mohammad raza January 24, 2005

Tags: bush , democracy , freedom

rel="tag" href="/tag/Afghanistan">Afghanistan and so will Iyad Alawi, most probably, be the next prime minister of Iraq in the upcoming elections.

This in fact is nothing but the extension of US gratitude to its most loyal leaders across the globe by providing them leverage and freedom to do whatever they can to get themselves re-elected. Neither General Pervez Musharraf an exception nor is this characteristic of the US any different from its parent colonialist country the Great Britain and other fellow colonialist western countries like France and Germany.

By looking at the world’s history of the powerful nations one may well ask that is this just a common pattern of doing things wrong in order to set the things right or real ignorance on the part of the Western World especially the US that claims to be the champion of promoting freedom and democracy in the world.

In his inaugural speech, President Bush spoke of the duty of his dministration that has been set forth as a result of an event “a day of fire” (9/11). He further went on by saying that “the survival of liberty in our lands increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands”.

True, September 11 an event, of course has altered the whole system of the world --- the aftermath effects---- but the policies adopted by the world’s most powerful nation on the planet as a result of that event have not been able to grapple with the underlying causes.

These very underlying causes are embedded,

1) In the history--- the baggage of history, as respected Mr. Husain Haqqani ( Husain Haqqani.htm) has eloquently has once said in one of his presentations, and

2) The duties of the powerful nations especially the US and the lack of responsibility on the part of the intellectuals of the third world.


In this regard, I would like to give some insight into the first and the foremost but equal cause in an objective manner that would hopefully bring the other perspective into consideration and that has also been imposing and significant in pursuing the kind of liberty and freedom President Bush has talked about in his recent inaugural speech at the beginning of his second term in the office.

For the past 150 years the West has undertaken the task of modernizing the men. This recent comment of Mr. Bush is not new, as the history of the world is evident in itself. In the beginning the non-western nations had been put in close contact with the west, so that according the them, the” Idle Civilization” could be replaced with the “Ideal Civilization”. Initially this so-called solemn cause had been put forward under the disguise of Modernism and now it has been replaced by pursuing freedom and promoting democracy. Today the policy of “negative peace” has been set forth just like the policy of “modernization for the sake of consumption” had been directed and put in place in the past.

In the past the goal of the West was not by any mean to civilize the third-world but to modernize them so that their (the West) markets could be expended and economic objectives could be achieved. The hubbub of the US and convulsion of its policy makers and elites is self-evident as the China rises in the 21st century.

Today, however, the phraseology has been changed but this change of phraseology did not change the primary mission of attaining and sustaining the economic power (for instance letting the tyrants and dictators rule for ever as long as they are in the administration good books) but added a new duty of promoting freedom for the “sake of security”. Attitude of this sort can easily be seen in the words of right-wing neo-conservatives but educated elites, when they say that,” we need support of the tyrants and dictators”. And this is the ultimate dilemma. Whether it is Cuba (1902-1909) or Panama (1963) or whether there are crises in Haiti (in 1934 or recently) and South Vietnam (in 1973), the underlying cause is just one and includes of course the baggage of history. Witch is letting the dictators’ rule for ever in pursuit of their policies of “negative peace”.

It would be better for the US if it pursues the policy of positive peace which is the presence of justice and which can be achieved by letting the democracy takes it roots in its real term and promotes liberty and freedom not for the sake of security, but for promoting justice in its real sense. Otherwise this process of wondering whether Saudi Arabia is our friend or foe and whether Pakistan will ever be able to put a hold on religious extremism would hardly be able find an answer as Martin Luther King had once said that, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice every where”.