|
|||
|
Global Consensus, Not Global ConquestPosted on Sep 25, 2007By Amy Goodman As world leaders gather this week to address the United Nations General Assembly, President Bush’s refusal to negotiate on the two key issues of our day—war and global warming—has been stunning. And the media haven’t helped. Focusing on whether Columbia University should have invited Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, the Bush administration’s drumbeat for war with Iran goes unchallenged. Let this not be a reprise of the war on Iraq. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his new memoir: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq War is largely about oil.” I asked him to elaborate: “It’s clear to me that were there not the oil resources in Iraq, the whole picture of how that part of the Middle East developed would have been different.” It is an obvious point. It’s just too bad that he wasn’t willing to admit this before the invasion; his every utterance during his tenure at the Fed influenced decision-makers around the world, particularly in his own backyard at the White House. As Naomi Klein, the author of “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,” listened to Greenspan, she pointed out, “Under international law ... it is illegal to wage wars to gain access to other countries’, sovereign countries’, natural resources.” Which brings us to Iran, another oil-rich country. As with Iraq, the Bush administration doesn’t talk about Iran’s oil, but rather claims that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. Sound familiar? The answer isn’t war; it’s diplomacy. Earlier this week, I spoke with one of Israel’s top political columnists, Akiva Eldar, with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. He opposes an attack on Iran: “[T]he Middle East is going to be nuclearized in no time. I think that solution should be a regional agreement ... the Middle East should be nuclear-free, including Israel. I think this has to be part of an agreement.” Advertisement On the global-warming front, the opening of the U.N. General Assembly this week coincided with a major meeting on climate change, attended by more than 80 world leaders. As U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon kicked off the meeting, he said: “We hold the future in our hands. Together we must ensure that our grandchildren will not have to ask why we have failed to do the right things and left them to suffer the consequences. So let us send a clear and collective signal to people everywhere. Today, let the world know that you are ready to shoulder this responsibility and that you will address this challenge head-on.” Yvo de Boer, a top U.N. climate expert, said: “The United States is still the largest emitter worldwide of greenhouse gases. For that reason and for a number of others, the participation of the U.S. is essential.” Yet Bush did not participate in the global meeting. Instead, Bush is hosting an invitation-only gathering of “major economies” in Washington, D.C., to discuss voluntary caps on greenhouse gas emissions. This is simply not enough. Ban Ki-moon criticized the Bush meeting, saying, “The U.N. climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating global action.” One of those leaders who came to address the U.N. General Assembly was Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia. While the U.S. rarely looks south for leadership, Morales’ example is worth considering. He has restored diplomatic relations with Iran. Against tremendous internal opposition, he nationalized Bolivia’s natural gas fields, transforming the country’s economic stability, and, interestingly, enriching the very elite that originally criticized the move. (Contrast this with the U.S. pressuring the Iraqi parliament to pass an oil law that would virtually hand over control of Iraq’s oil to the major U.S. oil corporations.) President Morales told me: “Neither mother earth nor life are commodities. We are talking about a profound change of models and systems.” The twin crises of war and climate change, inexorably linked by our thirst for oil, need a concerted global solution—one that won’t be obtained by cowboy diplomacy. The United States must pursue global consensus, not global conquest—before it is too late. CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By driving bear, October 3, 2007 at 9:28 am Link to this comment
To #104201 by stilldancing on 10/02 at 6:12 pm
The sad fact is a large percentage of Americans wish to be political mushrooms. ( A mushroom is a plant that likes to be in the dark and fead lots of crap )
There idea of the important issues of the day is has Britney Spears shaved her head to today, which leading man is banging which starlet.
Frankly I don’t know how to change it.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, October 3, 2007 at 5:50 am Link to this comment
#104201 by stilldancing on 10/02 at 6:12 pm: “...My question is how to engage people in our every day lives in this conversation… We need some sort of secret handshake or something…...”
Live TRUTH in your life, ‘stilldancing’ - its the only REAL way, uhh!!
Report thisBy stilldancing, October 2, 2007 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
My question is how to engage people in our every day lives in this conversation… I wear buttons, t-shirts etc… to try and spark conversations throughout the day. However… people mostly just avoid the subject: of war in Iraq, Iran; the loss of our basic civil rights. It’s like we all go home and write these comments, but what about in the real world… outside of organizing meetings and the obvious ways…
We need some sort of secret handshake or something…
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, September 26, 2007 at 10:53 pm Link to this comment
Global Consensus??? Do you mean having France’s opportunistic “Sarko the Neocon” as the new raving Blair poodle???
Report thisBy thomas billis, September 26, 2007 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The great con is first our boys and girls will shed their blood for oil and then the oil companies will charge us a premium price for it to keep the profits in the billions.Of course with some magnamity they will offer a discount to Gold Star families.
Report thisThe greatest villain in this piece is the media that refuses to inform the American people of what is going on.I do not mean what I think is going on what the rest of the world’s media states is going on.If you have any lingering questions on what this war is all about I reccommend that you read"American Theocracy"by Kevin Phillips.It is in paperback and a really fast interesting read.To a pevious commenter do not get your shorts in a bunch about Alan Greenspan.How can you respect a man who when in a position of power did nothing and now for his legacy tells us the truth.By the way the second worst Nobel Prize ever given after Henry Kissinger was Milton Friedmans.
By cann4ing, September 26, 2007 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment
In the recent debate between Naomi Klein and Alan Greenspan moderated by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, Klein was literally tearing apart the meandering mumblings of this tired apologist for the economic devasation wrought by neoliberal globalization until Greenspan challenged her to point to a system that was better than the economic “success” offered by the dastardly, privatizing mindset of the Milton Friedman “Chicago School” of economics. Klein melted away like overwarm butter. What is wrong with you Naomi? Why didn’t you ask Mr. Greenspan, “economically successful for whom?” Why didn’t you point to the economic devastation wrought within the U.S. as the nation’s manufacturing base has been outsourced under NAFTA and the WTO in an incessant search for cheap foreign labor with, for example, the remnants of what was once a middle class work force of more than 400,000 but now reduced to 70,000 engaged in a meaningless strike, as the last of their jobs is being outsourced to India? Why didn’t you mention the millions of Chinese, including children, slaving away in sweatshops at $2/day so that Wal Mart can bring us their “always low prices?” Why didn’t you point to the difference Hugo Chavez has meant for ordinary Venezuelan citizens since these thieving privatizers were given the boot? How could you squander the opportunity to hit this proponent of economic inequality square-on when your book, “The Shock Doctrine,” reveals that you know better?
Report thisBy John Borowski, September 26, 2007 at 11:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Although most central banks (Aka Federal Reserve in the US) are INDEPENDENT by law (Not governed by their respective governments) many current and former central bankers expect more, not less, pressure of the type that the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has exerted on the ECB (European Central Bank) to avoid raising interest rates and harming growth. The preceding is an excerpt from International Herald Tribune. It is amusing to see Bernanke wave the magic interest wand and 8 years of fraud, theft, exploitation, and chicanery are instantly wiped away in the stock market. Arent interest rates the thing that got us in the soup in the first place? (Better than Alice in Wonderland) The Federal Reserve controls our printing presses that print our money and own our money too, but not wanting to become ink-stained wretches, that job is delegated to the US Treasury. The INDEPENDENT central banks decide if interest rates are lowered or raised with little or no input from their respective governments. Interest rates have a salubrious or deleterious effect on the US economy. (More than you know) Interest rates however are futile if the corruption is too far advanced.
Report thisBy Swami, September 26, 2007 at 10:44 am Link to this comment
We must be in a post-cynical world to think that what is obvious, oil, war, greed, would not count with those in power. Our problem, it seems, is that we have no unifying vision or will to export true democracy and set in motion change about global warming and US world dominance. We’ve been co-opted by the media, our culture, those in office, various ‘systems’, and the problems are so monumental and critical that only a concerted global voice, can begin to move us in new directions. We’re probably past that point, so we’re left with our individual insights into the mess we’re in.
Report thisBy Virginia from Virginia, September 26, 2007 at 10:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Heeelp! Bush is planning his next war - war on IRAN! We must do what we can to stop his insanity. NOW. That familiar propaganda (read: lies) machine is working at full throttle. We’ve been down this road before. Remember? There is NO EVIDENCE that Iran engages in terrorism, is building nukes, is warring in Iraq. And just listen to the media and their parrotng Bush lies. Do you ever hear any facts? Bush is determined to strike Iran. But we must TRY to counter war with peace and propaganda with truth. Good Luck!
Report thisBy felicity, September 26, 2007 at 10:11 am Link to this comment
#102653
So we should withdraw from ‘all international bodies like the UN’? Fine, then we’ll by all rights have to ‘withdraw’ from the international community altogether - not to mention stop the money flow from China, the oil flow from the ME, cease and desist importing foreign goods (Walmart watch out), cease and desist all exportation of food (watch out rural America).
If we ‘need’ the rest of the world, and we certainly seem to, we’d better make damned sure that we have some say in how we want it to be governed - let alone run.
Report thisBy Civil Responsibility, September 26, 2007 at 9:13 am Link to this comment
The problem with this country is that economically our corporations & government are doing everything it can to exploit and control other nation around the world rather than share ideas. This world is fated to be a global sphere of influence. What we need to do is, instead of trying to force into place a democratic government in sovereign countries, think democratically on a global scale by listening to other ideas from around the world. This policy to promote true “Freedom” instead of the current state of military dictatorship to promote a pseudo-freedom. This freedom, as Naomi Klein suggests is a freedom for corporations to run free and unchecked at great detriment to human lives.
Report thisBy ocjim, September 26, 2007 at 9:02 am Link to this comment
What Amy says is obvious to any thinking person. The other category of people cannot see beyond their own future. We know who is in that category.
Report thisBy mary, September 26, 2007 at 7:23 am Link to this comment
What a surprise, the war is about the OIL! Let’s see, a president whose roots are oil, a vice president whose roots are war profiters and military contracts, what did we all expect! If the News Media had been doing its job instead of tote Rep water buckets, how much better off would the world be. At this point these thugs do exactly what they want and won’t be stopped by anything, including the Congress, the Media, or the American voter. Let the lessons be, you cannot stop paying attention to our leaders, voting is important, pressure your local Reps to do their job, and demand the News Media do their job. 70% of our citizens should not just be dismissed by the 30% who are pushing this agenda down our throats. I’m sure Sen Webb trashes my daily faxes, but I won’t stop sending them. And today, I am adding Nancy Pelozi and Harry Reid to my fax list! Let’s not wait for the bombing of Iran before we voice our position…...
Report thisBy Hank Van den Berg, September 26, 2007 at 5:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The countries Bush is inviting to his bogus environmental meeting should refuse to attend. But I am not holding my breath. I expect most of the invitees to show up and effectively join Bush in his charade intended only to delay any meaningful action on climate change. I hope I am wrong.
Report thisBy driving bear, September 25, 2007 at 10:03 pm Link to this comment
FYI under the bush administration for the first time U.S. CO2 emissions fell Controlling CO2 should be up to each US citizen not the goverment. Ms. Goodman us under the impression the U.S. wish to be bound by international treaties , nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact here in Rural America many citizens would like to see a total US withdrawal from all international bodies like the UN
Report thisBy waxman, September 25, 2007 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment
SAW THE PRESIDENT OF BOLIVA ON COMEDY CENTRAL TONIGHT.. HE ADMITTED TO BEING UNEDUCATED, YET BUSH COULDN’T CARRY HIS DIRTY SHORTS…HAS OUR COUNTRY GONE COMPLETELY STUPID OR AM I ON DRUGS AND CAN’T SEE THIS WONDERFUL BUSHIE GLORY CONQUEST OF THE WORLD ???
Report thisBy Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, September 25, 2007 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment
My goodness, someone took down the screen that hid the elephant in the room. Four years later, after most informed, thinking commenters on TD screamed over and over, It’s OIL, asshole, people are starting to think it might be OIL. Where money is involved, unimagineable amounts of money and religion, there will never be world consensus. Poor slobs all over the world will always be victimized by the powerful and the greedy because arriving at consensus is counterproductive to the latters’ agendas. The poor slobs’ only hope is to have a better life after death. Can’t blame them. As for poor atheist slobs like me, we can only look forward to death, since there will always be jerks like Bush after he’s dead. How is it that world leaders are so often jerks?
Report thisBy purplewolf, September 25, 2007 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment
Did anyone really expcest Bu$h to do the right thing ? Going after oil is a given.America has a past history of invading and taking natural resources from Sovereign countries or nation, just look in Americas own backyard, everytime something this goverment thinks it needs that is found on Indian land, the rez gets smaller as these interlopers steal what they want.
EARTH FIRST, WE’LL DESTROY THE OTHER PLANETS LATER.
Report this