They introduce their ideas differently, George Bush issues this front before the “War on Terrorism” and Arundhati Roy issues hers before the exclamation of war from the United States. An aspect that George Bush contrasts with the convincing argument Arundhati Roy throws, is the way he makes the American feel that we are larger and more powerful than any other nation. He argues that we have “a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence” (Bush, 137) over other nations. He argues this point because he wants to make the average American to appear like they are the best, or on top of the food chain. This “position of unparalleled military strength” has been ingrained into the minds of the people since the First World War. Foreign policy has embraced the concept of military supremacy since President Wilson engaged in the Western European struggle against the German movement. But Arundhati Roy argues in her introduction that the United States during the Second World was neutral until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. She also argues that the United States turned their backs at the atrocities Hitler was doing to the Jews and turned away Jewish Refugees that were trying to escape the religious genocide (Roy, 155). Roy relates the “War against Fascism” to President Bush’s “War against Terrorism.” She even goes deeper into analyzing the similarities of the nuclear bombings on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the victims of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks and the thousands of people killed in Iraq because of US-led sanctions. To me, this was a short cry to a repeat of history. George Bush mentions in the beginning that “only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity.” (Bush, 136) But what about those who cannot “unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity” simply because both the people and the government do not want the change? Bush speaks on behalf of the democratic nations in which are held on a pedestal, which include Great Britain, the United States, and many other NATO and Western European powers. That “future prosperity,” as argued by Arundhati Roy, is the takeover by big corporations and “democratic” governments that are involved in major global trade. Many scholars call it modern day imperialism, not commissioned by the nations, but commissioned by the big name corporations that control many economies within the circle of many third world nations.
This idea of Imperialism in modern times has flown throughout the minds of left- winged politics for many years. Especially those who came from the sweat-shop infested areas of Asia and Latin America, where wages are low and work is from day to night. Imperialized nations have “sprouted other subsidiary heads, some dangerous byproducts—nationalism, religious bigotry, fascism, and of course, terrorism” (Roy, 156) because of the nature of the government that they are under. Take Roy’s example, India, “the world’s largest democracy” (Roy, 156) with one billion people at its harness. India is also at the “forefront of the corporate globalization project” (Roy, 156) and its market is opening to the corporatization and privatization of resources such as water and electricity to just name a few. Roy argues that the forerunners of this operation are leaders in an ultra-right-winged nationalist Hindu league that support “Hitler and his methods” (Roy, 157). What was most convincing of this anti-imperialist thought is that she compared the devastations in Gujarat, India to the atrocities done by Saddam Hussein and President Bush. She also illustrates how American media outlets do not care about what is going on in any other nation that is disrupted by violent attacks, which are orchestrated by guilds that support violence, other than those that the government is working with. In President Bush’s National Security Strategy, in comparison with the words of Roy, specifies how they will “speak out honestly about violations of nonnegotiable demands of human dignity using our voice and vote in international institutions to advance freedom” (Bush, 141). But I know that the government would not act unless it was for its own benefit. If the benefit was greater than the cost of going to war, then the government would intrude. But if the cost outweighed the benefit, the government would not give a rat’s ass about such matters.
If it were not for the attacks on September 11th, America would be more dignified and have engaged in matters that were not theirs to bear. But we live in the post-9/11 era, in which “anti-American” rallies are held every day in many of the Middle East countries because of the political and economic foreign affairs that we are engaged in. Roy argues that American foreign policy has ruined other nations since America has engaged in world warfare in 1917. Bush argues that every other nation that is NOT America is underneath us, and that we have the power to influence their actions, economy, and domestic and foreign policy, just how we have done in the past. Arundhati Roy’s perspective opens the doors to many questions I have to the government. But none of these questions can be answered through simple answers without the disruption of the “peace” President Bush tries to present the American reader of this somewhat major foreign policy statement. Arundhati Roy convinces and argues her way out of the ring just in time to save readers from the lies conjured in President Bush’s National Security Strategy.
Works Cited
Roy, Arundhati. Excerpt from War Talk. Writing About the World. Eds. S. McLeod, J. Jarvis, S. Spear
Boston: Thomas Wadsworth, 2005. 155-160
Bush, George W. National Security Strategy. Writing About the World. Eds. S. McLeod, J. Jarvis, S. Spear
Boston: Thomas Wadsworth, 2005. 135-144
by
michiki (student)
