[CTRL] The New Cold War

2004-12-06 Thread Bill Shannon
-Caveat Lector-










http://antiwar.com/justin/



December 6, 2004 

The New Cold War We're in a "war of civilizations" – and not just against Islam 

by Justin Raimondo



The U.S. effort to export "democracy" to Ukraine has some skeptics of interventionism baffled and confused. A seeming throwback to the Soviet era, Leonid Kuchma, and his chosen heir, ward-heeler Viktor Yanukovich, were widely perceived as having stolen the election, and the Ukrainian Supreme Court, supposedly a tool of the regime, agreed. While one may argue about which side engaged in election fraud, and to what extent, in any case the Yanukovich crowd is closer to the Sopranos than the Boy Scouts, and anything would seem to be an improvement. Hundreds of thousands of orange-clad protesters seem to think so. But the view from Kiev is quite different from that of Washington, where the Ukrainian divide is depicted in more realistic terms: as the latest front in a geopolitical struggle for power. 
Listen to neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who writes with eye-watering clarity about the hypocrisy and double standards employed by Western liberal cheerleaders for Yushchenko who question the bona fides of the U.S. effort to implant "democracy" in Iraq:
"Zbigniew Brzezinski, a fierce opponent of the Bush administration's democracy project in Iraq, writes passionately about the importance of democracy in Ukraine and how, by example, it might have a domino effect, spreading democracy to neighboring Russia. Yet when George Bush and Tony Blair make a similar argument about the salutary effect of establishing a democracy in the Middle East – and we might indeed have the first truly free election in the Middle East within two months if we persevere – 'realist' critics dismiss it as terminally naive."
The conflict dividing Ukraine, Krauthammer writes, is "civilizational" war, with an evil authoritarian Russia on one side and the angels of the West on the other:
"So let us all join hands in praise of the young people braving the cold in the streets of Kiev. But then tell me why there is such silence about the Iraqis, young and old, braving bullets and bombs, organizing electorate lists and negotiating coalitions even as we speak. Where is it written: Only in Ukraine?"
Critics of Western intervention in Iraq questioned the democratic-liberal bona fides of an "opposition" headed by an embezzler with a deserved reputation as a ruthless opportunist, whose U.S.-funded Iraqi National Congress fed our intelligence agencies – and the American media – a steady diet of lies about nonexistent Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction." But their skepticism evaporates like dew in the morning sun when it comes to those two dubious vessels of Ukrainian "democracy," former prime minister and head of the central bank Viktor Yushchenko and oligarch Yulia Timoshenko (his sidekick and probable prime minister in a "reform" government). 
Yushchenko, as head of the National Bank of the Ukraine (NBU), presided over an unprecedented case of fraud, which enriched certain oligarchs and especially the firebrand Timoshenko and her faction, who control the western part of the country: their power is centered in the energy monopoly that is the domain of the "gas princess," as Timoshenko is popularly known. Remember that Chalabi, too, was a banker, but with this difference: while the Ali Baba of the neocons stole millions, not only from the Jordanian Petra Bank but also from U.S. taxpayers, and used it to benefit himself directly, scandal swirls around Yushchenko, but never actually touches him personally. He is seen as a "reformer" because he never enriched himself, only his cronies and political supporters.
Timoshenko's patron, the embezzler Pavlo Lazarenko – who, with the complicity of the NBU, stole a good portion of the International Monetary Fund bailout money and laundered it in the West – eventually had to flee the country, and was indicted and jailed in the U.S.
Yushchenko's Chalabi-esque tendency to spin some very tall tales is evidenced in his insistence that he was poisoned by some sinister conspiracy involving the pro-Yanukovich forces – darkly implying the KGB did it. This story has been trumpeted from here to Kingdom Come by the pro-Yushchenko Western media, but its ubiquity is reminiscent of the sort of open-mouthed credulity that accompanied Chalabi's lies about Iraqi WMD: as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, California, "There is no there there." The New York Times ran a story completely denying Yushchenko's contention, and then followed up with a more sympathetic but still skeptical and very revealing account:
"The candidate refused a biopsy of his face because he did not want to campaign with stitches. But dioxin and related toxins are detectable in the body years after exposure. [Yushchenko press secretary Irina] Gerashchenko said such tests had still not been performed."
Okay, so let's see if we get this straight: He was willing to campaign with a 

[CTRL] The New Cold War

2000-10-30 Thread J Taylor

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/cularch/xalmeida.html





The New Cold War
In May 1994, to a packed house at the Almeida Theatre, Islington, London,
Noam Chomsky appeared in debate with John Pilger. Red Pepper hosted the
event; Harold Pinter was chair.
Hilary Wainwright [then political editor of Red Pepper; now editor]: Friends
and comrades, welcome to this first Red Pepper forum, and also to the
magazine. We wanted a way to present or re-establish the art of public
conversation. In a sense it's more creative, particularly in the complex
times we're in, than relying on an adversarial debate. It's more
participatory than just a lecture, and perhaps more personal and pleasurable
than a traditional public meeting.

It's appropriate that we're having this public conversation and that the
Almeida Theatre is our forum. I'd like to thank Jonathan Kent and Ian
McDiarmid for allowing us to have this theatre.

I don't need to introduce any of the three participants. They're all people
who are fearless in searching out the truth and then finding every possible
platform to make it public. But the more they discover the truth, the more
public platforms are closed to them. They're individuals who in their
particular chosen craft have achieved the highest possible skills, but
aren't bogged down by the narrow professionalism that has stifled British
political and intellectual life. In that sense they're that desperately
scarce resource, an engaged public intellectual. And just before handing
over to Harold Pinter I want to remember another exemplary public
intellectual - Ralph Miliband - who died last Saturday, and I think that his
determination to create an independent and internationalist left will
inspire Red Pepper and be one of the spirits behind this conversation.

Harold Pinter: Thank you. Let me just say that what I intend to do is embark
on this discussion for a while, and then in due course I'd like to invite
you to participate and ask any questions of Noam Chomsky and John Pilger
that you wish.

So let me kick off by saying that John, this title, the New Cold War, was
your suggestion because you believe, quite properly I think, that the term
the New World Order had been over used and was rather tired. So could you
define a little more precisely what you mean by the New Cold War?

John Pilger: Well, of course it's heavily ironic: the original Cold War
never ended. The Old Cold War was a war of attrition between the great
nuclear powers, but it was a rhetorical stand-off, too. So often we were
invited and manipulated to see it simply as a conflict between East and
West, yet the Cold War always was, and still is, a war against the majority
of humanity. It was a war fought with the blood of "expendable" people over
strategic position, resources and it was a war of control - it was an
imperialist war. The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States
fought in the Third World was relatively insignificant compared with the war
fought by the US against people trying to improve their position in the
world. The Soviets never matched the Americans as imperialists; they were
lousy imperialists outside their own borders.

The US established a network of control throughout the world in the postwar
period, and that control has been shored up ever since. Now when the
Communist world collapsed, of course the excuse to fight this war against
the Third World collapsed with it, so other excuses had to be found, and
these have never really been satisfactory. For instance, during the Gulf
War, we went through a period of the "demon" excuse. Saddam Hussein was
elevated to new Hitler status. This didn't really work but it did for a
while; it certainly worked long enough for the US to lead a very
considerable force against Iraq and cause the deaths of perhaps 200,000
people, wrecking a large part of the Middle East economy.

There have also been excuses of the Noriega variety: the reason for invading
Panama was that Noriega was an international drug dealer, child molester and
pornographer, and whatever he was, he had to be caught. Well of course,
those weren't the real reasons at all. The US was demonstrating its power
yet again.

Panama began the New Cold War, in which an Orwellian language would be
employed that would make war equal to peace. For these actions against
dictators who had previously been in the pay of, and with a client
relationship to, the US, could be put down in the cause of a new peaceful
world. But of course this was so transparent, there wasn't really any basis
for people to take this on board, as many people hadn't been able to take on
board the Communist threat, so I think we're back now to a more transparent
Cold War - we're back to what the Cold War always was, a war against the
Third World.

There's an interesting description of this, particularly relevant to the
recent events in South Africa. One of the