|
archives of march, 2003
the archives contain old posts from the home page.
page 1
| page 2 | page 3
16 march 2003
one's mouth could involuntarily be left hanging open if one considered,
not even extensively, how incompetent and corrupt guyana's police
force really is. it's interesting to consider how many robberies,
murders and arrests in guyana were preventable.
starting with the first of the guyana police force's
(gpf) roots of failure; why is the force incompetent? what do
we mean by "incompetent"? well, we could mean simply
that the officers of the gpf hardly ever get things right; they
are very disorganised, are undetermined and unenthusiastic about
their work, and are lacking in professional expertise, as well
as basic educational skills.
one could understand what causes some of these problems.
the police may be unmotivated about their work because it might
seem to them to be, after all, just a job. it's a government job,
so the pay can't be that good. a lot of guyanese are poorly educated
in guyana because of dilapidated high school programmes and/or
because of restricted opportunities to continue education after
high school. consequently, certain skills taught in high school
and college will be absent. all these things sum up to a weak
police force.
what could be done to improve the work of the police?
an important first step could be to ensure that people choose
to be police officers for reasons beyond an income. an officer
must certainly _want_ to do what he or she is getting paid to
do. in training officers, there should be instilled purpose and
ethics, strength and courage. as the gpf is now, one would imagine
that they recruit new officers by choosing people at random, giving
them guns and badges, and wishing them happy hunting.
an example of the outrageous situation in guyana
is how the public can speak openly of well-known drug dealers,
and yet, the police are unable to touch these drug-dealers. maybe
you've heard of "liliope", or "gome-zy", or
how about "taps". i lived next to one of these drug
dealers, and as a child i remember asking questions in my head
like "how could something like this go on?"
another example is the fact that apparently everyone
except the police knows that the criminals hide in buxton. if
the police investigated buxton thoroughly, they would surely find
something. many feel that people in buxton are scared of the criminals,
and won't help the police, and there are also rumours that the
criminals are recruiting new gunmen in buxton. about three hours
after a major criminal attack on two businesses one night last
january, i was startled to hear that there were cheers and gunshots
heard from buxton. i'm still hoping that this wasn't true.
throughout their training and their careers, police
officers must be reinforced with the idea that they are not just
workers, but are guyana's protectors, and that they must do their
duties with complete humanity and honesty. officers must truly
understand and appreciate their important role in guyana. although
it seems inborn, officers must know what is right and wrong. they
must be taught to be as gentle as they are supposed to be brutal.
there should no longer be in guyana the police officer
that watches the robbery as he rides by, because he is off-duty.
more importantly, there should no longer be the police officer
that just watches the robbery and does nothing while he _is_ working.
officers should be able to find answers to hard questions, to
analyse situations objectively and to make wiser, more experienced
decisions than the average guyanese would.
corruption in guyana is everywhere. it's no surprise
that many officers are corrupt, as they obviously won't fear the
police. in my head, i imagine the guyana police force as a big
mafia. i've probably been exposed to too much television, but
i'm not that far from the truth. corruption in its simplest and
probably most reoccurring form is bribery. on the other end, there
are the big police chiefs who may be directing money to themselves,
and doing "favours" at the expense of the average guyanese.
one reason why officers become corrupt is that there
exists the possibility, although illegal and immoral, to get money
or power and, furthermore, to get away with it. officers may exploit
the weaknesses of the police system to benefit themselves, thereby
making the law-enforcement system even weaker.
to curb corruption, there could be a special team
of investigators to "police the police", not only to
identify corruption, but to look for people within the police
ranks who are in a position to be easily corrupted. however, this
team would cost money and guyana is poor. but maybe guyana is
poor because all the money is in the pockets of the government.
but that's another issue, and a currently unproved statement.
another measure could be to sternly punish corrupted officers
who are uncovered so as to deter others. if we create good honest
policemen and policewomen to begin with, corruption might not
be a problem.
with all this talk of bad police, there must be
mention of the good officers who risk their lives for us: we sincerely
thank you.
police can no longer be career gunmen or criminals
with licenses, but have to be guyanese who are on the same level
as the average citizen, though they have made the choice to bear
the heavy responsibilities of protecting their fellow countrymen,
and shall be honoured for their work.
until the philosophy which holds one
race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently
discredited and abandoned everywhere is war, me say war
that until there is no longer first class and second class
citizens of any nation
until the colour of a man's skin is of no more significance
than the colour of his eyes me say war
that until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to
all, without regard to race dis a war
that until that day the dream of lasting peace, world citizenship
rule of international morality will remain in but a fleeting
illusion to be pursued, but never attained now everywhere
is war, war
-- bob marley's song "war", which was set to a
speech by haile selassie i at the united nations in october
1963.
war has begun. a few people felt that saddam posed
a threat, so a war was started. it would be incorrect to say
the familiar phrase "the world is at war", because
the world _is not_. the world is in protest against this war.
thousands across the planet march for fellow human beings in
iraq, who are being devalued and overlooked by the "leaders
of the free world" either because iraq's government threatens
their wealth, or because iraq's oil could add to their existing
wealth.
the hypocrisy continues. an interesting thing
is happening. no banned weapons have been found. saddam has
so far not used any of the chemical weapons or otherwise that
the us claims he has, so to change the focus from what could
be the titanic embarrassment of the us and reprehension from
the world for starting this war, the attack is now being labelled
as the liberation of iraq. "disarm iraq" is now "iraqi
freedom". either way, these are just euphemisms to cover
the fact that innocent people will die. just as innocent people
died on 11 september. but apparently, iraqis don't mean anything.
apparently, iraqis--or anyone so far that you can only see them
on your television--are not real human beings. if you can't
see them at the local mall, then they don't really exist.
of course there are people who disagree and actively
protest against bush's domestic and foreign policy. anti-war
protesters across america and the world all have different specificities
in their opinions, but the general feeling is that there should
be no war. war is not a solution, but rather, perpetuates more
war.
the american media blatantly romanticises and
sensationalises this war. there is little acknowledgement of
the innocent lives that will be lost or damaged. i have been
sickened by news people who refer to the bombing in iraq as
fireworks. the worst of the networks is fox news. fox news claims
"fair and balanced news" and "we report, you
decide". the exact opposite is true. i think that they
tell america what they want to hear--that the brave us troops
are taking care of the wicked iraqis/afghans that threaten your
freedom, your liberty, your justice. the war is justifiable
because "they struck first". sometimes, i can see
the revenge and contempt in the eyes of the tv people as they
talk about the latest bombing. as long as there is someone,
or some country, to scapegoat and as long as that scapegoat
is crafted to the public to be an immediate threat to their
interests, the public will support attacking the scapegoat.
war is entertainment. of the news coverage, they
speak of "war ratings". the goal is no longer to present
the news objectively, but to spice up the news with your opinions
and biases, and to get as many viewers by any means necessary.
there are the same feelings that existed on 11 september. but
now, there is no fear or anxiety because americans aren't being
terrorised. there is just the pure excitement of gunfire and
explosions. the reality of war, the death and the terror of
it, does not permeate most american minds because it's all on
television. sadly, the reality is only understood when american
troops are killed, thereby increasing the anger towards iraq,
and the middle east in general.
in theory, the war is with saddam's regime, and
not with the iraqi people. in practice, civilian iraqis have
been and will continue to be killed.
iraq is to be liberated, then democratised. but
what does america consider democracy? contrary to the choruses
of democracy, it is know by scholars, thinkers and ordinary
people that america actually isn't a democracy. i can't say
what it really is, but how can there be a democracy when a few
people can decide to rage war against so many? this is not government
of, by, or for the people. what does america consider freedom?
is it the right to have a mcdonalds on every block? is freedom
being able to buy nike attire? is freedom the right to listen
to rap or pop music? is freedom being able to consume without
a sense of limit, or without consideration of the global environmental
and social price paid for that unlimited consumption? iraqis
deserve freedom--true freedom, but this war is not about liberating
iraqis.
eleventh september led to the war on terror, which
led to the disarming of saddam, which was then transformed to
the liberation of the iraqi people. so it took 3000 american
lives on 11 september for the united states government to think
about liberating iraqis. what if saddam had disarmed, if he
does have the restricted weapons? would the us have backed off
with a satisfied smile, leaving the iraqi people under the rule
of saddam hussein? or would the war still have resulted because
its inevitability was decided by the us even before a war was
feasible? remember, the "liberation of iraq" song
only started playing recently, when saddam has not yet used
any of the dangerous weapons that the us claims he has.
i wish the best of safety for american and british,
as much as i do for afghan and iraqi soldiers. they are all
my family. there is no room to take sides, no room for hate;
only love, peace and understanding. i really do hope that america
would be fair and honest with the world. because the country
is so powerful, ethical decisions on its part can help us move
towards world peace.
the united states seems to take us further and
further from world peace, as it makes horribly selfish and disturbing
decisions. the 22 february 2003 episode of the american show
"saturday night live" ridicules the american course
of action:
"I want to try something. Hey,
Feith! How would you fix the American economy? "
"I'd bomb it."
"How about education?"
"Blow it up."
"What would you do if a deli screwed up your lunch order!"
"Assassinate him."
together, we should strive to make "war"
an ancient word that encompasses the worst of human existence.
more distressing about the war in iraq are the
causes. an anti-war poster (see
pdf here) that i found on the internet argues each of the
reasons for war:
It is not about human
rights in Iraq. Since the first US-Iraq War in 1991, more
than 1 million
Iraqi citizens, half of them children, have perished in US bomb
attacks or through US-supported
economic sanctions. Another US war would kill thousands more.
It is not about democracy.
Aside from having armed Saddam Hussein in the past, the US is
the principal ally of the government
of Saudi Arabia, a fundamentalist dictatorship. It is not
about UN resolutions. The US provides
billions of dollars in aid every year to Israel, which has stood
for decades in violation of UN
resolutions requiring an end to the occupation of Palestine.
It is not about 9/11. There is no
evidence connecting Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. It is not
about weapons of mass destruction. Scott
Ritter, the Republican who led the prior UN weapons inspectors
in Iraq, reports that as of 1998 Iraq
was 90-95% disarmed, with no evidence of rearmament. It
is not about national security.
Another US attack on Iraq will likely lead to greater hatred
of the US and more terrorist attacks.
It is about oil. The
US produces less than 10% of the world’s oil but consumes
25%. The Iraqi oil
reserves are the world’s second largest, after Saudi Arabia’s.
The drive to control oil has dominated
US policy in the Middle East for half a century. The current
US administration is dominated by
people, including the President and Vice President, with staggering
oil wealth. Their national energy
plan, unsurprisingly, emphasizes increased consumption of oil.
The average fuel economy of US
cars has declined to all time lows, further fueling the voracious
national appetite for oil.
from reading all this, the most i would expect
is that you--guyanese or not--are able to question what bush
and the mainstream media tells you. as long as you have the
desire to hunt for the truth, the truth that is deeply covered,
what is written here will not go in vain.
there is no doubt to me that saddam hussein should
be punished for the terrible oppression of the iraqi people.
but in this day, in the twenty-first century, it is disappointing
and outrageous that war is looked upon as a solution. the world
will be safer with saddam out of power, but to do this by war
makes the world a more dangerous place--the result is that no
progress is made. by resorting to war, we have proved ourselves
to be uncivilised, barbaric and ignorant of all the tough lessons
we have learned as humans.
i have added several images, mostly anti-war,
to the pictures section.
feel free to save them for your own use. i would also recommend
reading this,
written by the manager of a rastafarian website.
march 2003 -- page
1 | page 2 | page 3
|
