By Kelsang Rinchen,
America is all set to point the gun on Iraq's head. Colin Powell's address to the U.N Security Council was so well prepared, presented and deserved to convince not only the house to which he was addressing but also the international community at large.
Terming his evidences irrefutable the U.S. Secretary of State came down heavily on Iraq and said that it was in the breach of U.N resolution 1441. Tapes of conversation between Iraqi army officers were played, video footages, satellite pictures, even eyewitness accounts were used but do these convince the foreign ministers of other nations? 'International and community' are the words Mr. Powell used time and again in his entire lecture. An ironical question then struck me; does Mr. Powell's International Community include Tibet? Tibet is not a member of U.N but the Tibetans are of the global community.
What would be Tibet's reaction if it were represented by its Foreign Minister at the U.N.? America is the big Uncle Sam. Shouldering the self-acclaimed responsibility of global policing is America's favourite past time. Bossing over small and weak nations and at times awarding them with sanctions to keep them loyal is what America knows best. Turkey receives sanctions from America, but it is a neighbour of Iraq. It sure is the biggest headache for the newly elected Turkish President from a political party which has come to power after a long wait.
What is America's primary motive to disarm Iraq assuming Iraq has what America alleges Iraq to be hiding? The most justified and universally accepted reason would be that it wants to protect the world from the violence and destruction by Iraq. But the extent to which America has gone in their benevolent act to save humanity makes it hard to believe that it has no other expectations of war on Iraq.
The great democracy as America calls itself seems to be falling prey to personal grudges of Mr. President and his father who faced the same enemy in the Gulf war. Mr. Saddam Husein, in an interview to a private television, denied the allegations of America and demanded concrete proof. He even welcomed weapons inspector of U.N to search for more evidence but America's haste to pull the trigger gives no time to think but war, war, war. It was more than obvious that America's stand on Iraq will be identical to that of Britain's because they once belonged to the same country and this affiliation is natural. And the affiliation amongst the Islamic countries is as natural as that. Bush Junior and Tony Blair seem so excited to play the roles of their ancestors Roosevelt and Churchill presumably to have their names printed in history textbooks across the world.
China's reaction to Mr. Powell's demonstration of 'investigative diplomacy' was too soft to be called communist. China, the main player in the Security Council, said that Iraq should be given more time to back its claim of possessing no weapons of mass destruction, so did others as well. Chinese Foreign Minister's address to the house was so well designed to produce a double effect, not upset America and please Iraq.
Our American friends did not threaten North Korea, when it expelled U.N arms inspectors from its territory and broke the U.N seal on its nuclear weapons. What did America do about China's nuclear capacities in Tibet (Tsongon-now closed)?
Tibetans should be grateful to what Americans have done for them and they are so. But that does not justify America's attack on weaker nations especially Islamic countries. What would be Lhasa's stand on the standoff between Iraq and America if Tibet were Free? Tibetan government's policy of non-violence supports neither America nor Iraq. It supports peace which could be brought by the two nations together and not any one of them. Answering a question asked by a reporter in Bodh Gaya, His Holiness the Dalai Lama said that any kind of war is condemnable and that war in olden times might have brought victory for one and defeat to the other thus glorifying the victorious but these days it is not so, destruction of Iraq will have effect on many other countries.
What does America mean by terrorism? Is it killing people, destroying buildings, bombing etc? If so, America is a terrorist state because they did these in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Iraq and the list goes on of the countries which have embraced Allah instead of Jesus in the hope that they will be protected by the almighty. This is not to justify the violent attacks carried out by some factions of people who incidentally belong to Islam. America and India have painted this picture of a terrorist as a bearded Muslim maniac. Why is the word terrorism associated with Islam only? Aren't the Nepalese Maoists terrorists? Why are they called Rebels? Islam does not preach terror or violence in Koran.
Why is the most developed, powerful, advanced country in the world so skeptical when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan? As put by an Italian writer who had spent several years in Afghanistan to the readers of his book 'letters against the war', would Mr. Bush and his team of (former U.S. Army) Secretaries -(State and Defence) explain to the world what is the difference between the innocence of an Iraqi child killed by American B2 planes and an American child killed on September 11.
America should realise the damage that will be caused to the rest of the world by its power showdown. It is high time the rest of the countries - many of whom are recipients of American economic sanctions - spoke in one voice against America, very much the same way as Colin Powell said to the Security Council, "enough, enough, enough. And Tibet too should join in.
Kelsang Rinchen can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org