It wasn't so much the action itself as the state we, humanity had gotten to: I knew it, and I had known it—but the attack brought it all home.

I also knew that the action was a fundamentalist reaction to another type of fundamentalism espoused by Washington since World War II.

I'm going to read you a less condensed excerpt of the Kennan quote from the beginning of the film—remember, this is the guy most consider to be the architect of post WWII U.S. foreign policy: it's a bit long, but very telling, so bear with me:

"We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

We should dispense with the aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

Seems like Kennan's words have been followed pretty much to the letter, no? So Id like you to keep these words in mind throughout my short talk.

So just as Sept 11 happened, I was choosing my topic for my thesis film, and I was consumed with it, astounded by the venomous patriotism that arose in the statesÑwhat I thought would be a time to reflect the "why" of the situation became a time for revenge. It became a time to reflect the "why" for me...

In my original concept I wrote "The film will attempt to elicit a step back and a step outside ourselves as Americans and a move to see ourselves as human beings in a larger world context."

So I chose NOT to look at the current events for that reason—in order to lay a historical background for current events—within my 26 minute and 46 second time limit.

I chose Guatemala because it was the first application of so-called anti-Communism in the hemisphere, and because the tragedy there was so astoundingly deep, and because I'd traveled there and studied it.

I chose Vietnam because any film about post-WWII U.S. foreign policy wouldn't be complete without it. It would have been "conspicuous by its absence," as my creative advisor said.

I chose East Timor because there is a faint glimmer of recognition in the States that something happened there, but nothing more. And it's another textbook example of aiding the aggressor when it's in "our" interest.

I chose El Salvador because it shows very clearly the same pattern emerging into the 80s;

And I chose Palestine & Israel because it's the one dispute, while quite different from the others in many respects, spans the entire historical range of the film, and the one that continues most ferociously to this day.

So the main way to tie in the film with current events is this question, which I alluded to just a minute ago—very simply: If you're concerned about aggressors like Saddam Hussein, why were you not concerned in Guatemala, in East Timor, in El Salvador, and in Palestine/Israel. And in Chile, and Nicaragua, and Western Sahara, and in Turkey and I could keep going.

In fact, why were you aiding and supporting the aggressor in all of those cases and more?

Why did you support Saddam Hussein when it suited your needs?

And where were you in Rwanda?

Now this hypocrisy alone is a strong argument NOT to go to war, but coupled with the other shaky at best reasons put forth by Bush and Blair, the case for war is easily dismantled.

The other way the film ties into current events is money, this time in the form of oil, but money, markets, investments, financial interests, economic interests, whatever you want to call it—and U.S. domination over those so-called interests.

We saw it in Guatemala, with United Fruit existing as a state within a state and controlling large sections of the economy. When that prize was taken away, the CIA moved in to orchestrate the coup.

We saw it in Vietnam, where the fear of Vietnamese nationalism and the potential spread of such independent movements threatened U.S. economic interests in the region.

We saw it in East Timor, where the strength of the financial and military ties between Indonesia and the United States overrode any concern for human rights (step back to Kennan's quote again)

We saw it in El Salvador, where resistance to the neo-liberal model—private control over basic services—was crushed.

We see it in Palestine where U.S. support lies completely on the side of the economically and militarily superior occupying force.

And we see it today, with Iraq holding the world's 2nd largest oil reserve. We know from U.S. State Department records that the Middle East is considered "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history...probably the richest economic prize in the field of foreign investment." Later president Eisenhower described the area as the most "strategically important in the world."

It's clear what one of the major motivating factors is for this so-called "war."

And the other related aspect tying the film to the events of the day is the suppression of real democratic movements, which will bring me briefly to sanctions.

We all know sanctions have served to keep Saddam strong in the country, while weakening the one force that quite likely could bring change—the people of Iraq.

As a result, the Iraqi people have been the double victims of Saddam Hussein and the United States—you know the statistics. and Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said "it's worth the price."

And it may just be "worth the price" (remember Kennan's quote again) if you look at it from the elites point of view, because the U.S. has always been afraid of democratic movements within the Arab world.

I'll quote As'ad AbuKhalil, the professor who spoke briefly on Zionism in the film. He went on TV one time with George Bush Sr's national security advisor, Brennt Scowcroft

(as a brief aside, Scowcroft, a hawk in the Bush I administration, is now urging caution and restraint—quote from the Wall Street Journal 15 August last year "Possibly the most dire consequences [of an attack on Iraq] would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict—which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve—in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.")

Anyway, AbuKhalil went on TV with Scowcroft, and "challenged him on the air to say that the United States government, when he was in charge, really worked for a democratic and free Iraq. He would never say those words. They never did. It's against their interest. America will fight tooth and nail against democratisation in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Palestine, and many other regions of the world. And Iraq. That's not in America's vision."

At the end of Gulf "War" I, when the Bush I administration urged the Iraqi opposition to rise up against Saddam, only to betray them, resulting in one of the massacres the pro-war advocates now cite to justify the war, we see what AbuKhalil was talking about there.

U.S. elites are afraid of true democracy.

So when the U.S. maintains sanctions, it acts against the potential expression of democratic movements in Iraq.

And to finish up: What is very interesting at the moment with respect to democracy and mass movements—in addition to the shows of support internationally for the anti-war movement—is that we're starting to see some real alternatives being proposed.

Michael Albert, founder of Z magazine and Znet, an amazingly comprehensive website, has a new book out called Participatory Economics, which puts forth a vision and plan for a new economy beyond capitalism, celebrating solidarity, equity, diversity, and people democratically controlling their own lives.

George Monbiot is coming out with a book on global democratic governance. Movements in Argentina and Brazil are once again attempting to redistribute land to those that need it.

So what I think is changing, right now, before our eyes is that we're shifting from generally fighting against this "system" and fighting for such broad concepts as justice, equality, and democracy, to fighting against a system that is truly showing its ugliest of colours and that we are truly beginning to understand, and fighting for some real alternatives. And that, gives me a great sense of hope.
David Kaplowitz