|
|
 |
POLITICA >> Terrorism | ||||
Menu
|
Politica is a forum for independent analysis of political events around the World |
|||||
|
Essays and debate forum |
||||||
Are we all terrorists now?Following the 11th of September attacks, the otherwise reasonable French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed: "We are all Americans now!" reflecting the outpouring of sympathy for the victims of the word trade centre, sympathy from all sides, including the Arab world (despite the false pictures showed by CNN in the aftermath of the events, purporting to show "Palestinians rejoicing", when in fact these pictures dated from the gulf war in 1991). One year on, however, and it could seem fairer to proclaim "we are all terrorists now", reflecting the new concepts of the "war on terror". However, as this article will show, the truth is even more ridiculous. In a recent interview on BBC radio, Mr Xanana Gusmão, first president of an independent East Timor, agreed that if his country had not been granted independence prior to the 11th of September 2001, Indonesia would have done everything it could to equate its brutal treatment of the former Portuguese colony with the "war against terrorism". Similarly, China has found new international support for its heavy-handedness against the Uighour separatists of Xinjiang (ironically led by Islamists trained by the Chinese in their bid to counter the Soviets in Afghanistan) after joining the anti-terror bandwagon. The Pakistani dictator Musharaff has managed to become accepted as the rightful leader of his country simply by verbally acquiescing that Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organisation is evil. Spain's authoritarian president Aznar has taken the opportunity to ban the Basque separatist Batasuna party, thus weakening the credibility of Spanish democracy. Russia has also decided to join the club of hypocrites by using counter-terrorism as an excuse to regain its military grip over the sovereign republic of Georgia. These last two cases are highly significant of the new world order, whereby it has become far easier to curtail civil liberties and silence dissent simply by mentioning the magic word "terrorism". Thus, individuals merely suspected of terrorism in the USA can be indefinitely imprisoned, denied access to a lawyer (1) and tried in a kangaroo court, in a flagrant breach of the United States Constitution. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply in the case of suspected terrorists, and we see a return to the more mediaeval "guilty until proven innocent" or the Spanish Inquisition's "guilty because we say so". These new rules are reminiscent of the worst periods of our history, such as Nazi-occupied Europe, where the multiple resistance movements against Hitler's atrocities were seen as terrorists, which allowed the SS to exterminate and deport entire populations under the pretext that they were a threat to the Reich. In more modern times, the fear of terrorism has become a useful political tool, since as Cooley observes: "If you label an adversary, in this century or the last, a "terrorist" and make this label stick, he loses moral and ethical value and becomes a rogue player outside the rules of normal political games" (2). Hence the almost comical attempts of the Bush administration to label Sadddam Hussein as a terrorist. Seen through this lens, movements fighting against oppression, ethnic cleansing and even genocide have no chance. They can no longer rely on the sympathy of the world, because they are terrorists. Groups such as the Zapatistas in southern Mexico, fighting for the very survival of indigenous farmers whilst retaining an utmost respect for civilian life, are already considered terrorists by the Mexican government. Ordinary (albeit misguided) Pashtun combatants, who were defending their homeland against the Northern Alliance, are now incarcerated in the American base in Guantanamo, with no protection from the Geneva convention, no access to lawyers, no possibility of a fair trial, and little hope of ever going home (3). Why? Because the US government, in its frustration at being unable to capture any major Al-Qaeda members, has marked these uneducated Afghan farmers as terrorists. Even Nelson Mandela's ANC, spearhead of the combat against apartheid, would now qualify as a terrorist organisation. Surprisingly, China still hasn't thought of declaring the Dalai Lama a terrorist… But maybe we should not be so cynical. It is ridiculous to think that absolutely every armed group in the world is considered terrorist. For example, the CIA-backed assassination of president Allende in Chile in 1973 was not terrorism, nor were the multiple assassination attempts against Fidel Castro of Cuba. Incidentally, these attempted murders were supported by an exiled Cuban community, which also defends a decades-long, crippling economic embargo against the island, which has lead to great misery for the compatriots they are trying to "free". Florida hosts several training camps and headquarters for organisations that repeatedly send commandos to Cuba (4) to commit attacks on state institutions. Ironically, it is the Cuban government that is accused by the USA of supporting terrorism. The KLA in Kosovo were not a terrorist organisation when they were our allies in the destruction of Serbia (they only became so when they showed their true colours and tried to dismantle neighbouring Macedonia in their bid to create a greater Albania). Meanwhile, Pakistan plays host to many armed Islamist groups who are waging what looks suspiciously like a terrorist campaign in Indian Kashmir, without any fear of US involvement. The "war against terror" is not what it seems. 1-
Editorial. 2002. Bush et les libertés. Le Monde, 12/08/02 |
||||||
|
||||||