|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 
The War on Terror and the Terror of War
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Note: The following paper is intended to promote discussion and reflection. It does not necessarily reflect the positions of KAIROS as an organization. |
||
 |
 |
 |
| U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23: |
| “Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity [U.S. military-economic supremacy]... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming... We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.” |
— George Kennan Director of Policy Planning U.S. State Department 1948 |
- What is the war on terror?
- What is terrorism?
- Rejecting the War on Terror framework
- Canada and the War on Terror
- KAIROS partners and the war on terror
- Undermining resistance to globalization?
- A KAIROS response to the War on Terror:
- No impunity for those who violate human rights and international law, whether state or non-state actors.
- Continue to pursue economic justice and global equality
- Oppose empires and concentrated power
Is the day George Kennan referred to in 1948 now upon us?
Since the U.S. government declared a war on terror in the aftermath of the September 11 2001 events, much ink has been spilled to analyze and comment on the war, ranging from confident justifications to blistering critiques. While KAIROS has recognized the serious impact of the war on its global justice work, and has had many conversations about its negative effects on human rights around the world, we have no explicit policy or reflections on this issue.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of perspectives on the war on terror and a framework for our work in responding to the challenges and implications of the war. KAIROS partners in the South were asked to provide their reflections and direct experiences of the war on terror, which are incorporated into this paper.
 |
What is the war on terror? |
|
 |
 |
The idea that a war could be fought against terrorism predates George W. Bush. It was during the early Ronald Reagan years of the 1980s that U.S. foreign policy became focused around winning a war against international terrorism or against “depraved opponents of civilization itself”, in the words of President Reagan. His orders to bomb Libya on April 14, 1986 after two American servicemen were killed in a Berlin nightclub might be considered the beginning of the U.S. war on terrorism.
Nevertheless, it was not until President Bush addressed Congress on September 20, 2001 that the term “war on terror” became synonymous with American foreign policy. “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”
In the period since then, the U.S. has attempted to enroll as many countries as possible in the war on terror, either through direct military assistance in the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, or through a myriad of other methods. Those who comply are rewarded. Pakistan, for example, languished for years on the U.S. blacklist for its nuclear ambitions and support of Islamic extremists. However, its support for the war on terror was recently rewarded with U.S. approval to purchase advanced U.S. fighter aircraft, technology Pakistan had been coveting for several decades.
Those countries that waver are quickly punished, a lesson Canada was taught in early 2003 when it declared it would not support the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. Canada – U.S. relations were thrown into a chill south of the border and the U.S. ambassador to Canada made it clear that Canada would suffer repercussions for its refusal to toe the line. As President Bush said in no uncertain terms to the world shortly after 9-11, “you’re either with us or against us.”
Consequently, governments on every continent have responded with a range of legislative changes and actions to fight global terrorism. Already repressive regimes, from Colombia to Indonesia, have used the war on terror rhetoric to justify escalating human rights violations and to crack down on dissent to their policies.
In effect, the war on terror has become intentionally undefinable.
The enemy is unknown and therefore anyone (or any state) can become
a suspect or a supporting actor. The extent of terrorism networks
is also unknown and therefore the war against terrorism can be a
war without end. Terrorism is portrayed as a frightening new phenomenon
that does not fit any existing rules of war or legislation. Therefore
the response to it can construct rules along the way, or better
yet, have no rules at all. The UN, the Geneva Conventions, human
rights laws, and other legal frameworks are rendered inappropriate
or as obstacles in the war on terror. Naming terrorism as the enemy
while never defining it allows maximum flexibility as a response.
Top
of page
|
What is terrorism? |
|
|
|
There is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism. Attempts to come up with an accepted definition at the UN have been fraught with difficulties. As one commentator remarked, “one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” A general definition that captures some agreement defines terrorism as “the use of violent means aimed at civilian populations in order to achieve political, religious, or other aims.”
Those who have proclaimed war on terrorism deny that they themselves are capable of committing it or even that states are capable of terrorism themselves. The U.S. prefers to talk about “state-sponsored terrorism,” rather than “state terrorism,” perhaps for the reason that it precludes a priori any possibility that the U.S. itself could be accused of terrorism.
However, cases of U.S. involvement in the targeting of civilians are well documented. The most obvious case, although by no means the most extreme, was the U.S. support for and direction to the Nicaraguan contras, who in the later years of the war were directed to attack, in the euphemism of military speak, “soft targets”, meaning undefended civilian targets such as health clinics and community co-ops. Nicaragua successfully took the U.S. to the World Court and then went to the Security Council which put forth a resolution calling on “all states to observe international law”. It was defeated by virtue of the U.S. veto.
The last century is replete with other examples, from the tens of thousands of Filipinos killed at the turn of the 19th century, to the villages razed in Vietnam, to the dozens of cases where the U.S. supplied arms and aid to regimes that slaughtered civilians by the thousands. The following readily available examples provide some statistics on the number of people killed resulting from U.S. actions that were the primary support for illegal coups and invasions:
- U.S. sponsored Guatemala coup of 1954 – 120,000 dead
- U.S. invasion of Dominican Republic in 1965 – 3,000 dead
- U.S. sponsored coup of Indonesia in 1965 – 800,000 dead
- U.S. support for East Timor invasion of 1975 – 250,000 dead
- U.S. support to Nicaraguan contras in 1980s – 30,000 dead
- U.S. training and support for El Salvador death squads in 1980s – 80,000 dead
- U.S. support to South African apartheid regime and war in Angola – 1,000,000 dead
- U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 – 8,000 dead
- U.S. war in Vietnam 1954 – 75 – 4,000,000 dead
- U.S. support for Colombia government – 70,000 dead
- U.S. military support to Turkey’s war against Kurds – 35,000 dead
A conservative estimate of the number of people killed by U.S.
violence since World War II is 8,000,000 people. Ed Herman in his
book, The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda,
notes that states engage in wholesale terrorism, while those they
define as terrorists engage in retail terrorism. Comparable numbers
could likely be researched for the other previous superpower, the
Soviet Union.
|
Rejecting the War on Terror framework |
|
|
|
In summary, we must reject the idea that states are incapable of terrorism. The words of George Kennan in 1948 quoted at the beginning of this reflection now have more resonance than ever with the senior planners of the war on terror. In fact the current war on terror is an ideological construct, designed to justify the American projection of power and military dominance required to maintain the current global disparity of resource control and consumption. Those who question the accuracy of that agenda need only read the texts of empire planners themselves. A good starting point is the Project for a New American Century, a think-tank that is directly linked to many senior politicians in the current U.S. administration, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Its language is unambiguous and calls for “full spectrum military dominance” in the world.
Ironically, the system of international laws, covenants and treaties constructed as a response to the horrors of World War II, and designed to prevent militarily powerful countries from imposing their will on the world, is now seen by many in the U.S. government as an obstacle to protecting American interests. Accordingly, those responsible for prosecuting the war on terror have made frequent claims to exemption from these international laws, either ignoring them or devising new constructs (“unlawful combatants”) when it would be impossible to escape international scrutiny.
The real struggle for those who believe in the sanctity of human
rights and peace is not against terrorism, as defined by the powerful,
but against any person, group, or state that violates human rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the core human rights
instruments that uphold and support these rights must remain the
constant touchstone for critiquing global events, whether the unexpected
action of ramming airliners into office towers, or the publicly
debated and carefully planned illegal war against Iraq. All persons
and institutions, regardless of their legitimacy as public actors,
must be held to the same global standards.
|
Canada and the War on Terror |
|
|
|
Since 9/11, the U.S. has become increasingly concerned about the security of its borders. Suggestions by the U.S. (unsubstantiated) that the perpetrators of the 9/11 bombings may have entered the U.S. through Canada and other critiques of Canadian security policy have ramped up the pressure on Canada to join the war on terror. Cognizant of the Canadian economy’s dependence on exports to the U.S. and fearful of U.S. punitive measures, the Canadian government has been keen to assure the U.S. that it is a faithful ally in the war on terror.
In December 2001 Canada rushed through an anti-terrorism law (formerly Bill C-36 and now called the Anti-Terrorism Act or ATA) that has been widely critiqued by human rights groups for its erosion of human rights. As an example of how the law is being applied, five Muslim men have been held for up to four years as a result of the issuance of “security certificates”, a process whereby someone suspected of being a terrorist can be arrested and detained without charge based on evidence that neither they nor their lawyers are allowed to see. While these certificates could be used prior to 9/11, their use by the government has increased in the past four years.
Suspects can be deported without trials to other countries where they may be tortured or killed. An April 2005 Human Rights Watch report, Still at Risk, on the western deportation of suspects to countries where torture is routine devotes a whole section to Canada and raises serious concerns about Canada’s commitment to international law on torture.
The provisions of the ATA lack accountability and are therefore open to abuse by Canada’s police and military apparatus. Furthermore, they are contributing to a general trend in Canada and globally whereby human rights and freedoms that took years to put in place are being quickly eroded and undermined in the name of security and fighting terrorism. As a result, certain groups in Canada, especially refugees and migrants, are facing increased discrimination based merely on their identity rather than any factual evidence. The creation of the Canada Borders Services Agency has increased the focus on keeping “undesirable” foreigners out of Canada. The result will be increased difficulty for those fleeing persecution and oppression in search of a safe haven.
While Canada formally refused to support the U.S. led war against Iraq (Canadian naval ships in the Persian Gulf provided indirect support and Canadian exchange soldiers were part of a U.S. military unit in Iraq), it did send troops to Afghanistan. Some of the prisoners now languishing in Guantanamo Bay were handed over to the U.S. by Canadian troops in Afghanistan.
There is also concern that Canada’s foreign aid budget may
be employed as a tool in the war on terror if aid dollars are designated
for beefing up security or for missions such as the military one
in Afghanistan. While global definitions of aid have not yet been
formally changed, there are gray areas that might be exploited to
include activities that divert from the real aid priorities of eliminating
poverty and promoting human rights.
|
KAIROS partners and the war on terror |
|
|
|
While the curtailment of human rights in Canada is alarming, reports from southern partners indicate that human rights abuses and the suppression, often violent, of legitimate dissent have increased dramatically under the auspices of the war on terror. For regimes already under the international spotlight for their human rights records, the war on terror came as a political gift. As Naomi Klein writes, “the war on terror was never a war in the traditional sense. It is, instead, a kind of brand, an idea that can be easily franchised by any government in the market for an all-purpose opposition cleanser.”
In Colombia, KAIROS partners relate how the government has frequently labeled opponents to their military campaign against armed groups as “terrorists”. Invoking an idea he calls “democratic security”, President Uribe has militarized civil society. All civilians are called to play their part in the war on terror by acting as spies, paramilitaries, or some other form of support to the Colombian military. Those who refuse to do so are assumed to be supporters of terrorism, echoing the “for us or against us” ideology of George W. Bush.
In the Philippines, aside from using war on terror language to reinvigorate military efforts against insurgent groups—now more unfettered from international standards of war--, the Philippine government extended the war on terror net to include trade unionists. President Gloria Arroyo condemned “those who terrorize factories that provide jobs”, a thinly veiled threat against union organizers attempting to protect workers in the ubiquitous factories that have sprung up in the country’s “Export Processing Zones.”
Indonesian partners have been highly critical of their government’s Anti-Terrorism Law which defines terrorism in very broad terms: “any violent act that could create terror or insecurity among the public, violate the public’s freedom, cause the death of other people or cause the destruction of vital or strategic objects.” In May 2003 the government launched the largest military operation since its 1975 invasion of East Timor when it charged into the province of Aceh whose people have been fighting for independence since the mid-1970s. How could a government known for its atrocities only a few years earlier in East Timor repeat the process in Aceh? The answer: the Indonesian government has attempted to cast the war in Aceh as a war against terrorists.
Our partners’ analysis of the war on terror converges around
their understanding of the war as an acceleration of the U.S. economic
and political agenda to consolidate its control of the South. They
note that their governments’ implementation of the war on
terror is accompanied by the privatization of state companies, mass
layoffs, liberalization of foreign investment rules, a decrease
in state social services, and other neo-liberal policies that, while
under attack in the late 1990s by civil society movements, have
been boldly thrust forward again. The simultaneous attack on dissenting
movements has been used to clear a public path for these policies
to be accepted as inevitable and necessary.
|
Undermining resistance to globalization? |
|
|
|
Some analysts point out that the war on terror was instituted at the height of civil society opposition to free trade and globalization policies as exemplified through the many global protests at economic summits and trade negotiations. The culmination of these protests occurred in Seattle in 1999 when civil society opposition to the World Trade Organization is thought to have played a major role in scuttling any agreement. Frightened by the prospect of true democracy, some believe that governments have invoked the war on terror as a counterthrust to anti-globalization forces.
Others are not so sure, pointing out that the U.S. war on terror can be seen to be actually undermining the economic position of the U.S. Since 2001, the U.S. has spent an additional $150 billion per year on the war on terror, a significant factor in the U.S. current federal deficit, expected to hit $500 billion in 2005, and accumulated debt of nearly $8 trillion. To be sure, there are immediate winners and losers: winners include military contractors and Iraq contract awardees such as Halliburton and Bechtel, companies with close ties to the U.S. administration. Losers include the poor in the U.S. as domestic programs such as health, education and welfare are slashed to make room for so-called “security” spending.
Still, those who are concerned about the U.S. compromising its
global economic position of dominance argue that one of the strategies
of Osama bin Laden—when he was still on the U.S. payroll fighting
the Soviet Union in Afghanistan—was to bleed the enemy through
protracted guerilla warfare. It was bin Laden himself who pointed
out that the September 11 attacks cost al-Qaeda approximately $500,000
and caused the U.S. economy $500 billion in damage. As the U.S.
continues to fight its war on terror, with its huge budgetary needs,
is bin Laden encouraged that things are going according to plan?
|
A KAIROS response to the War on Terror |
|
|
|
KAIROS has identified the war on terror as a major theme in its human rights and peacebuilding program. Generally, we have made it clear that we are opposed to the war on terrorism. We reject the “with us or against us” bi-polar world of the current U.S. political administration. Our position for peace, justice and human rights requires us to oppose both the non-state actors who target civilian populations for political gain, and the state actors who wage war against them and willingly accept large losses of civilian life as a tolerable price of war. Our terminology and frame of reference for analyzing conflicts must not be “terrorists” and “anti-terrorists”, but rather those who uphold all life as sacred and those who unflinchingly sacrifice life in pursuit of power and self-interest.
By upholding the following principles and strategies, KAIROS can
sort through some of the difficult justice issues that arise from
the war on terror.
1 No impunity for those who violate human rights and international law, whether state or non-state actors.
KAIROS opposition to the war on terror does not in any way condone or excuse the crimes of non-state actors. There must be no impunity for those who violate national or international law and human rights. However, these criminals must be pursued using the apparatus and tools of law enforcement agencies. Elevating the response using the terms of “war” as President Bush has done (while at the same time ignoring international laws that provide rules for war) has produced tens of thousands of civilian casualties and paradoxically increased terrorist acts.
However, there are also mechanisms to hold governments and state representatives accountable for human rights violations and other illegal acts. The International Criminal Court and the World Court of Justice are gaining recognition as tools to combat impunity. New global concepts, such as the Responsibility to Protect, are also being debated as ways to protect vulnerable populations. KAIROS needs to further explore and encourage initiatives that are reducing impunity.
2 Continue to pursue economic justice and global equality
While early post 9-11 analyses of the root causes of terrorism were derided as justifying these acts or “encouraging” them, it is now accepted conventional wisdom that poverty, especially when coupled with the lack of democratic means to create change, fuel violent acts. However, as the George Kennan quote at the beginning of this paper illustrates, disparity and oppression not only fuels acts of violence, it also a context that those in positions of power feel compelled to defend—with violence and war if necessary. Taken as a whole, the list of military interventions of either the U.S. or the Soviet Union in the 20th century provides sufficient evidence for this theory.
To mitigate acts of violence KAIROS must continue to work towards a world where the world’s resources are shared more equally and sustainably. Our work on fair trade, debt cancellation, and global finance remains vital in this regard.
3 Oppose empires and concentrated power
Empires intrinsically contain the seeds of oppression and domination. The massive concentration of power and wealth in today’s world is anathema to the values of the gospel and fosters conditions of war and violence. KAIROS must oppose the concept of empire, whether found at our back door or in other parts of the world. In this regard, KAIROS should consider further work in areas such as multilateralism, UN reform and global governance, and international law, especially the strengthening of human rights law implementation.
Finally, and certainly not least of all, KAIROS must uncover and
examine Canada’s own complicity in supporting and benefiting
from the U.S. empire. The same global economic system that funnels
a disproportionate share of global resources to the U.S. also underpins
Canada’s economic position in the world. While Canada’s
military is miniscule in comparison to its U.S. counterpart, the
umbrella of the U.S. empire extends across the 49th parallel in
the form of NATO and other military alliances. While occasionally
Canada has irritated the U.S. by not complying with expectations
(for example, non-participation in the Iraq war), a succession of
Canadian political leaders have been willing to play the junior
partner in the U.S. drive for global domination.
|
|