George Bush arrived in London this week amid great fanfare and an awesome entourage of security personnel to ensure his safety. While this level of security was unprecedented for a visit by the US leader to London, it was justified by the threat of attack and the apparent need to keep the US leader far away from the mob of protesters. In an amusing and revealing twist, the London-based Observer reported that the White House had asked for immunity for its secret servicemen and snipers who will be stationed everywhere the President is expected to be. While Washington’s demand was ostensibly derived from the need to protect the free world and its leader, the British were having none of it. UK home secretary, David Blunkett, assured the press that if a US guard shoots a protester, s/he would be tried under British law, in Britain, just like anyone else despite US demands to the contrary.

Bush wasted no time reiterating his administration’s position on key international issues. “The greatest threat of our age” is the possibility that weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) fall into the hands of terrorists “and the dictators who aid them”. Bush has every reason to be concerned, given that the US has the most awesome arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in the world, and was convicted by the World Court in 1987 of “unlawful use of force” (otherwise known as state terrorism when carried out by a nation state) for its activities in Nicaragua. Naturally, the US ignored the verdict and did not pay the US$17 billion penalty to Nicaragua for reparations. A more recent allegation of US terrorism came in October, when the BBC reported that “up to 10,000 Iraqi Shias have taken to the streets of a Baghdad suburb to denounce the US for terrorism.” One man’s liberator is another man’s terrorist.

Bush is also right to be concerned that these terrible WMDs proliferate into the hands of brutal dictators. The Kurds and the Iranians know the horror of gas attack, which came at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi army during the early eighties. Of course, Saddam and the Americans were good buddies back in those days, and Saddam was just the sort of leader the US cuddled up to; a strong, secular type who kept his rabble in line while staving off the Islamic threat issuing forth from Iran. As for the Kurds, well, who cares about the Kurds anyways?

On the topic of the current Iraq situation, Bush was clear: “Democracy will succeed in Iraq because our will is firm, our word is good and the Iraqi people will not surrender their freedom.” Considering the US, along with their British lapdog Blair, lied about the WMDs, it’s kind of difficult to understand how their “word is good”. In fact, the Iraqis, with limited access to any sort of information, seem to have a clearer understanding of the situation than most Americans. Two polls recently conducted in Iraq, one by Gallup and the other by the US State Department, reveal some interesting tidbits. The Gallup poll shows that only 5% of Iraqis believe the U.S. invaded Iraq “to assist the Iraqi people,” and 4% believe it was to destroy WMDs. Only 1% believe it was to establish democracy, while 43% said the “coalition of the willing” invasion was “to rob Iraq’s oil.” The State Department’s poll showed that a majority of Iraqis view the U.S. troops as occupiers, not liberators. Roughly three quarters of the population believe the decisions of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council are “mostly determined by the coalition.”

It may seem strange at first glance that the Iraqi population has a more grounded version of US intentions than does the American public; the majority of Americans believed until after “major combat” had ended that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and were also overwhelmingly convinced that WMDs did exist based on some funny photos with arrows pointing at trucks from Secretary of State Colin Powell and Britain’s “sexed-up” report on the same subject. Of course, having been bombed, then sanctioned, then bombed again in less than fifteen years might make a population think a bit more critically than one infatuated with Wacko Jacko, Big Macs, and Prozac.

Bush also expressed his “deepest beliefs” regarding the importance of inalienable human rights. These are nicely illustrated by the ongoing detention of the so-called “unlawful combatants” at the US base in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The base is far from the scrutiny of human rights observers, and the unlawful combatant status circumvents the rights accorded by the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war. Since the US has firm command of the moral high road, you’d think they wouldn’t have to worry about observers. Yet leading human rights organizations have not been allowed access to the detention camps.

Amnesty’s 2003 report had this to say on the subject: “Although most [prisoners] were arrested during the armed conflict in Afghanistan, the USA refused to grant them prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions or to afford them other rights under international human rights law…The conditions of the detainees’ transfer to and detention in Guantanamo Bay gave cause for serious concern…At first, the detainees were held in Camp X-Ray at the naval base, a temporary facility consisting of small wire-mesh cells, exposed to the elements, and lit up throughout the night by powerful arc lighting…A more permanent prison, Camp Delta, was constructed and began to house the detainees from April. The detainees continued to be held for up to 24 hours a day in cells smaller than those of Camp X-Ray.”

Human Rights Watch has identified at least three minors being detained at the camp. There have also been allegations of torture, beating, and humiliating practices. The individuals at Guantanamo have never been accorded a fair and transparent trial. Allegations have surfaced questioning the very connections of some of the prisoners to terrorism. Without representation and without scrutiny, however, it is unlikely these people will be given the right to prove their innocence anytime soon.

Despite Bush’s pronouncements, human rights have never been a US forte. In 2002, as the US was looking to improve stability in Central Asia, Bush became friendly with Uzbek President Islam Karimov. By the CIA’s own admission, “current concerns [in Uzbekistan] include…curtailment of human rights and democratization”, describing the government as an “authoritarian presidential rule.” Amnesty has documented widespread use of torture, claiming the “human rights situation remained dire” in 2003.

This is nothing new. Bush has made it clear on many levels that the US has little concern for the human rights if it is at all inconvenient. Perhaps the most flagrant example of this is the ongoing situation in Colombia, where the US plan seems to be working well. Supporting a string of right-wing leaders, the US has worked with the Colombian state and its well-documented paramilitary allies to wage war on the Colombian population. Paramilitaries operating in collusion with the security forces have been responsible for the vast majority of “disappearances” and killings of civilians according to Amnesty. Colombia is the most violent country in the world according to UN estimates, with human rights atrocities committed on the population by right-wing paramilitaries, left-wing guerrillas, as well as the Colombian Army. But, it purports to be a democracy, and that’s good enough for the US; as long as the ruling elite continue to act within the contours of American interests they will continue to receive massive amounts of US military aid. This aid was once again increased this year, just as Amnesty noted a “marked deterioration in the human rights situation”. More than 500 people “disappeared” and more than 4,000 civilians were killed for political motives. Forced internal displacement continued to grow dramatically. Business as usual for US allies.

Bush went on to say that “these terrorists target the innocent and kill by the thousands.” Sort of like another group we know: “Throughout the world on any given day, a man, woman or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed or ‘disappeared’ at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not the United States shares the blame.” So stated an Amnesty report in 1998.

And so, Bush waltzes through London, albeit amidst a sea of security, explaining to the world just what freedom, democracy, and the value of human rights are all about. He ended his opening speech in London proclaiming “May God bless you all.” Thank goodness for our world that God has blessed you, George.

 

 

---