Definition of terrorism appears unclear
By Ryan A. Dodd
Since the events of Sept. 11, terrorism, in the minds of most U.S. citizens, now claims a prominence never before considered feasible. The reason being that things like this just don't happen in the U.S., or so the logic once went. The attacks on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon coupled with the recent anthrax scare caught people off guard and in turn has forced many to reevaluate the manner in which they view the security of this nation. For others and myself, the issue strikes a severely deeper chord. In the haze of overzealous patriotism and media fanaticism a "New War" began or, perhaps more probable, an ongoing war surfaced. In either case, president George W. Bush has declared a "War on Terrorism," but the true connotations of this phrase and its denotative implications on the entire world merits critical consideration.
When asked in an interview to define the word "terrorism," MIT linguistics professor and long-time social dissident, Noam Chomsky, responded by stating that terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." Chomsky further alluded to the fact that this definition mirrors the official U.S. interpretation in governmental documents. This definition allows for no distinction - whether individuals, groups or states commit said acts. However, the practice in dominant political discourse is to use this term, for the most part, when referring to individuals, groups or organizations that oppose the interests of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, more specifically the U.S.
The events of Sept. 11 clearly fit Chomsky's definition. The blatant murder of over 5,000 human beings is an act of terrorism in any sense of the word. The same remains true for the economic terrorism resulting in the murder of over 1,000,000 Iraqi men, women and children due to U.S./U.N. economic sanctions.
Now, whenever the Iraqi example arises the common rebuttal is to point to the "Beast of Baghdad," Saddam Hussein, as a threat to world security and the ideals of peace, equality and freedom. The logic behind this argument is incoherent, not to mention hypocritical. This is not to deny Hussein as one of the worst human rights violators of the 20th century, which he most certainly is; rather the objective is to critically evaluate the rationale behind the sanctions, specifically in two dimensions.
First, the institution of sanctions that kill innocent people (whom Hussein was previously gassing and murdering on his own accord) through lack of food and medication in an attempt to stop Hussein's proliferation of arms is inhumane and quite ridiculous. Hussein still possesses food, medicine, and bombs.
Second, let us not be ignorant to the fact that the same U.S. government which condemned Hussein as "Hitler reincarnate," helped fund, with full knowledge I may add, the greatest of his atrocities all throughout the 80s, including the bombing of a U.S. ship resulting in the deaths of 16 soldiers, against which the U.S. did not respond militarily. As long as Hussein kept Iran in check and followed orders, he was considered a friend. But at the prompting of a closer U. S. associate, the Saudis, a war began when Hussein misinterpreted U.S. permission to restructure the Iraqi and Kuwaiti border to mean he could invade Kuwait.
This highlights the standard U.S. protocol in foreign policy: set up or fund governments in tactical and resourceful areas, generally military dictatorships in disguise, supply these governments with weapons and other means of suppressing civil revolts, manipulate their actions towards benefiting the U.S., and then bomb them out of power when their alliance waivers.
None of the previous statements condemning U.S. policy abroad validates the transgressions of Hussein or the masterminds of the Sept. 11 massacre. Both should be considered atrocities against humanity and the perpetrators held accountable, including the U.S. government in the case of Iraq. Therefore, let it be reiterated that the definition of terrorism makes no distinction between atrocities committed by organizations and individuals or those committed by states.
The murder of innocent human beings can never be justified. In the words of a letter written to me by a dear friend shortly after Sept.11, "I just don't understand how the loss of life and the pain that follows doesn't, by the intensity of its nature, automatically illuminate the preciousness of all life." It appears as if the lives of nearly 6,000 Americans is more precious than the lives of nearly 7,000,000 starving Afghans. George Bush likes to use the phrase, "I will make no distinction," well neither will I in reference to life.
On learning these political views I hold, many in opposition enlist two specific defenses;. First, some pervert my critique of the U.S. to signify support of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Secondly, others state that a lack of specific alternatives negates my argument against bombing Afghanistan. These are both fallacies.
The Taliban is a totalitarian government that oppresses the people of Afghanistan, especially women, on a daily basis. I absolutely concur with those proclaiming the Taliban should be removed. My question is, where was the U.S. government five years ago or even one year ago and when did we become the world's morality enforcer? The government only became "concerned" with the oppressive Taliban when it suited the propagandistic motives of rallying support for "The War on Terrorism." Also, if Washington feels so much empathy for the dispossessed masses of Afghanistan where does 21 days of bombing a country with nothing left to bomb and the facade dubbed "humanitarian aid" fit into this construct?
The use of the term humanitarian aid is particularly disturbing. Roughly 1,000,000 one-day rations, assuming all of them reach the proper destination, is simply a drop in the bucket for some 6,000,000 starving individuals approaching a harsh winter. Doctors Without Borders, last year's recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize, criticized the drop as a public relations ploy to garner support for the war. The question then arises, "Well something needs to be done, what else can we do?"
Personally, I don't think a simple clear-cut answer to that inquiry exists, considering the wheels set in motion by U.S. reactionary behavior. Perhaps, in earlier stages the government, acknowledging that this conflict is not contained within a historical vacuum, could have approached the UN Security Council and met with the other members of the Global community that military action will affect. To do so now, would be in effect to ask the government to admit its mistakes and start from scratch, which is highly implausible without serious pressure from the public.
The Achilles heal of the U.S. government and a majority of its public is the need for instant gratification, if something isn't getting blown up, then nothing productive is happening. Quick fix solutions to problems of this magnitude simply mute effects rather than address the roots of injustice. This tunnel vision view of global relationships and double standard policy towards terrorism, paraphrasing Ani DiFranco, fights the symptoms while spreading the disease.
A war on terror is a contradiction in terms - war reaps havoc and terror. Before increasing momentum for the cycle of violence let us evaluate what implications an objective "War on Terrorism" would have on U.S. presence in global affairs.