BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Threat to world peace?

  
 
T
08:00 / 11.12.02

anybody notice how america foreign policy and the american presidency is presenting a far greater threat to world peace and security than any combination of the 'axis of evil'? yes, obviously ...
 
 
Axel Lambert
10:21 / 11.12.02
Maybe not obvious to everyone. Please explain. I myself see as the greatest danger a terrorist nuclear attack on one or many major cities, say London, New York, Moscow, Tokyo. Imagine the panic in the world after that. People would conceivably flee from the cities, and we'd have Lord of the flies chaos at the best. I'm much more worried about that than any local war, and the risk of fullscale nuclear war is much smaller, I think.
 
 
Lullaboozler
11:16 / 11.12.02
Surely it all hinges on your definition of 'greatest'.

If you mean 'most likely to occur' then the US' foreign policy is certainly one of the greatest threats to long term global peace. However, if (as Jake pointed out) you mean most likely to cause short/medium term Western panic and fear then another terrorist attack on a major population centre is definitely it.

Of course, this is horribly polarised along West/Non West lines - one could quite easily argue that the whole Western World Govt's prevailing attitude to the rest of the planet is inherently unstabilising force (the old East/West divide has been replaced with something far more fluid and harder to pin down, so I won't try).

Of course, it's not like we've ever had World Peace for it to be threatened...
 
 
Axel Lambert
12:40 / 11.12.02
I'd like to point out here that I think the talk of 'axis of evil' is unnecessarily stupid, as I indeed see the US as a greatest (potential) threat to world peace than Iraq, Iran or North Korea. In an age of global terror, surely the reasonable thing to do would be to seek out cooperation with these (rogue or no) states, as they are precicely that: states – and states almost always act in their own self-interest (no great risk for 9.11-ish terror here, I think).

Al quaeda is the greatest threat in my book.
 
 
T
07:20 / 12.12.02
lets expand the context a little bit. Lullaboozler is right in suggesting binaries like west/non-west, and similar variations don't capture the complexity of the issues. the spin on the yemen scud missile story has it that yemen is proliferating ballistic missles in the gulf, and trading in weapons with the evil north koreans. 12 or 18 scuds with their outdated technology and design is not proliferating in my book, when you coinsider that the US is esstabliching bases and use of bases in saudi arabia, kuwait, qatar, and trying to buy off turkey by pressuring the eu to offer membership and thus establish a strategic foothold on that bridge between europe and the middle east. add to that the warships, aircraft, and troops building up in the region. that yemen is cocerned about its ability to defend itself seems reasonable to me. then consider that by far the largest earner of revenue on the koreans balance of trade sheet is weapons exports. not a fact to be appluaded, but very rational action from their perspective in the face of their international isolation. and don't get me going about who armed and supported certain lunatics in the first place. what is a wmd anyway? how much destruction coutns as 'mass'? what about an f-16, the kind supplied with maintainence to the israelis by the US in their struggle to enforce the Isralei's biblically-based exclusive claim to that land they de facto share with the palestinians. who are the fundementalists here?

and for that matter, we could also widen the scope of what is meant by security. where i live, skin cancer is far and away the most diagnosed form of cancer (32% in south africa). michael moore was saying the other day that the ozone hole when it is largest is 3x size of europe. this is going to become a major health issue in the south, not that the industrialised north, who consume 80% of the worlds resources, and punched that hole with their emmisions - which the US (again) refuse to reduce - actually give a shit.

its not all anger though. i'm mostly frustrated that the US, with all their super powers, won't play a more constructive role in this globalised age to actually facilitate the kind of international agreements that are so necessary to benefit the most, to establish the greatest good. that's also why in my first post i specified the US presidency, because i do distinguish the presidency from the citizenry. half of them i suspect don't want him, and the other half aren't informed enough to know they're being duped. and as for the presidency, the administration, and the cabal of fascists tht run the show, they're acting on a scale of self-interest and selfishness that will cause the unneccessary deaths and suffering of millions. that's what i mean by a threat to global security.

terrorism is a real issue, but with the heritage of unilateral foreign policy decisions by the US and allies, today when we need internatioal cooperation the most, there exists no framework nor trust to establish that framework we so desperately need to deal with this issue. for too long the m,ost powerful countries and superpowers have been pursuing their interests with a don't-give-a-fuck-for-the-rest=of-the-world attitude. the chickens are coming home to roost and unfortuantely, as usual it's the common folk like ourselves who carry the cost.
 
 
Axel Lambert
14:03 / 12.12.02
Of course, all this really is a matter of whether you consider western-type democracies as being morally equal to, say, middle east dictatorships (ie Yemen). For instance, are they as likely to spread weapons (wmd or no) to terror groups? My guess is that they are not. I mean, if they are morally equals – the US do have a hell lot more WMD's then Yemen, why shouldn't they disarm first? Well, because they have a safer type of society, when it comes to administrating them, I'd say.

But from what you write about US "fascists", T, I guess you wouldn't think there was such a big difference.

I do agree, by the way, that the Israelis are fundementalists, indeed that the state of Israel is fundementalist by nature, and was a big mistake. Also that the US act like egoistic fools when it comes to the environment and international agreements (not to mention abortion).
 
 
grant
14:53 / 12.12.02
Wait - did you just say the state of Israel was a big mistake?
 
 
Lurid Archive
16:08 / 12.12.02
Of course, all this really is a matter of whether you consider western-type democracies as being morally equal to, say, middle east dictatorships - Jake Anders

Is it, though? I become increasingly suspicious of the term "moral equivalence". To the extent that I wonder what it means or, more pertinently, what function it has. The usage seems to be establish some advance moral hierarchy that mitigates the crimes of the morally superior and worsens those some crimes if committed by those deemed morally inferior. For instance, this

For instance, are [Western democracies] as likely to spread weapons (wmd or no) to terror groups?

not only ignores the reality of the arms trade, it also contains an assumption that terrorist acts cannot be carried out by Western democracies. The conclusion that we needn't worry about terrorism from them then becomes almost circular.

In opposition, there are many who would claim that a reasonable definition of "terrorism" wouldn't automatically exclude any group. And under such a definition, Western democracies might not compare as favourably as they would like to recognised terrorist groups.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
16:13 / 12.12.02
Israel might not be a mistake, but the country's policy regarding palestinians certainly is. Isreal has destroyed an entire country on the grounds of fighting terrorists, when all it does is killing men and women fighting for a piece of desert that was taken from them Because the UN was sorry of the jews (no racist connotation here)upon the holocaust, or perhaps following the anti-semitism of the epoch, simply wanted to get rid of all them into one place.

It is true that the palestinians also kill, but there is no comparison between men fighting with cocktail molotovs and bombs, and the entire army of Israel that destroys entire cities, controls the roads, infra-structures and human lives. For each bus a palestinian destroys, tanks and soldiers destroy buildings and kill innocents under the pretext of looking for terrorists, when it's only retaliation.

It should also be acknowledged that the palestinians are not allowed to have a country (Palestine isn't officially a country, nor is it represented in the UN; they're not even allowed to have an army) and so we have an army fighting civilians - if we believe all palestinians are terrorists, then shouldn't authorities be dealing with the matter? The army, excepting in Irland, is never used to fight terrorism.

And this conflict is not likely to be solved in a near future - when the UN tried to charge Ariel Sharon with crimes against humanity this year, the USA threatened to vetoe such charge and any other peace mission in the future, which is why Sharon is still free.

Ironically, president Bush actually wanted to block Sharon's aggressions against Palestine, but (and this i watched on 60 Minutes), he received 100000 letters from one of those religious guys with a bunch of followers (never thought i would later use this information, so didn't mind keeping his name in my head) saying they would vote against him in the next elections if he stopped supporting Israel (their claim - the Israel-Palestine war is actually the armaggedon, and nothing can oppose God's will - all of a sudden, Bin Laden doesn't seem that sick, does he?)

So, yes, the USA are indeed a danger to the world, if Bush stays any longer in power - i mean, the man is an ignorant, and i'm sure americans are intelligent enough to perceive that; no country that powerful can afford NOT having a democrat in power.
 
 
Axel Lambert
16:49 / 13.12.02
Definitions, definitions... Lurid, do we need to worry about terrorism from wester democracies? Of course if you count in Israel you could say that they use terror against the palestinians, but really my main concern is that civilization will survive in a nuclear age. I think it's safe to assume that al qaeda would like to detonate an a-bomb over new york. This was not the case in the cold war. Neither Soviet nor the us wanted nuclear war. Why? Because it would kill them. The terrorists in al qeada, it seems, do not care about that. Nor do they seem to care very much about negative publicity (as in too many deaths). An terrorist a-bomb over new york wouldn't trigger nuclear holocaust the way that a soviet one would have done during the cold war, but it would cause panic, making people flee from cities, abandoning jobs, etc. This is what I fear.
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:53 / 13.12.02
Lurid, do we need to worry about terrorism from wester democracies?

Depends on who you mean by "we". If you are asking whether it is likely that the US will commit acts of terrorism against the UK or vice versa, then the answer is probably not. But it isn't really so hard to see that the bombings of Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Libya were illegal and hence terrorist acts. I believe the World Court even found the US guilty of terrorism against Nicaragua. And these are just off the top of my head, there is lots more.

but really my main concern is that civilization will survive in a nuclear age. I think it's safe to assume that al qaeda would like to detonate an a-bomb over new york.

Interestingly, I was going to bring up the nuclear threat. Thing is, Al Qaeda may want to detonate a nuclear bomb but are unlikely to be able to do so. Nuclear bombs require sensitive engineering to manufacture, after all. But lets suppose that they can make one - not all that likely in my view - then of course it would be terrible if they set one off in New York. I think we agree on that. I think this threat should be dealt with in a proportionate manner.

More likely is that a "dirty bomb" would be set off in a city. But I can't see how an indiscriminate campaign of "anti-terrorism" makes that less likely. The opposite is true in my view.

Moreover, I think that there still remains a non-trivial threat to humanity in general from nuclear weapons. The disregard for disarmament and non-proliferation treaties, as well as "son of star wars", do not make for a safe world. In that respect it is those nations who possess the greatest number of nuclear weapons and who refuse to engage in international disarmament who pose the greatest risk to us all. I know its all predictable, but that is the US.

The terrorists in al qeada, it seems, do not care about that. Nor do they seem to care very much about negative publicity (as in too many deaths)

Perhaps. But this works both ways. How many in the west cared about the potential, or actual, casualties in Afghanistan? What about the casualties of bombing and sanctions in Iraq? We need to save the good Iraqis from Saddam, even if it means killing thousands of them? (I read a figure that half a million Iraqi children have died as a result of sanctions and bombing.)
 
 
Axel Lambert
12:41 / 16.12.02
But lets suppose that [Al Qaeda] can make [an atom bomb] - not all that likely in my view

I'd say it's extremely likely that a terror network like Al Qaeda, given time, will get hold of an nuclear bomb some time in the future (not actually manufacture it, of course). My guess is that New York has 20 years left.

It is those nations who possess the greatest number of nuclear weapons and who refuse to engage in international disarmament who pose the greatest risk to us all.

I disagree. Simply because the US (1) is a state, and not a terror network, and states care about their own safety, therefore avoid nuclear war; and (2) is a democracy, and not a police state. (I've heard that no two democracies have ever fought a war against each other.)

The bombings of Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Libya were illegal and hence terrorist acts.
Another definition, this time wrong. Terrorism is violence in order to instill fear.

Other, more clear definitions of terrorism, found on the UN homepage:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes"

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators."
 
 
grant
15:14 / 16.12.02
Other, more clear definitions of terrorism, found on the UN homepage:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes"


Was Sherman's March a terrorist act?

The bombing of Nagasaki?

If not, why not?
 
 
Axel Lambert
15:24 / 16.12.02
Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, the blitz over London, etc, were all terrorist acts – attempts to cripple the will of defence by slaughtering the civilian polulation. (Sherman too perhaps – haven't read your link yet). As far as I understand, this was not the case in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Libya. And "illegal and hence terrorist" is just not true.
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:48 / 16.12.02
My guess is that New York has 20 years left.

I know what you mean, but I think you are grossly overstating it. We can agree to disagree on this one.

Simply because the US (1) is a state, and not a terror network, and states care about their own safety, therefore avoid nuclear war; and (2) is a democracy, and not a police state.

I can't help feeling this is circular again. I'd point to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the attitude to non-proliferation treaties and even to environmental policies (as an example of harmful policies). You might say that our non-destruction is evidence of the concern our politicians have. However, if one really took that line, then the only counter is to wait till the earth blows up and then say "I told you so".

Also, terror networks are not as crazed as they are often made out. Most, if not all, have political objectives of one sort or another (yes, even Al Qaeda). Hence they care about some constituency which they may feel is under attack.

Which brings us on to the definition of terrorism. To put it simply, I think the definition you have is wrong. More than that, I'm sure that it would go contrary to most people's usage. (I'll leave off a discussion of why the UN would support what I consider an incorrect definition, but there are reasons.)

Lets take a hypothetical. Suppose that Al Quaeda decided that, instead of just bombing the WTC it would engage in a campaign to destabalise US imperialism (which threatens world peace and the survival of the planet, *of course*) by bringing about a financial crisis. Bombing the WTC is clearly a comprehensible target in that light. Regrettably, there is bound to be collatoral damage blah blah blah. By your definition, is this still terrorism? If so, how does it differ from the bombing of Afghanistan? After all, the bombing was designed to make a government acquiesce to an ultimatum and destroy an opponent.

Perhaps the "clandestine" element is the key here - hence if the powerful commit what would otherwise be a terrorist act openly, then it ceases to be terrorism?

(Probably a better analogy would be to think of the UK demanding to try and convict Kissinger of war crimes without due process. Would it be terrorism for the UK to bomb the US to destroy Kissinger's network of support? A ludicrous scenario, but in a sense only because I've changed the players.)

Most of all, the definition you present inherently divides actions into those that are worthy and those that are unworthy. Violence always causes anxiety. And deliberate randomness can easily be ascribed to regrettable spill over - just because someone says that they are trying to save lives/save the world, it doesn't mean that they are trying to do that.
 
 
Axel Lambert
22:39 / 16.12.02
I think that there is one important difference between a nation state and a secret network: the state has territory (to defend/care about). I saw Bill Clinton at Letterman, and he said that when he heard about the attack on 9.11 he immediately knew it was Al Qaeda, because "the Iranians have territory".

I understand that Al Qaeda have political ambitions (unite the middle east/bring about the great arab state?), but what it also has is a fanatic religious faith that really makes everything on this plane expendable. Which is why they seem to me more likely to sacrifice everything than, say, baader-meinhof.

Suppose that Al Quaeda decided that it would engage in a campaign to destabalise US imperialism by bringing about a financial crisis. Bombing the WTC is clearly a comprehensible target in that light. Regrettably, there is bound to be collatoral damage

Hm. I think that Al Qaeda wanted to kill as many people as possible on 9.11 (and that if they had an a-bomb, they'd have used it). I also think that the US wanted to avoid just that - if only to avoid international critisism. But how would I prove this?

Another definition of terrorism on the UN site was "war-crimes committed in peace-time". But I guess you'd call that circular as well. Maybe it's just war. But then war laws must be obeyed, no? The Kissinger analogy seems to present too harsh a retaliation. The main point about the Afghanistan war was that that country protected people who had attacked the US and who might do it again.
 
 
bjacques
03:26 / 17.12.02
Bush and his cronies are indeed a greater threat to world peace than al-Qaeda or the Spindle of Awfulness. Al-Qaeda are bad guys, no doubt about it, and as big a threat to their friends as to their enemies. Iran, Iraq and North Korea cause varying degrees of trouble as well. But fighting global terror requires addressing also the sentiments behind it, while the "rogue states" must be considered as states as well as rogues. The Bush administration is not seriously interested in either of these approaches. All they want is to enforce a profitable global market, and whatever's not part of the market doesn't count unless it directly threatens said market. (There's a good book about this, called Empire of Disorder, by Alain Joxe.) But that's not an attractive proposition in the poor countries and it's not very inspiring in the rich ones. Meanwhile, the world grows potentially more dangerous as organized violence is defined downward, from world wars, to Cold War-era proxy battles, then civil wars, organized terrorism and finally nihilism with fir which ideology is just an excuse. Against the last one, a government can only react, never prevent. Soon you'll get people shooting at Americans (or British) on general principles; no conspiracies--just individuals with the same general idea. And there are LOTS of guns out there for it.

On the economic front, where Bush's could actually do something, they don't. They bail out airlines and insurance companies, but let defrauded employees starve. Through WIPO, they enforce valuable copyrights, but don't use the WTO against slavery or human organ harvesting.

So, going by Hobbes via Joxe, Bush is reneging on the social contract at home and abroad, throwing everyone back on their own resources and if Leviathan can't be bothered to protect its subjects, what good is it?
 
  
Add Your Reply