The Old Story... posted by Richard Seymour

Imperialism has usually been contiguous with a patronising racist contempt for the occupied or colonised. This axiomatic wisdom is, of course, being undone in the service of the current imperial phase. So it is useful that David Chandler has spent a lot of his time combatting that tendency - focussing in particular on the prize captures of the liberal imperialists, Bosnia and Kosovo. He has shown, through diligent research and scholarship that the attitude of the occupiers in Bosnia and Kosovo has been a repetition of empires past - the occupiers treat them as if they were children, incapable of self-determination.

They also tend to treat areas under 'our' geo-political tutelage as if they actually belong to 'us'. As Edward Said documents in Covering Islam, this was the lingua franca of Republicans on Iran during Eighties and Nineties, and even on Turkey when a moderate Islamic government was elected in 1996. (Hence, Thomas L. Friedman's "Who Lost Turkey?" as if it were 'ours' to 'lose' - the message, of course, is that Islam is contrary to US interests). A gimcrack 'knowledge' is created about the denizens of 'our' countries, usually riddled with inaccuracies and mythologies (anyone remember those delightful comparisons between Albanians and Serbs during the Kosovo war?).

So, it is no surprise that in Iraq, as David Chandler once more discovers, the story is the same .

Meanwhile :

The American military launched some 50 air strikes designed to kill specific targets during the Iraq war, it emerged yesterday, but none of them found its mark. Instead the air strikes had a high civilian toll, according to military officials serving at the time. Until now only a few of the air strikes, such as the use of four 2,000lb "bunker-buster" bombs in an attempt to kill Saddam Hussein at a farm in Masur on March 19, had been made public.

So they lied to us about the human cost of the war? Who woulda thunk it?

Oh, and by the way? You know how we invaded Afghanistan because we're big on womens' rights and the Taliban aren't? Think again. For those who can't be bothered to register, I'd better do a quick cut n paste:

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the treatment of women in the Islamic world has received unprecedented attention.

Mass e-petitions to "Save Afghan Women" were circulated; the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan raised record amounts of money; Iraqi women came forward on shows such as ABC's "20/20," and the burqa, for many Americans, became a symbol of women's oppression under fundamentalist rule.

The Bush administration added the status and treatment of women in these countries to the list of justifications for warfare against them.

"America will always stand for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, private property, free speech, equal justice and religious tolerance," President Bush said in his first State of the Union address after the attacks.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "The worldwide advancement of women's issues is not only in keeping with the deeply held values of the American people; it is strongly in our national interest as well. . . . Women's issues affect not only women; they have profound implications for all humankind."

...

The United Nations adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1979. It was the first international instrument to comprehensively address women's rights within political, cultural, economic, social and family life. It continues to be the only international treaty to do so.

No U.S. ratification

As of April 20, 2004, 177 countries had ratified the treaty.

The United States is among several nations that have not, including Iran, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

Harold Hongju Koh, who was a Clinton administration assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, called ratification of the treaty a clear sign that a country is on board on the question of gender equality.

"I found that a country's ratification of [the treaty] is one of the surest indicators of the strength of its commitment to internalize the universal norm of gender equality into its domestic law," Koh said.

The closest the U.S. came to treaty ratification was in the summer of 2002 after it was voted favorably out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) was reluctant to bring the treaty up for a vote because he didn't have the 67 votes required for passage.

Some undecided senators said they wanted to hear the Bush administration's view of the treaty. In June 2002, when the hearings were held, the administration was invited but wanted more time to finalize its review process. The administration's review was not completed by the time the committee finally voted to release the treaty that July. The Senate adjourned, and the treaty reverted back to the committee.

In a letter to Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) dated July 8, 2002, Powell said the State and Justice Departments had started their reviews of the treaty. To date, the administration has not reported the results of this review to the Foreign Relations Committee.

Document sits in committee.

Never mind. History will prove us right.