Changes

We all remember The one [[good]] argument for war is the old joke about the borrowed kettle which Freud quotes in order to render the strange logic of dreams, namely the enumeration of mutually exclusive answers to a reproach (one recently evoked by [[Christopher Hitchens]]: one should not forget that I returned to a friend a broken kettle): (1) I never borrowed a kettle from you; (2) I returned it to you unbroken; (3) the kettle was already broken when I got it from you. For Freud, such an enumeration majority of inconsistent arguments of course confirms per negationem what it endeavors to deny — that I returned you a broken kettle… Do we not encounter the same inconsistency when high US officials try to justify the attack on Iraq? (1) There is a link between Iraqis effectively are Saddam's regime victims, and al-Qaeda, so Saddam should they would be punished as part really glad to get rid of the revenge [[them]]. He was such a catastrophe for 9/11; (2) even if there was no link between Iraqi regime and al Qaeda, they are united his country that an American occupation in their hatred of the US — Saddam's regime is a really bad one, WHATEVER [[form]] may seem a threat not only much brighter prospect to the US, but also them with [[regard]] to its neighbors, daily survival and we should liberate the Iraqi people; (3) the change much lower level of regime in Iraq will create the conditions for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict[[fear]]. The problem is that there We are TOO MANY reasons for the attack… Furthermore, one is almost tempted to claim that, within the space not talking here of this reference to the Freudian logic of dreams, the Iraqi oil supplies function as the famous "umbilical cord" of the US justification(s) — almost tempted, since it would perhaps be more reasonable to claim that there are also three REAL reasons for the attack: (1) the control of the Iraqi oil reserves; (2) the urge to brutally assert and signal the unconditional US hegemony; (3) the "sincere" ideological belief that the US are bringing [[Western democracy]] to other nations democracy and prosperity. And it seems as if these three Iraq,"real" reasons are the "truth" of the three official reasons: (1) is the truth but just of the urge to liberate Iraqis; (2) is the truth getting rid of the claim the attack on Iraq will help to resolve the Middle East conflict; (3) is the truth of the claim that there is a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda[[nightmare]] called Saddam. — AndTo this majority, incidentally, opponents of the war seem to repeat the same inconsistent logic: (1) Saddam is really bad, we also want to see him toppled, caution expressed by Western [[liberals]] cannot but we should give inspectors more time, since inspectors are more efficient; (2) it is all appear deeply hypocritical — do they really care about how the control of oil and American hegemony — the true rogue state which terrorizes others are the US themselves; (3) even if successful, the attack on Iraq will give a big boost to a new wave of the anti-American terrorism; (4) Saddam is a murderer and torturer, his regime a criminal catastrophe, but the attack on Iraq destined to overthrow Saddam will cost too much…Iraqi people feel?

The one good argument One can make even a more general point here: what about pro-Castro Western Leftists who despise what Cubans themselves call "gusanos /worms/," those who emigrated — but, with all sympathy for war is the one recently evoked by Christopher Hitchens: one should Cuban [[revolution]], what [[right]] does a typical middle [[class]] Western [[Leftist]] have to despise a Cuban who decided to leave Cuba not forget that only because of [[political]] disenchantment, but also because of poverty which goes up to simple hunger? In the same vein, I myself remember from the majority early 1990s dozens of Iraqis effectively are Saddam's victimsWestern Leftists who proudly threw in my face how for them, [[Yugoslavia]] still [[exists]], and they would be really glad reproached me for betraying the unique [[chance]] of maintaining Yugoslavia — to which I always answered that I am not yet ready to get rid lead my [[life]] so that it will not disappoint Western Leftist dreams… There are effectively few things more worthy of them. He was such contempt, few attitudes more ideological (if this [[word]] has any [[meaning]] today, it should be applied here) than a tenured Western academic Leftist arrogantly dismissing (or, even worse, "[[understanding]]" in a catastrophe for his country that patronizing way) an American occupation in WHATEVER form may seem Eastern European from a much brighter prospect [[Communist]] country who longs for Western [[liberal]] democracy and some consumerist goods… However, it is all too easy to them with regard [[slip]] from this fact to daily survival the [[notion]] that "under their skin, Iraqis are also like us, and much lower level of fearreally want the same as we do. We are not talking here of "bringing Western The old story will repeat itself: America brings to the people new hope and democracy to Iraq," but just of getting rid , instead of hailing the nightmare called Saddam. To this majorityUS [[army]], the caution expressed by Western liberals cannot but appear deeply hypocritical — ungrateful people do want it, they really care about how suspect a [[gift]] in the gift, and America then reacts as a [[child]] with hurt [[feelings]] because of the Iraqi people feel?ingratitude of those it selflessly helped.

One can make even a more general point hereThe underlying presupposition is the old one: what about pro-Castro Western Leftists who despise what Cubans themselves call "gusanos /worms/under our skin," those who emigrated — butif we scratch the surface, with we are all sympathy for the Cuban revolutionAmericans, what right does a typical middle class Western Leftist have that is our true [[desire]] — so all that is needed is just to despise give people a Cuban who decided to leave Cuba not only because of political disenchantmentchance, but also because of poverty which goes up to simple hunger? In the same vein, I myself remember liberate them from the early 1990s dozens of Western Leftists who proudly threw in my face how for them, Yugoslavia still existstheir imposed constraints, and reproached me for betraying the unique chance of maintaining Yugoslavia — to which I always answered that I am not yet ready to lead my life so that it they will not disappoint Western Leftist dreams… There are effectively few things more worthy of contempt, few attitudes more join us in our ideological (if this word has any meaning todaydream… No wonder that, it should be applied here) than a tenured Western academic Leftist arrogantly dismissing (or, even worsein February 2003, an American [[representative]] used the word "understanding[[capitalist]] revolution" in a patronizing way) an Eastern European to describe what Americans are now doing: exporting their revolution all around the [[world]]. No wonder they moved from "containing" the [[enemy]] to a Communist country who longs for Western liberal democracy and some consumerist goods… However, it more [[aggressive]] stance. It is all too easy to slip from this fact to the notion that "under their skinUS which is now, Iraqis are also like usas the defunct USSR was decades ago, and really want the same as we dosubversive [[agent]] of a world revolution.When [[Bush]] recently said " The old story will repeat itself: [[Freedom]] is not America brings 's gift to other nations, it is god's gift to humanity," this [[apparent]] [[modesty]] nonetheless, in the people new hope and democracybest totalitarian fashion, butconceals its opposite: yes, instead of hailing BUT it is nonetheless the US army, which perceives itself as the ungrateful people do want it, they suspect a chosen [[instrument]] of distributing this gift in to all the gift, and America then reacts as a child with hurt feelings because nations of the ingratitude of those it selflessly helped.world!

The underlying presupposition is the old one: under our skin, if we scratch the surface, we are all Americans, that is our true desire — so all that is needed is just [[idea]] to give people a chance, liberate them from their imposed constraints, and they will join us in our ideological dream… No wonder that, "repeat Japan in February 20031945, an American representative used the word "capitalist revolution" to describe what Americans are now doing: exporting their revolution all around the world. No wonder they moved from "containing" the enemy bring democracy to a more aggressive stance. It is the US Iraq, which is now, will then serve as [[model]] for the defunct USSR was decades ago, the subversive agent of a entire Arab world revolution. When Bush recently said "Freedom is not America's gift to other nations, it is god's gift enabling people to humanity," this apparent modesty nonetheless, in get rid of the best totalitarian fashioncorrupt regimes, conceals its oppositeimmediately faces an insurmountable obstacle: yes, BUT what about Saudi Arabia where it is nonetheless in the vital US which perceives itself as interest that the chosen instrument country does NOT turn into democracy? The result of distributing this gift to all democracy in Saudi Arabia would have been either the nations [[repetition]] of [[Iran]] in 1953 (a populist regime with an anti-imperialist twist) or of [[Algeria]] a couple of years ago, when the world!"fundamentalists" WON the free elections.

There is nonetheless a grain of truth in Rumsfeld's ironic pun against the "old [[Europe]]." The idea to [[French]]-[[German]] united stand against the US policy apropos Iraq should be read against the background of the French-German summit a month ago in which [[Chirac]] and Schroeder basically proposed a kind of [[dual]] Franco-German hegemony over the European [[Community]]. So no wonder that anti-Americanism is at its strongest in "big"repeat Japan in 1945European nations," especially [[France]] and [[Germany]]: it is part of their [[resistance]] to bring democracy [[globalization]]. One often hears the complaint that the [[recent]] trend of globalization threatens the [[sovereignty]] of the [[Nation]]-States; here, however, one should qualify this [[statement]]: WHICH states are most exposed to Iraqthis threat? It is not the small states, which will then serve as model for but the entire Arab second-rate (ex-)worldpowers, enabling people to get rid of the corrupt regimescountries like United Kingdom, immediately faces an insurmountable obstacleGermany and France: what about Saudi Arabia where it they fear is that, once fully immersed in the vital US interest that newly emerging [[global]] [[Empire]], they will be reduced at the country does NOT turn into democracy? same level as, say, [[Austria]], Belgium or even Luxembourg. The result [[refusal]] of democracy "Americanization" in France, shared by many Leftists and Rightist nationalists, is thus ultimately the refusal to accept the fact that France itself is losing its hegemonic [[role]] in Saudi Arabia would have been either Europe. The leveling of weight between larger and smaller Nation-States should thus be counted among the beneficial effects of globalization: beneath the repetition contemptuous deriding of Iran in 1953 (a populist regime with an antithe new Eastern European [[post-imperialist twist) or Communist]] states, it is easy to discern the contours of the wounded [[Narcissism]] of Algeria the European "great nations." And this great-state-[[nationalism]] is not just a couple feature [[external]] to the (failure of) the [[present]] opposition; it affects the very way France and Germany articulated this opposition. Instead of years agodoing, even more actively, when precisely what Americans are doing — MOBILIZING the "fundamentalistsnew European" WON states on their own politico-military platform, ORGANIZING the free electionscommon new front -, France and Germany arrogantly acted alone.

There is nonetheless a grain of truth in Rumsfeld's ironic pun against In the "old Europe." The recent French-German united stand resistance against the US policy apropos war on Iraq should be read against the background of the French-German summit , there definitely is a month ago in which Chirac and Schroeder basically proposed a kind clear echo of dual Franco-German hegemony over the European Community. So no wonder that anti-Americanism is at its strongest in "bigold decadent" European nations, especially France and GermanyEurope: it is part of their resistance to globalization. One often hears escape the complaint that the recent trend of globalization threatens the sovereignty of the Nationproblem by non-States; hereacting, however, one should qualify by new resolutions upon resolutions — all this statement: WHICH states are most exposed to this threat? It is not reminiscent of the small states, but inactivity of the second-rate (ex-)world powers, countries like United Kingdom, League of Nations against Germany and France: what they fear is that, once fully immersed in the newly emerging global Empire, they will be reduced at 1930s. And the same level as, say, Austria, Belgium or even Luxembourg. The refusal of pacifist call "Americanizationlet the inspectors do their [[work]]" in France, shared by many Leftists and Rightist nationalists, clearly IS hypocritical: they are only allowed to do the work because there is thus ultimately a credible threat of military [[intervention]]. Not to mention the refusal French neocolonialism in Africa (from Congo-Brazzaville to accept the fact that France itself is losing its hegemonic dark French role in Europe. The leveling of weight between larger the Rwanda crisis and smaller Nation-States should thus be counted among massacres)? And about the beneficial effects of globalization: beneath French role in the contemptuous deriding of the new Eastern European post-Communist statesBosnian war? Furthermore, as it is easy to discern the contours was made clear a couple of the wounded Narcissism of the European "great nations." And this great-state-nationalism months ago, is it not just a feature external to the (failure of) the present opposition; it affects the very way clear that France and Germany articulated this opposition. Instead of doing, even more actively, precisely what Americans are doing — MOBILIZING the "new European" states on worry about their own politico-military platform, ORGANIZING the common new front -, France and Germany arrogantly acted alone.hegemony in Europe?

In the recent French resistance against Is the war on Iraq, there definitely is a clear echo not the [[moment]] of truth when the "old decadentofficial" Europe: escape the problem by nonpolitical distinctions are blurred? Generally, we live in a topsy-actingturvy world in which Republicans freely spend [[money]], creating record budget deficits, by new resolutions upon resolutions — all this reminiscent while [[Democrats]] [[practice]] budget [[balance]]; in which Republicans, who thunder against big [[government]] and preach devolution of [[power]] to states and local communities, are in the inactivity [[process]] of creating the League strongest state [[mechanism]] of Nations against Germany control in the 1930sentire [[history]] of humanity. And the pacifist call "let same applies to post-Communist countries. Symptomatic is here the inspectors do their work" clearly IS hypocritical[[case]] of [[Poland]]: they are only allowed to do the work because there most ardent supporter of the US [[politics]] in Poland is the ex-Communist president Kwasniewski (who is a credible threat even mentioned as the [[future]] secretary of military intervention. Not [[NATO]], after George Robertson), while the main opposition to mention the French neocolonialism [[participation]] of Poland in Africa (the anti-Iraq coalition comes from the Rightist parties. Towards the end of January 2003, the [[Polish]] bishops also demanded from Congo-Brazzaville the government that it should add to the dark French role contract which regulates the membership of Poland in the Rwanda crisis and massacres)? And about EU a special paragraph guaranteeing that Poland will "retain the French role right to keep its fundamental values as they are formulated in its [[constitution]]" — by which, of course, are meant the Bosnian war? Furthermore[[prohibition]] of abortion, as it was made clear a couple of months ago, is it not clear that France euthanasia and Germany worry about their own hegemony in Europe?of the same-sex marriages.

Is The very ex-Communist countries which are the war on Iraq not the moment most ardent supporters of truth when the US "officialwar on [[terror]]" political distinctions are blurred? Generallydeeply worry that their [[cultural]] [[identity]], we live in a topsy-turvy world in which Republicans freely spend moneytheir very survival as nations, creating record budget deficits, while Democrats practice budget balance; in which Republicans, who thunder against big government and preach devolution is threatened by the onslaught of power to states and local communities, are in cultural "americanization" as the process of creating price for the strongest state mechanism of control in immersion into global [[capitalism]] — we thus [[witness]] the entire history [[paradox]] of humanity. And the same applies to postpro-Bushist anti-Communist countriesAmericanism. Symptomatic In [[Slovenia]], my own country, there is here the case of Polanda similar inconsistency: the most ardent supporter of Rightist nationalist reproach the US politics in Poland ruling Center-[[Left]] coalition that, although it is publicly for joining NATO and supporting the exUS anti-Communist president Kwasniewski (who terrorist campaign, it is even mentioned as secretly sabotaging it, participating in it for opportunist reasons, not out of conviction. At the future secretary of NATOsame time, after George Robertson)however, while it is reproaching the main opposition ruling coalition that it wants to undermine Slovene national identity by advocating [[full]] Slovene integration into the participation of Poland in Westernized global capitalism and thus drowning Slovenes into contemporary Americanized pop-[[culture]]. The idea is that the anti-Iraq ruling coalition comes from the Rightist partiessustains pop culture, stupid TV amusement, mindless consumption, etc. Towards the end , in order to turn Slovenes into an easily manipulated crowd unable of January 2003serious [[reflection]] and firm [[ethical]] posture… In short, the Polish bishops also demanded from the government underlying motif is that it should add to the contract which regulates ruling coalition stands for the membership of Poland "liberal-Communist plot" : ruthless unconstrained immersion in the EU a special paragraph guaranteeing that Poland will "retain the right to keep its fundamental values global capitalism is perceived as they are formulated in its constitution" — by which, of course, are meant the prohibition latest dark plot of abortion, of euthanasia and of the sameex-sex marriagesCommunists enabling them to retain their [[secret]] hold on power.

The very ex-Communist countries which are almost [[tragic]] misunderstanding is that the most ardent supporters of nationalists, on the US "war on terror" deeply worry that their cultural identityone hand, their very survival as nations, is threatened by unconditionally support NATO (under the onslaught of cultural "americanization" as the price for the immersion into global capitalism — we thus witness the paradox of pro-Bushist anti-Americanism. In SloveniaUS command), my own country, there is a similar inconsistency: the Rightist nationalist reproach reproaching the ruling Center-Left coalition that, although it is publicly for joining NATO with secretly supporting antiglobalists and supporting the US anti-terrorist campaignAmerican pacifists, it is secretly sabotaging itwhile, participating in it for opportunist reasonson the other hand, not out they worry about the fate of conviction. At Slovene identity in the same timeprocess of globalization, however, it is reproaching claiming that the ruling coalition that it wants to undermine Slovene national identity by advocating full Slovene integration throw Slovenia into the Westernized global capitalism and thus drowning Slovenes into contemporary Americanized pop-culture. The idea is that whirlpool, not worrying about the ruling coalition sustains pop culture, stupid TV amusement, mindless consumption, etcSlovene national identity.Ironically, in the new emerging socio-ideological order to turn Slovenes into an easily manipulated crowd unable these nationalist conservatives are bemoaning reads like the old [[New Left]] description of serious reflection the "repressive [[tolerance]]" and firm ethical posture… In shortcapitalist freedom as the mode of [[appearance]] of unfreedom. Here, the underlying motif example of Italy is that crucial, with Berlusconi as prime minister: the ruling coalition stands for staunchest supporter of the "liberal-Communist plot" : ruthless unconstrained immersion in global capitalism is perceived as US AND the latest dark plot agent of exthe TV-Communists enabling them to retain their secret hold on poweridiotizing of the [[public]] opinion, turning politics into a [[media]] show and running a large advertisement and media company.

The almost tragic misunderstanding is that the nationalists, on the one handWhere, unconditionally support NATO (under the US command)then, reproaching the ruling coalition do we stand with secretly supporting antiglobalists reasons pro et contra? Abstract pacifism is intellectually stupid and anti-American pacifists, while, on morally wrong — one has to stand up against a threat. Of course the other hand, they worry about the fate fall of Slovene identity in the process Saddam would have been a relief to a large majority of globalization, claiming that the ruling coalition wants to throw Slovenia into the global whirlpool, not worrying about the Slovene national identityIraqi people. IronicallyEven more, of course the new emerging sociomilitant [[Islam]] is a horrifying anti-ideological order these nationalist conservatives are bemoaning reads like the old New Left description [[feminist]] etc. [[ideology]]. Of course there is something of a [[hypocrisy]] in all the "repressive tolerance" and capitalist freedom as reasons against: the mode of appearance of unfreedom[[revolt]] should come from Iraqi people themselves; we should not impose our values on them; war is never a solution; etc. HereBUT, although all this is true, the example of Italy attack is wrong — it is WHO DOES IT that makes it wrong. The reproach is: WHO ARE YOU TO DO THIS? It is crucialnot war or peace, it is the correct "gut [[feeling]]" that there is something terribly wrong with Berlusconi as prime minister: the staunchest supporter of the US AND the agent of the TV-idiotizing of the public opinionTHIS war, turning politics into a media show and running a large advertisement and media companythat something will irretrievably change with it.

WhereOne of Jacques [[Lacan]]'s outrageous statements is that, theneven if what a jealous husband claims about his wife (that she sleeps around with other men) is all true, do we stand with reasons pro et contra? Abstract pacifism his [[jealousy]] is intellectually stupid and morally wrong — still pathological; along the same lines, one has to stand up against a threat. Of course the fall could say that, even of Saddam would have been a relief to a large majority most of the Iraqi people. Even more[[Nazi]] claims about the [[Jews]] were true (they exploit Germans, they [[seduce]] German girls…), of course their [[anti-Semitism]] would still be (and was) pathological — because it represses the true [[reason]] WHY the militant Islam is a horrifying [[Nazis]] NEEDED anti-feminist etcSemitism in order to sustain their ideological [[position]]. ideology. Of course there is something of a hypocrisy in all And the reasons against: the revolt should come from Iraqi people themselves; we same should not impose our values on them; war is never a solution; etc. BUTbe said today, although all apropos of the US claim "Saddam has weapons of mass [[destruction]]!" — even if this claim is true, the attack is wrong — (and it probably is WHO DOES IT that makes it wrong. The reproach is: WHO ARE YOU TO DO THIS? It is not war or peace, at least to some degree), it is still [[false]] with regard to the correct "gut feeling" that there position from which it is something terribly wrong with THIS war, that something will irretrievably change with it[[enunciated]].

One Everyone fears the catastrophic outcome of the US attack on Iraq: an ecological catastrophe of Jacques Lacan's outrageous statements is thatgigantic proportions, high US casualties, even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife (that she sleeps around with other men) terrorist attack in the West… In this way, we already accept the US standpoint — and it is all trueeasy to imagine how, his jealousy is still pathological; along if the same lineswar will be over soon, one could say that, even in a kind of most repetition of the Nazi claims about the Jews were true (they exploit Germans1990 Gulf War, they seduce German girls…)if Saddam's regime will disintegrate fast, their anti-Semitism would still there will be (and was) pathological — because it represses a [[universal]] sigh of relief even among many present critics of the true reason WHY the Nazis NEEDED anti-Semitism in order US policy. One is even tempted to sustain their ideological position. And consider the same should be said today, apropos of hypothesis that the US claim "Saddam has weapons are on [[purpose]] fomenting this fear of mass destruction!" — even if this claim an impending catastrophe, counting on the universal relief when the catastrophe will NOT occur… This, however, is arguably the greatest true (and it probably [[danger]]. That isto say, at least one should gather the courage to some degree)proclaim the opposite: perhaps, the bad military turn for the US would be the best [[thing]] that can happen, it is still false with regard a sobering piece of bad news which would compel all the participants to the rethink their position from which it is enunciated.

Everyone fears On 9/11 2001, the Twin Towers were hit; twelve years earlier, on 11/9 1989, the catastrophic outcome Berlin Wall fell. 11/9 announced the "happy 90s," the Francis [[Fukuyama]] [[dream]] of the US attack on Iraq: an ecological catastrophe "end of gigantic proportionshistory, high US casualties, a terrorist attack " the belief that liberal democracy has in the West… In this way[[principle]] won, we already accept that the US standpoint — and it [[search]] is easy to imagine howover, if that the war will be over soon, in advent of a kind of repetition of global liberal world community lurks round the 1990 Gulf Warcorner, if Saddam's regime will disintegrate fastthat the obstacles to this ultra-Hollywood happy ending are just empirical and [[contingent]], there will be a universal sigh of relief even among many present critics local pockets of resistance where the US policy. One leaders did not yet grasp that their time is even tempted over; in contrast to consider it, 9/11 is the hypothesis that main [[symbol]] of the US are on purpose fomenting this fear end of an impending catastrophethe Clintonite happy 90s, counting on of the universal relief when forthcoming era in which new walls are emerging everywhere, between [[Israel]] and the catastrophe will NOT occur… ThisWest Bank, howeveraround the [[European Union]], is arguably on the greatest true dangerUS-Mexican border. That The prospect of a new global crisis is to say, one should gather the courage to proclaim the oppositelooming: perhaps[[economic]] collapses, the bad military turn for the US would be the best thing that can happenand other catastrophes, a sobering piece of bad news which would compel all the participants to rethink their position.emergency states…

On 9/11 2001And when politicians start to directly justify their decisions in ethical [[terms]], one can be sure that [[ethics]] is mobilized to cover up such dark threatening horizons. It is the Twin Towers were hit; twelve years earlier, on 11/9 1989, the Berlin Wall fellvery inflation of abstract ethical rhetorics in George W. 11/9 announced Bush's recent public statements (of the "happy 90s," Does the world have the Francis Fukuyama dream of courage to act against the [[Evil]] or not?"end type) which manifests the utter ETHICAL misery of history," the belief that liberal democracy has in principle won, that US position — the search function of ethical reference is overhere purely mystifying, that it merely serves to mask the advent of a global liberal world community lurks round the cornertrue political stakes, that the obstacles which are not difficult to this ultra-Hollywood happy ending are just empirical discern. In their recent The War Over Iraq, William Kristol and contingentLawrence F. Kaplan wrote: "The mission begins in Baghdad, local pockets but it does not end there. /…/ We stand at the cusp of resistance where the leaders did not yet grasp that their time a new historical era. /…/ This is over; in contrast to it, 9a decisive moment. /…/11 It is so clearly about more than Iraq. It is about more even than the main symbol future of the end of Middle East and the Clintonite happy 90s, [[war on terror]]. It is about what sort of role the forthcoming era [[United States]] intends to play in the twenty-first century." One cannot but agree with it: it is effectively the future of [[international community]] which is at stake now — the new walls are emerging everywhererules which will regulate it, between Israel and what the West Bank, around new world order will be. What is going on now is the European Union, on next [[logical]] step of the US-Mexican borderdismissal of the [[Hague]] court. The prospect of a new global crisis is looming: economic collapses, military and other catastrophes, emergency states…

And when politicians start The first permanent global war crimes court started to directly justify their decisions work on July 1, 2002 in ethical termsThe Hague, with the power to tackle genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Anyone, from a head of state to an ordinary [[citizen]], will be liable to ICC prosecution for [[human]] rights violations, one can including systematic [[murder]], [[torture]], rape and [[sexual]] slavery, or, as Kofi Annan put it: "There must be sure a [[recognition]] that ethics is mobilized we are all members of one human [[family]]. We have to cover up such dark threatening horizonscreate new institutions. It This is the very inflation one of abstract ethical rhetorics them. This is [[another]] step forward in George W. Bushhumanity's recent public statements (of the slow march toward [[civilization]]."Does the world However, while [[human rights]] groups have hailed the courage to act against court's creation as the Evil or not?" type) which manifests biggest milestone for international justice since top Nazis were tried by an international military tribunal in Nuremberg after World War Two, the utter ETHICAL misery of court faces stiff opposition from the US position — the function of ethical reference is here purely mystifyingUnited States, it merely serves to mask [[Russia]] and China. The United States says the true political stakes, which are not difficult court would infringe on national sovereignty and could lead to discernpolitically motivated prosecutions of its officials or soldiers [[working]] [[outside]] U.S. In their recent The War Over Iraqborders, William Kristol and Lawrence Fthe U.S. Congress is even weighing legislation authorizing U.S. Kaplan wrote: "forces to invade The mission begins Hague where the court will be based, in Baghdad, but it does not end there. /…/ We stand at the cusp of [[event]] prosecutors grab a new historical eraU. /…/ This is a decisive momentS. /…/ It is so clearly about more than Iraqnational. It The noteworthy paradox here is about more even than that the US thus rejected the future jurisdiction of a tribunal which was constituted with the Middle East full support (and votes) of the war on terror. It is about what sort of role US themselves! Why, then, should [[Milosevic]], who now sits in the Hague, not be given the United States intends right to play in claim that, since the twenty-first century." One cannot but agree with it: it is effectively US reject the future legality of the international community which is at stake now — jurisdiction of the new rules which will regulate itHague tribunal, what the new world order will be. What is going on same argumentation should hold also for him? And the same goes for Croatia: the US are now is exerting tremendous pressure onto the Croat government to deliver to the next logical step Hague court a couple of its generals accused of war crimes during the struggles in Bosnia — the reaction is, of course, how can they ask this of US dismissal when THEY do not recognize the legitimacy of the Hague court? Or are the US citizens effectively "more equal than others"? If one simply universalizes the underlying principles of the Bush-[[doctrine]], does [[India]] not have a full right to attack [[Pakistan]]? It does directly support and harbor anti-Indian terror in Kashmir, and it possesses (nuclear) weapons of mass destruction.Not to mention the right of China to attack Taiwan, and so on, with unpredictable consequences…

The first permanent global war crimes court started to work on July 1Are we aware that we are in the midst of a "silent revolution, 2002 " in the course of which the unwritten rules which determine the most elementary international logic are changing? The HagueUS scold Gerhardt Schroeder, a democratically elected [[leader]], with for maintaining a stance supported by a large majority of the power population, plus, according to tackle genocidethe polls in the mid-February, crimes around 59% of the US population itself (who oppose strike against humanity and war crimesIraq without the UN support). AnyoneIn [[Turkey]], from a head of state according to an ordinary citizenopinion polls, will be liable 94% of the people are opposed to ICC prosecution allowing the US troops' [[presence]] for human rights violations, including systematic murder, torture, rape and sexual slavery, or, as Kofi Annan put it: "There must be a recognition that we are all members of one human family. We have to create new institutions. This the war against Iraq — where is one of them. This is another step forward in humanitydemocracy here? Every old Leftist remembers [[Marx]]'s slow march toward civilization." Howeverreply, while human rights groups have hailed the court's creation as the biggest milestone for international justice since top Nazis were tried by an international military tribunal in Nuremberg after World War Two[[The Communist Manifesto]], to the court faces stiff opposition from critics who reproached the United StatesCommunists that they aim at undermining family, Russia and China. The United States says the court would infringe on national sovereignty and could lead to politically motivated prosecutions of its officials or soldiers working outside U.S. bordersproperty, and the Uetc.S. Congress : it is even weighing legislation authorizing U.S. forces to invade The Hague where the court will be based, in the event prosecutors grab a U.S. national. The noteworthy paradox here capitalist order itself whose economic dynamics is that destroying the US thus rejected the jurisdiction of traditional family order (incidentally, a tribunal which was constituted with fact more true today than in Marx's time), as well as expropriating the full support (and votes) large majority of the US themselves! Why, then, should Milosevic, who now sits in population. In the Haguesame vein, is it not be given the right to claim that, since the US reject the legality precisely those who pose today as global defenders of the international jurisdiction of the Hague tribunaldemocracy are effectively undermining it? In a [[perverse]] rhetorical twist, when the same argumentation should hold also for him? And the same goes for Croatia: the US pro-war leaders are now exerting tremendous pressure onto confronted with the Croat government to deliver to the Hague court a couple brutal fact that their politics is out of its generals accused of war crimes during the struggles in Bosnia — tune with the reaction is, majority of coursetheir population, how can they ask this of US when THEY do not recognize take recourse to the legitimacy of the Hague court? Or are the US citizens effectively commonplace wisdom that "more equal than others"? If one simply universalizes the underlying principles of the Bush-doctrinea true leader leads, he does India not have a full right to attack Pakistan? It does directly support follow" — and harbor anti-Indian terror in Kashmir, and it possesses (nuclear) weapons of mass destruction. Not to mention the right of China to attack Taiwan, and so on, this from leaders otherwise obsessed with unpredictable consequences…opinion polls…

Are we aware that we The true dangers are in the midst long-term ones. In what resides perhaps the greatest danger of a "silent revolution," in the course prospect of which the unwritten rules which determine the most elementary international logic are changingAmerican occupation of Iraq? The US scold Gerhardt Schroeder, present regime in Iraq is ultimately a democratically elected leadersecular nationalist one, for maintaining a stance supported by a large majority out of touch with the populationMuslim fundamentalist [[populism]] — it is obvious that Saddam only superficially flirts with the pan-Arab Muslim sentiment. As his [[past]] clearly demonstrates, plushe is a pragmatic ruler striving for power, according and shifting alliances when it fits his purposes — first against Iran to the polls in the mid-Februarygrab their oil fields, around 59% of the US population itself (who oppose strike then against Iraq without Kuwait for the UN support). In Turkeysame reason, according bringing against himself a pan-Arab coalition allied to opinion polls, 94% of the people are opposed to allowing the US troops' presence for the war against Iraq — where what Saddam is not is democracy here? Every old Leftist remembers Marx's reply, in The Communist Manifestoa fundamentalist obsessed with the "big [[Satan]], " ready to blow the critics who reproached the Communists that they aim at undermining family, property, etcworld apart just to get him.: it is the capitalist order itself whose economic dynamics is destroying the traditional family order (incidentallyHowever, a fact more true today than in Marx's time), as well what can emerge as expropriating the large majority result of the population. In the same vein, US occupation is it not that precisely those who pose today as global defenders of democracy are effectively undermining it? In a perverse rhetorical twist, when the protruly fundamentalist Muslim anti-war leaders are confronted with the brutal fact that their politics is out of tune with the majority of their populationAmerican movement, they take recourse directly linked to the commonplace wisdom that "a true leader leads, he does not follow" — and this from leaders otherwise obsessed such movements in other Arab countries or countries with opinion polls…Muslim presence.

The true dangers One can surmise that the US are well aware that the longera of Saddam and his non-term ones. In what resides perhaps the greatest danger of the prospect of the American occupation of Iraq? The present fundamentalist regime is coming to an end in Iraq, and that the attack on Iraq is ultimately probably conceived as a secular nationalist onemuch more radical [[preemptive strike]] — not against Saddam, but against the main contender for Saddam's political successor, a truly fundamentalist Islamic regime. Yes in this way, out the [[vicious cycle]] of touch with the Muslim fundamentalist populism — it American intervention gets only more [[complex]]: the danger is obvious that Saddam only superficially flirts with the panvery American intervention will contribute to the emergence of what America most fears, a large united anti-Arab American Muslim sentimentfront. As his past clearly demonstrates, he It is the first case of the direct American occupation of a pragmatic ruler striving for powerlarge and key Arab country — how could this not generate universal hatred in reaction? One can already imagine thousands of young people dreaming of becoming [[suicide]] bombers, and shifting alliances when it fits his purposes — first against Iran how that will force the US government to grab their oil fieldsimpose a permanent high alert emergency state… However, then against Kuwait for the same reasonat this point, bringing against himself one cannot resist a pan-Arab coalition allied to slightly [[paranoid]] temptation: what if the US — people around Bush KNOW this, what Saddam if this "collateral damage" is not is a fundamentalist obsessed with the "big Satan," ready to blow true aim of the world apart just to get him. However, what can emerge as entire operation? What if the result TRUE target of the US occupation "war on [[terror"]] is precisely a truly fundamentalist Muslim anti-the American movement[[society]] itself, directly linked to such movements in other Arab countries or countries with Muslim presencei.e., the disciplining of its emancipatory excesses?

One can surmise that On March 5 2003, on "Buchanan & Press" news show on NBC, they showed on the TV [[screen]] the photo of the US are well aware that recently [[captured]] Khalid Shakh Mohammed, the era "[[third]] man of Saddam and his nonal-fundamentalist regime is coming to Qaeda" — a mean face with moustaches, in an end in Iraqunspecified nightgown prison-dress, half opened and with something like bruises half-discernible (hints that the attack on Iraq is probably conceived as a much more radical preemptive strike — not against Saddamhe was already tortured?) -, but against the main contender for Saddamwhile Pat Buchanan's political successor, a truly fundamentalist Islamic regime. Yes in fast [[voice]] was asking: "Should this way, man who [[knows]] all the names all the vicious cycle of detailed plans for the American intervention gets only more complex: future terrorist attacks on the danger is US, be tortured, so that we get all this out of him?" The [[horror]] of it was that the very American intervention will contribute to the emergence of what America most fearsphoto, with its details, a large united anti-American Muslim front. It is already suggested the first case of answer — no wonder the direct American occupation response of a large other commentators and key Arab country viewers' calls was an overwhelming "Yes!" — how could this not generate universal hatred in reaction? One can already imagine thousands which makes one nostalgic of young people dreaming the good old days of becoming suicide bombers, and how that will force the US government to impose colonial war in Algeria when the torture practiced by the French Army was a permanent high alert emergency state… Howeverdirty secret… Effectively, at was this point, one cannot resist not a slightly paranoid temptation: pretty close realization of what if the people around Bush KNOW thisOrwell imagined in 1984, what if this in his [[vision]] of "collateral damage[[hate]] sessions," is where the true aim citizens are shown photos of the entire operation? What if traitors and supposed to boo and yell at them. And the TRUE target of the "war story goes on: a day later, on terror" another Fox TV show, a commentator claimed that one is the American society itselfallowed to do with this prisoner whatever, not only deprive him of [[sleep]], but break his fingers, ietc.eetc., because he is "a piece of human garbage with no rights whatsoever." THIS is the disciplining of its emancipatory excesses?true catastrophe: that such public statements are today possible.

On March 5 2003, We should therefore be very attentive not to fight false battles: the debates on "Buchanan & Press" news show on NBChow bad Saddam is, they showed even on how much the TV screen the photo of the recently captured Khalid Shakh Mohammedwar will cost, the "third man of al-Qaeda" — a mean face with moustachesetc., are false debates. The focus should be on what effectively goes on in an unspecified nightgown prison-dressour societies, half opened and with something like bruises half-discernible (hints that he was already tortured?) -, while Pat Buchanan's fast voice was asking: "Should this man who knows all on what kind of society is emerging HERE as the names all result of the detailed plans for the future terrorist attacks "war on the US, be tortured, so that we get all this out of him?terror." The horror Instead of it was that the phototalking about hidden conspirative agendas, with its details, already suggested the answer — no wonder the response of other commentators and viewers' calls was an overwhelming "Yes!" — which makes one nostalgic of should shift the good old days of the colonial war in Algeria when the torture practiced by the French Army was a dirty secret… Effectivelyfocus onto what is going on, was this not a pretty close realization of onto what Orwell imagined in 1984, in his vision kind of "hate sessions," where the citizens changes are shown photos of the traitors and supposed to boo taking [[place]] here and yell at themnow. And The ultimate result of the story goes on: war will be a day later, on another Fox TV show, a commentator claimed that one is allowed to do with this prisoner whatever, not only deprive him of sleep, but break his fingers, etc.etc., because he is "a piece of human garbage with no rights whatsoever." THIS is the true catastrophe: that such public statements are today possiblechange in OUR political order.

We should therefore be very attentive not to fight false battles: the debates on how bad Saddam is, even on how much the war will cost, etc., are false debates. The focus should be on what effectively goes on in our societies, on what kind of society is emerging HERE as the result of the "war on terror." Instead of talking about hidden conspirative agendas, one should shift the focus onto what is going on, onto what kind of changes are taking place here and now. The ultimate result of the war will be a change in OUR political order. The true danger can be best exemplified by the actual role of the populist Right in Europe: to introduce certain topics (the foreign threat, the [[necessity ]] to [[limit ]] [[immigration]], etc.) which were then silently taken over not only by the [[conservative ]] parties, but even by the de facto politics of the "Socialist" governments. Today, the [[need ]] to "regulate" the status of immigrants, etc., is part of the mainstream consensus: as the story goes, [[le Pen ]] did address and exploit real problems which bother people. One is almost tempted to say that, if there were no le Pen in France, he should have been invented: he is a perfect person whom one [[loves ]] to hate, the hatred for whom guarantees the wide liberal "democratic pact," the pathetic [[identification ]] with democratic values of tolerance and respect for diversity — however, after shouting "Horrible! How dark and uncivilized! Wholly unacceptable! A threat to our basic democratic values!", the outraged liberals proceed to act like "le Pen with a human face," to do the same thing in a more "[[civilized]]" way, along the lines of "But the racist populists are manipulating legitimate worries of ordinary people, so we do have to take some measures!"… We do have here a kind of perverted Hegelian "negation of negation": in a first negation, the populist Right disturbs the aseptic liberal consensus by giving voice to passionate dissent, clearly arguing against the "foreign threat"; in a second negation, the "decent" democratic center, in the very gesture of pathetically rejecting this populist Right, integrates its message in a "civilized" way — in-between, the ENTIRE FIELD of background "unwritten rules" has already changed so much that no one even notices it and everyone is just relieved that the anti-democratic threat is over. And the true danger is that something similar will happen with the "war on terror": "extremists" like John Ashcroft will be discarded, but their legacy will remain, imperceptibly interwoven into the invisible ethical fabric of our societies. Their defeat will be their ultimate triumph: they will no longer be needed, since their message will be incorporated into the mainstream. From: Lacan.com 03.13.2003.Available: http://www.lacan.com/iraq.htm.

* [[The Iraq War: Where is the True Danger?]]. ''[[Lacan.com]]''. March 13, 2003. <http://www.lacan.com/iraq.htm>. Also hosted by the ''European Graduate [[School]]''. <http://egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-the-iraq-war-where-is-the-true-danger.html>  

[[Category:ZizekArticles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:Slavoj Žižek]]