[Reader-list] The Alternative to Global Terror
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Wed Oct 24 00:23:49 IST 2001
South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #2.
24 October 2001
------------------------------------
[The below article is also available on the web at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/act/message/1114 ]
THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO GLOBAL TERROR
by Rohini Hensman
Father, Son and Holy War
My apologies to Anand Patwardhan, but I can't resist the temptation
to borrow the title of his film as an apt description of what is
happening in the world right now (i.e. October 2001, the month after
the terrorist attacks in the USA). Whether the father is Saudi
billionnaire Mohammed bin Laden, with his close ties to the Saudi
royal family, the son is his estranged offspring Osama, who is
enraged every time he thinks of infidel American troops stationed on
the holy soil of Saudi Arabia, and the holy war is the jihad which
the latter has declared against America and Americans; or the father
is George Bush Sr, who started it all with his war to defeat Saddam
Hussein by gradually exterminating the people of Iraq, the son is
George Jr., who has trouble opening his mouth without putting his
foot in it, and the holy war is the crusade the latter has declared
against, well, let us say vaguely specified enemies who happen to be
Muslims - in both cases, the themes of religious communalism,
militarism and machismo are inextricably intertwined.
There is even an uncanny similarity in the ways that the two sons
think, if we ignore the cowboy rhetoric of one ('wanted - dead or
alive', 'smoke 'em outa their holes', etc.) and the pious expressions
of the other ('may God mete them the punishment they deserve', etc.).
Bush tells us, 'either you are with us, or you are with the
terrorists' (statement of 20/9/01); Osama tells us the entire world
is divided into 'two regions - one of faithand another of
infidelity' (statement of 7/10/01). In other words, they both want us
to believe that the population of the world is divided into two
camps, one headed by Bush, the other by bin Laden.
If this is true, then we are heading into an epoch of unlimited
violence and terror. South Asia is right at the centre of the
conflict, and could suffer the most from it. For example, if the war
goes on much longer, General Musharraf could be overthrown by even
more extremist communal forces in Pakistan, who would then have
nuclear weapons in their hands. On the other side of the border,
there could well be a hidden agenda behind the BJP-led government's
enthusiastic support for the US war. What do they hope to gain from
it? Not US mediation in Kashmir to put pressure on Pakistan to stop
cross-border terrorism - Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh made it very
clear that mediation would not be welcome. Belligerent speeches by
Kashmir's Chief Minister Farouq Abdullah and Home Minister
L.K.Advani, as well as aggressive firing across the border the same
day that corruption-tainted Defence Minister George Fernandes
regained his ministry, suggest that what they want is the US go-ahead
to do exactly what Big Brother is doing: i.e. to bomb Pakistan as the
US is bombing Afghanistan, on the same pretext of 'a war against
those who harbour terrorists'. That could be the prelude to a nuclear
war.
For those of us who are opposed to both camps, the only way to avert
such a catastrophe is to build a viable third alternative - a new
non-aligned movement for human rights and democracy - at top speed.
This will become obvious when we take a closer look at the two camps
which have already constituted themselves. But first we need to be
clear what we are talking about when we refer to 'terrorism'.
What do we mean by 'terrorism'?
The first kind of definition of terrorism is lack of definition.
Eqbal Ahmad, after going through at least twenty US documents on
terrorism, came up with a surprising (or perhaps not so surprising)
discovery: not once was terrorism defined. And he concluded that this
was quite deliberate: 'If you're not going to be consistent, you're
not going to define' ('Terrorism: Theirs and Ours', Alternative Radio
programme). Since September 11th, we find the definition chopping and
changing, according to expediency. First it is made clear that only
acts of violence against US citizens are acts of terrorism; the same
acts against citizens of other countries don't count. When some
governments whose support the US wishes to retain question this, the
definition is expanded slightly. At no point are similar acts of
violence committed or supported by the US defined as terrorist.
Ranged against this are counter-definitions by anti-globalisers like
Vandana Shiva, who classify hunger, poverty, unemployment and
environmental degradation as terrorism; we can call this an economic
reductionist type of definition. One problem is that it is so wide
that it becomes impossible to define a strategy to fight it; it is a
bit like trying to make tables, chairs, beds, windows and doors with
a tool-kit consisting entirely and solely of a hammer: you end up
unable to make any of them. Another problem is that terrorism as
political violence is nowhere acknowledged, so that it becomes
possible to join hands, as Vandana Shiva has done, with terrorists of
the Sangh Parivar in the struggle against globalisation. I would say
that even disasters like Bhopal and Chernobyl, which kill and injure
tens of thousands of victims, should not be classified as terrorism,
because they occur in the pursuit of economic gain and therefore
require different remedies (e.g. health and safety and environmental
legislation which makes them impossible).
The US is not the only state whose definition of terrorism shifts
according to who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. In Sri
Lanka, the UNP and its supporters defined the JVP and Tamil militant
groups as 'terrorist' when these groups committed admittedly horrific
acts of indiscriminate violence, but even more violent responses by
the state and state-sponsored paramilitaries were, supposedly, not
terrorism. The militants, on the other hand, denounce state
terrorism, but would not call their own actions terrorist. In
Kashmir, violence against civilians by militants from Pakistan are
called terrorism by the Indian state, which does not, however, give
the same name to its own violence against Kashmiri civilians;
conversely, the Pakistani state refers to the militants as 'freedom
fighters', and denounces Indian state terrorism. It is not possible
to fight something without knowing what it is.
Against this miasma of rhetoric, and taking off from dictionary
definitions of 'terrorism', I would say that acts of terrorism are
acts or threats of violence against ordinary, unarmed civilians
carried out in the pursuit of a political objective. It should be
irrelevant whether the perpetrators are state parties or non-state
parties, and other characteristics (like skin colour, ethnicity,
gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, social
origin or anything else) of the perpetrators and victims should
likewise be irrelevant. Further, the stated political objective
should not come into the picture either, whether it is a religion,
nationalism, national interest, national security, national
liberation, democracy, socialism, communism, infinite justice or
enduring freedom. A murderer's claimed motive does not change the
fact of a murder.
In this connection, we need to dispense with another term:
'collateral damage'. In the context of terrorism as defined above, it
makes no sense, because the purpose of terrorism is not to kill or
injure people, that is merely a means to some political end. For
example, in the case of the 11 September attacks, we cannot know for
sure the motives of the hijackers because they are all dead, but if
we assume for the sake of argument that they were in some way
connected to Osama bin Laden , then the demands are very clear: the
US must stop supporting Israeli aggression against the Palestinians,
stop the bombing of Iraq and lift the sanctions against that country,
stop supporting corrupt regimes in the Middle East, and move their
armed forces out of Saudi Arabia. The purpose was not to kill all
those people in the aeroplanes, the World Trade Centre and Pentagon;
they were merely collateral damage.
Does that sound outrageous? Of course it does. Because we are not
used to hearing dead Americans referred to as 'collateral damage'.
But shouldn't it sound equally outrageous when Bush, Blair and their
cohorts justify the killing of Afghani civilians in the bombing as
'collateral damage'? 'According to Michael Tonry, Professor of Law at
the University of Minnesota, "In the criminal law, purpose and
knowledge are equally culpable states of mind. An action taken with a
purpose to kill is no more culpable than an action taken with some
other purpose in mind but with knowledge that a death will probably
result. Blowing up an airplane to kill a passenger is equivalent to
blowing up an airplane to destroy a fake painting and thereby to
defraud an insurance company, knowing that the passenger will be
killed. Both are murder. Most people would find the latter killing
more despicable" (Malign Neglect, p. 32)' (A.J.Chien, 'The Civilian
Toll', Institute for Health and Social Justice, October 11). So let
us forget about collateral damage. Murder is murder, and mass murder
is mass murder. Terrorist acts which result in mass murder can
additionally be defined as crimes against humanity.
It seems to me that this could be a functional definition of
terrorism or acts of terrorism, which can be agreed upon by pacifists
as well as those who believe that armed resistance to armed
aggression is justified. Fighting between combatants would not count
as terrorism. Only minimal grey areas are left; for example, those
cases where settlers on land seized from others by acts of terrorism
either defend their gains with arms or are defended by armed forces,
as in the case of the Israeli settlers in the occupied territories of
Palestine, whom Nigel Harris graphically describes as 'Jewish Taliban
and Zionist Red Necks' ('Collapse of the Peace Process', Economic and
Political Weekly, 15/9/01). In such cases, I would say that adult
settlers cannot be regarded as innocent unarmed civilians, whereas
children can. Another problematic case would be one where a
politician who advocates and promotes the transfer of populations (a
crime against humanity according to the Nuremburg Principles
articulated to prosecute Nazi war criminals), such as Israeli
Minister Rehavam Ze'evi, is assassinated. All one can say is that if
that is terrorism, so was the attempted assassination of Hitler.
The bin Laden-Taliban camp: communalist terrorism
I prefer the term 'communalism', as used in South Asia, to the more
commonly-used 'fundamentalism', for two reasons. (1) Communalism,
meaning an adoption of identity based overwhelmingly on membership of
a community, with corresponding isolation from or hostility to others
- ranging from opposition to intermarriage with them to genocidal
massacres of them - is a much broader term. It can encompass
identities based not only on different religions, but on different
ethnic groups, and on sects within the same religion (Shia and Sunni,
Protestant and Catholic, etc.) (2) Claims of fundamentalists that
they are defending the 'fundamentals' of their religion have
convincingly been contested by theologians of those same religions;
it is therefore a misleading term, suggesting that more humane
interpretations are somehow less authentic.
Attacks like those of 11 September were unprecedented in the US, but
not in our countries. Indeed, almost nine years earlier we felt the
same horror and fear when a terrorist attack brought down the Babri
Mosque, accompanied and followed by anti-Muslim riots which took a
death toll similar to that of the US attacks. So unlike several
consecutive US administrations which have supported and still
continue to support communal forces in our countries (more about this
later), many of us, especially women, have long recognised the dire
danger posed to women's rights in particular, and human rights and
democracy in general, by communal terrorism, and have been battling
against it for decades.
The hell that women have gone through under the Taliban - girls and
women denied education, women not allowed to earn a living, even if
the only alternative for them and their children is death by
starvation, not allowed to go out except covered from head to foot by
a burqa and accompanied by a male relative, brutal punishments
including stoning to death or being buried alive if they break any of
the draconian rules imposed on them - these are only the most extreme
examples of the violation of women's rights which is much more
widespread. And while patriarchal authority in its Islamic form
receives the widest publicity, let us remember that other forms -
like the common practice of female infanticide in India,
bride-burning, ill-treatment of widows, and the lynching of young
people who have out-of-caste relationships - can be just as barbaric.
Other forms of communal terrorism may provide more space for women,
and the LTTE even encourages them to become suicide bombers, but all
this is premised on blind support for the supreme leader. The penalty
for independent thought, expression or action, as Rajani Thiranagama
and Sarojini Yogeshwaran found out to their cost, is death.
The suppression of women's rights goes along with a more general
authoritarian control over what members of the religious or ethnic
community may or may not say and do. Depending on the degree of power
the communal group enjoys, punishments for those who refuse to
abandon the struggle for human rights and democracy can vary from
social boycott, to beatings (e.g. Asghar Ali Engineer), to death
(notably Neelan Thiruchelvam). But the greatest violence is directed
outward, towards other ethnic/religious communities. Massacres of the
type that the Taliban inflicted on non-Pashtun tribes in Afghanistan
(and which warlords of those tribes also carried out when they were
in a position to do so) are familiar in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh. They have been carried out in the name of Islam,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Sinhala, Tamil and a whole number of other ethnic
nationalisms. The victims, starting from the Partition riots, add up
to millions dead, apart from massive displacement and destruction of
livelihoods.
Nor is this kind of terrorism confined to South Asia. Rwanda, East
Timor and the Balkans have recently seen horrific communal killings.
They can even be seen as genocidal, if genocide is seen not as an
attempt to exterminate a people from the whole face of the earth but,
rather, to clear them out of the territory controlled by a particular
ethnic or religious group. How can we explain such terrorism? This is
important if we wish to combat it. One popular explanation is that
terrorism is a response to oppression, but I am not happy with this.
If this is true, why is it that millions of exploited and oppressed
people throughout the world never become terrorists? Why is it that
women, who are the most oppressed of the oppressed, rarely go down
this path, since it is not biologically impossible, as the female
fighters of the LTTE show?
Secondly, there is a fine line between explanation and justification,
and I fear that this explanation slips over the line into
justification. Thus, for example, Steve Cohen, who correctly makes a
clear distinction between Jews and zionists, actually blurs the
distinction when he goes on to explain zionism as a response to
anti-semitism (That's Funny, You Don't Look Anti-Semitic). That, I
feel, is an insult to all those Jewish people who suffer
anti-semitism without endorsing ethnic cleansing. It is entirely
legitimate and understandable for people who suffer constant
persecution and regular pogroms to wish for a place where they can
live in security and dignity. It is quite something else to create
this place by clearing out the majority of the indigenous population
by murderous terror. The same goes for Sri Lanka Tamils: the craving
for a homeland where one can be safe and enjoy equal rights is
absolutely justified; trying to create it by driving out and killing
ordinary Sinhalese and Muslims is not justifiable, as all my research
suggests that the majority of Tamil people would agree.
Thirdly, this explanation ignores terrorist movements within Europe
and the US, like those who were responsible for the Oklahoma bombing
and are now suspected of spreading anthrax. This newspaper report is
highly revealing:
The FBI's domestic terrorism unit is investigating the possible role
of illegal militia groups in the spate of anthrax outbreaks in
Florida and New York. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber who killed
168 people when he blew up a federal building in 1995, was a
supporter of one such group, the National Alliance.
Others have threatened to use biological weapons, including anthrax,
botulism, and ricin, in their struggle against what they see as a
global conspiracy between the US administration and the United
Nations to disarm and enslave them. Every state has its own "patriot"
group of disaffected right-wing Christian radicals opposed to central
government and federal regulations. Most are organised along
paramilitary lines. The FBI estimates their numbers at up to 40,000,
with the larger militias in backwoods country areas. They claim they
are mobilising to fight the "New World Order".
In places like Idaho, Texas, Montana and West Virginia, they wear
army surplus camouflage uniforms and train with assault rifles and
explosives against the day when they might have to defend themselves
against direct interference from the federal authorities. They range
in outlook from Pat Robertson, a failed 1988 presidential candidate,
with his vision of a "Christian America" to the sinister Posse
Comitatus, Aryan Nations and Minnesota Patriots' Council, who favour
armed insurrection
Most of the militias' philosophy is based on white-supremacist principles,
looking down on blacks as "mud people" and Jews as instigators of the global
plot against them and manipulators of the world economy for their own
benefit. Despite their redneck reputation, they have developed a sophisticated
communications network using computer e-mail, shortwave radio, and fax. The
North American Patriots, a group with members from California to Kansas,
publish a newsletter entitled Firearms and Freedom
In January 1999, police and security forces responded to 30 anthrax hoaxes
in southern California alone. Since then, there have been thousands of false
alarms across the country. Many aimed at government buildings,
including deliveries of envelopes containing suspicious white powder,
were militia inspired. (Ian Bruce, The Herald, 16/10/2001).
These people, who bomb Black churches, synagogues, abortion clinics
and gay bars, are clearly not reacting to oppression, but, on the
contrary, to what they see as unwarranted restrictions on their
'right' to oppress.
When capitalism develops, it produces, broadly speaking, three types
of social forces: the old dominant elites, the bourgeoisie, and the
working classes. In colonies, the bourgeoisie is furher split into
the imperialist ruling class and the nascent local capitalist class.
Each of these forces is pitched against all the others, but in
specific conjunctures, depending on who is perceived as the greatest
enemy, they may make pragmatic alliances. My own feeling is that
communal terrorism represents a resistance to social change from
traditional dominant groups whose power is undermined by the
development of what has been called bourgeois democracy or modernity.
Patriarchy, clerical power, monarchy in some countries, hierarchical
caste domination in India: these are the values they uphold. But they
are internally divided, into those who seek an accommodation with
modernity while preserving traditional values, and those who
represent all-out rejection of modernity and everything that goes
with it. The governments of India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are
examples of the former variant, hence their ability - even obscene
eagerness in the case of India - to join the US-led alliance. The
RSS, VHP, jihadi groups in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban
are examples of the latter. They are certainly not seeking to put an
end to oppression: far from it. The whole basis of the way of life
they seek to perpetuate is that that all human beings are not born
equal, are not entitled to equal respect as persons.
And yet, their resistance to a certain type of oppression, usually
associated with foreigners and especially the West, provides them
with an appeal for oppressed people who do not see effective
resistance to their oppression coming from anywhere else. This is
clearly the reason why Osama bin Laden has become an icon to so many.
What does he protest against in public? US support for Israel's
murderous occupation of Palestine, where Palestinians who were driven
out decades ago are barred from returning while more land is occupied
(in clear violation of several UN resolutions) and more Palestinians
are being killed every day; the bombing of Iraq, which killed around
200,000 at the time of the war, many of them conscripts massacred
while retreating from Kuwait, and sanctions against Iraq which have
killed 1.5 million civilians, including some 540,000 children;
support for corrupt and undemocratic regimes in West Asia; and now
the bombing of Afghanistan. Don't these causes strike a resonance
with us? They certainly do with me. I don't have to be the mother of
the Palestinian child shot dead while he crouched terrified by his
father, the young man conscripted to fight for Saddam Hussein and
killed by the US in cold blood, the Iraqi child dying of leukemia
from exposure to depleted uranium, I don't even have to be an Arab or
a Muslim to feel grief and fury at the cruelty and injustice of it
all, at the apparent failure of all legal and democractic attempts to
enforce respect for human rights. So is it surprising that people who
are not necessarily aware of Osama bin Laden's real agenda regard him
as a hero for highlighting these iniquities? Is it surprising if boys
and men burning to wipe out the humiliation and in some cases
bereavement they have been subjected to are attracted to groups like
Al Qa'ida, just as some of the many war-traumatised Tamil children in
Sri Lanka might join the LTTE in order take revenge against 'the
Sinhalese'? In this more complex sense, perhaps, imperialist
oppression legitimises terrorism and provides it with recruits.
For us, however, opposition to communal terrorism is a matter of
survival, and this means we have to be equally opposed to the Bush
camp. What, after all, do they stand for?
The Bush camp: racist imperialist terrorism
Imperialism - and this means not merely economic exploitation but
actual political and/or military subjugation, as even Lenin
acknowledged - takes different forms. In South Asia it was relatively
mild, certainly using sufficient brutality to subjugate the
'natives', but not clearing them out with wholesale massacres. In the
Americas and Australia, by contrast, the indigenous population was
virtually wiped out by the European colonisers. Africa was devastated
by the slave trade, in which tens of millions of Africans perished,
apart from being colonised. Apartheid represents a half-way house
between ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population and allowing
them to remain where they are: they are herded into Bantustans from
where their labour power can be used by the colonisers. Israel
initially appeared to adopt the apartheid model, but more recently
seems to be attempting to wipe out the Palestinians from Palestine
altogether. The colonies of tsarist Russia briefly seemed to be
destined for self-determination after the revolution, but Stalinism
soon reverted to imperial domination over the Central Asian peoples,
some of whom were ruthlessly massacred.
World War II ended with the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, proving, for those who needed proof, that it was not a
war against fascism on the part of the Allies but an
inter-imperialist war to re-divide the world between imperialist
powers, where this crime against humanity could be justified as a
demonstration of naked military might. Post-war, while one colony
after another achieved independence, the Cold War provided the basis
for a different type of imperialist strategy. In the name of the
struggle against 'communism', the US installed and propped up brutal
fascistic dictatorships throughout the world, from Latin America to
Indonesia. Where these failed to hold up, as in Cuba and Vietnam, it
intervened directly. Tens of millions were killed in these actions to
stamp out democracy in the name of democracy. This is why, for most
people in the world, the US and the 'American way of life' are
associated not with democracy and freedom but their very opposite:
authoritarian dictatorships, rape, torture, death squads and
massacres. The Soviet Union, for its part, mostly restricted its
military interventions to the parts of the world that had been
awarded to it as the spoils of war - its own empire in Central Asia,
now extended by the 'Eastern Bloc' in Eastern and Central Europe -
while also attempting to extend its influence elsewhere. One of the
few countries outside its own 'sphere' which it invaded and occupied
was Afghanistan, in 1979.
Imperialism is premised on racism: the belief that humankind is
divided into different 'races', out of whom the European or Caucasian
or White or Aryan 'race' is superior to all the rest. Only such a
premise can legitimise the wholesale domination, enslavement or
extermination of other peoples. Those who understand imperialism
purely in terms of monopoly capitalism miss this dimension. No doubt
capitalism is brutal and oppressive, and certainly contains an
element of what might be called class racism in the way that the
lives and health of workers, including child labourers, are treated.
Yet the rationale of this is the production of profit and the
accumulation of capital. The quest for control over sources of raw
materials, markets and labour power is certainly an element in
imperialism. Yet if this were its sole rationale, then one would
expect populations in the colonies to be treated in the same way as
those in the imperialist countries, and this has not been the case.
Thus although there was intensive bombing of Germany in the final
stages of the war, the German people were not chosen as guinea-pigs
to test the destructive potential of nuclear weapons. No European
country was subjected to the intensive chemical warfare waged against
Vietnam, where children were set on fire with napalm and others are
still born with birth defects, and land is still unusable as a result
of bombardment with Agent Orange. The bombing of Yugoslavia,
reprehensible though it was, was not on anything like the same scale
as the bombing of Iraq, nor was it followed by sanctions which took a
similar toll on civilian life. I still remember how stunned I was to
read a report of Madeleine Albright's response in 1996 to an
interviewer who pointed out that half a million children had died as
a result of sanctions against Iraq, and asked whether she thought it
was worth it? She replied that although it was a hard choice, 'we
think the price is worth it'. That's unbelievable, I thought; either
this woman is a psychopath who could just as easily round up 500,000
Eurpean-American kids and kill them off at a rate of 1000 per week,
or she thinks of Iraqis - and probably coloured people in general -
as some kind of sub-human species who can be slaughtered in the
pursuit of political gain.
The same kind of racism is apparent in the treatment of Afghanistan,
beginning with the Soviet occupation. It is estimated that at least a
million Afghanis died in the war against the Soviets, who also took
the chance to litter the country with millions of anti-personnel
landmines during their occupation, as a result of which civilians are
still being blown up and crippled or killed every day. And now this
new war. Who are being killed in this so-called war against
terrorism, despite the blatant lies which White House and Pentagon
officials are doubtless paid to put out? Even if we discount reports
of hundreds of civilian casualties by the Taliban and Al-Jazeera TV
(despite the fact that they are confirmed by lakhs of refugees
fleeing the carnage and foreign reporters who were invited in by the
Taliban), doesn't it seem strange that one of the earliest strikes
was against the UN mine-clearing facility in a civilian area, killing
four workers and destroying the building along with the equipment?
And this despite the fact that the UN had earlier notified the US of
the location of its offices? Why was a Red Cross office with huge
stores of food aid bombed, despite the fact that it could be
identified by the huge red cross on its roof? There are only two ways
these incidents can be explained: either the bombs are falling way
off their supposed military targets, and the Pentagon knows it, or
civilian facilities and civilians are deliberately being targeted.
Take your pick.
However, this is not the only death toll resulting from the bombing.
Right from the beginning, aid agencies have been warning that unless
massive amounts of food aid are transported to various locations
including remote villages before the winter makes roads impassable by
mid-November, up to seven-and-a-half million people could starve to
death. Every day that bombing continues therefore means that lakhs
more people will starve. The same agencies have pointed out that the
surreal exercise of dropping food packets during bombing raids could
at best keep some tens of thousands of people alive for one more day
(after which they will die anyway); at worst it could result in
people getting blown up by landmines as they run for the food. This
may serve as a justification for people who can't count, or for
pilots who would not like to think of themselves as murderers blowing
up women with small children, the elderly, the crippled, i.e. those
unable to run away from the bombing, but it is no use to the starving
people of Afghanistan. Total civilian casualties as a result of the
bombing are likely to be several millions. When you look at the NATO
alliance backing the war, its racist nature becomes explicable. All
the imperialist countries are there, including, this time, Russia,
represented by ex-KGB agent Putin, the butcher of Chechnya. Why
hasn't anyone suggested bombing the US to get rid of the right-wing
militias which are apparently present in every state? What can
explain these double standards if not racism?
In other words, this type of terrorism and the kind represented by Al
Qa'ida share some basic premises in common: all human beings are not
born equal, and it is justifiable to kill innocent civilians in the
pursuit of a political objective.This is what allows them to coexist
and collaborate with each other so easily. It is what allowed the US
to pour money, arms and training into the Pakistani ISI, and through
them to the Taliban, the Northern warlords and Osama bin Laden from
1979 onwards - 'aid' that has had a devastating fallout not only for
the women of Afghanistan, but also for those of Pakistan and Kashmir,
where for the first time women were recently subjected to acid
attacks for not wearing a burqa. It is what allows the US to continue
to have a close alliance with Saudi Arabia, where women are treated
scarcely any better than they are by the Taliban - a cozy
relationship best exemplified by the business association of Bush the
father with bin Laden the father in the Carlyle Group, whose
investments in armaments could mean that both fathers profit from the
war declared by their sons! (see Wall Street Journal 27/9/2001). It
is what allowed the Israeli state to promote Hamas in its effort to
undermine the secular elements in the Palestinian liberation
struggle. Finally it is also the reason why President Bush can still
ally himself with the warlords of the Northern Alliance, none of whom
accept voting rights for women, and, as the Revolutionary Association
of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) have repeatedly told us, raped,
looted and massacred their way through the regions they captured
after 1992.
At the same time, because these opposing forces are so similar to
each other in their propensity to violate human and democratic
rights, they also reinforce each other. There is credible evidence
that the US was already planning an attack on the Taliban even before
the September 11 events, but the terrorist strikes provided an
excellent pretext for that attack. Many people who would have
objected if the war appeared to be motivated by the desire to build
an oil pipeline through Afghanistan, were disarmed by the claim that
the purpose was a 'war against terrorism'. Those of us who still
object have a much harder task to convince others that this war is a
crime against humanity. Unlike the self-immolation of the Buddhist
monks in Vietnam to draw the world's attention to the rape of their
country, the September 11th gestures could easily be coopted by the
imperialist agenda. On the other side, Bush has reacted exactly as
bin Laden would have wanted him to; if I were cartoonist, I would
draw a picture of the former as a puppet with the latter pulling the
strings. Millions of people around the world, some of whom can hardly
have heard of Osama bin Laden before, now regard him as a hero; and
if the CIA kills him without any convincing proof of his guilt, as
they have now apparently been authorised to do, that will elevate him
to the status of a martyr, silenced because he spoke up for the
oppressed.
So the apparent choice - Bush or bin Laden - is really no choice at
all. What alternative do we have?
A worldwide movement for human rights and democracy
Freedom from forced labour, freedom of expression and association,
equal rights and opportunities, the right to elect one's
representatives to government - these are usually referred to as
'bourgeois democracy'. The implication is that these are values
upheld by the bourgeoisie, but I disagree. My contention is that
these are values fought for spontaneously by working people
throughout the world, especially working women, and supported only
sporadically by the bourgeoisie, whose only values are the right to
property and the freedom to exploit. One indication is provided by
the struggle for universal adult suffrage. The original idea was that
only males with property would have the right to vote; the
dispossessed and women had to fight against these restrictions, and
only working class women and those who supported them were
steadfastly in favour of universal adult suffrage.
Another indication is the ease with which the bourgeoisie attacks
so-called bourgeois democracy, and the fact that fascism too is a
form of bourgeois rule, despite its negation of all the rights and
freedoms listed earlier. The US, for all its tall claims to be a
defender of democracy, has attacked it not only abroad but even at
home. The McCarthy years saw a fascistic attack on democratic rights,
and many observers have commented that similar forces are at work
post-September 11 - restrictions on the right to information, freedom
of expression and association, the right to privacy, etc. A speaker
at a meeting in Bombay who had recently returned from the US said
that the ubiquitous Stars and Stripes reminded him of the Swastika
displayed everywhere in Nazi Germany. Vicious attacks on dissenters,
not only by the state but by other citizens, are evidence of fascism
developing as a mass movement. And the fact that Congress, with the
sole dissenting voice of Congresswoman Barbara Lee, voted to give
unelected President George Bush Jr. almost unlimited powers for
military attacks on anyone anywhere in the world, in violation of
international law, the UN Charter and the US Constitution, suggests
uncomfortable parallels with other regimes of absolute power. Let us
be very clear: this may be the American way of life according to
George Bush, but it is not democracy.
Both sides in the Cold War propagated the notion that socialism and
communism were the opposite of democracy, yet when these ideals were
first put forward, they constituted not a negation but a further
development of democratic control over spheres from which it is
normally excluded even under 'bourgeois democracy', notably
production relations and distribution of wealth, the repressive
apparatus of the state, and international relations. However, the
Soviet Union's use of these terms to describe policies which
ruthlessly crushed democratic rights both at home and abroad, all but
wiped out the memory of what these ideals had originally meant. If
the destruction of Afghanistan is one of the tragic consequences of
the Cold War, the destruction of the notions of democracy, socialism
and communism are in a different way equally tragic, because they
deprive us of a language in which to argue for the interests of the
third social force, the working people of the world. Again, I reject
the notion that these ideals are 'alien' to us in the Third World.
Perhaps they were articulated first by spokespeople like Kant, Marx
and Sylvia Pankhurst because capitalism, and therefore the working
class, had developed further in Europe than the rest of the world in
the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. But ordinary working people
anywhere in the world can respond to them if they are explained in a
comprehensible manner.
This, I think, is the task that faces us. We need to create a culture
where these values are taken for granted, in opposition to the values
of both communal and imperialist terrorism, and we need to do it on a
global scale. That's a massive task, but let me suggest a few
starting points here.
1) Given the present context, we need to take an absolutely clear
stand on the politics of both types of terrorism, and explain why it
is necessary to do so. We have to insist on secular states in our
countries, neither Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, Sinhala or Tamil,
because a state that is tied to any particular religious or ethnic
group cannot be democratic. In elections - for example, the
forthcoming parliamentary elections in Sri Lanka and assembly
elections in Uttar Pradesh in India, both of which will be crucially
important - the record of every candidate and party in terms of human
rights and secularism should be examined, and support extended or
withheld accordingly. Sadly, there may be many cases where we have to
make do with the lesser of two evils rather than a positive good, but
there is always a choice. At the same time, we have to explain to
those who have illusions in the US (and that includes the majority of
Americans!) why, as Gulf War resistor Jeff Paterson put it, 'Now,
more than ever, the people of the world are not safe from the U.S.,
and the people in the U.S. are not safe from the U.S.' ('A Message to
Troops, Would-be Troops and Other Youth', 15/10/01)
2. Wherever there are ongoing conflicts, as in Sri Lanka, Kashmir and
many other places in the subcontinent, we must insist that the first
priority for any resolution must be to safeguard the human and
democratic rights of all those concerned - national minorities as
well as local minorities, women, etc. - and this, again, cannot take
place except within a genuinely secular state. Some 'peace'
campaigners think it is possible to sidestep this issue, but any
'peace accord' which allows for continuing violation of fundamental
rights will not last long.
3. Conflicts in other parts of the world affect us, as this
latest crisis has shown, and we need to press for a just resolution
of them too. In the current situation, the most urgent issues are:
(a) Afghanistan: an immediate end to the bombing - since many legal
experts have argued that it is illegal according to international
law, and the death of civilians as a result of it constitute a crime
against humanity - and resumption of food and other aid, protected by
UN peace-keepers if necessary; prosecution of those responsible for
the terrorist attack of 11 September as well as others who have
committed crimes against humanity in the International Criminal
Court. (b) Iraq: an immediate end to the bombing, and lifting of
sanctions, so that adequate food, medicines and rebuilding of
infrastructure takes place to end the appalling loss of life there.
(c) Palestine: Implementation of numerous UN resolutions to bring
about an Israeli evacuation (including settlers and the Israeli
Defence Forces) from the Occupied Territories and the establishment
of a secular, democratic Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its
capital, as well as ensuring the right of return of Palestinian
refugees to their homeland. This would mean challenging the notion of
Israel as a Jewish state. As Israel Shahak, a survivor of the Belsen
concentration camp and citizen of Israel, writes, 'In my view, Israel
as a Jewish state constitutes a danger not only to itself and its
inhabitants, but to all Jews and to all other peoples and states in
the Middle East and beyond,' just as the self-definition of other
states as 'Arab' or 'Muslim' also constitutes a danger. He points out
that this communal definition resulted in close relations between
zionists and anti-semites: 'Perhaps the most shocking example of this
type is the delight with which some zionist leaders in Germany
welcomed Hitler's rise to power, because they shared his belief in
the primacy of "race" and his hostility to the assimilation of Jews
among '"Aryans"' (Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Pluto
Press,1994, pp. 2, 71). So the transformation of Israel into a
secular, democratic state would also be required. UN sanctions may be
needed to press for these changes.
4. None of this could be achieved without an international
movement for human rights and democracy, comprising supporters of
these principles in all countries including the USA and Israel. There
is also a need for international institutions capable of implementing
them. Whether the UN can play this role remains to be seen. Although
its role in this war has not been as shameful as in the Gulf War,
where it merely rubber-stamped the slaughter of civilians, it has
been side-lined completely so far. It seems obvious that so long as
permanent members of the Security Council have veto powers, the UN
cannot function in a democratic manner; so abolishing those veto
powers is one reform which needs to be made in the long term. More
immediately, however, the permanent International Criminal Court
which was agreed upon in 1998 needs to be set up to deal with crimes
against humanity including terrorism, war crimes and genocide. Other
machinery is needed to deal with violations of fundamental rights (of
women, workers, religious and ethnic minorities, indigenous people,
dalits, etc.) where governments persistently fail to do so.
5. Finally, this crisis has shown the need for alternatives to
the mainstream media as sources of information and communication. The
internet can play such a role, but only if those who have access to
it also disseminate the information more widely, which involves
translating it into local languages - a laborious task, but one
without which a worldwide movement for human rights and democracy
cannot grow.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. To
subscribe send a blank
message to: <act-subscribe at yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
--
More information about the reader-list
mailing list