News Roundup

The New York Newsday published several news items today (and some from other days this week are pulled in), which together paint an altogether different picture of the U.S. than it would like. These are normal articles in a normal newspaper; information there for anyone with open eyes and an open mind to see.

The first, Caution Over NY Airspace mentions that the “federal government is expected to prevent foreign airlines from taking off or landing at metropolitan New York airports during certain periods around the Sept. 11 anniversary”. This, despite the fact that the September 11th attack was carried out using U.S. carriers. But, it’s not all foreign airlines, since “[u]nder code shares, a foreign airline can fly as a U.S. airline flight.” Therefore, any airlines that are not based in the U.S. or affiliated with a U.S. airline (read: making money for/with a U.S. airline) will not, for whatever bizarre reason, be allowed to fly within a “30-mile radius of New York City up to an altitude of 18,000 feet” on Sept. 11 and 12 this year. That’s pretty much all those pesky third world and non-European airlines.

OK, fine, in Feds Back Away From NY Air Restriction Plan (also on the Newsday), “The Bush administration … backed off [the] plan…” because of concerns that it “would violate international treaties”. I think the message is sent loud and clear. But why? Why just issue this proclamation when it really never stood a chance? Was the administration worried it didn’t look or act bigoted enough? Let me be the first to assure them on that note.

The next article, U.S. Officials Defend Iraq Plan details the ongoing, everyday saga of stupidity that is the contemplated invasion of Iraq. “It is our view that an Iraq left unattended is a threat to its neighbors and a threat to ourselves.” Do you know how many nations can say the exact same thing of the U.S. (including Iraq itself)? Ever since serious overtures toward the invasion of Iraq were made, what has been Iraq’s response? They’ve invited UN inspectors back (requesting to leave out the CIA plants the US tried to send in last time, those arrogant Iraqi bastards). In U.S. Dismisses Iraqi Overture…, Rumsfeld called Iraq’s attempts at reconciliation “a joke”, while Kofi Annan (that leftist terror-lover) said “if Iraq is open to that idea, there are practical means to send the inspectors back.”

They’ve successfully solicited economic aid from Russia (who was promptly described in all major US media as a nation we thought cared about fighting terrorism, but now it’s apparent they’re just a bunch of damn terror-loving communists after all — that’s almost a direct quote there) and other nations. In Russia Defends Ties With Iraq, Russia invested in Iraq because they already have so much interest in it to begin with; they invested heavily during the cold war, as, ironically, did the US. Iraq has also been under “United Nations sanctions, imposed after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait”, which have crippled its economy, destroyed the middle class, and starved hundreds of thousands, if not millions as a direct result over the last decade.

What haven’t they done? They haven’t attacked anyone, caused any enormous terror strikes or even spoken badly of the U.S. or any country. Some horrible enemy that is a threat to its neighbors. How exactly will Iraq be able to tell that it is under attack by the U.S.? They’re already being bombed by the thousands of missions flown each year by the troops enforcing the “no-fly zones”. They were just bombed heavily at “a major military surveillance site that monitors American troops in the Persian Gulf”, as reported in Key Iraqi Site Reportedly Bombed. Of course, we also blew up a chemical weapons plant in Sudan, right? The U.S. never misidentifies targets; nor does it make shit up to further its agenda. And, honestly, so what if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; they’re having them doesn’t matter nearly as much to a US citizen as the US having weapons of mass destruction matters to people in the rest of the world. The US, at least, has demonstrated that they’re willing and able to use them (in enthusiastic amounts, to boot). “Cheney rejected such arguments, asserting that Hussein’s ouster would actually strengthen U.S. allies, firm up support for the campaign against terrorism and improve prospects for a Mideast peace settlement”. So he’s going to stick with the “we’re good, everyone else is bad” thing, eh? Not too surprising; it works really well on the herd.

The next article, U.S. Fights Back at U.N. Summit shows the US giving “a forceful − nearly angry − presentation” at the followup to the Kyoto Summit of ten years ago. The US wants to emphasize that they do have the answers to the problems of “energy, clean water, sanitation, hunger”. Nothing new needs to be done; just let the invisible hand of the free market have its way. Except if you know anything about international policy, there is no such thing as a free market or even one that could be called fair. Nonetheless, the US wants everyone to believe that their “series of partnerships with industry and foundations” is a big leap forward, even though it doesn’t change one iota the existing policies that plainly put the entire third world subservient to first world (and have managed to push Africa’s life expectancy below 40).

“[T]he United States has opposed decade-long timelines or binding targets for results”, which, of course, are too constraining on a government run by corporations that are only interested in short-term profits and can back it up with a $500 Billion per year “defense” program. Total US commitment to these environment proposals could run to “$2.4 billion over the next four years”. Wow. Where will we find all that money? We already give $3 Billion to Israel every year.

In, Sadly, Africa’s Not A ‘Priority’ for U.S., we hear that the latest G-8 summit “promised no new financial assistance; packaged $6 billion in already-promised aid as if it were something new; and waved their fingers at the continent, insisting that Africans open up their economies to greater penetration from the West…” This is always the demand of the first world — open up to private investment and all will be better…well not for you, of course, but first world corporations will reap some massive profits before your country goes too much into the shitter to be worth it any more. Then, the US installs a dictator and the profits level out again, though not to nearly the original levels (because those people in the third world are lazy and shiftless).

“…when it comes to Africa, we witness compassionate conservatism in its most blatant form: plenty of sympathy, duplicity at the level of policy and tolerance of the degradation of life for billions of this planet’s inhabitants”

Back to the “World Summit on Sustainable Development” in Johannesburg, South Africa. Countries in Africa are forced to rediscover Adam Smith (of “Invisible Hand” fame), whom the US is so fond of quoting. For example, they say: “In theory, industrialized countries should manufacture and process goods for export and developing countries should supply the raw materials at fair prices.” Makes sense; as a society advances, they leave the more basic production to those societies not so advanced. It’s a basic tenet of the free market; this is the notion of “comparative advantage”. They’re finding quickly that the first world hasn’t decided to practice what it preaches for them. In particular, in farming, which is really one of the only markets in which it could (currently) realistically compete, “the hegemonic powers dominate the export market on basic staple foods because the farming sector is highly subsidized by their governments.” Total farm subsidies paid by the first world to itself is $350 Billion per year; total aid to developing nations is $50 Billion per year (US military budget: $500 Billion per year). See also Earth Summit Exposes Tension…

And where’s Bush during this important-sounding summit? Oh, he’s not there. He’s got a war to market…and he’s still on vacation, right? Bush Breaks Fund-Raising Record writes that he’s held his “49th and 50th fund-raisers” of the year and has raised “nearly $110 million”. Plus, he held that economic summit in Waco, populated by corporate heads and people who’d already been screened to love him, so its been a “working” vacation for him. Americans impatient with sluggish economy notes that “[t]he list of attendees is filled with people who donated exclusively to Bush and Republican interests”. This was right after he stood on a golf course blaming Clinton for the bad economy he “inherited”.

So, that’s the news roundup of article from just a couple days of the newspaper. It’s neat how so much of it dovetails, no? How it all starts to make sense and the logic behind things pops out in relief against all the rhetoric?