Phần lớn ngưòi ta cho rằng Obama, vì là người da đen và là một thành phần của chủng tộc bị áp bức, sẽ đem đến cho chính sách ngoại giao Mỹ một luân lý cao hơn là chính sách của Bush và Clinton mà thế gìói đã thấy. Đây chỉ là một ảo tưởng.
Tham Luận đọc tại Hội nghị Mut zur Ethik , Feldkirch, Áo Quốc, 5 Tháng 9, 2009 về chủ đề Chủ Quyền Quốc Gia Dân Tộc hay Chủ Nghĩa Đế quốc? Dân Chủ Thật Sự là Gì?
*NKPTC: Nhóm Vận Động Âu Châu “Mut zur Ethik” (Can Đảm Giữ Vững Đạo Đức) của Âu Châu, bao gồm 30 tổ chức hội đoàn của 9 nưóc Âu Châu và Mỹ có 300 trăm ngàn hội viên. Gồm các chuyên gia trong nhiều lãnh vực. Chủ trương nghiên cứu v vận động xã hội nhân bản và công lý. Tổ chức này có hội nghị hằng năm, mỗi năm một chủ đề. Năm nay 2009 tổ chức tại Áo Quốc.
Nưóc Mỹ cần nghe tiếng nói này..
Paul Craig Roberts
Nguyên Khả Chuyển Ngữ
NGUỒN & ĐỌC THÊM
Europe’s Complicity in Evil — Paul Craig Roberts
Sovereignty or Imperialism?
On September 5, 2009 I addressed an international conference in Austria on the subject of Europe’s subordination to the US and, thus, the absence of any constructive criticism of US foreign and domestic policies. Karel van Wolferen, whose website is http://www.karelvanwolferen.com, kindly reminded me of my address to the conference when he he sent it to me with his supportive response. Both are available below. You can see from my address and from Karel’s response that the reckless direction of US foreign and domestic policy has been known for many years. Yet the recklessness continues
Europe’s Complicity in Evil
By Paul Craig Roberts
[An address by Hon. Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., Chevalier, Legion d’Honneur, to Mut zur Ethik Conference, “Sovereignty or Imperialism,” Feldkirch, Austria, September 5, 2009]
There is a widespread supposition that Obama, being black and a member of an oppressed race, will imbue US foreign policy with a higher morality than the world experienced from Bush and Clinton. This is a delusion.
Obama represents the same ideology of American “exceptionalism” as other re- cent presidents. This ideology designates the United States as The Virtuous Nation and supplies the basis for the belief that America has the right, indeed the responsibility, to impose its hegemony upon the world by bribery or by force. The claim of American exceptionalism produces a form of patriotism that blinds the US population to the immorality of America’s wars of aggression.
Nothing is any different under Obama. Obama has escalated war in Afghanistan; started a new war in Pakistan; tolerated or supported a military coup that overthrew the elected president of Honduras; is constructing 7 new US military bases in Colombia, South America; is going forward with various military projects designed to secure US global military hegemony, such as the Prompt Global Strike initiative that intends to provide the US with the capability to strike anywhere on earth within 60 minutes; is working to destabilize the government in Iran, with military attack still on the table as an option; supports America’s new military African Command; intends to encircle Russia with US bases in former constituent parts of the Soviet Union; has suborned NATO troops as mercenaries in US wars of aggression.
How should Europe react?
Europe should disassociate from the United States and go into active opposition to US foreign policy. Europeans should demand that their governments withdraw from NATO as it serves no European interest. The two aggressive militarist powers, the US and Israel, should be sanctioned by the UN and embargoed.
Instead, Europe is complicit in US and Israeli war crimes.
Because of the Cold War, Europe is accustomed to following US leadership. The financial convenience of the shelter provided by US military power negated independent European foreign policies. In effect, Western European countries became US puppet states.
How does Europe escape from a subservient relationship of many decades? Not easily. The US is accustomed to calling the shots and reacts harshly when it meets opposition. For example, French opposition to Bush’s invasion of Iraq brought about instant demonization of France by the US media and members of Congress.
The US government uses financial sanctions and threatened leaks of sensitive per- sonal information gathered by its worldwide spy networks to discipline any independent-minded European leader.
Europe is essentially captive and forced to put US interests ahead of its own. Consequently, unless Europeans find their courage and discard their servile status, Europe will be badgered into more wars and eventually led into a devastating war with Russia. One European country can do little, but concerted action would be effective. For example, why do not Europeans protest that the war criminal Tony Blair was given a post in the EU?
The Obama administration’s attitude towards self-determination and the sovereignty of the people is that these grand-sounding concepts are useful platitudes with which to mask the hegemonic interests of the US government. US money and propaganda foment “velvet” or “color” revolutions that turn more countries into American puppet states.
The platitudes are useful also to disguise the overthrow of US civil liberties, such as habeas corpus, due process, and prohibitions against torture and pre-emptive arrest.
During the Cold War era, one of the mainstays of US propaganda against the So- viet Union was the inability of Soviet citizens to travel within their country without the government’s permission. This indignity has now been inflicted upon US citizens. As of September, 2009, US citizens can no longer travel within their country by air with- out the permission of the Transport Security Administration.
The Obama administration has adopted the Bush administration’s search procedures. Under these rules travelers’ computers, cell phones, and other devices can be seized for searches that can take up to 30 days. If you are on your way to a meeting and your presentation is on your computer and your contacts’ numbers are on your cell phone, you are out of luck.
excuse for these Gestapo practices. However, there have been no domestic acts of terrorism in 8 years. The few “plots” that led to arrests were all instigated by FBI agents in order to keep the nonexistent threat alive in the public’s mind. Yet, despite any real terrorist threat the police state continues to gain ground. Considering the extent of America’s oppression of peoples abroad, one would expect much more blowback than has occurred, assuming that 9/11 was not itself an inside job designed to provide an excuse for America’s wars of aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.
Europe must look beyond the empty American political rhetoric about “freedom and democracy” and recognize the emerging Brownshirt American State. Democracy is slipping away from America. Its place is being taken by an oligarchy of powerful interest groups, such as the financial sector, the military/security complex about which President Eisenhower warned, and AIPAC. Political campaign contributions from interest groups determine the content of US domestic and foreign policy. A country in which political elites are above the law and can violate with impunity both laws against torture and constitutional protections of civil liberties is not a free country.
American political leaders and the American people need Europe’s help in order to avoid the degeneration of the American political entity. American freedom, as well as sovereign independence elsewhere in the world, require criticisms of US foreign and domestic policies. The US media, which was concentrated into a few hands during the Clinton administration, functions as a Ministry of Propaganda for the government. It was the New York Times that gave credibility to the neoconservative propaganda and forged documents that were used to sell the invasion of Iraq to the public. It was the New York Times that sat for one year on the evidence that the Bush ad- ministration was committing felonies by violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It was not until after Bush was re-elected that the reporter was able to force his story through editorial opposition.
Americans need criticism from Europe to compensate for the absence of an inde- pendent American media. Americans need outside help in order to reach an under- standing of the immorality of their government’s policies, because they receive no such help from their own media. Without Europe’s help, Americans cannot regain the spirit of liberty and tolerance bequeathed to them by their Founding Fathers. America herself is a victim of the neoconservative and liberal internationalist pursuit of US hegemony.
We in America need to hear many voices telling us that it is self-defeating to be- come like an enemy in order to defeat an enemy. As Germans learned under Hitler and Russians learned under Stalin, it is the internal enemy—the unaccountable elite that controls a country’s government—that is the worst and most dangerous enemy.
If America has enemies who are against “freedom and democracy,” then America herself must make certain not to sacrifice her own civil liberties, and the sovereignty of other peoples, to a “War on Terror.” Acts of terror are a small cost compared to the cost of the erosion of civil liberties that took centuries to achieve. Far more people died to achieve liberty than have died in terrorist attacks.
The United States cannot pretend to be a guarantor of liberty when the US government takes away liberty from its own citizens.
The United States cannot pretend to be a guarantor of peace and democracy when the US government uses deception to attack other lands on false pretenses.
Europe, whose culture was wrecked by 20th century wars, Europe, which has experienced tyranny from the left-wing and from the right-wing, has a right to its own voice.
America needs to hear this voice.
An American Plea for European Awakening (18 Sept 09)
What I hoped to read has finally been written: A plea from an American addressed to all Europeans for help with bringing the United States to its senses. It ought to be on the editorial pages of every serious newspaper in Europe. In a speech contributed to the Mut zur Ethik Conference held in Austria a couple of weeks ago, Paul Craig Roberts lays out the case for Europe to “go into active opposition to US foreign policy.” American freedom as well as “sovereign independence elsewhere in the world” require this. Both the political leaders and the people of the United States “need Europe’s help in order to avoid the degeneration of the American political entity.”
Europeans insufficiently clued in about the gyrations of American non-mainstream media discussion might imagine such exhortation as coming from rather far-off leftist quarters. But Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, and has held numerous academic appointments in what in the US are categorized as ‘conservative’ institutions. I first came across his writing on a well-known ‘conservative’ website. He disappeared from that ever rightward drifting site when he became one of the first authors from a non-leftist background to pierce through the political exploitation of the September 11 attacks. And pierce he did, deeper and more to the point than many on that threadbare left side of the American political spectrum. Articulate, erudite, and informed by historical perspective, Roberts has been one of my anchors on the internet, a reassurance that it was not me who had gone mad, while what I call the insanity factor began to affect widening circles of political discourse in the United States and Europe.
Apparently unafraid of being thought excessively ‘emotional’, which is an epithet quickly earned today with even a bit of perfectly justifiable vehemence, he has been warning his fellow Americans about what could still await them, in the way of an Iran war, further restrictions on civil liberties and, indeed, the onset of what is best described as an American form of creeping fascism. These are things that I know many other concerned Americans have ghosting about in their heads, but dare not explicitly bring out into the open.
Until now I have heard calls to awaken Europe only through personal communication with American friends and colleagues who themselves have the means to speak to fairly large audiences at home. I tell them that by forming a choir on their side, directing its voices across the Atlantic to appeal to a European sense of self-worth and long-term self interest, and asking for a critical European position on American militarism, is perhaps the best chance to bring forth an answering European choir that systematically could get to work on its own political elites.
The situation with those European elites is dismal. I have written about it here and here and here. As far as I can make out, we are dealing in this case with a fair amount of cowardice and simple ignorance. Europeans are, on the whole, not well-informed about developments in the United States. It takes extremes like the candidacy of Sarah Palin or the utterly callous opportunism involved in the Healthcare tumult for them to become aware of how far gone things are in the United States. But those developments remain passing incidents to the elite European mind, and are quickly forgotten, especially now when America’s first black president has created the supposition that he (using Robert’s words) “will imbue US foreign policy with a higher morality than the world experienced from Bush and Clinton”. A delusion, Roberts reminds us, since Obama represents the same ‘exceptionalist’ ideology as his recent predecessors, one that “designates the United States as The Virtuous Nation and supplies the basis for the belief that America has the right, indeed the responsibility, to impose its hegemony upon the world by bribery or by force.”
As I cite these words, I can hear the derision from what is probably still the majority among the editorial and political elites in The Netherlands, and certainly the vast majority of those who wish to maintain their respected positions in the Dutch establishment (and boy, is there ever one! It seems more octopus-like and rigid than what I found in Japan).
Here in The Netherlands, anyone occupying a ‘responsible’ social position would be putting that at risk, were he or she to reproduce the arguments used in Roberts’ Austrian speech. I was once told by a prominent high-level member of the Dutch political system, himself sympathetic to my writing, that my published opinion about the Atlantic alliance had placed me outside the bounds of reasonableness where he and his colleagues could be expected to take me seriously. Even before George W. Bush’s speech before the graduating class of Westpoint, and the National Security Strategy of the United States document following it in 2002, I had concluded that the erstwhile alliance had been nullified since a common goal is by definition the basis for an alliance, and that a system of political and military vassalage was as the substitute on offer from Washington, with a structure of command replacing consultation.
There are constant signals in Dutch public life where the bounds of reasonable discourse on the United States, and also Israel, lie. Take the recent example of a former Dutch prime minister, Dries van Agt, who distinguished himself as Europe’s envoy to Tokyo and Washington after his service in The Netherlands, and who has adopted the Palestinian cause, regretting his own blindness to what was already happening in Israel when he headed the Dutch government (in 1977-82). His recent book on the subject was lambasted in what is supposed to be the ‘quality newspaper’ of The Netherlands with irrelevant references to his Catholic upbringing substituting for an attempt to reproduce its arguments. There are just simply things that cannot be discussed honestly. At the top of that list, besides Israel’s warcrimes, is the fact that the United States has undergone a metamorphosis from being a prominent architect of a relatively peaceful and stable world order in the three decades following World War II to being the biggest threat to world order today. Former American military officers, like Andrew Bacevich or venerable social scientists, like Chalmers Johnson, may decry what they without hesitation identify as militarism and imperialism, but for European Atlanticists such labels remain anathema.
It is staring Europeans in the face, Mr. Roberts, as much as it is in yours. But let me put a few things forward that could be considered mitigating circumstances. While traditional religion in its Calvinist or Catholic forms used to play a role as a guide for determining moral truth, guidance about such a thing in the much more secularized Europe of the past half century has required an alternative source of basic beliefs. While the Cold War alliance could of course not be called a substitute religion, the amalgam of notions about fundamental freedom, political decency, human rights, rationality and progress, with which the alliance was identified, in contrast to a defeated Nazi tyranny and the Cold War communist threat, was a sturdy alternative. Far more than a security guarantee, the relationship with the United States was the most important conceptual pillar supporting global order in the elite European mind. You still see this reflected in the ubiquitous phrase “it does not work without America!” on Dutch editorial pages. Asking staunch Atlanticists to accept the fact that with the loss of shared political purposes the Atlantic alliance has ended could be compared to asking pious believers to abandon their faith in God.
All right, cynicism and opportunism are not alien to European elites, and among especially their younger members ‘belief’ in the United States is more habit than faith. But bad habits are cured by first having them placed in perspective. Roberts reminds us of the deplorable role played by the American media, very much including the New York Times, in making all that has gone wrong appear acceptable. But Europeans, by and large, are dependent on those same media for their information and perspective. What constitutes world news, and how to interpret it, is largely determined in American editorial offices. There is no European ‘public sphere’. The only non-business newspaper read throughout the continent is edited by the New York Times. Even developments in fellow member states two borders away inside the European Union are filtered through that channel. And European publishers hardly ever buy and translate each other’s ‘current affairs’ or serious political non-fiction books. The trade on the book fairs in Frankfurt and London is from English to everything else, and then only if the work has achieved American bestseller status. It is uncanny how on Dutch TV programs that purport to explain what is happening, the questions addressed and the answers most likely to dominate, are entirely predictable for anyone who follows mainstream American commentary closely.
Paul Craig Roberts is fully aware how difficult it is for Europe to escape from its subservient relationship with the United States. “The US is accustomed to calling the shots and reacts harshly when it meets opposition.” Washington “uses financial sanctions and threatened leaks of sensitive personal information gathered by its worldwide spy networks to discipline any independent-minded European leader. Europe is essentially captive and forced to put US interests ahead of its own.” NATO provides the perfect illustration of this. It is interesting how public assessments that see NATO as not at all serving European interests, but as a liability, must come from Americans. William Pfaff, an American columnist based in Paris, has been presenting watertight arguments to that effect for years. One of the saddest post-Cold-War turns of events has been that those who could have made a difference in the decision making centers of the European Union were mesmerized by American triumphalism and neoliberal priorities for the expansion of the Union, and wasted the opportunity to make a huge move in the direction of collective security by asking Russia to join a reconstructed NATO.
The American military-industrial complex and war making machine lead lives of their own, not under control of the American public, its congressional representatives, or the president. The United States needs war for domestic political reasons. This is where American goals diverge most widely from those of Europe. Roberts lists some of the most recent developments in this context: Obama has “started a new war in Pakistan; tolerated or supported a military coup that overthrew the elected president of Honduras; is constructing 7 new US military bases in Colombia, South America; is going forward with various military projects designed to secure US global military hegemony, such as the Prompt Global Strike initiative that intends to provide the US with the capability to strike anywhere on earth within 60 minutes; is working to destabilize the government in Iran, with military attack still on the table as an option; supports America’s new military African Command; intends to encircle Russia with US bases in former constituent parts of the Soviet Union”. And he reminds us that the NATO serves as a pool of “mercenaries in US wars of aggression”. On this subject see also Jan Sampiemon’s new column on the NATO Zombies in their Afghan vicious circle.
This will come come across as overly harsh for the majority of the European elites Roberts wishes to reach, because their denial is nurtured by continuous propaganda about Russia, Iran, Venezuela, or for that matter China; propaganda that has been mistaken for analysis. They have not bothered to look in the kitchens of American think tanks where much of it is produced. What will also come acrosss as exaggerated is Roberts’ alert against the grand sounding concepts of “self-determination and the sovereignty of the people” used by the Obama administration as “useful platitudes with which to mask the hegemonic interests of the US government. US money and propaganda foment “velvet” or “color” revolutions that turn more countries into American puppet states”. And at home they “disguise the overthrow of US civil liberties, such as habeas corpus, due process, and prohibitions against torture and pre-emptive arrest”.
What can one say to European doubters? Stop for a moment, and think again. Do some homework. Go back and trace what actually happened when Georgia thought it could take on Russia. Re-evaluate the possible motives of Moscow and Teheran, and, for that matter, Beijing, after peeling away the layer of common interpretation to the extent this can be identified as propagandistic deposit. Are these governments by nature expansionist? Are they evil? If a campaign against terrorism is what must continue to tie the United States and Europe together strategically, ask: how are terrorists made?
The speech by Paul Craig Roberts (which you can read here) is a genuine appeal by an American patriot. “Americans need criticism from Europe … Americans need outside help in order to reach an understanding of the immorality of their government’s policies … [w]ithout Europe’s help, Americans cannot regain the spirit of liberty and tolerance bequeathed to them by their Founding Fathers.” And he ends: “Europe, whose culture was wrecked by 20th century wars, Europe, which has experienced tyranny from the left-wing and from the right-wing, has a right to its own voice.”
To which I would add: Especially if you continue to be grateful for the American help in rescuing Europe in the last century, you owe the American people a debt that you can try to pay by helping their out-of-control political system see where it is heading.