The New York Times Will Print Almost Anything

Posted on Thursday, January 08 at 10:11 by harrisp
Mr. Powell goes on to state: “we are resolved as well to turn the president’s goal of a free and democratic Middle East into a reality.” Now perhaps the logic of Bush’s policy is simply escaping me; but I fail to understand how attacking a couple of countries in the region for things they didn’t do will be helpful if you fail to exert any moral suasion on your friends in the region (Saudi Arabia, Israel) to move toward democratic principles. And then, after listening to Bush carp about Iran for the past year, Powell makes clear that America will “stand by the Iranian people … as they strive for freedom”. Perhaps the Times has neglected to publish the stories about the nascent freedom movement in Iran but it seems to me that whatever the Iranian people want is for them to decide, not George Bush.

And lest anyone miss the point, Powell’s article is clear that America is ready to go and shove its version of democracy down the throat of any nation who won’t kowtow. That’s not quite how he puts it, of course, but it is precisely what he means. He says the United States is “resolved to support the young democracies that have arisen in Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa”. Other than those few nations who have given their blind obeisance to Washington, that is simply a canard. America has utterly failed to stand behind the duly elected governments of any of those nations unless the leaders are in Washington’s hip-pocket.

§ They have continued to support the vicious Paul Kagame of Rwanda while virtually ignoring the Herculean efforts toward democracy in its closest neighbour, Democratic Republic of Congo.
§ They have had no problem with Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe continuing to breathe the air of this planet.
§ They have no problem supporting the decidedly undemocratic government of China because, well, Wal-Mart needs China.
§ They have continued to work toward the overthrow of democratically elected Hugo Chávez of Venezuela because his nation prefers not to be forced into economic servitude to Washington.
§ They have continued to bully each and every nation whose democratically elected leaders chose not to answer the siren call of Bush’s march to war in Iraq, despite incredible arm-twisting.
§ They convicted an American company of ‘trading with the enemy’ under an outdated and bizarre 1917 law because this company committed the horrendous security breech of selling water purification equipment to Cuban hospitals.
§ They have continued to keep hostage a group of people they kidnapped from Afghanistan without charge or trial by simply labeling them as enemy combatants to avoid having to live up to international law.

The list is far too long, but you get my drift. American interests do not lie in fomenting democracy because democratic people might make democratic choices that are different from what America would want them to make; far better to have friendly, or at least affordable, dictators in those foreign lands.

No matter how you slice and dice or analyze Powell’s comments, they all boil down in the end to a surreptitious defense of "free trade". So let’s be clear: all the trade deals that have proliferated since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect 10 year ago today are anything but "free". This would include the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and the General Agreement on Trade Services (GATS). These agreements are highly restrictive and they are designed with several goals in mind: to abolish trade unions; to circumvent the will of democracies to choose their own destinies; to force poorer nations to accept products and produce from the richer nations while blocking the sale of the output from those poor countries; to remove any controls over the movement of capital worldwide and thereby to circumvent the laws and wishes of the various peoples of the world.

Opponents of these trade deals are dismissed as ‘against progress’, or as standing in the way of poorer nations improving their positions. But these criticisms are absolute lies, repeated over and again by a lickspittle press … with the aforementioned Thomas Friedman and his New York Times as among the most vocal cheerleaders for this proposed rape of the world’s people.

Colin Powell can spout all the pathetic rhetoric he likes, and apparently he does like, but the simple facts are that America is not out to protect anything other than its own financial interests. Not the interests of the American people, mind you; but the interests of the few incredibly wealthy groups who long ago took away any pretense that America actually is a democracy. None of America’s military forays have anything to do with democracy — they are solely ventures for America’s taxpayers to enrich America’s corporations.

Welcome to the 2004 version of Newspeak. It is most unfortunate that the New York Times has so little integrity that it would print Powell’s drivel and even more unfortunate that the unthinking masses are going to fall for it in large numbers.

----
Paul Harris is self-employed as a consultant providing businesses with the tools and expertise to reintegrate their sick or injured employees into the workplace. Canadian businesses can reach him at paul@working-solutions.ca. He has traveled extensively in what is usually known as "the Third World" and has an abiding interest in history, social justice, morality and, well, just about everything. Paul is also a freelance writer and can be reached at paul@escritoire.ca. He lives in Canada.

Note: What We Will Do in 2004 paul@escritoire.ca

Contributed By


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Fri Jan 09, 2004 8:57 pm
    This is a political statement of course and crafted to get votes, among other things. To be fair I don't think Powell said that Afghanistan was a democracy now--instead he euphemistically said it was one of the places the US was working to "expand freedom" and then followed that up by pointing to "a constitution, a rapidly advancing market economy, and new hope as they look toward national elections" there. See, he gave the IMPRESSION it's a democracy now without outright saying it, so he can't be pinned down on that when people point out how far Afghanistan still is from being a model democracy. Gotta love rhetoric. <p> Interestingly, a more recent NYT article has Powell admitting that he never saw a "smoking gun" re: WMD in Iraq. <p> "I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection," Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference. "But I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did." <p> See: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/politics/09POWE.html?ex=1074229200&en=0bedf01f1ee25ad3&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE">Powell Admits No Hard Proof in Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda</a>

  2. Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:27 am
    Good article, Paul.

    Something that has amazed me about the Bush presidency and the media\'s role in it is how seldom these claims are questioned in the press. The whole leadership is operating on the basis that if they repeat anything three times, it becomes the truth. Nobody in the mainstream press is seriously questioning that little bit of magic.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news