k. wrote:
>As a rhetorical exercise, the announcement strikes me as xenophobic
or
>isolationist or something of that sort.
there are two issues which i think are a little separate: the first is that certain plants and animals, when introduced into areas they did not previously inhabit, disrupt and in some cases, make very difficult the continuing existence of other flaura and fauna.
but, as you implied, much of this destruction has either already taken place or is due to things like pastoral and agricultural ractices. ---- and didn't someone mention clinton's (or was it blair's) attachment to genetically modified foods, etc. in nativist exercises like this, of which australia is renowned, there is an attempt to make of nature a fetish, and to figure the threat entirely in terms that are little more than racism. i would note that stories of japan 'becoming the superpower' in the early 80s were accompanied by stories of sea invasion by japanese starfish. perhaps there is also a sense in which various govt. agencies also know that in order to get more funds they have to present their tasks in implicitly racist terms.
just like most alien invasion stories are racist (even whilst i can think of exceptions like 'starship troopers' and 'invasion of the body snatchers'...). of course, clinton gets to present what everyone knows in their heart of hearts to be a racist discourse without having to be explicit about it.
btw, what does the k stand for?
angela