The Morality of Power
The New York Review of Books has published a translation of a leaked transcript - originally published in El Pais - of a meeting held in Crawford, Texas on 22 February 2003 between US President George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister José Marìa Aznar. This would probably be the most authoritative translation of that document available so far.The transcript reveals a number of notable aspects of internal planning for the Iraq War and the mentality of George Bush himself at that fateful time.
Firstly, it is explicitly stated that the war will go ahead whichever way the UN Security Council votes on any resolution. UN approval is seen only as a rubber stamp, desirable up to a point since it could dampen public opposition in the European states allied with Washington. Thus the system of international order - set up after World War II with intention of avoiding the horrors of future wars of aggression - is contemptuously relegated to the status of a PR exercise by the new imperialists.
Secondly, though the PR value of a resolution is not sufficient to stop the war, its value is sufficient for the US to bully and blackmail other nations in order to secure it. Bush says:
"[Chilean President Ricardo] Lagos has to know that the Free Trade Agreement with Chile is pending Senate confirmation, and that a negative attitude on this issue could jeopardize that ratification. Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account that could also be compromised if they don't show a positive attitude. And Putin must know that his attitude is jeopardizing the relations of Russia and the United States"
Russia of course can look after itself. But the remarks about Angola give you the measure of a President, and indeed a government, that threatens one of the poorest countries on the planet - where most people live on less than 50p a day - with a cut or cessation of development aid if it fails to obey orders from Washington.
Bush's talk of snatching food from the mouths of the starving "if they don't show a positive attitude" doesn't prevent him, mere moments later, from pontificating about his dreams of spreading freedom to the suffering peoples of the world.
Another revealing passage comes when Aznar says that "the biggest success would be to win the game without firing a single shot while going into Baghdad." Bush replies:
"For me it would be the perfect solution. I don't want the war. I know what wars are like. I know the destruction and the death that comes with them. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and the widows of the dead. Of course, for us that would be the best solution. Besides, it would save us $50 billion."
What is it about that last remark that exposes the preceding lamentation of the horrors of war as just so many empty words; words that Bush somehow thinks he ought to be saying, while never fully understanding why?
One of the more notable revelations from the transcript is that Saddam had by this stage apparently offered to go into exile*; an offer which if accepted would probably have given Bush exactly what he claimed was "the perfect solution" - "to win the game without firing a single shot while going into Baghdad". Yet Bush of course spurned Saddam's offer in favour of launching a war that by now has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, with no end currently in sight.
In the accompanying comment article in the NYRB, Mark Danner discusses Bush's preference for faith over knowledge: faith in the righteousness of his personal mission over knowledge of what it is that he is doing. Add to that the contradictions I've highlighted above and you get an interesting insight into the workings of human psychology in the context of power.
Faced with so much propaganda and misinformation from governments, those who challenge power often ask, do these people believe what they're saying or are they just barefaced liars? The Crawford transcript indicates that the former is closest to the truth. Bush emerges as a moral bankrupt who is simultaneously able to maintain a passionate sense of his own moral righteousness. No matter how obviously his moral rhetoric is contradicted by his deeply and clearly immoral actions, Bush's belief in the rightness of what he is doing is total. Quite possibly, he would be unable to do his job if he thought otherwise.
*Bush says of this: "[Egyptian President] Mubarak tells us that in those circumstances there are many possibilities that he'll be assassinated". Later Aznar returns to this point. "Is it true that there's a possibility of Saddam Hussein going into exile?", he asks. Bush replies: "Yes, that possibility exists. Even that he gets assassinated."
Does this not read, more than a little, as though assassination is being discussed as an option rather than a possibility, perhaps to be organised by Egypt?
Firstly, it is explicitly stated that the war will go ahead whichever way the UN Security Council votes on any resolution. UN approval is seen only as a rubber stamp, desirable up to a point since it could dampen public opposition in the European states allied with Washington. Thus the system of international order - set up after World War II with intention of avoiding the horrors of future wars of aggression - is contemptuously relegated to the status of a PR exercise by the new imperialists.
Secondly, though the PR value of a resolution is not sufficient to stop the war, its value is sufficient for the US to bully and blackmail other nations in order to secure it. Bush says:
"[Chilean President Ricardo] Lagos has to know that the Free Trade Agreement with Chile is pending Senate confirmation, and that a negative attitude on this issue could jeopardize that ratification. Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account that could also be compromised if they don't show a positive attitude. And Putin must know that his attitude is jeopardizing the relations of Russia and the United States"
Russia of course can look after itself. But the remarks about Angola give you the measure of a President, and indeed a government, that threatens one of the poorest countries on the planet - where most people live on less than 50p a day - with a cut or cessation of development aid if it fails to obey orders from Washington.
Bush's talk of snatching food from the mouths of the starving "if they don't show a positive attitude" doesn't prevent him, mere moments later, from pontificating about his dreams of spreading freedom to the suffering peoples of the world.
Another revealing passage comes when Aznar says that "the biggest success would be to win the game without firing a single shot while going into Baghdad." Bush replies:
"For me it would be the perfect solution. I don't want the war. I know what wars are like. I know the destruction and the death that comes with them. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and the widows of the dead. Of course, for us that would be the best solution. Besides, it would save us $50 billion."
What is it about that last remark that exposes the preceding lamentation of the horrors of war as just so many empty words; words that Bush somehow thinks he ought to be saying, while never fully understanding why?
One of the more notable revelations from the transcript is that Saddam had by this stage apparently offered to go into exile*; an offer which if accepted would probably have given Bush exactly what he claimed was "the perfect solution" - "to win the game without firing a single shot while going into Baghdad". Yet Bush of course spurned Saddam's offer in favour of launching a war that by now has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, with no end currently in sight.
In the accompanying comment article in the NYRB, Mark Danner discusses Bush's preference for faith over knowledge: faith in the righteousness of his personal mission over knowledge of what it is that he is doing. Add to that the contradictions I've highlighted above and you get an interesting insight into the workings of human psychology in the context of power.
Faced with so much propaganda and misinformation from governments, those who challenge power often ask, do these people believe what they're saying or are they just barefaced liars? The Crawford transcript indicates that the former is closest to the truth. Bush emerges as a moral bankrupt who is simultaneously able to maintain a passionate sense of his own moral righteousness. No matter how obviously his moral rhetoric is contradicted by his deeply and clearly immoral actions, Bush's belief in the rightness of what he is doing is total. Quite possibly, he would be unable to do his job if he thought otherwise.
*Bush says of this: "[Egyptian President] Mubarak tells us that in those circumstances there are many possibilities that he'll be assassinated". Later Aznar returns to this point. "Is it true that there's a possibility of Saddam Hussein going into exile?", he asks. Bush replies: "Yes, that possibility exists. Even that he gets assassinated."
Does this not read, more than a little, as though assassination is being discussed as an option rather than a possibility, perhaps to be organised by Egypt?
Labels: Iraq, US Imperialism
posted by David Wearing at 4:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home