Day: November 10, 2023
A group of anti-Israel protesters stormed the New York Times building on Friday, demanding that the newspaper stop its “biased” coverage of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. The protesters, who identified themselves as members of Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now, accused the newspaper of “inciting genocide” against the Palestinians by supporting Israel’s right to self-defense.
The protesters entered the building around noon, chanting slogans such as “NYT, stop lying” and “Free Palestine”. They occupied the lobby and the editorial floor, where they confronted some of the journalists and editors. They also displayed banners and signs that read “NYT: Stop whitewashing Israel’s war crimes” and “NYT: Stop silencing Palestinian voices”.
The police arrived at the scene shortly after and tried to disperse the protesters, who resisted and clashed with the officers. Some of the protesters were arrested and taken away in handcuffs, while others managed to escape. The police said that no one was injured in the incident, but that the building suffered some minor damage.
The New York Times issued a statement in response to the protest, saying that it was “deeply disturbed” by the “unlawful and violent” actions of the protesters. The statement said that the newspaper was committed to “fair and accurate” reporting of the Israel-Hamas conflict and that it respected the right of people to express their opinions peacefully.
The protest was part of a series of demonstrations that have taken place across the US and around the world in recent weeks, as the violence between Israel and Hamas has escalated. The protesters have called for an end to the Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, which have killed more than 200 Palestinians, including many civilians and children. They have also condemned the rocket attacks by Hamas, which have killed 12 Israelis and injured hundreds more. They have urged the US government to stop its military aid to Israel and to pressure it to agree to a ceasefire and a political solution.
By Andrew Hammond
King Charles this week gave the UK’s first King’s Speech in Parliament for more than seven decades. However, the address, which is traditionally written for the monarch by the government of the day, will not go down in the history books for its content.
The speech was long on words, with it possibly being the longest such address by a monarch since 2005. So, all the more shame that it was rather short on new ideas, especially for domestic policy, with the emphasis appearing to be more on a series of short-term measures designed to try to win headlines.
Even senior Conservatives criticized the lack of ambition. Former Cabinet minister Greg Clark, now the chair of the House of Commons Science Select Committee, condemned the “disappointing” failure to include an artificial intelligence bill that would help regulate the sector following last week’s big summit on the topic.
Moreover, ex-Prime Minister Theresa May warned 10 Downing Street’s current incumbent Rishi Sunak that “what we need to do now is press the accelerator on the transition to a green economy, not try to draw back. I fear that … the King’s Speech … is not sufficiently strong in ambition from the government to make sure that they are making that transition quickly enough to ensure that we reach net zero in 2050.”
The Conservative Party has now been in office for the best part of a decade and a half. Five prime ministers in and the party seems intellectually exhausted, with little that is genuinely novel announced on Tuesday.
There are now growing calls for the UK, which is nearly four years into a maximum five-year Parliament, to hold a general election. However, with the Conservatives trailing badly in the opinion polls, Sunak may well resist calling a ballot until at least the second half of 2024 to see if something turns up that might reverse his troubled political fortunes.
The King’s Speech signals not only the state opening of Parliament, but also a new UK lawmaking cycle, potentially the last full one for Sunak as PM. While Tuesday’s provisions were mainly domestically focused, some will have implications for key international audiences, cementing the details of prior government announcements — some dating back years.
One example is a new trade bill focused on the UK’s pending membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a pact of 11 countries spanning Asia-Pacific and the Americas (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam). The bill will ensure the UK can meet international commitments under the partnership when the nation formally accedes, probably next year.
This legislation is the latest move in the UK’s pivot toward the Asia-Pacific following Brexit. While, at present, the deal does not nearly get close to replacing the UK’s lost trade from the 27 EU states of recent years, given the existing economic patterns it does nonetheless deepen the country’s access to some of the world’s most dynamic economies. The group will account for the majority of worldwide growth between now and 2050 and will account for some 15 percent of global gross domestic product once the UK accedes.
With the COP28 climate summit in Dubai fast approaching, another bill with potentially key international consequences is the new Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill. For about two decades, the UK has led the world on climate change issues, with a valuable bipartisan consensus around the energy transition and tackling global warming seeing the nation cut emissions further and faster than any other major economy. However, that precious political consensus — and the goal of achieving net-zero emissions by no later than 2050 — is threatened by Sunak’s proposed licensing of new oil and gas fields in the North Sea. The prime minister claims this will boost British energy security by reducing the country’s dependence on higher-emission imports from overseas, including Russia.
Laudable as this goal may be in the wake of the Ukraine war, critics such as the independent Committee on Climate Change assert that the global warming emergency means that the UK must go further to deliver net zero. This call is echoed by respected international bodies such as the International Energy Agency, which has called on as many advanced nations as possible, including the UK, to deliver on net zero five years earlier than planned, by 2045, thus providing developing countries with a bigger window to make their transition.
Meanwhile, in light of the current crisis in the Middle East, another bill of interest to international audiences is the legislation on the economic activities of public bodies overseas. This aims to stop British public bodies from imposing their own views on international relations by preventing boycott, divestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries.
The government is concerned that some bodies that use public funds, such as councils, universities and cultural institutions, are imposing their own politically motivated campaigns. This is especially in relation to Israel, on which the government perceives that such boycotts may legitimize antisemitism.
The proposed legislation will prevent public institutions from carrying out independent boycotts, divestments and sanctions relating to foreign countries or those linked to them, the sale of goods and services from foreign countries, and UK firms that trade with such countries, where such an approach is not in line with UK government sanctions. The measures will cover purchasing, procurement and investment decisions that undermine cohesion and integration.
Taken overall, Tuesday’s address has international implications, but it lacked the domestic ambition needed to navigate the UK on key issues like climate change. It is becoming ever clearer that a new government will be needed to deliver on that important, multigenerational project.
- Andrew Hammond is an Associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics.
By Syafiq Hasyim
Indonesia now seems to be witnessing the fading away of political Islam in the public sphere, as observed in the decline of Islamist organisations in the last decade. The definition of political Islam is in its objective of establishing an Islamic political system.[1] The last attempt to revive political Islam was through the mass mobilisation of Aksi Bela Islam (Action to Defend Islam) in 2016-2017, but that failed.
However, that does not end the struggle for implementing Islam as a societal system. Interestingly, the latter struggle is not only being carried out by those who do not agree with the implementation of political Islam, but is also supported by those who do not wish for the total absence of Islam from the public sphere. This article looks at the changing face of Islam in Indonesia, from a focus on political Islam to a revival of Islamic lifestyles. Two questions addressed here are: firstly, why did the main focus of Islam in the public sphere shift from political Islam to Islamic lifestyles and what factors stimulated that change? Secondly, how do Islamic lifestyles direct the inclusion of more Sharia in the public sphere?
THE DECLINE OF POLITICAL ISLAM IN NOT THE END GAME
Indonesia is neither a theocratic nor a secular state. It is a Pancasila state, according to its constitution. However, since the Muslim population constitutes a majority group, some of them dream of establishing an Islamic state. Historically, Darul Islam (DI)[2] tried to accomplish this by setting up Negara Islam Indonesia (NII, Indonesian Islamic State) but that failed. More recently, this was the unaccomplished ambition of Jamaah Islamiyyah, HTI, and many others. The Indonesian Islamist groups have also approached Islamic political parties (PKS, PPP and PKS) and Islamic organisations to amend Article 29 of the Indonesian Constitution to accommodate the Jakarta charter in the annual session meeting of MPR (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, People’s Consultative Assembly of Indonesia) in 2000, 2001 and 2002.[3]
The Jakarta Charter was formulated by the committee that also prepared for Indonesia’s independence. It contains two controversial articles. The first is the “obligation to practise sharia law for all Muslims” (kewajiban menjalankan syari’at Islam bagi pemeluk-pemeluk). The second is a requirement that the President should be a Muslim.[4] Be that as it may, the idea of establishing an Islamic state is always present in Indonesian Islamists’ thinking. They still pursue Sharia implementation even without the establishment of an Islamic state. The FPI and other Islamist organisations, for instance, have proposed for Indonesia to remain a Pancasila state, but with the state accommodating within it some aspects of Sharia.
Some efforts at reviving a similar idea with the content of the Jakarta Charter re-appeared in 2016 and 2017, riding on the blasphemy case against Basuki Tjahaja Purnama or Ahok, the governor of Jakarta. The case started with Ahok’s comment about the Quranic chapter al-Maidah verse 52, viewed by Indonesian Islamists as blasphemy against Islam. They used this opportunity to consolidate their strength and mobilise for Aksi Bela Islam (Action to Defend Islam, or 212 movement). They organised big demonstrations in Jakarta, and were able to pressure the government and the court to imprison Ahok, which helped Anies Baswedan win the gubernatorial election of Jakarta in 2017.
Actually, the Indonesian Islamist groups had expected to use the momentum of their movement (Aksi Bela Islam) for the rebirth of political Islam, but the expectation was dashed. Their failure was compounded by the issuance of State Law No 16/2017 on mass organisations, which banned two proponents of political Islam, FPI (Front Pembela Islam, Islamic Defenders Front) and HTI (Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia).
There are, of course, Islamist organisations that remain active, such as the alumni of the 212 movement and the new FPI, but their resonance is not strong. Rizieq Shihab, as a symbolic figure of the Islamist movement in the last decade, for example, has been keeping a low profile. In comparison, the mainstream Muslim organisations especially Nahdlatul Ulama and MUI (Council of Indonesian Ulama) have appeared more in the public sphere, and are playing a stronger role in strengthening Islamic normativity and public morality. Usually, Nahdlatul Ulama’s role features instilling Islamic values and substance instead of Islamic formalism, while MUI endorses the inclusion of Sharia in the legal and public sphere.
However, the decline of political Islam in the public sphere does not mean that the importance of Islam and Sharia is fading. It is not the end game for those who want Islam to play a significant role in the public sphere of Indonesia. This can be seen in the recent resurgence of Islamic lifestyles among Muslims.
THE REVIVAL OF ISLAMIC LIFESTYLES
Political Islam is not only the representation of Islam. Outside political Islam are other important aspects of Islam such as lifestyle, morality, and mu’amala (business). An Islamic lifestyle often refers to customs, traditions and cultures in the Muslim community.[5] Therefore, the Islamic lifestyle here often relates to the practice of Islam in daily life. An Islamic lifestyle influences how people eat and drink.
This then leads to a massive emergence of halal-certified products. An Islamic lifestyle is also reflected in how people travel to prevalent sites of Islamic tourism. Also, the ways people find, use and save money in Islamic finance and banking are also expressions of an Islamic lifestyle. Fashion and dress are two other important areas of emerging Islamic lifestyles among Indonesian Muslims. Like other lifestyle types, Islamic or Sharia lifestyles have also adapted to new trends in consumption, production, dressing and tourism.
An example of Islamic lifestyle implementation is the inception of Law No 33/2014. This Law makes halal certification mandatory in Indonesia. The responsible institution to certify is no longer Lembaga Pengkajian Pangan dan Obat-obatan dan Kosmetika (LPPOM, The Assessment Institute for Foods, Drugs And Cosmetics),[6] but Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Produk Halal (BPJPH, The Halal Assurance Organizing Body).[7] This law was passed under the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) government. Jokowi then strengthened it through the State Law on Job-Creation (UU Cipta Kerja), and Government Regulation No 39/2021 on Jaminan Produk Halal (Halal Product Assurance).
The emergence of concern about the Islamic lifestyle in Indonesia was triggered by an incident in which a popular dairy product was found to be contaminated with non-halal ingredients. It was related to a milk product of DANCOW, which was mixed with pork ingredients in East Java. Muslim consumers were affected due to the widespread use of this milk product in the province. Then-President Suharto asked MUI (Council of Indonesian Ulama) to mitigate the issue. As a response, MUI established LPPOM-MUI in 1989. The LPPOM was designed as an institution under MUI to oversee halal products, and was responsible for investigating halal products and issuing halal certificates. Although halal certification was not mandatory under the LPPOM, Indonesian producers and consumers sought to comply. Halal certification is important among Indonesian Muslims and will influence their consumption behaviours.
Under Joko Widodo’s government, the role of LPPOM ended when the lawmakers agreed to establish BPJPH, giving halal certification prominence. Under the Jokowi government, Indonesia aims to become an important player in the global halal industry. Jokowi took two important policies. First, his government issued Government Regulation to State Law No 33/2014 which provided legal legitimacy for halal product certification. Second, he gave a special mandate to Vice President Ma’ruf Amin to promote a halal economy, including Sharia finance and banking.[8] All these actions have been taken as Jokowi wants Indonesia to become an international hub of the halal industry by 2024.
RESPONSES TO HALAL LIFESTYLES
In the last decade, halal lifestyle has gained traction among Muslims and non-Muslims. It is evident in the increasing concerns of the world in both responding to and adopting the halal lifestyle. The global market indicates that halal lifestyles will further shape the world market. According to the Dinar Standard’s State of Global Islamic Economy, Indonesia ranks fourth in the international halal market.[9] Importantly, those who jumped on the bandwagon were not only Muslims but non-Muslims as well. This was evident in the increasing interest of non-Muslim countries such as Australia, China, Canada and others to expand their halal product market share in Indonesia.[10]
In Indonesia, the increase in halal lifestyle is reflected in a survey conducted by the Indonesia Studies Programme of ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute and Lembaga Survei Indonesia (LSI).[11] When asked about their preference to buy halal products and services, 90% of Indonesian Muslims preferred halal food and only 8% of them said “No”. The survey also finds that 47% of Indonesian Muslim respondents send their children to Islamic education institutions such as pesantren, madrasah, Islamic integrated school and others, while 28% of Indonesian Muslim respondents prefer to get service from Sharia banks or finance institutions. The findings indicate a substantial interest among Indonesian Muslims to comply with Sharia.
“PURE MONEY”: LIFESTYLE IN ECONOMY
Besides stricter halal adherence, finding “pure money” has been an interesting trend among Indonesian Muslims since 1990. The term “pure money” means money which is free from interest (Arabic: riba). Indonesian Muslims have different perceptions on riba, whether it is allowed or not. Nahdlatul Ulama allows interest income in conventional banks partially because its percentage is very small. During the Abdurrahman Wahid leadership, NU established a conventional bank called NUSUMMA.[12] Under Syafi’i Ma’arif’s leadership, Muhammadiyah established another conventional bank, Bank Persyarikatan.
Although both NUSUMMA and Bank Persyarikatan were not successful, they reflected an acceptance of bank interest among Muslim organisations. Yet, MUI states that bank interest is not allowed (haram). This ulama organisation promotes Sharia finance and banks.[13] MUI and Ikatan Cendekiawan Muslim Indonesia (ICMI) established “a new Islamic lifestyle-bank, Bank Muamalat Indonesia (BMI), that used non-interest system.”[14] The BMI faced difficulty surviving as a healthy bank due to chronic problems such as non-performing financing and the decrease in capital adequacy ratio (CAR).[15] Despite the challenges, MUI continued its effort to strengthen and advance Islamic finance and banking.
A more visible success of Islamic finance and banking can be seen in the formation of Bank Syariah Indonesia (BSI) during the second term of Joko Widodo. The BSI is now among the largest Indonesian banks, backed by reliable capital and operation. It is used by government ministries. Many civil servants, students and lecturers have become customers of this bank. In the province of Aceh, BSI is very dominant and has become the largest bank.[16] Nationwide, the BSI ranks as the sixth largest national bank.[17]
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Islamic lifestyles will continue to thrive in Indonesia, running concurrent with the apparent decline of Islamist organisational discourses. There are some reasons for this. First is the continuing support for it from the ruling regime. Both pillars of Islamic lifestyle, Islamic finance and banking and halal products, have a strong legal basis in state law. In addition, the government has been directly promoting halal products. Both Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Joko Widodo paved the way for the Islamic lifestyle industry. Two state laws on Islamic finance and banking (State Law No 21/2008 on Syariah Banking) and halal products were registered in SBY’s era.[18]
Joko Widodo came with strong support for both Islamic finance and halal products and provided a strategic plan for international expansion as a halal industry hub. In addition to that, halal products are now fully under the control of the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Second, mainstream Muslim organisations like Nahdlatul Ulama, Muhammadiyah, MUI, Persatuan Islam, al-Wasliyah and many others are more comfortable with Islamic lifestyle trends instead of political Islam.
After the decline of radical Islamist groups, mainstream Muslim organisations expanded their role in strengthening the meaning and practice of Islam through the Islamic lifestyle. It is in line with the vision of most mainstream Muslim organisations that want to commit to Pancasila on the one hand and apply Islam in daily life on the other hand. This vision is fulfillable with the Islamic lifestyle.
Source: This article was published by ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute
ENDNOTES
For endnotes, please refer to the original pdf document.
By Imran Ahmed
As Bangladesh draws closer to its scheduled elections in January 2024, there are mounting concerns over the prospect of a free and fair electoral process. Historically, neutral caretaker governments were mandated to oversee general elections intended for every five years.
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who leads the Awami League party and has held power since 2009, abolished this requirement in 2011 through the 15th Amendment which omitted ‘Chapter IIA Non-Party Care-Taker Government’ of the Constitution. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), led by Khaleda Zia, who previously served as prime minister from 1991 to 1996 and then again from 2001 to 2006, forms the main opposition and contests the government’s ability to conduct impartial elections, fearing the manipulation of ballot box outcomes. The BNP boycotted the 2014 elections over similar concerns. The government also faced serious accusations of rigging the 2018 elections.
As a result, the opposition has organised strikes and blockades, all aimed at securing the prime minister’s resignation and the establishment of a neutral caretaker administration to oversee the elections. The government’s response to the unrest has been state repression, including the arrest of hundreds of BNP members, supporters and leadership, leading Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for the United Nations Secretary-General, to voice his concerns on the significant number of individuals detained. Hasina has, so far, declined to engage with the opposition or exhibit any inclination toward reaching a political middle ground. This hardline approach towards her opponents has notable risks. A potential boycott by the BNP could altogether undermine the elections’ legitimacy.
Moreover, the government’s approval of international election observers underscores the need for transparency and accountability in the electoral process to appease both international as well as domestic criticisms. However, no official applications from foreign observer organisations have been received, making the situation all the more puzzling. In August 2023, the Election Commission posted a list of 68 approved observers but investigations uncovered that nearly half lacked election monitoring experience or had ties to the ruling Awami League, breaching the country’s election laws. As the 21 November 2023 deadline for applications looms, it remains to be seen whether any clarifications or applications will emerge, adding to the intrigue surrounding this critical aspect of the upcoming elections.
The mutual accusations of violent provocation between the government and the opposition persist, further prolonging the political deadlock. There are other uncertainties at play. While Hasina has effectively harnessed the backing of regional powers like India, China, Iran and Russia to counter global calls for democratic reforms, growing United States (US) pressure on the government has raised concerns (and conspiracies) that the US’ interest in Bangladesh’s democratic and electoral process is a cover for its desire for regime change. For the BNP, these developments offer opportunities but Zia’s failing health of Zia presents concerns and questions about the party’s long-term future. Zia’s pleas for medical care abroad, including a liver transplant, have been met with denial.
As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how these complex issues will evolve and potentially shape Bangladesh’s future. For ordinary citizens, the unrest has significantly disrupted their daily lives. As journalist Syful Islam explains, “The protests impede the movement of vehicles and are prompting many citizens to limit their outings to avoid potential violence. Scores of arson cases and several deaths have been reported, while hundreds of BNP members and leaders have been rounded up.”
There are concerns regarding the economic repercussions of the ongoing political deadlock. In the last decade, Bangladesh has experienced substantial economic progress and made notable efforts to reduce poverty and improve social indicators. The country has also been able to attract foreign investment and enter trade agreements. Its sizeable and often well-educated youth population offers a formidable economic advantage in the labour market.
However, economic stagnation, reduced investment, declining business confidence and decreased foreign investments hinder economic growth during political deadlock and uncertainty. The risk of currency depreciation impacting trade balances and inflation, delays in essential infrastructure projects, fiscal mismanagement and slower job creation, leading to more unemployment, can produce a downward spiral of more and more unrest and more opposition towards the government.
While the government and the opposition appear to be on a ‘collision course’, a resolution that balances political stability and democratic principles remains in the country’s best interest. However, “the more the opposition escalates”, Michael Kugelman predicts, “the more defiant the government will likely become. Neither side will want to give an inch”. As Bangladesh stands at a crossroads, the uncertainty surrounding the upcoming elections and the fate of its political leaders continues to weigh heavily on the minds of its citizens, who hope for a democratic and equitable future.
About the author: Dr Imran Ahmed is a Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), an autonomous research institute in the National University of Singapore (NUS). He can be contacted at iahmed@nus.edu.sg. The author bears full responsibility for the facts cited and opinions expressed in this paper.
Source: This article was published by the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS)
The House of Representatives has approved a measure to slash the $235,600 salary of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to one dollar. Taxpayers might wonder what could prompt the House to take such action.
As we noted last December, Secretary Buttigieg took at least 18 trips on private jets funded by taxpayers, including a trip to Montreal, Canada, to receive an award. The Secretary, who wants more government action to curb carbon emissions, favors the Cessna 560XL Gulfstream IV, which contributes its fair share.
During a severe supply-chain crisis, Secretary Buttigieg took a two-month “maternity leave” and claimed that supply, demand, and the pandemic caused the crisis. In a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing, Buttigieg proclaimed, “The more pain we are all experiencing from the high price of gas, the more benefit there is for those who can access electric vehicles.” The Secretary failed to chart the benefits for those who can’t access electric vehicles, which are still priced higher than gasoline-powered cars.
As we noted last February, a train carrying vinyl chloride and other chemicals derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, forcing thousands of residents to evacuate. People in the area and across the country expected the Transportation Secretary to address the issue at a February 13th National Association of Counties event. Secretary Buttigieg ignored the derailment and instead focused on “diversity” issues.
“We have heard way too many stories from generations past of infrastructure where you got a neighborhood, often a neighborhood of color, that finally sees the project come to them, but everyone in the hard hats on that project, doing the good paying jobs, don’t look like they came from anywhere near the neighborhood,” said Buttigieg. The Secretary favors a workforce “that reflects the community,” code for standard-brand diversity dogma.
As Thomas Sowell has often noted, statistical disparities are the rule, not the exception, in America. Personal differences, effort, and choice account for such disparities, all factors dogmatists might ignore.
What Secretary Buttigieg has actually done to make transportation more efficient and less expensive is not readily apparent. So, if taxpayers are on board with Buttigieg’s salary reduction, it would be hard to blame them.
Taxpayers can probably think of other federal bureaucrats who deserve the same treatment and entire departments that should be defunded, scaled back, or eliminated entirely. Congress should start with poorly managed departments that waste money, fail to perform their appointed tasks and place undue burdens on the people.
This article was published by The Beacon
By Thomas J. DiLorenzo
The impending decline of the dollar is apparently imposing a real Halloween scare on the American foreign policy establishment.
An August 22, 2023, article on the Council on Foreign Relations website entitled “The Future of Dollar Hegemony” explained that, “the dollar’s global hegemony gives the U.S. government power to impose crippling sanctions and wage other forms of financial welfare against adversaries. . . . In 2022, more than twelve thousand entities were under sanction by the Treasury Department, a more than twelve-fold increase since the turn of the century. U.S. sanctions . . . do ensure that targeted adversaries pay a significant price for continuing to engage in actions the United States opposes (emphasis added).”
This reminds yours truly of a very memorable bumper sticker that had an American flag in one corner and read: “Do as We Say or We Will Bring Democracy to Your Country!” The bumper sticker is memorable because it speaks truth to power in a very sarcastic manner. It also highlights how “sanctions” are an act of war that has long assisted the US government in acting as the bully of the world. Dollar dominance is the cornerstone of such bullying since so many dollars are held in so many other countries as their reserve currency. This allows a massive amount of foreign policy blackmailing to occur.
The bullying is always all about the money, one way or another, just as “follow the money” is always good advice when one investigates the causes of any war anywhere. But a golden rule of politics is to never, ever admit that one is interested in anything but the moral uplifting of mankind, the eradication of poverty in foreign lands, saving the widows and orphans of the world, or some other selfless, magnanimous gesture. Protectionists never admit, for example, that their real goal is to use the powers of the state to plunder and legally steal from their customers. They must cloak their greed in nationalism, national defense arguments, anything but the truth.
In the foreign policy realm one must never speak the truth about the real purpose of imperialistic wars and invasions, as did Marine Corps General Smedley Butler in his famous essay, “War is a Racket.” General Butler was a two-time Congressional Medal of Honor winner and is said to have been the most highly decorated Marine ever. Published in the post World War I era, General Butler explained what he really spent his illustrious career doing:
I spent most of my time being a high class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. . . . I helped make Mexico safe . . . for American oil interests. . . . I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank. . . . I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers. . . . I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests.
The Mother of All U.S. Government Lies
For at least the past century and a half American imperialism has been cloaked in a monstrous lie about the supposed moral exceptionalism of Americans and their government. The lie was never better exposed than by the great novelist Robert Penn Warren in a 1961 book entitled The Legacy of the Civil War. Warren was asked by Life magazine to write the book to commemorate the centennial of the Civil War. The most important point of the book is that, after the war, the US government claimed to possess what Warren calls “a treasury of virtue.” The Republican Party, which monopolized federal politics for the succeeding half century, called itself “the party of great moral ideas.” Lincoln was of course deified after his assassination with court historians comparing him to Jesus Christ, reminding their readers that he died on Good Friday, and claiming that he died for America’s sins just as Jesus died for the sins of the world. Harper’s magazine published a lithograph of an angel ascending to heaven above an opened tomb with the head of the angel being that of lifelong atheist Abraham Lincoln.
Everything related to Lincoln and his war was all of a sudden sacred and supremely virtuous. No more draft riots. No more massive battlefield desertions. No more firing squads for Union Army conscripts who had deserted. No more mass imprisonment without due process of Northern state critics of the Lincoln regime. No more shutting down of hundreds of opposition newspapers in the North and imprisonment of their owners and editors. No more deportation of opposition party congressmen like Democrat Clement Vallandigham of Ohio. No more calls to deport (euphemistically called “colonization”) all the black people as Lincoln and his idol, Henry Clay, had done throughout their adult lives.
One early biographer claimed that Lincoln’s mother was the most chaste woman in world history, next to the Virgin Mary herself. His father, said another Lincoln biographer, was so illiterate that he could never even sign his name, but nevertheless somehow “read the Bible.” Boobus Americanus ate it up and embraced every bizarre, nonsensical story about Lincoln as God’s truth, for Boobus was happy to equate Lincoln’s supposed saintliness with his own. The deification of Lincoln eventually led to the effective deification of the presidency in general in the minds of many Americans, and then to the government itself.
Robert Penn Warren wrote that this massive and unprecedented propaganda barrage created “a plenary indulgence, for all sins past, present, and future.” The US government emerged from the Civil War “so full of righteousness that there is enough overplus stored in Heaven . . . to take care of all the small failings and oversights of the descendants of the crusaders” By “crusaders” Warren apparently meant the likes of General Sherman’s army of plunderers, arsonists, rapists, and murderers of civilians.
The American state adopted “a moral narcissism,” wrote Warren, which fueled “the crusades of 1917–1918 and 1941–1945 and our diplomacy of righteousness, with the slogan of unconditional surrender and universal rehabilitation—for others.” “The effect of this conviction of virtue is to make us lie automatically,” he wrote.
In order to buy into the “treasury of virtue” ideology, however, one must forget an awful lot about actual American history and fill one’s head instead with false narratives concocted by state propagandists, said Warren. One must forget, for example, that the Republican Party platform of 1860 contained an ironclad defense of slavery; that the War Aims Resolution of the US Congress declared to the world that the war was about saving the union and had nothing to do with slavery; that the Emancipation Proclamation freed no one since it only applied to rebel territory; that Lincoln said in one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates that “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races”; and that in his first inaugural address Lincoln pledged his support of a constitutional amendment (the Corwin Amendment) that would have enshrined the protection of slavery explicitly in the text of the Constitution. The Corwin Amendment was in fact the work of the Lincoln administration and it passed the House and Senate after Southern secession had occurred. Lincoln himself instructed William Seward to do the heavy lifting with the Corwin Amendment in the US Senate—and then claimed in his inaugural address that he had never seen such an amendment but supported it nevertheless!
What Did the U.S. Government Do with All that Virtue?
Three months after the end of the War to Prevent Southern Independence, General William Tecumseh Sherman was put in charge of the Military District of the Missouri, which was all land west of the Mississippi. His assignment was to commence a twenty-five-year war of genocide against the Plains Indians. “We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress” of the railroads, Sherman declared. (Sherman had been given a large amount of stock in the government-subsidized transcontinental railroad corporations). The mass killing of the Plains Indians was to be a veiled form of corporate welfare for the massively subsidize Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroad corporations.
“The great triumvirate of the Civil War,” wrote Sherman biographer Michael Fellman in Citizen Sherman, which included Generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, would pursue what Sherman called “the final solution to the Indian problem.” Their “solution” resulted in the death of some forty-five thousand Indians, including thousands of women and children, and the maiming of far more at the hands of other Civil War “luminaries” such as George Armstrong Custer, Winfield Scott Hancock, John Pope, and Benjamin Garrison.
Fellman writes of how Sherman boasted of his objective of “a racial cleansing of the land,” and he was not above employing ex slaves (called “Buffalo soldiers” by the Indians) to assist in the task. “All of the Indians will have to be killed or maintained as a species of paupers,” Fellman quotes Sherman as announcing. As such, wrote Fellman, “Sherman gave Sheridan prior authorization to slaughter as many women and children as men” because it would be too time consuming to discriminate. Sherman promised to handle the east coast press should anyone find out what was really going on in the West. S.L.A. Marshall, the official US government historian of the European theatre of war in World War II and the author of thirty-five books on US military history called Sherman’s order to Sheridan and Custer “the most brutal orders every published to American troops.” Such was our first exhibition of the vaunted treasury of virtue created by Lincoln’s war.
The Indian Wars were over by 1890 and Sherman was dead. In 1899 the Filipinos finally got rid of the Spanish Empire, but little did they know that they were about to be forced to become a part of the American empire. Their three-year fight for independence was known as the Philippine Insurrection, during which some two hundred thousand Filipinos were killed by the most virtuous people on earth, American soldiers, many of whom had honed their genocidal skills during the Indian Wars. Teddy Roosevelt, the biggest blowhard in American political history, cheered on the slaughter and assisted with rhetoric denouncing Filipinos as “Chinese half-breeds,” “savages,” “barbarians,” “wild and ignorant people,” and “a lesser race.” Roosevelt denounced “the menace of peace,” shortly after which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. US senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana bloviated that it was “America’s duty” to “bring Christianity” to the Philippines, unaware that Filipinos had been Catholics for about four hundred years at that point.
The Spanish-American War of the same era is considered by many to have been the final turning point where America abandoned the idea of a constitutional republic and became an empire. This was eloquently stated by the great libertarian Yale University scholar William Graham Sumner in his famous essay, “The Conquest of the United States by Spain.” Sumner wrote of how the war created for the first time a regime of “war, debt, taxation, diplomacy, a grand governmental system, pomp, glory, a big army and navy, lavish expenditures, political jobbery—in a word imperialism.” The “jobbery” created “enormous wealth for a few schemers” and was “a grand onslaught on democracy.” Sound familiar?
Also in the early 1890s American corporations had their eye on the wealth of Hawaii and got the US military to conquer yet another “inferior race.” One John Stevens was appointed as a US government “envoy” to Hawaii. He arranged for troops to land there and take control, which they did, placing Judge Stanford Dole as head of the new puppet government. The troops held the Hawaiian king at bayonet point and forced him to sign a new “constitution” that disenfranchised all native Hawaiians along with Asians who lived there, once again denouncing them all as “an inferior race,” as apparently was the routine of “the party of Lincoln” at the time. James Dole, the cousin of Judge Dole, then founded the Dole Fruit Company. Once again the idiotic Teddy Roosevelt opened his big mouth with his giant horse teeth and declared, “I feel it was a crime . . . against the white race that we did not annex Hawaii three years ago.”
And so it went with the treasury of virtue, which morphed linguistically into “American exceptionalism.” This is what paved the way for the never-ending military interventionism of the twentieth century and beyond, up to the present day. The “treasury of virtue” has always been the moral cover for all of this greed, racism, barbarianism, and worse. The good news today is that it is hard to think of anyone with a sound mind who would sincerely believe this any longer. Of course, it is human nature to deny that one has been duped and lied to for one’s entire life, so there with always be the Boobus americanus class, so named by H.L. Mencken, that will chant USA! USA! for every bomb dropped on civilian populations anywhere in the world. But the gig is up. The party in power as of this writing is run by a man described by Naomi Wolf as “a senile puppet of the Chinese Communist party” whose main mission as president has been to align himself—and his country—with what is generally acknowledged as the most corrupt society on earth, Ukraine. The “uniparty” in Washington is finally crumbling, David Stockman has recently declared. If he is right, it is because Boobus americanus is finally outnumbered and the false treasury of virtue has been proven beyond doubt to have been the mother of all government lies. There is no longer any moral authority to use “sanctions” to destroy a country’s economy for failing to “do as we say.” The decline of the dollar will inevitably speed up this process, which is good news for the world.
About the author: Thomas DiLorenzo is president of the Mises Institute. He is a former professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and a longtime member of the senior faculty of the Mises Institute. He is the author or co-author of eighteen books including The Real Lincoln; How Capitalism Saved America; Lincoln Unmasked; Hamilton’s Curse; Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government; The Problem with Socialism; and The Politically-Incorrect Guide to Economics.
Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute