|
Stardate
20030412.0343 (On Screen): Is it possible for anti-war activists to make themselves look any more absurd? They seem to be seeking new heights in sheer lunacy, day by day. One Stephanie Shaudel, identifies a major threat facing Iraq today:
Many Iraqi citizens have taken to the streets in recent days to celebrate their freedom from dictator Saddam Hussein. But that joy could turn to sorrow, anti-war protesters warn, when the Iraqis begin to see their country adopt western cultural values.
Stephanie Schaudel, co-coordinator for Voices in the Wilderness, an anti-war group in Chicago, said the "richness of culture" in Iraq is going to be subjected to Americanization by U.S. corporations during the post-war rebuilding of the war-torn nation. The result, she indicated, would be difficult for Iraqis to swallow.
"Some people would think that seeing a KFC (formerly Kentucky Fried Chicken) on a street corner is a sign of progress, I certainly don't," Schaudel said.
Schaudel sees the destruction from the war as the greatest threat to the Iraqi people, but believes their suffering will continue as America's cultural influence increases.
"You can just look at what those kinds of businesses have done to the diet and health of many Americans to think that it might not be the number one thing we should be exporting," she explained.
"Iraqis have really good food, they don't need a KFC," she added.
OK, lady, whatever you say. Now put down that taco and back away slowly.
My first take on this was that it was a spoof. But Stephanie Shaudel is real, and so is Voices in the Wilderness.
What we're seeing here is an absolutely classic manifestation of the Mean Green Meme. It's a straight play, right out of the tranzi playbook. And not even a satirist would have had the guts to put these words into the mouths of anti-war protesters.
Somehow it seems as if life always upstages art.
Update: Of course, it's a tough call whether the anti-war protesters or the weasels are better at self-parody. Brian sends this link to a report which says that Russian oil firm Lukoil will sue to keep the development contracts it got from Saddam.
Reuters reported that LUKOIL vice president Leonid Fedun told Kommersant business daily the firm would sue any new contender for the field for at least $20 billion and ask international courts to arrest tankers with Iraqi crude oil.
"Nobody can develop the West Qurna oilfield without us in the next eight years. If somebody decides to squeeze LUKOIL out, we are going to appeal in the Geneva arbitration court, which will immediately arrest this field," said Fedun to Reuters.
"This type of trial can last for about six or eight years. . . . We are going to arrest tankers with crude produced in Iraq using the Geneva court," he added.
I didn't think Switzerland had a navy. (Even if they did win the America's Cup.) How, exactly, do you "arrest a tanker"? (Put handcuffs on it?)
The weasels' faith in the binding power of "world courts" is of a piece with their belief in the UN as the only source of legitimacy for any administration of post-war Iraq, or in the impossibility of violating international law. I predict that Fedun is going to be receiving a great deal of unpleasant news soon. About $3.7 billion worth, in fact.
Update: Several people have written to say that "arrest a ship" is a term of art in maritime law. International lawyer Adrian says "You arrest a vessel by getting an order to seize the vessel (ship or aircraft) from a court in the country where the vessel is located (for example, in a port)."
The real question, of course, is whether Lukoil's contract is legally defensible and whether they court they might try to take their case to would actually have the ability to enforce any decisions it might hand down.
There's a real question as to whether the contract exists if one of the parties to the contract ceases to exist. Who was their contract with, anyway? If it's with Saddam, then he's the one they should be taking to court. (If they can find him, and if he's even still alive.)
There are likely a lot of other reasons why these contracts are invalid, by the way, but the most important is simply that we're in Iraq and Russia isn't.
Cheng points out that the Russians are in a particularly bad position for making this argument anyway:
I noted the update of Lukoil's effort in self-parody that you posted as an update to the self-parody of the self-righteous peace crowd, and could not stop giggling at the concept of the a lawsuit from the firm. I note that Lukoil must have been looking at other precedents outside Russia for threatening the lawsuit, because they sure can not find any inside the country. Back when the Soviet Union fell to pieces, and Russia emerged as
| 