Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Day Of The Dead Stupid

The 2nd of November is a day of celebration in Mexico as people celebrate their dead ancestors and generally have a party (Mexicans seem to have a rather more optimistic view of death). Families set up altars to the dead (pretty nifty and colourful) and get together for a bit of a party and general gaiety and frolics (under increasing American cultural influence the Day of the Dead has merged somewhat with Haloween with kids going round the neighbourhoods doing something akin to trick-or-treating). It's quite fun to watch and it presents a refreshing perspective of death and mortality as opposed to the depressingly dreary aspect it has in our culture.

Unfortunately, for me at least, this Day of the Dead was marred by events in America. Those of you who know me will also know my views on America and its politics (or lack thereof), which I don't really keep to myself. So instead of talking about Mexican culture this is going to be a rather partisan rant. Yesterday was an opportunity for Americans to turn things around and maybe make a start at repairing the mess that they have made in the world. (To name but a few issues that have raised my ire over the past 4 years: Iraq and the so-called War On Terror; non-ratification of Kyoto; the tearing up of the ABM treaty; non-ratification of the Ottawa treaty on anti-personnel mines; refusal to recognise the International Criminal Court (an institution that would help spread the rule of law in the world, something that Bush proclaims to be for); Guantanamo Bay and the complete disregard for international law and due process; the removal of the head of the UN comission on chemical and biological weapons and a reduction of its budget (before this became a handy excuse for attacking Iraq); I could go on but I think you get the picture.) The mind just boggles at the electorate's inability to remember anything but the last soundbite (and that goes just as much for Britain as it does for the States).

Not only has Bush not made the world a safer place place, but exactly the opposite is true. By invading a sovereign country on false pretences and trumped-up charges against the will of the international community, he has not only set an incredibly dangerous precedent, but also increased the wrath of many people around the world. Apologists counter with two arguments; namely that it got rid of a mad dictator who was a threat to the world, and that this may help spread democracy in the Middle East. In response to the first argument one could say that there are many dictators around the world, some of whom are even worse than Saddam was; and as for being a threat, it is now eminently obvious that he had no WMD (although of course he had aspirations to one day have plans of WMD programs) and was very effectively contained. But it is the second argument that is most pernicious. First of all democracy imposed from the outside is not only a contradiction in terms, but is also very likely to fail. And secondly it has never been in America's policy to spread democracy (the USA has overthrown more democratically elected governments than everybody else combined: Chile, Nicaragua, Iran and El Salvador to name but a few) and the fact that they continue to support autocratic, dictatorial regimes with dubious human rights records (Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia...) makes it all smack of hypocrisy.

As for the real problems that plague the world, such as grinding poverty in third world countries that is maintained by agricultural subsidies (a topic that will almost certainly require a rant for itself in the future) whilst the first world preaches free trade; climate change and the resultant natural disasters and destruction of biodiversity; the fueling of conflicts due to arms dealing, just to make a quick buck; and the complete disregard for international law and justice to further ones own interests.

I suppose that's what comes of founding a country with a group of crackpot religious nutcases. Although personally I think that the whole world should be allowed to vote for the American presidency, as it affects everyone quite directly. That way hopefully we wouldn't get religious fanatics, with irrational and uncompromising world-views, in charge of world affairs (despite what the American constitution clearly states about the separation of church and state).

I had better stop there as my blood is beginning to boil and I will surely start using profanities (I'm amazed that I've lasted so far). Although let me reiterate that the world is in for another 4 years of hellish conflicts and chaos, and, just on a personal and selfish note, it's going to be more dangerous for people like me to travel as people in many developing countries will be liable to lump all Westerners together and blame them for the perceived injustices of the United States and so be more hostile towards them.

No comments: