Should the anti-war left cozy up to the 'war on terrorism'... HELL NO!
Why the antiwar left must confront terrorism
The director of Amnesty International USA warns that the left must confront terror with the same zeal that it battles Bush -- or risk irrelevance.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Mark FollmanNov. 15, 2003 | More than two years into the Bush administration's lurching war on terror, William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, is aiming some of his sharpest criticism not at the White House, but at the American political left. His message: Take on the terror threat, or risk irrelevance.
War protesters of various stripes, alongside anti-globalization and human rights activists, have staged several large rallies nationwide this year, channeling their anger at the Bush administration through slogans like "No blood for oil," "End the imperialist occupation" and "Regime change begins at home." But in an interview with Salon, Schulz said that the political left has thus far botched a key mission. "There's been a failure to give the necessary attention, analysis and strategizing to the effort to counter terrorism and protect our fundamental right to security," he said. "It's a serious problem."
In his new book, "Tainted Legacy: 9/11 and the Ruin of Human Rights," Schulz argues that rising global terrorism requires the left "to rethink some of our most sacred assumptions." A vigorous defense of human and civil liberties, while essential to spreading democracy worldwide, is not enough to stop terrorists from blowing up airplanes or shopping malls, he says. And that presents the left with a problem, because some of the tools needed to fight terror, such as stricter border controls or beefed up intelligence work -- and, perhaps, war against states that support terrorists -- chafe against traditional leftist values.
[...]
I disagree with this man. Why? Because the "terrorists" and the conservative agenda of the Bush camp have a lot in common. Specifically, both are adverse to change unless, in the case of the Bush camp, change makes them richer. I remember someone mentioning that before the digital age, people of the world were largely oppressed and poor, but didn't realize it. Now, people are oppressed and poor and know that they are... they see this on TV... as well, they see ridiculous commercials telling them that they'd be better off or cooler if they were to buy stuff.
That, my friends, is the root of "terrorism". They see the "values" of the western world "infecting" their society and changing their people. The only answer for them is to try as best as they can to "bring down the rule of the American pigs." So, I counter, how do we change what parts of the Western world are imported into other countries? I'm not so sure how to do this. Social diffusion coupled with globalization are far from easy concepts to grasp, understand and control.
Here's a start: We need to fundamentally re-examine the culture, society, politics and economics of the western world through the lens of a global community. Should multi-national corporations be trying to push Coca-Cola to the people of Papa New Guinea? Definitely not. Should we re-examine our policies of invasion and destruction and seriously address the real, more complex problem of living together on the planet? Definitely yes.
Ask yourself: What would Ghandi do? What would Al Gore have done as president of the United States? I guarantee that we wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq. More so, if terrorism aims to inject terror into the hearts of the targets and completely disrupt a culture from the ground up... they have already successfully accomplished their objective.
Posted by joebeone at Noviembre 16, 2003 08:58 AM