About Time for 'Regime Change' in Washington?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story Filed: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:07 AM EST 


Kampala, Sep 26, 2002 (The Monitor/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) -- It started 
as a joke and simple argument with newsroom colleagues, Daniel and Robert. 


We were debating whether American president George W. Bush and his most willing poodle, 
British prime minister Tony Blair were justified to keep shifting goalposts on Iraq. 


After Iraq finally granted UN weapons inspectors "unfettered access", Bush and Blair 
predictably moved the goalposts. 


The Americans insist on "regime change" (removing Saddam Hussein). They also demand a 
tougher, new UN resolution under which they may unilaterally attack and "disarm" Iraq. 



The Americans were expected to table the draft new resolution on Iraq by late yesterday. 



Blair had earlier presented a kicupuli (unconvincing) "dossier" detailing Iraq's assumed 
capacity to launch biological weapons in 45 days. 


The Americans insist they can't let rogue states such as Saddam's Iraq develop weapons 
of "mass destruction". 


Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, yesterday suggested Saddam would still be ousted 
even if Iraq complied with UN resolutions on weapons inspection. 


Americans now say disarmament of Iraq is the main priority, and that the best way to 
disarm Iraq is through a "regime change" in Baghdad. 


Which is interesting since the initial demand was simply that Iraq complies with all UN 
resolutions and lets weapons inspectors back in. Other things would follow, of course - 
based on the inspection report. 


My friend Daniel argued that he could see where the Americans were coming from. Guys like 
Saddam, Daniel reasoned, were simply too dangerous and unpredictable to be trusted with 
weapons of mass destruction. 


Robert disagreed. 


He argued that Americans had no right to decide who should and who shouldn't have such 
weapons. 


He also reminded us that, after all, it is the Americans who always nurture and arm some 
of the world's deadliest rogues - Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, etc. 



Robert was particularly angry about America's hypocrisy and double standards. 


He repeated the old argument: If Americans were really concerned about compliance with UN 
resolutions, why have they done nothing about Israel's blatant defiance of UN 
resolutions? 


Haven't the Americans instead bolstered the Israelis militarily and financially? He 
asked. 


It is open secret why Americans relate to Israel the way they do. What many find so 
annoying, however, is their posturing and double standards. 


Americans have been arguing that Saddam wanted to control the entire Middle East. 


But what do the Americans themselves want? 


Not only do Americans want to control the Middle East and its oil resources, they also 
want to control (and in many aspects already do) the whole world! 


So what is the difference between the ambitions of Saddam and those of Bush? 


None really. Except that Bush holds the trigger to the world's largest stockpile of 
weapons of mass destruction! 


We all know Americans may one day use those weapons to further Washington's interests 
anywhere in the world. 


Surely, Americans did not stockpile such weapons to make beef burgers! 


In any case, as another colleague argues, it is only Americans who have demonstrated that 
they wouldn't hesitate to use weapons. Remember the atomic bombs that virtually wiped out 
every living thing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 


How about Vietnam - where the Americans had no qualms about using napalm? 


An American president even boasted about his plans to "bomb Vietnam back to the Stone 
Age"! 


And what crime had the Vietnamese committed? 


Being communists! 


So if anyone were not to be trusted with weapons of mass destruction, it is the Americans 
themselves - because there is proof that in their selfish pursuit of wealth (oil, land, 
etc.) and dominance, they wouldn't hesitate to decimate an entire population if it were 
seen to stand in their way. 


Humans have such short memories, though. Otherwise the world would still remember 
what "Americans" did to the indigenous people of that fair land. 


They mowed down most of the Red Indians, and launched silent "biological warfare" to 
decimate the rest in the most inhumane way. 


The "god-fearing" Americans decimated entire communities of Red Indians that had survived 
the initial massacres by, among other things, distributing blankets deliberately 
impregnated with the smallpox germ! 


So what am I saying? 


That I agree with Nelson Mandela who believes it is America - and not Iraq (or Saddam 
Hussein) - that is the greatest threat to world peace. 


I also agree with British minister Clare Short -- that Iraqis who will die in the event 
of another American attack on Iraq are as valuable as the 3,000 people who died during 
last year's September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York. 


In short, American leaders should learn to value other people's lives the way they value 
their own citizens. 


The day they do that, their foreign policies shall be better informed as to show respect 
and tolerance to other peoples and cultures. 


Otherwise, according to Robert, it may not be long before the rest of the world comes 
together to demand a "regime change" in Washington, D.C. 


And where would that leave Bush -- a president whose legitimacy would always have 
remained questionable had he not been politically boosted by the tragic events of 
September 11 that galvanised American opinion against the new common enemy? 


by Ogen Kevin Aliro 
Copyright The Monitor. Distributed by All Africa Global Media(AllAfrica.com)