Sunday, April 13, 2008

Swatting Flies?

Stephen Hadley, National Security Adviser, on Sunday talk shows –

"The whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue. I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen if you're concerned about [Tibet].”

The question here to Mr. Hadley and his boss George Bush is what have they been doing so far about Tibet now that they think they have the bully pulpit to lecture rest of the world? Apart from sharing the dais with Speaker Pelosi while presenting Congressional Medal to Dalai Lama, what has Bush done so far? The guy never dares to talk about Darfur with Chinese Communist Party Thugs and never ever moved any high profile UN resolution about Tibet but wants rest of the world to believe his ‘quite diplomacy’. In any case ‘diplomacy and George Bush’ is oxymoron. Apart from Libya joining NPT regime, where has Bush’s Diplomacy worked? North Korea has effectively given Americans shaft while Bush has been doing this thing called ‘diplomacy’. Which diplomatic imaginative measure Bush has used to push the cause of Tibet? Snubbing rest of the world with her Stanford elitism is what his Secretary of State Rice has been doing all these four years. All that Rice did in her role as National Security Adviser in the first term was to ‘carry waters’ for lies of Bush and when he promoted her as Secretary of State in the second term, sure he was not expecting any results. What a waste, all these years have been.

You do not agree for boycotting Olympic opening ceremony because it is not any useful measure, then it is a different matter. However, the countries which are boycotting the opening ceremony are not necessarily looking for any concrete ‘results’ about Tibet. Of course, those countries know that different diplomacy and other measures are needed. Still they undertake such measure is to make ‘statement’ about ‘themselves’. Many sane leaders do not want to be ‘party’ to Chinese gala which is in any case different than the actual Olympic games.

If Bush does want to prescribe those sensibilities, that is his call and his style of politics. No one will criticize him on the basis of whether it is more ‘righteous or moral’ to prescribe such sensibilities because it is wrong to make such judgments and it is quite subjective too. But from that he does not get opportunity to ‘lecture’ others. That right will be earned if he had had done something concretely about Tibet. He has not done anything such and he is far from that.

It would have been much better if Mr. Hadley had been bit humble about all these pronunciations. But of course, humility and Bush Administration are like ‘oil and water’; never mix.

No comments: