Turkey is being bitterly criticized in the US for failing to allow us combat troops to use Turkeyas a launching pad to open a second front in northern Iraq. There are indeed some who say US and Britishsoldiers are dying in higher numbers because of Turkey. How would you respond to such claims and how would youevaluate Turkey's stand so far. Was it an accidental no in the parliament or did it reflect a coming of age ofTurkish democracy.
The criticism of Turkey in the US is indeed bitter, and extremely revealing. The Turkish government tookthe position of over 90 percent of the population. That reveals that the government lacks "democraticcredentials," according to former Ambassador Morris Abramowitz, now a distinguished elder statesman. Thegovernment is "following the people," he wrote, instead of following orders from Washington andCrawford Texas. That is plainly unacceptable. The view he articulates is standard.
Turkey taught the US a lesson in democracy. That is regarded as criminal. One can debate the reasons andthe background, but the facts are glaringly obvious, underscored even more dramatically by the reaction in theUS to similar crimes elsewhere. Germany and France are bitterly condemned for the same reason, while Italy,Spain, Hungary and others are praised as the "New Europe," because their leaders agreed to follow USorders in opposition to the vast majority of the population, almost as much as in Turkey.
I do not recall ever having seen such demonstration of intense hatred for democracy on the part of eliteopinion in the US (and to some extent Britain).
You have long argued that it was the basic decency of the American people and not body bags thathelped end the war in Vietnam. What will it take to end this war ? What is driving continued support forPresident Bush ?
Public mood is in the US is complicated. It's important to bear in mind that last September a hugegovernment-media propaganda campaign was put into operation, which left the US population on another planet asfar as Iraq is concerned. Iraq's neighbors, and most of the rest of the world, rightly despise Saddam Hussein.But they do not fear him. In the US, and the US alone, the majority of the population -- since September 2002-- regards Iraq as an imminent threat to US security. That was basically the wording of the October 2002congressional resolution authorizing the US of force.
After the September 11 attacks, virtually no one regarded Iraq as responsible. By December 2002 the figurehad risen to almost half the population. By now it seems that a considerable majority not only attribute theterrorist attacks to Iraq and believe that Iraqis were on the planes that destroyed the World Trade Center,but also believe that Saddam Hussein will soon carry out more such attacks unless he is stopped now. Evidencefor all of this is zero, and the claims have been refuted by intelligence agencies and the leading specialistson the topic.
It is a truly spectacular achievement of propaganda -- an achievement, incidentally, which is second natureto those running Washington today. They are mostly recycled from the Reagan-Bush administrations of the 1980s.They were able to retain political power even though the public was strongly opposed to their policies, whichwere quite harmful to the majority. They did so by regularly pushing the panic button, with claims even moreabsurd than their current ones: Nicaragua is a threat to US security, the Russians will bomb from an air basein Grenada, etc.
Take away the fear factor, and the US is probably much like the rest of the world with regard to the war inIraq: overwhelming opposition.
In the case of Vietnam, it took years before the public turned against the war -- on principled grounds,unlike educated elites and the business world, who finally came to oppose the war too but on "pragmaticgrounds": it was becoming too costly to the US. The situation is far better now, because of thecivilizing effect of the popular movements of the past 40 years. But it remains difficult.
Is this war truly the turning point in the way international relations are conducted ? Are theBushies really trying to reshape the world and what impact will its outcome, whatever you predict it to be,have on Israel and the Palestinian question.
They have proclaimed very explicitly, in the National Security Strategy of September 2002, that they intendto control the world by force and to prevent any potential challenge to their domination. It is reasonable toassume that part of the motivation for the attack on Iraq is to establish the principle of "preventivewar," enunciated in the Security Strategy, as a norm that can be followed elsewhere. The plans havearoused enormous fear and opposition worldwide, and among the foreign policy elite at home. True, some approveit. Among them are the ultra-right and large sectors of Christian fundamentalist movements in the US, andothers as well. Osama bin Laden, if he is still alive, must be delighted: the outcome surpasses his wildestdreams. Within a year, Bush and his associates have succeeded in becoming the most feared and hated politicalleadership in the world, as international opinion studies reveal very clearly. If they are allowed to persistin their plans, the future looks ominous.
For the Palestinians, the results are an unmitigated disaster. Bush and Powell speak of their"vision," but are careful never to describe what it is. That we can ascertain from their actions insupport of their most favored client, the official "man of peace," Ariel Sharon. Bush and Powell arenow even on record as stating that Israel can continue to expand settlements in the occupied territories untilsome unspecified future when the US government will decide that the Palestinians are making"progress."
Two-thirds of the US population support the long-standing international consensus in favor of a two-statesettlement on the internationally-recognized (pre-June 1967) borders, with minor and mutual adjustments. TheUS government has barred that outcome for 25 years, and still does. The facts, though uncontroversial, arescarcely known in the US. The Bush administration has gone even beyond its predecessors in this regard. Apartfrom vague talk about "visions" and "dreams," there is nothing to indicate that thesecommitments have changed, unfortunately. Again, there is a lot of work to do.
Courtesy: Znet
