RUMSFELD, My Breakfast With Evil
My Breakfast With Evil from an AAW member
Well, I just got back to my office after the Rumsfeld event and, having
washed my hands repeatedly, will try to jot down my impressions, for what
they’re worth.
First, the crowd and the reception: lots of “institutionnels” (French
Foreign and Defence Ministries, some EU and NATO types, one three-star
French general in uniform), lots of people from French think tanks and such
(IRIS etc, Foreign Policy magazine itself), a fair few journalists (I
spotted Le Monde, Le Figaro, TF1, L’Express, others too I think, but no TV
cameras), and a fair sprinkling of business types (a couple of people from
Thalès, several banks, …). On the top table, seated between the three-star
general and Rumsfeld was Giscard d’Estaign’s son, who is with some bank, I
think. In all, about 100 people in attendance. Debate moderated by the
editor of FP/France (François Whathisname) and the ubiquitous Alexander
Adler, who fawned fatuously over Rumsfeld to disgusting effect. That aside,
the reception he met with was generally polite, interested, but neither
overtly hostile nor especially warm. The guy from L’Express was the only one
during the Q&A to grill Rumsfeld at all aggressively (asking what, if
Rumsfeld as reported held Afghanistan to be a great success, he thought an
average failure might look like) – to the palpable relief of those too
polite or intimidated to do so themselves.
Speaking below one of those huge French tapestries, depicting a lot of
scimitar-wielding Saracens in turbans preparing to abduct what seemed to be
a white infanta and mother (wish I’d got a photo of that!), Rumsfeld
delivered a speech on threats to global security which covered a lot more
than just the Middle East, and was very much pointed towards the future
rather than the past, even the recent past. Among the most salient points
were:
- his insistence on the potential threat of China (in particular on
the military level, including the telling observation that “many of the
states in the region are coming to realise, I think, that weakness invites
aggression”), presented explicitly as a potential aggressor nation
- his support for those in Japan who favour a break with that
country’s pacifist heritage and low-spend defence policy (“it is unique in
history for a number two economic power to devote just 1% of its GDP to
defence”)
- his concern about the link between demographics and defence
spending in Europe (ageing population + extensive social safety-net => less
money available for military spending, already “too low” at 2% of GDP)
- his enthusiasm for the “new leadership” in Europe, in particular
Sarkozy, which gives “grounds for optimism” that the perceived problems with
defence and social spending may be overcome, France could integrate the
military structures of NATO etc etc
- and his relatively conciliatory attitude towards Iran (in both
his speech and the Q&A that followed, he stressed that he did not believe
that US military action against Iran was in any way inevitable, that
diplomacy could work and was being pursued, that the Iranians had been
“helpful” to the US/NATO in Afghanistan (even if they were “arming the
insurgents in Iraq”), etc.
Turning to the “Broader Middle East”, he pointed to galloping demographic
growth and the existence of an “extremist minority wielding disproportionate
influence” as reasons why the region will continue to be a problem (for the
US, for the world…) in the forthcoming period. On Afghanistan, vaunted the
successes of the US/NATO, citing the “gateway test” (5m Afghan refugees have
made a “conscious decision” to return, therefore things must be getting
better). On Iraq, trotted out the traditional justifications for the
invasion, barring WMD but including the Saddam-Qaeda canard (Saddam, he
claimed, had harboured the perpetrators of the first World Trade Centre
attack and Abou Mossab Zarqawi – an outrageous lie, since Zarqawi was in the
no man’s land created by the US/UK no-fly zone in the north. Nobody took him
up on this, of course). There was no suggestion whatsoever that the region’s
problems might have any other significant cause than the agitation of that
“extremist minority” – and certainly not occupation, foreign-backed
dictators, poverty, etc etc (although he did, in passing, muse that an
occupation, say of Iraq, should not be too heavy-handed lest it encourage
opposition, before going on to develop folksy metaphors about
nation-building and teaching one’s child to ride a bicycle). Unsurprisingly,
failed to apply the same “gateway test” to Iraq (again, unchallenged). The
remedy to the “extremist” problem, obviously, is to support the “moderate
Muslim leaders”, in particular Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto, Hamid Karzai, whom
he cited repeatedly, lauding their bravery. But on the whole, one got the
impression that he did not feel that there was ever going to be an end to
the Global War on Terror. Lapsing into a classic Rumsfeldism, he explained
that there are two piles of problems: the problems you can solve and the
problems you can’t solve; problems that can be solved (build that
bridge/freeway/ building), you solve; problems that can’t be solved (create
a safe world/workplace), you have to “work on”, and people (journalists and
academics in particular) should not be shocked that they never get fully
solved. Quoted Shimon Peres as saying that problems that can’t be solved are
not problems but facts that have to be lived with and adapted to, he implied
(without saying so) that terrorism can never be eradicated and therefore we
will have to live with the GWOT for ever.
The overall impression I had of Rumsfeld was of a man who knows, but
sometimes still has to remind himself, that he no longer wields the immense
power he once had, but is confident nonetheless that he is protected from
the consequences of his actions. Twinkling, almost avuncular most of the
time, ever ready with the amusing anecdote, he only occasionally let the
old, abrasive Rummy come to the fore, notably when put on the spot about his
record. “When you get up in the morning and you start doing things, you know
you’re going to upset some people. And I don’t personally have a problem
with that,” he blustered, briefly, while trying to explain away the
“generals’ revolt” in terms of his decision to nominate a retired Special
Forces officer as Army Chief of Staff instead of the regular Army guy who
expected to be in line (“so a few people didn’t make three or four stars who
thought they were going to make three or four stars. That’s a lot of broken
china.”). But even there it is almost half-hearted, or disingenuous: while
he’s prompt to assume responsibility for upsetting a few US generals, it is
the better to deflect charges that he shares responsibility for destroying
Iraq, and much else besides.
Worth remembering, I think, that the guy is no longer in power. He’s with
the Hoover Institute or somesuch now, I think, and on the conference
circuit, which turns a pretty penny, so it’s possible this trip to France
was, for him, not much more than a junket. I’m not at all sure how close his
contacts are with the declining Bush Administration even, and there were
certainly no hint of any planned meetings with French officials. Although
that doesn’t necessarily mean there won’t be any, of course.
Apart from that, they make a nice cup of coffee at the Cercle Interlliés.
And bravo to all those who had a hand in filing the torture suit against
“the Don”.
EVENTS of the DAY
Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:30 am (PST)
Tout d'abord, I nominate ******* for Hero of the day (or maybe
the week or month, or or...). Had he not told us about Rumsfeld's
imminent visit to Paris, the protest outside Interalliee, where the
breakfast took place, would not have happened, but, more importantly,
the Federation Internationale des ligues des droits de l'homme
(FIDH), would not have frantically, in four days, put together a
dossier of charges against DR which they delivered last night to the
Procureur du Tribunal de Grande Instance. With the charges filed, and
DR here when they were filed, France is obligated to pursue the
investigation into DR’s authorization of torture, in violation of the
1984 Convention against Torture, which both france and the US
ratified. Hopefully the suit will also bring to the fore Sarkozy's
relationship to the US and his tacit consent to its warmongering
policies. A big thanks to ***** for having contacted the LIDH and
maintained contact with them. And another big thanks to ***** for his
excellent report on the “Petit Dejeuner des Cons.”
Les desobeisants, a group of mostly young, mostly anti-nuke activists
who practice civil disobedience, having learned from us of DR's
visit, first at the meeting of the Mouvement de la Paix on Monday,
and again at the Arnove event, organized a meeting last night to plan
for today's action. When Victoria, Evi, and I left it around 10, they
hadn't come to any conclusion, except to meet at 7:30 this morning at
the Carousel du Louvre. The fact that we created this event with
people we scarcely knew of, underscores the need for us to make
contact with as many different like-minded groups as we can (and as
we are beginning to do), and to keep them all informed of events like
this. It’s unfortunate that ACG didn’t join us—they heard of DR’s
visit from a few different sources and had our flyer. Maybe it’s not
sufficient to hand out flyers—we need to phone or email the groups as
a follow up.
Peggy and I met at 8 a.m. across the street from the 18th century
hotel particulier where the Cercle de l'Union Interalliee, a private
club founded at the end of the First World War, has its headquarters.
Interalliée’s goals are “contribuer à maintenir la paix et l'harmonie
entre les nations en développant les relations entre les
personnalités les plus représentatives de l'activité française et
étrangère.” Was it Rumsfeld’s desire for peace and harmony that made
Foreign Policy magazine choose to hold its breakfast there?
About 8:30, whom do we see jauntily walking up rue du faubourg St.
Honore, but none other than DR, surrounded by 4 or 5 men who were
probably secret service—maybe even Blackwater stand-ins. And by
coincidence, les desobeisants arrived at the same moment, with AAW’s
newest recruit Evi. Instantly they unfurled banners—Donald Rumsfeld
War criminal (in English), and Donald Rumsfeld, prix Nobel de la
Guerre (both based on suggestions we had made in the meeting last
night) as we pursued DR into the courtyard. Yelling “criminel de
guerre,” and other things I don’t remember, we went as far into the
courtyard as we could go—not terribly far. For the next two and a
half hours we stood outside, with the very long banners at first
strung across the façade, then held when we were asked to take them
down.
I really liked how les desobeisants operate. They approach people,
get right in their faces, but do so in very charming, disarming (no
pun) ways, and are always extremely polite. It helps that some of
them are in clown costume. What really struck me was the behavior of
the police. Here we had an arch criminal, one of the most reviled men
on the planet, representative of a country the French president is
sucking up to, confronted by a group of militants carrying long
banners, some shooting large rubber bones out of cardboard bazooka
(that would be the clowns). No one asked us to refrain from anything,
except hanging the banners on the building (seems to have been
someone from Interalliee who asked us not to do that). And we had no
permit! Les desobeicants know exactly what the laws are regarding
civil disobedience—in fact, they have weekend trainings and invited
any of us who wants to attend to do so (they’re free). The trainings
are not just about civil disobedience but planning interesting and
attention-grabbing actions. I imagine we could call on them for
reinforcements at some future event we might organize.
We waited for DR to exit the building. As people were filing out, we
asked them about the breakfast, I handed out our flyers. That’s how
we met Peter. Either DR got out by lying on the floor of a car with
blackened windows, and we missed him, or he escaped through some
passageway that might link the US embassy with the Interalliee
building, or he just waited until we dispersed.
I don’t know what media coverage we got—if some other event doesn’t
eclipse ours, then we might be on France 3’s 19h30 newscast. Maybe we
were on France Inter. Hopefully FIDH will get lots of coverage for
their lawsuit.
In some ways I think this was perhaps the most important event that
AAW has organized/participated in, because the possible consequences
of it—lots of attention on DR’s crime and on , Sarko’s pro-americanism
—are most significant. Some of us persisted in marking DR’s presence
here, and even though there were only Peggy, Evi, and myself from
AAW, and we had no AAW banners, we had an impact beyond our just
having been the catalysts. I’m sure DR will not sleep soundly tonight
knowing that AAW is on to him….
Well, I just got back to my office after the Rumsfeld event and, having
washed my hands repeatedly, will try to jot down my impressions, for what
they’re worth.
First, the crowd and the reception: lots of “institutionnels” (French
Foreign and Defence Ministries, some EU and NATO types, one three-star
French general in uniform), lots of people from French think tanks and such
(IRIS etc, Foreign Policy magazine itself), a fair few journalists (I
spotted Le Monde, Le Figaro, TF1, L’Express, others too I think, but no TV
cameras), and a fair sprinkling of business types (a couple of people from
Thalès, several banks, …). On the top table, seated between the three-star
general and Rumsfeld was Giscard d’Estaign’s son, who is with some bank, I
think. In all, about 100 people in attendance. Debate moderated by the
editor of FP/France (François Whathisname) and the ubiquitous Alexander
Adler, who fawned fatuously over Rumsfeld to disgusting effect. That aside,
the reception he met with was generally polite, interested, but neither
overtly hostile nor especially warm. The guy from L’Express was the only one
during the Q&A to grill Rumsfeld at all aggressively (asking what, if
Rumsfeld as reported held Afghanistan to be a great success, he thought an
average failure might look like) – to the palpable relief of those too
polite or intimidated to do so themselves.
Speaking below one of those huge French tapestries, depicting a lot of
scimitar-wielding Saracens in turbans preparing to abduct what seemed to be
a white infanta and mother (wish I’d got a photo of that!), Rumsfeld
delivered a speech on threats to global security which covered a lot more
than just the Middle East, and was very much pointed towards the future
rather than the past, even the recent past. Among the most salient points
were:
- his insistence on the potential threat of China (in particular on
the military level, including the telling observation that “many of the
states in the region are coming to realise, I think, that weakness invites
aggression”), presented explicitly as a potential aggressor nation
- his support for those in Japan who favour a break with that
country’s pacifist heritage and low-spend defence policy (“it is unique in
history for a number two economic power to devote just 1% of its GDP to
defence”)
- his concern about the link between demographics and defence
spending in Europe (ageing population + extensive social safety-net => less
money available for military spending, already “too low” at 2% of GDP)
- his enthusiasm for the “new leadership” in Europe, in particular
Sarkozy, which gives “grounds for optimism” that the perceived problems with
defence and social spending may be overcome, France could integrate the
military structures of NATO etc etc
- and his relatively conciliatory attitude towards Iran (in both
his speech and the Q&A that followed, he stressed that he did not believe
that US military action against Iran was in any way inevitable, that
diplomacy could work and was being pursued, that the Iranians had been
“helpful” to the US/NATO in Afghanistan (even if they were “arming the
insurgents in Iraq”), etc.
Turning to the “Broader Middle East”, he pointed to galloping demographic
growth and the existence of an “extremist minority wielding disproportionate
influence” as reasons why the region will continue to be a problem (for the
US, for the world…) in the forthcoming period. On Afghanistan, vaunted the
successes of the US/NATO, citing the “gateway test” (5m Afghan refugees have
made a “conscious decision” to return, therefore things must be getting
better). On Iraq, trotted out the traditional justifications for the
invasion, barring WMD but including the Saddam-Qaeda canard (Saddam, he
claimed, had harboured the perpetrators of the first World Trade Centre
attack and Abou Mossab Zarqawi – an outrageous lie, since Zarqawi was in the
no man’s land created by the US/UK no-fly zone in the north. Nobody took him
up on this, of course). There was no suggestion whatsoever that the region’s
problems might have any other significant cause than the agitation of that
“extremist minority” – and certainly not occupation, foreign-backed
dictators, poverty, etc etc (although he did, in passing, muse that an
occupation, say of Iraq, should not be too heavy-handed lest it encourage
opposition, before going on to develop folksy metaphors about
nation-building and teaching one’s child to ride a bicycle). Unsurprisingly,
failed to apply the same “gateway test” to Iraq (again, unchallenged). The
remedy to the “extremist” problem, obviously, is to support the “moderate
Muslim leaders”, in particular Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto, Hamid Karzai, whom
he cited repeatedly, lauding their bravery. But on the whole, one got the
impression that he did not feel that there was ever going to be an end to
the Global War on Terror. Lapsing into a classic Rumsfeldism, he explained
that there are two piles of problems: the problems you can solve and the
problems you can’t solve; problems that can be solved (build that
bridge/freeway/ building), you solve; problems that can’t be solved (create
a safe world/workplace), you have to “work on”, and people (journalists and
academics in particular) should not be shocked that they never get fully
solved. Quoted Shimon Peres as saying that problems that can’t be solved are
not problems but facts that have to be lived with and adapted to, he implied
(without saying so) that terrorism can never be eradicated and therefore we
will have to live with the GWOT for ever.
The overall impression I had of Rumsfeld was of a man who knows, but
sometimes still has to remind himself, that he no longer wields the immense
power he once had, but is confident nonetheless that he is protected from
the consequences of his actions. Twinkling, almost avuncular most of the
time, ever ready with the amusing anecdote, he only occasionally let the
old, abrasive Rummy come to the fore, notably when put on the spot about his
record. “When you get up in the morning and you start doing things, you know
you’re going to upset some people. And I don’t personally have a problem
with that,” he blustered, briefly, while trying to explain away the
“generals’ revolt” in terms of his decision to nominate a retired Special
Forces officer as Army Chief of Staff instead of the regular Army guy who
expected to be in line (“so a few people didn’t make three or four stars who
thought they were going to make three or four stars. That’s a lot of broken
china.”). But even there it is almost half-hearted, or disingenuous: while
he’s prompt to assume responsibility for upsetting a few US generals, it is
the better to deflect charges that he shares responsibility for destroying
Iraq, and much else besides.
Worth remembering, I think, that the guy is no longer in power. He’s with
the Hoover Institute or somesuch now, I think, and on the conference
circuit, which turns a pretty penny, so it’s possible this trip to France
was, for him, not much more than a junket. I’m not at all sure how close his
contacts are with the declining Bush Administration even, and there were
certainly no hint of any planned meetings with French officials. Although
that doesn’t necessarily mean there won’t be any, of course.
Apart from that, they make a nice cup of coffee at the Cercle Interlliés.
And bravo to all those who had a hand in filing the torture suit against
“the Don”.
EVENTS of the DAY
Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:30 am (PST)
Tout d'abord, I nominate ******* for Hero of the day (or maybe
the week or month, or or...). Had he not told us about Rumsfeld's
imminent visit to Paris, the protest outside Interalliee, where the
breakfast took place, would not have happened, but, more importantly,
the Federation Internationale des ligues des droits de l'homme
(FIDH), would not have frantically, in four days, put together a
dossier of charges against DR which they delivered last night to the
Procureur du Tribunal de Grande Instance. With the charges filed, and
DR here when they were filed, France is obligated to pursue the
investigation into DR’s authorization of torture, in violation of the
1984 Convention against Torture, which both france and the US
ratified. Hopefully the suit will also bring to the fore Sarkozy's
relationship to the US and his tacit consent to its warmongering
policies. A big thanks to ***** for having contacted the LIDH and
maintained contact with them. And another big thanks to ***** for his
excellent report on the “Petit Dejeuner des Cons.”
Les desobeisants, a group of mostly young, mostly anti-nuke activists
who practice civil disobedience, having learned from us of DR's
visit, first at the meeting of the Mouvement de la Paix on Monday,
and again at the Arnove event, organized a meeting last night to plan
for today's action. When Victoria, Evi, and I left it around 10, they
hadn't come to any conclusion, except to meet at 7:30 this morning at
the Carousel du Louvre. The fact that we created this event with
people we scarcely knew of, underscores the need for us to make
contact with as many different like-minded groups as we can (and as
we are beginning to do), and to keep them all informed of events like
this. It’s unfortunate that ACG didn’t join us—they heard of DR’s
visit from a few different sources and had our flyer. Maybe it’s not
sufficient to hand out flyers—we need to phone or email the groups as
a follow up.
Peggy and I met at 8 a.m. across the street from the 18th century
hotel particulier where the Cercle de l'Union Interalliee, a private
club founded at the end of the First World War, has its headquarters.
Interalliée’s goals are “contribuer à maintenir la paix et l'harmonie
entre les nations en développant les relations entre les
personnalités les plus représentatives de l'activité française et
étrangère.” Was it Rumsfeld’s desire for peace and harmony that made
Foreign Policy magazine choose to hold its breakfast there?
About 8:30, whom do we see jauntily walking up rue du faubourg St.
Honore, but none other than DR, surrounded by 4 or 5 men who were
probably secret service—maybe even Blackwater stand-ins. And by
coincidence, les desobeisants arrived at the same moment, with AAW’s
newest recruit Evi. Instantly they unfurled banners—Donald Rumsfeld
War criminal (in English), and Donald Rumsfeld, prix Nobel de la
Guerre (both based on suggestions we had made in the meeting last
night) as we pursued DR into the courtyard. Yelling “criminel de
guerre,” and other things I don’t remember, we went as far into the
courtyard as we could go—not terribly far. For the next two and a
half hours we stood outside, with the very long banners at first
strung across the façade, then held when we were asked to take them
down.
I really liked how les desobeisants operate. They approach people,
get right in their faces, but do so in very charming, disarming (no
pun) ways, and are always extremely polite. It helps that some of
them are in clown costume. What really struck me was the behavior of
the police. Here we had an arch criminal, one of the most reviled men
on the planet, representative of a country the French president is
sucking up to, confronted by a group of militants carrying long
banners, some shooting large rubber bones out of cardboard bazooka
(that would be the clowns). No one asked us to refrain from anything,
except hanging the banners on the building (seems to have been
someone from Interalliee who asked us not to do that). And we had no
permit! Les desobeicants know exactly what the laws are regarding
civil disobedience—in fact, they have weekend trainings and invited
any of us who wants to attend to do so (they’re free). The trainings
are not just about civil disobedience but planning interesting and
attention-grabbing actions. I imagine we could call on them for
reinforcements at some future event we might organize.
We waited for DR to exit the building. As people were filing out, we
asked them about the breakfast, I handed out our flyers. That’s how
we met Peter. Either DR got out by lying on the floor of a car with
blackened windows, and we missed him, or he escaped through some
passageway that might link the US embassy with the Interalliee
building, or he just waited until we dispersed.
I don’t know what media coverage we got—if some other event doesn’t
eclipse ours, then we might be on France 3’s 19h30 newscast. Maybe we
were on France Inter. Hopefully FIDH will get lots of coverage for
their lawsuit.
In some ways I think this was perhaps the most important event that
AAW has organized/participated in, because the possible consequences
of it—lots of attention on DR’s crime and on , Sarko’s pro-americanism
—are most significant. Some of us persisted in marking DR’s presence
here, and even though there were only Peggy, Evi, and myself from
AAW, and we had no AAW banners, we had an impact beyond our just
having been the catalysts. I’m sure DR will not sleep soundly tonight
knowing that AAW is on to him….
