Is the world safer?
Is the world safer?
Updated 09:11am (Mla time) Sept 04, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the September 4, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
OFFICIALS threw the book at them, and yet the protesters came. The conservative, cautious New York Times estimated the number of protesters that swarmed the streets of Manhattan on the first day of the Republican National Convention at a staggering 500,000. If arrests are any indicator, the protests that began that day were indeed large: 1,700 arrested and counting. Government warnings of assemblies being used as a cover by terrorists, a huge police presence, and even denials of permits to protesters, including the Republican mayor of New York refusing a permit for a rally in the city's Central Park on the excuse there was fresh grass that might be trampled, couldn't stop the onslaught of protest.
But the protests also could not stop the Republican counteroffensive in an election that is already putting the bitter contest of 2000 to shame. One by one, the big guns of the Republicans, including showbiz star turned California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, went to the podium to denounce their Democratic opponents.
It was, however, the very choice of the venue for the Republican political fiesta -- the city of New York -- that set the tone for the campaign. From the day it was announced months back, New Yorkers were outraged over the selection of their city for a purely partisan exercise calculated to take political advantage of the Sept. 11 tragedy. Not just because New York City is heavily Democratic, but also because their city's ordeal is something they felt shouldn't be demeaned by being turned into a party mascot. Many New Yorkers voted with their feet, fleeing the city for the duration of the convention. Many more also took to their feet in protest.
At a time when a million American jobs have been lost, the Republican Party has decided to anchor its campaign on George W. Bush's image as a war leader. The convention featured his wife singing his praises as a commander; it continued with more such praises from his vice president and even a Democratic politician who once helped nominate Bill Clinton; and it ended with Bush himself making a prime-time speech proclaiming the enduring virtues of his "War on Terror."
The world, however, could not have failed to notice that even as the Republicans beat the war drums in New York, two buses were destroyed by suicide bombers in Israel; hundreds of young students were taken hostage by bomb-wielding terrorists in one of the former republics of the Soviet Union; bombs continued to explode in Iraq; and Osama bin Laden remains free.
The Republican Party is hoping to achieve victory on the basis of the inability of terrorists to mount a serious attack on the United States. It ignores the results the Republican-led war on terror has had on so many other countries: Spain, bombed; Thailand, with its Muslim region seething in rebellion; Italians, Japanese and Filipinos held hostage in Iraq. From a myopic point of view, the argument may hold water that America is safer; but Americans, and those who try to be her friends, are not. In the end, America is not safer: it has merely held off attacks for now, at great cost to her prestige, influence and economy.
America has not seen so many arrests during a political convention since the late 1960s, when the American youth, outraged over the Vietnam War, stormed the Democratic convention in Chicago, much more violently, it must be said, than the protesters that took to Manhattan's avenues. To those who are old enough to remember Vietnam, there is an eerie sense of déja vu that arises from witnessing a nation that professes such idealism straying so far from the path of its own beliefs.
The Republicans have proclaimed their convention a "defining moment" in the contemporary history of America. Their opponents concede that there is, indeed, a fight for the very soul of their country. For people like us, watching from the periphery, it must be asked, is the world safer?
The world surely has an answer, and it is no. But it doesn't vote in American elections. It just has to live with their consequences -- or die because of them.
Updated 09:11am (Mla time) Sept 04, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the September 4, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
OFFICIALS threw the book at them, and yet the protesters came. The conservative, cautious New York Times estimated the number of protesters that swarmed the streets of Manhattan on the first day of the Republican National Convention at a staggering 500,000. If arrests are any indicator, the protests that began that day were indeed large: 1,700 arrested and counting. Government warnings of assemblies being used as a cover by terrorists, a huge police presence, and even denials of permits to protesters, including the Republican mayor of New York refusing a permit for a rally in the city's Central Park on the excuse there was fresh grass that might be trampled, couldn't stop the onslaught of protest.
But the protests also could not stop the Republican counteroffensive in an election that is already putting the bitter contest of 2000 to shame. One by one, the big guns of the Republicans, including showbiz star turned California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, went to the podium to denounce their Democratic opponents.
It was, however, the very choice of the venue for the Republican political fiesta -- the city of New York -- that set the tone for the campaign. From the day it was announced months back, New Yorkers were outraged over the selection of their city for a purely partisan exercise calculated to take political advantage of the Sept. 11 tragedy. Not just because New York City is heavily Democratic, but also because their city's ordeal is something they felt shouldn't be demeaned by being turned into a party mascot. Many New Yorkers voted with their feet, fleeing the city for the duration of the convention. Many more also took to their feet in protest.
At a time when a million American jobs have been lost, the Republican Party has decided to anchor its campaign on George W. Bush's image as a war leader. The convention featured his wife singing his praises as a commander; it continued with more such praises from his vice president and even a Democratic politician who once helped nominate Bill Clinton; and it ended with Bush himself making a prime-time speech proclaiming the enduring virtues of his "War on Terror."
The world, however, could not have failed to notice that even as the Republicans beat the war drums in New York, two buses were destroyed by suicide bombers in Israel; hundreds of young students were taken hostage by bomb-wielding terrorists in one of the former republics of the Soviet Union; bombs continued to explode in Iraq; and Osama bin Laden remains free.
The Republican Party is hoping to achieve victory on the basis of the inability of terrorists to mount a serious attack on the United States. It ignores the results the Republican-led war on terror has had on so many other countries: Spain, bombed; Thailand, with its Muslim region seething in rebellion; Italians, Japanese and Filipinos held hostage in Iraq. From a myopic point of view, the argument may hold water that America is safer; but Americans, and those who try to be her friends, are not. In the end, America is not safer: it has merely held off attacks for now, at great cost to her prestige, influence and economy.
America has not seen so many arrests during a political convention since the late 1960s, when the American youth, outraged over the Vietnam War, stormed the Democratic convention in Chicago, much more violently, it must be said, than the protesters that took to Manhattan's avenues. To those who are old enough to remember Vietnam, there is an eerie sense of déja vu that arises from witnessing a nation that professes such idealism straying so far from the path of its own beliefs.
The Republicans have proclaimed their convention a "defining moment" in the contemporary history of America. Their opponents concede that there is, indeed, a fight for the very soul of their country. For people like us, watching from the periphery, it must be asked, is the world safer?
The world surely has an answer, and it is no. But it doesn't vote in American elections. It just has to live with their consequences -- or die because of them.
posted by Dante at 10:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home