Boot to Bush: Iraqi's reaction to the arbitrary attitude of World Leaders

Whole world got stunned with the news of shoes hurled at US President George W. Bush during his farewell visit to Iraq. Again, it was not a layman of Iraq, but a known journalist of the country Muntazer al-Zaidi hurled his footwear at world’s most powerful leader. The unprecedented incident occurred on December 14, 2008 when US President was holding a Press Conference in Baghdad with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. As the news followed, the journalist was soon trapped and taken into custody.

Less an act of misbehaviour from a journalist, the incident seems more to be a reflection of the simmering hatred among the Iraqis for US President Bush and other world leaders who have been indifferent to the people and issues of Iraq.

The incident should be seen as the reaction of Iraqi people at large to the stand and attitude of world leaders who have been supportive to America’s war against Iraq without a strong reason and who remained silent when the trapped leader of Iraq Saddam Hussein was forcibly prosecuted and finally hanged to death.

From the news and various reports published worldwide, it has been clear that the public perception in Iraq is quite negative towards US government in general and President Bush in particular. And the Iraqi public perception is mainly built upon factors like the Bush dictated war against Iraq that has never been convincingly justified even by Bush himself, prosecuting the leader of the country in the most humiliating manner and finally hang him on a charge that was purely an internal affair of Iraq, and America’s failure in establishing a truly democratic and popular government in Iraq that would better take care of the people, economy, issues and problems of post-war Iraq.

Post-war Iraq, as projected by various media, seems to be a nation without a political identity. It has more become a political colony of America than an economically flourishing country of the Saddam Hussein days. A government, that is termed democratic by the Bush administration, is virtually the executor of what Bush administration wants. Civil rights in Iraq have been squeezed to what suits the policies of Bush and his government instituted in Iraq.

In such a situation, it’s not illogical for people of Iraq to believe that Saddam was hanged to make Iraqis tolerate the hi-fashioned dictatorship of Bush. And it makes enough reasons for Iraqis to be intolerant to Bush, his administration and the government in Iraq that acts on command from Washington.

After hurling shoes at US President Bush, the amount of support for Muntazer in the Middle East indicates the level of disagreement of people in the gulf region to the acts and policies of US President George Bush.  May be, because Bush was not accessible to the general people of Iraq they couldn’t express their agony and Muntazer did this on getting the chance. Being an Iraqi journalist, Muntazer al-Zaidi would have been deeply motivated by the agony of Iraqi public and the hatred for Bush administration all over Iraq.

Even though shocking to President Bush, his team and his government in Iraq, the incident came out loudly expressive against the world leaders who suppress the public voice and hurt the public sentiment anywhere across the globe. What happened with Bush in Baghdad is a symbolic expression of public discontentment in Iraq against world leadership who staged a war for certain political and economic reasons or supported it blindly and left people suffer with the war effects in a broken down economy ruled by a corrupt government placed at the mercy of US administration.

Also, leaders of other developed nations like UK and France who wholeheartedly supported America’s war against Iraq never showed enough interest in establishment of a proper democratic government in Iraq and a fare trial of the nabbed leader Saddam Hussein giving him the status of the leader of a nation. He could have been banned in his own country Iraq and was confined as a refugee in US or other countries who supported America’s aggression in the name of ‘War against Terror’. Hanging of Saddam Hussein created an impression in most of the developed countries that no third world nation and its leader can escape the wrath of US administration once it decides to be the aggressor.

As the background faintly comes in mind, America blamed Iraq of having nuclear weapon and pressured UN to send its team and verify the fact. The next blame on Iraq was of having biological weapons that would cause havoc for humanity on application. Nothing was found and America couldn’t prove its apprehension and finally declared war against Iraq in the name of freeing Kuwait. But even after Kuwait was made free, America’s war didn’t stop till Saddam Hussein was finally trapped.

Neither the UN nor the countries in the Security Council took it as an act of aggression from America. Few supported US directly and many closed their eyes to what America did on Iraq. Lot many civilians and military personnel were sacrificed for America’s victory over Saddam.

Even though two key partners in America’s war against Iraq – Tony Blair and George Bush – have been given a clear verdict by their own people, millions of people are still experiencing the terrible impact of their decisions and deed. This is the reason why people of the affected countries are becoming reactive to the leaders of developed nations who are seeing the whole world as part of their own dominion.

Saddam was hung on the charges of killing some thousands of Kurds who revolted against his administration in Iraq. On humanitarian ground, this was the heinous act by a leader but, on political ground, curbing an internal rebellion was a domestic affair in Iraq. If Saddam was hanged for the act, why America did not put pressure on the UN to prosecute President of China Yang Shangkun and Premier Li Peng for ordering the army to kill over 5000 students who demonstrated to bring democracy in the country in 1989? In order to give justice to thousands of people who lost their lives in America’s war against Iraq, can Bush opt to be prosecuted before a panel of humanists and justify his Iraq policy? Such an act would really be face saving for Bush and the world leadership that is now losing credibility in the global public.

In this age of liberalisation, political scenario is also fast changing. The world is changing into a global village. In a humane world, aggression from US or any of the first world nations and the other countries can not always be seen differently. Every action has to be backed with sufficient reasons to justify.

In the wake of changing social, political and economic scenario across the world, constitution of an international humanist body that can ask the world leaders to appear before it and justify their foreign policies, decisions and deed has become essential. Through this international humanist body, the leaders should be allowed to confess for their decisions that grossly harmed any community or nation or international politics and relationship between nations. Such an initiative would really help establishing peace across the globe and harmony among the world communities. And, this would be the greatest initiative to avoid the much apprehended ‘Third World War’.