Guest Editorial

With Friends Like That

Vic Ratsma

Virtually everyone realizes today that, to be considered an enemy of the United States of America, puts one in a risky position. This applies not only to whole countries, but also to political, social and religious movements and even to individuals. The Bush regime has produced an enormous list of enemies (they call them terrorists and rogue nations) that ensures that they will continue in the foreseeable future to use their unparalleled military might to widen their rule over the world.

But it is not only risky to be an enemy of the US it can be equally risky to be considered a friend. Now that the US has freed itself from the Worlds Court, has decided that it has the right to "first strike", use any means in its weapons arsenal and has established that it can and will act alone whenever and where it wants to, you can only be a friend of this administration if you are prepared to march in step with their jackboots and follow the orders emanating from the White House. Should you at anytime decide to disobey and follow another course, you ate subject to the wrath of Washington. That certainly is the implication of Bush. "You are with me or are you with the terrorists?" So, you may be a friend today, but step out of line and you can expect consequences.

A related part of United States policy appears to be: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". The fact that this friendship might be short-lived and only lasts as long as it serves the aggressive policies of United States does not seem to matter.

Today it is reported⁽¹⁾ that the US is negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan to become part of the government of that country. The fact that the US has put forward a set of demands that are clearly not acceptable to the Taliban is a mute point. Perhaps they began to realize that Afghanistan cannot be governed without the participation of the Taliban and, since the USA now wants to move on and use its forces elsewhere it appears willing (for now) to compromise with its erstwhile enemy.

According to a recent article in the Evening Standard (London)⁽²⁾ the US is determined and now actively plotting to overthrow the government of Iran and the Islamic fundamentalist clergy. As was the case with Iraq, once again, weapons of mass destruction, in this case nuclear weapons programs said to be pursued by Iran, are the reasons given by Bush for possible intervention. So far, the UN seems to agree that Iran’s programs must be halted. Of course it would be in everyone’s interest if all nuclear weapons were destroyed, not only in Iran but everywhere. But that’s not going to happen. The events in Iraq have made it clear that to disarm does not mean your country won’t be attacked. On the contrary! After Iraq was effectively disarmed, the US and a few of its supporters unilaterally moved in their military and took over. Talk about David and Goliath story! So why should any other nation that is threatened by US aggression now first disarm and weaken its ability to resist, only to be attacked anyway? Both Iran and North Korea appear to have understood this lesson.

In an article in the Asia Times⁽³⁾ B. Raman writes that the Iranian Communist Party Tudeh is the most effective amongst influential opposition to the fundamentalist regime and is especially popular among students. The students, egg don by the CIA are regularly demonstrating against the present regime. Raman further reports that financial assistance from the CIA is flowing to the communists via many Western based student organizations. This has caused serious debate among Iranian students whether or not to accept such covert US aid. Some feel that accepting such aid would be the "Kiss of Death!"

Now, it can be no secret to anyone that the US is not a friend of communists, wherever they may be. Obviously the USA’s only intent is in using the Iranian communists as a means to foment resistance to, and ultimately bring down, the current Islamic fundamentalist regime. One can only guess what they plan to do later on with the communists. Friend today, enemy tomorrow, by now a very familiar pattern of US foreign policy. It is self-serving, unprincipled and morally repugnant. But then, what else do we expect from a regime determined to rule the world by force, a government that lies and lies and lies to its own people and to the world, and a media which serves its master with unquestioned loyalty. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

(1) Asia Times, June 14, 2003
(2) Robert Fox in the Evening Standard, June 17, 2003
(3) Asia Times, June 21, 2003

Click here to return to the July 2003 index.