by Ish Theilheimer

In the wake of the current crisis over Iraq, critics of George W. Bush
often get accused of anti-Americanism. Like the difference between Iraq
and Iran, some people have trouble grasping subtle differences between
being against America and against the conduct of the US government.

In fact, there is good reason to regard the President of the United States
as evil and dangerous. As a state governor, he resolutely and routinely
executed children, victims of mental illness and the developmentally
delayed to advance his political gains. He quite clearly colluded with his
brother and other Florida state officials to win the Presidential
election. He appointed to his cabinet a lineup of high-level former
directors of the nation's biggest energy and military corporations. And
whether, as some suggest, he or his staff had any complicity - other than
the rankest incompetence - in the awful attacks on the US last September,
they have certainly milked the tragedies for every possible drop of
political and business advantage

Until Bush's address to the UN this month, he scoffed at international
institutions and covenants. Now he is cynically using the UN to force his
agenda for 'regime change' on Iraq and any other country in which the US
has strategic interests. Orwell could hardly have imagined such language.

It's not anti-American to cite these offences and name evil for what it
is. It's not America-bashing to exhort decent people to do everything
possible to resist Bush's catastrophic calls for constant war, anarchy, and
a return to the law of the jungle - where might rules, the dollar talks and
everyone else had better do as they are told.

There are plenty of Americans who feel this way too, including former
Attorney General Ramsay Clark and Democratic Representative Denns Kucinich.
They remind us of what being an American was supposed to be about. It is
unfortunate so many American Democrats have been cowed by the war rhetoric
accusations of cowardice and appeasement.

It's not anti-American to urge that the Bush Doctrine of Imperial America
be resisted. Nor is it particularly anti-globalization either. What we've
come to call 'globalization' is, in fact, a familiar old phenomenon -
domination of everyone else by powerful corporations and their political
representatives.

Actually, the globalization of communications, travel and trade offer
exciting possibilities. It is often overlooked that global communications
promotes democracy. For instance, in the remote South Pacific island of New
Caledonia this summer, thousands of residents successfully teamed up, with
the help of distant allies via the Internet, to stop Canadian mining giant
Inco in a fight over a open pit nickel mine.

In fact, the Internet in a real way gave birth to the 'anti-globalization'
movement. Its first major victory was the scuttling of the proposed MAI
way back in 1998. Global communications, trade and exchange are good
things. What is bad is the notion that corporations should have more
rights than citizens and that they should be able to overrule national
governments on social, environmental and labour standards, regulatory
issues and natural resources like water and energy.

This should correctly be called 'corporate dominance,' and citizens should
oppose it. Most do. It's good to see people forming organizations and
coalitions worldwide to oppose corporate dominance. Yet although some
'anti-globalization' activists wax optimistic on the possibilities of
street protest, it is hard to envision how apolitical marching in the
street and other expressions of dissent on their own will solve the
problem. Today's corporate dominance flows directly from communications
and political victories of the 1970s and '80s engineered by the Right
following the leadership of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

Defeating corporate dominance requires political acts. That's what so
inspiring about the victory of the Social Democrats and Greens in Germany.
Unlike most American Democrats, they took a stand without waffling and won
the political power to act. Apparently th
e German people remember war well
enough to reject it. It was no whim that Shroeder was re-elected.

Shroeder, Kucinich, and Clark are admirable for standing up to corporate
dominance. Here in Canada, it seems doubtful that Paul Martin's Liberal's
will under any circumstances.

You don't have to be anti-American, anti-globalization, or anti-business to
despise where George W. Bush's leadership is taking the US and the world
(or even the economy and stock markets). The only effective remedy is to
have leaders like German's Gerhardt Shroeder who will take a stand for the
peaceful, democratic and environmental values most decent people today espouse.

Ish Theilheimer is Publisher of the Canadian on-line news, public and
consumer 'zine Straight Goods (www.straightgoods.com).