He tries not to get the three confused.
|
He tries not to get the three confused. |
|
|
SECTIONS |
AXIS OF STUPIDITY |
THIS SECTION |
||||||
|
Home HIV and the Developing World Another World gay life on five continents God Would Be An Atheist Fiction Opinion Reviews martin@martinforeman.com Appeal to your wallet:  13 January 2003 World Copyright © Martin Foreman |
Advance warning... See the rubric at the head of this column? "...London-based writer of fact, fiction and opinion. He tries not to get the three confused."? Well, I'm about to take the dangerous step of mixing fact and opinion. (Fiction's begging to be included, but I've promised her a day of glory another time.) Not only am I going to walk the tightrope between fact and opinion, but I'm increasing the danger by disposing of a balancing-pole. That's right. I'm going to write an article without any research. That's acceptable when I'm only writing about myself - and we all know what a fascinating subject that can be - but not when I'm trying to argue a point. But since most of us, when we fashion an argument, in our heads, or in the pub, base that argument on what we think we know rather than on the actual facts, I thought I'd spend this column doing the same. So here goes. Sit back and read. And don't worry, it will be over shortly. Then you can go and do something more meaningful. On Saturday the Ark Royal, Britain's (only?) aircraft carrier sailed from Portsmouth for the Gulf. (Stopping in Scotland en route; no doubt to pick up an extra supply of haggis to put backbone into the men onboard [I know there are women on board, but only a woman as stupid as a man would want to fight a war.] and a generous ration of kilts, sporrans and bagpipes to put the fear of Celtic into the Iraqi army.) British reservists have been put on standby. Of course we're not alone. The US military is rushing, as quickly as a juggernaut can be rushed, Gulfwards for the coming war. And still not one man or woman, no George Bush or Tony Blair, no Condaleezza (when you deny yourself fact-checking you risk tripping over names such as these) Rice or Jack Straw, no Donald Rumsfeld or Geoffrey Hoon has come up with a coherent argument that justifies waging war against the Iraqis. We are informed that Iraq possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction that threaten its neighbours and world stability. So what? WMD (acronym of the week) are also held by China, India, Pakistan, France, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom and, surprise, surprise, the US. Ah, the Rice-Rumsfelds of the world argue, we're the good guys. We don't threaten others with our WMD. Hello?!, to use the now common expression. Isn't the US the country that in the last forty years has sent troops in to Panama, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, and a few others that I have probably forgotten. While the world is probably a slightly better place since the fall of the Taliban than it was before, the Afghan invasion has some (but not much) merit, many of the countries that the US has invaded, either directly or by proxy (think Nicaragua) have actually suffered as a direct result of such intervention. Saddam Hussein's regime is undoubtedly vicious and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands (perhaps more; as I said, I'm not doing research) both within Iraq and among its neighbours, but it's by no means unique. From China (think Tibet and Xinjiang) to Israel, Zimbabwe to Sudan, countries behave less than honourably towards both their citizens and neighbours and the US, followed by the faithful UK, do not respond. Does Iraq threaten the US or the UK directly? There is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq either plotted or even contemplated any terrorist or other military action against the West. Of course Hussein ranted and raved about American imperialism, as we all do (or should), but even the stupidest politician must be aware that ranting and raving comes with the territory of free speech. That does not mean that Hussein will never pose a threat to the West. The more we provoke him, the more he is likely to respond, although the number of Iraqis loyal to the regime who are living living abroad and can therefore form terrorist cells must be vanishingly small. When some deaths are eventually attributed to Iraq, the Blairs and Bushes of the world will of course say "we told you so all along", conveniently forgetting that if Iraqi does attack us, it will have done so not willingly but because we provoked it. No, Bush's stupidity, dishonesty or irresponsibility or whatever you want to call it, became most evident when he claimed that an axis of evil, comprised of Iran, Iraq and North Korea, underlay international terrorism. Never a man to let the facts stand in the way of macho posturing, Bush failed to ignore two important points. First, an axis suggests a partnership between the three nations, while even the average observer of world politics is aware that the three are either bitter enemies or almost comically ignorant of each other. And second, the terrorism which brought down the World Trade Center did not originate in any of these countries, but Saudi Arabia, north Africa and Afghanistan. Afghanistan we dealt with half-heartedly, far more interested in head-hunting than in helping the people of that country achieve a dignified freedom. The other two are conveniently ignored. Once I might have had more respect for Tony Blair, who swept into government with the mantra "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime". It was a good slogan, and certainly more meaningful than Bush's "compassionate conservatism" (unless you restrict compassion to wealthy upper stratum of US society). Unfortunately, crime continues to flourish in Britain, as it did under the Conservatives, and the underlying psychological and social deprivation that creates much crime remains in place. Would that Labour had succeeded. Because if it had, the British strategy at least might have been "tough on terrorism and tough on the causes of terrorism". But we are failing at the first task because we have forgotten the second. As long as the West ignores the causes of terrorism - in particular the poverty, disease and environmental degradation that are partly home grown and partly exacerbated by the West, and the obscenity of Israeli occupation of Palestine... I repeat, as long as the West ignores the causes of terrorism, terrorism will breed. This world is confronted by many problems. If I remember accurately the newspaper report I read last week, and if that report was accurate, the WorldWatch Institute in Washington suggests that environmental degradation has reached such a critical point that millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, will die and the world economy collapse in the next fifty years. Even assuming that is an extreme exaggeration, the reality is that the issue that most threatens humanity as a whole is not Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, but the perilous state of our environment. The environment aside, the most pressing global issue is the sense of disenfranchisement felt by the world's poor. That is the soil in which terrorism grows. Only when the West learns to deal with the problem at its roots will international terrorism begin to abate. But Bush cannot see that or, more frighteningly, sees it but does not care. Evil is a vacant word whose meaning depends on the moral compass of the person using it. I find George Bush no more evil than Saddam Hussein. I suspect that Bush has a greater respect for the law than Hussein does, although I also suspect that if he could get away with it, Bush and the Bush(wo)men would ignore more laws than they already do. (The obscenity of the treatment undergone by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is only one of a number of cases indicating that there is less honour than expedience in the highest levels of US justice.) So I will not accuse Bush or Blair of evil. But there are several other faults I could accuse them of. The least damaging of these is stupidity and short-sightedness, and there is indeed an Axis of Stupidity that unites the US president and British prime minister (not to mention my Member of Parliament - shame on you, Oona King!). But there is much else that they can be accused of, including Bush's determination to focus on Saddam Hussein, no doubt because the apparent humiliation suffered by his father - a humiliation that disinterested observers would say the elder Bush inflicted on himself. Above all, Bush and the Bush(wo)men can be accused of taking action against whoever stands in their way, not on behalf of freedom and justice, whatever rhetoric they spout, but to maintain US military and economic power. It is a futile task, because the very actions they take to demonstrate power will not maintain it or a pax americana but will lead to a gradual collapse of that power - a collapse that historians, if they live to tell the tale, will attribute to George W Bush and the (wo)men who surround him. Like the Israel of Ben Gurion and Golda Meir, the United States of Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy was a country worthy of respect, admiration and emulation. But like the Israel of Ariel Sharon, the United States of George W Bush is a country where right is being strangled by might, where respect for humanity and a desire to do good in the world has been replaced by a desire to put oneself and one's favoured few above the rest. The world today is becoming more and more uncertain and the frightening fact is that the uncertainty is being created by those who are supposed to protect us. |
N |
2004 columns... 2003 columns... 2002 columns... 2001 columns...  For Australian readers  |
N |
Let's Not Bomb Iraq |