A Response to Tanner Philips' "Imperial America: A good thing"
Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2006-11-18 13:39.
By J. A. Penn and Martin Wallace
We feel we must respond to the bigoted rant of an apologist of US imperialism that appeared in the 8 November 2006 edition of the University of New Brunswick's student newspaper, The Brunswickan, entitled "Imperial America: A good thing" by Tanner Philips.
While we agree with Philips' statements that the "US is an aggressive imperial power intent on maintaining its own global dominance" we drastically differ where Pax Americana elicits praise from Philips. We feel that most rational people may prefer to assume a more critical stance. We would also suggest that it is time for a proper "Reality Check" that is not based on a world view that has been framed through reading too many Tom Clancy and Jack Higgins novels.
Philips starts his diatribe by repeating the distortion (no longer given credence even in the mainstream right-wing circles) that the US invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil but rather was to remove an abusive and oppressive dictator from power and to stop the threat of WMDs. Our feeling towards Philips' comments are best described through a paraphrase of Tommy Douglas: "The US has its Hawks and Doves, Canada, on the other hand, has its Parrots".
First of all, Saddam Husein came to power with the blessing of the US Government. His most heinous crimes were carried out while he was receiving active support from the US Government. He was viewed as a secular strongman who would uphold American State Interests in the region. The Husein regime was hated by Islamic fundamentalists around the world and the feeling was returned in kind. After the gassing of some 5000 Kurdish villagers in Halabja in March 1988, not only did logistic and economic support from the US continued to flow but it was actually increased. To quote one US critic it was not only business as usual "it was business as never before".
To further justify American State aggression, Philips sets up a vulgar and transparent "straw-man" argument. He defends American imperialism by basically asserting that France's imperial history is not much better. He suggests that one states's aggression, imperialism, and human rights abuses should be an acceptable substitute for an other's. We have to point out to Philips that in a world where the majority of opinion is on the side of reason and compassion; all such acts by imperialist states are seen as atrocious regardless of who the perpetrator is.
Philips goes on to note that China, Russia, and France have opposed military intervention at the UN Security Council. What he fails to mention is that it is the US seat that, by a huge margin, is the most frequent user of its veto power in opposition to both peaceful and military sanctions and are generally in opposition to world opinion. This is also of no consequence in a discussion around why the US should be granted rights as "world policeman" for the reason given above.
Philips also blindly states that it is the Americans that "tried to save Somalia". "Tried" might be the active world here since their efforts were worse than ineffective. This is mostly due to the change in foreign policy of the US State during the conflict. The change refocused their policy only to support only US National Interests, of which Somalia was not considers one. It is interesting to note here that the US were arming the militias before the they "tried" to arrest the leader during the conflict. I might add that the US also did not have the backing of the international community for these failed actions either.
America's NATO missions to bomb the former Yugoslavia actually precipitated the worst atrocities in that conflict, it did not prevent them as Philips would like the reader to believe. The last point in this off-handed praise that Philips tries to wrap the US State in is how it "punished Indonesia" after it committed atrocities in East Timor. What Philips leaves out is that it was American support for the Indonesian military and oppressive government over those 10 years that was responsible for the near-genocidal atrocities in East Timor where well over 100 000 people were killed.
Philips also tries to say that America's commitment to keeping "free and open" water ways" is altruistic when in reality it is simply their strategy for keeping the flow of capital and world trade open for their business interests. There is also little to no oversight of American sea "superiority".
All these things are a matter of record, easily accessible to the public if one cares to look.
Philips holds out the vein hope that the US will lead the fight against climate change, AIDS, and environmental degradation. To this, we say, "get real". It is the US that is leader in perpetuating these problems with its backwards policies formed in the interests of large capital and maintaining the capitalist system.
It is the US State and corporations it acts to protect that are the single largest polluter of greenhouse gasses, it is the protected US pharmaceutical industry that limits access to AIDS drugs, it its the backwards policies on sex education that are tied to aid that prevent condom education in some of the poorer African countries, and it is US neo-liberalism that constrains environmental protection policy being enforced in developing nations so as to lower costs for US corporate multinationals.
Philips then makes a case for a unilateral US dominated world by invoking the red spectre of Communism. This is a cheap scare tactic reminiscent of the McCarthy Era. In fact, it is the Stalinist's backwards policy of "socialism in one country" that lead to democratic socialist movements over the world being crushed through McCarthyist red scare type actions. We feel we have to remind Philips that we already live in a multilateral world where US Hegemony is balanced only by the opposing world popular opinion. As most of the readers know, the arms race has always been beneficial to a major section of the US economy (i.e. the US Military Industrial Complex) that still wields enormous influence over US foreign policy.
Empires have always, through history, adhered to an ideological doctrine where they have a responsibility to extend their power for the good of humanity. The truth is, however, that the US State has an impressive record of both supporting and installing the "brutal and authoritarian regimes," that Philips seems to decry, and of opposing democracy and autonomous development. The so called "War on Terror" is merely the latest justification for the expanding US State Hegemony. We remind the readers that terror is a tactic, not an actual enemy that can be fought and killed. Terrorism can only be wiped out by fighting the social, economic, and political conditions that breed it; mainly those conditions that are maintained and installed by US imperialism.
While we agree with Philips' statements that the "US is an aggressive imperial power intent on maintaining its own global dominance" we drastically differ where Pax Americana elicits praise from Philips. We feel that most rational people may prefer to assume a more critical stance. We would also suggest that it is time for a proper "Reality Check" that is not based on a world view that has been framed through reading too many Tom Clancy and Jack Higgins novels.
Philips starts his diatribe by repeating the distortion (no longer given credence even in the mainstream right-wing circles) that the US invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil but rather was to remove an abusive and oppressive dictator from power and to stop the threat of WMDs. Our feeling towards Philips' comments are best described through a paraphrase of Tommy Douglas: "The US has its Hawks and Doves, Canada, on the other hand, has its Parrots".
First of all, Saddam Husein came to power with the blessing of the US Government. His most heinous crimes were carried out while he was receiving active support from the US Government. He was viewed as a secular strongman who would uphold American State Interests in the region. The Husein regime was hated by Islamic fundamentalists around the world and the feeling was returned in kind. After the gassing of some 5000 Kurdish villagers in Halabja in March 1988, not only did logistic and economic support from the US continued to flow but it was actually increased. To quote one US critic it was not only business as usual "it was business as never before".
To further justify American State aggression, Philips sets up a vulgar and transparent "straw-man" argument. He defends American imperialism by basically asserting that France's imperial history is not much better. He suggests that one states's aggression, imperialism, and human rights abuses should be an acceptable substitute for an other's. We have to point out to Philips that in a world where the majority of opinion is on the side of reason and compassion; all such acts by imperialist states are seen as atrocious regardless of who the perpetrator is.
Philips goes on to note that China, Russia, and France have opposed military intervention at the UN Security Council. What he fails to mention is that it is the US seat that, by a huge margin, is the most frequent user of its veto power in opposition to both peaceful and military sanctions and are generally in opposition to world opinion. This is also of no consequence in a discussion around why the US should be granted rights as "world policeman" for the reason given above.
Philips also blindly states that it is the Americans that "tried to save Somalia". "Tried" might be the active world here since their efforts were worse than ineffective. This is mostly due to the change in foreign policy of the US State during the conflict. The change refocused their policy only to support only US National Interests, of which Somalia was not considers one. It is interesting to note here that the US were arming the militias before the they "tried" to arrest the leader during the conflict. I might add that the US also did not have the backing of the international community for these failed actions either.
America's NATO missions to bomb the former Yugoslavia actually precipitated the worst atrocities in that conflict, it did not prevent them as Philips would like the reader to believe. The last point in this off-handed praise that Philips tries to wrap the US State in is how it "punished Indonesia" after it committed atrocities in East Timor. What Philips leaves out is that it was American support for the Indonesian military and oppressive government over those 10 years that was responsible for the near-genocidal atrocities in East Timor where well over 100 000 people were killed.
Philips also tries to say that America's commitment to keeping "free and open" water ways" is altruistic when in reality it is simply their strategy for keeping the flow of capital and world trade open for their business interests. There is also little to no oversight of American sea "superiority".
All these things are a matter of record, easily accessible to the public if one cares to look.
Philips holds out the vein hope that the US will lead the fight against climate change, AIDS, and environmental degradation. To this, we say, "get real". It is the US that is leader in perpetuating these problems with its backwards policies formed in the interests of large capital and maintaining the capitalist system.
It is the US State and corporations it acts to protect that are the single largest polluter of greenhouse gasses, it is the protected US pharmaceutical industry that limits access to AIDS drugs, it its the backwards policies on sex education that are tied to aid that prevent condom education in some of the poorer African countries, and it is US neo-liberalism that constrains environmental protection policy being enforced in developing nations so as to lower costs for US corporate multinationals.
Philips then makes a case for a unilateral US dominated world by invoking the red spectre of Communism. This is a cheap scare tactic reminiscent of the McCarthy Era. In fact, it is the Stalinist's backwards policy of "socialism in one country" that lead to democratic socialist movements over the world being crushed through McCarthyist red scare type actions. We feel we have to remind Philips that we already live in a multilateral world where US Hegemony is balanced only by the opposing world popular opinion. As most of the readers know, the arms race has always been beneficial to a major section of the US economy (i.e. the US Military Industrial Complex) that still wields enormous influence over US foreign policy.
Empires have always, through history, adhered to an ideological doctrine where they have a responsibility to extend their power for the good of humanity. The truth is, however, that the US State has an impressive record of both supporting and installing the "brutal and authoritarian regimes," that Philips seems to decry, and of opposing democracy and autonomous development. The so called "War on Terror" is merely the latest justification for the expanding US State Hegemony. We remind the readers that terror is a tactic, not an actual enemy that can be fought and killed. Terrorism can only be wiped out by fighting the social, economic, and political conditions that breed it; mainly those conditions that are maintained and installed by US imperialism.
-30-
»
- Login to post comments
- Download PDF
I saw that one as well.
I sent the following response to the Bruns, which they ran the next week. That was a rotten piece Tanner wrote. I'm glad to see other folks felt the same way.
In response to Tanner Phillips’ “Imperial America”
Learning to present distortions, factual errors and misinformation in the service of power is a critical talent to master for the aspiring propagandist. Judging by the consistent use of falsehoods in Phillips’ piece in the November 8th issue of the Brunswickan, Phillips is either grossly miss-informed, or aiming for a job with the National Post.
In paragraph 3, it is asserted that American violence is good for the world. Use of the term “world” in this instance is important. If by “world” we mean business interests and the slim margin of the global population that directly profits from American violence, then this assertion is tenable. If by “world” we include human beings, i.e. Pilipino, Nicaraguan, Guatemalan, Haitian, Dominican, Afghani, and Iraqi citizens, this assertion is simply racist jingoism on level with any given fascist ideology.
Regarding the assertion that human rights is the driving force in American foreign policy, provided we ignore the historical record, and wipe from our memories our enthusiastic support of men like Suharto, Leopoldo Galtieri or Roberto Viola, this distortion can be maintained.
In paragraph 6, it is asserted that the US “punished” Indonesia for its massacre in East Timor. If by “punish” we mean providing massive military and diplomatic support while simultaneously ensuring the general population had no knowledge of what was going on during the worst of the Indonesian onslaught, then yes Phillips is correct - the US did “punish” Indonesia.