Message 03613 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxdeT03613 Message: 1/9 L0 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox] Fritjof Capra zum WTC - Terror



Zu der von Jobst angesprochenen notwendigen fundamentalen Systemkorrektur
stehen erste, vorsichtige Hinweise bei Fritjof Capra.
--------------------------------------------------------

A Systemic Analysis of International Terrorism

by Fritjof Capra


The horrific terrorist attacks against the United States on September
11mark the end of an era - the end of over 200 years of invulnerability on
our continent. We had heard fundamentalist rhetoric about "striking at the
heart of America" for years, but we took it as empty threats. We did not
recognize the emergence of a new weapon on the international stage against
which we were defenseless - the despair-driven, desperate suicide
bomber.(1) This new form of international terrorism exposes the fantasy of
a national shield against ballistic missiles. Missile defense is of no use
whatsoever when terrorists can turn commercial planes into missiles and
their fuel tanks into bombs with the help of simple box cutters.


A SYSTEMIC PERSPECTIVE

There is no simple defense against international terrorism, because we
live in a complex, globally interconnected world in which linear chains of
cause and effect do not exist. To understand this world, we need to think
systemically - in terms of relationships, connectedness, and context.
Understanding international terrorism from a systemic perspective means
understanding that its very nature derives from a series of political,
economic, and technological problems that are all interconnected. This
terrorism is not "mindless," and it is not directed against our "freedom
and democracy," as our government wants us to believe.

Terrorism is always a weapon of the politically frustrated and desperate
who feel that they are unable to voice their grievances through
conventional political processes. In order to combat them effectively, we
need to clearly understand the terrorists' frustration.(2)

This does not mean that we should shrink from capturing the terrorists and
bringing them to justice. Their crimes are abhorrent beyond words. But we
must learn to distinguish between their criminal methods and
fundamentalist ideologies on the one hand, and the often legitimate
grievances that drive them into committing such desperate and horrific
acts on the other. We cannot fight terrorists effectively without
understanding them. We shall see in particular that much of Islamic
fundamentalism is related to the role of the United States in the Middle
East and that extremist Islamic movements often arise in direct response
to American policies. Of course, the U.S. is not the only power to blame.
There is the legacy of European colonialism, and there are other factors.
Yet American policies have contributed significantly to the recent rise of
fundamentalist Islamic terrorism.(3)


INAPPROPRIATENESS OF MILITARY ACTIONS


Understandably, the first reaction to the horrendous attacks on the United
States is the desire to "strike back." But responding to terrorism with
violence, rather than dealing with the context from which it emerged, will
continue to create more violence. We must recognize that military actions
will not succeed in eliminating the rise of militant Islamic movements. On
the contrary, they will result in the deaths of innocent Muslim civilians
that will fuel anti-American hatred.

Retaliatory strikes against suspected terrorist targets trigger further
retaliation from terrorists and thus escalate the cycle of violence, as
Israel's experience has shown. Surgical strikes make sense only when there
are military targets with heavy equipment, which the terrorist networks do
not have. Moreover, such strikes are often based on faulty intelligence,
which further exacerbates their negative effects.(4)

Since this terrorism is international, the response has to be
international as well. The goals of the coalitions and cooperation within
the international community cannot be limited to identifying and capturing
the terrorists, as they currently are, but must be extended to addressing
the underlying systemic problems. This will be the only way to marginalize
the terrorists and strengthen our security in the long run.


AMERICA'S IMAGE IN THE WORLD


The terrorism we are concerned with is directed against the United States,
and hence the attempt to understand its roots has to begin with the
understanding of America's image in the world. This image is
multi-faceted. It includes many positive aspects of our society - such as
individual liberty, cultural diversity, and economic opportunity - as well
as the great enthusiasm for American technology, fashion, sports, and
entertainment, especially among the world's youth.

On the other hand, the United States is seen by many as the driving force
of a global capitalism that is supported by military force and is often
socially unjust and environmentally destructive. Indeed, the buildings
attacked by the terrorists on September 11 were proud symbols of American
economic power and military might.


U.S. ROLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST


To understand the political context of the recent terrorist attacks, we
need to look specifically at the U.S. role in the Middle East. The common
view in this country is that we have assumed the role of peacemakers in
the region.

In other parts of the world, and especially in the Muslim world, the view
is quite different. There is widespread anti-American sentiment, based on
several legitimate concerns.(5) They include resentment against
- our uncritical support for the Israeli occupation of Arab land, the
dispossession of Palestinians and for state-sponsored assassinations;
- our support of repressive Arab governments, in particular that of Saudi
Arabia; 
- ten years of sanctions and military attacks against Iraq, which have
killed half a million children; 
- our massive military presence in the region, as well as our role as the
largest supplier of arms in the Middle    East.

These legitimate grievances have contributed to the rise of several
radical Islamic movements, including Hamas and al Qaeda, the terrorist
network of Osama bin Laden. Now, why do we support repressive regimes,
ignore UN resolutions, and promote violence in the Middle East? The
answer, in one word, is "oil." In the view of our government, the access
to Persian Gulf oil is essential to the security of the United States. In
the Gulf region, like in many areas in the rest of the world, our policies
are primarily resource-oriented, designed to support our wasteful economy.
Thus, the U.S. role in the Middle East and its contribution to the rise of
radical Islamic movements are inextricably linked to our misguided energy
policies.

To assure American access to natural resources around the world, the U.S.
government continually tries to "stabilize" various regions and, in doing
so, has often supported repressive regimes. This has included support to
governments that have engaged in widespread terrorism against their own
populations.(6) Ironically, the U.S. has at times supported hard-line
Islamic movements. Indeed, some of the most notorious Islamic terrorists
today, including many followers of Osama bin Laden, were originally
trained by the CIA.(7)


Our support of repressive governments has helped to encourage underground,
often violent, opposition, and the fact that we ourselves have sponsored
terrorist attacks undercuts our credibility in the fight against terrorism.


RELATIONSHIP WITH SAUDI ARABIA


To understand the motivation of Osama bin Laden and other Islamic
extremists, we need to pay special attention to the U.S. relationship with
Saudi Arabia. This relationship is based on an extraordinary bargain,
according to which Saudi Arabia grants the U.S. unlimited and perpetual
access to its oil fields (which contain 25% of the world's known oil
reserves!) in exchange for protection of the Saudi Royal family against
its enemies, both external and internal. This bargain has shaped American
foreign and military policy for almost half a century, during which we
have protected a totalitarian regime in Saudi Arabia that blatantly
disregards basic human rights and tramples democracy.(8)

The main purpose of the Gulf war in 1991, originally code-named "Desert
Shield," was not to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, but to protect Saudi Arabia
from a possible attack and to guarantee U.S. access to the Saudi oil
fields.

Since then, the U.S. has maintained and steadily expanded its military
presence in the Gulf. In addition we also defend the Saudi regime against
its internal enemies. The Saudi Arabian National Guard, which protects the
royal family, is almost entirely armed, trained, and managed by the United
States.(9)

The goal of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network al Qaeda is to drive the
U.S. out of the Gulf region and to replace the corrupt Saudi regime by
what they consider an "authentic" Islamic state. Such a state would be
modeled after that of the fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan, which is
many times more repressive than the current Saudi regime. Nevertheless, as
long as we continue to support the totalitarian system in Saudi Arabia,
our support will fuel anti-American hatred.

CAUSES OF TERRORIST ATTACKS

We can now summarize the multiple causes of the recent terrorist attacks
against the United States. At the core lies the U.S. military presence in
the Persian Gulf and our support of the repressive Saudi regime. This
presence, in turn, is a consequence of our dependence on Saudi oil, due to
many years of misguided energy policies.

Bin Laden's terrorist network has declared an anti-American jihad, a
religious war, and finds it easy to recruit volunteers among Muslims who
feel frustrated and helpless about other aspects of the U.S. role in the
Middle East. These aspects include, in particular, the U.S. support of the
Israeli occupation of Arab land and the dispossession of Palestinians;
Muslim casualties of U.S.-supported military actions and assassinations,
and especially the death of large numbers of civilians in Iraq. At a
deeper level, the extremists often receive sympathy from Islamic
fundamentalists who are struggling to preserve their cultural identity in
the face of U.S.-led economic globalization.

A MULTI-FACETED ANTI-TERRORIST STRATEGY

The systemic understanding of the background of extremist Islamic
terrorism calls for a multi-faceted anti-terrorist strategy. The immediate
goal, obviously, is to identify and capture the perpetrators and
supporters of the terrorist attacks against the United States, and to
bring them to justice before an international court. Since the extension
and scope of this terrorism is international, it requires sustained
international police work, based on extensive and widespread cooperation
among the international community.

This means, in turn, that the United States will have to reverse its
recent isolationist stance and become a responsible member of the
international community, supporting its conventions, treaties, and
institutions. Cooperation with the United Nations and other multilateral
agencies will be vital to increase our own strength and security.(10)

In this international collaboration, it will be especially important to
enlist the help of Islamic states in portraying the extremists as enemies
of Islam, because no true Muslim would take thousands of innocent lives in
such reprehensible acts.(11) At the same time, our leaders need to help
counteract American religious stereotypes. We need to make it clear that
the vast majority of the world's Muslims opposes terrorism and religious
intolerance.(12)

POLICY SHIFTS

In the long run, the United States will be able to reduce the terrorist
threats only if it adopts a series of policy shifts to deal with the
legitimate grievances that often underlie the illegitimate terrorist acts.
Systemic thinking means shifting our focus from attempting to crush
terrorist movements to pursuing policies that discourage their emergence.
The following two policy shifts would go a long way toward increasing our
national security.

1. A reassessment of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf, including pressure
on the Saudi regime to move toward  democratization and the provision of
basic human rights. 2. Demanding an end to Israel's illegal occupation of
Arab land, in particular of East Jerusalem and other Palestinian
territories. This would bring the United States in line with international
law, UN Security Council resolutions, and with the views of virtually the
entire international community. In the words of the Israeli novelist and
peace activist Amos Oz, With or without Islamic fundamentalism, with or
without Arab terrorism, there is no justification whatsoever for the
lasting occupation and suppression of the Palestinian people by Israel. We
have no right to deny Palestinians their natural right to
self-determination.(13)


CHANGE OF ENERGY POLICY


In order to carry out these shifts of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle 
East, it will be crucial to sever our dependence on Saudi oil. A shift of
energy policy from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and
conservation  is not only imperative for moving toward ecological
sustainability, but must also be seen as vital to our national security.

Such a shift is absolutely feasible with technologies that are available
today.(14) For example, the gradual replacement of the U.S. car fleet with
hydrogen-powered hybrid-electric cars would eventually save all the oil
OPEC now sells and, in addition, would reduce America's CO2 emissions by
about two thirds!  And, by the way, a hydrogen-fueled airplane could not
be used as a bomb, because the hydrogen would escape rapidly on impact
instead of exploding.

The hydrogen economy will eventually be realized, because it features
superior technologies. However, this development could be accelerated
dramatically with massive investments by the federal government. Such
investments would not only bring tremendous environmental and health
benefits, but would also be an effective long-term measure against
international terrorism.


1 Robert Fisk, "The Awesome Cruelty of a Doomed People," The Independent,
September 12, 2001.

2 Stephen Zunes, "International Terrorism," Foreign Policy in Focus
(wwvv.fpif.org). September 2001.

3 Stephen Zunes, "U.S. Policy Toward Political Islam," Foreign Policy in
Focus (www.fpif.org). June 2001.

4 See ref. 2.

5 See ref. 3.

6 See ref. 2.

7 See ref. 3.

8 Michael Klare, "Asking Why," Foreign Policy in Focus (www.fpif.org').
September 2001.

9 See ref. 8.

10 See ref. 2. "See ref. 4.

12 See ref. 3.

13 Amos Oz, "Struggling Against Fanaticism," New York Times, September
14,2001.

14 Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins, Natural Capitalism,
Little Brown, New York, 1999.

________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organisation: projekt oekonux.de


[English translation]
Thread: oxdeT03613 Message: 1/9 L0 [In index]
Message 03613 [Homepage] [Navigation]