The land surface of the earth is fixed in area. It is divided into mutually respected autonomous states, almost 200 in number at the beginning of the new millennium. Geographical boundaries shift as a result of war, revolution and more rarely, peaceful accord. All in all, the earth is a colorful carpet of language and culture.

All is not well. Population density is uneven, and climatic conditions impose routine risk for basic needs like food and housing. There is waste and injustice in the utilisation of proceeds from resources such as oil, minerals and timber. Toxicity and waste generated by the industrialised countries accumulate roughly proportional to the level of economic development.

The distribution of valuable resources among the countries is uneven. In rich countries wealth from the natural resources is concentrated in the families of the elite, where hereditary and usurped power is alike abused. As a result, there is little uniformity in lifestyle, and malnutrition is common.

National governments vary in their sensitivity to administration of justice. Many lack a public policy which provides equal economic opportunity for their citizens. Only a fortunate few are favored with a government resolutely determined to protect basic human rights. Fewer yet are the governments that demonstrate a serious concern for conservation of their natural heritage.

Yet ideals exist, and men have made them the foundation of government. Modern communication makes possible new approaches to democratic government, providing individual freedom and equal opportunity under laws fairly made and administered. Many of these ideals are inextricably alloyed with religion, and though dogma often makes religion irrational and untenable, there is risk in disregarding the irrational if the ideals are endangered.

The situation in Afghanistan offers a case for serious study. It suggests new avenues for establishing the future organisation of national governments. The complexity of the various elements is a set piece of international discord.

Inside its borders, Afghanistan is a tangle of tribal areas, each with distinct linguistic and cultural heritage. Each tribal area makes territorial claims which must be respected. There is now no organised national government, no sovereignty for international recognition.

Surrounding Afghanistan are numerous countries, each with a keen interest in the unfolding scene. The flow of people across their borders is not well regulated. The conventional system for international travel requires that individual identity and national citizenship be evidenced by photographed passports.

Passports are not available for use by refugees in the current crisis, which is merely an extension of a conflict that has continued for a decade or more. Within the surrounding countries there is great diversity of opinion regarding the composition and legitimacy of any future government.

If men are measured by the magnitude of the menace they make, Osama is a mighty man indeed. The events of September 11 have set the world to inspecting its navel. The US suspected Osama and his Al Queda organisation, and began searching for them in Afghanistan. But opposition came from its Taliban government in the form of a refusal to cooperate in his apprehension.

Desire to eliminate the threat the suspects pose to the worldwide economic system, and the unease caused in the West by continuing threats, has caused the US and its allies to initiate military action intended to permanently restore a condition of security.

The activities of the US, and its major ally Britain, in Afghanistan, raise a number of technical questions. The present morass is the result of a massive failure of international relations, not just a lapse of vigilance. An executive decision has made by one country to unilaterally invade another country without a formal declaration of war. The situation is further clouded by a prior state of war existing in Afghanistan between the ruling Taliban and the contesting Northern Alliance.

The United Nations was established to provide a forum for member nations to discuss important questions in order to avoid future wars. It represents a higher level of organisation, but lacks appropriate authority to make its responsibilities possible. The events in Afghanistan, calling for neutral oversight, are a significant test of the ability of the UN to be effective when a major member declares its interests require unilateral action.

Lethal conflicts tend to follow a limited two-sided logic. Any country not opting to choose a side is relegated to onlooker status, as deprived of significance as any excluded middle. Yet the combatants defy any classification which would allow alliance without considerable qualification and condition. War makes a recipe for polypolitical porridge possible, but the dish seldom outlasts the fuel which cooks it.

Into this interplay of conflicting and competing claims is introduced the notion that the religion of Islam is being attacked and threatened by the foreign policy of the West. A modern Crusade to destroy a re-awakened Islam is seen by some. The US is held responsible for what is considered Western acceptance and support of despotic Islamic regimes which are friendly to economic activity, especially as practiced by Western-based multi-national corporations.

The West is forced to digest this argument, tainted through and through with the terrorist threat. The West is held responsible for the behaviour of the tobacco companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the timber and the oil companies, which head the list. The activities of these companies are antithetical to Islam. Anti-American sentiment is further fueled by recognition and support of despotic regimes which suppress human rights and frustrate universal aspiration to share treasured American freedom.

There is a strong desire for democratic freedoms among the peoples of the world, and many feel the West is not true to its ideals, its foreign policy lacking vigor in the defense of them for others. Many fault the West for feigning ignorance or impunity in its inability to confront and oppose the inhumane action of despotic regimes. Many find fault, disappointed in what they see as America's pragmatic desire for stable business conditions.

Osama points to the children as innocent and helpless victims, blaming Western foreign policy. It immediately attracts attention. The US is forced to address the direct denial of medical supplies to Cuba, Iraq and other civilian populations in what has been an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow unacceptable regimes.

Osama points to the affected families and denounces the policy of boycott. The West cannot deny direct responsibility in these cases. It cannot naively ask, "Why do they hate us? They must be jealous of our success." This is the blindness of self-righteousness.

A number of unpopular policy decisions, of which the failure to outlaw the land mine is a notorious example, has cast the US into a questionable position as a defender of basic humanitarian values. The West must respond positively to this criticism or face innumerable Osama's to come.

Malaysia falls into the category of a faux-democracy, a small country freshly independent of the British Empire's guiding colonial principles, pretending to respect and incorporate the English common law in its affairs, both domestic and foreign. It fauns for Western favor, yet proclaims itself Islamic in basic ethics and morality.

Among the despotic governments Osama denounces, Malaysia must take its place. The denial of any voice for the opposition, combined with false prosecution and imprisonment for critics and detractors, condemns Malaysia as a home of detestable dictatorship. The use of antiquated legislation to imprison political opponents is but the more apparent exposed rib of a corpse robbed of flesh and muscle.

What then, will the West do about Malaysia? In the effort to cement a fragile coalition, Malaysia's obvious departure from established norms of acceptable conduct has been set aside in favor of a brotherhood of arms. Malaysia is but one of a mass of countries which have abandoned hard won principles protecting civil liberty.

Sadly the list of countries supporting repressive new laws that allow arrest without trial or evidence now includes India, and what is most remarkable, the US itself. The great bastion of democracy and freedom, in a war against its most demonic critic, thus turns away from the principles that made it great.

The Mullah Omar predicts the fall of America. All think he announces new attacks to come. It may be the fall has already occurred, and is but to be recognised. If so, Osama has rudely succeeded in his attempt to destroy America. Every country with laws allowing arrest and imprisonment without evidence and a fair trial is now aligned with Malaysia, an Islamic country without portfolio. Torture and the consequent confession are now accepted interrogation techniques. Democracy suffers a misfortune if democratic countries in battling terrorism make themselves less worthy of defense.

back to list of articles