|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The contents of a secret UN ambassador report on the Mideast leaked into the press in June. The report revealed in stark terms that supposed diplomatic efforts are a joke, with U.$. imperialism the main source of blame in the Mideast.
Alvaro de Soto is a Peruvian diplomat. He said that the so-called "Quartet" of the United $tates, EU, Russia and the UN is a "side show." The Quartet is supposed to be working on Mideast peace.
The usual complaints came up--about subservience of U.$. politicians to the Jewish lobby. The one nuance of de Soto's story was that he saw I$rael as trying to provoke Palestinian terrorism in order to justify itself.(1)
There is often a petty-bourgeois misconception about diplomacy that it is just talking. In this case, we see that no actor or institution felt powerful enough to do anything if the United $tates takes I$rael's side.
In Iran, we have the same story. Bush tried to make a show of giving the CIA "non-lethal" authorization to destabilize Iran.(2) Yet when the reputation of the U.$. regime is "war, war, war," it becomes difficult for a country like Iran to take the U.$. imperialists seriously. Such talk about "non-lethal" destabilization efforts only soothes some petty-bourgeois ears inside U.$. borders and the borders of its imperialist allies. It may also create some camouflage for a Liberal minority in Iran, relative to a war image. In this case, Iran countered with opposition to the "velvet revolution" idea of the CIA and Liberals in Iran gained no breathing room for the "non-lethal" aspect of Bush's order.
This is the difficulty of singing only one note in a song. If a country is known for wars and coups, even if it wants to, it cannot easily become known as a country of non-military diplomatic overtures.
Bush may feel that he has the authority to nuke Iran all by his lonesome. Yet the next president would be dealing with the consequences. Ironically, we would be on the look-out for a deal to jettison Cheney and maybe even Rove in exchange for support for nuking Iran, if that is what Bush wants. In other words, if Bush wants to tangle with Iran, he will need political capital. His party's candidates for president have all backed war with Iran except for Ron Paul, but how far Bush can go will depend on politics.
Even at home, Amerikans want a war against the migrant workers. A large portion of whites wants to see 12 million so-called illegal aliens deported. If Euro-Amerikans treat people who do the hard work and prop up the U.$. economy so poorly, we can only guess how they will go to war against those they never see or work with. The Bush political base of support is all for deportation. Former Bush supporter Peggy Noonan put it this way at the Wall Street Journal June 1: "This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place." A poll shows that Bush is running against about 70% of his own party: "More than half of those surveyed said illegal immigrants hurt the country more than help it, an opinion voiced by seven in 10 Republicans and about half of Democrats." (3) This is the typical situation where the businessman is more tolerant than the stay-at-home white nationalist wife. Bush sees the exploitation value of migrants, whereas his political base has only random fears.
The toothlessness of Amerikan diplomacy comes out at a moment like now when six Republican House members asked for a legal review of Bush's agreement with the northern Koreans to send them $25 million as a prelude to nuclear talks.(4) The House members argued that Kim Jong-il would not abide by any agreement to nuclear disarmament; even though, it appears that Clinton's previous deal with Korea had prevented action at the same reactor in question. No sooner did the House members complain than Kim invited the UN nuclear inspectors back for the first time since 2002.
How it looks to MIM is that the united $tates confiscated alleged arms dealing and counterfeiting profits from northern Korea. Then the united $tates issued $25 million in new money for the nuclear deal.
The levels of cynicism to the action by six House members against Korea are many. The State Department and parallel actors of five other countries spent weeks negotiating the issues. Then the agreement comes and the press reports wildly inconsistent stories about the money being wired from Macau to Italy and Russia to please the Koreans. We hear a steady drumbeat of junky wire stories about how the imperialists expect northern Koreans to shut down their nuclear reactor in exchange for the money that they falsely reported had arrived. Then suddenly months later we hear that the money never left Macau and the Russians have to offer to facilitate matters--six weeks after the second-stage deadline of the deal passed. So the media is complicit in the foaming at the mouth that makes it hard to take Amerikans seriously.
Next we learn that Kim Jong-il has unpaid parking tickets in Sweden or the like and the House wants a legal investigation. Maybe next time the six countries meet on Korean nukes, the head dog-catchers of all the countries should attend, just to make sure Kim Jong-il does not have any unspayed or unlicensed critters.
As it turns out, northern Korea offered the UN to have their nuclear inspectors return, just for making the effort on the $25 million.(5) So it was not a something-for-nothing deal the way the rabid dogs were all saying. On the other hand, the fact that six House members raised the question shows that Amerikans cannot be taken seriously. After negotiating a deal, the executive branch will face political pressure from people who believe $25 million is too much to risk for a nuclear deal with northern Korea. These same warmongers will turn around to vote for half a trillion for the military each year and go into rapture when Bush names Korea in the "axis of evil." Yet they will not risk $25 million in a deal, even when that $25 million is not even their $25 million, just some frozen funds in Macau. In other words, it looks like there is little basis for support for peace with northern Korea.
For this reason, we commend Bush in his effort to find new uranium enrichment business ventures in Korea. When the Koreans shut down their old reactor, maybe they can buy a new one from the Amerikans. Then after selling Kim such plants, the U.$. imperialists can claim that Korea has weapons of mass destruction and invade to get some use out of that Pentagon.
It's not that we are specifically against Republicans. While it is six House Republicans raising petty points, a deal with Bush has its advantages too, the same way that it was Nixon who opened to China under Mao.
An article as we go to press noted that "Bush goes the extra mile on North Korea deal."(6) The norms of history and meta-policy say that when the U.$. regime is in political trouble, it goes to bipartisan foreign policy as if on auto-pilot. Career bureaucrats assist in the auto-pilot mode while also putting a drag on political initiatives. So backing up to the Clinton policy is not out of line for u.$. imperialism in this situation. We see Bill Richardson from Clinton's administration go to Korea and Jimmy Carter go to Nepal. The solution in Korea is somewhat hastened by the previous deal under Clinton.
Where the uncertainty enters is the political weakness of the leading imperialists, something we have not seen, again since Watergate. All six of the scientific polls conducted on president Bush's approval rating thus far in June showed a decline for Bush from their previously reported numbers. The most recent poll of NBC/Wall Street Journal shows 29% approving of Bush and 66% disapproving.(7) This is as MIM predicted before, that there is really no room for giving the Bush regime another hard blow. Even the reactionary Moonie cult paper the Washington Times said on June 1, "with a little more work he could leave office as the most unpopular president ever."(8)
Bush is losing further support for trying to pass an immigration bill. As we pointed out before, the average Red state citizen is happy to call Kissinger a "communist," so opening the borders is an emotional point, with capitalist internationalism too much of a radical idea.
In France, Chirac's party abandoned these sorts of voters to Le Pen. Now we have Sarkozy win them back with Nixon-like appeals against crime and so-called riots. The underlying class is the same, the labor aristocracy. In 1968, the labor aristocracy flocked to Nixon and DeGaulle and nothing has changed.
With a war like Iraq going on and Bush being a "lame duck" president, it is normal to expect his rating would decline. Truman was lower in 1951 and left with a 23% approval rating.(8) However, Truman's Korean War was far bloodier and intense than the Iraq War. Bush started from such a low level of approval that his whole regime is in danger till elections in 2008. The solution of the imperialists to Nixon's political collapse was to bring in new blood.
There are many imperialists who will say that Cheneyism is an aberration. We see imperialism as a system, with militarist inflexibilities that create Cheneyism. The imperialists may not be spouting a direct "Master Race" concept right now, but they agree with Mussolini that war is the essence of the betterment of a people. That's why U.$. diplomacy seems like a one-note song. When the imperialists figure out how to patch up their differences and soothe the imperialist country petty-bourgeoisie, they'll be back with a full time answer how to spread some more war. Assuming that global peace was the imperialist goal to begin with is mistake number one.
Notes:
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6752239.stm
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6684761.stm
3. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/15/bloggers.bush/ ;
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010148 ;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/03/AR2007060301446.html
4. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3272207
5. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aXKGusspGjec&refer=home
6. Carol Giacomo, Reuters, 17Jun2007,
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2007-06-17T204659Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_India-303510-1.xml
7. http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
8. http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070601-010016-4484r.htm