The U.S. State Department issued a warning on November 19th to all Americans on foreign soil. "In light of events unfolding throughout the world, U.S. citizens traveling or residing abroad are advised to exercise greater than usual caution," the announcement said. "We cannot discount the possibility of random acts of anti-American violence, such as drive-by shootings, kidnappings or bombings. U.S. diplomatic posts worldwide are taking appropriate security precautions."
It is not uncommon for the State Department to issue warnings and advisories to Americans planning travel to or residing in certain foreign countries, but an announcement of a global scope is quite unusual, if not an original. Such a warning should cause all Americans to stop and reflect on the true causes of the evident rise in the world's hostility toward Americans. Why should the citizens of a generous, good and free nation have to fear for their lives the world over?
The State Department bulletin cites the recent conviction of Mir Aimal Kasi for the murders of CIA employees outside of the CIA headquarters, as well as that of Ramzi Yousef for the World Trade Center bombing, as reasons for heightened security. Both men are Pakistani. The killing of four U.S. businessmen in Pakistan last week in alleged retaliation for the convictions, the slaughter of tourists by fundamentalists in Egypt this week, and the "general situation in the Middle East", were also cited as reasons for alarm.
The bulletin does not explain the real causes behind "terrorist" acts. It does not explain why the World Trade Center was bombed, or the CIA employees killed, or why the four U.S. businessmen were shot in Pakistan, or why the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were bombed, killing 27 U.S. servicemen. Most Americans are satisfied with the explanations given by their government and the official news media. These explanations can be summed up in the words: "We are the good guys and they are the bad guys and that's why they want to kill us. But don't worry, your government is making the world safe for democracy." We will now examine one of the true reasons the world hates America.
Last week there was a nation living in fear of a massive terrorist attack. This is a nation that has been held hostage since 1991, starved half to death and toyed with like a cat toys with a mouse. The country is Iraq and its big threat to the U.S. is its failure to fully cooperate with U.N. inspectors probing the broken- down remnants of its U.S.-made defense infrastructure. Iraq claims that for the past six years trade sanctions have been starving their children and causing great suffering while U.N. inspectors piddle around, always looking for more to inspect, never quite finished with their work so sanctions can be lifted. Iraq says it has had enough and tells the Americans on the inspection team to leave. Then the campaign of terror begins.
In response to this affront to its moral and political superiority, the U.S. sends 22 warships and 300 warplanes to the area, and begins beating the war drum of destruction. President Clinton, draft dodger turned warlord-in-chief, makes a series of public comments designed to whip up war fever in the U.S. Defense Secretary Cohen goes on television, holding up a five-pound bag of sugar to show how much anthrax it would take to wipe out "half the people in Washington", anthrax that Iraq allegedly possesses. The media war propaganda is so effective that 84% of Americans surveyed support bombing Iraq if it shoots at American spy planes flying over its territory. 54% support bombing Iraq just for excluding American inspectors on the U.N. weapons team. (1) How easy it is to make criminals of so many?
As the U.S. began its military buildup earlier this month, the fear in Iraq must have been palpable. Iraqis remember the January '91 aerial bombardment that killed tens of thousands of civilians, and over fifty-thousand military conscripts by conservative estimates. During the bombing campaign of "Desert Storm", sophisticated American aircraft targeted civilian Iraqi infrastructure such as water, sewage and power plants, inflicting a form of biological warfare on civilians. Such devastation created unsanitary conditions that ensured long term suffering among the population, suffering that has been prolonged and aggravated by American enforced economic sanctions. (2).
The U.N. "coalition forces" (read U.S. and U.K., with token participation by others) targeted Iraqi civilian infrastructure for the purpose of creating suffering, despair and political upheaval. President Bush did not want the credit for putting Saddam in jail with Manuel Noriega or having him knocked off, as that would not go over well with Arabs generally. Iraqis must do it themselves and, so, the U.S. launched a campaign of terror against civilians, bombing them into the preindustrial age and then holding them hostage through sanction-induced starvation and deprivation of the basic necessities of life. The bombing campaign was state terrorism on a colossal scale. U.N. sanctions were economic terror of the same magnitude, causing the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children due to malnutrition and preventable disease. Over one-third of children in Iraq are stunted or deformed due to malnutrition. Malnutrition was nonexistent in Iraq before U.N. sanctions were imposed in August 1990. (3).
The terror, slaughter, starvation and general suffering inflicted upon Iraq by the United States during the Gulf War becomes even more incomprehensible in light of the long-term foreign policy goals that created the war in the first place. If Saddam is the thug the news media says he is, he is no different now than in the 1980's when the U.S. built his military machine for him, and he is no worse than the ruling Sabah family dictatorship in Kuwait who the U.S. put back in power after the Gulf War. What's more, Iraq was and is a strategic asset in helping the United States establish its perennial presence in the Persian Gulf, its hegemony over Middle East oil, and in demonstrating the force of "international law" (read U.S. law) in the entire world. Some claim that Saddam is on the C.I.A. payroll. While that may or may not be true, we may know that the Gulf War was contrived by the United States for the purpose of obtaining its political goals, and that Iraq is a pawn in the power game.
The history of Kuwait and Iraq is complex. Suffice it to say there is much more than meets the eye. The American press mocks Saddam's ignorance of the American political system, but your average American's ignorance of the history of the Gulf region is even more profound. Iraq's southern border with Kuwait dates back to an agreement with Turkey in 1913 which was never ratified. Kuwait was the administrative sub-district of the Iraqi province of Basra at the time. When Iraq was given its independence in 1932, Kuwait remained under British control . Since those times, the unresolved border issue has festered, resulting in short-lived Iraqi invasions in 1961 and 1973. Kuwait has remained a Western controlled "corporate state" colony, ruled by the despotic, Western supported regime of the Sabah family. To Iraq, Kuwait represents the humiliation of Western control and domination. (4).
1990 was the year the Sabahs seemed to do everything to pick a fight with Iraq. Kuwait broke OPEC quotas, glutting the global market with oil and causing a drop in prices. This hurt Iraq financially, as it was struggling with its war debts from the Iran - Iraq war. Kuwait had previously drilled laterally in the Rumaila oil field, which is ninety percent in Iraqi territory, and took a hard line on a number of other issues involving a loan and Iraqi access to the Gulf. Iraq has only fifteen miles of shoreline and the land is unusable because it is marshy. These are a few of the issues that irritated relations. (5).
As irritations came to a head, U.S. government officials flashed a "green light" to Saddam's government that in essence said, "Do what you want, we will not interfere." When Senator Bob Dole visited Baghdad on April 12, 1990, he told the Iraqis that the U.S. had no interest in the Kuwait border issue. Under Secretary of State, John Kelly related the same message; and on July 25, 1990, American Ambassador, April Galespie was summoned to meet with Saddam in Baghdad. She was asked about America's position on the border issue and she replied that it was an "Arab-to-Arab problem." She told Hussein of President Bush's desire to maintain a friendly relationship, and that he hoped the border issued could be resolved peacefully. (6).
On the eve of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, State Department spokesperson, Margaret Tutweiller stated in a press briefing that the U.S. had no special defense treaty with Kuwait. On August 2, 1990, Iraqi troops poured across the border into Kuwait. National Security Adviser, Brent Scrowcroft and Defense Secretary, Richard Cheney immediately flew to Saudi Arabia to warn King Fahd that Iraqi troops would soon be on his doorstep and convinced him to allow a massive deployment of U.S. forces into his country. As the Saudi's cast their lot with the U.S., the Arab world was divided and American hegemony was soon to be complete. The rest is history.
Soon after Iraq's invasion, Bush launched into his characteristic demonization of Saddam Hussein, so reminiscent of his tirades against Manuel Noriega during the U.S. invasion of Panama. "America stands where it always has -- against aggression, against those who would use force to replace the rule of law", said the invader of Panama and the only head of state to be condemned by the World Court for "unlawful use of force." For some reason, the official press missed the irony of Bush's bombastic hypocrisy. It performed its propaganda function with the usual relish, whipping up war hysteria with long tales of Iraqi atrocities. It wasn't difficult to convince Americans to go along with the attack on Iraq because they generally love a good war if the enemy poses no threat and they can watch the action on the evening news.
In spite of the broad coverage the war received, the subtle introduction of a new way of thinking remained mostly undetected. The "liberation" of Kuwait was the ostensible objective that was evident on the surface, while the "stealth" objective was the establishment of world government. With the Cold War over and the Soviet Union ready to cooperate, it was time to move. The "winds of change" were favorable, or so they seemed.
The Bush administration went before the United Nations, first to obtain sanctions against Iraq and, secondly, to obtain a Security Council resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. Both were obtained, as was the illusion that the U.S. is now subordinate to the world body. Bush played the moderate, pretending to rely on sanctions to force Iraq out of Kuwait, while quietly building up a formidable military force in Saudi Arabia. Saddam seemed content to let the buildup proceed.
During his State of the Union address in early 1991, President Bush outlined the bigger picture for the U.S. Congress and the nation. Concerning the Gulf crisis he said: "What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea -- a new world order...to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind." This was the true objective of the war - a New World Order- not the "liberation" of Kuwait. The Gulf War was the battering ram to bring it about. He went on to say that the New Order would be "based on shared principles and the rule of law...", that is, a world government would be established to enforce this "New Order". He also said, "The illumination of a thousand points of light....The winds of change are with us now." (7). The "points of light" was reference to an esoteric phrase used by proponents of world government since it was coined by Dante in 1313 A.D. The winds of change were indeed blowing, not in favor of the universal aspirations of the downtrodden masses of the earth, but the international elite who have wanted absolute power for so long.
Later, on February 6, President Bush fills in the picture a little more when he tells the Economic Club of New York: "My vision of a new world order foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function."
Admiral Stansfield Turner, head of the Central Intelligence Agency, defined the real purpose of the Gulf War even further when he declared on a CNN program in July '91: "We have a much bigger objective. We've got to look at the long run here. This is an example -- the situation between the United Nations and Iraq -- where the United Nations is deliberately intruding into the sovereignty of a sovereign nation....Now this is a marvelous precedent (to be used in) all countries of the world...." (8).
And so it has been. The Gulf War provided new legitimacy to the U.N., put teeth into subsequent Security Council resolutions, and set a precedent creating the inviolability of "international law", which close scrutiny will reveal to be the dictates of the international money and political elite.
The recent "crisis" over U.N. weapons inspection teams in Iraq has given the political elite another opportunity to emphasize the sacred, infallible status of this "international law". "The United States warned Saddam not to expect any concessions simply for doing what is mandated by the United Nations," blared an ABC News story on November 17, which also quoted Defense Secretary Cohen as saying, "We are not seeking any deal in order to insist that he comply with his obligations. There should be no question about that." Cohen went on to say, "He must comply and there must be no compensation or any carrots offered in order to entice him to do what he is legally obligated to do." Legally obligated? By what? By "international law", to which all nations must bow. What is Saddam "legally" obligated to do? Allow the U.N. to intrude into its sovereignty -- to search every nook and cranny, even Saddam's "presidential compounds" (9), to dictate what he can and cannot do, forever. This is the "marvelous precedent" so accurately described by Admiral Turner in 1991 and so wonderfully played out on the evening news from the Persian Gulf.
During the Gulf War, Uruguayan writer Mario Benedetti well described the "New World Order" President Bush ushered in during his Gulf War. In the Chilean journal La Epoca he wrote that the resemblance of Bush's "New World Order" to Hitler's "Neue Ordnung" and Mussolini's "Ordine Nuovo" was not just coincidental. The "express intent" of Bush's war was "to show both the Third World and its old and new European allies that from now on it is the United States that orders, invades, and dictates the law, period."
Benedetti went on to write, "When liberation fever hits the United States, the alarms sound everywhere, particularly in the Third World," which lacks the ability to escape "the liberated wreckage." (10).
Most Americans have been brainwashed by their television sets into seeing their country as a protector of everything good in the world. This is a result of not having a free press. Several months ago Cuban President, Fidel Castro described the U.S. as "King Kong escaped from his cage." The man's official leadership credentials notwithstanding, his statement reflects the true sentiments of most of the world, except for the few who enjoy the perks and privileges of this oppressive system.
All Americans would do well to consider the despotic nature of their foreign policy establishment, so long employed in the wrecking of the world, and now directing its attacks on middle American values and culture. This is the despot that fomented the Gulf War to promote its aims and to consolidate its power. This is the tyrant that plunged two Arab countries into destruction, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and setting off an ecological catastrophe, all for the sake of establishing its hegemony over Mid-east oil and creating a precedent for world government. Of all the accusations the American regime has heaped upon Saddam Hussein, be they true or not, they apply more accurately to the government of the United States. This regime is a bigger threat to its own citizens, its neighbors, and to world peace than all of the tyrants in the world combined. Because the U.S. is the world's preeminent wielder of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, this is an especially ominous thought.
Perhaps by considering the experience of other nations, we may understand why Americans need to watch their backs wherever they go in the world. Whether we know of our nation's crimes, are indifferent, or remain willfully ignorant of it, we all share in the collective guilt as well as the consequences of state terrorism. Our just desserts may not come in a conventional military conflict, as there is no longer any power that can challenge the United States. It will come, however, be it through revolution, terrorism, financial collapse, or any number of natural or man made calamities. It will come, it is just a matter of when.
"Therefore thus saith the Lord; Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbor: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth." Jeremiah 34:17.
Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of
material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.
This page is in the public domain.