 |
If I have a text for tonight it comes from that American exponent of nonviolence, Martin Luther King Jr. It was he who said: "Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows." The challenge facing all of us tonight is to determine what sort of chisel the "war against terrorism" is in relation to carving stable peaceful relationships, respect for the international rule of law, and economic, social, and political justice. What problems is this war against terrorism aimed at solving, and are there any viable alternatives?
The appalling terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, were a salutary reminder that there are no absolutely secure states and that the pursuit of such security is an illusion. They also highlighted that individuals and groups who do not have their needs and interests acknowledged, or worse, individuals and groups who feel marginalized, demonized, and dehumanized, will resort to any means to secure recognition, reduce uncertainty, and try and gain a measure of control over
their own lives.
These acts of terror have now expanded the possible boundaries for those committed to violence. The unthinkable was thought, the undoable was done, and the most powerful nation on earth was reminded of its own vulnerabilities.Six months on, I extend my deepest sympathy to all those who continue to grieve and experience deep anger at the loss of loved ones. There was and is no excuse for the killing of innocent civilians in the United States or anywhere else in the world.
I think it is important, however, to place this specific tragedy in a global context. Many of the people with whom we work in Africa, in the Caucasus, and the Middle East feel that U.S. policy makers and media have
given and are giving more attention to this tragedy than they have ever given to similar disasters in other parts of the world. While this is understandable given the direct impact and devastating effects of 9/11, it is a little disconcerting from outside of America to see this tragedy harnessed to divine partiality as well. As President George W Bush said in his September 20th address to Congress, "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." Such statements, while useful in terms of establishing that the eter-nal does not support fear and cruelty, have been used within the United States to justify a wide range of policies that in other circumstances might be considered by many unacceptable and are now being used to justify a range of international practices (for example, unilateral "regime change") that are inconsistent with international law.
There should be no privileging of one nation's pain or tragedy over that of another. Each individual tragedy and all innocent deaths diminish us equally and challenge all of us to search for ways and means of ensuring that such events do not take place in the future. Coupling 9/11 with U.S. manifest destiny and God's will certainly "ups the ante" for those wishing to place this particular tragedy in a wider global context and who might want to think of diverse options for responding to it.
Like all crises, this most recent one is both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to take the time to grieve at yet another example of man's inhumanity to man. The opportunity is to start asking the deeper, more fundamental questions about the development of new and creative ways of dealing with violence and ensuring—wherever possible—that violence is contained and only ever considered when all nonviolent options have been exhausted in the management and settlement of conflict.
The 9/11 events have changed the ways in which we all view our world. They have resulted in dramatic challenges to civil liberties and conceptions of national and individual security. We have some stark choices before us. Will the actions of good people prevail over those committed to evil? Is it an act of faith or a good working proposition that virtuous cycles will eventually replace vicious ones? How can we bring those responsible for wreaking havoc on innocent civilians to justice without wreaking vengeance and precipitating more problems later on? How do we begin placing some new options on the table, and what are
some of the goals that might guide this work?
In the first place, it is difficult to know what is changing and what is not. It is clear that there are many subtle and not-so-subtle changes to our culture, politics, and lifestyles—especially in the United States. It is possible therefore, to think of 9/11 as a hinge event in the cultural, political, and military realms. The world will not be the same ever again, yet it is still too early to know exactly how these diverse changes are going to affect our lives, security, well-being and the prospects for stable peace. It is still early to know whether our children and grandchildren will be living in a more or less peaceful world at the end of this century. What is clear is that the events of 9/11 represent a third generation of conflicts. The first was classical interstate wars. The second was intrastate. The third represents conflicts generated by transnational terrorist and criminal networks. So what is this contemporary war against terrorism? Is it simply a beefing up of old responses to terrorists and terrorist activity, or is it something qualitatively different?