The Daily Grasshopper

On the back of the B section ("The Arts") in today's New York Times is a full-page ad from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. It features a headshot of former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, now Secretary of Homeland Security, and a three-point plan "to protect ourselves from the threat of terrorism." It's interesting, not so much for what it includes as for what it leaves out.

"What can you do right now?" the ad copy asks, under Ridge's stern-looking face. "You can get more information and educate yourself and your family." About what you should be educating yourself isn't entirely clear. But I'm guessing that the Secretary isn't encouraging people to learn more about some of the underlying causes of "terrorist threats against the United States." On the contrary, the ad assumes that these attacks are inevitable, and its advice is limited to instructing people on how to survive them.

It seems to me a "Department of Homeland Security" that was really keen on securing the "homeland" might be asking Americans to take an honest look at our government's role in the world, particularly in the Middle East (but certainly in other countries as well), and try to determine if pursuing different foreign and economic policies might be the best way to "protect ourselves from the threat of terrorism" - by preventing it altogether.

I was in Bogota, Colombia, a little over a year ago. I went for a jog one morning (something an American probably couldn't even contemplate today) and saw a billboard that read: "If there's going to be a "War on Terror," it should start with 'A War On the C.I.A.'" This wasn't a graffito - it was a professionally printed sign, on a large billboard right off the main boulevard in Colombia's capital. The sentiment is a familiar one in many so-called "developing" countries, where the U.S. secret service has been operating with a free hand to protect "our interests" ever since its creation in the aftermath of World War II (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/ciahist.htm). As I have noted in previous messages, that has included everything from destabilizing economies and rigging elections to planning and carrying out the assassinations of democratically-elected officials. It is a sordid history, and "not a part of American history we are proud of," according to Secretary of State Colin Powell, referring to our role in bringing Augusto Pinochet to power in Chile. There are many more examples, all equally shameful.

Might we bear some of the responsibility for the "terrorist threats against the United States" that Secretary Ridge warns us about? I know that's a mighty unpatriotic thing to be saying, and I certainly don't want to imply that the victims of the September 11th attacks, or any future attacks, had it coming. I just wonder at what point will Americans stop assuming that terrorist attacks are inevitable and start trying to figure out what we can do to prevent them? Is that a fair question? I'm not the only one wondering about our government's role in all this, either. There's a story in the New York Times today about a high school kid in Michigan who's fighting for his right to wear a shirt that has a picture of President Bush and the words "International Terrorist" under it. You can read about it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/education/26SHIR.html

The most rewarding thing about writing these essays has been the response from people who are just beginning to become aware of some of the darker aspects of our nation's past - and present. I take no particular joy in being the bearer of this news, but the time has come for Americans, no matter what our individual differences, to honestly face up to what has been done in our names in the decades since World War II. In many instances, far too many, in my opinion, we have failed to live up to the hallowed principles this country was founded upon - equality, democracy, respect for the individual rights of all people.

Unfortunately, some of the items in today's news lead me to think that our elected officials are intent on increasing, rather than decreasing, the likelihood that "terrorist threats against the United States" will become part of our daily life.

For starters, there's the war on Iraq. In Turkey, where 96 percent of people oppose the war, there is supposed to be a vote today on whether or not U.S. troops can be stationed there. There's a photo in today's Boston Globe that shows heavily-armored police, complete with riot shields and helmets, preparing for the "possible antiwar demonstrators." Here's part of the article that accompanies the photo:

"The Justice party has a large majority in parliament, but many deputies repeatedly have spoken out against any war in Iraq, a war that an overwhelming majority of Turks oppose.

Justice party legislators were expected to meet this morning to discuss the bill.

In a speech to legislators of his party, party leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan praised Monday's Cabinet decision, saying it was in 'the best interest of the nation.'

Although Erdogan said he would not order his party's legislators to vote for it, he hinted that he thought legislators would be persuaded to vote in favor.

'I believe you will make the final decision and take your steps without the need for a group decision,' Erdogan said.

But Deputy Prime Minister Ertugrul Yalcinbayir hinted that he would vote against allowing allowing in the US troops.

'If it is not approved, democracy would be strengthened,' he said.

Political analyst Ilter Turan said the government was likely to 'twist as many arms as possible' for the vote to be approved."

So in Turkey, where the government is pliable enough that we can "twist as many arms as possible" and bribe our way to the desired result, the U.S. government has no problem riding roughshod over the will of nearly every single Turk to get its way. How's that for respecting democracy?

In other countries, where the government is not so accommodating, other tactics are called for.

First you have Iraq itself. Saddam used to head up a government the U.S. could do business with, but all that has changed. Now, we need to get rid of him. What's one of the methods we're employing? Take a look at this story from the front page of the Wall Street Journal, "What's the Frequency, Saddam? That Much We Know: 1584 kHz." It's about a radio station, "Radio Tikrit," that has been broadcasting anti-Hussein messages, discovered by a Swedish radio enthusiast named Bjorn Fransson.

"Nick Grace, the Washington editor of clandestineradio.com, a Web site that tracks illicit radio stations from Iraq to Indonesia, says he's so convinced of a secret American link to Mr. Fransson's find that 'I'd bet my whole house on it... This has all the hallmarks of a classic CIA operation.' The Central Intelligence Agency declined to comment...

As news of Radio Tikrit's discovery spread, Arab radio amateurs tuned in and questioned whether the announcers who claimed to speak for 'all of Iraq' were actually Iraqi. Some said their accents sounded more Lebanese. The choice of frequency - 1584 kHz - also aroused curiosity: an Iraqi faction long backed by the CIA, Iraqi National Accord, broadcasts on nearby frequencies from a U.S. transmitter in Kuwait."

According to the Journal article, the station began by broadcasting pro-Hussein messages.

"Gradually, though, antagonism toward Washington softened and praise of the Baghdad regime soured into criticism.

By last week, the station had completed a 180-degree turn. It denounced the Iraqi leader as a 'tyrant' and lambasted his family, according to BBC Monitoring, a service that transcribes, translates and analyzes foreign broadcasts. The 'Before its Too Late' slot featured a letter from an 'honorable officer of the Republican Guard' urging fellow officers to abandon the Iraqi dictator: 'You would be fools not to realize the extent of popular wrath that awaits you if you do not leave this gang and flee.'

This bizarre about-face, say radio aficionados, suggests that the station belongs to an exotic category of psychological operations know as 'black clandestines.'"

There are reports today out of Caracas, Venezuela, another country that has rebuffed the U.S. (and another country with a lot of oil, incidentally), that two large bombs went off yesterday near the Spanish and Colombian diplomatic offices there. Here's the New York Times story, by our old friend David Gonzalez (see yesterday's essay about Guatemala):

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/international/americas/26VENE.html

Here's the important section:

"The blasts, which occurred around 2:30 a.m. local time, also came one day before the resumption of talks between the government and the opposition, which only last week had agreed to tone down their accusations and reject violence. But the arrest last week of Carlos Fernández, a business leader who spearheaded the strike, had already increased skepticism over Mr. Chávez's commitment to a peaceful resolution. 'This defines a new stage in the political situation in Venezuela, one in which there is greater chaos and violence and a president who is becoming more entrenched,' said Michael Shifter, vice president for policy at the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington. It makes it very hard to see negotiations, given this climate.'

It is just as difficult to know who is responsible for the bombs. Leaflets were found at the sites of both explosions, signed by an obscure group, the Bolivarian Liberation Force, and the Simón Bolívar Coordinator, Urban Militia. Juan Contreras, director of the Simón Bolívar Coordinator, told a local newspaper that his group was a cultural association and said whoever used its name was fighting 'a dirty war.'

Only two days ago, during his weekly television broadcast, Mr. Chávez had lashed out at his critics, telling them to respect Venezuela's sovereignty. He said some of the nations that were faulting him for arresting the strike leader had supported the coup that failed to oust him last April.

'Where do Spain and Colombia want this to get to?' he said during the broadcast. 'To break relations?'

A diplomat who is in close contact with the government and the opposition said the bombs were out of character for Venezuela, where previous explosions have been limited to grenades or pipe bombs left outside television stations."

Of course, there's no way of knowing, at this stage anyway, who is responsible for the bombings, despite the fact that they "were out of character for Venezuela." But if history is any guide, there is at least the possibility that a "black clandestine" happened in Caracas the other night. There were also the shootings of three anti-government activists a week ago. President Hugo Chavez has denounced the shootings and the bombings, naturally, and it's certainly possible that his supporters, or even his government, played a role in either or both. But it's equally possible, and certainly not a long shot by any stretch of the imagination, that the C.I.A. is doing everything it can to undermine Chavez before the Venezuelan elections this summer. It's happened before. Many times.

Why might they want to undermine Chavez? For the answer, you don't have to go any further than the front of the "Business Day" section of the same newspaper. There you'll find a story entitled "Venezuela's Lifeblood Ebbs Even as It Flows." It's about oil. You can read it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/business/worldbusiness/26OIL.html

Here's the crucial part of it:

"The government is already preparing for the worst. The 2003 budget for the oil company was cut by $2.7 billion, to about $6 billion, while the income the government draws from oil is forecast by UBS Warburg to fall from $11.5 billion in 2002 to as little as $5 billion in 2003. The drop will make it especially difficult to raise the $5 billion the company would have spent to keep production steady.

Alí Rodríguez, the former leftist guerrilla turned president of Petróleos de Venezuela, does not gloss over the obstacles. But in an interview, Mr. Rodríguez said the doomsday predictions originated with dissident executives who hoped to undermine international confidence in the oil company to weaken Mr. Chávez.

He predicted that through sharp budget and personnel cuts, the company would reach 3.1 million barrels a day. And 'with its resources,' he said, 'it is perfectly possible that it will even surpass that level.'

To be sure, the Petróleos de Venezuela now emerging will be a far different company, in both its management and philosophy.

Gone will be the highly autonomous octopus that Mr. Rodríguez said functioned with great independence from the state, controlling revenues and influencing oil policies. The new company, taking advantage of some of the world's largest oil deposits outside the Middle East, 'must give maximum contribution to the nonpetroleum sector, which is the majority of the people,' Mr. Rodríguez said."

A word to the wise, in Venezuela and elsewhere: when elected officials start talking about making the "maximum contribution" to the "majority of the people," especially when the money is coming from indigenous oil reserves, you have made yourself some very ruthless enemies. And they have a lot of U.S. taxpayer dollars at their disposal, and a lot of experience in achieving their desired results. For everyday Americans, there's a price to be paid for this arrangement. It's called, as Secretary Ridge reminds us, "the threat of terrorism."