Tweet
Asia Pacific Media Network, CA
UCLA
Dec 5 2007
'You can't deliver democracy from an F-16'
In an interview with 'Dawn,' award-winning journalist David Barsamian
says U.S. action against Iran will have a tremendous impact on
Pakistan
Dawn
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
By Qasim A. Moini
Karachi --- David Barsamian barely finished high school, yet he
speaks with the polish of an erudite scholar. The award-winning
Armenian-American radio producer, journalist, author and lecturer has
published interviews of Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Eqbal Ahmad and
many other iconic intellectuals, while he produces Alternative Radio,
a recognised weekly one-hour public affairs programme that is
distributed free to stations in the US, Canada, Europe, South Africa
and Australia.
Based out of Boulder, Colorado, USA, he is currently in Karachi to
present the Dr Eqbal Ahmad Distinguished Lecture titled 'What we say
goes -- America and the world', which will be delivered on Tuesday,
Dec 4. Mr Barsamian sat down with Dawn and discussed various topics
related to his areas of expertise, namely US foreign policy, the
media, propaganda, and corporate power. Here are excerpts from the
interview.
Q: How do you view the current official US-Pakistani relationship?
A: It's very utilitarian as far as the United States is concerned.
Washington sees Pakistan only through its own lenses, of what use is
it to Washington's interests in South Asia and West Asia. I don't see
it on an equal basis at all. There's almost a colonial type of
structure where you have power in the US and you have the subordinate
entity here in Pakistan. It's not a friendship of equals. It's a
marriage of convenience.
Q: Do you think there'll be a major shift in US foreign policy if a
Democrat enters the White House in the 2008 elections?
A: There may be a shift in tone but not in emphasis on issues of US
domination of the world. If I could use such a blatant term as
imperialism ... hegemony is a word that is being commonly used in place
of imperialism. There's not much difference between the Democrats and
Republicans. They agree on basic strategy, that overall the US should
control the world, that it is the leader. So they will differ on the
tactics of how to do that. For example, after this catastrophic
disaster in Iraq, which is one of the major war crimes of the modern
period for which Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the others that planned
this war, in my view, should be tried for war crimes, is not being
discussed. What are the Democrats saying? 'They should have done it
better. There should have been more troops, more money etc.' It is
all criticism of the tactics, not of the basic thing, which is: Does
the US have the right to occupy and invade any country of the world?
One thing, though, that distinguishes this particular group that's in
power in Washington today and that is what I would call the 'Taliban
aspect' to them. They are religious fundamentalists. They have their
own mullahs that give them directions. They are extremely
Christian-oriented and Christian-centric. They have wedded theocracy
with democracy. Bush has said that God told him to strike Afghanistan
and Iraq. Presumably God is also telling him to strike Iran. I guess
Bush must have God's mobile number or e-mail. How is that different
from Osama and the Taliban? They also claim to be speaking on behalf
of God.
Q: We see that in the US there are two principal political parties.
The case in the UK is similar. Is western democracy all that it's
cracked up to be? Instead of a one-party state, you have two-party
states.
A: That's an apt description. The Republicans are the party of the
super-rich, and the Democrats are the party of the rich. So you can
pick between the two. It's not like the Democrats are representing
the working class and the Republicans are representing the ruling
class. They're both representatives of ruling elites. The difference
is on the level of clothing. Someone will wear kurta pyjama, someone
will wear a sherwani and someone will wear a suit and tie. That's the
difference. Democracy in the US exists but is deeply flawed. It needs
to be revived and rehabilitated. It has been corrupted by money. The
whole political system is awash with capital. There may be a lot of
misunderstanding in Pakistan about the actual functioning of American
democracy. On the surface everything looks open and transparent, but
in many ways it's become very problematic.
Q: Countless people took to the streets in Europe and the US against
the Iraq war, but it went ahead. So the will of the people was
ignored by western leaders. What would you say about that?
A: There democracy is not functioning because if democracy means the
rule of the people, then the voice of the people was ignored in this
instance not only in the US but in Britain, Spain and Italy. These
were the four main components of the so-called 'coalition of the
willing'. It was a very interesting development because it was the
first time really in modern memory that an anti-war movement began
before the war started. Usually we've had to wait for hostilities to
begin and then a peace movement would develop. In this instance it
was so clear to anyone who took a moment to examine (the situation)
that this was a totally bogus war that had nothing to do with liberty
or democracy. It was all about oil and extending US military power in
the heart of the Middle East.
A whole elaborate tapestry of lies was invented by the White House,
the Pentagon and the CIA. The American media became the conveyor belt
for these lies willingly. The Americans are now saying that they want
permanent bases in Iraq. They're building the biggest embassy in the
world there. It's the size of Vatican City. It can only indicate that
they have plans to stay in Iraq to control the oil and natural gas of
the Middle East and to dominate that region for a long time to come.
By now three quarters of the American population is against the war.
But the government is not listening. I think you have a similar
experience here in Pakistan on certain issues, where the people don't
want something but the government says we're doing it anyway.
Q: Is the threat of US action against Iran real or mere rhetoric?
A: It's very real. They've deployed three aircraft carrier battle
groups right off the coast of Iran. The American media, taking its
cue from the White House, is repeating the same charges that Cheney
and Bush make, that Iran is dangerous, it is a great threat, and that
it is going to destabilize the Middle East. Mind you, this is coming
from a country that has done more to destabilise the Middle East than
any other country in the world. It has invaded and occupied Iraq. It
has created military bases throughout the region. Iran is completely
surrounded by American troops. The Persian Gulf is a virtual American
lake. The airspace is controlled by the Americans. They're in
Afghanistan, Iraq and Central Asia. Their saying that Iran is a
threat to America is preposterous. In what way can it threaten the
US? Iran has a certain product that is very valuable and attracts the
attention of Washington. It must be watermelon. It's oil! But you
can't say that. You can't say you want to invade a country to steal
their oil. You have to say it's about democracy. It's very difficult
for Americans to figure things out because they have a media and a
political system that is feeding them lies.
But it'll be a huge disaster. Iran is not a banana republic. Iranians
are very nationalist. Even if they don't like their regime, if their
country is attacked, they'll defend it. You cannot deliver democracy
from an F-16. If the US attacks Iran, the price of oil will go to
$200. Imagine the economic impact of this.
It'll also have a tremendous impact on Pakistan. Don't forget you
have a long border with Iran. There'll be issues with refugees. Some
people are saying the US must have bases inside of Pakistan to
operate against enemies in Iran, the NWFP and Afghanistan. There's
even speculation that Benazir Bhutto has given her approval, if she
becomes prime minister, to the Americans to operate inside of
Pakistan, which they already may be doing. There's tangential
information that there are non-uniformed US personnel operating in
this country. What kind of impact would that have on the internal
political situation if the Pakistani government were to allow US
troops to operate openly inside of Pakistan? I think the consequences
of that are unimaginable. It'll definitely fuel the 'Jihad'.
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-so uthasia.asp?parentid=83352
UCLA
Dec 5 2007
'You can't deliver democracy from an F-16'
In an interview with 'Dawn,' award-winning journalist David Barsamian
says U.S. action against Iran will have a tremendous impact on
Pakistan
Dawn
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
By Qasim A. Moini
Karachi --- David Barsamian barely finished high school, yet he
speaks with the polish of an erudite scholar. The award-winning
Armenian-American radio producer, journalist, author and lecturer has
published interviews of Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Eqbal Ahmad and
many other iconic intellectuals, while he produces Alternative Radio,
a recognised weekly one-hour public affairs programme that is
distributed free to stations in the US, Canada, Europe, South Africa
and Australia.
Based out of Boulder, Colorado, USA, he is currently in Karachi to
present the Dr Eqbal Ahmad Distinguished Lecture titled 'What we say
goes -- America and the world', which will be delivered on Tuesday,
Dec 4. Mr Barsamian sat down with Dawn and discussed various topics
related to his areas of expertise, namely US foreign policy, the
media, propaganda, and corporate power. Here are excerpts from the
interview.
Q: How do you view the current official US-Pakistani relationship?
A: It's very utilitarian as far as the United States is concerned.
Washington sees Pakistan only through its own lenses, of what use is
it to Washington's interests in South Asia and West Asia. I don't see
it on an equal basis at all. There's almost a colonial type of
structure where you have power in the US and you have the subordinate
entity here in Pakistan. It's not a friendship of equals. It's a
marriage of convenience.
Q: Do you think there'll be a major shift in US foreign policy if a
Democrat enters the White House in the 2008 elections?
A: There may be a shift in tone but not in emphasis on issues of US
domination of the world. If I could use such a blatant term as
imperialism ... hegemony is a word that is being commonly used in place
of imperialism. There's not much difference between the Democrats and
Republicans. They agree on basic strategy, that overall the US should
control the world, that it is the leader. So they will differ on the
tactics of how to do that. For example, after this catastrophic
disaster in Iraq, which is one of the major war crimes of the modern
period for which Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the others that planned
this war, in my view, should be tried for war crimes, is not being
discussed. What are the Democrats saying? 'They should have done it
better. There should have been more troops, more money etc.' It is
all criticism of the tactics, not of the basic thing, which is: Does
the US have the right to occupy and invade any country of the world?
One thing, though, that distinguishes this particular group that's in
power in Washington today and that is what I would call the 'Taliban
aspect' to them. They are religious fundamentalists. They have their
own mullahs that give them directions. They are extremely
Christian-oriented and Christian-centric. They have wedded theocracy
with democracy. Bush has said that God told him to strike Afghanistan
and Iraq. Presumably God is also telling him to strike Iran. I guess
Bush must have God's mobile number or e-mail. How is that different
from Osama and the Taliban? They also claim to be speaking on behalf
of God.
Q: We see that in the US there are two principal political parties.
The case in the UK is similar. Is western democracy all that it's
cracked up to be? Instead of a one-party state, you have two-party
states.
A: That's an apt description. The Republicans are the party of the
super-rich, and the Democrats are the party of the rich. So you can
pick between the two. It's not like the Democrats are representing
the working class and the Republicans are representing the ruling
class. They're both representatives of ruling elites. The difference
is on the level of clothing. Someone will wear kurta pyjama, someone
will wear a sherwani and someone will wear a suit and tie. That's the
difference. Democracy in the US exists but is deeply flawed. It needs
to be revived and rehabilitated. It has been corrupted by money. The
whole political system is awash with capital. There may be a lot of
misunderstanding in Pakistan about the actual functioning of American
democracy. On the surface everything looks open and transparent, but
in many ways it's become very problematic.
Q: Countless people took to the streets in Europe and the US against
the Iraq war, but it went ahead. So the will of the people was
ignored by western leaders. What would you say about that?
A: There democracy is not functioning because if democracy means the
rule of the people, then the voice of the people was ignored in this
instance not only in the US but in Britain, Spain and Italy. These
were the four main components of the so-called 'coalition of the
willing'. It was a very interesting development because it was the
first time really in modern memory that an anti-war movement began
before the war started. Usually we've had to wait for hostilities to
begin and then a peace movement would develop. In this instance it
was so clear to anyone who took a moment to examine (the situation)
that this was a totally bogus war that had nothing to do with liberty
or democracy. It was all about oil and extending US military power in
the heart of the Middle East.
A whole elaborate tapestry of lies was invented by the White House,
the Pentagon and the CIA. The American media became the conveyor belt
for these lies willingly. The Americans are now saying that they want
permanent bases in Iraq. They're building the biggest embassy in the
world there. It's the size of Vatican City. It can only indicate that
they have plans to stay in Iraq to control the oil and natural gas of
the Middle East and to dominate that region for a long time to come.
By now three quarters of the American population is against the war.
But the government is not listening. I think you have a similar
experience here in Pakistan on certain issues, where the people don't
want something but the government says we're doing it anyway.
Q: Is the threat of US action against Iran real or mere rhetoric?
A: It's very real. They've deployed three aircraft carrier battle
groups right off the coast of Iran. The American media, taking its
cue from the White House, is repeating the same charges that Cheney
and Bush make, that Iran is dangerous, it is a great threat, and that
it is going to destabilize the Middle East. Mind you, this is coming
from a country that has done more to destabilise the Middle East than
any other country in the world. It has invaded and occupied Iraq. It
has created military bases throughout the region. Iran is completely
surrounded by American troops. The Persian Gulf is a virtual American
lake. The airspace is controlled by the Americans. They're in
Afghanistan, Iraq and Central Asia. Their saying that Iran is a
threat to America is preposterous. In what way can it threaten the
US? Iran has a certain product that is very valuable and attracts the
attention of Washington. It must be watermelon. It's oil! But you
can't say that. You can't say you want to invade a country to steal
their oil. You have to say it's about democracy. It's very difficult
for Americans to figure things out because they have a media and a
political system that is feeding them lies.
But it'll be a huge disaster. Iran is not a banana republic. Iranians
are very nationalist. Even if they don't like their regime, if their
country is attacked, they'll defend it. You cannot deliver democracy
from an F-16. If the US attacks Iran, the price of oil will go to
$200. Imagine the economic impact of this.
It'll also have a tremendous impact on Pakistan. Don't forget you
have a long border with Iran. There'll be issues with refugees. Some
people are saying the US must have bases inside of Pakistan to
operate against enemies in Iran, the NWFP and Afghanistan. There's
even speculation that Benazir Bhutto has given her approval, if she
becomes prime minister, to the Americans to operate inside of
Pakistan, which they already may be doing. There's tangential
information that there are non-uniformed US personnel operating in
this country. What kind of impact would that have on the internal
political situation if the Pakistani government were to allow US
troops to operate openly inside of Pakistan? I think the consequences
of that are unimaginable. It'll definitely fuel the 'Jihad'.
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-so uthasia.asp?parentid=83352