Bush's European Vacation: E.U says P.U.
Bush's Weird Tour: A Letter to European Friends. Did Bush get anything from his European "charm offensive" in Europe, or was it mostly spin? Read what the French and German papers say -- quite a bit different from the way the mainstream U.S. press is playing it. And Rumsfeld sticks his foot in it, big time, with his embarrassingly ignorant remarks about China.
Bush's Weird Tour:
A Letter to European Friends
By Bernard Weiner
Co-Editor, "The Crisis Papers."
March 1, 2005
Dear Wolfgang and Jacqueline:
You write that having Bush welcomed in your home countries on his European tour made you "feel dirty," and that you can't understand why your leaders, who stood up to him before, would feel obliged to "bow before him" now, "as if he was a more humble President, with wise policies."
I know your leaders' behavior doesn't seem to make moral sense -- I, too, wish they had been willing once again to take on Bush directly -- but it certainly makes practical sense.
Consider: For four years, your leaders felt they could denounce Bush's unconscionable imperial war in Iraq, and parry his various foreign-policy thrusts, because it seemed possible, and then certain, that Bush/Cheney would be a one-term disaster and there would be a much more rational, reasonable American administration in 2005.
But when Bush was inaugurated in January -- whether he won honestly is a separate question, still to be sorted out definitively -- your European leaders had to face up to reality: They would be dealing with this arrogant dolt for four more years, and they'd better make the best of it -- or, at the least, put on a good show.
And so, without giving away much, they made nice with the guy, had him over for dinner, shook hands and laughed with him for the photographers -- all the while mentally glancing at their watches for Bush's longed-for departure time.
GIVING BUSH POLITICAL COVER
Bush ignored the tens of thousands protesting his policies in the streets of Belgium and Germany (those loud, angry demonstrations were barely mentioned in the mainstream U.S. media, by the way), and in the formal meetings got enough of what he wanted: a seeming breakout of his isolation from the Continent, NATO on board at least tangentially with regard to Iraq, and strong words from European spokesmen about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Bush is trying to turn all that to more momentum with which to peddle his international adventurism to the American and world public.
However, as usual, Bush&Co. are operating as if spin is fact and self-delusion is reality.
The European tour gained the Bush Administration very little. Though Bush tried to tamp down his bullying, I-know-best persona by smiling (or smirking) a lot, and saying halfway reasonable things, the American leader continued to come across -- and you know this better than I do -- as a tantrum-prone little emperor who wants what he wants when he wants it, and you'd better not cross him.
WHO EXACTLY IS "CIVILIZED"?
Bush exhibited his usual monarchical behavior: his cortege driving through miles and miles of deserted streets (residents were forbidden to get anywhere near him), granting the assembled leaders only five minutes of his time each, and abruptly bowing out of a town-hall meeting when he learned that the public would be permitted to question him directly. Add to that this assertion by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that China is a country ''we hope and pray enters the civilized world in an orderly way." Obviously, in Asia as well as in Europe, which countries and civilizations qualify as being "civilized" are to be decided by the White House.
Likewise, Bush's lecturing Putin about the damage the Russian president is doing to democracy seemed to a good many Europeans as so much hypocritical posturing, given what the Administration of Rove/Bush/Cheney/Gonzales/Rumsfeld is doing in America to decimate democratic institutions. (See Robert Parry's "The Hypocrisy Taboo.")
Many European intellectuals saw through the "charm-offensive" tour and honed in on what really was going on, despite Bush's description of the chasm between America and Europe as amounting to little more than "temporary debate."
Germany?s Der Spiegel Online wrote that "despite the candy-coatings, differences continue to separate Europeans from Americans, and when it comes to Iraq, Iran and China, everyone?s hidden daggers are unsheathed.? France's Le Monde said the Bush approach would work only if "he agrees to a partnership of equals, rather than a relationship of dependence between the American superpower and its European vassals.?
THE IRAQ/IRAN OBSTACLE COURSE
In practice, the European leaders permitted themselves to be bullied by the White House into agreeing to train Iraqi security forces and judicial administrators. But they did so with no enthusiasm and often for show-purposes only; several countries allocated but one or two trainers to the effort, and not much money to speak of. In short, the European leaders made clear by their grudging acceptance of the U.S. training program that they continue to believe the U.S. was dead wrong in invading Iraq in the first place, is still wrong in its Occupation policies, but they will help in minor ways in giving Iraqis the tools to help themselves stabilize their country.
Your European leaders joined the U.S. in recognizing the potential danger of having a nuclear-armed Iran in the region -- with, at some point, missiles that could reach Europe as well -- but are not belligerently threatening Iran, as is the Bush Administration.
They prefer, through diplomacy and blandishments, to lead Iran out of the nuclear corner in which it's painting itself. At first, Bush was mightily opposed to such negotiations, but has come to believe that it looks better for the U.S. to approve such talks. But Bush appears still to be sticking to his June deadline for EU success -- and, according to military sources who've confided to former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, is preparing to bomb Iran early this summer.
WE'VE SEEN THIS FILM PLOT UNFOLD BEFORE
The European leaders have watched this movie before. The U.S. permits an international group to try to convince the target nation to do this or that; then, when the U.S.-imposed deadline is reached, and regardless of whether success is achieved, the Bush Administration says it tried the internationalist route ("we went the last mile to avoid war") and now is "forced" to take unilateral action because of this or that infraction.
It doesn't matter that there are no weapons of mass destruction, that the target nation may be years away from assembling a nuclear weapon. The Bush Administration moves quickly, "pre-emptively," before effective opposition can subvert their already worked-out military plans.
The Bush Administration, mesmerized by America's technological might and the ivory-tower beliefs of its neo-conservative theoreticians, believes that once the U.S. attacks another country, the downtrodden masses will throw flowers and kisses at its "liberators" and overthrow their autocratic leaders.
That was the assumed Bush&Co. scenario when the U.S. invaded Iraq -- which, of course, didn't happen -- but they truly believe it will happen this way when the U.S. (perhaps in tandem with the Israelis) bombs Iran: The young, reformist-minded Iranians will take mass action to bring down the rule of the reigning fundamentalist mullahs, and install a democratic, secular system in its place.
Of course that kind of thinking is crazy -- especially since the Iranian reformers have made plain what their position is -- but the Bush neo-cons operate out of such fantasy. Again and again, they ignore the power of nationalism and patriotism; it's difficult for them to believe that in some cases a people might not wish to be "liberated" by and dictated to by a foreign invader. But it doesn't really matter for the neo-cons because the bombs will have been released and the boots will be on the ground: Mission accomplished.
But in those attacked countries, instead of kisses and flowers many reformers choose instead to join, or tacitly support, the nationalist forces in opposition to American rule; a caught-off-guard White House quickly sends in the Marines and National Guard; and the U.S. is enmeshed yet again in a quagmire that will drain its military, its treasury, its sense of itself as a moral nation. It's happened in Iraq, and it's likely to happen if and when the U.S. attacks Iran.
DEALING WITH THE BIG LIE TECHNIQUE
Believe me, we Americans -- at least half of our population, and, in the post-election period, probably more -- understand why you in Europe are so upset. We have to live each day with these guys, their bullyboy tactics, their mendacity, and the ramifications of their reckless policies.
We spend much of our time and effort these days in trying to convince the Democrats to become a true Opposition Party against the worst of Bush&Co. adventures, both abroad and at home. It's not easy, since politicians do not wish to put themselves in positions where they can be smeared as "unpatriotic," with the corporate mass-media more or less serving as the propaganda arm of the Bush Administration.
It's scary. Karl Rove, Bush's senior adviser, is moving America quickly toward one-party rule, by marginalizing and threatening those who dissent too loudly, and by shredding even more of our Constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties.
You won't believe their latest move to stifle opposition. America's seniors, an important voting bloc, are much opposed to Bush's plan to re-cast (and ultimately destroy) our Social Security pension system. So one of the Republican's dirty-tricks outfits took out ads against AARP, the leading seniors' organization, accusing them of hating the U.S. military and supporting gay marriage. The Bushies do anything to win; it's the Big Lie technique writ large.
Can a kind of native American fascism come to our society? You better believe it, just as, decades ago, such a movement based on Big Lies and aiming its venom at a vulnerable minority swept much of your continent into a militarist, delusional system of thought. Sixty million men, women and children died in the world war that followed.
BUILDING AN OPPOSITIONAL MOMENTUM
I would suggest that you and your European friends who are worried about America's direction spend your time and energy convincing your elected officials to re-assert OPENLY their opposition to Bush policies in a wide variety of areas, from further wars in the Middle East (and covert wars elsewhere) to denial of global warming, to the over-reliance on fossil fuels.
Working together -- "old Europe" over there and "new liberal resurgence" over here -- we can create the only kind of force capable of slowing or perhaps even stopping Bush&Co.'s political juggernaut in its tracks: a united opposition of immense popular power that will force them to back away from their more extreme positions, thus saving countless lives in the process.
This struggle is not going to be easy, and we're all going to suffer painful defeats in the process. But hang in there. We WILL bring the light back to our world of political darkness.
Stay in touch, Jacqueline and Wolfgang. See you next month.
Your friend, Bernie
Copyright 2005, by Bernard Weiner
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article