Fw: "American Caesar" Le Monde

["Nello Margiotta" <animarg at tin.it>]

Nello

    Le Monde diplomatique   January 2002

    BACKGROUND TO WASHINGTON'S WAR ON TERROR
  American Caesar

    Foreign adventures have helped the Bush administration
    buttress its vulnerable domestic base. Post-September
    national security has justified an increase in executive
    power, even in areas unrelated to military operations.
    Executive power over law and enforcement has grown quickly,
    worrying those Americans who still believe in the separation
    of powers.
     by PHILIP S GOLUB



      Since the end of the Vietnam war, the American right has
      dreamed of restoring the country's imperial might. In
      addition to implementing neo-liberal economic and social
      policies, the conservative [counter] revolution of the
      1980s sought to revitalise wounded patriotism, restore
      United States military glory and reinstate the executive
      branch's autonomy, which had been mostly ceded to the
      legislature and judiciary after the fall of Saigon and
      Watergate. The US, with its relatively weak federal
      government, is paradoxical: when vociferous critics of
      government get power, they try to entrench governmental
      prerogatives, most notably the right to wage war.

      During his two terms in office (1980-88), Ronald Reagan,
      that famous champion of smaller government, presided over
      the largest peacetime military expansion in US history
      and a resurgence in clandestine CIA operations (1).
      Reagan's successor, George Bush (1989-93), although
      skilled on the global stage, was a sorry figure at home.
      Bush pursued Reagan's path, remobilising US national
      security in the aftermath of the cold war. Yet both
      Reagan and Bush failed to see policies through to their
      logical conclusion.

      Once thought to be fated to political mediocrity and
      political impotence, George Bush Jnr seeks vastly
      expanded executive power, centred on US national
      security; this goal is fast becoming a reality. In the
      light of the events of 11 September and the war in
      Afghanistan the US's third hi-tech military victory in 10
      years the former Texas governor now styles himself as an
      American Caesar, which neither Reagan nor Bush Snr
      accomplished. The Washington Post wrote that the 11
      September attacks and the war in Afghanistan had
      considerably accelerated the dynamic of reinforced
      presidential powers sought by the Bush administration;
      the president now enjoyed a status of domination
      outstripping that of all post-Watergate presidents, even
      rivalling that of Franklin D Roosevelt (2).

      "Domination" is a fitting term. Indeed, every war has
      both a foreign and a domestic agenda; Aristotle reminds
      us that a tyrant declares war "to deny his subjects
      leisure and to impose on them the constant need for a
      leader" (3).

      George Bush Jnr is no tyrant, merely the fluky winner of
      a bitterly contested election. He did not initiate the
      present military hostilities. But the war against
      terrorism, which Bush has described as an "enduring" one,
      has enabled him to reassert American might and
      consolidate his personal political power. Bush is
      displaying US military and technological supremacy abroad
      while underscoring as his father and Bill Clinton did in
      Iraq the lasting value of force in the post-cold war
      period. As a result, strategic equations are being
      rewritten globally.

      Domestically, the war has prompted the revival of the
      National Security State (4), permitting Bush to reassert
      his authority and justify the marginalisation of the
      legislature and judiciary. To demolish the
      semi-authoritarian state, Bush is building a strong
      executive, presenting a unified front while showing
      interventionist and go-it-alone tendencies.

      A parallel judicial system

      In a spirit of wilful submissiveness, the US Senate
      (controlled by the Democrats) and House of
      Representatives passed the USA Patriot Act in late
      September, relinquishing considerable control (5). The
      act grants the executive branch extraordinary powers,
      including the secret and indefinite detention of "aliens"
      (non-citizens) whose status is deemed "irregular". An
      executive order on 13 November created exceptional
      military tribunals. More than 1,200 people arrested after
      11 September were still in custody in December, yet no
      one knows who they are or what crimes they are accused of
      (6).

      The detainees and their families have no access to the
      evidence that will be used against them. Instituted
      without input from either Congress or the Supreme Court,
      the exceptional military tribunals have the authority to
      impose prison sentences, pass judgment and execute those
      found guilty. "Terrorists" and "war criminals" will be
      identified as such by executive power alone, based on
      secret testimony and evidence. Secrecy will also apply to
      the meeting places, proceedings, charges, deliberations,
      judgments and composition. Unlike regular military
      tribunals, these defendants enjoy no right of appeal,
      even when they face death.

      According to the New York Times, such outrageous assaults
      on the US rule of law, which in theory applies equally to
      all those within its jurisdiction, are tantamount to
      "creating a parallel judicial system" (7). US citizens,
      including terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh, the
      perpetrator of the 1996 Oklahoma City bombing, will
      continue to appear before the regular civil courts. The
      exceptional military tribunals are reserved for foreign
      nationals, whether resident in the US or not. The
      executive is establishing a paralegal institution with
      wide-ranging powers of investigation and intervention,
      operating within the existing US legal framework but
      exempt from the rule of law. The Pentagon will be
      prosecuting the war, assigning guilt and dispensing
      justice.

      The executive is substantially expanding its intervention
      in US public life, too. By eliminating the Supreme
      Court's function as final arbiter and relegating Congress
      to political impotence, Bush is questioning the
      separation of powers, a cornerstone of US democracy.

      This authoritarian shift is virtually unprecedented in
      recent US history. Even at the depths of the cold war,
      the US executive did not stoop to such sweeping measures,
      although it did resort to witch-hunts, censorship and
      blacklists. The civil rights movement suffered violent
      repression against governmental secrecy and mendacity;
      the FBI's power grew enormously; and illegal operations,
      both foreign and domestic, were undertaken. But the
      conflicts in Korea and Vietnam "limited wars" never gave
      rise to the creation of a parallel judicial system
      controlled by the president and national security.
      According to the right-wing libertarian editorialist
      William Safire usually an enthusiastic Republican
      supporter these recent actions amount to "a seizure of
      dictatorial power" (8). The essayist and researcher
      Chalmers Johnson has reached a similar conclusion: we are
      in the midst of "a latent military coup d'état, perhaps
      an irreversible one, which, like the former GDR [German
      Democratic Republic] will transform the country into a
      nation of informers in which only white Mormons will be
      safe" (9).

      The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century

      Although Johnson may overstate the case, it does seem
      evident that Bush's maximum-security state is in conflict
      with US political traditions; it will only achieve
      institutional status if the war drags on. That is the
      implicit meaning of the unvarying message relayed by
      Bush's imperial presidency, according to which the events
      of 11 September constituted the Pearl Harbor of the 21st
      century, the beginning of global warfare. Bush's
      worldwide fight against terrorism is thus unencumbered by
      geography or time constraints.

      War unencumbered by geography: once the military campaign
      in Afghanistan is over, the war's "second phase" may
      commence. This phase has been in the offing since late
      September and may focus initially on clandestine
      terrorist networks in the Philippines, Nepal and Colombia
      (see article by Janette Habel). US special agents are
      already at work in the Philippines, where they draw on
      their anti-insurrectional expertise; they will soon
      arrive in Somalia. A Somali-US agreement granting the US
      access to the port of Berbera (on the Gulf of Aden) is
      due to be signed soon. The third phase will involve
      operations against an even more dangerous foe, Iraq.

      War unencumbered by time constraints: the US
      administration has continuously reiterated that the fight
      will be long perhaps endless. Once Osama bin Laden has
      been eliminated, the focus will shift to al-Qaida's
      worldwide networks. But since treating symptoms alone has
      never cured an illness, al-Qaida's members will
      eventually be replaced by new recruits. If some scenarios
      prove correct, the war could drag on for 50 years, or
      "well beyond our lifetimes", in the words of
      Vice-President Dick Cheney, since 11 September in a
      secret bunker near Washington DC. As was the case during
      the 40-year cold war, all the resources of governmental
      power will be brought to bear.

      This coherent and unvarying message is designed more for
      the ears of the US public than for world opinion. The
      goal is to bring about and legitimise a permanent
      mobilisation of the people behind their president. For
      now, Bush's leadership is uncontested; once the visible
      war in Afghanistan is over, he may have to face unhappy
      voters dealing with worsening economic circumstances.

      Governmental intervention in the economy which certain
      naïve observers have seen as "a return to politics",
      finally freed from globalisation's constraints have so
      far exclusively benefited large corporations and the
      military-industrial complex, the two traditional pillars
      of Republican presidencies. The US government has spent
      tens of billions of dollars on direct and indirect aid:
      $15bn in direct aid for the airlines, $25bn in indirect
      aid for businesses, which have been granted retroactive
      tax relief, and $20bn in direct transfers to the
      Pentagon, whose budget now stands at $329bn.

      But no relief has been offered to working people or the
      growing numbers of the unemployed, who currently
      represent 5.6% of the working population. According to
      Dick Armey, the Republican House majority leader,
      payments to the unemployed "would not be in keeping with
      the American spirit". Given the effects of the recession,
      many Americans will be joining the ranks of the jobless
      in the run-up to the 2002 Congressional elections and the
      2004 presidential election.

      Without a state of constant mobilisation, which only fear
      can sustain, Bush will have difficulty staying the
      course. Perhaps he won the war in Afghanistan too
      quickly. The US could soon grow weary of Bush's new
      imperial presidency.
        ____________________________________________________

      (1) Under Reagan, the US Defence Department's share of
      the federal budget rose from 23.5% to 27%, its 1975
      level. In addition, the CIA undertook the two largest
      clandestine operations in the post-Vietnam war period, in
      Afghanistan and Nicaragua.

      (2) Dana Milbank, International Herald Tribune, 21
      November 2001.

      (3) Aristotle, Politique, Hermann, Paris, 1996.

      (4) See Philip S Golub, "America's imperial longings", Le
      Monde diplomatique English edition, July 2001.

      (5) See Michael Ratner, "US: no longer the land of the
      free", Le Monde diplomatique English edition, November
      2001.

      (6) With the exception of French national Zacarias
      Moussaoui, accused on 11 December in a US civil court of
      having taken part in the preparation for the 11 September
      attacks.

      (7) Editorial, New York Times, 2 December 2001.

      (8) William Safire, "Seizing Dictatorial Power", New York
      Times, 15 November 2001.

      (9) Quoted in an interview with the author.


      Translated by Luke Sandford

      ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 1997-2001 Le Monde diplomatique