THE CRUSADE OF BUSH
George W. Bush is also called the Junior Bush. He is Junior Bush in more than one way. It is clear that the Anglo Americans, who rule the world, have a juvenile leader who has taken the first step to weaken the hegemony of the Anglo Americans in the world. The man who does not have a clean record with respect to elections and who cannot claim that he was elected by the majority of the Americans as their President wants Sadam Hussein, the President of Iraq to surrender and leave the country. Even if Sadam Hussein is the most corrupt President and a dictator what right Bush has to ask Sadam Hussein to leave Iraq.
Sadam Hussein may or may not posses nuclear and chemical weapons. In any event there is no conclusive proof for Bush Junior to claim that Sadam Hussein has hidden these weapons under the Tigris or anywhere else. What is objectionable for Sadam Hussein to have such weapons? If Bush can posses such weapons what is wrong in Sadam Hussein possessing weapons. There are two reasons given by the western propagandists as to why Iraq should not posses nuclear weapons. One of the reasons given is that only USA, UK, Russia, China and France, being the permanent members of the security council of the so-called united nations, should posses these weapons. It appears that if any other country is in possession of such weapons it would be a threat to the world. Secondly Sadam Hussein is not a rational minded person and therefore it is not in the interests of the peace of the world that he should posses such dangerous weapons. However, nobody has said anything on the rationality of possessing nuclear weapons and chemical weapons irrespective of whether the possessor is rational or otherwise.
There are many people who think that Bush Junior is a threat to the mankind than Sadam Hussein. Not all people agree with those who claim that George W Bush is more rational than sadam Hussein. How rational is a man who orders the President of another country to leave the country he rules within forty eight hours. Why not leave it to the people of Iraq to give the marching orders to Sadam Hussein. Did the USA try to engineer some sort of resistance to Sadam Hussein within Iraq itself and fail? In any event rationality is relative and that relativity is revealed very often in the premise of an argument. The USA has also tried to use the so called September 11 as a reason for its decision to attack Iraq. However, it is well known that Senior Bush attacked Iraq many Septembers ago and that there was no September 11 then. Is Sadam Hussein a terrorist who has to be destroyed at any cost, the way they attempted in the case of the other terrorist bin Laden?
Now what about the well known terrorists in Sri Lanka? How many September 11 s the Sri Lankans have had? Don't the terrorists operating in Sri Lanka have to be destroyed at any cost? No, they are apparently civilised terrorists who could be drawn into main stream politics through negotiations. However, in the meantime, they are given the freedom to collect arms, transport bombs, abduct civilians, kill soldiers, destroy ships and of course to shake hands with Dr. G.L. Peiris.
The Norwegians who claim that they are very good facilitators could offer their good offices to work out an MOU between Sadam Hussein and George W Bush. As Westborg is held up in Sri Lanka Helgesen could be entrusted with the drafting of the memorandum. It doesn't matter even if they could not bring Sadam Hussein to the negotiating table as there should be an Iraqi "Theoretician" who could shake hands with Armitages and Roccas in Vatican, Mecca and other such places following the lead given by G. L. Peiris and Anton Balasingham who trot the globe for the sake of peace. Incidentally Balasingham who went to Berlin saying that his health was not good to travel to Bangkok, has now gone all the way to Tokyo to talk peace. It may be that Balasingham has recovered from whatever he was suffering, and is now in good health. The former translator in the British High Commission in Colombo must be lucky to have nurse from Australia as his wife.
It is not only the Norwegians who could serve the cause of peace in west Asia. The peace vendors in Sri Lanka with their experience in picketing in Colombo and organising conferences, lectures on peace could be sent to Baghdad and other places to "educate the people" in the importance of peace in Sri Lanka. Then there are the film directors, whose films on the theme of peace won number of "international awards" at film festivals, who could be invited to make films on the children and women in Iraq who suffer as a result of the war. There are many others such as the peace media personnel who would love to travel to Baghdad to try their hands at some of the "international awards" for promoting peace in the world. Who knows, one of these peace makers could end up by winning the Nobel Prize for peace and bring "honour" to the country.
George W Bush has no regard for the United Nations. He decided to attack Iraq ignoring the UN resolutions on war in Iraq. What is the role of the United Nations and what purpose dose it serve? United Nations Organization has become a tool of the United States of America, and apart from giving jobs with good salaries to some of the elite from the so-called third world countries, what tangible has come out from the United nations to the countries in Asia and Africa. One could mention UNESCO and other such organisations. However, the politics behind these seemingly innocent organisations has to be analysed in detail to find out what has taken place under the guise of various UN activities.
We cannot afford to forget the other B in the Iraq war. That is none other than Blair of UK. Blair who plays the role of the house boy in the White House is a trendy Labour Prime Minister who is more popular among the Conservatives at the moment. Unlike Atlee a former British Labour Prime Minister who "dissolved" the empire, Blair supports Bush Junior to attack the other countries. Blair, whom many people thought would take Britain to Europe is now taking the country to America. As far as Britain is concerned USA is more important than the rest of Europe. It is the Anglo Americans who say that the blood is thicker than water, and they do not appear to believe that they are related to the Muslims, in spite of all the talk on Darwinian evolution, the Bible and exodus of man from the African continent to the rest of the world.
It is clear that the Anglo Americans are continuing with the only project that the westerners had known for the last five hundred years or so. The western colonialism that is interested in establishing its hegemony over the whole world in the fields of politics, economics and culture is at it in Iraq. It is not only the oil wells that the Anglo Americans are after in west Asia. Many people ignore the cultural colonialism that goes hand in hand with the economic and political colonialism. The Anglo Americans are engaged in a crusade in Iraq. The Catholic church that has lost its clout in politics and in culture to the Anglican and other churches may not like the idea of a crusade by the Anglo Americans. France the major Catholic power in the western world may also not agree with what the Americans and the British are after in Iraq. But Portugal and Spain, that began the European domination in the spheres of politics, culture and economics five hundred years ago are with America and Britain. Perhaps Portugal and Spain, like Britain have understood that it is the USA that carries forward what they were engaged in sometime ago.
The so called world war II saw the leadership in the western colonialism being handed over to USA from Britain. Instead of the empire on which the sun did not set, the global village has been established. In essence there is no difference between the British empire and the global village. Western colonialism is continuing under a more "democratic" sounding American term. The emperor has been replaced by the village headman who is much more powerful than the former but appears to be more civilian and democratic. In the fifties of the last century, Americanisation of the world began with more technology being introduced into the lives of the people. Some in the western world have identified the Americanisation of the world as postmodernism, though the modernism that commenced in Europe in the beginning of the fifteenth century is still continuing. Modernism has only got a new leader in the form of the President of the USA after the so-called second world war.
Lyotard in his book "Postmodern Condition" refers to the development in technology and also to a change in the knowledge systems. He is of the view that in the so-called postmodern era the meta narratives have been replaced by concrete specific narratives in creating knowledge. He comes to the conclusion that, the elimination of meta narratives is reflected in Politics by the replacement of macro politics by micro politics. Lyotard is either consciously or unconsciously trying to mislead the non westerners. It is true that new technology has been introduced in the last fifty years or so. But, in essence, it is not different from the technology that had been introduced in the previous centuries. The essence of modernism is separating the individuals from the others and atomisation, nay, particalisation of the society. The CD, VCD are not much different from the book and the motor car. With the books knowledge began to be individualised and the motor cars individualised the transportation of people. The CDs VCDs and the other electronic gadgets are only continuing this process.
The meta narratives still continue to play the major role in constructing knowledge. There cannot be any theory in Social Sciences without the concept of society and the society is nothing but a meta narrative. Though the society has been particalised into individuals, the society at large as a structure exists. In Physics, the atom has been split and various particles have been created (discovered) but that does not mean that the atoms, molecules and finally the Newtonian rigid bodies have ceased to "exist". The systems and structures continue to "exist" and micro systems are being created in an overall macro system.
When Bush decided to attack Iraq ignoring the United Nations Organisation that cannot justify its existence, he showed Lyotard and the others that Macro politics still plays the most important role in politics. The issues in micro politics pale into insignificance when macro politics takes the driving seat. I do not think that Bush is concerned with the sexuality of Sadam Hussein, though a number of sociologists might earn their Ph. D.s by dwelling into that aspect of Sadam's life. The so called postmodernists have "misunderstood" the Americanisation of the world to be a new condition or a new stage in the evolution of society. Though the "postmodernists" claim that the meta narratives have ceased to exist, they have to use the concept of "evolution of society" in order to talk of a postmodern condition. By resorting to the concept of "evolution of society" the so called postmodernists are engaged in macro social phenomena and are using meta narratives. This is a contradiction that the "postmodernists" will never be able to resolve and it so happens that Junior Bush does not have to be bothered by these "contradictions". He is only continuing with what not only his father but his forefathers have been engaged in.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>