The Jungle and the Lion

After the downfall of the Soviet Union, the world has become a unilateral zone with an unbalanced proportion of power and authority. The United States, which then emerged as the only super power in the world, introduced as well as imposed a new World Order in the world. This World Order had nothing but a very basic rule of utmost significance.

The rule stated that: Whatever the super power does or thinks is righteous. In other words, it can be stated as: Everything that is in the personal favor and interest of the super power is right and acceptable while everything that is against the personal favor and interest of the super power is wrong and condemnable.

Unfortunately, this was the same law as introduced thousands of years ago in African Jungles...Might is right. Ironically, the super power succeeded in converting the world into a jungle proclaiming itself as the Lion of this Jungle.

The above described rule of the jungle is now accepted and enforced across the world with no one even objecting to it in a noticeable voice. The whole world(the Jungle), under the pressure of the Lion(US) has started continual practicing of the law as a supreme act superseding all religional laws, national constitutions, moral, ethical or logical values.

Some subjective examples of this practice are given in the subsequent paragraphs.

Let’s first consider the cases of innocent killings throughout the world. When innocents were killed in the WTC on 11 Sep, it was totally wrong and condemnable for the whole world as the victims were no other than Americans. However, when the same innocent killings happened in Afghanistan at the hands of the US, there was not even a single condemning voice across the world.

Look at this contradiction. What it implies? It implies that the condemnation of WTC incident was not on the basis of the rule: "Innocent Killing is wrong" but ironically, on the very rule: "Killing of Americans is wrong".

Over the same issue, killings of innocent Palestinians for more than half a decade at the hands of Israel are not to be condemned by US and its allies. The most recent event was the killing of 5 innocent children. Even this was not condemned. No one was there to protect the innocents. But when the Palestinians committed retaliatory suicidal attacks (only a few), the whole world came into action with strong condemnations of the killing of innocent Israelis as well as giving Israel the right to do anything in revenge. As a result, Israel launched the most recent offensive, killing scores of innocent Palestinian civilians. The USA says on it that “Israel has the right to defend itself”. Ironically enough, the USA did not say the same words when the Palestinians committed suicidal attacks against the brutal Israeli oppression and specially after the killings of innocent Palestinian children. In the background of such heinous Israeli crimes against innocent Palestinians, recognize by the whole world, the US should have said: “Palestinians have the right to defend themselves” when the suicidal attacks were made.

But once again, Israel being a US friend was treated differently than Palestinians. One had the right to defend itself. The other did not. If the other thinks to defend itself, it was considered as a terrorist.

Let the above 2 examples be recorded as witness 1 of my claim that the world has become a true jungle and the World Order has surpassed ethical, moral and logical values.

Lets now talk about Occupation of Independent countries. When it comes to the world-recognized Israeli occupation of the Palestinian land, the world uses lukewarm words of condemnation although many including the US do not even bother to spare words.

The UN plan of 1948 has been wholly poised by Israel. Many other resolutions of the UN against the Israeli occupation have been totally fruitless. Despite that, the UN or any other country shows no activity at bringing Israel to justice or enforcing the UN plan and resolutions through joint military power of the world. Strikingly, they now not even openly condemn the Israeli occupation but just say: "Israel and Palestine must negotiate peace" as if it were a mere bilateral dispute with an unclear version of who is right and who is wrong.

Similar is the case of Indian Occupation of Kashmir, for which the UN passed a resolution in 1948 in favor of Kashmiris and then fell asleep as if it were everything. Neither UN nor any other country ever bothered to see why the UN resolutions are not being implemented. Here again, they say "Pakistan and India must negotiate peace over Kashmir".

This is really ironic. Why don't they recall their resolutions, make coalitions to enforce them through power. The resolutions are decisive, legitimate and clear. In fact, they do not even mention those resolutions and treat the disputes as undecided. Since, negotiations are used to decide issues that are undecided yet.

However, when it comes to the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, the whole world not only condemns it but they, under the UN immediately pass a resolution and form a world coalition to enforce the resolution. Within a few days, they used power and got the resolution enforced bringing Iraq out of Kuwait.

See the contradiction again. If this was a possible way, why can't this way be taken along in the case of Palestine and Kashmir? The resolutions there are also passed by UN. They are as legitimate as those passed against Iraq. They are sufficient to decide the right and wrong. They are clear, legitimate and decisive. Why, then, can these resolutions be not implemented in the same manner? Why the resolutions are not even recalled by the world as a decisive factor but on the other hand, advice is made for negotiations as for an undecided dispute? In fact, if 1948 were in the range of this World Order, I greatly doubt that even these resolutions could not have passed.

The truth is that Israel and India are close friends of the US and UK. This is again to prove that justice and logic are nothing to do with practice in this World Order.

Harboring Terrorists is the last case I want to discuss today. Well, when it comes to Britain Harboring Altaf Hussain (Sentenced Death or Life imprisonment by courts in Pakistan), the Pakistani claims are rejected as being unimportant and non-serious. Salman Rushdi is also as a terrorist, since to hurt someone's religious beliefs is also a sort of terrorism. The man has been sentenced by many Muslim countries. But when it comes to him, the US and its allies again reject the requests to hand him over and name it as saving Personal Liberty.

But when it comes to Osama Bin Laden, about whom, their is neither any sentence from any court in the world nor is any substantial proof of his terrorist activities, the US-led World not only demands him from Afghanistan but also in case of refusal, attacks the integrity, sovereignty and independence of the refusing country. Similar were the cases of Amil Kansi and many others who were handed over to them. There seemed no Personal Liberty in these cases.

Why this ironic inconsistency? Can Pakistan be allowed to attack UK for harboring Altaf? Then how was US allowed by the World to attack Afghanistan to get Bin Laden?

The answer is quite obvious. Altaf & Rushdi were liked by America as friends but Osama was considered an enemy. The actions against Osama were not because he was a Terrorist, but because he was an Anti-American of the day. Ironically enough, he was not a terrorist for the World when he was an Anti-Soviet fighter and fulfilled the US interests of that day. The point is further more strengthened with this.

Let it be recorded as today's last proof of the fact that the world is, in a very unfortunate manner, making a habit to follow "Might is right" and is subject to a jungle law with the world as the jungle and the US as its King (Lion).