Sent to Reuters journalists and editors this morning
To: Wojciech Moskwa, Mark Trevelyan
Cc: Sean Maguire, Matt Spetalnick
Subject: Obama and disarmament
Dear Mark and Wojciech,
I hope future coverage of Barack Obama’s Nobel prize award won’t just source scepticism to Islamic Jihad:
“Why should Obama be given a peace prize while his country owns the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth and his soldiers continue to shed innocent blood in Iraq and Afghanistan?” [asked Khaled Al-Batsh in Gaza, before being edited out of later updates.]
Perhaps Reuters could note high up in the story that for all his talk about disarmament (and media hype about “defence” cuts) Obama has increased American military spending (by four percent for 2010).
To quote a recent commentary, “it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric and pleasant demeanor.”
In which case, how about asking the White House if Obama plans to spend his prize money on buying back some of America’s vast military exports?
It would make a nice kicker.
Best regards,
Daniel
–
UPDATE: For more on the American militarist future, see here:
Eventually, American decline will cut defence spending, but even those who want to see it yesterday can’t picture it happening inside a decade. Instead, the more things “change” under Obama, the more change it seems likely to cost. Some day, surely, those who finance the Empire will pull the plug. Obama seems powerless to do more than steady the ship as it sinks. Turning it round, or evacuating, would take radical shifts in priorities, of which there’ve been few signs. Instead of burning out in End Times, or fading away into autarky, he’s trudging a lonely path towards managed decline. History suggests it’s probably the least worst option, unless America’s suicide pact with militarism beats him to it. “We should take nothing for granted,” President Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech to the nation. “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper.” Instead, warns Chuck Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity, the U.S. remains racked by “a constant struggle between capitalism and democracy,” and “the fundamental reality is that most of the government’s decisions today are substantially dictated by powerful corporate interests.”
As we were then.
October 31, 2009 at 7:05 am
Daniel,
There are responses to your comment at:
http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2009/10/open-letter-from-ed-vulliamy-to-amnesty.html
Best Regards.
Dan
November 29, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Hi,
I agree that Obama didn’t deserve a Nobel peace prize. But to equate his increase in military spending to a general spirit of war-mongering isn’t exactly accurate either.
If he increases military spending to curb Taliban activity in Pakistan – I would call it spending towards peace.
C
November 29, 2009 at 7:06 pm
What’s the evidence that U.S. policy is curbing Taliban activity in Pakistan? Aren’t drone strikes killing lots of civilians and radicalising people further?
November 30, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Hi,
Yes, but if he is not achieving results doesn’t mean that America should stop fighting Taliban extremists. How, where and when is up to to discussion – but whether they should fight the extremists is not.
Do you disagree?
C
November 30, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Which extremists should who fight exactly, and where? And how can this be done without making the problem worse, Israeli style? Isn’t a deal with the Taliban inevitable? Even The Economist is talking that up now, and Obama’s “withdrawal plan” will presumably depend on it, some day.
In the meantime, “Taliban” seems to have become as meaningless a label as al Qaeda. We might as well go back to calling them all “militants“.
Unfortunately it’s all a bigger “game” it seems. What’s your view on the Indian agenda? Here’s Arundhati Roy channelling Kurt Vonnegut:
Well, I think, you know, when people would ask me what I thought of Obama, I said I hope that he would land the American empire gently, like the pilot who landed the—who crash-landed the plane in the Hudson. Yes, he’s expanding the war in Afghanistan. I think, basically, people, including Obama, just don’t know what to do in Afghanistan, and expanding the war is certainly not going to end that war or create any kind of just peace in that region. It’s, in fact, going to exacerbate the situation, draw Pakistan into it, and when Pakistan is drawn into it, so will India, and so on. So it goes.
December 1, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I shouldn’t discuss this further as my knowledge of international relations and geo-politics is fairly plebian. I agree with you on the “militants” though. It makes sense to call them just that.
I just felt that the blanket statement you made in the blogpost – equating military spending to Obama not wanting peace – needed more explanation. You needed to discuss it in the context of the other factors that affect us all: increased militancy, an unstable Pakistan, increased nuclear armament etc. How despite all these factors, America spending more on military is counterproductive.
You also need to discuss it from the perspective of what exactly this increased military spending is on – for example, if it is to bring in more ground troupes instead of air-borne missiles, or the opposite. If it is the former, than it cuts into your argument that drone-attacks are radicalising people further.
I am not saying that this is the case. I am just saying that your blog entry didn’t explain that to me either. So I am left sceptical at the end of it.
As for Arundhuti Roy, I have followed her works over a period of time – fiction (or rather that one excellent book she wrote), essays and journalistic pieces. I even reviewed one of her collection of essays.
She is at her best when telling stories – of injustices, of exploitation, of power imbalances – from a common man perspective. She is worse when discussing macro-economics. And she is at her absolute worst when discussing geopolitics. She repeats other people’s arguments, and has very little of her own insights to give.
December 1, 2009 at 6:33 pm
I think we all unavoidably repeat other people’s arguments, to a greater or lesser degree. But I agree that Arundhati Roy has more interesting things to say about power relations in India than globally, though my knowledge of the intricacies of either is far from intimate.
I take your point that increased spending doesn’t directly equate to warmongering, though my email to Reuters editors didn’t suggest this. I was taking issue with the prize citation, which stressed disarmament initiatives. America is spending more on weapons than at any time since World War II, and global arms spending is rising too. I think that’s a poor recipe for peace. Have you seen the film Why We Fight? If not, I recommend it – all based on the Eisenhower speech about militarist dangers, which weren’t heeded.
On ground troops, which Obama’s due to start dispatching in greater numbers today, a couple of random factoids:
“In bringing the total American force to nearly 100,000 troops by the end of May, the administration will move far faster than it had originally planned.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02policy.html
“On his arrival in power in March 1985, the new Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev expressed his impatience with the Afghan conflict. He demanded that a solution be found before a one-year deadline. As a result, the size of the LCOSF (Limited Contingent of Soviet Forces) was increased to 108,800 and fighting increased throughout the country, making 1985 the bloodiest year of the war. However, despite suffering heavily, the mujahideen were able to remain in the field and continue resisting the Soviets.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan