"HYPOCRISIES OF BIG POWERS"

 
11-09-2020

Back      Main     

 

 

The so called civilized states have always blamed other states to be uncivilized and devoid of concept of human rights.
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 gifts.

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 may matter.

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 American citizen.

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 the presidency.

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.
 
 

LABOUR PARTY  PAKISTAN

LPP (For a democratic socialist Pakistan)

For further inquiry please contact at labourparty@gmx.net

Introduction

Party Leadership

Magazine Campaigns Interviews Articles Contacts Links Photograph