Frends Logo:

3. The "War on Terror" is Doomed Unless We Change Our Approach

We continue to be reminded of the events of the 11th of September 2001, and will do for years to come, as if they were the only world events of note. Part of this is due to modern technology making it possible to put live pictures and descriptions into our living rooms, and to fill the pages of the world's newspapers with explicit images and text created only minutes before in a far off country; but part of it also underscores a major reason for those events occurring at all.

In the aftermath of what could justifiably be called the worst terrorist activity on American soil we were told that this was an attack on every country whose citizens had been killed, and that we must seek out the perpetrators and "bring them to justice".

Whilst the idea of bringing them to justice may be a good one, depending on your interpretation of "justice" the first part of that claim is blatantly wrong. For it to be true, those who undertook the murderous course would have had to know which countries would be affected and be prepared to pull out if any one "friendly" country had been represented. I am firmly of the belief that this was an act of terrorism directed specifically at the USA in the full knowledge that people from its allies would also be involved and that there was likely to be substantial "colateral damage" in the form of the death of many others. The date is rather interesting: the American emergency phone number is 911 which is precisely how they also write the 11th of September.

When the Americans found evidence to support a claim that Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaida terrorist movement were behind the atrocities, and that they were based in Afghanistan, the world's only remaining "super power" urged the world to unite in a "War on Terror." Though "George W" (Bush) professed that his aim was to bring bin Laden to justice his actions in bombing another country and blowing up known hiding spots in the mountains only served to make it impossible to find the very person he claimed to be seeking. To this day there is no certainty in whether Osama bin Laden is dead or alive, just as there was no certainty in the wake of World War II that Hitler died in the last days of that conflict.

Whereas I can fully appreciate the anger which the attacks on America produced, there was no way that retaliation in the way we continue to see a third-world country bombed would eliminate terrorism. Indeed, the mayhem and damage created following the allied invasion of Afghanistan would have been music to the ears of bin Laden and his followers. "Why destroy things ourselves if we can get the Americans to do it for us?" I could imagine being asked. Many sane people in western civilisation believed, naïvely, that heavily punishing Al Qaida would destroy it. In reality, those who engage in such suicide missions as were undertaken in America on that fateful date have no respect for life and think their own deaths will make them martyrs. With that line of thinking the tactic was doomed before it began.

True, the Afghans were, to some extent, liberated from the oppressive Taliban régime, but that wasn't the declared aim of the action, and even eight years on the Taliban still holds significant power in the country - despite what the Americans and their allies have done. Furthermore, the Americans still haven't cleaned up the mess they created and have planted and maintained a puppet régime to replace the former government. To some people that is just as oppressive, but in a different way!

As Chris Sidoti (former Human Rights Commissioner in Australia) noted, if there had really been a "war on terror" it would not only have been directed at bin Laden, but also at the Israelis and Palestinians, at those in northern Ireland, the Sudan and Zimbabwe, and at the many lesser known trouble spots around the world.

With the situation becoming mundane in Afghanistan and the American economy suffering we saw pressure being applied to another oppressive régime, that of Saddam Hussein. What many people do not realise is that it was thanks to the Americans that he came to power, and that the so-called "weapons of mass destruction" which he was supposedly "hiding" were provided to him by the Americans, for use against Iran. It wasn't sufficient that the United Nations weapons inspectors could not find evidence of such weapons still being in existence, George W Bush insisted that he knew the Iraqi government had them and was lying to the world.

The original UN resolution on Iraq was not specific enough to allow for invasion of that country, despite Iraq's lack of co-operation and the suggestions that its ruling powers were deliberately being evasive. When a number of the Security Council members suggested that the inspectors should be given more time to complete their investigations, and when some of them quite openly challenged the American and British "intelligence" about the existence of the very weapons being sought, Mr Bush tried to push through a new resolution to permit invasion of Iraq so its ability to support or produce weapons of mass destruction could be eliminated. In the face of impending defeat of that motion Mr Bush decided to act in defiance of the United Nations, yet he has never been brought to task over the matter.

Though George Bush repeatedly insisted that Iraq should not be allowed to have any weapons of mass destruction, or any missiles capable of flying even 150km, American, British and Australian forces, along with smaller contingents from other countries, were involved in the widespread use of such weapons and America still holds vast numbers of nuclear missiles. What is good for the goose is good for the gander: America and Britain should lead by example and destroy their own weapons of mass destruction.

There are two reasons only which are acceptable under the United Nations charter for one country to declare war on another. The first is that it is being invaded by the other country; the second that the UN itself endorses such action. However justifiable the aim of removing Saddam Hussein may have been it is clear that neither of these reasons was applicable.

It will be setting a dangerous precedent if Mr Bush, Mr Blair, and Mr Howard are not charged under the appropriate laws for declaring war illegally and committing troops to the conflict in Iraq.

There is still major opposition to the American presence on Iraqi soil, even though the previous dictator has been removed. Here again there is misinformation and a lack of forward thinking. In one statement from those in charge of operations Saddam Hussein was supposedly identified from a spy satellite image which showed a male person in army clothes and a cloth across much of his face. Who's kidding whom? Many months after the overthrow of the régime the Americans acknowledged that they wouldn't find any weapons of mass destruction. I said in 2003 that unless the UN inspectors resumed their work any such weapons which were "found" would quite likely be considered as having been planted by the Americans or British to regain some credibility. Despite the admissions of false information and lack of weapons of mass destruction the three main governments involved in this illegal invasion remained in power. A new broom has some potential to improve matters in the US, and Mr Howard became only the second Prime Minister to lose his seat in an Australian election, but the Labour Party is still in power in the UK, albeit with e new leader. At least that gives us some chance for world peace.

Contrary to openly declared friendships between the various governments world-wide there is significant ill-feeling towards Americans even in "friendly" countries such as Australia. If that's the case, and you don't have to be a research scientist to confirm it here, how much more are the Americans likely to be hated in countries where the people don't hold the same values and beliefs?

Supported by their governments American businesses ride rough-shod over their competitors in other countries, demanding that their way is best, and that they have rights above those of the locals. An example from a few years back was of a well-established Australian business making cuddly toys being forced to defend itself against the wishes of an American business also making cuddly toys and wanting to start exporting to Australia, on the grounds that the names both mentioned toys (hardly surprising) and the logos both had teddy bears (the principal product of both companies) in them. We have laws in Australia to protect extant businesses but the Americans believed they could circumvent them.

How many of us remember the American response when David Lange, then Prime Minister of New Zealand, said that American ships would be welcomed into New Zealand ports if, and only if, they were not carrying nuclear weapons. Did the Americans respect the sovereignty over that country. No way! They complained loudly and ran away from the ANZUS treaty.

When David Hicks, an Australian, was allegedly found supporting Al Qaida in Afghanistan he was taken to a US base in Cuba and eventually faced trial under American law. Why? He may have been a supporter of a terrorist organisation but he is not American, he has not been accused of committing any crime in America; he was only arrested in a country which had been invaded by America and he was not in breach of laws in that country at that time. Surely if he was to stand trial on anything it should have been in Afghanistan or Australia.

Neither do American businesses respect that people in other countries actually speak English. We have American TV programmes shoved down our throats (in a recent survey over 70% of air time on the commercial channels was taken up with American programmes) but we have to repackage our products to meet their spellings; we have computer software which is rarely supplied with an option to use non-American spelling (even those which used to don't any longer); and you can't get a book on commercial sale in the US without it being printed there or in Canada. The so-called "free trade" agreement between Australia and the US is clouded by suspicion that "free trade" to the US administration means it is free to dump subsidised products on our markets whilst it both denies doing so and refuses to allow reciprocal arrangements for our products and services.

If this is the treatment dished out to "friendly" countries what can we expect the response be in not so friendly ones?

The buildings targeted in the terrorist attacks of which we will be reminded each year were the symbols of American power. The twin towers in New York, sitting close to the heart of the financial district, represented the supremacy of American money, culture and society over the rest of the world, a parallel to the Tower of Babel story which is familiar to many; the Pentagon was the seat of military power which is used to intimidate the rest of the world (quite effective I must say); and the White House is seen as the command centre for the oppression of the world's people. Nelson Mandela declared, with good reason, that the greatest threat to world peace was George W Bush.

Terrorism does not exist without hatred. The only way to rid the world of organised terrorism is to address the reasons for the hatred, not to bomb, oppress, or ignore the rights of those who have a differing opinion. If the world had more David Langes there would be fewer opportunities for an American president to lead the world towards disaster.

Let's rethink our stance on terrorism, not to tolerate it but to look at ways which may just have a slim chance of reducing it. That requires us all, you and me included, to look at what we do, what we say, and how we operate, to see if there is something we can do to reduce the level of hatred in the world.

© 2009 Steven Secker