Mouthing a Mixture of Lies and Discourtesies

It is some years now since I first heard the expression “foghorn diplomacy” when it was used to describe the Northern Irish politician Mr Ian Paisley, well known for the deafening volume of his voice when speaking.

He was also well-known for the outrageous content of his speeches, by which he gave no sign of being willing to make peace with his political opponents.

What is interesting is that he is now the First Minister in the government of the territory of Northern Ireland, with as his Deputy Mr Martin McGuiness of Sinn Fein, his former pet hate. Perhaps within that comparatively small territory – six of the nine counties in the Irish Province of Ulster – Mr Paisley has come to realise that more can usually be accomplished by quiet talk with one’s opponents than by shouting at them.

Mr George W. Bush has obviously never learned this lesson, and it is sickening to hear him mouthing a mixture of lies and discourtesies when speaking to the whole world. It was extraordinary to hear him claim once again that he was speaking for freedom and democracy, when the whole world outside the USA is only too well aware that both concepts are among those which he is trying to destroy under the cover of his infamous “War on Terra”. It is also curious that the well-known newspaper “El Pais” has revealed how this same Mr Bush in early 2003 told the then Spanish Prime Minister that he was going to attack Iraq whatever the UN Security Council might decide. In law such behaviour is defined as premeditation to commit his undoubted extremely serious crimes against humanity.

His masters should keep a closer eye on the behaviour of Mr Bush, who shows signs of becoming a puppet out of control – what is often described as a “loose cannon” – and we have to hope that his dementia will become obvious even to his deliberately mis-informed electorate and that he will then be prevented from doing anything other than answering before a court of justice for his criminality. Any sane and well-informed person will ask how such a man can criticise the current rulers of Myanmar (aka Burma) when their (equally undoubted) crimes are so much less serious than his own.

Mr Bush has not yet caused as many deaths by violence as Stalin, or even as Hitler, but his evil actions have caused thousands of deaths as well as terrible suffering to so many around the world. He is, with his “allies” within and without the USA, responsible for an enormous proportion of the tragic causes of suffering around the world, and not least to the poor within the USA, but above all for the attacks which he and his masters make against our civilisation – a subject on which I have often written. When we have the pleasure of encountering civilised educated citizens of the USA, we find it difficult to believe that they come from the same country which encapsulates for us every danger which threatens us and our way of life, and whose successive rulers have for many years done everything that they can to drive back all civilising influences.

Part of Mr Bush’s stated aims is summed up in his use of the word “leadership”, since he seems to believe the impossible, namely that his anti-civilisation can destroy all dissent and stifle the truth. We are bound to ask what he wishes to lead, apart from his obvious tyrannical desire to rule to world, an ambition which the world is most unlikely to permit. If the USA are ever going to be among the world’s leading nations, they will have first to decide to oppose the primacy of brute force, but Mr Bush apparently still has the hubris to think (if that word is not an oxymoron if applied to him) that his country is the world’s only super-power. What he does not seem to have understood is that his praise of any political tendency is received by the world as a kiss of death, since the world (at least outside the USA) knows that he is one of its worst terrorists together with his “allies” and thus automatically sees virtue in anybody who declares opposition to his imperialistic ambitions. It is now comparatively easy to gain popularity around the globe by declaring oneself to be against his form of imperialism, even if one has equally criminal aims.

Diplomacy needs to be carried on quietly and with a sufficient degree of secrecy which explains why the extremely nasty rulers of Myanmar can gain support from such powers as China and India in reaction to the crude threats trumpeted forth by Mr Bush. Both of these powers have so far been reassured by these tyrants that they will ensure the gas and oil supplies on which they count. These two powers both also need reassurance that any possible successor government, with support from the international community (whatever that happens to be at any given moment), will continue to export these supplies across the frontiers.

Shouting should give way to the still small voice, which is so distrusted and derided by Mr Bush and his masters, and which can nevertheless do far more in time to bring peace with justice to many troubled parts of the world. In other words, Mr Bush should quite simply make a vow of silence on all delicate matters affecting the future for all of us and turn to genuine diplomats to negotiate with his fellow criminals and those who feel bound to back them against his insistence on loud imperial rhetoric.