A lot of people are saying Chretien's words are insensitive to the US's being the fall guy for ME/Muslim "radicals'" dissatisfaction about being predominant in certain areas of the world. Was he accurate in suggesting that radicalism grows out of insensitivity of the US to its actions in the ME, for instance? Perhaps not. In the past, from Dulles to Kissinger, the US has been seen as the big guy who gets his way to a lot of people in politically disenfranchised areas. Are they really poor? Is that the problem? Well Iraq may be disorganized and partly 3rd world, but poverty is only part of the problem. Pakistan, is not that poor, nor is Saudi Arabia or Sudan. They are however as we know, politically topsy turvy and extremely non democratic. In Pakistan's case that is a relief, in Saudi Arabia's case it is a growing problem. What then really has seeded this admittedly thorny problem? --Religion, oil, inherited power, US interference in ME governments, Israeli growth and insularity, or all of the above? -- To make the soup come out just wrong may take all these and more ingredients. Are we stuck with stirring the pot, since we need energy, need to support Israel, need a stable ME, need to protect our fragile democratic rights, and need to maintain our power in the world, lest far less conscientious nations hold sway? Better we oversee the cooking or we will be stuck with having to consume witches' brew.
All Chretien was doing was repeating the mantra of William Lederer in The Ugly American. If people are throwing stones at you, you must be displeasing them somehow. Telling ourselves that communists/socialists/nazis/muslim radicals paid them to show up and throw stones for the camera ignores the fact that we have more money to pay actors than they do, and more newspapers to skew the story. At a certain point the orchestrated excuse grows weak. The mantra is not entirely wrong. Nor is it entirely right.
EC<:-} |
