Warmth over the Earth, frost over the hearts [Archives:2007/1063/Community]

June 28 2007

By: Ghayda Assakaf
[email protected]

It is glaringly obvious that global warming is increasing year in, year out, and so are the tempestuous tensions between North and South; to be more specific these are the tensions between the US administration and the region of Arabia and Persia, judiciously called Middle East.

It seems like nobody is making the effort of a gesture towards peace and concord to minimize the intensity of these complicated quandaries. Even Pan Ki-Monh, UN Secretary General, gives the impression of watching the aggravating events, as a mere spectator and waiting for episodes to take a more calamitous course (as if it wasn't bloody enough in order to, probably, raise one eyebrow

Where is the world heading to? What is inside the cynical mind of the US administration decision makers, and AEI schemers for the few years to come?

Let's attempt to take stock of the current global situation:

Terrorism (the American version of it) has undoubtedly amplified and broadened out since 9/11. Like a disease, it has progressively taken up more ferocious ways of attacking, after the fashion of H5N1 bird flu virus. And Mr. Bush and consorts seem to believe that the best way to deal with it, is to eradicate its elements, in the same manner as hundreds and thousands of virus-infected and healthy birds have been brutally stamped out, altogether.

In reality, terrorism has adopted so scary proportions that it appears to have gotten out of its bounds, frantically striking innocent victims, it was not at first place supposed to target. And the world, infuriatingly silent just keeps on watching this big screen of events Bush's USA is entertaining us with. Sometimes, out of boredom, or despair, it may simply zip to other more amusing channels, also provided by US media.

That is one big furuncle in the ears of this world, gradually coming unstitched.

Does it sound pessimistic? Well, it would rather be The US administration, along with its yes-man allies, might be concocting for some other ominous war, which may this time adopt some Iranian scenery. Mordant project once more.

In the 24th of February 2007, Mr. Nabil Khoury, vice-ambassador of USA in Yemen, in an Al Jazeera International interview, back answered to some participating callers interrogating about the current situation in the region:

“Whether we intervene in a drastic way, like when we overthrown Saddam's dictatorship in Iraq, or whether we intervene peacefully in the region, you do not like it. What does the public opinion want exactly?”

This whimsical way of interacting with the public opinion, as well as these ambiguous policies directed to “improve” the Middle Eastern people conditions, do not really give weight to what could be called the “sincerity” of the US administration. In addition to which, they incline to the belief that one of the main strategies of this government, in term of dealing with the populations of the area is, to mock at them, to make a fool of those masses, which will result in spreading confusion everywhere and the region will be facing a situation whereby the why and the wherefore are not quite clear. But although most of the media tend to show how “incapacitated” populations of the area are, as a result of these American striking policies, it is not perfectly correct to say that there are no projects of counterbalancing the situation (movements of passive or active resistance, here and there, all over the globe).

From that standpoint, how is it possible to initiate any kind of dialogue with the US administration? This question was raised during the feverish debate in the AlJazeera famous Faisal AlKassim program (“AlItijah Almu'akes”, the opposite direction), in this year's 20th of February. The debate had Mr. Martin Indick, former US ambassador in Israel, and Mr. AlBayoumi, founder of “AlDemocratiya AlSha'biya” (The Popular Democracy) movement, gathered together around one table.

When Mr. AlBayoumi, in an attempt to illustrate the “American dialog”, showed Mr. Indick a collection of pictures displaying the way US soldiers treated prisoners in Abu Ghreib and in Guantanamo (in particular, that famous photo showing a black dog savagely attacking a terror-stricken, defenseless prisoner), the latter sarcastically replied that “well, the US Government could drop a brick sometimes, but these prisoners anyway, if being asked, I am sure all they want is to kill us!”. One wonders why…

In order to commence any kind of dialogue, the opposed parties should first free their minds from any prejudice, so as the dialog may not be one of the deaf.

Bit by bit dark designs clear up, facets of not friendly plans materialize and public opinion awareness builds itself up, developing new ways of conceiving things and having appropriate reflexes.

Back to the concocting of a new war, the 10th of this year's February, The Guardian was going on the assumption that the US administration would attack Iran exclusively from the air, to destabilize its system at first place; plan also confirmed by the Sunday Times which reported the US government's firm willing of disturbing the structure of the Persian country. If we have a global look at the Iranian political, economical and social tissue, it is not, really a rock-solid one. In fact, according to the pre-eminent Mustafa AlHamarna, historian and director of the center of Strategic Studies in Amman University-Jordan, Iran is totally cut off, and this isolation has augmented due to the country's negative role in Iraq, especially after the scandalous hanging of Saddam Hussein, in the 30th of December 2005, also Eid day for masses of Muslims around the world.

Besides, the Iranian army is not much of a strong one (air pilots in the neighboring Saudi Arabia are far better equipped), and it is uncertain that they possess the nuclear weapon (The Russian government has lately withdrawn its support to the country, in terms of nuclear technology), in brief, the US administration managed to get Iran away from the region's apron strings.

Furthermore, yes-Bush allies in the region, in particular Saudi Arabia and the Gulf in general, along with Israel are, still according to Mustafa AlHamarna, extremely ready to face up any possibility of war (frenetic arms race, reassuring and heartening promises from “chief of the region” Condy Rice, US administration touching upon the shiaa-sunni string

Nevertheless, there is another opinion saying the opposite of that. US administration could find a compromise with the Persian country and the countries to blame would then be the ones constituting the Gulf.

This is all very geopolitical. But is the US administration willing to send more troops, and to spend more billions of dollars for a new disaster? Certainly, Ahmadi Najad is a tough resistant and might not be willing to submit to all Bush's desires. But this is no pretext for a new catastrophic war. Is that what the world really wants? More casualties, more blood, more suffering? Where are the good-hearted people, the merciful pacifists, and the tolerant men of Religion? Why is poverty increasing so monstrously, when did human beings become so cruel to each other? When is fighting going to stop? Nature is protesting and the Earth is raging, and we are waiting for miracles to happen and to save us