>Ordinary Americans are neither architects nor beneficiaries of the
>US Empire. Rather, they are victims of it, though they don't know
>that they are.
Whether Americans benefit or are victims of US foreign policy is not relevant. They have it in their power to change it. Here's an interview with an American who agrees with me, it appeared on Australian TV last night.
I've attached the entire transcript, but here's the relevant part:
"I think we're in a unique position -- most of the empires of the
world have had subjects not citizens.
We are citizens of the empire.
We have a really expansive political freedom in this country.
I can say the things I'm saying -- nobody's hauling me off to jail.
I think that puts an incredible moral burden on the American public."
There you have it. The moral burden is on the American public. All I'm saying is that it serves no purpose to pretend that US citizens and voters have no responsibility for failing to shoulder the burden. Being a citizen of a democracy has responsibilities, not only rights. But if Americas fail to meet their responsibilities, they deserve to suffer the consequences.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
------
LATELINE Late night news & current affairs
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT LOCATION: abc.net.au > Lateline > Archives URL: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s679995.htm
Broadcast: 18/9/2002 Bush determined to attack Iraq: critic
One critic of the United States administration says President George W Bush will look for any opportunity to press ahead with his plans for war in Iraq. Dr Robert Jensen, associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas, says Mr Bush has "made it clear he would find a pretext for war".
--------- Compere: Tony Jones Reporter: Tony Jones
TONY JONES: Back now to our main story, and the attempts of the Bush administration to keep the pressure up on Saddam Hussein.
As we reported earlier, the President has been meeting with senior congressional leaders to formulate a war resolution against Iraq to be put to a vote of congress within weeks.
It's strong-sounding stuff but, in reality, what options does the President have to press his claims for regime change if Saddam Hussein really does comply with the UN weapons inspectors?
Well, one critic of the administration says the President will look for any opportunity to press ahead with his war plans.
Dr Robert Jensen is an Associate Professor of Journalism at the University of Texas.
He's a prominent voice opposing war against Iraq and has written extensively in the media about the Bush agenda.
He joins us now from Austin, in Texas.
Robert Jensen, now that Saddam Hussein has agreed to let weapons inspectors back in, the machinery of UNMOVIC has cranked into motion, to what extent has this issue actually moved out of control of the Bush Administration?
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ROBERT JENSEN, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: I think when George Bush went to the UN last week, he made it clear he would find a pretext for war.
There was no doubt in anybody's mind that that was a speech in which -- it was called 'Reaching Out for Multilateral Diplomacy'.
But what it really was was a direct rejection of multilateralism.
So those of us here in the US who are trying to resist this mad rush to war work on the assumption that Bush will find the pretext.
It doesn't mean it will be easy.
The previous weapons inspection team, UNSCOM, especially under Richard Butler, was very politicised and very malleable to US interests, but I think we will see with Hans Blix whether or not he will do the same.
It may be that the Bush Administration has a much harder task now.
TONY JONES: Hans Blix has a timetable, UNMOVIC has a timetable, which is independent of politics, independent of the US, in particular.
That timetable includes two months to devise a work plan and up to another six months to conduct its inspections.
There will be an enormous amount of pressure to allow that process to go on unhindered, if Saddam Hussein allows it to.
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ROBERT JENSEN: Right.
And I think we should remember that the reason we're now four years behind in weapons inspection is because in 1998 the Clinton Administration essentially pulled the weapons inspectors so it could do its bombing run in Desert Fox.
So the fact we are trying to make up so much lost time is the direct fault of the US for politicising the process and pulling the inspectors.
The question is -- is the Bush Administration interested in true regional disarmament, is it interested in true regional peace and justice, or is it interested in creating the pretext for a war.
I think it's clear what the Bush Administration is after.
They talk about things like terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, but it's quite clear they're not really interested in protecting people.
What they're interested in is projecting power.
And that will require a lot of pressure on the international community.
It will require a new Security Council resolution, because, as you point out, the existing one, from 1999, includes that timetable.
The Bush Administration has a hard task.
Is the international community willing to stand up for a sensible regime to lead to peace and justice?
And, number two, are the American people, the anti-war movement, progressive peace minded people willing to put pressure from within on the Bush Administration and, importantly, Congress because, of course, the Bush Administration while it's going forward at the Security Council is also going forward to pressure Congress for what will undoubtedly be a very wide-open resolution to give essentially President Bush the power to do anything he wants?
TONY JONES: I will come back to the question of the peace movement and its strength and where it's at, in a moment.
First of all though, you mentioned this new Security Council resolution.
The US is trying to hammer out a new resolution now.
>From what you've said, you seem to think that they will want to scrap
the resolution which effectively set up UNMOVIC, resolution 1284.
Is that how you see it?
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ROBERT JENSEN: I think it's clear that's how the Bush Administration sees it.
Colin Powell said as much over the last day or so.
France and Russia have made it clear that they don't believe it's necessary.
The Arab League has made it clear it's not necessary.
I think this will show whether we're really engaged in a multilateral process or whether the UN is simply going to cave in completely to American demands.
The initial reaction to Bush's speech last week from my point of view was not hopeful.
It looked like the Europeans especially were essentially going to roll over to American demands.
Russia has a situation in Chechnya and Georgia that it's trying to move forward on.
It's possible is just going to be some horse trading on these things.
But it's really the hope of some of us in the United States that in addition to our own efforts, the international community will stand up for international law.
This isn't -- Bush very skilfully sort of turned everything on its head by saying that a unilateral US strike, which he was essentially announcing, would be to uphold international law.
So it's a funny world in which the American President can stand up and say, "I'm going to ignore international law, violate international law, to uphold international law."
Around the world, of course, people are highly sceptical of this, I hear from folks all over the place.
In the US, unfortunately, most of that rhetoric goes unchallenged.
TONY JONES: It's a complex issue, though, before the Security Council.
If they do indeed scrap Resolution 1284, they scrap the whole concept of it in a sense, which was a carrot and stick approach.
The idea of 1284 was to provide Iraq with some incentive to continue with the process of allowing the weapons inspectors to do their job, and indeed if they were allowed to do their job for 120 days in a row, the sanctions against Iraq could be lifted.
That does sound like something that the US, in its present frame of mind, simply could not stand.
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ROBERT JENSEN: I think the Bush Administration has made it clear, although it's, I think, a sensible approach.
Let's be honest.
The economic sanctions on Iraq have to be lifted if there's going to be any progress.
And disarmament, which, you know, I'm highly in favour of it -- those in the anti-war and peace movement are strong advocates of disarmament -- has to go forward in a regional way.
It's clear that that process has to go forward without US manipulation.
That means, if there is a new resolution, it should, I believe, lift the sanctions immediately, engage Iraq in a regional process.
Remember that 687, the UN Security Council resolution at the end of the Gulf War, didn't just call for the weapons disarmament process in Iraq, it called for a weapons of mass destruction free zone in the Middle East.
Conveniently the US ignores that.
But the reality is, everywhere in the world, that disarmament has to be regional.
You can't disarm one country at a time.
Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and no-one in the movement I'm part of supports him.
But he does deal with political realities in the region.
There are other states in the region that are armed, most obviously Israel with its nuclear arsenal.
So to go forward as if you can really achieve peace and justice in that region in the way the US has is really quite, I think, silly.
But the US, of course, has power to force this on the world community.
Again, the question is -- is the world community going to back down.
TONY JONES: It's an open question as to whether they do have the power to force it on the international community.
As you said earlier, the Security Council may not comply.
What about the political realities, though, in the US?
There's a congressional election coming up in November.
At the moment the key congressional leaders are meeting with the President to thrash out a war resolution, effectively, against Iraq, which could go to the vote within a couple of weeks.
What do you expect that resolution to say?
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ROBERT JENSEN: Well, the only hope that a sort of sane and sensible process could go on, was if that resolution waited until after the November elections.
But Daschle the senate majority leader has now conceded there will be a vote on a resolution before the elections.
In the contemporary US process that means the resolution will pass.
Given the history in the past year of congressional Democrats' so-called opposition to the Bush Administration, it's quite clear the resolution will be wide-ranging and authorise, basically, total war.
So I have very little hope for that process.
I think if there is pressure in the US, it won't come from congress.
It will come from the people.
It will come from a popular movement.
On that count, you asked earlier about this, I must be honest, the popular movement against war in the US is small.
As an organised peace movement it may be small.
But I do public speaking, I hear from a lot of people around the country.
There's a lot more, if not out-and-out opposition to the Bush Administration plan in the public, there's a lot of questions.
People aren't quite sure what's going on.
"How come Saddam Hussein, who we've ignored for so long, overnight becomes the most important threat to peace?"
"What about al-Qa'ida, you know, the number one leader was Osama bin Laden a few months ago, what happened to Osama bin Laden?"
People have legitimate questions about these policies.
I think as time goes on, people will understand that this is not about a war on terrorism or serious control of weapons of mass destruction.
The US has a long-standing desire to control the Middle East, control the flow of oil, control the flow of oil profits, this is not exactly news.
They see an opening to go in and do something they've never been able to do, which is essentially to take out Iraq.
That's what I think is really going on.
That's why I say this isn't about protecting people -- this is about projecting power in the region.
I think as the Bush Administration pushes that agenda more and more people in the US will see that the rhetoric about terrorism, the war on terrorism and protecting Americans is going to wear thin very quickly, I think.
TONY JONES: You've effectively become a spokesman, de facto spokesperson for the anti-war movement, such as it is in the US.
You've said this, you've gone quite far, "The task for American citizens is clear.
We must ensure that the US empire is the first empire to be dismantled from within."
What do you mean by that?
What are you calling for?
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ROBERT JENSEN: I think, first of all, that it's uncontroversial that we are now an empire, that is we project power around the globe in ways that, quite frankly, are unparalleled in human history.
We have a military with the most destructive capacity in the history of the world, and American leaders who have a willingness and demonstrated interest in using that power.
On September 11 we saw what could happen if the empire sort of comes apart from the outside.
I think we're in a unique position -- most of the empires of the world have had subjects not citizens.
We are citizens of the empire.
We have a really expansive political freedom in this country.
I can say the things I'm saying -- nobody's hauling me off to jail.
I think that puts an incredible moral burden on the American public.
Are we going to say 'enough' to the empire?
Are we going to say this policy around the world of, you know, ignoring the world community, imposing solutions on regions that are favourable to the US, are we going to step back from that and say, "We want to become not the most powerful nation in the world dictating to the rest of the world, but we want to become part of the world community"?
The power the US has could be used to take us in a very different direction towards truly multilateral diplomatic solutions to some of the world's problems.
That's the challenge to the American people, I think, to be citizens of the empire who take that citizenship seriously and work against that imperial project.
TONY JONES: It's interesting for us to hear a fresh and different voice from the US.
Thanks for joining us tonight on Lateline.
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ROBERT JENSEN: Thank you for having me.