Learn more about the Sustainer Program: http://www.zmag.org/Commentaries/donorform.htm Articles on ZNet:(10/3) Fisk:
Who are our Allies? "America's
New War," is what they call it on CNN. And of course, as usual, they've
got it wrong. Because in our desire to "bring to justice" – let's
remember those words in the coming days – the vicious men who planned the
crimes against humanity in New York and Washington last month, we're hiring
some well-known rapists and murderers to work for us. Monbiot:
Genocide or Peace? - Peace
has been declared before the war has begun. Those who advocated the
obliteration of Kabul and Baghdad have retreated in the face of insuperable
complexity. Many of those who argued against aggression have relaxed as the
threat of carpet bombing or nuclear strikes has lifted. Most people now appear
to agree that attacking a few military targets and deploying special forces
will do no great harm. Roy:
Algebra of Infinite Justice - In
the aftermath of the unconscionable September 11 suicide attacks on the
Pentagon and the World Trade Centre, an American newscaster said: Good and
evil rarely manifest themselves as clearly as they did last Tuesday. People
who we don't know massacred people who we do. And they did so with
contemptuous glee.' Then he broke down and wept. Miller: Brits Actually Oppose War Articles posted below: Albert Interviews Chomsky 9/30"The price is worth it" By Edward S. HermanPeace Movement Prospects ... By Michael AlbertThe Theatre of Good and Evil ... By Eduardo Galeano from La JornadaPerceiving the Situation ... By Michael AlbertThe Need for Dissent Radicalism is retreating, but it's more necessary than ever before ...By George MonbiotWelcome to the Warnacular ... By Laura FlandersWhat Kind of War ... By Michael T. Klare
I sent six questions to Noam Chomsky. His answers, by
email, are below.
(1) There has been an immense movement of troops and extreme use of military rhetoric, up to comments about terminating governments, etc. Yet, to many people there appears to be considerable restraint...what happened?
>From the first days after the attack, the Bush
administration has been warned by NATO leaders, specialists on the region,
and presumably its own intelligence agencies (not to speak of many people
like you and me) that if they react with a massive assault that kills many
innocent people, that will be answering bin Laden's most fervent prayers.
They will be falling into a "diabolical trap," as the French
foreign minister put it. That would be true -- perhaps even more so -- if
they happen to kill bin Laden, still without having provided credible
evidence of his involvement in the crimes of Sept. 11. He would then be
perceived as a martyr even among the enormous majority of Muslims who
deplore those crimes, as bin Laden himself has done, for what it is worth,
denying any involvement in the crimes or even knowledge of them, and
condemning "the killing of innocent women, children, and other
humans" as an act that "Islam strictly forbids...even in the
course of a battle" (BBC, Sept. 29). His voice will continue to resound
on tens of thousands of cassettes already circulating throughout the Muslim
world, and in many interviews, including the last few days. An assault that
kills innocent Afghans -- not Taliban, but their terrorized victims -- would
be virtually a call for new recruits to the horrendous cause of the bin
Laden network and other graduates of the terrorist networks set up by the
CIA and its associates 20 years ago to fight a Holy War against the
Russians, meanwhile following their own agenda, from the time they
assassinated President Sadat of Egypt in 1981, murdering one of the most
enthusiastic of the creators of the "Afghanis" -- mostly recruits
from extremist radical Islamist elements around the world who were recruited
to fight in Afghanistan.
After a little while, the message apparently got
through to the Bush administration, which has -- wisely from their point of
view -- chosen to follow a different course.
However, "restraint" seems to me a
questionable word. On Sept. 16, the New York Times reported that
"Washington has also demanded [from Pakistan] a cutoff of fuel
supplies,...and the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the
food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population."
Astonishingly, that report elicited no detectable reaction in the West, a
grim reminder of the nature of the Western civilization that leaders and
elite commentators claim to uphold, yet another lesson that is not lost
among those who have been at the wrong end of the guns and whips for
centuries. In the following days, those demands were implemented. On Sept.
27, the same NYT correspondent reported that officials in Pakistan
"said today that they would not relent in their decision to seal off
the country's 1,400- mile border with Afghanistan, a move requested by the
Bush administration because, the officials said, they wanted to be sure that
none of Mr. bin Laden's men were hiding among the huge tide of
refugees" (John Burns, Islamabad). According to the world's leading
newspaper, then, Washington demanded that Pakistan slaughter massive numbers
of Afghans, millions of them already on the brink of starvation, by cutting
off the limited sustenance that was keeping them alive. Almost all aid
missions withdrew or were expelled under the threat of bombing. Huge numbers
of miserable people have been fleeing to the borders in terror, after
Washington's threat to bomb the shreds of existence remaining in
Afghanistan, and to convert the Northern Alliance into a heavily armed
military force that will, perhaps, be unleashed to renew the atrocities that
tore the country apart and led much of the population to welcome the Taliban
when they drove out the murderous warring factions that Washington and
Moscow now hope to exploit for their own purposes. When they reach the
sealed borders, refugees are trapped to die in silence. Only a trickle can
escape through remote mountain passes. How many have already succumbed we
cannot guess, and few seem to care. Apart from the relief agencies, I have
seen no attempt even to guess. Within a few weeks the harsh winter will
arrive. There are some reporters and aid workers in the refugee camps across
the borders. What they describe is horrifying enough, but they know, and we
know, that they are seeing the lucky ones, the few who were able to escape
-- and who express their hopes that ''even the cruel Americans must feel
some pity for our ruined country,'' and relent in this savage silent
genocide (Boston Globe, Sept. 27, p. 1). Perhaps the most apt description
was given by the wonderful and courageous Indian writer and activist
Arundhati Roy, referring to Operation Infinite Justice proclaimed by the
Bush Administration: "Witness the infinite justice of the new century.
Civilians starving to death while they're waiting to be killed"
(Guardian, Sept. 29).
(2) The UN has indicated that the threat of starvation in Afghanistan is enormous. International criticism on this score has grown and now the U.S. and Britain are talking about providing food aid to ward off hunger. Are they caving in to dissent in fact, or only in appearance? What is their motivation? What will be the scale and impact of their efforts?
The UN estimates that some 7-8 million are at risk of
imminent starvation. The NY Times reports in a small item (Sept. 25) that
nearly six million Afghans depend on food aid from the UN, as well as 3.5
million in refugee camps outside, many of whom fled just before the borders
were sealed. The item reported that some food is being sent, to the camps
across the border. If people in Washington and the editorial offices have
even a single gray cell functioning, they realize that they must present
themselves as humanitarians seeking to avert the awesome tragedy that
followed at once from the threat of bombing and military attack and the
sealing of the borders they demanded. "Experts also urge the United
States to improve its image by increasing aid to Afghan refugees, as well as
by helping to rebuild the economy" (Christian Science Monitor, Sept.
28). Even without PR specialists to instruct them, administration officials
must comprehend that they should send some food to the refugees who made it
across the border, and at least talk about air drop of food to starving
people within: in order "to save lives" but also to "help the
effort to find terror groups inside Afghanistan" (Boston Globe, Sept.
27, quoting a Pentagon official, who describes this as "winning the
hearts and minds of the people"). The New York Times editors picked up
the same theme the following day, 12 days after the journal reported that
the murderous operation is being put into effect.
On the scale of aid, one can only hope that it is
enormous, or the human tragedy may be immense in a few weeks. But we should
also bear in mind that there has been nothing to stop massive food drops
from the beginning, and we cannot even guess how many have already died, or
soon will. If the government is sensible, there will be at least a show of
the "massive air drops" that officials mention.
(3) International legal institutions would likely ratify efforts to arrest and try bin Laden and others, supposing guilt could be shown, including the use of force. Why does the U.S. avoid this recourse? Is it only a matter of not wishing to legitimate an approach that could be used, as well, against our acts of terrorism, or are other factors at play?
Much of the world has been asking the US to provide
some evidence to link bin Laden to the crime, and if such evidence could be
provided, it would not be difficult to rally enormous support for an
international effort, under the rubric of the UN, to apprehend and try him
and his collaborators. However, that is no simple matter. Even if bin Laden
and his network are involved in the crimes of Sept. 11, it may be quite hard
to produce credible evidence. As the CIA surely knows very well, having
nurtured these organizations and monitored them very closely for 20 years,
they are diffuse, decentralized, non-hierarchic structures, probably with
little communication or direct guidance. And for all we know, most of the
perpetrators may have killed themselves in their awful missions.
There are further problems in the background. To quote
Roy again, "The Taliban's response to US demands for the extradition of
Bin Laden has been uncharacteristically reasonable: produce the evidence,
then we'll hand him over. President Bush's response is that the demand is
non-negotiable'." She also adds one of the many reasons why this
framework is unacceptable to Washington: "While talks are on for the
extradition of CEOs can India put in a side request for the extradition of
Warren Anderson of the US? He was the chairman of Union Carbide, responsible
for the Bhopal gas leak that killed 16,000 people in 1984. We have collated
the necessary evidence. It's all in the files. Could we have him,
please?" Such comparisons elicit frenzied tantrums at the extremist
fringes of Western opinion, some of them called "the left." But
for Westerners who have retained their sanity and moral integrity, and for
great numbers among the usual victims, they are quite meaningful. Government
leaders presumably understand that.
And the single example that Roy mentions is only the
beginning, of course, and one of the lesser examples, not only because of
the scale of the atrocity, but because it was not explicitly a crime of
state. Suppose Iran were to request the extradition of high officials of the
Carter and Reagan administrations, refusing to present the ample evidence of
the crimes they were implementing -- and it surely exists. Or suppose
Nicaragua were to demand the extradition of the US ambassador to the UN,
newly appointed to lead the "war against terror," a man whose
record includes his service as "proconsul" (as he was often
called) in the virtual fiefdom of Honduras, where he surely was aware of the
atrocities of the state terrorists he was supporting, and was also
overseeing the terrorist war for which the US was condemned by the World
Court and the Security Council (in a resolution the US vetoed). Or many
others. Would the US even dream of responding to such demands presented
without evidence, or even if the ample evidence were presented?
Those doors are better left closed, just as it is best
to maintain the silence on the appointment of a leading figure in managing
the operations condemned as terrorism by the highest existing international
bodies -- to lead a "war on terrorism." Jonathan Swift would also
be speechless.
That may be the reason why administration publicity
experts preferred the usefully ambiguous term "war" to the more
explicit term "crime" -- "crime against humanity as Robert
Fisk, Mary Robinson, and others have accurately depicted it. There are
established procedures for dealing with crimes, however horrendous. They
require evidence, and adherence to the principle that "those who are
guilty of these acts" be held accountable once evidence is produced,
but not others (Pope John Paul II, NYT Sept. 24). Not, for example, the
unknown numbers of miserable people starving to death in terror at the
sealed borders, though in this case too we are speaking of crimes against
humanity.
(4) The war on terror was first undertaken by Reagan, as a substitute for the cold war -- that is, as a vehicle for scaring the public and thus marshalling support for programs contrary to the public's interest -- foreign campaigns, war spending in general, surveillance, and so on. Now we are seeing a larger and more aggressive attempt to move in the same direction. Does the problem that we are the world's foremost source of attacks on civilians auger complications for carrying through this effort? Can the effort be sustained without, in fact, a shooting war?
The Reagan administration came into office 20 years
ago declaring that its leading concern would be to eradicate the plague of
international terrorism, a cancer that is destroying civilization. They
cured the plague by establishing an international terrorist network of
extraordinary scale, with consequences that are -- or should be --
well-known in Central America, the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia, and
elsewhere -- while using the pretexts, as you say, to carry out programs
that were of considerable harm to the domestic population, and that even
threaten human survival. Did they carry out a "shooting war"? The
number of corpses they left in their wake around the world is impressive,
but technically, they did not usually fire the guns, apart from transparent
PR exercises like the bombing of Libya, the first crime of war in history
that was timed precisely for prime time TV, no small trick considering the
complexity of the operation and the refusal of continental European
countries to collaborate. The torture, mutilation, rape, and massacre were
carried out through intermediaries.
Even if we exclude the huge but unmentionable
component of terrorism that traces back to terrorist states, our own surely
included, the terrorist plague is very real, very dangerous, and truly
terrifying. There are ways to react that are likely to escalate the threats
to ourselves and others; there are ample precedents for more sane and
honorable methods, which we've discussed before, and are not in the least
obscure, but are scarcely discussed. Those are the basic choices.
(5) If the Taliban falls and bin Laden or someone they claim is responsible is captured or killed, what next? What happens to Afghanistan? What happens more broadly in other regions?
The sensible administration plan would be to pursue
the ongoing program of silent genocide, combined with humanitarian gestures
to arouse the applause of the usual chorus who are called upon to sing the
praises of the noble leaders committed to "principles and values"
and leading the world to a "new era" of "ending
inhumanity." The administration might also try to convert the Northern
Alliance into a viable force, perhaps to bring in other warlords hostile to
it, like Gulbudin Hekmatyar, now in Iran. Presumably they will use British
and US commandoes for missions within Afghanistan, and perhaps resort to
selective bombing, but scaled down so as not to answer bin Laden's prayers.
A US assault should not be compared to the failed Russian invasion of the
80s. The Russians were facing a major army of perhaps 100,000 men or more,
organized, trained and heavily armed by the CIA and its associates. The US
is facing a ragtag force in a country that has already been virtually
destroyed by 20 years of horror, for which we bear no slight share of
responsibility. The Taliban forces, such as they are, might quickly collapse
except for a small hard core. And one would expect that the surviving
population would welcome an invading force if it is not too visibly
associated with the murderous gangs that tore the country to shreds before
the Taliban takeover. At this point, most people would be likely to welcome
Genghis Khan.
What next? Expatriate Afghans and, apparently, some
internal elements who are not part of the Taliban inner circle have been
calling for a UN effort to establish some kind of transition government, a
process that might succeed in reconstructing something viable from the
wreckage, if provided with very substantial reconstruction aid, channeled
through independent sources like the UN or credible NGOs. That much should
be the minimal responsibility of those who have turned this impoverished
country into a land of terror, desperation, corpses, and mutilated victims.
That could happen, but not without very substantial popular efforts in the
rich and powerful societies. For the present, any such course has been ruled
out by the Bush administration, which has announced that it will not be
engaged in "nation building" -- or, it seems, an effort that would
be more honorable and humane: substantial support, without interference, for
"nation building" by others who might actually achieve some
success in the enterprise. But current refusal to consider this decent
course is not graven in stone. What happens in other regions depends on
internal factors, on the policies of foreign actors (the US dominant among
them, for obvious reasons), and the way matters proceed in Afghanistan. One
can hardly be confident, but for many of the possible courses reasonable
assessments can be made about the outcome -- and there are a great many
possibilities, too many to try to review in brief comments.
(6) What do you believe should be the role and priority of social activists concerned about justice at this time? Should we curb our criticisms, as some have claimed, or is this, instead, a time for renewed and enlarged efforts, not only because it is a crisis regarding which we can attempt to have a very important positive impact, but also because large sectors of the public are actually far more receptive than usual to discussion and exploration, even it other sectors are intransigently hostile?
It depends on what these social activists are trying
to achieve. If their goal is to escalate the cycle of violence and to
increase the likelihood of further atrocities like that of Sept. 11 -- and,
regrettably, even worse ones with which much of the world is all too
familiar -- then they should certainly curb their analysis and criticisms,
refuse to think, and cut back their involvement in the very serious issues
in which they have been engaged. The same advice is warranted if they want
to help the most reactionary and regressive elements of the
political-economic power system to implement plans that will be of great
harm to the general population here and in much of the world, and may even
threaten human survival.
If, on the contrary, the goal of social activists is
to reduce the likelihood of further atrocities, and to advance hopes for
freedom, human rights, and democracy, then they should follow the opposite
course. They should intensify their efforts to inquire into the background
factors that lie behind these and other crimes and devote themselves with
even more energy to the just causes to which they have already been
committed. The opportunities are surely there. The shock of the horrendous
crimes has already opened even elite sectors to reflection of a kind that
would have been hard to imagine not long ago, and among the general public
that is even more true. Of course, there will be those who demand silent
obedience. We expect that from the ultra-right, and anyone with a little
familiarity with history will expect it from some left intellectuals as
well, perhaps in an even more virulent form. But it is important not to be
intimidated by hysterical ranting and lies and to keep as closely as one can
to the course of truth and honesty and concern for the human consequences of
what one does, or fails to do. All truisms, but worth bearing in mind.
Beyond the truisms, we turn to specific questions, for
inquiry and for action.
"The price is worth it" By Edward S. Herman Peace Movement Prospects By Michael Albert
Perceiving the
Situation By Michael Albert
Beyond Bush and his ilk predictably trying to use
calamity to propel their reactionary agendas on every front they can, from
repressive legislation about eavesdropping, to military expansion, and even
to tax policy -- it is certainly also true and must be faced that many
citizens are in a violent mood, suggesting all kinds of anti-civilian acts.
So many that it feels overwhelming.
But how many U.S. citizens who are advocating bombings
realize that the people of Afghanistan already live in a horrendously
war-torn country, made virtually rubble from its war with Russia? How many
understand that hunger and the danger of starvation for Afghanistan is so
great that a misstep at this juncture - for example, cutting off all outside
food aid, even without bombs - could cause not thousands but literally
millions of innocent deaths by starvation? Not many of our citizens, is my
guess. When such information is conveyed, how many will hold to the vengeful
stance? When it becomes evident that vengeance by assault on civilians is
precisely terrorism, that assault on civilians for political purposes is
precisely terrorism, how many will want to hold to warring indiscriminately,
to being a terrorist? One wonders how many of those working at Ground Zero
in NYC would wish military devastation on innocent civilians in another
country. Not many, if any, is my guess.
But what is even more promising, is that even in a
moment of great pain and mourning, even at a time of national rallying, even
when all public pressures cry for war, even before there has been
opportunity to counter media madness and government manipulation with valid
argument and evidence, even now many and probably most people are already
wondering at least somewhat about the wisdom of Bush's stance, and are even
contemplating such unspeakable conclusions as that the cure for terrorism is
not more and even greater terrorism, and that the cure for fanaticism is not
to dispense with civil liberties.
I think there may be a tendency afoot among many
activists, totally understandable, to see the great outpourings of
nationalism and to be pessimistic beyond what evidence warrants. Yes, the
events have been horrible in their immediate impact, of course. And yes the
hypocritical willingness of Bush and others to try to parlay pain into more
suffering in different forms, and even into more terror, has been stunning
and terrifying. But there are good signs too - not solely in the humanity of
the massive outpourings of sympathy, but also in the opposition to race
hatred against Arabs that has erupted as quickly and perhaps more
pervasively than the reverse, and in the almost instantaneous emergence of
both reason and activism regarding war prospects.
Thus I want to share with you information from a
communication from Portland Oregon. The letter writer communicates that:
"Today we had an anti-war demo in Portland. Like
so many of you have expressed, I too have felt that we are heading into a
very dark time for activism, no less radical politics.
"Now, Portland has seen a fair amount of activism
lately - events large (1500+ for this year's May Day march, which had a
permit taken out by the City Council because organizers refused to get one
and the city didn't want to arrest everyone) and small (40 radical activists
and union brothers and sisters shutting down the Port of Portland and
delaying the offloading of an Italian vessel in protest of the G8 police
rioting, a picket line which the longshoremen refused to cross, setting off
similar actions as that ship proceeded along the west coast).
"I say all that for context, because I reckon
things are a bit "better" here for that sort of activism than in
many other communities around the country.
"Having said that, this was the largest
demonstration I've been to in Portland since the Gulf War! Organizers were
able to do a pretty good count as we were walking along a narrow area, and
there were at least 2600 people there to speak against the incessant beating
of the war drums.
"Nobody could believe it. Everyone (strangers I
talked to, acquaintances I talked to) had been feeling very isolated and had
taken on a very bleak attitude about the future of `the left.'
"We marched in the streets without a permit,
spanning 12 or more blocks. There were no police anywhere to be seen.
"This caused some problems, in that they *do* tend to be helpful with
traffic control. Ah, well... we did ok without 'em on that one too, a few
irate drivers notwithstanding :-)
"Well, 2600 isn't enough to stop the impending
war, but it's a far bigger start than anyone expected. All is not lost!
Let's not let our gloomy perspectives of the moment, (which are perfectly
understandable as we watch the manufacture of consent occur before our very
eyes, at breakneck speed) let's not let that gloom turn our very rational
fears into a self-fulfilling prophesy.
"Afterward, I went to a `vigil' organized by the
Christian Coalition :-( This occurred in the main `public' square in town
(semi-privately owned and operated). There were fewer people at this one,
but not by much. The creepy rhetoric of right-wing Christianity was toned
down, but not by much. At least it was toned down though. We were there
mostly in case of needing to protect any victims of the racism seething
beneath the surface.
"I stood amidst the sea of American flags, amidst
the `rousing' renditions of the great patriotic hits, holding a `Jingoism
Hurts America' sign. I got into some rather interesting conversations with
people who wanted to know what jingoism meant. I described it as a form of
rhetoric using a chauvinistic patriotism to justify an arrogant and
belligerent foreign policy. Some nodded and walked away, but many lingered
to discuss. My friends and I were only too happy to oblige :-) With some
sensitivity, it is possible to clue people in on the activities of the CIA
in the overthrow of democratic governments, the institution of autocratic
regimes such as the Taliban, and the creation of Osama bin Laden himself.
"I couldn't believe the conversations! Who knows
if we did anything. Anyhow, it's not necessarily doom and gloom - let's get
back out there and be visible, now!
I got the above letter without a return email address
for its author. But here is my reply.Yes, you did something. You did
precisely what we all need to be doing. You went out and worked for peace
and justice, and you did it without fear and without arrogance, and without
presuppositions. And you showed, in the process, what the potential is of
such work.
ZNet has been having server problems - we will post these articles temporarily -- check the sites below from time to time to see if the site has become accessible:
ZNet Top : http://www.zmag.org
With access to the whole site.
Our Full Crisis Coverage: http://www.zmag.org/reactionscalam.htm
Which has links to all our recent material
The Albert/Shalom Q and A: http://www.zmag.org/qacalam.htm
The extensive Q/A
Chomsky's B92 Interview : http://www.zmag.org/chomb92.htm
His most recent contribution.
Below we include some of the newest material we have
received, but which we can't put online since
we are also locked out from accessing the site.
-----(Top)
Radicalism is retreating, but it's more necessary
than ever before
By George Monbiot
If Osama bin Laden did not exist, it would be
necessary to invent him. For the past four years, his name has been
invoked whenever a US president has sought to increase the defence budget
or wriggle out of arms control treaties. He has been used to justify even
President Bush's missile defence programme, though neither he nor his
associates are known to possess anything approaching ballistic missile
technology. Now he has become the personification of evil required to
launch a crusade for good; the face behind the faceless terror.
The closer you look, the weaker the case against bin
Laden becomes. While the terrorists who inflicted Tuesday's dreadful wound
in the world may have been inspired by him, there is, as yet, no evidence
that they were instructed by him. Bin Laden's presumed guilt rests on the
supposition that he is the sort of man who would have done it. But his
culpability is irrelevant: his usefulness to western governments lies in
his power to terrify. When billions of pounds of military spending are at
stake, rogue states and terrorist warlords become assets precisely because
they are liabilities.
By using bin Laden as an excuse for demanding new
military spending, weapons manufacturers in America and Britain have
enhanced his iconic status among the disgruntled. His influence, in other
words, has been nurtured by the very industry which claims to possess the
means of stamping him out. This is not the only way in which the new
terrorism crisis has been exacerbated by corporate power.
The lax airport security which enabled the hijackers
to smuggle weapons onto the planes was the result of corporate lobbying
against the stricter controls the government had proposed. Some reports
suggest that so many died in the south tower of the World Trade Centre
partly because some of the companies there instructed their employees to
return to work after the north tower had been hit.
Now Tuesday's horror is being used by corporations
to establish the preconditions for an even deadlier brand of terror. This
week, while the world's collective back is turned, Tony Blair intends to
allow the mixed oxide plant at Sellafield to start operating. The decision
would have been front page news at any other time. Now it's likely to be
all but invisible. The plant's operation, long demanded by the nuclear
industry and resisted by almost everyone else, will lead to a massive
proliferation of plutonium, and a near certainty that some of it will find
its way into the hands of terrorists. Like Ariel Sharon, in other words,
Blair is using the reeling world's shock to pursue policies which would be
unacceptable at any other time.
For these reasons and many others, radical
opposition has seldom been more necessary. But it has seldom been more
vulnerable. The right is seizing the political space which has opened up
where the twin towers of the World Trade Centre once stood.
Civil liberties are suddenly negotiable. The US
seems prepared to lift its ban on extra-judicial executions carried out
abroad by its own agents. The CIA might be permitted to employ human
rights abusers once more, which will doubtless mean training and funding a
whole new generation of bin Ladens. The British government is considering
the introduction of identity cards. Radical dissenters in Britain have
already been identified as terrorists by the Terrorism Act 2000. Now we're
likely to be treated as such.
One of the peculiar problems we radicals face is
that the targets of Tuesday's terror represented more clearly than any
others the powers we have long opposed. For those of us who have
campaigned against the predatory behaviour of the financial sector and the
defence industry, the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon had come to
symbolise all that was rotten in the state of the world. So, though ours
is a movement built on peace, it has not been hard for our opponents to
equate our dissidence with terror.
The authoritarianism which has long been lurking in
advanced capitalism has started to surface. In the Guardian yesterday,
William Shawcross -- Rupert Murdoch's courteous biographer -- articulated
the new orthodoxy: America is, he maintained, "a beacon of hope for
the world's poor and dispossessed and for all those who believe in freedom
of thought and deed". These believers would presumably include the
families of the Iraqis killed by the sanctions Britain and the US have
imposed; the peasants murdered by Bush's proxy war in Colombia; and the
tens of millions living under despotic regimes in the Middle East,
sustained and sponsored by the United States.
William Shawcross concluded by suggesting that
"we are all Americans now", a terrifying echo of Pinochet's
maxim that "we are all Chileans now": by which he meant that no
cultural distinctions would be tolerated, and no indigenous land rights
recognised. Shawcross appeared to suggest that those who question American
power are now the enemies of democracy. It's a different way of
formulating the warning voiced by members of the Bush administration:
"if you're not with us, you're against us".
The Daily Telegraph has set aside part of its leader
column for a directory of "useful idiots", by which it means
those who oppose major military intervention. Doubtless I will find my
name on the roll of honour there tomorrow. So, perhaps, will the families
of some of the victims, who seem to be rather more capable of restraint
and forgiveness than the leader writers of the rightwing press. Mark
Newton-Carter, whose brother appears to have died in the terrorist
outrage, told one of the Sunday newspapers, "I think Bush should be
caged at the moment. He is a loose cannon. He is building up his forces
getting ready for a military strike. That is not the answer. Gandhi said:
'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' and never a truer word was
spoken." But when the right is on the rampage, victims as well as
perpetrators are trampled.
Mark Twain once observed that "there are some
natures which never grow large enough to speak out and say a bad act is a
bad act, until they have inquired into the politics or the nationality of
the man who did it." The radical left is able to state categorically
that Tuesday's terrorism was a dreadful act, irrespective of provenance.
But the right can't bring itself to make the same statement about Israel's
new invasions of Palestine, or the sanctions in Iraq, or the US-backed
terror in East Timor, or the carpet bombing of Cambodia. Its critical
faculties have long been suspended and now, it demands, we must suspend
ours too.
Retaining the ability to discriminate between good
acts and bad acts will become ever harder over the next few months, as new
conflicts and paradoxes challenge our preconceptions. It may be that a
convincing case against bin Laden is assembled, whereupon his forced
extradition would, I feel, be justified. But, unless we wish to help
George Bush use barbarism to defend the "civilisation" he claims
to represent, we on the left must distinguish between extradition and
extermination.
Tuesday's terror may have signalled the beginning of
the end of globalisation. The recession it has doubtless helped to
precipitate, coupled with a new and understandable fear among many
Americans of engagement with the outside world, could lead to a
reactionary protectionism in the United States, which is likely to provoke
similar responses on this side of the Atlantic. We will, in these
circumstances, have to be careful not to celebrate the demise of corporate
globalisation, if it merely gives way to something even worse.
The governments of Britain and America are using the
disaster in New York to reinforce the very policies which have helped to
cause the problem: building up the power of the defence industry,
preparing to launch campaigns of the kind which inevitably kill civilians,
licensing covert action. Corporations are securing new resources to invest
in instability. Racists are attacking Arabs and Muslims and blaming
liberal asylum policies for terrorism. As a result of the horror on
Tuesday, the right in all its forms is flourishing, and we are shrinking.
But we must not be cowed. Dissent is most necessary just when it is
hardest to voice.
--------(Top)
By Laura Flanders -
We were still reeling from the Bush lexicon. Now
here comes the Warnacular. In less than a week, many familiar terms have
taken on new meanings. Here's a partial list:
The United States = "America"
America = "the Civilized World."
An attack on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon
has become an attack on the American "way of life."
Anyone who hates America hates freedom and
democracy. Why might someone be motivated to carry out last week's
attacks? "Obviously he's filled with hate for the United States
and for everything we stand for... freedom and democracy," Vice
President Dick Cheney told Tim Russert on Sunday's "Meet The
Press." He went on, "It must have something to do with his
background, his own upbringing." Nothing to do with U.S.
policy. Cheney wants us to believe that parents are to blame.
Speaking of democracy. Democracy, these days =
Bipartisanship. What does bipartisanship mean? Why, Democrats agree to
everything Republicans want, of course. It's unanimous when the vote
is 420 to 1 and that one is a an African-American female from the
peacenik Bay Area.
Allies are states that support the U.S. president no
matter how unilaterally he acts. Will critics of the U.S.A. be
called racist or anti-Semitic? Probably that comes next. But we're
getting ahead of ourselves.
The biggest news this week is that patriotism has
become holding on to, or better yet, buying stock. Anyone who sells
on New York's newly reopened trading floor, is "betting against
America," says Richard Grasso, chairman of the New York Stock
Exchange and a chorus of newly dubbed "civic leaders"
(which is to say brokers and corporate executives, Warren Buffett et al.,)
agree.
What will make us safer? Security comes from
permitting the FBI into our phone conversations and releasing the CIA to
work with "unsavory characters," yeah, even human rights
abusers and possibly terrorists. It's worked so well in the past.
For safety's sake, the U.S. must "not rule out", as John McCain
of the Senate Armed Services Committee put it, the possibility of using
nuclear weapons against any country at any time.
If we the people let it happen, "War
Powers" will become the power to get the media to declare that
we are in a war. Grief will have become a cry for killing.
Normalcy (which has entirely replaced normality for
some reason) will be all we long for. And Normalcy, it seems, is to
carry on doing exactly what we did before. Exactly what got us here.
----(Top)
By Michael T. Klare
President Bush has called upon the nation to engage
in a "war against terrorism," a war that must be pursued until
final "victory" is achieved. Most Americans support tough action
aimed at the eradication of Osama bin Laden's terrorist networks and those
of like-minded extremists. But it is not a war against terrorism, per se,
that Bush envisions, but a war to ensure continued U.S. military dominance
in the Middle East.
In thinking about the war to come, it is important
to recognize that "terrorism" is not a cause, like communism, or
an identifiable organization, like the PLO or the IRA. Rather, it is a
strategy. Throughout history, those who are weak in traditional forms of
military power have used unconventional tactics, including terrorist
attacks, to overcome those with greater military strength. In the world
today, many groups are using such tactics -- the Tamil Tigers in Sri
Lanka, the Basques in Spain, the rebel forces in Chechnya, the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines, Hamas in Israel and so on.
There is no evidence that President Bush seeks to make war on all of these
groups; rather, he clearly intends to fight those who threaten American
interests in the Persian Gulf region.
The United States has, of course, been involved in
conflict in the Persian Gulf for a very long time. Ever since the British
pulled out of the area in 1972, U.S. forces have been on call to protect
friendly governments -- especially Saudi Arabia and the conservative Gulf
sheikdoms -- and to resist any threat to the free flow of oil. This was
the genesis of the "Carter Doctrine" of 1980, and formed the
backdrop for Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Since Desert Storm, the
United States has amassed sufficient military power in the Gulf area to
deter its two leading antagonists, Iran and Iraq, from conducting a direct
assault on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Some 20,000 to 25,000 U.S. military
personnel are in the area at all times, and large quantities and arms and
equipment have been "pre-positioned" in the area to permit a
rapid expansion of U.S. strength.
Although successful in deterring established states
like Iran and Iraq, the U.S. military buildup has not succeeded in
preventing attacks on U.S. interests by extremists and irregular forces,
like the terrorist networks associated with Osama bin Laden. These groups
abhor the presence of American military personnel -- most of whom are
non-Muslims -- in the vicinity of Islam's holiest sites, especially Jidda
and Mecca. They also resent U.S. support for Israel and the continuing
U.S.-backed economic sanctions on Iraq, which are said to punish ordinary
Muslim Iraqis unfairly. The anti-American extremists of the Persian Gulf
area know they cannot expel the U.S. presence from their midst through
conventional military means, so they rely on terrorism. They bombed the
U.S.-supported headquarters of the Saudi Arabian National Guard in 1995,
the Khobar Towers (a U.S. military apartment complex) in 1996, the U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000. Now
they have struck in New York and Washington.
As claimed by President Bush and many others, the
terrorist strikes on September 11 were an act of war against the United
States. But they were not mere expressions of anti-American or
anti-Western sentiment, as suggested by some. Rather, they were a major
assault in the continuing struggle between the United States and its
adversaries for control of the Persian Gulf. Now, a new chapter in that
conflict is about to unfold.
>From all that we are hearing in Washington,
President Bush intends a major escalation of this continuing war. "We
are planning a broad and sustained campaign to secure our country and
eradicate the evil of terrorism," he declared on Saturday. In all
likelihood, this will involve air strikes against terrorist camps in
Afghanistan, along with commando-type raids to seize bin Laden and his
associates. It is also likely to involve punishing attacks on Iraq and
other countries that may have harbored bin Laden's teams or assisted them
in some manner. Ground troops may be sent into the area to secure key
positions (for example, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan) and
to subdue any resistance to U.S. attacks.
No one can predict where all of this will lead. The
Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to prevent the rise of an anti-Soviet
regime, only to depart in ignominious defeat some six years later. No
doubt U.S. forces will work very hard to avoid the mistakes made by
Moscow, but the terrain and the environment are not conducive to
American-style high-tech warfare. It is also hard to know whether ordinary
Afghans will welcome American troops as liberators or, as in the case of
Soviet forces, as alien invaders. President Bush has received a strong
mandate from Congress and the American people to take vigorous action to
punish those responsible for last Tuesday's attacks on New York and
Washington. But he owes it to all of us to be honest about his intentions
and -- without going into military details -- to spell out the
implications of the various scenarios he is considering. Congress should
also be given an opportunity to discuss the relative merits of various
military options -- as occurred in January 1991, during the historic
Senate debate on U.S. strategy in the Gulf that preceded the onset of
Operation Desert Storm. It is abundantly clear that a campaign against
those directly responsible for Tuesday's attacks, aimed at bringing them
to justice, is something that most Americans support. But a bloody,
protracted war in the wasteland of Southwest Asia would not only fail to
eradicate terrorism -- it could produce sharp divisions at home as well.
Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world
security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of
"Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict"
(Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, 2001).
|
