Why Is There "Terrorism?" -- Part Two

At a court trial involving numerous citizens who had “trespassed” on the property of Alliant Tech, a young woman defendant began her presentation to the judge, saying: “I do not love my country because it is perfect. I want to perfect my country because I love it.” This essay has been prepared with this same sentiment and context. [Alliant Tech, Minnesota’s largest weapon manufacturer, was then located in Edina].

Each of us, as well as national and/or cultural entities, carry some “mythical baggage” that aid us and them to believe in our “goodness” and aids “self-respect.” Collectively and personally we consider ourselves to be “peace-loving,” “generous”, and law-abiding.”

Why did Americans support policies that brought suffering to people in foreign lands? . . . . . the deepest belief of most Americans (is) that their country is a force for good in the world. Thus, by extension, even the destructive missions the United States embarks on to impose its authority are tolerable. Generations of American political and business leaders have recognized the power of the noble idea of American exceptionalism. When they intervene abroad for selfish or ignoble reasons, they always insist that, in the end, their actions will benefit not only the United States but also the citizens of the country in which they are intervening—and by extension, the causes of peace and justice in the world. (Kinzer, page 107).

Arrogance. -- Being a bit presumptuous is one quality that our officials abroad have sometimes manifested. a) Bolton, our Ambassador to the United Nations during the term of George W. Bush, was one of our most arrogant representatives. b) During an interview on TV by a well-known US journalist with the President of Iran, in a very brief moment, a staff member entered and delivered a note to the guest. The American journalist had the gall to ask, “What’s in your note?” c) President Obama, usually very careful in speaking, has indicated that the USA (America) should regain its “leadership” of the world community, recognizing that in recent years we’ve disappointed even some of our closest European allies with our decisions and actions. Who elected us to be “leader”? Some of us believe that the USA now needs to be a better “follower”, supporter, before presuming to be the leader! How many international laws have we been violating? How many desirable treaties have we opposed? How lacking in treating other nations as equals? Do we wish to be “king on the hill?”

“Conflict resolution”—Do we respect the “sovereignty and rights” of other nations? Currently, half of the discretionary Congressional budget (the portion voted on each session excluding Social Security and Medicare) is allotted to war-related endeavors. Included are the Pentagon (increasing each time), supplemented by allotments for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars), Veterans Affairs (inadequate for present and future care needs), nuclear programs of the Energy Department, interest on the Vietnam debt, and so on. Our military budget exceeds that of every other nation or virtually the sum of them all! We have military bases in at least 100 countries. [Some say 700 bases in 130 countries, depends on definition, size of the base, etc.] How many foreign military bases are located in the USA? None that I know of. [The Naval base in Vieques, Puerto Rico, did “rent out” some “bombing practice time” to allies; but the base was forced to close]. Obama is currently arranging for seven new US military sites in Colombia. Plan Colombia, which we strongly finance, fumigates peasants farms, killing all crops, forcing peasants off the land and into refugee sites elsewhere (the second largest percentage of in-country refugees in the world, with a corrupt “drug war”, with more assassinations by the para-militaries we finance than by the rebel FARC elements. Our current “help” is very detrimental.

US troops have invaded Latin American nations at least 80 times, and stayed for a decade or more in several cases. We’ve been instrumental in arranging coups in numerous countries against democratically elected presidents, often by assassinations and generally with CIA involvement. For example: Arbenz (Guatemala), Zelaya (Honduras), Aristide (Haiti), Chavez (Venezuela, briefly), Allende (Chile), Massadegh (Iran), in Vietnam and other arenas.

In contrast, the USA has supported numerous dictators for lengthy periods: the juntas in Uruguay and Argentina (part of Operation Condor, with CIA involvement), Pinochet (Chile), Batista (Cuba), the Somozas (Nicaragua), Hernandez (El Salvador), Stroesner (Paraguay), Banzer (Bolivia), and Noriega (Panama), whom we later deposed and sent to trial and prison, among others.

Unilateralism—the foregoing data indicate that the USA has been audacious as a “super-power,” for taking military actions against other nations, when we wished, where we chose, and for whatever rationales we expressed, with little regard for international laws, charters of the United Nations or Organization of American States (the OAS). We helped organize the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which tends to “circumvent” United Nations involvement, as in Afghanistan. We were instrumental in organizing SEATO in Southeast Asia and are in the process of establishing an American African Command. Since 1945 the USA has bombed 20 countries. [Compiled by historian, William Blum]. With regard to our “indirect involvement” in Nicaragua’s Contra War, we ignored the World Court’s decision against us, assessing several millions of dollars for our damages to the country. [Like not paying a parking ticket!] Congress has not “officially” declared war since 1942. (Re” Iraq, Bush was given authority “to do what is deemed necessary.”) Since my birth, we seem to be engaged in “perpetual war”!

Double standards/Exceptionalism—Inconsistencies and irritations, for other nations as well, result from our “duplicity” in the application of permissible behaviors and regulations. a) For example, it is against our US laws for any foreign nation to be involved in our election processes. Yet we have financed dissidents, opposition candidates, and media in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua in Latin America and elsewhere in the world. b) Israel, the USA and others have refused from the beginning to recognize the election of Hamas via a democratic election by its citizens. We have accepted the results of very questionable elections elsewhere and dealt with their leadership. c) We condemn “terrorist tactics” by opposition forces while employing practices against opponents that can also be defined as “terrorist.” [Elaboration in Part III]. d) A major problem arises regarding the implementation of treaty regulations re: nuclear developments for energy and/or weapon purposes. Regarding Iran, under increasingly greater pressure to cease nuclear development, “double standards” are again involved. The Nonproliferation Treaty authorizes any nation to pursue nuclear programs for energy creation for civic use. Those who already have nuclear weapons may keep them; but others are not to develop them or aid others to create them. Iran has signed the Treaty. Israel, India, Pakistan—near neighbors, have not, yet they possess nuclear weapons. Iran, as a co-signer of the Treaty is pressed, with increasing penalties, for pursuing nuclear developments that could become weapon-level. The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna has not yet concluded that Iran actually is making nuclear weapons or has them, if that is their intent. Are Israel and the other neighbors open to full inspections of their nuclear weapon possessions? Standards should be the same for all countries! During the recent Bush years, India was aided by the USA to enhance its nuclear potential, and an Indian scientist has shared nuclear data with other countries. What does a very important treaty mean to us? e) Finally, there is obvious imbalance between the powers of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly powers, in the process of treaty implementation. The few, most powerful nations that constitute each UN Security Council, are able to oppose/penalize actions of any of the other 130+ nations that constitute the General Assembly, regarding any Treaty implementations. However, a veto by any of the “Big Five” et al makes it unable to act against the behaviors of one or more of its members! f) With regard to Treaties, President George W. Bush forwarded six treaties to the Congress, none of which have been ratified. He also reversed US support for at least six major treaties:
1) Ending US involvement in the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change negotiations.
2) Violating the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty by developing new nuclear
weapons and negotiating a new pact with Russia that does not comply with Treaty terms.
3) Pulling out of the negotiations for a verification protocol under the Biological
Toxins Weapons Convention.
4) Reversing a prior US commitment to ratify the Landmines Treaty by 2006.
5) Withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and
6) Nullifying the obligations of the US signature on the International Criminal
Court.
Of the total 550 treaties, the USA has ratified 160, or 29%. Among others still in abeyance are Rights of the Child, Rights of Women, Law of the Sea,, Migrant Workers; and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban. [The Treaty Database: US Compliance with Global Treaties. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, St. Paul. (2005 data)]

References

Noam Chomsky, Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs, 2000

Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, 2006

Why Is There "Terrorism" Domestic and International?

Dictionary definitions of “terrorism” are not helpful when they record that “terrorism” is the use of terrorizing methods!” A state of fear, panic, fright is produced. Terrorism doesn’t arise from a vacuum. There are reasons! Citizens and their leaders need to understand WHY, if problems are to be addressed effectively. The uses of fear, threats regarding personal dangers, are utilized to control individuals or groups. Such manipulation of feelings can be utilized even by one’s own nation to build and maintain military power. e.g. “Fear levels”, with colors, are announced. Continued support for production of weaponry serves corporations’ interests in maintaining profits. Remember President Eisenhower’s caution about the “military-industrial complex.” [We seem now to be in a state of perpetual warfare.]

Domestic settings—Terror tactics can appear within households and family life, between husbands and wives, men and women “friends”, and in parent-child relationships. In our own communities we often read/hear about husbands/men physically abusing their wives/partners, resulting in serious injury or death of a spouse. Women being “courted” are sometimes victims of male “friends” who hold the assumption that “If I can’t have her, neither can another.” Women often need to seek court orders to protect themselves in advance of such tragedies, being “terror stricken”, in relationships with abusive males who have the greater physical power.

Physical violence and aggressive behaviors are fostered in our culture, promoting male aggressiveness rather than “conflict resolution” techniques for resolving interpersonal difficulties. It is not easy in our society to rear boys to be really “gentle men.” Militarization is increasing within the schools and the wider society priorities. TV films with violence and computer “war games” are accepted as “entertainment.” Terror is also expressed in the lives of children in response to abusive parents/caretakers. [It is recognized that virtually all of us have our limits to exasperating behaviors in children. Some adults “cease to reason” and severely terrorize their children, even injuring them severely.] When parents lose employment, confront mortgages they can’t pay, don’t have sufficient $$ for food and other family needs, the strain can result in severe abuse of children. “Terrorism” isn’t restricted to “foreigners in other nations.” [See Part II for international aspects].

Community “gangs”— Each generation confronts its own problems, often with different responses than prior ones. “Street gangs” do not arise in a vacuum either. These “groups,” challenge each other physically, often with lethal weaponry. A few young women, but mostly young males, form close relationships and identities with others in their area, their claimed domain, a “territorial” claim. They are often, perhaps generally, unemployed, not attending school regularly (or not faithfully), and thus probably have distraught adults/parents who have lost control over their youth. Gang members create their own symbols, hand signals, colors specific to their clothing. They endeavor to retain control over “their segment” of a selected area of the community. Some social scientists recognize that in modern, urban disjointed communities these “gangs” serve as substitute “families” for individuals that support each other, adrift from general norms. The claims to area domination, as rivals to other nearby gangs, often result in “terrorism” in the streets endangering others besides themselves. They challenge their opponents using fear, threats of injuries or death.

During the New Deal of the 1930’s there were several national programs for youth. The NYA (“National Youth Act”) provided financial aid for pursuing education while the youth were employed in part-time jobs. WPA—The Work Progress Administration provided employment with diverse opportunities. The CCC, Civilian Conservation Corps employed young men, full-time with pay, to repair and construct trails in national forests and parks, work on construction tasks, and so on. These “Great Depression” aids provided youth who were not in school and were unemployed, with some constructive jobs, wages, and training, reducing the idleness that otherwise would likely foster gang behavior. [I personally benefited from the NYA student aid program, working for 30 cents an hour in the University of Colorado mail room. I graduated from college without owing a cent!]

Cultural domination—There are many instances in the world—past and present—whereby ethnic/cultural populations have been incorporated, without their full consent, even against their desires, to be under the rule of another and dominant population. They are coerced to remain ruled as a suppressed minority with little hope for change. They oppose the coercion over time, increasingly resistant to the impediments put upon them by the dominant power. Without perceptive ameliorative actions by the dominant power, the oppressed build means to force changes, often through violence. They rebel, but are viewed as “terrorists” by those holding official power. [E.g. Violence in a divided Ireland, Basques in Spain, Tamils in Sri Lanka, among others.]

Increasing pressure from the suppressed minority may result in severe reactions on the part of those in power. Those controlling the government usually resist making the changes necessary to satisfy the challenging minority. Power is not usually or readily altered until “greater pressures,” even force, are employed by the minority. Much tragedy could be avoided with greater wisdom. [The British could have given India its independence “more promptly” and France could have offered Algeria its freedom earlier, avoiding the tragic delays and sufferings; but they did not so act]. Limited space doesn’t permit elaboration of the many instances that continue “colonialism” [the USA relations with Puerto Rico, Guam, the Palaus, and other island “possessions.”]

The Kurds were separated after WWI by the colonial powers, and they have since lived separated in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. [They would have been satisfied with a Kurdistan!] The Armenians have been under strong Turkish control/influence, including a genocide of the former by the latter, now being admitted finally by the Turks, who are proceeding with some greater recognition of Armenian desires. The Tamils have suffered badly in the recently terminated war in Sri Lanka, but remain subordinated. The Chechnya of Russia have suffered severe casualties, but remain forcibly in Russia. East Timor, after much suffering from the Indonesian military, now struggle with independence. In our own nation, the Native Americans lost their centuries-old tribal lands to the expansion of the initial 13 colonies, being subjected ever since to less productive living areas and limited lives.[Our Native Americans did not receive US citizenship until 1924!]

In each of these instances, the dominating powers employed much force to gain and retain control over the weaker, suffering cultural entities. The powerful victors, with greater control of media and other platforms, tend to label the rebelling minorities as “terrorists,” whereas their own more powerful and damaging actions are “patriotic.”
[More about labeling theory in Part II]. Current examples are the often suicidal resistance of the oppressed using what they have—their “bodies”—lacking helicopters, cannon, bulldozers, white phosphorus, bombers, drone planes, electronic communications, and so on. Is a “suicidal terrorist” in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Gaza any less human and courageous than our military personnel, [or those of Israel, for example] who “push buttons” in some secluded place to destroy their weaker challengers? Are we content with double standards of the value of human life?