Understanding the hypocrisy of the US � the rogue superpower or �shaytan-e buzurg�
Zafar Bangash, Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought,
reminds us all of the true nature of the
US, and why Imam Khomeini memorably called it "shaytan-e buzurg" �
the great satan
[Crescent International, April 16-30, 2000.]
The title "rogue superpower", or "shaytan-e buzurg" in Imam Khomeini�s
celebrated phrase, commonly used for the US is not
merely political rhetoric; it is the deeply felt and perceptive view
of people wounded by America�s crude and arrogant policies.
What is even more revealing is that these feelings are not confined
to those directly targeted by Uncle Sam; even its European
allies have started to feel uneasy about the uncouth behaviour of the
overbearing uncle.
Former South African president Nelson Mandela subjected the US and Britain
to a severe tongue-lashing while visiting London
on April 5. Mandela, no gun-toting revolutionary although he speaks
his mind now that he no longer carries the burden of office,
said that Washington�s utter disregard of international law and UN
security council decisions were giving cause for concern. He
also blasted London for kowtowing to Uncle Sam�s desires so meekly.
This is most clearly visible in the manner in which Iraq has been subjected
to punishing sanctions since 1991. The ostensible
reason is that the US wants to overthrow Iraqi president Saddam Husain.
Quite aside from the fact that overthrowing Saddam
is none of America�s business, it is even more perverse that 1.5 million
Iraqi children should be starved to death for the sake of
one man, however criminal and unpleasant he may be. Moreover, the US
bears direct responsibility for Saddam�s monstrous
behaviour. US secretary of state Madeleine Albright admitted on March
17 that US support for Saddam during the
Iraqi-imposed war against Iran was "ill-conceived." It was America�s
financial and military support, as well as the supply of
technical expertise and ingredients by other western powers, that enabled
Saddam to manufacture the chemical weapons that
today are being touted as justifications for branding him an international
outlaw. (The weapons were used against Iran without
any protest from the west.) The coalition of 29 countries that the
US led in 1991 to oust Saddam from Kuwait has today been
reduced to a grand total of two: the US and Britain.
The much-celebrated (by the Americans, of course) Harvard professor
Samuel Huntington points to a "shrinking circle of
governments who see their interests coinciding with those of the United
States." He points in particular to the shrinking support
the US has in the UN security council, which consistently split along
4-1 in favour of America in earlier years against the
erstwhile Soviet Union. No more, Huntington tells us. America�s comfortable
majority has degenerated into a potential standoff,
with the US and Britain siding against Russia and China, and France
holding a swing vote.
Huntington is not alone in expressing dismay at American behaviour.
"We�ve lost the sense of what we�re really good at: getting
people to join us," Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser during
the Reagan and Bush administrations, said in a recent
interview. "We don�t think as much about the effects of our actions
on other people. We don�t consult, we don�t ask ahead of
time. We behave to much of the world like a latter-day colonial power.
It�s a very dangerous thing that�s happening."
�Third world� countries such as Pakistan can take comfort in the fact
that America�s overbearing attitude is beginning to irk its
allies as well. The Europeans in particular are appalled at the manner
in which Washington imposes its will, totally disregarding
the feelings and concerns of others. During Clinton�s recent visit
to Pakistan, mercifully only for a few hours, he demanded that
Islamabad get Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan and hand him over to
the US for trial. America has made outrageous
allegations against the Saudi mujahid but � contrary to the Taliban�s
reasonable demand � has provided no evidence of any
wrongdoing on his part.
The US demands that its allegations be immediately accepted without
any questions asked. The Taliban are not alone in
doubting them. After all, it was top US officials, particularly national
security advisor Sandy Berger and secretary of state
Madeleine Albright, who lied through their teeth about the Al-Shifa
pharmaceutical plant in Sudan producing chemical weapons,
which the US bombed to destruction on August 20, 1998. Both senior
US officials lied on television about the factory and tried
to justify America�s criminal act in destroying it with cruise missiles.
Both the reasons and the action were illegal, immoral and
criminal. It amounted to state terrorism but this is what the US and
its Middle Eastern ward, the zionist state of Israel are good
at.
Born through terrorism and baptised in the blood of innocent people,
Israel�s crimes are underwritten by the US. The Middle
East has had no peace since the implantation of the zionist monstrosity
into the heartland of Islam. One of its most horrendous
crimes was the slaughter of 102 Lebanese civilians who had taken shelter
in a UN compound in Qana on April 18, 1996. For
12 minutes, Israeli artillery deliberately targeted the compound, guided
by a drone pilotless plane flying overhead. When the UN
could not whitewash this latest Israeli crime, the US punished the
pro-west and pro-zionist Coptic secretary general, Boutros
Boutros-Ghali (whose wife incidentally is the sister of the wife of
Shimon Peres, the former Israeli prime minister and defence
minister, who is also the principal architect of the Israeli nuclear
programme) for having the nerve to release the damning report.
But Boutros-Ghali is small fry in the international arena. While the
US insists that other countries sign the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) limiting nuclear arms, its own senate
rejected it last October.
This is not the only US hypocrisy. In 1997, US president Bill Clinton
declined to join more than 130 other countries in signing a
treaty banning the use of landmines, insisting that the United States
is a "special case." Likewise, the US refused to join more
than 90 countries establishing an international criminal court in 1998,
after unsuccessfully demanding absolute and automatic
immunity from prosecution for American soldiers and diplomats. Delegates
to the founding conference for the court cheered the
defeat of a US attempt to exempt American soldiers � even though they
accepted that the UN security council, with its US
veto, should approve cases for prosecution. The US, on the other hand,
insists that its law must apply to other countries and
that they must comply with American demands.
There are compelling reasons for resentment towards the US. Will Uncle
Sam change his attitude? No one should hold his
breath. Only a series of rude shocks is likely to bring the greedy
and arrogant uncle to his senses. In the meantime, people
around the world, especially Muslims, should work to increase America�s
isolation. Nothing will be gained by getting closer to
the great Satan.
