THE COST OF BEING SAVED BY AMERICA
ALI ABUNIMAH, DAILY STAR, LEBANON - In Kabul, The Independent's Phil
Reeves reports that Afghans listen "with astonishment as Americans
portray their country's experience since the overthrow of the Taleban as
a 'success.'" Amid the mounting problems faced by Afghanistan, Reeves
reports "a deep concern in Kabul that the international community is
losing interest even though the task of repairing the wreckage of war
has just begun."
Blair, who vowed the international community "will not walk away from
Afghanistan," is now selling the same snake oil to raise support for an
attack on Iraq.
Let us, for the sake of argument, accept the premises and good
intentions of Blair's position. Is there any evidence that US-led action
would lead to an improvement for the people of Iraq? The record from
recent "humanitarian" US military interventions in Somalia, Haiti and
Kosovo much smaller countries and less complex situations than Iraq
suggests Afghanistan's dismal experience is the norm, not the exception.
In December 1992, the first President George Bush sent 28,000 troops to
Somalia on a "humanitarian" mission to help distribute food. US forces
met resistance and engaged in heavy fighting, killing thousands of
Somalis. A decade after Bush declared "we will not fail," Somalia today
does not even have a functioning government. Few economic statistics
exist, though in a September 2002 brief, the World Bank said over half a
million people there faced severe food shortages, a situation scarcely
better than in 1992.
Many Somalis survive on remittances sent from relatives aboard. After
the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Washington shut down many of the money
transfer agencies that Somalis in the United States used to send funds
home. . .
In September 1994, then-President Bill Clinton sent a 15,000-strong
invasion force to Haiti. As the troops were on their way, Haiti's
military rulers stepped down under an ultimatum. Clinton sent the troops
in anyway as the advance guard of a US-led international force whose
mandate was "to begin the task of restoring democratic government," to
"stop the brutal atrocities," to "preserve stability and promote
democracy," and "to uphold the reliability of commitments we make to
others."
Today, Haiti remains torn by political violence, instability and severe
human rights abuses. In 2001, the political situation became so bad that
the United States and the European Union cut off financial aid to the
Haitian government. This has only exacerbated the situation. Haiti's per
capita income in 1999 was just $460, and 80 percent of its people live
in abject poverty. Haiti is poorer today than many countries in
sub-Saharan Africa.
. . . To this poor record, and America's historic support for the most
undemocratic regimes in the world, including Israel's military
dictatorship over the Palestinians and undemocratic regimes in Turkey
and Saudi Arabia, must now be added a third factor. The hawks who have
hijacked American foreign policy have stated that their goal is to
create a unipolar world ruled by the United States. It is a zeal to
reorganize the Middle East in the interests of the United States and
Israel that drives them. Only the naive will believe emancipation for
the people of Iraq or anywhere else in the region fits into these
schemes. |
