|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
NO MORE VICTIMS: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR A PERMANENT SOLUTION TO TERRORISM |
Current rating: 0 |
by Religious Peace Organizations of Champaign-Ur
(No verified email address) |
28 Nov 2001
Modified: 02:59:36 PM |
|
A message from a group of concerned poeple of faith on how to put a stop to the cycle of violece highlighted on September 11. |
NO MORE VICTIMS: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR A PERMANENT SOLUTION TO TERRORISM
1) What is terrorism?
Terrorism is a tactic that can be used by an established government, a revolutionary group, or an individual. It is consciously chosen for an identifiable political goal such as punishing or retaliating against an enemy or dissident element, or to destabilize an opposing government or organization. Terrorism includes threats or acts of violence ranging from deprivation of basic human rights to property destruction, physical violence, torture and murder. What is new about terrorism is that massive destruction is more probable and terrorist?effective due to relatively cheap and available advanced technology, the clustering of people into larger cities, and the use of world?wide media that dramatizes terrorist acts, escalating fear.
2) What are the goals of the terrorists?
Scholars generally agree that the current crisis was perpetrated by a network of terrorists that draws much of its strength from widespread anti?U.S. sentiment that is strong in many parts of the Middle East and South Asia. The terrorists want a strong U.S. counter-reaction to their deeds. They especially want widespread military action against training, logistical, and other paramilitary facilities, together with direct attacks against Kabul and Baghdad. They want high civilian casualties. Such action will eventually weaken the pro?U.S. coalition, weaken the position of more moderate elements of the Kabul regime, increase and strengthen opposition to the U.S. in such countries as Egypt and Jordan, and aid the destabilization of the Pakistani government, making a change of (nuclear?capable) government more probable.
3) What is the terrorists' connection with Islam?
The Koran teaches nonviolence. Islam is not a pacifist religion, but it does not permit Muslims to take up arms against the unarmed. Even in war, Islam prohibits the killing of civilians and the destruction of property. It permits one to fight only against aggressors. The Koran says, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not aggressors" (2:190). However, as in all religions, there is an extreme fundamentalist minority. Some "Islamists" believe they are entitled to aggressive self-defense against a nation such as the U.S. that maintains military troops on land holy to Muslims, bombs innocent people in Iraq, and supports the dispossession of Palestinian land.
4) Is the U.S. really committed to fighting terrorism?
The record of the U.S. on this is spotty, at best. The U.S. now appears to be giving support to the Northern Alliance, an Afghan group questionable on human rights. Before September 11, the U.S. tolerated Saudi Arabian and Pakistani military and financial aid to the Taliban. The U.S. has resisted efforts to form an international court and has withdrawn support from initiatives that crack down on tax havens where terrorists hide their assets. The U.S. has given billions of dollars to the Colombian government which works hand-in-hand with the right-wing paramilitary there, a group identified by the U.S. State Department as terrorists. The U.S. created the Nicaraguan Contras and the El Salvadoran Special Forces which terrorized their countries' populations. The U.S. continues to fund the School of the Americas which trains other nations' militaries in torture techniques. The U.S. has supported both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in past conflicts.
5) What are possible negative consequences of U.S. military action in this crisis?
The U.S. must not abandon our core values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in the process of defending these values. When we use military force rather than international process and law, we risk directly inflicting many civilian casualties. Bombing indirectly causes the suffering and death of innocent civilians through the destruction of homes, roads, water sources, and agriculture. It disrupts international alliances and fragile governments, transforming the conflict into a war between Islam and the West. More aggrieved individuals are recruited for the terrorists' causes, and hate crimes, violence, and retaliation against various ethnic and religious groups escalate.
6) Is being non-violent a do-nothing position?
Gandhi told us: "Love is the strongest force the world possesses, yet it is the humblest imaginable. Let us dare to move forward in love." As Mary Robinson, the U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights, correctly said these were "crimes against humanity" and deserve an international response. U.S. law enforcement officials should work closely with law enforcement agencies around the world to identify, apprehend, and prosecute the perpetrators of these attacks. The U.N. should interrupt and seize the financial resources that support criminal terrorist networks. International sanctions should be focused on those in political power that support or shelter terrorist networks. In response to this tragedy let us commit ourselves to eliminate terrorism by correcting the causes of hatred upon which it feeds.
7) What are alternatives to military action in this crisis?
Ten non-military responses are: 1) Mobilize law enforcement agencies around the world to bring to justice those responsible; 2) Preserve civil liberties, maintain full public accountability of U.S. governing institutions, and protect vulnerable minorities from hate crimes and harassment; 3) Urge the U.N. to interrupt and seize financial resources that support terrorist networks; 4) Lead the U.N. in bringing pressure against the governing regimes of nations that support terror networks; 5) Respond with aid to the suffering of innocent peoples in Iraq, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries; 6) Resume and intensify U.S. efforts to secure a just and lasting peace in the Israeli?Palestinian conflict; 7) Lead the international community in cooperative efforts to reduce stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and materials in the world; 8) Support an international ban on the sale and transfer of weapons to zones of conflict; 9) Dramatically increase U.S. aid to the millions of refugees in zones of conflict; 10) Assist individuals and families in the U.S. who have lost wage earners or jobs as a result of the attack.
8) If we don't use force to retaliate against the terrorists and their supporters, aren't we being disrespectful to those who died in the terrorist attacks?
No. It is a terrible tragedy that so many innocent lives were lost. None of these victims deserved to die. All people of conscience and feeling grieve for the victims and their families. However, it is hypocritical for the U.S. government to say we hold human life to be an inalienable right and then spread death to innocent victims abroad. We can honor the dead by holding life sacred and stopping the cycle of violence.
9) Won't the U.S. look weak if we don't retaliate?
No. The U.S. does not have to attack to show that we are committed to ending terrorism. We should increase our efforts to apprehend known terrorists, working through international law to bring them to justice. If we seek to force Afghanistan into submission, we will lose the war on terrorism while inadvertently slaughtering millions. We can choose between futile genocide and productive peace.
10) Is it possible to be patriotic and anti-war at the same time?
Yes. Our country is based on democratic principles that encourage people to have a variety of viewpoints and to dissent from the majority viewpoint if their consciences lead them to do so. Dissent is particularly important at critical junctures. Many people believe that a more permanent solution to this crisis can be found in negotiation, diplomacy and international law. There have always been many patriotic Americans who have opposed wars.
Prepared by Religious Peace Organizations of Champaign-Urbana
October 2001 |
