The amoral beast Part II

There are far too many episodes that show the true character of the 'American Dream'. Consider the issue of biological and chemical weapons, about which the 'Anglo-Saxon horde' (US, UK and Australia) are singing.

While there is a long history to the use of chemical and biological agents as weapons, the supposedly civilised British and the Americans excel in its deployment. Not o­nly did they develop and use it, but they also 'shared' that technology.

Thus, as the US geared up for possible military action to ensure that Iraq is stripped of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), there was renewed attention o­n Washington's instrumental and pivotal role in helping Baghdad develop its arsenal of chemical and biological agents in the 1980s to help the Iraqis' war with Iran.

The programme allegedly involved the crucial role of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which of course he claims he does not remember.

Just as the US was instrumental in creating al-Qaeda, so too was it instrumental in giving Iraq the WMD, making the world that much unsafe and unsustainable.

Rational America? The American Dream worldwide?

Incidentally this kind of selective 'memory loss' is part of the American foreign policy practice - its leaders do not seem to remember much of what they did to the world before Sept 11.

Knowing the dangers that chemical and bio-weapons might cause to its own citizens, Britain and the US renounced the use of biological weapons in 1950s and 1960s respectively.

This eventually led to the introduction of the 1972 Convention o­n the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and o­n their Destruction (BTWC). About 144 states are parties to this. In 1994, a verification protocol was introduced.

The US, as in many other international efforts and treaties, has not allowed the conclusion of this binding multilateral verification agreement claiming that other countries may cheat and that 'Honest America' will lose out in the process.

Another problem in this context reveals where the US is going in relation to bio-weapons. The development in science can be used in both ways i.e. for peaceful use and for war. A hammer is an instrument of gentle creativity in the hands of a carpenter but a weapon in the hands of a murderer. This is true of atomic energy, and biological and chemical weapons.

The 'dual-use ambiguity' has been creatively used by the US. A report by the respected Sunshine Project, an NGO that "works to bring facts about biological weapons to light", mentions that: "The US has been especially creative in this regard. In September last year and following the anthrax attacks, several US bio-defence projects became public which stretched the limits of the BTWC and in some cases violated it.

"These included the testing of mock biological bombs, explosive testing of aerosols, and production of weapons-grade anthrax. In the wake of the anthrax attacks, the US congress has approved spending over US $10,000,000,000 for bio-defence studies."

The outputs of these studies are potential materials for the development of bio-weapons. We will have an even more dangerous US in the future, who may claim then that bio-weapons are after all okay to have.

The self-proclaimed 'life, liberty and democracy'defending US has become a major obstacle to many international efforts to make the world a safer place for us today and for our children tomorrow. All these o­nly to protect its interests. The image of 'Selfish America' is of course well hidden behind legal or academic jargon.

Take for instance the growing global problem of climate change. Among the many consequences, as it will lead to melting of polar ice formation, will be a rise in the sea level. This will certainly threaten small island nations. For instance, Tuvalu, a tiny island nation in the Pacific Ocean midway between Hawaii and Australia and independent for barely 23 years now, will soon be lost forever.

Global warming and the consequent rise of the sea level are no longer just ideas. Rice-growing river floodplains in Asia, including those in India, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and China, are also predicted to be affected, threatened by the inundation of coastal areas.

The UN Protocol concerning the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions adopted in Kyoto in early December 1997 cannot completely succeed because of US Congress hostility. With about five percent of global population, the US is responsible for about 25 percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide, the main pollutant covered by Kyoto Protocol. (China has a quarter of the world's population but produces o­nly 13.5 of the world's carbon dioxide emissions.)

The Protocol commits 38 industrialised nations to reducing emissions of the main gases produced by human activities. These gases are blamed for climate change. By 2012, the countries would have to cut emissions by an average of 5.2 percent o­n their 1990 levels, and the US by 7 percent.

Of course, the mighty US did not like that. A former British ambassador to the UN, Sir Crispin Tickell, commented that "The US decision is very short-sighted, and a confession of weakness. Saying Kyoto would harm their economy just shows how inefficient it is. They're pleading protection for their own inefficiency."

In relation to this, Friends of the Earth commented that "George Bush is attempting to tear up the Kyoto protocol in the face of world opinion", something that we hear very often in the context of war o­n Iraq.

The US administration created a similar situation when the world established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and determined its powers. The statute outlining the creation of the court was adopted at an international conference in Rome in mid-July 1998.

The ICC was established to investigate and prosecute people accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. A total of 120 countries in the world voted to adopt the treaty, while seven abstained. The supposedly "fairness-conscious and justice-minded" US was o­ne among them. So was Israel.

The US has been the o­nly state to actively oppose the establishment of the ICC. To scuttle this effort, the US has approached many governments requesting them to sign agreements not to surrender or transfer US nationals to the ICC. It has already signed such bilateral agreements with Israel, East Timor, Romania and Tajikistan.

The US is exerting extreme pressure, in many situations threatening to withdraw US military assistance. Amnesty International observes that "these agreements seek to undermine and weaken the ICC which was created to end impunity for the worst crimes known to humanity" (which could include the US or its citizens).

It has done a similar thing to the UN today by taking unilateral action o­n Iraq, claiming support of some 35 nations. Of course, a strained, stressed, sombre-looking made-by-the-American-television Bush sold it to the American people by presenting a weak statement that about 35 countries are behind them.

There are many more such obstacles put by the US to 'improving' the world to protect its selfish interests. The behaviour of its corporations is just another area to explore the 'real' values animating the US.

According to the 2001 World Development Report, six out the 10 richest MNCs are from the US. Their earnings are so huge that they are far more economically powerful than many sovereign nations, but without the accountability assigned to the nation-state. There are of course many more in addition to this that constitutes American corporate power in all economic fields.

Many US-based corporations are involved in all kind of anti-labour, and subversive activities across the globe. In the list is Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer. Does this company follow the values Americans so cherish and project?

Even the US-based KLD Domino 400 that checks o­n social responsibility does not think so and has dropped Wal-Mart from its list for being socially irresponsible in relation to labour practices. Over half of Wal-Mart's imports come from its contractors in China.

In 2000, a human rights organisation discovered a factory in Zhongshan City, China, where workers for Wal-Mart's contractor were forced to put in 14-hour shifts, seven days a week, 30 days a month. They were effectively held as indentured servants in overcrowded dormitories. At the end of the month nearly half of them owe the company money to cover two dismal meals a day and pay deductions for talking to co-workers while sewing.

Nike, an American clothing and footwear giant, presents another case. In 1991, Indonesian workers who have been making Nike products for the past 10 years, were paid US$0.45 per day, not enough to meet basic physical needs. In addition they were exposed to sexual and verbal harassment.

Limited access to medical care and compulsory overtime are commonplace in Indonesian factories making goods for the Nike. Female workers in o­ne factory were forced to trade sexual favours to gain employment.

Despite the fact that Nike, giving in to pressure from human rights groups, issued a statement in 1998 promising to improve conditions for the 500,000 employees of their contractors across Asia, many claim that the situation has not significantly improved and the reality is but a shadowy reflection of that promise. Sweatshop labour is still being exploited. This is another multinational that has also been dropped from the KLD list for bad labour practices across Asia and not o­nly in Indonesia.

Central to the secret life of Corporate America is corruption and bribery. The Transparency International annually produces 'The Bribery Index'. The Bribe Payers Index (BPI) shows that US multinational corporations have a high propensity to pay bribes to foreign government officials.

The Bribery Index ranges from 0 to 10, representing perceived levels of corruption (with 10 indicating a clean bill of health).

The US scored 5.3. for 2001 (matched by Japanese companies and worse than the scores for corporations from France, Spain, Germany, Singapore and Britain). This propensity to bribe has actually increased as in 1999 the US managed 6.2 o­n the index. What values really govern the corporations that systematically pay bribes?

Consider corporations from the land that loudly claims to the world to be fair, understanding and compassionate, their close links with those holding political power and their use of international instruments whenever this is in their favour.

The issue illustrated here pertains to banana-growing nations in the Caribbean. The European Union (EU) maintained a preferential trade relationship with former colonies of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP). An agreement, called the first Lome Convention, was signed in 1975 between the then Europe community and 71 ACP nations creating in a sense an EU-ACP trading block.

In the Caribbean, the EU used to buy 8 percent of its bananas. These banana sales contributed to the livelihood of about 200,000 people in countries where unemployment rates reached 30-50 percent. In effect, it was a trade block helping the poor farmers of the Caribbean who were also practising environment-friendly agriculture and equitable distribution.

However, in the world of global free trade, under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) regime, this preferential cannot be practised; it is 'unfair' market practice! In a decision made by WTO in September 1997, the Europeans can't make their buying decisions based o­n anything other than price.

One report o­n this matter revels the following: "The Chiquita Company is a US company that owns banana plantations in Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras and Panama where thousands of underpaid workers are exposed to dangerous pesticides and unions are banned.

"Chiquita supplies 50 percent of the EU's banana imports each year, but wants an even larger market share. Chiquita grows no bananas in the US, but few days after the corporation donated US$500,000 to the Democratic Party, the Clinton/Gore administration filed a complaint with the WTO o­n behalf of Chiquita.

"The WTO ruled in favour of the US and Chiquita (in September 1997). The EU initially refused to comply with the WTO ruling, Chiquita then donated US$350,000 to the Republican Party and the Republican-dominated Congress prepared legislation to impose tariffs o­n goods imported from the EU as punishment for refusing to comply with the WTO's ruling."

The EU had to comply and the US Corporation had its way putting a lot of poor people in difficulties.

Compassion? Fairness? Sensitivity?

The list can go o­n. US support for the South African apartheid regime before it was dismantled and the provision of sensitive intelligence information for the arrest of Nelson Mandela, its double standards in dealings with Israel and other states like Palestine in the Middle East, its convenient use of the terms such as "just war", "humanitarian intervention" when it really wants "regime change" are more examples of its behaviour in a global context.

Last but not the least is the US 'export' of the debris from the World Trade Centre after the Sept 11attacks, to a number of countries in Asia including Malaysia. The debris contain highly toxic elements. Bad for Americans. Good for business. Never mind the Asians.

Really, what does all this suggest?

The US of America is really the US of (Chronic) Aggression, the basis of its marketing and military activities. That is the core of the American dream and values.

The rest is merely sugar coating delivered through their various cultural channels for global consumption. Or, values that are sustained by a small number of good Americans who are a non-entity, ashamed of their nation and helpless in many ways like the rest of the world.

Instead of a nation of Martin Luther Kings, Howard Zinns, Oliver Stones or Noam Chomskys, we have Bushs, Rumsfelds and Powells and their like. Dangerous for the world.

The US is certainly an amoral beast that knows o­nly o­ne thing: to protect itself (even if it means destroying the world peace and its institutions, if not destroying the world itself). With an entity that is amoral or without any conscience, you cannot discuss anything. It will get o­n with what it wants to do.

The o­nly language the US understands as British Prime Minister Tony Blair passionately argued in the House of Commons a few days ago about what Iraqi President Saddam Hussein understands - is force or aggression.

Will the world community be able to ever stop the US? Can the world community stop the Anglo-Saxon Horde by a global collective political will and common moral and material force? The US must to be disarmed for an authentic free world to emerge.

Dr M NADARAJAH is a sociologist by profession. He is the deputy co-ordinator of Bangkok-based Asian Communication Network and works o­n sustainable development issues.