Internationalization of Terrorism

By Danilo P. Vizmanos
Bulatlat.com

"There is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We have yet to find the 'smoking gun.'"

This is the gist of the UN Inspection Team's report to the UN Security Council last January 27.

President George W. Bush disagrees. His January 29 "State of the Union" message is a virtual declaration of war against Iraq. Meanwhile, France, Germany, Russia and China are applying delaying tactics in order to appease the war jingoist and limit America's sphere of influence in the oil rich Middle East.                

We may consider two possible scenarios in the days to come:                                                                

First, Iraq comes under attack by US forces without UN mandate and in defiance of mounting worldwide opposition to the war. In so doing, the Bush regime becomes an international outlaw and  outcast.

Second, the Bush government decides to defer the war hoping that 1) its major overseas partners will reconsider their present stance and eventually support the US, or 2) Saddam Hussein will be deposed through a coup or putsch.

Should the second scenario prevail, President Bush's procrastination means that people's resistance to war is not an exercise in futility. It is an affirmative action that gives hope to the peace-oriented and noble aspirations of humanity.

The Bush government's obsession with a war against Iraq describes a bully boy with a handful of matches inside a room full of powder kegs. A manifestation of arrogance of power of the dominant circles in American society.

Mr. Bush persists in building up his case for war by linking Saddam Hussein to international terrorism. Critics contend that it is not Iraq but the more basic issues of oppressive and exploitative economic and social conditions that are at the roots of terrorism. But there is something more. Over the centuries the vast majority of humanity have suffered deprivation and poverty and they have accepted this with meekness and resignation.

The more compelling reason is injustice. Injustice is the spark that ignites the fagots of mass poverty, wretchedness and desperation. This specially applies to the era of Pax Americana where US foreign relations are based on two amoral principles -- might makes right and self-righteousness! The "might is right" dogma is an application of the law of the jungle that unmasks the moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy of the ruling circles in American society. "Self-righteousness" suggests infallibility of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in their dealings with the rest of the world.  More than anything else, it is this act of playing God that alienates and isolates the autocrats in Washington from decent and peace-loving peoples of the world.

A better understanding of the present global climate of terror, instability and insecurity requires familiarity with certain political terms [Webster's New World Dictionary provides the definitions]:

Imperialism -- the policy and practice of forming and maintaining an empire: in modern times it is characterized by a struggle for the control of raw materials and world markets… and subjugation and control of territories.

Power politics -- international political relations in which each nation attempts to increase its own power and interests by using military force or the threat of it.

To really understand what may be referred to as the "Bush jingoist syndrome" and the opposite terrorist reaction, we must dig up the historical background of US power politics way before the events of September 11, 2001 in order to see the complete picture.

The "Warfare" State

At the end of World War II the US came out as the most powerful nation on earth. A consequence was the emergence of a multi-headed Hydra which former president Dwight D. Eisenhower described as the "military-industrial complex." It has become the most influential and dominant conglomerate not only in America but also in the whole world today.

This complex is dominated by giant corporations involved in war production such as General Motors, General Electric, General Dynamics, Boeing, Grumman, Raytheon, Dupont and Monsanto. Of course a vital component is the very powerful US armed services whose deadly tentacles are spread throughout the world. Another component is made up of "warhawks" in the bureaucracy, the mass media and other very influential institutions in American society.

Something was needed by this complex to sustain the 1) economic dominance and superprofits of the giant corporations, 2) inexorable increase in military budgets and expansion of the global war machine, and 3) fulfilment of political and pecuniary interests of the warhawks. The required motive force was provided by what is known as a "permanent war economy." This is the economic prime mover of the "warfare state" that feeds on sustained global tension and continuing crises and conflicts.                

From 1945 onward the requirements of a permanent war economy were provided by the "cold war" against the Soviet Union. But with the collapse of the USSR in 1991 the military-industrial complex was faced with the problem of how to create a new enemy on a global and long-term basis. The answer was provided by the enemies of Israel -- the Islamic and Arab countries where the world's largest oil resources are located.

US vs Islam

In 1947 the US and Great Britain pressured the newly created United Nations into partitioning the territory of  Palestine. Israel got the lion's share while Jordan and Saudi Arabia were given the smaller West Bank and Gaza Strip, respectively, as consolation. The Palestinians were left out entirely and became a people without a homeland. This marked the beginning of the Israeli-Palestinian war that rages up to the present. The partitioning of Palestine and continued US support of Israel in this conflict resulted in increasing animosity among the Islamic people against the superpower.

Actually, US provocation and aggression against the Islamic countries were already taking place even during the "cold war." But the collapse of the Soviet Union gave license to the US to wage undeclared wars and launch preemptive military strikes against many Islamic countries with abandon. These include Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

During the Gulf War in 1991 the US pressured the Saudi royal family into allowing US military forces and facilities to be based on Saudi territory where they continue to operate up to the present. The Islamic people consider this as a sacrilege to the holiest of the holy places in the Islamic world. This further increased their antagonism towards the US.

Overt and covert exercise of power politics by the US in the Middle East for control and exploitation of oil resources is a dominant reason behind the never ending conflict in the region.

The Rise of the Mujahedin

The continuing acts of provocation and aggression by the superpower against Islamic countries led to the emergence of militant mujahedin groups committed to an open-ended struggle against what they described as "imperialist infidels." The most aggressive among them are Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Osama bin Laden"s al Qaeda.

Since then it has become a grossly uneven conflict between the powerful US military machine and the small mujahedin groups. In this one-sided conflict, the mujahedin underdogs logically have to prosecute the war on its own terms and not according to the terms of the superpower. Which means the waging of unconventional guerrilla type warfare aimed at the Achilles heels of the enemy. Seeking the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the superpower became a top priority. This kind of warfare waged by mujahedin forces is what the US power elite refers to as "terrorism."

This is the rationale behind the devastating demolition jobs by mujahedin suicide squads in Israeli-controlled territories, at the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, the waterborne strike at the guided missile destroyer, USS Cole, and the most destructive and deadly suicide attack at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Maximum political and psychological impact was achieved by exposing the vulnerability of the superpower and creating a climate of pathological fear, paranoia and insecurity that would have an adverse effect on the world economy and pave the way to the transformation of democratic America into an Orwellian quasi-police state.

What is Terrorism?

The unprecedented tragedy at the World Trade Center focused world attention on the issue of "terrorism." This raises some vital questions: What is terrorism? Who are the terrorists?

Terrorism is not a precise term. It has not been defined officially in UN declarations and protocols. It has yet to be defined authoritatively in jurisprudence. It is a double-bladed word that can be applied to both sides of a conflict. "Crime against humanity" is a more precise term. This is a better description of the act of violence that resulted in the death of thousands of innocent civilians in the World Trade Center.

The US government and western mass media describe Osama bin Laden as a terrorist. But to the militant people of Islam he is regarded as a mujahedin or "holy warrior." While Mr. Bush spits venom on bin Laden, militant Moslems regard the leader of al Qaeda as a hero. President Bush's posture as accuser, judge and executioner of bin Laden and the Taliban is viewed by the mujahedin as a classic demonstration of Ku Klux Klan justice. This difference in perception makes it doubly difficult for the US to justify a war of self-righteousness.

It is apropos at this juncture to mention that there is another form of terrorism that takes a higher toll of human lives and inflicts greater destruction than those committed by groups and individuals. This is described as "state terrorism."  It is a deliberate act of violence by a state that uses its military resources to inflict death and suffering on other nations with innocent civilians as the main victims. The death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians through undeclared wars and preemptive military strikes cannot be less heinous than the small-scale acts of terror by a few individuals. The US power elite maintains a policy of euphemistically referring to victims of state terrorism as "collateral damage."

The slaughter of more than 300,000 civilians in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of state terrorism. So with the methodical bombing, missile strikes, application of chemical weapons and countless massacres in the course of "search-and-destroy" ground operations that resulted in more than 1.5 million civilian casualties during the Vietnam war. So with the man-made tragedy of more than 1.4 million Filipino civilians who died during the Filipino-American war due to food blockade and destruction of food resources, inhuman treatment in concentration camps, massacres and various forms of atrocities committed by US expeditionary forces from 1899 to 1916. "Terrorism" is a mild term to describe US Army General Jacob Smith's "burn all, kill all" order to his troops in the course of reducing the island of Samar into a "howling wilderness" in 1901.

A "New World Order"

Despite massive and deceptive propaganda and disinformation dispensed by US-controlled mass media, the fact remains that the greatest danger to world peace today is the unrestricted application of US military power in its crusade to perpetuate a "new world order" over the whole planet. American policy now dictates that US forces can launch preemptive military strikes against any country perceived as a threat to US security and global interests. This is how the White House and Pentagon justify US military aggression against Cuba, Libya, Iran, Sudan Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and North Korea. This is how they justify acts of genocide by US military forces against the peoples of Vietnam, Yugoslavia and Iraq. It does not matter that such acts of aggression are violations of international law, the UN charter and the Geneva Conventions.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union the US has assumed the role of an imperious world government dictating imperialist policies and edicts for implementation by junior partners, puppet governments and even by the United Nations.

The centerpiece of the "new world order" is the US-imposed "free market" globalization (read: imperialist globalization). It seeks to maximize the exploitation of markets, sources of raw materials and cheap labor in underdeveloped regions for the benefit of industrial powers led by US monopoly capital. It is also intended to benefit the political and economic elite of client states and puppet governments. But it has been a disaster to the broad masses especially members of the working class and peasantry.

Due to irreconcilable contradictions the "new world order" is, in fact, generating an epidemic of new world disorders. Foremost is the people's upheaval in Indonesia that led to the downfall of the US-supported 33-year regime of Suharto. In the Philippines two presidents beholden to US imperialist interests were toppled from their pedestals by popular mass actions despite threats of US military intervention and show of force through joint RP-US military exercises. Social unrest and political convulsions are increasing and intensifying in many parts of Asia, Africa, Latin America and even Europe. Ominous to US interests are the recent electoral and parliamentary victories of people's candidates in Brazil, Germany, Turkey, Bahrein, Morocco, Ecuador and South Korea.

US imperialism is now confronted with a rising tide of people's disaffection, resistance and rebellion. It is virtually a revolt of an enlightened and long-suffering humanity against the disastrous effects of imperialist globalization and onerous impositions of international monopoly capital.

The imperialist solution to the worsening social and political crisis in many countries is to increase the presence, visibility and direct application of military power against what it perceives as enemies of the "new world order." Despite its sad and tragic experiences in Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, Lebanon and Somalia, the US power elite is still trying to prove that sophisticated "machine-oriented" military power is superior and will always prevail over the broad spectrum of people's struggle. The arrogance of power is the blinder that prevents the policy makers in Washington to appreciate the dictum that political and military wisdom is enhanced through recognition of the limitations of war machines, no matter how modern, and awareness of the unlimited potential of a people's struggle.

In the intensifying people's struggle against imperialism and forces of reaction, international cooperation and solidarity is an imperative. This is because of the dominant political nature of any conflict. As Karl von Clausewitz once said, "war is merely an extension of politics. Policy is the intelligent faculty, war only the instrument, not the reverse. The subordination of the military view to the political is, therefore, the only thing possible!'

An Unpopular and Unwinnable War

World attention is now focused on the impending US war against Iraq. President Bush cites two justifications. The first is his claim that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological). The second is his moral judgment that Saddam Hussein is an "evil man' who should by ousted or liquidated.

Mr. Bush's first argument has yet to be validated by a UN Inspecting Team. The proverbial "smoking gun" has yet to be found. Bush cites intelligence reports to back up his claim. Yet he refuses to submit them to the UN Inspecting Team for on-site confirmation.                                

Meanwhile, Bush remains completely silent on stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Great Britain and France. His own country has a stockpile of more than 6,000 nuclear warheads capable of wiping out civilization several times over.                

Mr. Bush  moralizes on Saddam Hussein as an "evil man." Hypocrisy prevents him from admitting that successive US governments not only tolerated but supported the tyrannical dictatorships of Fulgencio Batista in Cuba, Anastacio Somoza in Nicaragua, Francois Duvalier in Haiti, Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Park Chung Hee in South Korea, Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam, Lon Nol in Cambodia, Suharto in Indonesia and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines.

So what could be the more plausible reasons behind Bush's war agenda on Iraq? These are the following:

Imposition of US hegemony and control of oil resources not only in Iraq but also in the entire Middle East.

Destruction of Iraq reinforces the US-supported Israeli war against the Arab world.

The war diverts the American people's attention from the worsening crisis of the US economy and the world capitalist system.

The war fulfills the requirements of the "military-industrial complex" that feeds on continuing global tension, crises and conflicts.

The jingoism and machinations of Mr. Bush and the "military-industrial complex" have finally been exposed by what used to be a "silent majority" that has become active and vocal. The recent massive anti-war and anti-Bush demonstrations in at least 20 cities in the US and many major cities in other countries can only be ignored at a high political price.                

The strong opposition of Pope John Paul II to a war in Iraq cannot simply be brushed aside by a president who projects himself as a holier-than-thou  moralizer of  "evil regimes" and "evil leaders."                

A significant political transformation is happening in the US and all over the world in reaction to the dangerous and hypocritical posturing of a president of a supposedly democratic and freedom-loving country. The American people are now reacting to the imposition of a repressive Orwellian society. It is a society being  molded by the suppressive and stifling provisions of the Patriot Act and other oppressive decrees enacted by the Bush administration in its exploitation of public paranoia after the tragic events of  September 11, 2001.                

Considering the smoldering reaction of the American people today to the Bush administration's jingoism, fakery and hypocrisy, US military forces may win battles in the deserts of Iraq and yet lose the war against Islam and the international people's struggle in the long term.

An unjust, immoral and unpopular war against Iraq could lead to unforeseen and grave consequences not only for the Bush government but also for American society and the rest of the world!  Bulatlat.com 

(This paper was presented  during the Philippine International Forum in Cebu City, Feb. 7, 2003)

We want to know what you think of this article.