Make no mistake: America far from innocent
http://www.mndaily.com/story.php?date=20010920&storyID=3789
Thursday, September 20th 2001
Make no mistake: America far from innocent
Scott Laderman,
Columnist
Scott Laderman - Staff Reporter
I suspect 10 days ago, if George W. Bush had soberly observed the United
States was engaged in a "monumental struggle of good versus evil," the
comment would have elicited howls of laughter from a wide spectrum of
Americans. After all, this esteemed President had only recently
withdrawn
U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol - admittedly a flawed document,
though
for its limitations, not its excesses - essentially telling the
international
community the fate of the planet is of no concern to the United States.
He had announced his intention to dispose of the international arms
control
structure by proceeding with "national missile defense" and the
militarization of outer space. He had followed his predecessor's
rejection of
an International Criminal Court. He had jettisoned a U.N. conference
seeking
restrictions on the trafficking of small arms, and he had withdrawn the
American delegation from a U.N. conference on racism.
He had unequivocally pledged his allegiance to the ruling butchers of
Russia
and Israel and he had begun filling his administration with apologists
for
terror like Elliott Abrams and John Negroponte. In essence, the
president of
the United States shouted to the world, "we" don't care what "you" want
or
think.
Yet eight days ago, when George W. Bush did, in fact, proclaim "America"
was
engaged in a "monumental struggle of good versus evil," the statement's
reception was rather bizarre. Following the president's lead, a number
of
so-called "patriots" decided overnight it was taboo to even suggest
reality
was more complex than a simplistic struggle between the "civilized
world"
and its discontents.
To posit there might have been a reason for the events of Sept. 11,
however
inexcusable they were, was apparently to engage in anti-American
propaganda
and justify the attacks. And to remark that the events might have been
grounded in the quite legitimate resentment with which most people
around the
world react to American hubris and violence - whether military or
economic -
was to render oneself traitorous, pathetic, parasitical, or an
intellectual
defender of terrorism.
Make no mistake: The president's good and evil designations are not only
ridiculous but dangerous. Human rights scholars have pointed to the
establishment of an "us and them" binary as a psychological precondition
for
widespread abuses and genocide. Given the probability the United States
will
soon embark on a campaign that might kill thousands of civilians, I
seriously
question those who argue it is inappropriate or untimely to challenge
the
moral basis for what might become large-scale mass murder. As persons
presumably concerned with the loss of life, we should be encouraging
critical
examinations of the United States, not denouncing or belittling them.
Silently acquiescing in Washington's march to war is not demonstrating
"patriotism" or solidarity with last week's victims; it is ensuring more
innocent people will die. And one can be certain, many will die. Over
the last several days, the administration has informed the Arab world
"[t]he time has come to choose sides," threatened "ending states who
sponsor
terrorism," and warned the "full wrath of the United States" will fall
upon
those who fail to join its crusade. The term "terrorism" must be
qualified.
What's being referred to by Washington is not actually terrorism per se,
but
rather terrorism directed at "us." While appropriate, it of course takes
little courage to denounce the terror of one's enemies and assert it
must
end. It is far more difficult, but far more necessary, to denounce the
terror
of one's own government and actively work to stop it. This must be done
by
all Americans.
So exactly what, then, does Washington mean by "terrorism"? Certainly
Washington doesn't mean the 1988 downing of an Iranian civilian airliner
by
the U.S. warship Vincennes, killing 290 people. In fact, two years
later, the
commander of the Vincennes was given a Legion of Merit award for
"exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding
service." Nor would the Administration have in mind the 1985
CIA-sponsored car-bomb
attack in Lebanon that killed 80 people and injured 200. And of course
they
don't mean the present strangling of Iraq, America's nearly unequivocal
support for the Saudi Arabian torture state, the destruction of
Yugoslavia,
the subsidizing of the increasingly brutal Israeli occupation, the
billions
of dollars benefiting right-wing thugs in Colombia - none of these
qualify as
terrorism.
No, for purposes of good and evil, terrorism can only be attacks on
American
and Israeli civilians.
Almost as if taking orders, the U.S. mass media have in recent days
parroted
countless official assertions about the reach and direction of the Al
Qaeda
"network" headed by Osama bin Laden. Quickly and conveniently forgotten
has
been the portrait that emerged during the African embassy bombings trial
in
New York earlier this year. The New York Times stated in a front-page
report,
"The trial ... revealed evidence that tended to counter long-held
assumptions
about Mr. bin Laden's followers, who have long been portrayed as
marching in
ideological lock step, ready to pay any price, including death, for his
cause".
Contrary to the image of a highly-coordinated "network," which the Bush
administration has been shamefully finessing, a much different view of
the
group was presented by government prosecutors at the trial. A former
deputy
director of the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism remarked,
"To
listen to some of the news reports a year or two ago, you would think
bin
Laden was running a top Fortune 500 multinational company - people
everywhere, links everywhere. He continued, "What the evidence at trial
has
correctly portrayed is that it's really a loose amalgam of people with a
shared ideology, but a very limited direction."
How quickly the reporting has changed. The reason for this is not
difficult
to comprehend. Put simply, the evil afflicting the United States must
have a
face in order to become a target. Washington cannot launch a war against
an
unknown enemy and expect Americans to blindly go along. And the United
States
must go to war - we are repeatedly told.
Yet if bin Laden is indeed responsible for the events in New York City,
Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania - and the administration's
unverifiable
assertions should not be trusted on this matter - the media has yet to
highlight the incredible irony in the current logic of war. When the
United
States last attacked Afghanistan and Sudan, the government claimed bin
Laden
must know "we" will not stand for terror.
Did he get this message? If it is true he was responsible for the
attacks
last week, he reacted by upping the ante. And the U.S. response? Hit him
again. What will he do after Washington next responds militarily? Will
he lay
down his arms and give up? Don't count on it. And even if bin Laden were
to
be killed, would the anger that motivated his "network" disappear? If
anything, the United States could expect further and escalated instances
of
terror.
As I heretically suggested last Wednesday ("Holistic perspective
required in
the aftermath," Sept. 12), terrorism cannot be defeated militarily. As a
nation, we must consider why so many people hate the United States if we
hope
to minimize the horrific slaughter of American civilians, not to mention
the
widespread suffering of people around the world.
And while it is critical the perpetrators of last week's attacks be
brought
to justice, this must be done in accordance with human rights
principles,
humanitarian law, and international criminal procedures. It will require
the
cooperation of other countries. Yet the United States can expect little
meaningful assistance and little resolution if it doesn't also begin to
address the extreme hypocrisy dividing American rhetoric from its global
reality.
There are a number of activities on campus this week and next week that
will
try to make sense of Sept. 11 and what should be done about it. And
Thursday
there will be a rally at Northrop Plaza at 11:30 against the U.S. march
to
war. Keep an eye out for notices in the Daily and for flyers around
campus to
find out what's happening.
Scott Laderman's column appears alternate Tuesdays. He welcomes comments
at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NSP Lista isprobava demokratiju u praksi
==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrBE8.bVKZIq
Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This email was sent to: [email protected]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
