SOME ACTIONS ARE INTENDED TO BE BETTER THAN BEFORE: WHY/HOW? -- Part II

An Era of Apologies

Earlier official USA apologies—

I am aware of only two official US government apologies offered by the Congress, in earlier years.

1) An official apology was rendered to the thousands of Japanese-Americans citizens who were “interned” (concentration camps) during World War II, having committed no crimes. A modest recompense of $20,000 was granted to each of those who suffered those experiences and were still alive decades later. The sum was certainly very inadequate for the losses of homes, employment, schooling, businesses, and lands owned.

2) An apology was publicly and officially presented when Congress, years later, offered its regret for the “take-over” of Hawaii in 1898. The islands had been an independent nation. Collaboration of corporate land owners/growers and USA officials converted the islands into a “US Territory” for many years. Hawaii became a state after WWII, along with Alaska, making 50. [See Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. 2006]

Recent American apologies—(among others)

In 2009 there was a ceremony in Mankato, Minnesota seeking to recognize the pain and injustice of the hanging of 38 Dakota Indians in 1862.

William Calley, former US Army lieutenant, convicted of 22 counts of murder in the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, publicly apologized for the first time at a Kiwanis Club meeting in Georgia. (2009)

The American Medical Association apologized for its history of racial inequality toward African American physicians. (2008)

The Richmond-Times Dispatch in Virginia expressed regret in 2009 for supporting the state’s white political leaders to maintain separate public schools for Whites and Blacks in the 1950’s.

President Alvaro Colom of Guatemala apologized to Cuba in 1990 for his country’s role in permitting CIA training of Cuban exiles on Guatemalan soil to take part in the “Bay of Pigs” invasion in 1961.

The California legislature apologized in 2009 for that state’s persecution of the Chinese immigrants who “built” the state’s railroads.

In 2010, the British Premier apologized for the “Bloody Sunday” by British soldiers in 1972, for killing 14 unarmed civilian demonstrators.

In 2010, Serbia’s parliament passed a resolution condemning the massacre of 8000 Bosnian men and boys from Srebrenica.

In 2010, the Czech Republic doctors’ organization apologized to Jewish doctors for the persecution they endured pre-World War II in 1938 before the Nazi invasion.

The US Senate in 2009 approved a resolution apologizing to the American Indians for official depredations, the breaking of covenants with the tribes by the US government and maltreatment, violence and neglect inflicted on the American Indians by our governmental policies and US citizens.

In 2010, some Minnesota protestors called for tearing down Ft. Snelling, where 1700 Dakota women and children were imprisoned. Hundreds died of disease, exposure, and murder before their forced removal from the state.

In 2009, the US Senate passed a resolution calling on the US to apologize officially for the enslavement and segregation of millions of Blacks, to acknowledge the fundamental injustice, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow laws.

In 2000, the Pope in Rome apologized to Jews for their mistreatment at the hands of Christians over the ages. Recently the Pope has apologized publicly for the violation by priests in several countries concerning sex relations with boys.

Former President Bill Clinton apologized for the Western world’s inaction with regard to the genocide taking place in Rwanda.

Elouise Cobell, Blackfoot Indian woman, pressured our government since the days of the Reagan administration, and finally gained a “landmark settlement” for the benefit of as many as half a million Native Americans (2009). The US agreed to pay 3.4 billion dollars ($) to correct more than a century of wrongs that deprived the Indians of the justice due them. Cobell labored for 13 years to secure these commitments. She was the original plaintiff that challenged the USA to pay the royalties due for minerals extracted, grazing leases, forestry products taken, and so on, from the lands “held in trust” for the Native Americans and tribes. Although the legislation passed is far short of what may be due the Native Americans, it is the largest class action award ever to them by our government. So, to a degree, action has followed some of the “heart-felt” apologies.

However, the implementation is currently snarled. “The Obama administration would like to have the money paid out, but a few Democrats aren’t happy with the settlement, partly because of delaying tactics from Republicans. . . Whatever the reason, the delay has compounded a historic injustice. . . The Senate must make it happen.” [New York Times editorial, 8/5/10].

In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II, 100 Japanese officials and crew members of the planes that struck Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, offered their apologies, representing their government. President Obama deployed the Ambassador to Japan as an official delegate to the 65^th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. [Have we offered apologies for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The claims that those bombings were “necessary” to end the war are debatable. Japanese officials knew that they were defeated and had already approached the Soviet Union to seek an armistice and peace agreement, before the two bombings. That is my understanding of the actual history. Some commentators wondered if our military dearly wished to “try out” their new “toys.”]

Recently, from the corporate world, we have the “So sorry” statements from BP (British Petroleum or “Beyond Petroleum?”) about the Gulf tragedy from the deep sea oil drilling, “promising” to pay the costs of the damages (how defined and by whom?). Also, Target stores leadership has publicly apologized for their financial support of a Governor candidate who opposes Gay-Lesbian marriages, while the company has a “longstanding commitment to workplace equality.” (StarTribune 8/6/10)

So much for “just apologies. Words are cheap.” Indicating that oneself is sorry, very sorry, if genuine and not perfunctory, is just a first, small step. There is need for reparations, making amends for the one or group disadvantaged, with commitments to end the unwarranted inequalities. Some gains have been made in our country: the elimination of slavery; outlawing discrimination by race, creed, color, or gender; legislation for fair employment; outreach among the several religious entities; wider representation in government. President Obama probably has created the most diverse Cabinet, staff, and Commission heads of any prior Presidents. Still, the mentalities remain that are evident in Arizona’s action regarding incoming Mexicans, the public response re: the installation of an Islamic Centre near the 9/11 site in New York City, and the election of a Black President, among many other responses.

We are all human beings inhabiting the same wonderful globe, and sharing the common human needs, and distinct personal aspirations. But, sorry to say, we have yet a long way to go before Saving Paradise (by Rita N. Brock, my former colleague, and Rebecca A. Parker—Boston: Beacon Press, 2008).

SOME THINGS ARE BETTER THAN BEFORE! WHY/HOW?—YOU CONSIDER! -- Part I

Societies change. Then people change. Roles/statuses change!

Nelson Mandela—Imprisoned for 27 years; former President of South Africa: Nobel Peace prize recipient; recently removed from the USA “terrorist” list! (HR 5690)

Women gain official leadership—Many women in diverse nations and all continents have gained official leadership positions. Lynda Lovejoy, first woman candidate for presidency of the Navaho Nation, Arizona. Nilda Garre, attorney, named as first woman Minister of Defense, Argentina. Julia Gillard, first woman Prime Minister in Australia. Michelle Bachelet, first woman President of Chile. Haya Rashed al-Khalifa, Bahraini attorney, elected President of the UN General Assembly. Angela Merkel became the first woman Chancellor of Germany. Four women were candidates to the Kuwaiti parliament. for the first time women were allowed to vote. A woman serves as acting President, since the fleeing of the prior President of Kyrgyzstan. Cristina Fernanda de Kirchner serves as President of Argentina, after her husband. Dora Lakoyannis, former mayor of Athens, is the first woman appointed as Foreign Minister for Greece. Liberian President is Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. Portia Simpson Miller has been the first woman Foreign Minister for Jamaica. Dalia Grybauskaite was elected last year as Lithuanian’s first woman President. Helen Clark was recently the first woman Prime Minister of New Zealand; Megawati Silarmoputro is President of Indonesia. Gloria Macapagal Arrove is President of the Philippines (though not the first one). In Rwanda now women hold 48 percent of the legislative seats: a woman heads the Supreme Court, and; half of the judges and college students are women. Joyce Bamford-Addo, retired Supreme Court Justice, was unanimously elected Speaker of Ghana’s parliament. Yulia Tumoshenko almost won the Presidency of Ukraine (2006) in a contested result, having been former Prime Minister and was instrumental in the “Orange Revolution.” Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Laureate, joined protesters in declining to vote in the Iran 2004 elections, as a human rights lawyer. In 2002 hundreds of Nigerian women took control over four Chevron-Texaco oil facilities in the Delta. Amnesty International gave its highest honor in 2009 to Myanmar’s long-detained democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi—Ambassador of Conscience Award—in Dublin before 80,000 cheering supporters at a concert. Laura Chinchilla was recently elected President of Costa Rica.

Of course, there have been Golda Meir (Israel), Indira Gandhi (India), Margaret Thatcher (Britain) and other women prime leaders since World War II. The roles of women make them less prone to violence in most societies and are perhaps more often sensitive to human life. However, Indira Gandhi, Thatcher, and Meir were well able to conduct wars (Kashmir, Falkland Islands, or Palestine). So, we cannot assume that women leaders may be stronger leaders for peace.

As “democracy” arises, more women are joining the political process. But, the USA is “way behind” many other nations. Ranked for women’s involvement in legislatures and government, the USA is 61^st. Rwanda was first, followed by Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Iraq (with new “national assembly”—not yet very functional) was 15^th. In Saudi Arabia women can’t vote or hold office. We in the USA came close in 2008 to electing a woman President, and in 2010, close in Minnesota to electing its first woman governor. We have had three women USA Secretaries of State in a row, and now a woman is our Ambassador to the United Nations. We have 17 women in the Senate where we have no “quotas” in Congress for proportionate roles for women. With confirmation of Elena Kagan, on August 5, 2010, as a Justice of the US Supreme Court, this brings the total to three women Court judges, the first in US history. (Still not Half the Sky!)

A few variations—

Danica Patrick became in 2008 the first woman winner in Indy Car history, Japan 300.

Ada Yonath became the 2009 Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry.

Elinor Ostrom in 2009 became the first woman to win a Nobel Prize in Economics.

Sharon Lubinski, last year became the first openly gay US marshal, former police officer in Minneapolis.

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)

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?