Eric Margolis

THE GREAT SYRIAN NUCLEAR MENACE

PARIS – Last week, US intelligence released a dramatic video that purportedly showed a Syrian nuclear reactor under construction and North Korean personnel helping in the project. The video and still pictures were evidently taken by Israeli agents.

The unfinished `reactor’ was destroyed last September by Israeli warplanes in an operation that was closely coordinated between Israel and the United States whose Mideast operations have become virtually seamless.

Until late last week, Israel and the US remained officially silent about the attack, though neoconservatives loudly claimed a reactor had indeed been destroyed.

Syria claimed the building was a military warehouse, but curiously said nothing more about what was clearly an act of war. But Syria was quick to bulldoze and remove the wreckage, adding credence to US-Israeli assertions.

Washington offered no proof the reactor, if it was one, would have produced weapons rather than electric power. The reactor core seen in the photos resembled a North Korean reactor, but was not identical, contrary to CIA claims. US and Israeli intelligence have long stated Syria had no nuclear weapons capabilities. But the photos released by CIA certainly looked like a North Korean reactor under construction.

Vice President Dick Cheney and fellow necons forced CIA to release the James Bondish video in an effort to sabotage an impending six-nation agreement to end North Korea’s nuclear program which they bitterly oppose for being too soft on Pyongyang. US neoconservatives have long worried about the possibility of North Korea selling nuclear technology to Arab states, which might pose nuclear competition to Israel. So they oppose the nuclear freeze worked out between Pyongyang and Washington after torturous negotiations which leaves North Korea with a number of nuclear weapons and some further production capability.

This mysterious affaire is also being used by Israel’s rightwing Likud Party, a close ally of US neconservatives, to attack political rival Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Kadima Party.

Olmert has reportedly been involved in Turkish-brokered , back-channel peace talks with Syria for some years. Likud and its US allies are determined to sabotage any deal with Damascus that would return the Golan Heights to Syria, which Israel conquered in the 1967 war and refuses to relinquish in violation of UN resolutions The Likud Party also sought to derail efforts by former US president Jimmy Carter to encourage Israeli-Syrian talks, and get Israel and Hamas to talk. Israel has heaped insult and abuse on the former American president without a peep of protest from the Bush administration. Rising up from the grass, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice even joined the barrage of criticism against President Carter.

Under the purported deal between Israel and Syria, Israel would return the Golan Heights in exchange for Damascus’ agreement to sever its close links with Iran, Lebanon’s Hezbullah, and Hamas. Syria would also grant Israel important water rights. The fate of up to 250,000 Syrian inhabitants driven from Golan remain uncertain. While Syria has admitted talks with Israel have gone on, it has given no indication of the terms involved.

Israel, backed by the Bush administration, has certainly been using the carrot of a return of Golan to entice Syria away from Iran. But there is also a big stick: ever-stronger threats of a US-Israeli attack on Syria. Israel’s September attack on Syria was a clear warning.

Cheney and fellow militarists are pushing hard for attacks on Syria, Lebanon and Iran before President George Bush leaves office. Neoconservatives have flocked to Sen. John McCain’s banner – in spite of Hillary Clinton’s crude attempt to woo them by vowing to `obliterate’ Iran if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

The neocons believe US attacks on Arab states and/or Iran would prove decisive in winning the presidency for Sen. John McCain this November. A US attack on Syria could also be the first step of the long-planned US air war against Lebanon and Iran.

Meanwhile, Cheney and allies in Congress and media are also using the Syrian reactor story to undermine efforts by the US State Department, a primary hate object for neocons, to implement the nuclear weapons freeze with North Korea. State Department boss Condoleeza Rice has run for cover, leaving her chief negotiator with North Korea to twist in the wind.

As the latest furor over the nefarious North Koreans builds, we should be cautious. The `evidence’ presented to the US Congress last Thursday may also come from the same people who manufactured all the fake `evidence’ about Saddam Hussein’s non-existent `weapons of mass destruction,’ mobile germ laboratories, and links to al-Qaida.

We need to remember that the `evidence’ about Syria’s supposed nuclear weapons project comes from Israel and the same administration that proposed painting US aircraft in UN colors and buzzing Iraqi AA positions in an effort to draw fire, thus providing a pretext for war with Iraq.

North Koreans are pretty scary, but their nuclear capabilities and the threat they pose have been exaggerated. South Korea and European intelligence agencies, for example, are cautious about Washington’s claims about North Korea and Syria.

But the North American media has once again fallen right into step with government propaganda efforts by playing the Syrian nuclear story to the full and failing to ask hard questions about the story. Such as, why would Syria need a nuclear weapon that could kill as many Syrians in a nuclear exchange as Israelis? Why was the so-called reactor was not protected by anti-aircraft defenses? Why was it constructed in the open, clearly visible to watching satellites and drones? Why was it not hidden in an industrial building? Could it have been a depot for North Korea Scud-C missiles, and so on?

The `New York Times’ revealed last week what this column has long said: the Pentagon has duped Americans by organizing a bunch of retired US generals – mislabeled `independent military experts’ - to promote the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the media. They were paid $500 to $1,000 for each brief appearance to make propaganda for the administration. The `NY Times’ rightly called them `Trojan horses.’ These shills befouled the honor of the uniforms they once wore.

But the `Times’ was hardly Simon pure: reporter Judith Miller had used its pages to promote gross lies about Iraq and stoke war fever. The `Times’ op-ed pages have been filled with neocon and Pentagon calls to war. At least the `Times’ was atoning by blowing open the latest scandal about government-manufactured news. Our media increasingly resembles the bootlickers of the old Soviet press.

Watch these rent-a-generals now return to TV to promote the administration’s party line about the Great Syrian Nuclear Menace.

copyright Eric S. Margolis 2008

THE WORLD LIKES OBAMA

PARIS – The more things change, as the French are fond of saying, the more they remain the same.
But things have really changed here in France, at least since the long ago days of my youth in the later 1950’s and early 1960’s, and they are no longer the same.

In those bygone days, France was still deep in shock from its disaster in World War II. The nation was closed in on itself, completely self-absorbed, racked by postwar guilt and rent by mutual recriminations.

The one fixed point for French was their national individuality and unique, sharply etched character. They found a measure of solace in being resolutely French and abjuring the outside world.

Most French refused to speak English, a process they found unworthy, undignified, and even painful. The British were hated for stabbing France in the back early in the war by pulling their troops out at Dunquerque and sinking part of the French Fleet. French deeply resented being ordered about by the United States and treated like a third rate nation.

France was glum, grumpy and depressed. On top of the malaise, the communists were threatening to take over the government. In the early 1960’s, France even began quietly refurbishing and upgunning the Maginot Line forts in fear of the mighty, 100-division Soviet Red Army.

That was yesterday. Today, the new globalized generation of young and even middle aged French enjoys speaking English and often does so at the slightest excuse. France is becoming bi-lingual. Even France’s entry into the Eurosong competition is, mon dieu!, in English. It gets increasingly hard to speak French here in Paris.

Paris’ notorious taxi drivers, who once sought to install metal plates in their rear seats to electrocute unruly or, more likely, low-tipping passengers, have become shockingly polite. Retailers and waiters actually seem pleased to see you. Americans are again welcome. A young man offered me his seat on the Metro. French seem to have discovered a new happy pill.

Wine and bread consumption, once staples of French life, are way down. Oppressed French smokers have been forced out of cafes into the cruel street. Young French seem to live on predigested junk food. The wonderful old smoky, black and white France of my youth, with her violent riots, Edith Piaf and Yves Montand, army plots, silly Left Bank intellectuals, and weird little cars like Panhard and Simca cars, has vanished.

French have been paying a lot of attention to their new president, Nicholas Sarkozy, and his smashing second wife, Carla Bruni, who is widely regarded as a huge asset for `Sarko.’ But right now, French and other Europeans are absolutely fascinated by the US presidential race. During two weeks of TV and radio broadcasting in Paris, the number one question I was asked is who will win the US primaries and November vote.

The president of the United States has at least as much if not more influence over many nations than their own governments. So, I’ve always favored a one-tenth vote for all non-Americans.

If this were the case, then Barak Obama would win in a landslide. Like North Americans, most Europeans really don’t know much about the experience-light senator, but what they see, they like `beaucoup.’ You can feel a passion here for Obama that is quite remarkable, and an earnest hope that America may soon return to being its old, pre-Bush, pre-9/11 self.

Obama is wildly popular because he is, of course, the non-Bush. But so is Hillary Clinton, yet she inspires surprisingly little support even though husband Bill, for reasons that elude me, was widely admired abroad. Hillary is regarded simply as an avatar of the Clinton political machine which, however formidable, is seen as empty of substance, and dedicated only to the relentless pursuit of power and money.

The three Americans public figures most respected internationally are Barak Obama, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore. They are widely seen as representing many of America’s best qualities. They are also a potent antidote to the Southern yahoos, holy rollers and totalitarian neoconservative ideologues who hijacked the Republican Party – my life-long party – and blackened America’s name around the globe.

Obama is seen abroad as the candidate who can end the shameful Bush era and return America to a moderate, productive role in world affairs. He is expected to end the Iraq War and Bush’s militarized foreign policy, and re-integrate the United States into the company of law-respecting, environmentally conscious nations, of whom the European Union is now the leader.

Obama comes across to Europeans as dignified, decent, eloquent, and truthful, qualities notably lacking in either Bush and Dick Cheney who too often seem to symbolize America’s cruder instincts and its wallowing in synthetic patriotism. Just a few days ago, for example, Republicans accused Obama of not being patriotic because he does not wear an American flag on his lapel.

Much of the world would hail and admire America for electing a man of color, but even more so, one who appears to capture so much of what is great and admirable about the United States.

There are fears here the bitter Hillary-Obama contest may ruin both candidates, leading to four more years of Bush under John McCain. But it may also benefit Obama. He needs to toughen up before facing the ferocious Republican attack machine that sunk war veteran John Kerry’s campaign under a torrent of `Swiftboat’ lies about his military service in Vietnam. John McCain is a gentleman, but not so Republican strategist Carl Rove’s waiting character assassins.

Obama could sharply alter America’s highly negative image created by Bush & Co. as a determined enemy of the Muslim world. Not because his father was Muslim, but because of his image of fairness and sensible foreign policy proposals calling for open dialogue with the Muslim World, including Iran, instead of confrontation. If Americans want to repair relations with the Muslim world, electing Obama is a good way to start.

It’s distressing listening to the rich John McCain and equally rich Clintons scourge Obama an `elitist’ because he is intelligent, articulate, and poised. Next, they will brand him as , `too French.’

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2008

The Joy of Spring in Paris

PARIS – Ah, Paris in the springtime! Winter arrived last week, dropping a cold, wet blanket on the City of Light’s fabled `month of love.’

On Monday, Paris was thrown into chaos by anti-Chinese demonstrations against the Olympic torch ceremony which brought newspaper headlines of `Le Fiasco!’ and `Chaos.’

Traffic was paralyzed. Three thousand short-tempered French police struggled to protect busloads of frightened Chinese athletes and the Olympic flame bearer from angry supporters of free Tibet. Meanwhile, hail and cold rain pelted Paris.

What was to be a giant commercial for the Olympics turned into a disaster for the Chinese and French governments, both of whom lost much face and suffered international embarrassment.

I have little sympathy. I’m not a sports fan. I’ve always considered the Olympics a grotesque orgy of commercialism and totalitarian kitsch, closer to Soviet and Nazi rallies than ancient Greece’s simple athletic games.

I’m writing this column from my apartment which overlooks the Eiffel Tower in the Champs de Mars. It was here, during the French Revolution, that a big political public spectacle put on by the bloodthirsty dictator Robespierre turned into a fiasco that led to his downfall and execution.

This, in turn, reminds me of his famous bon mot, `all the world hates armed missionaries,’ which brings me to Iraq. From Paris, I watched the Bush administration’s latest efforts to deceive Americans about its `crusade for freedom’ in Iraq.

The US commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, testified to Congress they needed to keep at least 140,000 US troops in Iraq. At the same time, the UK `Guardian,’ published a leaked US plan to keep bases in Iraq `indefinitely.’

President George W. Bush, who commands infinite unpopularity here in Europe, keeps saying, `I will listen to my general’s advice over Iraq.’ Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney then appoint yes-men like Petraeus and Crocker who tell the public what the White House orders them to say.

Patriotic generals, admirals, and diplomats who violate the party line are fired. Last year, Petraeus helped the White House fool war-weary Americans by insinuating a US troop withdrawal was months away. Now, it’s back to, `we can’t afford to leave.’

As Baghdad and Basra burned, Crocker echoed Petraeus’ claims things were getting better in Iraq. While ambassador to Pakistan, Crocker made a notable contribution to American diplomacy by insisting Musharraf’s squalid dictatorship was a `fully democratic government.’ This whopper recalls the 19th century American writer Ambrose Bierce’s pithy definition of diplomats as `patriots ready to lie for their country.’

Iraq remains chaotic, with half of all US ground forces stuck there. US efforts to create an Iraqi government army failed miserably, as seen by its recent rout in Basra. But John McCain and fellow Republicans are determined to keep Iraq a permanent US colony.

President Bush went on national TV to repeat his mantra of `staying the course’ in Iraq. But almost 70% of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq. At the same time, the Pentagon, CIA and State Department are in almost open revolt against continuing the war in Iraq and launching a new one against Iran. Senior generals are warning the army and marines cannot keep waging intense military operations and are facing `melt-down.’

I am struck by Vietnam War déjà vu. Republican politicians have too much of their careers invested in the Iraq War to risk accepting defeat. Bush and Cheney, like President Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara, are keeping US troops at war rather than admit they made a horrible mistake. Lost wars mean the ruin of political careers.

Senior French officials here despair over US policy in Iraq, though they won’t say so in public. The British and Germans are equally glum. There is growing alarm in NATO over Pakistan and even hints of military operations by the western alliance in its tribal territories.

Adding to the unease, an Israeli cabinet minister just threatened to attack Iran with nuclear weapons with absolutely no negative reaction from the US or its NATO allies.

Gloom, yes, but the sun just made a brief celebrity appearance, and spring is slowly coming to the world’s most beautiful and enchanting city.
30
copyright Eric S. Margolis 2008

Token Troops to a Token War

PARIS – In one of the more bizarre meetings NATO has ever held, the military alliance decided this week to approve a US plan to build an anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic against a threat that does not exist. Then, in a quid pro quo, the NATO members turned down US demands to admit the Black Sea nations of Ukraine and Georgia to the North Atlantic alliance.

The long-sought US anti-missile system is supposedly designed to shoot down long-ranged Iranian missiles with nuclear warheads. Iran has neither, and no reason whatsoever to fire nuclear weapons at western Europe. But the system had become an obsession with the Bush Administration.

Adding to the general sense of unreality, France’s president Nicholas Sarkozy proclaimed he would send 700 soldiers to Afghanistan to fight Taliban.
But this handful of French troops is merely a gesture that will not change the war, which is going badly against the US and NATO.

There is intense public opposition in France to expanding France’s limited Afghan mission. Sixty-six percent of French strongly oppose sending troops into combat in what is widely seen as a colonial war waged only for America’s benefit.

I have been busy commenting on numerous French national TV and radio programs in recent days. Opinion was dead set against government plans to send troops, except on the ruling right. I also participated in a 45-minute nationally televised debate in France’s parliament over Afghanistan with senior parliamentary politicians (both former defense ministers) dealing with Afghanistan.

Most parliamentarians agreed that France’s military contribution to the little Afghan war was about pleasing Washington rather than `waging war on terrorism.’ French politicians and public have a much clearer view of Afghanistan thanks to more honest, balanced reporting from their media which is free of the North America media’s ceaseless flag-waving. They understand that oil is a primary reason for the Afghan War.

The best arguments right wingers could come up with for sending more troops was, `eh bien, it’s symbolic.’ I reminded them and viewers that the US commander in Afghanistan recently stated he would need 400,000 troops to pacify that nation, not the 80,000 or so troops the US and NATO now deploy. The Soviets couldn’t beat the Pashtun tribes with 160,000 Red Army troops. What will a small French regiment, a few thousand US Marines and 2,500 Canadian troops accomplish, except to make more local enemies?

President Sarkozy, of course, has bigger fish to fry. He is trying to reintegrate France back into NATO after a 42-year absence. The great Charles DeGaulle withdrew his armed forces saying he refused to let Washington order then about and use them like `native colonial troops.’

The right wing Sarkozy is trying to ingratiate himself with the Bush Administration. `Sarko’ hopes the US will allow France to take command of NATO South. But the US shows little willingness to give up this prized Mediterranean command.

`Sarko’ is very much an ideological mate of Bush and other rightist governments in Canada, Holland, Denmark, Israel and, until recently, Australia. I call it the Rightwing International. Many French call Sarkozy a `neoconservative’ or `son of Bush.’

But Sarkozy is no George Bush. He is Europe-centric and determined to work with his allies. But his relations with France’s most important partner, Germany, are rocky due to a personality clash between its very different leaders.

Sarko’s real objective is to forge what he calls a `Mediterranean Union’ of European and Arab states that would, critics claim, create a sort of protectorate and guaranteed source of oil for France and Germany in North Africa. The US would then keep its Mideast Arab oil protectorate, and even Turkey might get a slice if it’s good.

Sarko’s retro grand strategy sounds like a rush back to the 19th century colonial division of African spoils.

At the same time, Sarkozy is trying to build up Europe’s own integrated defense forces, a logical goal for a continent that is more populous and richer than the United States. Washington wants to keep Europeans firmly under the control of NATO, where Washington is boss.

Still, the consensus here in France is that Sarko’s prime objective is to convince the Bush White House he is a loyal ally – even though a record 80% of Americans now reject its foreign policies as a massive failure.

30 MARGOLIS
copyright Eric S. Margolis 2008