That's the way the coup crumbles

Jagat · April 20, 2002

<h3>That's the way the coup crumbles</h3>

By RICK SALUTIN

Friday, April 19, 2002 – Globe&Mail

In the spirit of playoff profiles of hockey contenders, I'd like to assess the prospects of the United States as the world's sole superpower. A team in a league of its own. For the country CNN calls the mightiest force in history, it's been a bad week.

The Mideast: Two weeks ago, George W. Bush told Israel to end its invasion of Palestinian territory "without delay," then sent his Secretary of State to back it up. Israel ignored and defied him. In response, the U.S. did nothing and Colin Powell went home. This is not impressive superpower behaviour. Other governments took note. Egypt's president cancelled a meeting with Colin Powell and didn't even bother making up an excuse.

It was especially unimpressive since the Mideast is the most resoluble crisis in the world. Almost everyone knows the answer: a small but viable state for the Palestinians with security guarantees for Israel. It involves one sticky point: Israel's illegal settlements must be removed. I know the Israeli government denies this would solve the problem, which they claim is the "real" Palestinian motive: to destroy Israel. But the point is, the U.S. is among those who feel it can be solved this way, yet they failed to press. Just as striking is the fact that they could impose this solution without military threats, by sheer financial pressure, since Israel is massively dependent on U.S aid. But they didn't act.

Venezuela: As they say in Latin America, there has never been a coup in the U.S. because there's no American embassy there. Last week, the coup happened in Venezuela, ousting elected president Hugo Chavez. In previous weeks, "members of the country's diverse opposition" had visited the U.S. embassy (The Washington Post) and met "senior members of the Bush administration" in Washington who sent "informal, subtle signals that we don't like this guy" (The New York Times). The Pentagon spokesperson said she was "not aware" if the U.S. gave military support to the coup, and Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer suggested the President was pleased. There are many reasons they wanted Hugo Chavez out -- his social reforms, his opposition to bombing Afghanistan ("fighting terrorism with terrorism"). But never mind that, it's all standard, like U.S.-backed coups in Guatemala (1954) or Chile (1973) -- down to the pot-banging street protests and U.S.-allied labour leaders. They all come from the same coup cookie-cutter. What was different is that this time the coup crumbled and Hugo Chavez is back. For the first time, the superpower failed in a back-yard coup.

Afghanistan: It was a total success, right? Except they're still there and still haven't accomplished their main objectives: catching Osama bin Laden and destroying his network. Overthrowing the government of Afghanistan was never more than a means to that end. This week, they said Osama bin Laden probably slipped through their fingers in December, and George Bush warned Americans that more terror attacks are likely, since "cells" are still out there. He might have added that the ranks of recruits to terror will enlarge considerably after his own failure to stem the Israeli assault -- among Palestinians and elsewhere. This is not a question of good or evil; it's an observable, predictable fact.

Are there signs of unease in the U.S. itself, despite the polls and the bland wall of superpatriotism shown on CNN and other public faces of the superpower? Well, there are a few straws in the wind. I don't know exactly what to make of them, but I'll pass them on. Michael Moore's book, Stupid White Men, is in its fifth week atop The New York Times's bestseller list, despite a relative media blackout of it, and its attack on everything George Bush's America is about. Veteran American critic of U.S. policy Noam Chomsky finds his appearances mobbed and applauded. British journalist Robert Fisk says he was shocked at the self-criticism and doubt he found during a recent U.S. tour. People in the Midwest told him the Bush presidency lacked legitimacy because he hadn't won the election. Of course, people go to see speakers they want to hear and dissidents always like to believe they're popular. The South African Communist Party had a well-known member called Comrade-The-Contradictions-Are-Sharpening, who explained at every meeting that the the revolution was about to occur. On the other hand, eventually it did, sort of. It seems to me something is happening in the U.S., but I don't know what it is.

As for Canada, it makes you think. Do we want our forces folded even further into theirs, under the new Northern Command they just announced? And those Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan -- proving again that the fighting there is far from over: Should our government have joined the U.S. contingent as it did, or should it have chosen instead to be part of the international peacekeeping force, helping to provide at least some counterbalance to the stumbly sole superpower?

rsalutin@globeandmail.ca

theist · April 20, 2002

So Bush hasn't solved all the problems in the world.Did you think anyone could?

Intrigue and covert ops will always go on.That is the nature of that particular field of activities.

That world is a grey zone of varying shades.Look for black and white and you just won't find it.

The next white knight riding in on a white horse is going to be Kalki.And He won't be coming to save the princess.

Even Rama was criticized for being henpecked.

Speaking of Rama....

[This message has been edited by theist (edited 04-20-2002).]

Tarun · April 21, 2002

Well thought out.

Radicals (meaning those that go straight for jugular, straight to center, square one, Causal Source) would take it a few steps further, deeper.

So, in Toronto, what r they calling these 4 Canadian casualties?

Collateral Damage or some other apparently 'excusable' euphemism?

Bushel's a puppet. So far he hasn't done anything refreshing.

Same old 'Oil Well' story. I do agree with Bu on a few points:

School Vouchers, Right to Life, School Prayer..

His Foreign Policy simply stated: "Peace is Bad for Business"

He has everyone worldwide shaking in their non-combatant boots.

We really needed school prayer reinstated BEFORE Bushy entered office.

That way we could all brush-up & get a headstart.

"Praise the Lord & Pass the Ammunition"

Tarun · April 21, 2002

Big Rally today in Wash DC against Ethnic Cleansing, Racism & War.

catur-varnyam mayA-sRSTam guNa-karma vibhAgasaH... (Gita 4.13)

Jagat · May 3, 2002

<h3>Partnership of chosen peoples</h3>

By RICK SALUTIN

Friday, May 3, 2002 – (Globe&Mail)

The U.S. and Israel: There is a mystery to the strength of the bond between Israel and the United States. One felt it this past month, when U.S. President George W. Bush ordered Israel to quit its invasion of the West Bank. Israel calmly defied all his demands, and the U.S. just backed off, while constantly reaffirming its bias for Israel. Recently, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated he would abandon none of the settlements, a move the U.S. says is central to a solution. Again, no reaction. This is abnormally indulgent behaviour for a superpower toward a financially dependent ally.

I call it a mystery because I find most explanations unconvincing -- for example, that Israel is a fellow democracy. There are many tyrannies the U.S. has supported, and democracies, such as Chile in 1973, which it has overthrown. Nor do I think the power of the Jewish vote or lobby in the U.S. explains this fully. George Bush was elected despite the Jewish vote in Florida and elsewhere. Nor the value the U.S. places on Israel (along with Turkey) as its stand-in cop in the Mideast. Stand-ins are still expected to be obedient. Iraq was a U.S. ally in the region, especially in its war with Iran, but when it got out of line and invaded Kuwait for its own reasons, the U.S. reacted furiously. Israel is a kind of rogue client that gets away with it.

So what's the reason? I dislike broad cultural theses such as "the clash of civilizations." They seem undergraduate. But there seems to be a deep identification Americans feel with Israel, from the President on down, built on the American sense of exceptionalism: that the U.S. is unique, and uniquely moral, in the history of the world, and lives by no one's standards except its own. This may resonate with Judaism's notion of a chosen people with a promised land, called to be "a light unto the nations" -- a phrase from the same bible that has been an ideological centrepiece in both countries. Maybe when George Bush feels tugged in different directions over Mideast policy, it's this sense of identification that tilts the balance.

Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism: There have been attempts to relate and equate these. Marcus Gee wrote in The Globe that they are "blood brothers." Rex Murphy said they share parts of the same "landscape." I find the idea bizarre. I'm not even sure there is such a thing as anti-Americanism, in the clear, definable way that anti-Semitism exists. A lot of criticism of the U.S. is based on specific elements in its foreign policy; Americans are not targeted for being Americans. Even the World Trade Center was attacked as a symbol of that power, killing people indiscriminately, including Muslims and non-Americans. As for attacks on U.S. materialism or consumerism, the most energetic come from the U.S. itself. Many "anti-American" rioters wear baseball caps and NBA T-shirts; they love American music. You don't find contradictions like that among anti-Semites. Anti-Semitism has a complex, well-studied history; its causes still evoke research and debate. There are institutes and conferences that deal with it. I doubt you could create a reading list on anti-Americanism. It's a phrase. Anti-Semitism is a scourge.

Anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel: There's little one can say to those who claim all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. But most people of good will, including staunch supporters of Israel, agree it's possible to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic.

So why is there often unease and reluctance to speak out? I'd say it's because Israel is usually being criticized for its treatment of Palestinians: for depriving them of land and possessions, or human rights; ruling them through force, systematically humiliating them and exiling them from their land with no right of return. In other words, Israel is criticized for doing to Palestinians something similar to what anti-Semites have done to Jews. Saying this can feel like chutzpah. When, by contrast, the apartheid regime of South Africa was criticized, critics felt no sense that Afrikaners had been severely abused themselves. Still, there's nothing that says a people that has suffered cannot go on to be abusive. Human beings have a documented ability to do to others what was done to them. It happens in families and among nations.

I'm not prejudging the charges, I'm just insisting there is every reason to raise and discuss them (and it's firmly in the Jewish tradition). So, when Israel's embassy objects to CBC airing a BBC documentary on Ariel Sharon's role in the massacre of Palestinian refugees in Beirut in 1982, as it did this week; and when the Jewish film festival cancels the same film, as it did last week; or when Jewish funeral director Michael Benjamin (to whom I owe a debt for his help and friendship when my parents died) drops his ads in the Toronto Star, because of "a neutral editorial policy letting each side express itself," I have to object in turn.

rsalutin@globeandmail.ca