By : Louis DALMAS (Jan. 3, 2001)
Journalist and writer. Founder and director of the monthly
"Balkans-Infos". Author of several essays on philosophy and politics,
among which "Yugoslav communism", with a Preface by Jean-Paul Sartre,
"Disorder and Patience", and "The Asphyxiated thought".
Two sons of famous fathers have recently made front-page news. Both are broadly
considered as mentally shallow, not to say more. The difference between them, as
the French weekly "Canard Enchaine" pointed out, is that the American
has just been made President of the most powerful country on earth, while the
Frenchman has been jailed.
Of course, the two sons - and their careers - can not really be compared. Except
perhaps on one point : their fecklessness. In the case of Mitterrand's son, it
was a danger to himself. In the case of Bush junior, it is a danger to the whole
world.
Winston Churchill had a reputation for caustic wit. His main political opponent
of the time was the Labour leader Clement Attlee. One day, Churchill began a
speech in Parliament with these words, which made the audience double up with
laughter: "Half an hour ago, an empty cab stopped in front of the House of
Commons, Mr Attlee got out." The joke could quite aptly describe the new
resident of the White House.
One can consider this devaluation of the Oval Office philosophically. Or with
resignation. After all, the United States is not the only country in the world
to be run by an empty suit, and we French, with our President whose acumen is
more than doubtful, are in no position to criticize. But the system that has led
to the Republican conquest of Washington is based on criteria that are not quite
those of political or intellectual merit.
In order to reach the top in the US, one has to be a boot-licking son, a devoted
father, a blindly faithful husband, a zealous cult worshipper, a fervent
supporter of the death penalty, a preacher who can dress up electoral fraud to
look like God's will, and a puppet moulded by public relations specialists, just
able to not stammer (too much) on television.
If one can muster all these qualities, one can reach the summit of a nation
whose chief characteristics are obesity, violence and bigotry. The obesity of
the rich, the violence of the poor, and the bigotry of both. A country where
inequality and injustice are the pillars of an economy in the hands of two-faced
rich pirates who rob the people while supporting the churches. A country split
between illiterate depths and a surface crumbling into different ethnic
communities who hate each other. A country where religion is used to hide the
absence of scruples, where a clear conscience depends on the force of arms,
where democracy is the mask of imperialism and where racism is barely hidden
behind the duties of citizenship. In other words, a rotting giant now governed
by a half-wit.
This bitter appraisal is necessary but insufficient. The dark side is not the
only one. America is also much more. Just as flowers blossom on manure, some of
the most fascinating inspirations of humanity come from the US. With all due
respect to its hysterical detractors, they are in the forefront of creativity in
all fields. They are the scientific, literary, artistic, musical and sports
magnet that draws all those who seek knowledge, quality and performance. They
have the courage and generosity that go with greatness, the commitment that
accompanies idealism. Their impulses are infectious, their enthusiasm is
irresistible. Contrary to the claims of some conceited Europeans, they are the
country with the greatest number of readers, where a lot of studying gets done,
where a mass of knowledge is available. Their products have conquered the world
: their research is constantly of Nobel quality, their films influence a myriad
of audiences, their technology is at the heart of our transportation and
communication systems, their MacDonald's are an irreplaceable food shortcut,
their jeans are usefully worn almost everywhere. In a word, the US are not just
a rotting giant, they are also a golden one, a great treasure of our human
heritage.
The best and the worst can both be found in such a vast and complex entity.
Resulting in partial judgements. Following their reactions to American
influence, supporters admire the advancement of knowledge, the freedom of
statement, or the blessings of liberalism. Opponents denounce the all-powerful
capital, the hegemonic strategy, or the inhumanity of materialism based on
profit. All that is true. But all that is also false, or exaggerated, because so
great a variety cannot be restricted to one of its parts. Dwelling on one
feature does not describe a character, it reduces it, and such a mixture of good
and bad does not bear reduction.
The French, and with them the Europeans, cannot be for or against America as a
whole. They can only take heed of its massive presence, and try to separate,
dispassionately, its positive contributions to the world from what it threatens
to impose negatively upon it.
The pros of the count include without doubt the military interventions during
the two world wars of the century that just ended. The second one, especially,
was a decisive step in the defense of our civilization, and we owe to the United
States a victory over totalitarianism that we are not about to forget. A victory
prolonged by the firmness of the Cold War, which - one must admit it despite the
excesses of the anticommunist mania - saved our continent from Stalinist
fossilization and ended by the collapse of regimes whose ideological rigidity
had condemned to stagnation.
Also among the pros -- although some grumblers disagree -- are the remarkable
contributions to the evolution of our western culture. Modernization of our
technologies, revolutions in computers and communications, outer space
exploration, emancipation of our mores, development of sports, creation of new
professions and new styles, discovery of the world of leisure, musical
stimulation of youth, increase in the use of time-saving devices in our daily
life, and even the weakening of certain sexual taboos, owe much to the American
example. According to the well-known formula of Leon Brunschwig, it is
perhaps to be regretted, but assuredly not to be ignored, that the US have
changed our existence. In a way that seems overall "globally
positive", for us at least, if we compare the orbital satellites of 2000 to
the horse-drawn carriages of 1900.
The cons, on the other hand, include the idea that this Americanized
civilization is applicable to the entire world. Indeed, the entire world - even
that of the Taliban - enjoys cars, refrigerators and transistors. But this
practical improvement of daily life does not involve an automatic change of
culture, and will not involve it for a long time in many places, for the simple
reason that it is not available to everyone. Two thirds of the planet can't
purchase these instruments - cars, refrigerators and transistors. For them,
improvement of daily life means something much more elementary : a mouthful of
bread. Cars are just dreams if one can't buy fuel, refrigerators are useless if
one has nothing to put inside, transistors are a luxury when one doesn't have a
bed to sleep in.
Here appears the most despicable of counterfeits : the sellers of Americanized
civilization replace the lack of purchasing power in most of the world with the
idea of "democracy", and assume that democracy alone will provide them
with lucrative markets. But one doesn't give a damn about democracy when one
can't get enough food to feed one's children. Freedom of statement, the right to
vote, political pluralism, parliamentary mandates, all the trinkets of our
"advanced" societies, mean nothing to Africans, South-Americans or
Asians who are dying of hunger. This obviousness, which should be dazzling, but
is overlooked by the boy-scouts of neo-colonialism, undermines the very
foundations of the western crusade for universal democratization.
For there is indeed a crusade, and it's the worst aspect of the American balance
sheet. Not content with perceiving the world in their own image, the United
States wants to force it to comply with their way of life. And, as the driving
power of this compliance, they have decided to play the dominating role, i. e. -
in cruder terms - to subordinate the planet to their interests. Like the
teenager who discovers his capabilities, America has become aware of the favors
it has rendered to humanity and of the strength which allows it to demand
recognition, or, in other words, to enforce its will. Under the pretext that the
world needs to be policed, and therefore needs a force to maintain law and
order, America is convinced that its mission is to be a global policeman, a GloboCop.
A mission that perfectly suits the universalism of its financial appetites.
The result is that, in the balance of American qualities and defects, the
greatest shortcoming today is the pressure the US bring to bear on the rest of
the world, as the sole super-power remaining after the crumbling of the
communist world. Otherwise said, their foreign policy. A tare that weighs
heavily, and is detrimental to a country that should be the most loved in the
world, instead of arousing hostility when it should only induce admiration or
envy.
Why is this foreign policy so reprehensible ? Because, in fact, it's only a
delusion. The "democratic crusade" of the virtuous Puritan conscience
is a façade, a screen. It provides America with the moral pretext for the
pursuit of three major objectives, much less avowable to the public than the
defence of civilisation, which are related to :
1) its concept of society
2) its energy supplies
3) its financial profits
The American concept of a god-fearing, parliamentary and economically liberal
society has made atheistic, partisan and economically state-run communism, the
Number One Enemy. The disappearance of Soviet Europe has not weakened the
paranoia. Red is the devil. It's everywhere, and its hydra heads grow again when
they are cut. Since MacCarthy, whether in Central America, where the US have
been the accomplices of the worst "contra" atrocities ; in South
America, where they assassinated Allende and supported fascist generals, and
where they finance the cruel repression of guerrillas ; in Cuba, that they have
strangled for decades for no good reason ; in Yugoslavia, where their only idea
of Milosevic was one of a reconverted apparatchik to be overthrown ; in Eastern
European countries they ruin in order to render them harmless, they are gnawed
by the same obsession, unmarred and unrelenting : to destroy by all means
anything that may convey the least hint of socialism. For that purpose, they
created NATO, which survives in the fantasy of a bygone peril, and whose
justification today can be condensed in a few words : multiply allies and
military bases around Russia, and prepare the foreseen confrontation with China.
The second objective is to ensure control of mineral sources, of oil and of gas,
the vital supplies of the modern world. The method here consists in weakening or
buying the States of the former Soviet empire, in order to hold the Caucasus,
"satellising" the Asian or Balkan states to enable construction of oil
and gas pipelines bypassing Russia, and opening the famous "corridors"
for the transit of raw materials in all security. In passing, it tries to have
the Moslem world forget the support of Israel, by helping faithful (and
oil-producing) allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to "islamicize"
Europe.
Finally, third component of American foreign policy : financial and economic
imperialism. Here we enter the implacable world of the multinationals, whose
main goal is to supersede nations. Whereas the military increasingly inspires
the pursuit of the first two objectives (it's really no coincidence that Colin
Powell - top brass if there was any - has been named US Secretary of State), it
is American diplomats who spin the spider's web of US/European relations. And a
delicate web it is. While appearing favourable to the
"continentalization" of Europe, because it flattens nationalistic
demands, one must render it difficult to manage, by multiplying community
members. One must applaud the creation of powerful economic groups, while
watching out for the creation of a rival entity through excessive concentration.
One must muzzle France by supporting Germany, while guarding against the
over-reinforcement of the latter which would risk development of a dangerous
rival. After having recognised the smaller states in order to weaken the greater
ones, one must erode the independence of new arrivals by annexing their
industries, yet not deprive them of a minimum purchasing power. A subtle game,
with episodes of political interference and large-scale investments which will
strengthen the anti-Communist fortifications and the control of raw materials,
while further securing American hegemony over the West.
This triple strategy, whose elements combine with and complete one another, is
pursued by five branches of Washington : the International Monetary Fund
(I.M.F.), the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (O.E.C.D.), the World Trade Organisation (W.T.O.) and N.A.T.O..
From the perspective of "liberal democracy" (necessarily
anti-Communist), these obedient agencies reduce national resistance by poisoning
embattled economies with 'foreign aid', regulate in their own way international
exchanges among more prosperous economies, build the energy infrastructures they
need, and protecti all of this by maintaining - contrary to any decent logic -
that anachronism called NATO. A Cold War relic that no longer has any defensive
military use, but is rather a gigantic bargain for the U.S.'s arms industry, by
forcing the new member countries to a costly adjustment of their armies.
One understands, in light of these observations, many events of these last
decades, which seem to have been coarse blunders or unjustifiable crimes. Let's
leave aside the interventions on the American continent, in Africa or in Asia,
whose analysis would make this piece too long. We can cite the murderous embargo
inflicted on Iraq, that only strikes civilians and kills children, and is only
explainable by its oil context. But above all is dramatic the role played over
the past ten years by America in the Balkans, from the dismantling of Yugoslavia
to the chaos in Kosovo : a long chain of calamities whose apparent delirium only
makes sense if one sees them in the light of the US's hidden strategic
objectives.
Yugoslavia - last country in Europe not to have rejected Communism after the
fall of the Berlin Wall, astride the essential lines of communication between
the West and the Near-East, advanced stronghold of the disquieting Slavic
orthodoxy, inhabited by a people whose historic courage made them difficult to
swallow - had to be destroyed. Germany blew the mort. The United States followed
suit, dragging along the remainder of the Atlantic Alliance. The secessions of
Slovenia and Croatia xere encouraged ; the new nations were recognised as fast
as possible (including the Bosnian fiction, which was a good turn done to the
Moslems) ; the normal reaction of an amputated nation was transformed by the
media into "Greater Serbia" fanaticism ; Belgrade's leader - and his
people - were struck by the same racist curse the Nazis had inflicted on the
Jews ; what was left of the dismembered country was locked in a ghetto of
international sanctions, sentenced to slow death by isolation. And that wasn't
enough. It became necessary to crush completely the recalcitrant. Pretexts were
fabricated for military interventions : on one occasion by attributing to the
Serbs the victims of the Moslem provocation at the Markale Market ; on another,
by foisting on them the Rambouillet "diktat" and pretending to believe
that they were responsible for a massacre at Racak. Everything in the country
was bombed, in order to force the disturbers to their knees : factories, roads,
bridges, hospitals, schools, civilian homes, trains full of travellers, refugees
on the march. This was done using depleted uranium weapons and fragmentation
bombs, so as to leave for decades traces of the allies' humanitarian
benevolence. Kosovo was delivered to the ethnically purifying violence of an
Albanian flavored stew of Islamic fundamentalism and Mafia gangs. And as a
crowning gesture, millions of dollars were spent to guide
"democratically" onto the "correct" path an exhausted
population, and to open the door to the profitable reconstruction of that which
had been so well destroyed.
The result is a strategic success and a shame for the West. A strategic success
because America has suppressed a pole of resistance to its New world order,
fabricated another economic satellite that shall depend upon its aid and that it
shall be able to pillage at will, and eliminated the principal obstacle to its
colonialist domination in the Balkans.
A shame for the West, because the Washington allies, under the banner of
pluralism, have consecrated the most ethnically pure States or regions of Europe
: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Under the banner of humanitarianism,
they have demolished by iron and fire an independent nation that had never
attacked anyone, and driven from their homes hundreds of thousands of refugees.
Under the banner of ecology, they have polluted to a catastrophic degree the
environments of six countries and blocked the Danube, the main waterway of the
continent. Under the banner of democracy, they have literally bought the votes
of a people after having reduced them to despair.
This rapid analysis already shows how crushing is the dossier of American
foreign policy. But that's not all. The effects produced are not only disastrous
on the economic, political and social levels ; they have involved a profound
perversion of the collective imagination. In order to make the public swallow
economic blackmail, war and ecocide, the USA and its henchmen had to engage in
an extraordinary media manipulation, comparable in its hypocrisy and its
cynicism only to the worst communist brainwashing. A formidable shaping of
opinion by the sophisticated spread of guided dis-information. In other words,
the totalitarian domination of one massive propaganda machine. But where the
communist brainwashing resulted from orders and censorship, the American-style
brainwashing is subtly instilled into heads, with seeming impartiality, by
specialists in suggestion. Journalists are pampered by spokesmen, seduced with
special favours, and stuffed with official cliches that spare them any tiresome
inquiries. The mind of the television viewer or of the reader, already flooded
with messages, is saturated by a swarm of false news items, of which it is known
that he will only retain the titles. The method has been perfected to such an
extent that it has become a real mind-polishing machine, due to the need for the
West to drape its Balkan operations in moral dignity. Over the years, the
Western media, properly briefed and force fed false figures, have made believe
in the exclusive guilt of the Serbs, in non-existent genocides, in illusions of
charitable interventions, in imagined purges, in inflammatory claims which
revealed themselves, one after the other, to be lies or exaggeration. Those who
think that this is a acricature, have only to read the newspaper
"Balkans-Infos", that I have had the privilege of founding and
managing for over five years. They shall find there facts that we were the first
to bring to light (like the use of depleted uranium weapons, recently
"discovered" by the medias, but which we described more than three
years ago), lies that we were the only ones to denounce. All the evidence of the
intoxication meant to justify, with incredible insistence and efficient
perversity, the world submission to American interests.
What is truly disturbing is that France participated in this operation. With an
accommodating attitude that makes them accomplices and as guilty as the
perpetrators themselves, our leaders took up the cause of the USA and carried it
all the way to collaborating in the unforgivable war against Yugoslavia launched
by NATO in 1999. Inflamed by a motley crew of Parisian passion-raisers calling
themselves philosophers, they rivaled in a complete inversion of their values,
to the point of compromising their most basic convictions. Those having claimed
to be Gaullists, forgot what made the greatness of the General : his devotion to
national independence. Those claiming to be leftists, forgot what was the
nobility of socialism : its struggle against injustice and the oppression of
capital. Those claiming to be green forgot that lethal weapons and war
completely destroy the environment. Those claiming to be humanists or
"intellectuals", forgot the essential of the message of Reason : its
refusal of sectarianism, partiality and prejudice. In a collective dive without
historical precedent, they all drowned in a chloroformed, standardised broth of
ideology that made them say the opposite of what they were thinking, and do the
opposite of what they were saying. The new technicians of "psychological
operations", of public relations and of communications couldn't have
dreamed of a greater achievement : in the relations with Belgrade, they
succeeded in reducing the best brains of our country to being mere echoes. The
conformist rout of French intelligence is the victory of American conditioning
The example of the Balkans, and more particularly that of Yugoslavia, is a most
striking illustration of the misdeeds of American foreign policy and the
servility of the vassals of the dollar. This because it is a clear case of an
ultimatum followed by a capitulation. But it can't be separated from its
European context. The Franco-American relations are not only a dialogue, they
insert themselves into the structure of the continent. There the situation is
more complicated, because, on the one hand, the "supra-national" push
of the construction of Europe runs into resistances, and on the other, the
resistances themselves take forms that are not all comaparable.
At the international level, various movements, associations, trade unions or
corporations respond to the American competition. Seattle, Millau or Nice were
real warnings. These demonsttrations are scattered, but they prove a common will
of rejection. Various popular representations rise up against Washington's
economic hegemony, and against the monetary, industrial, employer's Europe it
inspires, confusedly sensed as not theirs. They still lack, however, the
awareness of a fundamental truth : the imperialist enemy threatening their
professional interests is the same as the one that bombed Yugoslavia and is
colonising the weakest part of the continent. Washington hammers all those who
are unwilling to accept its law, from the opponents to Dayton to the makers of
Roquefort cheese. depleted uranium shells have the same origin as commercial
privileges or customs discriminations. The Serb killed by the NATO planes is José
Bové's brother.
At the national level, there are other reservations. One doesn't dare talk of
mild impulses toward independance, governments being as timorous as they are.
Their reactions are dispersed, because each country defends its interests. Those
of Germany are increasingly intrusive, as its power comforts itself, and spreads
its shadow over Europe before worrying, maybe soon, America itself. The other
States of the continent need American money, and play seond roles with a low
profile. England raises her head a little, by supporting a European intervention
force that might compete with NATO.
As for France, our foreign policy wallows in nonsense. Practically all our
leaders scorn in private the star-spangled cowboys. Not a dinner in town that
doesn't ring with contempt for hamburgers, the stupidity of Bush and Gore, the
arrogance and incompetence of the newly rich, the corset in the heads of
narrow-minded Puritans or the vulgarity of Yankees abroad. But, in public, the
song is different. We only hear appropriate odes to Atlantic solidarity and
western homogeneity. Interrupted from time to time by a childish pout, such as
the refusal to participate in a Disneyland celebration or the inauguration of a
MacDo.
Needless to say that this spiteful flunkey's behaviour - bowing in front of the
master and making a fool of him behind his back - angers the Americans. The
result is a bag of drawbacks without any advantages. By dragging her feet
backstage, France earns a reputation of a partner the US cannot trust, while by
dodging a clear statement of her will for independence, she fails to muster a
large part of her public opinion. Exagerated cunning leads to a fall between two
stools and a loss on both scores.
That much said, we must be honest and praise a few hints of french emancipation.
Our politicians are always sensitive to their electorate's feelings, and they
have realized the spread of a certain anti-American irritation. France was the
first to react to the change of regime in Belgrade. With the guilty conscience
of wrongdoers in search of redemption, Chirac, Jospin and Védrine rushed to
Kostunica's side in order to be pardoned for their treachery. So much the better
for the Serbs, who saw themselves transformed overnight from barbarian drunkards
into heroic Democrats. A welcome miracle, that it would be unfair not to
applaud. All the more since our trio has cleverly put a temporary end to the
American blackmail of exchanging Milosevic's indictment for the economic aid of
the international community. A good point to its credit. France has also
supported the creation of a European intervention force, and underlined the need
to develop it outside of NATO. Another sortie worth mentioning.
Also, in this style of "opportunistic reticence", the managment of the
depleted uranium affair. Our mass-media, well-known for their mimesis and
respect for official suggestions, have suddenly thrown light on the dark side of
NATO and its radioactive weapons, a sinister aspect we knew about long ago. They
have discovered - at last - the strange syndromes, the mysterious diseases, the
distressing effects of the American war. How could we not see, in this sudden
burst of truth, a green light given from above by our three cronies, quite happy
to widen a little the gap with Washington by tarnishing the American
"moral" image.
Unfortunately, all this remains stifled in paralysing Atlanticism. After rising
to the surface to take a breath, our politicians sink again into the mud of
passivity.
France gropes between the wish to play a role, the increasingly difficult
relationship with the German neighbour, the English distrust for the continent,
and the hesitations of other European governments. She would like to loosen the
American tutelage, but doesn't dare do so alone. She considers shirking NATO,
but doesn't know how to escape the eagle eye of Washington. She pushes the
construction of Europe, but many of her citizens doubt that this Europe of
diplomats and businessmen is the right one.
Confronted by a dominating America that knows what it wants and how to enforce
it, France wavers, with a diplomacy that mixes compromise and resistance, a
foreign policy lacking cohesion and stature. Instead of taking a strong position
based upon the independence of a nation whose history is worthy of respect, that
would probably encourage others to follow its example, and explain this firmness
to the population, our leaders splash around, clutching the European buoy like a
sinking boat. We were a symbol of innovation and freedom, a revolutionary
example of progress, we have become at worst an applied ornament in an American
lounge, at best a musical triangle player in the European orchestra. De Gaulle
and Jaurès must be rolling over in their tombs.
Finally, the governments are responsible. They impersonate the policy of their
States. Washington (on Wall Street's string) has made America into a conquering
globocop. Paris has transformed France into a cautious soubrette, tip-toeing
behind Superman. It doesn't seem to be an ideal wedding. If the overbearing
macho doesn't curb his ambitions, and if the obedient squaw does'nt wake up to
women's lib, the couple has a troubled future. The governments are to blame, who
have brought out the worst on each side.
Neither the USA nor France deserve to be thus disfigured. They have been in love
for a long time, and still are, despite the garbs they are made to wear. Let's
hope that, in the course of this new century, they will get rid of their bad
mentors and rediscover the qualities of two great nations, i. e. the principles
of independence, of social justice and of truth which were at the outset of
their relationship.