In
early 1945, Hiram Bingham faced a tough decision: he could follow
his government's orders to ignore the Nazi holocaust, thereby
keeping his comfortable position as US vice-consul in Marseilles,
or he could defy State Department policy by issuing life-saving
US visas to French Jews and anti-Nazi activists. Bingham chose
the latter, and as a result helped 2,500 escape persecution. Bingham's
reward? He lost his post, was drummed out of the Service, and
died almost penniless.
Fast forward to 2002, and Hiram Bingham is being feted as a hero.
US secretary of state Colin Powell praised his risking "life
and career" to do the right thing, and the American Foreign
Service association recently gave Bingham a posthumous award for
"constructive dissent."
"Constructive
dissent" – now there's an interesting term, especially in
these "you're with us or with the enemy" days of equating
dissent with terrorism. It makes you wonder what kind of modern-day
law breakers will be trumpeted as heroes 60 years down the road
... and which of our contemporary holocausts will be seen as worthy
to have fought.
In 1986, a former nuclear technician in an Israeli plutonium processing
plant had a tough choice: Mordechai Vanunu could stay quiet and
keep his comfortable life, or risk it all by exposing the truth
about Israel's nuclear program. Vanunu chose the latter and proved
that, contrary to repeated denials, Israel was a fully nuclear
state possessing hundreds of thermonuclear bombs, with accelerated
clandestine manufacturing of further nuclear weapons. Vanunu's
reward? A conviction of treason in an Israeli court, 12 years
in solitary confinement, and a prison sentence that continues
to this day.
As the world slouches towards all-out war in the Middle East,
we continue to deny both the potential nuclear component, and
its predictably devastating consequences. We read that war is
necessary because Iraqis are evil and have mass weapons of destruction,
and we're told not to worry our little heads about the accelerated
US military build up in Jordan and elsewhere in the region.
But it doesn't take a genius to connect these dots. Under pressure
to explain past shady business deals, Bush and Cheney need a military
diversion; double prize for them in that removing Saddam Hussein
would open up Iraq's rich oilfields (and profits) to their oil
crony's Western corporations.
Meanwhile, Israel currently has 400 nuclear weapons (including
a "boosted" bomb up to a thousand times stronger than
a regular nuclear device) and Bush has helpfully declared that
the US reserves the right to first use of nuclear weapons, even
on non-nuclear states.
So how farfetched then is the scenario of a "Wag the Dog"
US invasion of Iraq, the predictable mass uprising in Egypt, Syria
and elsewhere in the Arab World, and a threatened Israel following
Bush's lead in first strike with nuclear weapons?
How implausible is a coming Apocalypse?
One point is clear: if there ever were a time for constructive
dissent, it's now. Staring down the barrel of the escalating Mid-East
crisis, each of us has the responsibility to make sure our government
prevents a cataclysmic disaster. The reward? It's the right thing
to do.
Heather
Wokusch is a freelance writer. She can be reached at womanrant@hotmail.com
|