The Mound of Sound

In that one phrase, Abraham Lincoln summed up what most of us think should form the basis of democracy. The government should, at least in a general way, do our bidding, balancing the realities of leadership and democratic principle with the popular will. It is a balance that seems to have been somewhat forgotten in the ascendancy of the far right.

Remember Preston Manning and his “grassroots” approach to government. MPs would consult their constituents and vote accordingly? Preston probably took the balance too far to the vox populii side which can, if unchecked, lead to a form of mob rule and yet it was a forceful recognition of the legitimate role of public opinion in government.

From Manning to Harper, what a contrast. There’ll be none of that grassroots nonsense for Harpo. He has all the opinion, all the vision he needs – his own. He’s probably the most top down autocrat we’ve had in a prime minister in more than half a century.

Look at Harpo’s American Idol, George Cheney-Bush. He has ignored the popular will from the day he was sworn in. He’s abused his power to benefit a very small segment of the American population and he’s placed the welfare of powerful corporations over the public interest at every turn. How did he get away with that? Oh yeah, he and his bald-headed partner spread fear around as far and as thick as they could spread it and used their Global War Without End on Terror to scare voters into keeping them (albeit just barely) in power. That served as a formula to wage a class war on the American people, a war that the people are just beginning to understand.

Bush has “corporatized” his democracy, a key trait of fascist government. His people have repeatedly expressed their support for universal health care but they’re not going to get it at the expense of the health care insurance industry. The American people want access to cheaper prescription drugs but they won’t get that so long as Big Pharma throws so much money at Congress and the White House. Bush’s people want an end to the wars he’s so ineptly waged, especially the war in Iraq, but their administration is now trying to provoke war with Iran. Bush has even privatized war by hiving off ordinary military functions in highly profitable deals with private contractors, outfits like Haliburton and Kellog, Root and Brown.

It’s time the pendulum began to swing the other way, away from the autocratic bent of the Bushes and Cheneys and Harpers and Howards. We need leaders who will lead, not by dictate but by persuasion and genuine leadership. That will require an end to extremist partisanship, the sort that rejects progressive government. Maybe it’s time to bring back the Progressive Conservative party.

There’s a terrific piece about the realities and perils of trucking in remote parts of Canada that can only be reached by truck in the winter. They realize what global warming means:

George Bush secretly funding Sunni Arab extremists? Islamist groups that hate America and are sympathetic to al-Qaeda, the very outfit that started this whole Middle Eastern fiasco are now okay with the White House?

According to Seymour Hersh writing in the latest New Yorker, that’s precisely what’s happening. Sure it was the Sunni al-Qaeda that bombed embassies and a warship and destroyed the World Trade Centre. Sure it was the Sunni Taliban that allowed al-Qaeda to base itself in Afghanistan. Sure it was the Sunni Saddam that led the US to invade and occupy Iraq. Sure it’s been the Sunni insurgency that has mainly targeted US troops in Iraq. Sure it’s Sunni fundamentalists, in and out of the government, that threaten Pakistan’s ruler, Musharraf, and could potentially wind up with that country’s nuclear arsenal. Sure – but so what?

Hersh reports that in America’s war against Islamic theocracies, the Shia are now seen as the greater threat, leaving the Sunnis, by default, as America’s new allies:

“After the revolution of 1979 brought a religious government to power, the United States broke with Iran and cultivated closer relations with the leaders of Sunni Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. That calculation became more complex after the September 11th attacks, especially with regard to the Saudis. Al Qaeda is Sunni, and many of its operatives came from extremist religious circles inside Saudi Arabia. Before the invasion of Iraq, in 2003, Administration officials, influenced by neoconservative ideologues, assumed that a Shiite government there could provide a pro-American balance to Sunni extremists, since Iraq’s Shiite majority had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. They ignored warnings from the intelligence community about the ties between Iraqi Shiite leaders and Iran, where some had lived in exile for years. Now, to the distress of the White House, Iran has forged a close relationship with the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

“The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney.

“In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.

“This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

“Patrick Clawson, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, depicted the Saudis’ coöperation with the White House as a significant breakthrough. “The Saudis understand that if they want the Administration to make a more generous political offer to the Palestinians they have to persuade the Arab states to make a more generous offer to the Israelis,” Clawson told me. The new diplomatic approach, he added, “shows a real degree of effort and sophistication as well as a deftness of touch not always associated with this Administration. Who’s running the greater risk—we or the Saudis? At a time when America’s standing in the Middle East is extremely low, the Saudis are actually embracing us. We should count our blessings.”

“The Pentagon consultant had a different view. He said that the Administration had turned to Bandar as a “fallback,” because it had realized that the failing war in Iraq could leave the Middle East “up for grabs.”

“’It seems there has been a debate inside the government over what’s the biggest danger—Iran or Sunni radicals,’ Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has written widely on Shiites, Iran, and Iraq, told me. ‘The Saudis and some in the Administration have been arguing that the biggest threat is Iran and the Sunni radicals are the lesser enemies. This is a victory for the Saudi line.’

“Martin Indyk, a senior State Department official in the Clinton Administration who also served as Ambassador to Israel, said that ‘the Middle East is heading into a serious Sunni-Shiite Cold War.’ Indyk, who is the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, added that, in his opinion, it was not clear whether the White House was fully aware of the strategic implications of its new policy. ‘The White House is not just doubling the bet in Iraq,’ he said. ‘It’s doubling the bet across the region. This could get very complicated. Everything is upside down.’”

Tensions between the United States and China have never been good during the Bush administration’s tenure. It began just months after the US Supreme Court annointed Bush president when an American reconnaisance plane collided with a Chinese fighter sending the Chinese plane into the sea below.

Differences over Taiwan, Chinese rearmament, and China’s growing influence in the Middle East and Africa haven’t had much impact on trade and financial dealings between the two countries. For years, China has been the major buyer of America’s foreign debt and now holds close to a trillion dollars in US securities and reserves.

That has led University of California business professor, Peter Navarro, to warn of a growing strategic threat posed by China, one that doesn’t involve weapons but is potentially more powerful. Writing in the Christian Science Monitor, Navarro says China is amassing a very real mercantile weapon and its aimed right at the US:

“Today, as a result of its currency manipulation, China has become the largest monthly net buyer of US securities. More than two-thirds of its massive and highly undiversified $1 trillion in foreign currency reserves are estimated to be invested in US bonds. China will very shortly eclipse Japan as America’s largest creditor. And its foreign currency reserves are projected to double within a few short years.

“Here’s the clear and present danger: What may have started out as a simple mercantilist currency gambit for China to sell its exports cheap and keep imports dear has morphed into a powerful weapon to hold off any effective US response to China’s unfair trade practices. And make no mistake: Such practices run the gamut from a complex web of illegal export subsidies and currency manipulation to rampant piracy and woefully lax environmental, health, and safety standards.

“…any time that the Bush administration or Congress threatens any kind of significant and tangible action – as opposed to simply beating its chest – China can now credibly threaten to stop financing US deficits and start dumping greenbacks.

“Some say that the Chinese would never take such an action because it would hurt them as much as Americans. But it’s Beijing’s view that the Chinese people are far tougher and better able to withstand any economic shock than Americans who’ve grown soft living the good life – and they are probably right. Chinese officials also take a far longer view of strategic action. So if a “dump the greenbacks” strategy needs to be implemented to break the back of a rising American protectionism, to secure Taiwan, or to achieve any other strategic goals, sobeit.

“In the next five years, as China’s foreign reserves hurtle toward the $2 trillion mark (and perhaps as China begins to allow its currency to appreciate somewhat), the Chinese government and its many state-run enterprises will be in a very strong position to go on an acquisition binge for US companies.

“So what, you say? Corporations bearing the flags of countries such as Germany, Japan, and France regularly shop for US assets, and no harm has come of it.

“This is very different. China’s “buying of America” will be largely financed and orchestrated by the Chinese government – not corporations. This means China’s acquisition binge will be far more strategic from a policymaking, rather than from a profitmaking, perspective. The likely result: a rapid acceleration in the transfer of sensitive technology, as well as the outsourcing and offshoring of US jobs. Ironically, as more US companies offshore their production – and as more fall into Chinese hands – there will be fewer voices to lobby against China’s mercantilism.

“To protect against these dangers, Congress must pass a comprehensive bill. The US trade representative and commerce secretary must have freer rein to seek relief from Chinese mercantilism in forums such as the World Trade Organization. More broadly, the Bush administration must work with the many other victims of Chinese practices around the world – from Brazil and Mexico to Europe – to take a much harder line in trade negotiations.

“Absent prompt action from Washington, the US will lose this undeclared trade war without firing a shot.”