U.S.A. Bogeyman or diversion?
By now, most will be aware that on 20 August the US carried out air-strikes against alleged “terrorist facilities” in Afghanistan and Sudan and that the launch of 75 Tomahawk missiles was reputedly a response to bomb attacks on US embassies in Africa orchestrated by rogue Saudi millionaire-cum-terrorist Osama bin Laden and his Islamic International Front Against Jews and Crusaders.
Likewise, most will be familiar now with the popular view that the US air strikes were in fact an attempt by the Clinton regime to get the Monica Lewinsky story off the front page. And if you’re into conspiracy theories, then you will have chanced upon the one that has the US bombing its own embassies to provide it with the pretext to attack militant Islam.
But would Clinton and his Joint Chiefs of Staff be so blatant as to carry out such military strikes while his sexual excesses were being contemplated by a Grand Jury, or is there a larger game plan?
The entire episode seems to have been sparked by testimony allegedly extracted from Mohamed Saddiq Omeh, a Palestinian and friend of bin Laden, extradited from Pakistan by the FBI and CIA in the wake of the Nairobi and Dar-es-Salem bombings, caught en-route to Afghanistan. Not that bin Laden had helped matters He had, after all, issued a fatwa against US interests back in February.
Whether bin Laden is actually behind the bombings in Africa is anyone’s guess, but in the perpetual US hunt for new bogey-men to protect us from he certainly warranted a punishment beating. And why not? Afghanistan is, after all, one of the poorest countries on earth with little means of defending itself against a more powerful enemy. It is a country of which 90 per cent is controlled by the much feared Taliban, pursuing a Pushtu version of Islam that makes Iran look secular. And is not Afghanistan too close for comfort to the oil fields of the Middle East and the Caspian?
At a time when upstarts in North Korea, the former Yugoslavia and Iraq have been thumbing their noses at the US, the attacks carried out by the US may best be explained as a message to bogeymen, one and all, perhaps Islam in particular, not to get ideas above their station. It can also be interpreted as a message to the possessors of the new “Islamic Bomb”, an unstable Pakistani regime heading towards shariah law, and to anyone else paying attention: “the US is still in charge. Don’t fool with our interests.”
In the past, too many countries have found themselves as US patsies, the threats to global peace we all needed defending from: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Cuba to name a few.
The episode, coming at the close of the 20th century, is also a timely reminder to the world, no matter how much we wish to dispute it, that the US will, as has been the case for 50 years, be calling the shots in the 21st Century. Britain has, for half a century, danced the trans-Atlantic tune with most of Europe happy to hum along.
In the wake of the Sudanese bombing there was no shortage of western experts, many who had actually worked at the now levelled Shifa pharmaceutical plant, prepared to come forward to counter US intelligence claims that the factory produced nothing more than harmless medicines, many intended for Iraq, and that the VX nerve gas precursors, allegedly found by US agents in soil samples taken at the factory, are also used in the manufacture of beer and cherry-flavoured sweets.
Though Clinton claimed the US had “irrefutable proof” that Shifa was producing nerve gas, the FBI refused to make soil samples available to a wider body of international experts. And guess, incidentally, which country has the biggest stockpile of VX nerve gas? Yup, the US have 1,700 tons stockpiled at the Newport weapons depot in Indiana.
As could be expected, the US was quick to cite Article 51 of the UN Charter, as they have done so many times in the past, as justification for the 20 August attacks. Properly interpreted, however, Article 51 applies to situations when the state is in imminent danger and when there is no time to consult the UN Security Council.
Obviously, the US itself was not in imminent danger and the issue could easily have been discussed at the Security Council. Moreover, the UN action flies in the face of a UN Resolution of April 1964, adopted by the Security Council, and which states unambiguously that such reprisals are “incompatible with the purpose and principles of the UN”.
So it’s a bold claim indeed when Clinton asserts that the US is leading the fight against international terrorism, for if ever any country could be labelled the world’s number one terrorist state then it is the US.
Not only have the US supported tyrants like Saddam, Ceaucescu, Trujillo, Marcos, Amin, Duvalier and Mobutu, they have backed the Contras in Nicaragua and financed terrorist proxies from El Salvador and Guatemala to Israel. For almost 40 years they have terrorised Cuba and Indochina, backing the Khmer Rouge for instance, and in this period the CIA have helped topple almost 30 governments.
Indeed, it was not so long ago—during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, that the CIA were hailing bin Laden and the Mojahedin as great freedom fighters, supplying them with blow-pipe surface-to-air missiles, building camps in Khast, distributing US Marine training manuals and providing info on Soviet troop movements.
What effects the air strikes will have on those in direst need in Afghanistan and Sudan remains to be seen. As US flags continue to burn across the Islamic world, and as the voices of preachers continue to boom out anti-Western sentiments in a myriad mosques, we are left with two choices. We can settle down in our arm chairs and follow the interminable discussions about the Lewinsky affair or we can contemplate the real nature of the politics of power and unite to take it away from those who will always use it to further the interests of the few, at the expense of the many.
JOHN BISSETT