UNITED STATES NEWS DIGEST
Bush Talks to Reporters on Iraq, Korea
Following a Cabinet meeting Jan. 6, President Bush briefly answered reporters' questions on Iraq and North Korea.
Asked about the recent speech in which Saddam Hussein charged that the UN inspectors "are carrying out intelligence work," Bush said, "Well, I thought that was an interesting statement on his part. And when you combine that with the fact that his declaration was clearly deficient, it is discouraging news for those of us who want to resolve this issue peacefully. He has the obligation to disarm. For the sake of peace, he must disarm; the United Nations has clearly said that. It is in our nation's interest that he disarm. He is a threat to the American people. He is a threat to our friends and neighbors in the Middle East. He is a person who has used weapons of mass destruction. And so, therefore, the world has said to Saddam, you won't have any weapons of mass destruction; get rid of them. And thus far, it looks like he hasn't complied. But he's got time, and we continue to call upon Saddam Hussein to listen to what the world is saying, not just the United States, but the entire world expects Saddam Hussein to disarm."
Asked, "What would it take for the U.S. or any other nation to have direct talks with North Korea? And they claim to believe that the U.S. is a threat to them...."
President Bush replied, "First of all, I went to Korea and clearly said that the United States has no intention of invading North Korea. I said that right there in South Korea, In Kim Jong-il's neighborhood, I spoke as clearly as I said; and [I] said, 'We won't invade you.' And I repeat that: We have no intention of invading North Korea. We expect North Korea to adhere to her obligations. She made an agreement with the United States and said that she would not develop nuclear weapons, and we expect people to keep their word. We will have dialogue. We've had dialogue with North Korea. The Secretary of State visited with the Deputy Foreign Ministerthe Foreign Minister, excuse me. And talking is one thing, but we expect people to honor obligations. And for Kim Jong-il to be a credible member of the world community, he's got to understand that he's got to do what he said he's going to do. I believe this will be resolved peacefully ... it can be resolved diplomatically."
Administration Members 'Subtly Distance' Themselves from Doctrine of Preemption
According to reporter Michael Dobbs, in a p. 1 Washington Post story Jan. 6, members of the Bush Administration are "subtly distancing themselves" from the doctrine of preemption announced last summer. In the article, "North Korea Tests Bush's Policy of Pre-Emption," Dobbs indicates that much of the doctrine was written in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz as the "Defense Planning Guidance," and was ultimately rejected at that time by the first Bush Administration.
Dobbs uses the example of the criticism of the "double standard" applied to Iraq and Korea, to make his point, but he's describing what he sees as a much bigger shift. He quotes President George W. Bush at a Ft. Hood, Texas press conference last week as saying that "different circumstances require different strategies, from the pressure of diplomacy to the prospect of force."
"Administration officials from the President Bush on down are subtly distancing themselves from elements of the new doctrine of strategic pre-emption announced last summer," writes Dobbs. "They are insisting that the pre-emption doctrine ... [that is] to use force, unilaterally if necessary to confront potentially hostile states bent on acquiring weapons of mass destructionwas an option of last resort never intended to apply in all cases." Several "senior officials" are quoted anonymously, to the effect that the Administration "never said that it was going to go around pre-empting in every instance ... there are many other options." Another unnamed Administration official says that "National security documents are ... snapshots.... They tell you something about people's thinking, but they are not the American equivalent of Mao's Little Red Book."
In fact, Dobbs points out, the real "intellectual origin" of the preemption doctrine is Wolfowitz, but when the draft of the "Defense Planning Guidance" was leaked to the New York Times, it sparked "great controversy," and was rewritten.
The article also quotes Zbigniew Brzezinski, who cynically remarks that the Iraq/North Korea distinction shows that the doctrine of "preemption" is to be used on weaker states, which cannot retaliate. He says, "It is less risky and more satisfying to beat up someone who is less threatening than someone who is more threatening." Another hawk-Democrat, Prof. Joseph Nye of Harvard, says that preventive strikes "make sense against terrorism," but are "unwise against states."
'The American Empire (Get Used to It),' Says New York Times Magazine Piece
"The American Empire (Get Used to It)," screamed the cover of the Sunday New York Times magazine section Jan. 5. The feature story"The Burden," by Michael Ignatieffis decidedly pro-empire, and Ignatieff was interviewed on NPR radio declaring that an American empire is a necessity, in his view. Look for this article to get global play.
The article began by discussing the "tension" between President Bush's statements that the U.S. doesn't want to be an empire, versus the so-called necessity, allegedly brought on by the Sept. 11 attacks, for the U.S. to use its global power to bring "order" to the world.
The impending war with Iraq was presented as the portal into the U.S. imperial role, the implications of which have not been fully faced. Ignatieff wrote:
"Iraq is an imperial operation that would commit a reluctant republic to become the guarantor of peace, stability, democratization and oil supplies in a combustible region of Islamic peoples stretching from Egypt to Afghanistan. A role once played by the Ottoman Empire, then by the French and the British, will now be played by a nation that has to ask whether in becoming an empire it risks losing its soul as a republic."
Ignatieff asked whether it's worth it for the U.S. to go ahead in the matter of Iraq, but declared it is. This would be regime change, but it would help people, he said (as in Bosnia and Kosovo).
Ignatieff admitted an attack on Iraq would lead to pitting the U.S. against the entire Muslim world, and create more instability. The only palliative available, he claimed, would be U.S. action to solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, with the eventual creation of a Palestinian state.
Brushing aside the objections of the Europeans, Ignatieff discussed the tasks of imperialism, primarily that of "bringing order." This must be done by enlisting the aid of others, and avoiding the Romans' mistake of "vanity or ignorance." He concluded that the attainment of an age of independent, equal, and self-governing nation states has failed, allegedly due to the failure of nationalist movements, and the evil designs of the Islamists.
So, "the case for empire is that it has become, in a place like Iraq, the last hope for democracy and stability alike." It's a (Hobbesian) struggle as to who will be on top.
A longtime senior U.S. diplomatic source provided a somewhat different assessment of the Ignatieff pieceparticularly in response to Lyndon LaRouche's question about why the New York Times would be running such a piece at this time. The source, a former U.S. ambassador, said that he thought the message of the article boiled down to a few key paragraphs and a very blunt warning to the Bush Administration: Don't launch a war on Iraq, unless you are also prepared to dictate a just peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The source placed the Ignatieff warning to the Bush Administration in the context of the International Herald Tribune publication Jan. 7 of an op-ed by the Council on Foreign Relations' Henry Siegman, warning of Ariel Sharon's true intentions to batter the Palestinians into submission. On the larger issues of imperialism and the American global role, the source stated his view that this was window-dressing to get the essential message across to President Bush and his top advisers: Don't go to war in Iraq unless you are prepared to take on the Israel-Palestine issue for real. Otherwise the consequences will be a foregone disaster.
Britain's Rees-Mogg: U.S. Shouldn't Be Shy About Proclaiming Pax Americana
Britain's Lord William Rees-Mogg commented Jan. 6 that the United States was being too coy about proclaiming an empire, stating: "My greatest concern is that the U.S. is too bashful about proclaiming its Pax Americana. After 200 years, Pax Britannica realized the importance of government building and regime changes to regimes that are friendly. So far, the U.S. has shirked this responsibility."
Rees-Mogg said he believes that a war against Iraq is essential to stem the "instability" in a region of vital intereste.g., bordering on Kuwait and Saudi Arabiaand said he believes the reason British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw have been publicly backtracking from war rhetoric, is a ploy to diminish any backlash: "Labour Party leaders have had quite a bit of agony from their base. Also, the Lib Dems have been attacking Labour. It is really only the Conservative Party that is prepared to do precisely what Washington wants.... [However,] the Prime Minister can deal with Old Labour and the Lib Dems. He is trying to look reasonable. He is saying that there will be no military action before a second UN Security Council Resolution and repeating that war is not inevitable. This cuts the ground out from under his critics."
Asked about the "unilateralists" in the U.S., who believe that as the world's sole hegemon, the United States can go it alone against Iraq, etc., Lord Rees-Mogg said: "The Wolfowitz crowd displays the height of arrogance. You need as many friends as possible. They are stupid. I find Colin Powell's coalition-building diplomacy far more reasonable."
Asked whether President Bush's attitude should be "off with their heads" toward Wolfowitz and the "Wolfowitz cabal," Lord Rees-Mogg said, "Yes, his would be a very suitable head to roll."
U.S. News and World Report on the New Imperium
"The New American Empire?" is the cover headline of the latest issue (Jan. 13) of U.S. News and World Report. It doesn't look like a coincidence.
The article, unlike Michael Ignatieff's in the New York Times, takes a "historical" approach, seeking to trace the strains of U.S. foreign policy from the nation's inception, and to analyze the Bush National Security Doctrine in that context. The parameters used for the discussion are derived from Pennsylvania historian Walter McDougall's book Promised Land, Crusader State, published in 1997. McDougall's book is a mishmash, which traces eight "strains" of U.S. foreign policy thinking, ranging from "exceptionalism," to the "American system" to "liberal imperialism" to "global meliorism."
Ultimately, the article, by Jay Tolson, presents a defense of the Bush Security Doctrine, citing its "moderate" phrases and commitments to work with multilateral organizations, and the desire to create "free and open societies."
By leaving out the economic dimension of U.S. (and IMF) relations in the world, however, he totally skews the picture. Tolson ends up defending National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's outlook as a kind of "benevolent" imperialism, like that which led to the rebuilding of Japan and Germany after the war.
One gets the idea that the key purpose of this articlelong, confused, and turgid as it isis the headline.
Stratfor News Service Analyzed 'The American Empire'
Stratfor News Service ran an editorial analysis called "The American Empire" on Jan. 8just days after the Ignatieff piece in the New York Times. Stratfor, a relatively new thinktank of retired military and others, says that it's not "whether this should happen. It is happening." The U.S. was thrust into the role of empire, it argued, by the combination of the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Japanese economy, leaving the U.S. alone at the top. America had no "appetite" for empire, but 9/11 created an "obsession" with destroying al-Qaeda, which could only be done by intervening everywhere. Now, the U.S. not only has forces all over, "but [has] also moved deeply into the governments, intelligence agencies and security apparatus of many of these countries." Our "advisers" are really "commanding."
This "unintended" imperial takeover contradicts U.S. history as "the first great anti-imperial" nation. This country has no economic need for empire, it simply wants to defeat al-Qaeda, and is "unable to secure its safety without controlling others." Americans "have not yet constructed a coherent picture or named what they are getting into: empire." This will be harder to abandon than even the Cold War was. "How can a democratic republic and an empire coincide? Once this was an interesting theoretical question. Now it is the burningbut undiscussedquestion in American politics."
The analysis concludes: "A global empire whose center is unsure of its identity, its purposes, and its moral justification is an empire with a center that might not hold."
Rumsfeld Pushes Ahead with 'Operation Phoenix' Reorganization of Special Forces
The Jan. 6 Washington Times reported that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has approved a plan to give the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) the ability to plan and carry out independent missions globally, not subordinate to the theater combatant commands. The types of missions contemplated are, according to the Washington Times, "to kill or capture terrorists around the world."
At present, SOCOM's troops, which include the Army's Delta Force, Navy SEALS, and other special operations forces, come under the authority of combatant commanders-in-chief (CINCs), such as the Central Command or Pacific Command, when they conduct combat operations.
The plan described by the Washington Times is precisely what was portrayed by Seymour Hersh in his "Manhunt" article in the Dec. 23 New Yorker magazine, which said that Rumsfeld was planning to turn Special Operations Forces into assassination teams reminiscent of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, which assassinated more than 8,000 suspected Communist sympathizers in the year 1970 alone.
The Hersh article reported that Gen. Charles Holland, the Commander of SOCOM, was the subject of complaints by Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld's aides, who accused Holland of having a case of the "slows," for not wanting to turn SOCOM into a global assassination squad. The Washington Times article, however, said that Holland, who was reluctant over the summer, is now "enthusiastic" about the reorganization.
John McCain Demonstrates His Insanity in Discussing North Korea
"Manchurian candidate" Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) demonstrated his insanity on CBS-TV's "Face the Nation" Jan. 5, in discussing North Korea. McCain raved that because North Korea is the "most oppressive nation in the world, which we've been propping up indirectly by our hundreds of millions of dollars of oil and food support," we should not negotiate, and that the Chinese, "who have been less that helpful so far," must be forced to impose an embargo on the North Koreans. The Bush Administration has said repeatedly that it will not use food as a weapon; the U.S. supplies food to North Korea, 2 million of whose population have starved to death in recent years.
"One of the options we have," McCain continued, "is, of course, is to remove our objections to Japan developing nuclear weapons, since they are directly threatened by North Korea. I'm sure the Chinese would not like to see that happen." Not sure he heard it right, CBS moderator Bob Schieffer said: "I want to make sure I understood what you said. You're saying we should now tell the Japanese that they have the right to develop nuclear weapons because North Korea has developed them?" McCain answered, "Yes."
McCain-Lieberman Duo Announce Joint Offensive for Carbon Emissions Limits
The notorious joined-at-the-hip Senators John McCain (R-Ariz) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn), whose organized-crime links and "Bull Moose" tactic against the Bush Administration were exposed by Lyndon LaRouche, were arm-in-arm once again in the Washington Post Jan. 9, making public new joint legislation to limit carbon dioxide emissions from the electric utility, transportation fuel and manufacturing sectors to year 2000 levels by 2010.
The Democratic Leadership Council's website discusses the "Bull Moose" implications of the McCain-Lieberman tactic openly, without calling it that. The DLC newsletter says President Bush abandoned his campaign pledge to "cap" electric utility emissions of carbon dioxide, "unilaterally torpedoed the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations," and has recently proposed to "study" the problem more before any action. Even though Senate Environment Committee Chair Jim Inhofe (R-Okla) has made it clear that no legislation on global climate change will get anywhere his committee, McCain flanked this on the first working day of the 108th Congress, with hearings in the Senate Commerce Committee he chairs, where he and Lieberman unveiled their plan. The DLC cheers McCain on, noting that "public opinion surveys have always shown that Republican rank-and-file voters are 20 shades greener than the President or Sen. Inhofe."
To complete the picture, Lieberman set a press conference to announce his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President, to occur just as EIW was going to press, on Monday, Jan. 13, at the high school he attended in Stamford, Conn.
Illinois Governor Commutes Sentences of All on State's Death Row
In an historic development, the most important in the anti-death-penalty fight since the reinstitution of the death penalty in the 1970s, outgoing Illinois Governor George Ryan (R) on Jan. 11 announced during a speech at Northwestern University that he was issuing a blanket commutation for all 157 Death Row inmates in the state. Ryan, a former supporter of capital punishment, compared the fight for the abolition of the death penalty to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. In an hour-long speech, Ryan quoted Illinois' favorite son Abraham Lincoln: "Mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice."
|