Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning Chasing Its Tail

America's War with Itself January 13, 2005
By George Monbiot

I have a persistant mental image of US foreign policy, which haunts me even in my sleep. The vanguard of a vast army is marching around the globe, looking for its enemy. It sees a mass of troops in the distance, retreating from it. It opens fire, unaware that it is shooting its own rear.

Is this too fanciful a picture? Both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were groomed and armed by the United States. Until the invasion of Iraq, there were no links between the Baathists and Al Qaeda: now Bush's government has created the monster it claimed to be slaying. The US army developed high-grade weaponised anthrax in order, it said, to work out what would happen if someone else did the same. No one else was capable of producing it: the terrorist who posted envelopes of anthrax in 2001 took it from one of the army's laboratories.(1)

Now US researchers are preparing genetically modified strains of smallpox on the same pretext, and with the same likely consequences.(2) The Pentagon's space-based weapons programme is being developed in response to a threat which doesn't yet exist, but which it is likely to conjure up. The US government is engaged in a global war with itself. It is like a robin attacking its reflection in a window.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in its assaults on the multilateral institutions and their treaties. Listening to some of the bunkum about the United Nations venting from Capitol Hill at the moment, you could be forgiven for believing that the UN was a foreign conspiracy against the United States. It was, of course, proposed by a US president, launched in San Francisco and housed in New York, where its headquarters remain. Its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, characterised by Republicans as a dangerous restraint upon American freedoms, was drafted by Franklin D. Roosevelt's widow. The US is now the only member of the UN Security Council whose word is law, with the result that the UN is one of the world's most effective instruments for the projection of American power.

The secret deals in Iraq for which the United Nations is currently being attacked by US senators were in fact overseen by the US government. It ensured that Saddam Hussein could evade sanctions by continuing to sell oil to its allies in Jordan and Turkey.(3) Republican congressmen are calling on Kofi Annan to resign for letting this happen, apparently unaware that it was approved in Washington to support American strategic objectives. The United States finds the monsters it seeks, as it pecks and flutters at its own image.

So we could interpret the activities of Bush's government in Buenos Aires last week as another vigorous attempt to destroy its own interests. US economic growth depends on the rest of the world's prosperity. The greatest long-term threat to global prosperity is climate change, which threatens to wreck many of America's key markets in the developing world. Coastal cities in the United States - including New York - are threatened by rising sea levels. Florida could be hit by stronger and more frequent hurricanes. Both farms and cities are likely to be affected by droughts.

In February, a leaked report from the Pentagon revealed that it sees global warming as far more dangerous to US interests than terrorism.(4) As a result of abrupt climate change, it claimed, "warfare may again come to define human life. ... As the planet's carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern reemerges: the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies." The nuclear powers, it suggested, are likely to invade each other's territories as they scramble for diminishing resources. So how does Bush respond to this? "Bring it on". The meeting in Buenos Aires was supposed to work out what the world should do about climate change when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. Most of the world's governments want the protocol to be replaced by a new, tougher agreement. But the Bush administration has been seeking to ensure both that the original agreement is scrapped, and that nothing is developed to replace it.

"No one can say with any certainty," George Bush asserts, "what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided."(5) As we don't know how bad it is going to be, he suggests, we shouldn't take costly steps to prevent it. Now read that statement again and substitute "terrorism" for "warming". When anticipating possible terrorist attacks, the US administration, or so it claims, prepares for the worst. When anticipating the impacts of climate change, it prepares for the best. The "precautionary principle" is applied so enthusiastically to matters of national security that it now threatens American civil liberties. But it is rejected altogether when discussing the environment.

The Kyoto protocol is flawed, the Bush team says, because countries such as China and India are currently exempted from cutting their emissions. But instead of helping to design a treaty which would eventually bring them in, the US teamed up with them in Buenos Aires to try to sink all international cooperation. It even supported Saudi Arabia's demand that oil-producing countries should be compensated for any decline in the market caused by carbon cuts.(6)

The result is that the talks very nearly collapsed. On Saturday, thirty-six hours after they were due to have ended, and while workmen were dismantling the rooms in which the delegates were sitting, the other countries managed to salvage the barest ghost of an agreement. The US permitted them to hold an informal meeting in May, during which "any negotiation leading to new commitments" is forbidden.(7) According to the head of the US delegation, the time to decide what happens after 2012 is "in 2012".(8) It's like saying that the time to decide what to do about homeland security is when the plane is flying into the tower.

Wrecking these talks is pretty good work for a country which, as it refuses to ratify the protocol, doesn't even have negotiating rights. But this is now familiar practice. The US tried to sink the biosafety protocol in 1999, even though, as it hadn't signed, it wasn't bound by it. It sought to trash the 2002 Earth Summit, though Bush failed to attend. This isn't, as some people suggest, isolationism. It is a thorough and sustained engagement, whose purpose is to prevent the world's most pressing problems from being solved. And the result, of course, is that the catastrophe described by the Pentagon is now more likely to happen. The US has just spent millions of dollars in Buenos Aires undermining its own peace and prosperity. Of course we know that its delegation was representing the interests of the corporations, not the people, and that what's bad for America is good for Exxon. But this does not detract from the sheer, self-immolating stupidity of its position. The United!
States has every right to beat itself up. But unfortunately, while chasing itself around the world, it tramples everyone else. I know that appealing to George Bush's intelligence isn't likely to take us very far, but surely there's someone in that administration who can see what a monkey he's making of America.

References:1. George Monbiot, 21st May 2002. Riddle of the Spores. The Guardian.2. Leading article, 20th November 2004. Engineering the smallpox virus is dicing with death. New Scientist.3. Leading article, 5th December 2004. The UN Oil Scandal. The New York Times; Susan Sachs and Judith Miller, 13th August 2004. Under Eye of U.N., Billions for Hussein In Oil-for-Food Plan. The New York Times. 4. David Stipp, 9th February 2004. The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare. Fortune magazine; Mark Townsend and Paul Harris, 22nd February 2004. Now the Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us. The Observer. 5. George W. Bush, 11th June 2001. President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change. Transcript of speech. Office of the Press Secretary, The White House.6. Geoffrey Lean, 19th December 2004 US Fails in Bid to Kill off Kyoto Process. The Independent. 7. No author, 19th December 2004. Deal opens small door to climate talks. USA Today. 8. Dr. Harlan L. Watson, Senior Climate Negot!
iator and Special Representative, U..S. Department ofState, 7th December 2004. Press Briefing, Buenos Aires. http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/Dec/08-68436.html

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <coul@...>

🔗Christopher Bailey <chris@...>

> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:06:28 -0000
> From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...>
> Subject: Re: Chasing Its Tail
>
>
> Monbiot fails to establish a nexus between the
> government's manufacture of enemies and its
> treaty-balking -- he doesn't have a single essay
> here.
>
> My problem with the former point is that it's
> obvious. Pointing it out is almost offensive,
> like complaining about the rain.

It's obvious to us. Not, perhaps, to the 70% of Americans who still think
Saddam was behind 9/11.

> What's the
> solution? -- complaining doesn't work.

In an absolute sense, you're right. But it's surprising how things get
done when scandals are well-publicized. Maybe well-written articles by
the likes of Monbiot are a stage on the road that often doesn't., but
occasionally does, lead there.

>
> The latter point is more interesting... why
> would the US behave in such a way? Stupidity
> isn't an explanation.

I don't know, , ,I'd like to think that there's an "ends justify the
means" "nuanced" philosophy going on, but I really wonder these days.
I just don't think they think that far ahead. The administration is
pissing off the entire world; is that really part of an
ends-justify-means thought-out long-term solution?

>
>
> Maybe we feel that the
> future depends on economic development, which
> in turn depends on having unrestricted access
> to energy, and that technology will outpace the
> environmental problems. Or maybe we feel that
> giving Europe the finger a little bit is fair
> play in the competition that's shaping up with
> the EU -- maybe we think such competition is
> healthy.
>

🔗Christopher Bailey <chris@...>

As another illustration of how these things AREN'T obvioius, the other
day I heard a reprot on NPR in the morning. It was about inauguration
protesters. and Supporters.

One of the supporter guys said, ". . .because ANSWER and CodePink and
groups like them support Saddam Hussein and the terrorists. . . .",
opposing this against, of course, the Bush administration.

One may have one's quibbles with ANSWER and CODEPink and who-not, but on
this particular issue, literally the opposite is true.

To my knowledge, no member of ANSWER or CodePink sends money to Saddam
Hussein or Al Qaueda, or has shaken Saddam Hussein's hand.

Members of the Bush Administration have done both. They funded Saddam
under Reagan, and Al Qaeda in the 80's. . .yadda yadda.

But you're right, it's obvious to us.

But clearly, the fact that the guy could make such a statement and not
really be refuted on NPR is an indication that these things are NOT
obvious.

C Bailey

>
>
> Monbiot fails to establish a nexus between the
> government's manufacture of enemies and its
> treaty-balking -- he doesn't have a single essay
> here.
>
> My problem with the former point is that it's
> obvious. Pointing it out is almost offensive,
> like complaining about the rain. What's the
> solution? -- complaining doesn't work.
>
> The latter point is more interesting... why
> would the US behave in such a way? Stupidity
> isn't an explanation. Maybe we feel that the
> future depends on economic development, which
> in turn depends on having unrestricted access
> to energy, and that technology will outpace the
> environmental problems. Or maybe we feel that
> giving Europe the finger a little bit is fair
> play in the competition that's shaping up with
> the EU -- maybe we think such competition is
> healthy.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > Monbiot fails to establish a nexus between the
> > government's manufacture of enemies and its
> > treaty-balking -- he doesn't have a single essay
> > here.
> >
> > My problem with the former point is that it's
> > obvious. Pointing it out is almost offensive,
> > like complaining about the rain.
>
> It's obvious to us. Not, perhaps, to the 70% of Americans
> who still think Saddam was behind 9/11.

Burn them!

> > What's the
> > solution? -- complaining doesn't work.
>
> In an absolute sense, you're right. But it's surprising
> how things get done when scandals are well-publicized.

Well-publicized means well-researched, or at least
poetically-compelling. I was missing these in Monbiot's
essay.

> Maybe well-written articles by the likes of Monbiot are
> a stage on the road that often doesn't., but occasionally
> does, lead there.

Yes, I'd love to see well-written articles by Monbiot, and
anyone else. :)

Did you see the BBC documentary, The Power of Nightmares?
I thought that was good.

> > The latter point is more interesting... why
> > would the US behave in such a way? Stupidity
> > isn't an explanation.
>
> I don't know, I'd like to think that there's an "ends
> justify the means" "nuanced" philosophy going on, but I
> really wonder these days.
> I just don't think they think that far ahead. The
> administration is pissing off the entire world; is that
> really part of an ends-justify-means thought-out
> long-term solution?

Either it's done unconsciously (they aren't that well
organized) or they're doing it for a reason.

> > Maybe we feel that the
> > future depends on economic development, which
> > in turn depends on having unrestricted access
> > to energy, and that technology will outpace the
> > environmental problems. Or maybe we feel that
> > giving Europe the finger a little bit is fair
> > play in the competition that's shaping up with
> > the EU -- maybe we think such competition is
> > healthy.

This didn't work for you?

-Carl

Chasing Its Tail

🔗Christopher Bailey <chris@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <coul@...>

🔗Christopher Bailey <chris@...>

🔗Christopher Bailey <chris@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>