If there's one word I've grown tired of hearing recently, it's the word "evil". Every story about US relations with countries which don't agree with its point of view on how the world should run will feature the word "evil" at some point. It seems to have recently replaced "terrorism" as the main word to be bandied around. I don't think it's the frequency of its use as such that gets to me, but rather the feeling I have of it being a word that's more suited to playgrounds in schools and sci-fi movies which is used cheaply to get into voters' minds to instil fear and therefore support for the "evil" designs of the Bush administration on the world in general. A sort of easy linguistic propaganda, if you will. The "Axis of Evil" speech, for instance, put the word into the public conscience and suddenly, Iran, Iraq and North Korea were metamorphosed from troublesome states into cackling bad guys from horror movies.
Bush's declaration of war on terrorism after September 11th included a passage pledging that America's "responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." A bold statement indeed. Whereas this may seem a noble quest to those who really wish to believe it, what does it actually mean ? The declaration of war against evil came after three days of floundering desperately for a target for American civil rage. No one knew who really did it, and a response was needed. In order to launch a response, an enemy was needed. This new enemy was evil. The problem with evil is that it is such a vague concept, but this problem seems to be part of the solution for the Bush administration. If he was to declare war against Osama bin Laden, he would have had to come up with an entirely new war to invade Iraq. If he wanted to declare war against Islamic fundamentalism, that would put him in a difficult situation relative to Cuba, for example. Evil is a fabulous catch-all concept which can be applied to just about anything.
Bush's stand on evil is that it is "real, and it must be opposed". His views on Osama bin Laden are few and decisive - "The only thing I know certain about him is that he's evil. And I don't know what to believe about him, except that he wants to hurt Americans." Very clear. This would suggest that the definition of evil is wanting to hurt Americans. Unless such a line is some kind of political marketing gimmick. Besides, doesn't the death penalty, which Bush heartily endorsed as governor of Texas, hurt Americans ? Moreover, "I think there is one universal law, and that's terrorism is evil, and all of us must work to reject evil. Murder is evil, and we must reject murder." A more general assessment - killing people is evil. Once again, the millions killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were only "collateral damage" and therefore the acts in themselves were not evil. But wait - there's an explanation ! "None of us would ever wish the evil that has been done to our country, yet we have learned that out of evil can come great good." Aha. There's the explanation then.
"We don't share the point of view that evil is religious. We don't appreciate the fact that somebody has tried to hijack a religion in order to justify terror activities." It's great isn't it ? This is the same man who, not long after, claimed that "'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." Terror is of course, much like evil, defined by the speaker. The majority of Iraqis may have been living in terror for several years but, well, it would appear that that's rather irrelevant. "The evil one who hides [Osama himself] thinks in ways that we can't possibly think in America -- so destructive, such a low regard for human life". I could go on and on.
But onto other things. The Republican running for senator in Illinois in 2004, Alan Keyes considered that terrorism and abortion were the "same evil". So we're now fighting a war against abortion as well ?
One thing that I've found vaguely amusing is that both of the Presidential candidates have been asked for their definitions of evil. Obama gave a general response including Darfur, American city streets, abusive parents, the fact that the act of confronting evil sometimes entails evil in itself, which could have been an oblique reference to the Iraq fiasco, once again. McCain gave a bold, Bushesque answer - Radical Islam, terrorists in Iraq, al-Qaeda, bin Laden (who McCain will apparently "follow to the gates of hell" in order to bring him to justice). Whereas Bush would probably agree with McCain's analysis, Obama's is probably closer to what Bush would himself want to say - a vague, indefinable concept which leaves the moral door open for attack just about anyone or anything.
But please Mr. Bush, for my sanity, can we just drop the word "evil" and actually point out what we're aiming at here ? It would make life a lot easier for the both of us. Thanks.
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Sep 8, 2008
Aug 27, 2008
"Iraq fair game, Georgia certainly not", say politicians
As a student of Political Science, I often get comments such as "ah, politicians are all rotten anyway" or "it's just a big pile of corruption" and "I don't trust politics". People then look at me expecting me to defend myself. Often, I disappoint them by pointing out that politicians are even more rotten than they think.
A lot has been made of Russia's invasion of Georgia recently. For some it's shocking. For some it's a scary return to the days of the Cold War. For me, it's quite funny - a stage where "the West" can once again show how wonderfully hypocritical it is with some quite brilliant soundbites. Firstly, presidential hopefully John McCain showed that he has the credentials to become a great leader of the free world in following in Bush II's footsteps by claiming something ridiculous.
George Bush II, always keep to make his mark on international events, pointed out that "Russia has sought to integrate into the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century. Now Russia is putting its aspirations at risk by taking actions in Georgia that are inconsistent with the principles of those institutions." The fact that the majority of Ossetians are Russian citizens and were being targeted by the Georgian army seems to be rather irrelevant here - the US was protecting American civilians by attacking Iraq, which was incidentally barely able to threaten its neighbours. Just because a bunch of people with Russian passports were being charged on by the Georgian army doesn't mean Russia was actually acting legitimately defending them. Far from it, apparently - this kind of thing is just not allowed !
"In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations !" claimed John McCain to back up this accusation. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find out whether Iraq and Afghanistan were considered nations by the US or not, but in any case this seems to be a rather bizarre claim to make. A suggestion that Russia be barred from the G8 while its army is still in Georgia was also floated. Interestingly, McCain has stated that if he becomes president, he will aim for American troops to remain in Iraq until 2013.
Condoleezza Rice, not wanting to miss out on the action, came up with this little pearl : "This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten its neighbours, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed !". Indeed, this is 2008 - it is not 2001 or 2003 either. Admittedly, the US did not invade neighbours, occupy their capitals, overthrow their governments and get away with it in 2001 and 2003 - it did actually make the effort to get the troops out to Asia in order to do all of these things. Which, I suppose, makes it acceptable.
Eventually, someone stopped playing the game. Zalmay Khalilzad, US ambassador to various places in recent times, decided to say "hey ! we're not being hypocritical, we're just being selective in who people are allowed to invade !". "The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe -- those days are gone !" he said, skillfully avoiding the Iraqi/Afghan question. Unfortunately, in a slight oversight, he forgot to mention McCain and Rice's specific comments on timing, and therefore the US-led NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 would fall foul of this statement. If I was being really pedantic, I could say that, Georgia lying south of the main peaks of the Caucasus, it's technically in Asia itself. But I digress.
In addition to its military action in Georgia, Russia has done something even more disgusting - it has recognised the independence of South Ossetia AND Abkhazia !
The US has positioned itself as a champion of international law and in this arena the UN Charter gives the organisation's purpose as one "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples". Self determination of peoples would mean that Ossetians would get their own state, as would the Abkhaz, both of which speak their own language and have their own cultures and customs. Russian intention to recognise two regions that have been in conflict but are clearly within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia... is regrettable" claims Condoleezza Rice.
Where the Americans tread, of course, the British will surely follow. Foreign Secretary David Milliband claimed that the crisis provided a "rude awakening" and that Russia's "unilateral attempt to redraw the map marks a moment of real significance". Also, "We fully support Georgia's independence and territorial integrity, which cannot be changed by decree from Moscow." Would this be the same Britain and America who dismantled Serbia and pushed Kosovo into independence on the basis of national self-determination ? What a strange world this is.
DISCLAIMER : I would also like to explain this before anyone thinks "Oh here we go, someone who wants to slate Britain and the US for everything". I don't see any particularly easy solution for this situation, nor do I think Russia's aggression can be condoned. Nor do I think that the US and Britain are the only ones involved in blowing the trumpet of Western double-edged morality either - many others have recognised Kosovo which was declared as an independent state completely against international law and are jumping onto the anti-Russian bandwagon as well. I'm just presenting a certain side of things which crop up again and again in any crisis situation relevant to the West across the globe.
A lot has been made of Russia's invasion of Georgia recently. For some it's shocking. For some it's a scary return to the days of the Cold War. For me, it's quite funny - a stage where "the West" can once again show how wonderfully hypocritical it is with some quite brilliant soundbites. Firstly, presidential hopefully John McCain showed that he has the credentials to become a great leader of the free world in following in Bush II's footsteps by claiming something ridiculous.
George Bush II, always keep to make his mark on international events, pointed out that "Russia has sought to integrate into the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century. Now Russia is putting its aspirations at risk by taking actions in Georgia that are inconsistent with the principles of those institutions." The fact that the majority of Ossetians are Russian citizens and were being targeted by the Georgian army seems to be rather irrelevant here - the US was protecting American civilians by attacking Iraq, which was incidentally barely able to threaten its neighbours. Just because a bunch of people with Russian passports were being charged on by the Georgian army doesn't mean Russia was actually acting legitimately defending them. Far from it, apparently - this kind of thing is just not allowed !
"In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations !" claimed John McCain to back up this accusation. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find out whether Iraq and Afghanistan were considered nations by the US or not, but in any case this seems to be a rather bizarre claim to make. A suggestion that Russia be barred from the G8 while its army is still in Georgia was also floated. Interestingly, McCain has stated that if he becomes president, he will aim for American troops to remain in Iraq until 2013.
Condoleezza Rice, not wanting to miss out on the action, came up with this little pearl : "This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten its neighbours, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed !". Indeed, this is 2008 - it is not 2001 or 2003 either. Admittedly, the US did not invade neighbours, occupy their capitals, overthrow their governments and get away with it in 2001 and 2003 - it did actually make the effort to get the troops out to Asia in order to do all of these things. Which, I suppose, makes it acceptable.
Eventually, someone stopped playing the game. Zalmay Khalilzad, US ambassador to various places in recent times, decided to say "hey ! we're not being hypocritical, we're just being selective in who people are allowed to invade !". "The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe -- those days are gone !" he said, skillfully avoiding the Iraqi/Afghan question. Unfortunately, in a slight oversight, he forgot to mention McCain and Rice's specific comments on timing, and therefore the US-led NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 would fall foul of this statement. If I was being really pedantic, I could say that, Georgia lying south of the main peaks of the Caucasus, it's technically in Asia itself. But I digress.
In addition to its military action in Georgia, Russia has done something even more disgusting - it has recognised the independence of South Ossetia AND Abkhazia !
The US has positioned itself as a champion of international law and in this arena the UN Charter gives the organisation's purpose as one "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples". Self determination of peoples would mean that Ossetians would get their own state, as would the Abkhaz, both of which speak their own language and have their own cultures and customs. Russian intention to recognise two regions that have been in conflict but are clearly within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia... is regrettable" claims Condoleezza Rice.
Where the Americans tread, of course, the British will surely follow. Foreign Secretary David Milliband claimed that the crisis provided a "rude awakening" and that Russia's "unilateral attempt to redraw the map marks a moment of real significance". Also, "We fully support Georgia's independence and territorial integrity, which cannot be changed by decree from Moscow." Would this be the same Britain and America who dismantled Serbia and pushed Kosovo into independence on the basis of national self-determination ? What a strange world this is.
DISCLAIMER : I would also like to explain this before anyone thinks "Oh here we go, someone who wants to slate Britain and the US for everything". I don't see any particularly easy solution for this situation, nor do I think Russia's aggression can be condoned. Nor do I think that the US and Britain are the only ones involved in blowing the trumpet of Western double-edged morality either - many others have recognised Kosovo which was declared as an independent state completely against international law and are jumping onto the anti-Russian bandwagon as well. I'm just presenting a certain side of things which crop up again and again in any crisis situation relevant to the West across the globe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)