The Terrorism Topic

[Saint]

Originally Posted by Johan Galtung and Dietrich Fischer

To End terrorism, End State Terrorism
by Johan Galtung and Dietrich Fischer*, September 20, 2002

One year ago, two dates punctuated a continuing cycle of violence and counter-violence: the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with about 3,000 civilians killed, and the October 7 start of the attack on Afghanistan, with about 6,000 civilians killed so far. How can we break out of this vicious cycle?

Some days after September 11, a psychologist gave advice on CNN to parents with children asking difficult questions. One young boy had asked "What have we done to make them hate us so much that they do such things?" A mature question, unlike the answer: "You could tell your child that there are good people in the world, and evil - -". That boy had arrived at the stage of reciprocity on psychologist Jean Piaget's scale of child development, seeing the actions of others at least partly as influenced by our own actions (and vice versa). By contrast, the psychologist's answer remained at the earlier stage of autism, seeing evil actions by others as uninfluenced by anything we do.

Motivation helps explain, but not justify. Hitler's success can be explained by the humiliating 1919 Versailles treaty, which called Germany alone responsible for World War I and imposed huge reparations for 50 years. Of course, nothing can justify what Hitler did. Understanding is not forgiving. But without understanding, we are condemned to repeat history.

The US media never mention the state terrorism exercised by the USA on other countries. Since 1945, the United States has intervened abroad 67 times, causing twelve million deaths, about half by overt action (Pentagon) and covert action (CIA). These are practically unknown to most Americans, and rarely mentioned, with the notable exceptions of Chalmers Johnson's book "Blowback" and Bill Blum's "Rogue State: a Guide to the World's Only Superpower." In addition, 100,000 people die daily in the world from hunger and preventable diseases in the midst of enormous luxury and waste.

The targets of the September 11 terrorist attack were symbolic: the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center, representing a system of world trade that amasses unspeakable wealth in a few hands while impoverishing billions in the Third World.

Bin Laden's statement broadcast by Al Jazeera shortly after September 11, said, "Our nation has been tasting this humiliation and this degradation for more than 80 years", referring to the 1916 Sykes Picot treason, bringing Arabia under the rule of infidels, breaking the British promise of independence for the Arab nations in return for their participation in defeating the Ottoman Empire; and the 1917 Balfour Declaration supporting the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

Terrorism (carried out be men and women without uniform) and state terrorism (carried out by men and women in uniform, a difference of little importance to the victims) have the following characteristics in common: they use violence for political ends; they harm people not directly involved in struggle; they are designed to spread panic/terror to bring about capitulation; they have an element of surprise in the choice of who, where, when; they make perpetrators unavailable for retaliation or incapacitation.

Wahhabism, a fundamentalist branch of Islam, state religion of Saudi Arabia, and Puritanism, the civic religion of the USA, share some common characteristics: Dualistm, dividing the world into US vs THEM, without neutrals; Manicheism (WE are good, THEY are evil); and the inevitability of a final decisive battle to "crush" them, like vermin (Armageddon). The harder varieties of the three abrahamitic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, also share the concepts of being a Chosen People under God, with a Promised Land; a glorious past and/or future; having suffered a trauma. They are found in the rhetoric of both Bush and bin Laden.

Al Qaeda and Wahhabites see the USA as greedy, interested in oil (world trade) and bases (Pentagon). Indeed, the USA seized an old Soviet base near Kandahar. On 30 May 2002 came the signing of the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline by the two presidents and the former UNOCAL consultant, now Afghanistan prime minister, Hamid Karzai. The US totally confirmed its image.

If the USA had limited itself to a military campaign, leaving policing to the UN Security Council and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, without US bases and leaving rights to oil pipelines to the Afghan people, they might even have won their war. Now it is lost.

The Islamic fundamentalists' long-term goal seems to be respect for religious sensitivities. The US seeks free trade and military protection. Trade with basic need priority, including religious sensitivities, could achieve both.

Imagine Bush had said:

Fellow Americans; the attack yesterday on two buildings, killing thousands, was atrocious, totally unacceptable. They have to be captured and brought to justice by an appropriate international court, with a clear UN mandate.

But my address tonight goes beyond this. There are serious flaws in our foreign policy, however well intended. We create enemies through our insensitivity to the basic needs of the peoples around the world, including their religious sensitivities. I am therefore taking these steps:

- withdraw our military bases from Saudi Arabia,

- recognize Palestine as a state, details can follow later,

- enter into dialogue with Iraq to identify solvable conflicts,

- accept President Khatami's invitation for the same with Iran,

- pull out militarily and economically from Afghanistan,

- stop our military interventions and reconcile with the victims.

That evening, 1.3 billion Muslims would have embraced America; and the few terrorists left would have no water in which to swim. It would have taken a speech-writer half an hour, and ten minutes to deliver it; as opposed to, say $60 billion for the Afghanistan operation. Psychologically, this is not easy, but the benefits are immeasurable.

In the above article, authors Johan Galtung and Dietrich Fischer contend that in order to end terrorism, state-terror must be stopped. While this is a given conclusion—as the existence of state-terror alone would mean terror has not been eliminated—worthy of further examination is the notion they suggest, that ending state-terror will aid in eliminating its other forms.

Interestingly, and perhaps telling, is that state-terrorism is not a concept universally accepted. The United States Criminal Code, for example, defines terrorism as committed exclusively by sub-national or clandestine agents. As such, state-terror does not legally exist in the eye of the United States government. Also, some might argue that state-terrorism, in many cases, is merely collateral damage—an unavoidable side-effect of genuine, justified conflict—but this does not hold up under scrutiny. Consider, for example, the account of General Smedley Butler, who characterized himself as a “gangster for capitalism,” enforcing U.S. interests through terror. Of course, there are numerous international example—foremost among them the actions of Stalin and Hitler.

Furthermore, the United States legal position that state-terrorism does not exist becomes questionable when this does not prevent them from denouncing other ruling bodies who support terrorism, such as Iraw under Saddam.

This discrepancy is linked to a double standard that arguably justifies the position of Galtung and Fischer. The state preemptively exonerates itself from guilt, and becomes free to terrorize at its leisure. Of course, particularly in democratic states, the populace becomes problematic, and must be pacified. The enemy must then be vilified.

Galtung and Fischer identify this trend in the days following the attacks of September 11th, 2001, when those responsible were identified as invariably evil, and their motivations deemed impossible for any good and decent person to understand. Indeed, this is a common mistake on both sides of any conflict. The notion that the enemy, for lack of better term, is unknowable is perpetuated by those in power and even those who are not. From this comes even greater fuel for the conflict, for if one’s enemy is unknowable, and thus inhuman, then one is hardly guilty of any crime for fighting and killing him. One cannot come to any mutual terms with the inhuman or animalistic, no; there can be no negotiations with evil.

Much of this rhetoric can still be found in the US administration’s war on terror. Repeatedly the public is informed of how the incomparable enemy hates freedom. Even if one supposed this was true, that a genuine hatred for the concept of freedom was their motivation, one might ask why. Of course, no answer will be given. As such the actions of the state are sanctioned by the people, who are terrified of the looming, mysterious threat that cannot be understood. Yes, it is in the best interests of the state to ensure the enemy is never understood, because once de-mystified they would be identified with, they would be human. Aristotle said that “To love someone is to identify with them,” and if this is true, people who come to identify with each other would be far less inclined to wage war. The conflict would lose supporters and ultimately the goals of those in power could potentially be lost. The cycle of ignorance is perpetuated so that the state is free to act against the enemy as it pleases.

Galtung and Fischer note, though, that understanding is not equivalent to forgiveness. Citing Hitler, they note that no amount of understanding would cause anyone to forgive the prominent German fascist (and notorious proponent of state sanctioned terrorism), nor does understanding mean any conflict is unjustifiable. However, it is undeniable that the current climate of intolerance and ignorance only encourages the events that lead to war. Vengeance is a powerful motivator even for wise, and the truth of that is what ultimately proves the claims of Galtung and Fischer true: terrorism will always bring about reprisals.

Illustrating this, in the same way that Native Americans fought against the terror tactics of colonizers, so to have the victims of 9/11 waged war on their attackers. Author Jonathan Barker suggests that the Native American terrorists envisioned even civilian colonists as invaders; they believed them all to be “armed thieves” and the reprisals for their attacks did nothing to calm this fear. The cycle becomes self-perpetuating as one wars against the other and vice versa, when the simple truth is that the greatest potential for peace lies in opening a dialogue, and understanding the fears and motivations of the supposed enemy.

Given this, the question becomes whether state-terror gives rise to non-state terror, or vice versa, and following from that, which must end to stem the other. The answer lies in that the non-state terrorist is a subject, not a ruler, and so the laws of the ruler apply to him. As such, there can be justice, without further terrorism. The individual can be imprisoned, but there is no prison for the state. There is no ruler of the state—save for increasingly irrelevant international law--the state, as seen in the U.S. Criminal Code, is impervious, for it can commit no terrorism. Perhaps, then, this is why state-terror must end: so that men and women will no longer need to take up arms and fight that state for which there is no other punishment. The terrorism wielded by the vigilante will end when there is no injustice left to fight.

Following from this, it can be seen that following 9/11 while Osama Bin Laden became the media boogeyman, the first real target of America’s war was not he. With reprisal against Bin Laden impossible, and the state still in need of some manner justice, their eyes fell to the Taliban, the state of Afghanistan, and they fueled the cycle of reprisals.

Finally, it becomes obvious that were state-terrorism to end, the need for these reprisals would drop. Even those zealots still reaching for conflict would, as Galtung and Fischer say, “have no water in which to swim.” A considerable portion of worldwide terrorism would be eliminated, as the cycle of attacks and reprisals would be neutralized. Whether it is a matter of overcoming pride or recognizing and respecting other states, it is clear that the state, not the individual, must take the first step.


[ To read the discussion that accompanied this article, click here. —Hyperion ]