Hope
“Hope springs eternal in the human breast; man never is but always to be blest.” Alexander Pope (1688 – 1744)
The nature of our human condition arouses in most of us an eternal quest—a quest for something that may be described as a concept of “better”—an idea of an imagined utopia. Indeed, some quest, desire, goal, wish, ambition or objective for the here and now, or the after life that informs and drives our actions. Call this propensity of human nature by a name—“Hope”.
As individual human striving is propelled by hope, so too is there a societal concurrence in political struggle. Which point brings us to “democracy” and “freedom” as professed ideals born of hope.
If one honestly believed that the world is solely propelled by noble political ideals, then political power’s encounter with reality would have to be ignored. The convergence of power and the actualities of the real world invite more often than not an altogether Machiavellian appreciation of the scheme of human affairs. A somewhat cynical, more disbelieving, all together Faustian irreverence is required to grasp what is really afoot in this world we hope to make a better place. In suggesting this, there are also those instances of figmental and hypocritical “just causes” seeking to legitimise political action. Three countries come to mind illustrating “Hope, democracy and freedom” operating in political processes as these are and not as ideally imagined to be. “Hope” would have to exist in Haiti for the people to respond to the events of the recent past with inspiration and confidence in the immediate political future of that country. “Democracy” brings Israel to mind. “Freedom” has to be struggled for in Iran as a nation seeking to resist the same recent fate as Iraq, having had democracy unhinged in 1953. How so?
Haiti – hope again
On the eve of the French Revolution Haiti (then known as San Domingo) was France’s most valuable tropical possession and as a slave colony supplied two-thirds of all of Europe’s tropical produce. The Haitian slaves began their revolt in 1791. The main leader of the revolt, Toussaint L’Overture, was invited by the French to parley and was then kidnapped and taken to France where he died in 1803.
In their two hundred year history one must castigate the Haitians for their audacity, as mere descendants of African slaves, having taken seriously the shibboleth “liberty, equality, fraternity”. How dare they aspire – defeat Napoleon’s army - and thus they deserved:-
1801 – Toussaint L’Ouverture, of slave stock, abolished slavery in Haiti.
1803 – Toussaint L’Overture having been kidnapped by the French, dies in a French prison. He had this to say to his captors, “In overthrowing me, you have cut down in San Domingo only the trunk of the tree of black liberty. It will spring again by the roots for they are numerous and deep”.
1804 - Haiti declares independence on 1st January and former slave Jean-Jacques Dessalines declares himself emperor and establishes Haiti as the world’s first Black Republic and Latin America’s first independent country.
1825 - Haiti is compelled to pay 150 million Francs to France in compensation for loss of French “property” ( read “property” then consider “human beings” as part of the compensation being paid to France by the former slaves in compensation for having freed themselves). The United States and Europe had imposed sanctions against Haiti that crippled its ability to trade and imposed this reparations claim that Haiti continued to pay to France until the 1950s. Debt became a millstone from the early days of the Haitian revolution, as France on behalf of the plantocracy demanded compensation by way of substantial payments that have remained a burden to modern times and a harness on the country’s advancement, historically needing, as it has, inward investment and fair terms of trade and opportunities for economic development.
1915 - US invades Haiti to protect endangered property and investments. The US introduced a system of repression via its military occupation from 1915 to 1934 and the army established by the US served its purpose in repressing the Haitian people.
1956 – Dr. Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier seizes power in a military coup and then becomes president.
1971 - Duvalier dies and is succeeded by his 19-year-old son, Jean-Claude, known as “Baby Doc”, and the country has another president-for-life.
1986 - Baby Doc flees Haiti under popular pressure. Lieutenant-General Henri Namphy replaces him as head of a governing council. From 1956 to 1986 there never was any concerted effort by the US against the repression in Haiti, want of democracy, or any equally concerted effort to oust the repressive regimes that had dominated, oppressed and further impoverished the Haitian people. The US had approved of and accepted the status quo that was the rule of the two Duvaliers..
1988 - Leslie Manigat becomes president. He is ousted in a coup led by Brigadier-General Prosper Avril. A civilian government under military control is installed.
1990 - Jean-Bertrand Aristide is elected president of Haiti in free elections.
1991 - Aristide is ousted in a coup led by Brigadier-General Raoul Cedras. This results in sanctions by the US and the Organisation of American States.
1994 – The military regime relinquishes power in the face of an imminent US invasion. US forces oversee a transition to a civilian government and Aristide returns, as here signals a change in US policy in its treatment of Haiti. While approved by the UN, the restoration of Aristide was essentially a US run operation.
1995 – Aristide demobilises the army that had been first established by the US during the period of occupation (1915- 1934)
1996 - Rene Preval is sworn in as president.
2000 November – Jean Bertrand Aristide is elected as president for a second non-consecutive term.
2002 July - Haiti is approved as a full member of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) trade bloc.
2003 – President Jean Bertrand Aristide calls on France to repay $21B to Haiti in reparations equating this to the 150 Francs Haiti had to pay to France in 1825.
2004 – Aristide is overthrown in a US backed coup (one can accurately say that the goons were supported by the US; or, as William Jennings Bryan some 80 years ago, as then Secretary of Sate under President Woodrow Wilson, would have put it if around – the “coons” were backed by the US to oust Aristide. Bryan is remembered for his telling observation about Haiti and the Haitian people, “Imagine! Niggers speaking French.”)
2006 7 February - General elections, the first since former President Aristide was overthrown in 2004. Rene Preval is elected with his nearest rival receiving a mere 12% of the vote. The point here is that the US under the Bush administration staunchly opposed Aristide and it is somewhat ironic that as Preval is a close associate of Aristide and his de facto proxy, for all the media hype about popular disaffection in Haiti against Aristide trumpeted and echoed around the world in the Western media, there is this year an overwhelming victory for Aristide’s man.
“ Imagine! Niggers speaking French” (per William Jennings Bryan – Secretary of State to President Woodrow Wilson) and hoping to be free from poverty and oppression. Some may see the Niggers’ cup as hopelessly below half empty and beyond the break-even mark of social and economic development. Others may see that same cup of the Niggers as half-full with hope for fair opportunities in the future. Domination by debt, repression, impoverishment with further onerous loans and absence of inward investment in a consequentially unstable socio-economic environment leaves Haiti from 1825 and onwards, knocking at development’s door. And Aristide’s crime when the US armed and trained rebels to oust him? – wanting to respond to, address, and ultimately defeat poverty in Haiti through the democratic process. A more egregious wrong was Aristide’s “crime” of raising at the highest diplomatic levels the historical cum contemporary issue of the $21B in reparations sought from France. The CIA and a US funded paramilitary group called FRAPH effected the destabilisation of Haiti and similar to L’ Overture Aristide was ousted, removed from the country and banished as an undesirable who the US no longer approved of despite his landslide democratic electoral victory. Beyond the façade of free and fair elections approved by the US, hope remains for sustainable development.
Israel - democracy
How does one have a theocracy professing itself to be a democracy?
If democracy in its Western form is deemed to be a representation of the will of the people, the majority of the people, it seems a rather difficult task for Israel objectively to establish credibility and maintain wide international sympathy against the background of its origins, policies and tactics towards the Palestinian people:-
i) Interposing a “Jewish state” in an Arab region.
ii) Invading and occupying the land from which those who previously lived for centuries have been shifted, now daily brutalised in the
name of “self-defence” and “anti-terrorism” as “legitimate” acts in defence of a free and democratic Israel.
iii) Ensuring that a viable Palestinian state never emerges in the vicinity of the new state, Israel, and building apartheid walls to undermine
and frustrate the legitimate aspirations for statehood of the Palestinian people, while causing same to live in a “state” of perpetual
misery.
If this brand of “democracy” is the prescription as paid for with blood, brutalisation and bold denial of statehood for the Palestinian people and is the price for preserving Israeli “democracy” – the price tag may have to be re-valued quite soon. But the motivational factors for Israel’s brutal actions aside, just one quite important consideration – that of the demographics of the region as must invite disbelief about the nature of the continued rule by the minority. How does a “chosen people” in perpetuity ensure that a particular “ethnic” cum religious grouping remains dominant in a region where the majority is not of that ethnicity nor of that religious disposition while themselves procreating slower than the surrounding majority they exclude from citizenship? Does one resolve this conundrum with an all-out genocidal attack upon this or that other group, or do Washington and Tel Aviv quite honestly, realistically and humanely recoil from the barbarism that US foreign policy has permitted Israeli state actions to descend into? The dislocation of the Palestinian people in a land grab followed by illegal occupation in contravention of international law must inevitably stir resentments. If legitimate Palestinian resistance is to be subdued or destroyed then onwards with Israeli led genocide. The quite serious difficulty here is that when one sincerely starts with more than a small measure of sympathetic understanding for the initial plight of the Jewish people and their global wanderings, then how – pray tell – have the oppressed so rapidly and decidedly transformed themselves into the “enemy” as dispossessors of another people? Israel has now become an official instigator of state terrorism.
It would be tremendously helpful, beyond the genuflect allegations of “anti-semitism” on every occasion that Israel’s actions are questioned, if the American public and world opinion would unapologetically, seriously and fairly engage on the issue of Israel’s influence on US foreign policy and its wider impact on the Middle East.
Compliance with international law and Israel’s credible actions in the international community is required when, itself a nuclear power, it has declined to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What if the Middle East were by treaty to become a nuclear free zone- would this provide a step towards peace in the Middle East? In response to the impending crisis with Iran, Israel, free of international accountability for its nuclear arsenal, insists that Iran should be stopped from acquiring what Israel already has, and contemplates a pre-emptive strike on Iran. Article 51 of the UN Charter confers a right of self-defence on any nation that is attacked. This principle applies equally to Israel as it does to Iran.
Unilaterally declared borders, disregard for international law, a hermetic closure of Palestinian areas, denial of bi-national polity, the West Bank and Gaza as Bantustans, as all realities of the Palestinian/Israeli issue brings considerations of national survival if not democracy to the fore. If one is not advocating either genocide of the Jews, or brutalisation of the Palestinians in perpetuity then it does seem in Israel’s best interest that they change their attitude, policies and tactics towards the Palestinian people. Maintain Israeli military occupation – for how long? Afford a two-state solution? Embrace a one-state solution – but how so with the ethno-nationalist assumptions that underpin ‘democracy’ in Israel? In ‘democratic’ governments, as known in the West, there is recognition of property rights, with a civil justice system and equal protection under the law for the rights of all who are within the jurisdiction of the democratic state – alas! not so for Palestinians. Who knows – maybe with additional American arms and money, despite the embedded issues as relate to Israeli denial of Palestinian rights, the ‘democracy’ ( without consideration for the rights of the Palestinians) can be prolonged with force, more American money, and with the world’s fourth largest military budget, last in present form for some time yet to come.
Iran - freedom
Recent history recalls that in 1951 Iran had a nationalist leader in the personage of Mohammad Mossadeq. He was “Western” in outlook in the sense of seeking education, modernisation, scientific advancements and institutions for his country modeled on the pattern of Western democratic practices. Yet he also desired a fairer deal for the treatment of Iran’s oil wealth having nationalised his country’s oil in 1951 as was then dominated by Anglo-American oil interests. Of a lesser breed, that he was deemed to be, he was replaced in a CIA led coup by someone all the less ambitious for his people, malleable in the extreme and fully accommodative to the interests of the West. The Shah of Iran remained a ruler staunchly and brutally supported by the West until his overthrow in 1979.
The US again wants to introduce its own peculiar brand of freedom with domination of Iran. This time many people would rather be free of US bombs and another illegal occupation for this “necessary liberation” of Iranian oil. The US need not pretend anymore – there is just raw aggression and a determined effort to dominate and suppress the Iranian economy as has been the “noble mission” for the past three years of Iraqi resistance.
Freedom from US hegemony over Iran is as important for Iran, as is freedom from the illegal US occupation vital for Iraqi development with reliance on the Iraqi people’s natural resource of oil.
The self-appointed ruler of the world, with its protective eye on Israel, decrees that like Israel, the Middle East must become “democratic” along Jeffersonian lines, or some variant thereof. The Palestinians in free and fair elections accepted the invitation to have a government of the people’s choosing and Hamas was elected. Alas, democracy has to follow the ABC principle:-
A. A party is out of power, and may contend for election. PROVISO: America may not approve of the party’s election.
B. A party is in power, and will have to contest the election. PROVISO: America may approve the incumbent’s re-election.
C. America will support “democracy” so long as the party America approves is elected – and there will be free and fair elections without US intervention before, during or after the election; so long as the people’s choice is America’s choice then the people’s will shall be respected.
In this era of pax democratica, it is easy enough to elaborate on the phenomenon of “democracy” and how it sometimes works. For example, it might be a most useful concept if ever truly afforded an opportunity to be practised in the United Nations. Declaring that the world’s most powerful country wants to spread democracy around the world is one thing, quite another thing if in New York in the world’s most important global institution democracy were afforded a genuine opportunity to flourish.
The very existence of the US as a great power, as with Britain before it – just goes to show that great powers have impulsive tendencies to wield power unjustly. George Bush might very well have his own explanation about the US role in the world along the following lines:
See, it’s all very simple. The US is a great power.
Great powers have great power so the US as a great power has great power.
So, we wield great power, because we are a great power (pause) we wield great power (very long pause) yeah!
And by George, the son of a Bush has just about got it right. Odd as it may sound, when translated into foreign policy actions at present there is about as much sense and coherence in US foreign policy as there is in the imagined syllogistic Bushism above.
“Democracy” would indeed be a wonderful idea, if as conceived under Article 2 of the UN Charter it (democracy) could be used to achieve Article 2’s ideal of preservation of global peace. The post World-War 11 achievement of establishing this Union of Nations in the interest of global peace and security is being undermined by the actions of the Bush administration. Consider the conduct of calculatedly lying to the Security Council, by way of the US with British assistance, presenting fabricated information so as to convince the American people and the world that a “just war” had to be started in Iraq. Over 3 years and 100,000 lives later the savagery unleashed in Iraq posits intermittently as its rationale that the casus belli originally was the search for WMDs and now quite caringly there is this even more sincere and genuine desire to build “democracy” for the Iraqi people. The great mission of the great power in introducing democracy to the backward “natives” again continues with an expressed desire to bomb or invade neighbouring Iran for similar loving US care and attention to the Iranian’s governmental needs.
In 2006 as the threat of another US led war of aggression looms, one ponders the deficient memories of those in Washington who might not be able to recall events in Iran’s recent past beyond 1979, or worse yet back to 1953 and the destroyed democracy that Iran then enjoyed. Democracy now! The Secretary of State might very well demand in Iran, and Aristide may hear her and laugh, as Mossadeq turns in his grave!
President Bush is asserting a right ( it seems unilaterally) to launch another war because Iran is likely to acquire the bomb, as if it is he ( in his unitary executive role) who has that sole right to declare war without submission to Congressional approval. One thought that it was Congress under the Constitution that had the power to launch a war; or maybe Congress has abrogated that right to the President? Also, has anyone asked – does Pakistan ( an Islamic state with a US supported dictatorship) have the bomb? – does North Korea have the bomb? – does Israel have the bomb? If yes – then what becomes this grave and immediate threat to the US if Iran gets the bomb?
Unlawful “ mission accomplished” in Iraq. Let’s therefore not waste time for manifest destiny dictates (if not the voices heard by Bush from God *) – pax Americana – and, here comes … a bird…..a plane? Oh! Oh! Hell!! US bombers over Tehran.
Look out Iran, George Bush and his cabal are crazy enough to do it – he only needs the pretext (nuclear weapons will do as well as WMDs). So do you want democracy or don’t you – or, does he have to bomb you into submission, then determine after the elections, as with Aristide’s election, whether the Iranian people’s choice is acceptable as the choice of the US?
Conclusion
The world system led by America, such as it is, seeks to dominate yet another country (Iran), by way of bombardment (possible invasion) and an ill-advised deceptive policy of “dupe the people”** – yet again. Who believes what comes via George W. Bush’s words – but then you may be a true “patriot” and believe – so let the bombing begin without unnecessary delay! For patriotism really has come to be translated into forcing other people, the American way, into military and cultural submission. This process is propelled by a nationalistic determination to defeat, humiliate and dominate. Bush and his boys really do appear to be on the lunatic fringes if we all stood back and asked ourselves for a moment – precisely what political garb is this “Emperor” of the world presently wearing - naked aggression?
The kind of moral insanity afoot is that of nation after nation to be aggressively invaded so that America can dominate and secure oil.
Who gives any credence to the claims of the US about “liberating” to promote “democracy” as is repeatedly professed as the raison d’etre for attack and bombardment of innocents in the name of the American people ( visit: http://peacetakescourage.cf.huffingtonpost.com/)? A powerful country advocating the ouster of leaders, be this in Haiti or Iraq or as an expressed desire to do the same in Iran ( the US as a nuclear power threatening to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear armed country), is clearly in direct contravention of the UN Charter and international law. An element of democratic governance contemplates abidance by the rule of law, but “democracy” aside, there is a determined and demonstrable drive by the Bush administration to circumvent multilatelateral processes and thus violate the rule of international law.
Democracy and freedom may some day triumph – but not so with any credence via Washington’s dislocative policies along the historical lines of Haiti, Israel or Iran. Anglo-American colonialism and its promise of “democracy” “peace” and “prosperity” has historically and in contemporary times been, at least in Iraq, closer to “destruction” “war” and “impoverishment” – so, Iran and the world might justifiably be wary of the forked tongue promises of the approaching glorious “liberations”.
If humandkind does not take seriously the need to stop glorifying war – then war will decidedly glorify in humankind’s demise.
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming wars. The world truly does need hope!
* God’s voice speaking to the President of the United States of America:-
“ I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’ and I did. And then God would tell me, ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq”. And I did”
“ And now, again, I feel God’s word coming to me, ‘ Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East’. And, by God, I’m gonna do it.”
****BY GEORGE HE’S GONNA DO IT!!***************************
( How to dupe a nation):-
“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.” President Bush (09.26.02)
“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death” President Bush (10.02.02)
“There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.” President Bush (10.02.03)
“There are many dangers in the world; the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. President Bush (10.07.02)
“The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.” President Bush (10.16.02)
“There is a real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in the form of Saddam Hussein.” President Bush (10.28.02)
“I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.” President Bush (11.01.02)
“Today the world is…uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.” President Bush (11.01.02)
“The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.” President Bush (11.23.02)
Suggestion: to save time in reading new excuses for the next war…..simply substitute “Ahmadinejad” for “Saddam Hussein” and “Iran” at every place where “Iraq” appears in the above quotations of George W. Bush.
Comment: Pro-war propaganda drove the American people and the world into an unnecessary invasion and continuing war in Iraq. Albeit God told George W. Bush to attack Iraq, it is not his life at risk, nor his children who are in the fight in Iraq. There is an illegal war in Iraq that was commenced with lies, and propelled by a predetermined agreement of Anglo-American leaders that decided before the war that with or without UN support the war would be launched. It is the same leaders who are again orchestrating a campaign to declare Iran Global Enemy Number 1 and who will lead the push to war as before. When George Bush states “ All options are on the table” this constitutes a threat of use of nuclear force against a non-nuclear nation. The recent events and example of North Korea sufficiently demonstrates that with force, and a threat of determined retaliation the US will retreat. What, one may ask, is Iran’s option in response to US aggression? In 1953 the West had a Western leaning democratically elected Iranian government. For domination over Iranian oil it engineered a CIA led coup and destroyed that which was then democratic in Iranian government. Now, again, the US wants dominance over Iranian oil, and it is advancing an aggressive policy against Iran. On 26th April, 2006, the following response was given by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:-
“ The Americans should know that if they assault Iran their interests will be harmed anywhere in the world that is possible.”
True enough that if Iran masters enrichment to fuel grade, it can continue to weapons grade uranium enrichment. A reversal of the entire process of the rush to war would be possible if Iran had assurances that the US was not intent on full spectrum dominance of the Middle East and its oil resources. However, that is the American mission in the Middle East. Bush set the process in train with these words:
“ Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make.Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.” George W. Bush on the 23rd September, 2001.
A diffusion of the tensions would arise by an initial assurance of a “no-first-strike” policy by the US. To the contrary Bush has repeatedly asserted – “All options are on the table.” – as a direct threat that to achieve its way in the Middle East and more particularly in Iran, the US will resort to any means necessary ( inclusive of a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear nation). Seymour Hersh, the New York Times journalist, has credibly indicated that the US was prepared to fire tactical nuclear weapons at Iran ( see: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact).
The US is determined to commandeer Middle Eastern oil, and Iran is holding its ground against US hegemony in the region.
The US illegally invaded Iraq then with Orwellian double-speak seeks to label as “terrorists” those who desire an end to the illegal occupation by US troops. Further, now the US seeks to do the same thing all over again in Iran – for domination of Iranian oil. Bush and Blair as before with the launching of the Iraq war will speak of peace while making pre-determined plans for war!
Courtenay Barnett is a graduate of London University. His areas of study were economics, political science and international law. He has been a practising lawyer for over twenty years, has been arrested for defending his views, and has argued public interest and human rights cases. His web site: www.globaljusticeonline.com
Courtenay Barnett
courtenaybarnett@yahoo.com