A Critical Analysis of Harold Pinter's Work - Essay Example

I found that to emerge from a personal nightmare was to enter an infinitely more pervasive public nightmare - the nightmare of American hysteria, ignorance, arrogance, stupidity, and belligerence: the most powerful nation the world has ever known effectively waging war against the rest of the world... The U.S administration is now a bloodthirsty wild animal. Bombs are its only vocabulary."- Harold Printer British playwright Harold Printer is maybe not the only critic of the Bush administration but his statement definitely stand-out among all others. According to Printer (2007), the Americans superciliousness, foolishness, hysteria, and violence is an interminable public nightmare. A nightmare in the sense that the Americans through the leadership of Bush waged a non-sense war against the rest of the world by arrogantly declaring whoever is not with them is against them. He further added that the American’s hypocritical policy on weapons of mass destruction and public declarations is “almost a joke” (Printer, 2007:1). The reason for such a revealing statement probably came from the fact that there are indeed some intriguing and questionable American policies. Printer (2007) mentioned the development of advanced weapons by the Americans which they intend to use in the future where and when they deem necessary. The Americans seems to close their eyes in the casualties of war they started and the deaths of those whom they consider are anti-American. For them all that matters are the deaths of Americans and other deaths are unreal, abstract, and irrelevant. In their quest to fight terrorism or anti-American ideologies, they never consider the deaths of thousand people in Afghanistan, the Iraqi children’s predicament and death, the radiations they have brought in the Gulf region where children are reported being born deformed, the thousands of East Timor deaths in 1975 by the Indonesian government, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The million casualties in Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, and Argentina which were all sponsored and funded by the United States. More importantly, the dilemma of the Palestinian people which many believed is the fundamental reason in the present worldwide chaos. Printer (2007) believed that the anti-American movement today is the product of the long list of atrocities committed by the United States in the past. “People do not forget” (2), they cannot forget the “terrorism” done to them by the supposed defender of the world and pillar of democracy. Oppressed and frightened, these people are now striking back with force and terror. The New York twin tower incident is one them; a brutal act of reprisal against the structured state terrorism of the United States around the world for many years. The attack in New York and Washington resulting to more than three thousand Americans deaths droved many people to think about the motivation behind such brutal and merciless terrorism and majority came up with a conclusion that these attacks was a response to the injudicious United States policies in the middle east. What happen to U.S. Arab relation? Aren’t the United States been good to Muslims? What are the significant issue around it and how it all begun? One of the most notable reasons is the United States support for Israel which through the years gradually increased Arabs detestation over the Americans. However, according to Rubin (2002) there are doubts that Arab’s anti-Americanism is just mainly about the actual U.S. policy on the region since it is known to have a strong link with Arabs and Muslim countries over the years. Some analyst sees it as a domestic manipulation of various radical groups using anti-American sentiments to distract their people from other more serious issues in their society. The difference between the origins of such anti-Americanism is crucial to the United States government if they are really serious in maintaining their good relation with the people of Middle East and the rest of the world. It may also help to stop or diminish the incidents of terrorism and may perhaps ultimately stamp out the conflict between the U.S. and the Muslims extremist. Knowing the real origin of the conflict will help Americans launch a suitable public relations campaign or guide them in the revision of their foreign policies. On the other hand, launching an unbefitting campaign will only make matter worst. For instance, a U.S. gesture of reconciliation will show radicals that their terrorism strategies are effective and they make look at it as the best way to bring the world superpower to its knees (Rubin 2002:1). The Americans as mentioned earlier has tried to be a good friend to the Arab nation and even though it always wanted to pursue a foreign policy that would greatly favour the Americans, it always ends up coinciding with Arab interest. For instance, saving Kuwait and neighbouring Saudi Arabia from the wrath of Saddam Hussein in 1991 is good opportunity to seize their oilfields or demand greater compensation by forcing these governments to lower their oil prices in favour of the United States. Apparently, none of these happen and instead the United States sought wider possible support for their actions in the region. However, the most unfortunate, the United States is blamed whenever it tried to participate or moderate the conflicts in the region and the anti-Americanism brainwashing are used as a last resort by some political organizations in the area to conceal their own shortcomings. Despite the clear evidence of pro-Arab policy, the U.S. is still being labelled an anti-Arab and even accused of being undemocratic and in violation of human rights. Furthermore, they are also being charged of imperialism whenever they pressure Arab governments to improve their positions on democracy and human rights (Rubin 2002: 1-3). The U.S. government did nothing to directly antagonize their known critics or the regime of their enemies and on the contrary, the only time that it has become involved was the Afghan-Soviet Union War where it sided with the Islamist revolutionaries. U.S. generosity extends to non-allies as well similar to the 1973 Israel-Arab war where it forced a cease-fire on Israel and supports the Egyptian government with weapons and supplies. Arafat was saved by the U.S. from Israel in 1982 by allowing safe passage and forcing Tunisia to give him refuge even though the Palestinian Liberation Organization is know ally of the Soviet Union. The United States is untiringly shedding blood of its own people and spending billions of American tax payer’s money to save Muslim from aggression, anarchy, and vicious warlords in Europe and in the Middle East. They are obviously not gaining anything from these efforts but for humanitarian reason, they are willing to go further (Rubin 2002:3). “America has an image problem” (Genztkow and Shapiro 2004:1) There are several explanations why after all the good deeds; Americans are still so disregarded in the Arab region. One common notion is the inability of the Arabs to understand the democratic principles and foreign policies of the United States. Although the Americans may perhaps overlook some important issues in the region but the Arabs misconception of the Americans is apparently far greater than that. It is by nature and perhaps a deep seated culture of Arabs to infer foreign intervention as a threat to their sovereignty. They are afraid that the Americans will conquer and wipe them out because by culture they will do the same if given a chance. Let us not forget how these people are controlled by their religion and therefore it is not surprising that only one side of the story (most probably the negative one) is being fed to them (Rubin 2002:4). For instance, in a survey conducted by Gentzkow and Shapiro (2002) in 7 Arab countries, a strong 78% do not believed that Arabs did the 911 attacks (1). Another view is the unrelenting distortion of every good American effort while helping Muslims around the world. They were blamed at Kosovo and Bosnia for the suffering of Muslims whom they are protecting. They were labelled “imperialist” and “anti-Muslim” while doing humanitarian works in Somalia and most of their heroic deeds to protect the Arabs and Muslims are downplayed. For instance, Saddam Hussein who was neutralized by the U.S. in 2003 started two wars killing thousand of Arabs, destroyed Kuwait, threatening his neighbouring Arab countries, oppressed his own people, and developing nuclear and chemical weapons to annihilate his Arab enemies is given more preference by the Muslim community than the United States. They even blame the U.S. to be partly responsible for the Iraqis struggle and accused it of planning to dominate the Gulf Region. More importantly, even the American policy in Israel is distorted including Israel’s own policies over the region. This issue is critical for Arabs believed that Israel is an evil force out to destroy Islam and the Arab nation and whoever supports Israel is an ultimate evil. There is no doubt Israel is getting support from the United States but that is just to help Israel survive the attacks of the Arabs from all sides of their territory. In the history of U.S. - Israel relation, Israel was in fact not getting arms supply and other aid from the U.S. It was only when the Arabs aligned with Soviet Union that it was obliged to fully support Israel of all its needs to depend their country. However, the United States is still amicable to the Arab-Israel peace agreement and doing everything to guarantee good relationships with both sides (Rubin 2002:4). Unfortunately, Arab radicals as expected reject every non-violent solution since they are not pleased seeing Israel alive and steady. These radicals are perceptibly not after the solution of the conflict but rather against it. This is why terrorism intensifies whenever diplomatic means is on its way to succeed. For instance, the September 11 terrorism attacks happened at the peak of a diplomatic negotiation where the United States was pushing for an Independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. In reality, the United States could never make an impression to their enemies that they are just being judge unfairly and the anti-American is just propaganda which they should not believed. Anti-Americanism will continue even if the U.S. withdraws all its forces in the Gulf and convinced Israel to give way to the Arabs since further concessions will only earn more disrespect (Rubin 2002:7). The 911 incident is the turning point of the United States foreign policy. And for the first time in history, driven by anger and filled to the rim, the United States used all its power and waged two successful wars overseas. It has increased its military budget and established military link to its former enemies in the USSR. It has ignored the rules of war when dealing with suspected terrorist, change its internal policies overnight and created a new doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes against their suspected enemies. It has taken the decision regardless of the opinion of its European allies and withdrew all its forces from Saudi Arabia. Since then, the United States it’s strange “activist” foreign policy and created a disturbing image of what Printer (2007) called a “public nightmare”. The U.S. has become the subject of severe speculation and fear wondering what it will do next particularly those countries with not so good relation with the sole superpower. The United States finally decided to take a new path and launch a campaign for global control (Cox, 2003:4-6). The global fear of terrorism is now replaced by the nightmare of American power that can annihilate anything on its path. “Just about everything what U.S. chooses to do or not to do makes an enormous difference to anyone else” (Evans 2003:99), it has become the source of concern for lots of U.S. critics and those who are known enemies of democracy. They feel that there is nothing that the United States can’t do and it can make things worse for anyone whenever it chooses to do so. Many are wondering what the real American position is after the 911 incident and did it really decided to act as an ancient empire similar to the Romans and British many centuries ago? Many believed that the United States has been overconfident in their capacity and security 1990’s and they overlooked or underestimated the threats of the 911 attacks. It had lost some reputation when it failed to utilize its power responsibly (Abrams 2006:3) Bush may have thought that in a generation of terrorist where some small misguided groups of Muslims could cause disaster and chaos, traditional prevention and solution no longer applies. When old method fails, it is up to the United States to impose its own brand of order to fight the fierce battle of peace to shield and extend the “empire of liberty” (Cox 2003:8). The United States as the new imperialist of democracy, a compassionate form of imperialism whose aim is to shape the world in the right direction rather than taking over lands and governments. It is an empire with known massive power that it hardly ever used and a country with long history of diplomacy over its enemies. However, learning from the past and haunted by needs, the United States realized the fact the only way for a country with enormous power to survive is to act aggressively and callously in the face of your enemy (8). Finally Bush himself made this statement in June 2002 at West Point; From now on, he said, “we must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plan, and confront the worst threats before they emerge” (Rillings 2003:1). The 911 incident plays a very important part on this because it has created an image of crisis that makes tough foreign policy acceptable to the Americans. It was a “transformative moment in strategic and thinking among the American political class” (Rilling 2003:1). It proves the world is still a very dangerous place to live in and America must do something about it. The war against terror is now widely accepted for Americans believed that they are indeed endangered by organized international terrorist with unknown allies in their midst that will use weapons of mass destruction to accomplish their aspirations. By these thoughts, there is no other alternative but to use the colossal American power to interfere forcefully and mercilessly in security objectives overseas (Cox 2003:9). For any country, United States “military decisions means life or death” (Evans 2003:99) The arrogant stand of the U.S. is of course radical to the opinion of the international community and many are troubled that with unopposed worldwide supremacy the United States could install itself and assume the international function of setting standards and enforce their own interpretation of justice. The reality that such action would cause bitterness in other countries is inevitable but this means nothing the Americans who intensely want results and total security of their home land. The new American philosophy would prevail and it would mould international standpoint not by diplomatic speech but by persistent action supported by awesome military force (Cox 2003:20). The United States is so powerful and influential that it could make a big difference anywhere in the world. It can save lives or ensure destruction and deaths. The world is much aware that when the U.S. choose to interfere in Kosovo thousand of lives were saved but 800,000 helpless lives were lost when it persuaded the Security Council to stop interfering in Rwanda. The faith of every nation on earth is just indeed matter of choice for the U.S. depending on how deep is your diplomatic relation with them. The Sudan peace process initiated wholeheartedly by the U.S. brought hope to millions and long years of bloodshed is ended. On the other hand, since it’s not interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the battle continues and more lives are being lost. Whatever the United States do influence and impact the rest of the world and this means they are accountable for every move they make. After the 911 attack there is more genuine hostility not just from the Muslim extremist but from America itself. The publication of the National Security Strategy in 2002 that clearly outlined the use of pre-emptive strikes or “premeditated attack” (Vaalder 2004:2) including non-eminent threats is terrifying since no country on earth can matched the power of the U.S. military (Evans 2003:100). This is a confirmation of “American unilateralism and arrogance” (Record 2003:6).The reason for the declaration is the fact that U.S. can no longer “solely rely on a reactive posture” as they did in the past (Daalder 2004:1) and the threat is not just unpreventable, “it is also imminent, requiring urgent responses” (Record 2003:3). Harold Printer is right calling the United States a pervasive nightmare to the public and waging war against the rest of world is indeed stupid and arrogant and there is no doubt that the 911 attacks is a reprisal to their alleged atrocities. However, let us not forget that the United States is in the centre of conflict and the direct target of merciless terrorist act. As we discussed earlier, powerful nations like the U.S. will not just going to sit down and settle this menace in a diplomatic way. After all, they have been so compassionate with there enemies in the past and perhaps this time all hopes of peaceful solution are gone. Printer may have overrated the power of diplomacy assuming it can also be used to deal with fanatics and merciless Arab Muslim extremist. The U.S. stand against terrorism appears necessary and being arrogant is required like many other empires before them who successfully deter their enemies. The only highly questionable policy of the U.S. is coming from its pre-emptive doctrine to attack even the non-eminent ones making a lot of neutral countries worry of their fate. This is where America becomes truly a nightmare of violence, an angel of death and a judge of destiny. Bibliography Abrams Richard, 2006, America Transformed: Sixty Years of Revolutionary Change, University of California, Berkley, Cambridge University Press, New York, ISBN: 0-521-86246-9 Cox Michael, 2003, The Empire’s Back in Town: or America’s Imperial Temptation- Again, Department of International Relations, A version of this paper was first presented at the LSE on February 19, 2003 in the Miliband lecture series. Daalder Ivo, 2004, Preemptive Attack: Old Constraints- New Challenges, UN Global Security, online, Date of Access: 05/30/07, www.un-globalsecurity.org/pdf/ Daalder_paper_preemption.pdf Evans Gareth, 2003, The U.S. Versus The World? How American Power Seems to the Rest of Us, International Crisis Group (ICG) Adapted to the Foreign Policy Association address in New York on November 19, 2002, Vol. 27:2, Summer/Fall, 2003 Gentzkow and Shapiro,2004, Media, Education and Anti-Americanism in the Muslim World, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 18, Number 3, Summer 2004, pages 117–133, University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, Chicago, Illinois. Printer Harold, 2002, Why Bush is Insane, Article in ZNet, March 30, 2007, (Original Article first appeared in 2002), online, Date of Access: 05/25/07, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12453 Record Jeffrey, 2003, The Bush Doctrine and War with Iraq, Senate Armed Services Committee and Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, online, Date of Access, 05/30/07, arlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/record.pdf Rilling Rainer, 2003, “American Empire” as Will and Idea: The new major strategy of the Bush Administration, online, Date of Access: 05/30/07,www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysis /2003/03americanempireaswillandidea.pdf Rubin Barry, 2002, The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism, Global Research in International Affairs Center, Foreign Affairs v81 no6 p73-85 N/D 2002, online, date of access:05/25/07, http://www.foreignrelations.org/public/ Read More