US President-elect Barack Obama was hailed as the "person of the year" by TIME for the year 2008. The magazine has named Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Gov. Sarah Palin and Chinese director Zhang Yimou as runners-up. Last year's winner was Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Previous individual winners have included Bono, President George W. Bush and Amazon.com CEO and founder Jeff Bezos.
According to the magazine, the way I read it, it said that "Barack Obama's campaign was notable for how it inspired people around the world to feel that they had a personal stake in his success." The issue revealed some of the most memorable scenes before, during and after the election day, including the long lost negatives of Obama pictures taken in 1980 as a college freshman posed for Lisa Jack, a fellow student; The pictures were published through the partnership of TIME and the image-sharing website flickr and presented over 14 pages of Obama-related postings. As the TIME Magazine puts it, "Americans didn't just elect a President on Nov. 4. They created an icon." and concluded that "his (Obama) genome is global, his mind is networked, and his spirit is democratic.
In politics, there is no permanent friend nor enemy, only permanent interests; this has been proven by former House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. who supported his son in the filing of the impeachment charge and later testified in the House Committee on Justice, accusing President Arroyo, his husband First Gentleman Mike Arroyo and then Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos of having orchestrated a controversial broadband deal with ZTE, a Chinese business firm. However majority of the congressmen believed that his testimony harvests more question against JDV than President Arroyo herself and likewise they believe that the former Speaker was just sour graping, as he was removed from being the House Speaker.
Last week of November, the House Justice Committee of the 14th Philippine Congress dismissed the impeachment complaint against Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo by 42-8 votes, saying that it was "insufficient in substance". The new impeachment complaint filed against President Arroyo is based on "rehashed and recycled" impeachable offenses that were already dismissed in previous impeachment filings for the past three years, said by the vice chairman of the Justice Committee. Now, the House of Representatives acting as committee of the whole has finally junked the fourth impeachment charge against Arroyo wherein out of the 238 members of the House, a total of 183 lawmakers voted to uphold the House committee report, and 21 on the negative side, while 3 congressmen choose to abstain. The allies of the president in Congress have certainly outweigh the opposition congressmen, in which the latter were mostly party-list representatives. It is clear enough to say that, it was a numbers game again that made favorable to the president. By this, the opposition has to wait again for next year, if they still want to impeach the president by due process.
In my own perspective of the issue of impeachment against president Arroyo, well the only thing that i could say is that we must face it, whether we like it or not, there's no better person to lead this nation until 2010 than the incumbent president, I'm not being a Pro-Arroyo in a way, I have to make that thing clear. My point here is that, we must always bear in mind the possible repercussions that it will cause granting the president will be removed from office. Political Instability, among others would only pull down our thrust to move forward as a nation. Its time to heal the wounds of the past, and must now face the problems that poses real threat to our country, these are the global financial crisis that we are experiencing at present, the continuing threat of terrorism, and of course not to exclude from the list is the extensive corruption in the government.
President-elect Barack Obama named his former presidential rival, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York as the next secretary of state. According to Obama, "She (Hillary Clinton) possesses an extraordinary intelligence and toughness, and a remarkable work ethic. ... She is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence, who knows many of the world's leaders, who will command respect in every capital, and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world." Hillary on the other hand said to Obama, "I am proud to join you ... and may God bless you and our great country."
Obama has settled on additional members of his Cabinet, although they have not yet been announced yet. Among them are former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle to be his secretary of health and human services and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to be commerce secretary. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asked about Clinton at a news conference in London, said Monday: "I think that she will bring enormous energy and intellect and skill to the position." Clinton's appointment has to be confirmed by the US Senate.
In a seemingly casual cabinet meeting in the palace, the media went frenzy over the troubled reaction of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to her press secretary, Jesus Dureza as the latter made an utterance of an unexpected prayer of his own. As Dureza said in his prayer, "bless the president so we will have forbearance, good health, the tolerance to lead this nation up to 2010, and perhaps, who knows, even beyond". This was the part of Dureza's prayer that draws reaction from the president which in turn made the crowd in the entire hall looking towards the president's body language, who immediately blurted out "oh my god!".
According to Dureza it was his own personal intention without having the presidential consent. Consequently, palace officials reiterated that President Arroyo has no plans of extending her term after 2010. Nonetheless, it only gave rise to the controversial issue of the foregoing charter change bid of the lower house wherein to date, it is only 15 shy votes of amending the 21 year old Philippine constitution, thus shifting the structure of the government from central to federal form. At present, out of the 238 members of the house of representatives, there were 163 congressmen who have already signed house resolution 737 that it is almost near to the 178 votes needed to approve it or 2/3 votes required, authored no less by house speaker Prospero Nograles. However, Nograles claimed that the resolution at the house does not include term extensions of the incumbent officials, including President Arroyo, insisting that the charter amendment initiative is solely for economic concerns that they in the house did not even talked about extending the president's term.
As there is a possible term extension for the president by her allies in Congress, there is also a foregoing impeachment bid against her, filed by Jose de Venecia III, son of the president's close ally before, former house speaker Jose De Venecia Jr. The fourth impeachment charge were still under the deliberation of the house committee on justice whether it is sufficient in substance; earlier, it has already declared that the said complaint is sufficient in its form. The question now is whether or not the impeachment complaint would be able to withstand the strong allies of the president in the congress? Will the thrust for charter change prevail over the impeachment bid? (to be continued...)
from left to right: Senator Panfilo Lacson and Mayor Sonia Lorenzo
Honing the Guiding Principles ofTrust, Honor and Respect FEU Auditorium, November 13, 2008
The Political Science Society of Far Eastern University under the robust leadership of its president, Mr. Dean Yap spearheaded another informative and widely relevant symposium on good governance and good leadership. The event was with assistance from the Institute of Arts and Sciences Student Council that made it probably an affair to remember, a good way to almost end the year by clearly sending a message of what good leadership is all about, what is the essence of trust, honor, and respect. It is an event made open for all of the students not only from FEU, but also from other colleges and universities. Indeed, it was a red letter day for those who are seeking for an exemplar of a true measure of leadership and competence amidst the predicament of the Philippine Society.
The guest speakers for the said event were Mayor Sonia Lorenzo of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija and Senator Panfilo Lacson of the14th Philippine Congress. Mayor Lorenzo was the first to talk about how she and his group, "Kaya Natin" were trying to elucidate to the people especially the youth that not all of the public officials in the Philippines are corrupt, as perceived by the public. This group where she belongs has been advocating for significant change towards good governance in Philippine politics, be it in the national or in the local context. Mayor Lorenzo shared how she as a local chief executive transformed the fourth class San Isidro Municipality into having a participatory and a transparent government through capability building resulting to community-oriented governance, where the people work hand-in-hand with the local government in the proper administration of their locality towards achieving their goals and aspirations, which according to Mayor Lorenzo, created "values for social transformation". A major element to such successful governance is trust, a relationship of reliance. Trust in the government is a way to a "better electoral behavior".
Following Mayor Lorenzo's talk was Senator Panfilo Lacson who made a sturdy presence in the stage with a flaming red tie, thus making the crowd attentive than ever before he made his way through the podium. His speech revolves around his downright condemnation of the widespread anomalies in the government today. According to him, "we (the Filipino people) have allowed our leaders to abuse us" and that "we have tolerated abuse and corruption". He also added that "noon patas ang laban para sa lahat, mayaman man o mahirap"; he said, before there is equality for all. He likewise reiterated his underlying motto, "what is right must be kept right; what is wrong must be set right". As it is observable, his talk was too aggressive and much like a campaign propaganda for his possible presidential bid again in 2010 national elections, it was entirely different from the humble and fairly educating speech of Mayor Lorenzo. During the latter part of the program, I have personally asked the senator on whether he would run again for president come 2010 or not, he answered indistinctly and just said what is more important to discuss is not his presidential bid but the fulfillment of his advocacies; this, notwithstanding the fact that in every slide of his presentation has a noticeable slogan that says, "Patas na Laban, Para sa Lahat". Though he did not explicitly say that it is his campaign slogan, it is already implied.
The mayor's talk before the senator was awe-inspiring, wherein the message of hope for the country is reverberated through the success of their advocacy, compare to Lacson's statement of disgust in the government, which he is actually a part of it, in the first place. It is wholly negative in its entirety. While, both of them admitted that the problem of corruption in the Philippines is pervasive and that change must come to rectify the mistakes of the past in view of a fruitful tomorrow, their means of getting the sympathy of the audience was in contrast with each other. The former's speech was as I've said was with hope in it, differed from the latter's speech that seems like a lip-service. Senator Lacson only presented the facts that most of the audiences may already know such as the all-encompassing poverty that the Filipinos were experiencing which is caused by the population crisis and certain factors. He presented these dilemmas without even presenting a possible solution to it, without any stated goal of renewing the public's trust to their government. He even stated that, "public office has long ceased to be public service". Such generalization of the status quo is in direct contradiction to Mayor Lorenzo's statements and views with regard to public service personified by public trust.
In conclusion, evaluating the totality of the symposium, I say that it was able to meet its objective of giving the audiences the opportunity of knowing what the leaders of the country can say about the plight of our society and also, empowering them to have their own perspective regarding the status quo. While we cannot avoid the differences of ideologies of our leaders, the point of the matter here is that Filipinos must consider that change doesn’t come from these leaders alone; change must come within the people who choose their leader. The hope for change will never perish, for as long as we continually envision ourselves of changing for the better, changing towards a meaningful days ahead for our country. We have already done it so in the past, as we have fought the dictatorship of the Marcos regime, and for that I firmly believed that we could again be united at present, hence overcoming the adversities we are facing.
"Politics is good, because politics came from God" --Governor Eddie Panlilio of Pampanga (Philippines) FEU Auditorium, August 7,2008
Governor Eddie Panlilio is among the keynote speaker of the S.C.A.L.E. General Assembly held at the Far Eastern University Auditorium in Manila last August 7, 2008. Such forums are made for the purpose of Skills and Competence Advancement Leadership Education dedicated to deserving scholars and student leaders of FEU, sponsored by the university's office of student affairs and community services (OSACS) in coordination with the Ateneo de Manila University School of Government. Governor Panlilio of the province of Pampanga talk centered on good governance, primarily his experience in the realm of politics albeit a priest for more than two decades. In the Philippines, there is a thin line boundary, so to speak, that separates the church and the state.
According to him, during the election period in Pampanga last year, the two leading candidates were either identified as one related to corruption, or a corrupt official himself. There is a philosophy he added, that in a situation wherein if there is two "evils" to choose, better select the one that is "lesser evil". But according to him and his group, a third force during the election period maintained that even if you choose a "lesser evil", still that is an evil. As a consequence to this, the third force was strained to look for an alternative candidate, a candidate who is morally upright, incorruptible, and of course, competent to lead the entire province. So then, parish priest Eddie Panlilio, or "Among Ed", as he is fondly called was urged to run in the election, and apparently won the hearts of the masses of Pampanga.
Among the major points raised by Governor Panlilio, on the context of good governance was that "governance is a matter of role modeling, a leadership by example". I say, he was definitely right in stressing this out, for I believed that you could never be a good leader, unless a good follower; considering the fact that Pampanga has been dubbed as the "Vatican city of Jueteng", a morally upright leader like Governor Panlilio would likely achieve a morally upright society. He also added that infrastructure projects are the main source of corruption, not only in his province but elsewhere. He said, that his administration would not tolerate any corruption, and will continue discouraging prospective bidders to government projects in offering local public officials with commissions. If he would be able to transform Pampanga into a more developed and morally upright province then we could say that he was able to influence his constituents, which is the true measure of leadership.
Another noteworthy point he said was "politics is good, because politics came from God". From this standpoint, it is clear that though he entered the political scene he never left the Christian teachings and way of life. He may be reprimanded by the Church in engaging himself in politics but he never took it as a hindrance in leading his province to the betterment. It is manifested in this statement of the governor that as a former clergyman he is guided by God in governing his province, seeking what is good and what is just to the benefit of the people's well-being.
His talk was not able to hit or rather focus more on prevalent issues in governance, be in a local or national level. Instead he merely focused on his superficial experiences before, during, and after the election and only focused on minor issues, not until the open forum. During the start of the open forum, the audience appeared to be hesitant to ask the humble governor. There was a momentary silence in the great hall, so voluntarily, I initiated the forum for I felt a little frustration upon hearing his talk because for me, it was mostly theoretical in nature, or to put in another word, it seems a pure rhetorical lecture and not a discussion of tangible or actual situations. This was not the end of it, as I personally asked him that undoubtedly, there is a usual contradiction in the Church and State principles, he as a governor and a priest, what would be his stand in the issue of the reproductive health and population control bill, taking into account the people under his governance? He answered poorly; according to him he cannot impose what the people should do, the people can choose whatever method they want to, but as a former priest he said he will continue to propagate the Christian teaching of family planning. He also added that the state, in which he referred to as the national government, must perform its role of providing education that would likely solve the problem. It was a poor answer primarily because, as a leader of a province regardless of his background or say, affiliations he must seek towards the immediate solution to such problems and with reference to his answer, he was not able to present a concrete plan, at least, to countermeasure the crisis on population that results to mass poverty. Indeed, it was a safe answer, so asked the governor to me in the end, "sana nasagot ko ang tanong mo", I hope I've answered your question, he said. I replied with a sarcastic nod to the governor and whispered to my seatmates "not really". After I spearheaded the question and answer part of his talk with such a timely and contentious issue, the open forum suddenly became an open floodgate, wherein numerous questions were thrown to the governor in which many of his response were still vague, that a keen observer could not really determine his stand on the issues that were laid upon; except when he said a slight disapproval to the Arroyo administration on the latter part, that could probably be the most awaited statement of the governor in more than hour of his speech. He said that the president must live simply, and eliminate corruption. Furthermore, he said that she is not trustworthy anymore because of various accusations perpetuated against her.
In principle, I firmly believed that an effective leader must always think like a person of action, and act like a person of thought. He must be clear and persistent in all of his decision to bring about positive outcome in an organization or society in general. A local public official though virtually under the national government, he must still pursue convincing actions that would present an avenue for a better management of the local government, thus providing innovations in his administration. In this way, the real purpose of decentralization will be met; much more the people's welfare will be addressed.
WASHINGTON – The Bushes welcomed the Obamas to the White House on Monday, visiting for nearly two hours and offering the nation a glimpse of a new first family at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. President-electObama and President Bush met in the Oval Office, their first substantive one-on-one session, while first lady Laura Bush and Obama's wife, Michelle, talked in the White House residence.
The president later escorted his successor to his limousine. Obama's wife was leaving separately after her discussions with Laura Bush.
None of the four spoke to reporters.
It was Obama's first visit to the Oval Office. The agenda was kept private, although he and Bush were expected to discuss their transition of power and such pressing issues as the war in Iraq and the country's economic downturn.
The Obamas arrived at the South Portico 11 minutes early with Bush and the first lady waiting for them. Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Obama greeted each other warmly while the president and his successor exchanged smiles and a handshake.
Taking a bit of prerogative, the president-elect put his left hand on Bush's back as the two couples entered the Diplomatic Reception Room.
Bush and Obama then strolled along the Colonnade and waved for the cameras.
The president-elect's arrival had the look of a head-of-state state visit, although there were no fife and drum bands, speeches or official pageantry.
Changes from candidate to president-elect were evident earlier, when Obama stepped off his plane and was greeted by transition manager John Podesta, the former chief of staff to President Clinton.
Obama climbed into a black limousine with tinted windows, instead of his normal SUV; the limo looked just like the one that the president rides in, without the seal or flags. The entire motorcade was upgraded from campaign mode to presidential-level, with an identical decoy limousine, a black haz-mat truck, a communications truck and the counter-assault team hanging out the back of an SUV.
Mrs. Bush was to give Mrs. Obama a tour of the first family's living quarters, including the bedrooms used by children of past presidents. White House press secretary Dana Perino said the two women were expected to talk about living in one of the world's most famous buildings, from family life to the help provided by executive staff.
The Obamas have two daughters: Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7. Obama started his day in Chicago, dropping the two girls at school, each with a kiss, and then going to a gym for a workout.
Obama told reporters last week that he was headed to the White House meeting with "a spirit of bipartisanship."
He ran a campaign in which he relentlessly linked Republican opponent John McCain to Bush and presented his ideas as a fresh alternative to what he called Bush's failed policies. Yet the tone changed almost immediately after Obama's win last Tuesday.
Bush, who had endorsed McCain, lauded Obama's victory as a "triumph of the American story." He warmly invited the Obama family to the White House.
Obama, in turn, thanked Bush for being gracious. The president-elect has made clear in public that there is only one president and for now that's Bush. Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20.
Josh Bolten, Bush's chief of staff, said Bush and Obama probably each had a list of issues to discuss.
"I know the president will want to convey to President-elect Obama his sense of how to deal with some of the most important issues of the day," said Bolten, interviewed on C-SPAN by reporters from The Associated Press and The Washington Post. "But exactly how he does that, I don't know, and I don't think anybody will know."
Unlike the incoming president, Bush knew his way around the Oval Office by the time he was elected in 2000 — his father had been president. Still, like many before them, President Clinton and President-elect Bush had their own private meeting, keeping up a tradition that temporarily puts the presidency above politics.
Obama has been to the White House before, including an emergency leadership session to deal with the financial crisis in September.
But an Obama spokeswoman said the president-elect had never been in the Oval Office.
Barack Obama's victory speech at the Grant Park in Chicago
John McCain's concession speech at the Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix, Arizona (videos courtesy of MSNBC)
The night of November 4, 2008 was the time when America's quest for change resonated in the US, as millions of Americans have popularly voted for Barack Obama with a huge margin over his close contender, Sen. John McCain of the Republican party. Indeed it was a historic night to remember as Obama was elected to be the first black president of the United States of America and the 44th president-elect whom will take office come January 20, 2009. Obama, a son a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas made a meteoric rise from being a democratic senator of Illinois into taking over the most powerful seat in the world. Not only did the democrats are victorious over the presidency and also the vice-presidency battle, but also in the House and the Senate, where majority of the members from both chambers of Congress were democrats, which would mean that the democrats are in full control of the White House and the Congress for the first time since 1994.
In his speech in Chicago on the night of the elections after emerging as the winner ,Obama emphasized his campaign creed: "Yes we can" and added that, "It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment change has come to America". He was joined on stage by his wife, Michelle Obama and children and his vice president Joe Biden and family too. But before that speech, McCain on the other side made a conceding speech in front of his supporters saying that he personally called Obama to congratulate the latter of his astounding victory. McCain was also joined by his wife and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin and his husband on stage.
Oprah's Reaction to Obama's presidency (CNN interview)
The September 11, 2001 bombing on the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in America by hijacked planes, changed the course of world history. It had claimed the lives of many innocent civilians which terribly shocked not only the United States, but also the whole international community. The unprecedented terrorists attack within the American soil was claimed by Islamic fundamentalist group, the Al Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden. Ironically, Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network was funded, supported, trained, and has been integrated as well with the teachings of Islam by the CIA of the US government, funneled through the military intelligence apparatus of Pakistan. The radical Islamic group, the Mujahideen together with Osama was collectively called an “intelligence asset” by the CIA during and even after the Cold War period. The CIA was operating covertly to support the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces channeled through Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence or ISI, which serves the American geopolitical interest in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has a strategic location bordering the territory of the former Soviet Union, China, and Iran. It is also at the center of five nuclear powers namely: Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Kazakhstan.
After the infamous 9/11 attacks, the United States government embarked on a military mission against the suspected terrorist, and those foreign government who harbor them. The Bush Administration initiated a war, a war against terrorism needed to combat the evil and even contain rogue states. Accordingly, these were just a part of a carefully designed propaganda campaign of the US government, which constitutes a legitimacy to justify the waging of the war that threatens the future of mankind. The American war is the initial staging of the so called, New World Order and the tenets of the free market system. The Saudi-born Osama bin Laden was held responsible for the terrorists’ attacks in New York and in Washington. He was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war under the sponsorship of the CIA, to fight the Soviet invaders. This covert military operation of CIA was backed by the Pakistan’s ISI. Its primary objective was to turn the Afghan Jihad into an all out war waged by all Muslim States against the now defunct, Soviet Union. The said operation was presented to the public as a response to the Soviet aggression to Afghanistan, but evidence would suggest that it was launched prior, and not in response to the Soviet invasion. As confirmed in an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was at that time the National Security Adviser to then President Jimmy Carter, he said that: “indeed, it was July 3,1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.” Based on this fact, the US initiated the Soviet-Afghan war that eventually led to the demise of the Soviet empire which ended up the Cold War. Consequently, it also led to the rise of the Taliban and the establishment of Islamic fundamentalists groups. The CIA’s covert operation empowered the Mujahideen guerillas in Afghanistan, which in turn boosted the opium production in the region. The US Drug Enforcement Agency didn’t pay too much attention in the drug war; instead their main goal was to do much damage to the Soviets. After the eventual break up of the Soviet Union, Central Asia became not only strategic for its extensive oil reserves, but also in heroin trade, particularly in Afghanistan alone. It has generated multi-billion dollars of revenues to business syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies, and organized crime. The Taliban government had imposed a ban on poppy production, but the America’s war on terrorism in 2001 restored the opium trade. The revenues of narcotics are deposited in Western banking system.
The American War manifests therefore, a geopolitical control over the “drug routes” and the “oil routes”. The covert support of the CIA has continued despite the fall of the Soviet Union. There was also a civil war in Afghanistan, but the Taliban with the support from Pakistan instated a hard-line Islamic government. In the competition for Oil control, Russia and the United States were the major players. Russia’s main oil route transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite Washington’s denunciation of the Islamic terrorism, the indirect beneficiaries of the wars in Chechnya are the British and American oil conglomerates which are vying for control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea basin. Pakistan’s ISI, supported by the CIA has been giving aid to Insurgency groups in different parts of the world. These Insurgency groups have links to terrorists, including the Al Qaeda, thereby promoting closer ties among themselves. The US foreign policy is not geared towards curbing the tide of Islamic fundamentalism, but in fact the other way around. It has sustained rather than defeating international terrorism in order to destabilize national societies and preventing social movements directed against the growing American empire. Pakistan’s ISI played a key role in the September 11 attacks. Pakistan’s chief spy, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, was in the US when the bombings occurred. He arrived even before the attacks. The nature of what has been called “routine consultations” was not made public. The result of it was to extradite Osama, but apparently failed in doing so. Yet, this failure was part of Washington’s design providing a pretext for a military intervention which was already in the pipeline. The times of India, which went unnoticed by Western media, revealed the links between Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad and presumed “ring leader” of the WTC attacks, Mohammed Atta. The report constituted the missing link behind the attacks; it would show that the general lost his job because of the evidence that link him to one of the suicide bombers. Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmoud wired the $100,000 amount to the hijacker, Mohammed Atta. The Indian Intelligence report regarding the money transfer by Pakistan’s ISI was corroborated by the FBI-led investigation in the wake of September 11. While not mentioning the role of Pakistan’s ISI, the FBI nonetheless points to a Pakistan connection and to the people connected to Osama bin Laden who are the money men behind the terrorists. The US support through the Pakistan’s ISI, to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden even after the Cold War was verified also by Congressional transcripts.
America’s war on terrorism actually consists of extending the global market system while opening up new “economic frontiers” for US corporate capital. The US-led military intervention was in close cooperation with Britain that responds to the interest of the Anglo-American oil giants, in coordination with America’s “Big Five” weapons producers: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and General Dynamics. The US congress had adopted the Silk Road Strategy Act, which defined America’s broad economic and strategic interest in a region extending from the Mediterranean to Central Asia. It outlines America’s framework for the development of its business empire. Under the Bush Administration, the US oil giants have gained direct access to the planning of military and intelligence operations on their behalf. The hidden agenda of the US policy was to eventually cut the Russians off altogether from the Caspian oil and gas field. With a view to weakening Moscow’s control over Caspian oil, several alternative pipeline routes had been envisaged. The Anglo-American oil giants, supported by the US military are competing with Europe’s oil giant Total-Fina-Elf associated with Italy’s ENI, which is a big player in Kazakhstan’s wealthy North East Caspian Kashagan oil fields but the key pipeline projects are largely in the hands of their Anglo-American rivals. Clear enough that America’s control of oil routes is not only against Russia, but also against European oil interest.
Since the decline of the Soviet Union, America became the only superpower nation in the world. It has already proven its military might, strong economy, and far reaching political influence. It has been the envy of the other countries. Many had aspired to be a part of this emerging empire, but America is also truly hated in parts of the world today, evidently manifested in the September 11 bombings. The Cold War, though didn’t arise in a nuclear confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, it has brought to us a long-standing effect. The detrimental effect of which was the creation of an insurmountable fear, brought by a more wide-ranging terrorist network based on Islamic fundamentalism. If it had not been supported by the US government through Pakistan’s ISI, these terrorists would not be as strong and intact as it is at present. The mentality of Islamic fundamentalists would have a religious dogma restrict human freedom and the human rights to life and the pursuit of happiness, which would condone such things as jihad, holy war, or in other words, the expansion of Islam by force, if necessary. Christian States and other States with various religious beliefs seem to be the exact opposite of that of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter take religious claims and law to be the unchallengeable foundation of the proper way of life and give religious claims legal precedence over human rights, in contrast with the former, which takes the inalienable rights of human being to be the unchallengeable foundation of a proper way of life, and give these rights legal precedence over religious laws and practices.
The dangerous effect of the US foreign policy that led to the foundation of terrorists’ network is happening these days. The ultimate example of which was the 9/11 attacks. The US ate its own dust. What it has created blows back on their face. What is more surprising and alarming to witness during the WTC bombings is when Middle Easterners were making manner of joyful noises, because some fanatic terrorists had killed infidels in God’s name. It was broadcasted in different networks throughout the globe. This violence is normal for them, it is the natural consequence of the fact that fundamentalism subordinates human rights to divine law making human rights secondary concerns, which I must stress is a dangerous thing. It gives them the license to do any number of violent things to people, as long as they can claim to be enforcing divine law that is ensuring that everyone does practice the true faith in the proper manner through their violence. Terrorism brought by these fundamentalists and extremists groups creates fear that agitates the body and the mind of every individual. Terrorism, as also discussed by several scholars, is the premeditated use of violence or any means of destruction perpetrated against innocent individuals or non-combatants, or against civilian and or government properties, usually intended to influence an audience. Its prime purpose is to create a state of fear that will aid in extorting, coercing, intimidating, or causing individuals or groups to alter their behavior, whether politically or socially. The aftermath of the bombings of the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and other related terrorists attacks in different parts of the world, met the objective of the terrorists. It is a crime against every existing national law, the international law, and most of all a crime against the humanity.
The US government must have known these consequences, and yet they still pursued their policy for the purpose of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, but as evidence would show, the US government continued supporting the international terrorism even after the end of the Cold War just to serve their own geopolitical interest, especially in Central Asia, where there is vast oil resources and opium trade is rampant. America has become more imperialistic in nature than ever. It has had used the war on terrorism as its excuse for military aggression and occupation. These acts were fabricated to as a humanitarian intervention and presented to the public view as a peace-keeping operation. For how many decades, America is maintaining a large standing army which absorbs a lot of money and resources that could be better spent. Why is it that they have to worry about other nations and its people, if they have plenty of problems of their own that they cannot deal with if spending too much time looking abroad? The answer is clear; America wanted to enlarge its dominion, particularly of its federal system by destabilizing and subsequently replacing other nation’s currency, consistent with its imperialistic character. Being the only superpower in the world, as of this time, must not be viewed as a positive thing, for it entails a huge responsibility giving America an imperative international role of maintaining peace and order and thereby promoting the respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and respect to the sovereignty of nations. But, what is happening nowadays seems to be self-serving interest. It has used its being as a superpower for its own end. America has its own hidden agenda concealed in a well-crafted, well-fashioned propaganda of war on terrorism.
