|
submit
articles |
| Terrorism 2001 David Newbury We have all been stunned and enormously
saddened by the events that have taken place in New York and Washington.
And we have been forced to look within ourselves as well as to
outside news reports, as we grapple with the import of these horrendous
events. In the immediate aftermath of the events,
general commentary has focused on local events--and on the jingoistic
pronouncements of government leaders.
My comments here will address slightly different issues.
In no way do I want to diminish or try to belittle such horrors as
occurred, and I realize that some people will disagree with what I have to
say, and that is fine with me. Nonetheless,
two inter-related dimensions seem missing from much of the commentary I
have so far heard. They
include historical perspective and international perspectives. I will raise five points in these
reflections. First, How quickly our lives can
change.
In a moment, the context by which we see the world can shift
dramatically--and perhaps forever. In
the most dramatic manner, these events remind us that we live at any given
time in a window--an opening to our lives--that can close at any given
time, in moments and in ways totally unforeseen and impossible to predict.
And they make it clear that we cannot and should not be complacent
about our time at Smith or Mt. Holyoke, for that time, too, though it may
seem to last forever, will change and will pass very quickly. Take advantage of the resources and calm at hand at any given
movement, for it won't last forever.
Second, I want to explore the relation of
the events in New York and Washington to broader issues, historically and
internationally. The points I try to explore here will move our focus away
from the World Trade Center disaster in its details, and will try to begin
the search for a broader understanding of these horrendous and shocking
events; they are in no way intended to ignore or discount them.
Historically, we need to remember how these
events tie us to the experience of the people such as those in East
Africa. For three years ago,
very similar events occurred simultaneously in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam
in which the US Embassies there were bombed, with over 200 people
killed--12 were Americans and the remainder (the vast majority) were East
Africans; this, in two countries with nowhere near the resources available
to us today to meet the crisis. Yet the people there, who felt that they
were not part of the struggles that had created such horror—that they
had paid the price simply because their cities had become the arena for
such conflict—were then ignored and neglected in the aftermath.
Rightly or wrongly, they felt that we had walked away from their
problems in the aftermath. Thirdly, these events raise questions about
how we see international events, and how we see our role in a complex
multinational world. I
realize that some may not agree with all the points I want to reflect on
here, but I ask you to consider these elements nonetheless.
And again, it is not to diminish or detract from the horrific
nature of the events that occurred that I raise these issues, but to use
these events as a platform for reassessing the world in which we live. Internationally, these events remind us
that we do not live isolated from the world.
For although this was an extremely sophisticated operation mounted
from within the US, it was undoubtedly also tied in several ways to
international flows and actions. If
nothing else, they remind us that we are not isolated and never have been.
And that, despite the recent policies of our current
administration, which has walked away from some important international
responsibilities and initiatives: Over
the last 8 months we have withdrawn from the Kyoto Accords, from the
Conference on Small Arms (and the US provides 60% of the global small arms
trade), from the Conference on Biological Warfare, and from the
UN
Conference on Racism. In each
case our actions have doomed effective action agreed on by virtually all
other states. In the latter
(as in each) case, we may have had our reasons, to be sure (and I leave it
to you to judge the sincerity and gravity of those concerns), but in the
eyes of many people elsewhere in the world, our refusal to engage in these
global conferences was interpreted as walking away from larger issues of
slavery, colonialism, and racism--important issues to most people in the
world who live in the wake of these historical processes that so molded
today’s world. By our
actions we seem to deny and reject the concerns of others in this shared
world; such a message has not been lost on others.
Fourthly, these events remind us--in a
horribly dramatic fashion--of the painful, wrenching experience that so
many other societies have been through over the past 30 years or so, and
from which we have separated ourselves.
There has been a war going on in the Congo since 1997; over the
last 2 years alone, 3 million excess deaths have resulted from that war.
The people of Angola have had to endure 25 years of continuous war.
In Sudan, 40 years of intermittent warfare has led to over 2
million deaths and 5 million displaced people.
In southern Africa, 6 countries neighboring South Africa were
attacked by South African military units in the 1980s, with the implicit
or explicit support of the US. And
in many of these cases (and others: Liberia, Ethiopia, Western Sahara ...)
the US did not sympathize with the victims; in fact the US often
implicitly (or explicitly) said that these problems were "their"
problems—they resulted, so the US implied (or stated outright), from
their tribalism, their religious conflict, or their primitive nature.
And again, we walked away. In
fact, however, in many of these cases the US was—at least implicitly,
and often directly—involved. Now
it is we who are the victims of violence, and we who seek to gain support
of others in our time of trial. Let
us remember. And fifthly, not only have we indirectly
been involved with violence abroad, we have also been in part responsible
for the deterioration of others’ security and well-being in a world of
radical inequalities, and for many, a world of growing impoverishment and
immiseration. Often US
policies and US support of international agencies such as the IMF have
been an essential factor in that growing gap, whereby the US and some
others continue to extract resources and labor from others, but then
ignore the plight of those who provided the very foundations to our
current affluence. In short,
in part it has been our international policies which have helped create
the conditions within which terrorism flourishes.
So--and this is a point the listeners may not want to hear--while
states and governments will express their horror at what happened on Sept.
11, and while people all over the world will express their sympathy with
the people of the US, it is entirely possible that while governments will
lend their support, nonetheless, not many people will muster a whole lot
of support for US policy in its wake.
As an indication of the increasing poverty,
let me give an example from recent UN reports.
There are today 345 individuals in the world who are billionaires.
The total combined worth of these 345 individuals is greater than
the GDP of countries in the world whose total population accounts for more
than half the world's population. Now
there are problems with this: we
are talking about 345 people's accumulated wealth (not income), while we
are talking of the annual production of these national units.
Furthermore, not all those billionaires are in the West; the
brother of the Sultan of Brunei, for example, just burned $15 billion
personally. Nonetheless, for
all the analytic problems, this statistic represents the stunning degree
of inequality in the world today.
So part of this test of the US will be to
see if we will really learn the lesson, after all, that we live in an
integrated world of mutual responsibilities:
we are all in this world together -- whether we like it or not.
An aggressive response of rooting out violence with
violence -- especially when directed in such a way to include large
civilian looses along the way -- is in the long run going to be
counterproductive.
Instead, I
suggest a two-pronged policy, with both elements equally important.
In the short run we need carefully targeted policies of bringing
people to justice. But in the
longer run we need broad policies that do not provide terrorism and hate
an environment within which to flourish and grow.
We can only do this by creating a context in which all people are
economically secure and socially at peace.
Up to now we have not done that, and my current concern is that we
will act aggressively towards punishment and retribution without regard to
the effects this reaction will have on other societies.
There is no place in international law for retribution, and we will
not confront terrorism by employing terrorist tactics against others.
So there are important lessons to be
learned from reflecting on these events.
Will we learn these lessons? Frankly,
listening to the immediate commentary, I doubt it.
For many commentators are challenging Bush to accept the fact that
"rooting out" terrorism will require very large numbers of
"collateral deaths" on the part of the civilian populations in
countries where we identity governments supportive of what we call
terrorism--a word with a broad rubric.
And these civilians often did not choose the governments in place.
Yet we are told “to look the other way” on civilian deaths as
America avenges its losses and tries to slave its anger. However, “looking the other way” on maiming and killing
civilians will be counter-productive as a policy against terrorism.
In many ways and at many levels, therefore,
our actions and decisions over the next weeks and months and years will
become crucial indicators of our wisdom -- and ultimately, an indication of
our true values. I hope that
we can react with intelligence and breadth of awareness -- and with the
same empathy towards the plight of others as we now seek from them.
That is my hope; but it is my fear that in our anger, in our fear,
and in our engrained patterns of behavior, we are not ready to learn that
lesson. For our recent -- and
longer term -- actions do not indicate that we can muster the maturity that
such a reasoned response will require.
And our leaders seem more bent on placating demands for instant
vengeance than for educating those who call for such deeds.
If we are called to act to protect our
values; then we must act in accordance with them.
And not just immediately, for some tactical goal, but always, as a
way of behavior. Let us no longer walk away from the world, and from the
plight of the world’s people -- including our own people.
Instead let us rise above these horrendous events to engage with
the world with a new and more meaningful commitment to the value we so
often articulate but so seldom act on.
For we were not attacked because of our values, but, if anything,
because of our failure to apply those values consistently in our relations
with other peoples. In the wake of these events, we need to
work through our own complicated feelings and powerful emotions, both as
individuals and as a people. And
we need to try to find a response to the sadness and fear and utter
disbelief that can consume us. But as we do so, at the very least, let us
not adopt terrorist tactics in the name of combating terrorism.
David Newbury Source: Forwarded e-mail |