Arundhati Roy on September 11

Jean Jordaan jean@upfrontsystems.co.za
Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:07:12 +0200


Most of these points have been made on this list. Arundhati is very
critical of the US, but not I think unfairly so.

-----Original Message-----

	Arundhati Roy
	Guardian
	Saturday September 29, 2001
	In the aftermath of the unconscionable September 11 suicide
attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre, an American
newscaster said: "Good and evil rarely manifest themselves as clearly as
they did last Tuesday. People who we don't know massacred people who we
do. And they did so with contemptuous glee." Then he broke down and
wept.
	Here's the rub: America is at war against people it doesn't
know, because they don't appear much on TV. Before it has properly
identified or even begun to comprehend the nature of its enemy, the US
government has, in a rush of publicity and embarrassing rhetoric,
cobbled together an "international coalition against terror", mobilised
its army, its air force, its navy and its media, and committed them to
battle.
	The trouble is that once America goes off to war, it can't very
well return without having fought one. If it doesn't find its enemy, for
the sake of the enraged folks back home, it will have to manufacture
one. Once war begins, it will develop a momentum, a logic and a
justification of its own, and we'll lose sight of why it's being fought
in the first place.
	What we're witnessing here is the spectacle of the world's most
powerful country reaching reflexively, angrily, for an old instinct to
fight a new kind of war. Suddenly, when it comes to defending itself,
America's streamlined warships, cruise missiles and F-16 jets look like
obsolete, lumbering things. As deterrence, its arsenal of nuclear bombs
is no longer worth its weight in scrap. Box-cutters, penknives, and cold
anger are the weapons with which the wars of the new century will be
waged. Anger is the lock pick. It slips through customs unnoticed.
Doesn't show up in baggage checks.
	Who is America fighting? On September 20, the FBI said that it
had doubts about the identities of some of the hijackers. On the same
day President George Bush said, "We know exactly who these people are
and which governments are supporting them." It sounds as though the
president knows something that the FBI and the American public don't.
	In his September 20 address to the US Congress, President Bush
called the enemies of America "enemies of freedom". "Americans are
asking, 'Why do they hate us?' " he said. "They hate our freedoms - our
freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and
assemble and disagree with each other." People are being asked to make
two leaps of faith here. First, to assume that The Enemy is who the US
government says it is, even though it has no substantial evidence to
support that claim. And second, to assume that The Enemy's motives are
what the US government says they are, and there's nothing to support
that either.
	For strategic, military and economic reasons, it is vital for
the US government to persuade its public that their commitment to
freedom and democracy and the American Way of Life is under attack. In
the current atmosphere of grief, outrage and anger, it's an easy notion
to peddle. However, if that were true, it's reasonable to wonder why the
symbols of America's economic and military dominance - the World Trade
Centre and the Pentagon - were chosen as the targets of the attacks. Why
not the Statue of Liberty? Could it be that the stygian anger that led
to the attacks has its taproot not in American freedom and democracy,
but in the US government's record of commitment and support to exactly
the opposite things - to military and economic terrorism, insurgency,
military dictatorship, religious bigotry and unimaginable genocide
(outside America)? It must be hard for ordinary Americans, so recently
bereaved, to look up at the world with their eyes full of tears and
encounter what might appear to them to be indifference. It isn't
indifference. It's just augury. An absence of surprise. The tired wisdom
of knowing that what goes around eventually comes around. American
people ought to know that it is not them but their government's policies
that are so hated. They can't possibly doubt that they themselves, their
extraordinary musicians, their writers, their actors, their spectacular
sportsmen and their cinema, are universally welcomed. All of us have
been moved by the courage and grace shown by firefighters, rescue
workers and ordinary office staff in the days since the attacks.
	America's grief at what happened has been immense and immensely
public. It would be grotesque to expect it to calibrate or modulate its
anguish. However, it will be a pity if, instead of using this as an
opportunity to try to understand why September 11 happened, Americans
use it as an opportunity to usurp the whole world's sorrow to mourn and
avenge only their own. Because then it falls to the rest of us to ask
the hard questions and say the harsh things. And for our pains, for our
bad timing, we will be disliked, ignored and perhaps eventually
silenced.
	The world will probably never know what motivated those
particular hijackers who flew planes into those particular American
buildings. They were not glory boys. They left no suicide notes, no
political messages; no organisation has claimed credit for the attacks.
All we know is that their belief in what they were doing outstripped the
natural human instinct for survival, or any desire to be remembered.
It's almost as though they could not scale down the enormity of their
rage to anything smaller than their deeds. And what they did has blown a
hole in the world as we knew it. In the absence of information,
politicians, political commentators and writers (like myself) will
invest the act with their own politics, with their own interpretations.
This speculation, this analysis of the political climate in which the
attacks took place, can only be a good thing.
	But war is looming large. Whatever remains to be said must be
said quickly. Before America places itself at the helm of the
"international coalition against terror", before it invites (and
coerces) countries to actively participate in its almost godlike mission
- called Operation Infinite Justice until it was pointed out that this
could be seen as an insult to Muslims, who believe that only Allah can
mete out infinite justice, and was renamed Operation Enduring Freedom-
it would help if some small clarifications are made. For example,
Infinite Justice/Enduring Freedom for whom? Is this America's war
against terror in America or against terror in general? What exactly is
being avenged here? Is it the tragic loss of almost 7,000 lives, the
gutting of five million square feet of office space in Manhattan, the
destruction of a section of the Pentagon, the loss of several hundreds
of thousands of jobs, the bankruptcy of some airline companies and the
dip in the New York Stock Exchange? Or is it more than that? In 1996,
Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on
national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi
children had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She replied that
it was "a very hard choice", but that, all things considered, "we think
the price is worth it". Albright never lost her job for saying this. She
continued to travel the world representing the views and aspirations of
the US government. More pertinently, the sanctions against Iraq remain
in place. Children continue to die.
	So here we have it. The equivocating distinction between
civilisation and savagery, between the "massacre of innocent people" or,
if you like, "a clash of civilisations" and "collateral damage". The
sophistry and fastidious algebra of infinite justice. How many dead
Iraqis will it take to make the world a better place? How many dead
Afghans for every dead American? How many dead women and children for
every dead man? How many dead mojahedin for each dead investment banker?
As we watch mesmerised, Operation Enduring Freedom unfolds on TV
monitors across the world. A coalition of the world's superpowers is
closing in on Afghanistan, one of the poorest, most ravaged, war-torn
countries in the world, whose ruling Taliban government is sheltering
Osama bin Laden, the man being held responsible for the September 11
attacks.
	The only thing in Afghanistan that could possibly count as
collateral value is its citizenry. (Among them, half a million maimed
orphans.There are accounts of hobbling stampedes that occur when
artificial limbs are airdropped into remote, inaccessible villages.)
Afghanistan's economy is in a shambles. In fact, the problem for an
invading army is that Afghanistan has no conventional coordinates or
signposts to plot on a military map - no big cities, no highways, no
industrial complexes, no water treatment plants. Farms have been turned
into mass graves. The countryside is littered with land mines - 10
million is the most recent estimate. The American army would first have
to clear the mines and build roads in order to take its soldiers in.
	Fearing an attack from America, one million citizens have fled
from their homes and arrived at the border between Pakistan and
Afghanistan. The UN estimates that there are eight million Afghan
citizens who need emergency aid. As supplies run out - food and aid
agencies have been asked to leave - the BBC reports that one of the
worst humanitarian disasters of recent times has begun to unfold.
Witness the infinite justice of the new century. Civilians starving to
death while they're waiting to be killed.
	In America there has been rough talk of "bombing Afghanistan
back to the stone age". Someone please break the news that Afghanistan
is already there. And if it's any consolation, America played no small
part in helping it on its way. The American people may be a little fuzzy
about where exactly Afghanistan is (we hear reports that there's a run
on maps of the country), but the US government and Afghanistan are old
friends.
	In 1979, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA and
Pakistan's ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) launched the largest covert
operation in the history of the CIA. Their purpose was to harness the
energy of Afghan resistance to the Soviets and expand it into a holy
war, an Islamic jihad, which would turn Muslim countries within the
Soviet Union against the communist regime and eventually destabilise it.
When it began, it was meant to be the Soviet Union's Vietnam. It turned
out to be much more than that. Over the years, through the ISI, the CIA
funded and recruited almost 100,000 radical mojahedin from 40 Islamic
countries as soldiers for America's proxy war. The rank and file of the
mojahedin were unaware that their jihad was actually being fought on
behalf of Uncle Sam. (The irony is that America was equally unaware that
it was financing a future war against itself.)
	In 1989, after being bloodied by 10 years of relentless
conflict, the Russians withdrew, leaving behind a civilisation reduced
to rubble.
	Civil war in Afghanistan raged on. The jihad spread to Chechnya,
Kosovo and eventually to Kashmir. The CIA continued to pour in money and
military equipment, but the overheads had become immense, and more money
was needed. The mojahedin ordered farmers to plant opium as a
"revolutionary tax". The ISI set up hundreds of heroin laboratories
across Afghanistan. Within two years of the CIA's arrival, the
Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland had become the biggest producer of
heroin in the world, and the single biggest source of the heroin on
American streets. The annual profits, said to be between $100bn and
$200bn, were ploughed back into training and arming militants.
	In 1995, the Taliban - then a marginal sect of dangerous,
hardline fundamentalists - fought its way to power in Afghanistan. It
was funded by the ISI, that old cohort of the CIA, and supported by many
political parties in Pakistan. The Taliban unleashed a regime of terror.
Its first victims were its own people, particularly women. It closed
down girls' schools, dismissed women from government jobs, and enforced
sharia laws under which women deemed to be "immoral" are stoned to
death, and widows guilty of being adulterous are buried alive. Given the
Taliban government's human rights track record, it seems unlikely that
it will in any way be intimidated or swerved from its purpose by the
prospect of war, or the threat to the lives of its civilians.
	After all that has happened, can there be anything more ironic
than Russia and America joining hands to re-destroy Afghanistan? The
question is, can you destroy destruction? Dropping more bombs on
Afghanistan will only shuffle the rubble, scramble some old graves and
disturb the dead.
	The desolate landscape of Afghanistan was the burial ground of
Soviet communism and the springboard of a unipolar world dominated by
America. It made the space for neocapitalism and corporate
globalisation, again dominated by America. And now Afghanistan is poised
to become the graveyard for the unlikely soldiers who fought and won
this war for America.
	And what of America's trusted ally? Pakistan too has suffered
enormously. The US government has not been shy of supporting military
dictators who have blocked the idea of democracy from taking root in the
country. Before the CIA arrived, there was a small rural market for
opium in Pakistan. Between 1979 and 1985, the number of heroin addicts
grew from zero to one-and-a-half million. Even before September 11,
there were three million Afghan refugees living in tented camps along
the border. Pakistan's economy is crumbling. Sectarian violence,
globalisation's structural adjustment programmes and drug lords are
tearing the country to pieces. Set up to fight the Soviets, the
terrorist training centres and madrasahs, sown like dragon's teeth
across the country, produced fundamentalists with tremendous popular
appeal within Pakistan itself. The Taliban, which the Pakistan
government has sup ported, funded and propped up for years, has material
and strategic alliances with Pakistan's own political parties.
	Now the US government is asking (asking?) Pakistan to garotte
the pet it has hand-reared in its backyard for so many years. President
Musharraf, having pledged his support to the US, could well find he has
something resembling civil war on his hands.
	India, thanks in part to its geography, and in part to the
vision of its former leaders, has so far been fortunate enough to be
left out of this Great Game. Had it been drawn in, it's more than likely
that our democracy, such as it is, would not have survived. Today, as
some of us watch in horror, the Indian government is furiously gyrating
its hips, begging the US to set up its base in India rather than
Pakistan. Having had this ringside view of Pakistan's sordid fate, it
isn't just odd, it's unthinkable, that India should want to do this. Any
third world country with a fragile economy and a complex social base
should know by now that to invite a superpower such as America in
(whether it says it's staying or just passing through) would be like
inviting a brick to drop through your windscreen.
	Operation Enduring Freedom is ostensibly being fought to uphold
the American Way of Life. It'll probably end up undermining it
completely. It will spawn more anger and more terror across the world.
For ordinary people in America, it will mean lives lived in a climate of
sickening uncertainty: will my child be safe in school? Will there be
nerve gas in the subway? A bomb in the cinema hall? Will my love come
home tonight? There have been warnings about the possibility of
biological warfare - smallpox, bubonic plague, anthrax - the deadly
payload of innocuous crop-duster aircraft. Being picked off a few at a
time may end up being worse than being annihilated all at once by a
nuclear bomb.
	The US government, and no doubt governments all over the world,
will use the climate of war as an excuse to curtail civil liberties,
deny free speech, lay off workers, harass ethnic and religious
minorities, cut back on public spending and divert huge amounts of money
to the defence industry. To what purpose? President Bush can no more
"rid the world of evil-doers" than he can stock it with saints. It's
absurd for the US government to even toy with the notion that it can
stamp out terrorism with more violence and oppression. Terrorism is the
symptom, not the disease. Terrorism has no country. It's transnational,
as global an enterprise as Coke or Pepsi or Nike. At the first sign of
trouble, terrorists can pull up stakes and move their "factories" from
country to country in search of a better deal. Just like the
multi-nationals.
	Terrorism as a phenomenon may never go away. But if it is to be
contained, the first step is for America to at least acknowledge that it
shares the planet with other nations, with other human beings who, even
if they are not on TV, have loves and griefs and stories and songs and
sorrows and, for heaven's sake, rights. Instead, when Donald Rumsfeld,
the US defence secretary, was asked what he would call a victory in
America's new war, he said that if he could convince the world that
Americans must be allowed to continue with their way of life, he would
consider it a victory.
	The September 11 attacks were a monstrous calling card from a
world gone horribly wrong. The message may have been written by Bin
Laden (who knows?) and delivered by his couriers, but it could well have
been signed by the ghosts of the victims of America's old wars. The
millions killed in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia, the 17,500 killed when
Israel - backed by the US - invaded Lebanon in 1982, the 200,000 Iraqis
killed in Operation Desert Storm, the thousands of Palestinians who have
died fighting Israel's occupation of the West Bank. And the millions who
died, in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the
Dominican Republic, Panama, at the hands of all the terrorists,
dictators and genocidists whom the American government supported,
trained, bankrolled and supplied with arms. And this is far from being a
comprehensive list.
	For a country involved in so much warfare and conflict, the
American people have been extremely fortunate. The strikes on September
11 were only the second on American soil in over a century. The first
was Pearl Harbour. The reprisal for this took a long route, but ended
with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This time the world waits with bated breath
for the horrors to come.
	Someone recently said that if Osama bin Laden didn't exist,
America would have had to invent him. But, in a way, America did invent
him. He was among the jihadis who moved to Afghanistan in 1979 when the
CIA commenced its operations there. Bin Laden has the distinction of
being created by the CIA and wanted by the FBI. In the course of a
fortnight he has been promoted from suspect to prime suspect and then,
despite the lack of any real evidence, straight up the charts to being
"wanted dead or alive".
	From all accounts, it will be impossible to produce evidence (of
the sort that would stand scrutiny in a court of law) to link Bin Laden
to the September 11 attacks. So far, it appears that the most
incriminating piece of evidence against him is the fact that he has not
condemned them.
	From what is known about the location of Bin Laden and the
living conditions in which he operates, it's entirely possible that he
did not personally plan and carry out the attacks - that he is the
inspirational figure, "the CEO of the holding company". The Taliban's
response to US demands for the extradition of Bin Laden has been
uncharacteristically reasonable: produce the evidence, then we'll hand
him over. President Bush's response is that the demand is
"non-negotiable".
	(While talks are on for the extradition of CEOs - can India put
in a side request for the extradition of Warren Anderson of the US? He
was the chairman of Union Carbide, responsible for the Bhopal gas leak
that killed 16,000 people in 1984. We have collated the necessary
evidence. It's all in the files. Could we have him, please?)
	But who is Osama bin Laden really? Let me rephrase that. What is
Osama bin Laden? He's America's family secret. He is the American
president's dark doppelgänger. The savage twin of all that purports to
be beautiful and civilised. He has been sculpted from the spare rib of a
world laid to waste by America's foreign policy: its gunboat diplomacy,
its nuclear arsenal, its vulgarly stated policy of "full-spectrum
dominance", its chilling disregard for non-American lives, its barbarous
military interventions, its support for despotic and dictatorial
regimes, its merciless economic agenda that has munched through the
economies of poor countries like a cloud of locusts. Its marauding
multinationals who are taking over the air we breathe, the ground we
stand on, the water we drink, the thoughts we think. Now that the family
secret has been spilled, the twins are blurring into one another and
gradually becoming interchangeable. Their guns, bombs, money and drugs
have been going around in the loop for a while. (The Stinger missiles
that will greet US helicopters were supplied by the CIA. The heroin used
by America's drug addicts comes from Afghanistan. The Bush
administration recently gave Afghanistan a $43m subsidy for a "war on
drugs"....)
	Now Bush and Bin Laden have even begun to borrow each other's
rhetoric. Each refers to the other as "the head of the snake". Both
invoke God and use the loose millenarian currency of good and evil as
their terms of reference. Both are engaged in unequivocal political
crimes. Both are dangerously armed - one with the nuclear arsenal of the
obscenely powerful, the other with the incandescent, destructive power
of the utterly hopeless. The fireball and the ice pick. The bludgeon and
the axe. The important thing to keep in mind is that neither is an
acceptable alternative to the other.
	President Bush's ultimatum to the people of the world - "If
you're not with us, you're against us" - is a piece of presumptuous
arrogance. It's not a choice that people want to, need to, or should
have to make.
	© Arundhati Roy 2001