Financial Gazette (Harare)
Ken Mufuka
17 August 2007
column
Harare — Good governance assumes three factors, namely that most government business be done in public, that the government is subject to judicial supervision and lastly that the people, through their representatives in Congress, can force the government to change course in order to comply with the people's wishes.
That has not been the case while George W. Bush has been president since year 2000.
Seymour Hersh wrote a year ago that President Bush had secret plans to invade Iran and destroy their alleged nuclear facilities. As I write, there are now new plans to actually increase US forces in Iraq by another 30 000 by the end of this year. The rumors of a stealth attack on Iran have actually increased.
If Bush succeeds in both these two endeavors, he would have achieved a monumental success against the wishes of Congress and the people. This is how this is being achieved. Congress set up the Baker Commission on Iraq. James Baker was Secretary of State in a former Bush (the father) administration. Congress welcomed the seventy recommendations, generally in favor of a phased withdrawal of US presence in Iraq. Bush rejected the Baker recommendations in favor of sending General David Petreaus to Iraq with additional troops to impose a pax Americana. In two weeks time, Petreaus will report to Congress that his troop surge has achieved a measure of success.
By whose reckoning is success to be measured? That is the trick. On August 13, the number of American deaths in Iraq averaged 100 per month, totaling 3661 deaths since the war. Nothing has changed on that front. The issue here is that it is inconceivable for Petreaus to say that his mission has failed. His report has already been leaked. A measure of success has been achieved, it says, and more troops are required. Thus, the wishes of Congress, and the expressed wishes of the people who voted in November against the war have been aborted.
The Bush administration has scored major successes especially in the area of avoiding judicial oversight. Early in the war, between 2003 and 2005, the military organised internment camps at Abhu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo in Cuba. Since these camps were in foreign countries, they were designed to escape the scrutiny of the judicial arm of the US constitution. As we go to the press, more than 5 000 "enemy combatants" have been at Guantanamo for five years without recourse to the courts. Of these combatants, one was a fourteen-year old boy and another was a journalist who had gone to Afghanistan to return a rented car. Yet another two were British nationals of Arab descent. They were just rounded up and thrown in jail. We are talking of being in jail for five years without a case being leveled against the person. This is probably the worst case abuse of authority by government. Despite the Supreme Court ruling against Guantanamo internment without trial by the judiciary, the administration has refused to dismantle them.
Another worst case scenario is the Patriot Act 2003. This law authorises US operatives to snoop into telephone and email conversations of suspects. The Supreme Court ruled that there must be judicial oversight. A secret friendly court was then set up, but despite the availability of this court, Congress found that over 1, 000 cases by-passed this secret court.
The US government seems to be able to get away with these infractions. The most important reason seems to be that, even people like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who are opposed to abuse of power, realise that in the long run the aims of American hegemony in the Middle East and in Afghanistan are aimed at securing the oil and natural gas reserves there. Without these, the American automobile civilization would be threatened. This assessment is crucial to understanding our relationships with the super powers. Ali Mazrui once put it this way. A man arranges to cook a meal, he has firewood, corn meal and vegetables but the water well is situated in a neighbor's yard. Winston Churchill, as First Sea Lord, began to convert British warships from coal to diesel in 1922. Britain did not have nay oil at that time. "The answer, my boy, Iran!" The Turkish Iranian Anglo Oil Exploration Company was designed to serve this need.
While our friends like Mrs. Clinton may wish us well and may hate President Bush's policies, they see the need to secure the resources in those areas. They are more or less compassionate hegemonists; but nevertheless, do not have the luxury of leaving these people alone.
I envy these imperialists. They may have differences, but they have achieved a measure of coherence in the way they see their interests. Whether they are Republicans or Democrats, they make the same difference.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2007 Financial Gazette. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
