------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
<FONT COLOR="#000099">FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
</FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/Pv4pGD/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/zgSolB/TM";><B>Click
Here!</B></A>
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Please send as far and wide as possible.
Thanks,
Robert Sterling
Editor, The Konformist
http://www.konformist.com
World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
WSWS : News & Analysis : The US War Drive
Why is Bush refusing to negotiate with the Taliban?
By Jerry White
16 October 2001
President Bush is flatly rejecting offers from the Taliban government
to hand Osama bin Laden over for trial if the United States stops
bombing Afghanistan and provides proof that the Saudi exile was
involved in the September 11 terror attacks on New York and
Washington.
On Sunday, Afghan Deputy Prime Minister Maulvi Abdul Kabir told a
group of international journalists in Jalalabad that if the US
stopped bombing Afghanistan, "We would be ready to hand him over."
Kabir called for negotiations, saying, "If proof is provided, a third
country could be chosen which is under the influence of neither the
United States nor the Taliban."
Bush rejected the offer out of hand. Speaking to reporters on Sunday,
just minutes after returning with top national security advisers from
his Camp David retreat, Bush declared, "They must not have heard.
There are no negotiations. This is non-negotiable."
This is not the first offer the Taliban leadership has made to
negotiate the possible transfer of bin Laden. On the eve of the war,
the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, said
bin Laden would be handed over if proof of his involvement in the
terror attacks were presented. Bush rejected that offer and proceeded
to launch the bombing campaign.
On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that a faction of the Taliban
leadership had met secretly with Pakistani officials the day before
and said they would try to negotiate the handover of bin Laden if the
US stopped bombing for two or three days. The Times reported,
however, that Pakistani and US officials were doubtful the overture
would resolve the crisis because Bush "has said repeatedly that he
will not negotiate, or even discuss, terms for the handover of Mr.
bin Laden."
At the onset of the crisis, the US government said it was preparing
to launch a war against Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to
surrender bin Laden. Yet when the Afghan regime makes reasonable
offers to do precisely that, the US response is to dismiss the offers
and reject any form of negotiation.
>From a purely practical standpoint, the issuing of demands combined
with a posture of "no negotiations" is absurd. Even if the Taliban
wanted to meet the US demands, how could they do so without entering
into discussions with Washington? The US modus operandi of presenting
ultimatums while refusing to negotiate can only mean that the Bush
administration is not seriously interested in obtaining compliance.
It is acting in bad faith.
The Taliban has asked for proof of bin Laden's involvement in the
September 11 attacks. What is unreasonable about insisting that the
US back up its claims by presenting solid evidence? Some two weeks
prior to launching the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell promised
to make public an evidentiary case against the man whom the US
accuses of masterminding last month's attacks. But the Bush
administration reneged on this pledge.
One can only imagine the response of the American government if
another country demanded that it hand over a US resident on murder
charges, while refusing to disclose its evidence against the person
in question.
Speaking on the White House lawn Sunday, Bush reiterated his position
that the US is not obliged to provide any proof of bin Laden's
involvement. "There is no need to discuss innocence or guilt," he
said. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over. If they want us to stop
our military operations, they've just got to meet my conditions,"
Bush said.
In other words, not only the Taliban, but the entire world must
accept on faith Washington's accusations against bin Laden. But the
world has every right to ask: if you have the evidence, why don't you
show it?
There is no question that bin Laden welcomed the September 11
attacks. This in itself establishes the deeply reactionary and anti-
working class character of his ultra-nationalist politics. It does
not, however, prove that he is responsible for the hijack-bombings
that killed more than 5,000 people.
The Bush administration has not explained on what grounds of
international law it is demanding that a government hand over an
individual to the US without any form of due process. In crimes far
less significant than the September 11 attacks, the police are
required to obtain warrants, present evidence, etc. In this case,
whose dimensions should demand the most scrupulous observation of
legal norms and the most meticulous investigation of the facts, Bush
insists there is no need to discuss bin Laden's innocence or guilt,
and demands he be handed over simply on the US president's say-so.
This is the type of ultimatum colonial governments used to issue to
their possessions in Africa and Asia.
The US maintains a double-standard when it comes to its own
international responsibilities. Washington upholds as a basic
principle that it is not bound by the provisions of the World Court,
nor obligated to hand over any of its citizens to face criminal
charges at The Hague. In 1986 the World Court ruled that the US had
violated international law by mining the waters of Nicaragua and
arming the Contras. The US simply ignored the ruling, saying the
World Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
In addition to the handing over of bin Laden, Bush has issued a
series of demands that the Taliban cannot possibly meet. This
includes giving the US "full access" to what it claims are terrorist
training camps, i.e., allowing the US to militarily occupy
Afghanistan. Knowing the Taliban cannot accede to such a demand, the
Bush administration intends to achieve its aim of occupying the
country by dropping bombs, carrying out assassinations and
terrorizing the Afghan population.
The latest actions of the Bush administration underscore the fact
that the events of September 11, however horrendous, are not the
cause of the US military intervention in Central Asia. Rather, they
have been used as a pretext.
The American government is pursuing a different agenda than the one
it has presented to the people of the US and the world. It has seized
upon last month's tragedy to implement longstanding plans to impose
American hegemony in the oil-rich region. The last thing the White
House wants is a deal with the Taliban that could undercut these aims.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Copyright 1998-2001
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
*****
World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
WSWS : News & Analysis : The US War Drive
The media and Mr. Bush
By Barry Grey
16 October 2001
In its efforts to portray George W. Bush in the most flattering
possible light, the liberal press in the US has jettisoned whatever
shreds of decorum and journalistic integrity it previously retained.
In the course of the past month, testimonials to Bush's astounding
metamorphosis from mediocrity to greatness have become almost
commonplace in the pages of such journals as the New York Times and
the Washington Post.
This exercise in deception and self-delusion assumed grotesque
proportions last week when Bush held a nationally televised, prime-
time press conference. Bush's meandering performance reflected what
he is: a severely limited man, ill-equipped intellectually and
politically to grasp the complexities of the situation that has
unfolded since the terror attacks on New York and Washington.
The following day the New York Times published a rapturous editorial
headlined "Mr. Bush's New Gravitas." Marveling at the supposed
transformation of the man "who was barely elected president last
year," the Times declared: "He seemed confident, determined, sure of
his purpose and in full command of the complex array of political and
military challenges that he faces in the wake of the terrible
terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. It was a reassuring performance that
should give comfort to an uneasy nation."
The opening accolade set the tone for the rest of the commentary,
which concluded on the following note: "In all, it was a commanding
appearance that should give citizens a sense that their president has
done much to master the complexities of this new global crisis....
[Bush] seemed to be a president whom the nation could follow in these
difficult times."
This was an astonishing appraisal. The George W. Bush it described
bore virtually no resemblance to the man who gave a White House press
conference on October 11. That man tried to string together bits and
pieces of ideas that he obviously did not comprehend, resulting in a
jumble of non sequiturs, banalities and evasions. Were the Times
editorialists watching the same press conference?
The members of the White House press corps did their best to give the
president a free ride, refraining from asking any questions that
challenged the dishonest claims that are being used to justify a war
in Afghanistan and an assault on civil liberties within the US.
No one asked Bush to explain how a group of terrorists could
implement a plan to murder thousands, destroy the World Trade Center
and bomb the Pentagon, without being detected or deterred. No
reporter noted the White House's failure to this day to provide
concrete evidence of Osama bin Laden's guilt. In its collective
cowardice, the press corps refused even to question Bush's efforts to
muzzle the press.
Of the economic and strategic aims underlying the war in petroleum-
rich Central Asia, there was not a hint. The three-letter word
beginning in "o" and ending in "l" was never uttered.
Nevertheless, Bush proved incapable of making a coherent case for the
government's course of action. Far from appearing "confident,
determined and sure of his purpose," Bush was tentative, rambling and
vague. As for his "command of the complex array of political and
military challenges," the president could not even repeat with any
consistency the mantras that had been formulated by his advisers.
What he initially termed "the first, and we hope, the only [war] of
the twenty-first century" became, the second time around, "the first
battle in the war of the twenty-first century," and, a few minutes
later, "the new wars of the twenty-first century."
As for the nature of the war, its duration and aims, Bush could offer
little insight beyond the assertion that it was "a different kind of
war," a phrase he repeated several times. Again and again Bush
grabbed for such catchphrases. There was much talk about "smoking him
out of his cave" and references to bin Laden as "the evil-doer."
Bush's remarks contained glaring contradictions. One reporter, noting
that US officials could not say for sure whether bin Laden was still
in Afghanistan, asked whether the war on terrorism could be won if
the prime target was not found. Bush replied that "success or failure
depends not on bin Laden." He continued, "[S]uccess or failure
depends upon routing [sic] out terrorism where it may exist all
around the world. He's just one person, a part of a network."
How terrorism can be "routed out" all over the world without
capturing or eliminating the man whom the US claims is the world's
preeminent terrorist was not explained. Having downplayed the
significance of bin Laden in one breath, moreover, Bush credited him
with possessing vast powers in the next, declaring that the Saudi
exile had "hijacked a country" and "forced a country to accept his
radical thoughts."
Another reporter pointed to that day's FBI warning of fresh terrorist
attacks and asked the entirely legitimate question: "Given the
complete generality of that warning, what does it really accomplish,
aside from scaring people into not doing what you've urged them to do—
getting back to their normal lives...?" Bush was plainly at a loss to
unravel this conundrum.
It was "a general threat on America," he said, adding, "had it been a
specific threat, we would have contacted those to whom the threat was
directed." He went on to say the American people "should take
comfort" from official warnings of imminent attacks, because they
showed the government was "on full alert." He then cited "positive
news" of an increase in commercial aircraft load factors and a rise
in hotel occupancy rates. "We are getting back to normal," Bush
declared.
This was a typical Bush non sequitur. He wanted to counter suspicions
that the FBI alert was a ploy to create panic and stampede the public
behind his war policy and his attacks on democratic rights. So he
insisted that the threat of an imminent attack was real. But from
this dire premise he somehow concluded that the appropriate response
of the American people was to "get back to normal."
People should also be vigilant, he declared. But when asked, twice,
exactly what this vigilance entailed and how ordinary people could
protect themselves, Bush was at a loss. "The American people,
obviously, if they see something that is suspicious, something out of
the norm that looks suspicious, they ought to notify local law
authorities," he said.
In response to the final question of the news conference—"What are
Americans supposed to look for and report to the police or to the
FBI?"—Bush could do no better than: "If you see suspicious people
lurking around petrochemical plants, report it to law enforcement."
Here is how the Times described the president's attempt to handle
these questions: "Mr. Bush was especially effective in talking to the
American people about their fears. He spoke candidly about new
warnings that additional terrorist attacks could come at any time,
but described the many precautions that the government is taking to
defend the home front. He was at once firm in his resolve to protect
the nation and fatherly in his calm advice to get on with the life of
the country as much as people can."
In this mixture of boot-licking and deceit, one claim stands out
because it calls into question whether the authors even watched the
press conference. It is factually untrue that Bush "described the
many precautions that the government is taking to defend the home
front." He did no such thing.
The Times continued: "Using a mixture of straight talk, statesmanship
and a touch of humor here and there, Mr. Bush used the press
conference to clarify and sharpen his positions on several core
issues in the war against terrorism." The "clarifying"
and "sharpening" which the newspaper lauded consisted of refusing to
place a time limit on the war and allusions to setting up a client
regime in Afghanistan, with the United Nations being called on to
provide a legal fig leaf. The Times also praised Bush for threatening
Iraq without committing the US to an imminent attack on Baghdad—"a
step that the nation is not yet [emphasis added] prepared to take,"
in the words of the editorial.
The Times was particularly pleased with Bush's talk of humanitarian
aid to the "impoverished people of Afghanistan." It described
as "heartfelt" Bush's most sickening display of hypocrisy—his appeal
for American children to send donations to the children of
Afghanistan.
In this connection, the Times passed over in silence a highly damning
admission. Bush made a passing reference to Washington's "previous
engagement in the Afghan area," and said his administration had
learned from that experience that "we should not just simply leave
after a military objective has been achieved."
Bush was referring to US support for the Islamic Mujahedin during the
Soviet invasion of the 1980s. As is well known, the guerillas armed
and financed by the CIA in that period included Osama bin Laden and
the precursors of the Taliban. No government played a greater role
than the US in fostering the growth of these reactionary forces in
Afghanistan, and once the Soviet army withdrew, Washington pulled out
and left the population at the mercy of rival warlords and Islamic
fundamentalist militias. The result was years of civil war that
virtually destroyed the country.
Thus, by the time Bush concluded his remarks with a play at
compassion, describing the horrific conditions facing Afghanistan's
children, he had already pointed unwittingly to the culpability of
the US for these very conditions.
There were other remarkable statements that the Times chose to
overlook, such as Bush's assertion that the major mistake in Vietnam
was allowing elected officials to control the actions of the
military, his inane pronouncement that the lesson to be drawn from
the events of September 11 was that "there is evil in the world," and
his profession of "amazement" at the widespread hatred for the US in
the Arab and Muslim world.
What accounts for this simultaneous display of ignorance and
dishonesty? Bush is a man who has not read a serious book in the last
twenty years, if not in his entire life. He knows almost nothing
about history, and even less about Central Asia. He is making war in
a part of the world about which he is uninformed. It is doubtful that
prior to September 11 he could have named the countries bordering
Afghanistan.
He lacks a command of facts, let alone the ability to form broad
generalizations that are rooted in facts and history, without which
serious politics is impossible. He is abysmally unqualified for his
position. All of this is well known in ruling class political and
media circles.
The Times' editors know that Bush's press conference bore no
resemblance to their adulatory review. Why, then, did they publish
such a shameless tract?
The media is determined that there will be no repetition of the
Vietnam-era "credibility gap" because there will be no challenge from
their quarter to the claims of the government. This open
transformation of the press into a propaganda arm of the state is a
symptom of the far-reaching degeneration of democratic institutions
in America.
Articles and commentaries such as that of the New York Times, and
they are legion, reflect the contempt of the American ruling elite
for the public. The media is not engaged simply in influencing public
opinion. American politics has reached the stage where public opinion
itself is entirely synthetic.
Lies and half-truths have become the ingredients of a perfected
system of manipulation that is only remotely connected to facts and
has virtually no reference to the concerns and moods of the broad
mass of the population. Public opinion is nothing more than the
manner in which the corporate oligarchy and its government agents
package their own outlook.
The entire media operation has become an exercise not only in mass
deception, but also in self-delusion. It is a closed circle that
reflects the extreme alienation of the political system from the
general population.
Notwithstanding the polls showing overwhelming support for the war,
the more profound mood of the American people is one of unease and
fear that the conflict will spiral out of control. It is inevitable
that the staggering levels of social inequality and political
alienation that characterize American society will find expression in
enormous upheavals, for which an insulated ruling elite and its media
propagandists are ill prepared.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Copyright 1998-2001
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
If you are interested in a free subscription to The
Konformist Newswire, please visit:
http://www.eGroups.com/list/konformist
Or, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
subject: "I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!"
(Okay, you can use something else, but it's a kool
catch phrase.)
Visit the Klub Konformist at Yahoo!:
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/klubkonformist
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
