AN EXTREME MAKEOVER

A new dawn has come and yet many Americans remain fast asleep. September 11th should have awakened the nation, but for whatever inexplicable reasons we fell deeper asleep.

In the fall of 2001 as the nation patriotically mobilized for an immediate retaliatory invasion of Afghanistan there was little dialogue on what root cause could have precipitated such horrific acts. Why would so many men knowingly sacrifice their own lives to harm others? Politicians and the media were eerily silent on the subject and for good reason. It may not have seemed the ideal time to talk about bad things our government does overseas that foster such hatred and resentment.

Instead, we singled out a highly vulnerable nation in which to exact our revenge and bombed it even further into the Stone Age. There were equally credible suspects, some might argue more credible, like Pakistan, a principal training ground for radical Islamic thought, and Saudi Arabia where at least 15 of the 19 attackers were citizens, as well as Bin Laden. The former is a nuclear power and the latter an oil rich nation which made it too risky to U.S. interests to accuse and offend, let alone invade them. Ironically and tragically, the invasion of Afghanistan only fostered more hatred. The subsequent invasion of Iraq in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction that never materialized only exacerbated the bad blood.

Most Americans I encounter see their government as impeccably righteous and truthful, particularly when it comes to global affairs. To them, we are the savior of oppressed people and the greatest philanthropic nation in history. Nations should be grateful for our patronage, not antagonistic. But, in reality we take far more than we give, particularly from weaker nations, and we don’t distinguish between good and evil when we ally ourselves with leaders who will champion our economic and strategic interests. These despots usually profit immensely for their allegiance while their people suffer. Consider just a few: Augusto Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and the House of Saud. Granted some of these relationships soured over time, but only because these despots stopped pandering to U.S. interests, not because they oppressed their people.

Understandably, our citizens see things almost entirely from our government’s point-of-view. The seed of misinformation is first planted in our schools where children are taught a much idealized version of U.S. history. Our genocidal policy toward Native Americans, the Jim Crow laws that segregated blacks and whites for nearly a century after the slaves were freed, the frequent suspension of free speech in times of war, and the CIA’s overthrow of democratically elected leaders to install brutal dictators are just a few chapters in our history that receive little, if no mention in these text books.

Misinformation is also fostered by politicians. Government is supposed to be transparent within reason, but today it operates in unprecedented secrecy under the guise of “national security” undermining the very Constitution and principles that govern this nation. The “War on Terrorism” only broadens the justification for clandestinity with no apparent time limit since terrorism has been around as long as civilization itself.

Narrowly focused, biased, sensationalized, and often jingoistic news media further impedes informed and objective thought.

The Freedom of Information Act and controversial organizations like WikiLeaks help uncover the truth, but people by and large don’t want to hear the uncomfortable truths. Concluding that terrorists are motivated by jealousy of our wealth and freedoms, or simply religious zealots ignores reality.

We have been an aggressive nation ever since the American Revolution. “Speak softy and carry a big stick” was not unique to Teddy Roosevelt’s time. We have never cared who we covertly overthrow or with whom we ally if it benefits our national interests. When people of other nations live in squalor while the U.S. builds its hegemony by exploiting their natural resources and enriching the oppressive regimes who allow such exploitation, it’s inevitable that the victimized citizens will resent and ultimately hate us for this.

No nation except the British in the War of 1812, and some might argue Mexico, has ever invaded the contiguous United States. And although we have fought numerous wars in the last century there were very few times when major attacks on our soil were seriously contemplated.

The steady march of technological advancements has forever changed that. Now any individual or group with a grievance can perpetrate unspeakable harm to American citizens and property. What new mass killing device carried in a backpack or chemical agent concealed in a pocket is just around the corner in development? To think our government can protect citizens from all these threats, known and unknown, is foolhardy. The enemies are real and they cannot be effectively identified and eliminated with conventional warfare, covert acts, or compromising our Constitutional rights.

Government is not going to step-up to this challenge simply because it is heavily influenced by huge multinational corporations who profit immensely from the exploitation of weaker nations and from war itself.

The only solution can come from American citizens who seek and accept the truth. Our lives, our very way of life depend on it. No longer can we afford to remain in denial about our own acts of aggression and allow our government to brazenly “shoot up” the world. This is a public image problem, not a conventional war against a sovereign nation. We can either undergo an extreme make-over to win back the hearts and minds of global citizens or learn the hard way.

A FISH OF A DIFFERENT COLOR

The industrial revolution ushered in a confidence and arrogance that mankind has maintained ever since. Man could do anything he set his mind to and nothing in the natural world could stand in our way. We moved mountains, connected oceans, defied gravity, harnessed electricity, and split atoms. Our preternatural abilities seemed limitless.

There were, of course, hiccups in this march of progress. The Titanic, the Johnstown flood, the Hindenburg, Bhopal, and Chernobyl are some notable examples.

Although man’s quest for knowledge has fostered many innovations, the drive for profits is what commonly gets us into trouble. Making the quick buck or keeping shareholders happy is what often fuels the brashness that can turn innovation into disaster.

As the sophistication of our technology continues to advance the risks of such recklessness become ever more ominous. Will we ultimately meddle too much with nature? Global warning and nuclear weapons clearly indicate we are pushing the envelope.

The growing catastrophe in the Gulf is a “live” example. British Petroleum (B.P.) and the oil industry in general have developed the most sophisticated methods and equipment to extract oil from the seabed a mile down, and yet not much thought and resources were devoted to addressing potential problems that could arise. In fact, they audaciously ignore such dangers in pursuit of profits and shareholder dividends.

Nature is so delicate and complex we may not discover all the consequences of this unfolding disaster for some time in both ecological and economic terms. No one fully understands the dynamics of submersed oil and what role currents, wind, and severe storms will play. And no one is certain how much oil is leaking and when the flow will be halted. Just how much oil is even in the well is conspicuously absent from sound bites offered by B.P. and the U.S. government. It is surely conceivable that the entire gulf could become a dead sea and ultimately spread its pollution to other shores including the entire eastern seaboard of the U.S. The impact could be cataclysmic.

One thing we do know for certain is that when mankind meddles with nature there are consequences seen and unseen. The balance and fragility of nature is not something we can boldly ignore.

What prompted this op-ed was a New York Times article about the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) considering the approval of genetically-engineered salmon. That was disturbing enough, but to find they may not require package labels identifying them as such was shocking. This secrecy is not new to the F.D.A. We are already consuming genetically-engineered crops in our processed foods without knowing it.

The wisdom of age has taught me that two parties that cannot be trusted to always tell the public the truth are big business and politicians. Unfortunately, these are the two principal lines of defense in ensuring public safety.

You could argue that lack of government oversight of offshore drilling practices was largely responsible for the catastrophe in the Gulf. Now you have to ask whether the F.D.A. will exercise the proper vigilance or even whether it has the wherewithal to determine whether there is any potential risk from eating genetically-engineered foods. Is the public so desperate for more salmon that we should take this risk no matter how small?

According to the Times article, Ronald L. Stotish, the CEO of AquaBounty Technologies, the company that developed these salmon, stated that these fast-growing fish would help supply the world’s food needs using fewer resources. I find it hard to believe that he and his company, which stand to profit enormously from F.D.A. approval, were driven by altruistic goals. Profit alone is what motivates these people and companies, and why they can pose such a threat to humanity.

Faced with such harsh realities, I want to make my own informed buying decisions as to what I consume. But if the government does not require labeling to identify genetically-engineered products we have no means to discriminate between what we may deem as healthy foods and those we see as potentially hazardous to our health.

THE RISE OF AMERICAN-IMPOSED DESPOTISM

The majority of Americans probably derive a great deal of pride when they hear of our governments efforts to propagate democracy around the world. We hail ourselves as liberators and apostles of freedom. A look at the record, however, reveals a different story.

Not only do we support despotism in many countries, our covert actions abroad give rise to more authoritarian and autocratic regimes than democracies.

American hegemony is fueled by repressive governments who conform to our ideology, enrich American corporations, and/or offer strategic advantages, and when necessary, subordinate their own country’s interests for ours. The transitory nature of democracy makes it unlikely that these conditions would be so readily fulfilled in a free society, particularly over the long term. Despots can stay in power for decades, particularly if their power base is subsidized by American economic and military aid. This aid greatly enriches individual dictators guaranteeing their loyalty, while their populace suffers.

Our own government acknowledges supporting many of these despots, although such admissions usually come decades after the fact. And what is typically underplayed or not mentioned at all is our role in covertly overthrowing popular, democratically-elected leaders in order to install tyrants.

In 1953, the democratically-elected Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown with the CIA’s tacit assistance, and the emperor of Iran, otherwise know as the shah, was returned to the throne where he brutalized his people for another 24 years. This long span of tyranny helped spark the Iranian revolution and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini. The chief impetus for Mossaddegh’s removal was his desire that the Iranian people share in the revenues Western countries derived from their monopolization of Iranian oil fields.

In 1954, Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, democratically-elected President of Guatamala was overthrown principally because his land reform threatened the interest of U.S.-based United Fruit Company. An American-backed military junta replaced him.

Salvador Allende of Chile was the first democratically elected Marxist to become president of a state in the Americas With US business interests threatened and to prevent any spread of communism during the Cold War, the US aided the installation of a military dictator, General Augusto Pinochet, in 1974 who ruled with a heavy hand until 1990.

Some will say that these examples are past history and cite places like Iraq and Afghanistan as better illustrations. But, bear in mind these are works-in-progress and at this point in time they are dysfunctional, corrupt governments without broad representation and lacking any semblance of open, fair and free elections. If history tells us anything, they will both end up being autocratic, authoritarian or theocratic governments.

Even emerging democracies are not recognized by the U.S. if these democratically-elected governments do not share our political and economic agendas as was demonstrated recently in the Palestinian territory. We only recognize democracies that kowtow to the will of the U.S. which essentially undermines a country’s right of self-determination.

It is clear that democracies are not sacrosanct when it comes to covert US interference if our strategic or economic interests are at stake, and this fact gives rise to more despotism in countries who want to keep us at arm’s length. Conversely, any country where these vital interests do not come into play is virtually ignored and usually safe from our meddling.

Those democracies of interest are far more vulnerable to U.S.-instigated coups and assassinations than repressive governments who silence the opposition where we typically sow our covert seeds of revolt. I don’t think you can find a democracy who defied America’s will that has survived for any length of time, yet autocratic, authoritarian and theocratic governments do. Cuba, North Korea, and Iran, among others are still around after decades of defiance to US interests.

There are two lessons to be learned by foreign governments: One, the U.S. does not really care about democracy so long as governments support our interests, often at the expense of their own natural resources and people; and two, if they do not share our economic, strategic and ideological worldview they can better protect themselves from our meddling if they brutally suppress their people.

Our Founding Fathers may have been genuine in their dream of spreading democracy around the world, but today it is only window dressing to mask our hegemony. And although the American people see their country as the symbol of democracy throughout the world, we actually do more to promote despotism than liberty and justice for all.