Id-deċiżjoni tal-President Trump bla dubju tfisser tradiment tal-forzi “ribelli” Kurdi fis-Sirja. Minkejja l-mibegħda li teżisti bejn il-gvernijiet ta’ Erdogan u Assad, xorta jgħaqqadhom il-biża’ li l-Kurdi għad xi darba jispiċċaw b’pajjiż tagħhom magħmul minn biċċiet tat-Turkija, tal-Iraq u tas-Sirja.
Imma aktar minn hekk, l-irtirar mis-Sirja tal-Istati Uniti bl-iskuża li l-forzi Ġiħadisti ġew megħluba (anki jekk l-eks Segretarju tad-Difiża Amerikana Mattis ma jaqbilx li dan hu minnu) terġa’ tqajjem kwistjoni ħafna aktar fondamentali. X’rwol għandha tieħu l-Amerika fid-diplomazija mondjali?
Trump donnu qed jgħid li l-Istati Uniti m’għandhomx ikunu l-pulizija tad-dinja. (bħallikieku hemm daqstant ilħna li jriduha dil-ħaġa.) L-argument tiegħu dwar hekk hu li biex tmexxi pulizija trid il-flus u dawn m’għandhomx ikunu l-Istati Uniti li jfornuhom.
Mela min? Liema pajjiżi għandhom interess li jaħtru lill-Istati Uniti il-pulizija ultima tad-dinja?
Il-verità hi li meta l-Istati Uniti jidħlu għal dax-“xogħol”, jagħmluh għax jaqblilhom. Xorta jibqa’ bżonn li l-materja kollha tkun imgħarbla bla kantunieri, mingħajr il-kompjaċenzi tax-xellug u tal-lemin.
SELETTIVI
Uħud fl-hekk imsejħa midja “indipendenti” għandhom metodi selettivi ħafna kif iqisu xinhu fl-interess publiku meta jqumu kwistjonjijiet familjari jew ta’ saħħa dwar persuni publiċi l-aktar fil-politika, imma mhux biss. Fejn il-persuni jkunu qrib tagħhom jew parti mill-klikek dominanti li draw mingħalihom imexxu l-pajjiż qisu dan kien xi dritt divin mogħti lilhom, id-dritt tal-privazija jirbaħ fuq kollox. U allura xejn ma jissemma dwar x’qed ikollu jagħmel dan jew dak.
Fejn iżda l-persuna publika ma tkunx ta’ ġewwa, jew tkun b’ideat kontra, bħal meta jrid jiġi mminat xi arċisqof jew xi ministru mhux ben vist… fuq hekk isaltan id-dritt tal-publiku li jsir jaf kollox mill-bidu sal-aħħar. Anzi, biex tkompli tasal l-aħbar, anke l-kummenti dwarha jsiru aħbar.
Din l-ipokresija grassa tiġi preżentata lilna bl-akbar qdusija.
GRISHAM
“The Racketeer” għandu bħala protagonist lill-avukat Malcolm Bannister li jispiċċa l-ħabs fuq akkużi li għen fil-ħasil ta’ flus kriminali. Biex joħroġ mill-ħabs qabel il-waqt, joffri informazzjoni lill-FBI dwar min qatel lil imħallef federali. Kisibha minn x’qalulu sħabu l-ħabsin. Ir-raġel li jakkuża jiġi arrestat, l-FBI tirranġa biex Bannister jibdel wiċċu u jingħata identità ġdida. U hu jitlaq biex jistad il-veru qattiel u jobroxlu d-deheb li kien seraq mingħand l-imħallef.
In-nisġa tar-rumanz tinħadem b’mod mill-aktar inġenjuż. Kull inċident mitqies għalih waħdu hu kredibbli u jżommok attent.
Hu biss meta tispiċċa taqra r-rumanz li tinduna kemm hi improbabbli l-ġrajja. Ħaġa li naħseb tikkonferma l-maestrija ta’ John Grisham fil-kitba ta’ rumanzi “popolari”.
English Version – US involvement
President Trump’s decision surely amounts to a betrayal of the Kurd “rebel” forces in Syria. Despite the hatred that exists between the Erdogan and Assad governments, what still unites them is the fear that the Kurds could one day eventually accede to their own country on territory made from chunks of Turkey, Iraq and Syria.
But beyond this, the US withdrawal from Syria on the excuse that the jihadist forces have been defeated (even if ex-US defence secretary Mattis disagrees that such is the case) raises a much deeper issue. What role should the US undertake in global diplomacy?
Trump seems to be claiming that the US should not act like they have to supply the world’s police force (as if there were so many voices making this request). His argument on this point is that to run such a police force, you need loads of money and why should the US have to pay?
If not, who should? Which countries have a vested interest to appoint the US as the ultimate world policeman?
The truth is that when the US takes up such an assignment, it does so because that happens to be in its own interest. There is a need for this whole complex of issues to be considered dispassionately, without falling in with the complacencies of both right and left.
***
Selective
Some people in the so-called independent media employ very selective methods by which to judge what is in the public interest when questions arise relating to family or health issues about persons in the public arena, mostly politics, but not only. When such persons happen to be close to them or are members of the dominant cliques who believe they should run the country as a matter of divine right, then the respect of privacy becomes supreme. So nothing is released about what this or that one are undergoing.
When however, the personality in question is not an insider, or has different ideas to that of the so-called elites, and if for instance an archbishop needs to be undermined, unless it is a minister who is not well regarded… ah, then, the public’s right to know everything from beginning to end must be given full importance. Indeed, for the news to really travel, even comments about it must be considered as news.
This crass hypocrisy is deployed before one and all with a total, undiluted sanctimoniousness.
***
Grisham
In “The Racketeer”, the main character is lawyer Malcolm Bannister who is in prison after having been found guilty of having participated in the laundering of criminal money. To get an early release, he offers information to the FBI about who murdered a federal judge. This he obtained from conversations with fellow convicts. The man he accuses of the murder is arrested and the FBI makes arrangements for Bannister to have a change of face and identity. So he goes on to lay a trap for the real killer while taking over the gold cache he had stolen from the judge.
The plot unfolds in the most ingenious manner. Taken by itself, each and every incident is credible and gripping.
It is only when one gets to the end of the novel that one realizes how improbable the whole tale actually is. Which, I guess, confirms John Grisham’s preeminence when it comes to the writing of “popular” novels.
Post a comment