GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: essay, winner

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: an essay— award winner



WHAT IS THIS ESSAY ABOUT?

This essay is being written to express my views about the so called global war on terror. I will explain here why I am against it in the present form; why it should change or stop; how it should be changed; and, what would be the likely effects of the proposed changes. I realize that the solutions suggested are simplistic and academic and theoretical or ideal and may not be practical. If the solutions were so easy, the problems would not exist in the first place. Hence, I present my views here under the assumption that I or someone else would have power to enforce the change suggested. [Such assumption is required as per the rules / guidelines of the contest for which this essay has been written].


1. WHAT IS THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR?


The name global war on terror is a misnomer. A global war should have the following characteristics:

a. It should be against terror worldwide, from an international perspective, not selective as per one country's limited and biased perspective.
b. It should have global support, including support of the UN.
c. It should have global benefits, not benefits centred towards an individual or a specific nation.

These points will be discussed in the next section. I simply state here that, in spite of its high sounding name, the so called global war on terror is not so. In actual practice, it is naked aggression by USA upon other countries in furtherance of its or its leaders’ own interests, which are hidden from the US public itself, the latter being too gullible and disinterested in facts, as long as easy, consumerist life goes on unhindered within US shores, unmindful of the cost to others or the rest of the world. What is worse, the real motives are not only hidden but are touted as: the Twin Towers; the Al Quaida; Islam; Saddam Husain; the non-existent WMD, etc. As a matter of fact, though USA / US President invaded Iraq on the ground that Saddam’s WMD endangered American security, Saddam’s only fault, in reality, was that he demanded payment for oil in Euros instead of dollars. This would have meant collapse of the artificially propped up US economy, as per reputed US economists [Dr. Krassimir Petrov: The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm].



2. WHY I AM AGAINST THE SO CALLED GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM?


The present so called global war on terror is a euphemism used by USA for its self-centred approach and for its reaction to the perceived harm to its perceived allegedly legitimate interests. It is not directed against worldwide terror. There are important centres of terrorism which are not only ignored but are even supported or abetted by USA. The foremost example is Pakistan, well known as the breeding ground for terrorism. Another example is the terrorist movement unleashed by LTTE in Sri Lanka. The former is supported and the latter ignored by the so called war on terrorism. The aggressive action of USA against Afghanistan and Iraq is widely believed to be rooted in its desire to have unhindered control and supply of oil. This is amply clear from an article contributed by Mr. Joseph Clifford to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from James Town, Rhode Island, USA. A copy of this article as retrieved from the internet is annexed as Annexure-A to this essay.

Furthermore, the so called global war on terror does not have support of either the UN or the international law. The attack on Afghanistan at least had the fig leaf of support through a UN resolution, howsoever flawed. Even this was lacking in case of Iraq.

The so called global war on terror is aimed not at global or universal benefit, but at benefit of mainly the US. It is now so obvious that this point need not be dwelt upon further.


3. WHY SHOULD THE SO CALLED GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM CHANGE?


In its present, US-driven form, the so called Global War on Terrorism must stop and must change its character radically. If this is not done, the following harmful consequences will ensue:

a. Its lopsided emphasis on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria etc., while ignoring or abetting Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, will never lead to abolition or even decrease in terrorism.

b. It is unjust and injustice breeds resistance and reaction. One terrorist or alleged terrorist killed in this so called war will give rise to ten more terrorists. This is already happening. UK has recently admitted that there are about 100,000 terrorists within its borders, all of them British citizens, born there.

c. It will lead to lot of bloodshed through polarization of the world into Islamic and Christian White segments, on the pattern of the so called ‘war of civilizations’.


d. It will ultimately lead to increased worldwide poverty, hunger, disease, environmental pollution and illiteracy, and will lead to strengthening of religious and communal fundamentalist forces.


4. HOW SHOULD THE SO CALLED GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM BE CHANGED?


There is no doubt that terrorism exists in the world to an alarming degree. So, war against terrorism must be waged and strengthened, but in a changed form. The ingredients of that changed form are as follows:

a. It should be spear-headed by the UN, not by the USA.

b. This makes it absolutely necessary that the UN should cease to be dominated by USA. Security Council reforms aimed at making it more broad based are a must.

c. The UN should urgently appoint an international commission to study in depth and report in a time bound manner about the problem and causes of terrorism in the world, and suggest a plan of action. The composition of the Commission should be broad based. It must include Afghanistan and Iraq. In the context of meaningful representation of Iraq, Saddam Husain should be spared death sentence.

d. As an immediate measure, US should withdraw from Iraq and should, out of its own funds, undo the destruction it has leashed upon Afghanistan and Iraq.


5. WHAT WOULD BE THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES?


The proposed changes are entirely democratic and can only have globally beneficial effects, some of which are listed below:

a. Hegemony of USA will be reduced.
b. UN will be strengthened and a new and better world order will be established.
c. The spectre of religion and culture based conflict will be reduced.
d. Terrorism will be reduced and governments will become more stable.
e. World poverty and inequality will be decreased.


*************************

SUGGESTED READING:


1. Dr. Krassimir Petrov: The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm].

2. Joseph Clifford: “It is the oil, stupid!" --http://www.mediamonitors.net/josephclifford2.html

3. "WAR POETRY--award winner" 

4. "USA AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN ISLAM" 

5. "THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE U.S. EMPIRE" 

*********

ANNEXURE

U.S.A. has only one mantra: 'National Interest'. This is obvious from the following article contributed by Mr. Joseph Clifford to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from James Town, Rhode Island, USA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“IT IS THE OIL, STUPID!" --BY JOSEPH CLIFFORD

The Russians got into their Vietnam right after we got out of ours? Isn't that strange?
We supported Bin Laden and the Taliban for years, and viewed them as freedom fighters against the Russians?
Isn't that strange?

As late as 1998 the US was paying the salary of every single Taliban official in Afghanistan?
Isn't that strange?

There is more oil and gas in the Caspian Sea area than in Saudi Arabia, but you need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get the oil out.
Isn't that strange?

UNOCAL, a giant American Oil conglomerate, wanted to build a 1000 mile long pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea.
Isn't that strange?

UNOCAL spent $10,000,000,000 on geological surveys for pipeline construction, and very nicely courted the Taliban for their support
in allowing the construction to begin.
Isn't that strange?

All of the leading Taliban officials were in Texas negotiating with UNOCAL in 1998.
Isn't that strange?

1998-1999 the Taliban changed its mind and threw UNOCAL out of the country and awarded the pipeline project to a company from Argentina.
Isn't that strange?

John Maresca VP of UNOCAL testified before Congress and said no pipeline until the Taliban was gone and a more friendly government was
established.
Isn't that strange?

1999-2000 The Taliban became the most evil people in the world.
Isn't that strange?

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would
go ahead by the middle of October.
Isn't that strange?

9/11 WTC disaster. Bush goes to war against Afghanistan even though none of the hijackers came from Afghanistan.
Isn't that strange?

Bush blamed Bin Laden but has never offered any proof saying it's a "secret".
Isn't that strange?

Taliban offered to negotiate to turn over Bin Laden if we showed them some proof. We refused; we bombed.
Isn't that strange?

Bush said: "This is not about nation building. It's about getting the terrorists."
Isn't that strange?

We have a new government in Afghanistan.
Isn't that strange?

The leader of that government formerly worked for UNOCAL.
Isn't that strange?

Bush appoints a special envoy to represent the US to deal with that new government, who formerly was the "chief consultant to UNOCAL".
Isn't that strange?

The Bush family acquired their wealth through oil?
Isn't that strange?

Bush's Secretary of Interior was the President of an oil company before going to Washington.
Isn't that strange?

George Bush Sr. now works with the "Carlysle Group" specializing in huge oil investments around the world.
Isn't that strange?

Condoleezza Rice worked for Chevron before going to Washington. Isn't that strange?

Chevron named one of its newest "supertankers" after Condoleezza.
Isn't thatstrange?

Dick Cheney worked for the giant oil conglomerate Haliburton before becoming VP.
Isn't that strange?

Haliburton gave Cheney $34,000,000 (?) as a farewell gift when he left Haliburton.
Isn't that strange?

Haliburton is in the pipeline construction business.
Isn't that strange?

There is $6 Trillion dollars worth of oil in the Caspian Sea area.
Isn't that strange?

The US government quietly announces Jan 31, 2002 we will support the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline.
Isn't that strange?

President Musharref (Pakistan), and Karrzai, (Afghanistan -Unocal)announce agreement to build proposed gas pipeline from Central Asia to
Pakistan via Afghanistan. (Irish Times 02/10/02)
Isn't that strange?

'It's the Oil, Stupid!", Mr. Joseph Clifford contributed above article to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from James Town, Rhode Island, USA

*******************************
* Awarded Second Prize in "Invalid Item" , “Where is the Debate? Contest!”.


• Initially written as enytry no. 468255 in the book WAR POETRY, "WAR POETRY--award winner" . Posted as the present item on 23 May 2007.


M C Gupta
12 November 2006