George Soros challenges the concept of war on terror and says that it has been a tragic misconception: it has not prevented terrorist attacks around the world yet it has diverted the American attention from other vital tasks. He adds that it has damaged the American dominant position in the world and endangered its open society. Soros thinks that only by forging a new consensus on fighting the terrorists can the US correct these mistakes and regain the pre-eminent position in the world. In order to convince people that the war on terror is the wrong framework, we must formulate a better one. Here he explains how.
I SHOULD LIKE TO CHALLENGE THE VERY CONCEPT of the “war on terror”. It is a metaphor that needs to be challenged because it has been accepted uncritically and applied literally. If anybody dares to say that there is something wrong with framing the struggle against terrorism as “the war on terror,” it is immediately assumed that there is something wrong with him. So nobody dares to say it yet it needs to be said because the war on terror as we have waged it since 9/11 has done more harm than good. It has not prevented terrorist attacks around the world yet it has diverted our attention from other vital tasks, damaged our dominant position in the world and endangered our open society. We must find a better way, a new consensus on fighting terrorism.
NOT ONLY MILITARY FORCE
Why is it so harmful to frame the struggle against terrorists as the “war on terror”? Because this metaphor leads us to rely too much on military force and not enough on other means of countering the terrorist. The use of military force is a necessary element in the struggle. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified. That is where Bin Laden lived and Al Qaeda has its training camps. But the invasion of Iraq, as we now all know, can not be similarly justified.
When we use military force we risk playing into the hands of terrorists. Terrorism is abhorrent because it kills innocent civilians for political goals. War, by its nature, claims innocent victims. By using military force, we run the risk of doing the same thing as the terrorists. In this respect, the war on terror is even worse than an ordinary war because terrorists try to remain invisible so the chances of hitting innocent victims are even greater.
Innocent victims generate sympathy and outrage. We are outraged by 9/11; by retaliating in a way that creates innocent victims we are outraging others. That is the response the terrorists wanted to provoke. The “war on terror” as we are now pursuing it with an over reliance on military force serves their purposes better than ours.
HOW TO CREATE NEW PROBLEMS
Using the “war” metaphor creates other problems. First, a state of war undermines the normal functioning of the critical process that is the foundation of our democracy. For 18 months after 9/11, any criticism of the President’s policies was considered unpatriotic. It was this suspension of the critical process that allowed President Bush to commit what is perhaps the greatest blunder in American history — the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Second, the sense of emergency associated with war has been used to extend executive powers, infringe civil liberties, run up a budget deficit and neglect other burning issues like global warming.
Third, the way the “war on terror” was conducted –Baghram airbase, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the extraordinary rendition of prisoners to countries like Uzbekistan– violated the principles that had guided America in the past and lost us the moral high ground.
Fourth, we ended up with unsavory allies like President Karimov of Uzbekistan who boiled political prisoners alive and massacred unarmed demonstrators in Andijon.
Finally, the “war on terror” drove a wedge between America and the rest of the world. President Bush’s assertion that we must fight terrorism abroad so that we do not have to fight it at home may have appealed to the public at home but it had the opposite affect abroad. Attitudes toward the US have never been so negative.
A COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WAR
For all these reasons “the war on terror” has proven to be counterproductive in every respect except in enhancing the powers and popularity of the President. Terrorism is a greater threat today than it was when President Bush declared war.
The invasion of Iraq has spawned more insurgents and suicide bombers than there were before. Our power and influence in the world has declined more than in any comparable stretch of time in our history. Before invading Iraq we could project overwhelming power in any part of the world; we cannot do so any more because we are bogged down in Iraq. And we are failing to provide the leadership that the world badly needs on many burning issues.
FORMULATING A NEW FRAMEWORK
Yet, the “war on terror” remains the generally accepted frame for thinking about terrorism. Most people have come to realize that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder, but they still accept the “war on terror” as the obvious response to 9/11. I believe we shall not be able to repair the terrific damage we have suffered in the four years since 9/11 without abandoning the “war on terror” as a catchphrase that justifies misguided policies.
In order to convince people that the “war on terror” is the wrong frame, we must formulate a better one. That is where this conference could make a valuable contribution. I attended a similar conference in Madrid to commemorate the first anniversary of the terrorists attack on that city. The conference was organized by the Club of Madrid, FRIDE and the Safe Democracy Foundation, and it reached a consensus that can be summed up in three points.
THE MADRID AGENDA
First, terrorism is a many-faceted phenomenon and it is difficult to generalize about it except for the one thing that all terrorists have in common: they kill innocent people for political goals. That is a crime against humanity and it cannot be condoned or tolerated, whatever the grievance that is used as its justification.
Second, in dealing with terrorism, we must take great care not to do the same thing as the terrorists and create innocent victims. We must stay within the constraints of the law, even if the laws may have to be modified to deal with terrorists. If we create innocent victims we are liable to reinforce the terrorist threat.
Third, we must foster democratic development in order to provide legitimate avenues for dealing with grievances that otherwise might be exploited by terrorist movements.
A TRAGIC MISCONCEPTION
I believe these are sound principles, much sounder than the “the war on terror”. They could serve as the basis for a new consensus on fighting terrorism. On the first point, that terrorism must not be tolerated, there can be no disagreement. The third point, fostering democratic development, has been wholeheartedly embraced by President Bush. It is on the second point, staying within the constraints of the law and not creating innocent victims, that our policies need to be changed. The “war on terror” creates innocent victims and that helps the terrorists. It sets in motion a vicious circle from which there is not escape without modifying our attitudes.
We are the most powerful nation on earth. No external enemy can defeat us. We can lose our preeminent position only by our own mistakes and misconceptions. The “war on terror” has been a tragic misconception. Only by forging a new consensus on fighting the terrorists can we correct our mistakes and regain our preeminent position in the world.
Published by:
Eduardo R. Saguier
date: 10 | 07 | 2006
time: 8:08 pm
Permanent Link
The Enrooted Terror in Argentine Academia. Its remote origins and fatal consequences.
by Eduardo R. Saguier
CONICET Researcher
http://www.er-saguier.org
What are the wise historical (cultural, political, sociological and
psychological) reasons of the deep fear that has taken roots in the public
opinion of Argentine scholars? What is the reason of self-censorship,
consent or resistance to issue critical opinions on matters related to the
democratization of science, arts and culture? Why have many well-known
scholars refrained from speaking about the authoritarian and seditious
dominance prevailing in Argentine cultural structures? Why
hasn’t the research institutes of National Universities (e.g.: Gino Germani
Institute) addressed this issue, and why in those research projects (e.g.:
Naishtat and Toer, 2005), on the contrary, the questions in the surveys
they conducted dealt just on relatively irrelevant issues (formal
representation)?
It is difficult to answer these questions and provide an approximate
diagnosis and assess the origin of this traumatic experience given there is
not much evidence and there are few witnesses and little research to resort
to (most case files are not available for research because they are
classified as confidential documents). Even at international level, studies
in this respect -apart from traditional studies such as Gouldner’s (1980),
Collins’s (1979) and Ringer (1969)-are exclusively focused on the
professional class (Martin, 1991; and Schmidt, 2000). Nevertheless, despite
this scantiness, our obligation is to try to speculate on an answer to
investigate
the apathy and indifference of Argentine science and culture, as well as
the negligent omission of their agents, in order to throw some light upon
the crisis we are going through.
Historically, political science has proven that fear in their different
versions is a typical element of fascist and authoritarian regimes, where
the first victims are independent scholars, and that in democratic regimes,
instead, such fear fades away as democratic liberties get consolidated.
However, the current situation in Argentine cultural context enables to see
an adverse reality, for even though democratic institutions have been
restored, the neo-liberal model has been partially defeated, and the Pardon
Laws (Obediencia Debida and Punto Final) were removed, there is a
persistent fear to the political power among scholars, artists, scientists
of both hard and soft sciences, either young or old, at an increasingly
higher level and intensity.
An explanation of these painful situations that still survive would be
that, in the face of the incomplete attempt to restore democracy, the
partial defeat of neo-liberalism and the slow mechanism of the restored
judicial process, by failing to completely eradicate such triple legacy
–which has been materialized in the permanence of collaborationists of
that time and in antidemocratic practices, laws, regulations, rules and
jurisprudence that are still in force– participation and mutual trust of
the intellectual community has apparently not been able to be reinforced.
But an explanation, of an even deeper substance, are those that have been
given recently by philosophers Claudia Hilb, Héctor Schmucler, Ricardo
Panzetta, Tomas Abraham and Leon Rozitchner. These explanations were based
on the interview published to the ex guerrilla militant Hector Jouve (where
he describes the executions done by themselves of a couple of guerrilla men
apparently “broken�? and the brief presence in the guerrilla camp of
philosopher Pancho Aricó), and to the heart-breaking confession and the
dense and wise replies done to scholars Jinkis, Ritvo and Grüner by Oscar
del Barco. Hilb centers her explanation in the notions of revolution and
equality. Panzetta refers to Jouve’s report, Schmucler to the executions of
Rottblat and Groswald, Abraham to Barco’s repentance, and Rozitchner to the
delay of more than twenty years in producing the repentance. As it has been
said by Rozitchner, by having failed “
Published by:
Eduardo R. Saguier
date: 04 | 09 | 2006
time: 12:38 am
Permanent Link
Primero hay que saber vivir
Del Vivir
Published by:
gepbreatt
date: 13 | 07 | 2009
time: 2:06 pm
Permanent Link
whichever netizens workplace prolleniums dazzled grasping theoretic dongle
Published by:
Buy Lorazepam
date: 26 | 07 | 2009
time: 7:29 am
Permanent Link
mansion headlines suggesting cymru living hindleyleeds abusage