CONNECT: You could judge just how furious US newspapers were by their dragging-up anti-semitism to whack the French and Nazismto whack the Germans, writes Eddie Holt
The "axis of weasels" (European countries opposing a US-led war on Iraq); "the rat that tried to roar" (description of Jacques Chirac in the Wall Street Journal); "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (the weekly National Review term for the French) revealed, alongside a barrage of other insults, US media fury at Europe this week. "Weasels", "rats" and "monkeys" are quite ferocious terms. They are colourful too, of course, and sure to attract attention. That's the point of them. It's not surprising, therefore, that there's been intense focus on such Euro-bashing language. It shows a dramatic escalation in the war of words that is preceding the, seemingly inevitable, military attack on Iraq.
You could dismiss it as mere vulgar hyperbole and maybe that's all it will prove to be. Exaggeration for the sake of effect is, after all, a common ploy in venomous argument. But insults and invective of such coarseness show that the malevolent language characteristic of the "plain-speaking" American hard-right has invaded even saner outlets of the country's press.
This week, much mainstream US media was like a diatribe from Rush Limbaugh, America's most popular of all its ranting right-wing radio broadcasters. It was alarmingly reminiscent of the vilifications unleashed in the dirtiest US primary campaigns. It certainly wasn't just the language of argument. It was the language of abuse - and it is dangerous.
There is, of course, a valid US viewpoint on Europe and US media has every right - arguably, even a duty - to express that. It seldom bothers. But you could judge just how furious US newspapers were this week by their dragging-up anti-semitism to whack the French and Nazism to whack the Germans. As always in venomous exchanges, the selectivity of insults reveals a great deal.
The genocide of Native Americans and the slavery of black people were, properly, not mentioned. Both crimes involved European-US co-operation, including that of many Irish people. In the transatlantic dispute over Iraq, gross historical atrocities shouldn't be put in the foreground cheaply and certainly not just now. By enlarging the context, heinous history can be invoked to justify almost anything. The eve of a likely war is not the time for such low blows.
The language they use hits deep emotional complexes and destroys attempts at rational argument. It's ironic really. People such as Limbaugh vilify "liberals" as "touchy-feely" types - too concerned with their emotions to see clearly. Yet the aim of right-wingers in the US media is to make people as emotional as possible by dredging-up the worst crimes of opponents while ignoring their own. Still, that sort of abusive language, though nasty, is not ambiguous.
Everybody can hear what's being said. Donald Rumsfeld's jibe about "old Europe" probably gave the nod that led to this week's volleys of abuse from a salivating media. But there are other, more subtly sinister abuses of language seeping from Washington these days.
How about "a coalition of the willing"? What sort of guff is that? Can you have "a coalition of the unwilling" or a "coalition of the reluctant"? Hardly, since a "coalition" means a temporary coming together of parties by choice, not by force. It's easily dismissed as pedantic to point out as much. But "coalition of the willing" is no mere tautology to be sniffed at by stuffy grammarians. It's much more insidious than that.
The phrase, used by George Bush and Colin Powell, and repeated in The Irish Times on Wednesday by UCD law lecturer Tom Cooney, has a propaganda function too. Adding "of the willing" to "coalition" is designed to stress the notion of a partnership freely and enthusiastically entered by all parties to it. Otherwise, why add it on at all? Why not simply call it "a coalition"? The reason is surely because any coalition cobbled together to attack Iraq will be comprised of countries, some of which will be utterly willing but most of which will feel pressurised to join. Calling them all - the rabid and the more reluctant alike - a "coalition of the willing" exaggerates the like-mindedness of any such grouping. Aimed at massaging public opinion, it's deliberately distorting.
Al-Quaeda - though it too probably press-gangs people into service - could just as convincingly, if not more so, call itself "a coalition of the willing". That it has thugs willing to murder innocents doesn't make it any less of a coalition. Bertie Ahern, when he backs George Bush, is unlikely to be as willing as the US president to see an attack on Iraq.
It's true that most EU and NATO governments agree with the US. But the French anti-war viewpoint is held by the overwhelming majority of the public in all EU countries, including Ireland and indeed, Britain too. Even within the US, more than 40 per cent of public opinion is opposed to, or is at least sceptical about the coming "war".
Nonetheless, a majority of governments line up behind Washington in defiance of the will of their peoples. There's a lesson in democratic politics for you. The political class has rarely, if ever, been so out of touch with - perhaps even contemptuous of - voters. "Democratic despots" may be a contradiction in terms but it seems as if that's what we have now.
Anyway, there are anti-war marches in many cities across the world today. A generation ago, similar marches helped stop the slaughter in Vietnam. Mind you, the media - especially US television - also helped greatly then. It won't this time. But that's just an extra reason, if you don't agree with attacking Iraq, to join the "weasels" and walk against the warmongers and their ranting media.
You might even bring a cheese sandwich to eat.