What do you call a child killed by a bomb dropped on his home in Afghanistan in the war against terrorism?
Collateral damage.
What do you call a person killed when the World Trade Center and a part of the Pentagon were destroyed by terrorists on September 11?
A bond trader, computer programmer, firefighter, or police officer. A unique individual who skied, cooked, read history or danced. A person who loved and was loved.
This is the script that is being written by the Bush administration, many policymakers and the media. On one side are human beings: mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, lovers, friends, firefighters, policemen, and airline passengers who died in heroic attempts to save others; vibrant, intelligent, productive human beings whose lives were cut short by religious fanatics. On the other side are filthy, stupid, cowardly, bearded, religious fundamentalists hiding out in caves and encouraging Osama Bin Laden to kill Americans.
No wonder Americans band together, wave the flag and cheer as their armed forces head into battle. “Hi-yo Silver, away!” John Wayne, the Lone Ranger, and the U.S. cavalry ride again. Only this time their horses have wings.
“Yep, keep it simple, partner.” You can almost hear the Hollywood executives responding to the Bush administration’s call for advice.
Keep it simple. Good versus evil. White against Black. Swarthy terrorists hiding under beds, taking over our airports, sending Anthrax through the mail versus high minded police officers charged with defending our way of life. Evil doers versus the pure of heart. Ignorance versus enlightenment.
What about those who want analyses that don’t begin with the assumption that once the good guys have smoked out the Osama Bin Laden’s of the world and sprayed them with insecticide all our problems are over?
Collateral damage.
And people alarmed that we may be planting the seeds for a police state at home and unjustified military adventures abroad?
Collateral damage.
And you and me?
Col…. No, hold on a second.
Academics may be threatened but they are still alive and well and have a job to do. Our job is to raise hard questions and to forswear facile thinking in the search for answers. Our job is to find ways to prevent war and to contain collateral damage when wars occur. Our job, in the wake of efforts to silence us, is to speak up. With that in mind, here are questions and reflections meant to provoke a rational response to the September 11 terrorist attacks that will lead to a better and safer world without causing nearly as much collateral damage as one 15,000 pound Daisy Cutter bomb.
Has the bombing of Afghanistan made us more secure? What have we gained from the bombing? What has it cost? The bombing has no doubt weakened the capacity of Al Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks. It has also put an end to the repressive rule of the Taleban in Afghanistan. But the costs have been high.
There are, of course, the direct costs which may be measured in billions of dollars or in goods and services foregone because the resources needed to produce them are employed in conducting a military campaign. And then there is the collateral damage. The bombing, no doubt, has heightened the impression among millions in the Middle East that the U.S. has little regard for their well being. How many of them will now join the ranks of terrorist organizations?
How should the United States have responded to the September 11 attacks? Might it have allowed the United Nations to take the lead in orchestrating a response? Do people in the rest of the world have good reason to be concerned that the United States is the only remaining superpower? How might we expect them to respond to proclamations that we occupy the high moral ground?
“On one side is democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life; on the other is tyranny, arbitrary executions, and mass murder. We’re right and they’re wrong. It’s is simple as that,” said New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in remarks before the United Nations General Assembly on October 1, 2001 that echoed the reaction of President Bush and many others. But does the rhetoric match the reality?
Last April, Joyce Horman and Jennifer Harbury spoke at a human rights forum organized by the University of Massachusetts Human Rights Working Group. Joyce’s husband, Charles, and thousands of others were killed as a result of a violent coup d’état in which the democratically elected government of Chile was overthrown. The U.S. government promoted and supported that coup. Jennifer’s husband, Efrain Bamaca Velasques, was tortured and killed by the military in Guatemala, another country in which the U.S. was involved in the overthrow of a democratically elected government. The rest of the world, therefore, has reason to be skeptical when the U.S. claims to champion democracy. And it well might wonder on which side Mr. Giulliani would place Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and some of our other allies in the war against terrorism.
And what about the rule of law? According to the U.S. Constitution the power to declare war resides in the Congress. But we went to war against Afghanistan without a declaration of war. The law, furthermore, says that when people are arrested they have a right to know what crime they are being charged with and the right to counsel. Nevertheless, over 1000 individuals whose names, appearance, or nationality mark them in the eyes of the authorities as suspected terrorists have been arrested and many of them have been held in secret without being charged with any crime and without being provided with counsel. The Bush administration, furthermore, wants the trials of suspected terrorists to be conducted in secret by military tribunals and it wants the right to eavesdrop on defendants’ conversations with their lawyers. As The New York Times put it in an editorial on December 12, President Bush and his Attorney General John Ashcroft are bent on building a parallel criminal justice system in which:
“People can be rounded up by the government and held at undisclosed locations for indefinite periods of time. It is a system that allows the government to conduct warrantless wiretaps of conversations between prisoners and their lawyers, a system in which defendants can be tried and condemned to death by secret military tribunals…the Bush administration is taking us down a path that will surely wind up embarrassing the country and undermining our own standing as a defender of international human rights and global justice.”
Finally, with respect to the rule of law, it should be noted that the Bush administration has opposed efforts to establish the International Criminal Court (ICC) because it wants to protect U.S. government officials charged with participating in the overthrow of democratically elected governments, or torturing prisoners from the hands of international law. Yet the ICC, once established, might be used to try terrorists such as those involved in the attack on the World Trade Center. Rather than champion the rule of law in the international arena, in other words, the Bush administration would undermine it.
And respect for human life? The United States is the only country in the world that has dropped a nuclear bomb on another country. And while the death penalty has been outlawed in many countries of the world, it is still applied in the United States. Furthermore, according to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, the week before Christmas Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil “contemptuously dismissed” a World Health Organization proposal for a modest increase in foreign aid that would help poor countries fund health care that would save 8 million lives a year. Some would point out that because poverty both kills and provides the breeding grounds for killers, O’Neil’s reaction was not only callous, it was shortsighted as well.
Per capita GDP in Afghanistan is $800 according to the Central Intelligence Agency and the majority of the population suffers “from insufficient food, clothing, housing, and medical care.” Meanwhile 1.2 billion people, according to the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Report 2001, live on less than $1 a day and 2.8 billion on less than $2 a day. On the other hand, per capita GDP in the United States according to the United Nations is $31,872 or 40 times higher than it is in Afghanistan, while according to studies by economists at the World Bank income inequality has been increasing in recent years. Nevertheless, the U.S. allocates a meager .1% of its GDP to foreign aid, the lowest percentage among the countries represented by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development and far below the .7% recommended by the United Nations. So the question naturally arises: wouldn’t we be safer and better off if we devoted more of our resources to feeding the hungry of the world and less to weeding out terrorists in Afghanistan?
The above are just a sampling of questions and reflections provoked by the Bush administration’s war against terrorism. None of them, of course, is meant to condone the bombing of the World Trade Center or other terrorist acts carried out my individuals acting on behalf of reprehensible organizations or regimes. All are meant to counter the self righteous posturing of policymakers that contributes little to understanding the reason for terrorist attacks and how they can be prevented. And they are meant, too, to counter the insidious attempt by reactionaries to intimidate critics of the Bush administration.
According to a document, “Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can be Done About It,” produced by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, an organization headed by Lynne Cheney, wife of the Vice-President:
“Polls across the country, coupled with statements from public officials and citizens, have been remarkably uniform in their condemnation of the terrorist attacks and support of a military response…In contrast has been reaction from the Ivory Tower. While there are no doubt numerous exceptions, a vast number of colleges and universities-public and private, small and large, from all parts of the country-have sponsored teach-ins and other fora which have been distinctly equivocal and divided in their response.”
That was meant as condemnation of academics that refuse to jump on the bomb Afghanistan bandwagon. I take it as a complement. It was also meant to intimidate. I take it as a clarion call to stand up and be counted.
This essay is the first in what will be a regular UMBHRWG column in The Mass Media. As part of its efforts to bring human rights issues into the academic arena the University of Massachusetts Human Rights Working Group (UMBHRWG) seeks contributions for future columns from faculty, students, and human rights activists on and off campus. The essays should be from 750 to 1500 words in length and emailed to [email protected] or sent by regular mail to the Human Rights Working Group, c/o The Mass Media, M 1/627 McCormack Hall, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd, Boston, MA.02125