All three of my young children come home from school wanting to avenge the deaths in New York and Washington. The message that we must use military force to root out the terrorists is everywhere, so their reaction is hardly surprising. But my kids dismiss my suggestion that perhaps the world would be a safer place if we peacefully resolved the cause of such widespread hatred of America. As a greenie I am quite used to holding a minority view, but to hear my family and even some green colleagues justifying more killing breaks my heart.
I am against violence whether it comes in the form of war, terrorism, freedom fighters or the anti-globalisation protesters. Trying to achieve justice through violence is a contradiction. Violence polarises positions, entrenches ideologies, maims and kills innocent people and hardens hearts.
Justice, not war
The bravest move would have been to take this horror as an opportunity to examine what the United States, its foreign policy and its dominance mean to people in the third world. But the US, and its allies, have decided unwittingly to create even more justification for hatred from many quarters, including the survivors in Afghanistan whose families are being destroyed. They will not soon forget or forgive.
Yesterday, an American journalist friend living in the West Bank saw pictures of childrens bodies being pulled out of Afghan hovels; images the American and British public are not allowed to see. The images were excised from CNN and the US Government bought and withheld all the satellite images. Not surprising therefore that the American people are ignorant of the hatred and desire for retribution being directed at them.
The US has ignored the Talibans offer to put bin Laden on trial outside the US, as the US terms are non-negotiable. Is the US to act as judge, jury and executioner? The US and Britain did accept trying Libyan intelligence agents accused in the Lockerbie bombing in a Scottish court established on the neutral soil of the Hague. Why not encourage the United States to ratify the treaty for the establishment of an international criminal court based on the tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia? If bin Laden is not seen to receive a fair trial, he and the other terrorists will become martyrs, and the war will continue indefinitely.
The real target
Is the USs condemnation of the Taliban fair? No one can endorse their appalling record, but is it worse than the Saudis? It seems that if a nation is of economic and strategic importance to the US there is no criticism. Unlike the Saudis, the Taliban refused to bow to US politics, so have had crippling sanctions imposed. Although the Afghans are not terrorists themselves, due to the resulting upheaval and resentment that country has become a haven for terrorist immigrants.
History shows that America criticises cultural values and intervenes in wars primarily to protect its own interests. It would be naive to imagine that Americas involvement in the Gulf had more to do with humanitarianism than with securing the continued supply of cheap oil. When former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked whether the death of 500,000 children due to sanctions imposed on Iraq was a price worth paying, she replied, I think this is a very hard choice but we think the price is worth it.
The media claim that the terrorists are assaulting the Wests commitment to freedom, democracy and the American way of life. In fact they targeted symbols of American political economic and military might a nexus that many believe to be responsible for increased poverty throughout the world. Certainly people recognise that the policies forced through by global trade and financial institutions (such as the World Trade Organisation, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund) have wreaked a trail of death and deprivation in countries all over the world.
Aid, not bombs
Will military might root out the terrorists that reside in 60 nations or will it create still more? People in despair turn to suicide attacks.
Will the Allies install a government that represents the Afghan people or American self-interest? A few days before September 11, the US energy information administration reported that Afghanistans significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan. As the Bush administration is awash with oil executives its hard to imagine that the present war on terrorism and the Taliban isnt designed to clear the way for the US to install a friendly government to guarantee the safe passage of oil from the worlds richest deposits.
In a moral and just world, an independent international arbitrating body like the UN would resolve disputes like the existence of a Palestinian State, US forces in Saudi Arabia and sanctions on Iraq. To prevent 7.5 million innocent Afghan people from dying of starvation over the coming harsh winter we should listen to the international aid agencies in Afghanistan and immediately end the bombing in order to distribute sustained aid. This act of compassion over retribution would encourage the Muslim people to help in our search for the terrorists. In order to limit American geopolitical interests all over the world, energy conservation measures and self-sufficiency in energy from non-oil sources such as electrical generation from wind, solar and biomass should be encouraged. But in the long run, if the US really wants to destroy terrorism it will need to fundamentally readjust its basic policies to create a level economic playing field and ensure genuine justice and national sovereignty for all.
