The Horror of Absolute Power

Columnist SULTAN AHMED discusses why total power is debilitating.

What Lord Acton said about the hazards of excessive power in the hands of individuals is almost equally applicable to two powerful states. He said “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The same holds good of absolute authority of states particularly in a uni-polar world with a lone super power. The US with George Bush as president is too conscious of that power, military power, political and economic power and a capacity to win over allies when it needs them. In the days when there was another super power in the Soviet Union and that power could effectively use its veto power in the UN Security Council it could restrain the US from a great many excesses. There was a certain balance of power in the world as shown during the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962.
President Bush is a young man compared to his father who was president in the early 1990’s. He is a Texan as well with no great patience for putting up with things and people he does not like, if they are non-American.
If he is young, he has two key advisors, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who are old and were principal advisors of his father as president. And in Condoleeza Rice he has a young lady as his National Security Advisor who is more hawkish than both despite her Black background and her past as a professor at Harvard which normally should have a sobering effect on her as in the case of Colin Powell the US Secretary of State. But she delights in her militancy and is very expressive of that.
So President Bush now wants to do what his father could not through his Gulf War in 1990 — eliminate Saddam Hussain from the presidency of Iraq. Hence Bush is not content with Saddam Hussain’s offer to accept back the US weapons inspectors into Iraq.
The world felt happy when Saddam agreed to accept the weapons inspectors following the collective persuasion of the Arab states. But Bush who initially appeared relieved by Saddam’s acceptance turned around quickly and said that the real demand of the US was disarmament in Iraq and destruction of weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons. But Saddam is not ready to accept additional demands from the US or UN which are too discriminatory. Bush is ready to go to war with Iraq on that basis and fight to a finish and eliminate Saddam from Iraq altogether.
In fact the American strategic planners want to go much further and eliminate Iraq as a separate country altogether and merge that with Jordan to create a new political entity in the Middle East. That can reduce the large role of Palestinians in Jordan and that will make King Abdullah with his American mother a more powerful ruler in the region if all goes well for him. And all that should please Israel who wants a softer Jordan with less influence for Palestinians in it.
What other far reaching designs does the US have for the Middle East after the elimination of Saddam Hussain from Baghdad? The US certainly expects a larger role for its oil companies in the region, beginning with handling of the Iraqi oil. What is certain after ousting Saddam is the US will move towards Iran against which it has already stepped up its activities. All that has made Nelson Mandela former President of South Africa to talk of the US as a bully in the world and the Justice Minister of Germany to compare Bush with Hitler, which has outraged the American Establishment. Bush is strongly supported by Britain’s Tony Blair whose dossier on the arms in the control of Saddam and his designs do not seem to be credible to too many people in the West, not excluding many labour members of Parliament.
France in particular does not accept Tony Blair’s brash contentions and assumptions and its leaders have been vocal about it. Russia and China who are permanent members of the UN Security Council are not ready to go along with the US in attacking Iraq, but Bush is exerting utmost pressure on the UN to endorse an attack on Iraq. He does not want to give more than the minimum time to the UN to fall in line and endorse its excesses.
Even the US is not going to hole hog with Bush. The people as well as many members of Congress loathe war. It can have serious political, diplomatic, and economic consequences for the world. And it will have serious adverse economic consequences for the developing countries who have enough problems of their own, and will be forced to pay higher prices for oil.
After the US was moving towards a war, the question was asked whether it can afford a war while it is going through a recession and its economic recovery is weak? The last Gulf War was paid for heavily by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab countries and by Japan. But now the US might have to foot the total bill which can be upsetting for its economy. But now it is argued that war may cost only forty billion dollars, and even if it costs double that amount, it will not exceed one percent of the GDP of the US says Robert. J. Samuelson. So the cost may not be a major factor in restraining Bush as he is likely to empty many of the old weapons in the armoury of the US on Iraq and it may make more money by selling far more weapons to the Arab oil states. But the developing countries will have to pay a heavy price if the oil price goes on rising in the manner it has been. So the US should be ready to compensate the developing countries for their heavy economic losses following the war which America is ready to start to suit Bush’s ego. The developing countries should not be forced to suffer for the sake of a war which Bush is determined to start.
How many wars does George Bush want to fight simultaneously? He is engaged in a war against terror with Afghanistan as its focus. Now he wants to fight Iraq and soon it may be Iran which he may invade. All that will enrage the Muslims of the world not excluding the moderates who do not want the Muslims to be targeted in this manner.
Simultaneously, if he was acting for peace and justice in Palestine, the world would have seen Bush differently. Over there he is with Israel, mildly disapproving its horrible excesses against the Palestinians, but in practice supporting Israel through and through. In that area he is dancing to the tune of Israel unflinchingly and letting Yaser Arafat be made a captive again and again and humiliated unendingly.
All that will outrage the Palestinians and Arabs as a whole and make more of their young turn terrorists, regardless of the suffering they may eventually come to. The provocative policies of Bush are producing more and more suicide bombers who feel it is better to kill and die, than die at the hands of Israel unendingly.