Foreign Policy Foreplay?
June 28, 2002
Either Dubya's latest speech on the Middle East is confused,
or I am.
In this latest missive from the unelected one, Palestinians
are told they are at fault, that they are not democratic,
and if they were, it would all be so much easier. I thought
the Palestinians had already decided that they like Arafat
and want to keep him as their leader and representative, for
good or bad.
Maybe this points to a larger and more particular problem,
that of the United States of America wanting to decide who
gets to run things around the world....
Israel and their particular Dubya of the moment, Ariel Sharon,
don't want to abide by any of the UN resolutions to which
they've agreed in the past. When the UN created Israel, it
also created a Palestinian state. The 1967 war took care of
that. When Israel wanted into the UN, it agreed to the right
of return of Palestinians uprooted from their homes. Israel
got into the UN, but there's been no right of return for any
Palestinian. When the UN reiterated that Israel was not entitled
to keep territories occupied during war, Israel just looked
the other way and said to the multitudes of settlers, "go
Now, after so many UN resolutions have been blasted apart,
the apparent Bush strategy is to blame the Palestinians for
upsetting the American applecart, for making it temporarily
more difficult for the Bush II administration to wage war
It's absurd, in a way. The UN says to Israel, do this and
all is forgiven, and Israel says, "yeah, okay, but leave us
Pardon? Membership in the UN strongly implies agreement with
its principles of the primacy of international law, the dictates
of fair play and reason among nations. Israel says, "nope,
not for us," and America, Israel's greatest benefactor since
its inception, says, "uh, ok, whatever."
America says, "we're going to fight every country with weapons
of mass destruction." Yep, except for Israel.
With regard to weapons of mass destruction and the Middle
East, everyone's nervous about Saddam Hussein and Iraq's capabilities
in that regard. That country is in the crosshairs. Certainly,
that's because Saddam Hussein is a power-mad idiot, but, that's
not the end-all of it.
One component of this great problem of the Middle East is
Israel's desire, as with the United States, to be a nuclear
superpower in its region, without having to say one's sorry.
Unfortunately, there's a rub in this - in the past (pre-Bush
II), the United States' nuclear policy sought to appear as
if it were a benign Santa with the power to withhold gifts,
rather than something which could wreak havoc on the planet
at large. Because Israel was a government which we hosted,
consistently, with economic and military tax dollars, we saw
them, and them alone, as friends in a hostile region. Our
leaders continue to protect this view, even though it is in
direct conflict with our relations with other countries in
the region (okay, read here, Saudi Arabia).
All this is indicative of problems in the larger policy of
the US, not just now but in the past as well. US politicians
today are loathe to speak accurately and simply about Israel's
failures in living up to its international agreements. Too
many votes to be lost by speaking the simple truth.
To a much greater degree, though, US policy is increasingly
tending toward one of, "we decide who runs your country, and
why." Bush II essentially, in his last speech, dictated that
to Palestinians, as he has done with Iraq, Columbia, and recently,
Covert policy to overthrow Hussein with prejudice speaks
to the same expectations on the part of the US. US manipulations
in the war in Afghanistan and its desires to influence the
outcome of the recently-convened loya jirga in Kabul have
made America seem to so many in the world a petty democracy,
run by moneyed interests, bent upon establishing not true
democracy, but rather, influence, around the world. No wonder
no one trusts us to do the right thing.
This latest administration of ours has chosen, quite deliberately,
to make the Monroe Doctrine into something wholly unfamiliar
to contemporary American citizens. It is now the desire of
the current administration to rule the world, absolutely and
without contradiction. Even Monroe would be shocked by the
breadth and scope of George Bush's intentions.
We are, covertly or overtly, seeking to manipulate the hopes
and desires and dreams of every country around the world which
does not meet our expectations, and are as equally willing
to ignore the every transgression of a country upon its own
people as long as that country's dictator is an ostensible
friend of ours. Even the military junta in Myanmar gets a
pass from the Bush administration, the courts and Congress.
Maybe all this is a sign of bigger trouble. The dissolution
of the former Soviet Union is seen, now, by many conservatives
in this country as an opportunity not only to fill a world
leadership void, but, in one sense, as an opportunity not
to be missed - the opportunity to run the world, politically
Money counts mightily in the equations currently being summed
by the Bush administration. Ephemeral as those profits might
be, they still count - mightily, especially to those politicians
in our midst who depend upon feeding the profit machine which
is now the United States.
The coincidence of oil and evil cannot be dismissed. But,
oil is but a part of this horror about to be unleashed on
the poor of the world. The larger variable is the raw, naked
grasp of power, absolute, unmitigated power. Controlling people,
dominating people, domestic and abroad, is perhaps the strongest
aphrodisiac of all. Determining the fates of whole countries,
the United States included, is political, economic and sexual
in its implications.
Many years from now, someone may come to the conclusion that
the United States and its leaders in our time were just economic
weight-lifters with itty-bitty social pricks and were seeking
to compensate for their perceived personal lack in sexual
Well, it's no crazier an explanation for what's going on
today with our leaders than any other theory, is it?
Maybe we just need to breed politicians with bigger dicks.
Then they would have no need to seek compensation through
world domination. What a concept!
Sexist? Perhaps. But, by and large, in this country, women
aren't the problem. Men are. As Michael Moore says, stupid
white men are. Maybe Mike should have said, "stupid white
men with tiny dicks are the problem."
And, no, I'm not volunteering to measure Trent Lott, or George
Bush or Tom DeLay.... I'll leave that to others with stronger
stomachs than have I.
More seriously, though, there's something wrong here. American
politicians think the world is their oyster, when, ultimately,
they should be thinking hard about what their constituents
really want, and not what they, in their puny minds believe,
is good for the world at large - a world, to the greatest
extent, they've never visited and know nothing about. If all
of the Senate and the House of Representatives were put on
the same diet as the poorest of the world's people for three
or four months, we might see a slightly different set of opinions
from these plump, corn-fed bowsers whom we elect year after
year because we don't know any better.
They might even be able to see the viewpoint of the average
Palestinian. Or East Timorean. Or Malaysian. Or Brazilian,
or Argentinian. Or Somalian. Or Nigerian. Or Angolan.
In American business parlance, to fuck someone is to gain
power over them. When your representative talks that way to
you, even in politically correct terms, maybe he or she means
to gain power over you, too.... Vote for an asshole and plan
on getting fucked, too.... Only in America.
Tell the parties to drop their pants for you before you vote.
It's the right thing to do, for America and the world. Don't
forget your ruler. Tell 'em they can't have your vote unless
they can seduce you, and that you're really hard to get. Tell
'em they can't have you unless they prove themselves to you.
Tell 'em they have to be sensitive, too. Tell 'em it's not
enough that they say they love you. Love is fleeting. Honesty
Punpirate is a New Mexico writer very fond of foreplay,
at home and abroad.