If asked to discern a common symbolism behind George Bush’s flamboyant visit to London, his furtive presence in Baghdad, and Jamaican poet Zephaniah’s spurning the Order of the British Empire (OBE), I would say they represent the death throes of the imperialistic thrust behind the White Man’s Burden.
Benjamin Zephaniah’s scathing equation of the British Empire with slavery, rape and the brutalisation of entire peoples to the extent that “black people like me don’t even know our true names or our true historical culture” (Guardian, 27 November 2003), has expectedly met with silence from Downing Street. Mr. Tony Blair’s government cannot reasonably be expected to squabble publicly with a man it intended to honour for services to literature. Yet at a deeper level the episode reflects an open contempt for western civilization and the irreversible damage it has done to ancient non-militaristic cultures, as well as the West’s moral bankruptcy in facing erstwhile subjects who vigorously reject co-option into its prized echelons.
Western civilization’s own moral confusion is best epitomized by the United States, which assumed the mantle of premier White Man Country when the sun set on the British Empire by introducing a pernicious cocktail of dollars and dictatorship to protect western economic interests and supremacy in key regions of the globe. This phase, in which the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) acquired its awesome reputation, was characterized by third world leaders and intellectuals as neo-imperialism. Of course, the world has changed dramatically since the end of the Second World War and the Cold War, and Washington, having exulted prematurely over the demise of the Soviet Union, is coming to realize that the notion of a single superpower straddling the globe was unsustainable even in theory. In practice, a one-legged structure is viable only if it is also the height of an ordinary toadstool.
It is therefore not surprising that faced with growing American hostility to his misadventure in Iraq, President Bush should seek a face-saving exit from the saga of daily deaths that his people dread so much. His London visit for consultations (sic) with Prime Minister Tony Blair reflects this search for an honourable retreat from a terrain that cannot be held against unremitting assaults from an invisible enemy. Indian analysts who argued that New Delhi should send soldiers to support the unjustified assault on Iraq may note that a mere 500-odd casualties suffered by US and allied forces have proved unacceptable to the American people who owe their soft living to the rapacious policies of successive governments. India lost 500 brave men in one conflict in Kargil alone, and the Indian people would be justly indignant at shedding blood for a terrain in which we have no national stake.
To return to President Bush, however, his spectacular presence in Baghdad for Thanksgiving dinner with his troops on 27 November 2003 underscored the American urgency to quit while obscuring this intention with a declaration to stay put. I personally view the Bush trip as an ill-conceived escapade. If, as Bush’s spin doctors now suggest through friendly media leaks, the two-and-a-half-hour visit to a military mess near the international airport was a well-planned rather than spontaneous mission, it must rank in the annals of world diplomacy as one dud initiative.
As Mahmoud Othman, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, put it succinctly: “we cannot consider Bush’s arrival at Baghdad International Airport yesterday as a visit to Iraq.” The US President made no attempt to reach out to ordinary Iraqi citizens who were then celebrating Id; his mission was only to boost the morale of his depressed soldiers and assure them that the US would stay in the country long enough to ensure that they all left alive. Media rhetoric notwithstanding, those resisting the American occupation with sniper and guerrilla tactics have taken the measure of that nation as one with a soft underbelly and a poor stomach for sustained conflict.
President Bush had no official meeting with the US-appointed Governing Council, and thus lost the ideal opportunity for an initiative to end the Iraq imbroglio. It appears that some Iraqis were present in the military dining hall when he arrived with the turkey roast. But when the object of the visit was solely to reassure the Americans rather than the Iraqis that they would soon retreat, the President’s advise to rebuild Iraq on the basis of human dignity and freedom must have rung somewhat hollow. If the White House had hoped to startle the world with a Nixon-like landing in Beijing, it should have done its homework better. As it turns out, the staff believed that the logistics of secrecy and security was all that was required of them.
Seen in this light, the brave declaration that “we did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost of casualties, defeat a ruthless dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins,” was contradictory and laughable. To call it a major public relations coup for the President is a joke. In coming days, Mr. Bush will find it difficult to explain the objectives behind his Baghdad landing, since he failed singularly to address the twin issues of post-withdrawal Iraq and the larger problem of Islamic fundamentalism.
As the trip coincided with the end of Ramzan, it is truly surprising that Mr. Bush took no note of the unprecedented levels of violence that shook the Muslim world in a month supposed to be devoted to peace and religiosity. The most shocking incident for the western world was the 15 November twin suicide car bomb explosions outside two synagogues in Istanbul, which killed around 23 persons and left another 250 injured. The attacks were significant not because they targeted the traditional Jewish enemy, but because even the Turkish authorities were taken unawares by the growth of local extremist groups in the country.
The Istanbul explosions were followed by an attack on the British Consulate in Istanbul on 20 November, as well as a blast outside the local office of the HSBC Bank, in which the British Consul-General and 25 other British and Turkish civilians lost their lives. The British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Jack Straw, said he believed the Al Qaeda was behind the incidents. But investigations by Turkish authorities show that the attacks were conceived and executed by local jihadis inspired by Osama bin Laden, but not officially part of the Al Qaeda. Since the 20 November blasts coincided with President Bush’s visit to Britain, it seems reasonable to conclude that the motive was to embarrass him and Prime Minister Blair. Media reports also suggest that there has been a sharp rise in the attacks on American troops stationed in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is said to be regrouping and preparing for a fresh showdown with the Hamid Karzai regime.
Given the magnitude of the growing Islamic challenge, it is both surprising and tragic that Mr. Bush should have completely evaded the issue while standing on Iraqi soil. It would seem that he has nothing to say on an issue concerning the very survival of western civilization, upon which his nation rests. His intellectual vacuum best reflects America’s collective loss of moral and military fibre.
The Pioneer, 2 December 2003