Category Archives: Politics and Economics

Michael Moore fights back

Michael Moore has had an interesting few weeks. From being cheered to the rooftops at the Sundance Independent Film Awards to being cheered and booed at the Oscars, to being vilified by the nore obnoxious elements of the pro-war lobby. Here is his account of what it has all meant.

April 7, 2003

My Oscar “Backlash”: “Stupid White Men” Back At #1, “Bowling” Breaks New Records

Dear friends,

It appears that the Bush administration will have succeeded in colonizing Iraq sometime in the next few days. This is a blunder of such magnitude—and we will pay for it for years to come. It was not worth the life of one single American kid in uniform, let alone the thousands of Iraqis who have died, and my condolences and prayers go out to all of them.

So, where are all those weapons of mass destruction that were the pretense for this war? Ha! There is so much to say about all this, but I will save it for later.

What I am most concerned about right now is that all of you—the majority of Americans who did not support this war in the first place—not go silent or be intimidated by what will be touted as some great military victory. Now, more than ever, the voices of peace and truth must be heard. I have received a lot of mail from people who are feeling a profound sense of despair and believe that their voices have been drowned out by the drums and bombs of false patriotism. Some are afraid of retaliation at work or at school or in their neighborhoods because they have been vocal proponents of peace. They have been told over and over that it is not “appropriate” to protest once the country is at war, and that your only duty now is to “support the troops.”

Can I share with you what it’s been like for me since I used my time on the Oscar stage two weeks ago to speak out against Bush and this war? I hope that, in reading what I’m about to tell you, you’ll feel a bit more emboldened to make your voice heard in whatever way or forum that is open to you.

When “Bowling for Columbine” was announced as the Oscar winner for Best Documentary at the Academy Awards, the audience rose to its feet. It was a great moment, one that I will always cherish. They were standing and cheering for a film that says we Americans are a uniquely violent people, using our massive stash of guns to kill each other and to use them against many countries around the world. They were applauding a film that shows George W. Bush using fictitious fears to frighten the public into giving him whatever he wants. And they were honoring a film that states the following: The first Gulf War was an attempt to reinstall the dictator of Kuwait; Saddam Hussein was armed with weapons from the United States; and the American government is responsible for the deaths of a half-million children in Iraq over the past decade through its sanctions and bombing. That was the movie they were cheering, that was the movie they voted for, and so I decided that is what I should acknowledge in my speech.

And, thus, I said the following from the Oscar stage:

“On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan (from Canada), I would like to thank the Academy for this award. I have invited the other Documentary nominees on stage with me. They are here in solidarity because we like non-fiction. We like non-fiction because we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where fictitious election results give us a fictitious president. We are now fighting a war for fictitious reasons. Whether it’s the fiction of duct tape or the fictitious ‘Orange Alerts,’ we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And, whenever you’ve got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up.”

Halfway through my remarks, some in the audience started to cheer. That immediately set off a group of people in the balcony who started to boo. Then those supporting my remarks started to shout down the booers. The L. A. Times reported that the director of the show started screaming at the orchestra “Music! Music!” in order to cut me off, so the band dutifully struck up a tune and my time was up. (For more on why I said what I said, you can read the op-ed I wrote for the L.A. Times, plus other reaction from around the country at my website)

The next day—and in the two weeks since—the right-wing pundits and radio shock jocks have been calling for my head. So, has all this ruckus hurt me? Have they succeeded in “silencing” me?

Well, take a look at my Oscar “backlash”:

– On the day after I criticized Bush and the war at the Academy Awards, attendance at “Bowling for Columbine” in theaters around the country went up 110% (source: Daily Variety/BoxOfficeMojo.com). The following weekend, the box office gross was up a whopping 73% (Variety). It is now the longest-running consecutive commercial release in America, 26 weeks in a row and still thriving. The number of theaters showing the film since the Oscars has INCREASED, and it has now bested the previous box office record for a documentary by nearly 300%.

– Yesterday (April 6), “Stupid White Men” shot back to #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. This is my book’s 50th week on the list, 8 of them at number one, and this marks its fourth return to the top position, something that virtually never happens.

– In the week after the Oscars, my website was getting 10-20 million hits A DAY (one day we even got more hits than the White House!). The mail has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive (and the hate mail has been hilarious!).

– In the two days following the Oscars, more people pre-ordered the video for “Bowling for Columbine” on Amazon.com than the video for the Oscar winner for Best Picture, “Chicago.”

– In the past week, I have obtained funding for my next documentary, and I have been offered a slot back on television to do an updated version of “TV Nation”/ “The Awful Truth.”

I tell you all of this because I want to counteract a message that is told to us all the time—that, if you take a chance to speak out politically, you will live to regret it. It will hurt you in some way, usually financially. You could lose your job. Others may not hire you. You will lose friends. And on and on and on.

Take the Dixie Chicks. I’m sure you’ve all heard by now that, because their lead singer mentioned how she was ashamed that Bush was from her home state of Texas, their record sales have “plummeted” and country stations are boycotting their music. The truth is that their sales are NOT down. This week, after all the attacks, their album is still at #1 on the Billboard country charts and, according to Entertainment Weekly, on the pop charts during all the brouhaha, they ROSE from #6 to #4. In the New York Times, Frank Rich reports that he tried to find a ticket to ANY of the Dixie Chicks’ upcoming concerts but he couldn’t because they were all sold out. (To read Rich’s column from yesterday’s Times, “Bowling for Kennebunkport,” go here. He does a pretty good job of laying it all out and talks about my next film and the impact it could potentially have.) Their song, “Travelin’ Soldier” (a beautiful anti-war ballad) was the most requested song on the internet last week. They have not been hurt at all—but that is not what the media would have you believe. Why is that? Because there is nothing more important now than to keep the voices of dissent—and those who would dare to ask a question—SILENT. And what better way than to try and take a few well-known entertainers down with a pack of lies so that the average Joe or Jane gets the message loud and clear: “Wow, if they would do that to the Dixie Chicks or Michael Moore, what would they do to little ol’ me?” In other words, shut the f— up.

And that, my friends, is the real point of this film that I just got an Oscar for—how those in charge use FEAR to manipulate the public into doing whatever they are told.

Well, the good news—if there can be any good news this week—is that not only have neither I nor others been silenced, we have been joined by millions of Americans who think the same way we do. Don’t let the false patriots intimidate you by setting the agenda or the terms of the debate. Don’t be defeated by polls that show 70% of the public in favor of the war. Remember that these Americans being polled are the same Americans whose kids (or neighbor’s kids) have been sent over to Iraq. They are scared for the troops and they are being cowed into supporting a war they did not want—and they want even less to see their friends, family, and neighbors come home dead. Everyone supports the troops returning home alive and all of us need to reach out and let their families know that.

Unfortunately, Bush and Co. are not through yet. This invasion and conquest will encourage them to do it again elsewhere. The real purpose of this war was to say to the rest of the world, “Don’t Mess with Texas – If You Got What We Want, We’re Coming to Get It!” This is not the time for the majority of us who believe in a peaceful America to be quiet. Make your voices heard. Despite what they have pulled off, it is still our country.

Yours,

Michael Moore

www.michaelmoore.com

Liberation Day Unclothed

Robert Fisk in Baghdad on April 9th 2003. Writing for the daily UK Broadsheet, The Independent.

A day that began with shellfire ended with a once-oppressed people walking like giants

10 April 2003

The Americans “liberated” Baghdad yesterday, destroyed the centre of Saddam Hussein’s quarter-century of brutal dictatorial power but brought behind them an army of looters who unleashed upon the ancient city a reign of pillage and anarchy. It was a day that began with shellfire and air strikes and blood-bloated hospitals and ended with the ritual destruction of the dictator’s statues. The mobs shrieked their delight. Men who, for 25 years, had grovellingly obeyed Saddam’s most humble secret policeman turned into giants, bellowing their hatred of the Iraqi leader as his vast and monstrous statues thundered to the ground.

“It is the beginning of our new freedom,” an Iraqi shopkeeper shouted at me. Then he paused, and asked: “What do the Americans want from us now?’ The great Lebanese poet Kalil Gibran once wrote that he pitied the nation that welcomed its tyrants with trumpetings and dismissed them with hootings of derision. And the people of Baghdad performed this same deadly ritual yesterday, forgetting that they – or their parents – had behaved in identical fashion when the Arab Socialist Baath Party destroyed the previous dictatorship of Iraq’s generals and princes. Forgetting, too, that the “liberators” were a new and alien and all-powerful occupying force with neither culture nor language nor race nor religion to unite them with Iraq.

As tens of thousands of Shia Muslim poor from the vast slums of Saddam City poured into the centre of Baghdad to smash their way into shops, offices and government ministries – an epic version of the same orgy of theft and mass destruction that the British did so little to prevent in Basra – US Marines watched from only a few hundred yards away as looters made off with cars, rugs, hoards of money, computers, desks, sofas, even door-frames.

In Al-Fardus (Paradise) Square, US Marines helped a crowd of youths pull down the gaunt and massive statue of Saddam by roping it to an armoured personnel carrier. It toppled menacingly forward from its plinth to hang lengthways above the ground, right arm still raised in fraternal greetings to the Iraqi people.

It was a symbolic moment in more ways than one. I stood behind the first man to seize a hatchet and smash at the imposing grey marble plinth. But within seconds, the marble had fallen away to reveal a foundation of cheap bricks and badly cracked cement. That’s what the Americans always guessed Saddam’s regime was made of, although they did their best – in the late Seventies and early Eighties – to arm him and service his economy and offer him political support, to turn him into the very dictator he became.

In one sense, therefore, America – occupying the capital of an Arab nation for the first time in its history – was helping to destroy what it had spent so much time and money creating. Saddam was “our” man and yesterday, metaphorically at least, we annihilated him. Hence the importance of all those statue- bashing mobs, of all that looting and theft.

But of the real and somewhat less imposing Saddam, there was no trace.

Neither he nor his sons, Uday and Qusay, could be found. Had they fled north to their homeland fortress of Tikrit? Or has he – the most popular rumour this – taken refuge in the Russian embassy in Baghdad. Were they hiding out in the cobweb of underground tunnels and bunkers beneath the presidential palaces? True, their rule was effectively over. The torture chambers and the prisons should now be turned into memorials, the true story of Iraq’s use of gas warfare revealed at last. But history suggests otherwise. Prisons usually pass over to new management, torture cells too, and who would want the world to know how easy it is to make weapons of mass destruction.

There will be mass graves that will have to be opened – though in the Middle East, these disinterments are usually performed in order to allow more blood to be poured onto the graves.

Not that the nightmare is entirely over. For though the Americans will mark yesterday as their first day of occupation – they, of course, will call it liberation – vast areas of Baghdad remained outside the control of the United States last night. And at dusk, just before darkness curled over the land, I crossed through the American lines, back to the little bit of Saddam’s regime that remained intact within the vast, flat city of Baghdad. Down grey, carless streets, I drove to the great bridges over the Tigris which the Americans had still not crossed from the west. And there, on the corner of Bab al-Moazzam Street, were a small group of mujahedin fighters, firing Kalashnikov rifles at the American tanks on the other side of the waterway. It was brave and utterly pathetic and painfully instructive.

For the men turned out to be Arabs from Algeria, Morocco, Syria, Jordan, Palestine. Not an Iraqi was among them. The Baathist militiamen, the Republican Guard, the greasy Iraqi intelligence men, the so-called Saddam Fedayeen had all left their posts and crept home. Only the foreign Arabs, like the Frenchmen of the Nazi Charlemagne Division in 1945 Berlin, fought on. At the end, many Iraqis had shunned these men and a group of them had turned up to sit outside the lobby of the Palestine Hotel, pleading to journalists for help in returning home.

“We left our wives and children and came here to die for these people and then they told us to go,” one of them said. But at the end of the Bab al-Moazzam Bridge they fought on last night and when I left them I could hear the American jets flying in from the west. Hurtling back through those empty streets, I could hear, too, the American tank fire as it smashed into their building.

But tanks come in two forms: the dangerous, deadly kind and the “liberating” kind from which smart young soldiers with tanned faces look down with smiles at Iraqis who are obliging enough to wave at them, tanks with cute names stencilled on their gun barrels, names like “Kitten Rescue” and “Nightmare Witness” (this with a human skull painted underneath) and “Pearl”. And there has to be a first soldier – of the occupying or liberating kind – who stands at the very front of the first column of every vast and powerful army.

So I walked up to Corporal David Breeze of the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, from Michigan. He hadn’t spoken to his parents for two months so I called his mother on my satellite phone and from the other side of the world, Mrs Breeze came on the line and I handed the phone to her son.

And so this is what the very first soldier to enter the centre of Baghdad told his family yesterday evening. “Hi you guys. I’m in Baghdad.

“I’m ringing to say ‘Hi! I love you. I’m doing fine. I love you guys. The war will be over in a few days. I’ll see you all soon.’’

Yes, they all say the war will be over soon. There will be a homecoming no doubt for Corporal Breeze and I suppose I admired his innocence despite the deadly realities that await America in this dangerous, cruel land. For even as the marine tanks thrashed and ground down the highway, there were men and women who saw them and stood, the women scarved, the men observing the soldiers with the most acute attention, who spoke of their fear for the future, who talked of how Iraq could never be ruled by foreigners.

“You’ll see the celebrations and we will be happy Saddam has gone,” one of them said to me. “But we will then want to rid ourselves of the Americans and we will want to keep our oil and there will be resistance and then they will call us “terrorists”. Nor did the Americans look happy “liberators”. They pointed their rifles at the pavements and screamed at motorists to stop – one who did not, an old man in an old car, was shot in the head in front of two French journalists.

Of course, the Americans knew they would get a good press by “liberating” the foreign journalists at the Palestine Hotel. They lay in the long grass of the nearest square and pretended to aim their rifles at the rooftops as cameras hissed at them, and they flew a huge American flag from one of their tanks and grinned at the journalists, not one of whom reminded them that just 24 hours earlier, their army had killed two Western journalists with tank fire in that same hotel and then lied about it.

But it was the looters who marked the day as something sinister rather than joyful. In Saddam City, they had welcomed the Americans with “V” signs and cries of “Up America” and the usual trumpetings, but then they had set off downtown for a more important appointment. At the Ministry of Economy, they stole the entire records of Iraq’s exports and imports on computer discs, with desk-top computers, with armchairs and fridges and paintings. When I tried to enter the building, the looters swore at me. A French reporter had his money and camera seized by the mob.

At the Olympic sports offices, run by Uday Hussein, they did the same, one old man staggering from the building with a massive portrait of Saddam which he proceeded to attack with his fists, another tottering out of the building bearing a vast ornamental Chinese pot.

True, these were regime targets. But many of the crowds went for shops, smashing their way into furniture stores and professional offices. They came with trucks and pick-ups and trailers pulled by scruffy, underfed donkeys to carry their loot away. I saw a boy making off with an X-ray machine, a woman with a dentist’s chair.

At the Ministry of Oil, the minister’s black Mercedes limousine was discovered by the looters. Unable to find the keys, they tore the car apart, ripping off its doors, tyres and seats, leaving just the carcass and chassis in front of the huge front entrance.

At the Palestine Hotel, they smashed Saddam’s portrait on the lobby floor and set light to the hoarding of the same wretched man over the front door. They cried “Allahuakbar” meaning God is Greater. And there was a message there, too, for the watching Marines if they had understood it.

And so last night, as the explosion of tank shells still crashed over the city, Baghdad lay at the feet of a new master. They have come and gone in the city’s history, Abbasids and Ummayads and Mongols and Turks and British and now the Americans. The United States embassy reopened yesterday and soon, no doubt, when the Iraqis have learned to whom they must now be obedient friends, President Bush will come here and there will be new “friends” of America to open a new relationship with the world, new economic fortunes for those who “liberated” them, and – equally no doubt – relations with Israel and a real Israeli embassy in Baghdad.

But winning a war is one thing. Succeeding in the ideological and economic project that lies behind this whole war is quite another. The “real” story for America’s mastery over the Arab world starts now.

Wayward friends

It isn’t usually my style but I’ve got to say that Nick Denton – who I like and respect – is talking pure Bushshit. This is no liberation Nick. This is a new imperialism. The world’s biggest and only superpower uses a tiny fraction of its awesome might to crush a way smaller nation. If this is liberation then lookout world. The new Rome is coming to free you.

Where did the “right of nations to self determination” – the international equivalent of democracy – go? Who gave the US and the UK the right to decide what is good and what is evil? Who gave us the right to have nuclear bombs and chemical weapons but deny others based on the only discernible difference – that we are good and “they” are “evil”.

Wake up – this is a disaster for the human race. An aggressive superpower with no repect for national borders. It isn’t OK just because Saddam was a bad guy.

The Economic Consequences of the War

This piece in Business Week – from Bruce Nussbaum – sums up the widespread belief that the US has altered the world in a fundamental way – and is destined to pay a huge price in diplomatic and economic terms as a result.

I don’t agree with everything here but one thing is certain, NATO, the UN and the post 1945 world order are no more. A new alliance of France, Germany, Russia and perhaps China is emerging. The certainties of the cold war and the relative stability of that era are gone forever. That is the primary “gain” of the war in Iraq. We live in ever more dangerous times.

MARCH 24, 2003

BEYOND THE WAR
By Bruce Nussbaum


Commentary: The High Price of Bad Diplomacy
Mismanaging the runup to war will do more than squander goodwill and damage alliances

The U.S. has already lost the prewar battle over Iraq, whatever the outcome of a further U.N. vote. Even if it wins a fig-leaf majority vote in the Security Council, America will be entering its first preemptive war faced with opposition from nearly all of its allies and much of the rest of the planet. A world that rallied to America’s side in unprecedented demonstrations of support after September 11 increasingly perceives the U.S. itself as a great danger to peace. How did things come to this? The failure of the Bush Administration to manage its diplomacy is staggering, and the price paid, even if the war ends quickly, could be higher than anyone now anticipates.

The political effect of this foreign policy imbroglio is already obvious. It can be measured in tattered alliances and global tensions, eroding support for President George W. Bush, and big changes throughout the Middle East. What remains unclear are the economic consequences. In the end, they may be far more significant.

Uncertainty is anathema to investment and growth. Much of the current weakness in the U.S. and the global economy is due to the immediate questions surrounding an Iraq war. Yet the Bush foreign policy of unilateral preemption is so ill-defined and open-ended that it could weigh heavily on the global economy well after the bombing stops. Look at the Administration’s agenda. The war in Iraq will be followed by an occupation that could last years, cost many billions of dollars, and involve tens of thousands of occupying troops. That’s a big price to pay if bungled diplomacy means that the U.S. bears most of the financial burden. Then there’s dealing with North Korea’s rush to build nuclear bombs. And Iran’s play for nukes.

The prospect of America taking on this long list of crises—and perhaps others—with little international support is making people everywhere jittery. They fear that, beyond the war in Iraq, the global economy may be continuously threatened by political and military unrest. It is not a picture conducive to worldwide economic growth and prosperity. The first decade of the new century is beginning to feel like the 1970s, when the turmoil of the Vietnam War cast a long shadow over the U.S. economy.

It may even get worse than that. Chief executives are beginning to worry that globalization may not be compatible with a foreign policy of unilateral preemption. Can capital, trade, and labor flow smoothly when the world’s only superpower maintains such a confusing and threatening stance? U.S. corporations may soon find it more difficult to function in a multilateral economic arena when their overseas business partners and governments perceive America to be acting outside the bounds of international law and institutions.

How did the U.S. lose the prewar? Conventional wisdom holds that September 11 changed everything in U.S. foreign policy. It certainly did with regard to Mexico. Before the attacks, President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox were close friends on the verge of a new bilateral agreement liberalizing Mexican immigration to America. Bush made a rare trip outside the U.S. to Fox’s ranch and had lunch with Fox’s mother. After September 11, Bush abruptly ended all talks, hurting Fox politically in his own country. The message was clear: The most critical issue for the President of Mexico was no longer of any concern to the President of the U.S. Fast-forward two years, and the U.S. is heavy-handedly demanding that Mexico deliver its vote in the Security Council for a second resolution on Iraq. Instead of caving, as Washington assumed, Mexico is resisting. Bush alienated a friend and is paying the price.

But the seeds of the current diplomatic disaster were planted in the first year of the Bush Administration, well before September 11. That’s when Washington defined its foreign policy, which has come to be seen as the three “D’s”—disdain, disregard, and disrespect for treaties, allies, and friends. In those early months, the Administration managed to insult the heads of both North and South Korea, an amazing policy feat. Bush was quoted as saying North Korea’s Prime Minister was a “pygmy,” and later said “I loathe Kim Jong Il.” And Bush humiliated South Korea’s Kim Dae Jung on his visit to the White House by publicly repudiating his opening to the North, a popular policy at home.

At the same time, the U.S. simply walked away from both the Kyoto global warming treaty, infuriating the Europeans, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, angering the Russians. A personal rapport between Bush and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin papered over the humiliation felt by Russia. In exchange for help in the war in Afghanistan, the Administration did give Moscow a green light in Chechnya. But it never made the effort in Congress to lift the Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions on Russia imposed during the Cold War. In short, Washington treated Russia as cavalierly as it treated Mexico and Europe. Now, bolstered by new oil riches and courted by France and Germany, Russia is trying to regain some of its luster as a world power by threatening to veto a second U.N. resolution on Iraq. The White House has been surprised by the move—yet another diplomatic miscalculation.

September 11 did matter greatly, of course, in redirecting U.S. foreign policy. Into the breach opened by the first massive act of terrorism against the country, the Bush Administration published The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, a formal codification of the White House’s intentions. It rightly stated that two new realities of life—terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—are restructuring the global order. The Cold War foreign policies of containment and mutually assured destruction can’t work when suicidal fanatics, rather than rational states, are the major threat to America. The document also says these policies can’t work when terrorists can get access to biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons from failing states or dictatorships. But the Bush Administration’s prescription was a Pax Americana that broke traditional norms of international behavior. Since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the concept of the sovereignty of states has been sacrosanct. Nations are open to attack only when they actually do something to threaten another country. An imperial America acting alone to spread democracy by the sword may appeal to a handful of neocon ideologues, but it doesn’t sit well with many Americans—and especially not with people around the world.

The Bush Doctrine, laid out in the national security paper, has three tenets: that unilateral measures are better than international treaties and organizations in dealing with global problems; that no country or combination of countries will ever be allowed to challenge U.S. military dominance; and that the U.S. is free to take preemptive action against terrorists and states that have weapons of large-scale destruction. In short, it’s my way or the highway. As a foreign policy, it is both arrogant—certain to generate opposition by even the most friendly of countries—and corrosive, certain to undermine multilateral institutions and agreements, including those in the economic sphere. Worse still, it is ill-constructed and confusing, making for a more, not less, uncertain and dangerous world.

The Bush Doctrine never defines just when the U.S. will act preemptively and take sovereignty away from a nation. That vagueness is apparent in the first test case of the preemption policy—Iraq. The White House has said Iraq was helping the terrorists of al Qaeda. Then it argued that Iraq had to be disarmed because of the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Then the Administration said a change in Iraqi regime was required to disarm the country. It has offered the grand vision of establishing democracy in Iraq. Washington is now suggesting that regime change and democracy in Iraq would help settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This jumble of reasons has undermined the credibility of the entire invasion, even though there are strong grounds to disarm Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who gases his own people, wages war on his neighbors, and builds weapons of mass destruction that terrorists could potentially bring to Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Paris, Berlin—and elsewhere.

North Korea adds further confusion to the Bush Doctrine. Washington insists it has no intention of preempting Pyongyang’s nascent nuclear arsenal and wants regional powers—China, South Korea, and Japan—to take the lead in negotiations. But if preemption works in Iraq, why not North Korea? And what about Iran? These questions can only make the world, and the world economy, more volatile and uncertain.

The U.S. will win militarily in Iraq, but a victory in the period after the war is still in question. Whether the damage done by inept diplomacy will be long-lasting and deep will depend on whether the Bush Administration acts magnanimously and invites those nations who opposed the war to help rebuild Iraq. Holding grudges, as the White House has done against Germany, will be expensive. There are thousands of German troops in Afghanistan and Bosnia maintaining the peace.

President Bush might want to take some advice from his father, who clearly offered it up in a rare public speech at Tufts University in late February. Looking back at his effort at healing his relationship with Jordan, which sided with Iraq in the first Gulf War, the elder Bush said: “I think there’s a message in that for those who today say, How can we ever put things together? The answer is: You’ve got to reach out to the other person. You’ve got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity.”

But that implies a belief that long-term friendships are important—a belief that it is not clear George W. Bush shares. From the outset, the Bush White House has emphasized hard power—the military. Yet the U.S. derives much of its influence from leading a global political economy based primarily on American values. Since the end of the Cold War, the world has been moving toward this integrated system of democratic capitalism. Terrorism and the need to fight it don’t change that. In fact, a multilateral effort to combat terrorism should reinforce this unity. To win the postwar in Iraq, America needs a multilateral foreign policy shared by its allies and feared by its enemies.

It is true that the Bush Administration did, belatedly, go to the Security Council and did receive a unanimous vote for Resolution 1441, which calls for Iraq to disarm or face the consequences. But then, of course, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made the diplomatic gaffe of publicly insulting France and Germany by calling them “Old Europe.” This stoked anti-American fires across Europe. France went on to disown 1441. Had it not, the U.S. might now be poised to fight as part of multilateral U.N. military force.

The price the Bush Administration is paying for its failed diplomacy is high, and it promises to rise even further. A world divided between multilateral economic and unilateral security policies is an uncertain and risky place. It is not likely to encourage economic growth or prosperity. The Administration risks turning what was once trumpeted as the American Century into the Anti-American Century.

Nussbaum is the Editorial page editor.

Chinese TV Coverage of War on Iraq

Dave recently linked to this piece from Peking Duck about China’s CCTV9 coverage of the War.

Being in Beijing it’s understandable that Peking Duck feels the way he does. However, from the vantage point of the US – listening to TV News coverage that seems to be blatantly propagandist in its intent – CCTV9 feels kind of more balanced.

See for yourself. Here is tonight’s CCTV9 News from China – courtesy of the DirecTV Satellite (Channel 455)

Get QuickTime

Cluster bombs – proof

From award winning journalist Robert Fisk, writing for the UK daily – The Independent.


Wailing Children, the Wounded, the Dead:Victims of the Day Cluster Bombs Rained on Babylon

by Robert Fisk



The wounds are vicious and deep, a rash of scarlet spots on the back and thighs or face, the shards of shrapnel from the cluster bombs buried an inch or more in the flesh. The wards of the Hillah teaching hospital are proof that something illegal – something quite outside the Geneva Conventions – occurred in the villages around the city once known as Babylon.

The wailing children, the young women with breast and leg wounds, the 10 patients upon whom doctors had to perform brain surgery to remove metal from their heads, talk of the days and nights when the explosives fell “like grapes” from the sky. Cluster bombs, the doctors say – and the detritus of the air raids around the hamlets of Nadr and Djifil and Akramin and Mahawil and Mohandesin and Hail Askeri shows that they are right.

Were they American or British aircraft that showered these villages with one of the most lethal weapons of modern warfare? The 61 dead who have passed through the Hillah hospital since Saturday night cannot tell us. Nor can the survivors who, in many cases, were sitting in their homes when the white canisters opened high above their village, spilling thousands of bomblets into the sky, exploding in the air, soaring through windows and doorways to burst indoors or bouncing off the roofs of the concrete huts to blow up later in the roadways.

Rahed Hakem remembers that it was 10.30am on Sunday when she was sitting in her home in Nadr, that she heard “the voice of explosions” and looked out of the door to see “the sky raining fire”. She said the bomblets were a black-grey color. Mohamed Moussa described the clusters of “little boxes” that fell out of the sky in the same village and thought they were silver-colored. They fell like “small grapefruit,” he said. “If it hadn’t exploded and you touched it, it went off immediately,” he said. “They exploded in the air and on the ground and we still have some in our home, unexploded.”

Karima Mizler thought the bomblets had some kind of wires attached to them – perhaps the metal “butterfly” that contains sets of the tiny cluster bombs and springs open to release them in showers.

Some victims died at once, mostly women and children, some of whose blackened, decomposing remains lay in the tiny charnel house mortuary at the back of the Hillah hospital. The teaching college received more than 200 wounded since Saturday night – the 61 dead are only those who were brought to the hospital or who died during or after surgery, and many others are believed to have been buried in their home villages – and, of these, doctors say about 80 per cent were civilians.

Soldiers there certainly were, at least 40 if these statistics are to be believed, and amid the foul clothing of the dead outside the mortuary door I found a khaki military belt and a combat jacket. But village men can also be soldiers and both they and their wives and daughters insisted there were no military installations around their homes. True or false? Who is to know if a tank or a missile launcher was positioned in a nearby field – as they were along the highway north to Baghdad? But the Geneva Conventions demand protection for civilians even if they are intermingled with military personnel, and the use of cluster bombs in these villages – even if aimed at military targets – thus crosses the boundaries of international law.

So it was that 27-year old Asil Yamin came to receive those awful round wounds in her back. And so five-year-old Zaman Abbais was hit in the legs and 48-year-old Samira Abdul-Hamza in the eyes, chest and legs. Her son Haidar, a 32-year-old soldier, said the containers which fell to the ground were white with some red and green sometimes painted on them. ‘’It is like a grenade and they came into the houses,” he said. “Some stayed on the land, others exploded.”

Heartbreaking is the only word to describe 10-year-old Maryam Nasr and her five-year-old sister Hoda. Maryam has a patch over her right eye where a piece of bomblet embedded itself. She also had wounds to the stomach and thighs. I didn’t realize that Hoda, standing by her sister’s bed, was wounded until her mother carefully lifted the little girl’s scarf and long hair to show a deep puncture in the right side of her head, just above her ear, congealed blood sticking to her hair but the wound still gently bleeding. Their mother described how she had been inside her home and heard an explosion and found her daughters lying in their own blood near the door. The little girls alternately smiled and hid when I took their pictures. In other wards, the hideously wounded would try to laugh, to show their bravery. It was a humbling experience.

The Iraqi authorities, of course, were all too ready to allow us journalists access to these patients. But there was no way these children and often uneducated parents could manufacture their stories of tragedy and pain. Nor could the Iraqis have faked the scene in Nadr village where the remains of the tiny bomblets littered the ground beside the scorch marks. A crew from Sky Television even managed to bring a set of bomblet shrapnel back to Baghdad from Nadr with them, the wicked little metal balls that are intended to puncture the human body still locked into their frame like cough sweets in a metal sheath, They were of a black color. which glinted silver when held against the light.

Again, were the aircraft that dropped these terrible weapons American or British? The deputy administrator of the hospital and one of his doctors told a confused tale of military action around the city in recent days, of Apache helicopters that would disgorge special forces on the road to Karbala; one of their operations – if the hospital personnel are to be believed – went spectacularly wrong one night recently when militiamen forced them to retreat. Shortly afterwards, the cluster bomb raids began, although the villages that were targeted appear to have been on the other side of Hillah to the reported abortive American attack.

One thing was clear: there is no “front line” in the fighting around Babylon, that US forces strike into land around the Tigris river by air and then withdraw and Iraqi forces do much the same in the other direction. Only the Americans and British, of course, have air superiority – indeed there is no evidence a single Iraqi aircraft has taken off since the start of the invasion – so even the US and British officers back at Qatar headquarters can hardly claim the cluster bombs were dropped by Iraq.

The most recent raid occurred on Tuesday when 11 civilians were killed – two of them women and three of them children – in a village called Hindiyeh. A man sent to collect the corpses reported to the hospital the only living thing he found in the area was a hen. Iraqi bomb disposal officers were ordered into the villages yesterday afternoon to clear the unexploded ordnance.

Needless to say, it is not the first time cluster bombs have been used against civilians. During Israel’s 1982 siege of west Beirut, its air force dropped cluster bomblets manufactured for the US Navy across several areas, especially in the Fakhani and Ouzai districts, causing civilians ferocious and deep wounds identical to those I saw in Hillah yesterday. Angry at the misuse of their weapons, which are designed for use against exclusively military targets, the Reagan administration withheld a shipment of fighter-bombers for Israel – then relented a few weeks later and sent the aircraft anyway.

It is not easy to listen to Iraqi officials condemning the use of illegal weapons when the Iraqi air force has itself dropped poison gas on the Iranian army and on pro-Iranian Kurdish villages during the 1980-88 war against Iran. Outraged claims from Iraqi officials at the abuse of human rights sound like a bell with a very hollow ring. But something terrible happened around Hillah this week, something unforgivable and something contrary to international law. One hesitates, as I say, to talk of human rights in this land of torture but if the Americans and British don’t watch out, they are likely to find themselves condemned for what they have always – and rightly – accused Iraq of: war crimes.

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

###