Has anyone noticed the discrepancy between the response of the United States to the destruction in the country of Georgia to that caused by hurricanes to the island nation of Haiti? There was an immediate 1 billion dollars of aid to Georgia and in stark contrast people are standing on the rooftops in Haiti and starving. I have heard no promise of aid to Haiti and when a response comes, I am sure it will be no where near the 1 billion dollars given to Georgia. Dick Cheney went immediately to Georgia. Has any US official of any importance whatever immediately gone to Haiti? I expect the corporate media to ignore this disparity as it is their job to cover up contradictions in US foreign policy, but the liberal and leftist press seem ot have overlooked it as well. This situation rather undercuts the continual US assertion that their economic aid to other countries is humanitarian in nature. Since Aristide was deposed and flown to Africa by the United States, there has been no significant leftist threat to the puppet government of Haiti. Therefore, its people can die in the thousands by flood or starvation. The people are black and racism also plays a part. By contrast the puppet government in Georgia was under great threat by the nationalist government in Russia and the interests of US capital were threatened in the region. Under the cover of NATO, the US plan is to ring Russia with puppet states armed with missiles, as they presently have done in the Czech republic and Poland, and eventually to destroy Russian nationalism and make Russia a puppet state as well.



This might be dismissed as pure speculation or accidental if there were not so many other instances of these contradictions in US foreign policy or responses to world events by the corporate media. Noam Chonsky is famous for writing about the difference in US government and corporate media response to the massacres in East Timor and Cambodia, occurring at the same time. The US corporate media spent months vilifying the "communists" in Cambodia, while at the same time ignoring the massacres committed by the Indonesian government in East Timor under the United States' fascist friend Suharto, who himself had committed a previous massacre of 2 million members of the Indonesian Communist Party in 1965. Also the corporate media ignored the previous US carpet bombing of Cambodia by B-52s causing an estimated million deaths and radicalizing the country. Noam Chomsky divided massacres into three categories, nefarious, benign or constructive. Nefarious massacres are those committed by enemies of the United States such as communists or nationalists, people who either want a downward distribution of wealth from the elite or want to preserve a country's natural resources from foreigh capital penetration. Benign massacres are like many in Africa such as Burundi, the Congo or Darfur where the interests of US capital are not directly involved and so their is little interest. Constuctive massacres are those which benefit or promise future benefits to US corporate interests, such as the destruction of the Indonesian Communist Party, and the numerous US invasions with massive use of air power. which inevitably cause millions of civilian deaths. CIA instigated coups also cause massacres of leftists, trade unionists, priests and anyone who has spoken out for the poor.



Noam Chomsky has done a wonderful job of trying to scientifically prove, as nearly as possible, the motivations of US foreign policy. I have a simpler method, drawn from history. From emperors to kings and nobles to capitalists, nearly all wars have been fought for the enrichment of a tiny elite of human beings to the great and lasting detriment of the majority of us here on Earth.



Gary Sudborough





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------