American politics in the world arena

American Politics in the World Arena

Having heard about the (much) sic. Controversial death of the Al-Qaeda head, Osama Bin Laden, I'm forced to nurture my deep rooted dismay at American Politics which uses the world as its playground. The same emotion had vibrated through every nerve in my body, when, in 2006, Saddam Hussein was sent to the gallows.

Knowing that the 9/11 attack and it's repercussions gave little to no-evidence to the American politicians against the Taliban, it becomes rather difficult to digest the fact that America felt that it was justified in entering Iraq to take matters in its ownhands.

It all began when from 1979 through 1989 under U.S. Presidents Carter and Reagan, the United States CIA providedcovert financial aid, arms and training to Osama's Islamic JihadMujahedeen through Operation Cyclone and Reagan Doctrine. President Reagan often praised the Mujahideen as Afghanistan's "Freedom Fighters."

Thereafter, social unrest was witnessed in Iraq among Shi'ite Muslims, Kurds, and military units; the uprising was repressed by Saddam's Government. Whether the uprising was silenced in an ethical manner or not, is not a matter which should have been considered by the outsiders. what needs a curious eye is-what or who brought such disruption among the major social groups which existed in the region. The world knows that the United States had been a major cause for the rebellion but it did nothing to show its support to the rebellion when the needarose. What I fail to understand is that if at one point in time US felt that it was in the right for supporting people to act against the Iraqi Government, then why was it so difficult for itto come up front and show active strength to the retaliating groups?

When Saddam's army won against the crisis which was disrupting its nation, the U.S launched a missile attack at Iraq's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad in 1993. The basis was as obscure as was the attack itself. It was claimed that Iraq had violated the 'no-fly zones' which were imposed after the Gulf War and for their invasion of Kuwait. The Iraqi invasion of Quwait under Sadddam Hussein on August 2, 1990 put the Saudi kingdom at risk. Bin Laden met with King Fahd tellinghim not to depend on non-Muslim assistance from the United States and others, offering to help defend Saudi Arabia with his mujahideen. Bin Laden's offer was rebuffed, and after the Saudi monarchy invited the deployment of U.S. troops in Saudi territory, Osama publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's dependence on the U.S. military. What is obscene is not only the fact that the US was condemning its ally with the sole responsebility of the attack on Quwait but the fact that in the same era, the Clinton Government had itself launched air-strikes in the 'Iraqi no-fly zones'.

Iraqi oil exports were blocked by the UN which resulted in the economy of the nation getting hit in a manner which would never allow it to re-emerge from the crisis. Again, playing by the rule of the thumb, the US tried to create an illusion of a well-wisher where in fact it was the cause of the disruption to begin with. As a result, in 1996, the United Nations allowed Saddam's Government to begin selling limited oil for food. Forthe next two years, Iraq survived UN's access to suspected weapons of mass destruction and it became the cause for US and British missile strikes on Iraq in 1998. Eventually, in 2001 US and British warplanes struck hard in Baghdad. What poses a huge question here is whether a mere suspicion authorized the world powers to do that- which they had opposed and accused the Iraqi's of and that too in a more uncivilized manner? At this junction it is important to remember that Iraq had not tried to show non-cooperation for allowing the UN suspicion to die down, there were, in fact intermittent spells of Iraqi co-operation with UN inspection teams.

In 2002, a resolution was passed by the European Union and the Commission for Human Rights which accused President Saddam Hussein's Government of gross violations of Human rights. At this point in time, it must be understood that most of these violations culminated from the point in time when the Gulf War backed by the US and the social-boycott were exercised by the US and the UN in conjugation with each other. Whether, physical and mental abuse of people is not carried out in other democracies is for the world to consider; but when the people rise in opposition of such injustice then it is unjustified for other countries to sit in judgement over such issues, because the whole process of social subjugation isexisting across the world and is not limited to specific regions.Some nations are able to subside controversies by show of strength and (as in the present case) others have to sit before a panel of equally corrupt nations.

In 2001, information compiled by the Western intelligence agencies was released by British Prime Minister, Tony Blair that shows a connection between Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan. It was 'suspected' that the Taliban government gave protection to Osama bin Laden in the years leading up to 9/11 attack on US and that the al-Qaeda network'may' have had a close relationship with the Taliban army and police.

The United States directed the Taliban to shut down all al-Qaeda based activities in Afghanistan, opening them up for inspection and turning over Osama Bin Laden to the States. However, all these requests were refused even though the Government offered to extradite Osama bin Laden to an Islamic country. Such extradition was for the purpose of trial under Islamic law but only on one condition- if the United States presented evidence of Osama's guilt. Evidence was put forth by the US which the Taliban deemed insufficient for the purpose of extradition. Whether the Taliban was supposed to act as a stooge in the hands of the Western powers and lose all power of independent decision making is questionable. If a nation is restricted from taking such decisions after evaluating the evidence put before it, then I clearly fail to see the 'Independence" which can be bestowed on a Free State.

The Bush Government invaded and overthrew the Taliban in 2001. As per a statement of the Bush Administration released at that time, the US was unwilling to make a distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them. This clearly proved the autocratic tendencies which the Administration harbored and its show of power which refused to accept the independent enquiry led by a so-called free nation. In, early 2003, Saddam Hussein was part of a three hour interview with CBS News and during the interview he expressed a wish to have a live televised debate with the then President of U.S, Mr. George W.Bush, but the same was declined. If the U.S had come to the battle-field with clean hands then I do not see a reason why the offer should have been declined.

On November 29, 2007 a videotape was released, which the CIA says was likely to be from Osama Bin Laden and by way of which the speaker takes sole responsibility for the attacks and specifically denies any prior knowledge of them by The Taliban or the Afghan People. But, it was too late in the day to make a difference, since a lot of water had already flown under the Bridge, a lot of innocent lives had already been sacrificed on both corners of the world, and the most prominent scapegoat among them was Saddam Hussein.

What really made a lot of people across the world furious about the whole process was the fact that the Man who was once a President of a nation was not only broadcasted in his underwear of leading daily magazines, but was so maltreated while in prison that it should have been shameful for a nation(like US) which believed in civilized way of judgement.

To add insult to the injury for the US, the infamous andmalicious case of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison was exposed. Gross violations of human rights and ethical prisoner abuse were being carried out at the hands of US soldiers who were in charge of the Prison in Baghdad. But what did the US do to counter the situation; did it hang the accused-like it did in the case of Saddam Hussein? One of the main accused, Charles A. Graner, Jr., (born 1968 was convicted of in connection with theAbu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. He was found guilty of all charges on January 14, 2005, and sentenced to 10 years in prison, demotion to private, dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of pay and allowances. The fate of others like him was no different.

The reason why I get furious about America's stand as a reformist and an avenger is that it trots on areas which lie beyond its own territory and jurisdiction. The reason which it gives in support of such incursion is either insufficient or unreasonable, but never unbiased. The US basis its whole theory on one fact-that inhumanity will not be accepted and that no leader has the power to sit in judgement over its subjects in a way which would either treat them in an inhumanly manner or would kill such subjects. But then what US itself inflicts on such leaders is no less inhumane. If their basic presumption is that no person has the power to send the other to the gallows then how do they justify their acts of infiltration, massacre andinsurgency? After all, what Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were getting involved in was their way of sitting in judgement. If a nation does not approve of these tactics, then how does it justify itself stooping to the lowly levels of those whom it condemns by meting out the same treatment to those whom it disapproves of? In fact, isn't it using the same tactic as was used by the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda and which it vehemently condemns?