inside the glass house

Recipe for disaster as Blair heads the way of Bush
NEW YORK-- Taking a crack at President George W. Bush's lavish welcome to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Washington DC last week, that outrageously funny late night comedian Jay Leno said perhaps this is the first time in history that "a cowboy and an Indian" were under the same roof inside the White House.

The characterisation of Bush as an arrogant gunslinging "cowboy" fast on the draw– whether in Iraq or Afghanistan– is refusing to die.
The Pew Research Centre for People and the Press, which specialises in gallup polls, did a recent nation-wide survey where some 751 respondents were asked to describe Bush in just "one word".

Surprisingly, the highest number of respondents – 31– described him as being "honest." But still, the majority of them had negative impressions– ranging from "incompetent" (which came second with 26 votes), "arrogant" (24), "good" (18), "integrity" (18), "determined" (15), "liar" (13), "stupid" (12), "idiot" (11) and "strong" (11).

Bush was also described as being a "weasel", a "con artist" and "terrific". The Pew Research Center concluded that the overall impression of Bush was more negative than positive.

One of the continued criticisms of the Bush administration by international human rights groups is that in its fight against terrorism, the administration is violating some of the fundamental rights of individuals in a country long held up as a model for democracy and rule of law.

The criticisms apply not only to the suspension of some of the basic human rights under the USA Patriot Act but also the maltreatment of prisoners held in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

After the recent spate of terrorist bombings in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair may be heading the way of Bush. Blair, who they say will never get a tan because he is perpetually in the shadow of Bush, is expected to take tough new measures, justifying his political extremism as a logical response to terrorism.

Britain has traditionally been a haven for political refugees primarily from the former Eastern Europe, its ex-colonies and also from the US. But as the Washington Post said last week, "the bombings have caused the (British) government to reconsider both its immigration policies and its tradition of freedom of speech."

According to Charles Clarke, the British cabinet secretary overseeing domestic security, the new offensive against terrorists will also include what he calls "indirect incitement to terrorism."

Under this proposed new rule, the attack dogs will be let loose on those who-- while not directly inciting, glorifying or condoning terrorist acts-- indirectly encourage their listeners or readers to turn to terrorism knowing full well their writings or teachings will have such a negative reaction.So, in other words, if you write justifying or defending suicide bombers, you may be in for trouble. That would include a whole lot of British journalists who have defended– while at the same time condemned– terrorist acts.

In most instances, these writers have attributed the growing terrorism to lopsided Western and specifically US policies on the Middle East, and on the American-led invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Blair says he wants to host an international conference on "Islamic extremism" in order "to try and take concerted action across the world to try to root out this type of extremist teaching."

Perhaps he may learn a thing or two as to why his own British citizens are rebelling against his policies towards the Middle East and the Islamic world. The massive unprecedented peace march in the streets of London last year was a prime example of the solid opposition to Blair's military intervention in Iraq.

Immediately after the first bombings in London, some British commentators were quick to pin the blame on Pakistan because three of the bombers were of Pakistani origin. The fourth was a Jamaican who had converted to Islam.
In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) last week, Pakistan's Ambassador to the United Nations Munir Akram pointedly blamed Britain for the home-grown terrorism.

"In this instance," he said referring to the London bombings, "it may have Pakistani roots, if you wish, but they (the suicide bombers) were born in Britain, bred there, lived there, worked there, and were by all acounts British lads."

What motivated the British lads to do this?, he asked. "It's not because their blood was from Pakistan that they were radicalized. It is because... we have to look at the causes... where they were born, not their ethnicity. If you go on ethnicity, if you go on racial or geographical origin, I think it is a recipe for promoting racism, for promoting hatred. I think British authorities and British society would be well advised to steer away from that because that is going to make problems worse rather than better."
The outspoken Pakistani envoy also said it is important not to pin blame on somebody else when the problem lies within yourself.

"I think you have to look at British society, at what you are doing to the Muslim community, and why the Muslim community is not integrating into British society." And rightly so, he asked Britain, "to look at the problems you have with your policies in the Middle East, and your policies in the Islamic world."

Back to Columns