Crystal Bartolovich
Syracuse University
clbartol@mailbox.syr.edu

Unveiling Guernica

When Colin Powell came to the UN in order to make a case for war against Iraq, he spoke to the cameras right in front of a reproduction of Picasso's "Guernica," although no one watching could know this: it had been covered over with a blue cloth, and Security Council flags lined up in front of it. Evidently someone thought that images of bodies on fire, dismembered, screaming, imploring, did not provide the best possible backdrop for Powell's insistence that the U.N. had the responsibility to support the U.S administration's desire to go to war. Veiled or unveiled, however, "Guernica" demands that we bear witness to the Nazi immolation--with Franco's approbation-- of a Loyalist village in 1937 during the Spanish Civil War. In his painting, Picasso records not only his own horror, but that of all of us who are shocked and repelled by what our own governments, saying that they act in our name, feel authorized to do. When we unveil Guernica, it demands that we ask: are there other options to this war if the goal of the U.S. truly is to "defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world," as Bush has claimed?
Would it not be better to actually behave in the way that the U.S. administration claims it would like to see the Iraqi regime behave? As far as relations with the U.N. are concerned, after all, the most powerful, dangerous rogue state in the world is arguably the U.S., which has shown little interest in going along with the U.N. unless it conforms to the narrowest of its interests. While calling all the time for "justice," the U.S. has done everything it could to stymie the institution of the World Court, and continues even now to pressure other nations to sign agreements promising never to hand over a U.S. citizen to such a court. U.S. officials have much to worry about on that score, not only by engaging in this unprovoked war in Iraq, but also for the internment of over 600 prisoners at Camp X-ray in Cuba in violation of numerous Geneva Convention protocols, as well as the secret incarceration of migrants it deems suspect, without access to lawyers or appeal, in the U.S. Furthermore the U.S. is one of the 48 nations who has not ratified the Land-mine Ban Treaty (a dubious distinction we share with Iraq), much less the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which our putative concern for proliferation of weapons of mass destruction should have put us at the head of the line to promote. We provide only a tiny fraction of our GDP in foreign aid--a significantly smaller proportion than other wealthy countries--and typically use it to manipulate aid recipients into capitulation to U.S. policy objectives rather than furthering "good" in the world, as the arm-twisting in the assemblage of the so-called "coalition of the willing" has demonstrated so emphatically. I wish that I could say that in my lifetime, the U.S. has been an exemplary agent of peace and justice in the world, but its actual effect has been quite contrary: supporting questionable regimes when it has suited its purposes, bombing civilian populations in tiny nations, undermining democratically-elected governments, selling high price-tag military hardware and expertise hither and yon. If an impartial intergalactic visitor were looking down on us, I am afraid we would be hard pressed to win the "propaganda war" based on both past and current behavior.
So we have to ask more questions of the present war: is it merely incidental that in a world crawling with brutal dictators, many of whom have been--like Saddam Hussein himself-- or are now, being supported in various ways by the U.S., several of whom certainly have weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, that Iraq has become the target of U.S. special interest at a time in which U.S. reserves of oil are near exhaustion and the Gulf states, Iraq in particular, have over a 100 years of supply remaining? Is it merely incidental that French and Russian oil companies have secured lucrative contracts with the Iraqis, but that British and American oil has been shut out, and that the coalitions of the willing and unwilling prominently include these countries divided along oil contract lines? And might we not be skeptical about how much freedom, good, justice, democracy, and so on will flow into Iraq even if its oil were to flow out in U.S. flagged vessels instead of French or Russian, when we look around and see how much freedom, good, justice, democracy and so on can be found in this region as an effect of U.S. intervention, past and ongoing?

We desperately need to ask what "good" and "freedom" and "justice" might mean if a different sort of "coalition of the willing" --people like you and me, and those other, distant, unregarded men and women, in Iraq, for example --were assembled. What if we, collectively, were to have a hand in defining them instead of Donald Rumsfeld and Tom Ridge? What we need, most of all, of course, to enable anything like a free and just conversation on these issues is a massive redistribution of global wealth, but I will restrict myself to humbler suggestions. To keep it nice and concrete, I'd like to ask: if we could spend the money--our tax money-- as WE would like-- to do good in the world, would we really spend it on this war? The minimum figure being bandied about as its price tag is about 75 billion. It's going to cost a lot more than that, of course, but let's just go with this figure for now. Would we really say, yes, blowing up Iraqi cities, killing its people, that's our best shot at advocating global peace and justice? I'd like us to think about some other possibilities. The U.N. estimates that it would cost 6 billion dollars to establish basic education for all children where such services are currently nonexistent: for girls as well as boys, in every country. We could build these schools and still have 69 billion dollars in change. The U.N. also estimates that it would cost somewhat more, 9 billion dollars, to make sure that all people had access to clean water and basic sanitation. We could build these water treatment facilities, and we'd still have 60 billion dollars in our account. For 13 billion dollars more, the U.N. tells us, basic nutrition AND health care could be made available to everyone. No more starvation; no more babies dying of diarrhea because electrolyte replacement therapy, costing pennies, was unavailable; everyone would get immunizations for childhood diseases; and we would STILL have 47 billion dollars in change! Think of what we might be able to accomplish if we could just get our hands on the hundreds of billions spent each year on advertising!
And since we are on the subject of what we could do, let's not stop there. Let's dream a little more. For "Guernica, " whose troubling images I conjured up when I began this speech, is not just the most eloquent of Nos to War. To Destruction. To ignorant armies clashing by night. An emphatic No to the limits of the World as it is. Great Art is always a Yes. A Yes to what is great and humane in us. To what is good and free. To what is just. To what the world could be. We must unveil Guernica and let it speak loud and clear over the war-cries of George Bush, over "Shock and Awe," over the worst in us, and reclaim the best. So after you leave here today--this is the teacher in me speaking-- always lift veils and ask questions; learn; imagine a better world-- and help make it prevail.