Achin Vanaik
FORTRESS AMERICA
'It is time to stand up and oppose the US-led coalition which will wage war on Afghanistan
and to call on India not to join it.'
On September 11 morning, two hours before we were supposed to land at
Washington's Dulles airport, our plane got diverted to Montreal, Canada.
Making our way down by land over the next two days into upstate New York,
Maryland and Washington, one was able to get an insight into the public
mood not just from the international CNN-type broadcasting stations or the
major dailies but from a host of local TV stations and local newspapers as
well as from the average citizen met and spoken with. The popular reaction
provided sources of both hope and despair. Hope, in that the shared moral
outrage expressed across boundaries of race, religion and ethnicity
testified to the existence of a universal humanitarian decency. Despair,
that this potential for a moral sensitivity that is impartial and universal
was stymied by the rapid surfacing of a predominantly nationalist
insularity of response to the tragedy.
The main question that preoccupied Americans was not why did this happen
but how could it happen? Or rather, insofar as the why question was posed
it was quickly disposed of to most peoples' satisfaction. The perpetrators
are mindless terrorists or religious fanatics who hate America and what it
stands for which is decency, democracy, freedom, etc. Rare were the voices
(mostly religiously inspired pacifists or uncompromisingly liberal
elements) who were prepared to say that the US must not seek revenge by
waging war on Afghanistan or engage in activities that would itself amount
to terrorism, i.e. killing the civilians of other countries. Rarer still
were the voices of those who were prepared to point out even as they
expressed their pain and outrage against the attacks on New York and
Washington, that the US government's unjust actions abroad have helped
create the breeding ground from which sub-state and combat group terrorists
have emerged.
Wholly admirable was the way in which people across the country united to
support and offer help in the carrying out the necessary relief measures.
Similarly, there was a perceptive and sensitive discourse in the media on
what the efforts to avoid such attacks in the future might portend
regarding restriction of civil liberties thereby weakening the freedoms and
decencies of American society. Barring the fringe, most public political
figures opposed attacks on Americans of Arab, South Asian origin or on
ordinary Muslims in the country. That would be a betrayal of the values
that the US is supposed to stand for. Even rightwing Republican leaders
made it a point to say that this was not a war between the West and Islam
but between the rest of the world and terrorism.
Largely absent, however, was any recognition that the ugliest part of the
American 'way of life' has been its foreign policy behaviour which has
itself involved even more barbaric acts or campaigns of terror. The record
here is simply awesome to contemplate, both in numbers and scale. It
includes the nuclear bombing of civilians in Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the use of
chemical weapons in Vietnam where the US killed over two million civilians,
the use of sanctions since the Gulf War which have led to the deaths of 1.2
million Iraqis of whom 500,000 were children, a 'price' whose 'payment'
Madeliene Albright justified. Instead of any media self-introspection on
these grounds, there was an even stronger display of self-righteousness
than usual. Civilization, best represented and led by the US, was under
attack. Therefore, all those (whether countries, groups or individuals) who
might refuse to support what the US government intended to do in
retaliation were effectively enemies of not just the US but of all
civilized values.
Given such a mood, it was hardly surprising that two premiers of Israel
should try and seize the opportunity to harden the attitudes of the
American government and public towards the plight of the Palestinians. The
former Israeli premier, Netanyhu called for the destruction of the
Palestinian National Authority as a terrorist outfit while Sharon called
Arafat another Bin Laden. They were supported by numerous prominent
American personalities declaring in print and TV/radio that now America
knew what Israel has been suffering all along. Matters were not helped by
repeated broadcastings of film clips of Palestinians celebrating the
attacks. Arafat's act of donating blood was not an effective counter in the
public relations battle consciously being waged by the American right and
Israel at this juncture.
One thing is quite clear. Even if the evidence the US government is
accumulating is not sufficient to establish a legally defensible case about
an accused or suspect (Bin Laden in this case) it simply could not afford
to admit as much. The public desire for revenge is so strong that it has to
act. There are several historical precedents for this, the most recent
being after the 1998 bombings of US Embassies in East Africa. The US on the
flimsiest basis bombed a pharmaceutical complex in Sudan which suffered
unknown "collateral damage" (i.e. civilian deaths) and has ever since
blocked independent UN investigation into its claim that it was justified
in doing so because it was part of Bin Laden's network of activities.
Of course, the US government is not simply responding to domestic pressure.
The speed with which 'long range thinking' was put into place was also
remarkable. It is clear that it wishes to seize this opportunity to launch
something like an 8-10 year campaign to attack (in all continents) all
armed sub-state groups (and selected regimes) which are considered to be
unacceptable to American interests. So the issue is not just Bin Laden and
his network but the overthrow of the Taliban regime itself, followed by
other targets to be highlighted as and when Washington chooses. This is not
a war against terrorism but an effort to establish maximum freedom of
military-political activity (of a kind and scale never before envisioned)
for the US throughout the world. Indeed, in the guise of fighting one kind
of terrorism it is sanctioning the freedom to carry out another kind.
Returning to India after the Washington trip, one was again shaken by much
of the public and media response. After initial expressions of horror, the
main preoccupation seems to be how India can obtain enough foreign policy
benefit, i.e. swing the US government over to 'our' side against Pakistan
and its sponsorship of terrorism in Kashmir. The overall result is that
only a small minority (though bigger than the even smaller minority in the
US) of publicly articulated opinion declares that in the fight against
international terrorism, it is not just sub-state actors/combat groups
(whether or not supported/sponsored by states) that are the culprits but
that states themselves are guilty of directing/executing terrorism. Indeed,
that the sustainability, diversity of forms, and sheer scale of state
terrorist acts and campaigns is qualitatively greater and more dangerous
than that of sub-state actors. Moreover, among the culpable states is not
just Pakistan and its behaviour in Kashmir and Afghanistan but India (in
Kashmir and the Northeast), Russia (in Chechnya), China (in Tibet), Israel,
and a host of numerous other states with, of course, the US itself as far
and away the worst offender.
To any morally impartial view which seeks to fight international terrorism
no matter who is responsible for it, the idea of establishing a concert of
nations led by the US as the main international mechanism (regardless of
its getting a manipulated sanction from the UN) through which one must
fight terrorism, is utterly unacceptable. One cannot legitimize as the main
correctors/policers of international terrorism those who are themselves
guilty of terrorisms which then not only goes unpunished or unrecognized
but is made unrecognizable. The double standards involved here are not just
morally shameful but politically counter-productive because they will lead
to more widespread bitterness and alienation reinforcing the appeal of
those who claim that sub-state terrorism is the only form of retribution to
the strong to whom the principles of justice do not apply. It is time to
stand up and oppose the US-led coalition which will wage war on Afghanistan
and to call on India not to join it.
Published in The Hindu of Sept. 26th.
Email Achin Vanaik