For the last few months , I've been working on a concept that I have been calling Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach as an alternative concept to the war on terror. I believe that the world wants and needs Something Better than a future vision for the world that envisions constant warfare between cultures.
This blog is about solutions. Rather than just criticizing what is wrong with the world, I have been trying to come up with a better response to the threat of terrorism. Even though my background is in education, and I will soon begin doctoral studies in psychology, I feel that I am as qualified as anyone to think creatively about what could be better than the state of things today.
Because this has been on my mind for while, I happened to run into a web site called Americans for Victory Over Terrorism.(AVOT) (http://www.avot.org/) This group, led by former US Secretary of Education William Bennett, believes that the war on terror is the right response for America and the world.
In reading their Statement of Principles, it is clear that they believe that the Muslim world in general is a danger to the West. They don't appear to make any distinction between Islamic extremists and the rest of the Muslim world. They believe that the only way to deal with this perceived threat is through military force. They also adhere to the belief that somehow the war on terror can be won in some way. This stance, which is the accepted dogma of today, is a trap for humanity. It is a negative choice , which is being forced upon the world by leaders of the West who control warfare.
Humanity needs better leadership than this. Humanity needs better ideas than this, and so I am providing one. Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach. (See previous postings, and below.)
As an exercise in debate, I couldn't help wondering what would be a better response to their statement of principles that is more logical, makes more sense, and has hope for a better tomorrow. I brainstormed some responses to their statements of principles, which contrasts their negative view for the future and present of the world for something more positive and hopeful.
Read on, and let me know what you think.
Universal.
AVOT statements are numbered, my responses are in italics.
Americans for Victory over Terrorism: (AVOT)
Statement of Principles
http://www.avot.org/stories/storyReader$11
1. America is confronted with an enemy no less dangerous and no less determined than the twin menaces of fascism and communism we faced in the 20th century. And as we were victorious over them, so we must prevail in this, the first war of the 21st century. AVOT will, as its first task, remind citizens of the paramount importance of this effort.
Terrorists are not the danger that the USSR was. USSR did have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Terrorists do not possess nuclear weapons at this point and should not if the US changes its emphasis from Iraq to non-proliferation. Despite strong US words about protecting the world from terrorism through war, unguarded nuclear plants worldwide are potential targets for ambitious terrorists, and the US has done little to fix the major security problem. If the US is serious, it will act "decisively" on non-proliferation as it "did" with Iraq. Pakistan, the chief nuclear proliferating nation continues to receive favor from the US. This seriously flawed approach increases a threat rather than decreasing it, and undermines US credibility in its claims to seek security through war.
2. The radical Islamists who attacked us did so because of our democratic ideals, our belief in, and practice of, liberty and equality. AVOT will take to task those who blame America first and who do not understand--or who are unwilling to defend--our fundamental principles.
Terrorists are only a small minority of the Muslim people of the world who see the hypocrisy in US pursuit of strategic concerns at the expense of moral ones. This gives this tiny group of extremists a moral reason to fight. By framing opposition to a small minority of terrorists as a "war," the US uses a broad response for a narrow problem, and so negatively impacts many Muslims who might otherwise not be negative about the West. The US talks of HR, but continues to support dictators such as Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, as it did Saddam in Iraq. The US supports Israeli policy at every turn despite the human rights abuses it has spawned. (Read on for statements regarding the Palestinians.) This hypocrisy is provocative and rather than deflecting criticism by pointing figers at those who "blame America first" the US must recognize this US contribution to the problem and revise its foreign policy to reduce this effect which only fuels further terrorism rather than decreasing it.
3. America's foreign policy should be guided by those same principles upon which America itself was founded. AVOT will call for a foreign policy that emphasizes democracy and human rights.
The best way for the US to honor human rights is to restrain its military forces so that innocent civilians are not killed in the process of "liberating" them. US policy does not consistently support HR and democracy and that is its fundamental weakness in being unable to find broad support around the globe. The US funded and supported Saddam Hussein's regime throughout the 80s. The US undermined the democracy in Haiti recently by facilitating the removal of Aristide. Much of the conflict we are experiencing today is related to immoral policies promoted by those in power then, and now. The US must consistently support a morally defensible position in its foreign policy rather than consistently supporting a strategic one, which undermines the very values it clams to be protecting.
4. In this war, our closest and most trusted allies must be our fellow democracies. AVOT will advocate steadfast support for our friends and oppose policies that place short-term "allies" above them.
This refers to Israel, which receives unquestioning US support despite numerous HR abuses and abrogations of UN resolutions. While Israel needs security, it will never achieve it through occupation or annihilation of Palestinians. At the same time Palestinians must turn to nonviolent means to achieve change to be able to live alongside an Israel which will remain. Unless the US increases efforts to bring about such reconciliation, this conflict will continue to fuel the worldwide terror threat, rather than decrease it.
5. By President Bush's declaration to Congress, America is at war with states that harbor terrorists or sponsor terrorism -- in all its guises. AVOT will inform Americans about nations that pose a threat to us or that help those that threaten us.
US intelligence on "states that harbor terrorists" is suspect following the lack of evidence of this before the invasion of Iraq, or since. Will the US genuinely identify terror threats, or will it use the spectre of terrorism to advance its strategic agenda? How can the US look outward to the world to find blame for the terror threat, when US sales of weapons, US support of dictators, US overlooking of Saudi Arabia as a terror threat, and US overlooking proliferators such as Pakistan continues. These actions undermine US claims to be seeking security. These policies all continue to contribute to an increased terror threat.
6. Because of the threat posed by radical Islamists and others, Americans will have to rethink many of their preconceptions about fighting terrorism. AVOT will defend policies that preserve civil liberties without sacrificing common sense and our common defense.
Here they're advocating openness to rights-threatening legislation such as the USA Patriot Act, and to endless war on terror. If they're interested in defending Democrctic values, they won't support legislation that limits it. It's contradictory to do so. The threat posed by radical Islamists is a major security threat, but not one that requires an endless war to deal with it. The major preconception that needs to be rethought is the one that causes US leadership to frame all major initiatives as "wars." This knee-jerk response provides those in power with license to pursue military and corporate agendas under the cover of fighting a war. The negative side effects of framing it in such a way are far greater than any gains, and so the cure for terrorism becomes worse than the disease. In the name of the 3,000 killed on 9-11, approximately 10,000 Afghans and Iraqis civilians have died. Now, because of this war approach, the most popular name to give newborn Muslim boys is Osama. This is how US power causes increased hate around the world, and in doing so increases the danger rather than reducing it.
7. The best defense is a good offense, and America must have a military capacity that enables us to defend ourselves while rooting out terrorists. AVOT will support an increased budget for the Department of Defense, research and deployment of a missile defense system, and an even more capable military.
A better offense for the US and the world would be a constructive one rather than a destructive one. A truly better offense would be an approach that does not increase the negative side effects that stem from fighting an endless world war to deal with what is a specific security problem associated with a relatively small number of extremists. Instead, the US and the West should pursue Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach. This positive approach seeks to change US policy and truly increase security by restraining military and intelligence forces to reduce the numbers of innocents killed, decrease the numbers of people whose homes are invaded by Americans in green fatigues. Cooperation involves the US taking part in multilateral security, economic, and environmental agreements that seek to secure all rather than securing the US at the expense of others such as Iraqis and Afghans. Examples of this would be true fair trade, and joining in the international effort to ban landmines. Outreach involves the significant support of exchange programs and sport programs to increase positive relationships between the West and the world. In this way, the US could replace an approach which is not succeeding, and can not succeed, with a world view that is positive, and has true potential to decrease the threat posed by conflict among religions and cultures.
8. Improving our gathering and effective utilization of intelligence is a necessity. AVOT will support responsible efforts by our nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies to collect and utilize more -- and more pertinent -- information and to facilitate interagency communication.
US intelligence power must be used to help the US understand how it relates to other powers in the world. It must not be used to undermine nations through subversion. To gather information is one thing, to use such personnel to weaken governments,often democratically elected ones, is contrary to American values, and reduces trust of the US worldwide. The US must change its Machiavellian approach to foreign policy and intelligence gathering so that these functions can begin to do more good than harm, as is currently the case. Through restraint of these powers, the US can gain more through gaining wide support than it can through shortsighted influence of events.
9. A necessary front in this war is the battle for international public opinion. AVOT will support radio, television, and other mass media patterned on Radio Free Europe to show how America has stood up for Muslims and other persecuted peoples throughout the years and to explain the virtues of democracy.
Will this radio message be honest about the history of the US in the past few years and the last century, or will it be a propaganda mechanism which touts only the reality which supports expanded US power and influence. Will such "outreach" treat its Muslim listeners as if they are knowledgeable about events and history, or will it offer a sanitized message that they are expected to accept without question? Will cultures beyond the West be treated with respect, which has a chance of positively influencing them, or will they be treated as something less worthy that must be forced to change either by force or by propaganda? The latter two cannot succeed.
10. Finally, we must understand our enemies better. AVOT will encourage scholarly research into various aspects of Islamic theology, history, and culture. AVOT will hold such scholarship to a serious and rigorous standard.
Is Islam the "enemy," or is it a small number of extremists that are the danger? Is "understanding the enemy" merely stereotyping them? To continue the mistake of over-generalizing a widely divergent and diverse Arab / Muslim culture risks continuing to alienate the very populations being sought for transformation. Such an arrogant approach has little chance of success. Instead, the West must accept the reality that Arab / Muslim culture will exist along with Western culture far into the future, and the best approach is to find ways to co-exist, and seek positive influence through positive interactions rather than through war. In the same way the Palestinians must accept the reality that Israel will continue to exist, the West must accept the existence of Muslim culture, and must find ways to share the planet. To continue the hopeless delusion of being able to eliminate all terrorism through war is to condemn all people, even those in the West to endless war, and the anxiety and instability it brings. We must do better than this by calling on leadership to move beyond the War on Terror paradigm toward and positive and realistic relationship with the world.
Main theme: The US speaks as if it seeks security and peace, but the actions it takes, and the policies it pursues, ensure the opposite result, decreased security, and endless war. The world must become aware of this disconnect and must call upon the US to adopt a plan for operating in the world that matches its words and its values. The war on terror does not achieve this, Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach does, and policies such as this should replace the folly of the war on terror.
Thanks for reading. Keep sending your e-mails.
Universal
No comments:
Post a Comment