PAKISTAN’S DILEMMA: THE CHALLENGE TO SOVEREIGNTY
Maryam Sakeenah
The headlines reverberate and a debilitating sense of insecurity grips the nation amid a string of terror attacks and suicide hits that have now spilled over into the entire country. A fortnight ago, the military headquarters in Rawalpindi were attacked in a hostage-taking attempt, killing six military personnel including a brigadier and a lieutenant colonel. While the swift rescue operation was made much of as an enormous ‘success’, the very incident aimed at the heavily fortified military headquarters raises serious concerns. As more similar stories hit the front pages, these concerns are raised the world over and the state’s ability to deal with the immense crisis facing it is called into question. The natural victim of the spiralling crisis is the already fragile economy, and the symptoms of a grave economic crisis are conspicuous. Mohsin Khalid, the Director of Ittehad Steel shares his observation about the prevailing mood: “Law and order problems and insecurity are the primary reason why you see such a level of despair in overall economic, political and social circumstances. I think people are taking their investment abroad. They do not see the security situation improving... It is also a crisis of governance on a scale we haven’t seen before. Consumer and investor confidence has never been lower.”
In this state of abject financial insolvency while faced with the Leviathan monster of militant insurgency, the government seems to be on its knees and, as per tradition, ‘looks West’ for rescue packages and aid dole-outs. Barbara Plett writes, “The government, in an emergency mode, asks the world for a multi billion dollar rescue package to help it pay for imports and restore confidence, trying to reassure Pakistanis.” In October last year, Pakistan managed to receive an ‘emergency bailout’ package from the International Monetary Fund which was seen as a humiliation by the public, coming after allies refused assistance required to prevent an economic crunch. The government indicated, therafter, that ‘it could seek more funding to stave off growing economic pressures.’ National spending and imports, however, have not been cut down, nor does such an expenditure reduction seem to be in the picture, adding to the diminution in public eyes, of an already unpopular national leadership as the masses grapple with the ordeals of rising inflation, food scarcity, energy crisis and rising unemployment.
The situation is appalling for the country’s Western allies for whom Pakistan’s role in the War against Terrorism is instrumental, with success in Afghanistan for the Allied Forces looking more elusive and nebulous by the day. In fact, there has been a gradual trend among Western leadership to pass the buck to Pakistan. Success for the US in Afghanistan, we are told, is closely bound to a stable, peaceful Pakistan, as Richard Holbrooke_ Obama’s front for ‘Change We Need’ in South Asia_ stated: “There is no way that the international effort in Afghanistan can succeed unless Pakistan can get its Western tribal areas under control.” This explains the heightened international interest in doling out aid packages to Pakistan. ‘Friends of Democratic Pakistan’ pledged an aid package of $ 5 billion in Tokyo in April this year. The Atlantic Council, earlier this year, published a bleak survey of the situation in Pakistan to make a strong case for the United States and its allies to ‘work to strengthen democracy, engage the region, condition security assistance and increase development assistance... as there are fewer challenges greater for the Obama administration than Pakistan. Pakistan’s importance to the United States is hard to overestimate.’
Contemporary journalism has avidly responded to TIME and Newsweek magazines’ ‘Terror Central’ and ‘Most Dangerous Place’ and joined in the chorus. ‘The Economist’ explains this overwhelming importance of Pakistan to American strategic interests, as well as the need for urgent attention by the world that prevailing conditions in Pakistan deserve: “Pakistan, the world’s sixth most populous country and second biggest Muslim one, is violent and divided. The Taliban insurgency is spreading in its North West Frontier region fuelled partly by a similar Pashtun uprising against NATO and US troops in Afghanistan. In addition, a regenerated Al Qaeda network, resurgent Taliban and most certainly Osama bin Laden are all inside Pakistan’s borders, and 16 US intelligence agencies agree that Al Qaeda Central, planning from its safe haven in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA), poses the most serious threat to the Homeland. The presence of extremists, the government’s instability and the past role of rogue elements in spreading nuclear technology make the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal a great concern for the United States.”
The mood is echoed in the February 2009 report of the Atlantic Council which called for the US government to urgently mobilize aid to Pakistan, with a clear implication that perhaps international loans and grants are the only way the tottering state can make it through_ a perception rejected by an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis on account of the ‘carrot-and-stick’ tactics the country has too often been subjected to in the past by its Western allies. The report states: “The country faces dire economic and security threats which threaten both the existence of Pakistan as a democratic and stable state, and the region as a whole. Given the tools and finances, Pakistan can turn back from the brink. But for that to happen, it needs help now. Such a reversal demands far greater and more urgent support and assistance from the international community in general and the United States in particular.” Significantly, the Report calls for ‘an early passage of the Kerry-Lugar legislation that authorizes $ 7.5 billion which Pakistan needs to cover critical budget shortfalls.’ Among other things, “expansion of Confidence Building Measures between India and Pakistan” , and ‘redirecting security assistance to Pakistan for both the army and paramilitary forces, in order to improve their capacity for counterinsurgency warfare and fighting militancy...’ have been stated as primary goals of American policy towards the vitally important state.
The Kerry-Lugar legislation brings up an engaging debate over the question of Pakistan’s sovereignty. In the political melee that ensued over the Bill, strong allegations regarding violation of national sovereignty the Bill amounted to, as well as fierce defence against the charge of the violation of sovereignty were articulated by both sides. The Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani triumphantly described it as a ‘big success of the democratic government’, and that he was ready to defend it in the parliament. A provincial minister belonging to the ruling People’s Party was quite vociferously defensive as he called it a ‘historic achievement reflecting the trust of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan in the present government and upgraded the image of the country as a frontline state against terrorism.’
On the other side is the stream of criticism coming from the opposition parties and eminent political analysts, journalists and writers. Public opinion loudly rejects the Bill, and the government is under fire for having accepted the imperious conditionalities for an American grant worth $7.5 billion for five years. The Punjab governor Salman Taseer, passionately defending the notorious Bill, rejects all criticism against it as coming from ‘people who have not read the text of the Bill, or do not understand it.” Proponents of the Bill hail the economic package it promises, which is just what the country needs in order to emerge out of economic crises. The ‘Daily Times’ strikes parallels with the Hyde Act between India and the US which was similarly received in India, but resulted in highly beneficial nuclear co operation between the two countries.
Economic experts, however, think differently. Former Finance Minister Salman Shah stated, “US assistance under the KLB would not benefit Pakistan’s economy at all... Acceptance of the KLB without addressing the concerns of the people as well as the institutions of Pakistan would have negative repercussions for the economy.” Etrit Rizvi, former Commissioner of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan highlights alternatives: “There are a number of alternates to the US assistance being pledged with insulting conditionalities. Cost cutting, plugging leakages out of implementation machinery and promoting exports and investment could help the economy sustain without US support.”
It is pertinent to examine and ascertain how, if at all, the Bill threatens the sovereignty of Pakistan. The ‘Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009’, as it is officially named, acknowledges Pakistan to be the United States’ prime ‘non NATO ally’, adding that despite efforts in the War Against Terror, ‘much more remains to be accomplished’, as ‘Al Qaeda sanctuaries’ continue to operate in ‘FATA, Quetta and Muridke.’ In its objectives, the Act states the following
*obtaining ‘full co operation for nuclear non proliferation’,
* ‘encouraging people to speak against militancy’
* and ‘addressing the threat posed by any person or group that conducts violence in Pakistan or its neighbouring countries.’
In the education sector, the United States aims to
• assist ‘counter radicalization’ through education and training in ‘life skills for youth at risk.’
• The United States aims to assist Pakistan by promoting ‘modern education’ through the ‘development of nationwide modern curricula for public, private and religious schools.’
• A ‘better understanding of the United States’ shall be promoted among the youth through various scholarship, student exchange and other programs ‘administered by the United States State Department.’
The Act pledges massive and multi faceted security assistance for the ‘ongoing counterinsurgency’ to ‘prevent Pakistani territory from being used as a base for terrorist attacks in Pakistan or elsewhere,’ as well as to ‘help in the action against extremist and terrorist targets.’
Subsequent sections (203-205, 301-202) of the Act add certain conditions that need to be fulfilled in order for the aid to continue. These sections also include monitoring and accountability mechanisms to ensure the grants consisting of ‘American taxpayers money’ are utilized effectively in the interests of the United States. According to these provisions, the aid would continue on the condition that
• the ‘Government of Pakistan continue to co operate with the United States in efforts to dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and materials, providing information or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks.’
The government ought to demonstrate commitment
• ‘in matters such as ceasing support within Pakistani military and intelligence to terrorist groups, especially any group that has conducted attacks against the United States and Coalition Forces in Afghanistan, or the territory or people of neighbouring countries’, and
• ‘preventing Al Qaeda, Jaish e Muhammad, Lashkar e Taiba from operating, carrying out cross border attacks into neighbouring countries, dismantling terrorist camps in FATA, Quetta and Muridke, taking action when provided with intelligence about high level targets.’
Strategy reports are to be submitted regularly, regarding fulfilment of these conditions, including a
• ‘description of steps taken to ensure assistance under this act is not awarded to individuals and entities affiliated with terrorist organizations.’
The Comprehensive Regional Strategy Reports will have an evaluation of efforts undertaken by the Government of Pakistan to:
‘a) disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda, Taliban and other extremist and terrorist groups in FATA and other regions,
b) eliminate safe havens for such forces,
c) close down terrorist camps of Lashkar e Taiba and Jaish e Muhammad,
d) cease all support for extremist and terrorist groups,
e) prevent attacks into neighbouring countries,
f) increase oversight over curriculum in madrassahs with direct links to Taliban or other extremist and terrorist groups.’
These reports should also consist of
• ‘a detailed description of Pakistan’s efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear-related material and expertise; an assessment of whether assistance provided to Pakistan has directly or indirectly aided the expansion of Pakistan’s nuclear program, whether by diversion of United States’ assistance or reallocation of Pakistan’s financial resources that would otherwise be spent for programs and activities unrelated to its nuclear program.’
• ‘an assessment of the extent to which the Government of Pakistan exercises effective civilian control of the military, and a description of the extent to which civilian executive leaders and the parliament exercise oversight and approval of military budgets, chain of command, process of promotion of senior military leaders, civilian involvement in strategic guidance and planning, and military involvement in civil administration.’
In an independent referendum conducted by the Jamat i Islami_ an opposition party with considerable following, 98% of the participants rejected the Kerry-Lugar Act as a violation of the country’s sovereignty. Questions and concerns regarding the issue abound in the media. Eminent journalist Shaheen Sehbai dismisses the Act in a scathing satirical conclusion: “The language is different, but in essence the US’s demands are the same_ give us Abdul Qadeer Khan, do not finger India, forget about Kashmir, close Lashkar e Taiba and Jaish e Muhammad, and co operate in the War on Terror on our terms.” Sehbai’s perception is shared by the overwhelming majority of his countrymen who consider the Act to be an infringement upon national sovereignty.
Interestingly, over the highly sensitive issue of the drone attacks by American UAV planes in Pakistan’s tribal areas, President Zardari had declared to the international community with rare boldness, “We will not tolerate the violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity by any power in the name of combating terrorism.” The statement made front-page news all over the rather ‘taken-aback’ international media, with MSNBC stating, ‘In Pakistan, Sovereignty Outweighs Terror Fight.’ With the government’s warm welcome of a highly unpopular American legislation, all speculation regarding the supremacy of national sovereignty has been overturned, heightening the levels of unpopularity of the sitting government.
The controversial Act has caused angry debate in provincial assemblies as well as the national parliament, with the Opposition staging boycotts to protest the acceptance of the Act. The Nation reports on October 14, ‘National Assembly Discussion on Kerry Lugar Bill Sabotaged by Abusive Exchange among Treasury and Opposition Members.’
In a tottering democracy, while public opinion and opposition parties’ stance can be sidelined, things get serious when the military leadership refuses sanction. The Daily Times reports in its editorial of October 8, 2009 that the Pakistan army was ‘greatly angered by the degrading language in the Bill about Pakistan’s military and security agencies’, and that this concern was communicated to the government.
The national outrage over what is seen to be the government’s ‘sheepish’ acceptance of the terms is understandable considering the history of Pak-U.S relations which demonstrate wooing by the U.S in critical times, of successive Pakistan governments, followed by America’s convenient abandonment of its South Asian partner with the change of context. The conditionality of combating terrorism, writes Nasim Zehra, ‘goes into intrusive details of what Pakistan should be doing,’ and this raises eyebrows, understandably. Clauses referring to enhanced co operation with India have been viewed suspiciously regarding India’s hawkish rhetoric and unwillingness to resume dialogue. Zehra continues, “The Bill pampers the India position on terrorism, and hence encourages India to continue with its rejection of bilateral attempts at dialogue.”
In the eye of the storm, the government attempted to salvage its waning popularity by producing a Joint Statement by Foreign Minister Quraishi and Senator John Kerry which, at best, tries to assuage the irate national sentiment. The government has made much of the ‘changes’ it claims to have had the Americans concede to, which ‘dilute’ controversial conditions that were seen to be going against Pakistan’s interest. However, these ‘changes’ have been dismissed as ‘cosmetic’ and practically ‘ineffectual’ by independent critics. The October 14 meeting between the two diplomats concluded with a joint press briefing which announced that an ‘explanatory note’ was to be attached with the Bill, which ‘dilutes the requirement that needs Pakistan to interrogate any Pakistani national involved in nuclear proliferation and to allow U.S officials access to such a person.’ Another clause in the Bill relating to the Secretary of State’s report about the extent to which civilian institutions exercised control over the military was similarly ‘made ineffective’ by the explanatory note. The remaining requirements, the note adds, shall be ‘waived if the determination is made by the Secretary of State in the interest of US national security that this was necessary to continue military assistance to Pakistan.’ While it is noteworthy that none of the controversial clauses was altogether scrapped, but that they were ‘explained away’ through the added note, the Joint Statement termed it a significant ‘achievement.’ The note states in an effort to allay widespread fears, ‘there is no intent to, and nothing in this act in any way suggests that there should be any US role in micromanaging internal Pakistan affairs, including the promotion of Pakistani military officials or the internal operations of the Pakistani military.’ Foreign Minister Quraishi concluded on a triumphant note, ‘This document today is I think a historic document, a step forward in our relationship’, while senator Kerry added decisively, ‘There is nothing in this bill that impinges on Pakistani sovereignty_ period.’
There was none of the fanfare in responses back home. Analyst Nasim Zehra terms Pakistan’s rather muted objection to some of the clauses to be ‘a late awakening’ considering that the contents of the Bill had been in circulation for over a year, with the Pakistan government never having voiced any serious concern through all that time. Referring to the explanatory note added later on, Zehra terms the changes inconsequential as, after all, the US President can ‘waive conditions’, but only ‘in US interests.’”
Whatever optimism there might have been, is belied and dashed to the ground with the tightening of conditionalities by the United States of late. The Nation reports, “US to set new curbs on Pakistan military aid”, elaborating that “the US Congress is all set to approve tougher new restrictions on military aid to Pakistan... The fresh limits include efforts to track where US military hardware sent to Pakistan ends up, as well as a warning that US aid to Pakistan must not upset the balance of power in the region_ a reference to India.”
Shortly after the Joint Statement discussed above, the United States made it clear that conditions, indeed, were very much attached to the aid package. Seeking to allay India’s concerns on the $7.5 billion dollars assistance to Pakistan, the United States said the law has ‘conditions attached.’ US Under Secretary of State William Burns stated, “In the case for development in Pakistan, we are very much focussed in ensuring that the money is used for the purpose it is intended and there are measures built in to ensure that takes place.” Ironically, adds The Nation, these remarks made in New Delhi came the same day when the Pakistani Foreign Minister, addressing the Parliament, maintained there were ‘no conditions attached to the Kerry-Lugar Bill’, and that ‘the Bill fully respected the sovereignty of the country.’”
...Which brings us back to the question of sovereignty. What really is sovereignty? It can be explained as the supreme independent authority over a territory which includes the elements of territorial integrity and inviolability, exclusivity of jurisdiction and supremacy of the State. Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia defines sovereignty as ‘the power to rule and make law based on a political fact.’ The concept in its modern form as ‘non-interference in the internal matters of a sovereign state’ originated with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. However, it has been interpreted in different ways by various political schools of thought. It is important, however, to distinguish between ‘de facto’ and ‘de jure’ sovereignty. While in its ‘de jure’ aspect it implies the legal right to exercise power, ‘de facto’ sovereignty is its actual exercise. Both need to be present in order for a state to be truly sovereign.
While ‘internal’ sovereignty refers to the state’s power and authority to decide and execute affairs within the state, ‘external sovereignty’ means the independence to conduct its international dealings and make decisions independently, irrespective of external pressure from other states_ allied or hostile.
A number of liberal philosophers have emphasized the popular element in sovereignty_ that is, sovereignty resides in the people. Rousseau was an ardent supporter of this, as well as John Locke whose concept of ‘social contract’ implied submission to a sovereign authority in exchange for that authority being compelled to work for a common good. However, both Locke and Rousseau believed sovereignty resides in people collectively (that is, the majority’s will is sovereign), while Republicans and Libertarians differ, believing sovereignty resides in people as individuals (regardless of numerical majority or minority). Islam accords sovereignty to Divine law which has absolute supremacy in legislation, while popular will is instrumental in decision-making in matters left to the representatives of the state and its people. In other words, there are two levels of sovereignty: absolute sovereignty belongs to God, and temporal sovereignty to the subjects of the state, while the rulers_ bound by law and accountability to God and the people_ act as intermediaries. Imperialists, on the other hand, have always considered the most powerful agent to be invested with absolute sovereignty_ that is, states that hold the ability to impose their will by force or threat over the populace or over another state with a weaker political and military will. This has been the basis and the legitimization for colonialism and imperialist conquest_ and, in the modern world, neo-imperialist domination and control.
The evolution of sovereignty in Pakistan has not been a smooth curve. The country’s external sovereignty has too often been put at stake by governments keen to foment alliances with powerful states for acquiring security, international approval and finally, legitimacy for their unpopular rule. Sovereignty, therefore, has always been in crisis whenever dictators at home have tried to cosy up with the United States, leading to unnecessary interference and intervention with promises of ‘aid.’
This ongoing crisis of sovereignty became critically intense when Pakistan, following the September 11 attacks, allowed the United States to conduct military operations in Afghanistan from Pakistani territory and dramatically increased the influence of the United States over national policy making, against the popular will. According to Ajay Behera writing for The Hindu, “Such developments have led to a dilemma regarding a clash between Pakistan’s national security policies and its very sovereignty. This development, however, is entirely self-generated,” as a result of critical foreign policy choices made by the Musharraf regime after 9/11.
Musharraf, flaunting his ‘moderate’ and ‘progressive’ credentials, wanted a pretext to break free from the country’s ties with the Taliban regime, and , at home, with Islamic groups hitherto supported and sustained by the military and intelligence. 9/11 provided Musharraf with the pretext to achieve this by force and with support from the country’s Western allies and its secular-liberal elite. However, while this was to be done in order to restore sovereignty ‘for the supreme national interest’, in actuality it undermined the internal sovereignty of the state. Pakistan’s engagement in the US-led War on Terror and its operation in Waziristan leading to civilian damage was widely opposed and decried for being done under ‘diktat’ from the United States.
The War on Terror came home, but was seen as America’s war imported to the country by a sell-out pro-Western regime. Regular drone attacks by American spy planes resulting in huge collateral damage reinforced the image of the US as “an ally with a predatory footprint on sovereignty... The US-operated drone has become a powerful symbol of US violation of Pakistan’s territorial integrity.” A backlash from the fiercely independent tribal areas began, engulfing the entire country, with suicide attacks and targetted hits on security and law enforcement agencies. In the midst of it all, a clumsy, failing government seemed utterly helpless to stem the tide, at best ‘looking Westwards’ for assistance in doing the West’s ‘dirty job’. Pakistan was at war with itself, its very sovereignty and national integrity at stake. It must be added, however, as Ajay Behera wrote in 2002, that the situation is inherently paradoxical, as ‘Pakistan has been forced into this situation by the Americans, yet it depends on their support to overcome it... While Pakistan tries to restore its internal sovereignty from the militants, it is gradually losing its external sovereignty to the United States... And, as the state is perceived to be losing its external sovereignty to the US, anti-US and anti-ruling class feelings are bound to grow. Pakistan’s self-generated dilemma will persist.’
The United States needs a rethink on policy vis a vis Pakistan, disassociating it from its strategy in the occupied state of Afghanistan. If the United States truly wants a stable Pakistan, as it has claimed too often, it needs to look for options that respect the sovereignty of the country and take into account public unease against alliance with ‘a partner that makes a target out of another partner.’ Carrot and stick tactics do not work, and the massive public disapproval of US aid through the Kerry-Lugar bill should send that message to Washington. Washington’s policies have invariably centred around sitting regimes, the military and the intelligence, which is one reason that explains public disquiet over alliance with the United States. With all the frills and flounces of a ‘change’ in policy towards Pakistan, none seems to be on the horizons any time soon: “For now, the broad dynamic of seeking a partnership on strategic goals with reference to terrorism remains the same as under Bush. It remains driven by military tactics and the diplomatic management of negative outcomes... the Pentagon still remains the font of policy planning as well as execution.” The war in Pakistan, however, is not winnable by military might_ just as it never was winnable in Vietnam, or Iraq, or in Afghanistan.
There are lessons, on the other hand, for policy makers in Pakistan. To rescue diminishing sovereignty, the ‘democratic’ representatives of the people must realize that true sovereignty, (in its temporal aspect), in any democratic state, resides in the people, and that public sentiment must be taken seriously. The spontaneous outpouring of public anger over the government’s role in the War on Terror expressed during the visit of Interior Minister Rehman Malik to the International Islamic University after a terrorist attack should be a wake-up call. Pakistani leaders need to see how the Kerry-Lugar Bill is in fact a litmus-test for the state’s representatives to salvage its threatened sovereignty. They need to rise to the occasion and reject the unpopular Bill with a single voice to “prove their worth as people who are capable of promoting and protecting the interests and dignity of the citizens of the country. Otherwise, whether democracy or dictatorship, Pakistan’s parliament is merely a rubber-stamp which follows the will of a handful of individuals who exercise their authority overlooking constitutionally defined institutional mechanisms.”
To surmount the challenge to sovereignty, we need to redefine it and see for ourselves where it truly lies. Does it, as Washington’s neo-imperialists would have it, lie with the most powerful in might and main in the global arena, legitimizing military adventurousness and aggrandizement? Or does it, as our own ideological guides would tell us, lie in honouring and living by the ideological premise that defines us, and in empowering the people to whom the nation belongs? It is in reaching our answers through the signposts all along history’s boulevard that hope for winning back true sovereignty lies. We have arrived at the crossroads, where the ‘two roads diverge in the wood’, and the fatal choice confronts us. It is to be Now or Never.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Rhetoric in the 'War on Terror'
“WORDS, WORDS, WORDS”: RHETORIC IN THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’
Maryam Sakeenah
Prologue
“The difference between today's pseudoscholarship and expert jargon about terrorism and the literature about Third World national liberation guerrillas two decades ago is interesting. Most of the earlier material was subject to the slower and therefore more careful procedures of print; to produce a piece of scholarship you had to go through the motions of exploring history, citing books, using footnotes--actually attempting to prove a point by developing an argument. Today's discourse on terrorism is an altogether streamlined thing. Its scholarship is yesterday's newspaper or today's CNN bulletin. Its gurus are journalists with obscure, even ambiguous, backgrounds. Most writing about terrorism is brief, pithy, totally devoid of the scholarly armature of evidence, proof, argument. Its paradigm is the television interview, the spot news announcement, the instant gratification one associates with the Reagan White House's "reality time," the evening news.”
(Edward Said, ‘The Essential Terrorist’, The Nation, 1986).
…………………………………………………..
“The West is deluged daily by newsmakers and the conveyors and interpreters of their words and actions. Since 11th September, the average reader of newspapers, magazines and the Internet; listener to government officials, media experts and academics; and watcher of television could judge that the West is winning the war that intensified on that day. An imagined but plausible synopsis of this news could be gisted in the following breathless, headline-like manner:
“Victory in Afghanistan, Taliban destroyed. Bin Laden and al Zawahiri cowering in Afghan caves. Al Qaeda remnants soon to be captured. Democratic regime in Kabul. Enthusiasm for Islamism and jihad waning. Israeli Prime Minister is a Man of Peace. War on Terror is not a War on Islam. Terrorists hate the US for its freedom, not policies. Islamists hate America for what it is, not what it does. Victory in Iraq. Iraq nears secular government, democracy, sovereignty.”
(Anonymous, ‘Imperial Hubris’, 2004).
SETTING THE TENOR
‘Rhetoric’, understood as the art of using language persuasively to the achievement of specific ends, is a politically needful tool, especially in the context of contemporary politics. The strategic use of language can effectively influence thinking and formulate attitudes, and hence is an important element in moulding public opinion on mattes of significance. Kenneth Burke stated: “The most characteristic concern of rhetoric is the manipulation of men’s beliefs for political ends… the basic function of rhetoric is the use of words by human agents to form attitudes or to induce actions in other human agents.”
This paper attempts to examine how rhetoric has been used as a linguistic ploy and weapon in the War on Terrorism by the United States and its allies in order to garner public approbation for the means and methods employed. It analyzes the nature and usage of rhetoric both by the government and the media.
…………………………………
Language is a powerful tool. It does not merely give neutral expression to thought, but has a potency to create its own subjective reality and shape the way the recipient of the language perceives reality. Hence its effective usage is a political necessity, an indispensable tool for demagogues, politicians, leaders, warlords as they seek to tinker with public opinion and keep it as a comfortable reservoir of support for their moves_ be they based on ideology or expediency. Rhetoric does the trick.
It did the trick post Nine Eleven effectively_ simply due to the magic of the word ‘Terrorism’ which has strong emotive tones within it and draws instant condemnation and judgement. It is enough to condemn an act as ‘terrorism’ for it to generate a consensus on its inexcusable criminality and be established as illegitimate, barbaric, insane, unpardonable. Nine Eleven was not only extraordinarily theatrical terrorism but also the onset of an unconventional ‘war’ against the same, fought with a sense of moral righteousness and jingoistic fervour. The fatal day marked a paradigm shift in international politics on the one hand and domestic policy in the US on the other. To make the change be lumped by the public, it was important to kick up war hype, keep fear and insecurity on an all-time high and present the situation as a classic case of Good Versus Evil. To achieve this, rhetoric had to do the trick. And it did. Kim Walker writes in “The Rhetoric of Terrorism and Life after 9/11”, “Since 9/11, political and cultural climate has become increasingly febrile as governments and their agencies ramp up their rhetoric on terrorism with devastating social and inter-subjective consequences. Terrorism hence becomes a strategic device deployed by a range of actors and entities to manipulate and undermine the ‘Western Way of Life.’ The rhetoric of terrorism is designed to propagate the politics of fear and anxiety. Our task is not to be cowed down by terrorism’s relentless assault on our intellects and sensibilities.” Edward Said writes much the same thing in ‘The Essential Terrorist’: “as a word and concept, Terrorism has acquired an extraordinary status in public discourse. It has spawned the uses of language, rhetoric and argument that are frightening for their capacity in mobilizing public opinion, gaining legitimacy and provoking murderous action. The elevation of Terrorism to a national security threat has deflected careful scrutiny of the government’s actions and policy.”
A NEW MORALITY
For one, the rhetoric used by the US government and media in the wake of the 9/11 attacks made it clear that America was defining for itself a new kind of morality based on the deep divisions of ‘us and them’, somewhat like ‘We the Good and True have been attacked by Them the Bad, Ugly and Evil.” Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent in March 2002, opines that American morality has been distorted after 9/11.
President Bush stated in his 9/11 speech in Washington that “our way of life and our very freedom” has come under attack. “Today, our nation saw evil_ the worst of human nature_ and we responded with the best of America. We stand together to win the War against Terrorism. We go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.”
On September 20, 2001, the President made another address ringing with bravado: “We have been called to defend freedom. On September the eleventh, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country… freedom itself was under attack.” He spoke of the perpetrators as “the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the twentieth century” and reiterated that Terrorism was a “threat to our way of life… we are in a fight for our principles… this is a fight of all those who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.” When he announced the U.S. air strikes against Afghanistan, President Bush said, "We're a peaceful nation. This is the calling of the United States of America, the most free nation in the world, a nation built on fundamental values, that rejects hate, rejects violence, rejects murderers, rejects evil. And we will not tire."
The language employed by the White House emphasized the good old United States of America believing in democracy, freedom and peace pitted against an evil ideology determined to destroy all that. It presented America’s strategic designs to fight the ‘war on terror’ as a noble mission embarked upon to save goodness and truth from vile, barbaric enemies. What is interesting to note is the constant recurrence of the refrain ‘evil’ as opposed to ‘good’ in the rhetoric emanating from the White House. The media picked up the rhetoric readily. A classic example is quoted by Arundhati Roy in ‘The Algebra of Infinite Justice, September 2001, when an American newscaster said, “Good and evil rarely manifest themselves as clearly as they did (on 9/11). People who we don’t know massacred people who we do. And they did so with contemptuous glee.” The purpose, of course, in presenting the War on Terror as a moralistic struggle of good versus evil to rescue the Western Way of Life was to seek approval from the public of the not-so-good and not-so-moral means used in the War on Terror. Winning the ‘war’ was a sacred goal, hence any means used would be legitimate. According to Edward Said, this is almost criminal as it ‘allows the U.S to do what it wishes anywhere in the world.’ The Rhetoric of Terrorism is fabricated in order to keep the public in a constant state of fear and insecurity, so as to justify the government’s international adventures. “Any threat to its interests, whether oil in the Middle East or its geostrategic interests elsewhere is labelled as ‘terrorism’… terrorism is magnified and blown up to insensate proportions… this focus obscures the enormous damage done by the U.S militarily, environmentally, economically on a world scale which far dwarfs anything terrorism might do.” (Edward Said, ‘They Call All Resistance Terrorism,’ International Socialist Review, September 2001).
‘A MANDATE FROM HEAVEN’:
With ‘all that jazz’ about values, democracy and freedom, it is, after all, the rhetorical machinery churning out buzzwords for sale. Noam Chomsky demonstrates how phrases like "free speech," the "free market," and the "free world" have little to do with freedom. “Among the myriad freedoms claimed by the U.S. government are the freedom to murder, annihilate, and dominate other people. The freedom to finance and sponsor despots and dictators across the world. The freedom to train, arm, and shelter terrorists. The freedom to topple democratically elected governments. The freedom to amass and use weapons of mass destruction-chemical, biological, and nuclear. The freedom to go to war against any country whose government it disagrees with. And, most terrible of all, the freedom to commit these crimes against humanity in the name of "justice," in the name of "righteousness," in the name of "freedom." Attorney General John Ashcroft declared that the freedom of the Americans is "not the grant of any government or document, but. . .our endowment from God.” Arundhati Roy comments: “Basically, we're confronted with a country armed with a mandate from heaven. Perhaps this explains why the U.S. government refuses to judge itself by the same moral standards by which it judges others. Its technique is to position itself as the well-intentioned giant whose good deeds are confounded in strange countries by their scheming natives, whose markets it's trying to free, whose societies it's trying to modernize, whose women it's trying to liberate, whose souls it's trying to save. Perhaps this belief in its own divinity also explains why the U.S. government has conferred upon itself the right and freedom to murder and exterminate people "for their own good."
Bush concluded his 20th September 2001 speech hence: “I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of it is not known yet the outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know God is not neutral between them. We are assured of the rightness of our cause and confident in the victories to come. May God watch over the United States of America.” Interestingly, the operation in Afghanistan was named ‘Infinite Justice’, which Muslims objected, was only a Divine attribute. The name was then replaced by another fantastical one, explosively overblown with self-righteousness and cocksure certainty of success: ‘Enduring Freedom.’ Some rhetorical mastery!
CRUSADE RHETORIC
Closely allied to this dimension is the use of the rhetoric of a moral crusade on the lines of traditional Christian rhetoric of a type that may have come from Pope Urban the Second in A.D 1099. Mainstream newspapers started developing a mindset for religious war. Abidullah Jan writing in ‘The Genesis of the Final Crusade’ lists some such article headlines: “This is a Religious War: September 11 was Only the Beginning”, “Yes, this is About Islam”, “The Core of Islamic Rage”, “Jihad, 101”, “Islamic Terror”, “Holy Warriors Escalate the Old War on a New Front”, etc. On September 16, 2001, the BBC reported Bush had declared a ‘crusade’ when the president remarked, “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a long time.” With the ripples of outrage it created in the Muslim world, the apology duly came. However, five months later, the President repeated the word while addressing US troops in which he termed the war as ‘an incredibly important crusade to defend freedom.’ George W Bush, who describes himself as a ‘born again Christian’, has been quoted by Bob Woodward in his book ‘Plan of Attack’ describing himself as a ‘messenger of God’ ‘doing the Lord’s will.’ Jan states, “Regurgitating the threat to the sanctity of ‘our way of life’ and ‘our values’ is part of the plan to make people feel threatened.” It is important, of course, to use rhetoric to heighten insecurity, so that the rationale to keep the War on Terror going stays pumped up.
PREPOSTROUS HORROR
Rhetoric has effectively generated fear in the American public mind. The Department of Homeland Security is at pains to prove that ‘the threat to U.S interests from someone, somewhere in the world, has increased.’ The Anonymous writer of ‘Imperial Hubris’ comments, “We hear experts warning audiences watching CNN that the next al Qaeda attack on our country will involve WMD. The warnings are then complemented by more otherworldly advice to buy duct tape and plastic sheets to wrap their homes and make them airtight, WMD proof fortresses. When faced with vague threats, Washington does what it always does: it scares the hell out of people.”
IDEOLOGIZATION OF THE WAR ON TERROR
The use of rhetoric has helped the ‘ideologization’ of the War on Terror. This has eclipsed the true ground realities and the actual root causes of the conflict, turning attention away from them. Particularly regrettable is the inability to understand terrorism as a desperate reaction by the socially outcast, economically deprived and politically oppressed. Terrorism, in fact, is a tactic used by disaffected individuals and communities, not an ideology. Instead, terrorism is seen as an opposing, challenging, hostile and ‘barbaric’ ‘evil ideology’ opposed to all that the West stands for and believes in. This is extremely misguided and helps divide the world into opposing ideological camps, lending strength to the dangerous ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis. George W. Bush expressed the grandiosity of this ‘clash of ideologies’ in a statement: “We’ve entered a great ideological conflict we did nothing to invite.” Journalist Margie Burns comments on this: “This statement should sound alarm bells for the nation and the world. What does Bush mean by an “ideological conflict”? All previous grandiose Bush pronouncements on global conflict have focused on terrorism and the “war on terror.” Bush is trying to present terrorism as an “ideology,” in an us-or-them global conflict, with Terrorism replacing Communism. Every thinking person knows that terrorism is not an “ideology.” Terrorist acts are a tactic. We know by now exactly who uses them, too: individuals and small groups use guerrilla tactics when other tactics are not available to them, against a much stronger governmental power or foreign power.” The New York Times reported on July 25, 2005, “The Bush administration is… pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission.”
JINGOISM
The ring of patriotic jingoism defines America’s rhetoric. It hedges in moral judgement within its own delineations, defining values as ‘American’ or ‘un American.’ Arundhati Roy writes in her book ‘War Talk’ that the term ‘anti American’ is used in order to discredit and inaccurately define its critics. “Once someone is branded ‘anti American’ (like anti Semitic), the chances are they will be judged before they will be heard and the argument will be lost in the welter of hurt national pride. To call someone anti-American, indeed, to be anti-American, is not just racist, it's a failure of the imagination. An inability to see the world in terms other than those that the establishment has set out for you: If you're not a Bushie, you're a Taliban. If you don't love us, you hate us. If you're not Good, you're Evil. If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists.” This is the ‘imperial hubris’ the Anonymous writer mentions in his book by the same name_ the arrogance and self-centredness in interpreting events and people outside the United States. After the July 7 2005 bombings in London, G8 leaders denounced it as an attack on ‘our way of life’, and declared that they would never let the ‘Islamists change our values.’ The connection that the rhetoric of “Islamist terrorism” makes with Muslims and Arabs has led to dangerous racial profiling and has damaged the image of Islam and Muslims in the Western public mind. Discrimination and prejudice against Muslims in the West is on record high levels.
THE ‘WHY DO THEY HATE US?’ DEBATE
In his 9/11 address, Bush said: “The US was targeted for the attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.” In his historic speech of 20th September 2001, President Bush explained why the United States is hated: “They hate our freedoms_ our freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other… the terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life… Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of freedom depends on us.” This rhetoric of ‘they hate us for our freedom’ became a trumpeted theme in the mainstream media, insulating the American public from any recognition or realization of the elements of self-interest, opportunism and exploitation in American foreign policy that affect so many lives_ many of them Muslim. Arundhati Roy states: “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.” In fact, motives are quite the opposite. The U.S is not hated for what it is, but for what it has done. The smokescreen of rhetoric, however, keeps a dispassionate analysis of the real grievances of America’s ‘enemies’ at bay. Roy said in a speech commending Noam Chomsky: “If people in the United States want a real answer to the question of ‘why do they hate us?’(as opposed to the ones in the Idiot's Guide to Anti-Americanism, that is: "Because they're jealous of us," "Because they hate freedom," "Because they're losers," "Because we're good and they're evil"), I'd say, read Chomsky on U.S. military interventions in Indochina, Latin America, Iraq, Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. If ordinary people in the United States read Chomsky, perhaps their questions would be framed a little differently. Perhaps it would be: "Why don't they hate us more than they do?" or "Isn't it surprising that September 11 didn't happen earlier?"
The Anonymous writer of ‘Imperial Hubris’ calls the robotic repetition of ‘they hate our freedom’ “errant and potentially fatal nonsense.” He states: “There is no record of a Muslim urging to wage jihad to destroy democracy or credit unions, or universities. What the US does in formulating and implementing policies affecting the Muslim world is infinitely more inflammatory.” The US must recognize this to be able to redress the grievances of the Muslim world that are not without basis. However, such rhetoric deflects attention to the real causes and prolongs America’s Beauty Sleep. Eyes Wide Shut. In the backdrop, the corpses keep piling up.
DEHUMANIZING THE ENEMY
Empathy is absolutely necessary to be able to understand the terrorism phenomenon and begin a curative strategy. It is a natural humanizing element we all are gifted with, enabling us to understand one another as simply sharers in a common essential humanity. Rhetoric checks empathy by presenting the enemy as subhuman, evil, beastly. It ensures that the ‘human connection’ is not established, dehumanizing the enemy. Rhetoric tends to talk about the other side as the abstract ‘enemy’ or as a subhuman, demonic ‘Axis of Evil.’ Rhetoric has worked hard to deflect sympathy from victims of the West’s brutal wars and misadventures since decades. It has divided the world into ‘The West and the Rest’, and presented the West to be on a divinely assigned mission of liberation against subhuman lower-order creatures who must be taught some civilization. In 1937 Winston Churchill said of the Palestinians: “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” In 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, "Palestinians do not exist." Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians "two-legged beasts." Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called them "'grasshoppers' who could be crushed."
Kyle Fedler says, “When we demonize our enemies we see ourselves as totally righteous and the abstract enemy as totally evil.” (On the Rhetoric of a War on Terror, September 2001). This is what makes the methods and means of the war on terror brutal, without moral restraints, conducted in the self-assuredness of a high moral ground. Again, it is rhetoric that comes to the rescue when human rights are blatantly violated. This is what the euphemism ‘collateral damage’ was invented for_ for the 150, 000 + dead of Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem of America’s high-tech killing machines destroying so much of life other than specific targets is solved through the use of imaginative language.
TALKING TOUGH
The US adopted the pre-emptive strategy, as made clear in several speeches and statements by the US President, the adoption of the maniacal ‘National Missile Defence’ system or the ‘Patriot Act’ and a host of other legislation legitimizing all ways the regime deemed fit to be used in its righteous crusade against terrorism. In his speech on September 20, 2001, President Bush made it clear that the world had no choice but to ‘be with us or with the terrorists.’ The rhetoric here is in absolute terms, reeking of inflexible imperial hubris. The President, by calling the war ‘a task that does not end’, hinted at the perpetuation of America’s ‘War on Terror’ for achieving its strategic aims. Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld reinforces the argument: "I say that victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that's going to be over in a month or a year or even five years. It is something that we need to do so that we can continue to live in a world with powerful weapons and with people who are willing to use those powerful weapons. And we can do that as a country. And that would be a victory, in my view."
The government took an aggressive posture, yet all the while, the ignorance at the base of the rhetoric and war planning remained there. Perhaps this is why the counter terrorism strategy devised by the gurus at Washington fell flat. Assessing the precise nature of a terrorist threat requires understanding the motivations and grievances of the terrorist, their mode of operation and their capabilities. The American public, and even the government were pitifully ignorant of all of these on many counts. Those at the helm too were unable to answer some fundamental, crucial questions. They knew little about the socio-political dynamics, the cultural imperatives, the history and background of the peoples and the lands they set out to conquer. Philip Heymann comments: “Faced with uncertainties, the Bush administration defined the dangers we faced as ‘war’, demanding and justifying a radical shifting of our domestic and international priorities.” Rhetoric in this case acts as a masque for the underlying ignorance, and perpetuates the state of ignorance by feeding lies to the public, seductively wrapped up.
The rhetoric of President Bush in the wake of 9/11 and after had the thunderous roar of military drums. Clearly, the imperious demands were non-negotiable, and the terms were tough: “Hand over the terrorists or share in their fate.” And, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbour them.” The President attempted a globalization of his grand campaign: “What is at stake is not just America’s freedom. This is a world’s fight. (And, lo and behold…) This is a civilization’s fight.” He also made it amply clear that the war will be long and terrible: “We will direct every resource at our command, every necessary weapon of war, to the disruption and defeat of the global terror network. Now this war will not have a decisive liberation of territory or a swift conclusion. Americans should not expect one battle but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen.”
LINGUISTIC CLUMSINESS AND FALSE METAPHORS
This, clearly, is the rhetoric of war. It comes in handy and serves a number of purposes. Hence the term “War on Terror.” Warfare is often used as a pretext for the suspension of human rights. Just like the term ‘enemy combatant’ was invented to circumvent the Geneva Conventions that apply to ‘prisoners of war’, the term ‘war on terror’ circumvents the necessity to abide by canons of law. According to linguist George Lakoff, terrorists are a relatively smaller number of individuals as opposed to the sizes of countries involved. War on the other hand is about nation-states and armies. Clearly, the phrase ‘War on Terror’ is built on a disproportion. As a result of this kind of rhetoric, Bush becomes a ‘war president’ with ‘war powers’, which imply that “ordinary protections do not have to be observed. A war president has extraordinary powers.” Lakoff further states, “Terror is a general state internal to a person. The word activates fear, which activates the desire for security no matter by what means, which is what the neocons want. The War on Terror is not about stopping you from being afraid, but about making you afraid. And the War on Terror never ends. There can be no peace treaty with terror. It is a prescription for keeping neocons in power indefinitely. In three words, War On Terror, they have enacted vast political changes.” Calling this ‘war’ also gives legitimacy to retaliatory acts of terror, as in the context of war, they merely become permissible offensive strikes.
The word ‘war’ reeks of militarism. Calling the US response strategy a ‘war on terror’ meant the use of decisive military force against a dissipated, hard to identify and unconventional enemy. According to Philip Heymann, “The danger is that for several reasons, the use of the term ‘war’ leads us in the wrong direction. The very term suggests a primacy for military force; that is what war has been always about. We are captives of the dictum, ‘to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.’” Resultantly, the military has put in all its pride and strength into an asymmetrical, ill-advised struggle against a threat which needs to be tackled more insightfully and wisely, not merely by muscle-power.
The phrase "War on Terror" has been referred to as a false metaphor. Jason Burke opines: “There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. The term 'war on terrorism' is thus effectively nonsensical." A "war" against terrorism is plainly wrong since terrorist attacks are considered criminal acts like murder and therefore should be investigated by the police with the perpetrators brought to justice and given a fair trial in a court of law. The British Director of Public Protection, with reference to the July 7 attacks in London, refused to buy the ‘war on terror’ rhetoric. “London is not a battlefield and we are not soldiers. There is no War on Terror in the streets of London. The fight against terrorism here is not a war. It is simply the prevention of crime and the enforcement of our laws.” (Ken Mc Donalds, reported by The Times, January 24, 2007.)
Ann Coulter puts in some black humour with regard to the use of the term ‘war’ in “Drop Bombs, Take Names Later”: “There is no time to be precise about locating the exact individuals involved in a particular terrorist attack. Those involved include anyone, anywhere. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler. We carpet-bombed German cities and killed civilians. That was war. And this is war.”
GREY AREAS
The line between ‘terrorism’ and ‘counter terrorism’ (or ‘the war on terrorism’) becomes indistinguishable here. Kyle Fedler writes: “Invoking the language of war permits the direct and intentional killing of innocent people. So how is this any different from terrorism? If terrorism is the direct and intentional killing of innocent people with the purpose for achieving a greater goal they are not directly linked with, is this not just terrorism?” The underlying logic of terrorist attacks, as well as "retaliatory" wars against governments that "support terrorism," is the same: both punish citizens for the actions of their governments.
The power of rhetoric which comes with all the authority and glamorous technology of the world’s hyperpower has indeed taken a heavy toll on public opinion. It has in fact, with its skewed up morality, perverted the integrity of the human conscience, head and heart. As a result, prejudices are established as fact, myth as reality. The masses are benumbed to the terrible atrocities in the guise of the ‘War on Terror.’ And questions cannot be asked. As Bush the Senior had said, “What We Say, Goes.”
REFERENCES
• Anonymous, “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror”, Brassey’s, Inc, USA, 2004.
• Jan, Abidullah, “The Genesis of the Final Crusade,” Pragmatic Publishing, Canada, 2006.
• Heymann, Philip B, “Terrorism, Freedom and Security”, MIT Press, UK, 2003.
• Walker, Kim, “Alert But Not Alarmed: The Rhetoric of Terrorism and Life After Nine Eleven,” Online Acrobat Reader edition, May 2006.
• Speech by President Bush at the Oval Office, Washington D.C on the evening of September 11, 2001. www.americanrhetoric.com
• Speech by President Bush in the Joint Session of the Congress on September 20, 2001. www.americanrhetoric.com
• Herman, Ed, “Why Do They Hate Us”, www.thirdworldtraveler.com
• Fisk, Robert, “U.S Morality has been Distorted After 9/11”, The Independent Digital, UK, March 2002.
• Cornwall, Rupert, “War on Terror Slips Out of Bush Vocabulary”, The Independent on Sunday, Washington, July 28, 2005.
• Roy, Arundhati, “Confronting Empire” (excerpts from her book ‘War Talk’), Southend Press, 2003, www.thirdworldtraveler.com
• Roy, Arundhati, “The Algebra of Infinite Justice,” The Guardian, September 29, 2001.
• Fedler, Kyle, “On the Rhetoric of A War on Terrorism”, September 17, 2001, www.crosscurrents.org
• Said, Edward, “The Essential Terrorist”, April 1986, reproduced by The Nation Online edition.
• Said, Edward, “They Call All Resistance Terrorism”, International Socialist Review, September 2001.
• Berkeley Linguistics Professor George Lakoff’s Interview “George Lakoff Dissects the War on Terror”, August 2004, www.nedbletcher.blogspot.com
• Sakeenah, Maryam, “The Ideologization of Contemporary Conflict,” www.articlesbase.com
• www.wikipedia.com, “War on Terror”.
Maryam Sakeenah
Prologue
“The difference between today's pseudoscholarship and expert jargon about terrorism and the literature about Third World national liberation guerrillas two decades ago is interesting. Most of the earlier material was subject to the slower and therefore more careful procedures of print; to produce a piece of scholarship you had to go through the motions of exploring history, citing books, using footnotes--actually attempting to prove a point by developing an argument. Today's discourse on terrorism is an altogether streamlined thing. Its scholarship is yesterday's newspaper or today's CNN bulletin. Its gurus are journalists with obscure, even ambiguous, backgrounds. Most writing about terrorism is brief, pithy, totally devoid of the scholarly armature of evidence, proof, argument. Its paradigm is the television interview, the spot news announcement, the instant gratification one associates with the Reagan White House's "reality time," the evening news.”
(Edward Said, ‘The Essential Terrorist’, The Nation, 1986).
…………………………………………………..
“The West is deluged daily by newsmakers and the conveyors and interpreters of their words and actions. Since 11th September, the average reader of newspapers, magazines and the Internet; listener to government officials, media experts and academics; and watcher of television could judge that the West is winning the war that intensified on that day. An imagined but plausible synopsis of this news could be gisted in the following breathless, headline-like manner:
“Victory in Afghanistan, Taliban destroyed. Bin Laden and al Zawahiri cowering in Afghan caves. Al Qaeda remnants soon to be captured. Democratic regime in Kabul. Enthusiasm for Islamism and jihad waning. Israeli Prime Minister is a Man of Peace. War on Terror is not a War on Islam. Terrorists hate the US for its freedom, not policies. Islamists hate America for what it is, not what it does. Victory in Iraq. Iraq nears secular government, democracy, sovereignty.”
(Anonymous, ‘Imperial Hubris’, 2004).
SETTING THE TENOR
‘Rhetoric’, understood as the art of using language persuasively to the achievement of specific ends, is a politically needful tool, especially in the context of contemporary politics. The strategic use of language can effectively influence thinking and formulate attitudes, and hence is an important element in moulding public opinion on mattes of significance. Kenneth Burke stated: “The most characteristic concern of rhetoric is the manipulation of men’s beliefs for political ends… the basic function of rhetoric is the use of words by human agents to form attitudes or to induce actions in other human agents.”
This paper attempts to examine how rhetoric has been used as a linguistic ploy and weapon in the War on Terrorism by the United States and its allies in order to garner public approbation for the means and methods employed. It analyzes the nature and usage of rhetoric both by the government and the media.
…………………………………
Language is a powerful tool. It does not merely give neutral expression to thought, but has a potency to create its own subjective reality and shape the way the recipient of the language perceives reality. Hence its effective usage is a political necessity, an indispensable tool for demagogues, politicians, leaders, warlords as they seek to tinker with public opinion and keep it as a comfortable reservoir of support for their moves_ be they based on ideology or expediency. Rhetoric does the trick.
It did the trick post Nine Eleven effectively_ simply due to the magic of the word ‘Terrorism’ which has strong emotive tones within it and draws instant condemnation and judgement. It is enough to condemn an act as ‘terrorism’ for it to generate a consensus on its inexcusable criminality and be established as illegitimate, barbaric, insane, unpardonable. Nine Eleven was not only extraordinarily theatrical terrorism but also the onset of an unconventional ‘war’ against the same, fought with a sense of moral righteousness and jingoistic fervour. The fatal day marked a paradigm shift in international politics on the one hand and domestic policy in the US on the other. To make the change be lumped by the public, it was important to kick up war hype, keep fear and insecurity on an all-time high and present the situation as a classic case of Good Versus Evil. To achieve this, rhetoric had to do the trick. And it did. Kim Walker writes in “The Rhetoric of Terrorism and Life after 9/11”, “Since 9/11, political and cultural climate has become increasingly febrile as governments and their agencies ramp up their rhetoric on terrorism with devastating social and inter-subjective consequences. Terrorism hence becomes a strategic device deployed by a range of actors and entities to manipulate and undermine the ‘Western Way of Life.’ The rhetoric of terrorism is designed to propagate the politics of fear and anxiety. Our task is not to be cowed down by terrorism’s relentless assault on our intellects and sensibilities.” Edward Said writes much the same thing in ‘The Essential Terrorist’: “as a word and concept, Terrorism has acquired an extraordinary status in public discourse. It has spawned the uses of language, rhetoric and argument that are frightening for their capacity in mobilizing public opinion, gaining legitimacy and provoking murderous action. The elevation of Terrorism to a national security threat has deflected careful scrutiny of the government’s actions and policy.”
A NEW MORALITY
For one, the rhetoric used by the US government and media in the wake of the 9/11 attacks made it clear that America was defining for itself a new kind of morality based on the deep divisions of ‘us and them’, somewhat like ‘We the Good and True have been attacked by Them the Bad, Ugly and Evil.” Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent in March 2002, opines that American morality has been distorted after 9/11.
President Bush stated in his 9/11 speech in Washington that “our way of life and our very freedom” has come under attack. “Today, our nation saw evil_ the worst of human nature_ and we responded with the best of America. We stand together to win the War against Terrorism. We go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.”
On September 20, 2001, the President made another address ringing with bravado: “We have been called to defend freedom. On September the eleventh, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country… freedom itself was under attack.” He spoke of the perpetrators as “the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the twentieth century” and reiterated that Terrorism was a “threat to our way of life… we are in a fight for our principles… this is a fight of all those who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.” When he announced the U.S. air strikes against Afghanistan, President Bush said, "We're a peaceful nation. This is the calling of the United States of America, the most free nation in the world, a nation built on fundamental values, that rejects hate, rejects violence, rejects murderers, rejects evil. And we will not tire."
The language employed by the White House emphasized the good old United States of America believing in democracy, freedom and peace pitted against an evil ideology determined to destroy all that. It presented America’s strategic designs to fight the ‘war on terror’ as a noble mission embarked upon to save goodness and truth from vile, barbaric enemies. What is interesting to note is the constant recurrence of the refrain ‘evil’ as opposed to ‘good’ in the rhetoric emanating from the White House. The media picked up the rhetoric readily. A classic example is quoted by Arundhati Roy in ‘The Algebra of Infinite Justice, September 2001, when an American newscaster said, “Good and evil rarely manifest themselves as clearly as they did (on 9/11). People who we don’t know massacred people who we do. And they did so with contemptuous glee.” The purpose, of course, in presenting the War on Terror as a moralistic struggle of good versus evil to rescue the Western Way of Life was to seek approval from the public of the not-so-good and not-so-moral means used in the War on Terror. Winning the ‘war’ was a sacred goal, hence any means used would be legitimate. According to Edward Said, this is almost criminal as it ‘allows the U.S to do what it wishes anywhere in the world.’ The Rhetoric of Terrorism is fabricated in order to keep the public in a constant state of fear and insecurity, so as to justify the government’s international adventures. “Any threat to its interests, whether oil in the Middle East or its geostrategic interests elsewhere is labelled as ‘terrorism’… terrorism is magnified and blown up to insensate proportions… this focus obscures the enormous damage done by the U.S militarily, environmentally, economically on a world scale which far dwarfs anything terrorism might do.” (Edward Said, ‘They Call All Resistance Terrorism,’ International Socialist Review, September 2001).
‘A MANDATE FROM HEAVEN’:
With ‘all that jazz’ about values, democracy and freedom, it is, after all, the rhetorical machinery churning out buzzwords for sale. Noam Chomsky demonstrates how phrases like "free speech," the "free market," and the "free world" have little to do with freedom. “Among the myriad freedoms claimed by the U.S. government are the freedom to murder, annihilate, and dominate other people. The freedom to finance and sponsor despots and dictators across the world. The freedom to train, arm, and shelter terrorists. The freedom to topple democratically elected governments. The freedom to amass and use weapons of mass destruction-chemical, biological, and nuclear. The freedom to go to war against any country whose government it disagrees with. And, most terrible of all, the freedom to commit these crimes against humanity in the name of "justice," in the name of "righteousness," in the name of "freedom." Attorney General John Ashcroft declared that the freedom of the Americans is "not the grant of any government or document, but. . .our endowment from God.” Arundhati Roy comments: “Basically, we're confronted with a country armed with a mandate from heaven. Perhaps this explains why the U.S. government refuses to judge itself by the same moral standards by which it judges others. Its technique is to position itself as the well-intentioned giant whose good deeds are confounded in strange countries by their scheming natives, whose markets it's trying to free, whose societies it's trying to modernize, whose women it's trying to liberate, whose souls it's trying to save. Perhaps this belief in its own divinity also explains why the U.S. government has conferred upon itself the right and freedom to murder and exterminate people "for their own good."
Bush concluded his 20th September 2001 speech hence: “I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of it is not known yet the outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know God is not neutral between them. We are assured of the rightness of our cause and confident in the victories to come. May God watch over the United States of America.” Interestingly, the operation in Afghanistan was named ‘Infinite Justice’, which Muslims objected, was only a Divine attribute. The name was then replaced by another fantastical one, explosively overblown with self-righteousness and cocksure certainty of success: ‘Enduring Freedom.’ Some rhetorical mastery!
CRUSADE RHETORIC
Closely allied to this dimension is the use of the rhetoric of a moral crusade on the lines of traditional Christian rhetoric of a type that may have come from Pope Urban the Second in A.D 1099. Mainstream newspapers started developing a mindset for religious war. Abidullah Jan writing in ‘The Genesis of the Final Crusade’ lists some such article headlines: “This is a Religious War: September 11 was Only the Beginning”, “Yes, this is About Islam”, “The Core of Islamic Rage”, “Jihad, 101”, “Islamic Terror”, “Holy Warriors Escalate the Old War on a New Front”, etc. On September 16, 2001, the BBC reported Bush had declared a ‘crusade’ when the president remarked, “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a long time.” With the ripples of outrage it created in the Muslim world, the apology duly came. However, five months later, the President repeated the word while addressing US troops in which he termed the war as ‘an incredibly important crusade to defend freedom.’ George W Bush, who describes himself as a ‘born again Christian’, has been quoted by Bob Woodward in his book ‘Plan of Attack’ describing himself as a ‘messenger of God’ ‘doing the Lord’s will.’ Jan states, “Regurgitating the threat to the sanctity of ‘our way of life’ and ‘our values’ is part of the plan to make people feel threatened.” It is important, of course, to use rhetoric to heighten insecurity, so that the rationale to keep the War on Terror going stays pumped up.
PREPOSTROUS HORROR
Rhetoric has effectively generated fear in the American public mind. The Department of Homeland Security is at pains to prove that ‘the threat to U.S interests from someone, somewhere in the world, has increased.’ The Anonymous writer of ‘Imperial Hubris’ comments, “We hear experts warning audiences watching CNN that the next al Qaeda attack on our country will involve WMD. The warnings are then complemented by more otherworldly advice to buy duct tape and plastic sheets to wrap their homes and make them airtight, WMD proof fortresses. When faced with vague threats, Washington does what it always does: it scares the hell out of people.”
IDEOLOGIZATION OF THE WAR ON TERROR
The use of rhetoric has helped the ‘ideologization’ of the War on Terror. This has eclipsed the true ground realities and the actual root causes of the conflict, turning attention away from them. Particularly regrettable is the inability to understand terrorism as a desperate reaction by the socially outcast, economically deprived and politically oppressed. Terrorism, in fact, is a tactic used by disaffected individuals and communities, not an ideology. Instead, terrorism is seen as an opposing, challenging, hostile and ‘barbaric’ ‘evil ideology’ opposed to all that the West stands for and believes in. This is extremely misguided and helps divide the world into opposing ideological camps, lending strength to the dangerous ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis. George W. Bush expressed the grandiosity of this ‘clash of ideologies’ in a statement: “We’ve entered a great ideological conflict we did nothing to invite.” Journalist Margie Burns comments on this: “This statement should sound alarm bells for the nation and the world. What does Bush mean by an “ideological conflict”? All previous grandiose Bush pronouncements on global conflict have focused on terrorism and the “war on terror.” Bush is trying to present terrorism as an “ideology,” in an us-or-them global conflict, with Terrorism replacing Communism. Every thinking person knows that terrorism is not an “ideology.” Terrorist acts are a tactic. We know by now exactly who uses them, too: individuals and small groups use guerrilla tactics when other tactics are not available to them, against a much stronger governmental power or foreign power.” The New York Times reported on July 25, 2005, “The Bush administration is… pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission.”
JINGOISM
The ring of patriotic jingoism defines America’s rhetoric. It hedges in moral judgement within its own delineations, defining values as ‘American’ or ‘un American.’ Arundhati Roy writes in her book ‘War Talk’ that the term ‘anti American’ is used in order to discredit and inaccurately define its critics. “Once someone is branded ‘anti American’ (like anti Semitic), the chances are they will be judged before they will be heard and the argument will be lost in the welter of hurt national pride. To call someone anti-American, indeed, to be anti-American, is not just racist, it's a failure of the imagination. An inability to see the world in terms other than those that the establishment has set out for you: If you're not a Bushie, you're a Taliban. If you don't love us, you hate us. If you're not Good, you're Evil. If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists.” This is the ‘imperial hubris’ the Anonymous writer mentions in his book by the same name_ the arrogance and self-centredness in interpreting events and people outside the United States. After the July 7 2005 bombings in London, G8 leaders denounced it as an attack on ‘our way of life’, and declared that they would never let the ‘Islamists change our values.’ The connection that the rhetoric of “Islamist terrorism” makes with Muslims and Arabs has led to dangerous racial profiling and has damaged the image of Islam and Muslims in the Western public mind. Discrimination and prejudice against Muslims in the West is on record high levels.
THE ‘WHY DO THEY HATE US?’ DEBATE
In his 9/11 address, Bush said: “The US was targeted for the attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.” In his historic speech of 20th September 2001, President Bush explained why the United States is hated: “They hate our freedoms_ our freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other… the terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life… Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of freedom depends on us.” This rhetoric of ‘they hate us for our freedom’ became a trumpeted theme in the mainstream media, insulating the American public from any recognition or realization of the elements of self-interest, opportunism and exploitation in American foreign policy that affect so many lives_ many of them Muslim. Arundhati Roy states: “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.” In fact, motives are quite the opposite. The U.S is not hated for what it is, but for what it has done. The smokescreen of rhetoric, however, keeps a dispassionate analysis of the real grievances of America’s ‘enemies’ at bay. Roy said in a speech commending Noam Chomsky: “If people in the United States want a real answer to the question of ‘why do they hate us?’(as opposed to the ones in the Idiot's Guide to Anti-Americanism, that is: "Because they're jealous of us," "Because they hate freedom," "Because they're losers," "Because we're good and they're evil"), I'd say, read Chomsky on U.S. military interventions in Indochina, Latin America, Iraq, Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. If ordinary people in the United States read Chomsky, perhaps their questions would be framed a little differently. Perhaps it would be: "Why don't they hate us more than they do?" or "Isn't it surprising that September 11 didn't happen earlier?"
The Anonymous writer of ‘Imperial Hubris’ calls the robotic repetition of ‘they hate our freedom’ “errant and potentially fatal nonsense.” He states: “There is no record of a Muslim urging to wage jihad to destroy democracy or credit unions, or universities. What the US does in formulating and implementing policies affecting the Muslim world is infinitely more inflammatory.” The US must recognize this to be able to redress the grievances of the Muslim world that are not without basis. However, such rhetoric deflects attention to the real causes and prolongs America’s Beauty Sleep. Eyes Wide Shut. In the backdrop, the corpses keep piling up.
DEHUMANIZING THE ENEMY
Empathy is absolutely necessary to be able to understand the terrorism phenomenon and begin a curative strategy. It is a natural humanizing element we all are gifted with, enabling us to understand one another as simply sharers in a common essential humanity. Rhetoric checks empathy by presenting the enemy as subhuman, evil, beastly. It ensures that the ‘human connection’ is not established, dehumanizing the enemy. Rhetoric tends to talk about the other side as the abstract ‘enemy’ or as a subhuman, demonic ‘Axis of Evil.’ Rhetoric has worked hard to deflect sympathy from victims of the West’s brutal wars and misadventures since decades. It has divided the world into ‘The West and the Rest’, and presented the West to be on a divinely assigned mission of liberation against subhuman lower-order creatures who must be taught some civilization. In 1937 Winston Churchill said of the Palestinians: “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” In 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, "Palestinians do not exist." Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians "two-legged beasts." Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called them "'grasshoppers' who could be crushed."
Kyle Fedler says, “When we demonize our enemies we see ourselves as totally righteous and the abstract enemy as totally evil.” (On the Rhetoric of a War on Terror, September 2001). This is what makes the methods and means of the war on terror brutal, without moral restraints, conducted in the self-assuredness of a high moral ground. Again, it is rhetoric that comes to the rescue when human rights are blatantly violated. This is what the euphemism ‘collateral damage’ was invented for_ for the 150, 000 + dead of Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem of America’s high-tech killing machines destroying so much of life other than specific targets is solved through the use of imaginative language.
TALKING TOUGH
The US adopted the pre-emptive strategy, as made clear in several speeches and statements by the US President, the adoption of the maniacal ‘National Missile Defence’ system or the ‘Patriot Act’ and a host of other legislation legitimizing all ways the regime deemed fit to be used in its righteous crusade against terrorism. In his speech on September 20, 2001, President Bush made it clear that the world had no choice but to ‘be with us or with the terrorists.’ The rhetoric here is in absolute terms, reeking of inflexible imperial hubris. The President, by calling the war ‘a task that does not end’, hinted at the perpetuation of America’s ‘War on Terror’ for achieving its strategic aims. Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld reinforces the argument: "I say that victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that's going to be over in a month or a year or even five years. It is something that we need to do so that we can continue to live in a world with powerful weapons and with people who are willing to use those powerful weapons. And we can do that as a country. And that would be a victory, in my view."
The government took an aggressive posture, yet all the while, the ignorance at the base of the rhetoric and war planning remained there. Perhaps this is why the counter terrorism strategy devised by the gurus at Washington fell flat. Assessing the precise nature of a terrorist threat requires understanding the motivations and grievances of the terrorist, their mode of operation and their capabilities. The American public, and even the government were pitifully ignorant of all of these on many counts. Those at the helm too were unable to answer some fundamental, crucial questions. They knew little about the socio-political dynamics, the cultural imperatives, the history and background of the peoples and the lands they set out to conquer. Philip Heymann comments: “Faced with uncertainties, the Bush administration defined the dangers we faced as ‘war’, demanding and justifying a radical shifting of our domestic and international priorities.” Rhetoric in this case acts as a masque for the underlying ignorance, and perpetuates the state of ignorance by feeding lies to the public, seductively wrapped up.
The rhetoric of President Bush in the wake of 9/11 and after had the thunderous roar of military drums. Clearly, the imperious demands were non-negotiable, and the terms were tough: “Hand over the terrorists or share in their fate.” And, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbour them.” The President attempted a globalization of his grand campaign: “What is at stake is not just America’s freedom. This is a world’s fight. (And, lo and behold…) This is a civilization’s fight.” He also made it amply clear that the war will be long and terrible: “We will direct every resource at our command, every necessary weapon of war, to the disruption and defeat of the global terror network. Now this war will not have a decisive liberation of territory or a swift conclusion. Americans should not expect one battle but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen.”
LINGUISTIC CLUMSINESS AND FALSE METAPHORS
This, clearly, is the rhetoric of war. It comes in handy and serves a number of purposes. Hence the term “War on Terror.” Warfare is often used as a pretext for the suspension of human rights. Just like the term ‘enemy combatant’ was invented to circumvent the Geneva Conventions that apply to ‘prisoners of war’, the term ‘war on terror’ circumvents the necessity to abide by canons of law. According to linguist George Lakoff, terrorists are a relatively smaller number of individuals as opposed to the sizes of countries involved. War on the other hand is about nation-states and armies. Clearly, the phrase ‘War on Terror’ is built on a disproportion. As a result of this kind of rhetoric, Bush becomes a ‘war president’ with ‘war powers’, which imply that “ordinary protections do not have to be observed. A war president has extraordinary powers.” Lakoff further states, “Terror is a general state internal to a person. The word activates fear, which activates the desire for security no matter by what means, which is what the neocons want. The War on Terror is not about stopping you from being afraid, but about making you afraid. And the War on Terror never ends. There can be no peace treaty with terror. It is a prescription for keeping neocons in power indefinitely. In three words, War On Terror, they have enacted vast political changes.” Calling this ‘war’ also gives legitimacy to retaliatory acts of terror, as in the context of war, they merely become permissible offensive strikes.
The word ‘war’ reeks of militarism. Calling the US response strategy a ‘war on terror’ meant the use of decisive military force against a dissipated, hard to identify and unconventional enemy. According to Philip Heymann, “The danger is that for several reasons, the use of the term ‘war’ leads us in the wrong direction. The very term suggests a primacy for military force; that is what war has been always about. We are captives of the dictum, ‘to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.’” Resultantly, the military has put in all its pride and strength into an asymmetrical, ill-advised struggle against a threat which needs to be tackled more insightfully and wisely, not merely by muscle-power.
The phrase "War on Terror" has been referred to as a false metaphor. Jason Burke opines: “There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. The term 'war on terrorism' is thus effectively nonsensical." A "war" against terrorism is plainly wrong since terrorist attacks are considered criminal acts like murder and therefore should be investigated by the police with the perpetrators brought to justice and given a fair trial in a court of law. The British Director of Public Protection, with reference to the July 7 attacks in London, refused to buy the ‘war on terror’ rhetoric. “London is not a battlefield and we are not soldiers. There is no War on Terror in the streets of London. The fight against terrorism here is not a war. It is simply the prevention of crime and the enforcement of our laws.” (Ken Mc Donalds, reported by The Times, January 24, 2007.)
Ann Coulter puts in some black humour with regard to the use of the term ‘war’ in “Drop Bombs, Take Names Later”: “There is no time to be precise about locating the exact individuals involved in a particular terrorist attack. Those involved include anyone, anywhere. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler. We carpet-bombed German cities and killed civilians. That was war. And this is war.”
GREY AREAS
The line between ‘terrorism’ and ‘counter terrorism’ (or ‘the war on terrorism’) becomes indistinguishable here. Kyle Fedler writes: “Invoking the language of war permits the direct and intentional killing of innocent people. So how is this any different from terrorism? If terrorism is the direct and intentional killing of innocent people with the purpose for achieving a greater goal they are not directly linked with, is this not just terrorism?” The underlying logic of terrorist attacks, as well as "retaliatory" wars against governments that "support terrorism," is the same: both punish citizens for the actions of their governments.
The power of rhetoric which comes with all the authority and glamorous technology of the world’s hyperpower has indeed taken a heavy toll on public opinion. It has in fact, with its skewed up morality, perverted the integrity of the human conscience, head and heart. As a result, prejudices are established as fact, myth as reality. The masses are benumbed to the terrible atrocities in the guise of the ‘War on Terror.’ And questions cannot be asked. As Bush the Senior had said, “What We Say, Goes.”
REFERENCES
• Anonymous, “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror”, Brassey’s, Inc, USA, 2004.
• Jan, Abidullah, “The Genesis of the Final Crusade,” Pragmatic Publishing, Canada, 2006.
• Heymann, Philip B, “Terrorism, Freedom and Security”, MIT Press, UK, 2003.
• Walker, Kim, “Alert But Not Alarmed: The Rhetoric of Terrorism and Life After Nine Eleven,” Online Acrobat Reader edition, May 2006.
• Speech by President Bush at the Oval Office, Washington D.C on the evening of September 11, 2001. www.americanrhetoric.com
• Speech by President Bush in the Joint Session of the Congress on September 20, 2001. www.americanrhetoric.com
• Herman, Ed, “Why Do They Hate Us”, www.thirdworldtraveler.com
• Fisk, Robert, “U.S Morality has been Distorted After 9/11”, The Independent Digital, UK, March 2002.
• Cornwall, Rupert, “War on Terror Slips Out of Bush Vocabulary”, The Independent on Sunday, Washington, July 28, 2005.
• Roy, Arundhati, “Confronting Empire” (excerpts from her book ‘War Talk’), Southend Press, 2003, www.thirdworldtraveler.com
• Roy, Arundhati, “The Algebra of Infinite Justice,” The Guardian, September 29, 2001.
• Fedler, Kyle, “On the Rhetoric of A War on Terrorism”, September 17, 2001, www.crosscurrents.org
• Said, Edward, “The Essential Terrorist”, April 1986, reproduced by The Nation Online edition.
• Said, Edward, “They Call All Resistance Terrorism”, International Socialist Review, September 2001.
• Berkeley Linguistics Professor George Lakoff’s Interview “George Lakoff Dissects the War on Terror”, August 2004, www.nedbletcher.blogspot.com
• Sakeenah, Maryam, “The Ideologization of Contemporary Conflict,” www.articlesbase.com
• www.wikipedia.com, “War on Terror”.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Xinjiang and the Uighurs
OUT OF THE CLOSET: CHINA’S ‘OTHER TIBET’
Maryam Sakeenah
"Xinjiang will always keep up the intensity of its crackdown on ethnic separatist forces and deal them devastating blows** without showing any mercy."
- Wang Lequan, Chinese Communist Party Xinjiang Secretary, quoted by China News Agency, January 14, 2003
“China is guilty of fierce repression of religious expression, and intolerance of any expression of discontent.”
- Rebiya Kadeer, Uighur rights activist, writing for The Washington Post.
The 2008 Olympics held in Beijing helped bring into the limelight the plight of ethnic minorities in China, subject to ‘gross human rights violations’, according to Amnesty International. This said, however, there was a clear duality in the international perception and approach to the two issues of ethnic persecution in China: the Tibetans and the Muslim Uighurs of the Xinjiang region in the North-West. While the Tibet issue received international attention, building up pressure on the Chinese government, the ethnic unrest in Xinjiang remained eclipsed and went quite unnoticed, even to the extent that Al Jazeera TV had to call it ‘China’s Other Tibet’* in order to garner public attention. This international inattention and apathy makes sense in the context of the War on Terror, considering the fact that China’s diplomacy has successfully managed to present the Uighurs’ struggle as ‘terrorism’. Regardless of the international attitude towards it, facts on the ground seem to support what Uighur human rights activist Rebiya Kadeer stated in an interview to Kate Mc Geown of BBC, “I believe the Uighurs are the most persecuted people in the world.”
Amnesty International reports on March 17, 2005: “Since the late 1980s, the Chinese government’s policies and other factors have generated growing ethnic discontent in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. Thousands of people there have been victims of gross human rights violations, including arbitrary detention, unfair political trials, torture and summary executions. These violations are suffered primarily by members of the Uighur community and occur amidst growing ethnic unrest fuelled by unemployment, discrimination and restrictions on religious and cultural freedoms. The situation has led some people living in the Xingiang Uighur Autonomous Region to favour independence from China. Crackdowns in the region have intensified since 9/11, with authorities designating supporters of independence as ‘separatists’ and ‘terrorists’. Muslim Uighurs have been the main targets of Chinese authorities. Authorities have closed down mosques, detained Islamic clergy and severely curtailed freedom of expression and association.”
The holding of the Olympics in Beijing was used as a justification of a hard-hitting crackdown in Urumqi and other sensitive areas in Xinjiang. Uighurs have been jailed for reading newspapers sympathetic to the cause of independence. Others have been detained merely for listening to Radio Free Asia, an American-sonsored English-language station. Even the most peaceful Uighur activists, if they practise Islam in a way that the authorities deem inappropriate, risk arrest and torture. China regularly dubs Uighur historians, poets and writers “intellectual terrorists” and sends them to jail. In June 2003 Abdulghani Memetemin, a teacher and journalist, was sentenced to nine years in jail for “providing state secrets for an organisation outside the country”. What he had actually done was help the East Turkestan Information Centre (an NGO based in Germany and run by exiled Uighurs), with its work by sending it news reports and transcripts of speeches by Chinese officials. In 2005, Nurmemet Yasin, a young intellectual, was sentenced to a decade in prison for writing an allegory comparing the Uighurs’ predicament with that of a pigeon in a cage.
Amnesty International has documented that, since 2001, “tens of thousands of people are reported to have been detained for investigation in the region, and hundreds, possibly thousands, have been charged or sentenced under the Criminal Law; many Uighurs are believed to have been sentenced to death and executed for alleged “separatist” or “terrorist” offences.” AI has further reported that once imprisoned, detainees are subjected to types of torture from cigarette-burns on the skin to submersion in raw sewage. Prisoners have had toenails extracted by pliers, been attacked by dogs and burned with electric batons, even cattle prods.
Those held and routinely tortured usually have flimsy charges against them. Human Rights groups say many of those arrested ‘may have done little more than merely practice their religion or defend their culture’, says M J Gohel, a terrorism specialist at the Asia Pacific Foundation in London. The joint report ‘Devastating Blows’ by Human Rights Watch and Human Rights in China reveals that more than half the detainees in Xinjiang’s labour camps are there for having engaged in ‘illegal religious activity.’ Sharon Hom, the Executive Director of Human Rights in China says ‘Religious regulation in Xinjiang is so pervasive that it creates a legal net that can catch just anyone the authorities want to target.’
Rebiya Kadeer was a successful Uighur entrepreneur who founded a trading company in Xinjiang and rose to a position of prominence. Her company helped train Muslim Uighurs and give them employment opportunities. She and her husband became spokespersons for the rights of the Uighurs, and used their international connections to further the cause. In 1999, Kadeer was arrested as she entered a hotel to deliver a speech on human rights, and sentenced to eight years in prison on the charge of ‘providing secret information to foreigners’, which happened to be some news clippings about human rights abuse in Xinjiang she wanted to pass on to her husband in the United States. These ‘secret’ documents, however, were from newspapers that were publicly available. Human rights groups globally campaigned for Kadeer, and her sentence was shortened. She was released in 2005 and today champions the Uighurs struggle as an advocate of their rights in USA. In a June 2005 interview with Kate Mc Geown of BBC, Kadeer says, “Since I came out of jail I have never stopped fighting for the freedom of my people. In prison I witnessed personally the torture and persecution of many Uighurs who were totally innocent of the crimes they were said to have committed. I wasn’t allowed to get a lawyer… My struggle is peaceful. I focus on human rights. China has used 9/11 as an excuse to crack down. It is easy for the government to say the Uighurs are terrorists, because they are Muslims. Many Uighurs have been falsely persecuted for this.”
While the unrest in Xinjiang is decades old, China always looked at it as a sort of ‘national embarrassment’, deflecting international attention and keeping mum. M J Gohel of the Asia Pacific Foundation says “China has been shy about the whole problem. It has now come out of the closet.” The ‘coming out of the closet’ comes as a policy change in the wake of the War on Terror, which provides the Chinese government with an opportune moment to gather international support. This it is doing by presenting the unrest in Xinjiang as terrorism, fomenting a link with terrorism elsewhere around the globe which the United States has committed itself to fight. Both Human Rights Watch and Human Rights in China accuse China of ‘opportunistically using the post 9/11 environment to make the outrageous claim that individuals disseminating peaceful religious and cultural messages in Xinjiang are terrorists who have simply changed tactics.’
The international connection is easy to establish as Xnjiang enjoys deep ethnic, religious and cultural ties with neighbouring states including Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan. China has utilized this natural connection to the hilt. The government claims foreign nationals are in the region. At a press conference, Xinjiang Party Secretary Wang Lequan warned that the province was “under attack… In Xinjiang, the separatists, religious extremists and violent terrorists are all around us_ they’re very active.” Post 9/11, China has busied itself with convincing the world that there is indeed a direct link between the US-led War on Terrorism and China’s indigenous fight against separatists in Xinjiang. With Islam as the mainstream religion in Xinjiang, the ‘common link’ is easy to establish.
The common link has enabled China not only to seek international approval for its counter-terrorism methods but also to demand support and assistance for the same. China has already named more than 10 groups who it claims are supporting separatist ‘terrorism’ in the region, and all of which are based abroad. These include, besides the already banned East Turkestan Islamic Movement, the East Turkestan Liberation Organisation, the World Uighur Youth Congress and the East Turkestan Information Centre. The last two groups are based in Germany, and have been operating peacefully and legally since years. Mike Dillon, Xinjiang expert at the University of Durham says, “Whether the other groups on the list even exist is open to doubt. And whether groups demanding independence have links abroad is open to doubt.” Dru C. Gladney, President of the Pacific Basin Institute agrees: “The ETIM has no truly effective links with Al Qaeda, at least not any more, and is most probably defunct by now, as far as we know.” Like several others, Andrew Nathan of Columbia University believes China is by far exaggerating the danger separatism in Xinjiang really poses. Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer emphatically states, “I vehemently deny that our struggle is connected to Al Qaeda. I believe history will show we were never terrorists. My people will win.”
The fruits of China’s diplomatic labours are manifested by international unconcern and apathy towards the issue. The United States, usually bitterly critical of human rights abuse in China, has apparently agreed to maintain strategic silence over the issue. When compared with international censure over Tibet, the duality of standards becomes only too clear. One reason for this is that the Uighurs lack effective, dynamic leadership that can advocate their cause internationally. They do not have the Nobel Laureate ‘Dalai Lama’ that Tibet has. The other reason that goes deeper, is the connection China has been able to establish with global terrorism, which makes world public opinion apathetic. The connection, sadly, is fomented conveniently because Uighurs share their religion with other separatist groups around the world that are branded ‘terrorists’. International propaganda against Islam churned for politically expedient reasons in the context of the War on Terror demonizes Muslim populations struggling for rights. It takes away sympathy and concern over rampant human rights abuse, making criminals of us all.
Nicholas Bequelin is pessimistic about future prospects for a peaceful resolution for the oppressed Uighurs due to international unconcern: “There is absolutely no international pressure to change policy in Xinjiang now. So why would China make any changes?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)