A World Without America
I was over at Chicken Yoghurt just now (reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated I’m happy to say) and discovered, via this post, one of the strangest videos ever to grace YouTube… A World Without America. I had to watch it a second time to confirm that the first hadn’t been an acid flashback. It’s so absurd in fact, that I’m at something of a loss as to how to interpret it. As a pro-American statement it fails so miserably as to come across as a badly-executed self-parody. But as a satirical look at political propaganda in general, it commits the cardinal error of being literally unbelievable. We already live in a world where energy companies talk about tackling climate change by increasing fossil fuel use (honestly!). So it takes an especially bad writer to produce satire so over-the-top as to seem silly rather than scathing.
Employing the device of short fictional news reports, the video presents a quick glimpse at an alternative recent history of… wait for it… a world without America. Literally. The world map has an extra ocean where the USA should be. It’s clearly aimed at two audiences. Firstly (though perhaps incidentally) it’s aimed that those of us who would describe ourselves politically as anti-American, and who — by virtue of our opposition to what we see as an aggressive foreign policy carried out by an extremist administration with only tenuous legitimacy — clearly want nothing more than to wipe an entire nation completely off the map, and live in a world where all the little children have polio (seriously… watch the video). Secondly and most importantly, it’s aimed at those who support America’s self-selected role in the modern world but who maybe get a little concerned that all this talk of A Perpetual State of War sounds a wee bit dodgy. It does this by assuring them that if it wasn’t for America (and by implication, America as it presently exists) then we’d all be commies, either living in perpetual fear of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons, or dying of polio.
After the news reports, the video continues by flashing up a list of — what I can only suppose are — America’s greatest achievements. I was bemused to see “The liberation of the Falklands” listed along with “the bra”, “Elvis Presley”, “the motor-car”, “a democratic Nicaragua” (no, really) and “31% of global wealth”.
That last one is perhaps the most revealing of all. It tells you a lot about a person or organistion if they actively celebrate the expropriation of almost a third of global resources by less than 5% of the global population. A World Without America is a video celebrating, amongst other things, greed.
This should surprise nobody however, as A World Without America is produced by 18 Doughty Street… the online propaganda unit of the British Conservative Party. That’s not how they pitch themselves it goes without saying. Indeed, if it wasn’t for some recent intra-blog warfare, the fact that 18 Doughty Street is edited and financed by people with close ties to the Tory Party (including a prospective London mayoral candidate) wouldn’t be common knowledge.
Basically… and at the risk of blogging about blogging, 18 Doughty Street did an exposĂ© on a NuLabor think tank which was using a legal loophole to register itself as a charity and get all manner of interesting tax benefits. Legal, but pretty damn unethical I think you’ll agree. Chalk one up to 18 Doughty Street, right? Well, no. It turns out that the person responsible for the video — a Mr. Iain Dale — was himself involved with a tory think tank. Guess what? Uh-huh… they use the same legal loophole. If all of that seems a bit vague, it’s because this all happened during my recent 2-month break from blogging and I can’t be arsed to go back and read every single post on the issue (there are many).
Anyways, the details are irrelevant. The relevant point here is that 18 Doughty Street is Tory public relations. Luckily for the rest of us, it’s run by a bunch of not-very bright people who seem to know even less about P.R. (no budding Edward Bernays is didactic doughty Dale) than they do about politics. And that’s not (just) me being insulting, it’s by their own admission. Well, the bit about not knowing much about politics. In a recent email, Iain Dale claimed not to know what the word “nihilism” meant. This is despite using the word himself in a prior broadcast. Now, I don’t know about you dear reader, but if you run a serious website under the tagline “Politics For Adults”, I’d like to think you have a rudimentary grasp of political theory. Perhaps I expect too much.
But back to A World Without America. It’s shoddy and it’s insulting and it’s as far from “Politics for Adults” as it is possible to get. I have no doubt that you could find a handful of people who describe themselves as anti-American and who genuinely seek a world without America. The trouble is; those people are lunatics. Serious people who consider themselves anti-American have a view that’s a little more nuanced than that. And if 18 Doughty Street wants to engage in politics for adults, then I suggest they put their money where their mouth is and address the anti-Americanism of rational adults, and not that of the lunatics.
I love America. I adore New York and wish I could visit my American cousins more often. And that’s literal cousins by the way. Like many Irish families, we spread a bit further west than Galway. I lived for a year in Chicago. And as for listing the praiseworthy achievements of Americans… believe me, I could go on for a lot longer than 18 Doughty Street’s strange little list. Though admittedly Elvis would be on mine too.
But in political terms, I describe myself as anti-American. I oppose the self-selected role America plays in the world. If it wants to play global policeman, then I have news for it… everyone in the world has to vote in US elections. Otherwise it’s a global tyrant. You can’t have it both ways. The people of Iraq did not elect George Bush. They had no representation in the political forces that decided to reshape their nation four years ago. That’s textbook totalitarianism.
And I oppose totalitarianism. I’m not claiming that the actions of despots can never have positive consequences (though in the case of Iraq, I would suggest that they have not). But I am suggesting that — excepting in clear cases of self-defence (anyone who tries to claim that the invasion of Iraq was self-defence should not expect a polite response from this writer) — the use of military force should be illegal, and should be considered a crime against humanity. I believe that militarism inevitably leads to despotism. And that to celebrate the role played by America in the modern world is to celebrate despotism and greed. Philosophically speaking, that’s halfway down the road to geniune nihilism, Iain.
It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
– Albert Einstein
Mine too Albert.
- Why is Stalin still alive six years after his death by natural causes? Do you know something about America’s role in his death that the rest of us don’t? Or are you just really bad at history (and googling)?
- You suggest that the world would never have developed a polio vaccine outside America. But you also suggest that the world would be held to ransom by foreign dictators with nuclear weapons. Who developed the nukes if not America? And might they not also have been capable of developing a polio vaccine?
- Why would Thatcher be meeting with the Austrian president if Austria was merely a Soviet republic?
- Why would Saddam Hussein be in power in 1999 when it’s well-established that his regime was propped up by… wait for it… America, throughout the 1980s? Wouldn’t a world without America be — by default — a world without Saddam Hussein? Do I need to dig out that photo of Rumsfeld getting all chummy with Hussein to illustrate the point?
- Finally; wouldn’t a world without America be a world without the world’s largest arms manufacturer and dealer? Wouldn’t that be a safer world? Or does 18 Doughty Street see no connection between guns and people being shot by guns?
Well done. Great post. I was actually going to write about this myself but, if you don’t mind, I’m going to put a link to this blog in instead. Americans constantly talk about how they won WWII, which they didn’t. I consider myself, politically, to be anti-American but I could go on ad-nauseum about what we would sadly miss if it wasn’t for America. They certainly hastened the end of WWII but they didn’t win it single-handedly. I do agree, however, that their involvement was vital and I have nothing but admiration for all of the soldiers who gave their lives during that war. I saw an interview recently with several survivors of Omaha beach and, without exception, they all said that the current fiasco pisses on the memory of what they fought for. Americans should stop likening their current military to that of WWII. They bear no resemblence.
March 7th, 2007 | 9:47pm
by Captain Purplehead
[…] I received an email about an ad called, “A World Without America” on u-tube and I was about to write about it but I found that someone else has. This is a well written piece from an excellent blog and anything I could write would be repitition and plagiarism. click here for the post by The Quiet Road Comments » […]
March 7th, 2007 | 9:54pm
by Captain Purplehead :: A World Without America. :: March :: 2007
[…] Read the rest Filed under UK Politics See also Number crunching*, Back soon and Webjunk: PocketMod permalink • trackback • print this • leave a comment […]
March 8th, 2007 | 8:42am
by Chicken Yoghurt » A proper gander
A good post that kinda lost me at the end. I dislike the term anti-American. I’m not anti America I’m anti the current adminstration. I’ve known plenty of Americans who consider GW a genocidal monster, does that make them anti too? The term is debased to the point that skewers debate along emotive lines about loyalty and mindless ‘us and them’ unthought…
March 8th, 2007 | 1:24pm
by leon
The whole idea that the idea of America needs to be ‘sold’ to us at all is deeply weird, let alone in this ‘look, things are better than they might have been’ fashion.
By way of analogy, you don’t see adverts that say ‘McDonalds: Better than Death by Starvation’, or ‘Eat fruit from Sainsburys and you won’t get scurvy’ or ‘Ford: Quicker than a horse and cart’. Those things are, you know, self evident.
March 8th, 2007 | 2:28pm
by Neil
http://www.18doughtystreet.com/ is a strange site. If I didn’t know what it was, I’d suggest it was the work of some right-leaning American think-tank: the obsession with the “liberal media” (or biased-bbc, as this is ridiculous idea manifests itself in the UK), that Iraq is not as fubar’d as we think it is etc. But apparently it’s a Tory affiliated site? The Conservatives are currently an odd breed: I quite like Cameron and his policies, but I wouldn’t touch many of the MPs or their supporters with a barge pole…
March 8th, 2007 | 2:41pm
by Doormat
I think it’s a tremendously effective film.
I, for one, have always hated America with such a violent passion that I wished for nothing more than the total obliteration of not only the American people, but the American land mass itself.
But thanks to 18 Doughty St I now realise that that makes me objectively pro-polio and anti-bra, and therefore I have changed my mind.
Thank you Iain Dale.
March 8th, 2007 | 4:31pm
by Larry Teabag
Well Captain Purplehead, credit where it’s due; America did the world a big favour in the 1940s. And with no little heroism. The fact that US foreign policy since then has had a largely malign influence doesn’t lessen their great contribution to the war against fascism. And I really don’t see any point in trying to downplay that contribution in any way.
Leon, I understand where you’re coming from even though I’m personally willing to self-apply the ‘anti-American’ label. And yes, this does sometimes provoke irritated comment from my American friends and family. They understand where I’m coming from of course, but aren’t fond of the phrase. And I get that.
All the same, I use it because I want to make clear that my position runs deeper than merely opposing a few individuals in the current administration. I’m anti-capitalist, I use the phrase “cultural imperialism” without a hint of embarrassment or irony, and I consider rapacious corporatism; as formulated and aggressively promoted by US policy for 60 years; to be an evil on a par with fascism.
Most people who describe themselves as anti-American probably don’t share these views, and come closer to your own position… that of opposing the current administration but believing — broadly — that the current US political system can produce something substantially different. Whereas the very reason I use the label is to indicate my fundamental opposition to the role played in the world by America for more than half a century.
America is a vibrant and creative culture. It’s the birthplace of jazz and rock’n’roll (yes, they had roots in Africa… but it was in America that they flowered) and some of the most radical films and literature to ever grace humanity. To repeat what I said earlier; I adore much of what’s come from America. And it angers me to see such an amazing place held in thrall by the numbing tyranny of manufactured desires and empty consumerism. Americans are better than that. People are better than that.
I hear what you’re saying Neil, though I do have to question one of the examples you used… McDonalds: Better than Death by Starvation. Really? Y’think?
I’m afraid I can’t agree with you Doormat when you say you “quite like Cameron and his policies”. The man’s an arse. And his policies are precisely what you’d expect an arse to produce. But I agree whole-heartedly when you say you “wouldn’t touch many of the MPs or their supporters with a barge pole”. I’m with you on that.
Ahhh… so you were the target audience, Larry. I should have known. I’ll bet it was ‘air-conditioning’ and ‘the dishwasher’ that really sold it to you though.
March 8th, 2007 | 4:44pm
by Jim
Shame, if the American land mass disappeared, then so would all the Native Americans (Injuns or Redskins to our US brethren)
Assuming there’s any left that is and they haven’t died in the diseased ridden cess pits the then US administration placed them in and then called them “reservations”.
“Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee” by Dee Brown for the full details
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bury_My_Heart_at_Wounded_Knee
D’you think that before the American landmass was erased, Mexico could have its bits back first?
March 8th, 2007 | 5:30pm
by Carl Eve
I do get the point you’re making. But “Injuns or Redskins to our US brethren”?
Hmmmm. Not the Americans I know, Carl.
March 8th, 2007 | 5:38pm
by Jim
Jim, you say the present American military adventures don’t ‘lessen their great contribution to the war against fascism’. Their use of quasi-fascistically racially segregated troops in that war kinda does, though.
Doormat, well done for quite liking some of Cameron’s policies. That finding of a plural quantity is very impressive. Every time I see him pontificating I keep waiting for the bit where he says ‘and my government will do this definite thing about it’, only it rarely comes. And when it does, it’s about abdicating power and responsibility rather than doing anything, the privatising twat.
Regarding the main point of this post, you’ve got to marvel at anyone coming up with the idea without realising the stupidity of its single concept; if someone has ever done something good then you have to like everything else they’ve done and everything they will ever do.
March 8th, 2007 | 5:53pm
by merrick
I disagree with your first paragraph there Merrick. I’m certainly not claiming that the United States was a perfect society in the 30s and 40s. Nor that their intervention against the Nazis was an ethically spotless one. Yes, there was the racial segregation. And there was also the firebombing of Dresden, and so on.
But there was also the death of hundreds of thousands of American men, half a world away from their home, in what was unambiguously a righteous cause. Rolling back the armies of Adolf Hitler from the continent they’d just conquered is to be celebrated. And it’s such a huge achievement, I honestly feel that taking the time to point out the negatives — without reference to any of the positives — is being wilfully and inappropriately ideological.
If someone enters a conversation about The Beatles but decides to focus solely on Michelle and Run For Your Life, then you’d have to say they weren’t being entirely dispassionate and objective.
As for Cameron… you poor buggers. We’ve got a right bunch of idiots over here calling themselves politicians, but nobody quite so obviously a complete tosser as Cameron. Y’know they’ve started printing his picture next to the definition of “smug” in the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary.
March 8th, 2007 | 7:57pm
by Jim
Well, I don’t want to derail this into a Cameron discussion, but I’m being slated for saying that I think the guy’s okay. Two reasons: firstly, have you seen what the competition is? In an ideal world, we’d have a proper Labour party or a Lib Dem party that actually had some profile, in which case the Tories be damned. But given that Cameron actually might, say, do away with ID cards or think about environmental issues makes him likely better than Brown. And I dislike his support for Trident, say, or his pro-market, anti-Europe views, but then, erm, which electable party doesn’t have those views?
More worryingly, I think my point stands: I don’t believe that simply electing Cameron would be a disaster. Sadly he might actually win the next election, but in doing so, a huge load of very dodgy people indeed are going to be advising him, will become MPs etc. etc. That, in my view, would be the real problem. But please don’t think that I’d actually ever vote for him!
March 9th, 2007 | 10:02am
by Doormat
Jim – you are a Fortunate Son then. I’ve met those for whom Injuns and Redskins are the preferred terms. And those for whom Native Americans is their acceptable term… and a few others besides.
I think you know what I mean, however ineptly I’ve put it.
Cheers
March 9th, 2007 | 7:20pm
by Carl Eve
Carl, I do indeed know what you mean. America has plenty of assholes and racists, but when you used the phrase “our US brethren”, it seemed to be suggesting that “Injuns or Redskins” was how white Americans in general describe native Americans. I just wanted to point out that the (many) Americans that I’ve met and know (I spent a year living in the midwest and have also spent quite a bit of time in Texas among other places) do not use those phrases, no more than they use ‘nigger’ or ‘chink’ or ‘paddy’ or ‘wop’.
And I don’t think I’m particularly “fortunate” in that regard. As I say, I’ve met plenty of Americans from all over the country and from many walks of life. I don’t know what proportion of the US population regularly use racist epithets. Perhaps more than other places. Perhaps not. But I do know that it does Americans a disservice to suggest that it’s normal for them to use racist language (which is how I interpreted your first comment). If my interpretation was wrong, then I apologise. But if I were to say — for example — “I met this Asian guy yesterday (or ‘Paki’ to our British brethren)”, it would be an implication that British people, in general used the word (which; having lived there on and off for the best part of 15 years; I can assure you they don’t).
Anyways, seems like we’re violently agreeing on this one. So enough said.
Doormat, while Cameron may give the impression of “thinking about environmental issues” he still leads a party which proudly proclaims itself “The Party of The Motorist”. I’ve not been following all of his press to be fair, but thus far he seems to have succeeded in appearing ‘Green’ without actually making any firm commitments or policy announcements on the environment. Did you know BP claimed they were “Beyond Petroleum” a few years ago?
It is indeed possible that Cameron would do away with ID cards, but I suspect they won’t happen anyway (my opinion is that the project will be a technological and logistical disaster and will have to be abandoned, but that’s just opinion I grant you).
Brown is a pro-capitalist poodle of British business interests. He shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near power (though sadly he will indeed be the next PM). And the LibDems aren’t much better. But I’d personally put Cameron at the bottom of that sordid little pile, with Menzies just ahead of Gordon (all three are so close, though, that it was a photo-finish).
With Menzies you think… “well at least we’ll have some social liberalism with our extreme capitalism”. With Gordon you think… “well, he had a socialist past… maybe his conscience hasn’t entirely disappeared and he’ll have a Jacob Marley moment”. With Cameron though, the best you can do is “well at least he can’t be quite as smug a tosser as he seems. Nobody could.”
March 10th, 2007 | 6:08pm
by Jim
question 4: saddam hussein was primarily armed by the French and Soviets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990
soviet union: 68.9%
france: 12.7%
china: 11.8%
usa: 0.5%
question 5: the AK 47 isnt made in America , and it is by far the biggest killer of people worldwide.
March 11th, 2007 | 11:48pm
by mister scruff
Mister Scruff
Question 4: But I never claimed that the United States was a major arms supplier to the Hussein regime. I said that it helped “prop it up”. I suggest you read this article here if you doubt it. For instance…
Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the United States. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.
Question 5: Why must people insist upon building straw men!? Please point out one instance where I suggested that sales of AK-47s by Russia, China (or whoever the hell else!) was a good, acceptable or moral thing. Please tell me where I said that the only arms dealing that should be criticised is U.S. arms dealing.
The fact is (well, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service anyway, but maybe they’re inflating the figures to look manly), the United States is responsible for 36% of the global arms trade. Russia is second with 16%. That’s less than half the US figure. I’m not saying that 16% is good. It’s fucking disgraceful. But so is that 36%, which was the only point I was making.
I didn’t bring up the AK-47 or the arms dealing record of Russia or China simply because I was critiquing a video entitled “A World Without America”. See… the title kind of gives it away.
March 12th, 2007 | 12:12am
by Jim
I wouldn’t call you anti-American really… more like anti-Republican, anti-establishment. Otherwise I’d be anti-American myself 🙂
by the way, are you sure it was produced by a group linked with British conservatives? It sounds suspiciously like some of the completely idiotic propaganda spouted by the large numbers of ignorant conservatives where I live (Florida, which is extremely Republican)
March 13th, 2007 | 12:55am
by L
Jim, I didn’t get into mentioning the positives because they’d already been covered. It’s just that I do believe having an unnecessary and quasi-fascisitc policy at home lessens your cred as an anti-fascist crusader.
Doormat, you say ‘have you seen what the competition is?’ and ‘which electable party doesn’t have those views?’. If the discussion were about which is the least awful party you’d have a point there. As Jim points out, not much of one, but a point nonetheless.
However, as the issue is why you like the guy, electability doesn’t come into it. There’s no rule that says you have to personally like someone who is electable. And even if there were, a guy who cites Thatcher as his all-time hero for ‘dealing with the trade unions’ really should be low on the list, even if one of the other people has got a name like Ming.
March 13th, 2007 | 7:15pm
by merrick
Christ, this is turning into a demonstration of “why computers are a crap medium for having a conversation”. When I said “I quite like Cameron” I didn’t mean I like him as a person, or that I’d like to have a beer with him etc. It was a really bad choice of phrase, okay? But, as I still seem to be getting attacked for this, I have to say that in the context of discussing politicians who it’s pretty obvious I’ve never met, and never will, the meaning of “quite like” is likely to be in terms of electability, their policies etc. and not exactly a statement about whether I’d like to have a pint with them?
I think “L” makes the point I was trying to make: Cameron has moved to Tories to a position where they appear to be rather similar to where Labour currently is. However, the Tories still have attached to them some pretty right-wing people; hence L’s question about whether 18 Doughty Street really are a Tory affiliated group, and not a bunch of Washington neo-cons. This almost certainly shouldn’t surprise me, given where Cameron is coming from himself, and where he’s dragging his party from, but still, I thought it was worth commenting on.
March 13th, 2007 | 7:57pm
by Doormat
Jim.
Nothing personal, but I think that the video, and the other attacks against the US present a considerably less accurate picture of my country than an episode of South Park does. It’s mildly amusing to note that you have as many or more silly ideas about us as we have about you.
As somebody who had to hold his nose and vote for Bush II twice because the other candidate was even more of a collectivist than he is, I can sympathise with your criticisms about the war. I’m going to give you a bit of a headache here. I’m former Army. I also protested against Gulf War I and strongly opposed Gulf War II. I do support the war in Afghanistan, and I’d have much rather we’d made it our business to have done a good job finishing it, instead of pursuing the Bush family’s personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein.
That said, your comment about our weapons sales is a little silly. People do have a right of self defense, and so do nations. And as we’ve seen in Rewanda, the absence of firearms doesn’t mean much when people want to kill each other. Those pangas, (machetes) were lethal enough all by themselves. And the UN, the focal point for most of the rather collectivist planet did a fat lot of nothing.
And it’s interesting to note that one of the big reasons that the US opposes and will continue to oppose the UN’s attempts to ban small arms isn’t merely because of our Constitution here– it’s also because, as Mr. Bolton stated, that people who are faced with oppression should have the right and the means to shoot back. The only people who would be disarmed if your aesethetic agenda were ever put into play would be the victims in the world. Criminals, the insane, and government thugs of all types would still be armed and still indulging in the carnage that they do. Given that reality, I’d rather that there continued to be a black market in the world where the weak and oppressed can acquire the means to if not overthrow, at least deter, those who think that it’s okay to abuse people who don’t share their office. I find that all of the politically correct in the world, aren’t okay with this. Too bad, when it comes down to a conflict with the powers of government and the rights of the individual, I’ll side with the individual.
And here’s something for you to consider. Even though there’s a war on, every Iraqi family is legally permitted a Kalashnikov rifle for self defense. And while incidents of this don’t get a lot of press, cases of individual and group defense with these can and do happen, which I think is a good thing. And it’s worth the risk to the troops to continue with this. For people to have any real dignity and value, they have to be able to defend their own lives, and whatever you think about us, do remember that we’re willing to trust even potential enemies with the means of their own defense– something that your governments won’t permit you to have. I guess that means that in the general scheme of things, an Iraqi is worth more than an Englishman, because his life is worthy of being defended, and he’s considered worthy of possessing the means to defend it. You might want to give that some thought. Collectivism always in the end treats the individual as a fungible asset. Surely you must be worth more than that!
BTW, the AK is made here as well as almost everyplace else. You can buy it as a completed weapon or as a kit if you want to build one. And there are plenty of imports that are also, quite legitimately held by individuals here, as they have a right to do. And the reason for that is simple. It’s not just that we have a right to own these weapons, but also because they’re desirable because whether anybody likes it or not, Mikhail Kalashnikov designed the 20th Century equivalent of what the Winchester 1888 or 1894 was in the 19th Century. And that’s a good thing. I don’t know what will be the Rifle of Choice in the 21st Century, but my grandchildren will get to make that determination for themselves, although they show a fair interest in mine.
One last thing. About 30 countries manufacture copies of the Kalashnikov’s rifle, whether it’s an AK-47, AKM, AK-74, ect. If you’ll have your library order a book on interlibrary loan called Small Arms of the World, you’ll see a nation by nation breakdown. And when you do, I think that your myth about the US being one of the biggest sellers of weapons is going to be demolished. Unless Ezell or whomever is currently editing it has changed the format, each section includes a breakdown of manufactueing facilities in the country in question.
March 14th, 2007 | 6:55am
by Michael Shirley
Many thanks for the response Michael. I disagree with almost every word of it, but thanks for taking the time nonetheless.
The thing is though, the video wasn’t an “attack against the US”. It was precisely the opposite. It was created as a pro-American statement by a British political group that is itself extremely pro-American. Did you watch it? If you did, and still thought it was an attack on America then I’m just plain confused. I honestly can’t even begin to imagine how it can be interpreted that way. It’s crass, ridiculous and badly-written but it’s still very clearly pro-America.
Not only that, but I happen to think, unlike that video, Southpark regularly makes very perceptive statements about America (and I say that having lived in your country for some time). I’m not suggesting that Americans are a bunch of crudely-animated pieces of cardboard (though one could easily get that impression if you were only looking at the Bush administration), merely that the programme is above-average satire. Extreme at times… but perceptive all the same.
Right there was when I realised that you and I are clearly so far apart on the political spectrum that any attempt to find a middle ground would leave us both uncomfortably far from home. You see, I actually am what you might call a collectivist. I tend to use the phrase “anarcho-syndicalist” or sometimes “anarcho-socialist” as I’m not just a collectivist (think ‘broad economic collectivism coupled with social liberalism’).
I do understand that mainstream U.S. politics in general exists a good deal further to The Right than the typical European model. All the same, I find it mind-boggling that rightwing corporatists like Al Gore and John Kerry can be thought as being “too collectivist” anywhere on the planet.
Not a headache at all… I actually know quite a few ex-military folk. And your position on the Gulf War(s) means we do agree on something after all. Which pleases me. Contrary to the impression I may give, I quite like consensus.
Firstly, you’ll get no argument from me regarding how shameful the global response to Rwanda was. Blaming it on the United Nations is a bit rich though. I’m not the biggest fan of the UN. As an institution it has huge problems. But as Kofi Annan observed on the subject of the Rwandan genocide: “Neither the United Nations Secretariat, nor the Security Council, nor Member States in general, nor the international media, paid enough attention to the gathering signs of disaster. Still less did we take timely action.” And that’s simply a statement of fact.
If you believe, as human beings, that we have an obligation to prevent genocide where ever it is occurring (or at least make a genuine attempt at it) then we cannot point the finger at one nation or one institution in cases where the entire world failed to act. The United States, Russia, China, Britain, Israel… pretty much every heavily armed state on the planet is willing to ignore the United Nations when it comes to acting in self-interest. The idea that UN failure to take leadership over Rwanda somehow prevented America or Europe or anyone else getting involved is palpable nonsense.
It’s also nonsense to claim that because in Rwanda a certain amount of the violence was carried out using blades, the role played by firearms and other munitions around the world is somehow irrelevant (“the absence of firearms doesn’t mean much when people want to kill each other”). It’s also inaccurate to suggest that the Rwandan genocide was carried out by a bunch of Hutus with machetes. French arms shipments were still arriving in Kigali two weeks before the start of the genocide (Source). And not planeloads of big knives. Also the RDF (one of the main instigators of the bloodbath) was arming itself to the teeth across the border in DRC with weapons “derive[d] from former President Mobutu’s Cold War arsenal, mostly supplied by the United States.”
Which brings me on to your next — and probably most bizarre — assertion, that the global arms industry is somehow a noble cause in which “people who are faced with oppression [acquire] the right and the means to shoot back”. Or “where the weak and oppressed can acquire the means to if not overthrow, at least deter, those who think that it’s okay to abuse people who don’t share their office”.
If the arms trade was genuinely an underground industry dedicated to arming the oppressed against their oppressors then — while I’d still view it with extreme suspicion — I’d at least understand those who sought to defend it. But that’s a patently and demonstrably ridiculous idea.
From The World Policy Institute:
“In 2003, the last year for which full information is available, the United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in active conflicts […] more than half of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world (13 of 25) were defined as undemocratic by the U.S. State Department’s Human Rights Report […] When countries designated by the State Department’s Human Rights Report to have poor human rights records or serious patterns of abuse are factored in, 20 of the top 25 U.S. arms clients in the developing world in 2003 — a full 80% — were either undemocratic regimes or governments with records of major human rights abuses.”
Do tell me; how exactly does that square with Mr. Bolton’s high-minded ideas about helping the oppressed?
The arms industry exists for one reason alone… not to help the oppressed, but to make money for arms dealers and manufacturers. And they do this by selling to anyone with money. If you arm both the oppressed and the oppressors then you’re not striking a blow for freedom, you’re just inciting violence.
The US and European fighter jets used by the Indonesian government to massacre many thousands of East Timorese civilians… the US and European jets currently being used to wipe out villages in Darfur… the cluster bombs dropped on Lebanon… the landmines dotting the scarred landscape of East Africa. That’s the face of the arms industry. It’s not an underground blackmarket helping plucky freedom fighters; it’s a multi-billion dollar industry that holds massive trade exhibitions in major cities in order to attract the business of every dictator and tyrant with a handful of conflict diamonds or an oil well.
I’m not even going to touch this one. We don’t share a frame of reference on it. I would point out, though, that I’m an Irishman not an Englishman. The Irish constitution does not endow a right to own a gun. If you’re saying that makes our constitution somehow “less” than yours, or that it means my life is “worth less” than anyone elses, then I suggest you take your head out of your arse before you suffocate.
And finally…
It’s not “my myth”, it’s merely quoting what your congress publishes…
“In 2005, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making agreements valued at nearly $12.8 billion (28.9% of all such agreements), down from $13.2 billion in 2004. France ranked second with $7.9 billion in agreements (16.8% of these agreements globally), up substantially from $2.2 billion in 2004. Russia ranked third, its arms transfer agreements worldwide standing at $7.4 billion in 2005, up significantly from $5.6 billion in 2004. The United States, France, and Russia collectively made agreements in 2005 valued at nearly $28.1 billion, 63.5% of all international arms transfer agreements made by all suppliers.”
March 14th, 2007 | 1:03pm
by Jim
Great post Jim. I’d come across links to it elsewhere, but never had the time to sit down and read it. I’m glad I did. One thing though – 18DS aren’t really the Conservative party – they’re more conservative activists. They’re part of the effort to force Cameron to the right, and as such are pretty damning of Cameron’s softly softly approach.
And if you want to see some more about 18DS’s links to the hard right American Conservatives, have a look at the website of the Young Britons Foundation (registered address: 18 Doughty Street, London WC2), http://www.ybf.org.uk and http://www.britainandamerica.com (registered address: 18 Doughty Street, London WC2).
March 15th, 2007 | 1:24pm
by Pete