|
|
|
|
| Columns |
| Backbencher |
|
by
Anonymous, 07 November 2004
-
13:54:42
|
Why Mr Bush’s second term is good for peace
Honourable Folks, for being the resolute Texas cowboy who goes for what he believes is right, Americans this week gave George W. Bush a clear mandate to be their president for the next four years.
He won both the popular and electoral college votes. In addition, his Republican party made gains both in the Congress and the Senate. I, the Honourable Backbencher, the oldest independent MP in Malawi who enjoys the support of nearly 12 million constituents, would like to say, from deep down my heart: Congratulations, Mr Bush!
Interestingly, it’s for being resolute on going to war with Saddam Hussein without the UN mandate that Mr Bush has made enemies for himself and Americans in many parts of the world. Media reports indicated that the non-Americans who protested Mr Bush’s overtures in the land of plenty oil wanted John Kerry to win. In Europe alone, it’s estimated that two thirds of the people wanted Mr Bush out of office. One notable exception was Mr Vladmir Putin of Russia.
Mr Putin’s Russia—together with France, Germany and other countries—while acknowledging that Iraq posed a serious threat to world peace, dithered in the UN on the use of military force against Saddam Hussein. And when the US decided to strike alone with the support of Britain and a few other willing allies, Mr Putin was happy to join those who accused Mr Bush of threatening world order by invading another independent sovereign state “without” the UN mandate. Now it’s transpired that the UN procrastinated Iraq just because some of its members with powers to veto couldn’t let go of illegal but extremely lucrative business deals they’d struck with Saddam in contravention of UN economic sanctions against the renegade gulf state.
It took the massacre of innocent school children and their parents in Russia—an incident Mr Putin described as a replica of 9/11—for the Russian president to realise that terrorism is simply an indiscriminate war waged by the devil against humanity. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a poor African in Nairobi or Dar-es-Salaam, an affluent executive managing a multinational from the World Trade Centre in New York, a commuter going places by train in Spain, an NGO worker in Iraq or indeed a teddy-bear-carrying toddler at a nursery school in Russia — every member of the human race is simply an unsuspecting target of these killers without motive.
It’s my sincere hope African and other world leaders would realise that effective war on terrorism should target the terrorists as well as countries and institutions that provide them with shelter and logistical support. Which is why if a country makes weapons of mass destruction and chooses to play by its own rules, shutting out the world’s monitoring arm, as was the case in Iraq under Saddam, then it’s better to make a mistake in the course of protecting the human race than say sorry when it’s too late to do anything.
The world should pull in one direction—the Bush direction since there doesn’t seem to be a better alternative—to effectively defeat this evil of the 21st century. And, rather than blaming Bush’s unilateralism, the world should realise that the much-cherished multilateral approach isn’t there as yet. UN member countries haven’t figured out how to insulate the process of making collective decisions on war against terrorism from the undeclared partisan interests of individual member states which results in too much time and money spent on achieving nothing.
My only wish is for Mr Bush to be as thoroughly prepared for winning the peace as he is for winning the war. He should also realise that Palestinians are just as warm blooded as are the rest of the people Mr Bush is trying hard to protect from terrorism. Secondly, it’s hypocrisy to protect anyone from terrorism then sit and watch as they’re slowly being cooked up in unchecked air pollution. The US citizens need the Kyoto Protocol just as much as the rest of us. Sign up, Mr Bush.
Finally, I’d like to stress that Bush’s victory may turn out to be a curse for Malawi unless President Bingu wa Mutharika succeeds in improving efficiency in government. As a very poor country which can’t do without donor support, we ought to be worried that we’re ineligible for US support. Why?
Simply because the US under Bush doesn’t necessarily pour money into a very poor country. Rather, its money goes to third world countries with the potential to use the US aid to grow. Mozambique and Tanzania, our neighbours, are in that category. We aren’t.
I understand for us to be eligible, we have to put in place a transparent and accountable democratic government that exercises fiscal prudence, invests in its own people and pursues a zero-tolerance for corruption policy. Frankly, it’s the kind of government Mr Mutharika promised in his inaugural speech. All he has to do now is simply to walk the talk.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
