[sacw] SACW #2 (24 Oct. 01) | ALTERNATIVE TO GLOBAL TERROR

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #2.
24 October 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

------------------------------------

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=20
to borrow the title of his film as an apt description of what is=20
happening in the world right now (i.e. October 2001, the month after=20
the terrorist attacks in the USA). Whether the father is Saudi=20
billionnaire Mohammed bin Laden, with his close ties to the Saudi=20
royal family, the son is his estranged offspring Osama, who is=20
enraged every time he thinks of infidel American troops stationed on=20
the holy soil of Saudi Arabia, and the holy war is the jihad which=20
the latter has declared against America and Americans; or the father=20
is George Bush Sr, who started it all with his war to defeat Saddam=20
Hussein by gradually exterminating the people of Iraq, the son is=20
George Jr., who has trouble opening his mouth without putting his=20
foot in it, and the holy war is the crusade the latter has declared=20
against, well, let us say vaguely specified enemies who happen to be=20
Muslims - in both cases, the themes of religious communalism,=20
militarism and machismo are inextricably intertwined.

There is even an uncanny similarity in the ways that the two sons=20
think, if we ignore the cowboy rhetoric of one ('wanted - dead or=20
alive', 'smoke 'em outa their holes', etc.) and the pious expressions=20
of the other ('may God mete them the punishment they deserve', etc.).=20
Bush tells us, 'either you are with us, or you are with the=20
terrorists' (statement of 20/9/01); Osama tells us the entire world=20
is divided into 'two regions - one of faith=8Aand another of=20
infidelity' (statement of 7/10/01). In other words, they both want us=20
to believe that the population of the world is divided into two=20
camps, one headed by Bush, the other by bin Laden.

If this is true, then we are heading into an epoch of unlimited=20
violence and terror. South Asia is right at the centre of the=20
conflict, and could suffer the most from it. For example, if the war=20
goes on much longer, General Musharraf could be overthrown by even=20
more extremist communal forces in Pakistan, who would then have=20
nuclear weapons in their hands. On the other side of the border,=20
there could well be a hidden agenda behind the BJP-led government's=20
enthusiastic support for the US war. What do they hope to gain from=20
it? Not US mediation in Kashmir to put pressure on Pakistan to stop=20
cross-border terrorism - Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh made it very=20
clear that mediation would not be welcome. Belligerent speeches by=20
Kashmir's Chief Minister Farouq Abdullah and Home Minister=20
L.K.Advani, as well as aggressive firing across the border the same=20
day that corruption-tainted Defence Minister George Fernandes=20
regained his ministry, suggest that what they want is the US go-ahead=20
to do exactly what Big Brother is doing: i.e. to bomb Pakistan as the=20
US is bombing Afghanistan, on the same pretext of 'a war against=20
those who harbour terrorists'. That could be the prelude to a nuclear=20
war.

For those of us who are opposed to both camps, the only way to avert=20
such a catastrophe is to build a viable third alternative - a new=20
non-aligned movement for human rights and democracy - at top speed.=20
This will become obvious when we take a closer look at the two camps=20
which have already constituted themselves. But first we need to be=20
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.=20
Eqbal Ahmad, after going through at least twenty US documents on=20
terrorism, came up with a surprising (or perhaps not so surprising)=20
discovery: not once was terrorism defined. And he concluded that this=20
was quite deliberate: 'If you're not going to be consistent, you're=20
not going to define' ('Terrorism: Theirs and Ours', Alternative Radio=20
programme). Since September 11th, we find the definition chopping and=20
changing, according to expediency. First it is made clear that only=20
acts of violence against US citizens are acts of terrorism; the same=20
acts against citizens of other countries don't count. When some=20
governments whose support the US wishes to retain question this, the=20
definition is expanded slightly. At no point are similar acts of=20
violence committed or supported by the US defined as terrorist.

Ranged against this are counter-definitions by anti-globalisers like=20
Vandana Shiva, who classify hunger, poverty, unemployment and=20
environmental degradation as terrorism; we can call this an economic=20
reductionist type of definition. One problem is that it is so wide=20
that it becomes impossible to define a strategy to fight it; it is a=20
bit like trying to make tables, chairs, beds, windows and doors with=20
a tool-kit consisting entirely and solely of a hammer: you end up=20
unable to make any of them. Another problem is that terrorism as=20
political violence is nowhere acknowledged, so that it becomes=20
possible to join hands, as Vandana Shiva has done, with terrorists of=20
the Sangh Parivar in the struggle against globalisation. I would say=20
that even disasters like Bhopal and Chernobyl, which kill and injure=20
tens of thousands of victims, should not be classified as terrorism,=20
because they occur in the pursuit of economic gain and therefore=20
require different remedies (e.g. health and safety and environmental=20
legislation which makes them impossible).

The US is not the only state whose definition of terrorism shifts=20
according to who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. In Sri=20
Lanka, the UNP and its supporters defined the JVP and Tamil militant=20
groups as 'terrorist' when these groups committed admittedly horrific=20
acts of indiscriminate violence, but even more violent responses by=20
the state and state-sponsored paramilitaries were, supposedly, not=20
terrorism. The militants, on the other hand, denounce state=20
terrorism, but would not call their own actions terrorist. In=20
Kashmir, violence against civilians by militants from Pakistan are=20
called terrorism by the Indian state, which does not, however, give=20
the same name to its own violence against Kashmiri civilians;=20
conversely, the Pakistani state refers to the militants as 'freedom=20
fighters', and denounces Indian state terrorism. It is not possible=20
to fight something without knowing what it is.

Against this miasma of rhetoric, and taking off from dictionary=20
definitions of 'terrorism', I would say that acts of terrorism are=20
acts or threats of violence against ordinary, unarmed civilians=20
carried out in the pursuit of a political objective. It should be=20
irrelevant whether the perpetrators are state parties or non-state=20
parties, and other characteristics (like skin colour, ethnicity,=20
gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, social=20
origin or anything else) of the perpetrators and victims should=20
likewise be irrelevant. Further, the stated political objective=20
should not come into the picture either, whether it is a religion,=20
nationalism, national interest, national security, national=20
liberation, democracy, socialism, communism, infinite justice or=20
enduring freedom. A murderer's claimed motive does not change the=20
fact of a murder.

In this connection, we need to dispense with another term:=20
'collateral damage'. In the context of terrorism as defined above, it=20
makes no sense, because the purpose of terrorism is not to kill or=20
injure people, that is merely a means to some political end. For=20
example, in the case of the 11 September attacks, we cannot know for=20
sure the motives of the hijackers because they are all dead, but if=20
we assume for the sake of argument that they were in some way=20
connected to Osama bin Laden , then the demands are very clear: the=20
US must stop supporting Israeli aggression against the Palestinians,=20
stop the bombing of Iraq and lift the sanctions against that country,=20
stop supporting corrupt regimes in the Middle East, and move their=20
armed forces out of Saudi Arabia. The purpose was not to kill all=20
those people in the aeroplanes, the World Trade Centre and Pentagon;=20
they were merely collateral damage.

Does that sound outrageous? Of course it does. Because we are not=20
used to hearing dead Americans referred to as 'collateral damage'.=20
But shouldn't it sound equally outrageous when Bush, Blair and their=20
cohorts justify the killing of Afghani civilians in the bombing as=20
'collateral damage'? 'According to Michael Tonry, Professor of Law at=20
the University of Minnesota, "In the criminal law, purpose and=20
knowledge are equally culpable states of mind. An action taken with a=20
purpose to kill is no more culpable than an action taken with some=20
other purpose in mind but with knowledge that a death will probably=20
result. Blowing up an airplane to kill a passenger is equivalent to=20
blowing up an airplane to destroy a fake painting and thereby to=20
defraud an insurance company, knowing that the passenger will be=20
killed. Both are murder. Most people would find the latter killing
more despicable" (Malign Neglect, p. 32)' (A.J.Chien, 'The Civilian=20
Toll', Institute for Health and Social Justice, October 11). So let=20
us forget about collateral damage. Murder is murder, and mass murder=20
is mass murder. Terrorist acts which result in mass murder can=20
additionally be defined as crimes against humanity.

It seems to me that this could be a functional definition of=20
terrorism or acts of terrorism, which can be agreed upon by pacifists=20
as well as those who believe that armed resistance to armed=20
aggression is justified. Fighting between combatants would not count=20
as terrorism. Only minimal grey areas are left; for example, those=20
cases where settlers on land seized from others by acts of terrorism=20
either defend their gains with arms or are defended by armed forces,=20
as in the case of the Israeli settlers in the occupied territories of=20
Palestine, whom Nigel Harris graphically describes as 'Jewish Taliban=20
and Zionist Red Necks' ('Collapse of the Peace Process', Economic and=20
Political Weekly, 15/9/01). In such cases, I would say that adult=20
settlers cannot be regarded as innocent unarmed civilians, whereas=20
children can. Another problematic case would be one where a=20
politician who advocates and promotes the transfer of populations (a=20
crime against humanity according to the Nuremburg Principles=20
articulated to prosecute Nazi war criminals), such as Israeli=20
Minister Rehavam Ze'evi, is assassinated. All one can say is that if=20
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=20
commonly-used 'fundamentalism', for two reasons. (1) Communalism,=20
meaning an adoption of identity based overwhelmingly on membership of=20
a community, with corresponding isolation from or hostility to others=20
- ranging from opposition to intermarriage with them to genocidal=20
massacres of them - is a much broader term. It can encompass=20
identities based not only on different religions, but on different=20
ethnic groups, and on sects within the same religion (Shia and Sunni,=20
Protestant and Catholic, etc.) (2) Claims of fundamentalists that=20
they are defending the 'fundamentals' of their religion have=20
convincingly been contested by theologians of those same religions;=20
it is therefore a misleading term, suggesting that more humane=20
interpretations are somehow less authentic.

Attacks like those of 11 September were unprecedented in the US, but=20
not in our countries. Indeed, almost nine years earlier we felt the=20
same horror and fear when a terrorist attack brought down the Babri=20
Mosque, accompanied and followed by anti-Muslim riots which took a=20
death toll similar to that of the US attacks. So unlike several=20
consecutive US administrations which have supported and still=20
continue to support communal forces in our countries (more about this=20
later), many of us, especially women, have long recognised the dire=20
danger posed to women's rights in particular, and human rights and=20
democracy in general, by communal terrorism, and have been battling=20
against it for decades.

The hell that women have gone through under the Taliban - girls and=20
women denied education, women not allowed to earn a living, even if=20
the only alternative for them and their children is death by=20
starvation, not allowed to go out except covered from head to foot by=20
a burqa and accompanied by a male relative, brutal punishments=20
including stoning to death or being buried alive if they break any of=20
the draconian rules imposed on them - these are only the most extreme=20
examples of the violation of women's rights which is much more=20
widespread. And while patriarchal authority in its Islamic form=20
receives the widest publicity, let us remember that other forms -=20
like the common practice of female infanticide in India,=20
bride-burning, ill-treatment of widows, and the lynching of young=20
people who have out-of-caste relationships - can be just as barbaric.=20
Other forms of communal terrorism may provide more space for women,=20
and the LTTE even encourages them to become suicide bombers, but all=20
this is premised on blind support for the supreme leader. The penalty=20
for independent thought, expression or action, as Rajani Thiranagama=20
and Sarojini Yogeshwaran found out to their cost, is death.

The suppression of women's rights goes along with a more general=20
authoritarian control over what members of the religious or ethnic=20
community may or may not say and do. Depending on the degree of power=20
the communal group enjoys, punishments for those who refuse to=20
abandon the struggle for human rights and democracy can vary from=20
social boycott, to beatings (e.g. Asghar Ali Engineer), to death=20
(notably Neelan Thiruchelvam). But the greatest violence is directed=20
outward, towards other ethnic/religious communities. Massacres of the=20
type that the Taliban inflicted on non-Pashtun tribes in Afghanistan=20
(and which warlords of those tribes also carried out when they were=20
in a position to do so) are familiar in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka,=20
Bangladesh. They have been carried out in the name of Islam,=20
Hinduism, Buddhism, Sinhala, Tamil and a whole number of other ethnic=20
nationalisms. The victims, starting from the Partition riots, add up=20
to millions dead, apart from massive displacement and destruction of=20
livelihoods.

Nor is this kind of terrorism confined to South Asia. Rwanda, East=20
Timor and the Balkans have recently seen horrific communal killings.=20
They can even be seen as genocidal, if genocide is seen not as an=20
attempt to exterminate a people from the whole face of the earth but,=20
rather, to clear them out of the territory controlled by a particular=20
ethnic or religious group. How can we explain such terrorism? This is=20
important if we wish to combat it. One popular explanation is that=20
terrorism is a response to oppression, but I am not happy with this.=20
If this is true, why is it that millions of exploited and oppressed=20
people throughout the world never become terrorists? Why is it that=20
women, who are the most oppressed of the oppressed, rarely go down=20
this path, since it is not biologically impossible, as the female=20
fighters of the LTTE show?

Secondly, there is a fine line between explanation and justification,=20
and I fear that this explanation slips over the line into=20
justification. Thus, for example, Steve Cohen, who correctly makes a=20
clear distinction between Jews and zionists, actually blurs the=20
distinction when he goes on to explain zionism as a response to=20
anti-semitism (That's Funny, You Don't Look Anti-Semitic). That, I=20
feel, is an insult to all those Jewish people who suffer=20
anti-semitism without endorsing ethnic cleansing. It is entirely=20
legitimate and understandable for people who suffer constant=20
persecution and regular pogroms to wish for a place where they can=20
live in security and dignity. It is quite something else to create=20
this place by clearing out the majority of the indigenous population=20
by murderous terror. The same goes for Sri Lanka Tamils: the craving=20
for a homeland where one can be safe and enjoy equal rights is=20
absolutely justified; trying to create it by driving out and killing=20
ordinary Sinhalese and Muslims is not justifiable, as all my research=20
suggests that the majority of Tamil people would agree.

Thirdly, this explanation ignores terrorist movements within Europe=20
and the US, like those who were responsible for the Oklahoma bombing=20
and are now suspected of spreading anthrax. This newspaper report is=20
highly revealing:

The FBI's domestic terrorism unit is investigating the possible role=20
of illegal militia groups in the spate of anthrax outbreaks in=20
Florida and New York. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber who killed=20
168 people when he blew up a federal building in 1995, was a=20
supporter of one such group, the National Alliance.

Others have threatened to use biological weapons, including anthrax,=20
botulism, and ricin, in their struggle against what they see as a=20
global conspiracy between the US administration and the United=20
Nations to disarm and enslave them. Every state has its own "patriot"=20
group of disaffected right-wing Christian radicals opposed to central=20
government and federal regulations. Most are organised along=20
paramilitary lines. The FBI estimates their numbers at up to 40,000,=20
with the larger militias in backwoods country areas. They claim they=20
are mobilising to fight the "New World Order".

In places like Idaho, Texas, Montana and West Virginia, they wear=20
army surplus camouflage uniforms and train with assault rifles and=20
explosives against the day when they might have to defend themselves=20
against direct interference from the federal authorities. They range=20
in outlook from Pat Robertson, a failed 1988 presidential candidate,=20
with his vision of a "Christian America" to the sinister Posse
Comitatus, Aryan Nations and Minnesota Patriots' Council, who favour=20
armed insurrection=8A

Most of the militias' philosophy is based on white-supremacist principles,
looking down on blacks as "mud people" and Jews as instigators of the globa=
l
plot against them and manipulators of the world economy for their own
benefit. Despite their redneck reputation, they have developed a sophistica=
ted
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=8A

In January 1999, police and security forces responded to 30 anthrax hoaxes
in southern California alone. Since then, there have been thousands of fals=
e
alarms across the country. Many aimed at government buildings,=20
including deliveries of envelopes containing suspicious white powder,=20
were militia inspired. (Ian Bruce, The Herald, 16/10/2001).

These people, who bomb Black churches, synagogues, abortion clinics=20
and gay bars, are clearly not reacting to oppression, but, on the=20
contrary, to what they see as unwarranted restrictions on their=20
'right' to oppress.

When capitalism develops, it produces, broadly speaking, three types=20
of social forces: the old dominant elites, the bourgeoisie, and the=20
working classes. In colonies, the bourgeoisie is furher split into=20
the imperialist ruling class and the nascent local capitalist class.=20
Each of these forces is pitched against all the others, but in=20
specific conjunctures, depending on who is perceived as the greatest=20
enemy, they may make pragmatic alliances. My own feeling is that=20
communal terrorism represents a resistance to social change from=20
traditional dominant groups whose power is undermined by the=20
development of what has been called bourgeois democracy or modernity.=20
Patriarchy, clerical power, monarchy in some countries, hierarchical=20
caste domination in India: these are the values they uphold. But they=20
are internally divided, into those who seek an accommodation with=20
modernity while preserving traditional values, and those who=20
represent all-out rejection of modernity and everything that goes=20
with it. The governments of India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are=20
examples of the former variant, hence their ability - even obscene=20
eagerness in the case of India - to join the US-led alliance. The=20
RSS, VHP, jihadi groups in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban=20
are examples of the latter. They are certainly not seeking to put an=20
end to oppression: far from it. The whole basis of the way of life=20
they seek to perpetuate is that that all human beings are not born=20
equal, are not entitled to equal respect as persons.

And yet, their resistance to a certain type of oppression, usually=20
associated with foreigners and especially the West, provides them=20
with an appeal for oppressed people who do not see effective=20
resistance to their oppression coming from anywhere else. This is=20
clearly the reason why Osama bin Laden has become an icon to so many.=20
What does he protest against in public? US support for Israel's=20
murderous occupation of Palestine, where Palestinians who were driven=20
out decades ago are barred from returning while more land is occupied=20
(in clear violation of several UN resolutions) and more Palestinians=20
are being killed every day; the bombing of Iraq, which killed around=20
200,000 at the time of the war, many of them conscripts massacred=20
while retreating from Kuwait, and sanctions against Iraq which have=20
killed 1.5 million civilians, including some 540,000 children;=20
support for corrupt and undemocratic regimes in West Asia; and now=20
the bombing of Afghanistan. Don't these causes strike a resonance=20
with us? They certainly do with me. I don't have to be the mother of=20
the Palestinian child shot dead while he crouched terrified by his=20
father, the young man conscripted to fight for Saddam Hussein and=20
killed by the US in cold blood, the Iraqi child dying of leukemia=20
from exposure to depleted uranium, I don't even have to be an Arab or=20
a Muslim to feel grief and fury at the cruelty and injustice of it=20
all, at the apparent failure of all legal and democractic attempts to=20
enforce respect for human rights. So is it surprising that people who=20
are not necessarily aware of Osama bin Laden's real agenda regard him=20
as a hero for highlighting these iniquities? Is it surprising if boys=20
and men burning to wipe out the humiliation and in some cases=20
bereavement they have been subjected to are attracted to groups like=20
Al Qa'ida, just as some of the many war-traumatised Tamil children in=20
Sri Lanka might join the LTTE in order take revenge against 'the=20
Sinhalese'? In this more complex sense, perhaps, imperialist=20
oppression legitimises terrorism and provides it with recruits.

For us, however, opposition to communal terrorism is a matter of=20
survival, and this means we have to be equally opposed to the Bush=20
camp. What, after all, do they stand for?

The Bush camp: racist imperialist terrorism

Imperialism - and this means not merely economic exploitation but=20
actual political and/or military subjugation, as even Lenin=20
acknowledged - takes different forms. In South Asia it was relatively=20
mild, certainly using sufficient brutality to subjugate the=20
'natives', but not clearing them out with wholesale massacres. In the=20
Americas and Australia, by contrast, the indigenous population was=20
virtually wiped out by the European colonisers. Africa was devastated=20
by the slave trade, in which tens of millions of Africans perished,=20
apart from being colonised. Apartheid represents a half-way house=20
between ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population and allowing=20
them to remain where they are: they are herded into Bantustans from=20
where their labour power can be used by the colonisers. Israel=20
initially appeared to adopt the apartheid model, but more recently=20
seems to be attempting to wipe out the Palestinians from Palestine=20
altogether. The colonies of tsarist Russia briefly seemed to be=20
destined for self-determination after the revolution, but Stalinism=20
soon reverted to imperial domination over the Central Asian peoples,=20
some of whom were ruthlessly massacred.

World War II ended with the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima=20
and Nagasaki, proving, for those who needed proof, that it was not a=20
war against fascism on the part of the Allies but an=20
inter-imperialist war to re-divide the world between imperialist=20
powers, where this crime against humanity could be justified as a=20
demonstration of naked military might. Post-war, while one colony=20
after another achieved independence, the Cold War provided the basis=20
for a different type of imperialist strategy. In the name of the=20
struggle against 'communism', the US installed and propped up brutal=20
fascistic dictatorships throughout the world, from Latin America to=20
Indonesia. Where these failed to hold up, as in Cuba and Vietnam, it=20
intervened directly. Tens of millions were killed in these actions to=20
stamp out democracy in the name of democracy. This is why, for most=20
people in the world, the US and the 'American way of life' are=20
associated not with democracy and freedom but their very opposite:=20
authoritarian dictatorships, rape, torture, death squads and=20
massacres. The Soviet Union, for its part, mostly restricted its=20
military interventions to the parts of the world that had been=20
awarded to it as the spoils of war - its own empire in Central Asia,=20
now extended by the 'Eastern Bloc' in Eastern and Central Europe -=20
while also attempting to extend its influence elsewhere. One of the=20
few countries outside its own 'sphere' which it invaded and occupied=20
was Afghanistan, in 1979.

Imperialism is premised on racism: the belief that humankind is=20
divided into different 'races', out of whom the European or Caucasian=20
or White or Aryan 'race' is superior to all the rest. Only such a=20
premise can legitimise the wholesale domination, enslavement or=20
extermination of other peoples. Those who understand imperialism=20
purely in terms of monopoly capitalism miss this dimension. No doubt=20
capitalism is brutal and oppressive, and certainly contains an=20
element of what might be called class racism in the way that the=20
lives and health of workers, including child labourers, are treated.=20
Yet the rationale of this is the production of profit and the=20
accumulation of capital. The quest for control over sources of raw=20
materials, markets and labour power is certainly an element in=20
imperialism. Yet if this were its sole rationale, then one would=20
expect populations in the colonies to be treated in the same way as=20
those in the imperialist countries, and this has not been the case.

Thus although there was intensive bombing of Germany in the final=20
stages of the war, the German people were not chosen as guinea-pigs=20
to test the destructive potential of nuclear weapons. No European=20
country was subjected to the intensive chemical warfare waged against=20
Vietnam, where children were set on fire with napalm and others are=20
still born with birth defects, and land is still unusable as a result=20
of bombardment with Agent Orange. The bombing of Yugoslavia,=20
reprehensible though it was, was not on anything like the same scale=20
as the bombing of Iraq, nor was it followed by sanctions which took a=20
similar toll on civilian life. I still remember how stunned I was to=20
read a report of Madeleine Albright's response in 1996 to an=20
interviewer who pointed out that half a million children had died as=20
a result of sanctions against Iraq, and asked whether she thought it=20
was worth it? She replied that although it was a hard choice, 'we=20
think the price is worth it'. That's unbelievable, I thought; either=20
this woman is a psychopath who could just as easily round up 500,000=20
Eurpean-American kids and kill them off at a rate of 1000 per week,=20
or she thinks of Iraqis - and probably coloured people in general -=20
as some kind of sub-human species who can be slaughtered in the=20
pursuit of political gain.

The same kind of racism is apparent in the treatment of Afghanistan,=20
beginning with the Soviet occupation. It is estimated that at least a=20
million Afghanis died in the war against the Soviets, who also took=20
the chance to litter the country with millions of anti-personnel=20
landmines during their occupation, as a result of which civilians are=20
still being blown up and crippled or killed every day. And now this=20
new war. Who are being killed in this so-called war against=20
terrorism, despite the blatant lies which White House and Pentagon=20
officials are doubtless paid to put out? Even if we discount reports=20
of hundreds of civilian casualties by the Taliban and Al-Jazeera TV=20
(despite the fact that they are confirmed by lakhs of refugees=20
fleeing the carnage and foreign reporters who were invited in by the=20
Taliban), doesn't it seem strange that one of the earliest strikes=20
was against the UN mine-clearing facility in a civilian area, killing=20
four workers and destroying the building along with the equipment?=20
And this despite the fact that the UN had earlier notified the US of=20
the location of its offices? Why was a Red Cross office with huge=20
stores of food aid bombed, despite the fact that it could be=20
identified by the huge red cross on its roof? There are only two ways=20
these incidents can be explained: either the bombs are falling way=20
off their supposed military targets, and the Pentagon knows it, or=20
civilian facilities and civilians are deliberately being targeted.=20
Take your pick.

However, this is not the only death toll resulting from the bombing.=20
Right from the beginning, aid agencies have been warning that unless=20
massive amounts of food aid are transported to various locations=20
including remote villages before the winter makes roads impassable by=20
mid-November, up to seven-and-a-half million people could starve to=20
death. Every day that bombing continues therefore means that lakhs=20
more people will starve. The same agencies have pointed out that the=20
surreal exercise of dropping food packets during bombing raids could=20
at best keep some tens of thousands of people alive for one more day=20
(after which they will die anyway); at worst it could result in=20
people getting blown up by landmines as they run for the food. This=20
may serve as a justification for people who can't count, or for=20
pilots who would not like to think of themselves as murderers blowing=20
up women with small children, the elderly, the crippled, i.e. those=20
unable to run away from the bombing, but it is no use to the starving=20
people of Afghanistan. Total civilian casualties as a result of the=20
bombing are likely to be several millions. When you look at the NATO=20
alliance backing the war, its racist nature becomes explicable. All=20
the imperialist countries are there, including, this time, Russia,=20
represented by ex-KGB agent Putin, the butcher of Chechnya. Why=20
hasn't anyone suggested bombing the US to get rid of the right-wing=20
militias which are apparently present in every state? What can=20
explain these double standards if not racism?

In other words, this type of terrorism and the kind represented by Al=20
Qa'ida share some basic premises in common: all human beings are not=20
born equal, and it is justifiable to kill innocent civilians in the=20
pursuit of a political objective.This is what allows them to coexist=20
and collaborate with each other so easily. It is what allowed the US=20
to pour money, arms and training into the Pakistani ISI, and through=20
them to the Taliban, the Northern warlords and Osama bin Laden from=20
1979 onwards - 'aid' that has had a devastating fallout not only for=20
the women of Afghanistan, but also for those of Pakistan and Kashmir,=20
where for the first time women were recently subjected to acid=20
attacks for not wearing a burqa. It is what allows the US to continue=20
to have a close alliance with Saudi Arabia, where women are treated=20
scarcely any better than they are by the Taliban - a cozy=20
relationship best exemplified by the business association of Bush the=20
father with bin Laden the father in the Carlyle Group, whose=20
investments in armaments could mean that both fathers profit from the=20
war declared by their sons! (see Wall Street Journal 27/9/2001). It=20
is what allowed the Israeli state to promote Hamas in its effort to=20
undermine the secular elements in the Palestinian liberation=20
struggle. Finally it is also the reason why President Bush can still=20
ally himself with the warlords of the Northern Alliance, none of whom=20
accept voting rights for women, and, as the Revolutionary Association=20
of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) have repeatedly told us, raped,=20
looted and massacred their way through the regions they captured=20
after 1992.

At the same time, because these opposing forces are so similar to=20
each other in their propensity to violate human and democratic=20
rights, they also reinforce each other. There is credible evidence=20
that the US was already planning an attack on the Taliban even before=20
the September 11 events, but the terrorist strikes provided an=20
excellent pretext for that attack. Many people who would have=20
objected if the war appeared to be motivated by the desire to build=20
an oil pipeline through Afghanistan, were disarmed by the claim that=20
the purpose was a 'war against terrorism'. Those of us who still=20
object have a much harder task to convince others that this war is a=20
crime against humanity. Unlike the self-immolation of the Buddhist=20
monks in Vietnam to draw the world's attention to the rape of their=20
country, the September 11th gestures could easily be coopted by the=20
imperialist agenda. On the other side, Bush has reacted exactly as=20
bin Laden would have wanted him to; if I were cartoonist, I would=20
draw a picture of the former as a puppet with the latter pulling the=20
strings. Millions of people around the world, some of whom can hardly=20
have heard of Osama bin Laden before, now regard him as a hero; and=20
if the CIA kills him without any convincing proof of his guilt, as=20
they have now apparently been authorised to do, that will elevate him=20
to the status of a martyr, silenced because he spoke up for the=20
oppressed.

So the apparent choice - Bush or bin Laden - is really no choice at=20
all. What alternative do we have?

A worldwide movement for human rights and democracy

Freedom from forced labour, freedom of expression and association,=20
equal rights and opportunities, the right to elect one's=20
representatives to government - these are usually referred to as=20
'bourgeois democracy'. The implication is that these are values=20
upheld by the bourgeoisie, but I disagree. My contention is that=20
these are values fought for spontaneously by working people=20
throughout the world, especially working women, and supported only=20
sporadically by the bourgeoisie, whose only values are the right to=20
property and the freedom to exploit. One indication is provided by=20
the struggle for universal adult suffrage. The original idea was that=20
only males with property would have the right to vote; the=20
dispossessed and women had to fight against these restrictions, and=20
only working class women and those who supported them were=20
steadfastly in favour of universal adult suffrage.

Another indication is the ease with which the bourgeoisie attacks=20
so-called bourgeois democracy, and the fact that fascism too is a=20
form of bourgeois rule, despite its negation of all the rights and=20
freedoms listed earlier. The US, for all its tall claims to be a=20
defender of democracy, has attacked it not only abroad but even at=20
home. The McCarthy years saw a fascistic attack on democratic rights,=20
and many observers have commented that similar forces are at work=20
post-September 11 - restrictions on the right to information, freedom=20
of expression and association, the right to privacy, etc. A speaker=20
at a meeting in Bombay who had recently returned from the US said=20
that the ubiquitous Stars and Stripes reminded him of the Swastika=20
displayed everywhere in Nazi Germany. Vicious attacks on dissenters,=20
not only by the state but by other citizens, are evidence of fascism=20
developing as a mass movement. And the fact that Congress, with the=20
sole dissenting voice of Congresswoman Barbara Lee, voted to give=20
unelected President George Bush Jr. almost unlimited powers for=20
military attacks on anyone anywhere in the world, in violation of=20
international law, the UN Charter and the US Constitution, suggests=20
uncomfortable parallels with other regimes of absolute power. Let us=20
be very clear: this may be the American way of life according to=20
George Bush, but it is not democracy.

Both sides in the Cold War propagated the notion that socialism and=20
communism were the opposite of democracy, yet when these ideals were=20
first put forward, they constituted not a negation but a further=20
development of democratic control over spheres from which it is=20
normally excluded even under 'bourgeois democracy', notably=20
production relations and distribution of wealth, the repressive=20
apparatus of the state, and international relations. However, the=20
Soviet Union's use of these terms to describe policies which=20
ruthlessly crushed democratic rights both at home and abroad, all but=20
wiped out the memory of what these ideals had originally meant. If=20
the destruction of Afghanistan is one of the tragic consequences of=20
the Cold War, the destruction of the notions of democracy, socialism=20
and communism are in a different way equally tragic, because they=20
deprive us of a language in which to argue for the interests of the=20
third social force, the working people of the world. Again, I reject=20
the notion that these ideals are 'alien' to us in the Third World.=20
Perhaps they were articulated first by spokespeople like Kant, Marx=20
and Sylvia Pankhurst because capitalism, and therefore the working=20
class, had developed further in Europe than the rest of the world in=20
the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. But ordinary working people=20
anywhere in the world can respond to them if they are explained in a=20
comprehensible manner.

This, I think, is the task that faces us. We need to create a culture=20
where these values are taken for granted, in opposition to the values=20
of both communal and imperialist terrorism, and we need to do it on a=20
global scale. That's a massive task, but let me suggest a few=20
starting points here.

1) Given the present context, we need to take an absolutely clear=20
stand on the politics of both types of terrorism, and explain why it=20
is necessary to do so. We have to insist on secular states in our=20
countries, neither Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, Sinhala or Tamil,=20
because a state that is tied to any particular religious or ethnic=20
group cannot be democratic. In elections - for example, the=20
forthcoming parliamentary elections in Sri Lanka and assembly=20
elections in Uttar Pradesh in India, both of which will be crucially=20
important - the record of every candidate and party in terms of human=20
rights and secularism should be examined, and support extended or=20
withheld accordingly. Sadly, there may be many cases where we have to=20
make do with the lesser of two evils rather than a positive good, but=20
there is always a choice. At the same time, we have to explain to=20
those who have illusions in the US (and that includes the majority of=20
Americans!) why, as Gulf War resistor Jeff Paterson put it, 'Now,=20
more than ever, the people of the world are not safe from the U.S.,=20
and the people in the U.S. are not safe from the U.S.' ('A Message to=20
Troops, Would-be Troops and Other Youth', 15/10/01)

2. Wherever there are ongoing conflicts, as in Sri Lanka, Kashmir and=20
many other places in the subcontinent, we must insist that the first=20
priority for any resolution must be to safeguard the human and=20
democratic rights of all those concerned - national minorities as=20
well as local minorities, women, etc. - and this, again, cannot take=20
place except within a genuinely secular state. Some 'peace'=20
campaigners think it is possible to sidestep this issue, but any=20
'peace accord' which allows for continuing violation of fundamental=20
rights will not last long.

3. Conflicts in other parts of the world affect us, as this=20
latest crisis has shown, and we need to press for a just resolution=20
of them too. In the current situation, the most urgent issues are:=20
(a) Afghanistan: an immediate end to the bombing - since many legal=20
experts have argued that it is illegal according to international=20
law, and the death of civilians as a result of it constitute a crime=20
against humanity - and resumption of food and other aid, protected by=20
UN peace-keepers if necessary; prosecution of those responsible for=20
the terrorist attack of 11 September as well as others who have=20
committed crimes against humanity in the International Criminal=20
Court. (b) Iraq: an immediate end to the bombing, and lifting of=20
sanctions, so that adequate food, medicines and rebuilding of=20
infrastructure takes place to end the appalling loss of life there.=20
(c) Palestine: Implementation of numerous UN resolutions to bring=20
about an Israeli evacuation (including settlers and the Israeli=20
Defence Forces) from the Occupied Territories and the establishment=20
of a secular, democratic Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its=20
capital, as well as ensuring the right of return of Palestinian=20
refugees to their homeland. This would mean challenging the notion of=20
Israel as a Jewish state. As Israel Shahak, a survivor of the Belsen=20
concentration camp and citizen of Israel, writes, 'In my view, Israel=20
as a Jewish state constitutes a danger not only to itself and its=20
inhabitants, but to all Jews and to all other peoples and states in=20
the Middle East and beyond,' just as the self-definition of other=20
states as 'Arab' or 'Muslim' also constitutes a danger. He points out=20
that this communal definition resulted in close relations between=20
zionists and anti-semites: 'Perhaps the most shocking example of this=20
type is the delight with which some zionist leaders in Germany=20
welcomed Hitler's rise to power, because they shared his belief in=20
the primacy of "race" and his hostility to the assimilation of Jews=20
among '"Aryans"' (Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Pluto=20
Press,1994, pp. 2, 71). So the transformation of Israel into a=20
secular, democratic state would also be required. UN sanctions may be=20
needed to press for these changes.

4. None of this could be achieved without an international=20
movement for human rights and democracy, comprising supporters of=20
these principles in all countries including the USA and Israel. There=20
is also a need for international institutions capable of implementing=20
them. Whether the UN can play this role remains to be seen. Although=20
its role in this war has not been as shameful as in the Gulf War,=20
where it merely rubber-stamped the slaughter of civilians, it has=20
been side-lined completely so far. It seems obvious that so long as=20
permanent members of the Security Council have veto powers, the UN=20
cannot function in a democratic manner; so abolishing those veto=20
powers is one reform which needs to be made in the long term. More=20
immediately, however, the permanent International Criminal Court=20
which was agreed upon in 1998 needs to be set up to deal with crimes=20
against humanity including terrorism, war crimes and genocide. Other=20
machinery is needed to deal with violations of fundamental rights (of=20
women, workers, religious and ethnic minorities, indigenous people,=20
dalits, etc.) where governments persistently fail to do so.
5. Finally, this crisis has shown the need for alternatives to=20
the mainstream media as sources of information and communication. The=20
internet can play such a role, but only if those who have access to=20
it also disseminate the information more widely, which involves=20
translating it into local languages - a laborious task, but one=20
without which a worldwide movement for human rights and democracy=20
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=20
subscribe send a blank
message to: <act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.

--=20