Bush’s war psychosis

THE United States Congress has spoken. Not with a roar, but with a whimper, handing President George W Bush a blank cheque to go to war against Iraq because of the “imminent threat” it supposedly poses to America. One is reminded of the pathetic spectacle of Roman senators grovelling at feet of emperor Tiberius.

The notion of Iraq, a demolished nation of 22.3 million posing an “imminent threat” to the United States, a nation of 281 million, is ludicrous. In fact, anti-Saddam Kurds and rebellious southern Shia Muslims comprise 17.7 million, or 79 per cent, of Iraq’s population, leaving only 4.6 million Sunnis who more or less support the regime. That is 4.6 million, about the population of Hong Kong.

But a steady drumbeat of bellicose propaganda, pressure from powerful special interests thirsting to destroy Iraq, and election year politics have combined to stampede Congress and many Americans into believing this grotesque, Orwellian fiction.

Illustrating war fever in Washington and the growing irrationality of the White House, President Bush last week compared his impending jihad against Iraq to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, and himself to John F. Kennedy. I was in Washington during the Cuban crisis and vividly recall its drama and dangers. The Soviets had nuclear-tipped missiles ready to strike at the US. What the US faces with Iraq — which has no long-range missiles or other delivery systems for bulky chemical munitions or highly complex systems for dispensing germs — is nothing comparable. And George W. Bush is no John F. Kennedy.

Not content with this silly comparison, Bush went on to actually claim Iraq was poised to attack the United States using remotely piloted aircraft guided from Baghdad, a mere 13,000 kms away. Bush must have cribbed this preposterous fantasy from an old comic, ‘Dr Fu Manchu and His Drones of Death.’ In the mighty US, long-range drones are still in the testing stage. The claim that Iraq has perfected such sophisticated technology — which relies extensively on satellite guidance — and can remotely pilot an ancient crop duster from Baghdad to New York is laughable.

Some days ago, CIA Director George Tenet took the courageous step of publicly refuting Bush’s claim that Iraq was an imminent threat. Tenet’s unprecedented rebuke was a warning to America, but it also signalled the deep resentment felt in the US intelligence community over the way Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, and its American helpers, have become the White House’s primary source of decision-making information on Iraq, Palestine, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Tenet was immediately attacked and denounced by pro-Israel commentators, though a number of senior Israeli officers, including the head of military intelligence, have echoed Tenet’s assertions that there was no immediate risk from Iraq unless it is invaded.

Meanwhile, another revolt has erupted, this time in conservative ranks. A new magazine, ‘The American Conservative,’ was launched in Washington this month. Created by veteran politician Patrick Buchanan, columnist Taki, and former NY Post Editor Scott McConnell, the magazine features hard-hitting attacks by noted Republican theorist Kevin Phillips; Justin Raimondo, editor of the excellent web site, antiwar.com; and pieces by Buchanan, Peter Brimelow and this writer on Bush’s promotion of war psychosis and the corruption of the conservative movement.

Philips sums up the reasons for the rebellion, accusing the Bush administration of representing “the economics of privilege, the foreign policy of war, and the culture of guns and Sun Belt fundamentalism.” Phillips rightly blames the current melt-down of the US stock market on an “Enron-Armageddon fusion.” The Bush administration, writes Phillips, “mixes greed, inept economic management, business corruption, crony capitalism, triumphalist Pentagon sabre-rattling and Axis of Evil foreign policy theology on a scale that already boggles foreign commentators.”

Many traditional conservatives are now accusing neo-conservatives and Christian fundamentalists of having hijacked not only the conservative movement, but US foreign policy as well. Neo-conservatives are militant ideologists representing the views of Ariel Sharon’s far-right Likud Party in Israel.

These neo-cons view the world through the lens of what they deem is good for Israel and bad for its enemies and, accordingly, are pressing the US into a war against much of the Muslim world. In many ways, these war-lusting neo-cons are the mirror image of Osama bin Laden and his anti-western Al Qaeda movement. Both want an all-out clash of civilizations and religions.

It’s harder to say what America’s conservative rebels represent: their views vary greatly from Buchanan-type neo-isolationists to European-style conservatives like myself who are strict with public finances but liberal on social issues. But the conservative rebels are united on one point: the burn Baghdad neo-cons and Sunbelt religious fanatics like odious Gerry Falwell do not speak for America’s mainstream conservatives.

True conservatives hark back to two leaders of great moral stature, honesty, and true patriotism, men who bore the American flag inside their hearts, not on their lapels: President Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater.

Sadly, the conservative revolt is probably too late. Rather than face a collapsing stock market and enraged voters, President Bush has chosen to distract them with a jolly little war against a nation that cannot effectively fight back.—Copyright: Eric S. Margolis, 2002.

Lula close to victory

IN his fourth attempt, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is close to winning the presidency of Brazil, the world’s eighth-largest economy. Lula took 46 percent of the vote in the first round of the election Sunday and is the clear favourite in the Oct. 27 runoff. Not bad for a man born in Brazil’s impoverished northeast who couldn’t attend high school and had to go to work at an early age to help support his family.

Lula rose to become the head of the metalworkers union and of the largest leftist political party in Latin America. He’s been friends with Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. But now he says he’s changed.

Can this socialist who says he has reinvented himself be trusted to govern the largest country in South America? Brazilians seem to believe he can, and they had better be right because his success matters _ not just to 170 million Brazilians but to other countries in the region and to the United States.

Mexico’s 1994 economic crisis reverberated throughout the hemisphere _ the so-called “tequila effect.” Argentina’s more recent economic woes spurred milder troubles across South America _ the “tango effect.” If Brazil’s economy goes south, with its $240-billion debt, the “samba effect” will create financial havoc worldwide.

Despite the debt, outgoing President Fernando Henrique Cardoso did a good job. He established a free-market economy in Brazil and his tight fiscal discipline reduced inflation to less than 10 percent from an absurd percentage ranging into the thousands. On his watch, new health programmes significantly drove down infant mortality. —Los Angeles Times

In search of

MCDOUGAL and I were playing gin rummy. He is a widower, so his wife couldn’t tell him what cards to hold.

He said to me, “I wish I could have a cold beer.”

“Why don’t you go into your fridge and get one?”

“If I had a woman and I said ‘please,’ she would get me a beer.”

“I guess so, but don’t count on it.”

“I need a woman in the worst way. I thought I could hack it alone, but after being married for 30 years, I need someone to share my September years.”

“I hear there are plenty women out there,” I said.

“She has to be very special.”

“What are your requirements?”

“She should be between 50 and 60, but she can be younger if she has a father complex.”

Then he said, “She should be divorced or widowed and should be able to pack and unpack me if we go on a trip.”

“The unpacking and packing will cut down the number of women applying,” I said.

“She has to laugh at my jokes even if she has heard them a hundred times before.”

“What colour hair?”

“Blonde or brunette — it doesn’t matter. Facelifts are welcome. Also, Botox is OK.”

“Would you go out on a blind date to find Mrs. Wonderful?”

“I would, but she must send me an unretouched photograph.”

“How do you feel about someone who enjoys good food and wine?”

“Of course. She must also be a good cook, but won’t serve me any really fattening desserts unless I’ve had a bad day.”

McDougal was warming up. “She must like movies, short walks, music, and small talk, particularly if it’s about me.”

Then he said, “Sex is optional, but I won’t make a big deal of it. It’s still better than not being able get a taxi in New York during rush hour.”

“In exchange, what will you do for her?”

“I will listen to all her stories, especially the ones about how badly she was treated by her former husband or husbands. And if she is in therapy we could exchange war stories about our psychiatrists.”

McDougal said, “I don’t want to get married again, but it would be nice if her children liked me. My friends say kids can screw up any relationship.”

“You can say that again.”

“I am a great gift giver. I love to buy all sorts presents to please someone. Not from Bulgari’s, but from the Little Jewel Shop, Macy’s, Filene’s Basement and Barnes and Noble, where I get 30 percent off.”

He added, “While I’m at it, I would prefer someone who doesn’t play the stock market or work for an accountant.

“I give compliments freely and if she really likes me, I will let her make the most important decisions, particularly when I’m watching a football game.”

I said, “You’ll have a stampede.”

He looked me right in the eye and said, “Gin.”—Dawn/Tribune Media Services

A sentimental journey

WE ‘lost’ our twin brother — East Pakistan — in December 1971. The events of this Greek tragedy are too dismal to recapitulate. It was a violent family quarrel. Thirty-one years on, we in the West who bear the cross of this loss hang our heads in shame at our stubbornness, wrong-headedness and lack of courage.

Why blame Yahya alone? It was a collective failure. We did not stand up to be counted when our army went on a rampage in the summer of 1971. The chauvinism that cost us united Pakistan still rules us. Bangladesh for the generation of today is some remote country — a lost relative — east of India. We are people without memory or remorse.

What follows below is an impressionistic account of a three-day visit to Dhaka — the first visit after thirty-three years. I returned impressed and happy to see a sequestered sibling marching ahead of us in many respects.

Like most of us I was under the impression that the freedom struggle of Bangladesh began after Yahya Khan (under threats from Z.A. Bhutto — “I shall break your legs”) postponed the inaugural session of the National Assembly due to meet in Dhaka in March 1971. Wrong. The perception in Bangladesh is that the genesis of the freedom struggle goes back to March 1948 when the Quaid declared to a stunned audience in Dhaka “that Urdu and Urdu alone will be the state language of Pakistan”.

It was like turning the mother out of the house by a pre-emptive regal order. The Quaid was in a poor state of health when he made this pronouncement; he had less than six months to live. Mortally ill and very fragile at the time he was susceptible to making mistakes. This human dimension only enhances my esteem for him.

Most Bangladeshis consider East Pakistan was a colony of the West. Economists in East and West Pakistan did their sums in ways that suited their constituencies to prove the other wrong. But what matters is not arithmetic but perceptions. No man is his brother’s keeper. We were the keepers of the national purse. This was a mistake. What was theirs, particularly foreign exchange, should have been kept with them.

The word confederation was anathema in the West. Yet in retrospect we can see that it was the only sensible way of retaining united Pakistan. This notion was at the heart of the Awami League’s six points. A single political unit in the West only made sense in the context of a confederation, in which the parallel lines of nationhood would meet by the trial and error of living together. We did not have the wisdom of China to have one country with two economies. Having our hands on the till, we denied the East of its rightful share.

An impressive sight to behold was the memorial to the 1971 freedom fighters (then wearing the shrouds of traitors) at Savar, a short distance from Dhaka. The centrepiece of the memorial is a rising series of triangular peaks in concrete. The structure is surrounded by numerous Oxford College-style grassy quadrangles with tiled brick pathways. The reflection pond is nursed by a rivulet. Simple, elegant and moving. Buried below each grassy quadrangle were the remains of several hundred freedom fighters. The grass on top will glisten forever for them.

An inscription in English informs the visitor of the memorial’s intent and purpose. The noteworthy feature is that there is no reference to Pakistan by name, only by implication. It struck me that the big controversy over here is “who lost East Pakistan”? The question is stood on its head. The real question is why the “East was forced to seek its freedom in blood and tears”.

When Bangladesh won its freedom in 1971 it was declared to be “an international basket case”. They did not reckon with the dedicated enterprise of some within the basket. Consider:

The population of East Pakistan in 1971 was plus 70 million vs. 63 million in the West. Today the tables are turned. We have a population of about 140 million vs. 128-130 million in Bangladesh. The growth rate in Bangladesh is said to be 1.6 per cent. It may take us another 5-7 years to achieve this figure.

The secret for this remarkable phenomenon lies in the empowerment of women in industry in urban and rural areas. At the time of independence Bangladesh inherited a dwindling jute industry. A world-class garment industry has since arisen employing largely women.

It was a sight to behold in the middle of Dhaka at factory closing hours: hundreds of working women, mostly without purdah or hijab, walking in confident steps, proud and erect, wearing shalwar kameez. A small vanity bag hanging from long shoulder straps seemed to be part of the standard attire.

Islamic extremism has been tempered by woman power. The mulla has been brought over to the side of family planning. The Islamists (Jamaat-i-Islami) are part of the Khaleda Zia government, but they are nowhere as powerful or bothersome as over here. The Bangladeshi mulla might even blossom as an agent of beneficial sociological change — perhaps the first of his kind in the Muslim world. Who knows?

The foreign exchange earnings of Bangladesh are on par or slightly below ours at nine million dollars. The taka has a slight edge over the rupee, indicating almost equal economic strength, if not in size and military power.

In micro credit for people, Bangladesh is the leader of the developing world. Apart from the famous Grameen Bank, Brac is the largest NGO in the world. It too provides micro credit, runs universities and banks, and provides mass education besides employing thousands of women in producing and selling an amazing product range from candles to coffee sets, designed attractively for export markets. Brac no longer depends on foreign aid.

If there is one Pakistani inheritance left in Bangladesh, it must surely be political instability and endemic corruption. Our interest in Bangladesh waned after 1971; we have a hazy sketch of its political developments. Mujibur Rahman’s career in some respects parallels Z.A. Bhutto’s in the West. Both tried to establish one-party political systems; denied press freedom and covered themselves with the trappings of dictatorship. Both lives ended in great tragedy. Both left a legacy of troubled political heritage for their respective nations. One has the impression that the degree of political polarization is somewhat greater in Bangladesh than in Pakistan.

The interventions of the army in Bangladesh again parallel the military seizures here, including carbon copy martial law orders. Ziaur Rahman is better remembered than Irshad, whose period in power witnessed spectacular development but pock-marked by mega corruption.

The endemic stand-offs between the two lady legatees of political power — Khaleda and Hasina — cast a shadow over Bangladesh. The personality clashes tend to go to absurd limits; for example, school history books get rewritten with each change of government. The convention of a neutral caretaker government before elections has proved quite successful and elections are free of major controversies — a convention worth emulating over here.

If the political scene is dismal because of polarization and corruption, the silver lining on the horizon is the general perception that military interventions are now less likely than before.

If politics is not the propellant of social and economic progress, what is? The top Bangladeshi bureaucrats from the Pakistan period had been selected according to the principle of merit. They had a better idea of the challenge faced by the new nation than most others. As trained administrators with a sense of deprivation at the hands of the West, they provided the organizational and planning backbone. In the post-independence period the creative abilities of talents unrecognized in the Pakistan period, came into play and produced results. This explains the creation and success of micro credit banks, women empowerment, the spectacular rise of the garment industry and the enormous success of NGOs.

The Bangladeshi intellectual is nationalistic, socially motivated, businesslike and idealistic. He has done a remarkable job where the government has failed. This enthusiasm perhaps seeps back to government from time to time. One of the most delightful developments I observed was that polythene shopper bags of all descriptions have been banned in Bangladesh. In place is a biodegradable light nylon net which holds just as well. When will our moribund environment ministry take notice?

The writer is a former member of the National Assembly of Pakistan.

News values

A THOUSAND or more human beings died last month in an awful accident, but chances are that unless you follow the news fairly closely you were hardly aware of it. A badly overloaded ferry went down in the West African country of Senegal. The death toll is uncertain because children under 5 travelled free and thus weren’t included in the count of passengers.

The disaster was reported around the world, including in The Washington Post, but mostly it was a story for the inside pages, the columns of “foreign briefs,” the news summaries. Most people in the United States never read or heard the awful details: that fishermen dived near the capsized boat and saw masses of struggling passengers, many trapped in air pockets, women clutching their children. (There were only 64 survivors.)

Why is much of the world so indifferent to this kind of tragedy? It has to do, of course, with distance, race, poverty and perhaps even with the absence of an interesting villain other than the government, which operated the ferry.—The Washington Post