Ternopol, Ukraine
January 25, 2003
NgEX! Editor's Note: Lex Talionis: or "the law (lex) of retaliation." The lex talionis is a law of equal and direct retribution: in the words of the Hebrew scriptures, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, an arm for an arm, a life for a life." ...more
Of religious tolerance and intolerance
Due to the distortion of historical as well as contemporary facts and events, acts committed by people purportedly on its behalf, and large-scale ignorance amongst the general public (including some adherents of the faith itself), one of the most common charges brought against Islam by others is that it is an intolerant religion.
The deliberately engineered notion that Islam and Islamic civilisation are inherently intolerant is hard to square with the facts on the ground and can be traced way back to the first contacts of the West with Islam. The Christian Church at that time had already been split in two - the Eastern and Western branches. Few Western Christians understood or had much sympathy for Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which did not recognize the Pope, used the Greek language rather than Latin, and had very different forms of art and architecture. They knew even less about Islam and Muslims.
The Muslims of that time however, knew who the Christians were, what their beliefs were, and in what respects Christianity differed from Islam. The Eastern Christians, who were then living under Muslim rule, knew about Islam and Muslims. They were then (and to this day still are) allowed to practice their own form of religion with its peculiar dogmas unhindered in any way by the Muslims. Up till the advent of the so-called Encyclopaedists in the eighteenth century, the Western Christians never really cared to understand what Islam was and what the Muslim believed, nor did they enquire of their Eastern brethren.
In the West then, the Muslims were regarded as “pagans”, “paynims”, and indeed the zeitgeist was one of Muslims being idolaters. Numerous books circulated in Christendom at the time describing the Muslims as worshippers of various idols - “Mahomet”, “Mahound”, “Opolane”, “Termogond” being the most frequently mentioned.
The Western Christians then regarded the outside world, the Eastern Christians inclusive, as damned eternally and considered it their sacred religious duty to salvage it by conversion to the Christian faith. With such “knowledge” as they then had of Islam and Muslims, it could not have been an onerous task to amass support for the Christian Crusades of that time.
As M. Marmaduke Pickthall rightly pointed out (in ‘Tolerance in Islam’, 1927) : “If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension”.
In November 1095, Pope Urban II, then head of the Roman Catholic Church was able to exhort Western Christians to participate in a military campaign to “free” Jerusalem and the Holy Lands. This marked the first time Western Christendom undertook a military venture far from home in an attempt to spread their culture and religion abroad. Combining religious interests with secular and military enterprises the Crusaders carved out feudal states in the Near East, thereby marking the beginning of European expansionism and colonialism.
The eventual siege of Jerusalem during the First Crusade in July 1099 culminated in a bloody and destructive Christian victory in which the inhabitants of the city were massacred on a large scale. As historian Edward Gibbon has shown, these and other subsequent events led to the preference of Muslim rule by the Eastern Church to the rule of fellow Christians who would have them either converted to Roman Catholicism or wiped out totally. Pickthall further points out that then tolerance was regarded un-religious, if not irreligious.
Of this period James Addison, in 'The Christian Approach to the Moslem' writes: "despite the growth of antagonism, Moslem rulers seldom made their Christian subjects suffer for the Crusades. When the Saracens (term applied by medieval Christians and later Western historians to refer to Arabs other Muslim peoples of the Middle East) finally resumed the full control of Palestine the Christians were given their former status as dhimmis (non-Muslim subjects of an Islamic state).
The Coptic Church, too had little cause for complaint under Saladin's (Salah-ad-Din, Muslim leader (1138-1193) who recaptured Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187) strong government, and during the time of the earlier Mameluke (purchased slaves converted to Islam who advanced themselves to high military posts in Egypt) sultans who succeeded him the Copts experienced more enlightened justice than they had hitherto known.
The only effect of the Crusaders upon Egyptian Christians was to keep them for a while from pilgrimage to Jerusalem, for as long as the Frank were in charge heretics were forbidden access to the shrines. Not until the Moslem victories could they enjoy their rights as Christians
" Before the advent of Islam, tolerance had never been preached as an essential part of religion. History has demonstrated that Muslims and Islamic civilisation have, where they have held sway in the past, proved capable of extraordinary feats of toleration.
Under the Umayyad Khalifas, medieval Spain became a haven for diverse religions and sects. Christians and Jews, on an equal footing with their Muslim counterparts, were admitted into schools and universities with the cost of their boarding and accommodation in hostels covered by the state. Following Christian re-conquest, the infamous Inquisition eliminated all dissent from within Christian ranks, Muslims and Jews were either killed or driven out of Spain. To this day remnants of Spanish speaking descendants of the Jews who escaped the Inquisition in Spain to find refuge in the Muslim Turkish Empire and Morocco can still be found living in separate communities in these areas.
If one was to consider Sicily, Apulia (in modern day Italy) and the Balkan Peninsula, the same sad story repeats itself. Looking at these places in the present day, it is indeed hard to believe that the Muslims once formed the majority of their populace.
The Muslims in these places have been systematically reduced or in some cases, even wiped out completely. For example, while some ancient mosques and Islamic architecture can still be found in parts of Spain, not a single mosque was left standing by the Greeks after the rebellion of 1821.
Considering the facts above and numerous others, the charge of intolerance hurled against Islam by the West seems incongruent or at least betrays either outright prejudice and malicious intent or simply plain ignorance coupled with a refusal to investigate the facts.
Taking pride of place amongst the teachings of Islam is respect for the religion of others and the deity they worship. It is forbidden for Muslims to make derogatory or blasphemous remarks against the beliefs, deity and creeds of other religions just as it is expected of others to remain within these bounds. Thus, as we shall see later in the case of terrorism, Muslims have not placed the blame for the Crusades, Inquisition, and other atrocities by its adherents on Christianity’s doorsteps. Indeed when people are quick in making blanket accusations of this kind, ulterior motives and forces are, more often than not, to be suspected.
After the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, various preachers and religious leaders have, in reaction, demonstrated this holier-than-thou attitude by openly and ignorantly attacking the religion of Islam and its creeds.
Vitriolic public statements such as those made by Rev. Jerry Falwell (who referred to the Prophet of Islam as a "terrorist") and the Rev. Franklin Graham (calling Islam a "very evil and wicked religion") inter alios must have upended American Muslims. To the credit of the latter and in accordance with the teachings of their faith, no negative reactions followed. No one went on rampage, no churches were burnt and certainly no “fatwas” were issued.
As opposed to the United States, where Islam started making an appreciable impact just a few decades ago, the faith in Nigeria is centuries old. Yet it appears that American Muslims are nearer to an understanding of the true spirit of the way of life that is Islam.
When in November 2002, in the heat of the Miss World Beauty Pageant brouhaha, the ThisDay newspaper came out with an article that contained certain insensitive statements slandering the character of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), certain Nigerian Muslims did not prove as tolerant. In the Daniel-ThisDay corrigendum some unscrupulous politicians found the perfect opportunity to do further damage to the already unenviable reputation of the Obasanjo administration. Thus some ignorant and irresponsible youths (most of whom no thanks to their “leaders” would have found the task of identifying a copy of ThisDay on the news stands a daunting , if not impossible, one) were incited to go on a rampage, killing people and destroying property purportedly in the name of religion. Once again, this led to the division of the country along religious lines.
Although certain individuals have tried to prove otherwise, the fact that Miss Isioma Daniel’s essay in that newspaper had indeed slighted the Holy Prophet, and by extension, Muslims was not in doubt. Objective non-Muslims have appreciated this fact. It is one thing to wrong people and completely another issue to further imply that they are non compos mentis.
The rampage that followed however was inexcusable and indefensible. It has once again exposed Islam and Muslims to ridicule and accusations of intolerance by those waiting at every corner to discredit and a world already attuned to such prejudices.
On TV, online and in the pages of various publications, every other Tom, Dick and Harry contributed his two pennies’ worth to the pontifications. In the commotion, it is unfortunate that Pickthall’s factual observation that: “it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture” was by and large overlooked by both sides.
It is a fact that there are people out there who, for one reason or the other, are intent in portraying those they perceive as their foes in a bad light using whatever means they can muster. The challenge facing the Muslim world today is that of educating adherents of Islam as well as those of other faiths on the need for respect for each other’s beliefs on the basis of which tolerance for one another can easily be cultivated.
Of “Political Shari’ah”, religious revival and revivalists
Amongst the many shortcomings his adversaries have noted, President Obasanjo’s penchant for employing the oral orifice before consultations with any of his numerous advisers or indeed the grey matter in his own cerebrum, is one that sticks out like a sore thumb.
Various statements attributed to him on one occasion or the other have been adjudged by friends and foes alike as insensitive and/or unbecoming of his status. Therefore when the clamour for a re-introduction of earlier neglected aspects of the Shari’ah in some states was at its height, his statement that this was “Political Shari’ah” and that the whole thing would soon fizzle out with time was taken by most analysts to be just another example of this trait.
The president came under fire from both sides of the divide. For those who, for one reason or the other, were against the Shari’ah project, nothing short of a pronouncement of its unconstitutionality was acceptable; the reverse was the case for its supporters.
Much water has passed under the bridge since then. In retrospect, one must admit that the “political” tag given then by the President now appears to be not far off-mark considering what obtains in these states today. If the re-introduction of the full Shari’ah code was done from the top in the pioneer Zamfara State, where the incumbent had campaigned under such a platform, other state governors eventually had to bow to popular opinion and pressure even though some of them were reluctant to even consider the issue at first.
That the re-introduction of a full Shari’ah code to Zamfara was met with widespread acclaim and approval by Muslims in Nigeria and that this has made Governor Sani overwhelmingly popular with the people could not have escaped the notice of our Tazarce-seeking politicians. They were quick to realise the potential benefits following in the footsteps of Yariman Bakura could bring. This is why they were later falling over themselves to also be seen as revivalists of the faith.
The travesty of Islam and Islamic Law that is today being perpetrated in the so-called “Shari’ah States” has revealed the insincerity of the politicians at the head of the project. It has also exposed the religion of Islam, Islamic Law and Nigerian Muslims to undue ridicule and criticism from people most of whom have not an iota of knowledge on the issues at stake.
Some of the reactions of Nigerian Muslims to this opposition and provocations have not helped matters either. Since the Shari’ah issue became arguably the major cause célèbre in the country, we have witnessed a lot of senseless violence. However, the nature of these disturbances cements the notion, at least in my view, that for our elite and those pulling the strings from behind the screens the issue of Shari’ah is indeed political. Having said this, I believe that it is erroneous to assume same for the vast majority of Nigerian Muslims. The fact that more and more Muslims in other states are joining in the bandwagon of advocating for the legal system should at least be a pointer this.
The real intentions and hypocrisy of those that have chosen the Shari’ah issue as a bargaining tool in their power games will, with time, be revealed. The glaring absence of jobs, qualitative educational and health care facilities, potable water, electricity, roads and other amenities amidst purchases of limousine presents and private jets; sentences of lapidation and flagellation of the promiscuous in the midst of the goings-on in government “guest houses”; the amputation of wrists of cow-and-goat thieves while aides facing charges of embezzlement of millions of naira get their trials transferred from Shari’ah to Common Law courts and numerous other such “little discrepancies” can not (and will not) go on without end.
Those issuing “fatwas” to the left and right in accordance with their self assumed title of fidei defensor shall one day rue the day they thought God’s Law could be used as a toy. One would have loved to see the course of action the Deputy Governor of Zamfara himself would have taken were he to come face to face with Isioma Daniel in the U.S. or wherever they may happen to meet in future. Maybe he might just then recall that in Islamic jurisprudence, a fatwa is a non-binding legal opinion or authoritative statement issued in response to a legal problem by a recognised authority in the Shari’ah. Then also are our hands untied should we decide to sue him before one of the Shari’ah courts he had helped in establishing for reckless issuance of a fatwa as the Shari’ah, in contrast to the Constitution of our Federal Republic, does not make him or anyone else immune from prosecution.
Of terrorism and terrorists, the anti-terrorist “crusade” and the “New World Order”
Despite the fact that it is very improbable, if not impossible, for one to go through a day’s news these days without coming across a direct or indirect mention of ‘terrorism’, ‘terrorists’ or the ‘war/crusade against terrorism’, it is becoming increasingly apparent that those who have taken it upon themselves to ensure we live in what they have termed a “secure and free world” by fighting the contemporary world’s evils on our behalf do not themselves have an inkling of what these terms mean. Exactly what is terrorism? By extension, who is a terrorist and who is not? These questions become all the more relevant when we see that for some, the definitions seem to change with the times. Since this feint is founded mainly on the selective memory of some and short attention span of others, another digression into recent and not-so-recent history is pertinent at this juncture.
In March 1916 the foreign secretary in Prime Minister David Lloyd George’s cabinet, Arthur James Balfour, who was himself a former British conservative Prime Minister (1902-05), prepared a letter. This document, issued in November 1917 in the heat of World War I, came to be known as the Balfour Declaration. In essence, it was a unilateral undertaking by the British Government in support of Zionism with the undertaking to assist in the establishment of a “national home” for the Jewish people.
To the British, this policy initiative had an immediate as well as long term objectives. The immediate objective was to win for the Allies the support of Jews (with their attendant influence) in the warring countries as well as in neutral areas such as the United States. In the long range, the British wanted to keep Palestine under their control as it was a strategic point on the land and sea routes to their colonial holdings in India and for an even stronger reason - it serves as terminus at the Mediterranean Sea of pipelines from the oil-rich Middle East. Such cold calculations were quintessential Balfour. Decades earlier, his policy of suppression as Chief Secretary for Ireland (1887-91) had gained him the nickname of “Bloody Balfour”. Had they lived to witness the violent consequences of the Balfour declaration in the Middle East today, those who gave Earl Balfour that cognomen would have been saying “we told you so”.
On July 24, 1922 the British were able to push through with this declaration, and it was embodied in what was coined the ‘League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine’. The British short-term objective was achieved - world Jewry rallied behind the Allies and the United States was subsequently dragged into the conflict. This led to victory for the allies and signing of an armistice on November 11, 1918. It was in pursuit of the long-term objectives that the British met with a force majeure.
The Zionists expected British support for an independent Jewish state and, as stated above, this was clearly not what the British calculations arrived at. So a new conflict was born. This time the British colonialists were pitched against the Jews bent on ousting them from Palestine, the “national home” they had earlier been promised. Most prominent amongst the Zionist militant groups that fought the British were the Irgun Zvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael (also known as the Stern Gang) - guerrilla organizations which featured the likes of Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, both future Prime Ministers of Israel.
Throughout the 1920s, 30s and early 40s, this Jewish underground in Palestine was described as "terrorist". At that time both Begin and Shamir appeared in "wanted" posters stating that they were terrorists with rewards being offered for their capture. Although the highest award offered at the time was 100,000 British pounds for Begin, he managed to evade capture by going into hiding in Tel Aviv. Shamir was arrested twice by the British, but he somehow managed to escape each time.
In the early 40s, as news of the Nazi Holocaust began spreading, a certain liberal sympathy for the Jewish people began to emerge in the Western world. Such a momentum was gained that by the end of World War II, in a reversal of what we witnessed later in the case of Afghanistan’s “two-billion-dollar-in-American-aid” mujahideens, these Zionists suddenly began being referred to as "freedom fighters" by the same Western press!
The spice that enhanced the palatability of this about-face leading to its subsequent wholesale consumption by the gullible public in the West was the added fact that by then the terror campaign of the Stern Gang and its ilk was mostly directed at the Arabs of Palestine. So it came to pass that in 1948 Britain withdrew from their League of Nations’ “mandated area” and the independent Jewish state of Israel was proclaimed therein. Begin and Shamir went on to become Prime Ministers in the 70s and 80s respectively with the icing on the cake being a joint Nobel Peace Prize for Menachem Begin in 1978. Talk of grass to grace!
In the 1970s, current U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and the U.S. State Department denounced Mandela of the ANC as a terrorist. In case you had any doubts - yes, the very same Nelson Mandela that notable U.S. statesmen and politicians were falling over each other to be seen in the same snapshot with two decades later! Sorry, no prizes are on offer for guessing how Cheney would go about describing Mandela today.
We have then seen how the leaders of the “free world” expect us to change our understanding of basic concepts with the passage of time and events as it suits their purposes. Thus the British, any Irish or Palestinian reservations notwithstanding, would have it recorded in history that Earl Balfour was a respected statesman; the Israelis would want same for Begin and Shamir; Mandela already has his name written in gold in history leaving Dick Cheney and the U.S. state department to explain away earlier statements by either claiming they were misled, misunderstood, quoted out of context or something of that sort.
Having examined the historical foundations upon which the concepts of terrorism and terrorists have been built, we shall now turn our attention to the current Bush-led crusade against these ills.
As baseless as the argument may be, the September 11 attacks as well as others of their type have been presented by their perpetrators and supporters as a response to U.S. actions elsewhere - the killing of innocent civilians in Libya, Sudan, former Yugoslavia, continuing support for Israeli terror on the Palestinians, more than 500,000 Iraqi children under age 5 who have died subsequent to the 1990 Gulf War and economic sanctions etc.
Arguably, militant U.S. foreign policy makes the task of those interested gaining proselytes for their unholy quests a lot easier. More significantly, it gives those frustrated by such policies the pretext to vent these frustrations using unconventional means.
Despite the fact that terrorism is routinely roundly condemned from all corners of the Muslim world as heresy against Islam, there are still those who continuously use this issue as the locus standi in their continued vilification of Islam and Muslims. Most would point out the fact that Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have continued to assert that they are involved in a “jihad” and that their actions are guided by the dictates of Islam. Overlooked is the fact that these people have chosen to ignore the scholarly consensus on Qur’anic exegesis and have been reading their own frustrations into its text.
Neither Osama Bin Laden nor his principal associate, Egyptian physician Ayman al-Zawahiri, are graduates of any Islamic seminary or university. From what we can gather concerning the backgrounds of both, the opportunities abounded had it been their wish, for them to have been. Then their proclamations, as they are now, would not have been at odds with 14 centuries of Islamic teachings and scholarship. The extremity of the proclamations and actions of these men and what they represent is reflected in the opprobrium they have generated from across the spectrum of Muslim leaders and Islamic organizations globally.
In part I of this essay, we had discussed the Islamic concept of jihad, criteria for military intervention, and conditions guiding the execution of a military campaign in Islam. It bears repetition that a military jihad can only be proclaimed by a properly constituted state, and anything short of this is an exercise in pure opportunism.
In Islamic law, an insurrectionist who kills non-combatants is guilty of the capital offence of “baghy” (armed transgression). In what sense the actions of Bin Laden and his ilk can be fitted to a representation of Islamic values is an issue also overlooked by Western analysts who, alongside Bin Laden and co., seem impatient with the fine points of theology.
The activities of such “jihadists”, combined with the propaganda of the predominantly anti-Islam Western media have thus bequeathed us with the legacy of “Islamic/Muslim terrorists”. The continuous use of this deliberate misnomer leaves an impartial observer with the impression that the only adjectives in their vocabulary that can co-exist in the same phrase with the noun ‘terrorist’ must have something to do with Islam and Muslims.
Even though the struggle in Northern Ireland is essentially one between a Catholic Irish minority and a Protestant majority historically supported by a Protestant England, when combatants of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) strike, no one labels them “Catholic terrorists”. Similarly, if their Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) adversaries were to respond, hardly any mention is made of their Protestantism.
When in 1995 Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Government building in Oklahoma City however, the U.S. paper 'Today' came out with a picture of a fire fighter holding a dead child in his arms, with a headline that read: "In The Name of Islam". Other news carriers were not left out in the baseless finger pointing. It was proven with time that this bigoted assumption was way off-target. Nevertheless, the perpetrator of that act was never anywhere referred to as a “Christian terrorist” - not that anyone ever doubted that Mr. McVeigh was a Christian and a terrorist.
When a Palestinian youth walks into an Israeli café, restaurant, discotheque or school bus and blows himself up however, it is a different story. The facts - that Islam categorically prohibits suicide, indiscriminate violence, and aggression against non-combatants even in a state of war and that the PLO and other such nationalist organizations, in fighting for the establishment of a secular Palestinian state, draw their membership from a mixture of Muslims, Christians and communists- become irrelevant.
The only two criteria are the existence of the ‘terrorist act’ itself and its ‘Muslim’ perpetrator, and another news item on “Islamic terrorism” goes on air live or to the printers for tomorrow’s papers. In such cases the Western media throws away any of the ethics it claims to possess. In a typical example, when the Paris metro was bombed in 1995, Muslim fanatics were blamed. It has now emerged that the Algerian secret services were actually behind it. But the damage, once again, had already been done and in expecting any apologies, one would be naïve to say the least.
No doubt the September 11, 2001 terrorist campaign on the United States provided the impetus for the contemporary crusade against terrorism. We have earlier discussed the role of the United States’ C.I.A in nurturing and financing the structures from which Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda organization rose in the 80s.
At that time the U.S. policy was based on using the Afghan Mujahideen in an indirect war against the Soviet Union, their erstwhile main foe. After the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War, these hate- and war-mongers have re-directed their wrath to their former benefactors. In fact just a couple of months to the September attacks, Washington was busy giving $43 million to the Taliban for its role in reducing the cultivation of opium poppies on territory then under its control! The realisation that in the long run, it was they who had been used and dumped and not the other way round must have doubled the outrage of the Americans.
Today the United States government defines terrorism as “the threat or the use of violence to advance a political cause by individuals or groups, whether acting for or in opposition to established governmental authority, when such actions are intended to shock, stun, or intimidate a target group wider than the immediate victims”. A worthy definition indeed. The only thing one might hope for is that those at the head of the noble effort to make the world a safer place and others, whose habit it is to later make noises and undue generalisations are paying attention. We shall come back to this later. For now we shall analyse of the personalities and means the Bush administration are employing in waging this war against terrorism.
The
at the head of the current crusade provide us with the first alarming circumstance. We have already discussed Vice President Cheney’s precedents and expertise in the fast-changing world of definitions. The role of Secretary of State Collin Powell in Bush I’s exploits in the Gulf is also common knowledge. John Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and the man Bush has entrusted with building the international anti-terrorist coalition was involved in covering up right-wing death squad activities and other human rights abuses in Honduras when he served as ambassador to that country in the mid-1980s.
In Chile, September 11 is also remembered as an infamous date for in 1973 the same day witnessed the overthrow, in a U.S.-backed military coup, of the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende, ushering in the reign of terror by General Augusto Pinochet’s junta. The brains behind that infamous act, then U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, was the man Bush II chose to head the commission of inquiry into America’s own September date. Surely the execrable records of these as well as the other Washington characters in aiding and abetting state terrorism at home and elsewhere undermines the moral authority of the United States as it embarks upon its crusade.
It is an established fact that terrorist and other underground organizations finance their operations by laundering money through offshore banks and other hot money outlets. If the Bush administration is sincere in its quest to protect the American taxpayer (or indeed, as they would have us believe, the whole “free world”), one would expect it to be on the forefront of efforts to crack down on tax havens.
Instead in 2001 the U.S. government withdrew its support for a comprehensive initiative launched by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which sought greater transparency in tax and banking practices. Support for the initiative would have meant displeasing wealthy Americans (their campaign contributors, financiers, friends and relatives) who evade taxes by stashing money in offshore accounts far away from the gaze of the IRS. It should not take an expert, the likes of which come two-a-penny in Washington, to deduce that with their finances largely intact, stopping Al-Qaeda and its likes would remain a Sisyphean task for our “crusaders”.
For the reasons given as well as a host of others, the United States and its allies have not made and, one dares add, will not make much progress in eliminating Al-Qaeda and its likes. It is evident that not much has changed from that point in time when they started their bombing campaign on Afghani innocents in pursuit of Ben Laden. That they can not now for certain even pinpoint his whereabouts might even suggest that the results are more on the negative side.
Back at home the Bush junta has embarked on unjustifiable arrests and detention of Muslims, Arabs and other foreigners amidst systematic limitations of the rights and freedoms of their compatriots. All this notwithstanding they are bent on having us, and more importantly the taxpayers financing the project, believe that the billions they are currently spending is in pursuance of world peace, or in their vague terminologies - a “free world”, “secure world”, a “New World Order”, et cetera, ad nauseum.
On September 17, 2002 the Bush administration published the “National Security Strategy of the United States of America”. This document provides an understanding of the principal guiding policies of the U.S. government as it embarks on the project of realizing this “New World Order”. For any one with any lingering doubts as to the intentions of the United States, its study should surely be insightful.
The document opens by the arrogant statement of the fact that: “the United States possesses unprecedented-and unequaled-strength and influence in the world”. Further therein one finds explicit assertion of America’s right to use military force anywhere in the world, at any time it chooses, against any country it believes to be, or it believes at some point may become, a threat to American interests.
In this vein it is stated that: “while the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone...”. In layman’s terms: “we shall try to convince you, but whether you agree or not, we will have our way”.
In the execution of this agenda, we are made to understand that they reserve the right to use any means at their disposal. Statements such as the need to “take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans (should not be) impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept” should only ring more alarm bells.
All this is referred to as “a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests”. This “distinctly American internationalism” is precisely what we have been seeing in the narcissistic foreign policy thrusts of successive administrations. As Bush Jr. himself proclaimed in the introduction to the document, America’s values “are right and true for every person, in every society”.
Now compare all these to the definition they had earlier given above of “terrorism” and you can only arrive at one of two conclusions, viz:
- The United States government is confused and has no sense of direction.
- To them, there are only two categories on this earth - Americans and the rest of us, who can not have rights at variance with U.S. interests.
Smart money would be on the latter.
Bush and his cohorts are in no way confused and do have a sense of direction. Undoubtedly the oil/gas and defence industries are the vested corporate interests behind the Bush administration and its policies, and since they are in power, their interests are re-packaged to be “American national interests”.
Conclusion
As stated in the introduction to this contribution, the aim is to demonstrate that the positions of both extreme ends of the two poles represented by extremist, “fundamentalist” Muslims on one hand and the “modern” West and its
Guides
