![]() |
|
|
| HomeFamily | Ron | |
|
Iraqby Ron LiskeyDecember 23, 1998 Immediately following the latest attack on Iraq, the U.S. media swung into high gear beating the drums of war and fanning the flames of prejudice by repeating the standard mantra, "Saddam has to be stopped." The U.S. peace movement was stunned by the suddenness of the attack and the coordinated media onslaught. Saddam Hussein's openly anti-Israeli stance, though popular in the Arab world, confuses U.S. activists who, while wishing to oppose unjust aggression everywhere find it difficult to uphold such standards in defense of an enemy of Israel. This seriously weakens the U.S. peace movement by sidelining many key activists. For a devastating analysis of this recurring problem, read The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians, by Noam Chomsky. The U.S. needs an enemy. Saddam Hussein, although a true Hollywood "bad guy", is not quite up to the task. But the strident deamonization of Saddam Hussein is effective at neutralizing more balanced voices. Like many societies that inherited the Zoroastrian conception of a world divided into absolute good and evil, Americans tend to simplify issues into "us vs. them". It logically follows that since we are 'good' they are 'bad'. The Arab world, which inherited the same dualistic world view, starts with identical assumptions, but of course is lead to opposite conclusions. Thus we superbly mirror each other's vision of the enemy. A review of the facts shows that Saddam Hussein's insistence on reunification of the Basra Province (southern Iraq and Kuwait) is fairly justified, and by no means original. Kuwait, a corrupt fiefdom created by British colonialists a little more than 70 years ago was historically part of a larger region of the Ottomon Empire. We now call this region Iraq. Kuwait's current ruling family murdered the other two families with whom they originally shared power. In the 1960's they disolved the parliament when feeble attempts were made to democratize society. These are the people the West installed to watch out for our interests. When Kuwait was created, the desolate region was only sporadically inhabited by a few nomadic families. With the oil boom, hundreds of thousands of foreign workers were brought in to work in the oil fields and in the homes of Kuwaitis. These foreign workers enjoyed few of the rights we take for granted. They lived in fear of arbitrary expulsion at a moment's notice. Many came from other brutal Western colonies, such as Palestine and Indonesia where conditions were sometimes even harsher. The "government" of Kuwait owns about 30% of British Petroleum (BP). But not surprisingly this vast wealth is not in their control. They are required to keep national funds in Western banks where the West controls the purse strings. There's more of course. The list is long. But does the tragedy that is Kuwait justify the Iraqi attack? Maybe just barely, maybe not. A few uncomfortable facts are clear though. Kuwait is not a democracy and never was. We are defending an illegitimate and corrupt colonial fiefdom that suppresses and abuses its own people while disrupting regional stability. In return Western elites get oil much cheaper than they would if the people of the region controlled their own resources. While watching our media, we often get the impression that there is only one Iraqi, Saddam Hussein. Occasionally, the media spares a word for others. But then only to neutralize the nagging guilt such thoughts awaken. A typical editorial (published December 18 in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat) claimed that well-intentioned Americans, who visited Iraq and who called for a halt to the bombing for humanitarian reasons, didn't understand what was best for the Iraqi people. We are instead asked to believe that the suffering they witnessed (widespread hunger, increasing child mortality, rapidly spreading disease, poisoned water supplies, medical operations without anesthesia,) are not valid humanitarian concerns. However, independent UNICEF fact-finding missions confirmed concluded that these horrors are the direct result of the bombing and our continued illegal economic embargo. Western editorials use Orwellian logic to turn "Collateral Damage" into the moral equivalent of Hitler's "Final Solution," and then claim that this best serves the humanitarian needs of our victims. A cognitive dissonance results. That nagging doubt reawakens. The media beat goes on and we are quickly distracted. The corporate-owned media saturates the publicly-owned airwaves with trivial misinformation, or at best non-information. A recent Denver area study found that the more TV news people watched the *less* relevant information they knew about the issues. In this environment it requires extra effort to remain informed. The following Web sites provide information that is largely censored from mainstream news.
| |||||||||