I can understand the moral outrage generated by the recent Anglo-american onslaught on Iraq - the spectacle we are offered is in fact the moral equivalent of watching Mike Tyson beating a defenceless six year old child. The only difference lies in the context. Thus, whereas normal people watching such a scene would immediately intervene - call the police to help the child, etc. - when international politics is involved, reactions are usually on the opposite side of the spectrum. Thus, 75% of Americans are now supporting the air strikes, which proves, once again, the marvellous effects that well prepared State propaganda can have on the attitudes of the average citizen.
But we have to move beyond moral outrage if we are to understand what is going on. It must be said that the American attack is "justified" in its own terms, namely, to browbeat an opponent back into total submission and obedience. The present international order is based on this simple principle: "the west dictates, the others must obey" - be it in Bosnia, Somalia, or elsewhere. The (weak) movement of "opposition" we're now watching over this issue is thus full of contradictions. It's pitiful to watch the same people who support the western-led "Order" - which encompasses essential features such as NATO "right" of intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, American invasion of Somalia, trial of Pinochet by western courts, etc. - now manifesting their opposition to American bombing of Iraq. These people are placing themselves on very shaky ground. For why should Iraqis be treated differently from Somalis or Bosnian Serbs? They did not comply with western orders, they must be punished - how is this argument going to be contradicted by people who have enthusiastically supported the arrest of Pinochet, or the NATO strikes against Banja Luka?
The same goes for the hypocritical members of the UN Security Council who are now whining over the American offensive - France, Russia, China. They could have vetoed previous resolutions condemning Iraq and authorizing the use of force against her. They did nothing of that kind (for that move would have really displeased the Americans, and thus carry automatic heavy costs for the authors of such impudence); their inneffectual whingeing amounts to no more than this - playing for the simpathy of the world audience with no practical effects whatsoever on the American ability to pound Iraq at will.
We should also note that Anglo-american wrath is directed preferably against very weak countries. It's not by chance that the present target is Iraq, not North Korea - because the latter retains some putative means of retaliation, such as sending a few (nuclear?) missiles against American troops stationed in the South. That would carry heavy costs in terms of American casualties, thus deterring the "natural heroism" of American pilots and troops in general. So much safer to play the role of Hollywood real action hero against an opponent that has 100% nil chances of hitting you back!
BACK TO MY HOMEPAGE
© 1998 Send me your comments
Get your own Free Home Page