<nettime> 3 x FWD [Spornitz, Zehle, Viseu]

["nettime's_transmittress" <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>]

   the weight of evidence                                                          
     Bill Spornitz <spornitz@mts.net>                                                

   Foreign Policy in Focus: US & Political Islam                                   
     Soenke Zehle <soenke.zehle@web.de>                                              

   Susan Sontag on U.S. rethoric and the role of the U.S. government               
     Ana Viseu <ana.viseu@utoronto.ca>                                               



------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:12:35 -0500
From: Bill Spornitz <spornitz@mts.net>
Subject: the weight of evidence

fyi -b


S CA: Column: Bush's Faustian Deal With The Taliban
Pubdate: Tue, 22 May 2001     <-please note
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2001 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Author: Robert Scheer
Note: Robert Scheer Is a Syndicated Columnist.

BUSH'S FAUSTIAN DEAL WITH THE TALIBAN

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S.  terrorists, destroy
every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration
will embrace you.  All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the
drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes
seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the
Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of
human rights in the world today.  The gift, announced last Thursday by
Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, 
makes the U.S.
the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for
declaring that opium growing is against the will of God.  So, too, by the
Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that
catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American
terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other
crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa
in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a
time when the United Nations, at U.S.  insistence, imposes sanctions on
Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily
trumps all other concerns.  How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who
has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign
of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of
women.

At no point in modern history have women and girls been more
systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of 
madness masquerading as
Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human
rights.
Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe
with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the
house without being accompanied by a male family member.  They've not been
permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have
been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter.

The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme
religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior,
from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown.  It is this last power
that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House.

The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at
the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash
from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to
reverse themselves on the growing of opium.  That a totalitarian country can
effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising.  But it is
grotesque for a U.S.  official, James P. Callahan, director of the State
Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special
methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a
system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the
Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very
religious terms."

Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic
edict would be sent to prison.

In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the
spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's
understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be
compelling.  Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the
farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation.  That's
because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the
Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick
cash crop overwhelming.

For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S.  is willing
to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy.
As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad
side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions
of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for
Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast
infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in
that devastated country.  There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn
once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power.

The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war
zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our
long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the
futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession.




------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 14:27:38 +0200
From: Soenke Zehle <soenke.zehle@web.de>
Subject: Foreign Policy in Focus: US & Political Islam

Dear All,

maybe this is useful info...in the midst of confusion, tragedy, and
solidarity with those affected, it might make sense to remember to it is
(all too) likely that the terrorist organizations under suspicion attended
at least one seminar with the CIA, back in the days when much of this began.

What scares me is that despite official talk of "high tech terrorism" that
is apparently not what has occurred (knives!!!). Maybe another reason to
wonder whether militarization & more intelligence will be able to offer an
adequate solution, but something tells me it might be a good idea to get
ready for a new wave of anti-arabism as well.

in solidarity,
Soenke

U.S. Policy Toward Political Islam
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol6/v6n24islam.html

Volume 6, Number 24
June 2001

By Stephen Zunes, University of San Francisco
Editors: Tom Barry (IRC) and Martha Honey (IPS)

Key Points

*    U.S. policy toward the Islamic world is skewed by negative stereotypes
of Islam that fail to recognize its diversity.
*    Radical Islamic movements often arise out of the legitimate needs and
grievances of oppressed sectors of the population who see the U.S. as partly
responsible for their suffering.
*    Washington has encouraged the rise of extremist Islamic politics both
through shortsighted support for such movements or governments and through
its support of repressive regimes, which often trigger extremist backlash
responses.


The perceived growth of radical Islamic movements throughout the Middle East
and beyond has not only caused major political upheaval in the countries
directly affected but has placed political Islam at the forefront of
concerns voiced by U.S. policymakers. One unfortunate aspect of this
newfound attention has been the way it has strengthened ugly stereotypes of
Muslims already prevalent in the West. This occurs despite the existence of
moderate Islamic segments and secular movements that are at least as
influential as radicals in the political life of Islamic countries.

Even though the vast majority of the world's Muslims oppose terrorism,
religious intolerance, and the oppression of women, these remain the most
prevalent images of the Muslim faith throughout the Western world. Such
popular misconceptions about Islam and Islamic movements‹often exacerbated
by the media, popular culture, and government officials‹have made it
particularly difficult to challenge U.S. policy.

To be able to respond effectively to Islamic militancy, the U.S. must
clearly understand the reasons why a small but dangerous minority of Muslims
have embraced extremist ideologies and violent tactics. These movements are
often rooted in legitimate grievances voiced by underrepresented and
oppressed segments of the population, particularly the poor. And the U.S. is
increasingly identified with the political, social, and economic forces that
are responsible for their misery. Many Muslims in the Middle East and
elsewhere are exposed not to the positive aspects of U.S. society‹such as
individual liberty, the rule of law, and economic prosperity‹but to the
worst traits of American culture, including materialism, militarism, and
racism.

Although scientific and other advances from the Muslim world helped Europe
emerge from the Dark Ages, the West has generally viewed Islamic peoples
with hostility. From the time of the Crusades through the European colonial
era to the ongoing bombing and sanctions against Iraq, Western Christians
have killed far more Muslims than the reverse. Given this strong sense of
history among Muslims, Washington's use and threat of military force, its
imposition of punitive sanctions, and its support of oppressive governments
result in a popular reaction that often takes the form of religious
extremism.

When a people have lost their identity‹whether it be due to foreign
occupation, war-induced relocation, the collapse of traditional economies,
or other reasons‹there is a great pull to embrace something that can provide
the structure, worldview, and purpose through which to rebuild their lives.
The mosque is one of the few constants in Muslim countries undergoing great
social disruption. Islam is a faith that offers a clear sense of social
justice, a feeling of empowerment, and an obligation by individuals to
challenge those who cause the injustice. Although there has been a decidedly
reactionary orientation to some Islamic movements, other currents within
Islam have been clearly progressive.

Washington has used the threat of Islamic fundamentalism as a justification
for keeping a high military, economic, and political profile in the Middle
East. Yet it has often supported Muslim hard-liners when they were perceived
to enhance U.S. interests, as they did in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi
Arabia.

Often, extremist Islamic movements arise in direct response to U.S.
policies. The 1953 overthrow by the CIA of the moderate constitutional
government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, followed by years of support for
the brutal regime of the shah, led directly to the rise of the Islamic
revolution in that country. U.S. support for the regime of Jafaar Nimeiry
during most of his repressive 16-year rule of Sudan led to the destruction
of much of that country's civil society, resulting in the 1989 coup by
hard-line Islamist military officers who overthrew that country's brief
democratic experiment. During the 1970s and 1980s, the destruction of
moderate Muslim-led factions in Lebanon by U.S.-backed invasions and
occupations from Syria and Israel‹and later military intervention by the
U.S. itself‹led to a vacuum filled by more sectarian groups such as
Hezbollah, even as most of the other militias that once carved up the rest
of the country were disarmed by a revived central government and its Syrian
backers.

The roots of Islamic radicalism stem from economic inequality, military
occupation, and authoritarianism. Given that U.S. policy in the Middle East
and elsewhere has often perpetuated such injustices, responsibility for the
rise of radical Islamic movements can often be traced to the U.S. itself.

 Problems with Current U.S. Policy

Key Problems 

*    The U.S. has supported hard-line Islamic movements and governments,
such as the Saudi Arabia regime, which have encouraged extremist movements
elsewhere.
*    U.S. support for repressive governments makes democratic and nonviolent
options for the Islamic opposition extremely difficult.
*    Neoliberal economic development strategies‹vigorously encouraged by the
U.S.‹have resulted in widespread economic dislocation, which has in turn
encouraged the growth of radical Islamic movements.


Ironically, the U.S. has at times been a supporter of hard-line Islamic
movements and governments. For example, Washington armed extremist Islamic
groups in Afghanistan during the 1980s during the popular uprising against
that country's communist regime backed by Soviet occupation forces. Some of
the most notorious Islamic terrorists today‹including many followers of
Osama Bin Laden‹originally received their training from the CIA during that
period.

Despite horrific reports from Afghanistan about the Taliban government's
totalitarian theocracy, which has far surpassed the brutality of the
communist regime of the 1980s, the U.S. voiced little opposition to the
regime until it refused to extradite Bin Laden for trial on terrorism
charges.

Currently, the U.S. maintains close strategic cooperation‹including massive
arms transfers, training and logistics, and a permanent military
presence‹with Saudi Arabia, one of the most extreme states in the Muslim
world considering its strict interpretation of Islamic codes, repression of
women, and political orientation. The Saudis have used their vast oil wealth
to encourage like-minded movements throughout the Islamic world. Some of the
Islamic-identified governments and movements the U.S. has found most
troubling‹the Hamas of Palestine, the Taliban of Afghanistan, the FIS of
Algeria, and the military government of Sudan‹all had backing from the
Saudis at some point in their development.

Perhaps the most serious problem with U.S. policy has been Washington's
support for repressive allied governments that suppress even moderate
Islamic opposition groups. This often leads to a backlash against any U.S.
presence by Islamists reacting to American support of what they perceive as
an illegitimate government. The U.S. has rationalized its support for
several regimes engaging in patterns of gross and systematic human rights
violations as a regrettable but necessary means of suppressing an Islamic
opposition that Washington fears would be even worse if it came to power. In
many respects, this policy closely parallels the decades of support during
the cold war of repressive right-wing governments in the name of
anticommunism. The result is similar: the lack of open political expression
encourages suppressed sectors to ally with an underground‹and often violent
and authoritarian‹opposition movement.

In some cases‹such as in Tajikistan and other former Soviet republics‹the
U.S. has even allied with old-line Communist Party bosses as a means of
countering the growth of Islamic movements. This occurs despite the fact
that the Islamic movements in much of Central Asia are actually quite
progressive and moderate (in part because of the strong Sufi influence) when
compared with some of their Middle Eastern and North African counterparts.

Another factor fueling radical Islamic movements has been the perceived U.S.
culpability in the deaths of Muslim civilians. From Washington's initial
failure to respond to the Serbian slaughter of Bosnian Muslims to the
sanctions against Iraq to the support of Israeli repression against
Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, U.S. foreign policy has laid itself open
to this accusation.

Extremist Islamic political forces have also arisen in areas where there has
been large-scale dislocation due to war. U.S. support for Israel's ongoing
occupation and repression in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has contributed to
the rise of Hamas and other radical Islamic movements, despite the fact that
Palestinians historically had been more pluralistic and tolerant than many
of their Arab neighbors. Islamic extremists were never much of a factor in
Lebanese politics until after the U.S.-backed 1982 Israeli invasion and
Israel's 22-year occupation of southern Lebanon.

Social dislocation can also result from uneven economic development, as has
been encouraged by the U.S. insistence on globalization according to a
neoliberal economic model. Largely unregulated Western economic penetration
in Egypt, Tunisia, the Philippines, and elsewhere has exacerbated gross
wealth inequalities and triggered disruptive internal migration, giving rise
to these countries' Islamic extremists.

It would certainly be simplistic to blame the U.S. exclusively for the rise
of violent and extremist Islamic political movements. Autocratic and
misguided socialist policies in Algeria‹which has had very little U.S.
influence‹also resulted in an Islamic reaction similar to movements
triggered by autocratic and misguided capitalist policies elsewhere. And in
other countries, the colonial legacies of the French and British along with
certain domestic factors have spawned extremist Islamic groups. Yet U.S.
policies have unquestionably fueled the development of this dangerous
political trend.

Military solutions‹apparently preferred by the U.S. and many of its
allies‹will not succeed in countering the rise of militant Islamic
movements. Nevertheless, Washington has successfully encouraged the NATO
alliance, in a desperate attempt to justify its existence at the end of the
cold war, to place challenging Islamic movements among its top strategic
priorities. NATO has already begun a dialogue with some North African
regimes regarding mutual security arrangements against a perceived Islamic
threat.

Over the past two decades, the U.S. has bombed Lebanon, Iran, Sudan, and
Afghanistan in an effort to challenge Islamic movements and governments
viewed as antithetical to U.S. interests. Such air strikes have not only
been contrary to international law but have also resulted in fueling
anti-American hatred, particularly when they have caused civilian
casualties.

Trying to impose military solutions to what are essentially political,
economic, and social problems is doomed to fail.

Toward a New Foreign Policy

Key Recommendations

*    The U.S. must shift from supporting repressive governments to
encouraging greater democracy and pluralism in the Islamic world.
*    The U.S. must demand an end to Israel's illegal occupation of Arab East
Jerusalem and other Palestinian territories and promote a peace agreement
that recognizes the city's importance to all three monotheistic faiths.
*    The U.S. should support sustainable economic development in the Islamic
world, so that the benefits of foreign investment and globalization can be
more fairly distributed with minimal social disruption.


To effectively challenge the threat from radical Islamic movements, the U.S.
must shift its focus from trying to crush such movements to pursuing
policies that discourage their emergence. Similarly, the U.S. must recognize
that not all Islamic movements are contrary to the development of political
pluralism or good relations with the United States.

>From Afghanistan to Algeria and beyond, radical Islamic movements have grown
to prominence where there has been great social dislocation in the
population, whether it be from war or misguided economic policies. Policies
designed to minimize such traumatic events will be far more successful than
military threats in encouraging moderation in Islamic countries.

The U.S. must cease its support for autocratic regimes and encourage greater
political pluralism. In countries like Jordan, Turkey, and Yemen, where
Islamic parties have been allowed to compete in a relatively open political
process, they have generally played a responsible‹if somewhat
conservative‹role in the political system. The more radical elements
observable in many Islamic movements are usually a reflection of the denial
of their right to participate in political discourse. Many radical Islamic
movements, such as those in Egypt, Palestine, and Algeria, include diverse
elements. Were they no longer under siege and instead allowed to function in
an open democratic system they would likely divide into competing political
parties ranging across the ideological spectrum.

It is noteworthy that the FIS in Algeria competed fairly and nonviolently
during that country's brief political opening in the early 1990s, only to
have its anticipated election victory stolen in a military coup. In the
aftermath, the radical GAM emerged to launch its campaign of terror against
foreigners and broad segments of Algerian society.

Indeed, no extremist Islamic movements have ever evolved in democratic
societies. Supporting democracy would therefore be a major step in the
direction of moderating political Islam. The U.S. must stop considering
Islam to be the enemy and instead encourage Islamic movements by working for
justice and economic equality.

Washington must support the Palestinians' right to statehood in the West
Bank and Gaza, including a shared Jerusalem that would serve as the capital
of both Israel and Palestine. Both Congress and the executive branch should
rescind resolutions and past statements that imply support for Israel's
unilateral annexation of Arab East Jerusalem and surrounding Palestinian
lands. Washington must instead recognize the city's importance to all three
monotheistic faiths. Not only would such a policy shift bring the U.S. in
line with international law, UN Security Council resolutions, and virtually
the entire international community, but it would also remove a highly
emotional and volatile issue from the arsenal of Islamic extremists, who
exploit the widespread anger about U.S. support for the illegal Israeli
occupation of a city that Muslims also see as holy.

The U.S. should stop pushing for radical economic liberalization in Islamic
countries, since such policies increase inequality and result in rising
materialism and conspicuous consumption for elites at the expense of basic
needs of the poor majority. Instead, the U.S. must support sustainable
economic development, so that the benefits of foreign investment and
globalization can be more fairly distributed with minimal social disruption.
Although some Islamic traditions have proven to be relatively tolerant of
autocratic governance, the presence of corruption and a lack of concern
about social injustice by a country's leadership are generally seen by
Muslims as a violation of a social contract and must be resisted.

In many respects, political Islam has filled a vacuum that resulted from the
failure of Arab nationalism, Marxism, and other ideologies to free Islamic
countries both from unjust political, social, and economic systems and from
Western imperialism. Just because radical Islamic movements have embraced
tactics and ideologies reprehensible to most Westerners does not mean that
the concerns giving rise to such movements are without merit.

Only by addressing the legitimate grievances of these movements will there
be any hope of stopping their often illegitimate methods and questionable
ideologies. Otherwise, the U.S. may find itself dealing with a series of
conflicts that could eclipse the bloody surrogate cold war battles that
ravaged the third world in previous decades.

Stephen Zunes <zunes@usfca.edu> is an associate professor of politics and
chairperson of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San
Francisco. Zunes is also a senior analyst and the Middle East and North
Africa editor at Foreign Policy In Focus.

 

Sources for More Information

Publications

Dale F. Eickelman and James Piscatori, Muslim Politics (Princeton University
Press, 1996).

John L. Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995).

John L. Esposito and John O. Voll, Islam and Democracy (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1996).

Fred Halliday, Islam and the Myth of Confrontation: Religion and Politics in
the Middle East (New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1995).

Scott W. Hibbard and David Little, Islamic Activism and U.S. Foreign Policy
(Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997).

Charles Hirschkind, "What Is Political Islam?" Middle East Report,
October-December 1997.

Stephen Hubbell, "The Containment Myth: U.S. Middle East Policy in Theory
and Practice," Middle East Report, Fall 1998.


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:10:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ana Viseu <ana.viseu@utoronto.ca>
Subject: Susan Sontag on U.S. rethoric and the role of the U.S. government

[a spanish translation forwarded from atsyber@eListas.net 
<atsyber@eListas.net> follows below. ana]

http://www.newyorker.com/THE_TALK_OF_THE_TOWN/CONTENT/?talk_wtc

                         The disconnect between last Tuesday's monstrous
                         dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and
                         outright deceptions being peddled by public figures
                         and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The
                         voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined
                         together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where
                         is the acknowledgment that this was not a "cowardly"
                         attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or
                         "the free world" but an attack on the world's
                         self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a
                         consequence of specific American alliances and
                         actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing
                         American bombing of Iraq? And if the word
                         "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly 
applied
                         to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation,
                         high in the sky, than to those willing to die 
themselves
                         in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a
                         morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the
                         perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not
                         cowards.
                         Our leaders are bent on convincing us that everything
                         is O.K. America is not afraid. Our spirit is unbroken,
                         although this was a day that will live in infamy and
                         America is now at war. But everything is not O.K. And
                         this was not Pearl Harbor. We have a robotic President
                         who assures us that America still stands tall. A wide
                         spectrum of public figures, in and out of office, who 
are
                         strongly opposed to the policies being pursued abroad
                         by this Administration apparently feel free to say
                         nothing more than that they stand united behind
                         President Bush. A lot of thinking needs to be done,
                         and perhaps is being done in Washington and
                         elsewhere, about the ineptitude of American
                         intelligence and counter-intelligence, about options
                         available to American foreign policy, particularly in 
the
                         Middle East, and about what constitutes a smart
                         program of military defense. But the public is not 
being
                         asked to bear much of the burden of reality. The
                         unanimously applauded, self-congratulatory bromides
                         of a Soviet Party Congress seemed contemptible. The
                         unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing
                         rhetoric spouted by American officials and media
                         commentators in recent days seems, well, unworthy of
                         a mature democracy.
                         Those in public office have let us know that they
                         consider their task to be a manipulative one:
                         confidence-building and grief management. Politics, the
                         politics of a democracy—which entails disagreement,
                         which promotes candor—has been replaced by
                         psychotherapy. Let's by all means grieve together. But
                         let's not be stupid together. A few shreds of 
historical
                         awareness might help us understand what has just
                         happened, and what may continue to happen. "Our
                         country is strong," we are told again and again. I for
                         one don't find this entirely consoling. Who doubts that
                         America is strong? But that's not all America has to 
be.
                         —Susan Sontag 




- ----- Forwarded message from atsyber@eListas.net <atsyber@eListas.net>-----

Mirar la realidad de frente

SUSAN SONTAG

Para una estadounidense y neoyorquina como yo, triste y consternada,
Estados Unidos nunca pareció estar más lejos de reconocer los hechos como 
después de la última y monstruosa dosis de realidad del martes pasado. La falta 
de conexión entre lo que realmente ocurrió y cómo se lo puede interpretar y la
estupidez santurrona y engaños absolutos que pregonan virtualmente todas
las figuras públicas y comentaristas de TV estadounidenses es asombrosa y
deprimente.

Las voces autorizadas a seguir de cerca este acontecimiento parecen haberse
unido en una campaña destinada a puerilizar a la opinión pública. ¿En dónde
está la admisión de que este no fue un ataque "cobarde" contra la
"civilización", la "libertad", la "humanidad" o "el mundo libre" sino un
ataque contra Estados Unidos, la autoproclamada superpotencia del mundo,
cometido como consecuencia de determinados intereses y acciones
estadounidenses? ¿Cuántos ciudadanos estadounidenses están al tanto del
actual bombardeo de EE.UU. contra Irak? Y si se debe utilizar la palabra
"cobardemente" sería más apropiado utilizarla para aquellos que matan fuera
del campo de la represalia, desde lo alto de los cielos, que para los que
están dispuestos a morir para poder matar a otros. En cuanto al tema del
coraje (una virtud moralmente neutral), independientemente de lo que se
diga sobre los autores de la masacre del martes, no eran cobardes.

Los dirigentes de Estados Unidos se muestran propensos a convencernos de
que todo está bien. Estados Unidos no tiene miedo. Nuestro espíritu es
inquebrantable. "Ellos" serán perseguidos y castigados (quienesquiera que
sean "ellos"). Contamos con un presidente robotizado que nos asegura que
EE.UU. sigue ocupando un lugar preponderante.

Un amplio espectro de figuras públicas, que se oponen fuertemente a las
políticas que persigue esta administración en el extranjero sienten
aparentemente la libertad de afirmar, nada menos, que se mantienen unidos
detrás del presidente Bush.

Nos dijeron que todo está bien, o va a estarlo, a pesar de que el martes
fue un día que vivimos con infamia y que Estados Unidos está ahora en guerra.
Pero no todo está bien. Y esto no fue Pearl Harbor.

Es necesario pensar mucho en todo esto y es posible que ya se lo esté
haciendo tanto en Washington como en otros sitios, respecto del colosal
fracaso de la inteligencia y contrainteligencia estadounidense, de las
opciones con las que cuenta la política exterior de EE.UU. -en Oriente
Medio en especial- y de lo que es realmente un programa inteligente de defensa
militar.

Pero aquellos que ocupan cargos públicos, los que aspiran a uno, o los que
alguna vez lo ocuparon -con la voluntaria complicidad de los principales
medios de prensa- decidieron que no se debe pedir a la opinión pública que
cargue con demasiada carga de realidad.

Los aburridos de un Congreso del Partido Soviético unánimemente aplaudidos
y que se autoelogiaban parecían despreciables.

La unanimidad de la retórica mojigata y que oculta la realidad recitada por
funcionarios y comentaristas estadounidenses en estos últimos días no es
digna de una democracia madura.

Los dirigentes y aspirantes a dirigentes de Estados Unidos nos hicieron
saber que consideran que su función pública es manipuladora: restaurar la
confianza y manejar la pena.

La política, la política de una democracia -que ocasiona desacuerdo y
promueve la equidad- ha sido reemplazada por la psicoterapia. Lamentémonos
juntos. Pero no seamos estúpidos juntos.

Algunas pizcas de consciencia histórica nos ayudarían a comprender lo que
ocurrió y lo que seguirá ocurriendo. "Nuestro país es fuerte" nos dicen una
y otra vez. Personalmente, esta frase no me consuela del todo. ¿Quién puede
dudar de que Estados Unidos es fuerte? Pero esto no es todo lo que Estados
Unidos debe ser.

[ Susan Sontag es escritora y ensayista estadounidense. © Agencia Wylie.
Traducción: Silvia S. Simonetti. ]



------------------------------

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net