Vijay Prashad (historian) wrote
in The Hindu, reminiscing the words of Edward Said “Saddam was a dictator. He
was a brutal ruler. He had betrayed Arab nationalism. Of that there was no
doubt. But the U.S. was not to be seen as a moral force. It had drawn its sword
across the neck of Arab freedom, and its attack would do nothing good for the
Arabs.”
On the eve of Obama’s attempt to
convince the US Congress and other leaders justifying military intervention in
Syria, the article puts speculation about US agenda in perspective. As a school
boy, reading Newsweek and Times linked me to world affairs. I was in awe by the role played by the US in
maintaining world peace, Vietnam, Palestine/Israel/Egypt, Cambodia, and the
list goes on. This complemented all the American TV and Hollywood movies that I
had been exposed to. The Cowboys Vs Injuns, Americans Vs Krauts (Germans),
Americans Vs Vietcongs, Americans Vs Russians, Americans Vs Jihadis (later
Terrorist), Americans Vs South American Drug Cartel, Superheroes (American) Vs
Evil ( non-American or Aliens). I did not even flinch when the Federation Ship
in StarTrek was called the “USS” Enterprise, thinking as a matter of fact that
it must be American.
Until sometime later I realized that
there was a commonality in all these propagation, that Americans were always
the good guys and everyone else are out to destroy mankind, and America is always under threat from multiple psychological and physical invasion, that they
have to constantly be either in a defensive or offensive mode to preserve
freedom and peace.
Whether the entire actions of the
Americans are purely coincidental or patriotic (nationalistic) reaction or a
strategically orchestrated propaganda is any body’s guess. Nevertheless it
impacted the mindset of the 20th century onwards.
It has been said General Isoroku
Yamamoto uttered these words after the bombing of Pearl Harbour, "I fear
all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible
resolve." This statement appears to resonate loudly in the context of this
discussion.
Lea Brilmayer in her book “American
Hegemony: Political Morality in a One Superpower World” questions the morality
of one nation to police the whole world. She further questions the legitimacy
of circumstances that makes it the right or obligatory for the US to intervene
in the affairs of other countries.
It would be a real test for Obama
to push the American Hegemony on his watch, as the world we live today seems to
react independently, with a diffused and fragmented self-serving agenda. EuroAmerican political pact aside, the voice of
the people (Europe in particular) has become louder against blind actions by
this pact, for a heedless attitude would cause political demise.
On 24th September
2013, Obama stated that he would delay his
military plan against Syria purportedly preferring a diplomatic intervention
via Russia, not discounting possible military action if this fails. In light of this new development Noam
Chomsky candidly stated, “The Russian plan is a godsend for Obama,"
Chomsky says. "It saves him (Obama) from what would look like a very
serious defeat. He has not been able to obtain virtually any international
support, and it looked as though Congress wasn’t going to support it either,
which would leave him completely out on a limb. This leaves him a way out: He
can maintain the threat of force, which incidentally is a crime under
international law. We should bear in mind that the core principle of the United
Nations Charter bars the threat or use of force. So all of this is criminal, to
begin with, but he’ll continue with that."
History tells a different story. Read Abraham Lincoln, James A
Garfield, Zachary Taylor, Warren G Harding, William McKinley, John F Kennedy
and the list goes on………..
