| |
Opinion
The
Janus Face of Terrorism
If
I were to tell you that the greatest terrorist is a smiling,
clean shaven white man who practices his trade with the pen
rather that the sword, I would not blame you if you were to
grab the nearest phone and called for the men in the white
coats to pay me a visit. Because, the (Western) media has
ensured that the world view of a terrorist is a stern
looking, bearded man wearing a turban and usually wielding a
kalashnikov
rifle.
Yet,
there is ample evidence to show that this is only part of an
(erroneous) picture. Sure, there have been Arabs who have
carried out acts of terrorism, from the exploding of the
BOAC planes in Jeddah in 1970 to the destruction of the Twin
Towers in New York in 2001. Atrocious as these desperate and
despicable acts are, however, they pale into insignificance
when compared with the global effects of the pernicious acts
committed by our man in the well-tailored suit. Indeed,
history is replete with white man’s acts of barbaric
terrorism.
First,
he conquered Aborigine, African, Amerindian and Maori lands,
but that was not enough for him. Having got hold of the
land, he systematically proceeded to annihilate the
indigenous populations of many of these territories and,
having reduced them to an “acceptable” level, he put
them in easy-to-manage compounds. He calls these
Reservations, thinking this sounds more respectable! In some
cases, such as Tasmania, the annihilation was total -- the
last survivor having died some time in the last century.
But, even where some have been allowed to survive, the white
man has made sure that they live on the margins of society.
Witness the backwardness of the Aborigine and Amerindian in their
own lands whilst the immigrant white man prospers.
President
Bush is fond of talking of rogue states, that is anyone who
does not toe his line. “You are either with us, or you are
not,” he famously said in the wake of 9/11. But, what this
paragon of restraint and respectability -- who together with
his acolyte Blair needlessly brought about the chaos in Iraq
and surrounding areas—forgets to tell us is how closely
this appellation applies to his own state. Against a figure
of some 3,000 killed on 9/11, compare the many thousands
killed and maimed in Rumsfeld’s Shock and Awe operation on
Baghdad, all in the futile attempt to find Saddam’s
non-existent WMDs. The US knew that the attack, and the
following invasion, was based on flimsy evidence. Collin
Powell’s discomfiture and body language before the UN’s
Security Council was not that of a man convinced of his
arguments which left many people sceptical. The US also have
the dubious distinction of being the only nation to have
fired an atomic bomb in anger, killing and maiming thousands
of Japanese people and condemning generations to the
after-effects of radiation. As the French-speaking would so
succinctly put it, “Plus rogue que ça, tu meurs!”
Now,
what do we have? The carnage continues, of course, albeit in
a different guise. Having pushed up the price of petrol
through the (illegitimate) invasion of Iraq, they now use 30
percent of their subsidized grain to produce ethanol, thus
depriving the world of much needed food and simultaneously
pushing up the price of foodstuffs in general. Jack is
alright because he controls much of Middle Eastern oil, has
plenty of his own and can afford to sustain the rise in the
price of commodities because he has plenty of stolen Indian
land on which to produce food—enough to render many of his
people grotesquely obese and go on a rampage of wanton
wastefulness. Having gorged themselves stupid, they spend
USD 35 billions on dieting annually whilst 7 million
people across the globe die of hunger every
year!!
His
irresponsibility seems to know no bounds. Whilst giving
lessons to the rest of us on good governance, he goes on
breaking the rules at will. Witness the downfall of Enron
and Worldcom, amongst others, in the early years of this
decade. Now, we have the domino effect of the Credit Crunch,
brought about by the euphemistically named sub-prime housing
loan market. In plain English, that is mad, bad, imprudent
lending to borrowers with the obvious inability to repay
(the ability to repay is the acid test of any
sound lending policy). To make matters worse, this lunacy
was accompanied by ever-sophisticated derivatives trading on
the back of these shaky assets, unfettered by proper
official regulations. But, what the hell so long as he could
show a vast surplus on the bottom line -- interest on
non-performing loans being counted as income, earning
millions for shareholders and executives alike. Very clever
stuff, until the bubble bursts and repossession explodes,
house prices plummet and the knock-on effects kick in.
The
world could not care two hoots were it not for the weight
the US economy exerts on the international market. Be it
oil, food or finance, this weight is so great that it has
spurred some sage to observe that “When America sneezes,
the world catches a cold.” Power should normally be
tempered with responsibility. Being the most powerful nation
on earth, the US is expected to act responsibly and give us
all a good example. Instead, in most matters of importance
—notice its stance on climate change and its attitude
towards Kyoto -- it falls a long, long way short of this and
acts as an irresponsible, brutal and uncaring terrorist.
T. Del
Fuego
Like
headless chickens
It
is a very, very sad reflection on the desperation with which
raving-mad Mauritian politicians pursue the folly of
power-at-any-cost that, on the morrow of the day that US
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was professing his most
deeply-felt remorse, in front of a US Senate Banking
Committee, at the debacle caused to the global financial
architecture by the lack of foresight of his policies and
actions, our local chameleonic politician had no better
fear-mongering tactic to deploy than to warm that: “Maurice
est la cible de ceux qui cherchent des coupables pour la
crise financière internationale. Le fait que nous soyons un
centre offshore pourrait nous mettre dans une situation
delicate.”
This
is as statesmanly and dignified an expression of concern
about the near- and medium-term well-being of Mauritian
business operators and of the Mauritian population as that
other pompously grave pronouncement made by our former
Deputy Prime Minister in December 2001 to the effect that he
had reliable intelligence that one of our sugar consignments
to Tate and Lyle in London had been laced with anthrax.
Scotland Yard was mobilized at British taxpayer expense
(including the expense of Mauritian immigrants to Britain)
to investigate, and, of course, the claim proved to be
utterly false. One local militant for civil society rights
later tried, rightly, to sue the thoroughly irresponsible
former DPM for that treacherous act but, astoundingly, the
judicial authorities found that the plaintiff did not have a
casus
standi,
and the case was set aside.
On
the strength of that baffling judicial pronouncement, our
local chameleonic politician and his cronies are running
around like headless chickens clamouring that: “Maurice
est la cible de ceux qui cherchent des coupables pour la
crise financière internationale.”
The
spectacle would be hilarious were it not so tragic.
S.M.
MALLECK AMODE
|
