If You Think Bush's Policies Make Us Safer, Think Again
We keep being told that the Bush approach to the world is making us safer. It makes no difference whether that policy relates to the "war on terrorism" (whoops, the "struggle against violent extremism"), or the U.S. nuclear policy, or who will be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Let's start with the easiest first - the appointment of John Bolton to the UN.
John Bolton's Appointment to the UN
First, a nation's representative to the UN sends a message about how that nation feels about the organization. John Bolton has volubly derided the United Nations. He sees no purpose for it - except where it totally backs U.S. policy and action, and maybe not then. Bolton is characterized as someone with an anger management problem, and virtually uncompromising in his opinion. He is reportedly willing to twist both arms and facts to support his own (or the administration's) position. This sends a number of clear messages about how he will likely function at the United Nations, and it will not be as a colleague or a diplomat.
Second, we are at a point in history that requires cooperation and collaboration. Both Bush's approach to the UN, and his appointment of Bolton, only reinforces the "cowboy" image of "We'll do whatever the hell we want, and if you don't like it - tough." Why do I have images of packages of dog doo showing up in paper bags at Bolton's UN office?
Third, the United Nation does need to change and grow. There needs to be more equal voice from all member nations, and the roles - particularly the peacekeeping role of the organization - needs to be revamped and strengthened. Clearly, there are oversight issues when it comes to UN sponsored programs. However, there is no other organization with as many member nations to deal collectively with the problems the world is facing - poverty, AIDS, hunger, environmental issues, etc. The U.S. is sending the message that any "reform" will be one to make the UN an arm of the United States government. This is beyond counterproductive.
The appointment of Bolton is a slap in the face to the nation, the Senate (including Republicans), and to the world. It reinforces the general tone of the Bush administration's "foreign policy."
US Nuclear Policy
If we look at Iran as a case in point, we find that negotiations are on the brink of failure again, and Iran is threatening to break the U.N. seals to its nuclear power plant. Why would they do such a thing? Perhaps because of the growing number of reports that the U.S. has plans for a nuclear attack on Iran.
To preempt the propaganda attack over Iran's actions, it is important to note that according to U.S. intelligence, Iran is 10 years from a nuclear bomb of its own. However, another set of speculation says that Iran already has weapons grade uranium from a U.S. B-52 that was "lost" in 1991. The plane was carrying three nuclear missiles and deployed over Baghdad. In returning to refuel at Diego Garcia, a fire forced the dumping of the missiles off the coast of Somalia. The plane went down shortly thereafter, and the missiles were never recovered.
George Monbiot discusses the implications of the U.S. and Britain breaking the nuclear non-proliferation agreements in his August 2, 2005 article The treaty wreckers. He argues, and I agree, that the move by the United States - and now the UK - into the development of "mini-nukes" is starting a new arms race. The official message is that somehow "mini-nukes" are less hazardous that "regular" nukes. Well they aren't less hazardous and they are not "precision" weapons.
According to a report from the National Academy of Science, and reported in the August 2005 edition of Popular Science, the Department of Defense' specifications for "bunker busting" mini-nukes would be disastrous.
"Nuking a bunker, in four steps
The threat of nuclear proliferation in Asia finds the only nation to actually experience a nuclear attack - Japan - stockpiling plutonium. If Japan is stockpiling, then you can bet others are as well. More nuclear bombs and materials in the world do not make us safer.
The "Struggle Against Violent Extremism
The Bush administration has institutionalized pre-emptive war, the incarceration of "enemy combatants" and terrorist "suspects" indefinitely and without charges or access to counsel. The use of torture to extract "intelligence" seems to be a common practice, and the use of "extraordinary rendition" to states that do commonly use torture is part of normal procedure. There is no rule of law in the Bush "war on terrorism," and apparently no rule of humanity either. How else would one explain the incarceration of more than 107 Iraqi children in U.S. prisons inside Iraq? How can you explain the reports that a number of these children are being abused, raped, and tortured - either to get information from them or their parents? Can such actions really make us safer, or is it just giving a new generation very personal reasons to see the U.S. (and its allies) as enemies?
The process of extraordinary rendition doesn't seem to be working too well either. One of the bombing suspects being held by British police - Benyam Mohammed - was held and "rendered" by the United States for two and half years. The US moved him from nation to nation - "Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan, before he was sent to Guantanamo Bay." He spent his time in Morocco being tortured . Now he is held as one of the planners of the failed subway bombings in London.
Do you think the children held in Iraq might follow the same path.
We are not safer
More nuclear weapons and material scattered across the globe does not make us safer.
Legitimating preemptive war does not make us safer.
Taking a unilateral, screw you if you don't like it, approach to international policy and law does not make us safer.
Violating the rules of law, decency, and even war, does not make us safer.
Torture does not make us safer.
The overriding to the Constitution and division of powers does not make us safer.
Having one party rule the country does not make us safer.
"Christian" extremism is not a mechanism of peace in a "war" framed as a "crusade," and does not make us safer.
If one were going to engage in a policy to destabilize the
world and dramatically increase threat while decreasing freedom, then one would
accept the Bush approach with open arms. What has been successful is
generating so much fear (of both terrorist and U.S. attacks) that people will
accept fascist states for "safety." The policies of the current
administration have not made the U.S. safer, nor have they made the world safer.
Rowan Wolf is a columnist for Project for the Old American Century,
and the editor of Radical Noesis and Uncommon Thought Journal .
Her email is [email protected]
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please review Title 17, Sec. 107 of the U.S. Code. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
© 2002- 2007 OLDAmericanCentury.org and OLDAmericanCentury.com