NEW YORK: George Soros, billionaire financier, has issued a virtual indictment of the Bush administration for what he belives is “the heedless assertion of American power in the world resembles a financial bubble — and the moment of truth may be here.”
In an article in Atlantic monthly Mr Soros argues that “the supremacist ideology of the Bush administration stands in opposition to the principles of an open society, which recognize that people have different views and that nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth.”
Lambasting the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration who had been making a case for invading Iraq since 1998, Mr Soros says, “Whatever the justification for removing Saddam Hussein, there can be no doubt that we invaded Iraq on false pretences. Wittingly or unwittingly, President Bush deceived the American public and Congress and rode roughshod over the opinions of our allies.”
He asserts: “The gap between the administration’s expectations and the actual state of affairs could not be wider. It is difficult to think of a recent military operation that has gone so wrong. Our soldiers have been forced to do police duty in combat gear, and they continue to be killed. We have put at risk not only our soldiers’ lives but the combat effectiveness of our armed forces. Their morale is impaired, and we are no longer in a position to properly project our power. If we ever needed proof that the dream of American supremacy is misconceived, the occupation of Iraq has provided.”
He says, “The costs of occupation and the prospect of permanent war are weighing heavily on our economy and we are failing to address many festering problems — domestic and global.”
Addressing the concerns of the international community and human and civil rights advocates, Mr Soro says, “It is ironic that the government of the most successful open society in the world should have fallen into the hands of people who ignore the first principles of open society.”
“At home Attorney General John Ashcroft has used the war on terrorism to curtail civil liberties. Abroad the United States is trying to impose its views and interests through the use of military force. The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the Bush doctrine, and it has turned out to be counterproductive. A chasm has opened between America and the rest of the world.”
Mr Soros observes, “the Bush doctrine, first enunciated in a presidential speech at West Point in June of 2002 and incorporated into the National Security Strategy three months later, is built on two pillars: the United States will do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy; and the United States arrogates the right to pre-emptive action. In effect, the doctrine establishes two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the will of the United States. This is reminiscent of George Orwell’s Animal Farm: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
“The Bush doctrine is not stated so starkly; it is shrouded in doublespeak. The doublespeak is needed because of the contradiction between the Bush administration’s concept of freedom and democracy and the actual principles and requirements of freedom and democracy.”
He adds, “Talk of spreading democracy looms large in the National Security Strategy. But when President Bush says, as he does frequently, that freedom will prevail, he means that America will prevail. In a free and open society, people are supposed to decide for themselves what they mean by freedom and democracy, and not simply follow America’s lead. The contradiction is especially apparent in the case of Iraq, and the occupation of Iraq has brought the issue home. We came as liberators, bringing freedom and democracy, but that is not how we are perceived by a large part of the population.”
Mr Soros says that “the terrorist attack on the United States could have been treated as a crime against humanity rather than an act of war. Treating it as a crime would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action. Protection against terrorism requires precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering — all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which the terrorists operate.”
He notes that “Declaring war on terrorism better suited the purposes of the Bush Administration, because it invoked military might; but this is the wrong way to deal with the problem. Military action requires an identifiable target, preferably a state. As a result the war on terrorism has been directed primarily against states harbouring terrorists. Yet terrorists are by definition non-state actors, even if they are often sponsored by states.”
Soros believes that “the war on terrorism as pursued by the Bush Administration cannot be won. On the contrary, it may bring about a permanent state of war. Terrorists will never disappear. They will continue to provide a pretext for the pursuit of American supremacy. That pursuit, in turn, will continue to generate resistance. Further, by turning the hunt for terrorists into a war, we are bound to create innocent victims. The more innocent victims there are, the greater the resentment.”
