The Death of Bin Laden: what new era awaits?

At 10:00PM the death of Osama Bin Laden was breaking news in the United States. While US citizens across the world cheered, some finding their hidden patriotism broke out in song - the American Anthem no less - I sat in my room glued to CNN and contemplated what will all this mean. 

For well over a decade, Osama Bin Laden has headed the United State's most wanted list. First brought to general American consciousness with the initial attack on the Word Trade Centre in 1993, he fermented the hatred many felt with the subsequent 9-11 attacks. For the military members, their  families, 911 first responders and their families the death of Osama Bin Laden brings a personal sign of relief as well and perhaps renewed and increased hope, faith that the US wars in the region were not senseless. Their loss was not without reason and they have now been rewarded for the difficulties they have faced since.

Silently, I too rejoice, not at the death of a man, but at the removal of one of the grand masterminds of Human Rights abuses and chaos while wondering what this truly means. The death of Bin Laden signifies the end of an era for all involved, particularly Al Qaeda. The terrorist organization has lost a leader at the hands of one of it's most heated targets, will this not be greater motive to harm the institution that is the US? A more pertinent question maybe can this potential threat be actualized, without a central figure, does Al Qaeda have the required cohesion to continue? Will Bin Laden loyalist continue under his successors rule or will/has is death have/had enough impact to shake the resolve of Al Qaeda supporters?

--- gone to watch the rest of the news...To Be continued. ---

Letter to the Editor: Human Rights and The USA - Iraq War

I recently went through my hard drive and found a partial back-up of a letter I had written to the editor on November 7, 2007, consider it a preview of what to expect from this blog.
-----------------------------------------

The Editor

The Gleaner Company

7 North Street

P.O. Box 40

Kingston

Jamaica, W.I

Dear Sir or Madam:

Over the past seven years the issue of Human Rights has become a hot button topic particularly those of women’s reproductive rights. The issue of a woman’s right to choose has become not only a front-runner on conventional political platforms but integral to almost every religious debate. Some may wonder in what way is a ‘woman’s right to choose’ relevant in international relations; it is not the issue itself that is of great importance but the principle behind it.

Women are individuals in their own right and as such should have the right of choice and by extension the right of self-governance in the same way that countries are in essence individuals and should be allowed to choose their own path, to self-govern. The issue then becomes one of ethics, in as much the same way that female reproductive rights become a moral one.  Does the right to self-determination, to choosing for ones self out weigh the right of another to survive? Can one country’s right to sovereignty supersede another’s right to exist or worse, the right of its own countrymen to survive? These are the questions that lie at the root of several issues on the world stage today.

One cannot look at the on going brawl between the United States and Turkey without wondering; How many rights does the idea of sovereignty afford a country? Is sovereignty equal for all nation-states; should it be equal?

There is no greater example of the dispute over the issue of sovereign equality than the Iraq-US war. In the same way that the dispute between Conservative Catholics and pro-choice groups represent struggle that exist in women’s right of self determination. If one cares to look beyond the popular theories advanced as to the reasons for the Iraq war it becomes evident that it centers on the issue of sovereignty. Iraqis allied with Al Qaeda or not, will continue to oppose US troops in Iraq on the basis that the US has violated their sovereignty as a nation. They may not say it in so many words but the feeling that the countries right to self-government, to choose who and what it becomes was revoked; and they had no say in it. The conscientious may be drawn that before ousting of Saddam they, Iraqis had the illusion of some form of control of their own country. Iraq was governed by an Iraqi, Now? It is governed by a band of puppets with the US as master puppeteer.

In the same way that I cannot be certain that the idea of puppeteering (with government supporters of pro-life being the Vatican’s puppets) is shared buy supporters of the Pro-choice movement, I cannot say the statement about the US and Iraqi government are the exact thoughts of Iraq’s men and women. They however, would definitely be thoughts of mine, if only once, should I stand in their shoes. It is my belief that this sentiment and questions risen as a result stand as the platform for recruiting support for Al Qaeda and other terrorist regimes not only with in Iraq but the collective of Middle Eastern States and Muslim nations as a whole. For one who hold such an outlook the transition to a view of, ‘Look at what they did to Iraq where will be next? Or the even more grave who shall stop them?’ is easy. This is where terrorism derives its strength.

Oddly enough this is the premise on which the US President built his argument for the invasion of Iraq. Some may argue that the reason for entering Iraq was to liberate its people and that unlike Iraq; the US was attacked, not invaded. An argument for The War as mode of Iraqi liberation would stand had the US merely overthrown Saddam and with drawn once a government of the people had been established.  Having establish a quasi form of martial law followed by the handing over of Iraq to a virtually hand picked Iraqi government and requiring a democratic governmental system, coupled with the continual military occupation – regardless of reason - the US has done nothing short of an invasion. An invasion, which parallels that of those of the Roman and Ottoman Empires in structure; concur, rule by force, establish your form of governance and continue occupancy until the society yields or you are evicted.

In defense of the US’s actions, they have done nothing more than what Al Qaeda proposes to do; to protect the world, their world, from an imminent threat. They have asked the same questions and arrived at the same answers while holding a different focal point. Instead of asking, ‘Haven’t we got the right to rule our own as we see fit?’ they place emphasis on last of the series of questions posed earlier ‘Look what they did to us, where will be next? Who shall stop them but us?’ An example had to be made of those considered a threat, the example Iraq. It is in making an example of Iraq that this issue of balanced sovereignty arises.

After the events of 9/11 it became evident that sovereignty was not of equal weight on the world stage. There appears to exist countries with a greater right to sovereignty than others. When the world morns an event such as 9/11 not as a tragic event that occurred in the US and against the US, but as a world tragedy and views and death of civilians in Iraq or better yet in Rwanda, Sudan or even Somalia as tragedies confined to those respective countries and not world tragedies, it stands to reason that ….