|
The Re – Elections Of George Bush And Tony Blair Aggravated World Tension By Alhaji Ismaila Sadik
I was almost in a state of incommunicado having decided to boycott all the electronic media temporarily, being unable to believe in the telecast that Mr. George Bush was re-elected the President of the United States; I still reflected though on the historical and socio-political circumstances that might have influenced his re-election.
I had thought, as well as the majority of Nigerians including the critics of the war in Iraq from the western and third world countries, that the electorates in the United States would end the war in Iraq by electing John Kerry as the next President of the United States.
I thought also that propaganda or no propaganda, the masses of the United States had earnestly awaited the time for that election to put an end to George Bush arrogant chauvinism on world affairs and in the Middle East in particular which had earned the country very bad image.
The efforts of John Kerry to make the war in Iraq an issue, which he successfully did in all his campaigns, lent credit to the majority opinion, which seemed to have parted Company with George Bush and the images of his administration.
I have a feeling that the re-election of George Bush made millions of the Black Americans and the majority of those from the third world countries residing in America disgusted with the result of that election.
I have come to the conclusion that the United States of America and particularly the government of President Bush are more interested in the subjugation of legitimate governments of the Middle East that are unwilling to bow to the dictates of that country.
Even before the U. S. went into the dangerous war with Iraq in 2002, the world opinion was against the decision to wage war on the pretext that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; one is at a loss over the role of the Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly, on the refusal of George Bush to carry the world organization along on the issue.
The U. N. Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, being an African was rubbed of his executive authority to bring peace to Iraq and the Middle East; his position was played down before the war, though George Bush had alleged that the earlier resolution of the Security Council gave Saddam Hussein the dead line for the destruction of weapons of mass destruction; that his refusal to comply, (in other words to destroy what he did not possess), amounted to violations of that resolution.
Violation could have been inferred if weapons of mass destruction or evidence of chemical weapons were discovered before or after the invasion of Iraq. Failure to find any such weapons shifted the responsibility for the war and all the destructions and loss of thousands of civilian lives on George Bush and his administration.
The war had been on for more than 2 or 3 years and yet President Bush is still maintaining that the war was legitimate to protect the civilized world. One would ask, in what way was Iraq involved in September 11th, 2001 attack? Up till now, there has not been any evidence in support, or any link, no matter how minor in that direction.
While it is becoming more and more insurgency against the puppet government in Iraq and the U.S. occupation, there is no doubt that those accused of being Al-Qaidas or the Tallibans have now moved into Iraq to fight the U. S. and the coalition, but that does not mean that prior to the invasion they were in Iraq; infact the contrary is the case because, President Saddam was against the shiets and particularly the Islamic Republic of Iran, it led to the conflict in which the U. S. took side with Iraq; obviously the animousity between the two countries remained even after the end of Iraq - Iran war.
When Mr. Tareek Aziz, Saddam’s information Minister, stated that U. S. would be humiliated just a couple of weeks before the Sudden fall of Baghdad and in what he termed “the mother of all wars”, little did President Bush and his coalition realize that his invading troops were being lured in to prepare the ground for a total Gorilla war fare which up till now has earned the Iraqis the honour and dignity of a determined people ready to fight the intruders purporting to be the crusaders of democracy in the Middle East.
Therefore it is inconceivable that Saddam who was against wholesome Islamic state would support Osama Bin Laden or the Tallibans of Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein as the President of Iraq took measures to curb the excesses of the Kurdish insurgents assisted by foreign countries, the same way British Government did against the I. R. A. in Northern Ireland. If the measures taken against the Kurds made Saddam and his administration to be terrorist organisation, the same should apply to Tony Blair and his government.
Secondly if the dialogue with the I.R.A. was an imperative to reduce tension in Northern Ireland, then George Bush and Tony Blair should not refuse dialogue with the dissidents who have taken up arms against their home countries and their western collaborators.
I am of the view that some Arab rulers would have choosen to dialogue with the dissidents in their countries but the fact is that since the imperialist are against it, the rulers have shelved the idea, which I think cannot be avoided if peace should return to the Middle East.
It is known that the U. S. had always supported insurgents in countries not under her influence, it happened in Libya, Iran and Sudan, just to mention a few, and President Bush, has now arrogantly proclaimed it as a policy of his administration.
The suppressed people under some Islamic Kingdoms and assisted by colonial administrations accused the rulers for failing to rule in accordance with the Holy Quran and the traditions of the Holy Prophet of Islam.
They maintained that the rulers were more interested in retaining their feudal rules, which the then imperialist administrations condoned because of the advantages, which up till the moment provided good markets for their exports and services in addition to the monopoly they have on oil exploration in the kingdoms.
Those oppressed had to flee from prosecution and either entered Europe or America legally or illegally, the youths among them received western education or trained in some fields a good number of them could not get good jobs and could not go back to their countries for obvious reasons.
The support given to the rulers is bound to generate ill feelings against the imperialists and instead of the western world and America to address the issue positively, they preferred calling the dissidents, terrorists to please the feudal rulers. This is the crux of the conflict in which the U. S. had spearheaded all along which became open after the cold war.
The presence and strength of the then Soviet Union in world affairs, no doubt checkmated the western imperialists on their attitude towards the Middle East; the end of the chile gave free access to the Western countries and U. S. to actualise their objectives in the Arab affairs.
I have gone this far to indicate how the pressure for a change in governance in the Middle East brought some political awareness in few Arab countries except Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan and Gulf States that are still ruled by kings backed by United States and Britain.
For President Bush to claim that it is the duty of U. S. or the civilized nations to liberate Islamic countries by establishing democratic governance by force, is absolutely ridiculous and absurd; an outrageous aversion in deed.
In less than a year after the presidential election in which the electorates returned George Bush back for the second term, it appears that some electorates are having a re-think which is now gathering momentum in many circles that the war in Iraq was unjustified. The opposing candidate Mr. John Kerry did make Iraq war an issue and yet the majority was said to have voted for continuation of the war. The opportunity, which the U. S. electorates had, was to have elected John Kerry as the saving face for the government measures toward the withdrawal of her forces, and the termination of the coalition for the immediate involvement of the U. N. to embank on the dynamics to end the war in Iraq. Kerry’s election would have soften the temperament for an appeal to the conscience of the people of Iraq to hault the insurgence and allow the U. S. and coalition forces to pull out of Iraq peacefully, as was done in Lebanon when the Syrian troops that had occupied the country for over two decades pulled out with dignity.
It is note worthy that the people of Iraq have maintained their resilience despite the military might of the U. S., indicating that the people are prepared to sacrifice their lives to demonstrate their patriotism and love for President Saddam even though in detention.
The invasion of Iraq with the subsequent destruction of the beauty of Baghdad and the historical monuments, exposed how vandalous the coalition forces were when faced with property of other nations. That the Museum in Baghdad was completely broken into and historical artifacts removed; is reminiscent of the events of pasts when Europe invaded African and Asian continents.
President Bush and his hard liners in the U. S. Congress are now to answer for their bloody war in Iraq in which more than 2,000 U. S. troops and a good number of civilians killed and many more wounded and more than 100,000 Iraqis killed and many more wounded in a war of aggression against a sovereign nation.
As for the British Prime Minister Blair, the errand Secretary to George Bush and who insisted on the war to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, now appears estranged on the issue. He had gone to war and suffered considerable loss of troops and civilians both in Iraq and now at home. Realizing that the second term of George Bush and his own third term would not be terse, as more and more pressure with comments calling for the withdrawal of all foreign troops in Iraq, Tony Blair seems to be considering political solution in the face of well-organized insurgence, which is now generating pessimism in Europe and America.
Though President Bush had always said that he was not against Islam but all his actions were designed to subjugate the religion and all the divine injunctions, which the adherents are bound to obey and be guided by without hesitation. Islam is a way of life for all true adherents, and clinching to the tenets of the religion in its totality, which the civilized world termed to be religious fanatism, shows how shallow the antagonists of Islam are in respect of knowledge of the religion.
I have not known of any past head of government in recent memory, that had gone wild in attributing blames on Islam as President Bush had always maintained but only to deny when confronted and unable to sneak through his illogical contentions.
Islam is not only a religion but away of life for every true believer, therefore to be alive means little when the religion is being blackmailed by any body no matter his or her status. I have always maintained in my previous scripts on the war in Iraq that President Bush is a dictator and a warmonger looking for opportunity to avenge the September 11th attack.
While U. S. citizens have reasons to feel offended and aggrieved by the attack, to conclude that the Muslim world must pay dearly for the attack is also to say that the whole of Western civilization and America should pay dearly for the atrocities committed by their ancestors that came to Africa and waged wars on the innocent people all over the continent and carried away both men and women to Europe and America to provide slave labour for their industries in Europe and sugar plantation in America. They were enslaved, some killed, their women raped and to day their kith and kin in Europe and America are merely existing even though a few were lucky enough to gain recognition just a drop in the ocean.
The civilized world involved, should be made to pay reparation to the continent of Africa and the surviving red Indians in America, whose ancestors faced total extinction to enable the exploiters and the invaders take control of the entire land, which God Almighty provided for the red Indians.
The so called elections conducted in Iraq was more or less the U. S. make up, a mere smoke screen to unleash more atrocities on the innocent Iraq people and attribute such acts to the Iraq forces, the resistance would, I am afraid, continue as long as the U. S. troops remain in Iraq.
I was about to conclude this script, when the London explosions occurred in which 50 people or more died and about 700 wounded some seriously, just a week after that, another incident much less in dimension and without loss of live. The attacks were indeed condemned through out the whole world, though the British people had expressed shock but maintained that they had all along been in fear of such possible attacks.
It is indeed regrettable that this should happen at a time when the plight of Africa under- development and the need for debt relief measures were under scrutiny by the G. 8. Nations, the whole world sympathised with Britain but the question is did Britain deserve to be hunted by the shadows of such attacks? The comments by some Londoners after the attacks seemed to imply that it was not a surprise but it was a shock. Even the British Prime Minister Tony Blair also claimed that it was expected and having said that, the British government should tell the world why they were under the apprehension of such attacks.
While tongues are waxing, the entire world and Africa in particular are aggrieved because, Prime Minister Blair chose to champion a course said to be for Africa, when the devilish act struck.
The general election, which gave Mr. Blair a third term in office in 2005, confirmed the confidence, the majority of Britons have in him and his foreign policy. That being so, the under ground train and bus explosions could be termed retaliation for the deadly daily killings of innocent civilians in Iraq and other Muslim countries. Though the four separate explosions took place almost at the same time but it should be noted that bombardments of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, have become daily occurrences for the past three years or more.
The press briefing of the 26th July, 2005 covered by C.N.N gave the British Prime Minister another opportunity to answer questions on the explosions in London and to refute the contention that the premeditation of the Iraq war was a result of September 11th incident in New York.
Mr. Blair in his usual rhetoric wriggling made a statement, which seemed to be in tune with reality than that of George Bush. He attributed terrorism to desire of those opposed to democracy and resorted to intimidation and the use of force to achieve their objectives.
One wonders why the youths should be opposed to democracy and yet were citizens of Britain when infact they are more desirous in having a responsible and responsive government especially back home in the kingdoms and the states that manipulated the real tenets of Islam in favour of the feudal system and encouraged by the colonialists for their selfish gains.
Indeed if the opinion of Mr. Blair is accepted, then it is not the suicide bombers who should be held accountable but the rulers who are afraid of loosing power through democratic process in the kingdoms, and in Pakistan under a military president.
The agitation in Northern Ireland leading to the formation of I.R.A. to fight the course of the Roman Catholics in the area and resorted to the use of violence was according to Mr. Blair an agitation based on an issue that required political settlement while those of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine were dissidents who were opposed to democratic values and should be rooted out of the globe, what a ridiculous argument. Violence is violence if negotiation was good for the I.R.A. it is equally good for the Middle East to resolve the crisis and lessen world tension.
Mr. Tony Blair had claimed after the two separate explosions in London, that the terrorist wanted to intimidate Britain to depart from her cherished civilization and values while President Bush too claimed that the civilized world would not be intimidated; instead, the war on terror would now be fought outside U. S., meaning that U.S. has the licence to strike anywhere in which her interest is impaired. The use of weapons by individuals or by suicide bombers of all sorts amounts to terrorism and is vehemently abhorred by world community; by necessary implication therefore, the use of air attack or high military built land attacks any where on earth be it, from the so called civilized nations or from third world countries, should equally be condemned as terrorism. Whether it is the use of sophisticated weapons, chemical or other wise, suicide or planted bombs, the effects are the same, human beings created by God Almighty die daily not due to natural courses but due to human in-satiety for material word.
It is indeed morally wrong for U. S. and Britain to be celebrating victories of one success or the other when millions of homes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and other places are in agony for the loss of their loved ones.
The unfortunate explosive attacks in Britain resulting in loss of many lives and may more injured, really shocked the conscience of lovers of peace, all over, and for this sort of carnage to end, the root cause must be properly identified and political solutions professed instead of the use of force resulting in hatred and more hatred.
There cannot be any justification for any such attack anywhere on earth; this is why the Madrid and London attacks in Europe and other countries were totally reproached.
In the face of all condemnations, let me remind of the massacre of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo in which the large Albanian Muslim majority were killed by the Serbian forces. The most shocking was in Strebrennica where about 6,000 Muslim men and children who were under the protection of Dutch forces were massacred by Serbian forces while the Dutch forces stood-by watching the carnage.
Yet Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair still claimed that the civilized world is the target of Muslims whereas within the last two decades Muslims had suffered genocide in the Balkans and in the Middle East under the hands of the so called civilized governments and their collaborators.
Let it be known that at the end of the Gulf war when Iraq was pulling out of Kuwait, the U. S. Military planes pretended to be on surveillance, rained bombs on the retreating Iraq troops on road back to Iraq in which several hundreds were killed; the legacy left by George Bush senior and which his son President Bush inherited, and the souls of innocent Muslims killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and in the Balkans would continue to hunt the U. S. and her allies.
Now that U. S. and British citizens are becoming weary of the situation, the U.N and Security Council should step in with the support of Arab nations to profess adequate solutions and in the interim, the United Nations should take over from U. S. and the coalition while the Arab nations provide police and military to maintain law and order in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.
The so-called elections already conducted putting the puppets of U. S. in offices both in Iraq and in Afghanistan should be disbanded, to make room for joint efforts of the Arab world to wade in and soften the environment, which is at the moment so tense and dangerous.
ALHAJI ISMAILA SADIKLegal Practitioner & Notary Public, 79, Kaiama Road, Omoda, P. O. Box 3022, Ilorin, Kwara State.
|