OSAMA'S REVENGE
Sixteen British Marines based at Bagram, Afghanistan, were laid low, not by the forces of Al Qaeda, but a stomach bug. The attack was the only action the marines saw, despite extensive manoeuvres in search of 'the enemy'.
The search for 'the enemy' is more of a metaphysical pursuit that it ought to be. Writing in the London Review of Books, Slovene philosopher Slavoj Zizek argues that the War on Terror both identifies and denies the existence of the enemy at the same time. The characterisation of Al Qaeda prisoners as 'unlawful combatants' is telling of a war that denies the legitimacy of the other side. ('Are we in a war?', 23 May 2002) More prosaically US economist JK Galbraith said 'if you're choosing an enemy it should be one without an army'. (Guardian, 6 April 2002)
The non-appearance of Al Qaeda or Taliban resistance, though, is sapping Western morale. By doing nothing, Osama bin Laden has assumed the status of the elusive Pimpernel. British marines went searching for the enemy but never found them leading to press stories of frustrated troops in a phoney war. The current health emergency is a symptom of the troops demoralisation.
British troops stationed in Egypt in the last century were often stricken with 'Gippy tummy'; US troops in South America suffered 'Montezuma's Revenge' (and more recently, 'Gulf War Syndrome' after a Middle Eastern tour). The British press - while assuring the public that biological warfare was not involved - announced on Friday that the 'mystery Afghan bug' was loose in Britain. Only on Sunday was it identified as the winter vomiting virus that laid Britain low last year. Rather like the war on terror, the allied forces had taken the 'mystery Afghan bug' with them to Afghanistan in the first place.
THE MYTH OF FREE TRADE
The leaders of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and World Bank (WB) - messrs Horst Kohler, Mike Moore and James Wolfensohn respectively - issued a joint statement condemning a dangerous 'increase in protectionism on Friday.
'How can leaders in developing countries argue for more open economies if leadership in this area is not forthcoming from wealthy nations?' they demanded. The statement follows the announcement of US steel tariffs and new farm subsidies. But as Oxfam's recent 'Make Trade Fair' report points out, third world producers face even greater barriers to European markets.
What the IMF, WTO and WB will not tell you is that free trade is a myth sustained by developed economies that regularly intervene in their own markets to defend their own monopoly on new technologies. Military and education spending has created and sustained America's IT sector, as it does Britain's bio-technology. Developed economies enforce intellectual property rights legally to extract rents from third world countries.
While trade liberalisation was only ever intended as a means to pressure less developed countries to open their markets - and to discipline workforces across the world - the clamour for protection coming from European and America industry exposes the free trade myth.
-- James Heartfield The 'Death of the Subject' Explained is available at GBP11.00, plus GBP1.00 p&p from Publications, audacity.org, 8 College Close, Hackney, London, E9 6ER. Make cheques payable to 'Audacity Ltd'