Compassion for the Robber and Anti-War Protests for Anti-Americanism?
From cultural perspective, there is a sense that the recent Iraq war issue is
a new kind of challenge in today’s plural world. Never before it was not so much
difficult to distinguish justice from injustice. Now, in this time of confusion
people wonder who has the final authority to say what is right and wrong.
Suddenly, the world seems to have lost the universal criteria of good and evil.
The political authority and the international leadership of U.S.A. have been
challenged by the most unusual way.
The anti-war message has gone around the world through the network of the
NGOs over the Internet. The online network is hidden, yet a
real force that can affect political affaires. These anti-war campaigns
know no national boundaries and it is the area that the U.S. government has no
means to control.
What has come with war in Iraq is war on the war. It is hot issue in most
countries.
People from the same Continent and in the same country now argue each other
as they have two different perspectives, two different opinions, and two
different assumptions. One says, “Going war in Iraq is just.” The other says,
“No!” One says, “Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace.” The other says, “George
Bush is a threat to peace.”
It is noted, when observed from cultural studies, that war in Iraq is tangled
with a couple of confrontations.
First, the Iraq war issue of 2003 is the confrontation of the two different
views on justice and injustice. Almost everyone believes that they are on the
side of justice. They condemn each other because they believe that the other is
on the side of injustice. Two different people group think in two different ways
as to how to maintain piece in our world.
The twenty years of Saddam Hussein’s military building is not too short for
the international community to see his intention to provoke war against
neighboring countries. The anti-war protestors claim that there will be civilian
victims. Indeed, accidents and mistakes seems to inevitable. But does it mean to
leave Iraqi people to suffer under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein’s tyranny.
Should they be left in their miserable situation? Or should the world go to the
war in Iraq if it is necessary to deliver them from that misery? One cannot say
it is Iraqi domestic matter, especially when Saddam Hussein is producing
bio-chemical weapons.
The public opinion about war in Iraq varies depending on what side of
perspective is emphasized. The anti-war activists keep talking about the misery
of the war. But they say nothing about the misery of the people under the
oppression by Saddam Hussein. They simply hide the reality of the other side,
the reality of the Iraqi people suffering under Saddam Hussein’s tyranny.
Second, it is also the confrontation between the subjective and the objective
knowing of the evidence. Not that the U.S. government has no information at all
as to the bio-chemical weapons in Iraq. But at the moment America has still no
more than logical evidence rather than firm material evidence. There is no doubt
that Saddam Hussein has bio-chemical weapons somewhere in Iraq.
Iraq is assumed to have substantial quantities
of highly lethal biological agents, like anthrax and botulinum toxin, and huge
stocks of chemical weapons, notably VX nerve gas and mustard gas.
But when France demands material evidence of it, U.S. finds difficult time
how to demonstrate it. There is a fact, not yet proved. There is a fact, not
seen by the naked eyes. There is a fact only the honesty heart knows. The
problem now the U.S. government struggle with is that they do not knows how to
prove what they already know.
The system of U.N. security did not work when a group of countries demand for
more objective, more scientific evidence while the other countries are convinced
of that Iraq has bio-chemical weapon programs. At this level it is what one can
know by making a guess. U.S.A. and U, K. and Spain act on what they know more
subjectively and less objectively. But these allies could not persuade France,
Germany and Russia partially because there is still no concreter evidence and
partially because going to the war in Iraq is against the national interest of
these countries.
It is the anti-war campaigns around the world that have even intensified the
division of public opinion. But the question should not be bypassed to ask, “Are
all anti-war campaigns genuine in their motivation this season?” Perhaps, there
are people whose ethical value says, “No policeperson for the robber. No war
whatever the criminal does.” For them, at least their intention is genuine. But
there are another kind of anti-war activists whose real intention is to destroy
peace in our countries and in our world. There are false anti-war activists
whose real identity is our enemy.
One aspect of the war in Iraq is that it is the target of anti-American
criticism. Of course, there is a group of people who join the anti-war protests
for their religious value. But it should be suspected that the larger parts of
people come to anti-war rally from their anti-Americanism. In his psychological
warfare, anti-Americanism is Saddam Hussein’s weapon. When he calls for Jihad if
the Arab world, he is instilling anti-American sentiments in the Middle East.
Now, anti-Americanism has to do with different worldviews. There is a
difference between Pax Americana and American imperialism. If the role of U.S.A.
in the international community is for Pax Americana, she is admired. But those
who associate U.S.A. only with American imperialism embrace anti-American
sentiments. Indeed, two different perspectives of America are confronting in our
world.
One factor that has contributed to the expansion of anti-Americanism is
compassion—compassion for the bad dictator. Those Christians who support
anti-war campaigns out of compassion should be prudent lest they instill or
enforce anti-Americanism by those campaigns. One should ask questions such as,
“Are all these anti-war campaigns intended to support Saddam Hussein’s
dictatorship and weapon programs?” The high chance is that this will only serve
Saddam Hussein’s political interest for prolonging his dictatorship, but not
world peace. Suzanne Fields is correct when she remarks,
“They're appealing to abstract notions of compassion
instead of real issues of humanity” (The Washington Times, March 3, 2003).
There are those who argue that going to war in Iraq is not the best resort.
May be. But is it the reason to, then, to leave Saddam Hussein alone to be the
leader of the Middle East?
The fact that the anti-war protests have been the global movements does not
necessary mean that it is a right movement. And when anti-war protests are
equated with anti-American rallies in other parts of the world, there is not so
much righteous in anti-war protests. If going to the war in Iraq is not best
resort, still there is a reason to demand that Saddam Hussein’s weapon programs
should be stopped. Indeed, it is now the human
shield volunteers who testifies why Saddam has to be taken out.
Daniel Pepper, a British photographer says, “The human shields appealed to my
anti-war stance, but by the time I had left Baghdad five weeks later my views
had changed drastically.” When he said to his taxi driver, "Bush bad, war bad,
Iraq good," he looked at him with an expression of incredulity. Then, the Iraqi
taxi driver told him how all of Iraq's oil money went into Saddam's pocket and
that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family.
Seeing he was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam,
Pepper concludes: “It is extraordinarily ironic that
the anti-war protesters are marching to defend a government which stops its
people exercising that freedom” (Daniel
Pepper, “I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam.” March 24, 2003.
London: Daily Telegraph).
 ©
This article was written and posted on
April 4, 2003.
|
