DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE
Dr. Jibo IBRAHIM
Global Rights
[email protected]
The constitution and religious laws
Last Friday, round one of the US Presidential debates took place in the state of Florida, scene of one of the most incredible electoral frauds in American history. Florida it was where substantial numbers of voters likely to vote for Democratic candidate Al Gore were inexplicably disenfranchised resulting in the eventual victory of George W. Bush although as we all know, he lost the popular vote. Bush’s younger brother Jeb, is also the Governor of Florida state. Back to the meat of the matter, although all the polls indicated that Kerry won the debate which centred on foreign policy and homeland security, there was really not much to choose between the two candidates.
Both reflected the timeworn fixation with American security and disdain for the views of the rest of the world and the United Nations. But while Kerry was more diplomatic in dismissing our views or leverage on American foreign policy Bush was emphatic in the same regard. Responding to Kerry’s jibe at his unilateral actions especially in Iraq, he retorted in typical arrogance: “That’s the kind of pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow’s resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place” In another instance he put the issue beyond doubt: “We will continue to build our alliances. I’ll never turn over America’s national security needs to leaders of other countries, as we continue to build those alliances”
The point was unmistakable. America under president Bush has no need or regard for the United Nations. By logical progression therefore, with its heavy dependence on cheap oil, American security needs could require the invasion of the Niger Delta region of Nigeria tomorrow with or without the concurrence of the United Nations or even against our will. If Bush thinks such a scenario would be consistent with American security needs, there can only be one way to describe the possibility which is banditry, the same as the invasion of the sovereign republic of Iraq.
Now, because generalizations are always unhelpful, permit me to be more specific: The logic behind American security perceptions as could be garnered from the views of both candidates is not only selfish but also inconsistent with the spirit of the United Nations. Indeed the situation will remain the same, irrespective of whom among the candidates eventually occupies the White House. Although Kerry never missed the opportunity to emphasise his intention to build strong alliances, across the globe, his loyalties to the same hollow security needs were never in doubt. To that extent therefore, we don’t need to be told that even the most peace loving state on earth could become a victim of aggression provided it is blessed with abundant natural resources or if its leaders disagreed with American narrow interests. It is especially why despite all the double talk, the people of Iraq today deserve our special sympathy. The gullible American public may have failed to notice it, but Kerry’s comments in the course of the same debate told the complete story of Bush’s dubious war on terror in Iraq. Just take this: “Saddam Hussein didn’t attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al-Qaeda attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn’t use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world’s number one criminal and terrorist......He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started the war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening” Unfortunately, true as they undoubtedly are, Kerry’s scathing indictments of the logic for war in Iraq have to be situated within the context of his ongoing campaign to unseat his adversary in the coming election.
Naturally, that brings us to their definition of freedom in relation to the ongoing insurrection in Iraq. Again we start with Bush’s embarrassing contradiction. Asked whether their present experience in Iraq will make it more or less likely for him to take another preemptive action, he blurted obviously without thinking: “ I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running...when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I’d be doing that. But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect American people, to do everything I can to protect us.” THE ENEMY ATTACKED US! Now, the point is, which enemy was Bush referring to in this instance. Could it be Al-Qaeda? But what is the connection between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? The two were never friends! Could Bush be referring to the long-suffering people of Iraq? How did they attack America? Was Bush referring to the proud freedom fighters of Iraq who continue to resist the invasion of their ancient nation and the puppet administration the Americans installed? But if indeed Bush was referring to the Iraqi resistence, since when has resistence to the illegal occupation of one’s country become a crime? Bush was to add in response to a related question that: “ The reason why Prime Minister Allawi said they’re coming across the border is because he recognizes that this is a central part of the war on terror. They are fighting us because they are fighting freedom.”
Not surprisingly, even Kerry shared in this feeling of grand delusion: “ I couldn’t agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But the president again, still hasn’t shown how he’s going to go about it the right way...” Throughout the entire duration of the debate which lasted a whole 90 minutes, none of the candidates uttered a single word about the long-suffering Palestinians who are in greater need of liberation. As if to taunt the world and with licence to kill, Sharon launched one of his most brutal assaults yet into Palestinian refugee camps on the eve of the debate. Bush spoke at length about Saddam’s noncompliance with U.N. resolutions, but Israel had ceaselessly violated the same resolutions for nearly half a century and heavens did not fall! The candidates also prioritized the need to deny Iran access to nuclear weapons, but everyone knows that Israel has one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear and WMD in the entire world. Predictably, that also escaped their attention. As for Africa, only the Darfur crises got a mention. The HIV crises was a non-issue. For that and many other reasons, their desire to contain the spread of terrorism will remain an illusion.
NEXT... |
|
|
