Part Two

If that is not enough, there is also the state of the environment on the planet, also partially suppressed.  The first Earth Summit held 11 years ago itemised the threats facing the planet: climate change, destruction of the rain forests, increasing deserts, the loss of species, the lack of clean water etc.  All these were attributed to the activities of the humankind and the overuse and misuse of limited resources.   Urgent action was needed to repair the damage.  However, at the second Earth Summit last year it was found that these matters had been ignored by the majority of governments and have gone downhill fast since 1992.  To change the way we act will not be popular with everyone, but adjustments must be made and with planning we can change, we must change.  We cannot continue on the present course.  The most important part of the environment is the water.  We have been warned of water scarcity and that wars will be fought over water.  It is a desperate situation, and all the evidence points to the first quarter of this century being the critical time to act.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the balance that was evident throughout the Cold War years has now gone.  During those years, although the US and its allies dominated the UN Security Council, the United States usually restrained itself and observed the UN Charter and its covenants.  Now the US is the sole superpower, by far the world's strongest military power with the most advanced military technologies and the strongest multinational corporations, and now at the instigation of the United States the United Nations has gone through several restructuring processes.  In the first restructure the UN office dealing with multinationals was abolished; this office was where countries could take their complaints about the actions of multinationals on their territory.  Then there was the Department of Disarmament.  This was quickly reduced to an office.

Over the years the United Nations has lost a lot of influence.  Today the Bush Jnr administration would like to see the UN disbanded altogether or reduced to just a world charity organisation and the United States would take over.  In 1992 the Bush Snr administration plotted this course in the Pentagon document dubbed 'The New World Order' which laid out the strategies in the military as well as in trade and economics.  The stated goal was nothing less than world domination, and in 1997 the neoconservatives formed the 'Project for a New American Century' to rally support for American global leadership.

The march of capitalism has only one route: to consolidate capital, to extend its markets and to increase its profits.  This results in monopoly capitalism where some multinationals have more assets than some countries.  But the ruling class, aided by the media monopolies, still tells us there is competition under capitalism!  All governments follow this path - but the US because of its strength is by far the most dominant.  Republicans and democrats have the same aim - they just do things differently.

The ultra-conservatives who played a role in the Reagan and Bush Snr republican administrations were excluded from playing a direct role in the democrat Clinton/Gore administration.  Instead the Clinton administration concentrated on economic power and there was a push for corporate globalisation, which resulted in the ruthless transfer of wealth from the poor nations to the rich.

This globalisation brought matters to a head and the first big demonstrations against corporate and economic power took place in the United States itself in Seattle 1999.  Under Clinton the oil interests in the Caspian basin were secured for the US and more military bases were built in strategic countries, then there were the rich mines in Kosovo, also secured for the US.  The Clinton administration presided over the bulk of the sanctions on Iraq; the then Secretary of State said the price was worth it, when she was told the sanctions killed 5,000 Iraqi children a month!  On the positive side, the administration did emphasise multilateral co-operation and made genuine attempts to solve the Israeli/Palestine problems and the North Korean problem.

When the US Supreme Court appointed George W Bush as president in 2000, he immediately surrounded himself with the neo-conservatives that had been in power during the Reagan and Bush Snr administration, and they moved quickly.  They very clearly embraced unilateralism, making them unpopular among the allies.  On the domestic front, big business was rewarded in many ways and the arms expenditure got a big increase.  Unemployment rose and social services suffered.  During its first year the Bush administration began to lose what little support it had among its own people.

Then came September 11^th, 2001.  Whether the Bush administration had anything to do with the terrorist attack or not, they were certainly poised to take advantage of it.  Bush declared a 'War on Terrorism', blamed al-Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden and his organisation in Afghanistan, and attacked the network.  People were lulled into thinking these military actions made them more secure.  Immediately the support for the Bush administration rose.  After a week or so the tactics changed to the Taliban and Afghanistan and Kabul were bombed, but there is plenty of evidence now to show that the Afghanistan invasion was planned well before September 11^th  and the proposed oil pipeline through Afghanistan played a major part.

Bush enacted laws such as 'The Patriot Act' ostensibly to combat terrorism, but after a while the people began to realise that civil liberties and human rights were being attacked.  Bush also declared the 'Axis of Evil' and demanded a regime change for some countries.  It was then that the saga of weapons of mass destruction and the United Nations' weapons inspectors began in Iraq.  Weapons of mass destruction still have not been found, but the majority opinion now is that the action was necessary to rid the world of a tyrant.  This opinion change has been achieved by the media.

There are people who say that the Bush administration has done some good in having brought things to a head and people can now see the ruthlessness of his policies and the capitalist system.  In part that is right, it has exposed the system, but this administration is much more dangerous than any previous ones.  Under this administration there has been major policy changes and many countries are now in fear of a US invasion because of the policy of 'preventive wars' and pre-emptive strikes.