Dec 30, 2000 letter from Gorby is astonishing. W is making
it clear via his appointments that the US is preparing for
war. The Gorby letter makes us ask, "With Whom?"
What W seems to be saying is that we are demanding American
controlled globalization and drawing a line in the sand over
it. So many overlapping interests and alliances but Gorby
is right I think. NATO notwithstanding, this is ultimately
a conflict between Europe and the US with China watching like
a vulture. American arrogance is putrid. This does wonders
for the right-wing weirdoes who placed Gorby totally in bed
with Bush in a monolithic conspiracy. What all of this says
is that weaknesses and fault lines are showing on the global
scale that I fear are leading to massive conflicts. It feels
more like 1914 all the time. The dogs of war are hungry and
straining at their chains. Could Colombia be the new Sarajevo?
Mike Ruppert www.copvcia.com
Published on Saturday, Dec. 30, 2000 in the
International Herald Tribune
Mr. Bush, The World Doesn't Want
to Be American
by Mikhail Gorbachev
MOSCOW - Dear Mr. Bush:
I am writing to you as a citizen of our
planet and someone who beholds the last remaining superpower.
Can there be any doubt that the United States plays a major
role in guiding our world? Only a fool could disregard that
fact. To acknowledge this is a given, even though American
spokesmen are perhaps somewhat overly inclined to press
the point home to the rest of the world.
For while America's role is acknowledged
throughout the world, her claim to hegemony, not to say
domination, is not similarly recognized. For this reason,
I hope, Mr. Bush, as the new American president, that you
will give up any illusion that the 21st century can, or
even should, be the "American Century." Globalization
is a given - but "American globalization" would
be a mistake. In fact, it would be something devoid of meaning
and even dangerous.
I would go even further and say it is time
for America's electorate to be told the blunt truth: that
the present situation of the United States, with a part
of its population able to enjoy a life of extraordinary
comfort and privilege, is not tenable as long as an enormous
portion of the world lives in abject poverty, degradation
and backwardness. For 10 years, U.S. foreign policy has
been formulated as if it were the policy of a victor in
war, the Cold War. But at the highest reaches of U.S. policy-making
no one has grasped the fact that this could not be the basis
for formulating post-Cold War policy.
In fact, there has been no "pacification."
On the contrary, there has been a heightening of inequalities,
tension and hostility, with most of the last directed toward
the United States. Instead of seeing an increase in U.S.
security, the end of the Cold War has seen a decline. It
is not hard to imagine that, should the United States persist
in its policies, the international situation will continue
It is also difficult to believe that, under
present circumstances, relations between the United States,
on the one hand, and China, India and all the rest of the
earth that lives in abject poverty, on the other, could
develop in a positive direction. Nor is it possible, on
the basis of its present posture, for the United States
to establish effective, long-term cooperation with its traditional
allies, Europe first and foremost. Already we see numerous
trade disputes, evidence of the conflicting interests separating
the United States and the European Union. At the recent
conference in The Hague, where the participants were supposed
to come up with a common policy on limiting greenhouse effects,
U.S. positions were far removed from those of all others.
As a result, no decision was taken. This is clearly an example
of a failure of "world governance."
From the standpoint of the Old World, the
post-Cold War period ushered in hopes that now are faded.
Over the past decade, the United States has continued to
operate along an ideological track identical to the one
it followed during the Cold War. Need an example? The expansion
of NATO eastward, the handling of the Yugoslav crisis, the
theory and practice of U.S. rearmament - including the utterly
extravagant national missile defense system, which, in turn,
is based on the bizarre notion of "rogue states."
Isn't it amazing that disarmament moved further during the
last phase of the Cold War than during the period after
its end? And isn't that because U.S. leadership has been
unable to adjust to the new European reality? Europe is
now a new, independent and powerful player on the world
scene. To continue to regard it as a junior partner would
be a mistake. Europe's experience must serve as a lesson
for future relations, but it can do so only if America and
Europe build a genuine, equal partnership. Finally, it is
hardly a secret that relations between the United States
and Russia have deteriorated over recent years. Responsibility
for this must be shared between Russia and America.
The present leadership of Russia appears
ready to cooperate with the United States in framing a new
agenda for relations. But it is unclear what your orientation
will be. What we heard during the electoral campaign did
not sound encouraging. If we truly want to build a new world
order and further European unity, we have to recognize that
this will not be possible without an active role for Russia.
This recognition is the necessary basis for setting future
Russian-American relations on the right path. The world
is complicated, it contains and expresses a variety of interests
and cultures. Sooner or later, international policy, including
that of the United States, will have to come to terms with
[The writer, the last president of the
former Soviet Union, contributed this comment to the Washington
Post.] Copyright (c) 2000 the International Herald Tribune
[In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section
107, this material is distributed without profit or payment
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
this information for non-profit research and educational