Why do people hate us?

WHY DO VARIOUS PEOPLE HATE THE USA?

We can understand why the question, "Why Do They Hate Us?" was never thoroughly examined by the Bush administration or by Congress immediately following the bombings of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But eleven months have passed and still the root causes of the bombings are not even a secondary concern to our leaders. All energies are focused on the War projected throughout the world, finding and punishing the perpetrators and their supporters, raising the military budget, suppressing dissent at home. Congress just passed a $28.9 billion program for bolstering anti-terrorism; that's in addition to the new military budget of $330 billion. We in the peace movement clearly have a use here, to clarify for the public and our representatives how US foreign policies have created a host of enemies abroad. Our leaders seem incapable of thinking about root causes, but can only retaliate. >OMNI website contains considerable explanation of hostility toward the US. Let's continue to gather the evidence. For example, today's July 19 Morning News/MN recounts the capture of the Greek terrorist group November 17. Twice we are told that the group killed US CIA and military people because the US backed the brutal dictatorship that ruled Greece 1967-1974. (Dick)

U.S.= Champion of Democracy?
51 Dictators Supported by U.S. - a hyperlinked list with footnotes

We Had a Democracy Once, But You Crushed It By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman the next time a politician talks about spreading democracy around the globe, ask them about Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.

A Few Interesting Statistics

Mideast conflict hits nerve in Egypt
By Anthony Shadid, Globe Staff, 7/27/2002

US CONTRASTS TO EUROPE

THE ARAB VIEW:
Bashing Saudi Arabia

A BIG 'THANK YOU' TO BUSH FROM BIN LADEN

SALMON RUSHDIE
Washington Post "Double Standards Make Enemies" By Salman Rushdie Wednesday, August 28, 2002;

WHAT A CIA MANUAL AND THE 9-11 DATE TELL US
Here are some thoughts about "why they hate us"--

STATE DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE
State Department to Study Why the World Hates the USA > Washington, DC -- August 29 --

SIXGUNS SHOOTING
I fear that generation will pay the price for our haste to retaliate.

ANGER, DISAPPOINTMENT AT BUSH ADMIN.: ISRAEL AND IRAQ
Anger at U.S. Said to Be at New High By JANE PERLEZ CAIRO, Sept. 10 - Anger at the United States, embedded in the belief that the Bush administration lends unstinting support to Israel at the expense of the Palestinians, is at an unparalleled high across the Arab world, according to analysts and diplomats in the region.

RAMSEY CLARK'S LETTER TO THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL
Just in case some folks are wondering why there is hostility toward U.S.take the time to read Mr. Clark's comments. Lengthy but worth it. LW

BIN LADEN'S 3 MESSAGES
Misinterpretation of Bin Laden's Messages: Erring on the Side of Danger
By Diane Perlman, PhD, Co-chair, Committee on Global Violence and Security, Psychologists for Social Responsibility

We Had a Democracy Once, But You Crushed It By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman In yesterday's Washington Post, Condoleeza Rice, the President's National Security Advisor, writes the following: "Our task is to work with those in the Middle East who seek progress toward greater democracy, tolerance, prosperity and freedom. As President Bush said in February, 'The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life.'" Now, if we only had a nickel for every time Bush, or Rice, or Colin Powell, or Paul Wolfowitz or Dick Cheney or Richard Perle or Donald Rumsfeld talked about bringing democracy to the Middle East. Talk, talk, talk. Here's something you can bet on: Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz will not hold a press conference this month to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the U.S.-led coup of the democratically elected leader of Iran -- Mohammed Mossadegh. Rice and Powell won't hold a press conference to celebrate Operation Ajax, the CIA plot that overthrew the Mossadegh. That was 50 years ago this month, in August 1953. That's when Mossadegh was fed up with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company -- now BP -- pumping Iran's oil and shipping the profits back home to the United Kingdom. And Mossadegh said -- hey, this is our oil, I think we'll keep it. And Winston Churchill said -- no you won't. Mossadegh nationalized the company -- the way the British were nationalizing their own vital industries at the time. But what's good for the UK ain't good for Iran. If you fly out of Dulles Airport in Virginia, ever wonder what the word Dulles means? It stands for the Dulles family -- Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother, the CIA director, Allen Dulles. They were responsible for the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Iran. As was President Theodore Roosevelt's grandson, Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA agent who traveled to Iran to pull off the coup. Now why should we be concerned about a coup that happened so far away almost 50 years ago this month? New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer puts it this way: "It is not far-fetched to draw a line from Operation Ajax through the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York." Kinzer has written a remarkable new book, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (Wiley, 2003). In it, he documents step by step, how Roosevelt, the Dulles boys and Norman Schwarzkopf Sr., among a host of others, took down a democratically elected regime in Iran. They had freedom of the press. We shut it down. They had democracy. And we crushed it. Mossadegh was the beacon of hope for the Middle East. If democracy were allowed to take hold in Iran, it probably would have spread throughout the Middle East. We asked Kinzer - what does the overthrow of Mossadegh say about the United States respect for democracy abroad? "Imagine today what it must sound like to Iranians to hear American leaders tell them -- 'We want you to have a democracy in Iran, we disapprove of your present government, we wish to help you bring democracy to your country.' Naturally, they roll their eyes and say -- "We had a democracy once, but you crushed it,'" he said. "This shows how differently other people perceive us from the way we perceive ourselves. We think of ourselves as paladins of democracy. But actually, in Iran, we destroyed the last democratic regime the country ever had and set them on a road to what has been half a century of dictatorship." After ousting Mossadegh, the United States put in place a brutal Shah who destroyed dissent and tortured the dissenters. And the Shah begat the Islamic revolution. During that Islamic revolution in 1979, Iranians held up Mossadegh's picture, telling the world - we want a democratic regime that resists foreign influence and respects the will of the Iranian people as expressed through democratic institutions. "They were never able to achieve that. And this has led many Iranians to react very poignantly to my book," Kaizer told us. "One woman sent me an e-mail that said - 'I was in tears when I finished your book because it made me think of all we lost and all we could have had.'" Of course, the overthrow of Mossadegh was only one of the first U.S. coups of democratically elected regime. (To see one in movie form, pick up a copy of Raoul Peck's Lumumba, now on DVD.) Kinzer's previous books include Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala. He's thinking of putting together a boxed set of his books on American coups. Get copies of Bitter Fruit and All The Shah's Men. Read them. And the next time a politician talks about spreading democracy around the globe, ask them about Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala. Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter, http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, http://www.multinationalmonitor.org. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press; http://www.corporatepredators.org). (c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

A Few Interesting Statistics

LETTER FROM SPRINGFIELD, MO
Dick, our Gannett newspaper (News-Leader) published a three part series starting last Sunday on the topic "America's Mixed Image Abroad." While info was not new here, it did show enough of our behavior to raise quetions in people's minds who had not considered we might be hated. I've often thought a few statistics, repeated until really heard, like --the UN report that more than three-fourths of the world's population live in poverty, (one-half on less thatn $2 a day), the US has less than 5% of the world's population, yet consumes roughly one-third of the the world's resources --US sells more than half of the world's military equipment --our military budget alongside our "altruistic" budget --and something about our hottest trouble spot--Israel and Palestine would be an effective tool. Joan

Mideast conflict hits nerve in Egypt
By Anthony Shadid, Globe Staff, 7/27/2002
"Boston Globe" July 27, 2002 http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/208/nation/Mideast_conflict_hits_nerve_in_Egypt+.shtml
CAIRO -
Shaaban Abdel-Rahim, a laundryman turned pop sensation, topped Egypt's charts with his manifesto, ''I hate Israel.'' His success unleashed a flurry of imitators whose songs pour forth from taxis and minibuses navigating Cairo's cacophonous streets. Other Egyptian musicians, some of the Arab world's most famous, have scrambled to outdo one another with songs celebrating the intifadah. In theaters, the latest in a series of movies touching on the Palestinian uprising drew packed crowds with its sympathetic portrayal of suicide bombers. And in Cairo's poorest neighborhoods, Egyptians snap up bags of potato chips emblazoned with images of a saluting Yasser Arafat. ''Hero of the struggle,'' the packages declare. Egyptian pop culture, long the trend-setter for the wider Arab world, has increasingly turned to the nearly two-year-old Palestinian uprising as a surefire draw. And the message in music, film, poetry, and print is blunt: The United States and Israel stand hand in hand against the Arab world. The degree to which the intifadah has infused the culture of the Arab world's largest country is as telling as any evidence of the fervor and passion unleashed by a conflict that has riled an already restless region. Passions surged again this week following an Israeli missile strike in Gaza City that killed a Palestinian militant leader and several women and children. These feelings have unsettled the Egyptian government, which made peace with Israel in 1979. And they pose a challenge to Washington's efforts - relying in part on the export of American culture - to improve the tarnished image of the United States, which is increasingly portrayed as Israel's accomplice in the conflict with Palestinians. If the cultural fare of Cairo's nightlife is a measure, the United States has a long way to go. ''It's a phenomenon,'' says Raafat el-Meehy, a leading Egyptian director and avid fan of American film. ''For me, it's a commercial device,'' he said. ''If I put a bellydancer in a film, it's because people like to see bellydancers. If I burn an American flag in a film, it's because people want to see a flag burned.'' The outpouring of support in Egypt for Palestinians is by no means automatic. While Palestine - as both a place and an idea - was long the cornerstone of Egyptian politics under Gamal Abdel-Nasser, who died in 1970, the issue receded after his successor, Anwar Sadat, signed a treaty with Israel. That agreement ushered in what was commonly known as a ''cold peace,'' but ended an era in which Egypt and Israel fought four wars. In the years afterward, anti-Palestinian sentiments were often heard in the streets, from resentment over the wealth of some Palestinian expatriates to anger at Arafat's support for Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War. But the Palestinian uprising that began in September 2000 has dramatically changed the complexion of Egypt. A longstanding campaign by intellectuals to shun travel to Israel and exchanges of writers, poets, and artists has gained force, culminating in a boycott of American and Israeli goods. The lists of banned items are spread by the most modern of means - e-mail, the Internet, and cellphone. In Cairo, families inspect plums, peaches, and grapes in hopes of determining whether they were imported from Israel. Egyptians, like other Arabs, have eschewed Coke, Pepsi, and Marlboros for the local equivalents, and once-abundant Hollywood films are harder to find. With little subtlety, posters in apartment buildings declare, ''American commodities are Israeli bullets.'' Another leaflet says, ''Buy McDonald's and kill a Palestinian.'' The anger has also given rise to student activism that Cairo has not witnessed in years. It peaked in March and April, when Israeli forces surrounded Arafat's compound in Ramallah. Students trashed a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant and broke windows at a McDonald's near Cairo University. In Alexandria, Egypt's second-largest city, a student was killed when police broke up a protest with rubber bullets and buckshot. ''When people go out into the streets, they draw a connection between what is happening in Palestine and what is happening in Egypt,'' said Gamal Eid, an Egyptian activist. ''People are thinking we're on one side, and the government is on the other.'' As expressive is the outpouring of song and film, in what some see as the flip side to the surge in activism. Shaaban Abdel-Rahim became famous with the song ''I hate Israel.'' Its opening line is, ''I hate Israel. I say it when asked.'' He later declares: ''We'll die! We'll die! There will be no silence! O intifadah, either victory or martyrdom.'' Shaaban, known as a ''shaabi'' or populist singer, inspired a series of knockoffs whose tapes sell for less than a dollar and are popular among taxi and minibus drivers. The themes are similiar: solidarity with Palestinians and the powerlessness of Arabs in the face of injustice. The most recent addition is a monologue of jokes by Shawki Suleiman, many of them about Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel. ''They're like songs you'd come up with sitting with your friend in a cafe,'' Ahmed Awni, a 27-year-old laborer and avid Shaaban fan said as he sipped tea in downtown Cairo. ''Everybody wants to respond and the songs are one way to do it. They speak in the language people understand.'' More upscale singers have picked up on the theme. Amr Diab, among the Arab world's most famous performers, recorded ''Al Quds,'' or ''Jerusalem.'' He was joined by Mohammed Fouad, who sang ''Mother of the Martyr,'' and Hani Shaker, who recorded ''At the Gate of Jerusalem.'' Mohammed Munir promised to donate 10 percent of his sales of his newest song - ''Earth ... Peace'' - to Palestinian charities. The films are no less direct, some with subtle criticism of government media for what some Egyptians consider their mild coverage of the intifadah. One movie, ''Friends or Business,'' told the story of a TV host sent to Israel who befriends a Palestinian. In time, the TV host unexpectedly records the man carrying out a suicide bombing. His bosses refuse to air the tape. In the ensuing struggle the host wins him the support of other staff, who help him air it surreptitiously. The last scene shows children dressed as suicide bombers - hinting at more attacks to come. Hisham Kassem, editor of the Cairo Times and one of the few critics of the current pro-intifadah trend, suggests the activists organizing protests are more interested in demagoguery than results -what he calls ''populist medicine.'' The films and music, he says, ''are a passing fad.'' Others, like the director el-Meehy, worry of the repercussions on America's image. ''Once I dreamed of going to Hollywood and making my films. I adore American cinema. I am against the boycott of American films, and I am against the boycott of American books,'' he said outside his studio in a Cairo suburb. But, he added, ''there is a danger threatening the United States right now. There is no struggle between us and the American people. But there is a real conflict with the policy. People now don't differentiate between America and Israel. If you ask people, they don't see any difference.'' This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 7/27/2002. © Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company

US CONTRASTS TO EUROPE
IS THE NOTION OF THE "WEST" LOSING ITS MEANING? We usually think of the U.S. and Russia in terms of East vs. West, but with Europe and the United States following diverging paths, the concept of the West as a political block is starting to lose its meaning. Russian analyst, Alexander Yanov points out in the Moscow News that Europe is making a transition from a collection of highly nationalistic nation states to a federation in the form of the European Union, while the U.S. is fast turning into a monolithic super state. As a consequence Europe favors integration and international cooperation, while the U.S. increasingly opposes anything that smacks of a loss of sovereignty. Diverging political objectives have encouraged the U.S. to run counter to the rest of the world on issues ranging from global warming to the International Court of Criminal Justice. By Alexander Yanov in Center for Defense Information's Russia Report, August 7-13, 2002 http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/index.html#schism

THE ARAB VIEW: BASHING SAUDI ARABIA
The suit being brought by 9/11 families and survivors against Riyadh may be well intentioned, but the long term impact will be to add a veneer of legitimacy to the ranting of Muslim extremists in Saudi Arabia. That is exactly the outcome that Osama Bin Laden hoped for. By Abdul Qader Tash, Senior columnist, Arab News, Al Madina newspapers, in the Arab View, August 2002. http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/index.html#saudi

A BIG 'THANK YOU' TO BUSH FROM BIN LADEN
Abdeljabbar Adwan, a Palestinian analyst writing in Beirut's Daily Star, points out that Osama Bin Laden's fate has been entangled with that of the Bush family for several decades--almost always to Bin Laden's profit. When George Bush Sr. headed the CIA under Reagan, the agency trusted Osama among others to distribute funds to anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan, including those who would eventually become the Taleban. These days, Abdeljabbar argues, Bin laden has other reasons for feeling gratitude. Washington's careless bashing of those Arab countries who previously took enormous domestic political risks to support the U.S. has done more to achieve Osama's ultimate objective of destroying U.S. power in the Middle East than anything Al Qaeda could have hoped for. By Abdeljabbar Adwan in The Daily Star, Beirut. http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/index.html#binladen

SALMON RUSHDIE
Washington Post "Double Standards Make Enemies" By Salman Rushdie Wednesday, August 28, 2002; Page A23 On Sept. 5 and 6
The State Department will host a high-powered conference on anti-Americanism, an unusual step indicating the depth of American concern about this increasingly globalized phenomenon. Anti- Americanism can be mere shallow name-calling. A recent article in Britain's Guardian newspaper described Americans as having "a bug up their collective arse the size of Manhattan" and suggested that " 'American' is a type of personality which is intense, humourless, partial to psychobabble and utterly convinced of its own importance." More seriously, anti-Americanism can be contradictory: When the United States failed to intervene in Bosnia, that was considered wrong, but when it did subsequently intervene in Kosovo, that was wrong too. Anti-Americanism can be hypocritical: wearing blue jeans or Donna Karan, eating fast food or Alice Waters-style cuisine, their heads full of American music, movies, poetry and literature, the apparatchiks of the international cultural commissariat decry the baleful influence of the American culture that nobody is forcing them to consume. It can be misguided; the logical implication of the Western-liberal opposition to America's Afghan war is that it would be better if the Taliban were still in power. And it can be ugly; the post-Sept. 11 crowing of the serves-you-right brigade was certainly that. However, during the past year the Bush administration has made a string of foreign policy miscalculations, and the State Department conference must acknowledge this. After the brief flirtation with consensus-building during the Afghan operation, the United States' brazen return to unilateralism has angered even its natural allies. The Republican grandee James Baker has warned President Bush not to go it alone, at least in the little matter of effecting a "regime change" in Iraq. In the year's major crisis zones, the Bushies have been getting things badly wrong. According to a Security Council source, the reason for the United Nations' lamentable inaction during the recent Kashmir crisis was that the United States (with Russian backing) blocked all attempts by member states to mandate the United Nations to act. But if the United Nations is not to be allowed to intervene in a bitter dispute between two member states, both nuclear powers of growing political volatility, in an attempt to defuse the danger of nuclear war, then what on Earth is it for? Many observers of the problems of the region will also be wondering how long Pakistani-backed terrorism in Kashmir will be winked at by America because of Pakistan's support for the "war against terror" on its other frontier. Many Kashmiris will be angry that their long-standing desire for an autonomous state is being ignored for the sake of U.S. realpolitik. And as the Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf seizes more and more power and does more and more damage to his country's constitution, the U.S. government's decision to go on hailing him as a champion of democracy does more damage to America's already shredded regional credibility. Nor is Kashmir the only South Asian grievance. The massacres in the Indian state of Gujarat, mostly of Indian Muslims by fundamentalist Hindu mobs, have been shown to be the result of planned attacks led by Hindu political organizations. But in spite of testimony presented to a congressional commission, the U.S. administration has done nothing to investigate U.S.-based organizations that are funding these groups, such as the World Hindu Council. Just as American Irish fundraisers once bankrolled the terrorists of the Provisional IRA, so, now, shadowy bodies across America are helping to pay for mass murder in India, while the U.S. government turns a blind eye. Once again, the supposedly high-principled rhetoric of the "war against terror" is being made to look like a smoke screen for a highly selective pursuit of American vendettas. Apparently Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are terrorists who matter; Hindu fanatics and Kashmiri killers aren't. This double standard makes enemies. In the heat of the dispute over Iraq strategy, South Asia has become a sideshow. (America's short attention span creates enemies, too.) And it is in Iraq that George W. Bush may be about to make his biggest mistake, and to unleash a generation-long plague of anti-Americanism that could make the present epidemic look like a time of rude good health. Inevitably, the reasons lie in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like it or not, much of the world thinks of Israel as the 51st state, America's client and surrogate, and Bush's obvious rapport with Ariel Sharon does nothing to change the world's mind. Of course the suicide bombings are vile, but until America persuades Israel to make a lasting settlement with the Palestinians, anti-American feeling will continue to rise; and if, in the present highly charged atmosphere, the United States does embark on the huge, risky military operation suggested Monday by Vice President Dick Cheney, then the result may very well be the creation of that united Islamic force that was bin Laden's dream. Saudi Arabia would almost certainly feel obliged to expel U.S. forces from its soil (thus capitulating to one of bin Laden's main demands). Iran -- which so recently fought a long, brutal war against Iraq -- would surely support its erstwhile enemy, and might even come into the conflict on the Iraqi side. The entire Arab world would be radicalized and destabilized. What a disastrous twist of fate it would be if the feared Islamic jihad were brought into being not by the al Qaeda gang but by the president of the United States and his close advisers. Do those close advisers include Colin Powell, who clearly prefers diplomacy to war? Or is the State Department's foregrounding of the issue of anti-Americanism a means of providing hard evidence to support the Powell line and undermining the positions of the hawks to whom Bush listens most closely? It seems possible. Paradoxically, a sober look at the case against America may serve American interests better than the patriotic "let's roll" arguments that are being trumpeted on every side.

WHAT A CIA MANUAL AND THE 9-11 DATE TELL US
Here are some thoughts about "why they hate us"-- Who Are the Terrorists, and What Beliefs Drive Them? Tom Greening tgreening@saybrook.edu Notes for presentation at panel on The Psychology of Terrorism at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, August 2002. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quotes from a terrorist manual found in an Afghanistan cave: "This is a religious struggle, an Islamic and liberating jihad fought by Islamic heroes who rally to the slogan "Allah, homeland and justice." Honor the Islamic spirituality of the valiant fighters. With Allah and devotion we will overcome Satan. We are different, we are Moslems. We consider Allah a witness to our words." If you regard this as chilling evidence of the religious and political fanaticism that generates the terrorism with which the U.S. must cope, consider the following. The above quote was not actually from a terrorist manual found in an Afghanistan cave. I simply substituted words for those in a CIA manual for Contra "freedom fighters" in their campaign against the Sandinistas. That original manual reads as follows: This is a religious struggle, a Christian and democratic crusade fought by Christian guerrillas who rally to the slogan "God, homeland and democracy." Honor the Christian spirituality of the freedom fighters. With God and patriotism we will overcome communism. We are different, we are Christians. We consider God a witness to our words. It has been said that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Regardless of how righteous we feel about our values and actions, it behooves us to remember that we are not always seen by others as we would like to be seen, and that we may bear some responsibility for those perceptions or misperceptions. Effective policy and action must be based on accurate assessments of ourselves and our enemies, and on how others see themselves and us. Simplistic splitting into good and bad dangerously blinds us to the complexities of international relations. A similar observation can be made regarding U. S. citizens' referring to "9/11" as designating the attack on the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. Few seem aware of the earlier "9/11" tragedy when a CIA-backed coup overthrew the democratically elected government of Chile leading to the death of President Allende and many others. Righteous, ignorant, wounded innocence will not serve us well in dealing with the political complexities of the modern world. ====================================== END of email

from: Thomas Greening, Ph. D. 1314 Westwood Blvd., Suite 205 Los Angeles, CA 90024 310-474-0064 www.tom.greening.com

STATE DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE
State Department to Study Why the World Hates the USA > Washington, DC -- August 29 -- Why do they hate us? > US officials will spend two days next week grappling with this question, as 20 > outside experts share their views with some 50 participants at a State > Department conference studying anti-Americanism. > > "The purpose of this conference is to explore various manifestations and roots > of anti-Americanism around the world, what it means for the United States and > how the United States may address it," State Department spokesman Richard > Boucher told reporters on Wednesday. > > The 20 experts -- including novelist Salman Rushdie -- from the United States > and abroad will discuss the growing resentment in the Arab world and elsewhere > to an audience of about 50 US officials. > > The conference, which Boucher said will be a "closed, off the record" event, > is hosted by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and > the National Intelligence Council -- the CIA's long and medium range policy > planning shop. It is scheduled for Sept. 4-5 at the Wye Plantation in > Maryland, where the Israelis and Palestinians negotiated > their last major peace agreement in 1999. > > Panels in the conference include: "Regional attitudes towards the United > States," "Understanding Anti-Americanism -- has the American model become a > lightning rod for global discourse?" and "New players in the anti-American > coalition --has soft power hurt or helped America's image?" > > "This conference is the culmination of a project on anti-Americanism that the > bureau has been doing, which has looked at the phenomenon in Europe and Russia > and the Muslim world," Boucher said. "And their purpose is to sort of explore > the various manifestations and the roots and the reasons, and to > make it improve the quality of their product and their explanation, their > analysis for the secretary (of state) and the rest of the people who use their > analysis within the US government," he added. > > The timing of the meeting is particularly important given recent criticism > from European and Arab governments of possible US military action against > Iraq. After a speech on Monday by Vice President Cheney where he virtually > ruled out the possibility of seeking the return of UN weapons inspectors to > Iraq, numerous ambassadors and foreign governments flooded the State > Department's switchboard. > > According to an analysis of foreign media conducted between March 15 and > August 15 by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, > "little sympathy could be found in Arab or Muslim papers" for military action > against Iraq. The report goes on to say, "A common theme was that the > campaign against Iraq was simply a way to gain control of Iraqi oil, > help the US economy and boost the president's popularity." > > The survey released internally on Monday also notes that a full 68 per cent of > newspaper editorials analysed in NATO countries and Australia opposed military > action against Iraq. In the analysis of Western European editorials, the > report says, "Many sources worried that a military campaign > to oust Hussein would trigger a storm of indignation in the Middle East." > > http://www.dawn.com/2002/08/30/int2.htm >

SIXGUNS SHOOTING
Please circulate this letter, which has gone to many newspapers in the US: Friends: A year ago, when we asked "who are these people and why do they hate us so much?", we acknowledged that in regard to the Middle Eastern countries, our foreign policy has been designed to contain, control, and humiliate. One year later, as we assess our relations with that part of the world, they look much worse.The Bush administration threatens to wage war on Iraq; he has named Iran part of an axis of evil; the US supports a cruel occupation of Palestinian territories; a think tank has advised Bush and his advisors that Saudi Arabia cannot be trusted; and the US is propping up a shaky regime in Afghanistan. If further acts of terrorism occur, we should not be surprised because we have done nothing to defuse the anger of the Muslim world and everything to exacerbate it. As a trained mediator, I know how important it is to acknowledge the needs and interests of both sides and to find common ground. Rather than work toward a solution, the current administration has pulled out its sixguns and gone in shooting, thereby widening the chasm between the US and the Middle East. It's not an example I would have wished for the coming generation, who might have been more understanding of other countries. Worse, I fear that generation will pay the price for our haste to retaliate. Sincerely, Janet M. Powers Mediation Services of Adams County (Pennsylvania) Associate Professor of Interdepartmental and Women's Studies, Gettysburg College Contact: 717-337-6790 (w) 717-334-3871 (h)

ANGER, DISAPPOINTMENT AT BUSH ADMIN.: ISRAEL AND IRAQ
Subject: Anger at U.S. Said to Be at New High http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/11/international/middleeast/11ARAB.html ?ex=1 032861190&ei=1&en=f4d9955c24e17081 The New York Times September 11, 2002 By JANE PERLEZ CAIRO, Sept. 10 - Anger at the United States, embedded in the belief that the Bush administration lends unstinting support to Israel at the expense of the Palestinians, is at an unparalleled high across the Arab world, according to analysts and diplomats in the region. The resolve of President Bush to use force against Iraq, they say, compounds the antagonism, which is expressed with particularly unvarnished dismay in Egypt and neighboring Jordan, Washington's crucial Arab allies. More than in previous bouts of anti-Americanism in the region, the anger permeates all strata of society, especially among the educated, and is tinged, people acknowledge, with disillusionment at their own long-entrenched American-backed leadership. Frustration at the failure of the Arab governments to forge a common front against the administration and its close relationship with the government of Ariel Sharon in Israel seeps through many conversations. "There is a sense by many ordinary people and politicians that the moves against Iraq are an effort to redraw the map for the strategic interests of the United States and Israel," said Rami G. Khouri, an American-educated Jordanian journalist and a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, a research group with offices in Washington. Mr. Khouri, like many others, said the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, was deeply unpopular in the region. "Everyone I know wants Saddam Hussein removed," he said. "Nobody I know wants the Americans to do it - because we believe they are the last people in the world who will work on the behalf of Arab interests." But this deep antagonism toward the United States is mixed, Mr. Khouri and others said, with an affinity for the American way of life that feeds the disillusionment with the Bush administration. "Arabs are much closer to Americans than to Europeans," Mr. Khouri said. "Arabs love American culture, the rocket to the moon, technology, fast cars. They love going to America. Now they feel like jilted lovers." The authoritarian leadership in Egypt, the monarchy in Jordan and other governments across the region would probably survive the street protests that are likely to occur if there is a war against Iraq, most of those interviewed said. The protests may be used to allow populations to vent their frustrations. Analysts said governments in the region were nervous about the unpredictable consequences of a war, and the almost certain heavy economic costs, particularly in Jordan, where cheap Iraqi oil keeps the country going. Mustafa B. Hamarneh, the director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan, said it was likely that governments would ban lengthy demonstrations so as not to risk confrontations between their armies and the people - and also to avoid antagonizing the United States. "The regimes will tighten the screws on political expression to keep their own skins," he said. "If the American flag is burnt every night on the Cairo streets, do you think Congress is going to give them money?" Egypt is one of the largest recipients of American foreign assistance. Opinion makers, businessmen and officials voiced what they emphasized was their bewilderment at what they saw as the broken promise of the Bush administration. Instead of reaching out to the Arab world, as they had hoped, they said Mr. Bush had assumed an unquestioning tolerance of the actions of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel against the Palestinians. They talked bitterly of the United States behaving like an 18th-century imperial power with policies based on racism and gunpowder. The main difference between the United States today and the marauding forces of Genghis Khan was that Washington was able to project its power all over the globe, said one person who was interviewed who insisted on anonymity. There was little confidence in the Bush administration's promise to bring democracy to the Arab world in the wake of a defeat of Mr. Hussein. The administration's terminology "regime change" was revealing in itself, several people said. It meant, they said, that Washington could easily target other governments in the Arab world for similar treatment. "All this talk of democracy in the Middle East is baloney," Mr. Hamarneh said. "The United States wants to do this against Iraq to spite Arabs and in spite of Arabs." Most of those interviewed said that rather than ushering in democracy, an attack on Iraq would bring disintegration and chaos. "There is a sense that the United States is going to make a mess of the region," said Abdel Monem Said Aly, the director of the prestigious Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. Mr. Aly listed what he called four major flaws in the Bush agenda: unequivocal support for Mr. Sharon, which he said was the driving force behind Washington's desire to topple Mr. Hussein; dealing with Iraq militarily "without preparation"; misguided policies on dealing with terrorists; and the negative "general rhetoric" from Washington about Muslims and Arabs. By threatening to act unilaterally against Iraq, the United States would lose its remaining credibility among one billion Muslims and 300 million Arabs, Mr. Aly said. "You need at least the support of those who are pro the United States," he said. "If you lose all those, there is no way you can guarantee the security of the United States." There was widespread skepticism about the Bush administration's contention that the Iraqi leader was close to developing nuclear weapons. From his office overlooking the Nile, Dr. Hossam Badrawi, an American-trained physician and the scion of one of Egypt's wealthiest families, said it was close to impossible to believe that Mr. Hussein possessed such devastating weapons. Dr. Hossam, whose two children attend college in the United States, called Mr. Hussein a "monster." But, speaking in a suite decorated with American paraphernalia, including a photograph of himself with an American ambassador to Egypt, he said, "If the argument was so strong, the leadership of the rest of the world would agree." Expressing a general mood of gloom about the outlook for the American-backed Arab governments, Sari Nasir, an American-trained professor of sociology at the University of Jordan, said: "They will become a targets of their own people." "People have asked them to take a stand against the United States for its support of Israel and they haven't," he said. "People in the Arab world are much more educated than before and they resent their regimes." This resentment would strengthen the hand of such extremist organizations as Hezbollah and Hamas, he said. Across all the conversations in the past several days, people were assiduous in differentiating between the Bush administration and the American people. There was strong exception to the question posed in the United States in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks: "Why do they hate us?" Several people said they objected to the anonymous and derogatory tone of "they." The word "hate" was inappropriate because the feelings were more of disappointment and disillusionment, emotions that could be eased with a change in policies, they said. And "us" was misleading. The disdain was reserved for Mr. Bush, not Americans, they said. But Mr. Khouri said the feeling of being scorned ran so deep that it would be tough to reverse. "People have given up because they don't believe the United States will change its policy," he said.

RAMSEY CLARK'S LETTER TO THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL
Just in case some folks are wondering why there is hostility toward U.S.take the time to read Mr. Clark's comments. Lengthy but worth it. LW
Ramsey Clark Open Letter To UN Security Council International Action Center http://www.iacenter.org September 20, 2002 The following letter by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has been sent to all members of the UN Security Council, with copies to the UN General Assembly. Please circulate.
September 20, 2002 Secretary General Kofi Annan United Nations New York, NY
Dear Secretary General Annan, George Bush will invade Iraq unless restrained by the United Nations. Other international organizations-- including the European Union, the African Union, the OAS, the Arab League, stalwart nations courageous enough to speak out against superpower aggression, international peace movements, political leadership, and public opinion within the United States--must do their part for peace. If the United Nations, above all, fails to oppose a U.S. invasion of Iraq, it will forfeit its honor, integrity and raison d'etre. A military attack on Iraq is obviously criminal; completely inconsistent with urgent needs of the Peoples of the United Nations; unjustifiable on any legal or moral ground; irrational in light of the known facts; out of proportion to other existing threats of war and violence; and a dangerous adventure risking continuing conflict throughout the region and far beyond for years to come. The most careful analysis must be made as to why the world is subjected to such threats of violence by its only superpower, which could so safely and importantly lead us on the road to peace, and how the UN can avoid the human tragedy of yet another major assault on Iraq and the powerful stimulus for retaliatory terrorism it would create. 1. President George Bush Came to Office Determined to Attack Iraq and Change its Government. George Bush is moving apace to make his war unstoppable and soon. Having stated last Friday that he did not believe Iraq would accept UN inspectors, he responded to Iraq's prompt, unconditional acceptance by calling any reliance on it a "false hope" and promising to attack Iraq alone if the UN does not act. He is obsessed with the desire to wage war against Iraq and install his surrogates to govern Iraq by force. Days after the most bellicose address ever made before the United Nations--an unprecedented assault on the Charter of the United Nations, the rule of law and the quest for peace--the U.S. announced it was changing its stated targets in Iraq over the past eleven years, from retaliation for threats and attacks on U.S. aircraft which were illegally invading Iraq's airspace on a daily basis. How serious could those threats and attacks have been if no U.S. aircraft was ever hit? Yet hundreds of people were killed in Iraq by U.S.rockets and bombs, and not just in the so called "no fly zone," but in Baghdad itself. Now the U.S. proclaims its intentions to destroy major military facilities in Iraq in preparation for its invasion, a clear promise of aggression now. Every day there are threats and more propaganda is unleashed to overcome resistance to George Bush's rush to war. The acceleration will continue until the tanks roll, unless nonviolent persuasion prevails. 2. George Bush Is Leading the United States and Taking the UN and All Nations Toward a Lawless World of Endless Wars. George Bush in his "War on Terrorism" has asserted his right to attack any country, organization, or people first, without warning in his sole discretion. He and members of his administration have proclaimed the old restraints that law sought to impose on aggression by governments and repression of their people, no longer consistent with national security. Terrorism is such a danger, they say, that necessity compels the U.S. to strike first to destroy the potential for terrorist acts from abroad and to make arbitrary arrests, detentions, interrogations, controls and treatment of people abroad and within the U.S. Law has become the enemy of public safety. "Necessity is the argument of tyrants." "Necessity never makes a good bargain." Heinrich Himmler, who instructed the Nazi Gestapo "Shoot first, ask questions later, and I will protect you," is vindicated by George Bush. Like the Germany described by Jorge Luis Borges in Deutsches Requiem, George Bush has now "proffered (to the world) violence and faith in the sword," as Nazi Germany did. And as Borges wrote, it did not matter to faith in the sword that Germany was defeated. "What matters is that violence ... now rules." Two generations of Germans have rejected that faith. Their perseverance in the pursuit of peace will earn the respect of succeeding generations everywhere. The Peoples of the United Nations are threatened with the end of international law and protection for human rights by George Bush's war on errorism and determination to invade Iraq. Since George Bush proclaimed his "war on terrorism," other countries have claimed the right to strike first. India and Pakistan brought the Earth and their own people closer to nuclear conflict than at any time since October 1962 as a direct consequence of claims by the U.S. of the unrestricted right to pursue and kill terrorists, or attack nations protecting them, based on a unilateral decision without consulting the United Nations, a trial, or revealing any clear factual basis for claiming its targets are terrorists and confined to them. There is already a near epidemic of nations proclaiming the right to attack other nations or intensify violations of human rights of their own people on the basis of George Bush's assertions of power in the war against terrorism. Mary Robinson, in her quietly courageous statements as her term as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ended, has spoken of the "ripple effect" U.S. claims of right to strike first and suspend fundamental human rights protection is having. On September 11, 2002, Colombia, whose new administration is strongly supported by the U.S., "claimed new authority to arrest suspects without warrants and declare zones under military control," including "New powers, which also make it easier to wiretap phones and limit foreigners' access to conflict zones... allow security agents to enter your house or office without a warrant at any time of day because they think you're suspicious." These additional threats to human rights follow Post-September 11 emergency" plans to set up a network of a million informants in a nation of forty million. See, New York Times, September 12, 2002, p. A7. 3. The United States, Not Iraq, Is the Greatest Single Threat to the Independence and Purpose of the United Nations. President Bush's claim that Iraq is a threat justifying war is false. Eighty percent of Iraq's military capacity was destroyed in 1991 according to the Pentagon. Ninety percent of materials and equipment required to manufacture weapons of mass destruction was destroyed by UN inspectors during more than eight years of inspections. Iraq was powerful, compared to most of its neighbors, in 1990. Today it is weak. One infant out of four born live in Iraq weighs less than 2 kilos, promising short lives, illness and impaired development. In 1989, fewer than one in twenty infants born live weighed less than two kilos. Any threat to peace Iraq might become is remote, far less than that of many other nations and groups and cannot justify a violent assault. An attack on Iraq will make attacks in retaliation against the U.S. and governments which support its actions far more probable for years to come. George Bush proclaims Iraq a threat to the authority of the United Nations while U.S.- coerced UN sanctions continue to cause the death rate of the Iraqi people to increase. Deaths caused by sanctions have been at genocidal levels for twelve years. Iraq can only plead helplessly for an end to this crime against its people. The UN role in the sanctions against Iraq compromise and stain the UN's integrity and h nor. This makes it all the more important for the UN now to resist this war. Inspections were used as an excuse to continue sanctions for eight years while thousands of Iraqi children and elderly died each month. Iraq is the victim of criminal sanctions that should have been lifted in 1991. For every person killed by terrorist acts in the U.S. on 9/11, five hundred people have died in Iraq from sanctions. It is the U.S. that threatens not merely the authority of the United Nations, but its independence, integrity and hope for effectiveness. The U.S. pays UN dues if, when and in the amount it chooses. It coerces votes of members. It coerces choices of personnel on the Secretariat. It rejoined UNESCO to gain temporary favor after 18 years of opposition to its very purposes. It places spies in UN inspection teams. The U.S. has renounced treaties controlling nuclear weapons and their proliferation, voted against the protocol enabling enforcement of the Biological Weapons Convention, rejected the treaty banning land mines, endeavored to prevent its creation and since to cripple the International Criminal Court, and frustrated the Convention on the Child and the prohibition against using children in war. The U.S. has opposed virtually every other international effort to control and limit war, protect the environment, reduce poverty and protect health. George Bush cites two invasions of other countries by Iraq during the last 22 years. He ignores the many scores of U.S. invasions and assaults onother countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas during the last 220 ears, and the permanent seizure of lands from Native Americans and other nations--lands like Florida, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Puerto Rico, among others, seized by force and threat. In the same last 22 years the U.S. has invaded, or assaulted Grenada, Nicaragua, Libya, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and others directly, while supporting assaults and invasions elsewhere in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas. It is healthy to remember that the U.S. invaded and occupied little Grenada in 1983 after a year of threats, killing hundreds of civilians and destroying its small mental hospital, where many patients died. In a surprise attack on the sleeping and defenseless cities of Tripoli and Benghazi in April 1986, the U.S. killed hundreds of civilians and damaged four foreign embassies. It launched 21 Tomahawk cruise missiles against the Khartoum in August 1998, destroying the source of half the medicines available to the people of Sudan. For years it has armed forces in Uganda and southern Sudan fighting the government of Sudan. The U.S. has bombed Iraq on hundreds of occasions since the Gulf War, including this week, killing hundreds of people without a casualty or damage to an attacking plane. 4. Why Has George Bush Decided The U.S. Must Attack Iraq Now? There is no rational basis to believe Iraq is a threat to the United States, or any other country. The reason to attack Iraq must be found elsewhere. As governor of Texas, George Bush presided over scores of executions, more than any governor in the United States since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 (after a hiatus from 1967). He revealed the same zeal he has shown for "regime change" for Iraq when he oversaw the executions of minors, women, retarded persons and aliens whose rights under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of notification of their arrest to a foreign mission of their nationality were violated. The Supreme Court of the U.S. held that executions of a mentally retarded person constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the U.S. Constitution. George Bush addresses the United Nations with these same values and willfulness. His motives may include to save a failing Presidency which has converted a healthy economy and treasury surplus into multi-trillion dollar losses; to fulfill the dream, which will become a nightmare, of a new world order to serve special interests in the U.S.; to settle a family grudge against Iraq; to weaken the Arab nation, one people at a time; to strike a Muslim nation to weaken Islam; to protect Israel, or make its position more dominant in the region; to secure control of Iraq's oil to enrich U.S. Interests, further dominate oil in the region and control oil prices. Aggression against Iraq for any of these purposes is criminal and a violation of a great many international conventions and laws including the General Assembly Resolution on the Definition of Aggression of December 14, 1974. Prior regime changes by the U.S. brought to power among a long list of tyrants, such leaders as the Shah of Iran, Mobutu in the Congo, Pinochet in while, all replacing democratically elected heads of government. 5. A Rational Policy Intended to Reduce the Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction in The Middle East Must Include Israel. A UN or U.S. policy of selecting enemies of the U.S. for attack is criminal and can only heighten hatred, division, terrorism and lead to war. The U.S. gives Israel far more aid per capita than the total per capita income of sub Sahara Africans from all sources. U.S.-coerced sanctions have reduced per capita income for the people of Iraq by 75% since 1989. Per capita income in Israel over the past decade has been approximately 12 times the per capita income of Palestinians. Israel increased its decades-long attacks on the Palestinian people, using George Bush's proclamation of war on terrorism as an excuse, to indiscriminately destroy cities and towns in the West Bank and Gaza and seize more land in violation of international law and repeated Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Israel has a stockpile of hundreds of nuclear warheads derived from the United States, sophisticated rockets capable of accurate delivery at distances of several thousand kilometers, and contracts with the U.S. for joint development of more sophisticated rocketry and other arms with the U.S. Possession of weapons of mass destruction by a single nation in a region with a history of hostility promotes a race for proliferation and war. The UN must act to reduce and eliminate all weapons of mass destruction, not submit to demands to punish areas of evil and enemies of the superpower that possesses the majority of all such weapons and capacity for their delivery. Israel has violated and ignored more UN Resolutions for forty years than any other nation. It has done so with impunity. The violation of Security Council resolutions cannot be the basis for a UN-approved assault on any nation, or people, in a time of peace, or the absence of a threat of imminent attack, but comparable efforts to enforce Security Council resolutions must be made against all nations who violate them. 6. The Choice Is War Or Peace. The UN and the U.S. must seek peace, not war. An attack on Iraq may open a Pandora's box that will condemn the world to decades of spreading violence. Peace is not only possible; it is essential, considering the heights to which science and technology have raised the human art of planetary and self-destruction. If George Bush is permitted to attack Iraq with or without the approval of the UN, he will become Public Enemy Number One--and the UN itself worse than useless, an accomplice in the wars it was created to end. The Peoples of the World then will have to find some way to begin again if they hope to end the scourge of war. This is a defining moment for the United Nations. Will it stand strong, independent and true to its Charter, international law and the reasons for its being, or will it submit to the coercion of a superpower leading us toward a lawless world and condone war against the cradle of civilization? Do not let this happen. Sincerely, Ramsey Clark

BOYCOTT USA
"Boycott USA": A campaign whose time has finally come? Someday, perhaps not too far in the future, the US will have alienated so many nations and peoples that a "Boycott USA" campaign will grow to massive proportions and it will have real clout. Just as in the 1980s, South Africa was widely recognized as a racist regime to be boycotted, many are now looking upon the US as the world's leading pariah state. It's power spreads much much globally than South Africa's ever did. The globalization of apartheid seems to be gaining strength and there are many fronts upon which the US is seen as a major bully and criminal for the behaviour of its government, its military and its corporations. (Even its tourists aren't too well received in many places.) Just as South Africa's racist regime was ostrasized by so much of the world community, the US power elite must face that possibility. Someday they too may face a major global movement to boycott their nation. The list of US transgressions and criminal actions is of course very long. An encyclopedia could and should be written to elucidate these. Nowadays, the list is growing faster than perhaps ever before. Simultaneously, alternative sources of news and information about these US violations are reaching more and more people. Thankfully, it is becoming harder and harder for the government and the corporate media to pull the wool over the publics' eyes. (Also, thanks largely to the revolution in communications, the internet has made it very easy to create an online "petition/pledge" that could potentially be signed by millions of people in literally a few days.) All this makes a "Boycott US" campaign much more likely to be accepted and news of it more likely to spread incredibly quickly. I think that within the next few years, decades at the most, global opposition to the US will indeed become so strong that a boycott of US products, services, etc., will be a incredible force to be contended with. Actually, the boycott of US products has already begun, most notably in the Arab world. It will likely grow in leaps and bounds, if and when the US invades Iraq, again. If they were to invade The Hague, Netherlands, the boycott US movement would get a much bigger boost. Imagine a day, perhaps not too far in the future when some US military or political figure is apprehended and charged with crimes against peace, crimes against humanity or war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC) (Perhaps they'll be charged with some crime related to the upcoming invasion of Iraq, or for some particular mass murder in Vietnam, Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, or wherever -- pick your "favourite" US atrocity. The US has already passed laws saying it could "legally" invade The Hague to rescue US soldiers from the ICC if this happens. Invading the Hague seems like a fantasy but it might happen. It would certainly make many more millions of people very quickly aware that the US is indeed a rampaging rogue superstate. Other events could trigger a global economic boycott against the US. If they decided to nuke Iraq, North Korea, China (and they do have such plans on the books) such an action could provoke such widespread anti-US government feelings that a widespread boycott of their goods might seriously affect their economy. A google search for "Boycott US" resulted in over 300 web sites. An internet search using other languages, such as Arabic, would surely yield many more hits. I imagine that in a few years, a search for that same phrase will yield a great many more hits. Does anyone have any thoughts on how we could proceed in this direction? Perhaps an online "Boycott USA" pledge site should be initiated. It could be similar to COAT's site: "Global Appeal for No More Violence!" http://www.flora.org/coat/appeal/ Some questions immediately come to mind: Does such a "boycott USA" pledge site already exist? Should the boycott include all US: products services stocks holidays What else could be included on the list of boycottables? What should be excluded from the list? What about US organizations or companies that oppose US policies, should they too be boycotted? What about consulting with major unions and other organizations in the US? South African activists supported the international anti-apartheid boycott, will US activists do likewise? What if there is little or no support from within the US? Because Canada and the US re so closely tied economically, a "Boycott US" campaign would hurt us too. Are Canadians and others who are tied to the US, willing to embrace such a campaign? I'm curious to see what people think of this. Is this an idea whose time has finally come? Richard Sanders Coordinator, COAT Here are the first 10 sites that came up with the google search: CorpWatch.org - News - Egypt: Protest Groups Boycott US Products ... Home > News > Egypt: Protest Groups Boycott US Products. IN THE NEWS. ... Egypt: Protest Groups Boycott US Products By Khaled Hanafi Islam Online July 22, 2002. ... www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=3148 - 18k - 16 Oct 2002 - Cached - Similar pages Saudis boycott US products -DAWN - Business; 28 April, 2002 ... Click to learn more... Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window) Saudis boycott US products By Syed Rashid Husain. RIYADH ... www.dawn.com/2002/04/28/ebr11.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages CNNfyi.com - Calls to boycott US products challenge Arab ... ... Calls to boycott US products challenge Arab consumers. America's economic and cultural presence, such as these soft drink vending ... www.cnn.com/2000/fyi/news/12/01/arab.boycott.ap/ - 26k - Cached - Similar pages E-mail this :National campaign to boycott US products: Arab ... . Nov (30 - 6) 2000 11, Issue No. 24, . Archives . Feedback . Ad Info 30 - Aug - 2002 /09:08 PM GMT. ... star.arabia.com/article/sendmail/ 0,5597,24_171_Jordan%3B+The+front+page_JORDAN,00.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages Story ... Home: Jordan: The front page National campaign to boycott US products: Arab consumers rally to change American policy in region "EVERY DOLLAR you pay to buy ... star.arabia.com/article/0,5596,24_171,00.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from star.arabia.com ] USATODAY.com - Arab nations see boycotts of US products ... The US is the arch-foe of Islam, and we must boycott US products as much as possible," Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, spiritual leader of the Lebanese ... www.usatoday.com/money/world/ 2002-06-26-arab-boycott.htm - 30k - Cached - Similar pages ummahnews.com || Original Accurate News for the Ummah ... www.nst.com. 9 May 2002. A grassroots campaign to boycott US products in Saudi Arabia has already taken its toll on many local businesses, with sales dropping ... www.ummahnews.com/viewarticle.php?sid=3421 - 9k - Cached - Similar pages PalestineCampaign.org ... SAUDI ARABIA: BOYCOTT US PRODUCTS' CAMPAIGN GAINS MOMENTUM 24 April 2002 | Sarah Abuljadayel | Arab News - Saudi Arabia The Saudi market is inundated by ... www.aquascript.com/psc/archives.asp?xid=807 - 28k - 16 Oct 2002 - Cached ANN/Groong -- Committee issues program details on boycott of US ... ... and products manufactured by pro-Israeli industries issued a document Thursday detailing its program, principles and goals entitled Boycott US products, Save ... groong.usc.edu/world/me/msg01352.html - 4k - Cached - Similar pages Boycott Israel News ... View Previous Issues. BOYCOTT ISRAEL CAMPAIGN. Saudis boycott US products. April 27, 2002 By Syed Rashid Husain For Dawn Online. RIYADH ... www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-news-0048.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT) (A network of individuals and NGOs across Canada and around the world) Tel: 613-231-3076 Email: ad207@ncf.ca Web: http://www.ncf.ca/coat To join our list serve on the Afghan war, the war on terrorism and the criminalisation of dissent, send the message: subscribe no_to_nato to

Missing the Messages: While media experts are preoccupied with the analysis of Bin Laden’s voice, they have completely failed to understand, or even read the actual words. Speculation about hidden meanings and clues totally ignores the obvious intended message, which is so clear that it does not even need decoding. Wild speculation of meaning is based more on imagination and fear than expertise. Because of the hate and fear evoked by Osama, because we were so traumatized by him, we automatically block what he is communicating, making dangerous assumptions about what we imagine he means. The image of the enemy generates a powerful emotional charge that interferes with accurate perception. Let’s try to make sense out of this and not let emotions cloud our thinking. Let’s not make the immature assumption that accurately understanding the enemy is somehow unpatriotic. When being threatened, understanding the psychology of the enemy is a matter of life and death. The Messages: We have received three clear messages from Bin Laden in the last year, on November 11, 2001, October 6, 2002, and November 12, 2002. All are credible and plausible and make psychological sense. They have all been grossly misinterpreted. As a clinical and political psychologist I consider these communications to be contain information vital to our survival. Just because Bin Laden is our arch enemy, it does not follow that we should not take his communications seriously, or accurately. While President Bush said on November 13 that he intended to take these messages seriously, his interpretation is incorrect, in fact, it is the opposite of the true meaning. Bush suggested that these messages mean that we have to go to war. In fact they mean that if we do go to war we will provoke a chain reaction of terrorist attacks that would not occur if we do not go to war. Our own CIA, as well political psychologists, terrorism experts, Middle East analysts, and social psychologists including Dr. Phil Zimbardo, president of the American Psychological Association, expert on violence , speaker on the psychology of evil all agree that going to war will increase terrorism globally. Bin Laden's messages are always interpreted as unconditional threats and intentions of plans to attack They are not. The consistent theme in all messages, said in many ways, is a conditional warning that whatever we do, they will respond in kind. It is entirely credible. What is missed, whether intentionally or unconsciously, is the conditionality - the centrality of our role in provoking retaliation, and our potential role in preventing retaliation, reducing tension, and reducing terrorism. Some of the quotes are listed below. They all say that our actions will determine their actions. Politicians and the media often respond to the first half of a sentence without reading the second part. In fact, many news stories have based entire commentaries on fragments taken out of context, which is irresponsible and dangerous, We misread them at our own peril. In general, the media’s responses promote an exaggerated sense of impending threats that have the effect of increasing fear and passivity. They ignore information about ways that we can behave that will reduce these threats. We should wonder why these parts are left out. Here are some quotes that were not reported in full or interpreted accurately: *November 11, 2001 Bin Laden said that he had nuclear weapons, but he would not use them unless we used them first. Bin Laden said that he was holding them as a deterrent, and said that if the US used them, then he would reserve the right to use them in retaliation. *Sun Oct 6, 2002. "By God, the youths of God are preparing for you things that would fill your hearts with terror and target your economic lifeline until you stop your oppression and aggression" against Muslims, said the voice in the audiotape. (All reports said that he was threatening our economic lifeline, and was planning an action soon. leaving out the second half of the sentence). "So let America increase the pace of this conflict or decrease it, and we will respond in kind." *November 12, 2002 'It is time we get even,'' says the voice. ''You will be killed just as you kill, and will be bombed just as you bomb. And expect more that will further distress you.'' Osama also suggested that he will attack other countries who cooperate with us. This is totally predictable, as multilateral action would increase the number of targets for retaliation, and would still provoke hatred of the US for leading the coalition. Preventing Retaliation We are on the verge of going to war in the name of preventing a threat. The reasons given for going to war, the fantasy of a preemptive strike, a term used incorrectly.It is, in fact, a provocative strike. This war will unleash a cascade of unintended consequences, including a massive Jihad against the US. It is entirely likely that terrorist attacks are planned to be carried out once we start the war. Terrorism is a form of asymmetrical warfare. There is no amount of domination that cannot be turned against us, as we saw on September 11. Counter-terrorism - trying to physically get rid of terrorists – can never work. It is treating the symptom but not the cause. It creates more terrorism while trying to eliminate it. Our attacks on Al Qaida in Afghanistan caused them to decentralize to other locations and increased recruitment, making them harder to find. There is no endgame to counter –terrorism. The only way to reduce terrorism is to address the root causes and to transform our use of our power in the world. (For a deeper analysis of this see my chapter, "Intersubjective Dimensions of Terrorism and Its transcendence" in Volume 1, The Psychology of Terrorism, Chris Stout, Editor). The connection between Iraq and Al Qaida is one created by us, we are driving them into each other’s arms. Osama has said that if we invade Iraq, he will respond in kind, he will bomb, he will kill…. if we do. If we don’t he won’t. There is every reason to believe him. History is filled with military blunders. If we go war, it will be a megablunder. With asymmetrical warfare and weapons of mass destruction the consequences will likely be beyond anything we have ever seen. The misinterpretation of Osama’s message supports the irrational drive towards war. By exaggerating the threat and censoring the message of the conditionality of violence, we collude with the forces that promise permanent world war. We are blinded from seeing our way out of this escalating spiral of retaliation. We have an opportunity to avert disaster. We need to see and hear clearly and accurately, even messages from our most hated villains. If we go to war we are likely to create more Sadaams and Osamas who will crop up in ten years. The stakes are as high as can be. It will take major miracles to prevent this war, but we can start with consciousness.