| Username |
Post |
| anepalikt |
Posted
on 12-Oct-01 01:41 PM
When will America learn its lesson ?
By Dr Shreedhar Gautam
With the September 11 tragic events in America, there has been
tremendous change in the world scenario. The US policy has already been
announced, and the world is offered a stark choice "join us, or face
doom". George Bush has declared overtly that countries not supporting
the US line would be treated as harbourers of terrorism and so they will
have to face the certain prospect of death and destruction. The US
Congress has authorised the use of force against any individual or
country the president determines to have been involved in the September
11 attacks. Many countries from Europe and Asia have been issuing
statements in support of the American line, and some of them have
offered use of their air space and other facilities if and when American
led forces need them. Nepal has also wholeheartedly supported the
American policy, without any reservation. Intellectuals in this country
have spent little time to think over the other aspect of this issue. But
there are people like Richard Rorty in America who have the courage and
vision to say critical things about American policy.
Professor Rorty of Stanford University was in Nepal recently to attend a
four day international conference on American studies in Nepal. The
conference was attended by scholars from nine South and East Asian
countries. While delivering his key note address on 24th September at
Nagarkot Conference Hall, Professor Rorty sounded very much
disillusioned and angry. He termed the present day America a
hypocritical empire, rather than a republic. We, the participants from
nine countries, were delighted as well as stunned while listening to
Rorty with rapt attention. Here was a living philosopher from America
bold enough to say harsh things about his country when the major part of
world is praising American policy blindly in the name of fighting
'global terrorism'. For Professor Rorty, George Bush is busy not because
he has anything substantial to give to America and the world, but
because he wants to show the American people that he is doing something
without actually knowing anything regarding the goal of his fight
against terrorism. Rorty is a sad person because America no longer
stands for the goal and ideals of a republic as envisioned by
enlightened American statesmen and scholars like Jefferson, Emerson and
Whitman, to name a few. At the end of his speech, Rorty urged his
government to spend more money on educational and cultural issues rather
than wasting billions of dollars on a National Missile Defence. But it
is very unlikely that George Bush will heed the wise advice.
Osama bin Laden, the target of the American campaign against terrorism,
was a trusted friend of America. But he turned against the US in 1990
when they established permanent bases in Saudi Arabia. Osama took it as
a counterpart to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. He was disturbed
because of Saudi Arabia's significant place and special status as the
guardian of the holiest shrines of Islam. Osama is also reported to have
been angered by US support for the corrupt and repressive regimes in the
region, including the Saudi Arabian regime. He despises the US for its
support for Israel's brutal occupation of Palestine for more than 35
years. He is outraged also by US-British assaults over the last 12 years
against the civilian population of Iraq in the name of enforcing an
illegal no fly zone, which has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths
and devastated Iraqi society. There could be many more sources of the
fury and despair that have led to the suicide killings of September 11
in New York and Washington DC.
|
| anepalikt |
Posted
on 12-Oct-01 01:41 PM
But America is not going to change its policies towards other countries.
It is bent upon escalating the cycle of violence by taking harsh and
brutal measures in the name of combating terrorism. Peace loving people
and countries are psychologically terrorised because of the American
threat (i.e. either be with us or with terrorism). America now wants to
forget its crimes and atrocities in Nicaragua, Vietnam, Iraq and
Yugoslavia. It is not ready to realise that an escalating cycle of
violence tends to reinforce the authority of the harshest and most
repressive elements in a society. The American action is likely to
invite more trouble. There are reports the US is demanding that Pakistan
terminate the food and other supplies to Afghanistan to checkmate the
Taliban regime. The US-Britain alliance has been giving out the same
logic for the last 12 years for the continues sanctions against Iraq in
the name weakening Saddam Hussein. If this logic is implemented in the
Afghan case also, millions of people who have not the remotest
connection with terrorism will die. US is going to kill and starve the
Afghan people who themselves are victims of the Taliban.
There are no adequate words to condemn this kind of immoral revenge. It
seems the American people are not aware of the devastating consequences
of this war. Otherwise they would be utterly appalled. America is not
going to learn from historical precedents. There are various
possibilities of a war that may destroy much of human society. One such
possibility is the overthrow of the present Pakistani government in case
it submits to the wishes of the US government to halt the supplies of
food that are keeping alive at least some of the starving and suffering
people of Afghanistan. In that case, a Taliban like regime may take over
in Pakistan with full control over its nuclear weapons. Even the killing
of bin Laden will hardly make a difference until and unless America
realises the fundamental defects in its approach and policies towards
countries it considers it enemies. Killing of bin Laden is no guarantee
that there will be no repeat of September 11. The horrendous terrorist
attack on New York and DC are new because for the first time America has
been directly hit on its own territory. In the
past its colonies and interests came under attack here and there, but
not its national territory.
It is now time for the US to reflect and ponder over its past actions
ranging from the extermination of its indigenous population, its violent
interventions in the surrounding region, the methods used in conquering
Hawaii, and the killing of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos. It should
also make a sincere introspection of the atrocities it perpetrated on
the people of Vietnam, Iraq, Yugoslavia, and, of course, Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. The number victims of US crimes are so colossal that it is
impossible to name and remember them all. America should not let this
moment slip by without vigorous self-examination. For the first time the
target of violence has been the world's top military power. This is an
extraordinary event not because of the scale of the atrocity, but
because the world's only superpower has been targeted on its own soil.
It is meaningful that George Bush has spoken of the first war of the
21st century. But it should be noted that if America and other western
countries react in their traditional way, they would only contribute to
the escalation of a cycle of violence with long-term consequences that
could be catastrophic for entire human kind. It is in this light that
the sane voice of Professor Rorty should be supported by all peace
loving people. Everything is not yet lost. An aroused public opinion
within American society and in the rest of the world can bring positive
results towards making this world much more humane and rational.
|
| Harish |
Posted
on 12-Oct-01 06:26 PM
America: Land of Oppurtunity, but country of Hypocrats........
It is very nice to read this article. I could not believe that a person like Professor Rorty exists in American soil. The courage of Professor Rorty is very appreciable because anything against the White House will yeild dangerous outcome. There is no doubt that America, a most hypocratic country in our time, will soon be the sole cause for the destruction of humanity.
American confusion of "Super Power" is sketching a new pole within Globe. It is recently proved that if someone ready to die, the super-powerism does not help. History shows that there was not a single Empirer, who tried to conquer the world, succeed. But, this Geore Bush, most dumb country leader in American History, is threatning the world for joining with him.
There is no doubt that what happened on sep. 11 was a condemning work happened to not only Americans, but also to every humans in this world. Goverment of America themself created this problem in fulfillment of their interest from Golf countries, and now when they got problem in response of their failed policies, President of America is threatning all countries to joint with him.
American politicians have been saying they are most civilized people in the world. In fact, they are top hypocrats. At least there was choice to join a pole when we fought first and second great war, but this time countries have no choice. This is the new invented dictatotrship of American politicians in the name of democracy.
It may rule the world for a time being, but will ultimately destroy humanity.
|
| anepalikt |
Posted
on 12-Oct-01 09:34 PM
hypocritical? hypocrite?
I think you like many others, must be saying that people like Osama and his band of murderous followers are martyrs to some great cause rather what they are in reality - a bunch of cowards, who instead of dealing with their fascist governments in their own countires, are blaming America and scapegoating her for what she has not done or done. Instead of dealign with their problems headon and admitting to the reality, Osama, who is dissatisfied with Saudi Arabian rulers and some of his top followers with similar histories of their own in Egypt and the like, want to take it out on America.
These folks know that they can not really engage in a political debate with their own curent regimes without being killed, routinely, dictatorially. As you have seen from the restrain shown in Afghanistan - America did not, I would even say would not, go and kill civilians indiscriminatly.... Osama's killers are just that, killers. Want as they may, to shed themselves in the role of martyr, they are actually hatred filled, brainwashed twits who hate women, who themselves would be no better than the leaders of their country they have a grudge against.
Unless of course you are saying that Osama and his losers' claim that this is a "holy war" is justified and reasonble. If you are my only suggestion is recognize it for what it is -these are a bunch of corrupt, repressed, oppresive men who need a "war" to justify their existence and validate them. make them feel like men...
What justifies a "holy war"??
What justifies killing innocent civilians - mothers and fathers of orphan young children who now will never know their parents or their love?
Many innocents people have suffered at the hands of many different people. But most don't turn into terrorists. They do not not value human life. At least in this day and age. We are not in the frigging middle ages here.... hello!
No one is trying to rule the world. The persians and the muslims are one of the most expansionist people in human history!! And they do have the idea that they are the chosen ones... but most Muslims don't go hurlign themselves to death and have no qualms abotu takign 5000 otehr innocent lives. And you certainly don't see Muslim Women doign that.
I think most Americans want ot live their lives in peace just like citizens of other countries. Most Americans have not met a Muslim, neither do they care if they do or not ever.
Like all fundamentalists and fanatics of every religion, like the evangelical/born agains that nonchristians are heathen, unsaved and goign to hell, or jews who thank god in tehir prayers that they are were not born gentiles, or Shiv Sena types who woudl have not qualms about killing any non-hindus, these are that minority population.
So get off your "America is the perpetrator!" crap and look at the facts.
|
| GP |
Posted
on 13-Oct-01 06:00 AM
Professor Horty could make the comments because of following
reasons:
1. he is probably "NOT YELLOW" colored people, probably "PINK" colored
, they call themselves "White" not "PINK". ( I borrowed This word from
a southAfrican freedom fighter who used this word in court room).
Bush has still 90% support from its public, we can see the death of
common public in Afganistan will go beyond 7000 at the end of war.
Here death of those 7,000 in WTC will be more valuable than, those
in Afganistan, one day we will hear another answer "HARD CHOICE",
Albright used this phrase over the death of millions of kids in Iraq.
2. Professor Horty is an American, and he can say it, but, if any other
non-American dare to say the way Professor Horty says,
Mr. Bush will fire him "if you are not with us, meant you are with terrorists".
Terrorism on WTC is one of the many inHuman acts that Humans committed,
but, why should world be conncerned only when its Americans suffering?
Rest of the time, the world is silent, why? Thats because they are afraid
of USA's retaliation.
This war will not control Terrorists but, invite more. You go and see again
the JFK movie, you can understand why america favours WAR? JFK
denied the war in 1960s, but, the BIZ group had smelled a great benefit
of war, 80billion business. In Gulf War along USA used the old stock
of war material, and world paid the cost of those outdated war equip.
instruments used in Gulf War. Similarly, this time too, America did not
think twice whether its really winnable war, there had to be some other
better to tackle. The Saudi Prince 's offer denied, and reason is
obvious, it represents the feeling of Arabs living in Asia and Africa.
Because of so many humiliating wars under American leadership,
the NON-Christian community can easily feel that its not really
a war between terrorist and non-terrorist, but, a war between
WEST and Arabs i.e. .. . . . . . Its just a part of 3rd world war.
The 3rd world war will end when USA will blast a powerful
(its already reported that 200ton TNT bomb was exploded in Afganistan)
Nuclear or Atomic Bomb over Gulf Countries and take temporary
control over Arabs. The scenario is very near.
It is optioinal for to take off the air plane,
but, it is mandatory for the pilot to make a safe landing. --- Anon
I am not sure how Bush will control his war against Terrorism.
Some one said, when the enemy --bin Laden-- was harboured
by CIA and wanted by FBI.
---------
GP : I am neither with American's war, nor with Terrorists, but,
force fully sitting at fence watching the game.
|
| anepalikt |
Posted
on 13-Oct-01 10:02 AM
I agree with you GP that the reason Rorty can say what he does is because he is white (PINK??whatever). But pretty much anyone can say what he/she wants, at least in theory, here in the States. At least there is such a thing called "due process". If someone says something, they won't automatically be taken and shot in the head. Compared to most other countries, especially Arab or Islamic nations, the States respects its citizens and guests.
Yes, the political climate here has changed tremendously since the terrrorist attacks of 911. it is seen as unseemly,in the least, and even traiterous at times, depending on who you are and who you are talking to, if you dissent with the majority view that this was evil and that the killers need to be stopped. And that is a sad sad fact.
Many people int eh states and aroudn the world have felt alientated by Bush's comments "if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists". Well, maybe that was presumptious, but if you don't agree that what happened in 911 was a heinous act of terrorism and that this sort of thing should not be allowed to go on, whether it be in the states, Pakistan, Israel, Nepal or Phillipines... I don't know what then. Is the alternative to start indiscriminately bombing one another in surprise attacks just because you have a bone with someone?
We are in th 21st century! Yes, we have nuclear bombs and arsenal of weapons that could blow the world six times over, but does not mean we should be using them. Or even planes to kill each other? If Osama and his band of terrorists have a legitimate claim, why have they chosen the path of terror?
If you are engaged in a war, just or unjust, justified or not - it means both parties are engaged and aware that they are - there are casulaties; and yes, hard choices have to be made when civilians are caught in the crossfire. But terrorism is simple in the difference - it is about terrorizing, not engaging to resolve anything. It is about doing psychological damage. That is what Osama and the terrorists are doing.
What does Osama want? The US to leave Saudi Arabia? Well, why have they not asked the Saudi rulers to ask the Americans to leave? America is not forcefully occupying Saudi land! Of course the US has interest in the region and is there for their own purposes too, and why shouldn't they, anybody else would in their shoes, but when it comes to the "super power of the world", I find it funny that the norm does not apply and somehow they are supposed to stand up to a greater standard.
Even if one is to believe what Osama says is his main reason for complains against the Americans is their "occupation" of holy land, I think you have to look at other paralells and how others around the world have not resorted to the same tactics as these terrorists.
US presence in Okinawa. The Okinawans hate it. They've had many many problems... young school girls have been raped, locals are unhappy about cultural, economic and environemntal impacts. The seJapanese have not resorted to suicide bombings. They have lobbied their government and though their government has chosen to not heed their calls immidiately, they are not resorting to violence. The same goes for the Phillipines before the US left their soil. They had protests and much public outcry, but I don't think they blew themselves up with other civilians to make Americas leave. So what is the difference between these two cases and Saudi arabia? The Saudi rulers are repressive and unlike in Japan or Phillipines, saudis cannot openly protest in their own countries. So they have to claim it is a holy war and spread their stuff everywhere aroudn the world. Osama and his people think that America's is legitimizing Saudi Rulers.
Damed if you do Damed if you don't. If America seeks to intervene in internatl matters of otehr countores she is blamed, if she is not she is blamed again. I wonder what the result would be if America became completely insular and isolationist?
Gautan praised Rorty for speaking his mind. La dee da. His priviledge - being white, being a man, being an academic in his ivory tower........... gives him the luxury. I am nto sayign his views are nto without merit. But really what i am interested to hear from folks is what they think is a viable workable alternative to current US actions. The past policies of the US well they are the past, what could the US have doen different this time to stop future attacks from Osama and his cohorts?
Let's hear it!
The Saudi Prince was again doign what most seems to do. Somehow suggest that it is the US's fault. I just don't buy it! I am glad Guliani rejected his 10mil, made from plundering the earth.
I am sorry to say that I don't feel that this is a Christian Vs non-christian or even arab war. It probably is the 3rd world war, but there is not such thing as a "non-christian" identity. I feel that Osama and his terrorists will kill me in a blink of an eye lid - no regrets, no afterthoughts. I am not muslim - thus I am an infidel. Also, I am a woman. That too a non-burka wearing, outspoken, educated female whe does not believe that God made me to serve men.
People like Sadam Hussain killed millions of his own kurdish citizens!! Osama will do the same if he is afforded the chance. The west Vs the rest of the world is a false dichotomy. The West or america is a very pluralistic society. Unlike Arab and many other nations, even like Japan even Nepal.... the states is a multiracial, multireligion, multinational kind of place. even thought there are bigots here, even among the highest rankgin officers of the goivernment, there is the idea that you respect differences - religions, cultures, races, et al.
I woudl take the side of the "west" anyday over folks like Osama. Unfortunately, I personally don't feel I hae the luxury to sit on the fence and watch the game. This is not a game and we are not spectators.
okay enoguh said...
|
| naya+shanti |
Posted
on 13-Oct-01 03:52 PM
Dear anepkt,
I think your defense of US is heroic, but it seems to suffer from some basic facts that can not be ignored. I do not think Laden and his group have criticized the US for its culture, multiculturalism, pluralism, democracy, civilization etc etc that you mention. In his recent statements, his demands are threefold:
1) end to US support to the Isrelis to repress and occupy the palestinian land,
2) senseless embargo, attack and destruction of Iraq
3) withdrawal of US forces from Saudi Arabia
Now, where is the evil or fanaticism in this demand? Would US citizens tolerate foreign troops on its own soil? Why is it so hard for the self-declared champions of human rights, democracy and civilizaition that they might have made a mistake in the past that can be corrected with a open hart? Maybe the ego and pride of superpower comes in the way acknowledging a mistake--so one mistake is being washed by another mistake - bombing Afghani civilians. We all shed tears for the victims of WTC, why is it hard for us to feel the same human compassion when Afghans become the victims? Or are we bised by their poverty, dirt that makes them less than human for our defendors of humanity.
Hipocricy sucks.
Amen.
|
| anepalikt |
Posted
on 13-Oct-01 11:24 PM
If I were the american president I woudl do exactly what Osmama asked. But I am not. But also, I am not convinced Osama bin Ladin woudl stop his terrorist ways if these demands were met.
There is nothing fanatical in the demands themselves... but the way he has sought to get thsoe demands met. Which speaks to my point that he is motivated not by the confition of the palestiniasn or Iraqis or even US "occupation" of Saudi land...
If here were reallly concerned for Iraqis, how come he was silent when Sadam was killing the kurds???
My last post was too long for me to repeat myself in response to your post naya + shanti. BTW my "defence" of the US was not heroic. It was hardley a defense in the first place and I did not say OBL criticises multiculturalis, pluralism... yada yada......
all I know is, don't champion OBL. There is no solidarity to be had with the guy. Don't make him out to be a thirds world hero. He is s rich guy and he does not give a hoot for Iraqis, Palestinians or Afghans.
|
| MakeNoMistake |
Posted
on 14-Oct-01 02:27 PM
I personally think that This year's Novel Prize for Peace should go not for Kofi Annan , but for President GEORGE BUSH combined with ANEPALIKT.
"Make no mistake"
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 15-Oct-01 05:20 AM
Bikas Joshi, a former Boston Nepali now at Columbia University, once wrote a commentary for the journal "Studies in Nepali History and Society".
In it, Bikas showed how one of Nepal's most respected economists Dr. Kishore Kumar Gurugharana, in a research paper, MISQUOTED foreign economists by putting words in their mouths so as to prove KKG's own points.
KKG's action, we all know after seeing the evidence, is an example of intellectual
dishonesty.
I bring this example to say that the practice of MISQUOTING a foreign expert to add supposed strength to one's own views is a COMMON practice in Nepal's intellectual/social life. Never mind what the foreign expert actually said. People
interpret what they want to interpret, and that's how debates proceed further in life. Depressingly, it happens so often that after a while one gets used to it.
On reading Gautam's piece (above) and having also had the benefit of interacting with Rorty when he was here, I canot help but think that Gautam too has fallen into the trap of misusing Rorty's thoughts to launch an attack on America.
This is intellectual DISHONESTY for which Gautam should be ashamed of
himself.
Rorty is a fiercely honest leftist American intellectual who thinks that America is a good country that could be made better.
Rorty is also honest enough to admit, as he did in his lecture at Patan Dhoka and in his book "Achieving for our country", that for all its anger, the American Left has become all the more marginalized in the American political mainstream.
Rorty's prescription is that the New Left (i.e. the leftists who are at the college campuses) must go back to the values of the Old Left (i.e. leftism of labor unions, local elections and stronger ties to the communities) and fashion a New New Left
that combines the reformist tenor of the Old Left with the progressive passion
of the New Left.
Rorty honestly admitted that the American Left had no clear agenda re: globalization, re: capitalism and re: a host of other social problems, and so
on. Sure, having no clear agenda did not mean that Left was khattam and all that -- but the degree of intellectual honesty Rorty displayed when talking about his complex, complicated country was much more nuanced than what Gautam -- citing
Rorty-- is pushing here in his article.
As a Nepali, I don't want Nepali intellectuals to misquote foreign philosophers
to push their point across. I just wish they would learn the art of being intellectually honest from these foreign experts.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
