Averting apocalypse now after terrorist attacks

Major media now tell us in apocalyptic tones that life will never be the same after the Sept. 11, 2001. They are right. Plane travel and entry to many public spaces are already more difficult. But if terrorism represents, as it does, a contemptible degradation of politics defended in apocalyptic terms, should our response follow the same script? Must we commit ourselves, in language eerily reminiscent of the terrorists, to one more “infinite” battle between good and evil?

Terrorism merits response. Nonetheless, rather than an act of war, it is best understood as a crime against humanity. Worldwide terror and end-of-history rhetoric on both sides suggest an alternative: a new international politics to fashion and regularly revise standards of law and economics.

Radical organizations denounce the United States for support of Israeli aggression, alliance with a corrupt Saudi monarchy and destructive sanctions against Iraq. Others view the United States as intrinsically evil. Many conservatives cite such rhetoric to justify crushing the radicals, while some leftists point to persistent exploitation to excuse violence.

Yet whatever the validity of specific Arab accusations – and I share some to a degree – the murder of innocent civilians from all over the world cannot be tolerated. Terrorism has intensified racist attacks on Arab Americans. It has impeded efforts by labor, environmental, and peace activists to build international coalitions on global problems. To absolve terrorists of all responsibility is in essence to treat them as less than fully human, as incapable of choices or of restraint. Ugly circumstances do limit and predispose, but except in the most extreme cases they do not determine.

Nonetheless, our government has a poor record in “wars” against such ill-defined enemies as poverty or drugs. Terrorism is effected across many borders. Its remediation requires cross-border cooperation. “War” usually means more than punishing a specific act. It moves beyond killing perpetrators to attacks on potential supporters of future acts. It entails assaults on many who, for whatever reason, resist our attempts to capture the perpetrators. War thereby expands conflict, decreases the likelihood of collaboration, and, like terrorism itself, undermines explorations of the explosive combination of grievances and illusions that underlie terrorism.

The more surely we deem all supporters of our war inherently good and all opponents irredeemably evil, the more antipathy to the United States and support for terrorism will grow. Osama bin Laden is a greater threat today because the CIA, engaged in a war against the Soviets, eagerly treated the enemy of an enemy as a friend. It trained and armed his minions, only to see them turn against the United States.

Rather than go to war or do nothing, we must scrupulously gather evidence. Based upon such evidence, the United States could seek the indictment of the terrorists though an international tribunal, subject to full due process. If Afghanistan refuses to surrender bin Laden, U.N. restrictions on arms shipments, money laundering, and border crossings are appropriate. In the worst case, a small internationally sanctioned SWAT team- could be considered to target active and dangerous terrorist cells.

These steps represent the best prospect of uprooting terrorists while retaining world support for their apprehension.

Broad endorsement of sanctions based on failure to produce a documented perpetrator is more probable than support for an open-ended war. Nonetheless, the United States is unlikely to obtain adequate support unless it pledges in future cases against itself to defer to the common standards. During the last attack on bin Laden, U.S. planes destroyed a pharmaceutical plant. The U.S. government claimed the plant manufactured biological weapons, but it neither produced proof nor compensated the Sudan.

Curbing terrorism is a lengthy process. Even sanctions are blunt instruments and raise ongoing issues of strategic efficacy vs. justice to oppressed victims in “terrorist” states. Yet sanctions internationally monitored and periodically debated and adjusted are the most effective yet humane response to terrorism.

More enduring acceptance of international standards will demand a better deal for the classes and nations neglected by corporate globalization. International political processes must address injustices that predispose some to characterize the West as irredeemably evil and to harbor comforting visions of war to the death with a glorious afterlife.

Nonetheless, the world must not wait for complete economic justice to enact international anti-terrorism standards. Economic justice isn’t possible without a political dialogue that eschews violence. The United States could confront radical states with the ways in which traditional Islamic virtues of tolerance have been perverted into a rationale for lethal aggrandizement. These states might then ask why Western efforts to secure “freedom from aggression” never acknowledge the West’s acts of violence.

Opening current negotiations on trade, environment and arms control to dissident voices both within and outside the industrial democracies is more vital than ever. Tearing down barricades, both literal and symbolic, that limit political participation would represent a retreat from violence by governments themselves, an example for the world, and an avenue for all to refine legal standards and redress grievances.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail messages to jbuell@acadia.net.