Slippery when left - Part I
A tad too late to write about Bush's visit. He has come and gone and inked the deals and the protestors have folded up their placards and gone home. But I couldn't help it because I was too busy honeymooning to worry about the world affairs. Now that I'm back in office and my wife back in Bangalore, I thought I'll spend a while worrying about the world. Here I go.
The screaming headlines of protests against the American President George Bush Jr. visit were too glaring even in the cozy comforts of my honeymoon. Then I wonder how it would have been for those who were in the thick of affairs. So what has he done after all? He has invaded Iraq, hasn't he? I can't falter him on having invaded Afghanistan because I'm greately relieved that Kabul is out of the hands of the barbaric Taliban. I'm too tempted to say the same about Iraq too. But then, Saddam is not Mulla Omar. At least we all know his face and his deeds. Left has been overwhelming in their support for Saddam. So he invaded Kuwait, didn't he? We were more than happy welcoming erstwhile premiers of Soviet Union. They invaded, plundered, destroyed the cultures and economies of countless countries around them. For that matter, the current plight of Afghanistan should be majorly attributed to Soviet Union and not America. At best they can share the blame 50-50. So where were the black flags when those leaders visited us? And where was Arundati Roy when the Chinese premier came calling? She didn't write eloquent about them because they invaded their neighbour called India and are still holding some considerable portion of Indian land! Pakistan president didn't receive black flags for Kargil, Saudi Royal for human rights records and sponsoring terror.
But George Bush receives reams of anger and kilometers of black cloth and Pakistani presidents visit becomes a 'Confidence Building Measure' and Chinese Premieres visit is touted as a 'glimmering hope'.
I do not understand this conflict. Also, if Iraq and Iran are the only issues, I do not want to mix that up with Bush's current visit. My views on Iraq war are quite personal and out of scope of this post. And I intend writing on Iran and left's stand on this in Part II. In general, I would like to approach Bush with a simple idea. I neither love or deplore him. He is the president of one of the technologically most superior nations in the world and I want those technologies. He is willing to give some of them to me on certain conditions. I understand those conditions because nobody gives anything for free anywhere. I'm willing to weigh those conditions and would like to draw a balance and strike a deal with him. Such a relationship is going to benefit my country economically and technologically. Making enemies with Bush doesn't make sense and I don't believe he has done something so atrocious that other countries haven't done. And to me, as an Indian, my country's foreign policies should be decided based on my selfish needs and not on any misplaced moral grounds. Considering that I would like to offer a warm invite to President Bush.
Welcome to India. I hope you had a nice stay. I hear you skipped poultry. Try our chicken tikka next time.
4 Comments:
maybe nothing gives half as much media coverage as hitting out at the US president.
6 March 2006 at 16:16
The Soviet Union is history. So is the China that you refer to. But Bush is here today and he is a bad man. He uses religion like all bad men to kill people and line his own pocket.
As to Prabhu's point that protesting a US president gets one print space, I dont remember Clinton's 5-day visit being greeted with any such placards.
Once again, Bush is a bad man and he should be protested, irrespective of whether someone else was protested or not.
And I am sad he didnt eat some chicken and get bird flu.
I also hope he had a pathetic visit.
7 March 2006 at 05:41
I abide by sridhar its sounds very practical. No one is great saint or loyal or ahmisa follower. You got to get something you got to give up something. Exactly the media zooms everything 100% which is so unwanted. So Bush is not that bad either.Never said he is good but.
8 March 2006 at 11:23
brillaint post sridharan.cudnt agree with u more.infact u have made all the points i wanted to make in a post but cudnt as u beat me to it.i think there is nothing wrong with bush invading both iraq and afghanistan.both were being ruled by ruthless inhuman beasts who were best known for their human rights abuses.yes unilateral invasion wasn't the best course of action but when the us tried to muster support at the UN for iraq,none of the countries were ready to support them.i guess they were busy minting money from the oil for food scam.i accept that the us is guilty of double standards.but hey whatever their intentions may have been they did the right thing.as long as saddam was in power the world view him as a threat but as soon as us decided to take some action the question of sovereignity arose.i guess the reason the US continues to dominate this world is the fact that the rest of the developed and certain developing nations aren't united or coherent in their response to america's hegemony.had they taken part in iraq war i think the current state of affairs in iraq cud have been avoided and even the claims that bush went to war for oil,if true, cud have been avoided.
8 March 2006 at 17:34
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home