Iraq

Communalism

US Imperialism

Peak Oil

Globalisation

WSF In India

Humanrights

Economy

India-pak

Kashmir

Palestine

Environment

Gujarat Pogrom

Gender/Feminism

Dalit/Adivasi

Arts/Culture

Archives

Links

Join Mailing List

Submit Articles

Contact Us

 

Who Are The Terrorists?

By Muslehuddin Ahmad

The Daily Star
21 November, 2003

About a dozen American soldiers in Baghdad kick-opened a family door at dead of night and grabbed a young woman by her night dress from shoulder top while she was screaming and running to the other room amid terrifying situation where other elderly women and children were crying helplessly. This is what one could see in BBC TV screen during its World News in the night of November 13 (Bangladesh Time). Similar Gestapo-Israeli style of searches for so-called terrorists under US "Operation Iron Hammer" in Iraq were seen before also. But certainly this was another worst kind of action by the American forces when Bush and Blair were claiming to have liberated Iraqi people. Let the conscious world be a witness to this worst type of violation of human rights, which indeed amounts to terrorism against the helpless women and children.

The occupying power is terming the Iraqi resistance forces as terrorists, but these resistance forces obviously see the American forces as terrorists on their soil. Indeed, in several open interviews by the BBC and CNN, ordinary Iraqis openly asked American forces to leave Iraq immediately. As far as we know, under any international law and also under the law of Almighty God revealed through His Scriptures -- Tourat (Tora) through Prophet Moses, Ingeel (original Bible) through Prophet Isa (Jesus Christ) and the Qu'oran through Prophet Mohammad, any occupation of someone's legitimate home by some illegal and illegitimate elements is wrong and obviously must be resisted. This is the legitimate right of the occupied one to fight back till he recovers his Home. Whether one calls it a Jihad or occupation resistance, it matters very little. The fact remains that the fight would certainly go on until the occupiers are thrown out. This is what is going on in Iraq. But the occupiers would obviously call such resistance forces as terrorists, but the world should accept what is right and lawful.


In the name of so-called democracy one cannot go and occupy somebody else's home. Who has given the right to a country or countries to go and forcibly impose its/their democracy on other people? The occupier's democracy may be totally unacceptable and indeed unsuitable for those who are under occupation as they might be belonging to different culture and environment. There is no particular set of democracy that all people of the world uniformly follow. Each country follows its own brand based on its constitution. The whole world does not follow American brand of democracy where the president is finally declared elected by the court! What is important is whether the people of that country enjoy the freedom that is legitimate and necessary to lead their ordinary life (to enjoy the freedom to have gay marriage and appoint openly gay Bishop is no freedom at all and cannot fall under any democratic norm in many countries and societies around the world). If not, the people themselves shall have the right and the option to bring in necessary changes. The others, if necessary, may render help in a civilized way, but not the way Bush-Blair have done it in Iraq.


Time has come to look seriously into these anomalies while some countries try to promote their own brand of democracy in others' territories. When the occupying country itself suffers from serious anomalies while practicing democracy what right does it have to teach democracy to another people and that also by destroying a country and snatching away its sovereignty. One gets baffled to even imagine that such a disastrous thing could be carried out by one of the most democratic countries of the world in the 21st century.

President Bush Said Saddam was a dangerous man and so he had to be dealt with. Interestingly, London mayor Ken Livingstone called Bush " the most dangerous man on the planet.." One does not know who would deal with Bush. Obviously, it should be the people of the United States. It's not far off. So far as Saddam is concerned he had been quiet for about 12 long years. He had no connection with 9/11 (ref Condoleezza Rice's statement in CNN.). He had no weapons of mass destruction. Hundreds of weapons experts from the US and the UK ploughed Iraqi desert for months but found nothing. Therefore, the American people and many in the US Congress were right in saying that Bush lied to the American people. If Saddam had no connection with 9/11, no WMD, then how was he a dangerous man? Saddam's earlier "danger" was taken care of by Bush Sr. After the Gulf war Saddam was left in his place for very good reasons. But Bush Jr fell into Cheney-Rumsfeld axis for different reasons -- oil, Israel and American supremacy etc. American supremacy is a given fact in the present day world. America does not have to go on telling the world about it as Regan said -- we stand tall. The world sees the "tall man" , he does not have to remind the world about it. More he reminds, dwarf he becomes to the people.

President Bush said he wanted to make America safe and secure. This is undoubtedly his primary duty as the president of the USA. But has he been able to do so? The facts on the ground say the opposite. Nine/eleven led to the death of thousands of Afghans. But Bin Laden is still alive and reportedly directing attacks against America. Hundreds of Iraqis were killed but Saddam is still alive and reportedly asking Iraqis to fight back and they are really fighting back. Full scale guerilla war is on. Some of us warned about the guerilla war even before the Iraq invasion was undertaken. American soldiers are being killed everyday. Three blackhawk helicopters were brought down within a week by Iraqi hostile fire killing 39 Americans. Even Rumsfeld now says the situation is now dangerous there. Both American and Italians have been mourning the dead. President Bush said these lives were sacrificed for the cause of freedom. These words really gave no comfort to the victims' families; they have lost their loved ones.


Bush Administration was forced to change its strategy on Iraq and agreed to hand over power by June next year. Presidential candidate Wesley Clark said -- 'no need to wait till June, power should be transferred tomorrow.' But it is not going to happen. The result would be that America would have to count more dead.

The honourable and meaningful exit strategy for American Administration is to hand over Iraq to the UN. This is what we suggested before. Once the occupying forces leave Iraq and the UN peacekeepers take over under full UN mandate, relative calm is likely to return soon. Thereafter the UN may form the interim government under its care through some form of nomination from different tribal and ethnic groups (ref. my brief proposal given in my earlier comment) on proportionate basis. Such a government may exercise the sovereign power and authority.


There is a possibility that the America would have to quit Iraq under compelling circumstances and also under public pressure from both within and outside America. If the UN peace keepers are not in place in Iraq, the resultant vacuum might lead to some sort of civil and tribal war and reemergence of Saddam and his cronies. This would mean total disaster not only for America but also for the Iraqis.


Muslehuddin Ahmad, a former Secretary and Ambassador, is presently the Vice Chancellor of Presidency University.