Changes

The one good argument for war is We all [[remember]] the old [[joke]] [[about]] the borrowed kettle which [[Freud]] [[quotes]] in [[order]] to render the strange [[logic]] of [[dreams]], namely the one recently evoked by Christopher Hitchensenumeration of mutually exclusive answers to a reproach (that I returned to a friend a broken kettle): one should (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 of inconsistent arguments of course confirms per negationem what it endeavors to deny — that I returned you a broken kettle… Do we not forget that [[encounter]] the same [[inconsistency]] when high US officials try to justify the majority of Iraqis effectively are attack on [[Iraq]]? (1) There is a link between [[Saddam]]'s victims[[regime]] and [[al-Qaeda]], so Saddam should be punished as part of the revenge for 9/11; (2) even if there was no link between Iraqi regime and al Qaeda, they would be are united in their [[hatred]] of the US — Saddam's regime is a really glad bad one, a [[threat]] not only to the US, but also to get rid its neighbors, and we should liberate the Iraqi [[people]]; (3) the [[change]] of regime in Iraq will create the [[conditions]] for the [[resolution]] of themthe Israeli-Palestinian [[conflict]]. He was such a catastrophe The problem is that there are TOO MANY reasons for his country the attack… Furthermore, one is almost tempted to [[claim]] that an American occupation in WHATEVER form may seem a much brighter prospect , within the [[space]] of this reference to them with regard 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 daily survival and much lower level of fear. We claim that there are not talking here 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 to [[other]] nations [[democracy ]] and prosperity. And it seems as if these three "[[real]]" reasons are the "[[truth]]" of the three [[official]] reasons: (1) is the truth of the urge to liberate Iraqis; (2) is the truth 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 Iraqand al-Qaeda. — And, incidentally, opponents of the war seem to [[repeat]] the same inconsistent logic: (1) Saddam is really bad, we also [[want]] to see him toppled," but just we should give inspectors more [[time]], since inspectors are more efficient; (2) it is all really about the control of getting rid 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 nightmare called anti-American [[terrorism]]; (4) Saddam. To this majorityis a murderer and torturer, his regime a criminal catastrophe, the caution expressed by Western liberals cannot but appear deeply hypocritical — do they really care about how the Iraqi people feel?attack on Iraq destined to overthrow Saddam will cost too much…

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

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

The idea 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 to "repeat Japan give people a chance, liberate them from their imposed constraints, and they will join us in our ideological dream… No wonder that, in 1945February 2003,an American [[representative]] used the word "[[capitalist]] revolution" to bring democracy describe what Americans are now doing: exporting their revolution all around the [[world]]. No wonder they moved from "containing" the [[enemy]] to Iraqa more [[aggressive]] stance. It is the US which is now, which will then serve as model for the entire Arab defunct USSR was decades ago, the subversive [[agent]] of a worldrevolution. When [[Bush]] recently said "[[Freedom]] is not America's gift to other nations, enabling people it is god's gift to get rid of humanity," this [[apparent]] [[modesty]] nonetheless, in the corrupt regimesbest totalitarian fashion, immediately faces an insurmountable obstacleconceals its opposite: what about Saudi Arabia where yes, BUT it is in nonetheless the vital US interest that which perceives itself as the country does NOT turn into democracy? The result chosen [[instrument]] of democracy in Saudi Arabia would have been either distributing this gift to all the repetition of Iran in 1953 (a populist regime with an anti-imperialist twist) or nations of Algeria a couple of years ago, when the "fundamentalists" WON the free elections.world!

There is nonetheless a grain of truth The [[idea]] to "repeat Japan in Rumsfeld's ironic pun against the 1945,"old Europe." The French-German united stand against the US policy apropos to bring democracy to 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 will then serve as [[model]] for the European Community. So no wonder that anti-Americanism is at its strongest in "big" European nationsentire Arab world, especially France and Germany: it is part of their resistance enabling people to globalization. One often hears the complaint that the recent trend of globalization threatens the sovereignty get rid of the Nation-States; here, howevercorrupt regimes, one should qualify this statement: WHICH states are most exposed to this threat? It is not the small states, but the second-rate (ex-)world powers, countries like United Kingdom, Germany and Franceimmediately faces an insurmountable obstacle: what they fear about Saudi Arabia where it is that, once fully immersed in the newly emerging global Empire, they will be reduced at vital US interest that the same level as, say, Austria, Belgium or even Luxembourg. country does NOT turn into democracy? The refusal result of "Americanization" democracy in France, shared by many Leftists and Rightist nationalists, is thus ultimately Saudi Arabia would have been either the refusal to accept the fact that France itself is losing its hegemonic role [[repetition]] of [[Iran]] in Europe. The leveling of weight between larger and smaller Nation1953 (a populist regime with an anti-States should thus be counted among the beneficial effects of globalization: beneath the contemptuous deriding imperialist twist) or of the new Eastern European post-Communist states, it is easy to discern the contours of the wounded Narcissism of the European "great nations." And this great-state-nationalism is not just [[Algeria]] a feature external to the (failure couple of) the present opposition; it affects the very way France and Germany articulated this opposition. Instead of doing, even more activelyyears ago, precisely what Americans are doing — MOBILIZING when the "new Europeanfundamentalists" states on their own politico-military platform, ORGANIZING WON the common new front -, France and Germany arrogantly acted alonefree elections.

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

Is In the recent French resistance against the war on Iraq not the moment , there definitely is a clear echo of truth when the "officialold decadent" political distinctions are blurred? Generally, we live in a topsyEurope: escape the problem by non-turvy world in which Republicans freely spend moneyacting, creating record budget deficits, while Democrats practice budget balance; in which Republicans, who thunder against big government and preach devolution by new resolutions upon resolutions — all this reminiscent of power to states and local communities, are in the process inactivity of creating the strongest state mechanism League of control Nations against Germany in the entire history of humanity1930s. And the same applies to post-Communist countries. Symptomatic is here pacifist call "let the case of Polandinspectors do their [[work]]" clearly IS hypocritical: they are only allowed to do the most ardent supporter work because there is a credible threat of military [[intervention]]. Not to mention the US politics French neocolonialism in Poland is the exAfrica (from Congo-Communist president Kwasniewski (who is even mentioned as the future secretary of NATO, after George Robertson), while the main opposition Brazzaville to the participation of Poland dark French role in the anti-Iraq coalition comes from Rwanda crisis and massacres)? And about the Rightist parties. Towards French role in the end of January 2003Bosnian war? Furthermore, the Polish bishops also demanded from the government that as it should add to the contract which regulates the membership of Poland in the EU was made clear a special paragraph guaranteeing that Poland will "retain the right to keep its fundamental values as they are formulated in its constitution" — by which, couple of coursemonths ago, are meant the prohibition of abortion, of euthanasia is it not clear that France and of the same-sex marriages.Germany worry about their own hegemony in Europe?

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

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

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

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

Everyone fears the catastrophic outcome One of the US attack on Iraq: an ecological catastrophe of gigantic proportions, high US casualtiesJacques [[Lacan]]'s outrageous statements is that, even if what a terrorist attack in the West… In this wayjealous husband claims about his wife (that she sleeps around with other men) is all true, we already accept his [[jealousy]] is still pathological; along the US standpoint — and it is easy to imagine howsame lines, if the war will be over soonone could say that, in a kind even of repetition most of the 1990 Gulf War[[Nazi]] claims about the [[Jews]] were true (they exploit Germans, if Saddam's regime will disintegrate fastthey [[seduce]] German girls…), there will their [[anti-Semitism]] would still be a universal sigh of relief even among many present critics of (and was) pathological — because it represses the true [[reason]] WHY the US policy[[Nazis]] NEEDED anti-Semitism in order to sustain their ideological [[position]]. One is even tempted to consider And the hypothesis that same should be said today, apropos of the US are on purpose fomenting claim "Saddam has weapons of mass [[destruction]]!" — even if this fear of an impending catastrophe, counting on the universal relief when the catastrophe will NOT occur… This, however, claim is arguably the greatest true danger. That (and it probably is , at least to saysome degree), one should gather the courage it is still [[false]] with regard to proclaim the opposite: perhaps, the bad military turn for the US would be the best thing that can happen, a sobering piece of bad news position from which would compel all the participants to rethink their positionit is [[enunciated]].

On 9/11 2001, Everyone fears the catastrophic outcome of the Twin Towers were hit; twelve years earlier, US attack on 11/9 1989Iraq: an ecological catastrophe of gigantic proportions, the Berlin Wall fell. 11/9 announced the "happy 90shigh US casualties," a terrorist attack in the Francis Fukuyama dream of the "end of historyWest… In this way," we already accept the belief that liberal democracy has in principle wonUS standpoint — and it is easy to imagine how, that if the search is war will be oversoon, that the advent in a kind of repetition of a global liberal world community lurks round the corner1990 Gulf War, that the obstacles to this ultra-Hollywood happy ending are just empirical and contingentif Saddam's regime will disintegrate fast, local pockets there will be a [[universal]] sigh of relief even among many present critics of resistance where the leaders did not yet grasp that their time US policy. One is over; in contrast even tempted to it, 9/11 is consider the main symbol of hypothesis that the end US are on [[purpose]] fomenting this fear of the Clintonite happy 90san impending catastrophe, of counting on the forthcoming era in which new walls are emerging everywhere, between Israel and universal relief when the West Bankcatastrophe will NOT occur… This, around the European Unionhowever, on is arguably the US-Mexican bordergreatest true [[danger]]. The prospect of a new global crisis That is loomingto say, one should gather the courage to proclaim the opposite: economic collapsesperhaps, the bad military and other catastrophesturn for the US would be the best [[thing]] that can happen, emergency states…a sobering piece of bad news which would compel all the participants to rethink their position.

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

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

Are we aware The first permanent global war crimes court started to work on July 1, 2002 in The 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, 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 is one of them. This is [[another]] step forward in the midst of a humanity's slow march toward [[civilization]]."silent revolutionHowever," in while [[human rights]] groups have hailed the course of which court's creation as the unwritten rules which determine the most elementary biggest milestone for international justice since top Nazis were tried by an international logic are changing? The US scold Gerhardt Schroedermilitary tribunal in Nuremberg after World War Two, a democratically elected leaderthe court faces stiff opposition from the United States, for maintaining a stance supported by a large majority [[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. borders, and the population, plus, according U.S. Congress is even weighing legislation authorizing U.S. forces to invade The Hague where the polls court will be based, in the mid-February, around 59% [[event]] prosecutors grab a U.S. national. The noteworthy paradox here is that the US thus rejected the jurisdiction of a tribunal which was constituted with the full support (and votes) of the US population itself (themselves! Why, then, should [[Milosevic]], who oppose strike against Iraq without now sits in the UN support). In TurkeyHague, according not be given the right to opinion pollsclaim that, 94% since the US reject the legality of the people international jurisdiction of the Hague tribunal, the same argumentation should hold also for him? And the same goes for Croatia: the US are opposed now exerting tremendous pressure onto the Croat government to deliver to allowing the US troops' presence for Hague court a couple of its generals accused of war crimes during the war against Iraq struggles in Bosnia — where the reaction is democracy here? Every old Leftist remembers Marx's reply, in The Communist Manifestoof course, to how can they ask this of US when THEY do not recognize the critics who reproached legitimacy of the Communists that they aim at undermining family, property, etc.: it is Hague court? Or are the capitalist order itself whose economic dynamics is destroying the traditional family order (incidentally, a fact US citizens effectively "more true today equal than in Marx's time), as well as expropriating others"? If one simply universalizes the large majority underlying principles of the population. In the same veinBush-[[doctrine]], is it does [[India]] not that precisely those who pose today as global defenders of democracy are effectively undermining ithave a full right to attack [[Pakistan]]? In a perverse rhetorical twistIt does directly support and harbor anti-Indian terror in Kashmir, when the pro-war leaders are confronted with the brutal fact that their politics is out and it possesses (nuclear) weapons of tune with mass destruction. Not to mention the majority right of their population, they take recourse China to the commonplace wisdom that "a true leader leadsattack Taiwan, he does not follow" — and this from leaders otherwise obsessed so on, with opinion polls…unpredictable consequences…

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

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

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

We should therefore be very attentive not to fight false battles: the debates On March 5 2003, on "Buchanan & Press" news show on how bad Saddam isNBC, even they showed on how much the war will costTV [[screen]] the photo of the recently [[captured]] Khalid Shakh Mohammed, etc.the "[[third]] man of al-Qaeda" — a mean face with moustaches, are false debates. The focus should be on what effectively goes on in our societiesan unspecified nightgown prison-dress, 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 the names all the detailed plans for the future terrorist attacks on what kind the US, be tortured, so that we get all this out of him?" The [[horror]] of it was that the photo, 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 society is emerging HERE as the result good old days of the colonial war in Algeria when the torture practiced by the French Army was a dirty secret… Effectively, was this not a pretty close realization of what Orwell imagined in 1984, in his [[vision]] of "war on terror.[[hate]] sessions," Instead where the citizens are shown photos of talking about hidden conspirative agendasthe traitors and supposed to boo and yell at them. And the story goes on: a day later, on another Fox TV show, a commentator claimed that one should shift the focus onto what is going onallowed to do with this prisoner whatever, onto what kind not only deprive him of changes are taking place here and now[[sleep]], but break his fingers, etc.etc. The ultimate result , because he is "a piece of human garbage with no rights whatsoever." THIS is the war will be a change in OUR political ordertrue catastrophe: that such public statements are today possible.

The true danger can We should therefore be best exemplified by the actual role of the populist Right in Europevery attentive not to fight false battles: to introduce certain topics (the foreign threatdebates on how bad Saddam is, even on how much the necessity to limit immigrationwar will cost, etc.) which were then silently taken over not only by the conservative parties, but even by 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 de facto politics result of the "Socialist" governmentswar on terror. Today, the need to "regulate" the status Instead of immigrantstalking about hidden conspirative agendas, etc.one should shift the focus onto what is going on, is part onto what kind of the mainstream consensus: as the story goes, le Pen did address changes are taking [[place]] here and exploit real problems which bother peoplenow. 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 The ultimate result 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 war will be a human face," to do the same thing change 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!"…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.

* [[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>