Terrorism: explain it or understanding it?
Summary
This paper’s main purpose is to analyze the phenomenon called terrorism, but an analysis from a different angle. For me there is a great difference between explain something and understand it: to explain something, all we need is a direction to make the explanation, so we don’t have to really get to the roots of the matter to make a full explanation about it. Especially, when we explain something we do it from our
convenient point of view regardless the very important facts. While the task of
understanding something requires that we really get to the very bottom of the facts, go to the very root causes regardless our preferences.
What moves me to write this paper is the observation that most theories I have met about terrorism they are intended to explain the phenomenon, especially explain how it is affecting in one way or the other the welfare of western nation-states. But those explanations usually lack of causal analysis of the phenomenon and rather concentrate on explaining the dimensions of the problem and the possible ways to solve it.
My argument here is that in order to find a good solution to terrorism, we should concentrate our analysis on the elements that gave origin to it, no matter if facing the causes that originated it we could find that they are not so favorable for our supported doctrines. We need to really understand the phenomenon before attempting to explain it, especially; we need to recognize that international community has a lot to do with the creation and invigorating of what we now know as international terrorism. Should we fail to understand and recognize elements that propelled terrorism to its now intercontinental reach, we will fail to find the right approaches toward a global solution to the problem.
Keyword: terrorism
1. Introduction
Violence of any kind has no reason to be. We all rational beings logical reaction to violence is and should be repudiation. There are not possible reasons for us as civilized people to identify ourselves with violent acts like those perpetrated against civilian people in New York and Washington on September 11th 2001, against Madrid
on March 11th 2004, or against London on July 7th 2005. No matter who we are, no
matter what our beliefs might be, no matter our political convictions; we all should conclude that such way of behavior is totally wrong and against all local or
international rules. However, since considering the fact that nothing comes from nothing, terrorism should we assume has as any other matter a causal existence. So even when we agree that terrorist acts can not be acknowledged as rational behavior, we can not rush to blindly explain terrorism based on sided theories or self-interested and partialized doctrines. Instead, we should try to understand it based on broader and
as we know, realism is committed with explaining facts rather than understanding them. Being this the case, I will still argue that if someone insist in explaining the international community, at least he or she should take all the elements into account, not only a few of them; otherwise the result will be a distorted explanation.
What I propose here is try to understand the terrorism by addressing a very tough question, a question most people tend to evade when talking about the subject. The question is “WHY”. But is not why do terrorists strike? Why are some people willing to sacrifice their own lives just to kill innocent people? The “why” I propose here is why do we have this phenomenon called terrorism? Why, when, and how did it came to be. And once more I want to make clear that my intention is not to find
explanations to justify any terrorist act, since they have proven to be unjustifiable, but to shed some light on what are the root causes of it, hoping that knowing the causes we will be able to identify new approaches in the possible solutions to the matter. My first assumption is that the international community has a lot to do with the creation and empowering of terrorism. The way the great powers have behaved in order to reach their goals has undermined basic principles of the international law and basic principles of human rights. The most important point of this approach is taking into account all possible facts, including of course cultural values, religious and historical facts which, are commonly let aside by most scholars while studding the issue.
Even on defining the concept we can notice the way some scholars and leading institutions want to lead us.
Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as "terrorism." A 1988 study by the US Army counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence." (Walter Laqueur in 1999) For this and for political reasons, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers," "militants," etc.
In many countries, acts of terrorism are legally distinguished from criminal acts done for other purposes. Common principles amongst legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries.
Among these definitions, not all recognize the possibility of the legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country, and would thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.
It has also been argued that the political use of violent force and weapons that deliberately target or involve civilians, and do not focus mainly on military or government targets, is a common militant, terrorist, or guerrilla tactic, and a main defining feature of these kinds of people.
As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage in acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has resulted in some social scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak" and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest." (Oxford encyclopedia)
The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produce terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines "terrorism" to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
The United Nations produced this definition in 1992; "An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets." The most commonly accepted academic definition starts with the U.N. definition quoted above, and adds two sentences totaling another 77 words on the end; containing such verbose concepts as "message generators" and 'violence based communication processes." Less specific and considerably less verbose, the British Government definition of 1974 is"…the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear." (International Terrorism and Security Research website)
2. Theories on terrorism
Theories on terrorism have existed since the beginning of social science studies. This is because terrorism is not something new, it came into existence long ago, nevertheless, the internationalization of the terrorism is relatively new. And this is the focus of this paper, when I refer to terrorism; the term is to be regarded as the modern international terrorism. As we know those theories on terrorism have gained notoriety especially after the 9/11 events when we all started to see terrorism with a different concept as it seems to be a fact affecting everybody’s life in one way or another. At least this is what some theorists and policy-makers want for us to believe. As David Campbell put it in his review of Gilbert’s book ‘Must Global Politics Constrain Democracy? Great-Power Realism, Democratic Peace. And Internationalism’: “It might be comforting, if conceptually a bit old-fashioned, to believe that the masses are simply misled by self-aggrandizing and self-enriching elites, but the more disturbing thing is to try to appreciate the complex cultural dynamics implicated in violence toward international others that help make imperial adventures at least appear popular. (David Campbell 2001)
Looking at the international panorama, it is quite obvious that those proponents of the theories on terrorism have succeeded in transferring their concepts to common people. But we can notice as well that it would have never been possible without the dirty hands of power and its influence on the mass media as a mean of imposing their view. Regarding this point Robert Elias, professor of politics at University of San Francisco, California says: Our officials refuse to ask the question “why,” except in terms of stereotypes that divert us from the causes and focus us instead on the
symptoms. And most crucially, our mainstream media has almost exclusively parroted official analyses and solutions, acting not like watchdogs but rather like lapdogs. Officials and our media operate essentially under the assumption that there can be no question of “why,” since there’s nothing we could have conceivably done that has anything to do with provoking terrorism. (Robert Elias, 2001). Regarding the mass media he cites the media critic I.F. Stone who once said, “The Washington press corps is like a group of stenographers with amnesia,” dutifully printing official handouts and reporting events with little or no historical or critical perspective. (Robert Elias, 2001, citing the media critic I. F. Stone)
Proponents of American liberalism are convinced that it is the right doctrine and American liberal democracy model is the panacea to world problems. “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such... That is, the end point of
mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. (Fukuyama1992) In his introduction to History and September 11, Fukuyama places a few of rhetoric questions, one of them: will the present conflict recede and the old world of an ever-integrating global economy come back once Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban are swept away and the terror network is rolled up? (Fukuyama, 2002), but just a few lines ahead, he gave a pretty clear answer to this question when he states that:
“modernity as represented by the United States and other developed democracies, will remain the dominant force in the world politics and the institutions embodying the West’s underlying principles of freedom and equality will continue to spread around the world. The September 11 attacks represent a desperate backlash against the modern world, which appears to be a speeding freight train to those unwilling to get on board” (Fukuyama, 2002) it means that for them there is not other way but try their best to erase those extremist and anyone who will identify with their cause, but it is needed to erase as marginalize those theories intended to argue that there is certain level of relation of the great powers foreign policy and the development of the international terrorism.
Another theorist is Barry Buzan, an English School and structural realism proponent. Buzan seems to be more concerned with the killing of civilian people while trying to stop the terrorist. In his work “Who May We Bomb?” he states that Iraq, Somalia and Sudan have all been mooted as possible targets. How to deal with them depends on how terrorism is defined. On the narrow answer, these states only become targets if there is evidence that they are complicit in international terrorism, or that they themselves pose threats to international peace and security. The problem in Somalia is not the Afghan one of a government and/or people constructing itself as an enemy. Rather it is that Somalia has no coherent government, and this political chaos can allow space for international terrorists to operate autonomously. Military strikes there would have to be highly selective against the specific targets of
international terrorism and their local supporters. Sudan appears to have been cooperative against Al-Qaeda, so the question of military action may well not arise. At the moment there is almost no evidence against Iraq, and since Us motives in relation to Iraq are poisoned by other issues, the evidence necessary for the US to attack Iraq under the aegis of the war on terrorism would have to be extremely compelling for the action to acquire political legitimacy. (Buzan 2002) As we might notice in Buzan’s work, there is still a concept of terrorism as the enemy to be wipe out, no a comprehensive analysis of the problem.
But there are still more tenacious defendants of the American foreign policy like the Utilitarianism theorist Robert O. Keohane who in his work “The Public
Delegitimation of Terrorism and Coalitional Politics” provides a series of ways for the international community to get rid of terrorism. He argues that the best way to beat the terrorism is delegitimizing it, a practice well known to realism. He suggests that international coalitions are the right tool to neglect terrorism. “12 Conventions related to terrorism have been deposited at the United Nations or other international
organizations. However, many states have long been willing to make exceptions for the ‘freedom fighters’ in causes they espoused, and other states did not give their opposition to terrorism priority over other foreign policy objectives. (Keohane, 2002) He uses the same arguments used by those governments interested in getting the whole world involved in their ‘war on terror’. The following statement is one example of this: “the great powers of the world – the United States, the European Union, China and Russia – all have good reasons to fear terrorism. None of them believes that it can achieve its own anti-terrorist objectives without supporting a global effort against terrorism. (Keohane, 2002) Compare with this press note
appeared on ‘People’s Daily online’(Sunday, December 30, 2001): “As early as June this year, heads of state of China, Russia and four other countries met in China's Shanghai, declaring the founding of the "Shanghai Cooperative Organization" (SCO) and jointly signed the Shanghai Convention on the fight against terrorism, splittism and extremism, set up a mechanism for substantive anti-terrorism multilateral cooperation. After the occurrence of the "September 11" incident, Chinese President Jiang Zemin, on behalf of the Chinese government and people, expressed deep
solicitude to President George W. Bush, the US government and people and profound condolences to the families of the dead. Aside from repeated telephone talks with President Bush, President Jiang also had phone talks with leaders of other permanent members of the UN Security Council and leaders of Pakistan, Egypt and other countries, having consultations with them on international struggle against terrorism and the Afghanistan issue”.
3. American foreign policy and its results
American foreign policy has been carried according to realist’s theories in spite of hard critics along history, especially by European scholars and policy makers. Are those policies which have launched US into more than forty interventions in foreign countries around the world.
3.1 An alphabetical list of USA military and CIA interventions
*since* WWII: written and distributed by Anthony Cantrell
1. Afghanistan, 1979-present. 2. Albania, 1949-53. 3. Angola, 1975-80s. 4. Australia, 1973-75. 5. Bolivia, 1964-75. 6. Brazil, 1961-64. 7. British Guiana, 1953-64. 8. Bulgaria, 1990. 9. Cambodia, 1955-73. 10. China, 1945-60. 11. Chile, 1964-73. 12. The Congo, 1960-64. 13. Costa Rica, 1955-71. 14. Columbia, presently. 15. Cuba, 1959-present. 16. Dominican Republic, 1960-66. 17. Ecuador, 1960-63. 18. El Salvador, 1980-94. 19. France/Algeria, 1960s. 20. Germany, 1950-60. 21. Ghana, 1966. 22. Greece, 1947-74. 23. Grenada, 1979-84, 24. Guatemala, 1953-80s. 25. Haiti, 1959-94. 26. Indonesia, 1957-58. 27. Italy, 1947-1970. 28. Iran, 1953. 29. Indonesia/East Timor, 1965-1999.
30. Iraq, 1972-present (supporting Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons against Iran 1980-1988) 31. Jamaica, 1976-80. 32. Korea, 1945-53. 33. Libya, 1981-89. 34. Laos, 1957-73. 35. Morocco, 1983. 36. Nicaragua, 1981-90. 37. Panama, 1969-91. 38. Peru, 1961-65. 39. Philippines, 1940-50. 40. Seychelles, 1979-81, 41. Soviet Union, 1945-1960. 42. Suriname, 1982-84. 43. Syria, 1956-7. 44. Uruguay, 1964-70. 45. Vietnam, 1950-73. 46. Zaire, 1975-78.
From 1945 to 2000, for example, the US attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, usually successfully, and crushed more than 30 populist movements struggling against dictatorships, killing several million people in the process, and condemning millions more to a life of misery. Those are shocking numbers but keep in mind that defenders of US foreign policy rarely quarrel with these numbers but rather only try to show why they were necessary.
Beyond these actions abroad, it’s also instructive to examine US policies that have created terrorists, carried out torture and assassinations, developed death squads, provided training manuals for repression, granted safe haven for terrorists and war criminals, used weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations, promoted and used chemical and biological weapons, perverted foreign elections and otherwise intervened in foreign political systems, and undermined hundreds of UN resolutions and treaties (with the US often the only dissenting vote among the world’s nations). (Robert Elias 2001)
But is not only from 1945 that US has been intervening other countries, actually, the number of its interventions is almost similar to its years of independence: around 200. It means about one intervention per year.
The following is a partial list of atrocities, massacres, murders, and injuries in recent history for which the United Sates is responsible:
• Well over 300,000 Japanese were massacred when the US raided Tokyo and dropped nuclear bombs on the urban civilian areas of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. • 600,000 civilians were killed in Cambodia by US bombing between 1969 and 1975. • Over 500,000 people were killed in Laos when America subjected civilians to "secret bombing" from 1964 to 1973, dropping over two million tons of bombs on the country. Over one fourth of the population also became refugees.
• 100,000 people were murdered in South Korea prior to the Korean War by a brutal repression supported by US forces in 1945. This includes between 30,000 and 40,000 killed during the suppression of a peasant revolt on Cheju Island.
• Up to 4,500,000 Koreans were killed from 1951 to 1953 during America’s massive slaughter in the Korean War.
• 200,000 were murdered when the Philippines were conquered by American forces. (This took place just over 100 years ago.)
• 23,000 people were slaughtered in Taiwan by US-backed, trained, equipped, and funded forces (Chiang’s Nationalist Army) during the late 1940s.
• 700,000 Indonesians (mostly landless peasants) were murdered in 1965 when the US armed and supported General Suharto.
• 200,000 were slaughtered in East Timor in 1975 by General Suharto with US support.
• 750,000 civilians were driven from their homes in East Timor by Indonesian forces in 1999 and 10,000 were killed.
• Over 1,700,000 Iraqis have been killed by US bombings and sanctions, mostly women and children.
• Over 1,000,000 lives were lost during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s in which the US used direct force and supported Hussein and Iraq.
• 35,000 Kurds were killed, 3,500 villages were destroyed, and between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 became homeless as a result of aggression by Turkey with US arming and training in the 1990s.
• Over 1,000,000 people were killed in Afghanistan’s civil war from 1979 to 1992, in which the US strongly supported the Mujahedeen, the most violent and sadistic of the forces. (This also set the stage for the CIA-backed Taliban to attain power.) • 45,000 people were killed in South Lebanon since 1982 by Israel, always armed and supported by the US
• Thousands have been killed in Palestine and millions (in both Palestine and Lebanon) were made refugees by US-backed Israel.
• Over 150,000 were killed in Greece when America advised, equipped, and financed violent interventions in the late 1940s and late 1960s.
• Over 75,000 civilians were killed and over one million refugees were created in El Salvador from 1980 to 1994 when the US intensely supported the efforts of a brutal regime and its death squads to eliminate a popular uprising.
• 40,000 civilians were killed by the US-backed National Guard in Nicaragua over the course of almost 50 years.
• 30,000 lives were killed by the US contras in Nicaragua from 1979 to 1989. • 200,000 Guatemalans were slaughtered from 1960-1990s by a military apparatus trained, armed, funded, and assisted by America.
• Over 35,000 Colombian civilians have been killed during the US-supported Colombian war against left-wing rebels.
1989.
• Hundreds of thousands were killed by US direct and indirect interventions in Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Peru, and Argentina from the mid 60s through the 80s.
• 50,000 Haitians were killed when the US military destroyed a peasant uprising in 1915.
• Between 4,000 and 5,000 Haitians were killed in the early 1990s by US-established forces.
• Thousands were killed in the Dominican Republic during the 1960s when US and Dominican troops crushed a pro-Bosch rebellion.
• Over 3,000 were killed and countless others injured by US interventions in Cuba. • Hundreds were killed or injured when the US invaded Grenada in 1983.
• Over 50,000 Somalians were killed between 1978 and 1990 by US-supported Siad Barre.
• Up to 10,000 more Somalians were killed directly by US troops during America’s "humanitarian mission" in 1993.
• In the US-supported Rwandan genocide, an estimated 800,000 people were killed in just 100 days in 1994.
• Over 300,000 were killed and 80,000 were crippled in Angola from a US-supported civil war.
• Tens of thousands were killed and up to 200,000 were tortured in Chad by Hissen Habre with US support during the 1980’s.
• Over 1,000,000 were killed during Mozambique’s civil war (1980-1992), in which the brutally violent RENAMO forces were supported by the US
• 1,500,000 were killed between 1980 and 1988 in southern Africa by the US-armed South Africa.
• Thousands of people in Pacific islands, Puerto Rico, Utah, California, Nevada, Washington, New Mexico, and various other places have been killed, infected, or harmed as a result of US weapon experiments (especially nuclear weapons and weapons using depleted uranium).
• Hundreds of civil rights activists have been beaten, tortured, framed, and killed in the US by government agencies in recent history.
• Hundreds of Black Panther supporters and American Indians were framed, beaten, or murdered by the FBI and its cohorts in the late 60’s and early 70’s.
• Over 1,200 immigrants and citizens in America (mostly of Arab decent) were detained after September 11, 2001, without evidence of law-breaking or terrorist activity.
• Thousands have been killed during America’s recent "War on Terror."
• Over 2,500 US soldiers and over 40,000 Iraqi civilians have perished since George W’s recent invasion of Iraq. (By Kennie Anderson,
8/22/2006http://www.landofhypocrisy.com)
The number of interventions and the about 12 million people killed by US around the world are not the only facts that worry about US foreign policy, but the double standard regarding sensitive issues like the use of weapons of mass destruction, and the use of chemical and biological weapons are also reasons to believe that US’s foreign policy has too much to do with the internationalization of terrorism. We all know that one of the main excuses to go after the terrorists and their supporters in the so called ‘war on terror’ is the claim of their possibility of using weapons of mass destruction, but if we take a good look at the historical and actual facts on the matter we might be surprised.
3.2 US Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction
The indiscriminate use of bombs by the US, usually outside a declared war situation, for wanton destruction, for no military objectives, whose targets and victims are civilian populations, or what is now called “collateral damage.”
Japan (1945) China (1945–46)
Korea & China (1950–53)
Guatemala (1954, 1960, 1967–69) Indonesia (1958) Cuba (1959–61) Congo (1964) Peru (1965) Laos (1964–70) Vietnam (1961–1973) Cambodia (1969–70) Grenada (1983) Lebanon (1983–84) Libya (1986) El Salvador (1980s) Nicaragua (1980s) Iran (1987) Panama (1989) Iraq (1991–2000) Kuwait (1991) Somalia (1993) Bosnia (1994–95) Sudan (1998) Afghanistan (1998) Pakistan (1998) Yugoslavia (1999) Bulgaria (1999) Macedonia (1999)
3.3 US Use of Chemical & Biological Weapons
The US has refused to sign Conventions against the development and use of
chemical and biological weapons, and has either used or tested (without informing the civilian populations) these weapons in the following locations abroad:
-Bahamas (late 1940s–mid-1950s) -Canada (1953)
-China and Korea (1950–53) -Korea (1967–69)
-Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (1961–
1970)
-Panama (1940s–1990s)
-Cuba (1962, 69, 70, 71, 81, 96)
And the US has tested such weapons on US civilian populations, without their knowledge, in the following locations:
-Watertown, NY and US Virgin Islands (1950) -SF Bay Area (1950, 1957–67) -Minneapolis (1953) -St. Louis (1953) -Washington, DC Area (1953, 67) -Florida (1955)
-Savannah GA/Avon Park, FL (1956– 58)
-New York City (1956, 1966) -Chicago (1960)
And the US has encouraged the use of such weapons, and provided the technology to develop such weapons in various nations abroad, including:
Egypt South Africa Iraq
Saddam Hussein acquired military equipment and materials that could be applied to developing weapons of mass destruction from the United States and key U.S. allies. United Nations arms inspectors working in Iraq during the 1990s subsequently destroyed or seized these materials.
Washington contribution to the Iraqi military buildup prior to the 1991 Gulf War came largely through what is known as "dual-use" technologies. Dual-use items include unarmed light aircraft or helicopters that can be adapted to military uses, instruments of torture like thumbscrews and equipment like computers, machine tools and measuring devices. Between 1985 and 1990, the Commerce Department granted licenses for more than $1.5 billion worth of dual-use exports to Iraq, more than $500 million of which was delivered before the outbreak of the August 1990 Gulf War.
In March 1991, under pressure from Congress and the public, the Commerce Department released a list of the dual-use exports licenses granted to Iraq in the five years leading up to the conflict. Even a casual perusal of the list reveals that many of these items were put directly to work in Iraq military research and production network. Some items were licensed for export to obvious military end users like the Iraqi Air Force or the Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency. There were also numerous licenses for equipment sent to Saad 16, a military production complex south of Baghdad, known as the center for Iraq research and
production work on ballistic missiles.
Congressional investigators later learned that even this list, which revealed significant U.S. contributions to Iraq defense industrial base, was incomplete and misleading; at least 68 entries had been changed to obscure their military applications.[189] As Representative Howard Wolpe (D-MI) noted, "the bottom line here is that because we have been so lax in our enforcement of American laws we are now finding American-made technology in the hands of the Iraqi forces that are pointing their cannons at American soldiers. Saddam Hussein acquired military equipment and materials that could be applied to developing weapons of mass destruction from the United States and key U.S. allies. United Nations arms inspectors
TRADE RESOURCE CENTER, U.S. WEAPONS AT WAR 2005: PROMOTING FREEDOM OR FUELING CONFLICT? U.S. Military Aid and Arms Transfers Since September 11, A World Policy Institute Special Report by Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung, with Leslie Heffel June 2005 )
The above report is only one of many proves that the capitalist liberalism of the US and their willingness to trade weapons around the world has been an obstruction in stabilizing a historical conflicted Middle East.
Another important factor supporting the assumptions that US foreign policy has been a producer of US enemies outside US is the promotion, protection, arming or equipping of terrorists lots of historically well documented cases such as:
• Klaus Barbie and other German Nazis, and Italian and Japanese fascists, after WW II
• Manual Noriega (Panama), Saddam Hussein (Iraq), Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic), Osama bin Laden (Afghanistan), and others whose terrorism and hostility has come back to haunt US.
• Running the Higher War College (Brazil) and first School of the Americas
(Panama), which gave US training to repressors, death squad members, and torturers (the second School of the Americas is still running at Ft. Benning GA)
• Providing asylum for Cuban, Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Haitian, Chilean,
Argentinean, Iranian, South Vietnamese and other terrorists, dictators, and torturers
3.4 Assassinating World Leaders
Using assassination as a tool of foreign policy, wherein the CIA has initiated assassination attempts against at least 40 foreign heads of state (some several times)
in the last 50 years, a number of which have been successful, such as: Patrice Lumumba (Congo), Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic), Ngo Dihn Diem (Vietnam) Salvador Allende (Chile)
3.5 Arms Trade & US Military Presence
The US is the world’s largest seller of weapons abroad, arming dictators, militaries, and terrorists that repress or victimize their populations, and fueling scores of violent conflicts around the globe.
• The US is the world’s largest provider of live land mines which, even in peacetime, kill or injure at least several people around the world each day
• The US military has been bombing one Middle Eastern or Muslim nation or another almost continuously since 1983, including Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iran, the Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq (almost daily bombings since 1991)
In response to these policies, it wouldn’t be surprising if eventually the US suffered some backlash. In fact, US officials have a word for the repercussions: “blowback,” which describes the way questionable and often deplorable policies often come back to haunt America. Even former US Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger admitted, a few years ago, that: “We’ve presented to the rest of the world a vision of the bully on the block who pushes a button, people out there die, and we don’t pay anything except the cost of a missile… that’s going to haunt us in trying to deal with the rest of the world in the years ahead.”
If the recent terrorism is being led by Osama bin Laden, then why is he striking? Bin Laden is a fanatical Islamic fundamentalist who was not created by the US but who, along with a legion of terrorist followers, was nevertheless trained, equipped, and financed by the CIA to oppose the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. These followers, the mujahedeen (mujahidin), numbered between 15,000 and 50,000 people, and they went on to play a terrorist role in Chechnya, Bosnia, China, France, the Philippines, the Middle East, and elsewhere. They are a good example of blowback from US policy.
While President, Ronald Reagan welcomed members of the Mujahidin to the White House in 1985, and about them he said: “These are the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers.” (Earlier, he had said the same thing about the contra terrorists the US created to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.) In effect, then, we are about to go to war, in Afghanistan, against the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers!
Bin Laden and his followers are fascists. But they also oppose corrupt and repressive Middle East regimes (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt) supported by US, the illegal Israeli
occupation of Palestinian lands, the genocide against Bosnian Muslims, the Indian occupation of Kashmir, the US military bases in Saudi Arabia, the US war against Iraq, and the daily humiliation suffered by Palestinians and other Arabs, who have seen their resources stolen, their lands taken, and their lives jeopardized by war and other violence.
4. Conclusion
The US is seen by tens of millions of people abroad as the main enemy of their human and democratic rights, and the main source of their oppression. Now, many American soldier are deployed into the Middle East wanting to revenge the deaths US suffered from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, so, too, do some of the people who have been the victims of US violence also
President Bush claims that terrorists attack US because they oppose freedom, but others believe, to the contrary, that they re targets because their policies deprive other peoples of the freedom they so desperately want. US policy is riddled with double standards, and only perpetuates the cycle of violence. When they attack, they’re terrorists. When US attack, is only retaliating. When they respond to US retaliation with further attacks, they’re terrorizing US again. When US respond with further attacks, US is only retaliating again.
And on, and on.
Due to its tortuous foreign policy, even though US is now the most heavily armed nation on earth, and yet its arms and its persistent, violent use of them has not prevented the nation from now feeling more vulnerable than ever to outside attack. What went wrong? The explanation has to be more complicated than merely the failure to fight outside violence with enough violence from American side.
Despite the abuses of American foreign policy, they could take the realist view, and conclude that it was all somehow necessary. Even so, shouldn’t they expect some
consequences? Was that really the best they could do? Nothing can ever justify terrorism. But can’t international society learn something from those incidents, not only about how best, strategically, to respond to the recent terrorism but also how to respond intelligently to the problem, generally?
References:
• International Terrorism and Security Research http://www.terrorism-research.com/
• International Engagements: The Politics of North American International Relations Theory
David Campbell
Political Theory, Vol. 29, No. 3, 432-448 (2001) DOI: 10.1177/0090591701029003007
© 2001 SAGE Publications
• Terrorism and American Foreign Policy Tanbou: Journal of Haitian Political Studies
(Fall 2001) reprinted in: The Pacific Ecologist (Spring 2002) • The End of History and the Last Man
By Barry Buzan December, 2001
• “The Public Delegitimation of Terrorism and Coalitional Politics,” in Ken Booth and Tim Dunne, eds., Worlds in Collision.. Palgrave/Macmillan/St. Martin’s Press, 2002. • The Unrealism of American Empire
by Christopher Preble July 02, 2004
