most members of my generation, I supported the U.S. involvement
in Vietnam. Whatever the atrocities the U.S. perpetrated, I believed
that they were a price worth paying to resist Communism. It is
obvious now that Ho Chi Minh, unlike the assorted political hacks
who played musical chairs in Saigon, was an authentic leader of
Vietnam. He did not need 500,000 Soviet or Chinese forces to assist
him. Left to its own devices, South Vietnam collapsed in a few
weeks. The Hanoi regime, on the other hand, took everything the
United States threw at it and still prevailed.
there is no countervailing force to U.S. supremacy. There is no
power that can offer support to a nation asserting old-fashioned
independence. Washingtons tantrums are international law.
Consider the following: Hans von Sponeck runs the United Nations
"oil-for-food" program, which allows Iraq to sell $5.2
billion of oil every six months to purchase food and medical supplies.
The other day the U.S. let it be known that it wanted him out.
His crime? He had blurted out something self-evident to everyone
in the world except for Washington. The sanctions on Iraq were
hurting civilians and made little sense. Unusually for him, UN
Secretary General Kofi Annan stood his ground and refused to follow
Clinton administration orders. In the meantime, the U.S. government
hosted a conference in New York to the tune of $3 million for
an organization called the Iraqi National Congress. Billed as
a meeting to unite Saddam Husseins opponents, it really
was nothing more than a gathering of out-of-work Iraqis on the
U.S. payroll. Now the United States knows perfectly well that
this bunch can never hope to overthrow Saddam Hussein. By resisting
relentless U.S. pressure for almost 10 years, Saddam has shown
himself to be the authentic leader of Iraq, something these toadies
can never hope to be. The only way they can come to power is by
riding in to Baghdad in U.S. tanks. Since hysteria about Iraq
can be turned on and off at will, a full-blown U.S. invasion can
never be ruled out.
policy has been pitiless on Yugoslavia as well. No humanitarian
aid. No aid to clear the Danube of the debris from the NATO bombing.
No support for the European Union policy of supplying oil to two
cities in Serbia, led by opponents of Slobodan Milosevic. Then
the other day, to much fanfare, it was announced that the U.S.
was changing its policy. It was doing nothing of the sort, of
course. Following a meeting of some people described by the State
Dept. as a "delegation of Serbian Democratic Opposition Leaders,"
the hideous harridan of Foggy Bottom announced that she was prepared
to "evaluate the EUs pilot project." She would
also "be watching closely to see if the assistance actually
gets to the intended recipients in the manner proposed."
That was heartening to know. She also announced that the ban on
flights and the oil embargo would be suspended as soon as free
elections were held in Serbia. However, the pathetic bunch of
losers groveling before Dr. Albright (as The New York Times
ingratiatingly likes to call her) could not win an election
if their lives depended on it. So what happens in the almost certain
eventuality that the winner of any elections in Serbia is the
nations true leader Slobodan Milosevic? "I have
made quite clear that there have to be free and fair elections
internationally supervised with observers that come as a result
of a free and fair campaign," the fat and stupid one spluttered.
"I find it very hard to believe that Milosevic could ever
win those kinds of elections
I expect that the people of
when they have the opportunity to vote for people
that are going to provide freedom for them
will choose correctly."
In other words, as far as the U.S. government is concerned, "free
and fair elections" are those that yield the "correct"
results. Interestingly, one of the "opposition" leaders
who failed to attend this meeting was Vuk Draskovic. According
to The New York Times, earlier this summer Draskovic was
all set to lead a transitional government in Belgrade. When the
Clinton administration heard of this, it threatened to indict
him for war crimes. "Leaders" have to follow Washingtons
orders or they might end up in prison.
arrogant United States has recklessly expanded NATO to Russias
borders. However debilitated Russia has become as a result of
blindly following the "privatization" nostrums of Western
advisers, it still mustered the energy to voice a protest. The
U.S. response was smugly dismissive. "Quite bluntly,"
the loathsome Strobe Talbott explained, "Russians need to
get over their neuralgia on this subject." That the Russians
might view with some concern the American bombing of their ally
Serbia or the machinations in the Caucasus would never occur to
Talbott. The United States is always on the side of the angels
and is always a victim.
recent opinion poll in the Czech Republic had the Communists ahead
of every other political party. This is an amazing reversal of
fortunes. Only a few years ago President Vaclav Havel was a national
hero. He had resisted Communism and had paid for it by spending
years behind bars. Today he is a discredited figure, a man who
is seen as little more than a toady of the Western leaders whom
he is so anxious to be included among. Not long ago, he spoke
of the Czech Republic as being "at a historical crossroads."
The Czechs could either embrace "responsible participation
in improving the world," or they could build "walls
from concrete or [impose] visa requirements, import surcharges
and quotas, and a ban on evil foreigners buying houses here."
One can see here how much Havel has made his own the gobbledygook
of the "market democracy" ideologues. It is a relief
to learn that this stalwart of the Cold War is now a deeply unpopular
figure in the Czech Republic. Like other nations the Czechs want
to retain at least a little bit of dignity. Todays fighters
for freedom are no longer Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel. They have
names like Jiang Zemin, Vladimir Putin and, yes, Slobodan Milosevic.