Thoughts from London

Nations are judged by the company they keep
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's valedictory address to the recently concluded Islamic Organisation Conference in Kuala Lumpur was surely a clarion call to the Muslim world to defend itself against enemies.

One does not know what Sri Lanka's representatives to the conference, Minister Rauff Hakeem and High Commissioner Faisz Musthapha, thought about the speech that some have characterised as anti-Semitic and the last hurrah by a rabble-rousing critic of the west.

But listening to him on television here in London it seemed very much like vintage Mahathir. Considered together with the latest video message supposedly by al- Qaeda's Osama bin Laden aired around the same time calling on Muslims to rise against America and its supporters for the illegitimate war on Iraq, they seem to reflect clearly the current mood prevailing in the streets of the Muslim world if not in the opulent palaces of the sheikhdoms in and around the Gulf.

But the anger against the United States and its war mongering allies is not only in the Muslim world. While President George W Bush's address to the UN General Assembly was greeted with a deafening silence his speech to the joint session of the Australian parliament last week was interspersed with interruptions and disturbances and the naming of at least two members by the Speaker.

The current Australian government is, of course, a backer of Washington's skulduggery. It was not so long ago that Prime Minister John Howard was ready to play deputy sheriff to Bush junior's Wyatt Earp. Whatever the conservative Howard thought of the gospel according to Junior Bush, on the streets of Canberra it was quite clear that the man from Washington was a despoiler and not welcome in the country.

Even in their own countries public opinion is increasingly turning against Bush and his transatlantic sidekick Tony Blair on the question of Iraq and the phony war against international terrorism.

It means one thing. While there might be great enthusiasm in governing circles in a few lackey countries for America's new imperialism, in the wide world outside, Bush and his neo-conservative cronies are seen as modern day pirates dressed in the flimsy moral garb of evangelists preaching democracy and human rights.

If people are judged by the company they keep, so are nations judged by their allies and coalition partners. It is imperative to keep this in mind when nations forge new relationships and extend the hand of friendship to those who are seen by the world outside as plunderers whose guiding philosophy is might is right.

Before we sink too deep into the mire with those guilty of moral turpitude, it is proper to ask whether we are ready to share that guilt and expose our own people to the dangers inherent in extending support to those condemned by society across the globe. Incensed people - call them terrorists - can strike anywhere as the attacks in Bali proved.

Despite this being the age of information there are many politically and morally repugnant acts committed by the United States and its principal ally, Britain. These acts are not widely known or have been forgotten.

Since nations too should be judged by the company they keep it is indeed necessary to resurrect some of those acts and policies to show the world the real face of our new-found friends and their moral worth however much they might plead their innocence.

Today Junior Bush and his administration cohorts describe Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and others by epithets chosen from a reliable dictionary of abuse. But were they not at one time or another great friends of Washington, treated and greeted like royalty?

Has it been forgotten that Saddam Hussein was created by the Americans long before he waged war on Iran and Kuwait? And even here, he was egged on or casually given the nod.

Did the west not help Saddam Hussein's Iraq technologically and with material to create the arsenal that Washington and London call weapons of mass destruction and served as the pretext for their recent war against Iraq?

Some of this information has been in the public domain recently because of the long drawn out build up to the war and thereafter. But how many are aware that the much-derided Taliban was also funded and created by the US as a guerrilla force against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan.

More importantly after the Taliban came to power and were condemned internationally for their human rights violations, the Taliban leadership was wined and dined in the United States.

In a recent article, investigative journalist John Pilger who has been responsible for several exposes wrote: "In 1997, the US State department officials and executives of Union Oil Company of California (Unocol) discreetly entertained Taliban leaders in Washington and Houston,Texas. They were entertained lavishly, with dinner parties at luxurious homes in Houston…. The Wall Street Journal, bulletin of US power effused, "The Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history."

John Pilger is not the only person who has exposed the US-Taliban connection.
Michael Moore, an American writer who fired his first barrage against George Bush and his neo-conservative cronies in his best selling book "Stupid White Men" has opened up again at the same rabid lot in his latest book "Dude, Where's My country".

In that he poses seven questions to President Bush. In Question 6, Moore asks: "Were you aware that, while you were governor of Texas, the Taliban travelled to Texas to meet with your oil and gas company friends?"

In the course of that question Moore further asks: "According to various reports, representatives of your administration met with the Taliban or conveyed messages to them during the summer of 2001. What were those messages Mr Bush? Were you discussing their offer to hand over bin Laden?"

Talking of bin Laden, another figure who first received Washington's imprimatur but is now a reviled man, Moore asks as his first question: "Is it true that the bin Ladens have had business relations with you and your family off and on for the past 25 years?"
In another question Moore asks President Bush why he allowed a private Saudi Arabian jet to fly around the US in the days after September 11 and pick up members of the bin Laden family and fly them out of the country without a proper investigation by the FBI.

The lesson to be learnt from all this is simple. With Washington, today's friends are tomorrow's enemies to be hunted down. Remember what happened to Panama's strongman Manuel Noriega. A paid agent of the CIA when Bush senior was its head, Noriega is now languishing in some American jail. The moral of the story is don't play footsie with Washington. You'll lose more than your toes.

Back to Columns