JANUARY2007
We might now take George Bush at his word: in the wake of the September 11 attacks, he named three nations as the "axis of evil": North Korea, Iran and Iraq. The statement had a solid tripartite ring to it, conjuring images of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. The implication was chilling: that Axis, we might remember, damn near overran the world. "North Korea," Bush then said, "is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens." Iran, he explained, "aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom." When it came to Iraq, Bush was oddly careful, saying it "had plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade." Had plotted. We are now, some five years later, left with the realization that thinking about acquiring weapons of mass destruction will get you attacked (if you're Iraq), while actually having them will lead to negotiations--as is the case with North Korea. In truth, this is not an incoherent theory of deterrence: the Soviet Union had some 20,000 nuclear warheads aimed at us during the cold war and we spent our time fighting them in Nicaragua, Chile, the Congo, Vietnam--in other words, in places where our vital interests were not threatened in the slightest. In fact, we fought them on every continent in the world, except Europe, where our vital interests actually were threatened. But we should not think Bush's words are a kind of historical conceit; we fought the Axis by first knocking off its lightweight contender, Italy. So too, we thought, we would do with Iraq.
Henry Kissinger once said,Power is the "great aphrodisiac." Leaders worldwide (elected, unelected, self-appointed) have demonstrated the apparent truth of this statement, with British politicians at the forefront of such proofs. After nearly ten years of Tony Blair's premiership, we are witnessing the long, drawn-out exit precipitated by his announcement of his retirement and exacerbated by his reluctance to put words into practice and actually move aside. Even Blair’s closest political colleagues have been unable to cajole, nudge or push him out of Number 10; power's qualities, it seems, are more alluring than acting for the good of the nation. In our brand of democracy winning is above policies, politics and personalities and there are few politicians in recent history who have given up their mandate for the sake of the people. Whereas in past generations, politicians who erred could usually be relied upon to "do the right thing" and fall on their political sword. But today's democrats have skins thicker than a rhinoceros hide and have to be forced out by media pressure. If they can ride the storm, they will, clinging to the vestiges of power at all costs, despite the fact that the lofty principles of democracy mean that it is there to serve the people. Put simply, it has become the vehicle for power-mad politicians to gain control. As Orwell’s O'Brien said, in 1984: "We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." Thus it is that when an alternative democratic vision appears, we not only fail to recognise it, but work quickly to destroy it. The current government of Palestine is a case in point. In February of this past year a people under military occupation and subjugation carried out one of the most transparent and fair elections ever witnessed in any part of the world and one unrecognisable to the voters of Birmingham or Florida, where electoral shenanigans – if not outright fraud – were witnessed. The Palestinians were rewarded with economic sanctions and the US and its erstwhile European allies then gave more aid to the occupiers. ISMAIL PATEL
