Andy Mager
Several months into the "War on Terrorism," the US government's bombing campaign in Afghanistan appears to be winding down and discussion of additional targets is increasing. Our government claims to be opposed to "terrorism," but defines it as a struggle of "good" (us and our friends) vs. "them" (only vaguely defined).
What would be required to make a true commitment to ending terrorism?
The following is a list of actions/approaches which I believe are fundamental to really ending terrorism, followed by a summary of the US government's actions in these areas.
Our government refuses to define terrorism in any meaningful way because such a definition would necessarily include a variety of US actions as well as those of some allies. Historically, terrorism has been a tactic utilized in nearly every war. The US government and many of its allies and client states have been big-time practitioners of terrorism—from Jackson, Mississippi to the jungles of Viet Nam, from the refugee camps of the Gaza Strip to the island of East Timor, from the mountains of Colombia to the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. To end terrorism, we must first stop terrorizing.
Our government has repeatedly tried to block efforts to create an effective International Criminal Court. The Clinton administration gave lipservice while insisting on special treatment. The Bush administration has voiced contempt for the whole enterprise. It fears that US soldiers or government officials could be prosecuted. As long as unequal standards are applied to the judgment of international conduct, violence will remain an acceptable option.
Our government has withheld funds from the United Nations for many years and has used its powerful voice to frequently attack the UN. (This approach changes when the US is seeking UN support for US priorities, for example the Gulf War and the current coalition effort against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban). The US government regularly thwarts the will of the international community through power politics. US foreign aid is rarely targeted at the countries most in need, and often comes with requirements that benefit US corporations more than hungry people.
Our government actively resists efforts to address global warming,
ignoring the international consensus. It was a
"no show" at the 2001 UN Conference on Racism. The US is among the
"rogue
states" who refuse to sign the International Treaty to Ban Land Mines.
Our government continues to stockpile nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
We have been a leader in the development of all these technologies and refuse
to accept bans on the creation of a new generation of these deadly weapons.
The US government played a key role in preventing a meaningful Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty which would have committed the nuclear powers to a timeline for disarmament.
The US position insists on the right of a few nations to maintain a nuclear
monopoly. India and Pakistan are examples of nations who refuse to accept this
double standard. Their current confrontation over Kashmir has brought the world
to the brink of nuclear war.
Our government is the largest exporter of all types of arms and has often sold weapons to both sides of a conflict— for example, Iran and Iraq. According to the Arms Sales Monitoring Project of the Federation of American Scientists, "Since 1990, the United States has exported more than $152 billion worth of weapons to states around the world. Many of these sales have been to repressive and/or unstable governments." In 1999 (the last year for which information is available) the US accounted for 64% ($33 billion) of the world's total arms exports. This is a 52% increase over the 1989 level. The next largest exporter was the United Kingdom which sold $5.2 billion that year. At the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms in 2001, the US delegation sought to water down and undermine agreements to reduce the international flow of small weapons.
Our government's policies toward the rest of the world are based on self-interest, particularly for its corporate backers. Our trade policies privilege the interests of large corporations over those of poor and working class people throughout the world. The economic collapse in Argentina is only the most recent example of what happens when countries follow the economic dictates of the US-dominated World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The tremendous pressure for further extension of what is misleadingly called "free trade" threatens to worsen this process.
Preserving our "way of life"—i.e. our right to consume as many resources as we can, as fast as we can—is consistently cited by US officials to justify support for repressive regimes the world over. The US government's military and political power is used to guarantee access to cheap natural resources which are exploited to the benefit of multinational corporations and generally to the detriment of the people of other nations and their natural environment.
Our government denies the powerful role that racism has played in creating the world in which we live. They go even further in denying the way that racism drives much of our current policies. Ignoring the desperate humanitarian needs in parts of Africa and ignoring the Rwandan genocide are examples of this long and sordid record.
If it is acceptable for our government to use military force to solve conflict, then other countries and groups will follow suit. After the US bombed Afghanistan in response to September 11, India used this as an example to justify its military build-up and threats against Pakistan. Israel seized the opportunity to step up its military assault on occupied Palestine. Foreign aid resources must be diverted away from military support and training and used for education, health care, infrastructure development, etc. The "War on Drugs," now largely supplanted by the "War on Terrorism," is another example of the US government's choice of military responses (arms to the Colombian military, greater police presence at the Mexican border, etc.) to a social and economic problem.
Our government has widely publicized the Al-Qaeda terrorist manual and its deadly instructions. None of those stories mention the training manuals created by the CIA for the contras in Nicaragua in the early 1980s which advocated attacks on union leaders, mining harbors, etc. That manual served as a blueprint for terrorist attacks (also funded by the US government). Similar manuals have been produced by the US Army's School of the Americas to train terrorists throughout Latin America. Closing down this terrorist training facility at Fort Benning, Georgia is a crucial step in ending terrorism. (See page 16 for further information.)
Our government officials continue to assert that this is a struggle against "evil," defining terrorism as a problem solely of small groups of bad people. Instead, we should be seeking to understand what motivates Palestinians to blow up Israeli busses, Irish Republicans to attack British soldiers. Seeking to address the root causes which lead to acts of terrorism does not mean that we condone those acts.
Our government has shamelessly pressured the media to restrict coverage of the Afghanistan war and denied it access to information. Its statements are designed to make it seem "unpatriotic" to raise criticisms. Reporting on civilian casualties in Afghanistan has been called "aiding the enemy," and access to information on the ground has been greatly restricted. Legal protections to maintain some degree of diversity in the media are repeatedly whittled away, opening the door for even greater consolidation of the sources of our information.
Our government continues to support a national addiction to oil. The need for massive oil supplies fuels most US foreign policy in the Middle East and affects policy in other parts of the world. Efforts to increase efficiency standards for automobiles, particularly SUVs, have been rebuffed. The deep oil ties of the current administration make positive action on this front unlikely. The development and utilization of renewable energy sources has received limited support.
This list is certainly not comprehensive, but can be seen as a starting point for discussion about how to eliminate terrorism. In the process, it brings us back to the fundamental goal of the peace movement—building a vibrant democratic culture in which all people have full social and economic rights.
Andy Mager is the Co-Coordinator of the Syracuse Peace Council, a nonviolence trainer and freelance writer.
SPC
Home
Back
to PNL Page