Ed, This has been sitting waiting for me to finish it. Sorry for the delay.
Check my reply to Karen for some thoughts on Iraq. It is the job of the US President - among others - to ensure the supply of vital commodities to the country - and oil surely qualifies as such. However, I don't think you would suggest that the chicanery, venality, political bribery, and the rest suddenly sprang anew from the Bush Administration. It is part and parcel of what is laughingly called democracy. Did the $17 billion or so that Saddam owed the French and Russians (plus the $3.8 billion invested by Russians in the northern oil fields not affect their decisions at the UN? (I fear to add to this the billion or so "Oil for Food" bribery of individuals from those countries.) In other words, passing resolutions at the UN (even those threatening "serious consequences") was fine just so long as no-one did anything about it - just so long as the status quo (however miserable) was preserved. The invasion of Iraq on whatever pretext may well have been the best policy in the fight against terrorism. Al Qaeda is not a great Arab army fighting the west. It is anyone with some money from a rich Arab who can make a plastic explosive device that will kill people (sometimes along with himself). The way we deal with pollution is to concentrate it. The hundreds of tons of sulphur dioxide that would spread through the air of the Los Angeles basin become huge mountains of sulphur in a yard somewhere. In the same way, the hundreds of attacks that could take place anywhere in the world are (at the moment) concentrated in Iraq. Let me give you a scenario. The American borders are porous. Except by creating a police state, there is no way we can stop incursion by those who mean us no good. We can hide behind ever higher walls, or we can take the fight to the terrorists. Yet, how can we do this against an amorphous, shadowy, group who may be anywhere. We could attack somewhere in the Middle East - but where? If we attacked the Saudis, the immediate result be the closing of the oil spigot. We - and the world - would be in trouble. Syria is a likely candidate but we would have to land by sea and supply by sea. If the Israelis helped things would be easier. In fact, the Israelis could probably clean off Syria without help. However, an Israeli ally in a war would not go down well in the Middle East. Egypt is our friend (it costs us a couple of billion a year for that friendship - we shouldn't waste it). Iran is a large country. We could hope that the people would revolt against the theocracy but in the war with Iraq one of Saddam's miscalculations was believing that the Arabs of the Arabic-speaking, oil-rich area of Khuzistan would rise against fundamentalist Islamic regime. This didn't happen. The Arabs took position with the Iranians against the Iraqi. So it would be likely that the whole country would unite against any US invasion. Attacking Iran would be foolish. The Iraq invasion was the correct course of action for the US - if we were to be proactive rather than reactive. And so it happened. You'll note that a major speech by Condi Rice made the point when she said something like: "For 60 years we have had a policy of democracy and stability. As a result we have achieved neither." So, we took the positive approach - if that's the right adjective. Harry ******************************* Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ******************************* > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Weick > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 9:59 AM > To: Karen Watters Cole; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Who are the Pro Americans? > > I've just spent a few days in Port Angeles, Washington. On the way > back to > Victoria yesterday I had a long talk with an American, a retired > construction worker from Chehailis (Sp?) who had worked all over > the US. > >From what he said, he obviously loved his country. But then we > got onto > the speech Bush made at a military base the other night. I've never > heard > such a vituperative condemnation of anyone in my life - Bush is a > puppet to > the rich few, he started the war in Iraq so that his buddies in the > arms > industry could make a lot of money, etc. etc. I've thought at times > that I > was hard on Bush. This guy was something else! > > The lesson I took out of it was that one has to recognize what one is > pro > or anti about. It's not really all that simple. Whenever I've > travelled > to the US, as in the past few days, I've found myself liking many > things > about the place and its people. The wall of the high school gym in > Port > Angeles has copies of many of the great documents that the modern > US is > founded on - The Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg > Address, the > Emancipation Declaration, etc. Some of the great battles of the > 20th > century were fought in the US - e.g. the civil rights movement. The > US has > produced some truly outstanding writers and thinkers. Etc. Etc. > > Like my friend on the ferry, I don't like the Bush administration > and the > damage it has done to world peace and order. I also abhor some > other > things, like the kinds of things the religious right is trying to pull. > I'm hoping these things are aberrations and that the good sense and > decency > that are so much a part of America will ultimately prevail. I for > one will > keep hoping. > > Ed > > > > > > > > > >More on the sociopolitical homefront.KwC > > > >Who Are the Pro-Americans? > >Commentary by Anne Applebaum, Washington Post, Wednesday, > June 29, 2005; > >A21 > >So familiar are the numbers, and so often have we heard them > analyzed, > th>at > >the release of a new poll on international anti-Americanism last > week > cau>sed > >barely a ripple. Once again the Pew Global Attitudes Project > showed that > >most Frenchmen have a highly unfavorable view of the United > States; that > >the > >Spanish prefer China to America; and that Canadian opinion of > the United > >States has sunk dramatically. And once again the polls told only > half of > >the > >story. After all, even the most damning polls always show that > some > >percentage of even the most anti-American countries remains pro- > American. > >According to the new poll, some 43 percent of the French, 41 > percent of > >Germans, 42 percent of Chinese and 42 percent of Lebanese say > they like > u>s. > >Maybe it's time to ask: Who are they? > >In fact, when pro- and anti-American sentiments are broken down > by age, > >income and education -- I did so recently using polling data from > the > >Program on International Policy Attitudes, supplied by Foreign > Policy > >magazine -- patterns do emerge. It turns out, for example, that in > Poland>, > >which is generally pro-American, people between the ages of 30 > and 44 are > >even more likely to support America than their compatriots. This > is the > >group whose lives would have been most directly affected by the > experienc>e > >of the Solidarity movement and martial law -- events that > occurred when > t>hey > >were in their teens and twenties -- and who have the clearest > memories of > >American support for the Polish underground. > >It also turns out that in some more anti-American countries, such > as > Cana>da, > >Britain, Italy and Australia, people older than 60 have far more > positive > >feelings about the United States than their children and > grandchildren. > T>his > >was the generation, of course, that had positive experiences of U.S. > >cooperation or occupation during World War II. And surely > there's a > lesso>n > >here: Although anti-Americanism is often described as if it were > mere > >fashion, or some sort of contagious virus, America's behavior > overseas, > >whether support for anticommunist movements or allied > cooperation, does > >matter. To put it differently, people feel more positive about the > United > >States when their personal experience is positive. > >But the polls also make clear that direct political experience is not > the > >only factor that shapes foreigners' perceptions of the United > States. > >Advertising executives understand very well the phenomenon of > ordinary > wo>men > >who read magazines filled with photographs of clothes they could > never > >afford: They call such women "aspirational." Looking around the > world, it> > is > >clear there are classes of people who might also be called > aspirational. > >They are upwardly mobile, or would like to be. They tend to be > pro-Americ>an, > >too. > >In Britain, for example, 57.6 percent of those whose income are > low > belie>ve > >that the United States has a mainly positive influence in the world, > whil>e > >only 37.1 percent of those whose income are high believe the same. > Breaki>ng > >down the answers by education, a similar pattern emerges. In > South Korea, > >69.2 percent of those with low education think the United States is > a > >positive influence, while only 45.8 percent of those with a high > educatio>n > >agree. That trend repeats itself not only across Europe but in > many other > >developed countries. Those on their way up are pro-American. > Those who > ha>ve > >arrived, and perhaps feel threatened by those eager to do the > same, are > m>uch > >less so. > >In developing countries, by contrast, the pattern is sometimes > reversed. > >It > >turns out, for example, that Indians are much more likely to be > pro-Ameri>can > >if they are not only younger but also wealthier and better > educated, and > >no > >wonder. Because India has only recently been open to foreign > investment, > >younger Indians have had the experience of working with > Americans, > wherea>s > >their parents have not. The poor in India are still untouched by > >globalization, but the middle and upper-middle classes -- those > who see > f>or > >themselves a role in the English-speaking, American-dominated > internation>al > >economy -- are aspirational, and therefore pro-American. Some 69 > percent > >of > >Indians with high incomes think the United States is a mainly > positive > >influence in the world, and only 29 percent of those with low > incomes > agr>ee. > >This same phenomenon may also account for the persistence of a > surprising > >degree of popular pro-Americanism in such places as Vietnam, > Indonesia, > >Brazil and the Philippines. They're getting wealthier -- like > Americans > ->- > >but aren't yet so rich as to feel directly competitive. > >True, these pro-Americans may not be a majority, either in the > world or > i>n > >their own countries. But neither are they insignificant. Pro- > Americans > wi>ll > >vote for pro-American politicians, who sometimes win, even in > Europe. > The>y > >will also purchase American products, make deals with American > companies, > >vacation in the United States if we give them visas to do so. They > are > wo>rth > >cultivating, with presidential speeches or diplomatic visits, because > the>ir > >numbers may even grow if their economies expand, if their > markets grow > >freer, if they begin to see the global economy as a promise and not > a > >threat. Before Americans brush off the opinion of the "foreigners" > as > >unworthy of attention, they should remember that whole chunks > of the > worl>d > >have a natural affinity for them and, if they are diligent, always > will. > >Happy Fourth of July. > >A longer version of this article appears in the July/August issue of > Fore>ign > >Policy magazine. > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- > dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062> > 801 > >246.html?nav=hcmodule > ><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- > dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR200506> > 280 > >1246.html?nav=hcmodule> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Futurework mailing list > >[email protected] > >http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent using cyberus.ca WebMail - http://www.cyberus.ca/ > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
