Hi Ross,
Here's my take on your questions. I'll refer to these directly and, for
brevity, delete the rest:
At 22:11 10/12/01 +1300, you wrote:
(RJS)
>1) The Bush Administration is the most conservative in modern times,
>surpassing even Ronald Reagon.
Maybe -- in the usual political terms. But in these complex times, in
which there is a host of issues, no single phrase can possibly summarise
the policies of any developed country government, whether conservative,
radical or whatever. I find most of Bush's speeches jejune and sometimes
stupid and offensive, but there are a few good strands of policy within the
present Administration. Bush is just a puppet, but he has a few good
advisors around him who'll probably prevent him going off his rocker.
(RJS)
>2) The attacks of September 11 restored an enemy that had been missing
>since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Let there be no mistake. Every Prime Minister or President likes an enemy,
whether he declares war on him or not. An enemy helps a politician to unite
his country round him. Dictators, like Hitler or Stalin, usually comes to
power this way -- by posing enemies within or without the system. This
"supporter-tendency" with its ally -- peer pressure -- is an unfortunate
legacy of human nature, as fashioned by our evolution in a group structure
for several million years.
(RJS)
>3) Anti-communism has been replaced by Anti-Islamism.
Unfortunately so. Bin Laden used the pretext of fundamental Islam as part
of his main motivation to overthrow the Saudi royal family who are too
friendly to the USA and thus allow troops in their country. America fell
into the trap of confusing Bin Laden's nationalism with Islam as a whole.
(RJS)
>4) Are our freedoms threatened, and if so, are we fighting this 'evil' in
>the right way?
>- this one seems to be provoking a lot of debate judging by the response
>to the new 'anti-terrorism' legislation which is springing up in every
>western country. New Zealand is no exception as our legislation, presently
>before The House, has provoked extensive research on its possible effects
>if it is passed.
Yes, indeed. Some very reactionary legislation is being framed everywhere.
So far, the rather decrepit House of Lords in this country has finally come
alive and is fiercely opposing the far-too-sweeping anti-liberty
legislation being put forward by our Government. This, like America's,
smacks of crude McCarthyism. Hasty legislation is nearly always bad
legislation, and is looked upon ruefully in later years and often repealed
with embarrassment.
(RJS)
>5) Us vs Them framework.
>Has a new cold war framework created the climate for the US to pursue
>relentlessly global ambitions using overwhelming military force? What has
>been called "full spectrum dominance".
I really don't think that America has global ambitions of a military
nature. There have been many opportunities for such in the last few
decades. However, I would be most surprised if there is not a wider war in
the Middle East in the coming years directly involving America if and when
its oil imports become vulnerable.
(RJS)
>6) It is rather disturbing to read that it is suggested that following the
>shock of the September 11 attacks, trade favours could be used in exchange
>for supporting US policies ("Bombs for Beef")
I agree. There should be no free trade favours (or trade sanctions).
(RJS)
>Finally, I would like comment on the final paragraph of the article.
>
>Are we witnesing the birth of the new George Bush world order?, where we
>may find we cannot act independently as it is called anti-American, where
>the US's enemies are automatically our enemies and where we turn a blind
>eye to our own injustices. While the last thing we want is to let
>terrorism destroy our freedoms, we don't want to be stampeded into
>something diametrically opposite either.
I sympathise with the very real worries that lie behind this question. In
this country Tony Blair has gone overboard in his enthusiastic support for
Bush. On the other hand, because he's seen to be a friend of Bush in public
and won't be a cause of Bush losing face, he may be privately advising Bush
quite differently. I suspect so, actually -- though I'm not trying to
condone Blair's public behaviour. The European countries, while going along
with Bush generally, are nowhere near as positive. France and Germany have
agreed to supply troops to Afghanistan (because as in the UK, their
generals are desperate for interesting things to do with their troops) but
their public statements have been very sparse and nowhere near as
enthusiastic as Blair's. I think this is eloquent evidence that they're
actually very worried and think that Bush has gone too far -- even though
he and America have been terribly -- and quite understandably -- provoked
by Bin Laden's madness.
Keith Hudson
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________________
