The strident anti-US positions taken by Arundhati Roy and others of her ilk in the wake of the September 11 attacks betray a great ignorance of what the US stands for -- and the terrorists stand against. Her eloquence and passion notwithstanding, Ms Roy's essays make sweeping judgements that do not stand up to critical scrutiny.

(This is the third of a five-part series on anti-US critics by two readers of TheNewspaperToday. We will continue to showcase thought-provoking work by our readers -- Executive Editor)

ON AGGRESSION, RETALIATION, AND FAVOURITISM

Historical data has shown that the US government has taken its need to preserve its interests too far in some situations, without exercising better judgment as to what is appropriate for achieving short term goals while remaining consistent with its long-term objectives. Sacrificing long-term peace or democracy for short-term benefits, especially through the use of force, is clearly not a very sensible strategy for a country that would like to be remembered as a torch-bearer of democracy, peace and human rights. Examples include support for non-democratic governments (going against the United States' long-term goals) to achieve short-term goals of supporting those governments against attacks or threats from suspected communist or extremist forces. Clearly Cold War or anti-Communist fears have been pervasive in the US in the past, but the US has to learn from democratic countries (e.g., India) where Communism-oriented groups and citizens have coexisted peacefully for decades alongside pro-Capitalist groups, with a free press. In this post-Cold War era, the US has to focus on understanding and addressing the reasons why interest in communism prevails, and not be agitated by those who propagate communism or even distort its original intent.

At the same time, glossed-over, blanket statements simply deriding the positions of the United States on war and conflicts reflect a poor understanding of the nature of the latter, and the lack of critical thinking that is required to solve a problem that is a most undesirable characteristic of the human race. While Ms Roy conveniently points out the list of countries the United States has supposedly "bombed" or been at war "with", she makes no effort whatsoever to examine whether the US really was at war with or for some of those states, nor does she point out the contexts of those conflicts. Her views, which are unfortunately so trite to the point of sounding tiresome, also conveniently ignore the fundamental underpinnings of the conflicts.

To use an analogy, parents often love their children more than they love others' children - that is not a crime. It is not only human nature, but also often a constraint imposed by our ability to care in a finite way. If a parent has two arms to use and wants to lift some children to safety she can save maybe 1-2 children at a time. Human nature is such that we usually try to reach out at least to our own children - again, not something we need to feel ashamed about. It is also not unusual to try to move heaven and earth to protect or save one's loved ones (whether it be children, relatives, or friends) who are either feared to be or in danger.

However, when the above fundamental human behaviour is placed in the context of the United States' tendency to try and protect its own citizens and interests, the latter is considered bullying by an intolerable, "pathologically meddlesome, promiscuous government" whereas the former would be considered an individual's right to protect that which is valuable to him or her. We are yet to hear of ANY nation that does not try its best to protect its own interests, whatever those interests are or wherever they may be located in the world. The fact that the United States is able to summon the resources to do what other nations may be unwilling or unable to do but would do if they could, is not grounds for calling that behavior disagreeable, if the US does not commit unprovoked acts of aggression. To the best of our knowledge, "aggression" is a term that usually refers to unprovoked hostile acts.

Ironically, the United States' willingness to step in and "help" (sensibly or in misguided fashion) has made other countries (or groups) turn to it "pathologically" for help in the case of national or state emergencies. The latter has been summed up in a concise manner by Ms Roy as "(the US upholding) the freedom to dominate, humiliate and subjugate - usually in the service of America's real religion, the 'free market'". Thus, the provider of a "service" (whatever that "service" might be) is conveniently blamed while basically excluding the widespread "receivers", "purchasers" or "requestors" from the primary responsibility. (Ms Roy's suggestion that the US is trying to "place an order for Democracy - with extra cheese and jalapeno peppers", is self-contradictory considering she flayed the US already for not really caring for democracy outside its borders.)

Unless we missed something obvious in her remarks, we are led to understand that all other nations that even bother to help any others (financially, militarily or otherwise) simply do so for their own self-destruction OR because they are simply dripping with altruism, as opposed to also thinking about potential benefits for themselves as they help others. Perhaps other nations which offer aid to fellow nations are so rich and self-sufficient that they do so simply because they would prefer to run down their own nation's resources and finances in the name of friendship, and to the detriment of their own needy citizens who have nothing really to complain about.

Yet others have pointed out how the United States plays "favorites" in choosing its partners or recipients for aid or support. This of course assumes that the United States is the grand-daddy that is compelled by another Universal Law (#4) to dole out its aid, support or help to all nations in the world and all groups within those nations in equal amounts or simply on-demand. A Law that also states that all groups and nations in the world are ENTITLED to such support simply because of the fact that they EXIST on this planet (regardless of their past or present attitudes, behaviors, philosophies, and/or political affiliations, especially vis-à-vis the United States). Of course, it also does not matter if one of the favorite pastimes of the citizens or governments of those nations or groups is to bash the people or government of the U.S. or to align themselves with other countries that the U.S. does not consider an ally. Naturally, by this Law, all countries in the world other than the United States have a right to pick their allies, support whoever they want in whatever they do, per their own needs, whereas the United States should make everyone their allies and support everyone on-demand, playing no "favourites".

To be sure, if the US holds to the position that it is interested in propagating democracy worldwide, then it must ensure that all its actions are aimed at fostering democracy (in the long-term). Certainly, the U.S. responses to calls for help in the past could have been tempered with better judgment over the years. Indeed, not only have citizens from across the world made it clear to the U.S. when it has made mistakes or done wrong, but American citizens and the American press have also done so on many occasions.

However, in most of the anti-US rhetoric, the fact is conveniently forgotten that US military intervention since WWII in many nations was almost entirely either provoked or a response to a request for help from one or more of the entities participating in a war or conflict. Presumably Ms Roy forgot to point that out in her list of countries with whom she claims the US was at war with and bombed. For example, in China in 1945-46 the US forces actually helped in expelling Japanese who had invaded China. On the other hand, in 1948-49, US forces were sent to China to protect the American Embassy and American citizens when the country started falling into Communist hands. In 1950-55, the Seventh Fleet of the US Navy was dispatched to protect Formosa (Taiwan) from Communist troops. In the Korean War (1950-53), the US sent troops to assist South Korea in battling an invasion by North Korea. In 1954, the US (living with its Cold War fears) assisted (irrationally or otherwise) in the overthrow of the government in Guatemala, owing to the fear that the communist party had gained significant influence there. Following this coup, the US allied itself to successive Guatemalan governments.

In the 1960s, a movement with ties to Cuba emerged in Guatemala and carried out violent attacks, including the 1968 assassination of the U.S. ambassador, and the U.S. provided counter-insurgency forces to the Guatemalan government. The Cuban missile crisis and the US response to that in the early 60s is well known. Again, we have seen some ridicule that situation and ask how Cuba could ever have been a threat to the United States. To the ridiculers, we would just ask if they would have ever predicted that terrorists with low-tech weapons could have infiltrated the US and wreaked the kind of havoc they did on Sep 11 using U.S. aircraft, let alone using ICBMs. In Grenada in 1983, US Marines and Army airborne troops were sent to protect lives and assist in the restoration of law and order and at the request of five members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. And so on.

We can certainly cite cases where the US made mistakes (especially in response to fears about Communist infiltration) - such as in Vietnam - but the point is that US intervention has not had the one-sided tilt that Ms. Roy has portrayed. Most importantly, let us not forget that US military supplies don't just get thrust down one's throats - they are obtained upon willful request by people/countries who know what they are doing. One way to stop the weapons flow is to ensure one does not ask for weapons. If the allegation today is that the US has armed most countries around the globe, what that tells us, among other things, is that a large number of countries are hungry for weapons. Weapons usually don't magically appear inside a country's inventory. That says something of the supposed innocence of the world community outside of the United States. Moreover, if US military interference or intervention in any country is reported by the "free" press, then it is imperative that US humanitarian, economic, food, health, environmental and/or emergency aid to the same country also be pointed out in all fairness. Perhaps Ms. Roy's interpretation of "free" means "one-sided" - in which case she can claim to be no different than the American "free" press she flays. Ultimately, one can always borrow the tact of the Taliban or Mr bin Laden or Mr Saddam Hussain and provide a one-sided view of every conflict in the world and blame every war or every mistake that occurred in their countries to US intervention, but this is not what objective historians would find comforting. Nevertheless, we will try hard to keep in our memory how the rest of the world and its citizens have such an illustrious history of not only fostering great peace, tolerance and gentleness (within their borders and outside), but also of successively electing or propagating great leaders with superb integrity and constant drive for peace, harmony, democracy, non-violence, income equality, and US-avoidance.

Our comments would not be complete without addressing the latest salvo on the US from Ms. Roy, that Afghanistan was already "back to the Stone age" before the US attacks started there recently, with "America [having] played no small part in helping it on its way" (during the Cold War). Thus, the US arming the "Mujahideen" to help them fight the invading former USSR is now blamed for everything in Afghanistan. Little does it matter that the former USSR had invaded Afghanistan - for presumably the Afghans could have run peaceful non-violent protest rallies for a long time to come considering their peaceful legacy and how well that approach was expected to work against Communist regimes. In this view, it also matters NOT (a) if the Afghans were oppressed and subjugated by the former U.S.S.R., (b) what else the former U.S.S.R. would have done then in Asia, and (c) that it was the Afghans who gleefully took advantage of U.S. help. Actually, maybe we are wrong in the last part there.

As we are given to understand by Ms. Roy, the Afghans were actually oppressed by the US and forced to accept billions of dollars in weaponry for no reason other than the facts that:

(1) the United States wanted to have Afghans in Afghanistan rather than the USSR, because they did not really care for the Afghans (yes, the statement is correct as it reads for it conveys the conclusion drawn by Ms Roy),

(2) the poor and innocent Afghans had no knowledge of where the money came from,

(3) money and weapons were thrust down their throats (from a country they did not know of) and they felt it would be against God's will to not fight the former USSR under those circumstances, and

(4) those of the "Mujahideen" who morphed into the Taliban did so because they were forcibly directed by the US to turn into human-rights violators and murdering terrorists a few years down the line.

Naturally, Ms. Roy should be happy if we also celebrated the "love" some of the "innocent" Afghans showed each other in the civil wars preceding the Taliban takeover. Not that any of that is relevant today - the bottom line is that we know *who exactly* to blame for what Afghanistan is today and it is so obviously not the Afghans or the former USSR Universal Law #1 is thus "algebraically" proved yet again.

Read More
» Constructive suggestions needed, not senseless critique