away with such unilateralist policies because the majority of US citizens are not interested in what Washington does, are unwilling to make the effort to learn about the rest of the world and believes that the policy of "America above all" is right. While most readers of newspapers in the country are treated to skimpy coverage of global affairs, those who peruse the quality dailies receive skewed reports and often inappropriate (even crazed) commentaries. Television coverage is terrible. Even the best outlet, National Public Radio, is inadequate and cannot be compared with the World Service of the BBC.
Instead of reacting to the events of 11 September by trying to find out why Arabs would carry out such a devastating attack, ordinary people simply fly the flag from their homes or put flag stickers on their cars. Flags, large and small, once displayed only on the Fourth of July, are now everywhere. The flag, a symbol of national identity and unity, has become a blue bead of protection against the evil eye of terrorism.
George Bush's dramatic "axis of evil" speech reflected the popular fear of the unknown and the national mood. The second verse of Randy Newman's song captures current attitudes:
We give them money but are they grateful
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one, pulverise them ...Last weekend while attending the United Nations conference on poverty in Mexico, Bush pledged $10 billion over three years for poor nations on condition that they root out corruption, commit to open markets and undertake political reform. This amounted to a slap in the face for the summit which had set a target of 0.7 per cent of Gross National Product for the contribution of the rich to development in poor countries. Bush's offer increases the US contribution from a paltry 0.10 to 0.13 per cent; Europe already donates three times the target figure and is prepared to raise its contribution. Experts attending the conference also criticised the conditions Bush placed on recipients.
The $10 billion increase is dwarfed by the administration's current request from Congress for $27.1 billion for counter-terrorism funds, $5.3 billion for homeland security, $5.5 billion to help New York City recover and $1.6 billion to help other countries counter terrorism. In the budget for the next fiscal year which begins on 1 October, Bush is asking for $48 billion for defence and $38 billion to strengthen domestic protection against terrorism. The bulk of these vast sums will, naturally, be spent in the military-industrial complex which has immense influence in Washington.
Boom goes London, boom goes Paree
More room for you, more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will be just another American town
Oh how peaceful it will be ...
So let's drop the big one now, let's drop the big one now.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page