John Feffer in Foreign Policy in Focus believes that “the terrorist-as-the-new-communist argument has lost its zing.” He explains, “After all, we are fighting overseas contingency operations, not a war on terror any longer. So, brace yourself for the new new anti-communism, which identifies “communist sympathizers” like Hillary Clinton as the real threat to America. Talk about boring old re-runs. The Cold War is over. Long live the Cold War…”

Apparently, The Washington Post sharply criticized a Clinton speech on human rights that lumped in ‘oppression of want’ along with ‘oppression of tyranny and torture.’ Indeed, the melding of socioeconomic rights with political and personal freedom was, and still is, a Communist campaign credo.

Those who are quick to stress that they are rabid adversaries of Communism will see all sorts of implications in Clinton’s words. Which makes the whole thing reek of the old and tired debate on Communism. But socioeconomic rights also mean freedom from oppression.

Perhaps, these people living in relative comfort in comparatively richer countries have not heard that human security, as defined in the UN’s 1994 Human Development Report, means “safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression” as well as “protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life — whether in homes, in jobs or in communities.”

Either these people are grossly paranoid, grossly misinformed about updated and salient definitions, or have not heard that the new cold war is a literal one this time, up there in the Arctic as the US and Russia, along with Canada, are covertly vying for the invasion of the North Pole – all for icy hegemony, what else.

John Feffer, “The New New Anti-Communism” (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, January 5, 2010)

Image: Averageman
Wikimedia Commons