The USA is currently at war with two of the poorest countries in the world. Afganistan and Iraq. You might think Iraq's oil wealth makes it a rich country, but you're wrong. It only makes it a potentially rich country.
If you pay any attention at all to the television coverage you'll see broken buildings, rubble, pretty shabby neighborhoods going on and on. You won't see glitzy buildings, or lovely highways, or gardens. That stuff got obliterated over years of fighting.
When George W. invaded, Iraq was less of a threat to the USA than any of its neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, even Syria. Today, Al Qaeda uses Iraq as a kind of bootcamp. Iraq serves to justify all anti-crusader plots elsewhere. And enmity is easy to find, easy to justify. How would you feel if your country was a war zone, and the main difference between the present and the past is an occupying force and a war that just won't go away? Would you feel liberated? If your family was wiped out, would you feel grateful to the soldiers and their M16's, who worship a different God, speak a different tongue, and everyday launch more operations aimed at wiping out more people like yourself?
Isn't it ironic that one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world is fighting some of the most vulnerable and poor people? Will we ever see America invade a country like China, or Pakistan, or North Korea? North Korea is possibly the poorest, so the most likely target. But as for the other two, these countries are not poor. They're able to buy weapons from America for their defence.
It's a common perception, and in this case the perception matches the reality, that in South Africa, the poor people inevitably end up falling into the criminal element in the country. I can guarantee, that if tomorrow someone takes your job away, and you lose your house and car, and your resume becomes obsolete, you will, sooner or later, contemplate stealing apples off the nearest orchard, or bread from the nearest bakery. The hungry and the poor have little to lose. And why should they respect or love the rich, who pay them no attention, who offer no reprieve, who in fact, often prey on their poverty by paying them very low wages, and doing little or nothing to help them.
The correct response to 9/11 was not to launch a war on terrorism, it would have been to say, 'So who hates us and why?'
Not to say, 'These people are madmen, let's kill them.'
If you have a family, and one member has already been assaulted or injured, say by a gang, or a distant relative, doesn't it make sense to figure out what is motivating the behaviour. You run a terrible risk doing what works in movies, but not in real life. An eye for an eye, in the end, it's no surprise, everyone goes blind.
And in a world with nuclear weapons, it's just not very clever to play the tough guy, to steamroll over everyone, to swagger and posture, and to say, "When I ask for an opinion I'll give you one."
Poverty, in the end, is everybodies problem. Criminality is just one of the symptoms. Terrorism, is the most extreme. People are tired of suffering. Tired of struggling. Civilisation can be measured by how we take care of our weak. By that measurement, few countries can call themselves civilised, and few civilians in these selfish systems can call themselves truly decent today.
At U.N., Bush Links War on Terrorism to Anti-Poverty Efforts
President Tells World Leaders That U.S. Shares 'a Moral Duty' to Combat Root Causes of Resentment, Violence
By Peter Baker and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 15, 2005; Page A08
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 14 -- President Bush, reaching out to an audience he has antagonized in the past, told the assembled leaders of the world Wednesday that the United States shared "a moral duty" to combat not only terrorism but also the poverty, oppression and hopelessness that give rise to it.
Addressing the United Nations, Bush linked his campaign against terrorism to the anti-poverty agenda advanced by other nations, although he shied away from adopting some of the specific commitments sought by allies. He later took the U.S. seat at the Security Council for the first time in his presidency to emphasize his solidarity with other countries in the struggle against terrorism.
No comments:
Post a Comment