|
Strike while the irony is hot
By Mahir Ali
09/29/04 "Hi Pakistan" -- "We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace." No, I don't believe George W. Bush misspoke when he uttered these words at the United Nations last week. And it's unlikely that a subversive speechwriter sneaked in a sentence such as this without anyone noticing.
The tragedy, of course, is that the president of the United States is delusional enough to have missed altogether the irony in his utterances. And too many of his compatriots, if they paid any attention at all to their great leader's UN oration, probably did not wince at these words.
Or when he spoke of "terrorists and their allies" believing that "torture and murder are fully justified to serve any goal they declare". Or at: "The people of .... Baghdad have done nothing to deserve sudden and random murder."
In the extremely unlikely event of the US ever finding itself in the dock at an international human rights tribunal, perhaps Bush could be employed as a prosecutor. Going by his UN performance, it seems he could draw up a fairly convincing indictment.
There was a sting in the tail, too, as he called for the establishment of a "democracy fund" that would "help countries lay the foundations of democracy by instituting a rule of law and independent courts, a free press, political parties and trade unions", as well as "help set up voter precincts and polling places, and support the work of election monitors". Many countries could benefit from this, not least a certain North American power scheduled to go to the polls five weeks from now.
Perhaps what's more significant than the unintended ironies peppered throughout Bush's speech - symptomizing the deadly combination of ignorance and hubris his administration represents - was the absence therefrom of any obvious threats to the UN.
It's difficult to forget that when the hereditary ruler of the "free world" appeared before the world body in an attempt to win endorsement for his gratuitous invasion of Iraq, he made it clear that the UN's failure to fall in line would inevitably render it irrelevant.
Bush's presence at the UN last week proves that he was utterly wrong. Which must by now be a fairly familiar experience. In fact, it's hard to think of a single sphere in which he has not been proved wrong.
But recognition of failure is a different matter: that's incompatible with blind faith, and it doesn't meld too well with intellectual mediocrity. All the same, the UN secretary-general's pronouncement earlier this month that aggression against Iraq was illegal must have caused a degree of embarrassment.
It would, of course, have made a great deal more sense for Kofi Annan to go public with his judgment long ago. Declaring any invasion of Iraq illegal unless it was specifically sanctioned by the Security Council may not have sufficed as a deterrent in, say, February 2003, but it would at least have put the leaders of the US, Britain, Spain and Australia on the defensive. And it would have strengthened the sizable anti-war movements in these and other countries.
The war would have been equally immoral and disastrous even if the Anglo-American axis had succeeded in coercing the Security Council into sanctioning it. And by lending an aura of legality to such an obviously unwarranted display of imperial might and arrogance, the UN truly would have compromised whatever remained of its credibility.
Even if such thoughts have crossed Annan's mind, he is unlikely to articulate them. He does deserve a few marks, however, for pointing out at the UN's session that: "Those who seek to bestow legitimacy must themselves embody it; and those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it."
The US has a distinct distaste for being reminded of its flaws, and although Bush's visage bore evidence of his customarily inane half-smirk, half-smile during photo-ops with the UN chief, chances are this expression was merely a mask that concealed a darker state of mind.
By contrast, the US president appeared genuinely elated while holding hands with Iyad Allawi, who heads the effectively powerless puppet regime installed in Baghdad earlier this year.
It wasn't, meanwhile, clear at the time of writing how the US might react to pertinent and fairly pointed criticisms of its role in Iraq by Pakistan's General Pervez Musharraf, who told CNN in an interview over the weekend that the conflict "has ended up bringing more trouble to the world" and "has complicated the war on terror".
If the past is any guide, there won't be any reprimand. Favoured allies are invariably allowed a certain amount of leeway in this respect, on the grounds that they have their domestic constituencies to consider.
It is nonetheless interesting that in their thrust, Musharraf's comments are remarkably similar to the arguments that have lately been advanced by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in attacking the Bush administration's policies on Iraq.
A commonsensical coincidence? That's the likeliest explanation, but it may not be enough to placate perturbed neocons at the Pentagon and elsewhere. Kerry's campaign came close to being derailed this month, after documents that, on the face of it, poked a huge hole in the official narrative of Bush's National Guard service were aired on CBS television by Dan Rather, a widely respected anchor. It became evident almost immediately afterwards that the documents, attributed to Bush's commanding officer, were forgeries.
Pending an inquiry into this faux pas, there is no evidence linking the documents to the Democratic party. That hasn't, of course, prevented partisans on the other side of the fence - not least Rupert Murdoch's insufferable Fox network - from trying to smear all of the president's opponents with the deliberate-deception brush.
What has more or less been drowned out by all the noise is strong evidence that, although the documents in question were not genuine, they accurately reflected the commanding officer's views about his over-privileged and under-motivated subordinate.
Over the years the White House has been unable to refute charges that: (a) Bush was propelled into the National Guard through family connections so that he could avoid being drafted for service in Vietnam; and (b) that he frequently wriggled out of his National Guard obligations on the flimsiest of excuses.
This part of the president's past is fair game, given concerted efforts by the other side to denigrate Kerry's service record in Vietnam. And some Democrats suspect that Bush's closest adviser, the machiavellian Karl Rove, somehow manipulated the entire CBS scandal in order to deflect attention from the war president's lackadaisical commitment to national defence three decades ago.
That's possible, but highly unlikely, given the political penalties accidental disclosure would entail. However, the far bigger question in this context is: Why focus on George W's philandering days as a young no-gooder when his presidential career offers such rich pickings?
To his discredit, Kerry has not been doing too well in that sphere, particularly where Iraq is concerned. The relatively aggressive stance he has adopted of late comes after months of reinforcing the impression that, given the chance, he would have replicated every one of Bush's deadliest errors. The inconsistencies have enabled Republicans to portray Kerry as weak and indecisive.
The problem is that for much of the campaign Kerry and his advisers have been undecided about exactly what position on Iraq would go down well with voters. They have, therefore, been hedging their bets. Even now, Kerry speaks of US troops staying in Iraq until they "finish the job".
Does he realize how ridiculous that sounds in the light of what has been happening in the battle zone over the past 18 months?Luckily for Kerry, the projection of his less dithering self has coincided with increasing disarray within the administration over conditions in Iraq and prospects for elections in January.
The Pentagon and the state department increasingly seem to be singing from different hymn books, and the White House's seems to be completely estranged from reality.
The Democratic candidate will have the opportunity this week to cut through Bush's customary claptrap about the march towards democracy and freedom at the first of three presidential debates in hurricane-battered Florida.
If Kerry can't land at least a few telling blows during this encounter, he'll only have himself to blame if he goes down in American history as an also-ran - a reasonably articulate, although not particularly charismatic, mainstream Democrat who took on the most dangerous president in the nation's history - and failed to prevent his re-election.
To improve Kerry's still shaky chances of making it to the White House, there is a movement to dissuade Ralph Nader from contesting the November election. Although endorsed by the broadly right-wing Reform Party, he is expected to take votes from the left of the political spectrum, potentially costing Kerry crucial states where voters appear to be more or less evenly divided between the incumbent and the challenger.
Leading figures who supported Nader in 2000 - including Noam Chomsky, the historian Howard Zinn and the activist-actress Susan Sarandon - have requested him to step aside in the national interest.
Although Nader has every right to run, in the present circumstances the plea is not an unreasonable one. Four more years of George W. and the Bushies could prove completely catastrophic for the US and the world.
But if Kerry cannot persuade the majority of voters in a majority of states to give him the edge over Bush, then he can take his long face back to the Senate and vote for more wars. Because in that case the message from US voters will be clear: the rest of the world can go to blazes.
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan
http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en72444&F_catID=&f_type=source
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
