It seems that America’s image as "the land of the free" doesn’t appeal to George Bush. Obviously he’s jealous of the way Third World governments are able to behave. Plus who wants to defend freedom when power seems so deliciously pampering? Why not try some of the methods practiced in other parts of the world? If someone says here that the American government has always presented itself as the protector of human rights and democracy in the world, my only answer would be that doing the same thing over and over becomes boring and the desire for change becomes very tempting. So while Bush tries his hand at new laws and rules that make life next to impossible to all "non-citizens" in America, one wonders how much of the original picture of the US, defender of human rights and democracy, will remain after the war on terrorism is over.
Newsweek carried an alarming story this week about Middle Eastern men held in US prisons. The vast majority of these people were held for nothing more serious than immigration violations. They were treated badly by police and cellmates. The Newsweek report says, "Some of the 1,200 men swept up in the FBI’s dragnet since Sept. 11 feel as though they might as well have been sent to a Third World dungeon."
Bush said to a group of US attorneys, "We are saying, ‘Welcome to America. You have come to our country: Why don’t you help make it safe?’" A very valid request indeed — but how can Bush ask for the help of non-Americans if they always appear on the lists of suspects and are not accorded the same rights as American citizens? I guess the only solution would be for everyone to stay in his own country because the "land of opportunity" has closed its doors to other nationalities.
It is ironic that during his presidential campaign, Bush promised to end the Clinton administration’s practice of using "secret evidence" against suspected terrorists but as James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute, commented, "They promised to do away with secret evidence — and they did. The only thing is they’ve replaced it with no evidence."
But we must not despair as it is not good for our health. Last week, agencies carried the report that animal welfare organizations are planning a visit to Kabul to save the animals in the city zoo. The lion seems to be in bad health. Well, it seems that these poor animals have someone to look after their welfare. I wonder how many Afghan children have received similar gestures of concern from human rights organizations.
It seems that international law and agencies such as the United Nations, the World Court and even human rights organizations are made for the likes of us. Third Worlders have to follow the rules; they have to obey world organizations while superpowers do not. The Geneva Convention is applied selectively. It is absurd that while Nazis got fair trials, Taleban POWs are killed without even a chance to speak. Amnesty International attacks all governments for the slightest violations — and so it should — but when people’s rights to life and freedom are violated in Afghanistan and America by the superpower, we hear nothing — only silence. The US uses cluster bombs and other prohibited weapons and nobody says anything. How are we supposed to believe in any of these international organizations after this? If international law is applied selectively, how can people believe in it? The Americans certainly have the right to catch and prosecute those responsible for Sept. 11; but shouldn’t it be done legally and logically without adding to the miseries of civilians who were in no way involved in the attacks? It seems that "Third World" tactics are working better for them now. Once again, Bush, welcome to you.
