Changed Forever

"America has changed forever"-said the U.S. media after the heinous attack of September 11. Solemnly, I wished not all would change, at least not the values that America cared for. And then came the presidential address to the nation that seemingly vindicated my wish. Said the president, "Though the World Trade Center twin towers have fallen apart, the foundation of America remains intact."

How much I wish he were right.

For me, America's foundation lies in her belief in freedom and fundamental human rights. How horrifying it is now to see that terrorists have shaken these very foundations. In the aftermath of 9/11, foreigners face increasing harassment at ports, in the work place and at schools. Racial profiling is so high that it is killing people's faith in America as a country that respects fundamental rights and dignity.

"If a nation's values are tested at difficult times, America has failed miserably."

More telling is the story of how the United States has undermined international conventions and treaties. The Taleban foot soldiers detained at Guantanomo Bay, Cuba are denied their rights, which should be guaranteed by the Geneva Convention. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says, "There should be no question at all on how they are treated," while Attorney General John Ashcroft argues, "Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them since they are not soldiers of a state." It is hard to believe that the U.S. doesn't know what everyone else knows- the Geneva Convention does not discriminate between war captives and is applicable across the board.

If a nation's values are tested at difficult times, the United States has failed miserably. And, this will have future implications: If the U.S. goes to war with Iraq and uses ground soldiers, it will have lost moral authority to ask for fair treatment, based on the Geneva Convention, to any of its soldiers captured by Saddam Hussein's army.

For me, however, it is wrong in the first place to exploit the post 9/11 scenario to go to war with Iraq under the pretext that it has weapons of mass destruction, if U.S. policy makers have a sense of history.

Iraq received all kinds of support-financial, military and moral-from the United States during the eight-year long Iran-Iraq war. Iraq then reportedly used chemical and biological weapons and the U.S. tacitly gave their support. Understandably, Iran was America's number one enemy in the Arab world after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran that overthrew pro-U.S. Shahs from power, turning the country into an Islamic republic

The other day I was watching CNN's display of Al Qaeda's videotapes, which showed, among other things, experimenting with chemical gas on a dog. The dog died instantly and the CNN anchor commented, "It is terrible; it is horrendous." Yes, horrendous it was, indeed. But, I will tell you this- and for humanity's sake-you have to agree with me, Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iranians, killing them in thousands, was no less a horrendous act. And it deserved to be condemned, not condoned.

While watching CNN that evening, I was also constantly aware that many of the developed countries, including the U.S., already have chemical and biological weapons and all these weapons were tested on lives closer to human beings. Then, why is only Al Qaeda so terrible, while others are not? More importantly, why are we losing our sense of fairness?

I am an unequivocal supporter of immediately banning all kinds of weapons of mass destructions-chemical, biological and atomic. But, I cry in despair when the U.S. Senate rejects signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). What gives the U.S. the moral authority to stop Iraq, or other countries for that matter, from building their nuclear capability?

Some argue that there is a difference between the U.S. and Iraq having nuclear capability. As the argument goes, the U.S. will never use its nuclear weapons to attack other countries. I might agree on that, should someone erase Hiroshima and Nagasaki from my memory. Every country builds its atomic capabilities on one premise: should it fail in conventional war, it could turn to nuclear weapons. What happens if the U.S. and China clash on the Taiwan Strait and one of them realizes that it is losing the war with conventional weapons?

Still, I agree that Saddam needs to be stopped and stopped immediately from obtaining nuclear weapons. But, I disagree with the U.S. method. I wish the U.S. and the world community could make a constructive use of this crucial moment in human history-all countries, nuclear and non-nuclear, should ratify the CTBT immediately and the nuclear countries should agree on a time frame to dismantle their nuke stockpiles. That way we can stop Saddam Hussein, or any other dictator for that matter, from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

But, if eliminating nuclear weapons-for me, mere possession of which is a crime against humanity-is wishful thinking, then why should I bother objecting that one more country obtain them, while already so many others have them in such a scale that they could completely destroy the mother earth?

Ameet Dhakal, a 2001-02 CTP Fulbright Scholar from Nepal, is a journalist and bureau chief for the Katmandu Post in Nepal.

Back to: In this Issue

Go to: Page 3