ÃãÑíßÇ
: æóÌúåõåóÇ ÈóÔöÚñ
If we would truly understand the face of terrorism, we must also look into the mirror.
ÅÐÇ ÃÑÏäÇ Ãä äóÝúåãõ ÇáæÌå ÇáÍÞíÞí ááÅÑåÇÈö ¡ íÌÈ Ãóäú äóäúÙÑó ÃíÖÇ Ýí ÇáãÑÂÉö.
Chris Brandt ßÑíÓ ÈÑÇäÏÊ
ãæÇØä ÃãÑíßí
From: |
ChriBrndt@aol.com |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:38:13 EDT |
|
Dear Writenet community, I would like to
share with you all what I've been able to write about this so far. I
welcome comments, and feel free to send it on if you wish.
SOME THOUGHTS
IN THE AFTERMATH
First disbelief, then horror, shock, anger, grief have
shown in the faces of everyone in New York since Tuesday morning. Words?
There are no words. Yet we talk endlessly, trying to climb back out
of the numb place we dropped into. We talk of hope for survivors,
recalling famous earthquakes when people were dug out alive after 7, 8, 10 days
under rubble. We want to help and are frustrated we can do so little.
We speak of our inability to understand the mind of a man who would do
this — its tactical brilliance combined with an unimaginable moral void.
We want to look into his face to find out if we still live in a human
world.
All this talk, especially that of the t.v. anchors, comes too
fast to be well-considered. We toss around terms like "tragic" and "mad".
The media repeats endlessly that this is the worst act of terrorism in
history, but no one — at least no one with media access — stops to consider
whether this is indeed history's worst act of terror, and if not, what is?
There's Guernica, which might be considered the worst for the shock of its
being the first to come instantaneously, from the air, and because as Dylan
Thomas said, "after the first death, there is no other." But then there's
Hiroshima, which also came instantaneously, from the air and without warning,
and remains the biggest in numbers and scope, and which, like Tuesday's attack,
changed the whole world forever. So we must say, if we are to be honest,
that the World Trade Center terror is only the worst such act not sponsored or
carried out by us.
Let us run a gruesome balance sheet: Hiroshima,
Nagasaki; Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia; Panama; Iraq. Well over a million
civilians killed. Add the terror we have sponsored and funded (and
sometimes helped to carry out): the overthrow of democratically elected
governments in Iran and Guatemala in 1954; tortures and disappearances
throughout Latin America from 1964 on, carried out by military and police
personnel usually trained and often directed by us; Chile in 1973; Reagan's
"contra" war of terror against (mostly) the civilian population of Nicaragua.
All these together killed tens if not hundreds of thousands. Then
there have been our economic embargos of Cuba, Nicaragua, Iraq, which have led
to the deaths of more hundreds of thousands. Add up all these civilian
deaths and it is quite clear that when it comes to acts of terror, we are far
ahead of whoever is in second place. If we would truly understand the face
of terrorism, we must also look into the mirror.
Perhaps we can
try to soften this ugly fact by saying we were at war when we did these things.
(Though actually only Hiroshima and Nagasaki came during the course of a
declared war.) But surely the hijacker terrorists thought they too were
soldiers carrying out a war mission. If war justifies acts of terror when
we do them, it must justify such acts equally for any terrorist. As Gandhi
said and many placards remind us at the moving daily vigils for peace in Union
Square, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
So war can
justify nothing. Yet the talk from our "leaders" now is war, war, war.
And if we do bomb Afghanistan and Iraq back into prehistory, with all our
high-tech ability to rain fire from the sky, we will kill civilians in numbers
to dwarf those at the World Trade Center. We will "justify" yet another
cycle of terror. We will keep it from our own door only by the sacrifice
of our freedoms of speech, assembly, and even thought. The terrorists will
have won because we will have become, as so often happens in war, the very enemy
we think to fight.
To really rid the world of the terrorist mentality,
we have to change the world, and that starts with us. We may think that is
harder than changing others, but we cannot in fact change others, only
ourselves. What can we do? For starters, we can begin to think about
these forbidden topics, like our own part in perpetuating terror. As Amos
Oz said in a Times op-ed piece, for example, there is no excuse for the fact
that the Palestinians still have no home and no self-determination.
Our
government says it is using diplomacy, not military action, to build a coalition
of nations against such acts. Good. But that it at the level of
government. As Seattle and Genoa have shown us, and also NAFTA and GATT,
the world has moved beyond governments. Globalization is a reality, for us
of the non-corporate movements as well as for big money. What we must do
is to build a coalition of peoples against the very idea of terrorism.
Which means we must demand a cessation of terror by all parties —
governments and "fundamentalist" organizations. Not just Muslim
fundamentalists, but fanatic organizations everywhere, from the abortion clinic
bombers to those who bomb in the name of "left" ideals. We must be very
clear about this: killing civilians on a mass scale by the use of terror weapons
is to be condemned, no matter what the reason. The corollary to this is,
no amount of suffering, experienced by the terrorist and/or the terrorist's
people, can justify mass killing of civilians who are, if at all, only
indirectly and distantly responsible for that suffering. We may
understand, but we do not excuse, murder if the murderer was an abused child;
when the scale is multiplied, we must not excuse it on political grounds, even
if we agree with the murderer's politics. This has to be an absolute.
More concretely and closer to home, let us not rebuild the Trade Center.
Let us rather leave an empty space, perhaps even part of the wreckage, and
invite everyone and anyone to leave messages and mementos, like at the Vietnam
Veterans' Memorial in D.C. Let us not rebuild in overweening pride a
symbol of defiance, which will be seen by the world's vast masses of poor as a
pair of gilded middle fingers thrusting an insult at the sky; let us instead
keep a place to remind us of our fragile humanity, to humble us.
And let
us work to change a system which rewards greed and regards money as the first
measure of a person's value. A system which requires us to protect
property more than life, in which poverty and starvation are regarded as the
faults of the poor and the starving. A system that allows one of us to
have so much money that he must hire consultants to determine what he should do
with it, while millions haven't even a coin for a meal. This is easier
said than done, I know, and I have no formula, being an artist and not a Marx.
Anyway I don't believe in formulas; I hope, with Seamus Heaney, that "the
longed-for tidal wave / of justice can rise up / and hope and history rhyme."
Some, shaking their heads at my naivité, ask, "How can we combat
terrorism, this shadowy, slippery, merciless thing, except with deadly force?"
Perhaps we cannot in the immediate instance, but whatever force is used
must never be directed at civilians. And clearly, we can work to remove
the causes and the breeding grounds of terror in hellholes of injustice, like
the Palestinian refugee camps, and in other, more private hellholes like abusive
families. How we do this must be the result of deliberation by many; we
can find the way, if we will. What I know for myself is that I would
rather die, even by an act of terror, than live in a world where murder is the
only answer to such an act.
Also, I have been feeling the need to reach
out wider. What do you think of this? Could someone who has good
computer and net skills set up a web site where people could endorse a simple
declaration that terror actions are never justified.
Certainly not when they are carried out by powerful nations against other
countries' civilian populations, as we have done, at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and SE
Asia (to name only the most obvious) and the Fascists did at Guernica, the
Warsaw Ghetto, London in the Blitz, etc. But also not when
carried out by the weak against the strong, no matter the subtlety or even the
correctness of the political analysis that links the terrorist's target country
to the misery he would avenge, for whatever the terrorists target, his victims
are not it. Further, that terrorists are not "left" or "right"; they are
simply terrorists. And finally that we pledge to work to eradicate the
conditions of misery and poverty that serve as breeding grounds for the
terrorist idea. I'm sure that can be said better, clearer, but what if
something of the kind were on a web site that was easy to access, attractive,
well designed, etc., and millions of people logged on to endorse such a
statement. Do you think, a) that that is possible, and b) that governments
would listen? Am I being naive?
Best to all of you,
Chris
Brandt
Privacy Policy-
Terms of Service - Guidelines
Copyright © 1994-2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
ÃÓãÚäí ÕæÊß íÇ ÃÎí
by: ARS
ourisla