The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Terror links

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jul 13, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Terror links

Salim Lone

THE GLENEAGLES summit's grand stage might well have shown up George W. Bush's hypocrisy in proclaiming an "ideology of compassion" over African poverty and global warming. Instead, the London bombings allowed the U.S. President and Tony Blair to strut as anti-terror champions again, when in fact their policies continue to produce thousands of new terrorists.

One hardly expected British and U.S. officials to admit the Iraq-terror link. Mr. Blair and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denied this linkage by recalling that the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in east Africa and the 9/11 attacks took place before the 2003 Iraq war. But not one interviewer or reporter pointed out that both those attacks were preceded by another war against Iraq, following its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Indeed it was that war and the accompanying United Nations sanctions, plus the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, that ushered in our age of global terror with the attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair were also back in full throttle over the terrorists' barbarity in contrast to the West's superior culture and values. Terrorists were motivated by hatred for the Western way of life, they insisted.

You would think the pair of them had never hurt a soul. There appeared to be no memory of the half a million Iraqi children killed by sanctions ruthlessly maintained by the U.S. and the U.K. Indeed, this slaughter was defended as necessary to advance U.S. interests by the former U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. It was "worth it," she told CBS in 1996.

While repeatedly reporting comments asserting the other side's inhumanity in recent days, Western TV networks have not even hinted at the images they possess of more recent of crimes against humanity committed in Fallujah, Najaf, Qaim, the mountain villages of Afghanistan, Jenin. Yes, the terrorists are barbaric — but who is more so?

Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and all the countries threatened with terror nevertheless have the world's support in taking all lawful steps necessary to protect their citizens. Muslims in particular want to see an end to terrorist carnage: after all, the principal victims of terror and the U.S.-British aggressions disguised as a response to it are Muslim countries. For every Westerner killed by Muslim terrorists since the end of the Cold War, at least a hundred Muslims have died in wars and occupations perpetrated by the West.

Action against terrorism is imperative, but will only succeed if accompanied by steps to address intense Muslim grievances, including curbing wars of aggression and occupation, which are among the central causes of the exponential growth in terror. But no one dares to put these items on the international agenda because of U.S. power — and the support given to the U.S. by Britain. Without that British support, the U.S. would be comprehensively isolated and forced to reconsider its policies.

The greatest blow Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair could strike against terror would be to terminate the occupation of Iraq within a fixed time. This would profoundly affect the outcome of the coming elections, and forge peace through power-sharing with Iraqi insurgents. But there is little pressure for Mr. Bush to do so since two senior Democratic senators, John Kerry and Joseph Biden, urged him to send more U.S. troops a fortnight ago. These Democratic leaders seem to have bought into the strategic goals for which the Bush administration launched the war: control of oil in an oil-thirsty world, with its economic rival China the thirstiest of all; the establishment of military bases in support of the American project to redraw the political landscape of the region; and weakening Iraq so it could never again pose a threat to Israel.

Outlawed practices

Since 9/11 there has been a profound transformation of the U.S., from the world's most powerful advocate of human rights, democratisation and the rule of law, to a country that is pursuing outlawed practices — such as the indiscriminate use of force in densely populated areas — as well as using torture and working closely with brutal regimes, mostly Muslim, known to practise it.

Most Americans, whose media provide them with extremely limited information about the brutality of U.S. actions in the Muslim world, continue to believe that theirs is good country trying to fix the world and rid it of U.S.-hating terrorists. It is hardly surprising that there is little public pressure to terminate the Iraqi occupation. And the major Western states are incapable of exerting serious pressure on the U.S., even when it is destabilising their world.

Is it possible that the British public and legislators will put pressure on Mr. Blair to break with Mr. Bush on Iraq as a result of the current atrocity, as Spain did? Or will they rally around Mr. Blair? The British media will help determine the answer.

(Salim Lone is a former spokesman for the U.N. mission in Iraq.)

— © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Decoding Dr. Singh's Oxford reflections

Rotation that makes little sense

America, India and outsourcing imperial overreach

Beware the hype about a backlash

A two-way street

Climate change deniers shift their ground