|
Bush's
State of the
Union
Address and the
New
Imperialism
By
Richard E.
Rubenstein*
The failure of the Democratic Party and the mainstream
news media to criticize President Bush's overwrought,
alarmingly bellicose State of the Union speech is no less
appalling for being predictable. Their vacuous, timid
responses remind us once again that democracy and freedom
depend ultimately on ideas and the courage to voice them,
not just on forms of legality.
Bush makes three points in his speech. (1) The war on
Afghanistan was a great victory. (2) The war on global
terrorism must be continued and expanded. (3) We will
"defeat" the economic recession as well as the
terrorists.
For the moment, we can forget point (3), which simply
dresses up the Bush Administration's economic program in
military rhetoric, and point (1), which represents the
worst sort of tub-thumping propaganda. Afghanistan has
been "freed from oppression," although upwards of 40,000
new refugees have fled their homes to escape the
warlords; the war "saved a people from starvation,"
although they would not have starved if we had fed them
to begin with instead of bombing them; we "rid the world
of thousands of terrorists," although most of those
killed by our high-tech weapons were Taliban footsoldiers
and civilians; we won a great victory over al Quaeda,
although its leaders and "tens of thousands of trained
terrorists" are still at large, etc.
The heart of the speech is point (2), which consists
of two sub-points. Subpoint (a) calls for a new,
aggressively militaristic foreign policy aimed at alleged
terrorists in "at least a dozen countries," promises that
if local governments do not act against those the U.S.
defines as terrorists, "America will," and targets three
governments as an "axis of evil": Iraq, Iran, and North
Korea. Subpoint (b) defines certain American values
(including private property) as "non-negotiable" and
states: "America will take the side of brave men and
women who advocate these values around the world -
including the Islamic world…." Together, these
declarations mark a definitive end to the "Vietnam
Syndrome" and inaugurate a New Imperialism that asserts
America's right to smash anti-Western movements around
the globe using U.S. military and economic power.
With regard to (a), any politician or press analyst
with an ounce of independence should have questioned the
President's promise to expand the "war on terrorism"
indefinitely in time and space, without offering one word
on how to deal with the long-term causes and conditions
that make terrorism an attractive option for so many
people around the world. Independent critics would also
ask what the rules of engagement are to be: for example,
whether the U.S. is preparing to attack Lebanon for not
acting against Hizbollah, which Bush calls a terrorist
organization, but which is also the largest and most
representative political party in south Lebanon.
Why threaten North Korea at a time when South Korea's
Kim Dae Jung is trying to make peace with the North? Why
single out Iraq and Iran? Bush claims to be worried about
these "rogue states" supplying anti-American groups with
weapons of mass destruction, but what bothers the
hegemonists most is simply that they will not follow
American orders. Iran is contesting U.S. control of
western Afghanistan and actively supporting the
Palestinians. Iraq continues to exist, despite U.S.
efforts to partition it and eliminate Saddam Hussein. For
the New Imperialists, this sort of independence is
intolerable.
With regard to (b), independent analysts should have
asked what it means to "take the side" of forces who
share Bush's interpretation of American values. During
the Cold War, this meant running money and guns to
opposition groups in nations whose governments the U.S.
wanted overthrown (Guatemala, Iran, Indonesia, Nicaragua,
El Salvador, Chile, Dominican Republic, Congo, Angola,
etc.), and giving massive economic and military aid to
governments it did not want overthrown, in each case
threatening to supplement this assistance with direct use
of U.S. warplanes, naval vessels, and troops as needed.
The West remained relatively secure during the Cold War,
since, with the exceptions of the struggles in Indochina
and Afghanistan, the two superpowers fought mostly
through proxies on the territory of Third World nations.
Ironically, now that the U.S. is the world's sole
superpower, those whom it oppresses and alienates are
irresistibly drawn to attack it directly using the
traditional weapon of the weak: terrorism.
Mr. Bush does not understand that American insecurity
has increased at the same time that its military power
has become overwhelming. In the spell of false analogies,
he believes that he is a wartime president, a Lincoln or
a Roosevelt. Driven by fear, power-lust and a thirst for
vengeance, he is in the process of expanding the "enemy"
in rapid stages from al Qaeda to any group he defines as
terrorist, from the Taliban to any government he defines
as evil, and from terrorists to any political movement
that he defines as opposed to American values. The
President and his cohorts seem to have no idea that that
the probable effect of this policy abroad will be to
produce "two, three, many al Quaedas." In a real sense,
they live increasingly in a world of delusion.
The pseudo-opposition and the press may continue to
encourage Mr. Bush in his fantasy that military force can
secure the West against terrorist attacks and popular
rebellions. Those interested in peace and conflict
resolution need to recall their people to reality by
demonstrating that this is a fantasy of the most
dangerous sort, and that there are humane and practical
alternatives to the New Imperialism.
_______________________________________
* Richard E. Rubenstein is professor of conflict
resolution and public affairs at George Mason University.
He has written extensively on terrorism, imperialism, and
the history of religious conflict.
Posted February 8, 2002
©
TFF and the
author
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|