Losing Hearts And Minds

This is just a furtherance of the Bush regime’s inability to take responsibility for its actions. Those actions, ostensibly to protect themselves from terrorists, continue unabated. In fact they have been accelerating at an alarming rate and nobody with any influence seems willing to suggest that it might be time to at least start looking for the brake pedal.

As the US is struggling to win hearts and minds in Iraq, apparently by bombing people’s houses and arresting people for the crime of being an Iraqi in Iraq, it is using the same sort of tactics around the world.

In Ecuador, according to the Denver Post “Coast Guard crews have blocked at least 37 Ecuadoran boats and detained more than 4,575 suspected illegal migrants over the past four years, records show. Then, over the past two years, they've sunk a dozen emptied migrant boats they deemed "unseaworthy" - setting them ablaze and firing on them with their .50-caliber guns.” In other words, in the name of counter-terrorism, the US Coastguard is attacking foreign nationals who may be trying to emigrate to the USA illegally and destroying private property.

Setting aside the issues of trade and other inequalities that make these people willing to squeeze into over-crowded fishing boats of questionable seaworthiness to try to reach the USA so they can send money home to their families, one fact sticks out. These people aren’t terrorists, they are migrants in search of work. At least they aren’t terrorists yet. Anti-Americanism is on the rise in Ecuador, just as it is in most places on the earth. Keep sinking their boats and arresting them in their home territories and the resentment towards the US will continue to grow. Eventually somebody will pick up a rifle or make a bomb.

Under the guise of the war on terror, the United States has established military bases in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Pakistan to augment American bases in the Middle East. While these bases were originally presented as temporary bases, it is widely thought that they will become more permanent over time. In February, 2004 Donald Rumsfeld was in Uzbekistan musing about expanding the bases in the area. “We [the United States] have benefited greatly in our efforts in the global war on terror and in Afghanistan from the wonderful cooperation we’ve received from the government of Uzbekistan,” Rumsfeld said.

Uzbekistan is ruled by the brutal dictator Islam Karimov. The Bush regime’s involvement in the area has the usual overtones that have nothing to do with the war terror. Central Asia has large reserves of oil and gas that are mostly unexploited and there is competition for those reserves from Russia and China.

The rule of men like Karimov no doubt leads to an expansion of terrorism as people rebel against them and their allies. The United States ignores the dangers inherent in backing regimes such as Karimov’s and no heed to the possible repercussions to US hegemony by Russia and China in what has traditionally been their sphere of influence.

Uzbekistan and Ecuador aren’t the only places on the globe where the US “war on terror” is being used as an excuse for the enforcement of other US policies abroad. Just as the war on drugs soon became an excuse to protect US oil pipelines and the war on AIDS became a way to sell pharmaceuticals no matter how much harm the extra cost of those pharmaceuticals caused, the war on terror took virtually no time at all to morph into yet another excuse to promote US corporate interests.

Venezuela has suffered under tactics familiar during the Cold War. Hugo Chavez swept to power with 56% of the vote, a number George Bush would surely consider a mandate that provided political capital to spend. Chavez began instituting reforms, basically working to keep his campaign promises. He started literacy and health programs, brought in land reforms, built houses and roads and sewers. He also brought in a new constitution that, in part, made it illegal to privatise Venezuela’s oil industry.

Chavez’s efforts brought him the disdain of the US press and angered the Bush White House. In 2002 there was a coup. It is widely thought to have been backed by the Bush administration who endorsed the coup leaders as the new government. The Venezuelan people took to the streets and Chavez was returned to office. Various American groups, including the National Endowment for Democracy provided large amounts of funding to foes of Chavez in the recent referendum. Although the US government has denied accusations that it was involved in attempts to oust Chavez, the website VENEZUELAFOIA has extensive documentation of US involvement in the coup and referendum funding.

If the US ever succeeds in removing Chavez from office and replacing him with one of their puppets it will no doubt lead to further unrest in Venezuela. Whether Chavez remains in power or not, the majority of the Venezuelan people now hold Washington in very low esteem. US oil interests are more of a priority than democracy or winning the hearts and minds of the people as far as the neo-conservative Bush government is concerned though.

Unfortunately the Bush White House is even less adept at learning from the mistakes of the past than most US administrations have been. While it seems obvious to most people that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend and that democracy is not promoted by plutocracy or oligarchy, these basic concepts seem to have slipped by the current crop of White House employees, their corporate backers, and the puppeteers at the Project for a New American Century. Instead they choose to believe that their doctrine of greed supercedes the lessons of history and the tenets of democracy.

For Canada’s part, our current Prime Minister seems to enjoy balancing on the narrowest fence board he can find. He wants to be at the table for missile defence, but he doesn’t want weapons in space. He wants to help out in Iraq, but does not want to send troops. He wants to help fight terrorism, but does not want to speak out against the policies at terrorism’s roots. It’s a dangerous balancing act, one that reflects the depth to which corporate visions of adequacy have entered the Canadian political system.

We’ve moved our laws, our immigration policies, our rules for refugees, our foreign policy, and our trade policies ever closer to the model preferred by George Bush and his cadre of corporate advisors. While doing so we’ve trampled on the rights of Canadians and non-Canadians alike even while we have risked alienating long-time friends and allies and undermining our long-term prosperity. Our political leaders are more likely to take advice from think tanks like the Fraser Institute and CD Howe than from human rights and social agencies.

While these infringements on our sovereignty in the name of American corporatism are infinitesimal compared to what other nations have gone through, they are very real. They threaten the fabric of our country from the inside. They threaten the reputation of our country on the world stage. They threaten our environment, our social policies, and our freedoms and they do it all in the name of access to the US market.

Given the predatory trade practices of the United States and their refusal to abide by the legally binding decisions of trade organisations such as NAFTA and the WTO and that country’s willingness to ignore the rights of other nations, it is increasingly hard to justify not backing away from the United States as a trade partner and an ally. It is far past time to search out other markets and make new friends. The more involved Canada is with the United States, the more we are judged by American actions abroad. In this day and age that can leave us dangerously lacking in the hearts and minds of others.