Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (89853)	9/21/2002 12:27:59 AM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116836

US fighting a perception of insincerity By Tom Plate LOS ANGELES - Is it anti-American to disagree with United States policy? Were this in fact the case, wouldn't half the Congress, the beneficiary of a system that constitutionally protects dissent and criticism, now have to be counted as such? So when much of the rest of the world has sincere doubts about the wisdom of an offensive against the sovereign state of Iraq, should it be thought anti-American? To be sure, Iraq is a tricky issue, especially for neighbouring countries. They may not like President Saddam Hussein (who does?), but they doubt there is any present danger (at least in the absence of a destabilising Western offensive). In fact, we all know that many countries, not just Iraq, have stockpiled biological or chemical weapons, including the US and Israel, who also happen to have nuclear ones. What's especially widespread in Asia, though, is not just doubt but fear - that a Western attack on Iraq would erect an historic wall of mistrust between the West and the Muslim world and in the end create psychological conditions conducive to the growth of vicious terrorism. It would be a cure far worse than the disease of Mr Saddam if the end result were a renewed and seemingly permanent geopolitical plague of terrorism, especially against the US and Israel. But some of America's closest friends, not wishing to appear disloyal to an oft-brittle 'You-are-either-with-us-or-against-us' Bush administration, in Asia and elsewhere, fear to make these points publicly. Not, however, outspoken Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who is almost always direct. The problem of the Iraqi President, he says, will prove less daunting than the problem created in the effort to vaporise him. While Washington sees a particular evil, much of Asia sees a far larger looming threat. Explains Dr Mahathir: 'If America persists in removing Mr Saddam by military means, it will only anger the Muslim world. The Muslim world is already angry enough for them to produce terrorists who carry out suicide attacks. If the attack on Mr Saddam is mounted, there will be more willing recruits in the terrorist ranks.' The growing perception is one civilisation gunning for another, rich against poor, light against dark. Hard facts are not always as memorable or enduring as gut images. Dr Mahathir knows that in taking on the superpower he runs a risk but the truth is many people in Asia, as elsewhere, are turned off by the arguable arrogance of Washington's gut instinct towards geopolitical moralism. A United Arab Emirates columnist, writing in the influential Khaleej Times newspaper, put it succinctly last week: 'Not only is the United States the greatest and most powerful nation on planet Earth, but it is now also the one country that has appropriated the right to live by its own set of rules, quite apart from the rest of the world...' The Bush administration may sincerely believe its topple-Saddam policy is in the world's interest but the widespread perception is that what drives US policy is not a broad global perspective but America's narrow national interests and this administration's exceptionally close relationship with Israel. Because the US effort to imbue the anti-Saddam offensive with a paternal multinational patina seems insincere, the core policy seems inherently unilateral and self-centred. The writer is a UCLA professor and a Straits Times columnist. He can be reached at tplate@ucla.edu