Musings
Be
Afraid
SRABONTI
NARMEEN ALI
It is
said that one massive event usually acts as a catalyst for
another, causing a domino effect. This seems to run true when
considering America's 2004 elections. We can trace Bush's
second victory back as far as we want -- say, Clinton's messy
affair with Monica Lewinsky, or any of the other scandals
during his time in office -- which may have strengthened right-wing
America's claim that the Democratic party was not right for
the nation as a whole. But rather than search our dusty memories
for the details of Clinton's term, let's just start with September
11, since it seems to be the most catalytic event of the new
millenium; one that people refer back to again and again to
define and excuse the events of the past three rocky and nerve-wrecking
years.
I sometimes
wonder what side Osama Bin Laden is really on. A year after
the controversial 2000 elections, after which America wasn't
really sure who they voted for, he master-minded the bombings
that transformed an otherwise mediocre president into the
frightened nation's saviour and hero. For three years we have
seen him not only mock the United States, but also the rest
of the world with his cameo appearances featuring cryptic
messages and threats of Islamic Fundamentalism, causing a
torn and confused nation to swirl into an even deeper pit
of fear and anger. After all, the ordinary American cannot
tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim -- which was
made evident when a Sikh gas attendant was shot in Phoenix,
Arizona right after the WTC bombings -- so why wouldn't they
be angry at being dragged into a holy war -- one which they
cannot even pronounce, much less understand? Why shouldn't
they believe what Bush says: that only he can annihilate and
teach a lesson to these barbaric terrorists. It was with this
"war on terror" slogan that Bush invaded Iraq. And
although Americans were losing their sons and daughters, they
figured that it was for a noble cause -- the betterment of
society and an end to living in terror and fear of the scary
bearded man that kept popping up from time to time on our
TV screens.
So when
Bin Laden conveniently made his most recent appearance on
TV four days before the U.S. elections, threatening more destruction
and claiming that the fate of Americans lay in their own hands,
can you imagine what people were thinking? Do they choose
the man -- the hero -- who has no tolerance for "these
kind of people," and is fighting them with brute force
and military might? Or do they choose the other man -- the
"liberal" who wants to fight terrorism through alliances
and non-combative strategies, only using military power when
it is absolutely necessary? Although Bin Laden was diplomatic
enough to mention that neither Bush nor Kerry could ensure
the safety of America, the fear of a second September 11 itself
is enough to drive people to a quick and resolute decision.
Why choose a president who wants to fight an "informed
and smarter war" against the same terrorists who are
responsible for killing thousands of Americans? It's better
to choose the guy who claims that he will hunt them down,
dead or alive. As a result of the panic skillfully created
by the Bush campaign, the people voted for intolerance over
tolerance, little knowing that in the process they are destroying
the same freedom that they think they are protecting.
Many people
are disheartened and disappointed that Bush has secured his
second term in the White House. What does this say about Americans
and their morals if they are voting for the same man who is
on the brink of starting a third World War? While I am inclined
to agree with that sentiment, I guess I also have to wonder
that if some American came to my country and bombed thousands
of innocent people for no reason, and continuously threatened
that there was more to come, how would I feel? How did we
all feel on August 21, even though the people responsible
for the grenade attacks were apparently our own? When we are
faced with a choice between security and moral values, it
is human nature for most people to choose security.
The world
is shaking its heads at Americans, as I am doing right now
too. But the truth is that it is not America or the right
wing conservatives that we should blame, because at the end
of the day, they don't know any better. The sad truth is that
if America's new president had been John Kerry rather than
George Bush, America would have made a statement. They would
have been saying "yes" to change and "no"
to the manipulations of the Bushs and Osamas of the world.
Unfortunately for those of us who were hoping that the US
would make this one step in the direction of human preservation,
it did not happen. The majority of the population has not,
as they probably think, put an end to terrorism and the likes
of Osama. Rather they have given him fuel to cause more damage.
The issue is not that the American people have said "no"to
gay marriages and abortion, but that they have inadvertently
voted "yes" to war and destruction. They have, sadly
enough, erased all hope of peace and sealed a secure place
for violence and destruction in the years to come.
Copyright
(R) thedailystar.net 2004
|
|