The Whole World Is Watching

During the Second World War, the west fiddled while the Nazis undertook to enact their grisly "solution" to the "problem" of European Jewry. Later, an aghast world promised to "never again" allow such a monstrous crime to occur.

It then proceeded to, within a decade watch the U.S. reduce Korea to absolute rubble (including the bombing of dikes to flood crops and starve out the civilian population). It watched Stalin's and Mao's crimes. It watched the United States and France annihilate Indochina, and watched France's miserable war upon Algeria. It watched Indonesia's genocidal annexation of East Timor, Rwanda's implosion, and much else besides. It watched Israeli bulldozers make minced meat of Jenin. It watched Bush I decimate Iraq in Gulf War I, it watched a decade of sanctions isolate and wither one of the world's oldest cultures, and is getting ready to watch Bush II finish the job in Gulf War II.

To be sure, the world -- especially those not in positions of power -- is putting up a bit more resistance this time around. But only a bit.

UN aid workers are getting ready to evacuate Iraq (apparently they're not so confident of the United States' ability and/or willingness to distinguish between civilian and military targets). What would happen if the UN were to instead greatly increase the contingent of aid workers, and facilitate an influx of thousands of westerners -- thereby daring the United States to bomb white civilians?

The non-aligned movement (which represents 55% of the world's population, but whose views only "matter because six of its members are currently on the UN Security Council"), while generally opposing the war is at the same time pleading with Saddam to hand over his "alleged weapons" (emphasis added). One could damned well bet that the NAM's views would "matter" if it were to, for example, order all U.S. troops sent beyond its members' frontiers, and all bases closed down, until the United States would hand over its weapons of mass destruction. Or if it were to en masse call a halt to all debt-service payments.

The Europeans continue to insist that force isn't yet necessary, but that Iraq (and Iraq only, natch) must achieve "full and effective disarmament". While Russia is concerned enough "that a change of regime in Iraq would have serious repercussions for the oil-dependent Russian economy" to have sent an envoy to Baghdad, it's not concerned enough to "risk ruining its relationship with the United States by vetoing a new resolution." Ah, er, the Europeans have apparently yet to receive word that the United States' will invade Iraq despite a UN veto. So why aren't the Europeans -- who are only too happy to make known the opinion that it is the U.S. military presence in the Gulf which will assure Saddam's compliance -- deploying their military forces to the Chesapeake Bay? Wouldn't that command Richard Perle's attention?

The Pope is disapproving enough of the U.S. plans to have made several pronouncements, and to have sent and received several envoys. He has said over and over that war would be a "defeat for humanity". Given that the very survival of humanity is at stake, is there nothing more that the most powerful religious leader -- possibly the most revered person -- in all the world can offer? What if the Pope himself, along with the entire Catholic hierarchy, were to take up residence in Baghdad until such time as the U.S. sent its troops packing? An eighty-two-year-old man versus the mightiest military machine in history, and we all know what the outcome of that showdown would be. Update! Indian doctor/spiritualist Deepak Chopra, apparently an avid reader of this blog, has proposed that himself, the Dalai Lama, and the Pope should set up shop in Iraq as Human Shields, saying that, "If we bombed Baghdad tonight and thousands of children died, most people would be unaffected. But if the Pope was there we wouldn't do it. Isn't that funny?" There is also a grassroots movement afoot to convince the Pope to high-tail it to Baghdad. Add your voice to this "heavenly choir"!

Here at home, President Bush's popularity with the American "electorate" has declined sharply over the last two months. Yet if 46% of the nation's population disapproves of the President, why weren't a corresponding percentage of the nation's inhabitants -- 133.55 Million, that would have been -- in the streets last weekend? And for the love of god, why are we all still driving cars? You think that Pres. Bush would "respectfully disagree" with (that is to say, ignore) a "focus group" of 130 Million people refusing to purchase gasoline?

When it comes to preventing genocide, the world is "again" finding the task just too inconvenient, or politically and economically unfeasible, to put some serious effort into. "Never again"? Who has the time for that, man? Anyways, what's a few million dead niggers, more or less?

Posted by Eddie Tews at February 24, 2003 02:07 PM