Jihad against “Terrorism” (3)


REMNANTS OF A CRITICAL SPIRIT

*  BBC apologises for anti-US remarks
*  Letter from Tam Dalyell
*  Storm over Calif. congresswoman's anti-war stand [Barbara Lee, the
only member of Congress who voted against giving full power to the
President to engage the country in war]
*  Politicians befooling Americans, says author {Susan Sontag, in
Germany)
*  U.S. Pacifists Speak Up as America Braces for War [Hague Appeal for
Peace and International Action Centre]
*  Anne McElvoy: Anti-Americanism blinds the left to what's at stake [AM
is pleased that Bush, who had shown signs of isolationism, is now going
to be obliged to act ^Ìas a force for good in the world.¹  Well, that¹s
one way of looking at it. The article is in this section because it is a
critique of the anti-war position, at least in its cocktail party-style
manifestations.]


http://news.24.com/News24/World/0,1113,2-10_1080870,00.html
16/09/2001 23:52  - (SA)       E-mail story to a friend

*  BBC APOLOGISES FOR ANTI-US REMARKS
News 24 16th September

London (Sapa-AFP) - The ferocity of feeling over the terrorist attacks in
the United States took the BBC by surprise, leading to a public apology
for anti-American remarks broadcast during a prime-time debate.

BBC director-general Greg Dyke apologised in person to former US
ambassador Phillip Lader, one of the programme's panel members, who was
reported to have been close to tears after Thursday evening's live
television broadcast.

Dyke said in a statement on Saturday that it was "inappropriate" for the
programme to have been shown live.

It should have been recorded and edited before being televised just over
48 hours after the attacks against New York and Washington, he admitted.

Dyke also apologised to viewers who may have been offended by the scale
of hostility shown by part of the audience toward Lader and the United
States.

But he insisted most of the programme had been "an entirely proper
debate" on how the United States should retaliate after the suicide plane
attacks, for which millionaire terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden is
chief suspect.

Some of the audience accused the United States of bringing its problems
on itself by its policies over the Middle East.

Others said Washington considered American lives to be more important
than the lives of children in Iraq, which is suffering under UN
sanctions.

The BBC received more than 2 000 complaints over the programme. Sections
of the British press also castigated it.

Dyke said it was "an inappropriate programme" to show live and unedited
so soon after Tuesday's carnage.

Despite the best efforts of the chairperson of the four-member panel, he
said, "there were times in the programme when the tone was not
appropriate, given the terrible events of this week."


http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/09/16/stinwcltr01004.html

*  LETTER FROM TAM DALYELL
Sunday Times, 16th September

IN 1998, Albert Reynolds, the former Irish prime minister, and I were
invited to supper in Baghdad by Tariq Aziz. Our host said to us quietly:
"You may think that Saddam and I are extremists. We are as nothing to
what will follow if bombing and sanctions continue."

The unpalatable truth is that there is a generation growing up on the
banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates, which simply loathes the United
States and Britain - not least Britain because they think of all the
friendships which Iraqis formed during their education in this country.
Bombing and sanctions are recruiting sergeants for terrorists. If our
response to the horrendous events in Manhattan is lashing out, involving
the terror of innocent people, one result will be the creation of yet
more suicide bombers; and another will be the evaporation of genuine
sympathy in Arab states, whose help and goodwill is a prerequisite for
finding the perpetrators of the New York crime.

Real leadership will be to confront present public wrath, lift sanctions,
stop bombing and enter into dialogue.

Tam Dalyell MP
House of Commons


http://www.cincypost.com/2001/sep/16/lee091601.html

*  STORM OVER CALIF. CONGRESSWOMAN'S ANTI-WAR STAND
by Edward Epstein, Patrick Hoge and Meredith May
San Francisco Chronicle, 16th September

Rep. Barbara Lee, the sole member of Congress to vote against authority
for President Bush to wage war on terrorism, is being slammed as a
''clueless liberal'' and hailed as a wise opponent of vengeful violence.

Lee, a two-term California Democrat who was on the lopsided end of a
420-1 vote on Friday night, said her offices in Washington and Oakland,
Calif., were flooded with calls from people across the country on both
sides of the issue after the vote.

''I don't think we should take any action that should cause any more loss
of life,'' said Lee, 55, a protege of former Rep. Ron Dellums who has
proposed a Cabinet-level peace department. ''Violence begets violence,
and we don't want that to happen. That kills people.''

Lee said that instead of striking out militarily, the United States
should capture and try those who conspired in the attacks, step up
security across the country and improve intelligence operations.

But that's not how much of the country feels.

''Perhaps if the planes hit the Oakland Coliseum during a Raiders game,
her ''moral compass' might guide her differently,'' Heath Shelburn of
Fort Dix, N.J., wrote in an e-mail to The Chronicle. ''She is a clueless
liberal.''

Reaction was mixed in Lee's district.

''I think Barbara Lee is doing what most mothers would have done,'' said
Virginia Cooper. ''We are all upset and hurt. But let's sit down and get
all the facts before we go and lash out based on emotion.''

Said Steve Neal, of Oakland, who expressed himself in a message to The
Chronicle: ''I am ashamed to say I live in Barbara Lee's district. I am
proud to say I never voted for her. ... The only thing I can do is voice
my displeasure and move.''

But Adolph Lushion, who was shining shoes Saturday on an Oakland street
corner, praised Lee: ''I think what she did was smart. A whole lot of
innocent people will be killed if we go to war. Just killing a bunch of
people won't solve terrorism.''

Lee, a former state assemblywoman and senator, has stood alone before
against military action. In 1999, she was the sole House vote against
President Clinton's plan to use force against Serbia. In 1998, she was
one of five House members to vote against bombing raids on Iraq.

Lee said the strong reactions by those who oppose her stand don't
surprise her. ''People are still in mourning,'' she said. ''We're angry.
We're dealing with a tragedy of enormous proportions. But we should deal
with terror in a way that nips it in the bud and does not spread it.''

Lee said the fact that thousands of Americans were killed or wounded is
even more reason for taking a breather before responding. ''We should
step back and make no mistakes in our response,'' she said.

Her vote prompted comment from across the country.

''I'm beside myself that you alone decided to be the moral compass in the
House. I am ashamed by your complete and utter lack of morality,''
Michael Fantetti of Scottsdale, Ariz., wrote in a letter to Lee.

Lee began her political life in the early 1970s as a student intern for
Dellums, a noted anti war figure who represented California's
overwhelmingly Democratic Ninth District.

After 11 years with Dellums, during which she was a senior adviser and
chief of staff, Lee was elected to three consecutive terms in the state
Assembly and one term in the state Senate. Lee came to Congress promising
to trim defense spending, and she has repeatedly opposed the use of
military force.

State Assemblywoman Wilma Chan, DOakland, said it's too soon to say how
Lee's vote will play back home. ''It's hard to say, but knowing her, she
felt it was the right thing to do,'' Chan said. ''She's been very
consistent on these types of issues. She always votes her conscience.''


http://www.dawn.com/2001/09/16/int9.htm

*  POLITICIANS BEFOOLING AMERICANS, SAYS AUTHOR
Dawn (Pakistan), 16th September

HAMBURG (dpa), Sept 15: US author Susan Sontag on Saturday accused
politicians and the media of deception and misinformation in the
aftermath of Tuesday's terrorist attacks in the United States, saying
that most statements add to the dumbing down of American society.

In an article appearing in the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung, Sontag said that both the media and politicians were running a
joint campaign to describe Tuesday's assault as a cowardly attack against
freedom and civilisation.

The fact that the attack could be a result of the politics and actions of
the US, the self proclaimed superpower of the world, was being neglected,
Sontag wrote, adding that many Americans were not aware that their
country was still bombing Iraq.

Sontag also called air raids cowardly, but said that terrorists who were
prepared to die to kill others were anything but cowards.

Sontag also criticised US President George W. Bush, who assured his
country that the situation was under control. Nothing was under control,
Sontag said.


http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=229298

*  U.S. PACIFISTS SPEAK UP AS AMERICA BRACES FOR WAR
by Claire Soares
Reuter's, 18th September

WASHINGTON - With war rhetoric flying around Washington, pacifists in the
United States called for restraint on Tuesday, saying any U.S. military
retaliation for last week's attacks in New York and Washington would
escalate the violence.

President Bush has said the United States would win a new war on
terrorism and that the military was ready to defend freedom at any cost,
but groups like the Hague Appeal for Peace said war would not be an
appropriate response to the attacks.

"An eye for an eye leads to blindness. This past century started with a
war and the new century is starting with war talk. In between, humanity
has learned a great deal about conflict prevention and resolution," the
group's president, Cora Weiss, told Reuters.

"We abhor terrorism. These people must be ferreted out and brought to
justice, but we cannot let a justifiable anger lead to unjustifiable
action," she said in a telephone interview from her New York office.

Weiss said existing international legal institutions offered the best
hope of getting justice for the nearly 6,000 dead or missing after
hijacked planes demolished the World Trade Center and plowed into the
Pentagon.

"We urge the United States to support the international criminal court,
to respect and work with and through the United Nations, especially the
anti-terrorism conventions which we have so far refused to join," she
said.

PEACE MARCH

In Washington, Richard Becker of the International Action Center was
organizing a peace march in the capital. The group had planned protests
against the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, but after the
monetary watchdogs canceled their meetings, the IAC decided to use Sept.
29 to demonstrate against war plans.

"The initiation of new military action, open-ended war, is only going to
escalate the cycle of violence. We have to take a step back to look at
what has brought us to this point," Becker said, citing sanctions against
Iraq and intervention in the Israel-Palestinian conflict as issues to be
examined.

Becker said consequences of any U.S. military action would be felt at
home as well as abroad.

"We are going to see ... an escalation in racist attacks against
Arab-Americans and an erosion of civil liberties and democratic rights,
such as greatly widened powers for police to conduct wiretapping,
surveillance and seizure."

Pacifists were skeptical of recent polls that showed most Americans
favored war, even if it meant further U.S. casualties.

"There's tremendous pressure being placed on Americans ..., which feeds
on people's worst reactions to this type of crisis," said Bruce Nestor,
president of the National Lawyers Guild, which is supporting the peace
rally.

He applauded Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, who was the lone
dissenter to a congressional resolution allowing Bush to use "all
necessary and appropriate force" in retaliation for the attacks.

Weiss, who has received 150 messages daily from as far afield as Israel
and Hiroshima, Japan, said pacifist voices had remained largely
underground, hidden away in e-mails. She said she was confident the peace
movement would build momentum.


http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/anne_mcelvoy/story.jsp?sto
y=94757

*  ANNE MCELVOY: ANTI-AMERICANISM BLINDS THE LEFT TO WHAT'S AT STAKE
Independent, 19th September

Terrorists committed a mass execution of American citizens. This must, of
course, be America's fault. It had it coming for being arrogant. It had
it coming for supporting Israel. They had it coming for being so big and
rich. In short, it had it coming for being America. The best thing that
any self- respecting British liberal sort can do at this time is thus
counsel that retaliation would be "proportionate" (what, as in 5,000-plus
of their civilians, one for each killed in the World Trade Centre last
Tuesday?)

The chorus of opinion has moved rapidly to articulate what measures we
should not support, and what we should not do rather than what we should.
On the face of it, this sounds like wise advice. No position is more
agreeable to occupy than that of the voice of sound moderation, accusing
others of extremism.

But I know the beginning of a slanted argument when I hear one and this
is not a debate: it's an attempt to close down debate. The response of
much left-of-centre comment on this side of the Atlantic has been to
suggest that sweet reason, humanity and logic demand we should be
intensely sceptical, if not downright hostile, to American intentions. It
equates being in favour of military action with being some sort of crypto
right-winger who can think of no better idea than to blast a few goat
herds to kingdom come.

The tactic is depressingly familiar to anyone who had to fight it out
with unilateralists during the Cold War ("Oh, so you're in favour of
another Hiroshima and nuclear winter and making the planet
uninhabitable...")

I should say that I appreciate how worried many people are by what to do
next and how genuine their fears are. But the doctrine of "do nothing "
(or "do little") can also be a handy way of concealing a gut
anti-Americanism. There is something profoundly distasteful in the
posture that the US must "look at" what it might have done to deserve the
annihilation of thousands of its citizens, as if blame could be evenly
shared out.

Reason is a delicate plant and one easily trodden under the stampede of
the herd. I hear sensible people say that they are more worried by
President George Bush's actions than by anything Osama bin Laden or
Saddam Hussein have done or might be considering. Really, truly?

I hear people laughing at Bush's folksy language, as if it were an
essential part of the Presidential brief to respect the rhetorical tastes
of the British intelligentsia when an act of warfare has been perpetrated
inside his country. What will the anti-Americans find to say when the US
finally does react? The whole swelling orchestration of negativity is
intended to create an atmosphere in which anything that it does, however
carefully considered, is deemed to be wrong.

One of the strategic aims of all terrorists is to undermine the sense of
identity and cohesion in the targeted state or institutions. If they can
reduce their opponents to panicked squabbling hoards, so much the better.
They are already on their way to succeeding in Britain, rather too well.

These are times when liberals and the centre-left have a special duty to
think about how to use military power for the good. That cannot be done
by ramping up inchoate fear rather than a sense of quiet purpose in
defeating a deadly common enemy.

For me, being on the centre-left when it comes to the international role
of the major democracies means not walking away from these choices.
Unlike the isolationist sections of the right, we simply don't have the
option of shrugging, "What a world!" and applying blinkers when we don't
want to address the roots of evil.

This was the real danger of George Bush the threat that under his
leadership, America would turn inwards and spend its time counting its
vast wealth and admiring itself in the glass, instead of acting as a
force for good in the wider world. That is no longer an option. The
isolationism of conservative America was blown apart last week. But what
about the isolationism of liberal Europe?

The era of instant news breeds instant opinion to distort judgement.
"Everyone" now knows that Osama bin Laden was a CIA creation. Yet the
Independent on Sunday's investigation on the matter concludes that bin
Laden may well not have been financed by the CIA at all. The myth that he
did may be the result of confusion about Mujahedin factions.

Me, I don't know whether the CIA funded bin Laden. I do know from
grinding experience on similar topics that these things are very
difficult to find out with any certainty.

America's strategy is far more refined than its foes here suppose. They
do seem to think Americans are genetically stupid. It is also more subtle
than George Bush's warlike rhetoric. (Frankly, I could do with a bit less
of that too, but then he's their president). As for the notion that it
would all be different if only that nice Bill Clinton was still in
charge, we are clearly in the grip of post-presidential delusion
syndrome.

Clinton was a class act and a great guy and all of that. But when it came
to intervention abroad , he was a very partial success, led all too often
by exclusively domestic considerations. It was Clinton who rained 70
pointless missiles on Afghanistan in 1998 and hit the wrong targets in
Sudan in reprisal for the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. If
you want to protest about gesture bombing, a measure carried out to
appease the appetite for revenge, rather than for any rational military
strategy, then Clinton's your bad guy.

For all the pious injunctions to America not to "over-react", there has
been has been no immediate miscalculation by Bush. All the signs are that
his administration is pursuing a point-by-point strategy: first build a
coalition with Pakistan. Then locate the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden.
Next, apply pressure on the Mujahedin from Pakistan to extradite him. If
that fails, which it very well might, prepare for a prolonged special
forces offensive with bases inside Afghanistan and possibly Iraq aimed at
destroying terrorist hideouts. Cruise missile strikes may well follow
but the signs are that Washington is clearer this time about their
limited usefulness than it was three years ago.

These are not stupid responses to what has happened. The naive and
damaging position is to imagine that if we do nothing, terrorists will
give up and go home. Modern terrorists are highly mobile, but not
entirely free-range creatures. They seeks out sponsor states and are
parasitic upon them. Any attempt to bring them to justice entails
defeating the power which shields them.

Beyond the sound and fury, Britain does have a role and a proud one. It
is not in restraining hot-headed Bush, but in helping ensure that the
Atlantic alliance holds together in Europe, with each country
contributing to the effort in a way which is politically acceptable and
which creates the most unity, rather than the most discord. That is the
proper response of democracies under threat. Anything else is
irresponsible naivete.