home / subscribe / donate / about us / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events
|
|
|
Bolivia's Third Revolution Confused by Bolivia's upheavals? CounterPunch's Newton Garver gives you the history, the politics and a roadmap through the present great upsurge of Indians who say NO to centuries of theft and oppression. On the track of Guatemala's killers: a searing report from John Ross on the US-backed monsters who turned Guatemala into a charnel house and on the heroes who hunt them down. The rise and rise of a corporation called Halliburton: Jeffrey St Clair scours some of Texas' history's dirtiest pages and tells how Halliburton's cash helped put two presidents to the White House. Get the answers you're looking for in the latest subscriber-only edition of CounterPunch ... CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558 |
|
Other Lands Have Dreams: From Baghdad to Pekin Prison by KATHY KELLY  Today's Stories June 20, 2005 Alan Maass June 18 / 19, 2005 Alexander Cockburn Greg Moses Benjamin Shepard Stan Goff Lee Sustar Jude Wanniski Diana Barahona Brian Concannon, Jr. Fred Gardner Mike Whitney Ahmad Faruqui Manuel García, Jr. Roger Howard Ron Jacobs Ben Tripp Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
June 17, 2005 Ricardo Alarcón Clay Conrad Marc Estrin Colin Brown Christopher
Brauchli Joshua Frank Norman Solomon Mary Rizzo Bond / Brutus
/ Setshedi
June 16, 2005 John Walsh Dave Lindorff Adrian Lomax Tom Crumpacker Jeffrey Kolakowski Julene Bair Michael Dickinson Francois Houtart / Isabel Parra,
et al. Tom Barry
June 15, 2005 Stan Goff Daniel Wolff Tim Wise Ricardo Alarcón Joshua Frank John Hilary Norman Solomon Alexander Cockburn
/ Jeffrey St. Clair Website of the Day
June 14, 2005 Paul Craig
Roberts Forrest Hylton Richard Gott Fred Gardner Steve Breyman Dave Zirin Robert Kent Paul Craig
Roberts
June 13, 2005 Gary Leupp Dave Lindorff John Stauber Fred Gardner Evelyn J. Pringle Norman Solomon Winslow T.
Wheeler
June 10 / 12, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Sharon
Smith Brian
Cloughley Chris
Kromm Heather
Gray Kevin
Zeese Mickey
Z. Gary
Leupp Eli
Stephens Nick
Dearden Oscar
Olivera Robert
Fisk Michael
Dickinson Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend
Len
Colodny Christopher
Brauchli Ron
Jacobs Dave
Lindorff Katrina
Yeaw / Alex Schmaus Alan
Farago Saul
Landau
June 8, 2005 Jim
Hougan Alan
Maass Jason
Leopold Niranjan
Ramakrishnan Dave
Zirin Derrick
O'Keefe Diana
Johnstone Website
of the Day
June 7, 2005 Forrest
Hylton Greg
Moses / Susan van Haitsma Lenni
Brenner Col.
Dan Smith Joshua
Frank Dave
Lindorff Margot
Veranes / Adrian Navarro Michael
Neumann
June 6, 2005 Stew
Albert Paul
Craig Roberts Nicole
Colson Ali
Khan Jason
Leopold Charles
Walker Poff Ramzy
Baroud Rep.
John Conyers Evelyn
Pringle Gary
Corseri Website
of the Day
June 4 / 5, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn James
Petras Robert
Fisk Patrick
Cockburn Rev.
William Alberts Saul
Landau Mario
Lamo Jimenez Dave
Lindorff Lance
Selfa Tom
Crumpacker Joshua
Frank Fred
Gardner Michael
Dickinson Roger
Martin Reza
Fiyouzat Ben
Tripp Graeme
Greenback Poets'
Basement
June 3, 2005 Paul
Craig Roberts Joseph
Massad Jeff
Halper Tom
Barry Bruce
K. Gagnon Joshua
Frank Mickey
Z. Gary
Leupp Website
of the Day
June 2, 2005 Paul
Craig Roberts Forrest
Hylton Mike
Whitney Brian
Cloughley Mazin
Qumsiyeh Russell
D. Hoffman Norman
Madarasz Norman
Solomon David
Price Website
of the Day
June 1, 2005 James
Petras Justin
Delacour Edward
Jay Epstein Omar
Barghouti / Lisa Taraki Dave
Lindorff Kevin
Zeese Jason
Leopold William
S. Lind
May 31, 2005 Sen.
Mike Gravel David
Krieger Tad
Daley Joshua
Frank Richard
Gott Norman
Solomon Tom
Segev Walter
Brasch Diana
Johnstone
May 28 / 30, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Richard
Lichtman Sharon
Smith Paul
Craig Roberts Dave
Lindorff Ramzy
Baroud Brian
Cloughley Fred
Gardner Lee
Sustar Joshua
Frank Justin
E.H. Smith Jackie
Corr Michael
Kimaid Toufic
Haddad Justin
Taylor Amir
Butler Ben
Tripp Poets'
Basement
May 27, 2005 Gary
Leupp Daniel
Estulin Kevin
Zeese Robert
Fisk Dave
Zirin Website
of the Day
Hot Stories Alexander Cockburn Subcomandante
Marcos Norman Finkelstein Steve Niva Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams Steve
J.B. Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber Wendell
Berry CounterPunch
Wire Cindy
Corrie Gore Vidal Francis Boyle
Subscribe Online
|
June 20, 2005 Anti-Empire ReportSome Things You Need to Know Before the World EndsBy WILLIAM BLUM The Pentagon awarded three contracts this past week, worth up to $300 million, to companies it hopes will inject more creativity into US psychological operations efforts to improve foreign public opinion about the United States, particularly their opinion of the American military. "We would like to be able to use cutting-edge types of media," said Col. James A. Treadwell, director of the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element. Dan Kuehl, a specialist in information warfare at the National Defense University, added: "There are a billion-plus Muslims that are undecided. How do we move them over to being more supportive of us? If we can do that, we can make progress and improve security."{1} And so it goes. And so it has gone since September 11, 2001. The world's only superpower has felt misunderstood, although co-existing with this feeling at times, and expressed more than once by Bush administration officials, has been oderint dum metuant, a favorite phrase of Roman emperor Caligula, also used by Cicero -- "let them hate so long as they fear". "How do I respond when I see that in some Islamic countries there is vitriolic hatred for America?" asked George W. (aka jerkus maximus) a month after 9-11. "I'll tell you how I respond: I'm amazed. I'm amazed that there's such misunderstanding of what our country is about that people would hate us. I am -- like most Americans, I just can't believe it because I know how good we are."{2} Psychological operations, information
warfare, cutting-edge media ... surely there's a high-tech solution. In early June, as well, Zalmay Khalilzad, nominated to be US ambassador to Iraq, appeared before the Senate. "The degree of support for our policies, opinion polls indicate, is not very high," he said. It has partly "to do with the perception that what we are about in Iraq is occupation, what we're about is to gain control of Iraqi resources. I think what we need to do is a better job of explaining our goals, the goal of an Iraq that's self-reliant, an Iraq that's successful. We want Iraq for the Iraqis, an Iraq that works for the Iraqi people. It's the insurgents who don't care about the Iraqi people."{3} Yes, it is remarkable indeed how misinformed some people can be.
In last month's report, during the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, I commented about three enduring tales which the West exploited to win Cold War points against the Soviet Union: the Soviets signing a pact with Nazi Germany in 1939; their occupation of the three Baltic nations in 1940; and their occupation of the rest of Eastern Europe after the war. My purpose was to show that there were ways of looking at these events radically different from the ways Americans are taught to look at them. This greatly upset a number of my readers; not because what I wrote was historically incorrect, but because to them it seemed to excuse the crimes of the Soviet Union. The idea that the Russians could have legitimate reasons, self defense for one, for doing some of what they did is too painful to acknowledge for committed anti-communists. To them, any attempt to correct a myth concerning the Soviet Union is tantamount to ignoring -- if not approving -- Stalin's crimes and the sufferings of the people in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Progressives of my generation became anti-anti-communists because the powers-that-be in the United States, for decades and decades, used the sins -- real and (often) fabricated -- of the Soviet Union as a justification for US foreign policy. Thus, the horrors carried out by the US in Korea were justified because "we're fighting communism". Thus, the horrors carried out by the US in Vietnam were justified because "we're fighting communism". Ditto the horrors of Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Chile, Guatemala, Salvador, Nicaragua, etc., etc., etc. (Now, of course, "we're fighting terrorism", but it's for the exact same imperialist reasons.) It's no wonder that people with a social conscience, who suffered over the horrors of US foreign policy, it's no wonder that so many became anti-anti-communists. And still are. I've written a concise history of American anti-communism, which can be read online.{4} Another myth I should have added in last month's report: The Yalta agreement of 1945, in planning for "the establishment of order in Europe", affirmed "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live." We've been told ever since that it was the evil commies that caused this noble agreement to fall apart. But, in fact, it was the United States and the United Kingdom who cynically violated this affirmation before Stalin did. In Greece. Before the war in Europe even ended! By grossly interfering in the civil war, taking the side of those who had supported the Nazis in the war (sic), thus enabling them to defeat those who had fought against the Nazis. The latter, you see, had amongst its number some who could be called (choke, gasp) "communists".(5) Anti-communism still holds a death grip on the American psyche. Witness the screams of pain -- from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the media -- over Amnesty International's recent characterization of US torture sites as "the gulag of our times". Could anything be more infuriating and humiliating to an inveterate cold warrior than for the United States to be compared to Stalin's Russia?
August 6 and 9 will mark the 60th anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan. We can expect the usual speeches and editorials telling us how the use of the bombs obviated the need for a land invasion of Japan, thus saving a huge number of US servicemen's lives. "Omission," wrote George Orwell, "is the most powerful form of lie." The principal omissions from the a-bomb story is that Japan's military capability had been hopelessly destroyed and the Japanese government had been frantically sending peace feelers to the United States for a long time before those fateful days of August; peace feelers which Washington completely ignored because they wanted to use the atomic bombs. The full story can be read online.{6} But to American government and media leaders, it doesn't matter much if the official a-bomb story is only a legend. It's a higher truth.
NATO is preparing an "ambitious" expansion into southern Afghanistan next year, announced its Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, on June 1. Eventually, the alliance will take charge of foreign security in "the whole of the country", he said.{7} NATO has been taking ambitious steps for years -- bombing Yugoslavia; patrolling the Balkans like a Governor-General; training Iraqi security forces; putting itself into the war on terrorism; providing security for the 2004 Olympics in Greece; expanding its membership, which now stands at 26 nations plus 20 others brought into the NATO fold under the reassuring name of Partnership for Peace; and much more. Time out. Where does NATO get all this authority? What body of citizens has ever voted for them to do any of this? Why does NATO routinely ignore the UN Security Council? Why, indeed, does NATO even exist? We were told during the Cold War that NATO was needed to protect Western Europe from a Soviet invasion. As some may have noticed, the Soviet Union no longer exists,. (It's been suggested, plausibly, that NATO was created originally to suppress the left in Italy if the Communist Party came to power through an election.) We were also told that NATO
was there to counter the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact folded
its tent in 1991, calling upon NATO to do the same. If NATO had never existed, what argument could be given today in favor of creating such an institution? Other than being a very useful handmaiden of US foreign policy.
On May 25, President Bush stated that it makes sense for the United States to maintain close military ties with Indonesia, despite the objections of human rights activists who say such coordination should be withheld until Indonesia does more to address human rights abuses by its military. "We want young officers from Indonesia coming to the United States," said Bush. "We want there to be exchanges between our military corps -- that will help lead to better understandings." Bush made his remarks after meeting with the Indonesian president, who, Bush added, "told me he's in the process of reforming the military, and I believe him."{8} (In May 2002, Indonesian Defense Minister Matori met with US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Matori said his government had begun to "reform the military". Rumsfeld believed him enough to call for "military-to-military relations" to be "re-established".){9} Indonesian officials saying they're going to reform the military is like officials in Nevada saying they're going to crack down on gambling. For 40 years the Indonesian military has engaged in mass murder and other atrocities, in Jakarta, East Timor, Aceh, Papua, and elsewhere, taking the lives of well over a million people, including several Americans in recent years. For 40 years relations between the US and Indonesian militaries have been one of the very closest of such contacts in the third world for the United States, despite the occasional objections and prohibitions from Congress. For 40 years, American officials have been saying that they have to continue training and arming Indonesia's military because the contact with the American military will have some kind of ennobling effect. For 40 years it has had no such effect at all. As Senator Tom Harkin (D.-Iowa) observed in 1999: "I have seen no evidence in my 24 years in Congress of one instance where because of American military involvement with another military that the Americans have stopped that foreign army from carrying out atrocities against their own people. No evidence, none."{10} Yet the pretense continues, for what else can an American official say? Something like this? -- "We don't care how brutal the Indonesian military is because they got rid of Sukarno and his irritating nationalism for us, and for 40 years they've been killing people we call communists, killing people we call terrorists, and protecting our oil, natural gas, mining, and other corporate interests against Indonesian protestors. Now if that's not freedom and democracy, I don't know what is." Liberals: conservatives -- How meaningful the distinction? Kenneth Tomlinson, the dogmatically conservative chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio, has been trying to remove what he sees as a liberal stain on the airwaves and replace it with what he calls "objectivity and balance". This endeavor has been heating up of late, resulting in all the old discussions about liberal vs. conservative. As I've mentioned before in this report, these discussions are usually less than satisfying or enlightening due to a very common misunderstanding in the mainstream media and among the public -- the idea that conservatives (far to the right on the political spectrum) and liberals (ever so slightly to the left of center) are ideological polar opposites. This is particularly not the case with the current, omnipresent breed of neo-conservatives. Thus, a radio or TV program with one of these conservatives and a liberal maintains that it is "balanced", when in fact a more appropriate balance to a conservative is a left-wing radical, progressive or socialist. Liberals, at least those of the genus Americanum, are often closer to conservatives, especially on foreign policy, than they are to these groupings on the far left. In this light, the never-ending debate about whether the media has a conservative or a liberal bias takes on much less significance. Tomlinson, it should be noted, was appointed to the corporation board by President Clinton. He was chosen as chairman by President Bush in September 2003. The other Watergate mystery The Watergate mystery has been solved, we've been told again and again in the wake of the exposure of Deep Throat. But I'm confused. Doesn't the much more important mystery still remain? Why was the office of the Democratic National Committee burglarized in the first place? Did I somehow miss that piece of news? I've read a number of theories about the break-in over the years, but as far as I know nothing has been substantiated or settled upon as the official, correct explanation. I'd appreciate it if anyone could enlighten me. William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: a guide to the World's Only Super Power. and West-Bloc Dissident: a Cold War Political Memoir. He can be reached at: BBlum6@aol.com
{1} Washington Post, June 11,
2005, p.D1
|
