Columns
|
Stumbling
Blocks
2004 has passed and the post mortems
are being delivered on another hectic year. Politically there is little
doubt as to the main event, that of the War in Iraq. Protests on a scale
comparable to Vietnam, took place the world over but to no avail. France
and Germany stood firm but that didn't stop the Anglo-American coalition
sending in their troops. Months after the 'liberation' soldiers are still
dying and a nation is in turmoil. Re-construction is now being discussed
but there is no place in this lucrative building contract for the 'peaceniks'
of France and Germany or even ourselves.
When Saddam was recently captured, few of us could find any reason to
shed a tear, but neither was there an overwhelming need to thank Bush
and Co for making the world a safer place. Saddam Hussein Al-Tikriti was
a brutal, murderous tyrant, who disposed of human beings as casually as
most of us would our rubbish on bin day. Democracy, justice and equality
are not concepts that would have been familiar to the subjects of Saddam
Hussein's Iraq. Does this mean without him there, Iraq will suddenly become
a democratic society? No, even the most irrational of individuals would
find it hard to justify that assumption. Democratisation of Iraq will
be a long process, but what is worrying is that the democratisation process
is not in the hands of the Iraqi people but of the US administration.
Bush can say all he likes about leaving everything up to the Iraqi people,
but the 'democratic' government being put in place at the moment is little
more than a US puppet administration designed to ensure US economic interests
in the region are protected.
Saddam Hussein's regime were callous but so too are the Saudi Government,
America's closest ally in the region, and so too are the Chinese government,
who are now trading with America, (although how you can have free trade
in a supposedly Communist state is beyond me). North Korea ditto, but
America are not stupid enough to tempt fate with a country with nuclear
weapons. Pinochet was one of the most brutal dictators of the twentieth
century, but America never interfered with him, to the contrary they helped
put him in power at the expense of a democratically elected president.
In the next few months, Iraq may well be a mission accomplished for the
US and British forces, but is Bush prepared to stop there? A number of
weeks ago, the man whose own election as president was not exactly incontrovertable
issued a thinly veiled threat of war against Cuba. The waffling on about
freedom and democracy was like something out of a bad Harrison Ford movie.
He displayed all of his typical arrogance and simplistic sloganising 'Fidel
Bad, Me good', making it clear that those American citizens who committed
the 'heinous crime' of holidaying in Cuba, would be punished to the full
extent of the law. Now the US top brass are no cábógs. They
are not going to go in and launch an attack on Cuba straight away. I suspect
they will take their chances on Father Time taking care of Castro (whom
I personally respect much more than Bush) and then rush in to try and
'oversee a transition to Democracy' aided by the millions of dollars raised
by Cuban exiles now living it large in America. Perhaps I am wrong about
this, but it seems clear to me that America needs a pet project after
Iraq is over and done with and that may well be Cuba.
You see, Iraq was not about removing an immediate threat to world peace,
it was about evening the score with a regime (as evil and all as they
may have been) who would not play ball with the US establishment. After
all, Saddam was more than welcomed by the US when he was setting out his
stall against Ayatollah Khomeni. Likewise Bin Laden was the darling of
the west (Britain can't be let off the hook here) when fighting the Soviets.
With the time that's in it, a nice festive analogy would be to say that
Bush (in this instance just the figure head being used to symbolise the
American body politic) is like Santa Clause "He's making a list checking
it twice, he's going to find out who's naughty or nice" and if you've
been naughty, You may want to have your army on standby. I know there
are American contributors to this site, I have many American friends,
I don't want to go down the 'anti-American' road. America as a country
and people are fine. When I see programs such as the Simpsons, I am thankful
for America. When I am talking with my American friends, I am thankful
for America. When, however, I hear arrogant, pompous, ultra conservative
hypocrites telling us all the way the world should be run, I am fearful
for America. That such hypocrites have hijacked the word 'democracy' fills
me with particular anger. President George W. Bush, once stated "You are
either for us or you are for the terrorists" Such declarations are mind-boggling
in their absurdity. This type of black and white view on the world vindicates
those of us who oppose the US administration as it is a slight on our
names. The very idea that if you don't support blowing Afghanistan or
Iraq to smithereens, that you are a bosom buddy of Al quayeda is deeply
offensive. I for one will be looking on with interest to see if 2004 will
see more of the same from the White House.
by
Donal O' Driscoll
6th January 2003
Discuss
this Article
|
Topics
|