Hi!
The events of September 11th. in New York have raised all types of notches on the emotional spectrum and affected many aspects of life even in the farthest of areas. The events and what followed have brought to the forefront among other things issues of what democracy means when its tenets are applied to those who are its supposed keepers and protectors (the West) and the rest of us. No one in his/her right mind would doubt that what happened on that fateful day was a tragedy of immense proportions. Thousands of innocent human beings were killed. I write "human beings" and not "Americans" because when God proclaimed the sanctity of human life, He didn't say "I hereby declare American life" sacred. Rather, He declared ALL life sacred. When He condemned the taking of innocent life, he didn't condemn ONLY those to be taken by Islamic militants but by ALL including the US and its allies either through unjustified acts of war or through indefensible imposition of sanctions which result in the deaths of millions of people especially children. When God declared the sanctity of life and declared principles of justice, He was not speaking as a supporter and underling of the US but as the Creator and impartial Referee unlike leaders of our world and so-called defenders of the democratic ideals of humankind who are jumping head over heels trying to outdo each other in defending some of the acts of US president Bush which clearly undermine and violate the basic principles of the democracy they are supposed to "upkeep" and "defend". What all this does is to bring to the forefront the hypocrisy inherent in world politics.
How did the US ensure that the whole world was going to dance to its tune and support its blatant violations of the basic principles of democracy and natural justice? It did this through a set of carefully planned and strategic machinations the sophistication of which impresses me. It first of all declared that this is a war. It further declared that this is a war between good and bad, between terrorists and the civilised world. Even though what is good and bad or who is a terrorist, the US or bin Laden and the Taliban are open to interpretation, the world snatches the definition given by the US. The US further declares that there will be no middle ground. One has to either support them or be aligned with the terrorists who will be annihilated. Not a difficult choice for all who want to survive. No matter how much one is against what the US intended to do, one would involuntarily support it as a matter of survival. For the Western countries especially those in Europe whose security, economies and foreign policies are to a degree dependent on the US and the other countries who depend on the US for economic handouts, to be seen as an enemy of the US would not augur well. Thus began the "marionetting" to display the US' best friend with leaders trying to outdo each other in this respect. The most successful in my opinion is Britain's Tony Blair whose actions sometimes border on the comical. Even when the US declared war on Afghanistan and set limited, achievable goals, Tony Blair gave a list of goals that went beyond what the US declared.
Another problem the US would have to tackle was that of the Arab, Muslim and other countries likely to oppose the US action. This was an easy task. Just name a few of them as allied to bin Laden or terrorism in general and threaten to include them in the list of countries to attack and watch them outdo each other in distancing themselves from terrorism and lining up behind the US. Just name Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya etc. as supporters of terrorism and next on the line and watch them cower from opposing the US actions to providing material, intelligence and other tactical support. Even Yassir Arafat, who is guilty of the same thing being blamed on bin Laden, came out in full force to try to please the US. Iran, which is currently on the US list of states supporting terrorism came out to provide intelligence and other support. I don't know who gave Bush these strategic chips but they sure did a darn good job. Now that the co-operation of the whole world is place, the US set forth to violate the basic tenets of democracy and natural justice with the world displaying its hypocrisy.
One of the foundations of democracy and the basic premise of criminal law in the US and most of its allies is the principle of innocence until guilt is established through a competent court of law through established procedures. According to John H. Farrar and Anthony M. Dugdale in Introduction to the Legal Method, "to protect an accused person from the danger of wrongful conviction, loss of livelihood and liberty, the rules are weighted in his favour. The prosecution must disclose its evidence to the accused before the trial, it must prove the alleged facts beyond reasonable doubt.. It is these principles which embody the 'presumption of innocence'." The US violated this very basic tenet of democracy and the whole world clapped and cheered on. George Bush sentenced bin Laden to death even before a trial was initiated. George Bush stated that there was a poster out west that stated "wanted: dead or alive". What George Bush forgot is the fact that we are living in 2001 and the lawlessness of the west is an era long forgotten. Now, if Saddam Hussein were to suspect a British or American citizen of having carried out acts which result in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and sentences them to death without trial and sends commandos to carry out the order, the world would be over itself in condemning him and building a coalition to annihilate him. If Yaya Jammeh were to suspect someone of a crime and sentences him to death without trial, Gambia-l would be over its head in condemning him. George Bush does it, it's o.k. The world claps on.
When the US demanded the handing over of bin Laden, the Taliban asked it to provide proof in tune with the principles of law quoted above. It stated that it would hand over bin Laden to a neutral country where he would be tried if the evidence proffered against him is satisfactory. Knowing fully well that it does not have evidence that would hold in a court of law, the US went ahead to show the world circumstantial evidence which would not hold water in any court of law to justify its attack on Afghanistan. With every recording of bin Laden subsequently released, the US and its allies try to find evidence to establish his guilt and justify their attacks on Afghanistan. If they have the evidence that he carried out the attacks, why do they keep on trying to find evidence to prove his guilt and then justify the attacks every time he gives a speech? Instead of going by the principle of "justify and then attack", the US went by "attack and then justify". The US did not have sufficient evidence that bin Laden was responsible for the attack. However, when the US says we have evidence, provides some insufficient sketches, the whole world buys it. This is what happened when Clinton ordered the bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in response to the attack on the US ship some years back. The assistant Secretary of State came out and said that they had irrefutable evidence that the factory manufactured chemical weapons and thus the attack was justified as these weapons might be used by al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. Sudan protested all over the place that it was unjustly attacked but the world didn't care about its innocence because the US has said that it was guilty. A few years later, the same assistant Secretary of State was interviewed in a documentary about the allegation that there was evidence that the factory manufactured chemical weapons that justified the US attack on Sudan and he said they didn't have any evidence. The reporter told him that some people had categorically stated that this was the case and he said that that might have been the case but those people did not have evidence to the effect. The reporter then played for him the clip where he had given a press conference and stated that they had solid, irrefutable evidence that the factory manufactured chemical weapons and the guy was dumbfounded. I would therefore not be surprised if it is established a few years from now that the US did not have evidence to justify its attack on Afghanistan.
The second illustration of the hypocrisy displayed by the world in trying to please the US is the overwhelming and sometimes plastic and insincere display of sorrow all over the world. Don't get me wrong. I truly sympathise with the families of all who died and condemn the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians. What I cannot understand is why the rest of the world which never condemns the killing on a daily basis of Palestinians has to stop the moment the victims of murder are Americans. When dictators who order, bless or condone the murder of thousands of their citizens all come out with crocodile tears outdoing each other in their display of grief. When close to a million people were murdered in Rwanda, where was the rest of the world? Where was the world and its sympathy when Palestinians were massacred in the refugee camps in Beirut? Where was the world and its sympathy when people were massacred in the former Yugoslavia? Why were national mourning days not declared? Why were three minute silences not declared? Why were prayer vigils not held? Is it because some lives are more sacred and precious than others? Does everything boil down to trying to prove to the Americans who their best friend is?
The world further displayed its hypocrisy in the sudden and insincere display of concern for the Afghan people in general and the women in particular. The systematic violation of the people's basic human rights was condoned by the world for many years because it did not affect them. As long as the Taliban violated the rights of Afghans and it didn't spill over to Western borders, it was o.k. to just pay lip service and utter a condemnation once or twice a year in parliament or in front of the media to keep in line with the principle of being politically correct. When the British lady who went undercover in Afghanistan with the help of AWAD (?) and with a hidden camera showed the world the terrible violations of human rights being perpetrated by the Taliban, nobody cared because this was before September 11th. When she showed how a woman accused of adultery was taken to a football stadium full to the brim with shouting spectators and shot in the head to the jubilation of the spectators, nobody cared. When she showed how scores of tribesmen were killed in cold blood and some of their heads skinned leaving in plain sight the white skull, nobody cared because it was happening to Afghans and it was before September 11th. When images were being shown of how women were subjected to systematic state-sanctioned discrimination which forbade them to work, forbade them to go out in public without those "agugu"-like clothes, go to school etc. and thus rendered many of them street beggars whose children were starving by the wayside, nobody cared. When images were being shown of how the religious police were destroying cassettes, tape recorders, videos, televisions etc., nobody cared. Then came September 11th. and then the need to justify why the US had to attack Afghanistan and all the world leaders suddenly fought head over heels to outdo each other in fighting for and showing concern for the rights of Afghan people. I say, shame on the hypocrites.
Another display of hypocrisy is the concern for the starving women and children of Afghanistan and the airlifting of food and medical supplies whilst over a quarter of a million Iraqi children die every year because of the indefensible sanctions placed on it by the US. Had it not been the need to justify the US attacks on Afghanistan and if September 11th. never happened, the world would have never given a hoot what happened to those poor Afghans during the cold and difficult winter period. I can remember how the UN was making appeals for donors last year immediately before the winter and was struggling to raise the amount it deemed necessary to avert starvation in some parts of Afghanistan. I can remember how some Americans defied their government's ban and carried medical supplies to Iraq because they were so disillusioned with the unjust sanctions being placed on Iraq which was resulting in the death of so many children. If the US is so concerned about children getting food and medical supplies, why is it condemning hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi babies to death? If the world leaders are so concerned about children's lives, why aren't they airlifting food and medical supplies to save the lives of Iraqi children. It seems so paradoxical to airlift food and medical supplies into Afghanistan to save lives and deny food and medical supplies to the children of Iraq thereby taking lives.
When GRTS is deemed to be dictated to by Yaya Jammeh, Gambia-l goes wild. When freedom of the press is threatened by third world leaders, everyone jumps to get ready for war. When the US violates the basic principles of freedom of the press, everyone keeps quiet. Isn't the US supposed to be the "guardian" of democratic principles and freedom of the press? How come then that Colin Powell's assistant literally walked into the Voice of America station and told the station not to broadcast an interview with the Afghan leader, Mullah Omar? This was before the attacks on Afghanistan. It was when the US was demanding that bin Laden be handed over. Wasn't it censorship when Dr. Rice told network executives not to broadcast bin Laden speeches in their entirety without seeking "approval"? Isn't this censorship or a way of fighting a propaganda war by giving only one side and denying the other side the right to give his version? The justification given was that of national security. All the dictators of the world especially in the third world countries hide behind national security to justify violation of people's rights and arrest and harass journalists on these grounds. If Yaya Jammeh were to send someone to Radio 1 and stop the station from broadcasting an interview with an enemy, Gambia-l would be wild. The media defender organisations would cry foul yet the US violates the basic principles of freedom of the press and the world is mute.
Another area where the world displayed its hypocrisy is the attack on innocent Muslims all over the world after the September 11th. attacks and the lame attempts by world leaders to "protect" them. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, people didn't go after white extremists or young white people beating, shooting and attacking them. The world media didn't make the issue that of white young men against the rest of the world. No, this was the action of a disgruntled individual and thus all anger should be directed towards him and those directly involved in the heinous act. When September 11th. occurred, the issue immediately became that of Muslims and not that of a group disgruntled with US foreign policy. Innocent, hardworking, law-abiding Muslims were attacked all over the world. The media did a good job of turning this into a Muslims versus the rest of the world issue. Why wasn't bin Laden and his group considered to be solely responsible for this and not Islam and Muslims? If bin Laden had on the other hand done good things like building hospitals, donating millions to research funds etc., he would have been portrayed as a an individual and not a Muslim and representative of Islam and all Muslims would not have been judged in his light. He however does something bad and all Muslims are guilty by association.
Another violation of the basic principles of human rights and the hypocritical silence of the world has to do with emergency legislations being effected and proposed in the US, Britain and other Western countries all under the guise of fighting terrorism. In the US, legislation was proposed to legitimise torture of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorist activities who refuse to talk. A special military court meant only for foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism is being planned. Many people arrested since the attacks were held without their families having knowledge of their whereabouts and denied the right to communicate with the outside world. In Britain, the government is trying to pass legislation that gives the state powers to detain foreign nationals suspected of terrorism without charge or trial indefinitely. This means people can be held for six months without being charged. Does this sound like third world dictators? Well, these are from the "defenders" of democracy and human rights and all taken under the guise of "national security". I wonder how they will be able to reprimand third world dictators who use the same tactics to violate the rights of their citizens.
The above and many other things show the hypocrisy of the world with regard to democracy issues when it has to do with the West and other countries. The innocent American citizens and citizens of other countries caught in the crossfire of September 11th. can claim to be innocent players caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Can the US government and the American state claim to be innocent victims? I hope when the dust settles one of these world leaders jumping all over the place would have the courage to tell the US to look into the mirror. I hope he / she will have the courage to urge the US to look at a placard held by one of the demonstrators in Pakistan which went something like this "America, have you stopped to ask yourself why you are hated all over the world?" In the answer to this question lies one of the solutions to the issue of terrorism. America must review its foreign policy and realise that the rest of the world also has interests and aspirations. Using discrimination in dispensing justice, intimidation and force will not end terrorism. Today Afghanistan is on the brink of falling. Remember that the US helped build bin Laden and the Taliban by giving the Taliban more than 6 billion Dollars worth of material support during their war with the Soviets and then threw them away like used toilet paper after the Cold War as it did many other countries. Now it is helping the Northern Alliance just because it is convenient. What's going to happen now? What will happen in twenty years' time? These are the issues friends of the US need to be dealing with. They need to be looking the US straight in the face and telling it to do some soul-searching and review of its policies as some of these policies based on self-interest cause misery for millions and cause the deaths of thousands thus acting as breeding grounds for hatred towards the US. I hope they do this as true friends of the US and let go of the machinations that so display the hypocrisy inherent in world politics. Thanks.
Buharry.
<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>
To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>
|
