The Sydney Morning Herald
October 22, 2001
Margo Kingston's Web Diary
Malcolm Harrison
The greatest single act of terror in modern history was the largely
unnecessary devastation of Hiroshima in 1945. 100,000 died that morning,
men,women, children. In their homes, at work, at school. Babies in
cradles and the old. There was no particular military necessity for the
dropping of the atom bomb. Peace negotiations were well under way. The
Japanese were holding out to keep the Emperor as head of state, the
Americans were demanding unconditional surrender. All indicators are that
the Japanese would have shortly yielded to this final demand.
The Americans did not wait. They dropped the Hiroshima bomb and three
days later they devastated Nagasaki with a plutonium bomb that not only
killed 50,000 civilians, including U.S. prisoners of war, but killed a further
10,000 with the radiation fallout. As sick as it may sound the only logic to
dropping either of these bombs was to test their effectiveness. The
subsequent remarks made by President Harry to the American people to
the effect that Hiroshima was a military installation and that no civilians
were casualties bodes ill for any trust one might put in the word of the
American Government.
Osama bin Laden referred to this event in his address after the recent
bombing of Afghanistan started. He said the bombings of Hiroshima and
Nakasaki had never been acknowledged as war crimes or as crimes against
humanity. In other words the Americans have never acknowledged to
themselves or the world their enormous guilt for these crimes.
I have lived through this time and I understand what it is to excuse a close
friend his excess. But seen through the eyes of an enemy, the destruction
of the Twin Towers was as nothing to the devastation wreaked on
Hiroshima, nothing compared with the suffering of the Iraqi people. The
American people are free to choose their governments, therefore as a
whole they are responsible for what the government does. This is true only
on a high plane of metaphysical logic, but it is true.
Perhaps bin Laden is guilty. Perhaps not. There are still voices in America
asking questions about the evidentiary trail leading to bin Laden, the flight
manifests and the easy trail the hijackers left.
What is known is that of the last four wars America initiated, three were
triggered by a single dramatic incident which galvanised public opinion.
Two of those are shrouded in suspicion and the third was a deliberate
fraud by U.S. administration.
What is also known is that this war we are presently fighting and to which
we are now very much committed was planned way before Sept. 11. The
war has been gameplanned, mentioned in the Indian press in June, and
discussed in September on the BBC by a Pakistani ex-Secretary of State
who said he had been told of the forthcoming military action against the
Taliban and bin Laden at a UN conference in July. This news was
communicated to both the Taliban and bin Laden.
This, at least, creates the possibility that the attacks on America were
pre-emptive strikes, and not terrorist attacks, at least within the very
narrow definition now being used. It also begs the question of how the
American Government was going to get the people of America to agree to
this. A look at wars since the Spanish-American War through to the
present war shows a remarkable pattern of using single violent incidents to
involve the always reluctant American people in war. The exceptions are
WW1, which the Americans entered reluctantly and only when their trade
with Europe was threatened by increased u-boat activity, and Korea where
the U.S. was forced to defend a line drawn in the sand.
When the Government wanted Spanish colonial lands it was helped by the
always unexplained sinking of the USMaine, an event that so enraged the
public that the short three month war was easily launched. When
Roosevelt wanted America to enter WW11 he provoked Japan into an act
of aggression. When Lyndon Johnson wanted troops in Vietnam he
created the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The reasons why the Bush administration wants this present military
action, outside of their loudly espoused goal of capturing those responsible
for the September attacks, is to bring peace and stability to the region in
order that they can successfully transport the oil and gas from the deposits
in the Caspian Sea to markets in India and China. The loot is worth about
five trillion dollars, (that would be $5,000,000,000,000, and that's
American. Stop and think about it for a while. What would you be
prepared to do for five trillion dollars?)
For this scheme to work, a pipeline needs to be buried across the
Afghanistan landscape, and stable government is an absolute must.
American oil interests have wanted this for years. Republican figures like
Vice-President Dick Cheney have financial interests in some of these
companies. There's nothing wrong with a bit of american enterprise and
endeavour, although whether we really need a lot more oil polluting the air,
or whether anyone wants Afghanistan to become some sort of sister state
to Texas are both doubtful. Also there is nothing much wrong with overt
imperial action. It may be politically incorrect but at least we understand it.
Unfortunately the US Government must appease some moral imperative in
the American psyche and it cannot take territory, it cannot impress itself
on the world except as a gesture of benevolence or as an act of retribution.
Normal, sane corrupt expansionist business practices, well practised by all
other nations for centuries cannot be admitted to. It's bad for the local
image. It all has to be wrapped up in some of the fabric of the American
ideal. Also as the world moves tentatively towards more benign energy
sources these massive fields in the Middle East may become irrelevant in
the future, so there is probably some pressure to get the stuff out now
rather than later.
It is also true the U.S. wants Osama bin Laden. They wanted him before
September 11. They want him for distubing their peace and for acts of
political piracy and banditry. I believe that this is a more realistic
description than the nebulous abstraction of the word "terrorism". But
such a description is predicated on our acceptance of America as the
model of future world order. A pirate or bandit is what any established
power calls its active dissidents. To counter this claim by the US that bin
Laden is disturbing the planetary peace, bin Laden says :"These people
must be stopped. Otherwise they will take everything." Both are right, I
fear.
Bin Laden's war has been going on for some three years now. He was not
shy about declaring it. Notwithstanding, his impact on the U.S. was, until
September, an irritation, not a threat. He makes a perfect scapegoat. This
does not mean he is not responsible, but it does mean accusations have to
be looked at very carefully, and yet we are not allowed to look at any
evidence at all. Meanwhile we face the ludicrous possibility that our
children may be offered up as blood sacrifices for another of America's
devious military adventures.
Iraq is also belligerent towards the U.S. and the Bush administration does
not hide its desire that this erstwhile ally, Saddam Hussein, be
disempowered. ("Who will rid me of this troublesome dictator?!") So
accusations against Iraq are also questionable.
We sail in unknown and treacherous waters and all we know is that
America is our friend and we will stand "shoulder to shoulder" with her.
Given America's track record at resolving conflicts in the world this should
induce severe alarm. In Greece and Korea after WW2, in Vietnam in
1962, in Chile in 1970, and in many other South American countries, the
US Government destroyed nationalistic movements and replaced them
with right wing dictatorships.
Despite its rhetoric at home the US has clearly always pursued economic
stability and favour in the outside world, not political ideals. This is hardly
uncharacteristic behaviour for an empire. Its a pity, though that the
American people are not more conscious of this.
None of this alters the grotesque realities of September 11. It does muddy
the waters a bit though. What will muddy them further is if these anthrax
incidents are "traced" to Iraq and that is used to fulfil the second plank of
the hawks' platform. This will make the chain of events too novelistic, too
pat, too like Wag the Dog. We are already dangerously close to this.
On a lighter although vaguely sinister note, here is a short extract from
Rozencrantz and Guildernstern are Dead, which my eighteen year old son
is studying for his HSC and from which he has just now been reading
aloud:
Guild: Where are you going?
Player: I can come and go as I please.
Guild: You're evidently a man who knows his way around.
Player: I've been here before.
Guild: We're still finding our feet.
Player: I should concentrate on not losing your heads.
Guild: Do you speak from knowledge?
Player: Precedent!
Guild: You've been here before.
Player: And I know which way the wind is blowing.
Guild: Operating on two levels, are we?! How clever! I expect it comes
naturally to you, being in the business so to speak. The truth is we value
your company, for want of any other. We have been left so much to our
own devices - after a while one welcomes the uncertainty of being left to
other people's
Player: Uncertainty is the normal state. You're nobody special.
Guild: But for God's sake what are we supposed to do?
Player: Relax. Respond. That's what people do. You can't go through life
questioning your situation at every turn.
Guild: But we don't know what's going on, or what to do with ourselves.
We dont know how to act.
Player: Act natural. You know why you're here at least.
Guild: We only know what we're told, and that's little enough. And for all
we know it isn't even true.
Player: For all anyone knows, nothing is. Everything has to be taken on
trust; truth is only that which is taken to be true. It's the currency of
living.
There may be nothing behind it, but it doesn't make any difference so long
as it is honoured. One acts on assumptions. What do you assume?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/webdiary/2001/10/22/FFXWAJ063TC.html
--
************************************************************
"In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They
want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them.
And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one."
Thich Nhat Hanh - Vietnamese Buddhist monk
************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and
Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/
from
that date.
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
