The democracy racket
Posted on April 16th, 2008 by yaman
Too much anti-war sentiment in the United States focuses on the disastrous consequences wrought by American violence on the Iraqi people. Not enough pays attention to the sickening extortion of Iraqis’ natural and material resources to cover the cost of crippling, starving, invading, occupying, and destroying their country.
This is the democracy racket: a fraudulent enterprise that offers freedom, in exchange for occupation; human rights, in exchange for Abu Ghurayb; security, in exchange for bribed militants; and a parliament, in exchange for the oversight of an embassy-fortress.
America’s debt to Iraq will never be paid.
Yeah, the very word ‘reparations’ makes the average american’s skin crawl, and that word will never even be brought up since we’d first have to admit having done wrong (something that will never happen either).
So true. That humanitarian element is often replaced by loud (but not enough) mobs of outrage over our govt’s policies.
Yusra, I think Yaman is saying something different.
I think he’s saying that the ‘humanitarian element’ (focusing on the violence and the more immediate and visible forms of suffering done to the bodies of Iraqis) should be either curbed in favor of, put in a secondary position to, or at least complimented by, a discussion about the extortion (or theft) of Iraqi “natural and material resources”?
In essence, Yaman is arguing that critics of the war should, to a certain degree, shift their rhetoric to the left (focusing on the older critique of Imperialism issued by the left rather than the humanitarian arguments favored by liberals).
Yaman, I’m with you on principle, and for many reasons, but what about on the level of politics- about its ability to be persuasive? I’m interested to know what you gotta say about that.
To quote from Moyne’s piece (that I like so much):
“But humanitarian sentiment will seem less praiseworthy for anyone who suspects that the focus on visible forms of cruelty obscures structural wrongs that are less easy to see–even when they sometimes also cause the body to suffer, as with the pangs of hunger or the exhaustion of work”
And indeed I am suspicious.
The humanitarian aspect is not worthless, indeed it’s probably the only thing which can make any of this important to anybody. But it is easy to limit all concerns to humanitarian concerns–thus the US feels justified bombing Iraq, if at the same time it drops these “humanitarian aid packages.” How thoughtful. It is easy, then, to continue occupying Iraq, but to bring one single Iraqi child, out of the countless who have been killed or injured, not to mention the hundreds of thousands who were starved during the decade of sanctions, for reconstructive face surgery, and for Americans then to feel that they have accomplished some good.
Sure, these are not “bad” actions, and maybe they “help” people. But they do not function to alleviate or eliminate suffering, they merely enable the original infliction of suffering to continue because those who inflict it can then claim that their actions are targeted and that their enemies are so and so, not this other group who bears the overwhelming majority of the consequences. It makes itself look legitimate by admitting its own excesses, and trying to take care of them with silly, tokenized, and limited gestures of good will.
So true, Yaman.
I think it’s all a part of our culture in America. We focus on the symptoms of our problems, and not the actual problem itself. Look at the way healthcare in this country is reactive instead of proactive. Look at how we respond to “collateral damage” and not murder. Look at how we give out economic stimulus checks instead of taking power away from the corporations that stole our money in the first place. I could go on and on.
Changing culture is the hardest thing to do in a country, but bringing up the issues is to hopefully plant the seeds of new thought into people’s minds.
Well done, as always.