Aggression pays
Tony Blair, the British prime minister won a historic third consecutive term in the UK election held on 5 May 2005. He became the first Labour leader to return to power for third consecutive term. He was the last of the three main architects of the war against Iraq in 2003 to be reelected into government despite strong opposition to the American-led aggression in their own country and the world over. The first re-elected was John Howard of Australia, then George Bush and finally the charismatic Blair.
In addressing his nation after the victory, Blair acknowledged that he lost a lot of ground because of the split over Iraq. However, the opposition was split into the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats with the LDP gaining most of the ground lost by Labour. Based on the recent elections, the conservative Republicans in the US increased their support while in the UK support for the Conservatives had weakened.
So as far as foreign policy is concerned it is obvious that at least in the three countries, the majority of the people do not seem to mind whether their leaders attacked another country and killed more than 100,000 ordinary people as long as those people were foreigners. And they all seem to agree that the world’s largest oil producing countries – which happen to be Muslims - must be firmly under their control in order to maintain their superiority in the world. The stated justification for their continued subjugation of Muslim countries is terrorism and democracy. The real reason is control of their oil wealth. You just have to look at Saudi Arabia to prove the point. How much more democratic are the Saudis than Iraq under Saddam? But why was one country attacked with the pretext of “bringing freedom and democracy”, while the other, almost equally dictatorial, still enjoy warm relations with the world’s biggest oil consumer? And, what about countries of Africa, who don’t have much oil and still mired in dictatorship. Don’t they also deserve freedom and democracy? If the desserts of Arabia were just sand and stones would the so-called champions of freedom care whether the Bedouins are democratic? The answer perhaps will become clear when they have pumped out all the oil and all that’s left are really sand and stones. But according to current estimates, at the current rate of oil consumption, that will not happen for another 90 years. In the mean time, as far as those countries are concerned, oil is a curse to their ordinary people.
The re-election of the leaders of these Anglo-Saxon descendants prove that all their talk about freedom and democracy is only rhetoric. Deep down it is still about the struggle for control of limited resources. In our guts, we are still wild animals. And in the animal world aggression really does pay.
Saturday
7 May 2005
In addressing his nation after the victory, Blair acknowledged that he lost a lot of ground because of the split over Iraq. However, the opposition was split into the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats with the LDP gaining most of the ground lost by Labour. Based on the recent elections, the conservative Republicans in the US increased their support while in the UK support for the Conservatives had weakened.
So as far as foreign policy is concerned it is obvious that at least in the three countries, the majority of the people do not seem to mind whether their leaders attacked another country and killed more than 100,000 ordinary people as long as those people were foreigners. And they all seem to agree that the world’s largest oil producing countries – which happen to be Muslims - must be firmly under their control in order to maintain their superiority in the world. The stated justification for their continued subjugation of Muslim countries is terrorism and democracy. The real reason is control of their oil wealth. You just have to look at Saudi Arabia to prove the point. How much more democratic are the Saudis than Iraq under Saddam? But why was one country attacked with the pretext of “bringing freedom and democracy”, while the other, almost equally dictatorial, still enjoy warm relations with the world’s biggest oil consumer? And, what about countries of Africa, who don’t have much oil and still mired in dictatorship. Don’t they also deserve freedom and democracy? If the desserts of Arabia were just sand and stones would the so-called champions of freedom care whether the Bedouins are democratic? The answer perhaps will become clear when they have pumped out all the oil and all that’s left are really sand and stones. But according to current estimates, at the current rate of oil consumption, that will not happen for another 90 years. In the mean time, as far as those countries are concerned, oil is a curse to their ordinary people.
The re-election of the leaders of these Anglo-Saxon descendants prove that all their talk about freedom and democracy is only rhetoric. Deep down it is still about the struggle for control of limited resources. In our guts, we are still wild animals. And in the animal world aggression really does pay.
Saturday
7 May 2005
