Introduction

As the strongest country in the world, America can done all kinds of

oppressions onto any country that US like either through strong military force, from

economic way and also social of that country. American corporations and popular

culture has actually affects the lives and infect the indigenous cultures of millions

around the world. Due to the foreign policy of the US government, backed by its

military strength, has unprecedented global influence now that the America is the

world’s only superpower-its first ‘hyperpower’. America lead all the ways whereby it

exports its value systems, defining what it means to be civilized, rational-indeed,

what actually it is to be human. Apart from that, America itself is impervious to

outside influence, and if most Americans think of the rest of the world at all, it is in

terms of deeply ingrained cultural stereotypes. Many people do hate America from

Middle East to the developing countries as well as in Europe. Along with the

happening of tragedy 9-11, public has focused on the question-‘Why do people hate

America?’ This is a loaded question and not simply a statement. However, it would

not be weird if people hate America as they often oppressed many other weaker

countries especially countries from the Third World. The oppressions done by

America can be grouped into three major ways that are politically, economically,

and from the social aspect too.

Politics

The brand of external interventionism adopted by the US towards others

country has been running since a long time ago. The oppression by America onto

other countries can be clearly shown in the aspect of politic. The main cause of this

phenomenon is due to the nature of double standard of America. Display of such

double standard has made America a global figure of hate. People from all over the
worlds such as from Brazil to Canada, Pakistan to South Korea, it is ease for us to

run into people who will keep on give the examples of America double standards

and the oppressions done by America onto their beloved countries.

What is less obvious is that the absence of democracy also undermines state

sovereignty. The international community may be prepared to countenance state

failure in Africa, but it will not countenance it in the Middle East. Oil, massive

emigration flows, and terrorism are just three reasons why a failure by regional

states to solve their own problems will see the international community come in to

solve them for them. This is not just a reference to any future US forays or pre-

emptive action in the region. UN interventions and IMF structural adjustment

programmes can be equally invasive.

Democracy means sovereignty in another sense too. Turkey was the only

regional country that turned down US requests for support in the Iraq war. It also

happens to be the only democracy in the region, with the exception of Israel. When

the Turkish government told Washington that it had to respect the vote of its

parliament which had decided against providing permission for US forces to operate

from Turkey the US had to grit its teeth and bear it.1

First of all, it is US itself who stated that all the elections should be fair and

free from any kinds of intervention from any other countries. Although US said so,

yet, US never keep their promises as US still always intervenes in outer countries’

elections. As an example, political parties have been formed in many developing

countries-sometimes intervenes through the CIA, while also through non-

governmental organizations and the media sometimes. For instance, CIA provided

funds in order to support the campaign of President Camille Chamoun and selected

parliamentary candidates in Lebanon during 1950s; while for the British Guiana, US
1
Beyond The Iraq War (Michael & Iyanatul pg. 60)
prevented the democratically elected Cheddi Jagan from taking office in between

1953 to 1964; meanwhile the CIA funded President Rene Barrientos of Bolivia to the

tune of $600,000 in a successful attempt to influence the outcome of the general

election in 1966; and in Nicaragua during the 1980s, the US poured in millions of

dollars through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a specially created

front of the CIA, to prevent the Sandinistas from being democratically elected.

Generally, we all know that America appeared as the strongest country in this

world also due to its strong military power. Even if all the other states in the world

work together against America, they would still not be able to mount a credible

threat to the US. This has made US as the most powerful country in history. To our

surprises, the colossal US military is actually more than two-and-a-half times larger

than the militaries of the next nine largest potential adversaries combined and this

included Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, and Cuba.

However, the American still often claimed itself as consistently under threat from

‘rogue states’ and ‘non-state actors’; then there is the ‘Russian threat’, the ‘Chinese

threat’, the ‘Cuban threat’, the threat of ‘the axis of evil’ and the ‘terrorist threat’.

This phenomenon is so hypocrisy while oppressions always have been done by

America on other countries. It is not surprise for us to find out that US budget in

military continued to increase from $260 billion in the middle of the 1990s to a

staggering $329 billion in 2002 and this figure is predict to increase to $400 billion

which is an amount for half of all the military spending in the world. While US

budget keep on rising, European powers has cut their military defence spending

after the fall of the Berlin Wall, China held its spending in check, and the Russian

military budget simply collapsed. However, US still keep on feeling that they are

treated and wish to develop space military weapon. This wish is granted through
the formation of US Star Wars programme which is aimed at the ‘control of outer

space’, ‘domination of outer space’ and ‘superiority in outer space’, envisages

deploying space-, land- and sea-based anti-ballistic missile systems, and all kinds of

different orbiting systems that could strike any terrestrial targets that they wish to

destroy.

Not only that, US also carry out oppression on other countries by forbidding

them develop nuclear weapon while US itself is the world largest stockpiles of

nuclear weapons and also is the only one in the world that had ever used atomic

weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki while having war with Japan. Pakistan and

India are examples that have been imposed crippling sanctions by US related with

developing nuclear weapon. Moreover, North Korea has been demonized only for

possessing a nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, US coerces other countries to sign the

Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty while US itself refuse to sign it. This

example has clearly proved the nature of double standard on US. Oppression also

can been done onto other countries when US refused to renounce the first-strike

use of nuclear weapons or even committing to refrain from using nuclear weapon

onto state which does not have any nuclear capability. “The US has contingency

plans for nuclear strikes on seven nations-Russia, China, Iraq, North Korea, Iran,

Libya and Syria. All this while, its stated policy remains that of ‘negative security

assurances’ whereby Washington has pledged not to use nuclear weapon against a

non-nuclear weapon state unless that state attacks the US or its allies in association

with a nuclear weapon state2.” Not only the nuclear weapon US imposes sanction

against other states, such as Iraq, but also biological weapon. It is the same in this

case as US also is the largest country in the world have stockpile of smallpox,

2
Edward Helmore and Kamal Ahmed, ‘Outrage as Pentagon Nuclear Hit List Revealed’, The
Observer, 10 March 2002.
anthrax, and other harmful biological weapons. Not only that, US also continues to

experiment with new weaponised pathogens and it has 30,000 tons of chemical

weapons.

America really likes to give excuses especially when they had invented a new

weapon. For example, ‘smart bombs’ are bombs that aimed only at military targets

and do not kill any civilians. However, the actual fact is that it also targets civilian

infrastructures although it does not aimed directly on civilians: water treatment

facilities, power plants, dams, flood control systems, irrigation, water storage,

pumping stations, medical research centres, baby-food factories, sewage facilities,

bridges, transportation facilities, petrochemical plants, fertilizers factories, auto-

plants, as well as hospitals, schools, Red Cross buildings, residential

neighbourhoods, embassies and in, the Afghanistan war, even a foreign news

bureau. During one major campaign lasting over ten years-the Vietnam War-US

carpet-bombed three countries that are North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, killing

at least three million civilians. A decade earlier, US carpet-bombed North Korea so

thoroughly that it ran out of targets. At the end of the Gulf War, US also bombed an

Iraqi convoy and buried alive 150,000 conscripts when they had surrendered and

were no threat. It promotes the deception that a country can be bombed around

the clock with only a few civilian causalities, and then fights to keep the civilian

causalities from our television screens.

America seldom oppresses a country by physical mean or by strong military

force. It also can easily oppresses any country by the hostility towards America has

to do with definitions. In this point of view, America has become the defining power

of the world. It is America itself who is going to define what are democracy,

freedom, and justice; what are human rights and what is multiculturalism; who is a
‘fundamentalist’, a ‘terrorist’, or simply ‘evil’. In a nutshell, what it means to be

human really is. Not only the developing countries but even Europe countries must

simply accept those definitions and follow the lead of America. America defines all

these in terms of their self-interest. “So when President Bush, for example, says in

his 2002 State of the Union address, ‘America will lead by defending liberty and

justice are the only ones that there are.” We can see this most clearly when the

topic is related to the human rights issues. Liberal notion of human rights has been

equated solely by the Western with individual political and civil freedoms.

Oppression has been done by America when US refuses to acknowledge the right to

food, housing, basic sanitation and the preservation of one’s own identity and

culture where enormous efforts has been input by developing countries for over two

decades. An attempt to incorporate these concerns and reshape the human rights

agenda has been made by the UN Social Development Summit, held in March 1995.

However, sadly, as in all such attempts, ‘global market forces’ won the day at the

insistence of the US. According to the Malaysian political scientist and human rights

activist Chandra Muzaffar stated, ‘of what use is the human rights struggle to the

poverty-stricken billions of the South if it does not liberate them from hunger, from

homelessness, from ignorance, from diseases?’3 For instance, US considers the

struggle of the Muslims in East Turkestan against China as a ‘human right issues’, it

rejects the preposition that the struggle of Chechen Muslims against Russia is

related to human rights. The truth is Muslims are the majority population in both

Chechnya and East Turkestan, and are fighting for independence in both places.

Somehow, US had ignored the happening of human rights violation in China due to

the reason China is a trading partner of increasing importance. Human rights will

3
Chandra Muzaffar, Human Rights and the New World Order (Penang: Just World Trust,
1993), p.13.
come quickly to the fore even a trade war was threatened to induce Chinese

cooperation when US intellectual property was at risk. This is all due to their narrow

definition and shifting nature that US ideas of ‘human rights’ are frequently

described by thinkers of developing countries as the most evolved form of American

hyperimperialism. US often defines human rights as their own self-interest and then

uses the emotive language of human rights as a stick to beat any country that does

not fall in line with its economic policies.

Economy

United State is the world-leading economy country. Its manipulation in the

world economy is quite vast. However, US start to trembled when China’s economy

start to bloom rapidly since few year ago. In order, to maintain its domination, US

have to find other resolution.

The UN is the sole property of a single power- the US- which, through

intimidation, threats and the use of veto, manipulates the world body for the benefit

of its own interest. When it suits the US, it uses the UN to seek legitimacy for its

actions, to build coalitions and impose sanctions on “rogue states”. When world

opinion goes against US, it treats the UN with utter contempt. In the aftermath of

World War 2, the US was a prime mover in establishing the UN-and such UN

initiatives to further “democracy” and “freedom” on the Western model as a global

noun. Throughout the history of UN, America has consistently vetoed any resolution

or declaration that did not reflect US priorities or business interest.

The forum of choice for maintaining US hyper power, and technological

hyper-imperialism, include not just the WTO but also International Monetary Fund

(IMF) and the World Bank. There are two reasons. First, the WTO, IMF and World
Bank are the most untransparent and undemocratic global institutions. The secrecy

surrounding their decision- making process makes them ideal bodies for keeping

the rest of troublesome world firmly at arm’s length. Second, both the WTO and IMF

have effectively mechanisms for the enforcement of obligations: the WTO through

the threat of retaliation against their export of goods, and the IMF through loan

conditions, which are imposed ruthlessly. The US uses these mechanisms to keep

developing countries in line, and to smooth the progress of its own multinational

companies by removing obstacles and giving positive encouragement. By American-

imposed convention, the top jobs at WTO, IMF and World Bank are shared by the US

and Europe. When the first person from a developing country, Supachai

Panitchpakdi of Thailand, emerged as a viable candidate to head the WTO, all hell

broke loose. The then US President, Bill Clinton, threatened a permanent grid-lock

at the WTO unless America’s chosen candidate was accepted. ‘In evaluating the

candidates’, he explained, he had ‘focussed on their positions on issues of

importance to us’; this consideration, according to Clinton, was synonymous with

‘what we believe would best serve the needs of the WTO’.

What the functioning of this global economy means for developing nations is

the continuation of structural arrangements that operate to keep them

disadvantaged. While such structures continue to operate, development, as known

and understood, is the problem and not the cure. What conventional development

demands creates the vicious spiral conditions that work against the interests of the

poorest. ‘Development’ seldom amounts to anything more than developing

countries importing expensive- and frequently out-of-date- technologies from the US

and other industrialised countries; technologies that they can seldom manage or

maintain. Often these technologies undermine local techniques and age-old

manufacturing capabilities and end up marginalising the poor even more. This is a

paradox that has been known, argued, advanced in pleading terms, but still has not

had any effect on the policy stand of the US.

There are two famous known manipulation that US do oppressed in other

country. First is, the US country democratic control over their own economic

destinies to over two thirds of the world’s population. However US denies it. Most of

the world has no say at the IMF and little power to initiate positive change at the

WTO. In particular, policies tied to IMF loan lead the way to foreign ownership and

domination of the economy, especially in the manufacturing and financial sectors.

For example, after the South-East Asian economic crisis, the IMF imposed on

Thailand and South Korea the condition that they must allow higher foreign

ownership of their economies- at the insistence of the US. This was strategically the

most crucial of the IMF’s conditions, an “extra” bonus outside of its normal macro-

economic conditions (such as raising interest rates, reduction in government

expenditure, economic growth and current account deficit). As part of the deal with

IMF, Thailand was asked to allow foreign banks to own more equity in the local

banking sector. Through such “loan conditions”, American business and technology

corporations ended up wholly or partly owning banks, financial institutions and key

technology sectors in the developing world.

Secondly, the US systematically undermines the efforts of the least

developed countries to combat poverty and feed their populations. It has imposed

massive tariffs on key agricultural items such as sugar, rice and coffee; on

groundnuts, for example, it has imposed tariffs of over 100%. These trade

restrictions cost the poorer countries of the world staggering $2.5 billion a year in

lost foreign exchange earnings. The overall effects are nothing short of disastrous.
In Haiti, for example, the liberalisation of the rice market and subsequent surge in

subsidised US imports has not only destroyed local rice production and the

livelihoods of countless farmers, but also undermined national food security. In

country after country, in such labour-intensive and job-creating areas as textiles,

footwear and agriculture, the dumping of American products, often at a price lower

than the cost of production, has shattered the livelihood of vulnerable populations

and reduced them to abject poverty.

Having cornered most of the world’s resources, America now has its eyes

firmly set on the last remaining resource of developing countries: the flora, fauna,

biodiversity and the very DNA of the indigenous people of the world.

American biotechnology corporations, researchers and speculators are

engaged in a quest to appropriate the ancient knowledge and wisdom of indigenous

people. The technologies, processes and knowledge of these peoples have

developed over thousands of years. They have been domesticating and cross-

pollinating plants, taming wild animals, developing plant and herbal medicines, and

using techniques that we nowadays associate with biotechnology- employing living

organisms, or parts of organism, to make or modify products, and improve breeds

of plants and animal- for centuries. For example, the Igorot people in the Cordillera

region of the Philippines have been fermenting their own tapey (rice wine), which is

made with a native yeast called bubod, and basi (sugar cane wine), prepared with

forest seeds called gamu, for millennia. They have been cultivating and breeding a

wide variety of camote (sweet potatoes), which were a staple for them before rice

was introduced. And they have developed numerous varieties of rice for different

environment conditions and terrains- a single village may have up to ten varieties of

rice seeds planted for different weather and soil conditions. They have similarly
developed other varieties of crops such as cassava and taro. While knowledge

produced in the US and Europe is aggressively protected, this traditional knowledge

has no protection. The WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property

(TRIPs) does not include specific provisions related to the protection of systems,

practices, naturally-occurring plants or products that are basic of traditional and

indigenous knowledge. So, American multinational companies, agribusiness and

biotechnology firms can appropriate this knowledge and learning with impunity.

Plants that have traditionally been used by indigenous peoples are now the

subject of predatory intellectual property claims. It began with neem plant, which is

used in India for making a wide range of medicines for diseases such as ulcers,

diabetes, skin disorders and constipation, as well as a potent insecticide effective

against locusts, brown plant-hoppers, nematodes, mosquito larvae and beetles. In

1985, a pesticidal neem extract called Margosan-O was patented by a US timber

merchant and then sold to W. R. Grace and CO., the multinational chemical

corporation. The floodgates were open. Between 1985 and 1995, over 37 patents

were granted in Europe and the US to use and develop neem products, including a

neem-based toothpaste. So, something that was free and widely available,

something that had been developed and used for centuries by South Asians,

became the property of an American multinational corporation. Neem plant was

quickly followed by ayahuasca and quinoa from Latin America, kava from the

Pacific, and the bitter gourd from the Philippines and Thailand- all widely used by

indigenous people, but now their ownership is claimed by American business.

As noted, neoliberalism preaches the primacy of a market economy

(combined with a limited role of the government) in creating and sustaining

economic prosperity – a proposition that is supposed to be valid across both time

and space. Not surprisingly, some commentators use the term ‘market

fundamentalism’ as a synonym for neoliberalism. Those who subscribe to this creed

espouse a conservative political agenda in which the political leadership should

attenuate the activism of civil society. This in turn will allow technocrats the

discretion, freedom and scope to pursue the neoliberal economic agenda. Such

prescriptions stem from a world view in which rent-seeking societal groups are keen

on acquiring special privileges and protection from the government.

Neoliberals display an aversion to significant government intervention in a

market economy. They adhere to an analytical framework in which government

activism is either a reflection of the innate predatory instincts of the state or the

basis for creating opportunities for rent-seeking interests to emerge that ultimately

‘capture’ the policy-making process to suit their partisan ends.4

The difuse array of ideas associated with neoliberalism was given more

precise expression by John Williamson5 who coined the label ‘Washington

Consensus’ to describe the economic orthodoxy that prevailed in the US Treasury

Department and in key IFIs like the World Bank and the IMF. Much of what

Williamson described as ‘the technocrats’ agenda’ became the familiar staples of

contemporary policy-making – amongst the Anglo-American economies at least.6

Studies that are sympathetic to the neoliberal ideas of the Washington

Consensus have also failed to identify any meaningful impact of trade ( as

conventionally measured in terms of trade volume as a proportion of GDP) on both

growth and poverty (as measured in terms of the average income of the poorest 20

4
Beyond The Iraq War (Michael & Iyanatul pg. 158)
5
J. Williamson, (1994), ‘In search of a manual for technopols’, in J. Williamson (ed.), The
Political Economy of Policy Reform, Washington: Institute for International Economics.
6
Beyond The Iraq War (Michael & Iyanatul pg. 160)
per cent of the population). For example, in a cross-country econometric study that

received considerable publicity in the international media, Dollar and Kraay7 failed

to demonstrate a statistically significant impact of trade performance of countries

on the average income of the poor. A similar finding is reported in an IMF study.8

In sum, it is difficult to argue that the empirical foundation of global

neoliberalism is so robust that one can confidently prescribe a ‘one-size-fits-all’

policy agenda for Iraq as well as other developing regions of the world. Even if post-

Saddam Iraq has to undertake a process of policy reform, does this mean that the

‘augmented’ Washington Consensus offers the best guide? Dissident economist

reject this option. Rodrik9, for example, regards the ‘augmented Washington

Consensus’ as a fundamental misconception. The flawed nature of the augmented

version of the Washington Consensus stems from the fact that ‘…it is an impossibly

broad, undifferentiated agenda of…reform’.10 It ends up describing the desirable

features of development but does not suggest a feasible way of getting there.

The IMF, in its 2003 macroeconomic assessment, it noted that the reform

agenda was ‘very ambitious’ and drew on the lessons of other transition economies

to suggest that the success of the agenda depended on building broad-based

political support and institutional capacity for effective implementation. Despite

these reservations, the IMF drew up a ‘Letter of Intent’ on 24 September 2004 with

7
D. Dollar and A. Kraay (2000), ‘Growth is good for the poor’, policy research working paper
no. 2587, World Bank.
8
D. Ghura, C Leite and C. Tsangaridies (2002), ‘Is growth enough? Macroeconomic policy
and poverty reduction’, IMF Working Paper, WP/02/118, July.
9
D. Rodrik (2002), ‘ After Neoliberalism, What?’, mimeo, June, Harvard University, paper
presented at a conference on ‘Alternatives to Neoliberalism’, Washington, DC, 23 May
10
D. Rodrik (2002b), ‘Feasible Globalisations’, mimeo, June, Havard University, p. 1.
the interim Iraqi government.11 This was expected, given that the former Managing

Director of the IMF called the Bremer reforms ‘remarkable and opined that ‘the Iraqi

people’ adopted an ‘economic strategy for recovery and development’. It never

seemed to occur to this prominent international bureaucrat that ‘the Iraqi people’

were simply not involved in this externally imposed neoliberal experiment. As

Crocker12 notes:

Having conducted its economic program as if Iraq was a laboratory for

Western, market economic policies, the CPA compromised its enduring

legitimacy by not enabling Iraqis to chart their own economic policies, the

CPA compromised its enduring legitimacy by not enabling Iraqis to chart their

own economic future. The question that now remains is whether the Iraqis

will embrace CPA goals and policies as their own.

It is unlikely that the majority of Iraqis will ‘embrace the CPA goals and

policies as their own’. In offering a comprehensive evaluation of the Bremer

reforms, somebody draws attention to the views of ‘objective critics of Iraq’s

neoliberal reforms’ who contend that the market conditions upon which it is base

just do not exist in the country at this time’. He notes that ‘a culture of responding

to market forces will have to be nurtured and developed. Until this occurs, the

neoliberal programme will continue to yield only higher rates of unemployment and

resentment’.13 This is a gloomy verdict indeed.

Social

11
IMF (2004), Iraq – Letter if Intent, Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies, and
Technical Memorandum of Understanding, Baghdad, 24 September.
12
B. Crocker (2004), ‘Restructuring Iraq’s economy’, Washington Quarterly, Autumn, pg.15.
13
Beyond The Iraq War (Michael & Iyanatul pg. 168)
 The US has consistently opposed the important human rights initiatives of the

UN. It is one of only two countries- the other being Iraq- that has still not ratified the

1989 land-back UN Convention on the Right of the Child. It also held back

ratifications on the treaty to ban landmines and the treaty to establish an

International Criminal Court. According to the UN Committee against Torture, which

oversees and monitors actions of Parties to the Convention, US has consistently

violated the World Convention against Torture: the Green Berets routinely tortured

their prisoners in Vietnam during interrogation, the CIA frequently tortured

suspected infiltrators of Soviet émigré organisation in western Europe, the US

trained and maintained SAVAK, the notorious secret service of the Shah of Iran, and

trained and equipped the intelligence services of Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil and Israel

with techniques and technology of torture- to give just a few examples.

It’s not just the world that feels the implication of the war on Iraq, so do the

people lives in the United States. People in the United States have no interest in

supporting a war on Iraq. Big oil companies, weapons manufacturers, and bought-

and-paid for politicians are gunning for Iraq, ready to throw billions of dollars into

this war. The working class faces cuts in welfare, education, healthcare, and jobs.

Oppressed nations and nationalities within the U.S. are impacted by the war more

than whites. Low-income African-

American and Latino soldiers, who fill the volunteer army ranks, will die for nothing

in Iraq. Racist attacks at home will rise, sparked by racist images of Iraqi people as

terrorists. Hate crimes, racial profiling, and INS/FBI harassment of Arab, Muslim and

immigrant communities, especially Palestinians, will intensify. At home ,the War On

Terrorism means Mexicano and Filipino airport workers get raided and deported,

police brutality cases are more difficult to win, and solidarity with peoples and
struggles in the Third World are made illegal by U.S. law. Under Bush’s War On

Terrorism, immigrants will not see a General Amnesty.

Many Iraqis people have suffer from the war since before 2003. In 1991, the

U.S. dropped tons of explosives on Iraq, more than 100,000 Iraqis were killed. The

nation was devastated - every road, bridge, date plantation, power plant, water or

sewage facility was hit. Homes, schools, mosques, churches, hospitals, even clearly

marked civilian bomb shelters were targets for American bomber pilots. Twelve

years of sanctions are depriving Iraqis of food, medicine and the capacity to rebuild.

Drive-by bombings in illegal no-fly zones are rarely reported in mainstream media,

but continue the terror war that never ended. The United States government is

responsible for the deaths of over one and a half million Iraqi people. A massive

bombing campaign and a large-scale invasion will mean even greater loss of human

lives.

The prison has become a central institution in American society, integral to our

politics, economy, and culture. Between 1976 and 200014, the United States built on

average a new prison each week and the number of imprisoned Americans

increased tenfold. With a current prison and jail population of over two million,

America has become the uncontested world leader in incarceration. Prison has

made the threat of torture part of everyday life for millions of individuals in the

United States, especially the 6.9 million currently incarcerated or otherwise under

the control of the penal system. More insidiously, our prison system has helped

make torture a normal, legitimate, even routine part of American culture.

Imprisonment itself, even when relatively benign, is arguably a form of

torture. This is implicit in our society using prison as the most dire legal form of both
14
http..en.wikipedia.org.wiki.Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse_files
"punishment" and "deterrence," except for execution. Moreover, in the typical

American prison, designed and run to maximize degradation, brutalization, and

punishment, overt torture is the norm. Beatings, electric shock, prolonged exposure

to heat and even immersion in scalding water, sodomy with riot batons, nightsticks,

flashlights, and broom handles, shackled prisoners forced to lie in their own

excrement for hours or even days, months of solitary confinement, rape and murder

by guards or prisoners instructed by guards--all are everyday occurrences in the

American prison system

The use of sex and sexual humiliation as torture in Abu Ghraib and the other

American prisons in Iraq is endemic to the American prison. The prisoner Manadel

al-Jamadi died in Abu Ghraib prison after being interrogated and tortured by a CIA

officer and a private contractor. The torture included physical violence and

strappado hanging. His death has been labeled a homicide by the US military, but

neither of the two men that caused his death have been charged. The private

contractor was granted immunity. Psychological and physical sexual torture is

exacerbated by the underlying policy of denying prisoners any volitional sex,

making the only two forms of sexual activity that are physically possible--

homosexuality and masturbation--both offenses subject to punishment. Strip

searches, including invasive and often intentionally painful examination of the

mouth, anus, testicles, and vagina, frequently accompanied by verbal or physical

sexual abuse, are part of the daily routine in most prisons. A 1999 Amnesty

International report documented the commonplace rape of prisoners by guards in

women's prisons.
 Each year, numerous prisoners are maimed, crippled, and even killed by

guards. Photographs could be taken on any day in the American prison system that

would match the photographs from Abu Ghraib that shocked the public. Indeed,

actual pictures from prisons in America have shown worse atrocities than those

pictures from the American prisons in Iraq. For example, no photos of American

abuse of Iraqi prisoners have yet equaled the pictures of dozens of prisoners

savagely and mercilessly tortured by guards and state troopers in the aftermath of

the 1971 Attica rebellion. Even more appalling images are available in the

documentary film Maximum Security University about California's state Corcoran

Prison. For years at Corcoran, guards set up fights among prisoners, bet on the

outcome, and then often shot the men for fighting, seriously wounding at least 43

and killing eight just in the period 1989-1994. The film features official footage of

five separate incidents in which guards, with no legal justification, shoot down and

kill unarmed prisoners.

Conclusion

To conclude, United State of America has done much oppression towards

other countries especially towards developing countries. America consistently

applies oppressions from the aspects of politic, economy and social. These

oppressions bring different impacts to respectively countries. However, most of the

developing countries suffer from this action of America. America should stop doing

oppression as it will only bring bad effects to the other countries and itself. America

should aware that the oppression will bring side effect to itself. If not, the position

of America as world leader may be affected and being substituted by other potential

countries such as China.