May 2004 - Over the past hundred years our government has sent troops into battle on foreign soil numerous times. A reason frequently given to the public is that it was necessary to bring freedom and relief to an oppressed people, or more recently to protect the homeland. With a few exceptions like World War II and Afghanistan, the actual underlying reasons have usually been corporate economics. This (at least with respect to economics in general) is not just an attribute of the US government but of many governments on the planet, now and historically. As a reference, look at Rwanda. When tens of thousands of people were being slaughtered in that country, the world’s governments did nothing. The US was one of a number of UN members who voted against giving the small UN force in place more authority & resources. Everyone knew what was coming down, but with no major corporate interests nor valuable natural resources involved, no actions were taken until after the fact. The freedom verbiage our government often uses as the pretext for military action frequently rings the hollow tone of large corporate America. With respect to Iraq; if it wasn't sitting on top of and surrounded by countries with huge oil reserves, it's doubtful there would be US troops in Iraq and the freedom rhetoric of the Bush/Cheney administration would probably be mute (just as it was in Rwanda under Clinton).

Some argue its simply human nature to compete for resources and try to influence or control areas with important resources. It's been going on since the dawn of time with every culture and government. Their argument being that if they don't do it some other government will and scores of other governments & organizations exist with less regard for human rights. With history full of governments battling and invading one another for thousand of years, there is some sorry truth to the human nature part, but as to the remainder of the argument (at least with respect to the US), it holds little credibility. Our public officials, election finances and the media have been too heavily tainted by years of large corporate influence and special interests.

Some fundamentalist Islamic governments and radical clerics have their own spin on the dark side. They indoctrinate masses of impressionable youth in an education process that leaves many believing that anyone who doesn't believe as they do is an infidel and of no worth, that blowing up a crowd of civilians to get their target will yield rewards in the afterlife. It's easy to govern by ideology because you don't have to know anything or search for anything. You already know the answer to everything. But you don't see the radical clerics blowing themselves up anymore than you see major corporate stockholders and directors sharing in the negative effects that GATT, WTO, IMF and World Bank have inflicted on many cultures around the globe for the benefit of a few.

Viewing the video of Nicholas Berg’s beheading and the pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused were depressing commentaries, but not representative of the majority of citizens in either country. Probably Sadaam Hussein was no more a representation of the common Iraqi citizen than George Bush is for millions of Americans. But all these folks seem to have a propensity for saying they speak for all their citizenry, or for god or some other ego illusion they have.

Maybe the solution for our corner of the street would be to push for a constitutional neutering of all but local governments in our country and have those run as participatory democracies, wherein 1) every major decision is approved or rejected by majority consent of local voters, with government officials acting as mere functionaries and researchers; - maybe something akin to the proposition ballots in California 2) national defense being funded and guided by a council comprised of local government representatives, acting only under the direct consent of the local voters on each issue 3) corporate charters being mostly outlawed, except in rare instances where it can be shown that their existence is necessary and serves a greater public good than profit, making stockholders and directors personally responsible for their companies actions. Number three alone could make for a much more honest government.

Maybe the planet is destined to become a never ending series of Israeli/Palestinian type conflicts with no society willing or capable of making dramatic changes in order to improve how differing cultures interact and equitably share and protect the planet’s resources. Maybe this is beyond the human genetic scope and population levels. The bright side of humanity, where people give for no benefit is being drowned out by the force fed ideals of the corporate profit machines, advertising, political concubines and radical fundamentalists around the globe; all with their own agendas that have nothing to do with the average joe in any country. When do the honest families take back the planet from the corporations, government hot shots, Ashcrofts, Osamas, Bushes, religious zealots, Sadaams, al_Zarquawis, World Banks and media giants? Maybe when larger numbers of people become actively involved in the political process and get issues on the ballots that can overhaul some of the current structures in place. In this country, finding a way to remove the major corporate influences over our government would go a long way in the right direction. So far, Nader is the only major candidate that addresses the single most prolific global terrorist, the large multinational corporate profit machines. A relatively small number of them control some 70% of international trade and wield the societal and governmental influences that goes along with that. Doubtful there will be much peace and good will in a world managed by machines whose sole function is to produce hugh profits for a few.

Back to Joe's Index