The Daily Grasshopper

There's a story in yesterday's Boston Globe about a local antiwar demonstration that targeted President George H.W. Bush (41, not 43 - as they like to refer to themselves). The former president spoke Wednesday night at Tufts University in Medford, Mass. The article can be found here:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/058/metro/At_Tufts_elder_Bush_defends_US_Iraq_policy+.shtml

According to the Globe story, Bush was "interrupted twice by protesting audience members." The article goes into some detail about the first interruption:

"Some protesters, however, slipped into the audience. When Bush was introduced, boos could be heard even as most audience members gave a standing ovation.

During Bush's speech, five young people near the front of the audience stood up and began chanting, 'We don't want your bloody war.' One woman held a banner depicting an upside-down American flag with an antiwar message with an obscenity.

The five were escorted from the room by police..."

The second interruption is covered in the back half of the sentence above:

"...as was another young man who later shouted 'liar' at the former president."

Fortunately for us inquiring types, there's the Associated Press wire service, so we know what elicited the accusation that Bush, Sr. is a liar. Here's the relevant part of their report:

"Later, when Bush asserted the war with Iraq was not about oil, a man shouted 'Liar!'

'No, no,' Bush replied."

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/058/region/Bush_hold_out_hope_for_peacefu:.shtml

So while reporters, editors, and columnists in big liberal newspapers like the Boston Globe continue to be squeamish about mentioning, much less investigating, the possible connections between Big Oil and war in Iraq - taking the former president (and oilman) at face value when he denies any link - others are more frank about them. For example, the reporters at the Wall Street Journal, a paper whose editors are foursquare behind the administration's push to invade Iraq. Here's part of a story they ran yesterday (the opening paragraph, actually), which is interesting when viewed in light of Bush the Elder's denial the night before:

"KUWAIT CITY, Kuwait - As the world's largest oil companies begin to dream of access to Iraq, petroleum officials in this small but oil-rich state are showing a new sense of urgency in efforts to open up their own massive fields."

The WSJ article ("Fresh Maneuvering Begins of Iraq's Borders") continues:

"The Bush administration says it wouldn't go to war with Iraq over oil. But if regime change sets the stage for an opening of Iraq's oil industry, it could dramatically alter the global oil landscape. Iraq, home to the world's second-largest reserves after Saudi Arabia, will be the target of companies hoping to develop its vast fields. Saudi Arabia and other OPEC producers could lose some of their influence as the world's largest oil suppliers. More important for oil-dependent economies around the world, money may flow to Iraq instead of places like Kuwait, where reserves and exploration prospects are less plentiful."

So, we have the Bush administration's word (cross their hearts and hope to die, I'm sure) that the war isn't about oil - Poppy Bush himself said so. But there sure will be some nice side benefits for their friends in the industry, won't there? Isn't it nice when things work out like that? You get to usher in an "age of progress and liberty" in the Middle East (Bush fils on the front page of the Globe), defending "the civilized world" and "the security of our nation and the hope of millions." The fact that a bunch of people with extremely close ties to the Bushes are going to get rich beyond their wildest dreams, and the U.S. will dominate the global oil market for the foreseeable future, is just gravy. Sure.

A couple of months ago, I wrote an essay called "The Chickenhawk in Chief," which some of you may recall. Here's part of what I wrote back then (http://www.netway.com/~pkeaney/010403chicken.html):

"Iraq’s oil fields open for development? After a possible American-led war? There are two phrases you don’t see side by side in most reporting on 'Showdown With Iraq,' or whatever the major networks are calling this farce nowadays. Allow me translate that sentence: Big Oil is going to abandon Kazakhstan in a New York minute ('Competition for the investment dollars could intensify') for the much more lucrative option of getting in on the ground floor in a 'liberated' Iraq, which has the second-largest petroleum reserves in the world (after Saudi Arabia), oil that is relatively easy to refine and transport."

That's still my story, and I'm sticking to it. Sorry to be so cynical, but having to read this stuff every day is starting to get to me. Remember, I have a low tolerance for bullshit. And yes, I know, they're politicians, and politicians lie all the time, but this is some serious lying, and it's going to have profound consequences for all of us. I hope people don't think I'm overstating my case.

And it's not just foreign policy lies, either. Look at the economic policies. There's a great spread on the front of yesterday's Boston Globe "Business" section about the Bush administration's incoming Council of Economic Advisers co-chair, N. Gregory Mankiw. Here's how the Globe reporter, D.C. Denison, describes Mankiw:

"A free-market advocate known for illustrating his texts with colorful, easy-to-understand examples as well as for his more advanced work on monetary policy and other topics, Mankiw succeeds R. Glenn Hubbard. Mankiw, 45, needs to be confirmed by the Senate.

As head of the council, known as CEA, Mankiw (pronounced man-kew) will have the rare opportunity of being the primary explainer of economic principles to two very different audiences: college students and President Bush and his inner circle.

While Mankiw is widely celebrated among economists for his communications skills, a White House position would challenge them in new ways, requiring that he advance his economic ideas against a host of compelling political pressures and a cluster of competing economic advisers. And when economic policies emerge from the White House policy-making process, it may fall to Mankiw to sell them to the American people."

The story can be found here:
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/058/business/Bush_taps_Mankiw+.shtml

The story has a graphic at the bottom that shows the differences between "Theory" and "Practice" in Washington, D.C. The caption informs us that "Mankiw's emphasis on free markets may clash with the harsh realities of Washington politics." The examples given are tariffs on imported steel and giant subsidies to the agribusiness industry, both of which I have referred to in these essays (see http://www.netway.com/~pkeaney/011003welfare.html and http://www.netway.com/~pkeaney/020603wwww.html).

"Free market theory" is all well and good when you're writing college economics texts, which is what Mankiw used to be best-known for. But when you're out in the real world, a lot of that stuff quickly gets ditched. Here is one of the examples the Globe cites, from Mankiw's "Principles of Economics" textbook:

"...free trade allows economies to specialize in doing what they do best, making residents of all countries better off. Trade restrictions interfere with these gains from trade, and, thus, reduce overall economic well-being."

Forgive me while I go into the other room and laugh my ass off for about half an hour.

OK, I'm back. Does this guy really believe this? Wow, is he in for a surprise when he gets to Washington. The Globe juxtaposes the Bush administration's steel tariffs with Mankiw's "free trade" principle, but there are a host of other examples. Let's take a look, shall we?

First of all, there is the crucial question of what certain "economies... do best." For a lot of countries around the world, what they "do best" is provide armies of low-wage laborers to multinational corporations for pennies a day. The list is long: Vietnam, Indonesia, Mexico, Guatemala, Haiti, Colombia, El Salvador, the Phillipines, etc., etc. These countries host thousands of large and small operations that pay pitiful wages and offer no worker safety. If workers try to organize for better wages and working conditions, they are subject to swift and brutal repression. The lucky ones live to work another 80-hour week for slave wages. The repression is backed by armed force, in many cases funded and provided by the U.S. or European Union governments. So you have "comparative advantage" (low wage labor, in the case of most developing countries) being provided courtesy of the armed forces. Not exactly what I would call "making residents of all countries better off," but, then again, I'm not making millions a year selling college economics texts.

"Free trade" principles dictate that organizing trade unions is a "trade restriction," one of those no-no's that will "interfere with these gains from trade, and, thus, reduce overall economic well-being." Take a look at the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), or the plans for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). They're pretty explicit about their desire to minimize workers' rights to stand up for living wages and safe, clean working conditions.

Speaking of which, one of the other things that developing countries "do best" is allow foreign corporations to externalize enormous costs onto the environment. Most of the world's countries don't have the environmental regulations that we do, making them an attractive place to do business if you're a giant corporation that pollutes. "Free trade" principles dictate that any attempts to regulate pollution are another "trade restriction," which would inhibit the ability of everyone to experience that cherished "overall economic well-being."

Of course, how one is supposed to experience "economic well-being" when you're living in a seriously degraded environment and making little or no money is anyone's guess. Mankiw doesn't say. Those are the questions that books like "Principles of Economics" leave unanswered. It's also the reason you see tens of thousands of people out in the streets protesting when the International Monetary Fund and World Bank ministers meet, or when financial technocrats from the "civilized world" assemble to discuss the next global free trade agreement. It's the reason South America has rejected "neoliberal" economic policies (a.k.a. the "Washington consensus") and is the source of most of the strife we read about in most of the countries south of the Rio Grande.

If it was just about "free trade," the agreement would be one page. No tariffs, no restrictions, nothing. Just go - everyone trade. The problem is that the agreements are thousands of pages of impenetrable legalese that provide a corporate Bill of Rights to some of the most powerful organizations on the planet, at the expense of the majority of its inhabitants. I know some of you out there are thinking I'm veering into conspiracy theory land, but, rest assured, I've done a whole lot of reading on the topic. If you can't tell me - without doing a Google search - what the Export-Import Bank does, what the Overseas Private Investment Corporation is, which corporations support the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and why, what the Metalclad Corporation is and why it's important, or what Chapter 11 of NAFTA allows, then, please, give me the benefit of the doubt, OK? Once the war on Iraq is over and the trade war between the U.S. and the E.U. gets underway, we'll have a lot of time to investigate. Plus, the FTAA is being "fast-tracked" to go into effect in 2005, making next year a big showdown in our hemisphere between the forces of "corporate-led globalization" and the "pro-democracy" movement. Stay tuned...

Another guy apparently has had his tolerance for bullshit exceeded by the Bush administration's drive to war. His name is John Brady Kiesling, and he's the former political counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Athens - he resigned this week in protest. The story was reported in yesterday's New York Times, and I'll give you the link to the actual letter, too (it's a great read):

Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/international/middleeast/27NATI.html

Letter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/international/27WEB-TNAT.html

"Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq," Kiesling said, "is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson."

Something tells me the Bush Gang isn't too worried about the resignation. Their "most potent weapon" is not "international legitimacy." It's the massive invasion force that's being built up in the Persian Gulf to protect "our interests" in the region. Don't believe either of the Bushes if they tell you otherwise, and don't expect the mainstream media to look too closely at it either.