President Bush and Senator John Kerry last night supposedly clashed over issues concerning United States foreign policy. There were clear losers in that debate — the people of the world upon whom both candidates promised to prosecute a vigorous and unrelenting Terror War.
Off the table were most aspects of US foreign policy — from the effect of imperial control of resources by US-based multinational corporations to torture at the hands of the shock troops of the US Terror War. Not one breath was wasted by either candidate about the backlashes caused by literal global occupation by corportations and the far-flung US military bases that support them. Routine brutalization of people has its costs that neither candidate saw fit to address and in fact tacitly endorsed.
I’ll leave this for now with one positive note in favor of John Kerry — I fully appreciated his comments about bunker buster nuclear weapons. His argument against them exactly mirrored my own. Thank you for that much, Senator Kerry. But expect plenty of protest on foreign policy should you become president.
Update 1:00pm: I’m reading through the transcript of last night’s presidential debate. While I think my statement concerning global corporations and military bases is quite true, in fact there was a bit of truth uttered, by Senator Kerry, on this matter with respect to Iraq. So I want to give Kerry additional credit for this remark:
As I understand it, we’re building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they’ve got a rather permanent concept to them.When you guard the oil ministry, but you don’t guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, “Wow, maybe they’re interested in our oil.”
Maybe this line was a throw-away. The Democrats are tied into oil interests just like the Republicans. I have a gut feeling that a Kerry Administration would not just admit and reverse imperial control of Iraqi oil.
Good morning, DB. Of course, like you, I wish these topics had been talked about, but given the format and Lehrer’s heavy focus on Iraq, did you see spots where Kerry could have brought them up in his 2 minute responses? I felt Kerry packed a lot of info into his answers (unlike Bush who manifested simplistic repetition syndrome throughout). I, too, was thrilled that Kerry introduced nuclear proliferation and our role in advancing it rather than curbing it. He also managed to squeeze in at least a mention of Kyoto while Lehrer totally ignored global warming, energy and environment as important aspects of foreign policy.
And Kerry did bring up the permanent bases we’re building in Iraq — another subject no one talks about — and stated quite directly that his administration has no such permanent interests in Iraq and the Middle East.
I keep going back to the John Kennedy line about being an idealist without illusions. I think that if Kerry-Edwards are elected it will be a turning point toward the new paradigms you and I both want to see. I see signs, hints, in their campaign that they are preparing the way for new debates about the state of the world and our place in it. But (and excuse me if I’ve used this metaphor from Rudolph Steiner here before), a mare guides a foal by running along side and nudging it in the right direction. I think this is what Kerry-Edwards are trying to do for the electorate now. Far different from Bush, who Andrew Card says sees us as a bunch of 10 year olds in need of a strict father’s tough love!
Thanks, cs, I have added an update giving Kerry credit for that remark, but with the caveat–not sure a Democratic administration would quickly abandon the imperial project in Iraq. It would be different for sure, and I guess we can hope.