Why Is There Terrorism? Part Three, Conclusion

Powerful vs. Weak/Privileged vs. Disadvantaged

“Terrorism” does not arise from a vacuum. There are reasons for such violence, though we may reject the rationales given by the initiators or the recipients of such tragic and disruptive actions. Understanding and ameliorative actions need to follow if such problems are to be truly resolved, not just accentuated.

Part I dealt with “terrorism” as experienced within families and/or communities. Resolution of such behaviors can best be dealt with on the local level.

Part II reviewed our nation’s behaviors in relation to other countries. Our frequent exhibition of official arrogance, double standards, unilateralism, and claims to “exceptionalism” irritate even our “allies” and anger our “opponents,” internationally.

Now, how did we become an “empire”? [One citizen crowed: “Sure, we’re an empire. Let’s make the most of it!” We have!] How did we gradually come to be so extensive and powerful since 1789? This continent had been occupied by indigenous peoples for thousands of years, with self-sustaining cultures. These Native Americans faced the intrusion of Europeans, with some initial friendly relationships. However, bows and arrows were no match for guns. Diseases for which the natives had no prior contact, or had developed resistance, proved fatal to thousands.

In violation of the British Crown’s regulations, colonists passed through the Appalachians. So began the western movement across the continent, initiating the “Manifest Destiny” that John Adams, our second President, considered in eyeing the Caribbean. The 1803 Louisiana Purchase from France doubled the size of the original “colonies.” A gradual “genocide” of Native Americans began. Thereafter, Indians killing whites were “massacres”, whereas whites killing Indians were “victories.” [Labeling theory].

The 1848 Mexican-American War was strongly opposed by Lincoln, then a Congressman, because it was “trumped up.” Our early republic then gained about half of Mexico, creating much of our Southwest. The purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 added an area about twice the size of Texas. The 1898 Spanish-American War, became a Philippine-American War, Thousands of the islanders died as they were about to declare their independence from Spain, which the USA did not grant them until after WWII, 60 years later. Puerto Rico was also obtained after that war and is still a USA colony in 2010. Cuba was allowed to gain independence after our generals secured the commitment for the “perpetual” use of Guantanamo base, to be “leased” to the USA. [Since the Batista dictatorship, I understand that Cuba does not cash the “rental checks”, contending, correctly that the base area is Cuban territory, but under complete US control. In 1898, Hawaii was acquired via a manipulated non-violent “coup” becoming a US “territory.” More than a half-century later, Hawaii became one of the two last USA States. Being one of the “winning allies” in World War II, the USA acquired a number of South Sea Islands, including the Marianas (Guam, among them). [Like the earlier British empire spread, the sun also doesn’t set on the USA empire].

Meanwhile, there were Indian wars in the 1800’s, followed by the forced movement of the Native Americans onto reservations, most of them with few resources. Numerous treaties made with the Indians were often revised or ignored. The Native Americans of diverse tribal cultures found it difficult to retain their languages and cultures. Their much reduced original populations were granted US citizenship only in 1924.

Were the persons who constituted the populations of all these acquisitions even asked if they wished to be American/US citizens? None that I know of. The people were “acquired” with the land, without consent on their part: some just “taken”, several by purchase, and others from warfare.

The USA now has hundreds (some say 700) military bases in more than 100 countries! What impact on these populations does the presence of US military bases have on their sovereignty, freedom of action, choice? The Okinawans in the late 1990’s voted for the US military to leave. Tokyo ignored their desire. Ecuador has closed the American base at Manta. Stateside and Puerto Rican “peace groups”, with non-violent actions, recently forced the closure of the Navy base on Vieques Island. Military bases generally bring exploitation of the “native” women, among other problems. How many military bases of foreign nations exist in the USA? None that I know. [How would we respond if foreign bases peppered our landscape?]

France, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Belgium and other “colonial powers” began releasing their colonies after WW II or after struggles by those being occupied. We remain THE EMPIRE. Colonial powers became the objects of resistance by the populations that felt dominated, manipulated. “First World” nations’ economies invaded the weaker for their resources and cheap labor. “Terrorists” do not seem focused on Sweden, Norway and other non-colonial powers. The “First World” dominates the World Bank, the UN, World Trade Organization and other mechanisms of the privileged and technically advanced nations.

The natural resources and cheap labor of the poorer nations are sought and exploited by these “foreigners”. [Let’s observe carefully what occurs, related to the recent discovery of numerous mineral deposits in Afghanistan!] These resources are Afghanistan’s—foreign corporations will “move in” to gain control. Will the Afghans profit by their own resources, for schools, health care, and so on? Why “must” control and profit from the resources be by others? [I do not wish to live well at the expense of decent lives for other people.] Under the circumstances, the weaker, poorer nations are often manipulated via monetary adjustment and into permanent debt to those who remain dominant. [See Perkins, below]. Those with greater power maintain dominance over the usually smaller, weaker countries. Our “American way of life” stems in significant degree from the exploitation of the resources and cheap labor (kept that way) of the lesser powers. Over time, such control brings opposition, sometimes by violence, by the weaker population’s resistance to perpetual poverty. So-called “Terrorism” can be a response against repressors.

If a population doesn’t have helicopters, high-flying bombers, and other “sophisticated” martial equipment, some repressed, disadvantaged individuals, lacking hope for change, utilize the only weapon they have—their own bodies. Suicide bombers have dreams for education, family, food, health, and hope. They do not destroy themselves “willy-nilly.” Their despair, failure to discern change for the better, makes them very susceptible to aggressive tactics. [Without hope for their futures is living worthwhile?] The suicide bombers do indeed give their lives; whereas some military personnel, in guarded rooms pushing buttons, send drones off to kill people, take lives and receive medals. Who exhibit the most courage, risking the most? Labeling theory applies. The powerful refer to the suicide bombers as “terrorists”. They control the media and officialdom and make the label stick. Their own brutalities are not so designated!

The Nuremberg trials were against the losers of WWII. Those who dropped the nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities, who created “shock and awe” in Iraq, have not been charged with inhumanity to others. We maintain prisons for “suspects.” They have lacked access to family or legal aid, charges or legitimate trials. Often they had experienced torture, well documented for hundreds. Double standards are applied. Warfare is brutal, inhumane, wasteful and counter-productive no matter who conducts it. War should be viewed as an obsolete response to threats in modern “civilization.”

During the Gulf War, British and American planes bombed Iraqi water plants, electrical facilities, hospitals, sewage disposal, and so on. Human rights agencies indicate that about a million Iraqis died. Half of them were children under five, dying mostly from lack of medical aid for treatable diseases and injuries. Weren’t those actions “terroristic”? “Double standards” are employed by our “peaceful”, well intentioned USA against others who, close to hopelessness, are labeled “terrorists.”

“Terrorists” can be “readily” recruited when large life disparities exist and continue after civil pressures have failed to bring basic changes. The American CIA and other affiliated “secret” entities currently are authorized to seek out and kill noncombatant civilians. Should those American agents be imprisoned, tortured, held for years as others have been at Guatanamo and Abu Ghraib [See Miles, below]. Understandably, some of us demonize opponents, ignoring the demons in our own national behaviors. Robert Naiman, indicated that the “Gaza Flotilla Did More than 10,000 Rockets!” (See Naiman, below)

Violence is not necessary. There are always alternate choices for “conflict resolution!” [Our current administration asserts that nuclear weapons would be used as a “last resort.” Such could create the greatest disaster ever experienced!] India gained its independence from Britain with nonviolence. The three small Baltic nations brought the Soviet Union’s removal with a united nonviolent physical demonstration. Though quite a few went to prison, Norwegian teachers did not accept the Nazi education goals. Norway and Sweden separated peaceably in the early 1900s. Australia became a nation without violence by joining their several “colonies.” The UN is currently working to bring peace to Sudan with a north-south separation. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned us that we must pursue nonviolence if we are to avoid nonexistence!

We as a nation, and the global community, are at a “fork in the road.” We need to follow “the road less traveled!” If we are to confront adequately the challenges of climate change, we cannot continue having warfare and investing half of our Congressional “discretionary budget” for military-related endeavors. We need to marshal all possible talents, resources, and commitments to secure a future for the coming human generations and all other living beings. Resistance to making these accommodations will make their lives worse. If we, as the most powerful nation, continue to use warfare as an instrument to foreign policy, we will not end “terrorism”, retain a democracy, or have peace. The recent Supreme Court decision granting “personhood” to corporations, undercuts “one person, one vote.” We are now a plutocracy. Such a military-industrial complex, about which Eisenhower warned us, seems to have arrived full-force. “Fear of terrorism” is bringing threats to our civil rights.

Climate change can create deserts from former food production land, flood low-land populations, destroy glacial water sources, and so on. Severe stress could result over time in massive “dog-eat-dog” human struggles, and extensive terrorism! [See Brown note, below].

There are actions we can take. Directly or indirectly, they all have relevance to “terrorism.” We can with delays bring about our own Armageddon.

1) Strengthen the United Nations so it may intervene promptly in incipient genocidal movements.
The UN also needs to be more democratically arranged. Why should Britain have Security Council veto and not India or Brazil? Why should the General Assembly gather with only a “suggestive” capacity? The UN also needs better financing. [See Schwartzberg note below].

2) Our world leaders, official and otherwise, need to respect not only the more privileged nations at conferences (like Copenhagen) dominated by them, but also to genuinely respond to subsequent conferences like Cochabomba (Bolivia), which enabled the generally less powerful to voice their concerns. The latter were virtually ignored by the media and major powers. “Being ignored” fosters “terrorism”.

3) The USA should join the majority of nations and ratify a number of important treaties we have thus far declined to support: international standards about the rights of women (while we oppose the treatment of women in some countries), rights of children (while we are seemingly involved in financing child soldiers in Somalia), law of the sea, the International Criminal Court, Kyoto, and other endeavors to set climate change firm goals (while being the greatest contributor of carbon levels).

4) We should abide by the treaties we have already ratified, and often violated—nuclear weapon aid, Geneva Conventions, United Nations’ charter regarding warfare, violations of the OAS charter, by numerous intrusions in the internal affairs of Latin American nations, frequent coups, invasions and occupations.

5) Our government should cease support of dictators, which we have often done for extensive periods of time. Dictatorships create opposition, often violent, which some would label “terrorism” as the suppressed seek justice.

6) Remove our troops from the 100’s of our military bases around the world. [We have no foreign bases in the USA that I know.] The cost saved can be used for our own domestic needs and for genuine humanitarian aid abroad. The dollars saved can then aid these returned military to have their income continued for a designated period to enable them to return to civilian life, reunite with family, pursue more education, and/or find meaningful employment.

7) Assess our behavior abroad with those of other nations’ people with a single, not double standard. (“They are warlike; we are peaceful!”)

8) Terminate the intrusion of military aspects in our civilian life and public schools. ROTC faculty need not even have a college degree. ROTC costs the local school expenses. They provide trips to military bases, teach the military perception of world events, provide honors at graduation, and have full access to all the students for administering “aptitude” tests (which the students assume are required but are not). Young students are insufficiently informed to challenge the claims of recruiters. The Minnesota National Guard recently had a full page ad seeking enrollment in their youth educational program. I am not aware that such programs are the function of National Guard units. In recent New Years Days TV broadcast the national football game by high school students, with military insignia on their uniforms. Our civil society is being gradually, subtly militarized.

9) Every reader, if they wish to counter the stimuli that war brings, can join, help finance, and publicly support nonviolent peace groups in endeavors, such as the International Nonviolent Peace Force, Peace Brigades International, Witness for Peace, and other organizations. All of these groups operate abroad and the volunteers accept the personal risks in battle zones. We need to personally risk for peace, no longer for war. We can make peace possible, war never can

Back to the beginning: “I do not love my country because it is perfect. I want to perfect my country because I love it!”

1) Lester R. Brown, Plan B 4: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble. (2009)
2) Nicolas Kristof/Sheryl WuDunn, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. (2009)
3) Steven Miles, Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity and the War on Terror (2006)
4) Greg Mortenson/David Relin, Three Cups of Tea (2006) (Pakistan endeavors)
5) Robert Naiman, “Hamas Lawmaker: Gaza Flotilla Did More Than 10,000 Rockets,” Truth Out
July 7, 2010.
6) Joseph Schwartzberg, Designs for a Workable World re: United Nations reforms (in process)