Monday
Dec082008
MADRE Statement on Mumbai Attacks
Monday, December 8, 2008 at 11:50
A reader forwarded me this statement from the women's rights website MADRE. In contrast to today's disturbingly shallow opinion piece in The New York Times, "They Hate Us --- And India is Us", I found this a thoughtful and necessary statement:
From Mumbai to Washington: Now is the Time to Renounce the War on Terror
Right now, while the horror of the attacks in Mumbai is reverberating around the world and tensions between India and Pakistan are mounting, there is a crucial move that President-elect Obama could make to chart a positive course forward. Obama should renounce the "war on terror."
Think about it: since the weird semantic banner was first unfurled, the number and ferocity of terrorist attacks has only increased. Mumbai is just the latest battle-front. And in the seven years since George Bush put the world on notice with his "you're either with us or with the terrorists" declaration, the US has actually managed to fuel support for groups that use terrorism. That's because the "war on terror" has led millions of people to conclude that the US is an even greater threat to their safety and freedom than Al Qaeda and other violent fringe groups.
And who can blame them? After all, George Bush and Dick Cheney literally declared the whole world to be their battlefield - and forever. Under the banner of the "war on terror," the US has overthrown a sovereign, if nasty, government (Iraq), trampled the UN Charter (the 2003 invasion), tortured prisoners ("enhanced interrogation techniques" to quote the Bush Administration and the Nazis), openly armed and funded death squads (the "Salvador Option"), and lowered the bar on governments' accountability to human rights standards and civil liberties worldwide.
Now, the Indian government is poised to go down the same road. Leaders of India's main opposition party, the Hindu-nationalist BJP, are demanding that their government act like the US did after 9-11. They see no reason that India shouldn't avail itself of the same strong-arm tactics that the Bush Administration has enjoyed-and legitimized.
Here's the reason: terrorist attacks are not acts of war to be responded to in kind, but crimes against humanity. As crimes, they should be investigated and the perpetrators tried and prosecuted. We have the body of international laws and institutions needed to pursue genuine justice in the wake of terrorist attacks. Let's use them. And let's dust off the tradition of peaceful cooperation between governments (we're going to need it anyway, to deal with the global recession and climate change).
The lessons of the past seven years are that there is no military solution to terrorism; that a militarized response only feeds the same constellation of forces that produce support for terrorism; that a war on terror enhances the power of extremists on both sides and shuts down the space for dialogue, diplomacy and decency.
That's the message we need to deliver loud and clear to President-elect Obama and his new foreign policy team. We may not be able to undo all of the damage inflicted by the Bush Administration, but we can demand a new direction, starting with a forceful human-rights based response to the atrocities in Mumbai.
Many people in India and Pakistan are calling for just such a response from their governments. Those of us in the US should demand no less of the incoming administration. The best thing President-elect Obama could do to chart a new and improved US foreign policy is to renounce the "war on terror."
From Mumbai to Washington: Now is the Time to Renounce the War on Terror
Right now, while the horror of the attacks in Mumbai is reverberating around the world and tensions between India and Pakistan are mounting, there is a crucial move that President-elect Obama could make to chart a positive course forward. Obama should renounce the "war on terror."
Think about it: since the weird semantic banner was first unfurled, the number and ferocity of terrorist attacks has only increased. Mumbai is just the latest battle-front. And in the seven years since George Bush put the world on notice with his "you're either with us or with the terrorists" declaration, the US has actually managed to fuel support for groups that use terrorism. That's because the "war on terror" has led millions of people to conclude that the US is an even greater threat to their safety and freedom than Al Qaeda and other violent fringe groups.
And who can blame them? After all, George Bush and Dick Cheney literally declared the whole world to be their battlefield - and forever. Under the banner of the "war on terror," the US has overthrown a sovereign, if nasty, government (Iraq), trampled the UN Charter (the 2003 invasion), tortured prisoners ("enhanced interrogation techniques" to quote the Bush Administration and the Nazis), openly armed and funded death squads (the "Salvador Option"), and lowered the bar on governments' accountability to human rights standards and civil liberties worldwide.
Now, the Indian government is poised to go down the same road. Leaders of India's main opposition party, the Hindu-nationalist BJP, are demanding that their government act like the US did after 9-11. They see no reason that India shouldn't avail itself of the same strong-arm tactics that the Bush Administration has enjoyed-and legitimized.
Here's the reason: terrorist attacks are not acts of war to be responded to in kind, but crimes against humanity. As crimes, they should be investigated and the perpetrators tried and prosecuted. We have the body of international laws and institutions needed to pursue genuine justice in the wake of terrorist attacks. Let's use them. And let's dust off the tradition of peaceful cooperation between governments (we're going to need it anyway, to deal with the global recession and climate change).
The lessons of the past seven years are that there is no military solution to terrorism; that a militarized response only feeds the same constellation of forces that produce support for terrorism; that a war on terror enhances the power of extremists on both sides and shuts down the space for dialogue, diplomacy and decency.
That's the message we need to deliver loud and clear to President-elect Obama and his new foreign policy team. We may not be able to undo all of the damage inflicted by the Bush Administration, but we can demand a new direction, starting with a forceful human-rights based response to the atrocities in Mumbai.
Many people in India and Pakistan are calling for just such a response from their governments. Those of us in the US should demand no less of the incoming administration. The best thing President-elect Obama could do to chart a new and improved US foreign policy is to renounce the "war on terror."
tagged MADRE, Mumbai attacks in India & Pakistan, War On Terror
MADRE, Mumbai attacks in India & Pakistan, War On Terror
Reader Comments (2)
The US violated the UN Charter before 2003. Why is it significant now?
The problem with the War on Terror is that it doesn't define WHO THE ENEMY IS. I think 'War on Radical Islam' would have been a better choice.
The US and India are different cases and I think the difference has to do with geographical position. India does not have the luxury of exercising the level of discretion in foreign affairs that is exercised by the US, when it comes to the pursuit of strategic and security interests. Israel is perhaps the most extreme example of this. I think it is more reasonable to expect the US to operate with a higher degree of discretion/restraint than India - despite its global interests. For state security, a high level of discretion is a luxury that some countries can't afford.
Your assumption that a terror outfit is a stateless entity is not uncommon but usually erroneous, at least to a degree. But when a terrorist organization is not only supported but even ideologically and strategically cultivated by a country, there are limits to what can be achieved by investigating perpetrators and punishing them. We do not live in a perfect world. Pakistan is a remarkable country that has played tightrope deftly in balancing American interests in Afghanistan on the one hand, all the while asking and receiving resources and waivers for its less than admirable deeds vis-a-vis India and even some US interests (such as perpetuating the LeT, Mr. Dawood Ibrahim and other elements) on the other hand. Pakistan has also been successful in making a case that however the LeT and myriad other terror outfits may have originated, the government is no longer their ally. The media agrees with them. The fact is, the legislative branch of the Pakistani government has no control over some of its executive branch, most notably the army and the spy agency ISI. We do not know for sure if the legislative government is fully on board with the anti-terror attitude but we do know that the army and the ISI have their own agenda- this does not include cooperating with the US or ceasing their dirty war against India. What is the Pakistani government? Is it Mr. Zardari's smiling face or is it the grim reality of Ayub Khan, the army and the ISI? I think the truth is so obvious it should hurt to twist it into non-facts as the media seems to doing now.
What is the solution? India will not attack Pakistan, though they may carry out black ops against these elements in Pakistan. The US will not let Pakistan divert its attention from the Northern border. India will- as it always has- swallow the pain. The US had a big role in fanning the flames by supplying Pakistan with equipment, looking the other way on their misdeeds and asking India to exercise restraint, albeit with different intentions. The Frankenstein monster of terror that it created may have bitten the hand that feeds it, but the ISI could not care less. Its objective is pretty much in line with that which the LeT chief outlined in the NYT article.
Mr. Obama is an honorable man, but I doubt he will be taken seriously in India to begin with if he pursues a course of tackling terror in India by urging the Indians to talk to a powerless legislative branch of the Pakistani government which is laughing away at the back of its mind.
Samuel Huntington was so right. The Indic civilization is the only isolated major power in the world- with no allies, left to fight its battles alone. It is time for India to forge its own path.