Another Perverse Consequence of the “War on Terrorism”
Sometimes the perverse consequences of federal government policies and programs are evident immediately and sometimes they take a bit longer. For example, at the end of World War I, statists, imperialists, and interventionists were in ecstasy over the U.S. intervention, proudly claiming that the loss of more than 100,000 American deaths was worth the conquest of Germany because the intervention had made the world safe for democracy and finally, once and for all, put an end to all European wars.
Sixteen years later, Adolf Hitler came to power, capitalizing in large part on what had been done to Germany in World War I, including the vengeful Treaty of Versailles that was imposed on Germany by the United States and its allies. Less than seven years later, World War II began. I wonder if the pro-World War I crowd still thought that more than 100,000 American deaths in that war were worth it in 1940 or 1945.
After 9/11, President Bush, amidst tremendous fanfare, declared his “war on terrorism.” Rather than simply going after those individuals who had conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks, he invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq, on the basis of the notion that the president has the power to preemptively attack, without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, any nation whose rulers might have “harbored” terrorists or who might pose a terrorist threat to the United States at some time in the future. In the process, the United States killed tens of thousands of innocent people (that is, people who had nothing to do with 9/11 or even the 1993 terrorist attack on the WTC), thereby producing even more anger and hatred that will inevitably lead to more terrorist attacks and ensuring that the process will continue. This policy also ensures ever-increasing budgets for the Department of Defense (so-called) and ever-increasing federal power over the lives and fortunes of the American people.
In the aftermath of the recent terrorist attack on a school in Russia, which killed hundreds of innocent people, mostly children, Russian officials are now announcing that they are adopting and embracing Bush’s policies and programs for Russia itself. According to CNN, Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, chief of the general staff of Russia’s armed forces said, “As for carrying out preventive strikes against terrorist bases ... we will take all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world.”
What are the supporters of the Bush doctrine going to say now — that only the United States — and no other nation — has the legitimate power to fight a war on terrorism by attacking sovereign and independent countries? No nation that has just lost hundreds of children in a terrorist attack is going to accept that!
So there you have it — the U.S. government and the Russian government are both claiming the right to invade independent and sovereign nations and wage wars of aggression against them as part of their respective “wars on terrorism.”
Ask yourself: What could be better from the standpoint of the military-industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned us about? When Russia begins attacking nations, just as its predecessor the Soviet Union did, the U.S. Department of Defense will have a new official enemy — Russia, or communism, or the former Soviet Union, or an unsafe world, or whatever else is necessary to keep NATO and the Department of Defense in high cotton for the foreseeable future. What a surprise!
Meanwhile, given the president’s unconstitutional assumption of power to declare war; the doctrine of waging wars of aggression contrary to the principles set forth at Nuremberg; the brutal, indefinite military occupation of foreign countries; the indefinite detention of citizens and foreigners alike; FBI monitoring of citizens; the rape, sex abuse, torture, and murder of prisoners and "ghost detainees" and the resulting whitewashes and cover-ups; and the calls to effectively build a Berlin Wall and station troops along the U.S. southern border, no one can reasonably deny that the United States is increasingly moving in the direction of Russia or, even more accurately, the Soviet Union.
That is why it is so important to continue striving to turn America in a new and better direction — one that rejects the principles of empire and interventionism of the Soviet Union and instead embraces the principles of republic and nonintervention of America’s Founding Fathers. If we fail to do that, an increasing array of perverse consequences arising from current U.S. foreign policy will inevitably besiege us.
Jacob G. Hornberger, September 10, 2004
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Sixteen years later, Adolf Hitler came to power, capitalizing in large part on what had been done to Germany in World War I, including the vengeful Treaty of Versailles that was imposed on Germany by the United States and its allies. Less than seven years later, World War II began. I wonder if the pro-World War I crowd still thought that more than 100,000 American deaths in that war were worth it in 1940 or 1945.
After 9/11, President Bush, amidst tremendous fanfare, declared his “war on terrorism.” Rather than simply going after those individuals who had conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks, he invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq, on the basis of the notion that the president has the power to preemptively attack, without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, any nation whose rulers might have “harbored” terrorists or who might pose a terrorist threat to the United States at some time in the future. In the process, the United States killed tens of thousands of innocent people (that is, people who had nothing to do with 9/11 or even the 1993 terrorist attack on the WTC), thereby producing even more anger and hatred that will inevitably lead to more terrorist attacks and ensuring that the process will continue. This policy also ensures ever-increasing budgets for the Department of Defense (so-called) and ever-increasing federal power over the lives and fortunes of the American people.
In the aftermath of the recent terrorist attack on a school in Russia, which killed hundreds of innocent people, mostly children, Russian officials are now announcing that they are adopting and embracing Bush’s policies and programs for Russia itself. According to CNN, Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, chief of the general staff of Russia’s armed forces said, “As for carrying out preventive strikes against terrorist bases ... we will take all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world.”
What are the supporters of the Bush doctrine going to say now — that only the United States — and no other nation — has the legitimate power to fight a war on terrorism by attacking sovereign and independent countries? No nation that has just lost hundreds of children in a terrorist attack is going to accept that!
So there you have it — the U.S. government and the Russian government are both claiming the right to invade independent and sovereign nations and wage wars of aggression against them as part of their respective “wars on terrorism.”
Ask yourself: What could be better from the standpoint of the military-industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned us about? When Russia begins attacking nations, just as its predecessor the Soviet Union did, the U.S. Department of Defense will have a new official enemy — Russia, or communism, or the former Soviet Union, or an unsafe world, or whatever else is necessary to keep NATO and the Department of Defense in high cotton for the foreseeable future. What a surprise!
Meanwhile, given the president’s unconstitutional assumption of power to declare war; the doctrine of waging wars of aggression contrary to the principles set forth at Nuremberg; the brutal, indefinite military occupation of foreign countries; the indefinite detention of citizens and foreigners alike; FBI monitoring of citizens; the rape, sex abuse, torture, and murder of prisoners and "ghost detainees" and the resulting whitewashes and cover-ups; and the calls to effectively build a Berlin Wall and station troops along the U.S. southern border, no one can reasonably deny that the United States is increasingly moving in the direction of Russia or, even more accurately, the Soviet Union.
That is why it is so important to continue striving to turn America in a new and better direction — one that rejects the principles of empire and interventionism of the Soviet Union and instead embraces the principles of republic and nonintervention of America’s Founding Fathers. If we fail to do that, an increasing array of perverse consequences arising from current U.S. foreign policy will inevitably besiege us.
Jacob G. Hornberger, September 10, 2004
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
posted by R7 | 9/11/2004 05:43:00 PM
3 Comments:
Russia Has Joined U.S. in a Dangerous Challenge
By Gwynne Dyer
It didn't get much media play, but did you notice what the Russian chief of staff, Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, said after the horrors at Middle School Number One in Beslan? He said that in future, Russia will be prepared to carry out preemptive strikes against terrorist bases anywhere in the world.
One man who would not have been surprised to hear it is Kofi Annan.
Kofi Annan is only the secretary-general of the United Nations, so the big powers don't have to listen to him, but he is a clever man, and his job is to watch over the peace of the world. National leaders may care about that too, but they also have a hundred other priorities; world peace is Annan's primary and almost his sole responsibility. And this is what the Ghanaian-born diplomat said at the U.N.'s General Assembly meeting last September, just six months after the United States, Britain and Australia invaded Iraq:
"Until now it has been understood that when states decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations. Now, some say this understanding is no longer tenable, since an armed attack with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time, without warning, or by a clandestine group. Rather than wait for this to happen, they argue, states have the obligation to use force preemptively, even on the territory of other states.
"This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years.''
Many people saw Kofi Annan as an American pawn when he was elected secretary-general, and he certainly was the U.S. choice for the job, but what he was actually saying in that speech, in thinly disguised diplomatic code, was that the new U.S. doctrine of preemptive war against potentially threatening groups and countries is illegal and a danger to world peace.
He hasn't been a very popular man in official Washington since then, but he is absolutely right, and Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky is all the evidence he needs.
Most Americans were not alarmed when President George W. Bush wrote in the introduction to the National Security Strategy statement of 2002 that, "America will act against emerging threats before they are fully formed. We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary. ...''
Surely others would understand that America's intentions were good even if it occasionally acted outside the law.
That confidence may be slightly dented in the United States after the Bush administration did act on that doctrine in invading Iraq, only to find that there was no "emerging threat'' there to American security: no weapons of mass destruction and no evidence of any links between Saddam Hussein's regime and the Islamist terrorists who staged 9-11 and other atrocities. But it is only slightly dented.
Vice-President Dick Cheney still gets cheers when he trots out the line about the United States not needing a "permission slip'' from the U.N. to attack countries it suspects of evil intentions towards America. The problem that is practically invisible from inside the United States is that other countries then don't need "permission slips'' to invade their neighbors, either. They can just announce that they have uncovered a grave threat to their security in some other country -- they don't actually have to prove it, any more than the United States did -- and then they are free to invade it. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Russia was the natural next candidate to break out of the constraints of international law and embrace unilateralism. It had already been sneaking up on it, with highly illegal operations like the car-bomb assassination of former Chechen leader Zelimkhan Yanderbiyev in Qatar earlier this year by Russian intelligence agents (two of whom were caught and have been sentenced to life in prison). But that was just the learner slopes. Now Gen. Baluyevsky has proclaimed a doctrine that claims the same right to use force on other people's territory as part of the "war on terror'' that the Bush administration claimed two years ago.
This is the doctrine under which Bush invaded Iraq, although there were no terrorists there at the time. Which country will the Russians invade on the same pretext? They probably haven't even chosen one yet: part of the reason Baluyevsky announced this doctrine now was simply to look tough and distract attention from Moscow's failure to prevent the terrorist attacks. But the doctrine will still be there when the current outrage has subsided, to be used as and when Moscow wants.
Russia, unlike the United States, is not strong enough militarily to invade countries halfway around the world from it, but all the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus that used to be ruled by Moscow will certainly see themselves as potential targets. Eastern European countries won't be feeling too happy about it either. And of course, other big countries like China and India are quite likely to follow where the U.S. and Russia have blazed the trail.
Which is why Kofi Annan is looking so worn and worried these days. He has every right to be.
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
FLASHBACK: Senator Robert C.Byrd
February 12, 2003
Senate Remarks: We Stand Passively Mute
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reins of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
The War on Terror Has Not Succeeded ... The Reasons: Preemptive Wars
and Outmoded Ideological Positions
Russia has joined the United States and Israel in adopting the
doctrines of preemptive wars and preventative strikes in fighting
terrorism-a move that further diminishes the prospects of conflict
resolution through diplomacy and political dialogue and reinforces
the principle of settlement through military means. The terrorists
have succeeded in bringing the world to this juncture, but
politicians have used the war on terrorism as an excuse for pushing
outmoded ideological positions and biased political strategies. The
war on terrorism will not succeed as long as governments continue to
adopt policies that weaken and undermine critical popular resistance
to the use of terror-policies such as waging preemptive wars and
using terrorism as a pretext for rejecting political solutions.
Defeating terrorism requires mobilizing the popular base in Arab and
Islamic countries against the use of terrorism as a means of protest
in order to isolate extremists who advocate the use of such means. It
also requires putting an end to governments exploiting the war on
terror by relegating other legitimate political struggles to the rank
of terrorism. This in turn makes it vital for the American, Russian,
and Israeli peoples to rise up against government exploitation of
their anger and fears of terrorism by making them pawns of revenge,
which is at once short-sighted and fundamentally damaging to future
generations everywhere.
The massacre at Beslan's middle school this week took terrorism to
new, shameful heights by the hostage-taking of children and their
slaughter in the hundreds during the ensuing battle with Russian
forces. The massacre was committed in the name of Chechens to focus
attention on their struggle against the Russian government-its
excessive use of military force against refusal to negotiate a
political solution.
This miserable operation served only to strip Chechens of any claims
to a just cause and to forever taint their cause with unfathomable
filth. It also helped the Russian president Vladimir Putin realize
his dream of amassing world sympathy in his fight against the
Chechens. It provided him with the ammunition he needed in
implementing the preemptive principle in launching strikes against
Chechnya and beyond it against the broader Middle East region, and
whenever he might so desire. This is what the hostage-taking of
children, mothers, and teachers brings upon its perpetrators, no
matter what their cause happens to be. And this too is how causes get
lost in the labyrinths of failure and revenge.
Revenge has become the global war cry of governments and
organizations alike in their fight against terror. The endless calls
for acts of hatred and revenge have reached scary and futile levels-
from the halls of party conventions in the US, to the broader Middle
East, to Russia and Chechnya, and to the caves of Afghanistan.
The terrorist acts of September 11th three years ago have been
nothing short of a curse upon Arabs and Muslims, perhaps for decades-
not just years-to come. 9/11 is no longer merely a date marking the
terror that struck at America, bringing down the Twin Towers of the
World Trade Center in New York.
9/11 has gone beyond its status as an event impossible for Americans
to forget or forgive. It has become the source of many a pledge and
promise that every American politician feels obligated to take upon
himself.
Those in the Arab and Islamic worlds who rejoiced at what they
considered a blow to American "arrogance"-a lesson that reduced the
Twin Towers to rubble-are guilty of utter ignorance, not only because
of the futility revenge but because the terror of 9/11-carried out by
a few Arabs and Muslims-has brought upon the Arab and Islamic region
tragedies the worst of which are yet to come.
At this historical juncture, it would be impossible for the world to
understand or come to terms with America without comprehending the
psychological impact of 9/11 on both her people and government. Her
psychological state is indeed a complicated one-triggered initially
by the shock of terror on American soil, followed by the attempt to
comprehend the meaning of the airplane attacks on New York and
Washington by the al-Qaeda network, then the grappling with the
questions of "why they hate us" and "how could they dare," followed
by the promises to punish those that dared, then the mounting fears,
and then the promise to "kill them before they kill us."
While the average American might have reacted with genuine fear of
terrorism and harbored feelings of hatred and vengeance towards the
perpetrators of 9/11, the American Administration, in contrast, has
been calculating in making 9/11 the key to implementing its policies
and strategies both at the ideological and electoral levels. And the
Republican Party was not alone in evoking the memory of 9/11 at the
opening and close of its convention in New York. The Democratic Party
did its share of calling forth 9/11 during its convention in Boston
to arouse American nationalistic and patriotic sentiments.
The difference is that the Democratic Party made a mistake in
portraying its presidential candidate John Kerry as a soldier who
fought in Vietnam thirty years ago while the Republican Party
portrayed its candidate George W. Bush as the present leader of the
war on terror-a war that was started on the morning of 9/11, only
three years ago.
By building on the psychological impact of 9/11, the Republican Party
was not concerned with an exaggeration here or an excess there as
long as it succeeded in reawakening old fears as justification for
revenge. Its convention a full four days of incitement, of spreading
hate and resentment, and of beating the drums of preemptive wars.
The calling up of the terrorist acts of 9/11 was done with the
intention of creating animosity towards the "new enemy" and
instilling fear in the hearts of Americans of this terrorist-enemy's
potential to possess weapons of mass destruction. Vice President Dick
Cheney did not stop at fear-mongering during the convention last
week. He went on to boast about what in his assessment were the
achievements of the current administration.
He warned just two days ago that America is at risk of being once
again struck by terrorists if she makes the wrong choice between Bush
and Kerry. He also insinuated that Kerry would revert to America's
pre-9/11 defensive approach, in contrast to the preemptive, offensive
approach that Bush adopted in the wake of 9/11. His intention goes
beyond casting doubt on Kerry. Cheney's goal is to garner support for
the notion that the Bush Administration is seeking to engrain in the
American mind-a notion founded on taking the war on terror outside
American borders to protect American lives and American national
security.
This kind of rhetoric is in general pleasing to American ears despite
its tone of racism and abuse of other countries by turning them into
battlegrounds for the war on terrorism without regard to the human
cost unless it involves American lives. George W. Bush was able to
advance the notion of defending the United States by "staying on the
offensive, striking terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them
here at home," as he said in his second-term nomination acceptance
speech at the Republican convention.
The lack of evidence linking the deposed Iraqi president Saddam
Hussein to the terrorist acts of 9/11 did not stop the American
president from making such a link during the Republican convention.
Similarly, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
after the invasion did not weaken Bush's resolve in justifying the
war. Boasting about the Iraq war as a response to the terrorism of
9/11, Bush said, "Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take
the word of a madman or do I take action to defend our country?"
The American consciousness is prone to forgetfulness and fickleness
and is often subject to the impressions of the moment. The Republican
Party played on such a consciousness, knowing full well that the
events of September 11, 2001, occupy a unique place in the American
memory and are unmatched by any events in recent American history.
The Republican Party thus portrayed the entire presidential election
battle as being concerned with "how America responds to the
continuing danger of terrorism."
The Republican Party has succeeded in illuding many Americans into
thinking that preemptive wars are useful and necessary. The American
president prided himself on what he called the "success of our
strategy" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and broader Middle East region in its
entirety, purposely ignoring the fact that America's wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq are ongoing and have not concluded with the
success he claims. He attributed Saudi Arabia's campaign against
terrorists and Libya's dismantling of its weapons programs to the
resolve of the American strategy, thus implying that the strategy of
preemptive strikes is what led both countries to cooperate.
By convincing himself and the American people that the successes of
the war on terror are a result of his resolve in the preemptive
doctrine, the American president presents a real danger; namely, his
exclusive reliance on militarism in handling affairs. In his speech
to the Republican convention last week, George Bush reduced his
policy towards the "broader Middle East" to the word "freedom"-the
magical remedy used for resolving political conflicts and rallying
the peoples of the region behind America in the war on terror. He
spoke with a tone of religious fervor about his faith in freedom
as "a transformational force."
Naturally, the peoples of the "broader Middle East" desire freedom
and yearn for it-this much is undisputed. And certainly the vast
majority of these peoples abhor the regimes that rule and oppress
them. But undoubtedly these same peoples do not blame for the
entirety of their predicament on their regimes and governments. They
also hold the US accountable for implementing adverse policies that
have included the protection those regimes to guarantee the cheap
flow of oil and the creation of terrorism in Afghanistan to defeat
Communism.
These peoples do not believe the American Administration's calls for
freedom, especially when they are accompanied by calls for revenge.
These peoples do not trust in freedom attained through a preemptive
doctrine. They will not be America's allies in the war on terrorism
simply by virtue of her promises of freedom.
What would surely make the peoples of the broader Middle East region
strategic allies in the war on terrorism are the
profitable "investments" that the terrorist organizations have
themselves made in the region and the tragedies that they have
brought upon its peoples.
These peoples will not ally themselves with an "opposition" that uses
terrorism and the killing of innocents to get into power no matter
how much these peoples wish to rid themselves of their governments.
But they also do not wish to get rid of their regimes by getting on
the American bandwagon-so long as American policy remains prejudiced
toward Arab causes and the American Administration continues to be
full of apologists for Israel who disdain Arabs and Muslims and whose
driving motives are guaranteeing Israeli superiority and hegemony.
Hideous terrorist acts such as the hostage-taking of children in
Russia or journalists in Iraq have angered the peoples of the broader
Middle East region and caused them to engage in self-criticism. In
the wake of 9/11, such sentiments began to emerge among a large
segment of the Arab and Muslim public in solidarity with Americans,
only to be squandered by the ensuing American policies toward the
region. An unprecedented opportunity to deal a final blow to
terrorist and extremist groups in the region was wasted by the
American Administration, which chose instead to pursue policies that
strengthened extremism and weakened moderation, destroying any hopes
for an awakening in Arab and Muslim quarters.
If Arab and Muslim impatience towards terrorism and its perpetrators
is to translate into a push for unified internal reform, then people
around the world must pressure their governments not to once again
miss out on the opportunities and go back to the old preemption-style
fight against terror. It is incumbent upon people to demand of their
governments that they stop using the war on terror as justification
for policies that impose biased military solutions such as those
being imposed on Chechens and Palestinians, while ending any
prospects of political solutions.
It is clear that there will not be any compromises or negotiations
between governments and organizations or between leaders and
individuals in the war on terror.
The only hope for this war not becoming a war of extinction resides
with the world public. World public opinion will continue being what
it is-an ineffective opinion-as long as the world public continues to
put its fate in the hands of others. This time, opinions are not
enough. The world populace will either engage itself genuinely by
informing the powers-that-be that it is no longer a product to be
consumed, or else it faces inevitable death.
Finally, the Arabs are themselves at a threat of paying the highest
price of the curse of terrorism. It is time for the Arab peoples to
give deep thought to the implications that the war on terror and to
reflect on a strategy for preempting such implications-a strategy
that would surprise all of the players in the war on terror, a
strategy that shouts "enough is enough" to those calling for revenge.
Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat 2004/09/10
Post a Comment
<< Home