The result - 51 per cent said that George. W. Bush was a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein is - and 49 per cent said it's the other way about.

The poll says a lot, and it helps us a lot. We writers in the developing world, who were being branded as producers of regular anti-American tracts, suddenly begin to seem respectable all over the world. Not that we need Britain's stamp of approval to vindicate the fact that all along we have been telling the truth and nothing but the truth.

But, suddenly, we no longer belong in the lunatic fringe. Even the majority of sane British people now believe that George W. Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein is!! Thanks to George W Bush, even the British now see things for what they are.

No mean achievement this. In the book New Rulers of the World John Pilger writes: The other day, in an open letter to their compatriots and the world, almost 100 of America's most distinguished names in art, literature and education wrote this:

"Let it not be said that people in the United States did nothing when their government declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression. We believe that questioning, criticism and dissent must be valued and protected. Such rights are always contested and must be fought for. We, too, watched with shock the horrific events of September 11. But the mourning had barely begun when our leaders launched a spirit of revenge. The government now openly prepares to wage war on Iraq - a country that has no connection with September 11.

"We say this to the world. Too many times in history people have waited until it was too late to resist. We draw on the inspiration of those who fought slavery and all those other great causes of freedom that began with dissent. We call on all like-minded people around the world to join us."

As Pilger points out, it needed American intellectuals on the fringe to say that the American President's intent to declare war on Iraq was wrong. Dissent was difficult to come by.

But this atmosphere has changed fast, if not in America, at least in Europe. Despite the fact that Britain is US ally number one, this is why more people in Britain today think that George W. Bush is more of a threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein is.

It's a tremendous relief that people think so. It makes things less risky for journalists in the developing world for instance to tell the truth. It will make it much less legitimate for the US government or anyone led by US government interests, to victimize journalists and others in global civil society who insist on telling the truth about matters such as America's putative campaign to attack Iraq.

Those who think that America is not interested in isolating those who do not share the views of the American leadership, should consider some of the recent developments that have taken place in the US. 'On the domestic front, moreover, the First Amendment's protection of free speech, is eroded if even peaceful dissent becomes casually categorized as dangerous or unpatriotic, as it has sometimes been in recent weeks,' wrote Patricia J. Williams Professor of Law at Columbia University in New York, in an article for Observer Worldview (UK.) Says Pilger on the other hand that "Having appropriated our shocked response to that momentous day (Sept 11) the rulers of the world have since ground our language into a paean of cliches and lies about the 'war on terrorism' - when the most enduring menace, and source of terror, is them.'

According to Patricia Williams "Most alarming of all, a recent CNN poll revealed that 45% of Americans would not object to torturing someone if it would provide information about terrorism.' This shows how badly the American psyche has been damaged by the incessant state propaganda that has followed the September 11 attacks, and the war on terror that began thereafter.

In these circumstances, it has been difficult for saner council to prevail in the US. A recent document starts with a quote from Nelson Mandela who said "attacking Iraq will be a disaster'' When the Senate Foreign Relations committee had its hearing on Iraq, Senator Paul Wellstone introduced this written document which argued cogently why it would be unconscionable for the US to attack Iraq.

This document argues that the US claims to be a country of laws, even though the US is prepared to put aside requirements of international law and the UN charter while accepting other nations to be accountable by these laws. It has also been pointed out for instance that there is no provision whatsoever in international law to justify the US attacking a country that has not attacked it. Iraq is a country that has not attacked the US - and there isn't a shred of evidence that has linked the September 11 disaster to Iraq.

John Pilger may sometimes sound shrill. But all the documents emanating from the educated and the concerned in the US, such as some excerpted above, make it clear that the US plan to attack Iraq is disastrous and is motivated by reasons other than the professed one - which is that it is an extension of the 'war on terror.'

John Pilger goes so far as to say that international journalists have been made use of in the conspiracy to make a case for an attack on Iraq, which in his opinion is motivated by the fact that Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves on the planet.

If Pilger is correct, this conspiracy seems barely to be succeeding. It is not difficult these days for people to see reason, because there are other sources of information in this age of Information Technology which makes it unnecessary for people to rely on regular network journalists who may have been 'bought' into the conspiracy. This is why a majority of the Sky News sample in Britain feel that George W. Bush is more of a threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein is.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster