|
World
defence against Uncle Sam
Sumer
Kaul
Behold
the raptors of the 21st century; that glint in the eyes, those
curving lips. And why not; they have just made a big kill. But like
all greedy predators, even before they have sat down to partake of
the juicy Iraqi spread, they are planning their next kill. Who it
will be is the billion-barrel life-and death question staring in the
face all their potential preys in the oil-rich jungle, and perhaps
further a field.
Going by the
direction of the Bushmen’s snarls as well as a particular Straw in
the ill wind, it looks like Syria. They are asking President Bashar
al-Assad to “co-operate”, which in the concise imperial
dictionary means hand over your country. And British foreign
secretary Jack Straw, as comedic a figure as his boss in this bloody
charade, is telling Syria “to prove that it is not a rogue
nation”, or else!
But Syria is not on
Bush’s “evil axis” list, then why this deadly gaze at
Damascus? Why is Syria suddenly a rogue nation? The Bush-Blair
answer is simple: Because we say so. And why does this gruesome two
some say so? Because, according to them, Syria is (a) manufacturing
bio-chem weapons of mass destruction, (b) harbouring terrorists as
well as “remnants of the Saddam regime”, and (c) last but not
least, because Israeli premier Sharon says Assad “is a dangerous
leader”.
As in the case of
Iraq, no evidence has been proffered to back these charges. But then
where is the need for evidence when the accuser is also the judge
and also the executioner! Did the lack of evidence deter them from
attacking Iraq, killing and maiming children and women, destroying
its infrastructure, seizing its vast oil riches, devastating its
economy and ecology, and altogether subjugating a sovereign people
and causing ruin and plunder of this proud cradle of ancient
civilisations?
Is a similar fate
awaiting Syria? Is there no stopping this vicious juggernaut? Will
the United Nations again quietly watch the rape of a nation and
otherwise continue to be no more than a garish `kotha’ of eunuchs
presided over by an Uncle Tom with a spine made of American chewing
gum? What about the leaders and governments of the billion-strong
Arabs, will they continue to beat their breasts and for the rest
simply cower? And what about other nations, powerful in their own
right, like France and Germany and Russia? Should they be content
merely to tut-tut the U.S. criminality and put up photo-op shows of
concertedconcern, such as the one at St. Petersberg, and just wait
for the next American kill and then eagerly hover on the periphery
for leftovers, as seems to be happening after Iraq?
In other words, in
this post-USSR era of the so-called `end of history’ are there no
nations which can stand up, individually or jointly, to stop the
serial invader from ending geography too, and to tell him that the
world has had enough of his invasive lawlessness, that he must
promptly get out of Iraq and never again get into any other country?
Isn’t this what an overwhelming majority of the peoples of the
world want their governments to do?
The unprecedented
popular anger across the globe over the invasion of Iraq was not in
favour of Saddam or WMDs or terrorism.It was a demonstration
categorically against the trampling of human rights and national
sovereignties by the powerdrunk Bush regime, and that too on totally
fraudulent grounds. Now that Iraq has been flattened and ransacked
where, pray, are the WMDs that Saddam was said to have stockpiled
and was threatening the U.S.and indeed the whole world with? Why
aren’t Messers Chiraq and Shroeder and Putin and Vajpayee (and all
others who were urging Saddam to disarm asking this question of the
crusading Mr.Bush?
Leave aside
Washington’s obvious chicanery, there is a more fundamental
question crying to be asked: What if Iraq did (and syria does) have
such weapons? Why shouldn’t they, or anyone else, when there are
at least seven other countries which admittedly (and perhaps an
equal number clandestinely) have them and are indeed flaunting them,
some even threateningly, like North Korea and Pakistan? By what
logic or right can any nation be forbidden to have these weapons,
least of all by the US of A which not only was the first to uncork
the genie but is the only one to have actually used nuclear bomb,
and twice, to mass-kill and destroy? How can it preach abstinence
while itself sitting pretty on an arsenal that can blow up this
planet a hundred times over?
It is the same `dadagiri’,
same hypocrisy, same double standard in the matter of democracy and
dictatorship. The U.S. doesn’t give a damn about lack of democracy
in other countries if and so long as the dictators do its bidding.
Ditto for terrorism and terrorists. The instances are too many and
too well known to merit mention here, except for the one case which
combines all the `evil virtues’ right in our neighbourhood: The
wily General who has killed democracy in his country, goes on
nourishing and unleashing anti-India terrorists, is still
patronising the `remnants’(!) of the Taliban and Al Qaeda and
continues to harbour and protect that high priest of “global
terrorism”, a man called Osama bin Laden who in turn, be it
remembered, was created by the Americans but who they now want
“dead or alive”!.
For the Bush
regime, however, the Pakistani dictatoris “a reliable friend and
staunch ally”, whereas Saddam was devil personified. Never mind if
the Iraqi strongman headed a legitimate political party, never mind
if he created and presided over one of the very few secular Muslim
countries, never mind if he made Iraq the most literate and educated
nation in the entire Arab world (and won a UN prize for it!), never
mind if he ensured that his “suppressed people” had all the
basic necessities and did not suffer for lack of food and water and
electricity, as they do now after their “liberation” by the
Americans!
The truth is that
Saddam was “evil and dangerous” only because he did not dance to
American tune and even after 12 long years of crippling sanctions
refused to kowtow to the enraged Uncle Sam. So he had to go, and now
Assad must go for similar reasons and especially because he “is
providing a safe haven to the remnants of the Saddam regime.”
Other countries’ malcontents can live happily anywhere, homegrown
and imported terrorists can roam freely in Pakistan, anti-Castro
elements can flourish in USA, but no country can let in anyone
fleeing from death and torture in “liberated” Iraq! It is
abundantly obvious now that the Bush regime feels free to say and do
what it likes because after the eclipse of the countervailing
superpower it not only finds itself unchallenged butconsiders itself
unchallengeable. But is it really unchallengeable? On a one-to-one
basis, yes it is, but not if even a third of the rest of the world
unites to take the rampaging bull by the horns.
This is how Hitler
was defeated. I am not advocating a world war but a world defence
against the US.
There is so much
that can be done to thwart the global predator. From setting up a
new UN sans America and its pommy kennel, to economic and trade
non-cooperation and political and social boycott. If the major
powers won’t do it, the Third world countries should. Such action
may spell serious economic hardship but nothing comparable to what
has happened to Iraq and is in store for them, whether or not they
have WMDs or oil or even bananas.
But even if the world
does nothing of the sort, and even as there is great merriment in
the war rooms and boardrooms of America, the Bush administration
will be making a grievous mistake if it believes that it can go on
with its bloody high-handedness with total impunity. Violence begets
violence, and as sure as sure can be, its criminal actions will
spawn counter-terror. I have no doubt it has already created
millions of enemies for the U.S. They may well lack the means of
long-distance retaliation but they will hit back and hit hard
whichever way they can. For starters, the Americans must ask
themselves why Osama is so quiet!
Sumer
Kaul is a veteran journalist based in New Delhi
Kashmir
TELEGRAPH does in no way subscribe to the views and opinions
expressed by the author
Home |
