Attacks raise questions about U.S. foreign policy

This letter is in response to Justin Jantz’s opinion article in the Oct. 11 Arbiter. At the end of his piece he raised two questions: 1) What do you propose as a solution to terrorism?, and 2) How many people are worth the sacrifice before we fight back? I would like to address these questions and add another, “Given the range of options, why did those who hold power in the U.S. opt for the response they did?”

Before addressing these questions, however, I would like to point out that “solving terrorism” is a loaded statement, for it implies a definition of terrorism that perhaps we should clarify. For example, was it an act of terrorism when the U.S. bombed a life-saving pharmaceutical plant in Sudan? Or, is the current U.S. embargo on Iraq that reportedly kills 100,000 people a year by denying thousands of people life-sustaining resources an example of terrorism?

If indeed these acts are to be defined as acts of terrorism (due to their nature as violence against innocent people) then we must keep in mind that we are trying to figure out how to “solve” a problem that exists not only in people like Osama Bin Laden, but also in ourselves.

Here is a non-war response to the recent acts of terrorism that would bring the perpetrators of these acts to justice (which is, I assume, what Justin had in mind). Working within the framework of internationally recognized and legitimated laws and organizations (i.e. the U.N.), we could, through international cooperation, work to identify and punish those who committed these atrocious crimes. This course of action would effectively bring to justice those who committed these crimes while avoiding the slaughter of more innocent people.

This approach has two advantages (from a humanitarian perspective). First, such actions would not involve the murder of more innocent people. Secondly, this option would create a much stronger global policy of non-tolerance for terrorism.

Now to turn to the question that I posed, “Given the range of options, why did those who hold power in the U.S. opt for the response they did?” Several reasons are possible. First, unilateral military action by the U.S. serves as a reminder to the rest of the world that we are willing to use military force to crush any opposition to our global economic hegemony. This point is especially relevant in light of the potential necessity of using force to protect “our oil interests” in the Middle East.

Second, it has given Bush (and Republicans in general) a great degree of power in Congress to push through desired programs (some of which are completely unrelated to these attacks), as well as afforded him a large sum of money with which to dispose of as he sees fit.

Third, it has diverted all public attention away from any sort of critical analysis or understanding of the situation. Thinking critically, U.S. citizens might begin to ask, “Why it is that there is such widespread hatred for the U.S. all over the world?especially if we are the global protectors of human rights, democracy, and justice that we claim to be?” Those reflections would eventually point to our exploitative economic foreign policies which tear people away from their sustenance, their way of life, and their very humanity (or in this case their life itself).

Fourth, it provides legitimacy for increases in the “defense” budget. Such spending is necessary in order to continue the use of force in carrying out our exploitative economic foreign policy objectives.

Fifth, it fills the void left by the collapse of Communism as a rationale for any foreign policy action deemed necessary to protect the business interests of wealthy U.S. elites. In the past, the “threat” of Communism was used to support and install human-rights-violating dictators who were friendly to our economic interests. Wealthy owners of our major corporations want easy access to a number of resources available within “undeveloped” countries, including: cheap labor, lax environmental laws, a government willing to pay for expensive and non-profitable infrastructure, and little or no governmental regulation.

In the past, when a government or movement in a country began to threaten these privileges, we simply sent our military in to oppress the movement and install someone we liked. A few examples include: Noriega in Panama, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bin Laden, although he is not a dictator, was trained and funded by the U.S. when he was serving our purposes as a thorn in the Soviet Union’s side.

Perhaps now we should ask Justin’s second question, “How many people are worth the sacrifice before we fight back?” That is, how many people are we going to allow our government, and the elites who control it, to murder before we demand justice, not only for terrorists, but also for corporations and our nation’s leaders?

Hopefully, these comments will encourage the reader to explore these issues further, applying both a critical mind and a strong belief in America’s core values. Bombing the people who live in Afghanistan does not represent justice, democracy or freedom. Neither does it protect those values. Rather, it perpetuates the types of values held by men whom we loathe.

Nate Williams

Related Posts:

1. Torture: Is it inevitable?
2. Obama is still raising questions