ON HUMANITARIANISM: For plunder, look elsewhere

The U.S. can certainly not claim it is a "peaceful" nation by any stretch of the imagination, as history has shown us from the point of view of either wars or weapons sales. Indeed, it is well known that human rights violations in other countries have happened under the nose of the United States (sometimes with misguided and unethical U.S. training and military support) especially in the Cold War days. However, effectively blaming the United States for the anti-civilian acts of numerous dictators and ethnic cleansers over the past decades focuses little attention to the root cause of the problem - i.e., the intrinsic tendency for hate or cruelty present in many individuals or people across the globe. The sustained blame on the U.S. as the root cause of most global conflicts (recalling Universal Law #1) is about as appropriate as naming Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic and Osama bin Laden as ideal candidates for a Nobel Peace Prizes.

If there is one thing WWII and beyond showed, it was that many countries reduced to rubble (or "dust") by the Allied coalition (and the Axis powers) were able to successfully regenerate and grow. To a great extent this was also made possible by the United States' Marshall Plan. The U.S. even played a significant role in providing assistance to Japan (which is today the world's second largest economy), which had finally provoked the U.S. into entering WWII by killing a couple thousand or so Americans at Pearl Harbor. This provides evidence for the fact that the United States and its people have not been shy of providing support even to their past "enemies" to the extent of bringing their economies and people up substantially after wars or conflicts. And the people in many of these countries also once subjected to years of war and destruction showed that they were able to overcome past enmities and restore vitality to their countries and economies, rather than simply complain endlessly like *some others*. That fact, and the underlying reasons for it (which the "free" press of those countries seems to largely have selective amnesia about, with notable exceptions like Al Jazeera), should give critics at least some pause.

States like Iraq, Afghanistan, and what-not, or their citizens, can continue to go blue in the face blaming the U.S. for the state of their lives. This does not change the fact that other countries that have faced in a shorter time-frame vastly heavier casualties (hundreds of thousands to millions) and destruction inflicted by the U.S. or its allies in WWII are not all sitting around in misery bemoaning their lot. Nor are the Jews who were slaughtered during WWII by the Germans. Citizens from countries that suffered U.S. bombardment in WWII could easily have adopted the convenient policy of blaming their lot on the U.S. and remained till today a miserably unhappy people who make their living issuing fatwahs or edicts against the U.S. and its citizens. (Indeed, Indians could have sat back and blamed the U.K. for all of India's current plights stating (accurately) how the U.K. plundered and suppressed India for decades. Perhaps anti-war Indians could have even blamed the U.S. for decimating Japan in WWII since they may have preferred that Japan enter India from South-East Asia and rule it. That would certainly have been a good opportunity to display non-violence and run regular protests against the Japanese Army at that time.) The last time we looked, we didn't see anyone doing that.

Various countries and their citizens not only bounced back from WWII (partly with aid from the U.S. and/or largely through their own conviction and persistence), but have friendly political, social and economic relations with the U.S. today. What is more important is that these countries, as well as others that may or may not be U.S. allies, are also able to consistently challenge the U.S. economically, politically, or otherwise, on a myriad of issues facing this planet. A recent example that comes to mind is how the United States was booted out of membership of the U.N. Human Rights Commission with speculations running high that this may be a rebuke for increased U.S. unilateralism this past year on key issues facing the United Nations. (Some of these issues and attendant U.S. responsibilities will be addressed in a subsequent article). Thus, many countries have found ways to criticize or negotiate with the U.S. without having to resort to blaming the U.S. for all their past or present problems. That certainly calls for some *real* introspection on the part of anyone who would like to lay all blame squarely at the feet of the U.S. for the plight of the Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghanis, or anyone else. For all we know, Operation "Enduring Freedom" might as well be considered the initial response to Operation "Enduring Blame".

As an aside, we would like Ms. Roy to point out all the dictators, tyrants and ethnic cleansers - whom she effortlessly and unambiguously equates with the United States - who, over time: (a) demonstrated that they would not mount campaigns to overrun other nations, (b) withdrew from the countries that they fought against, (c) provided post-war (and sometimes even wartime) assistance for economic and/or social recovery for those former enemies (even if not to the degree that the U.S. has done) and, (d) made all possible efforts to establish continued friendly relations with the people in those countries, including accepting citizens or refugees from those countries as immigrants routinely.

Presumably Ms. Roy was trying to be incisive in pointing out how U.S. citizens may have felt if the Taliban dropped rations in New York after or during the Sep 11 attack. In imagining this scenario, let us set aside the fact that the U.S. is after military targets (granted with non-100% accuracy) and dropped rations for civilians, while Mr. bin Laden and company killed civilians thereby leaving them with no appetite to eat any of the rations they might have hypothetically dropped. We CHALLENGE the Taliban or anyone else waiting to wipe out Americans from the face of this earth to drop rations or show ANY significant sign of goodwill to the United States while being at conflict with the United States! We would say to Ms. Roy and her supporters, stop talking and start rallying the obvious goodwill present for U.S. civilians amongst all those people who are waiting to blast the U.S. Government into oblivion. The fact of the matter is U.S. haters such as the Taliban and their supporters consider no American citizens innocent civilians - all Americans are evil "infidels", in those eyes. However, American citizens innately have the capacity, contrary to Ms. Roy's opinion, of separating ethnic cleansers, dictators, and tyrants from the people subjugated by them, even if that is not necessarily warranted.

Let us not forget that we also have to digest the so-called fact that the people in Afghanistan played no role in giving rise to the Taliban and that they are therefore exempt completely from any atrocities committed by their Government. Whereas it is fully acceptable to propagate the rants of anyone in Afghanistan (or thereabouts) that U.S. citizens are fully responsible for all atrocities committed by their Government and are therefore very good targets for the next terrorist attack. It would probably help if Ms. Roy re-clarified her stand on this situation: are American citizens really innocent civilians (perhaps like the "innocent" citizens of the countries that the U.S. is at war with), or are they not? This has to be answered without any influence of post Sep-11 pity. We would also ask Ms. Roy to rally the various nations in the world that have accepted U.S. wartime or post-war aid while remaining vehement U.S. haters or cultivating such haters, to now return that aid, to keep her conclusions consistent that the U.S. is no different from other "terrorist states".

Moreover, it must be asked what Ms. Roy would consider genuine evidence of concern for innocent civilians (humanitarianism) other than a complete stop to all retaliation in Afghanistan. As much as Ms. Roy can conveniently attribute U.S. "goodwill" ($320 million additional funds for humanitarian aid since Sep. 11) as a horrible public relations ploy (ignoring all evidence from the past and the coalition building efforts even in the Middle-East), we challenge that assertion by pointing out that if the goodwill allows a few thousand people even one more meal, that is a thousand or more meals better than many U.S. haters or certain "spiritual leaders" even bothered to provide for the suffering Afghans they like to talk about (and whom they care so immensely about). Then there are all those countries across the world whose effusively *caring* citizens are so outraged by the U.S. attacks in Afghanistan that the shock has made them unable to convince their Governments to distribute funds they have received from the U.S. to their needy counterparts in Afghanistan. Of course we should excuse those of them who are very busy protesting (praising Mr. bin Laden or the Taliban), writing hate messages or running to help the Taliban (who subjugated the innocent Afghans that those "caring" people claim to support).

Finally, what of those politically astute aid workers Ms. Roy refers to who also consider air-dropped rations being a dangerous public relations ploy since some of these rations presumably fell in areas filled with land mines? Mines, which were planted by Afghans to resist Soviet invasion, and which are now used by some as another black mark against the United States, which unfortunately helped Afghanistan back then! We humbly submit these aid workers should either not complain about lack of rations or find other donors, or better still, find ways to use all rations that are accessible and provide constructive feedback to the United States on where rations are best dropped (like some agencies have done). In essence they have to make up their minds if their goal is to get more rations or to stop further rations by condemnation of the air drops through their public relations channels. We seriously doubt that the latter is what they are in their jobs for. For completeness we must note that there are some like Mr. Chomsky who seem to be upset by halts in the U.S. air drops of food. Let's see now - dropping food is a crime against humanity. Not dropping food is also a crime against humanity.

ON RESPONSIBILITY FOR WAR: It's certainly not 'algebraic'

People like Ms. Roy would like us to believe that it is the countries that really fight wars and people who get killed. Such a simplistic view completely ignores the fact that tyrants, ethnic cleansers, dictators (or just plain "leaders") arise from the people. Such "leaders" are propped up by (at least a section of) the same people until they (sometimes, but not always) realize it was bad judgment to support such so-called "leaders". Can we deny that human beings propagate xenophobia, religious hatred or genocide by first electing "leaders" who represent their principles, and who later become monsters? When things go terribly awry, the all-knowing "intelligentsia" begin to extol the virtues of those innocent, powerless citizens and how they had no hand in bringing this fate upon themselves. This is not to say that ALL citizens of countries that have dictators or ethnic cleansers are responsible for the presence of such "leaders" - clearly that is an incorrect oversimplification. It is however not easy to accept the view that ordinary citizens play no role in the rise of "leaders" who then commit hideous crimes or human rights violations. Perhaps Ms. Roy would like to ask herself if a dictator or ethnic cleanser or tyrant would even emerge from within a society if all the citizens of that society are inherently tolerant, peace-loving and accepting of each other's beliefs and rights?

The finality of it all is that the U.S. will end up facing one of the following criticisms regardless of what its foreign policy is. If the U.S. supported a popular "uprising" against an incumbent Communist-leaning or extremist Government, then it will be accused of state-sponsored terrorism and interference in the internal affairs of another nation. If it supported an incumbent dictatorial Government against a popular Communist-leaning "uprising" then it will be accused of participating in gross human rights violations and state sponsored terrorism, and interference in the internal affairs of another nation. If the U.S. remained neutral, and massive human rights violations or killings occurred in a certain country, the media would likely be agog with insightful commentary from "intellectuals" and others on how the U.S. was guilty of grossly violating human rights by looking on passively when atrocities occurred, or by causing atrocities to have occurred by its past negligence. It is always easy to be the Bad or the Ugly, but never the Good. Thus we prove again, from a different "algebraic" route, Universal Law #1.

The bottom line for the U.S. is that peace and democracy are much better options to support in the long-term. Business interests (like oil) are temporal but relationships are permanent (and will drive future business). We can always develop alternative energy sources, but it is much harder to summon up the costs for destroyed relationships or terrorism.

-TR/KK

PART I
» Enduring Blames: Uncle Sam & The Goddess of Big Tirades