Hoeveel irrationaliteit kunnen Mak en zijn publiek slikken zonder wezenlijk te gaan twijfelen aan de waarheidsgehalte van hun woorden en daarmee van hun bestaan? Het zijn steeds actuelere vragen nu we het tijdperk zijn ingegaan van baanloze groei, klimaatverandering, oorlogen over almaar schaarsere grondstoffen en slinkende marktaandelen en de groeiende macht van het militair-industrieel complex in een voormalige parlementaire democratie. Deze ontwikkelingen tezamen vormen de context die het leven van miljarden mensen dicteert. Maar juist dit feit verzwijgen de commerciële massamedia, aangezien
In the mainstream media, owners run corporations for the purpose of pushing a pro-elite agenda while delivering viewers to advertisers,
of, zoals een onderwereld-advocaat in de BBC-serie Silk opmerkt, 'power is control of the story.' Vandaar dat een opiniemaker als Geert Mak met de regelmaat van de klok gelauwerd wordt door de autoriteiten van het neoliberale systeem. Zijn 'control of the story' is noodzakelijk voor de macht om datgene mogelijk te maken wat George Orwell in zijn roman 1984 als volgt beschreef: 'Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.' Mak's Readers Digest-versie van de geschiedenis is mede verantwoordelijk voor de vertekende wijze waarop het Nederlandse mainstream-publiek de werkelijkheid ziet. In hun baanbrekende studie Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media(1988) analyseren de Amerikaanse geleerden Edward S. Herman en Noam Chomsky het werk van de Amerikaanse 'vrije pers' en komen tot de slotsom dat de commerciële massamedia 'effective and powerful ideological institutions' zijn
that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion.
Beide wetenschappers concluderen na ruim 400 pagina's documentatie:
As we have stressed throughout this book, the U.S. media do not function in the manner of the propaganda system of a totalitarian state. Rather, they permit -- indeed, encourage -- spirited debate, criticism, and dissent, as long as these remain faithfully within the system of presuppositions and principles that constitute an elite consensus, a system so powerful as to be internalized largely without awareness. No one instructed the media to focus on Cambodia and ignore East Timor. They gravitated naturally to the Khmer Rouge and discussed them freely -- just as they naturally suppressed information on Indonesian atrocities in East Timor and U.S. responsibility for the aggression and massacres. In the process, the media provided neither facts nor analyses that would have enabled the public to understand the issues or the bases of government policies toward Cambodia and Timor, and they thereby assured that the public could not exert any meaningful influence on the decisions that were made. This is quite typical of the actual 'societal purpose' of the media on matters that are of significance for established power; not 'enabling the public to assert meaningful control over the political process,' but rather averting any such danger. In these cases, as in numerous others, the public was managed and mobilized from above, by means of the media's highly selective messages and evasions. As noted by media analyst W. Lance Bennett: 'the public is exposed to powerful persuasive messages from above and is unable to communicate meaningfully through the media in response to the messages... Leaders have usurped enormous amounts of political power and reduced popular control over the political system by using the media to generate support, compliance, and just plain confusion among the public.'
En:
Given the imperatives of corporate organization and the workings of the various filters, conformity to the needs and interests of privileged sectors is essential to succes. In the media, as in other major institutions, those who do not display the requisite values and perspectives will be regarded as 'irresponsible,' 'ideological,' or otherwise aberrant, and will tend to fall by the wayside. While there may be a small number of exceptions, the pattern is pervasive, and expected. Those who adapt, perhaps quite honestly, will then be free to express themselves with little managerial control, and they will be able to assert, accurately, that they perceive no pressures to conform. The media are indeed free -- for those who adopt the principles required for 'societal purpose.'
Herman en Chomsky constateren voorts:
The technical structure of the media virtually compels adherence to conventional thoughts; nothing else can be expressed between two commercials, or in seven hundred words, without the appearance of absurdity that is difficult to avoid when one is challenging familiar doctrine with no opportunity to develop facts or argument... The critic must also be prepared to face a defamation apparatus against which there is little recourse, an inhibiting factor that is not insubstantial... The result is a powerful system of induced conformity to the needs of privilege and power. In sum, the mass media of the United States are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without significant overt coercion. This propaganda system has become even more efficient in recent decades with the rise of the national television networks, greater mass-media concentration, right-wing pressures on public radio and television, and the growth in scope and sophistication of public relations and news management.
Binnen dit ideologische raamwerk hebben opiniemakers als Henk Hofland en Geert Mak in de Nederlandse polder een vorstelijk aanzien en inkomen weten te verwerven. Zij bedrijven een journalistiek die, in de woorden van de Franse filosoof Jacques Rancière 'het geweld van de klassenoverheersing, verborgen achter de schijn van de alledaagse banaliteit en de democratische vrede,' mogelijk maakt, waardoor de overal doorgedrongen 'vervreemding' als normaal wordt voorgesteld. Rancière's 'geëmancipeerde toeschouwer,' voortdurend bestookt met beelden van een 'verborgen realiteit die je niet kunt zien,' wil nu juist ook niet die werkelijkheid zien, omdat hij dan geconfronteerd wordt met het feit dat hij 'er verantwoordelijk voor' is. 'De bewustwording van de verborgen realiteit' creëert namelijk 'een schuldgevoel.' Het doorHofland en Mak bediende mainstream-publiek wil daarentegen zichzelf als onschuldig zien, en zodra het er werkelijk op aankomt als slachtoffer, zeker niet als verantwoordelijke dader. Schuld en verantwoording dragen altijd De Ander. Deze pathologie wordt dagelijks bekrachtigd door de voorstelling van zaken die de westerse journalistiek verschaft. Een recent voorbeeld daarvan is de demonisering van de Russische buitenlandse politiek.Zo verklaarde bestseller-auteur Geert Mak op 5 mei 2014naar aanleiding van het referendum waarbij de bevolking van de Krim voor aansluiting bij Rusland koos, dat het 'landjepik' van 'meneer Poetin' de NAVO-landen 'dwingt' nog meer geld aan het militair-industrieel complex te spenderen dan nu al het geval is, te weten tenminste 11 keer meer dan de Russische Federatie. Ondanks dit opmerkelijke verschil deed Mak het voorkomen alsof Rusland daadwerkelijk Europa bedreigt, terwijl in werkelijkheid de NAVO almaar oostwaarts oprukt en de Russische Federatie nu heeft omringd met militaire bases. Waarom Washington en Brussel dit hebben gedaan, nadat ook nog eens het Warschau-Pact was ontbonden, maakte de Amerikaanse oud-minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Henry Kissinger duidelijk toen deze real-politicus zomer 2015 tegenover het Amerikaanse neoconservatieve tijdschrift The National Interest verklaarde dat 'Breaking Russia has become an objective[for US officials].' Kissinger merkte over Geert Mak's EU van 'Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel' op:
The first mistake was the inadvertent (onachtzame. svh) conduct of the European Union. They did not understand the implications of some of their own conditions. Ukrainian domestic politics made it look impossible for [former Ukrainian president Viktor] Yanukovych to accept the EU terms and be reelected or for Russia to view them as purely economic.
Als real-politicus vreest Kissinger de confrontatie-koers van de neoconservatieven, die onvermijdelijk in een gewapend conflict zal eindigen, met catastrofale gevolgen voor de burgerbevolking in zowel de NAVO-staten als de Russische Federatie. Zoals bekend zijn in moderne oorlogen burgers de overgrote meerderheid van de slachtoffers, en dan met name de meest kwetsbare burgers, vrouwen, kinderen, bejaarden. De misdadigheid van opiniemakers als Geert Mak en Henk Hofland is nog weerzinwekkender wanneer men weet dat Geert Mak zelf geen kinderen heeft en de 88-jarige Henk Hofland al met één been in het graf staat. De prijs voor hun op ressentimenten en narcisme gebaseerde opruiing laten ze anderen betalen. Bij Mak valt ook nog het verraad op, de normloosheid, die eveneens voor zijn vader, dominee Catrinus Mak, zo kenmerkend was, en die volgens zijn zoon Geert in De eeuw van mijn vader door diens 'oude vrienden terecht [werd] gezien als een dolkstoot in de rug. Achteraf gaf mijn vader dat zelf ook toe.' Het verraden van normen en waarden was een karaktertrek van zijn vader, zoals opnieuw bleek in 1936 toen hij Gods 'uitverkoren volk' nog eens een trap na gaf door publiekelijk te laten weten dat de antisemitische Neurenberger Rassenwetten 'tolerabel' waren. Op zijn beurt verraadt zoon Geert nu niet alleen zijn oude vrienden, die hun normen en waarden in ere houden, maar ook zijn kennelijk niet doorleefde eigen normen en waarden, precies als zijn vader in het interbellum deed. Hij bezit dezelfde karakterloosheid als die van zijn vader, die hij in zijn bestseller probeert vrij te pleiten met argumenten als ‘Ook heeft grootmoeder Mak vermoedelijk een rol gespeeld (in het verraad van zijn vrienden. svh): ze heeft hem in elk geval stevig onder handen genomen, en mijn vader was in zijn hart een brave jongen.’
Een 'brave jongen' die niet alleen zijn vrienden verraadde, maar ook de joden, het, in zijn ogen, 'volk' dat 'de verlosser' Jezus Christus had voortgebracht. Hoe 'argeloos' dan wel 'dociel' kan een karakterloze verrader zijn? Kan een levensgevaarlijke opportunist 'een brave jongen' zijn? Voor wie is hij dan 'braaf'? In elk geval niet voor degenen die door hem verraden zijn, van vrienden tot joden. Dat Geert Mak het conformistische leven van zijn vader herhaalt, tekent zijn onvermogen om van de geschiedenis te leren. Paradoxaal genoeg is hij juist daarom de populairste 'historicus' van Nederland geworden, want het publiek wil niet verantwoordelijk worden gesteld voor zijn eigen daden en gebrek aan karakter. Mak junior portretteert Mak senior als een willoze speelbal van allerlei krachten, van diens moeder tot aan de politiek van de gereformeerde voormannen. Desondanks las hij anderen de les en hield hen voor hoe de bijbel geïnterpreteerd moest worden. Die macht claimde hij, net als zijn even karakterloze zoon Geert nu overal en altijd zijn zegje doet, zonder zich ook maar enigszins opgelaten te voelen voor zijn opportunisme. Op die wijze laat ook Geert Mak zich gebruiken door de macht, en zal ook hij tegen het einde van zijn leven denken dat hij 'in zijn hart een brave jongen' was, die weliswaar deze en gene een 'dolkstoot in de rug' heeft gegeven, maar die niet verantwoordelijk kan worden gesteld voor zijn daden, en die uiteindelijk zal worden gered door 'een vriendelijke, vaderlijke God, een milde man, die mensen doorziet in hun zwakheid.' Aldus weet de mens die geen waardigheid bezit zijn bestaan te rechtvaardigen ten koste van de ander. En net als zijn vader de God van 'het uitverkoren volk' prees en tegelijkertijd het verbannen van de joden uit de Duitse samenleving 'tolerabel' achtte, zo weet ook zijn zoon Geert twee tegenstrijdige denkbeelden moeiteloos aan elkaar te koppelen door enerzijds te stellen dat 'we' de 'deur' naar het neoliberale Brussel beslist niet moeten 'dichtgooien,' aangezien de Europese Unie 'een markt van bijna een half miljard mensen' is en tegelijkertijd met evenveel stelligheid waarschuwt voor het 'grootkapitaal' dat 'ons totaal ontglipt en waar je niks tegen kunt doen! En dat vind ik buitengewoon beklemmend.' Deze schizofrene houding is typerend voor het feit dat hij geen waarden en geen normen bezit. Voor hem is alles waar en daarom is niets meer waar. Alles is verkoopbaar, zolang het maar zijn narcisme bevredigt. Hij is een exponent bij uitstek van mijn babyboom-generatie, van wie het leven een combinatie is van 'wanhoop, escapisme en paniek,' van 'egoïsme en berekening' die de westerse middenklasse kenmerkt, zoals Alberto Moravia zo genadeloos beschreven heeft in De onverschilligen (1985). Vandaar ook het gemak waarmee mijn ouwe vriend Geert Mak meewerkt aan het moderne fascisme. Voor hem gaat op wat Dostojevski in Aantekeningen uit het ondergrondse (2010) schreef, namelijk dat de
mens zo verslingerd is aan systemen en aan abstracte gevolgtrekkingen dat hij bereid is de waarheid bewust te verdraaien, bereid is om ziende blind en horende doof te zijn, alleen om de juistheid van zijn logica aan te tonen.
Wijlen Michaël Zeeman, die Mak's 'weke sentiment' haatte, had gelijk toen hij in april 2001 in het essay Babyboomers vormen de lamlendige generatie opmerkte dat zij
zich de economische, de politieke en de sociale voordelen — het geld, de baantjes en de voorzieningen [hebben toegeëigend. Toen het te laat was, het geld op en de baantjes vergeven, hieven ze de voorzieningen die ze voor zichzelf in het leven hadden geroepen doodleuk op. Nee, de bomen groeiden niet tot in de hemel wisten ze. Dat hebben wij, de kinderen, dan ook nooit beweerd — maar wel te lang voor kennelijk waar aangenomen. Want het klonk allemaal reuze hip.
Geert Mak's 'zelfontplooiing,' modewoord uit de jaren zestig, gaat ten koste van de huidige samenleving. Zijn zelfgenoegzame betweterigheid is illustrerend voor de houding van veel van mijn generatiegenoten in Nederland. Ze weigeren de verantwoording voor de hedendaagse chaos te accepteren, als dreinende kinderen blijven ze de aandacht opeisen in de overtuiging de wereld iets te vertellen te hebben. Ze geloven rotsvast in 'het marktdenken' van 'het kapitalisme met een menselijk gezicht,' daarbij voorbijgaand aan het feit dat
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest motives will somehow work for the benefit of all,
zoals de grote econoom John Maynard Keynes ooit eens opmerkte. Ik heb decennialang de corrumpering van het spraakmakende deel van mijn generatiegenoten van nabij gevolgd. Geert Mak is slechts een in het oog lopend voorbeeld daarvan. Meer over zijn corruptie volgende keer.
Geert Mak: 'in zijn hart een brave jongen.'
Het nieuwe fascisme in de Volkskrant van woensdag 26 augustus 2015:
Op de internetsite scripophily.com zijn Griekse overheidsobligaties uit 1898 te koop. Het zijn prachtige exemplaren in de welbekende blauw-witte Griekse kleuren met afbeeldingen van klassieke Griekse goden en godinnen. De tekst op de obligaties belooft gedurende twintig jaar 2,5 procent rente op het aankoopbedrag. Maar het meest opvallende aan deze obligaties is dat er op vermeld wordt dat een trojka, namelijk de landen Frankrijk, Groot-Brittannië en Rusland, instaat voor het nakomen van de verplichtingen in het geval de Griekse overheid failliet zou gaan.
Ook in 2015 staat een trojka garant voor de Griekse schuld, namelijk de Europese Commissie, de ECB en het IMF. De geschiedenis herhaalt zich. Sinds Griekenland in de jaren '20 van de 19de eeuw onafhankelijk werd van de Turkse heerschappij draagt het een geschiedenis van onhoudbare schulden en bankroetverklaringen met zich mee. Uit de door de Harvard-economen Kenneth Rogoff en Carmen Reinhart verzamelde gegevens blijkt dat in de 19de eeuw de Griekse schuld vrijwel voortdurend hoger was dan het nationaal inkomen, op de top zelfs vier keer zo hoog.
Rond 1875 was de overheidsschuld weer enigszins onder controle gekomen. Tezelfdertijd kwam er ook een einde aan het recht van de koning om, ongeacht parlementaire meerderheden, een minister-president naar zijn smaak te benoemen. De invoering van een moderne parlementaire democratie in Griekenland was een feit. Helaas leidde dit voornamelijk tot het plunderen van 's lands schatkist voor, onder meer, de financiering van prestigieuze infrastructuurprojecten. In 1893 sprak de Thorbecke van Griekenland en toenmalig minister-president, Charilaos Trikoupis, in het parlement de historische woorden: 'Helaas, wij zijn bankroet.'
Grote Depressie
De drachma bleek namelijk dramatisch overgewaardeerd, hetgeen (herkenbaar) leidde tot grote tekorten op de lopende rekening van de Griekse betalingsbalans en tekorten in het huishoudboekje van de overheid
Aan het eind van de jaren '20 van de 20ste eeuw brak de Grote Depressie uit. De Grieken bleven hun munt, de drachma, tijdens die depressie aan de goudprijs koppelen. Dus ging het opnieuw fout. De drachma bleek namelijk dramatisch overgewaardeerd, hetgeen (herkenbaar) leidde tot grote tekorten op de lopende rekening van de Griekse betalingsbalans en tekorten in het huishoudboekje van de overheid.
Vele jaren van schuldverlichting en schuldafschrijvingen verder leek de Griekse overheidsschuld na de Twee-de Wereldoorlog in rustiger vaarwater te komen. Onder het dictatoriale kolonelsregime (1967-1974) blijft de schuld heel ongrieks zelfs nagenoeg constant. Na het herstel van de parlementaire democratie (nu helemaal zonder koning) in 1974 gaat het weer mis. De gegevens van Rogoff en Reinhart laten vanaf 1974 een steile klim zien van de overheidsschuld als percentage van het nationaal inkomen.
De komende maand mogen de Grieken voor de derde keer dit jaar naar de stembus om zich uit te spreken over de hervormingen die nodig zijn om de Griekse openbare financiën weer houdbaar te maken. Mochten de Griekse kiezers in juli per referendum uitspreken dat ze de voorgestelde hervormingen van de trojka te ver vonden gaan, nu is het kennelijk de bedoeling van de huidige minister-president Alexis Tsipras dat de kiezers uitspreken dat die hervormingen precies goed zijn voor de Griekse economie en de Griekse schatkist. Het is niet duidelijk of de Grieken bereid zijn deze draai te maken. Als ze die draai wel maken, is het nog niet zeker dat er werkelijk hervormd gaat worden in de Griekse openbare financiën. Wat dat betreft belooft de parlementaire Griekse geschiedenis weinig goeds.
Democratische autonomie opgeven
Op Europees niveau is de nationale autonomie heilig verklaard, niet het minst door de Grieken zelf
De les die hieruit geleerd zou moeten worden, is dat EU-lidstaten die financiële hulp van de EU ontvangen, hun democratische autonomie deels moeten opgeven. Dat is vergelijkbaar met de manier waarop in Nederland openbare financiële verhoudingen zijn geregeld. Als in Nederland een gemeente in financiële problemen komt, kan ze een artikel-12 status aanvragen. De gemeente ontvangt dan steun van het rijk, maar levert financiële zelfstandigheid in. In feite wordt het begrotingsbeleid van de gemeente dan deels door Den Haag overgenomen.
Op Europees niveau is de nationale autonomie heilig verklaard, niet het minst door de Grieken zelf. Zo verklaarde Tsipras in juni dat 'het houden van een referendum een soeverein democratisch recht van het Griekse volk is, en ook noodzakelijk is om van het Griekse volk de goedkeuring te krijgen voor het financiële programma dat uiteindelijk met de instituties zal worden gesloten'.
Als er iets duidelijk is na bijna 190 jaar Griekse onafhankelijkheid is het dat democratie de Griekse staatskas geen goed doet. Griekenland heeft een dictatuur nodig om met zichzelf in het reine te komen en geen nieuwe verkiezingen.
Throughout the world there is great relief and optimism about the nuclear deal reached in Vienna between Iran and the P5+1 nations, the five veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany.
Most of the world apparently shares the assessment of the U.S. Arms Control Association that “the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action establishes a strong and effective formula for blocking all of the pathways by which Iran could acquire material for nuclear weapons for more than a generation and a verification system to promptly detect and deter possible efforts by Iran to covertly pursue nuclear weapons that will last indefinitely.”
There are, however, striking exceptions to the general enthusiasm: the United States and its closest regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. One consequence of this is that U.S. corporations, much to their chagrin, are prevented from flocking to Tehran along with their European counterparts. Prominent sectors of U.S. power and opinion share the stand of the two regional allies and so are in a state of virtual hysteria over “the Iranian threat.” Sober commentary in the United States, pretty much across the spectrum, declares that country to be “the gravest threat to world peace.” Even supporters of the agreement here are wary, given the exceptional gravity of that threat. After all, how can we trust the Iranians with their terrible record of aggression, violence, disruption, and deceit?
Opposition within the political class is so strong that public opinion has shifted quickly from significant support for the deal to an even split. Republicans are almost unanimously opposed to the agreement. The current Republican primaries illustrate the proclaimed reasons. Senator Ted Cruz, considered one of the intellectuals among the crowded field of presidential candidates, warns that Iran may still be able to produce nuclear weapons and could someday use one to set off an electromagnetic pulse that “would take down the electrical grid of the entire eastern seaboard” of the United States, killing “tens of millions of Americans.”
The two most likely winners, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, are battling over whether to bomb Iran immediately after being elected or after the first Cabinet meeting. The one candidate with some foreign policy experience, Lindsey Graham, describes the deal as “a death sentence for the state of Israel,” which will certainly come as a surprise to Israeli intelligence and strategic analysts — and which Graham knows to be utter nonsense, raising immediate questions about actual motives.
Keep in mind that the Republicans long ago abandoned the pretense of functioning as a normal congressional party. They have, as respected conservative political commentator Norman Ornstein of the right-wing American Enterprise Instituteobserved, become a “radical insurgency” that scarcely seeks to participate in normal congressional politics.
Since the days of President Ronald Reagan, the party leadership has plunged so far into the pockets of the very rich and the corporate sector that they can attract votes only by mobilizing parts of the population that have not previously been an organized political force. Among them are extremist evangelical Christians, now probably a majority of Republican voters; remnants of the former slave-holding states; nativists who are terrified that “they” are taking our white Christian Anglo-Saxon country away from us; and others who turn the Republican primaries into spectacles remote from the mainstream of modern society — though not from the mainstream of the most powerful country in world history.
The departure from global standards, however, goes far beyond the bounds of the Republican radical insurgency. Across the spectrum, there is, for instance, general agreement with the “pragmatic” conclusion of General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the Vienna deal does not “prevent the United States from striking Iranian facilities if officials decide that it is cheating on the agreement,” even though a unilateral military strike is “far less likely” if Iran behaves.
Former Clinton and Obama Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross typically recommends that “Iran must have no doubts that if we see it moving towards a weapon, that would trigger the use of force” even after the termination of the deal, when Iran is theoretically free to do what it wants. In fact, the existence of a termination point 15 years hence is, he adds, “the greatest single problem with the agreement.” He also suggests that the U.S. provide Israel with specially outfitted B-52 bombers and bunker-busting bombs to protect itself before that terrifying date arrives.
“The Greatest Threat”
Opponents of the nuclear deal charge that it does not go far enough. Some supporters agree, holding that “if the Vienna deal is to mean anything, the whole of the Middle East must rid itself of weapons of mass destruction.”
The author of those words, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Javad Zarif, added that “Iran, in its national capacity and as current chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement” — the governments of the large majority of the world’s population — “is prepared to work with the international community to achieve these goals, knowing full well that, along the way, it will probably run into many hurdles raised by the skeptics of peace and diplomacy.” Iran has signed “a historic nuclear deal,” he continues, and now it is the turn of Israel, “the holdout.”
Israel, of course, is one of the three nuclear powers, along with India and Pakistan, whose weapons programs have been abetted by the United States and that refuse to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
Zarif was referring to the regular five-year NPT review conference, which ended in failure in April when the U.S. (joined by Canada and Great Britain) once again blocked efforts to move toward a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone in the Middle East. Such efforts have been led by Egypt and other Arab states for 20 years. As Jayantha Dhanapala and Sergio Duarte, leading figures in the promotion of such efforts at the NPT and other U.N. agencies, observe in an article in the journal of the Arms Control Association: “The successful adoption in 1995 of the resolution on the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the Middle East was the main element of a package that permitted the indefinite extension of the NPT.”
The NPT, in turn, is the most important arms control treaty of all. If it were adhered to, it could end the scourge of nuclear weapons.
Repeatedly, implementation of the resolution has been blocked by the U.S., most recently by President Obama in 2010 and again in 2015, as Dhanapala and Duarte point out, “on behalf of a state that is not a party to the NPT and is widely believed to be the only one in the region possessing nuclear weapons” — a polite and understated reference to Israel. This failure, they hope, “will not be the coup de grâce to the two longstanding NPT objectives of accelerated progress on nuclear disarmament and establishing a Middle Eastern WMD-free zone.”
A nuclear-weapons-free Middle East would be a straightforward way to address whatever threat Iran allegedly poses, but a great deal more is at stake in Washington’s continuing sabotage of the effort in order to protect its Israeli client. After all, this is not the only case in which opportunities to end the alleged Iranian threat have been undermined by Washington, raising further questions about just what is actually at stake.
In considering this matter, it is instructive to examine both the unspoken assumptions in the situation and the questions that are rarely asked. Let us consider a few of these assumptions, beginning with the most serious: that Iran is the gravest threat to world peace.
In the U.S., it is a virtual cliché among high officials and commentators that Iran wins that grim prize. There is also a world outside the U.S. and although its views are not reported in the mainstream here, perhaps they are of some interest. According to the leading western polling agencies (WIN/Gallup International), the prize for “greatest threat” is won by the United States. The rest of the world regards it as the gravest threat to world peace by a large margin. In second place, far below, is Pakistan, its ranking probably inflated by the Indian vote. Iran is ranked below those two, along with China, Israel, North Korea, and Afghanistan.
“The World’s Leading Supporter of Terrorism”
Turning to the next obvious question, what in fact is the Iranian threat? Why, for example, are Israel and Saudi Arabia trembling in fear over that country?
Whatever the threat is, it can hardly be military. Years ago, U.S. intelligence informed Congress that Iran has very low military expenditures by the standards of the region and that its strategic doctrines are defensive — designed, that is, to deter aggression. The U.S. intelligence community has also reported that it has no evidence Iran is pursuing an actual nuclear weapons program and that “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.”
The authoritative SIPRI review of global armaments ranks the U.S., as usual, way in the lead in military expenditures. China comes in second with about one-third of U.S. expenditures. Far below are Russia and Saudi Arabia, which are nonetheless well above any western European state. Iran is scarcely mentioned. Full details are provided in an April report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which finds “a conclusive case that the Arab Gulf states have… an overwhelming advantage of Iran in both military spending and access to modern arms.”
Iran’s military spending, for instance, is a fraction of Saudi Arabia’s and far below even the spending of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Altogether, the Gulf Cooperation Council states — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — outspend Iran on arms by a factor of eight, an imbalance that goes back decades. The CSIS report adds: “The Arab Gulf states have acquired and are acquiring some of the most advanced and effective weapons in the world [while] Iran has essentially been forced to live in the past, often relying on systems originally delivered at the time of the Shah.” In other words, they are virtually obsolete.
When it comes to Israel, of course, the imbalance is even greater. Possessing the most advanced U.S. weaponry and a virtual offshore military base for the global superpower, it also has a huge stock of nuclear weapons.
To be sure, Israel faces the “existential threat” of Iranian pronouncements: Supreme Leader Khamenei and former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad famously threatened it with destruction. Except that they didn’t — and if they had, it would be of little moment. Ahmadinejad, for instance, predicted that “under God’s grace [the Zionist regime] will be wiped off the map.” In other words, he hoped that regime change would someday take place. Even that falls far short of the direct calls in both Washington and Tel Aviv for regime change in Iran, not to speak of the actions taken to implement regime change. These, of course, go back to the actual “regime change” of 1953, when the U.S. and Britain organized a military coup to overthrow Iran’s parliamentary government and install the dictatorship of the Shah, who proceeded to amass one of the worst human rights records on the planet.
These crimes were certainly known to readers of the reports of Amnesty International and other human rights organizations, but not to readers of the U.S. press, which has devoted plenty of space to Iranian human rights violations — but only since 1979, when the Shah’s regime was overthrown. (To check the facts on this, read The U.S. Press and Iran, a carefully documented study by Mansour Farhang and William Dorman.)
None of this is a departure from the norm. The United States, as is well known, holds the world championship title in regime change and Israel is no laggard either. The most destructive of its invasions of Lebanon in 1982 was explicitly aimed at regime change, as well as at securing its hold on the occupied territories. The pretexts offered were thin indeed and collapsed at once. That, too, is not unusual and pretty much independent of the nature of the society — from the laments in the Declaration of Independence about the “merciless Indian savages” to Hitler’s defense of Germany from the “wild terror” of the Poles.
No serious analyst believes that Iran would ever use, or even threaten to use, a nuclear weapon if it had one, and so face instant destruction. There is, however, real concern that a nuclear weapon might fall into jihadi hands — not thanks to Iran, but via U.S. ally Pakistan. In the journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, two leading Pakistani nuclear scientists, Pervez Hoodbhoy and Zia Mian, write that increasing fears of “militants seizing nuclear weapons or materials and unleashing nuclear terrorism [have led to]… the creation of a dedicated force of over 20,000 troops to guard nuclear facilities. There is no reason to assume, however, that this force would be immune to the problems associated with the units guarding regular military facilities,” which have frequently suffered attacks with “insider help.” In brief, the problem is real, just displaced to Iran thanks to fantasies concocted for other reasons.
Other concerns about the Iranian threat include its role as “the world’s leading supporter of terrorism,” which primarily refers to its support for Hezbollah and Hamas. Both of those movements emerged in resistance to U.S.-backed Israeli violence and aggression, which vastly exceeds anything attributed to these villains, let alone the normal practice of the hegemonic power whose global drone assassination campaign alone dominates (and helps to foster) international terrorism.
Those two villainous Iranian clients also share the crime of winning the popular vote in the only free elections in the Arab world. Hezbollah is guilty of the even more heinous crime of compelling Israel to withdraw from its occupation of southern Lebanon, which took place in violation of U.N. Security Council orders dating back decades and involved an illegal regime of terror and sometimes extreme violence. Whatever one thinks of Hezbollah, Hamas, or other beneficiaries of Iranian support, Iran hardly ranks high in support of terror worldwide.
“Fueling Instability”
Another concern, voiced at the U.N. by U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power, is the “instability that Iran fuels beyond its nuclear program.” The U.S. will continue to scrutinize this misbehavior, she declared. In that, she echoed the assurance Defense Secretary Ashton Carter offered while standing on Israel’s northern border that “we will continue to help Israel counter Iran’s malign influence” in supporting Hezbollah, and that the U.S. reserves the right to use military force against Iran as it deems appropriate.
The way Iran “fuels instability” can be seen particularly dramatically in Iraq where, among other crimes, it alone at once came to the aid of Kurds defending themselves from the invasion of Islamic State militants, even as it is building a $2.5 billion power plant in the southern port city of Basra to try to bring electrical power back to the level reached before the 2003 invasion.
Ambassador Power’s usage is, however, standard: Thanks to that invasion, hundreds of thousands were killed and millions of refugees generated, barbarous acts of torture were committed — Iraqis have compared the destruction to the Mongol invasion of the thirteenth century — leaving Iraq the unhappiest country in the world according to WIN/Gallup polls. Meanwhile, sectarian conflict was ignited, tearing the region to shreds and laying the basis for the creation of the monstrosity that is ISIS. And all of that is called “stabilization.”
Only Iran’s shameful actions, however, “fuel instability.” The standard usage sometimes reaches levels that are almost surreal, as when liberal commentator James Chace, former editor of Foreign Affairs, explained that the U.S. sought to “destabilize a freely elected Marxist government in Chile” because “we were determined to seek stability” under the Pinochet dictatorship.
Others are outraged that Washington should negotiate at all with a “contemptible” regime like Iran’s with its horrifying human rights record and urge instead that we pursue “an American-sponsored alliance between Israel and the Sunni states.” So writesLeon Wieseltier, contributing editor to the venerable liberal journal theAtlantic, who can barely conceal his visceral hatred for all things Iranian. With a straight face, this respected liberal intellectual recommends that Saudi Arabia, which makes Iran look like a virtual paradise, and Israel, with its vicious crimes in Gaza and elsewhere, should ally to teach that country good behavior. Perhaps the recommendation is not entirely unreasonable when we consider the human rights records of the regimes the U.S. has imposed and supported throughout the world.
Though the Iranian government is no doubt a threat to its own people, it regrettably breaks no records in this regard, not descending to the level of favored U.S. allies. That, however, cannot be the concern of Washington, and surely not Tel Aviv or Riyadh.
It might also be useful to recall — surely Iranians do — that not a day has passed since 1953 in which the U.S. was not harming Iranians. After all, as soon as they overthrew the hated U.S.-imposed regime of the Shah in 1979, Washington put its support behind Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who would, in 1980, launch a murderous assault on their country. President Reagan went so far as to deny Saddam’s major crime, his chemical warfare assault on Iraq’s Kurdish population, which he blamed on Iran instead. When Saddam was tried for crimes under U.S. auspices, that horrendous crime, as well as others in which the U.S. was complicit, was carefully excluded from the charges, which were restricted to one of his comparatively minor crimes, the murder of 148 Shi’ites in 1982 — a footnote to his gruesome record.
Saddam was such a valued friend of Washington that he was even granted a privilege otherwise accorded only to Israel. In 1987, his forces were allowed to attack a U.S. naval vessel, the USS Stark, with impunity, killing 37 crewmen. (Israel had acted similarly in its 1967 attack on the USS Liberty.)
Iran pretty much conceded defeat shortly after, when the U.S. launched Operation Praying Mantis against Iranian ships and oil platforms in Iranian territorial waters. That operation culminated when the USS Vincennes, under no credible threat, shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in Iranian airspace, with 290 killed — and the subsequent granting of a Legion of Merit award to the commander of the Vincennes for “exceptionally meritorious conduct” and for maintaining a “calm and professional atmosphere” during the period when the attack on the airliner took place. Comments philosopher Thill Raghu, “We can only stand in awe of such display of American exceptionalism!”
After the war ended, the U.S. continued to support Saddam Hussein, Iran’s primary enemy. President George H.W. Bush even invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the U.S. for advanced training in weapons production, an extremely serious threat to Iran. Sanctions against that country were intensified, including against foreign firms dealing with it, and actions were initiated to bar it from the international financial system.
In recent years the hostility has extended to sabotage, the murder of nuclear scientists (presumably by Israel), and cyberwar, openly proclaimed with pride. The Pentagon regards cyberwar as an act of war, justifying a military response, as does NATO, which affirmed in September 2014 that cyber attacks may trigger the collective defense obligations of the NATO powers — when we are the target that is, not the perpetrators.
“The Prime Rogue State”
It is only fair to add that there have been breaks in this pattern. President George W. Bush, for example, offered several significant gifts to Iran by destroying its major enemies, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. He even placed Iran’s Iraqi enemy under its influence after the U.S. defeat, which was so severe that Washington had to abandon its officially declared goals of establishing permanent military bases (“enduring camps“) and ensuring that U.S. corporations would have privileged access to Iraq’s vast oil resources.
Do Iranian leaders intend to develop nuclear weapons today? We can decide for ourselves how credible their denials are, but that they had such intentions in the past is beyond question. After all, it was asserted openly on the highest authority and foreign journalists were informed that Iran would develop nuclear weapons “certainly, and sooner than one thinks.” The father of Iran’s nuclear energy program and former head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization was confident that the leadership’s plan “was to build a nuclear bomb.” The CIA also reported that it had “no doubt” Iran would develop nuclear weapons if neighboring countries did (as they have).
All of this was, of course, under the Shah, the “highest authority” just quoted and at a time when top U.S. officials — Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Henry Kissinger, among others — were urging him to proceed with his nuclear programs and pressuring universities to accommodate these efforts. Under such pressures, my own university, MIT, made a deal with the Shah to admit Iranian students to the nuclear engineering program in return for grants he offered and over the strong objections of the student body, but with comparably strong faculty support (in a meeting that older faculty will doubtless remember well).
Asked later why he supported such programs under the Shah but opposed them more recently, Kissinger responded honestly that Iran was an ally then.
Putting aside absurdities, what is the real threat of Iran that inspires such fear and fury? A natural place to turn for an answer is, again, U.S. intelligence. Recall its analysis that Iran poses no military threat, that its strategic doctrines are defensive, and that its nuclear programs (with no effort to produce bombs, as far as can be determined) are “a central part of its deterrent strategy.”
Who, then, would be concerned by an Iranian deterrent? The answer is plain: the rogue states that rampage in the region and do not want to tolerate any impediment to their reliance on aggression and violence. In the lead in this regard are the U.S. and Israel, with Saudi Arabia trying its best to join the club with its invasion of Bahrain (to support the crushing of a reform movement there) and now its murderous assault on Yemen, accelerating a growing humanitarian catastrophe in that country.
For the United States, the characterization is familiar. Fifteen years ago, the prominent political analyst Samuel Huntington, professor of the science of government at Harvard, warned in the establishment journal Foreign Affairs that for much of the world the U.S. was “becoming the rogue superpower… the single greatest external threat to their societies.” Shortly after, his words were echoed by Robert Jervis, the president of the American Political Science Association: “In the eyes of much of the world, in fact, the prime rogue state today is the United States.” As we have seen, global opinion supports this judgment by a substantial margin.
Furthermore, the mantle is worn with pride. That is the clear meaning of the insistence of the political class that the U.S. reserves the right to resort to force if it unilaterally determines that Iran is violating some commitment. This policy is of long standing, especially for liberal Democrats, and by no means restricted to Iran. The Clinton Doctrine, for instance, confirmed that the U.S. was entitled to resort to the “unilateral use of military power” even to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources,” let alone alleged “security” or “humanitarian” concerns. Adherence to various versions of this doctrine has been well confirmed in practice, as need hardly be discussed among people willing to look at the facts of current history.
These are among the critical matters that should be the focus of attention in analyzing the nuclear deal at Vienna, whether it stands or is sabotaged by Congress, as it may well be.
Noam Chomsky is institute professor emeritus in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.A TomDispatchregular, among his recent books areHegemony or Survival, Failed States, Power Systems, Hopes and Prospects,and Masters of Mankind. Haymarket Books recently reissued twelve of his classic books in new editions. His website is www.chomsky.info.
1 opmerking:
Mark Rutte en zijn moeder hebben liever niet dat u dit leest
Een reactie posten