The Bush Syndrome : fascism, dictat

[dawnstar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: The Bush Syndrome : fascism, dictatorship, extreme right wing death squads, you name it

This editorial in the Nation is very important and couldnt come at a
more propitious time, a warning shot one year before the election. If
Bush wins, its all over for the sanctions movement. Bush means no more
sanctions. That's obvious to any political analyst of the Republican
Party, party of the rich, powerful, patriotic and fascist right wing to
center of the american political spectrum. Stability is a beaten horse
of a political excuse to do business with dictators. From Argentina to
Chile, to central america asia and africa, its been a standard platform
for selling arms, trafficking business, drugs, anything for a buck
towards corruption. 

2000 is an ominous turning point to thoroughly unscrupulous gregarious
capitalism, and its spreading throughout europe, opening markets,
boosting stock exchanges and driving up corporate profits. Just look at
Alcatel, here in France, where last year in September, the company lost
some 35% stock capital value, billions of dollars whiped off; yesterday,
in Le Monde, it reportely has earned back some 40% in the last two
months, and over 150 % in the last 14 months. The company is headed by
the man who made the Yadana deal, at TOTAL, Serge Tchuruk. I lot of
people who bought the stock when it was under 80 points are very happy
now, including US investors, as it closed at near 180 points per shareL
Total Fina gained too, yesterday to close at an all time high. 


So Bush isnt alone, whether it be the US, England, FRance or Germany,
the story is the same. Money. And imagine. 2000 will be the most
expensive political presidential campaign in the history of the world.
And look at Burma, if Bush wins, this poor country, gets trampled under
the foot of investors praising development for a buck. Thats part of the
reason why the outgoing IMF director Camdessus, declared, the world has
to make a major effor for development of the poor. And a US republican
senator denounced him as "a french socialist". Sort of saying, he was a
technocratic defeatist to the independent freestyle approach of us
business practices that often get credited with bringing you the best of
freedom that the world can deliver. The reason the rich get richer is
that they dont want to share or give up what they have, not if it hurts
them. Of course not. They take care of themselves first. And they do
that very well.

Now just imagine, how much money is going to go into the Repubican
election campaign. Its going to be a hell of a fight. And imagine the
Burmese generals, trying to get a good piece of it, for the future,
because they are playing the game too. Now how much money do you think
they could spread around in  Washington, and throughout the US, to buy
favors, throught third party offshore non resident companies...

Is there or shouldnt there be some kind of NGO in Washington that keeps
constant tabs on US Congressmen and US senators on all domestic and
foreign policy decisions that concern Burma?

Just to find out if they are spreading any money around, and turning
heads and changing votes...We should know this. We should be alert to
this. And we should lobby, for transparency on the economic sanctions
issue, as it is a major aspect of foreign policy for the year 2000
presidential election. 

The Republicans have been out of office for Eight Years. They are hungry
to return to power. They don't like to lose, they were furious about the
Bush loss. They hate Clinton and Gore. And they have a lot more money
than they ever imagined they would, in 1992. And who ever said, that
money, does not buy an election? The economy knocked Bush out of office.
The big question is are the Americans now, kneejerking to bring Bush
back. Father and Son. Its the same thing, only more dangerous. 

 The Nation - Nov 13, 1999.
> Editorial & Opinion
> Bush takes a keen interest in Asia
> 
> Republican frontrunner George W Bush will woo Asia and opt for constructive
> engagement with Burma, writes Arun Senkuttuvan for The Nation.
> 
> AUSTIN, Texas -- An outline of what is likely to be US foreign policy from
> about this time next year is slowly emerging -- largely against the will of
> the man who will in all probability make the decisions.
> 
> The man, George W Bush, is campaigning for the presidential election to be
> held by next November on the basis that he is the son of his father, former
> president George Bush, that he knows how to work the system and, therefore,
> he need not get involved in any debate on any issue, domestic or foreign. He
> has studiously avoided spelling out his stand on any controversial issue and
> has declined to join debates with other candidates.
> 
> That he can work the system is not in doubt. He has sewn up almost all the
> campaign funds that could be available to a Republican presidential
> candidate. Big money and conservatives are backing him in the belief that he
> will inherit the network of his father (a successful president and earlier a
> successful director of the Central Intelligence Agency) and, in both the
> domestic and international arenas, hold the ring and let big business do the
> job.
> 
> All the polls indicate that he is well ahead of all the other aspirants from
> both major parties. So the media has been eager to drag him out to talk
> about something significant. But it had no success until last week when a
> Boston TV reporter asked him whether he knew the names of the heads of
> government of Taiwan, Chechnya, India and Pakistan.
> 
> George W knew who was in charge in Taiwan but not in the other three
> countries. Bush campaign managers pounced on the reporter shouting ''foul''.
> No US president can be expected to know the names of men running every
> damned country in the world, they said. Fair enough.
> 
> Interestingly, they did not fault the reporter on his choice of countries.
> The reporter must have guessed that US policy would be more China-centric
> than ever under the young Bush.
> 
> George W ought to know the name of the one man who could be the troublemaker
> in that relationship, he must have thought. But the reporter was obviously
> mischievous in asking him anything about India. If George W had known the
> answer he would have been betraying a 50-year Republican tradition of
> viewing that country with contempt or suspicion. That it is the world's
> largest democracy with enormous economic problems and tensions on its
> borders could only be of concern to birds and some liberal media nuts.
> 
> To question him on Chechnya was not fair either. When George W went to
> school Chechnya did not exist as a country. Now the problems in that
> god-forsaken place are too complicated for any president to solve without
> the benefit of advisers.
> 
> What surprised TV viewers was not that George W did not have in his head the
> name of Chechnya's chief but he let that question pass without saying
> something about the situation there which has been well covered in American
> media. What the American voter would have wanted to know was what his gut
> feelings about the place were. What happens if he gets conflicting advice
> from two equally brilliant advisers, as Harry Truman got in 1948? Clark
> Clifford was telling Truman to recognise Israel while Gen George Marshall
> was telling him not to.
> 
> George W, however, did not disappoint viewers when the question moved to
> Pakistan. He revealed his gut. He did not know the name of the man who was
> in charge there. But he knew there was a new man and he was pleased he was a
> military man. He said: ''The new Pakistani general . . . appears he's going
> to bring stability to the country, and I think that's good news for the
> subcontinent.''
> 
> There you are. George W knows Pakistan, the longstanding ally. The fellows
> have a bomb now but they can be trusted. They hosted Cento, didn't they? The
> army is very stable and can be relied upon.
> 
> ''Stability'' will be the lodestar of George W's foreign policy. Which will
> be good for Asean. His thoughts on Asean were revealed on Monday when Austin
> American-Statesman, the conservative daily, published a long story to show
> that he does have experience in foreign affairs. It featured excerpts from
> his correspondence with various ambassadors.
> 
> One letter was from Tin Winn, Burma's ambassador to the United Nations. He
> referred to a briefing George W had given Asean officials. ''Your briefing
> on how the US should engage the world as the sole superpower was much
> appreciated,'' Tin Winn said.
> 
> ''Clearly, the US holds in its hands the power to influence transformations
> around the globe. I am greatly encouraged by your perception that the US
> should seek change through engagement and persuasion rather than through
> sanctions and other measures which invariably provoke harsh reactions.''
> 
> The peoples of Burma and other Asean countries, especially Thailand, can
> rest assured that they will soon have a friend in the White House. Why
> particularly Thais? If the Boston reporter had asked George W about Thailand
> he would have been told not only the name of the present prime minister but
> also that of the next. The Bush family knows Thaksin Shinawatra rather well.
> 
> Thai and Burmese generals can soon resume their mutually constructive
> engagement and bring stability to the border areas. Pax Americaseana!
> 
> Note: For the benefit of readers not aspiring to be president, the answers
> to the presidents: Lee Teng-hui, Aslan Maskhadov, Atal Behari Vajpayee and
> Gen Pervez Musharraf.