|
I Treatment Successful; Patient Dead -- and How to avoid It Never have so many of us heard so much talk about solving a global problem.We are told over and over that we will defeat terror by breaking up thenetworks and getting the perpetrators of terrorist crimes. Yet absent fromthe outpourings of analysis and commentary is the acknowledgment that wecannot defeat terror by pulling out its manifestations at their roots.Manifestations are symptoms. Causes have roots, and at those -- poverty,despair, ignorance, helplessness -- we must unerringly aim our search anddestroy missions. We must think, interpret and act in ways that root outthe global origins of global terrorism. Lacking such an overarchingperspective our questions will not be deep enough, our vision too myopic,and our actions piecemeal. Instead of defeating terror we may well findourselves perpetuating it. It is essential that we ask ourselves uncomfortable questions such as whatare the costs and benefits of dropping bombs against one country harboringone terrorist mastermind? Granted, we could potentially defeat Osama BinLaden, the Taliban and Al-Quaeda. AND THEN WHAT? Would we seriously delude ourselves into thinking the world was better orsafer, or that we had just ‘won the war against terrorism?’ Would we beprepared for the next mastermind, the next fundamentalist takeover, the nextterror network? And the next? War itself is inherently toxic. Bombs areeffective at killing, destroying, and forcing temporary setbacks. But theycan never root out anything. Especially not powerful ideas, hatred, or themisery and suffering that is fertile soil for future terrorists. I assume military analysts would be the most aware of the limits of warfare.They would likely be the first to point out the need for stabilization andrebuilding. It was, after all, a General who understood the pressing needto rebuild Europe after WW II. Yes, I advocate here for a new and globalMarshall Plan, but I also wonder if we have really asked ourselves about thelong-term toxic impact of our current course of action on the delicatefabric of the 21st century. Answer we must, or be held accountable by ouroffspring and their children. By viewing terrorism through a global big-picture lens we create theopportunity for effective action, permanent solutions and a positive legacy.Lacking that we can drop as many targeted bombs as we want against oneparticularly onerous symptom. Ultimately it will prove futile if weoverlook the origins of the disease and the importance of health. By far the most important piece missing in the anti-terror discussion is theenormous mosaic of developing nation poverty. While poverty in Afghanistanand to a lesser extent in Pakistan have at least been acknowledged, wedangerously ignore the implications of magnitude. Today our 'target' isAfghanistan. Who and where are next? The tentacles of terrorism are aswidespread as poverty and despair. Will we be viewed historically as thenation that attempted to preserve democracy and freedom at home by bombingcountry after country in the developing world? "We don't really need tospend another dime on ‘intelligence’ to recognize the conditions that leavewhole countries in a state of despair and misery." Some 1.2 billion people worldwide struggle to survive on $1 day or less “ 150 million children are malnourished “ 10 million children under 5 will die in 2001 “ 150 million people want to work but can’t find jobs These numbers are far greater than Afghanistan, Pakistan, Asia and theMiddle East. Everywhere such misery exists, desperation, extremism andterrorism take root and flourish. In a globally interdependent world inwhich a fifth of our inhabitants are desperate, it is only a matter of timeuntil we all are. We’re still accustomed to closing our eyes to misery thatseems geographically or culturally distant from us. September 11th shouldhave gone a long way to show us the danger of such blinders. Because Europe wasn’t so far from us and because General Marshall’s visionprevailed, Europe did not sink into an abyss of despair and turmoilfollowing the Second World War. Our own country and the world have benefitedenormously from its recovery. In 1947, Gen. George C. Marshall said post-warU.S. policy was directed "not against any country or doctrine but againsthunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos." A half-century on, the MarshallPlan is still credited as the single most important component inestablishing peace and prosperity in war-ravaged Europe. It is also stillviewed as one of the most generous acts of enlightened self-interest evercarried out by one nation in support of others. Today’s Americans are likelyno less generous in nature. But we are a lot less informed about the worldaround us! A global Marshall Plan would be led by the country that already did it onceand by the countries that were direct beneficiaries. Is it possible to usethe same foresight, political will and technical savvy to create awealthy-nation's Marshall Plan? One impediment is the magnitude of thetask. It seems overwhelming in scope and cost. But let’s number crunch fora moment. Just a cursory glance at our initial response to the terror of September11th shows how costs soared into the tens of billions of dollars. Thenthere's the $40 billion Congress quickly offered President Bush foranti-terror activities. Remember too, these unanticipated billions arebeyond our proposed defense budget of almost $343 billion. Currentprojections put our military actions over the next 12 months at anadditional $100 billion. There is no attempt here to quantify theadditional billions yet to be spent on defenses against biological, chemicalor nuclear terrorism. Neither does this touch on similar costs to Europeannations as they protect themselves from its global reach. What would it actually cost for the United States and other industrializednations to launch a global Marshall Plan that would provide everyone onearth with a decent standard of living? Nowhere near what you may think. A 1998 report by the United Nations Development Programme estimated theannual cost to achieve universal access to a number of basic social servicesin all developing countries. Three years ago that would have been $ 9 billion -- water and sanitation
$12 billion -- reproductive health for all women;
$13 billion -- basic health care and nutrition; and
$ 6 billion -- basic education for all. To those who may still think it "costs too much," I would suggest that the$40 billion price tag is less than negligible when pitted against the costof inaction. Ironically, it is also the amount of Congress's anti-terrorcheck to the president. But the price tag itself is inaccurate because evenif it is underestimated by an order of magnitude this is not pure outlay.This money is being invested in people, in business, trade, infrastructure,knowledge, technology, and a positive future. This is not the kind of moneythat drops one time from a plane and disappears into a crater ofdestruction. The comparative numbers are also inaccurate because the jury is still out asto the potential costs of not making global education, social welfare, andhealth care a top priority. Given the events of September 11th and all thathas followed, my imagination balks at being asked to project where thepolicies of warfare and counter-warfare, terrorism and counter-terrorismwill take our troubled world. By blinding ourselves to the enormous human suffering on our planet webecome a mad doctor treating the terrible manifestations of toxic disease byoffering toxic cures. The patient’s system is already filled with poison.Even if one of the toxins kills off one of the poisons the patient willstill die. There is another way in which the dollar comparison fails. Just as we can’timagine the damage of inaction I don’t believe we can accurately assess thebenefits of positive investment. A global Marshall Plan could eradicatebarriers in our thinking and behavior, create partnerships as yetunimaginable, and set us on a new path of creative problem-solving. The onecomponent I am sure of is that where political will goes, miracles follow.The Marshall Plan is only one case in point. Our world has seen manyexamples, for good and bad. President Bush is right when he repeats that this is a war unlike any other.What he either fails to grasp or refuses to acknowledge is that this war isdifferent because all we can possibly win on the ground is battles. This warcan be waged but never won through warfare. It is a lose-lose propositionfor the good, the bad, and especially for the masses of innocent peoplealive today and the masses of children yet to be born. This is a war unlike any other in that it is cannot be fought in the air,inside mountain caves or on the ground. This one can only be fought deep inthe soil in which the human soul germinates and is replenished. So, what will it be America? Will we be warriors and use our guns and bombsto till the soil of deprivation, inhumanity and hate? Or will we bevisionaries and stewards of the future by cultivating the soil that breedsdignity, hope and respect for human life? II What Do You Women Want? Have you wondered if we could talk with the Afghani people what they wouldsay? I most wonder what the women would say, the faceless and voicelessamong a people surviving in stifling silence after years of internalconflict, war, and fundamentalist dictatorship. Do we have even the leastidea of what they want? I wonder, if we could know would it affect ourattitudes and policies? When the bombs first began falling on Afghanistan I believed at least 60% ofthe population -- the women of Afghanistan -- would secretly rejoice if itheralded an end to the era of Taliban atrocities. When I heard an Afghanwoman speak against the bombing, her words pricked the comfortable bubble ofmy own callousness. She was a representative of the Revolutionary Association of the Women ofAfghanistan (RAWA) speaking from Pakistan. RAWA describes itself as "apolitical/social organization of Afghan women struggling for peace, freedom,democracy and women's rights in fundamentalism-blighted Afghanistan." Notonly their name, but their words draw clear lines in the sand: "The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) wasestablished in 1977, long before the current Taliban regime seized power.>From the beginning, RAWA opposed how Muslim extremists in Afghanistanmisinterpreted traditional practices and Islamic law to justify theoppression of women. The Taliban are the champions of illiteracy andhighest incarnations of ignorant arrogance. RAWA believes that despitemanifold impediments and meager resources, one of its duties is to carry thetorch of literacy and knowledge among women in defiance of the Taliban andenlightenment-hating fundamentalists." Yet this RAWA representative opposed the bombing. No matter how many timesthe seemingly surprised interviewer asked, her position remained firm. Shegave two reasons. The first was simple: “Because innocent people will die.”After hearing the interview I researched further and found the samesentiment in a press release of September 12th. This statement was issuedby a different organization called The Afghan Women's Mission. Both groupswant to see the perpetrators of the criminal acts of September 11th broughtto justice. Neither endorses our method of accomplishing that objective. "Afghans have been suffering the results of extreme war, poverty, disease,hunger, lack of education, health care and shelter for too long. Afghanscomprise the second largest refugee group in the world today. In addition,there are millions of internally displaced Afghans who are living on theedge of survival throughout the country. To attack Afghanistan now would beto attack a weak and defenseless people who have no control over those thatrule them with violence and terror. While we insist that those responsibleshould be identified and tried in a court of law, we urge the United Statesgovernment to not answer violence with violence." My surprise at the RAWA representative’s second reason for opposing thebombing bespoke of my own ignorance and RAWA’s long-term vision forAfghanistan. Reason number two lies interwoven into the social and politicalcomplexities that we Americans know little of; complexities that couldunravel Afghanistan into more years of instability and warfare. RAWA is unsure what a future government will look like. As some of us inthe west are only slowly beginning to understand, politics in Afghanistan isa quagmire of tribal divisions, changing loyalties, and deeply cherishedbeliefs. Make no mistake however. Her invectives against the Taliban werepowerful indeed. She described them as misogynist criminals illegallyenforcing the world's most oppressive regime against women, and spoke ofatrocities against 7-year old girls and 70-year old grandmothers. Yet RAWAis firm. Not only the Taliban, but any fundamentalist government isdangerous to Afghan women and children. As a recent news analyst noted: “Afghans have a history of uniting againstgovernments imposed from abroad - a legacy that turns any talk of apost-Taliban Afghanistan into mere speculation.” Not only is the politicalsituation within the country divided among some 45 disparate factions. Thesix countries bordering Afghanistan -- Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan,Tajikistan, China and Pakistan are all attempting in various degrees toinfluence Afghan politics to meet their own country’s needs. The U.S. is nowthe lone western country in the midst of complexities of which we know solittle. Given our government's past history of forming alliances with the " enemy ofmy enemy" it is unclear where our intervention will lead and where it willend. A few results of such policies include support for the Shah of Iran,Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Pinochet, and other criminal dictators ofLatin America. We have not been wise in this arena. Neither have we beenpatient. Nor have we had a larger view of the long-term overt results ofour covert activities. And to all appearances, we have still not learnedfrom history. Obviously RAWA and the Afghan Women’s Mission do not represent all Afghanisor even all of Afghanistan’s women. But they do speak with knowledge oftheir country and the suffering of their people. And they are not aself-serving political faction. So what do these women want? In my opinionwhat the world should want. Justice. Not a swift sword of vengeance, butjustice rooted in the living soil of long-term solutions. If we were to listen, understand, and act on their vision, what might we dodifferently? How would we implement their plea for justice while supportinga solution from within Afghanistan itself that would satisfactory RAWA’sobjectives of ‘peace, freedom, democracy and women's rights?’ I see onlyone option -- use this opportunity to strengthen both the United Nations andthe international rule of law. Having worked at the UN for over a decade, Iam well aware of its flaws and am not suggesting that as it is today it hasthe power to do the job. But if we put our political will behind it, itcould. The UN could become a forum to demand of world governments that accusedterrorists be brought before the world court in The Hague. This approach,like that of RAWA itself, would require time, vision and patience. Butthere are precedents. That method was globally endorsed and ultimatelyforced Libya to hand over the Lockerbie bombing terrorists without aninvasion. The world is again slowly succeeding against Serb perpetrators ofgenocidal ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Bosnia. It is requiring time and patience,but we know that is a small price to pay for increasing stabilization in theBalkans. If we chose to do so, we could funnel some of our anti-terror resources intothe creation of a UN anti-terror agency with teeth. It could be modeledalong the lines of NATO, affiliated with national intelligence agencies,military and Interpol. Is this even conceivably possible? Actually yes. TheUN can become as strong as we are willing to let it. It’s just that beforewe would be willing to undertake a shift from an American-led coalitionapproach to strengthening the rule of international law through a globalbody we would have to answer for ourselves some hard questions about who weare, what we have done, and what we want. What does it mean to be a superpower? Will we be the sword of vengeance orthe stewards of the future? How strong are we? Are we strong enough tocome to terms with our own past and encourage other countries to do thesame? If each nation were to stand up to acknowledge its actions withoutfear of reprisal the world could act with a new unity and combined forceagainst modern-day terrorism. South Africa used that method as one means ofbeginning to heal the deep wounds caused by Apartheid. If the U.N formed a South-African style Truth Commission on terror, whichnation would be left to cast the first stone? In the light of honestrecognition and with the moral weight of a global body it would beappropriate for the U.S. and others to ostracize any nation unwilling totake a stand. Within the forum of a global body either a country wouldstand alone in support of terror or work within a powerful global bodyagainst it. As powerful as the combined weight of the global body committing toeradicating the real roots of terrorism and working through the world bodyare, there is another extremely powerful and no less urgent way to winagainst terror while protecting our country and the earth itself. Itentails rooting out a source of evil more pervasive and potentially far moredevastating than any terror network we have yet seen. We need only release our dependence on three tiny letters -- oil. III What price oil? "To go a bit further, it is not a great stretch to say that Tuesday's(September 11th) events were about oil. Our presence in the Middle East, oursupport of the Saudi regime, the Gulf War, our support of Israel, oil - theyare all connected, in our geo-political western view of reality. If we haveseen anything this past week, it is the urgency of sustainability - to getbeyond our dependence on petroleum, our umbilical cord to Earth in theMiddle East, and find a better basis for our relationship to the region." If the Middle East and the Persian Gulf held no precious oil supplies, wouldwe have intervened following Iraq's incursion into Kuwait? Most analyststhink not. If oil were not in the region, would we have kept US troops onSaudi soil over the past decade? Certainly not. What has our dependence on oil cost us? The answer to the question dependson what you include in the calculations. Going by prices at the gasstation, it would seem like oil must be a pretty inexpensive commodity. Butmany of the costs of oil are not calculated into the price at the pump.Include the price of keeping troops on foreign soil, ships at foreign portsto protect oil supply lines, and the price will skyrocket. Our dependency on foreign oil is estimated to cost $60 billion per year.Add intangible but real costs such as damage to the earth, loss of avirtually non-renewable resource, lives lost and hatreds created, and theprice becomes apparent in currency other than dollars. It would make enormous sense to turn our backs on oil now. Today.Obviously it would free us from having to protect oil interests in theMiddle East. By relying on renewable resources we would preserve the earthand stop stealing from future generations the possibility of living as wellor better than we do now. As an added bonus it would make our nation more secure by removing thepossibility that any terrorist could again topple another building with anairplane, as hydrogen fires generate almost no heat. Retrofitting airplanesto hydrogen has also been suggested as a means of avoiding layoffs atBoeing, making flying safer, and a smart approach to updating our naturalgas line system. It is unfortunate that the leaders of the current administration not onlyappear as symbolic supporters of oil ueber alles, but in actuality areleaders in the oil and drilling industries. President Bush proposed onOctober 11th that we should drill in the Alaskan refuge to decrease ourreliance on foreign oil. In ten years, when we would have that oil, thedecrease would be somewhere between 3 and 5%. A very real way of combating terrorism is for voters to insist their electedofficials push for the implementation of alternative energy as a matter ofurgency and national security. Congressional candidates in the Novemberelection should be questioned on their position. It is extraordinarilyimportant to turn this country away from oil and petrochemical production torenewable energy so we can truly win the 'war' on terror, defend our countryand safeguard our future. Terry Laggner is the communications director at the Washington Councilon International Trade and previously worked as communications advisor tothe U.S. Ambassador to Austria (Swanee Hunt) and in press and communicationsat the United Nations in for about 10 years. “New Marshall Plan. Advancing Human Security and Controlling Terrorism” byDick Bell & Michael Renner, Worldwatch Institute www.worldwatch.org Ibid Ibid National Public Radio broadcast of an interview with a RAWA representative www.rawa.org ibid www.afghanwomensmission.org MSNBC analysis “After the Taliban, What Next?” by Preston Mendenhall inIslamabad, October 15th Ray Anderson, chairman Interface Inc. from remarks in Seattle, September18, 2001 (full text at www.wcit.org ) Natural Capitalism, Paul Hawken, Amory & L. Hunter Lovins, pg. 23 ###
| 
