Eastside Revolt
26th February 2003, 22:09
Here is a little thought-provoking article by your favourite revolutionary, about your favorite imperial power:
BY MUMIA ABU-JAMAL FROM DEATH ROW:
WHEN DID YOU VOTE FOR EMPIRE?
["[T]he attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world
peace." -DR. NELSON MANDELA, 2002]
Anti-war rallies are bubbling up all across America, from Iowa to
Indiana, from Minneapolis to Maine. They swell the streets of Paris, of
London, and Berlin. They burst through the souks and casbahs of the
Muslim world. They reflect, if anything, widespread opposition to the
jingoism and bellicosity of the Bush Regime.
Yet there is the sneaking suspicion, the deep gut feel, that these demos
may not be enough to stay the hand of the Bush White House, which seems
perilously poised for a deadly strike into the Iraqi homeland, no matter
the human cost.
Which raises an interesting question: If the government ignores the
wishes of a majority of its citizens, how can that government be called
"democratic" (small "d")? If the White House isn't listening to the will
of the People, who is it listening to? Who decides?
Is it following the wishes of the defense industries, the oil companies,
the military-industrial networks of extreme wealth and power that
routinely feed on the carcass of war?
Time will answer that question--and apparently soon. The recent public
departure of France and Germany from the pro-war club seems to have put
a chink in the U.S. loincloth of developing a "coalition" against
Saddam.
However, no sooner had these two European powerhouses left the tent,
than was sparked the retort from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that
they represented "old" Europe, and that the U.S. didn't really need
them, preferring instead the assistance of "new" Europe, like Poland and
perhaps the Czechs.
Empires, it seems, can be as petulant as teenagers. Petulant though it
may have been, it revealed the desire for Europe, "old" or "new," to
back their play. It also revealed how desirous empires are for others to
bow to their self-evident glory.
What seems indispensable for all empires is arrogance. But the question
remains: How did we get here? How did the nation that boasted of its
"democratic principles" emerge as an imperial force in the world? Who
voted for this thing?
A recent column in the Washington Post suggests that the U.S. became a
global empire as an "accident." It quotes a senior Bush regime official
defending the position of the U.S. assuming "an almost imperial role" in
the world. The short rationale? There's no one else. Period.
It is presented as if this is but the inevitable fruit of the tragedy of
9/11. As if the U.S. somehow grudgingly accepts its terrible burden,
because it alone is strong enough.
This is a misreading of the last half century of history, if ever there
was one. Remember Vietnam? Remember the ridiculous "domino theory"? How
many millions around the world were sucked into that imperial nightmare?
It is easy, and somewhat cheap, to lay all of the present madness at the
feet of the present president; but this is also misleading. The imperial
parameters of the United States may be seen in every American
administration, from Truman on down to the present office-holder. They
may not have used the words, but they certainly acted as if the whole
wide world was but the plaything of the Empire, and if a leader arose
who dared not know his place, he was toppled.
Have we forgotten Mohammad Mossadegh? Patrice Lumumba? Salvador Allende?
Rafael Trujillo? Suharto of Indonesia? Americans may not know these
names, but much of the world does. They know that the American Empire
isn't some kind of "accident" of history. They did it the old-fashioned
way: through assassinations, destabilization, spycraft and military
domination. Just as Rome did.
Who voted for this abomination? This edifice of terror? Did you? Well,
if not, then you must seriously question the notion that this is a
democratic state; for if you had no say in these extremely serious
matters, when has your will been respected? Some democracy, huh? An
imperial democracy ain't no democracy at all.
- END -
BY MUMIA ABU-JAMAL FROM DEATH ROW:
WHEN DID YOU VOTE FOR EMPIRE?
["[T]he attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world
peace." -DR. NELSON MANDELA, 2002]
Anti-war rallies are bubbling up all across America, from Iowa to
Indiana, from Minneapolis to Maine. They swell the streets of Paris, of
London, and Berlin. They burst through the souks and casbahs of the
Muslim world. They reflect, if anything, widespread opposition to the
jingoism and bellicosity of the Bush Regime.
Yet there is the sneaking suspicion, the deep gut feel, that these demos
may not be enough to stay the hand of the Bush White House, which seems
perilously poised for a deadly strike into the Iraqi homeland, no matter
the human cost.
Which raises an interesting question: If the government ignores the
wishes of a majority of its citizens, how can that government be called
"democratic" (small "d")? If the White House isn't listening to the will
of the People, who is it listening to? Who decides?
Is it following the wishes of the defense industries, the oil companies,
the military-industrial networks of extreme wealth and power that
routinely feed on the carcass of war?
Time will answer that question--and apparently soon. The recent public
departure of France and Germany from the pro-war club seems to have put
a chink in the U.S. loincloth of developing a "coalition" against
Saddam.
However, no sooner had these two European powerhouses left the tent,
than was sparked the retort from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that
they represented "old" Europe, and that the U.S. didn't really need
them, preferring instead the assistance of "new" Europe, like Poland and
perhaps the Czechs.
Empires, it seems, can be as petulant as teenagers. Petulant though it
may have been, it revealed the desire for Europe, "old" or "new," to
back their play. It also revealed how desirous empires are for others to
bow to their self-evident glory.
What seems indispensable for all empires is arrogance. But the question
remains: How did we get here? How did the nation that boasted of its
"democratic principles" emerge as an imperial force in the world? Who
voted for this thing?
A recent column in the Washington Post suggests that the U.S. became a
global empire as an "accident." It quotes a senior Bush regime official
defending the position of the U.S. assuming "an almost imperial role" in
the world. The short rationale? There's no one else. Period.
It is presented as if this is but the inevitable fruit of the tragedy of
9/11. As if the U.S. somehow grudgingly accepts its terrible burden,
because it alone is strong enough.
This is a misreading of the last half century of history, if ever there
was one. Remember Vietnam? Remember the ridiculous "domino theory"? How
many millions around the world were sucked into that imperial nightmare?
It is easy, and somewhat cheap, to lay all of the present madness at the
feet of the present president; but this is also misleading. The imperial
parameters of the United States may be seen in every American
administration, from Truman on down to the present office-holder. They
may not have used the words, but they certainly acted as if the whole
wide world was but the plaything of the Empire, and if a leader arose
who dared not know his place, he was toppled.
Have we forgotten Mohammad Mossadegh? Patrice Lumumba? Salvador Allende?
Rafael Trujillo? Suharto of Indonesia? Americans may not know these
names, but much of the world does. They know that the American Empire
isn't some kind of "accident" of history. They did it the old-fashioned
way: through assassinations, destabilization, spycraft and military
domination. Just as Rome did.
Who voted for this abomination? This edifice of terror? Did you? Well,
if not, then you must seriously question the notion that this is a
democratic state; for if you had no say in these extremely serious
matters, when has your will been respected? Some democracy, huh? An
imperial democracy ain't no democracy at all.
- END -