|
[Previous entry: "Richard George May, 1939-2004"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Much ado about nothing"] 28 July 2004: "Everything is ultimately the Americans' fault"While discussing the political ramifications of Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore's latest film, in his column a weeks ago, The Economist's commentator on American politics, the pseudonymous Lexington, made the following observation: But "Fahrenheit 9/11" also has some worrying implications for the Democrats. It reminds middle America that liberal activists like to blame their own country for the world's problems.Though I'm far from sure I agree with the "liberal" label Lexington apples, I have to concede (much as it pains me to do so) that such a tendency does indeed exist. Over the past three years, if not more, on various discussion boards as well as in everyday life, I've encountered what I shall term (as a convenient shorthand) the "Chomskyite tendency." Not all people who exhibit this behaviour are devotees of professor Chomsky, but the pattern of discourse is quite similar. The pattern starts when, in a discussion concerning a Bad Thing which is occurring, or has in the past occurred, on the global stage, my interlocutor will focus on the role played by the United States government, and express criticism of same for undertaking—or failing to undertake—a certain course of action. In response, I may acknowledge or contest the United States' role in the affair, and generally point out the less than laudatory role played by other countries in the same matter, and I point out that my interlocutor appears to be wielding a double standard. This person will then counter with "but I hold the United States to a higher standard," supporting this position either on the basis that he or she is an American citizen, or pointing to American political rhetoric about being the Champion of Democracy, Leader of the Free World, and all that jazz. As the discussion develops, however, this claim more often than not proves to be a fig leaf. Ultimately, my interlocutor wants to blame the whole thing on the Americans, regardless of the role played by other governments. Nowhere has this better been demonstrated than in the oft-repeated trope regarding Saddam Hussein that "yes, he was a monster, but we [the US] created him." In response, I will point out that, under the Ba'ath régime (1968 onwards), the bulk of military hardware was purchased from the Soviet Union, other Warsaw Pact member states, France and China. I will also point out that the various Iraqi security and intelligence agencies of that period learnt their torture techniques from Soviet and East German instructors (in exhange for hard cash) in the early 1970s, that an Iraqi-Soviet Friendship Treaty was announced in April 1972 (even as the United States was severing ties with Iraq), and that, in a nutshell, the historical record indicates that Saddam was perfectly capable of becoming a monster, even without American assistance. I will also point out that the resumption of diplomatic relations between the US and Iraq in late 1983 occurred well over a year after Iraq, having had its forces driven out of Iran in mid-1982, had sued for peace; the Iranian response had been that they would settle for nothing less than the overthrow of the Ba'athist régime and, by implication, its replacement with a government more friendly towards Iran. Taken by itself, such a response might have seemed fair enough, were it not for the fact that (a) the Iranian government, then led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, was not imposing any sacrifice upon itself by this policy, even as it ordered thousands of men and boys to an early grave, and (b) the Iranian government was pledged to exporting the (Shi'ite) "Islamic Revolution" beyond its borders, with the Iraq and the oil-rich Gulf states as its most obvious first line of targets. Given Iran's hostility towards the non-Shi'ite world in general, and the United States in particular, it is obvious that the US had to do something to stem the Iranian tide. It did so by providing limited--not wholehearted--support to Saddam, in a classic exercise of Realpolitik. Ugly, but far from "creating the monster." As I have discussed before, the United States certainly provided support to Iraq from 1983 to 1988. The DIA provided intelligence on Iranian troop deployments to the Iraqis, and allegedly even battle plans based on this intelligence. However, the linked article also notes that, while the Reagan administration--supposedly--turned a blind eye to Iraq's use of chemical warfare agents as long as they were used against Iranian troops, it did not openly condone this use of CW agents, and did not make provisions for their use in the battle plans supplied to the Iraqis. One might even conclude that the American effort was aimed at allowing the Iraqis to hold off the Iranians without resorting to CW agents. In the meantime, however, there is precious little evidence that the United States consciously supplied weapons to Iraq before, during or after the Iran-Iraq War. As this report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute indicates, weapons systems sold by the US to Iraq from 1973 to 2002 consisted of unarmed helicopters "officially for civilian use, but taken over by Air Force [after delivery]." Along similar lines, the much-touted bacterial culture samples delivered to Iraq by bodies in the United States during the United States were "officially for civilian use," i.e. for legitimate medical research purposes. Only later, after 1991, was it discovered that these cultures had been requested through front organisations for use in Iraq's bioweapons programme. Once again, I will quote UNSCOM bioweapons inspector Jonathan Tucker: I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs.Emphasis in bold mine. Given that the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme in the 1970s and early 1980s was entirely reliant on French supplies, such as the Osirak/Tammuz 1 reactor (until the Israelis blew it off the map), the only other question concerns Iraq's chemical capability. Again, the US blocked sales of precursors for sulphur mustard, tabun and sarin in early 1984. At this point, the most likely source for know-how and materials regarding CW agents was the Warsaw Pact, and possibly China and France. After all, these were the countries which were providing Saddam with his other military hardware, mostly on credit, and thus had a compelling interest to not see Saddam overthrown. (An interest, I might add, which continued to play a role right up to 2003, as Saddam had not paid off his debts by that time.) We wandered the streets and open markets of Kabul, speaking to the townspeople milling about. "Indeed," said Abdulla Matif, a cafe owner in downtown Kabul. "The destruction of the Taliban has been the most horrific crime ever perpetrated against the Afghani people."That just says it all. The stupid thing is how far certain nationalities will go pin their grievances on the United States. In Robert Kaplan's Balkan Ghosts, the author runs into a number of Romanians who blame all of Romania's sorrows post-1945 on the fact that "Roosevelt sold us out at Yalta." Never mind that Romania had been aligned with Nazi Germany. Never mind that two Romanian armies—the 3rd and 4th—had taken part in Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, in 1941. Never mind that Romanian troops and gendarmerie participated in the slaughter of Ukrainian Jews with an enthusiasm that surprised even the members of Einsatzgruppe D. Never mind that the Romanian government had surrendered to the Soviet Union in August 1944, six months prior to Yalta, and that as a result, Soviet control over Romania was firmly established long before Yalta took place. Never mind that the United States might have reasonably felt at the time that it was more important to concentrate on defeating Japan rather than butting heads with the Soviet Union (even before the defeat of Germany was complete) over some Axis member state. And heaven forbid that Romania's plight might be blamed on the actions of Marshal Ion Antonescu, Gheorge Gheorgiu-Dej, Nicholae Ceausescu, their respective followers or, indeed, any Romanian at all. And speaking of historical revisionism, in one online discussion recently, I ran across a bunch of guys who were of the opinion that the United States' primary reason for getting involved in World War II was to promote the interest of American businesses. That's right, even when the Americans do the right thing, like playing major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, there's no possible way they could have done so except out of corporate interests. Well, maybe that can serve as the subject of Michael Moore's first historical "documentary." |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
