First, Happy holidays. I hope all ZNet Update recipients are doing well,
in these admittedly difficult times around the world.

Second, if by chance you wish to change your address or remove yourself
from receiving free updates, or add a new address, you can do so via the
ZNet top page -- http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm

Third, a reminder...in our online store you can get discounted Z
subscriptions and purchase videos as well sign up for our Sustainer


Since our last mailing ZNet and its various volunteers have been very

--> We have taken the old Crisis Sites and Watch sites and reoriented
them into a single massive subsystem of Watch sites - and changed
various menus appropriately, for easier access -- try

--> We have had updates in many subsites -- Latin America Watch
including a new Argentina section, South Asia, Chiapas -- quite a few. 

--> We have added a new subsite -- Strategy Vision Watch at
http://www.zmag.org/stratvision.htm and will be working to improve this
in coming weeks.

--> We have also added Mainstream Media Watch to go along with our
Alternative Media Watch and Current Essays in Other Alt Media


--> We have placed July/Aug, September, and October issues of Z online,
with some articles linked directly from the top page, but all available
via the Z Magazine subsite --

--> Our ZNet Interactive sections (http://www.zmag.org/interznet.htm) in
which users post their own essays, poetry, cartoons, favorite lyrics,
quotes, pen pal information, etc., are of course regularly updated. 

Try the cartoons, for example, (http://zena.secureforum.com/cartoons/)
it is quite remarkable with about 400 entries from 13 cartoonists who we
have given means to upload their work...the cartoons are organized by
topic, date, etc. 

Similarly, the quotes section has 2027 of them uploaded by users. Lyrics
includes 1100 political songs with full lyrics. And so on...

--> For those who speak Spanish or Italian, we have many many new essays
in both languages, those being the two most active of our translated
subsites, but others being updated as well.

--> We have made mutual arrangements to share some material with the
French based Le Monde Diplomatique and have a section pointing to some
of their content now online...on the ZNet top page.

And of course we have a great many new essays online linked directly
from the top page...dealing with the situation in Afghanistan and
unfolding war on terrorism, the situation in the middle east, and other
matters around the world and in the U.S.

And here....for a little added substance...is yesterday's ZNet Sustainer
Commentary. We mail one of these each day to our regular donors. You can
read about the program at:


Coalitions Of The Willing, Coerced, And Bribed 
By Edward Herman 

When the United States pummels tiny states like Grenada and Panama, the
U.S. media and public have no apparent embarrassment at the imbalance of
power and the bully-boy aspect of the incursions; in fact, there is
pride at super-Goliath beating up the mini- Davids. 

This rests in good part on the prior demonization of the victims, which
makes each action a "just cause," the self-appointed policeman doing his
moral duty. But it also rests on a blind chauvinism that grips the
populace as an irrational force whenever the United States is attacked
or insulted and "our boys" go into action, causing large numbers to
bring out the flags and yellow ribbons and rally behind their leader. 

It is the same spirit that made it a no-no in this country for Bill
Maher to suggest on ABC's "Politically Incorrect" that sending off
cruise missiles from many miles away from target was not "brave." That
was an intolerable insult to our fighting men and women. 

It would also be intolerable to question whether the United States NEEDS
a "coalition" to help it work over some small country. It didn't resort
to any in its attacks on Grenada, Panama, or Nicaragua, but it went to
great pains to put up coalitions to assault Iraq in 1991, Yugoslavia in
1999, and now once again Afghanistan. 

Nobody in the mainstream media asks: Wasn't the U.S. military edge over
these small adversaries already great enough to allow it to do the job
without a coalition? Isn't this overkill and superbullying? 

Of course, an important part of coalition building by the United States
is based on the desire to give the appearance that its unilateral
actions really have wide support and that the actions themselves are
collective. This fools the imperial liberals, who are anxious to be

Thus, Robert Kuttner writes complacently that "the White House is now
pursuing a feverish multilaterialism...and may soon embrace yesterday's
conservative epithet 'nation building'" (American Prospect, Nov. 5,
2001). Kuttner mistakes unilateralism with a nominal multilateral cover
for a genuine multilateralism that would involve authority and
decision-making beyond the boss. Kuttner also assumes for no reason
whatsoever that post-war humanitarian intervention will be constructive
and effective. 

The record on postwar "nation-building" in Nicaragua and Kosovo are
outside the orbit of his interest or knowledge; and although he is well
aware of Bush's unwillingness to spend money on nation-building at home,
imperial faith causes this liberal Democrat to assume that even Bush
will prove to be an overseas do-gooder. 

In reality, the U.S.-organized coalitions to attack Iraq, Yugoslavia,
and now Afghanistan, have been tightly controlled by the United States,
with the help of its lap-dog British ally; the two, but mainly the
United States, have done all the dirty work in Iraq, and they ran the
bombing show in the Yugoslav war despite a supposed 19-member coalition
(NATO) at work there; and the same is true in the Afghan war. 

A few countries support the United States because its leaders truly
believe in what it is doing, but many go along because of potential
negative consequences of failing to line up behind the hegemon, and some
leaders are bought. French president Mitterand admitted to taking part
in the 1991 Persian Gulf war to assure membership in the "Club des
Grands," and Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema explained that
taking part in the Kosovo war was essential for Italy to "count as a
major country." 

It is sad to see Nelson Mandela also supporting the U.S. "war against
terrorism" ("Anwar Sadat Lecture for Peace [sic]," University of
Maryland, Nov. 15, 2001), which I suspect he is doing partly in the
Mitterand-D'Alema mold--to be an accepted member of the respectable
state cohort. 

But I wouldn't be surprised if he has been sold by the saturation
coverage of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, which reflects U.S. power
and the global power of the U.S. media. If Mandela and many others were
provided each day with pictures of dying Iraqi children, with Iraqi and
other indignant descriptions of the U. S.-British refusal to allow Iraq
to import equipment to make its water safe, his consciousness and
indignation on that "terrorism" would be greatly elevated. 

Similarly, if the media directed the same energy to interviewing Afghan
refugees as they did Kosovo Albanians during the NATO bombing of
Yugoslavia, and focused on the damaging effects of the war on supplying
food to a starving population, Mandela's perspective might well alter. 

It is sad also that Mandela can't reflect on the fact that the United
States held the African National Congress to be a terrorist organization
in the 1980s, and that the CIA helped South Africa capture and imprison
its terrorist commander, Nelson Mandela. What would he think of a Third
World country that had gotten on THAT antiterrorist bandwagon? 

It is well-known that Egypt had a multi-billion dollar debt forgiven for
supporting the first Bush, while Yemen, refusing to go along on a
Persian Gulf war vote, was told by a U.S. official that this would be
"the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast," followed shortly
thereafter by its loss of a $70 million aid package. Currently, Pakistan
has been given substantial payments for servicing the U.S. war, and
Russia, Uzbekistan, and others as well are being paid off. 

The U.S. mainstream media, however, speak of the emergence of these
coalitions as a wondrous upsurge of support from the world community
based on moral solidarity, not fear of retaliation, threats, or bribery.

That these coalitions represent and support extreme superbullying by the
Great Powers is never hinted at--these are always moral ventures and
just causes. 

That the publics in many of these countries are unsympathetic to the
war, not having been bought or coerced as their elite leaderships, is
rarely mentioned. In short, the U.S. media are an integral part of a
beautifully working war machine, serving their state with at least as
much bias and enthusiasm as Serb broadcasting served its state, before
it was bombed out of existence by NATO for war service. 

This message has been brought to you by ZNet (http://www.zmag.org). Visit our site for 
subscription options.

Reply via email to