WRL Homepage • WRL Programs • WRL Literature • WRL Actions • WRL Employment • About WRL
|
Homepages: | |
|
A Nonmilitary Response to Sept. 11 by David McReynolds
The current “war” is different from those that have preceded it in that the events of September 11 have less the character of war than of mass murder. We were not attacked by a state, but by terrorists without a state. No one has stepped forward and claimed credit, nor were any demands advanced. It was a sudden, inexplicable act of terror that shocked the nation. What, then, is a possible response? The answer the U.S. government has chosen is, I believe, less sensible than anything pacifists might put forth: George W. Bush has ordered the bombing of Afghanistan—but we were not attacked by Afghanistan. Already, as of this writing, the U.S. attacks have killed U.N. workers who were in Afghanistan to help clear it of mines; God knows how many Afghan civilians have died. (It is criminal nonsense for our leaders to tell us all our bombs are precise in their targeting.) Already there have been deadly riots on the West Bank, where Palestinian police have shot dead a number of protesters. The government of Pakistan is being rocked by demonstrations. The soil for new terrorism is being watered and fertilized with each bomb dropped. There is now talk of extending the war, not only in duration, but to other countries. While the administration has backed off the Orwellian language of “Operation Infinite Justice” and talk of a “crusade,” there are key people around Bush who want to use this occasion to “take out” Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran and other “rogue states.” We must, of course, protest this course of action. The War Resisters League has already played an important role in calling peace groups together, in joining with other groups like the American Friends Service Committee and the Fellowship of Reconciliation and in initiating demonstrations across the country. But we must do much more than say, “Not in our name,” or, “Our grief is not a cry for war.” People ask us, “What is the answer?” and it is not an answer to say, “No war.” They want to know what we will do about those who planned the murders of September 11, and to say those directly involved died in the attacks does not wash as an answer either. Nor is it an answer to say we must pursue a foreign policy of peace and justice. The terrorists are real, they hate us. No matter how justified their hatred, that is a fact. And they hate not just the Pentagon or the corporate elite, they hate you and they hate me. Their cause is that of a reactionary, deeply religious, nearly fascist hatred of all things Western. Pacifists need to accept that fact. It doesn’t matter that the U.S. has killed far more people than the number who died September 11, it doesn’t matter that the Taliban is “blow back” from our support for the Islamic guerillas in Afghanistan, it doesn’t matter that what may have set Osama bin Laden off (if, indeed, he was behind the attacks) was the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. All those things, and many others as well, are true. But none of them excuse the criminal act of murdering thousands of people in an instant on September 11. But then what should be done? The answer that I believe has political merit—that is more than simply a witness against endless terror, whether by our state or the individuals involved in the terrorist networks—is to call for the arrest of whomever is responsible and their trial by international legal authorities. We categorically reject Bush’s mere declaration that there is “clear evidence” bin Laden is guilty—we want to see that evidence. We want Congress to see it. We want it published. (It is not enough that the British Prime Minister Tony Blair vouch for it—his record of accuracy on such matters is very weak.) Yes, those who criticize the existing international court structures as being stacked in favor of the United States are right. The system of international law is extremely weak and ill-defined. We are still a world of nation-states, nowhere more than where our own country is concerned, with the eagerness of the ruling elite to brush aside international treaties we have signed. Yes, the International Court of Justice at the Hague is flawed in having placed Slobodan Milosevic under arrest without indicting Bill Clinton and Tony Blair for their authorization of the deliberate, targeted attacks on civilians during the Balkan conflict. (But I suspect there are few who don’t feel he should be brought to trial.) And while the Nuremberg tribunals were “the justice of the victors,” pacifists have accepted those tribunals as the basis for many of our own actions. For all the errors of that justice system, it is a far better choice than war. We cannot dodge this issue of working toward some system of international law and justice and still hope to have any political role in this situation. The law, so often used against us, is our weapon against Bush, an illegitimate president waging an illegal war. Let us demand that Congress debate the issue of peace and war rather than once more giving to the Executive the right to launch an endless “crusade.” Let us demand that our nation ask for international legal actions against the guilty. It is true, as Marx wrote, that the state is the “executive committee of the ruling class.” But I would still call the cops if someone were setting fire to my building. It is better to call in the police than to resort to a lynch mob. And that—a lynch mob—is what Bush is offering us and the world at this moment. David McReynolds was on the WRL National Office staff from 1960 through 1999. |
WRL Homepage • WRL Programs • WRL Literature • WRL Actions • WRL Employment • About WRL
his is my thinking—I do not expect it will be shared
by all readers of the Nonviolent Activist.