11.19.08
Bond, James Bond
Last night Brian and I watched the latest James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace. I know that there have been discussions regarding the new Bond as to whether Daniel Craig makes a good Bond or not. As a long-time 007 fan who has watched every single Bond movie, my personal opinion after I watched his first appearance in Casino Royale was that Craig was the best Bond yet. Sure he was a bit, well a lot, rougher than the other Bonds, but it brought an intensity to the character that none of the others ever brought. This Bond actually had feelings despite all his rough and tumble, fast cars, gadgets, jet setting, weapons, and women. Can you even imagine Bond “thinking” of quitting MI6 and retiring with “one” woman? Well, that happened in Casino Royale. That just was not the Bond I had grown up with! However. . . Casino Royale had all the makings of a Bond movie complete with fabulous scenery and style. I came away completely impressed with Casino Royale and a new fan of Daniel Craig. The other Bonds were handsome and clever, but Craig was intense. So last night I was anxious to see Quantum of Solace, but somehow, I left feeling a bit speechless. I suppose Casino Royale was just a really hard act to follow, but I don’t think that was what made me come away from Quantum of Solace a bit numb. It had all the makings of a Bond movie, but I think the “depth” of the plot was hard to clearly express on the big screen in two hours. Perhaps in trying to be realistic, it made the plot a bit elusive as just in real life, the web of connections runs too deep and too large.
I will say that there were a couple things that struck me in the movie as it just happens to coincide with the book I’m currently reading called Waltzing with a Dictator, the Marcoses and the Making of American Policy. For instance, there is reference in Quantum of Solace that the government, be it British or American, will wheel and deal with dictators so long as they get what they want out of the deal. Ordinarily little people like me were taught that the western world promoted democracy and would not support Communists or Dictators. In Waltzing with a Dictator Raymond Bonner explained how I’ve been mistaken and that the U.S. fully knew that Marcos was going to declare martial law using trumped up charges of Communist threat in order to hold on to his power rather than for the good of the Filipino citizens. The U.S. knew that Marcos was plundering the wealth of the Philippines, and the U.S. ignored human rights violations of the Marcos regime because Marcos allowed the U.S. to do what they wanted in the Philippines such as allowing the U.S. military bases, Subic and Clark, to continue operating and harboring nuclear-powered warships at Subic and planes with nuclear weapons at Clark. There were also economic reasons that aligned with U.S. businesses in the Philippines. The largest 200 corporations in the Philippines were at least 40 percent U.S.-owned. The Philippine high court restricted the right of foreigners to manufacture raw materials, including oil, but Marcos (though clearly at this point showing obvious signs of a dictator) overturned that, which made the U.S. businesses very happy and thus ignoring any civil rights violations (this is similar to some of the claims I’ve read about our current war in Iraq). What Bonner alludes to is that spreading Democracy in the world is not the primary concern of the U.S., but rather the primary concern is that U.S. remain the top dog in whatever its interest may be, be it militarily or economically. Bonner quotes a memorandum written by George Kennan who was the U.S. Secretary of State in 1947. This is what he wrote:
“. . . we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the people of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming. . .
“. . . We should dispense with the aspiration to ‘be liked’ or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and–for the Far East–unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”
Bonner continued to write:
“Kennan concluded that in the Pacific U.S. policy should concentrate on ensuring that two countries ‘remain in hands we can control or rely on.’The countries were Japan and the Philippines. American policy , Kennan urged, should be shaped to allow for Philippine independence ‘in all internal affairs but to preserve the archipelago as a bulwark of U.S. security in that area.’
“That policy was, in effect, put into practice a few years later when the U.S. waged a secret counterinsurgency war and thoroughly meddled in Philippine domestic politics. . . ”
The Philippines wasn’t the only country where the U.S. subverted democracy in the name of democracy. This goes beyond whether the current President was a Democrat or Republican. It made not difference as the policy was the same. The CIA also bribed members of the National Assembly in Vietnam to ensure the passage of favorable legislation. Consider also Nicaragua with the Sandanistas and the Shah of Iran just to name a couple more. So yes, Quantum of Solace touched on that aspect that even our governments are corrupt, but fortunately there are still good guys (or maybe the holy spirit, heheh) that manages to keep all hell from breaking loose. Maybe one day, but not quite just yet.
The second comment that struck me in Quantum of Solace was that the bad guy today is the good guy tomorrow or vice versa. I’m paraphrasing there, but that’s the idea and I think there’s a measure of truth to that in the way our governments run today as in the past. The U.S. helps to promote leaders and deals with leaders regardless if they are dictators, when it benefits us, but then vilifies them later when they no longer fit our purposes. Apparently that’s not a new trick, but only another aspect of human nature and those who seek power and prestige.
So bottom line, the web of connections in Quantum of Solace didn’t seem fully exposed, but I suppose because it was just too big? And so I was left feeling that the movie wasn’t quite complete. But it seems that’s how real life is and why often times we don’t see the whole picture. We get bits and pieces, and mingled in there are things that appear to be conspiracy theories, or perhaps even tidbits of truths. Even when I read The Bounty, the True Story of the Mutuny on the Bounty, the web of connections to the mutineers was so extensive that it almost seemed never ending. But anyway, for the action and adventure, I give Quantum of Solace two thumbs up.
Marlakins
