. 32
( 42 .)


On March 10, 1999, in a talk delivered in Guatemala City, President Clinton said that US
support for repressive forces in Guatemala "was wrong, and the United States must not
repeat that mistake." But the word "sorry" did not cross the president's lips, nor did the
word "apologize", nor the word "compensation".18 Forty years of unholy cruelty to a
people for which the United States was preeminently responsible was not worth a right
word or a penny.

This was the first visit by an American president to Guatemala since Lyndon Johnson
went there in 1968, during the height of the oppression by Washington's client-state
government. Johnson did not of course say that the current US policy in Guatemala was
wrong, when it would have meant a lot more than Clinton saying so 31 years later. LBJ
did, however, inform his audience that he had heard that Guatemala was called "the land
of eternal spring."19


Clinton's visit to Greece in November 1999 brought out large and fiery anti-American
demonstrations, protesting the recent American bombing of Yugoslavia and the
indispensable US support for the torturers par excellence of the 1967-74 Greek junta.
During his one-day stop, the president found time to address a private group”"When the
junta took over in 1967 here," he told his audience, "the United States allowed its
interests in prosecuting the Cold War to prevail over its interest”I should say its
obligation”to support democracy, which was, after all, the cause for which we fought
the Cold War. It is important that we acknowledge that." National Security Council
spokesman David Leavey was quick to point out that the president's statement about the
former junta was "not intended as an apology."20 Questions arise. How can it be that the
US fought the Cold War to "support democracy" and wound up supporting not only the
Greek dictators but dozens of other tyrannies? Were they all simply "wrong" actions, all
"mistakes", like in Guatemala? At what point do we conclude that a consistent sequence
of "mistakes" demonstrates intended actions and policy? Moreover, if US "interests" in
the Cold War "prevailed" over the cause of democracy, we must ask: What are these
"interests" that are in conflict, or at least not harmonious, with democracy, these
"interests" which are routinely invoked by American statesmen, but never given a proper
name? (Hint: follow the money.)

Finally, we have the words of President Clinton spoken in Uganda in March 1998:

During the Cold War when we were so concerned about being in competition with the
Soviet Union, very often we dealt with countries in Africa and in other parts of the world
based more on how they stood in the struggle between the United States and the Soviet
Union than how they stood in the struggle for their own people's aspirations to live up to
the fullest of their God-given abilities.21
What is going on here? Guatemala, Greece, Africa, other parts of the world...Is the
president disowning a half-century of American foreign policy? Is he saying that the
United States brought all that death, destruction, torture and suffering to the world's
multitudes for no good reason? That all we were diligently taught about the nobility of
the fight against the thing called "communism" was a fraud?

We'll never know what William Clinton really thinks about these things. He probably
doesn't know himself. But we do know what he does. As discussed in the "Introduction"
and in "Interventions", we know that he has continued the very same kind of policies he
now repudiates. And some day a future American president may acknowledge that what
Clinton did in Iraq, Colombia, Mexico, Yugoslavia and elsewhere was "wrong" or
"mistaken". But that future president, even while the words cross his lips, will be doing
the "wrong" thing himself in one corner of the world or another. And for the same

CHAPTER 26 : The United States Invades, Bombs and Kills for It...but
Do Americans Really Believe in Free Enterprise?

Since the end of the Cold War, prominent American economists and financial specialists
have been advising the governments of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union on
the creation and virtues of a free-enterprise system.

The US-government-financed National Endowment for Democracy is busy doing the
same on a daily basis in numerous corners of the world.

The US-controlled World Bank and International Monetary Fund will not bestow their
financial blessings upon any country that does not aggressively pursue a market

The United States refuses to remove its embargo and end all its other punishments of
Cuba unless the Cubans terminate their socialist experiment and jump on the capitalist

Before Washington would sanction and make possible his return to Haiti in 1994, Haitian
President Jean-Bertrand Aristide had to guarantee the White House that he would shed
his socialist inclinations and embrace the free market.

It would, consequently, come as a shock to the peoples of many countries to realize that,
in actuality, most Americans do not believe in the free-enterprise system. It would, as
well, come as a shock to most Americans.

To be sure, a poll asking something like: "Do you believe that our capitalist system
should become more socialist?" would be met with a resounding "No!"
But, going above and beyond the buzz words, is that how Americans really feel?

Supply and demand

Following the disastrous 1994 earthquake in Los Angeles came the cry from many
quarters: Stores should not be raising prices so much for basic necessities like water,
batteries and diapers. Stores should not be raising their prices at all at such a time, it was
insisted. It's not the California way and it's not the American way, said Senator Dianne
Feinstein. More grievances arose because landlords were raising rents on vacant
apartments after many dwellings in the city had been rendered uninhabitable. How dare
they do that? people wailed. The California Assembly then proceeded to make it a crime
for merchants to increase prices for vital goods and services by more than ten percent
after a natural disaster.1

In the face of all this, one must wonder: Hadn't any of these people taken even a high-
school course in economics? Hadn't they learned at all about the Law of Supply and
Demand? Did they think the law had been repealed? Did they think it should be?

Even members of Congress don't seem to quite trust the workings of the system. They
regularly consider measures to contain soaring drug and health-care costs and the
possible regulation of the ticket distribution industry because of alleged price abuses.2
Why don't our legislators simply allow "the magic of the marketplace" to do its magic?

The profit motive

President Calvin Coolidge left Americans these stirring words to ponder: "Civilization
and profits go hand in hand." When First Lady, Hillary Clinton, however, lashed out at
the medical and insurance industries for putting their profits ahead of the public's health.
"The market," she declared, "knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."3

The unions regularly attack companies for skimping on worker health and safety in their
pursuit of higher profit.

Environmentalists never sleep in their condemnation of industry putting profits before the

Lawyer bashing has become a veritable American sport.

Judges frequently impose lighter sentences upon lawbreakers if they haven't actually
profited monetarily from their acts. And they forbid others from making a profit from
their crimes by selling book or film rights, or interviews. The California Senate made this
into law in 1994, which directs that any such income of criminals convicted of serious
crimes be placed into a trust fund for the benefit of the victims of their crimes.4
President George Bush, in pardoning individuals involved in the Iran-Contra scandal,
stated: "First, the common denominator of their motivation”whether their actions were
right or wrong”was patriotism. Second they did not profit or seek to profit from their

No less a champion of free enterprise than former senator Robert Dole said, in an attack
upon the entertainment industry during his 1996 presidential campaign, that he wanted
"to point out to corporate executives there ought to be some limit on profits...We must
hold Hollywood accountable for putting profit ahead of com-mon decency."6

That same year, the mayor of Philadelphia, Ed Rendell, bemoan-ing the corporations'
move to the suburbs”for what he admitted were "perfectly rational" reasons”declared:
"If we let the free market operate unconstrained, cities will die."7

Finally, we have a congressional debate in May 1998 about imposing sanctions against
countries that allow religious persecution. The sanctions were opposed by US business
interests, prompting Rep. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to declare: "We've got to figure out
what we believe in our country. Do we believe in capitalism and money or do we believe
in human rights?"8

But how can the system conceivably function as it was designed to without the diligent
pursuit of profit? Not merely profit, but the optimization of profit. Surely an attorney like
Mrs. Clinton knows that corporate officers can be sued by stockholders for ignoring this
dictum. Yet she and so many others proceed to blast away at one of the pillars of the
capitalist temple.

Private entrepreneurship and ownership

Likewise, the American Medical Association has taken aim at another of the temple's
honored pillars”patents, that shrine to the quintessential entrepreneur, the inventor. The
AMA issued a blister-ing condemnation of the increasingly popular practice of patenting
new surgical and medical procedures, saying it was unethical and would retard medical
progress.9 Is Thomas Edison rolling over in his grave?

A few years ago, the people of Cleveland felt very hurt and betrayed by the owner of the
Browns moving his football team to Baltimore. But is it not the very essence of private
ownership that the owner has the right to use the thing he owns in a manner conducive to
earning greater profit? Nonetheless, Senator John Glenn and Representative Louis Stokes
of Ohio announced their plan to introduce legislation to curb such franchise relocation.10

Competition and choice

And where is the appreciation for America's supposedly cherished ideal of greater
"choice"? How many citizens welcome all the junk mail filling their mailboxes, or having
their senses pursued and surrounded by omnipresent advertisements and commercials?
People moan the arrival in their neighborhood of the national chain that smothers and
drives out their favorite friendly bookstore, pharmacist or coffee shop, squawking about
how "unfair" it is that this "predator" has marched in with hobnail boots and the club of
"discount prices". But is this not a textbook case of how free, unfettered competition
should operate? Why hasn't the public taken to heart what they're all taught”that in the
long run competition benefits everyone?

Ironically, the national chains, like other corporate giants sup-posedly in competition, are
sometimes caught in price-fixing and other acts of collusion, bringing to mind John
Kenneth Galbraith's observation that no one really likes the market except the economists
and the Federal Trade Commission.

The non-profit alternative

The citizenry may have drifted even further away from the system than all this indicates,
for American society seems to have more trust and respect for "non-profit" organizations
than for the profit-seeking kind. Would the public be so generous with disaster relief if
the Red Cross were a regular profit-making business? Would the Internal Revenue
Service allow it to be tax-exempt? Why does the Post Office give cheaper rates to non-
profits and lower rates for books and magazines which don't contain advertising? For an
AIDS test, do people feel more confident going to the Public Health Service or to a
commercial laboratory? Why does "educational" or "public" television not have regular
commercials? What would Americans think of peace-corps volunteers, elementary-
school teachers, clergy, nurses and social workers who demanded in excess of $100
thousand per year? Would the public like to see churches competing with each other,
complete with ad campaigns selling a New and Improved God?

Pervading all these attitudes, and frequently voiced, is a strong disapproval of greed and
selfishness, in glaring contradiction to the reality that greed and selfishness form the
official and ideological basis of our system.

It's almost as if no one remembers how the system is supposed to work any more, or they
prefer not to dwell on it. Where is all this leading to? Are the Russian reformers going to
wind up as the last true believers in capitalism?

It would appear that, at least on a gut level, Americans have had it up to here with free
enterprise”the type of examples given above are repeated in the media each and every
day. The great irony of it all is that the mass of the American people are not aware that
their sundry attitudes constitute an anti-free-enterprise philosophy, and thus tend to go on
believing the conventional wisdom that government is the problem, that big government
is the biggest problem, and that their salvation cometh from the private sector, thereby
feeding directly into pn>free'enterprise ideology.

Thus it is that those activists for social change who believe that American society is faced
with problems so daunting that no corporation or entrepreneur is ever going to solve them
at a profit carry the burden of convincing the American people that they don't really
believe what they think they believe; and that the public's complementary mindset”that
the government is no match for the private sector in efficiently getting big and important
things done”is equally fallacious, for the government has built up an incredible military
machine (ignoring for the moment, what it's used for), landed men on the moon, created
great dams, marvelous national parks, an interstate highway system, the peace corps,
student loans, social security, insurance for bank deposits, protection of pension funds
against corporate misuse, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of
Health, the Smithsonian, the G.1. Bill and much, much more. In short, the government
has been quite good at doing what it wanted to do, or what labor and other movements
have made it do, like establishing worker health and safety standards and requiring food
manufacturers to list detailed information about ingredients.

Activists have to remind the American people of what they've already learned but seem
to have forgotten: that they don't want more government, or less government; they don't
want big government, or small government; they want government on their side.

None of the above, of course, will deter The World's Only Superpower from continuing
its jihad to impose capitalist fundamen^ talism upon the world.

A couple of more reasons why the jihad may have tough going

Nearly half of adult Americans surveyed by the Hearst Corporation in 1987 believed Karl
Marx's aphorism "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was
to be found in the US Constitution.11

Mark Brzezinski, son of Zbigniew, was a post-Cold War Fulbright Scholar in Warsaw: "I
asked my students to define democracy.

Expecting a discussion on individual liberties and authentically elected institutions, I was
surprised to hear my students respond that to them, democracy means a government
obligation to maintain a certain standard of living and to provide health care, education
and housing for all. In other words, socialism."12

CHAPTER 27 : A Day in the Life of a Free Country

The question is irresistibly upon us.

How do they get away with it?

How does the United States orchestrate economies, subvert democracy, overthrow
sovereign nations, torture them, chemicalize them, biologize them, radiate them...all the
less-than-nice things detailed in this book, often in the full glare of the international
media, with the most stunning contradictions between word and deed.. .without being
mercilessly condemned by the world's masses, by anyone with a social conscience,
without being shunned like a leper? Without American leaders being brought before


. 32
( 42 .)