|America: a Beacon, not a Policeman||
Foreign Views and Reports on American Empire
|Americans Against World Empire, Inc. Homepage
World Reactions to invasion
Losing Mexico too
U.S. Thinking Itself into New Global Confrontation --Spending Plans Show New Militarism & Return to Nuclear Confrontation --British view
European Analysis of American Empire excellent study
Anti-US reactions around the World--The Washington Post
9/8/o2 Foreign Newspapers on Bush plans Washington never paid past monies promised
4/22/02 Tony Blair Lies and Hypocrisy by John Hilger DAILY MAIL UK
2/28/02 Hindu Times on Bush "Axis of Evil Arrogance"
Views of Foreign Opinion Makers --US Foreign Policy cause of 9/11 Washington Post
11/11/01 Egyptian editorial on anti-terrorism bill new loss of freedoms
Australian Views of Afghan War
Explaining Leftists' War Support--NEW STATESMAN (UK)--"the White Man's Burden"Bombing of Yugoslavia Awakens Anti-U.S. Feeling Around World The Washington Post
U.S. Fast Losing Global Goodwill and Respect
German Parliament Leader--NATO War Wrecked Russian Relations
Mandela accuses U.S./England Causing Chaos in International Relations--War at Will
Recent Foreign Views on American Blockade of Iraq
Canada's Former Ambassador to Yugoslavia on NATO Lawbreaking Address to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Commons, Ottawa, Feb. 17, 00
Kosovo was a Disaster London Daily Telegraph 2/10/00
Le Monde Libertaire on American World Empire Kosovo and Iraq parallels
Le Monde on American "Go it Alone" Intervention
"Colossal Misjudgment on Iraq" London Guardian Observor
Europeans Question American Empire a Greek analysis
Other English/Foreign Press Reports/Comments Details on rations & ruined Iraqi agriculture
London Conference on Sanctions on Iraq Dennis Halliday, former UN Food Administrator
How the US is Viewed Abroad How many Asians View our Mid-East Policies--TIMES OF INDIA
Terrorism Definitions--What about Governments' Hindustan Times
Consequences of the Bombing London Guardian/Observer--What now after the bombing? Why we create so many enemies, why hypocrisy weakens us all over the world
"Milosevic," said US officials, "only
understands military force." It is also the language that the Americans
prefer to speak. THE NATION, Bangkok, 5/4
Ukrainian Government View--
Courtesy of Jamestown Foundation Monitor Report-November 2001 Prism - Volume VII, Issue 11, Part 4
For subscriptions See site http://www.jamestown.org
ON WHICH SIDE OF THE TERRORISM STRUGGLE DOES UKRAINE REALLY
By Vladimir Zviglyanich
You might be forgiven for assuming that this article is going
to be about Ukraine's contribution to U.S.-led efforts to
destroy the terrorist organization, al-Qaida, its fearless
leaders and the Taliban regime. But there will be none of
this, and not just because Ukraine is simply unable to
participate in these actions, first, owing to its
disinclination to cooperate in the way that Britain has,
second, as a result of its physical inability to participate
and, third, because of its general reluctance to act
independently without some reference to Moscow.
This article will examine the image of the enemy America has
run up against, and the similarity--however paradoxical it
may sound--between the main elements of the ideology and
practices of the Taliban, and the politics and world view of
Ukraine. Yes, Ukraine, like Russia, has officially declared
its support for the United States in the war against
international terrorism. But you need only watch and listen
to the coverage of this war on the Russian news program
"Vremya" and on UT-1 (Ukraine's main state-run TV channel),
to detect the main (and real) message: You Americans deserved
it; it's your own fault; you got yourselves into this! The
real terrorists, therefore, are not bin Laden and al-Qaida,
but the Americans, with their Middle East policy, the
domination of the Jewish lobby in the United States in
general and their support for Israel in particular.
Because this theme dominates the state-run TV channels of
both countries, I need not cite specific examples"........More-
Vladimir Zviglyanich is a senior research fellow of the
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Sociology, a
research associate at George Washington University and a
senior fellow of the Jamestown Foundation.
If you would like information on subscribing to Prism, or
have any comments, suggestions or questions, please contact
us by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org, by fax at 301-562-8021,
or by postal mail at The Jamestown Foundation, 4516 43rd
Street NW, Washington, DC 20016.
September 12, 1999
Canada must speak out on embargo
WHY IS CANADA vacillating at the United Nations over lifting the
genocidal economic sanctions on Iraq that are killing hundreds of
thousands of civilians, especially children? As an influential member of
the Security Council, we should be taking a strong moral stand. Instead,
Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy is reining in his reformist instincts to
appease America and Britain, the only Western states still insisting on
pursuing the perverse policy of getting at Saddam Hussein by inflicting
untold miseries on innocent Iraqi civilians.
For eight months now, the United States and Britain have been waging an
undeclared war on Iraq, deploying 22,000 troops, 19 warships and 200
aircraft that have have fired 1,100 missiles and flown 10,000 combat
sorties - two-thirds of the missions mounted by the entire NATO command
in the war over Kosovo.
The ostensible reason has been that Iraq has been violating the two
no-fly zones set up after the Gulf War. But the misdemeanours - foolish
boasts from Saddam about Iraqi sovereignty, the odd Iraqi radar locking
on to an American aircraft, or an Iraqi plane puncturing the prohibited
air space for seconds - are neither new nor serious enough to justify
the longest U.S.-British bombing campaign since Word War II.
The real reasons for the bombing blitz are the American frustration over
the collapse of the discredited United Nations weapons inspection
program, following revelations that the CIA had infiltrated it to spy on
Iraq, and an American decision to topple Saddam, somehow, without
ushering in democracy.
But the bombing is no more likely to weaken his hold on power than the
eight-year-old economic sanctions that have been inflicting a slow death
on innocent civilians instead.
The horrors have been catalogued in studies by several U.N. agencies,
academic institutions and NGOs, the latest being a UNICEF report. With
minor variations, they tell us this:
Iraqi civilian infrastructure, bombed to the Stone Age, has collapsed to
the point that it needs $41 billion to fix, $7 billion just to bring the
electricity generating capacity back to pre-Gulf War level. The country
is literally falling apart;
Hospitals have little or no electricity, anesthesia or drugs, not even
enough antibiotics and painkillers.
Water purification systems are broken, as are sewage lines. The
percentage of people with access to clean drinking water is down to 45
per cent, from 96 per cent.
Standard of living has plunged to the point that half the work force is
unemployed. Inflation is running at 5,000 to 7,000 per cent. About
10,000 teachers have quit, unable to survive on $3 to $5 monthly
salaries. A third of the children in schools have dropped out.
More than 2 million Iraqis, mostly professionals, have left.
A majority of the 20 million still stuck there are malnourished,
especially children. Infant mortality rate has doubled in the last nine
The number of civilian deaths since 1991 is between 1.5 million and 1.7
million, including 500,000 children. The death toll of kids under 5 is
about 250 a day.
That's not the end of the horror story.
Radioactive residue from the 1991 allied bombing is working its way
through humans. There's 800 tonnes of it from the 1 million rounds of
ammunition coated with depleted uranium to make it tough enough to slice
The number of babies born with huge heads, abnormally large eyes,
stunted arms, bloated stomachs, missing heart valves is increasing. The
thalidomide-like deformities are showing up in a whole generation in
some villages - gruesome testimony to the monumental hypocrisy of
America's campaign against Iraq's covert nuclear and chemical weapons
America and its apologists deflect the entire blame for such Iraqi
suffering to Saddam. Or they clear their conscience by pointing to the
oil-for-food program that allows $5.2 billion of sales every six months
That program has its own limitations. Nearly half the revenues are
withheld for U.N. expenses, including weapons inspection, and for
compensating victims of the Gulf War (including Western oil
conglomerates that have so far skimmed off $2.8 billion). Of the half
left, Saddam diverts some to his military and ruling elite. And the U.N.
screening committee, under U.S. pressure, puts its own bizarre import
limitations - no chlorine for desalination plants (because it can
supposedly be diverted to chemical weapons) or no pencils (because the
lead may be used as a radar-deflecting coat on planes).
America remains unrepentant, unmoved by the plight of Iraqis. ``I think
the price is worth it,´´ was the icily cruel response of Secretary
of State Madelaine Albright.
Do Canadians think the price is worth it?
There's growing consensus - both among governments and grassroots - that
the cruelties being inflicted on Iraqi civilians contravene the Geneva
Convention against genocide. Let our silence not make us accomplices to
such a crime.
(Thanks to Rick Rozoff)