Page 22

The U.S. Election Notes on US election – What can be hoped for? By Peter Ewart, , July 26, 2016, Prince George Published online, at – LINK:

A choice is being put forward in the upcoming US presidential election – some might call it a trap – between what is presented as a so-called moderate, progressive, and peaceful Hillary Clinton and an extreme, reactionary and war-mongering Donald Trump. But does this choice really reflect reality? Indeed, it can be argued that Hillary Clinton is the creature of and chosen war candidate for the US defense industry (1) (2). It is a fact that her campaign has collected more donations from defense corporations than any other Democratic or Republican candidate, not to speak of the millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation over the years by these same corporations and their client states such as Saudi Arabia (3). Then there is her track record of support for US military intervention and aggression abroad. She was a cheerleader for the bombing of Serbia when her husband Bill was president and is said to have played a key role in convincing him to undertake this aggressive action. She supported George W. Bush’s disastrous invasion of Iraq. And, when she was Secretary of State in the Obama administration, it is well known that she led the charge to commit aggression against the sovereign country of Libya, resulting in the torture and murder of its leader Qaddafi, and plunging the country with the highest standing of living in Africa into chaos and disorder. Cackling in a notorious media interview, to this day she shows no regrets for the disaster she wreaked upon the country (4). In addition, she supported Al Queda and ISIS linked terrorist forces in their ongoing attempts to overthrow the Assad government in Syria (5). This is not to speak of her active support, as Secretary of State, for coups against elected governments in both the Ukraine and Honduras. Nor of her ongoing war mongering rhetoric and ramping up of tensions against Russia, China, Iran and other countries. It is not surprising that, in this election, a number of prominent Republican neo-conservatives, notorious for engineering and promoting the invasion of Iraq, have moved over to support her (6). Unfortunately, some prominent “peace” activists have also. The irony in all this is that, unlike war hawk Clinton, 22 dialogue

AUTUMN 2016, VOL. 30, NO. 1

Donald Trump has, at least to some extent, questioned the “regime change” efforts and endless foreign wars of both Republican and Democratic administrations that have plunged the Middle East into chaos, prompted an immigration crisis in Europe, and heightened tensions everywhere. This is not to suggest that Trump, as president, would necessarily be less dangerous than Clinton. He also makes extreme chauvinist and war mongering statements, along with actively promoting racism against the millions of undocumented Latin American immigrants in the US, people of Muslim religion and so on. But it does highlight the danger of claiming that Clinton is the “lesser of two evils” when it comes to launching unjust and aggressive war. It also highlights that the issue of aggressive war is not a “left” or “right” position. What has become clear is that there are many Americans voting Republican and many voting Democratic who are sick of the endless wars and foreign interventions of the US government and the Defense industry. Whole countries and regions have been devastated, and, in addition, many US soldiers killed or wounded. All the while, health, education, transportation, and other infrastructure in the US suffers from an acute lack of funding. Nor is the issue of aggressive war a matter of being proor anti-business. Even a U.S. business leader like Peter Thiel is fed up with the huge resources being handed over to Defense industry and war-profiteering corporations and the resulting ballooning of the national debt. “Instead of going to Mars,” he said at the Republican Convention, “we have invaded the Middle East. … It’s time to end the era of stupid wars and rebuild our country.” Whatever the result of the US election, a positive factor will be the emergence of a strong antiwar movement that will provide a check to the war mongering of whichever party ends up in power. And we need a strong antiwar movement in Canada also. The Trudeau government and the other parties in Parliament gave standing ovations to Obama (who despite all his “peace” rhetoric has escalated war preparations, drone assassinations, and other interventions) when he visited Canada recently and to his requests for more Canadian troops being sent to Eastern Europe and Syria. Will the parties in Parliament also give standing ovations when a new US administration (which may

Dialogue Vol.30, No.1 digital edition  

Canada's unique volunteer-produced magazine for ideas, insights, critical thinking & radical imagination - shared in letters, essays, storie...