The so called civilized states have always blamed
other states to be uncivilized and devoid of concept of human
There may be a shade of reality but one needs to see that to what
extent they are correct. I don't mean to defend the atrocities,
barbarities and grave human rights violations committed by the
rulers of the third world or different political, tribal,
communal, ethnic and religious groups. One honestly needs to study
the present and past of these big powers so as to see the
dichotomy between what they say and what they act.
Let's begin with the UK which is considered to be the mother of
democracy it started its democratic process with the imposition of
the Magna Caarta.
The English struggled hard to reduce the powers of their
autocratic rulers and it was because of this struggle that the
English absolute monarchy was reduced to constitutional monarchy
but the principles of democracy were confined to English elite
class only because when the wealth of the world was being
concentrated in London, it was the same time when the working
class of England was starving to death. They were living at
subsistence level, having no amenities at all. The English rulers
were plundering their own people and colonies on the one hand and
claiming to be the champion of democracy and torch bearer of
civilization on the other hand.
Today in our universities we are taught that the nation state
concept emerged with the treaty of the Westphalia but if one
analyzes the events following this treaty, one can't help Averring
that it was not a beginning of the nation state system but a
pledge to exploit the weaker and not to confront with the powerful
states. If it were the beginning of the nation states system then
the states to this agreement should not have colonized the poor
states but they did so and avoided fighting with one another.
England has also been the birth place of free Market but a careful
study would reveal that the concept of free market was only meant
to empower a few capitalists to do whatever they pleased. For
instance, the East India company and English imperialistic
policies reduced India from a cotton exporting country to a godown
of raw material which would be bought by the English and resold at
higher prices in India. This Free Market Economy flourished on the
exploitation of the poor and policies of protectionism.
The champion of free market first imposed 25% import duty on
Indian textile items then 50 per cent and finally 85%.
Today England other capitalist states demand that the all states
should reduce import duty and if they don't do so the capitalist
states refuse to buy their products by saying that they were
prepared by children and under unsatisfactory conditions but what
would the English say about the exploitation of the English
children women and working class at the hand of their own
compatriots in 18th, 19th and 20th century. Can any English
capitalist refute the bitter realities postulated by Engle in one
of his books? Can the exploitation of children depicted by dicken
in his novels be stultified? I don't mean to justify the child
labour or exploitation of workers in poor states. But has England
Changed that at all. Are non-English workers on illegal immigrants
paid reasonable wages or they are still unpaid. Isn't it a reality
that the wage of 3 Asian workers is equal to one local labourer.
The English companies or buying agents still prefer to purchase
many textile items from poor states especially from Pakistan. As
they think that if they themselves manufacture it they will have
to pay a lot of amount to labourers. So, their purchasing things
from Pakistan indicates that even today they are unwilling to pay
handsome wages to the labourers.
The recent concept of ethics in English policy is not a result of
any sympathy for human sufferings. The English govt. announced a
reduction of 500 mullion pistols. As, according to them 30 million
people lose their lives due to the spread of right and
conventional weapons. The English govt. did not actually state
that Germany has emerged as a big conventional weapons supplier
with in last seven years and its, conventional weapons trade is
not as lucrative as it used to be.
The English tactic use human rights and sanctity of human lives,
slogan is not new in is when England was competing with Portuguese
and Mexico in slaves trade, it suddenly stated urging to abolish
slavery. Though there are a few sections of the English society
who abominated this trade, the English parlia mentarian who were
in fact protecting the English capitalist class raised this issue
to weaken the position of those states who were flourishing on
slaves, trade But at later stage when the trade once again became
beneficial this issue was suppressed but stiuat another stage when
the sugar plantation in Brazil greatly benefited the state. The
English again clamored against slavery but not out of lave for
humanity but out of commercial interests.
England along with other capitalist states urge the poor states to
follow transparency and honesty in business matters. But the
report of international transparency depicts that England is also
involved in kickback and promoting corruption in poor states. This
kick back and promotion of corruption is not new among English
capitalist. In history they have been doing so. For instance, the
English would give much bribe to the rulers of the princely
states, Mughal courtiers, Mughal governors and Mughal general in
form of the gifts and would get a lot of privileges against those
The case of Hubco is an open secret now. All know that it heavily
bribed the govt. of Benezir but instead of going to the court the
company threatened to shift weapons and even the English govt.
pressurized the military regime to with draw the cases against the
company one wonders that what type of transparency they are
talking about if their own present and past is not candid.
The English have always been vocal on the violations of human
rights but can one Clare to ask them that on what humanistic
principles the lrish are being suppressed Pinochet was abetted
Folkland was attacked and the apartheid of south Africa was
patronized. On what democratic principles the governors of
Australia, Canada and New Zealand are pro-English. On what
humanistic and secular principles a non- protestant can't be an
arch bishop a member of the Royal family can't marry a non-
protestant. On what principle a catholic arch bishop can't vote
for on what tenants of sexual equality a male heir to monarchy is
preferred over a female hire.
The above facts suggest that the English are still hypocrate in
The history of the U.S is hot different from that of the U.K. The
U.S is also the champion of democracy and majority rule but it is
another matter that the white reduced the Red Indians' majority in
to minority by a systematic and brutal genocide. Now, in the U.S
it is futill to discuss this matter As, it is a thing of past. The
American democracy is the only democracy that has more than 16
generals as the head of the state. The champion of human freedom
not only promoted slave frade but treated them brutally till 1960.
Even today the Blacks are not what they should have been as
The U.S is also a champion of the equality of sexes. But this
equality can only be seen in commercials third world like
Pakistan, Philipines, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and srilanka
had the fenale head of the gobernments but the U.S the father of
democracy enfran chised its' women after 1917 whereas the USSR
which was a backward and agrarian society gave its' women right to
vote in 1917. This is also an irony of the greatest democratic
state that inspite of all its claims of sexual equality neither
the republican nor did the democrates ever nominate any female for
It reflects the conserbatism of American people and party leaders
both. But we have voted for female candidate inspite of being
blamed as conservative, obscurantist and retrogressive.
America has also been a champion of democracy but one is unable to
understand that under what democratic principles it patronized Zia,
Yahaya and Ayub of Pakistan, Mobkuto of Rawanda, Shah of Iran and
antocrartic Arab Mowrchs. under what democratic law the govt. of
Musadiq in Iran was toppled by American CIA. This means that
American interpretation is perhaps of democracy is different from
the one given by great political thinkers.
The US also claims that it respects that sovereignty of every
nation but its intervention in Haiti, South Korea and Afghanistan
contradicts this claim. The US also claims to respect
international law but it always shows a disregard for it. Does its
refusal to sign, Kyoto and anti mine treaty prove its claim. It
also adamantly refused the treaty aimed at punishing the war
criminals and the recent adamancy of Bush with regard to the NMDS
proves that the US only accepts or applies international law when
it favors its interests.
France has been eland of Revolution. It was the French who gave
modern world the slogans of justice, equality and Fraternity but
under what rules of justice it colonized the poor states of Africa
and latin America. What lesson of Fraternity promptly the French
to brutally suppress the Algerians and even today under what
democratic law they are supporting the military regime of Algeria.
They are the greatest champion of democracy but they are 3 out of
5 veto powers.
They are the greatest champion of free Market but have in fact
made the poor states hostage by monopolizing over world economy
through their MNCS. They claim to be fair and honest but they are
the ones who promote corruption in third world states through
commission and kick back. They are the greatest pacifists but are
the major supplier of the weapons at the same time. They are the
greatest champion of protecting environment but have done more
damage to environment by promoting nuclear weapons and
experiments. The time has come to dismake their hypocrisies.