PDA

Bekijk Volledige Versie : Nobel prijs winnaar kapittelt USA/bush en Blair in prachtige nobelprijs speech.



Kal-El B.V
09-12-05, 15:26
Harld Pinter is de nobel prijs winnaar voor de literatuur van 2005.


De Nobel prijs toespraak (http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html)


naast een prachitge blik in de tot standkoming van verhalen in de geest van deze man, komt hij met een paar snijdende opmerkingen over de geschiedenis.



But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny, which is all that time will allow here.

Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.

But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.

Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued – or beaten to death – the same thing – and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer.



The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent example of America's view of its role in the world, both then and now.

I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.

The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.'

Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.

Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.

Finally somebody said: 'But in this case “innocent people” were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?'

Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said.



I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man.

'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.'



Lees de hele speech, is echt de moeite waard.

~Panthera~
09-12-05, 16:40
I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us – the dignity of man.

:duim:

Olive Yao
09-12-05, 18:25
I possess moral authority.
Om een duistere redenen schijnen sommige amerikanen inderdaad te denken dat ze "moral leadership" hebben in de wereld. Let er maar eens op dat je die term regelmatig tegenkomt.

et_2000nl
09-12-05, 18:48
Pffff, is gewoon de drogrede van een afvallige kapitalist.... Weet je wat, we noemen m een communist, dan is ie gediskwalificeerd van het hebben van een mening, in ieder geval eentje die er toe doet.

Stond bij immigration in de rij in de US. Stonden een paar rechtse ballen, ruitjes broeken en van die enge instap schoenen met van de strikjes er op. Er werd gemorreld in de rij, waarom duurt dit zo god vergeten lang. Bal 1 en bal 2, "nou snap je dat dan niet, amerika word bedreigt, accepteer het maar, WIJ kunnen beter beschermd worden door de US dan door een stelletje imbeciele moslim landen." Beschermd door de US, die Nederland bedreigt met een invasie als er ooit een amerikaan voor het internationale gerechtshof word gesleept. Die Schiphol gebruikt voor transport van gevangen die dan vervolgens in voormalig oostblok landen 'ondervraagt' kunnen worden. Waarvan Zalm op TV zegt, wat ze in Quantanemo Bay doen moeten ze zelf weten, maar op europees grondgebied word het in ene een heel ander verhaal. Welk ander verhaal zou ik dan als verslaggever willen vragen. Begrijpt U internationaal recht wel Mijnheer Zalm?.... :moe:

Je mag tegenwoordig zonder moraal hoog moralisme prediken en afdwingen zo schijnt het.