Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

ForeignPolicy

Global Consensus, Not Global Conquest

By Amy Goodman, Truthdig. Posted September 26, 2007.


Focusing on whether Columbia University should have invited Iran's President Ahmadinejad to speak, Bush's drumbeat for war with Iran goes unchallenged. Let this not be a reprise of the war on Iraq.
Advertisement

As world leaders gather this week to address the United Nations General Assembly, President Bush's refusal to negotiate on the two key issues of our day -- war and global warming -- has been stunning. And the media haven't helped. Focusing on whether Columbia University should have invited Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, the Bush administration's drumbeat for war with Iran goes unchallenged. Let this not be a reprise of the war on Iraq.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his new memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq War is largely about oil." I asked him to elaborate: "It's clear to me that were there not the oil resources in Iraq, the whole picture of how that part of the Middle East developed would have been different."

It is an obvious point. It's just too bad that he wasn't willing to admit this before the invasion; his every utterance during his tenure at the Fed influenced decision-makers around the world, particularly in his own backyard at the White House.

As Naomi Klein, the author of "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," listened to Greenspan, she pointed out, "Under international law ... it is illegal to wage wars to gain access to other countries', sovereign countries', natural resources."

Which brings us to Iran, another oil-rich country. As with Iraq, the Bush administration doesn't talk about Iran's oil, but rather claims that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. Sound familiar? The answer isn't war; it's diplomacy. Earlier this week, I spoke with one of Israel's top political columnists, Akiva Eldar, with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. He opposes an attack on Iran: "[T]he Middle East is going to be nuclearized in no time. I think that solution should be a regional agreement ... the Middle East should be nuclear-free, including Israel. I think this has to be part of an agreement."

The U.N. gathering of world leaders is an ideal moment to hammer out agreements like Eldar recommends, as it is to take on the other crisis fueled by oil: climate change.

On the global-warming front, the opening of the U.N. General Assembly this week coincided with a major meeting on climate change, attended by more than 80 world leaders. As U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon kicked off the meeting, he said: "We hold the future in our hands. Together we must ensure that our grandchildren will not have to ask why we have failed to do the right things and left them to suffer the consequences. So let us send a clear and collective signal to people everywhere. Today, let the world know that you are ready to shoulder this responsibility and that you will address this challenge head-on."

Yvo de Boer, a top U.N. climate expert, said: "The United States is still the largest emitter worldwide of greenhouse gases. For that reason and for a number of others, the participation of the U.S. is essential." Yet Bush did not participate in the global meeting. Instead, Bush is hosting an invitation-only gathering of "major economies" in Washington, D.C., to discuss voluntary caps on greenhouse gas emissions. This is simply not enough. Ban Ki-moon criticized the Bush meeting, saying, "The U.N. climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating global action."

One of those leaders who came to address the U.N. General Assembly was Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia. While the U.S. rarely looks south for leadership, Morales' example is worth considering. He has restored diplomatic relations with Iran. Against tremendous internal opposition, he nationalized Bolivia's natural gas fields, transforming the country's economic stability, and, interestingly, enriching the very elite that originally criticized the move. (Contrast this with the U.S. pressuring the Iraqi parliament to pass an oil law that would virtually hand over control of Iraq's oil to the major U.S. oil corporations.) President Morales told me: "Neither mother earth nor life are commodities. We are talking about a profound change of models and systems."

The twin crises of war and climate change, inexorably linked by our thirst for oil, need a concerted global solution -- one that won't be obtained by cowboy diplomacy. The United States must pursue global consensus, not global conquest -- before it is too late.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iran, oil, climate change, united nations, evo morales

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The MSM Fails Again ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 26, 2007 2:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amy is right on the mark ...

The real headlines should have that Bush will Not atttend the UNs meeting on Global Warming ...

And indeed , the War Mongers in the Senate , herded the cowardly into a lopsided vote against Iran ... further fanning the flames for War against Iran.

Unfortunately , what might come to pass is indeed a War with Iran that Bush will use to slide out of office leaving our country at War , Politically Dysfunctional and Going Bankrupt ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

exceptional rudeness & stupidity
Posted by: annm on Sep 27, 2007 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i was disgusted by the preliminary comments from the president of columbia uni when introducing President Ahmadinejad. it seemed to me that the invitation was just so that the president could score personal points at the expense of the invited head of state of a foreign power.

President Ahmadinejad should have been invited to speak first. after that challenges to what he had said would have been part of the normal process of informed debate. to set the man up before he speaks was inexcusable.

peace

annm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Consequences of war?
Posted by: warrior woman on Sep 27, 2007 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think of the possible consequences of war against Iran. Their population compared to Iraq, 70 million to 30. An army that is well trained. They have the second largest oil supplies in the world. They are among the chief suppliers of oil to Russia and China. China holds significant debt of the US. Our world's climate is in turmoil, still denied by the Bush administration. Would a nuclear attack or shall I say, Could a nuclear attack as large as Hiroshima or multiple attacks as we have been led to believe, irrevocably change our climate and push us over the edge? I'm not a scientist, therefore, ask this question as I don't know the answer. There are many reasons aside from the climate issue to believe that an attack on Iran could be our "biblical Armadeddon". Personally, I don't want to believe in this, wish it to be nonsense but when you start to add the players together, the religious right who "wants" Armageddon (but don't realize that they'd all die for real in this scenario), the pro-Israel groups that think this would solve their problems, the neocons who wish to profit insanely from war and then Democrats who are fearful they won't be re-elected again, it's a crazy mix. Add to this, American's who just won't do anything to help to stop this, where will we be in 2009? Still under Bush/Cheney and martial law.

As Ms. Gooding states, "The United States must pursue global consensus, not global conquest -- before it is too late." But, what perhaps we should hope for is that the global community puts a stop to this insanity, at least the war on Iran part. We don't appear to have the power to take this on ourselves, therefore, we need the rest of the world powers to step up and tell our children in the White House to F'g stop it! The downside of war against Iran is too terrible to contemplate. Aside from climate change possibilities, we could have an economic depression larger and more permanent than in 1929, our children will be conscripted to fight, perhaps our spouses too- there would be no choice, it's possible that other countries would try to invade our shores- first to stop the attacks on Iran and later to take us over if for nothing less than our own vast resources, etc etc. Remember the capacity of our military right now, overstretched is an understatement.

Ok, it sounds like a doomsayer, I know. That's the problem with people who think down the road a few steps and aren't only focused on the short term. There is no way that we will control Iran or the oil there. We've failed in Iraq. We have got to continue our work to keep our country and world intact. Even though we need to have help from the world community, it's our responsibility ulitmately which means it starts with the people by actively seeking Congress to keep this mess in control. More people have to be engaged but it's too late for that. It's up to those of us who "see" to do the heavy lifting. There's no choice any more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The UN Resolution that Israel and the US didn't support, but Iran did
Posted by: lrrysgl on Sep 27, 2007 9:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
UN passed a resolution calling all Middle-East countries to renounce atomic weapons. Iran and other Arab nations voted in favor of it, US and Israel opposed it; Israel still the nation with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world that is not subject to IAEA inspection (reuters.com)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shame on John Bollinger
Posted by: gexrobert on Sep 27, 2007 1:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One really has to wonder what is happening in America when John Bollinger insulted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by calling him a cruel and petty dictator. After all, John Bollinger (not John Bolton!!) is a president of a leading US university and is supposed to represent some of the intelligential of this country. He not only looks sophomorically ignorant (Ameadinejad was elected and is not the real source of power in Iran, he cannot even appoint his cabinet members and is really just a mouthpiece for the Mullas, hardly a dictator) but has just missed a historic chance to try to use reason and dialog to reach out to Iran to try and avoid the war that Cheney and his stooge W are itching for. Instead, the head of a US university uses insults that even Cheney might not have made, and is actually helping the NEO CONS move the USA down the slippery slope to war.

Thanks again John Bollinger, you are making it clear that it is just not the NEOCONS and their idealistically twisted base that seem to salivate war with Iran, it is also the academic intelligential that is moving in that direction. I hope you see the folly of your remarks when the bombs fall and that history will remember you as the US college president who missed a golden opportunity for dialog and instead became a mouthpiece for war and death.

Robert Gex
Bainbridge Island WA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Shame on John Bollinger Posted by: scott balogh
» RE: Shame on John Bollinger Posted by: scott balogh