Printed on Monday, May 05, 2003 @ 00:15:32 CDT   ( ) By Matthew Riemer <a href=yellowtimes.org>YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) – The Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq marks the fiftieth anniversary of U.S. interventionism in the Middle East, which began with the CIA's overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. These two events, both noteworthy in their own right, form the perfect pair of bookends for a large shelf of Washington's Middle East exploits -- from the bombing of Libya in 1986 to the first Gulf War in 1991 to involvement in Lebanon in the early '80s.

The '53 coup is significant because it was the first successful overthrow of a foreign government by the CIA. Its success showed just how much influence Washington could have in Eurasia, especially in regions on the doorstep of the Soviet Union. In short, it was a remarkable projection of power. The most recent military action in the Middle East, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as it's been dubbed by the U.S., represents a fundamental shift in how Washington chooses to achieve its policy goals -- now with increased unilateralism and nationalism. The policy of preemptive warfare has been both articulated and executed by the Bush administration in Iraq.

One of the most interesting observations regarding these two events though reveals a strange inverse relationship they seem to have, which possibly comments on broader policy intentions.

In both cases, the United States is carrying out "regime change." And in both cases, policy makers are concerned with how the oil industry is going to be run (nationalization/privatization). However, in the former case, the CIA removed an appointed leader and replaced him with a dictator who would then rule for 26 (1953-1979) more years. In the latter case, the opposite occurred as the U.S. removed a dictator who ruled for 26 (1976-2003) years and has replaced him with a U.S. civil administration, which will presumably attempt to foster some kind of democratic institutions.

This illustrates that the chief U.S. interest in both cases was resource security and regional hegemony/strategic positioning and not the freeing of people from the yoke of dictatorship. In Iran, the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Company by the Majlis threatened British and American oil interests by shutting foreign investors out of Iran's lucrative industry, which at the time, the BBC writes, "[was] the UK's largest single investment overseas." It also further distanced the U.S. and weakened its influence in a crucial Cold War state. So in this situation, it's dictatorship over democracy.

In 2003, the United States could no longer let Saddam Hussein -- a man who threatened U.S. interests and complicated Washington's plans just by his presence -- rule Iraq, which had become the epicenter of the world's most vital region and home to the second largest proven oil reserves. In this example, it's democracy over dictatorship.

When "democracy" (or, at least, non-dictatorship) happens to be Washington's goal (even rhetorically), it can make for a great sell, as was surely seen over the past several weeks. On the other hand, just because "dictatorship" can't be as readily sold to the public doesn't mean interventions that empower despotic regimes are off-limits. Forays like the CIA's in Iran aren't only for days gone by. In fact, the current situation in Venezuela resembles Iran fifty years ago quite uncannily: upstart leader connected to nationalization of the oil industry from a country with regional strategic importance is overthrown by a plutocratic/military class in the interests of corporations and foreign capital. And even though President Hugo Chavez was able to return to power, the pattern of regime change aimed at governments who resist globalization and the infiltration of their countries by foreign capital continued. So, in Venezuela, like Iran, it's dictatorship over democracy.

So democracy is only Washington's preferred political system when it happens to be one of convenience (coincides with policy). Such is the case with Iraq in 2003 because Washington's goals, to a degree, overlap with a democratic Iraq. But if Iraqi democracy produces the world's next Hugo Chavez, policy makers will very quickly have little use for such a system.

[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States.]

Matthew Riemer encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org

YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.

<a href=www.plastic.com>Plastic.com Found on New York Times (registration required) written by Djerrid, edited by Peter (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sat 12 Apr 4:29am

Brent Scowcroft, the national security advisor for Pres. Bush Sr. posed this question to him:

"What's going to happen the first time we hold an election in Iraq and it turns out the radicals win? What do you do? We're surely not going to let them take over."

Of the many reasons the current Bush Administration has given for the invasion of Iraq, freeing the Iraqi people from a dictatorship and replacing it with a representive democracy is the one they are currently touting (especially since WMD are nowhere to be found). Both Bush and Blair made pronouncements on Iraq's state television airwaves with Bush saying "The government of Iraq and the future of your country will soon belong to you" and "You deserve to live as free people". Blair was as generous stating: "The money from Iraqi oil will be yours; to be used to build prosperity for you and your families". What would happen if the Iraqis actually took that at face value?

Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld told congress last month that "When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to...the Iraqi government and the international community" and that the US would "tap Iraq's oil revenues". Assuming that Iraqis wouldn't want their oil taken from them to enrich Bush's bedside partners, if a true representative democracy was put in place, they would elect someone who would fight to keep control of their oil. As we have seen in Venezuela, the Bush Administration supports US- and business-friendly regimes over democratically elected governments. Can we expect anything less here? Especially with the second largest oil reserves in the world at stake? Will it then be possible for Iraq to vote for someone who isn't in tight with Bush's cronies?

[ comment on this story | more plastic... ]    

show by change

1.  Democracy needs prosperity by somebaudy     at Sat 12 Apr 5:13am score of 1     A democratic Iraq would be a wonderful thing. This will be difficult to achieve because the people there are poor. Any radical promising them anything is likely to win votes. It looks like there are islamic clerics managing towns. Let's hope this is not a remake of Iran in 1979.

It will take money and investments benefiting directly to the iraqi people before political parties that are all believing in democracy can emerge.

It could be wise to heal the country's economy first, maybe doing a smaller version of the Marshall plan first, wait for a democratic political scene to emerge and then hold elections. "insert something witty here"  

2.  An interesting question. by MAYORBOB     at Sat 12 Apr 5:32am score of 1.5 compelling     The one about whether the U.S. government will stand by as the Iraqis democratically try to pick up the pieces. What would be pleasing to Washington would be some sort of secular client state of ours, eternally grateful to us for getting rid of Saddam. But what if the democratic Iraq that emerges isn't what we would like to see?

Supposing that the Iraqis democratically decide to rebuild their military? After all, at the point in time that they become a democratic Arab nation, they would sort of stand alone among the nations of the Middle East, other than Turkey and Israel. They would have a hostile Syria next door. They would have an antagonistic democracy in Iran next door with all those bones to pick with Iraq. They would have a democratic Turkey just to the North with an eagle's eye out if those pesky Kurds get the autonomy they have been insisting upon for years. What if they democratically selected some firebrand politician whose main platform was to get the U.S. out? Lastly, supposing they were to democratically decide to opt for the democratic model of Iran with a rather fundamentalist Islamic streak running through the body politic?

About the only thing I will predict is that the coming few years promise to be extremely interesting times for Iraq. "Illegitimi Non Carborundum"

  3.  Re: An interesting question. by MAYORBOB     at Sat 12 Apr 5:39am score of 1 in reply to comment 2     A correlating interesting question is should Iraq be declared debt free. This was the topic of a previous plastic thread where the prevailing wisdom was yes. "Illegitimi Non Carborundum"

  4.  Here's an idea by Anonymous Idiot     at Sat 12 Apr 9:14am score of 2 intriguing     Sharing, Alaska-Style By Steven C. Clemons

The New York Times April 9, 2003

Though most Americans don't believe this war is about oil, much of the rest of the world does. How the United States handles Iraq's oil after the war is therefore crucial. For guidance, America might look to its experiences in Japan after World War II and — perhaps more surprisingly — in Alaska in the 1970's.

Most revolutions that produce stable democracies expand the number of stakeholders in the nation's economy. America's occupation of Japan succeeded not just because the United States purged Japan's warmongers and established a peace constitution but because it imposed land reform. American occupiers broke up vast estates held by the Japanese aristocracy and redistributed the land to farmers, thus linking Japan's most lucrative resource to millions of citizens. Now America should do the same with Iraq's most lucrative resource, oil.

Here is where Alaska comes in. In the 1970's, during the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, the state realized that the new oil leases would produce an enormous windfall. Its citizens set up the Alaska Permanent Fund to manage this income, directing that the revenue be invested, the principal remain untouched and the gains be used for state infrastructure investments. A part of the proceeds was distributed as dividends to every Alaskan. By July 2002, the fund had grown to more than $23.5 billion. Dividend payments to Alaskan families averaged about $8,000 per year.

Iraq's annual oil revenue comes to approximately $20 billion. A postwar government could invest $12 billion a year in infrastructure to rebuild the nation. The other $8 billion could anchor an Iraq Permanent Fund, to be invested in a diverse set of international equities. The resulting income would go directly to Iraq's six million households. These payments would make a huge difference to families in a country whose per capita gross domestic product rests at about $2,500.

Establishing this fund would show a skeptical world that America will make sure Iraq's oil revenues directly benefit Iraqi citizens. By spreading capital broadly among new stakeholders, the plan would also prevent a sliver of Iraq's elite from becoming a new kleptocracy. Finally, the creation of an Iraqi oil fund could begin to help repair America's damaged image abroad — itself no small dividend at a time when many people remain suspicious about American motives in the Middle East.

Copyright: 2003 The New York Times

  13.  'The Spice Must Flow' by Djerrid     3 hours, 28 minutes ago score of 1 in reply to comment 4     Interesting, I wrote something similar in my original submission. If an economic liberal ran on the platform that a few percent of gross revenues from all oil sales were distributed equally between all Iraqis as a dividend, every average impoverished Iraqi would vote for him. So this idea could come about internally or externally.

The question I put forth in the submission was would this admin. with its history of trying to obtain as much power and control through every means, actually let control of the oil the hawks fought so hard for slip into the hands of the Iraqi people? Instead I'd bet the admin. would work to make sure Iraq is rebuilt just enough to get the oil flowing and to appease the international communitee, thereby retaining control of who will profit from the oil (themselves and their companies). So look forward to "terrorist" attacks and "pockets of resistance" to be used to justify the direct or indirect control of Iraqi's political and economic freedoms. Dad's Big Plan has a groupie  

18.  Re: 'The Spice Must Flow' by advancedatheist     5 minutes ago score of 1 in reply to comment 13     If an economic liberal ran on the platform that a few percent of gross revenues from all oil sales were distributed equally between all Iraqis as a dividend, every average impoverished Iraqi would vote for him.

That would actually be a good idea for the U.S. With our absurd GDP, you'd think we could get a basic dividend just for breathing. A no-strings stipend of even $5,000/year, regardless of income, could help more people get health insurance or buy their prescription drugs. That would give us a taste of what it's like to be shamefully dependent on multigenerational inherited wealth like some politicians I could name. "Stargate" is right: God IS our enemy!

  5.  Hell If I Know by uncarved block     at Sat 12 Apr 9:17am score of 1     but in grand Plastic tradition, here's a few thoughts anyway.       Unlike many others, I don't think the problem with the next government is going to be its repressiveness, at least not right away. A recent comment pointed out that unlike the post WWII reconstructions, there isn't any government left, nor would we want to return former Baath party officials to power. So the US is going to train this generation of police, firemen, and clerks. Men who want to push around others will not be welcome. Now, if we start shipping a few to the School of the Americas (or whatever it's called currently), then I'll pray for the future of normal Iraqis.       The real trouble is going to be, IMHO, corruption. The notion of honest public officials seems to be very much a European one, from everything I've heard; our 'corruption' would be thought restrained by leaders in Russia and even Mexico. The chances that the first elected leader of Iraq will be corrupt seems near certain. The name highest on the list right now, Chalabi (sp?), has a track record of 'misplacing' large sums of cash, but I doubt any of the other candidates with US ties are much better.       Like it or not, fair or not, the first man will be "our man", no matter how independent he tries to be. Speaking in purely political terms (ie. amoral), it might be better for this chap if the US runs the oil operations for a while. You can't sell out what you don't control, after all, and that likely will be the charge levied against the first government a few years down the road. To answer the writeup, I don't think there's a chance in hell we'll allow anyone into office who won't cut a deal over the oil. For one, he will likely be doing so in the name of something else (Islam, national pride, political extremism of right or left) that will allow the US to label him 'unacceptable'-- and really, who's going to stop us from stepping in again, if we've even left by then?       I'd also like to bring up a point made by Bernard Lewis, namely that this invasion hasn't changed as much as it seems, because the lesson taught the Muslim world has remained the same since Napoleon arrived in Egypt-- the only way change occurs in the region is when a Western power steps in and makes it happen. The French were displaced the British, and in Iraq, the US has deposed a regime we at least fostered, even if we didn't create it. This is the source of the sense of powerlessness that motivates men like bin Laden, and is the reason I (and others) never thought replacing Saddam was going to change the war on terror much.       Now, one way we could counter this image is to allow an openly religious government to come to power in Iraq, but the chances of this are nil, IMO. Conventional wisdom in the US equates Islamic law with the Taliban, despite (again, thanks to Lewis) a long rich tradition of limited state and religious power. Iraq is secular enough, from what I've read, that a religious government might work; Iraqis have seen (and lived) enough modernity to know they don't want an Iranian style theocracy. Replacing Saddam with a functional Islamic democracy would be the single biggest blow we could strike against the Islamofacists-- but will it fly with the base of Bush's party? As a general rule, any policy that takes more than one sentence to explain is a political loser, and man, explaining this would take a paragraph.       (Oh, and in reference to a recent Plastic article, there's really no problem using 'he' throughout-- the chances of a woman attaining any power next door to Saudi Arabia seems very, very slim indeed). Eschew Obsfucation Assiduously

  12.  Re: Hell If I Know by mightygodking     5 hours, 43 minutes ago score of 1 in reply to comment 5     The notion of honest public officials seems to be very much a European one, from everything I've heard

I don't think anybody told Italy or Spain that.

  6.  A Revelant Fable by Anonymous Idiot     at Sat 12 Apr 10:59am score of 0.5 interesting     Once upon a time, there were some people who had been living in a desert with two rivers for about 7,000 years. They may have independently discovered or invented civilization as we know it, but they were incapable of conceiving anything but a despotic tyrant to run it. Thus it had always been, for 7,000 years.

Then along came a cowboy called Dubya and his sidekicks. They reckoned they had a better idea. So they called their buddies, the Marines and the Airborne, who kicked the current tyrant's ass. Then they told the people that they were to use something called "democracy" to choose a leader who was NOT a tyrannical, blood-thirsty despot. The people were supposed to organize not just one, but at least two "political parties," and hold "elections" to a "parliament" or "national assembly" as well as select a "president" to run the show.

Dubya told them that they also needed a "supreme court" and a "constitution."

The people got to work, doing as they were instructed, but Dubya didn't like the results. The "politicians" chosen by the people to staff the national assembly and the presidency didn't want to sell their natural resources to Dubya and his friends for the prices Dubya liked.

Fortunately, there were some irregularities in the "vote count," and the new supreme court appointed some people whom Dubya and his friends did indeed find suitable.

Moral: When exporting democracy, make sure to export your own brand of it.

  7.  bitter much? by chasing     at Sat 12 Apr 11:18am score of 1     If the Iraqi's vote for some radicals, well let them. It's their country. I just hope they keep the ability to vote the radicals out again, if they so desire. But you know, with radicals, you can never tell...

As for the oil. You'd prefer they gave the contracts to some happy local companies? Which ones? It'd be easier to pick apart the contracts already given if I knew exactly what was in them, but my (admittedly quick) perusal of related articles didn't uncover that. Are they contracts stretching years, or until such a time as a successor government can make determinations of their own? I think it makes a difference.

As for the "many reasons", talk about a pot-shot. I don't think one reasons ever really supplanted any other, rather they just sort of piled on. But what's WMD got to do with Bush's oil cronies (if you choose to look upon them as cronies anyway)? The administrations hasn't dropped the WMD argument, after all. Let's not pretend they have. I think maybe you're getting some (WMD) peanut butter in their (oil) chocolate. A valid concern, but better when tackled separately.

  8.  Iraq as libertarian utopia by advancedatheist     at Sat 12 Apr 11:33am score of 1.5 disingenuous     I'm wondering why all the world's oppressed libertarians aren't now flocking to Iraq.

After all, we now have a country with no taxes; no speed limits; no minimum wage laws; no environmental regulations; no age of consent laws; no restrictions on firearms, pornography, prostition & drugs; no social democracy; no public health provisions; etc.

What more would a libertarian want? "Stargate" is right: God IS our enemy!

  15.  Things that make you go Hmmm... by Iluminati     1 hour, 56 minutes ago score of 1 in reply to comment 8     You know what, atheist dude, you have a point. Even though I was (and still am) the initiation of force by the US government the admittedly evil government of Saddam Hussein, you do have a point. This would be the ultimate chance for libertarianism to prove itself in the real world.

However, I'm a bit nervous about experimental governance. The last time libertarian-leaning people looked for a real-world test of their ideas, they (the Chicago boys) ended up turning to Pinochet's Chile. Can we figure out a way to do the free minds, free markets thing without some bloodshed? I just want a place when I can chill without cops harassing on general principle without thousands of innocent civilians dying first. All I ask, America, is to do what you said on paper. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  

17.  Re: Things that make you go Hmmm... by advancedatheist     31 minutes ago score of 1 in reply to comment 15     This would be the ultimate chance for libertarianism to prove itself in the real world.

Not to mention Islam. The Koran forbids theft and commands that thieves lose their hands, but the Muslims shopping Iraq's going-out-of-business sale don't seem to be worried about that.

It's about time to put this romantic libertarian fantasy away. The empirical historical evidence shows that most people need an effective government to keep them in line because they lack foresight & self-control.

The last time libertarian-leaning people looked for a real-world test of their ideas, they (the Chicago boys) ended up turning to Pinochet's Chile.

Apparently the free-market fundamentalists who point to Chile's privatized social security system as a model for the U.S. aren't bothered by the fact that this system was imposed upon the Chilean people by a military dictatorship. Given the erosion of responsible civilian government in the U.S., these advocates might be more prophetic than they realized. "Stargate" is right: God IS our enemy!

  16.  Re: Iraq as libertarian utopia by Nameless Cynic     2 minutes ago score of 1 in reply to comment 8     You're correlating the fall of the government with "no laws." Sorry, AA. I know religion isn't your strong suit, but they have laws.

In fact, three of the items you mention (pornography, prostitution and drugs) are specifically mentioned. (Drugs fall under the same strictures as alcohol.) Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put. ~~ Winston Churchill

  11.  Not the Future You Would Expect.... by Krv     at Sat 12 Apr 3:42pm score of 1     I think that the Bush adminsitration is truthfull when they are promising the Iraqi nation freedom. The freedom they are promising the them is economic freedom, not political freedom. The model for the Iraqi future is not that which, we Americans are presently familiar with... the freedoms and personal liberties outlined in our Constitution, ideas distilled from the works of those great personages of the Age of Enlightenment. Iraq will be a society organized on the principle of a Capitalist Autocracy. The same model America is headed for in the future (where we will be joined by China and Singapore).

  14.  It's all in the rules by M. Mosher     2 hours, 37 minutes ago score of 1     Rebuilding the country and helping to institute democracy in Iraq will not happen by announcing an election and inviting candidates to step forward. Before elections, some sort of constitution or articles of federation will have to be drawn up. These will, after all, determine the rules by which the democracy is run. A constitutional convention (I'm using Americanisms here because that is what I'm more familiar with — it can just as easily be a parliament or something else) must be formed made up of tribal leaders, ethnic representatives, local and regional leaders, religious leaders, and others. This convention will hammer out the rules.

The rules will entail lots of things but elections and changes to the rules will be included. Ideally, the rules will disallow too much power in the hands of too few and it will disallow tyrants. The rules should make sure that one group cannot be brutalized by another. They should spell out rights and obligations of citizens and limits of governmental power. They might (probably should) separate the military and the police, they should remove the courts from the jurisdiction of the prime minister or president. In short, the rules should be written in such a way that no matter who gets elected Iraq will not sink back into a dictatorship.

Then, when the country is ready and everyone understands the rules as written by the Iraqis themselves, elections can be held for the actual administration and legislation of Iraq. This is the point at which the world will become interested to see if wannabe dictators rise to power and to see if newly elected leaders set about trying to change the rules. If Iraq decides to make itself an Islamic republic, that is their decision.

Where the US will get its knickers bunched is if Iraq wants from the very beginning to model itself into another 13th century caliphate. The US and UK hope that Iraqi dissident groups living in the west for so many years have absorbed western ideas of governance and will have the ability to influence the new rules enough to form a functioning democracy there.

Arabs have a traditional fondness and aptitude for capitalism and a distrust of socialism so the US is probably banking on not having to do much to steer the economic system under which the country will operate. Nationalizing oil revenues or setting aside a portion for a general fund is probably the extent of socialism the US is hoping for. However, since oil is about the only source of foreign exchange for Iraq, most of the needs of Iraqis will have to be paid for through socialized oil.

If it works well, the rules or constitution will prevent oil revenues from being siphoned away from people's needs and into palaces and a large military. Time will tell.

The Liberal Slant By: Daniel Patrick Welch - 04/12/03

Teach them a lesson they'll never forget. So goes the thinking in Texas-on-the-Potomac. And what a lesson it has been! They'll never mess with us again, nosirree Bob! As this childish thinking worms its way around the neocon braintrust, now giddy with "success" of their own definition (like toppling the Taliban?), it is instructive what lessons might be drawn by more rational--albeit scared to death--observers around the world. 

These are some of the conclusions I've drawn, doing my humble little part to follow Bush's sage advice. First, if you don't already have nukes, you'd better get some--and that right soon. Uncle Sam don't play. While you're in the catalog, get a whole bunch of night goggles, and tons more air support. Spend more on the military, and less on feeding, housing and educating your people, if you care about your own sovereignty. 

The picture of the American GI lounging in Hussein's chair, plastered on front pages everywhere, sent the disturbing signal: it's ours....it's ALL ours. I can't imagine that image spun quite the way it was intended around the globe--or maybe that's just the point: we're comin' to getcha! And another thing--don't bother trying to meet the Americans head on. Lesson number two is that, in asymmetrical warfare, guerrilla campaign is the only way to go--do anything, and I mean anything (see Lesson #1: Get Nukes) to keep the mighty invading army at bay. 

Lessons 3 through umpteen were learned before the war started, actually: international law doesn't apply to the U.S., The UN, EU, as well as various global aid organizations, conventions, and agreements are quaint relics of a bygone era. Oh, right--there is a caveat here: we can bring them back to life on call when it suits our purpose and we want to complain about other people's behavior. 

Although it may seem incongruous, I'll allow myself a Seinfeld moment here. What the hell, Americans watch 25 hours of TV a day anyway. I couldn't help thinking of the time Kramer was boasting about his karate prowess until he was forced to reveal that he was just beating up children. In an ominous twist, the kids ganged up and waited for him in the alley, where they beat the crap out of him. 

And what is all this focus on civilian dead? I mean it's horrific, of course--it's the whole ball of wax, really. But soldiers aren't people? When the tables are turned, the U.S. screams bloody murder if one of our boys is killed, TV up close and personals, etc. Enemy soldiers don't have mothers? They can be blithely incinerated from 40,000 feet by fuel-air bombs and other weapons more horrific than anything currently banned--international law, thankfully for the Americans, hasn't had time to catch up to the technology. 

I guess that undermining, bribing, and threatening pays off. Bush and Rumsfeld (dubbed Chemical Donald by a British columnist) even insist that we have the right to use nuclear weapons, or other gases only allowed for domestic crowd control. 

Only the Americans have the sovereign right, drunk with power and arrogance, to threaten to try the invaded in US courts for "war crimes." Bush and his corporate cronies are so busy trying to teach the world a lesson that they forgot the lessons they should have learned from history. For all the distorted comparisons to Hitler, they seem to have missed this gem from the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal: "War is essentially an evil thing... To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." 

There are other lessons, both foreign and domestic. Before the war came the bugging of UN personnel, some in their own houses. A sort of Watergate gone global--get the message yet? For icing, Americans exploited the fog of war to shoot up convoys of diplomats with whom they just happened to have beef, and killed a few journalists who gave them bad press--one of them on air! Now THAT sends a message! Coupled with the unabashed prostitution of embedded (or "in-bed-with") journalism, and we have a pretty good idea of which way we are supposed to go. 

But let's not forget the domestic lessons. The Bush Cartel is an equal opportunity terrorist. Cops in Oakland opened fire on protesters with "non-lethal" weapons (kind of like pushing someone gently down the stairs) in an incident oddly reminiscent of the San Francisco 1934 general strike--which also started on the docks. Radio hosts encourage violence against protesters, and some have obliged, plowing into one demonstration in a truck, calling in bomb or sniper threats. A high school principal pulled the plug on movies like "Bowling for Columbine" by that dangerous radical, Michael Moore. 

John Kerry was attacked for speaking out against Bush. One GOP hatchet man went so far as to suggest that Kerry had no right to call for "regime change" during wartime. Hmmmm..in civics class I was led to believe we had (technically) regime change every four years. And the Democrats, for crying out loud, who have enough trouble defining the word "opposition!" Forget Syria and Iran: if the milquetoast Kerry, who voted for the war, is fair game, who's next? 

But I suppose ol' George and his puppet masters might be touchy on the subject. Imagine if people learned the wrong lessons, and enforced regime change the way they do--or even ascended to power the way Bush did? Yikes! Iraqis, of course, don't speak out because they are afraid of the regime, and our freedom, by contrast, is the reason we should all just shut up (or else). Beam me up, Scottie! The whole project has the air of what Robert Parry has called Bush's Alderan, recalling the Star Wars plot line where a small rebel planet destroyed by the infamous Death Star to keep everyone else in line. 

Don't worry, we are told--it will all come into focus soon. Yeah, we know. 

But no matter how many staged footage of toppling statues, Iraqis are a proud people. And a gun-toting one. When the US military tries to disarm Iraqi civilians, we'll see... What is also waiting to come out is that this episode of Gilligan's Travels to Liliput hasn't been quite the romp we've been told, even in the last week. Then again, it is a fiction to think that the access will be freer under the watchful eye of the US military occupation. Government minders are no match for tanks shelling your hotel. 

And as far as lies go, you ain't seen nothin yet. Suicide bombers--the term itself a manipulative attempt at a subtle link with the events of Sept. 11--will be branded terrorists (or, even more incomprehensibly, 'cowards') by an occupation force and a press corps which refuses to admit it is there illegally. What a world turned on its head: how could there possibly be any illegitimate American targets where there is an occupying army? But of course, the invaded squirming under the tread of an Abrams tank don't have the right to resist. Further resistance will be dismissed as "getting in the way of rebuilding Iraq." They will not be heroic defenders of their country, but always foreign fighters, just as they were "outside agitators" according to COINTELPRO, and "agents provocateurs" at the Haymarket. Of course. In what conceivable universe could people actually want to repel foreign invaders? 

We will be treated to many more planted stories of 'potential' WMD's, the horrors of Saddam's regime, the noble cause of "Freeing" Iraq. And the horrific cost of this war and the sanctions which preceded it will be laid at Iraq's own door--with a docile press corps, the victor writes the history. 

This all relies, by the way, on keeping the American bubble inflated. The Stupidity Factor doesn't appear to be evaporating any time soon. Many Americans are perfectly happy to have a "president" who is no smarter than they are--it's not threatening unless you get on his bad side. Kind of like the old drunk on the corner stool in the bar. He tells some good jokes, but watch out when he's in a mood. Remember that egghead Carter? Yuck. I used to think that the monopoly corporations who funded Bush's rise to power had picked wrong--and it may still be shown that they overplayed their hand. But my cynicism and despair have deepened in the past few months. What a coup (pun intended) to have picked a true idiot, a mean, drunken frat boy who does what he's told and then some, sticking to it like a rabid pit bull. 

I can't help thinking that Randy Newman had the dark side of the American character pegged, and I keep running this old lyric through my head: Americans dream of Gypsies I have found/and Gypsy knives and Gypsy thighs that pound and pound and pound and pound/And African appendages that almost reach the ground/And little boys playing baseball in the rain/America, American, may God shed his grace on thee/You have whipped the Filipino, now you rule the Western Sea/America, America, step out into the light/You are the best dream that man has ever dreamed/and may all your Christmases be white. 

So, many of the people will eat it up. But the economy is in deep trouble and getting worse--the "what now" burp is already hitting the markets. And using the Conquering Hero spike to float their crazy economic agenda just won't work like they want it to. Even Democrats will put up some kind of a fight. 

Don't forget the Afghan "model," where Special Forces casualties are said to be "staggering." Sorry for all the quotes and parentheses, but the bogus language of this war makes it almost impossible to talk without footnotes. Let's not kid ourselves, no matter how many times we watch the bogus, staged, rehashed footage of statues toppling: this "war" (slaughter) isn't "over" (left the front page) any more than its Afghan counterpart, where 11 civilians were recently killed by "mistake" (murder-from-above by an arrogant superpower that would rather kill and ask questions later, earning it the enmity of all and the certain retaliation by virtually anybody). 

And I was only kidding before when I mentioned John Kerry. Of course we can't forget Syria and Iran, now in the sights of the voracious Democracy Installing Cabal (you do the letters). And then there's Colombia, Venezuela, Philippines, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Montezuma, the Shores of Tripoli.... 

But let's not forget the biggest lesson, looming in the shadows: the Kramer lesson (apologies to Michael Richards). The kids are waiting in the alley, George. They are learning different lessons from this war--and their numbers are growing.

Daniel Patrick Welch, a contributing writer for Liberal Slant, lives and writes in Salem, Massachusetts with his wife, Julia Nambalirwa-Lugudde. Together they run The Greenhouse School. www.volunteersolutions.org 

Find more articles by Daniel Patrick Welch in the Liberal Slant Archives

<a href=www.independent.com.mt>Independent On line Web posted on April 12, 2003 at 9:00:00 AM CET Sandra Aquilina

Malta will go to the voting booths for the second time in two months today.

The Electoral Commission said the number of voters for today’s election totalled 294,106. A total of 2,376 voting documents were not collected compared to around 1,800 in 1998.

In addition, just under 1,500 people have died of the 297,930 listed on the March electoral register, which was up from the 297,860 listed in the October 2002 register.

A total of 177 candidates are contesting today’s election. The Nationalist Party is fielding the largest number of candidates – 84 – while the Malta Labour Party has 77 candidates. A total of 15 candidates will contest on an Alternattiva Demokratika ticket and one independent candidate is contesting for the third district.

Economist Victor Zammit, who has cast his nomination on behalf of the Ghal Gid ta’ Ghawdex group, will not be contesting after a court ruled he was ineligible as he was not a registered voter and that there was a definite obstacle to his candidature.

A total of 70 candidates will be contesting the election in two districts, bringing the total number of nominations to 247. The sixth district has the lowest number of candidates contesting, with 14 candidates, while the ninth district has the highest at 23.

The eighth district will see a battle between the three leaders – Eddie Fenech Adami (PN), Alfred Sant (MLP) and Harry Vassallo (AD).

Just five weeks ago, the electorate was called out to the polls to vote in the referendum on European Union membership Voting hours will remain the same, with Maltese and Gozitans being able to vote between 7am and 10pm. The electoral commission has announced that people over 70 will be given precedence in the voting booths. People over 60 will be allowed to go the head of the jump the queues on presentation of their kartanzjan between 1pm and 5pm. The same will apply to people suffering from an illness on presentation of a medical certificate.

More than 3,000 electoral commissioners and assistant commissioners voted at Ta’ Qali yesterday as they will be manning the polling booths today.

After 10pm the boxes will be sealed and taken to Ta’ Qali where they will be sorted and the counting – after the reconciliation – will begin. This procedure is expected to take a number of hours.

The Electoral Commission did not give any indication of when the initial results will be issued. In past elections, results started trickling out early in the afternoon of Sunday.

The Department of Information will be publishing the official results of the general election on its website www.doi.gov.mt. First to be published this evening will be the percentage turnouts in all the electoral districts. The official results of all the counts of each district will continue to be updated until the end of the counting process.

State television station PBS, Nationalist station Net TV and Labour Party channel Super One are expected to give live coverage of the events as they unfold at Ta’ Qali.

Results in Malta in previous elections have been perilously close, with the MLP winning with 50.7 per cent of the votes in 1996, and the PN garnering 47.8 per cent of the votes.

Tables were turned in 1998 when the PN won the election with 51.8 per cent of the votes, while the MLP took 47 per cent.

AD managed 1.46 per cent of the votes in 1996 and 1.21 per cent in 1998.

And while the Maltese and Gozitan people will be flocking to the voting booths, other events of international importance will be happening elsewhere in the world.

Hungarians will also be heading to the polls to vote in a referendum on EU membership.

There will be a national anti-war demonstration in Rome and a Stop the War Coalition will try to organise another mammoth march against the Iraq conflict. Protests are also planned in Italy, Denmark, Sweden and other countries.

In Caracas, Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez will hold a democracy forum to mark the first anniversary of the military coup that ousted him, albeit briefly. There will also be legislative elections in Abuja, Nigeria.

www.counterpunch.org March 22, 2003 By TOM CRUMPACKER

Coming to Terms with the Real Havana

My interest in things Latin started as a teenager in the 50's when I read W. H. Hudson's 19th century novel Green Mansions. It's about a young Englishman who lives with an old Indian in the mountains of Venezuela and falls in love with his daughter Rima, a fairy-like creature who talks to the animals and birds in the forest. I've spent an increasing amount of time in Cuba in the past five years and some of my friends claim I'm being "romantic" in my enthusiasm for the country and it's people. They're probably right. Here's a paradox: the real world, the one we see, actually exists out there for all of us, but we each also create it for ourselves. Perspective is a key word for me. I think all honest individual perspectives have value, the trouble is they're also too limited. It's in society or community with others that our perspectives broaden and our contradictions are transcended.

Cuba is a very different kind of society than ours, and one needs to have or adopt a broad perspective to appreciate it. Looking at it through our US politico-economic lens, making comparisons based on our standards, won't do the trick. Some of the things I like about Cuba are the strong sense of equality among people, the strong sense of community, the relative lack of commercialization. Many people there have found ways to live productive, high quality lives outside the rat-race of consumption-accumulation. I'm comfortable living among people who are trying to improve their lot in life by collective action. I'm not saying it's for everyone, in fact I think most Americans wouldn't like it.

In order to understand any people, one needs to know their history. The last century and a half has been one long struggle for Cubans. Against slavery, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism and blockade. For social justice, equality and above all national identity and autonomy. Some Cubans criticize their government (openly and without fear). But I've never met anyone on the island who wants US business to return and run things again. They are entering the global economy on their own terms, and in this sense they differ from the rest of Latin America. They are attracting capital even though their foreign investment law prevents companies from having more than a 49% interest in the profits " in joint venture with the government -- this is how they finance their education, health care, social services and safety net. They (perhaps naively) believe that collective human action rather than just blind market forces can affect the direction of history. In a sense it might be said they are trying to put themselves in position to determine their own destiny by giving up some of the short-term economic benefit they could have otherwise had by submitting to US commercial domination.

I just returned from spending the winter in the capital city. Today's Havana is the fastest changing place I've ever seen. To the Habaneros I know, change indicates a desire to experiment, find new ways of doing things, progress. Cooperatives have become the main form of property ownership. Their new small scale urban and organic agriculture methods are being studied by many foreign experts, especially from the Third World. Wide assortments of fresh fruit and vegetables are brought every morning to their open air markets from their community gardens. Their goal is to reduce dependence on foreign imports and become self sustaining. Not all the changes are for the good, increasing auto traffic for instance " and the rapid growth of tourism is endangering the commitment to equality and social justice. The present situation with money--US dollar vs. Cuban peso, with different uses for each (Cubans obtaining many of their life necessities on a collective basis) " looks to me like it can't continue much longer. They say that if you want to see socialism, you have to go to the smaller towns and countryside. Capitalism is bursting through in La Habana, but it's the good kind, the mom and pop store kind that we used to know when we were young.

Habaneros are coming out of a very hard period for them in the nineties. As they say, it was then, when the dogs and cats were disappearing from the streets, that the Yankees tried to bring them to their knees with the Toricelli and Helms-Burton laws. But now they've survived and there's pervading sense of pride and optimism. I saw some incredible theater, art, music and dancing in Havana this winter. Their cultural heritage is mostly African and Spanish but you can also see the Yankee influence, particularly in music and sports. Construction and architecture are booming. When I first went there in '97, Habana Vieja looked like London after the blitz. With the help of the UN and Spain, the plazas, churches and other buildings are being restored to their 18th and 19th century glory, slowly and carefully, much like what happened in Venice 30 years ago. Canada, France, Germany, China, Italy and many other countries are contributing to beneficial projects in the city.

In spite of present US policy, Habaneros are very friendly to American visitors. They are a very well educated people and they know enough to distinguish the ruled from their rulers. But I feel ashamed to be an American when I see these policies continuing: blockading Cuba by threatening and punishing foreign companies who dare to do business there; preventing medicine, medical equipment and nutritional food from reaching Cubans by unreasonable financing conditions; funneling money to groups in Florida who are trying to destabilize the Cuban people's government; conducting a relentless propaganda campaign against the revolution while prohibiting us from traveling there to learn what is really happening.

I think present US-Cuba policy says a lot more about the lack of democracy here than in Cuba. Congress took charge of Cuba affairs in the '80s and there have been bills pending to normalize relations between the countries for at least five years. Despite a clear majority in favor, a few powerful men called "party leaders" have prevented votes on these bills. Since the Cuban people have no lobby here to push and pay for change, nothing happens.

In any event Havana is an interesting and exciting place to be these days, especially for those visitors who want a different kind of experience. Because the travel restrictions are unconstitutional they're not being enforced, they're just being used to frighten people out of going there. If you're one of the very few who get penalty notices, however, to be safe you need to demand a hearing within thirty days. Since our government doesn't want a court ruling the matter apparently will go into perpetual abeyance.

Tom Crumpacker is with the Miami Coalition to End the US Embargo of Cuba. He can be reached at: Crump8@aol.com