Thanks. I just got back fromBrasil where they don't have any
firecodes and if you think this is uncomfortable you should see a meeting
there, people packed so tight that there was a good question whether the
oxygenlevel would suffice. Fortunately, there wasn't a fire or it would have
been a huge catastrophe.
Well, the title, you noticed, had a questionmark after it and the reason for
the questionmark is that whatever has been happening for the past several
months and is going on now, and however you evaluate it, like it, hate it, or
whatever, it's prettyclear that it cannot be a war on terror. In fact, that's
close to a logical necessity, at least if we accept certain prettyelementary
assumptions and principles, so let me try to make those clear at the outset. Thefirstprincipleguideline, if you like, is that we ought to,
I will try and I think that we should, [“]bend over backwards[“] to give the
benefit of the doubt to theUnitedStatesGovernment whenever it's possible.
So, that if there is any dispute about how to interpret something, we will
assume they're right. Thesecondguideline is that
we should take ratherseriously, veryseriously the pronouncements of leadership
especially when they are made with great sincerity and emotion. So, for example, when George[Walker]Bush[Jr.] tells us
that he is themostdevoted christian since theApostles. Sound of
laughter. We should believe him, take him at his word,
and we should thereforeconclude that he certainly has memorised, over and over
again, in hisBiblereadingclasses and in church, the famous definition of
hypocrite that's given in theGospels. Sound of laughter. Namely the hypocrite
is the person who applies to others standards that he refuses to apply to
himself. So if you are not a hypocrite, you assume that, if something is
right for us, then it's right for them, and if it is wrong when they do it, it
is wrong when we do it. That is reallyelementary and I assume that thePresident
would agree and all of his admirers as well. So those are the principles that I
would like to start with. Well, a side comment. Unless
we can rise to that minimal level ofMoralintegrity, we should at least stop
talking about things likeHumanRights, RightAndWrong, and GoodAndEvil, and all
such high afflatus things, because all our talk should be dismissed, in fact,
dismissed with complete repugnance, unless we can at least rise to that minimal
level. I think that's
obvious, and I hope there would be agreement on that, too. Well, with that much
in place, just that much for background, let me formulate a thesis. The thesis is that we are all total hypocrites on any issue
relating toTerrorism. Now, let me clarify
the notion We. By We, I mean people like us, People who have enough high degree
of privilege, of training, resources, accesstoinformation, for whom it is
prettyeasy to find out the truth about things if we want to. If we
decide that that is our vocation, and in the case in question, you don't really
have to digverydeep, it's all right on the surface. So when I say We, I mean
that category. And I definitely mean to
include myself in we because I have never proposed that our leaders be
subjected to the kinds of punishment that I have recommended for enemies. So
that’s hypocrisy. If
there are people who escape it, I really don't know them and have not come
across them. It's a verypowerful culture. It's hard to escape its grasp. So
that's thesisnumberone, we are all total hypocrites, in the sense of the
gospels, on the matter ofTerrorism. Thesecondthesis is
stronger, namely, that thefirstthesis is so obvious that it takes real effort
to miss it. In fact, I should go home right now because it is obvious.
Nevertheless, let me continue and say why I think both theses are correct.
Well, to begin with, what is Terrorism? Got to say something about that. That is supposed to be a really tough question. Academicseminars and
graduatePhiloprograms and so on, a veryvexing and complex question. However, in accordance with the
guidelines that I mentioned, I think there is a simple answer, namely, we just
take theofficialUSdefinition ofTerrorism. Since we are accepting the
pronouncements of our leaders literally, let's take their definition. In fact,
that’s what I have always done. I have been writing aboutTerrorism for thelasttwentyyears
or so, just accepting the official definition. So, for example, a simple and important case is in theUSArmymanual in1984
which definesTerrorism as “the calculated use of violence or the threat of
violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in
nature.” Well, that seems simple, appropriate. A particularly good
choice because of the timing: 1984. 1984, you will
recall, was the time that theReaganadministration was waging a war
againstTerrorism. Particularly what they called Statesupported
internationalTerrorism a "plague spread by depraved opponents of
civilisation itself" in a "return toBarbarism in the modern
age", I'm quotingGeorgeShultz who
was the administrationmoderate. The other guideline is that we will keep to the
moderates, not the extremists. So that's 1984, Reagan had come into office a
couple of years earlier. His administration had immediatelydeclared that the
war againstTerrorism would be the focus ofUSForeignPolicy and they identified
tworegions as the source of this plague by depraved opponents of civilisation
itself, centralAmerica and theMiddleEast. And there was quite wide agreement on
that and so, in1985, for example, everyyear theAssociatedPress has a poll of
editors on themostimportant story of the year, and in1985, the winner was
MiddleEastTerrorism. So they agree. Right towards the end of that year, 1985,
ShimonPeres, Israel'sPrimeMinister, came toWashington and Reagan and Peres
denounced the evil scourge ofTerrorism, referring to theMiddleEast. Scholarship
and experts also agree. There is a huge literature for the last twentyyears
onTerrorism, particularly Statesupported internationalTerrorism. We don't have
time review it, but a good illustration, which I will keep to, is the december2001issue of the journal CurrentHistory, a good and serious journal. Its
article calledAmericaAtWar includes leading
historians, specialists and experts onTerrorism and they identify the1980s as
the era of Statesponsored terror, agreeing with theReaganadministration. I agree
with that, too. I think it was the era of Statesponsored
internationalTerrorism. One leading author, MarthaCrenshaw, says that in that era
theUnitedStates adopted a proactive stance to deter the plague. Mostly, it's
about theMiddleEast but centralAmerica is occasionallymentioned. For example,
one or two authors or coauthors from theBrookingsInstitution described
theUSContraWar againstNicaragua as a model for how to fight a war
againstTerrorism. They say that that was a model forUSsupport for theNorthernAlliance
in the current phase of the war againstTerrorism. The seeds of
contemporaryTerrorism however are muchdeeper, though. The major historian in
the group points out, DavidRapoport, the leading academic specialist
onTerrorism, editor of theJournalOfTerrorism and so on, he points out that it
goes back to the origins of modernTerrorism, likeOsamaBinLaden. It goes back to
theearly1960s and I am quoting him now, when "Vietcongterror
against the americanGoliath kindled the hopes that the western heartland was
vulnerable." I won't comment on that but, I’d like you, just as an exercise, you might try to find a historical
analogue to that statement somewhere. I'll just leave it at that.
Without commenting, if you check through the scholarly literature, you'll find
thesamestory all the time, virtually no exceptions. The world agreed with
theReaganites, too. In1985, right after Reagan and
Peres had denounced the evil scourge ofTerrorism, theGeneralAssembly passed a
resolution condemningTerrorism, and in1987, it passed a muchstronger resolution
and a muchmoreexplicit one denouncingTerrorism in all its forms and calling on
allStates to do everything they can to fight against the plague and everything
you like. It's true that that wasn't
unanimous. There was oneabstention, namely Honduras, and twovotes against,
theusualtwo. They gave their reasons for voting against the
majorUNResolution on internationalTerrorism, namely, both States,
theUnitedStates and Israel, pointed to thesameparagraph as the reason for their
negativevote. It was a paragraph that said that “Nothing
in the present resolution could in anyway prejudice the right to
selfdetermination, freedom and independence, as derived from
theUnitedNationsCharter, of people forciblyderived of that right, particularly peoples
under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation, or could deprive them
of the right to obtain support for others in these ends in accord with the
charter with theUnitedNations.” That was the offending paragraph, and it
is easy to understand why it raised a serious problem for theUnitedStates and
Israel. TheAfricanNationalCongress was identifiedofficially as a
terrorist organisation in theUnitedStates, and southAfrica was officially an
ally. But the phrase "struggle against colonial and racist regimes"
plainly referred to the struggle of theANC against the apartheid regime, so
that's unacceptable. The phrase "foreign occupation," everyone
understood, referred to the israeli occupation of theWestBank and Gaza, then in
its twentiethyear, extremely-harsh and -brutal from the beginning and
continuing only because of decisive US military, economic and diplomatic
support that runs up to the present, so obviously that was unacceptable. So
therefore it was 153to2 with oneabstention. So it wasn't totallyunanimous. It wasn't reported, and it has disappeared fromHistory.
You can check to find out. Incidentally, that's standard practice. When the master says something’s wrong, it's downthememoryhole,
doesn't get reported, and it's forgotten. But it's there, if you want to look, you can discover it, I'll
give you the sources if you like. Well, Reagan at that time, let's recall, he
and Peres were talking about the evil scourge ofTerrorism in theMiddleEast. GeorgeShultz didn't entirely agree. He thought that
what he called themostalarming manifestation of StatesponsoredTerrorism was
frighteningly close to home. Namely, it was a "cancer
[] in our land mass," a cancer right nearby that was threatening to
conquer the hemisphere with a "revolution without borders", a
rather interesting propagandafabrication, revealed to be a fraud instantly, but
alwaysusedrepeatedly afterwards, even by thesamejournals that explained why it
was a total fabrication. It was just too useful to abandon. And this is also
interesting, if you think about it, the fabrication had a certain element of
truth in it, an important element of truth. We can come back to that if you
like. Anyhow, this cancer in our land mass was threatening to conquer
everything, openly followingHitler'sMeinKampf, and we plainly had to do
something about that. There is a serious day in theUnitedStates calledLawDay,
elsewhere in the world it is called MayDay, mayfirst, a day for the support of
the struggles of the american workers for an-eighthourday, but in
theUnitedStates, it's a jingoistholiday calledLawDay. OnLawDay1985,
PresidentReagan declared a national emergency because theGovernment
ofNicaragua constitutes "an unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security and ForeignPolicy of theUnitedStates"
That was renewedannually. GeorgeSchultz informedCongress that we must
cut the nicaraguan cancer out and not by gentle means, things are
tooserious for that. And so, to quoteSchultz. Recall, the administration
moderate, the "good cop", to quoteSchultz, he said, "Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the
shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table." He condemned
those who advocate "utopian legalistic means like outside mediation,
theUnitedNations, theWorldCourt, while ignoring the powerelement of the
equation." I'll avoid quoting [“]hard liners[“]. At that time,
theUnitedStates was exercising the "powerelement of the equation"
with mercenaryforces based inHonduras
attackingNicaragua. They were under the supervision ofJohnNegroponte who
was just appointed to run the diplomatic side of the diplomatic component of
the current war on terror as theUNambassador. The military component of the
current war on terror is DonaldRumsfeld who at that time was RonaldReagan's
special envoy to theMiddleEast, the other place where the plague was raging
through1985. In fact, theUnitedStates at that time was
also blocking "utopian, legalistic means" that were being pursued by
theWorldCourt, the latinamerican countries and others, and it continued to block
those means right until the end until the final victory of its terrorist wars
throughout centralAmerica. Well, how was the war against
StatesponsoredTerrorism waged in those tworegions by the people who in fact are
leading the new phase? So prettyclose historical continuity, not just those
two, of course. Well, just to illustrate, let's pick the peak year,
theworstyear, 1985 in theMiddleEast, topstory of
the year. So who wins the prize for the worst acts ofTerrorism in theMiddleEast
in1985? Well, I know of threecandidates, maybe you can suggest a different one.
Onecandidate is a carbombing inBeirut in1985, The car was placed outside a mosque. The bomb was timed to go
off when people were leaving to make sure it killed themaximumnumber of people.
It killed, according to theWashingtonPost, eightypersons. It wounded over
twohundredsandfifty, mostly women and girls leaving the mosque. There was a
huge explosion so it blew up the whole street, killing babies in beds, and so
on and so forth. The bomb was aimed at a muslim sheik who escaped. It was set
off by theCIA in collaboration with british intelligence and saudi intelligence
and specificallyauthorised byWilliamCasey, according toBobWoodward's-History
ofCasey and -theCIA. So that is a clearcut example of internationalTerrorism.
Veryunambiguous and I think it is one of the candidates for the prize for the
peak year of1985. Another candidate surely would be the socalled-IronFistOperations that ShimonPeres'sGovernment was
carrying out in occupied southernLebanon in march of1985. This is in
southernLebanon, which was under military occupation in violation of
theSecurityCouncil order to leave, but withUSauthorisation, so it’s irrelevant.
TheIronFistOperations were targeting what the high
command called terrorist villagers in southernLebanon. It included many
massacres and atrocities and kidnapping of people for interrogation and taking
them toIsrael and so on. It reached new depths of calculated brutality and
arbitrary murder, according to a western diplomat familiar with the region, who
was observing. There was no pretense of selfdefense, rather it was
openly undertaken for political ends. It was conceded, it wasn't even argued.
So that's a clear case of internationalTerrorism although here we might say
that it is aggression. I'll call it just
internationalTerrorism in line with the principle that we [“]bend over
backwards[“] to give theUnitedStates the benefit of the doubt. Of
course, this is a USoperation. Israel does it because they are given arms, aid
and diplomatic support by theUnitedStates. So we will decide to call this
just internationalTerrorism, not the muchmoreserious warcrime of aggression.
The same, incidentally, was true of the muchworse operations of1982 when Israel
invadedLebanon and killed maybe twentythousand or so persons, again with
crucial US military, economic and diplomatic support. TheUS had to veto a
couple of SecurityCouncilResolutions to keep the slaughter going, provide the
arms, and so on, for it. So it's a USIsraeliInvasion, if we are honest. The
goal of the invasion, I’ll just quoteNewYorkTimes on that. The goal of the
invasion was “to install a friendly regime inLebanon
and oust thePLO, which would help persuade the palestinians to accept israeli
rule in theWestBank and Gaza.” That's actuallyaccurate and I have to
compliment theNewYorkTimes in saying that on january24th. As far as I know, this is thefirsttime in mainstreamUSliterature that
anyone has dared to say what was absolutely commonknowledge inIsrael and in the
dissident literature twentyyearsago. I was writing this in1983 just using
israeli sources, but it couldn't penetrateUScommentary. You might check
and see. As far as I know, this was thefirstbreakthrough. I’m not sure the reporter understood what he was saying.
Sound of laughter. But anyway he did say that. JamesBennet,
january24th, prize forJamesBennet for telling the truth after twentyyears. And it's true and, of course, it's
a textbookillustration of internationalTerrorism. This time, we have to [“]bend over backwards[“] prettyfar to call it
internationalTerrorism, because it is hard to say why this isn't overt
aggression, the kind of action for which US- and israeli-leaders should be
subjected toNurembergTrials, real serious warcrimes. But again, let's keep to the
guidelines and let's say it's only internationalTerrorism. Well, that's
thesecondexample, theIronFistOperations. Third, the only other example from1985
that I know of took place twodays beforeShimonPeres arrived inWashington to
joinReagan in denouncing the evil scourge ofTerrorism. Shortlybefore
that, Peres sent the israeliAirForce to bombTunis killing seventyfivecivilians,
torn to shreds with smart bombs. It was all ratheraccurately and
graphicallydepicted by highlyrespected israeli reporter in the[?], hebrew press
inIsrael and corroborated by other sources. TheUnitedStates cooperated with
that by withdrawing theSixthFleet so that they did not have to inform their
ally, Tunisia, that the bombers were on their way, presumably getting refueled
on the way. So that's thethirdcandidate. I don't know of any other candidates
that even come close to being candidates. Incidentally,
GeorgeSchultz, the moderate, immediately after the bombing, he telephoned the
israeliForeignMinister to say that theUnitedStates had considerable sympathy
for this operation but he backed away from opensupport for massive
internationalTerrorism or maybe aggression when theSecurityCouncil
unanimouslycondemned the attack as an attack of armed aggression.
TheUnitedStates again abstaining against that. So those are the threecasees,
top threecases that win the prise for1985, to my knowledge, and again I'll
assume that these are just internationalTerrorism, so we are not calling
forNurembergTrials. Just moreinternationalTerrorism by depraved opponents of civilisation
itself and examples which are prettyhard to miss, remember, because these [are]
the peak stories of the year for internationalTerrorism in theMiddleEast. There
are three perfect examples. In fact, the only three major examples that I know
of. However, they aren't candidates. In fact, they are not even in the running.
They are not competitive. The examples that are in the
running are, for example, cited in theCurrentHistoryissue, to which I
referred, which does discuss1985 and gives twoexamples of the evil scourge
ofTerrorism, namely the hijacking ofTWA847, killing one
american Navydiver and the hijacking of theAchilleLauro, killing, which led to
the killing ofLeonKlinghoffer, a crippled american,
both surely terrorist atrocities.
Those are the twoexamples that are in the running, that are memorable, that
count for internationalTerrorism. Well, the hijackers for theTWAplane claim,
correctly in fact, that Israel was regularlyhijacking ships in the
international waters in transit betweenLebanonAndCyprus, killing people,
kidnapping others, taking them toIsrael, either for interrogation or simply as
hostages, keeping them in jail for years. In fact, some people are still in
jail without charges for many years, that’s all correct, but that doesn't justify
the hijacking on the assumption, which I accept at least, that violence is
notlegitimate in retaliation against evenworse atrocities or as preemption
against future atrocities. Violence is not legitimate in such cases so we can
dismiss those claims though they are in fact correct. Incidentally,
theUS-Israeli hijackings, and remember, if Israel does it, we are doing it,
those hijackings are also out of the historical records. Occasionally, you find
a reference to them in the bottom of a column on something or other, but they
are not part of theHistory ofTerrorism. The
hijackers of theAchilleLauro claimed that this was retaliation for the bombing
ofTunis a couple of days earlier. Well, we dismiss that with contempt on
thesameprinciple, namely, violence is notjustified in retaliation or
preemption. Assuming that we can rise to the level of minimalMorallevel
that I mentioned earlier, if we are not confirmed hypocrites in other words,
then some consequences follow about other acts of retaliation and preemption, but
that's tooobvious to talk about so I will just leave it for you to think about.
Well, that's 1985, the peak year of internationalTerrorism in theMiddleEast. As
a researchproject, you might see if I have left out anything that is a
competitor for the prize that I am notaware of. None are mentioned in the
literature onTerrorism. Well, notice that. As I said at the beginning, you
don't really have to work veryhard to see these things. You have to work
veryhard not to see them. It takes a reallygoodEducation to miss this. Think
about it and see. 1985 was, of course, not the first or the last act of
internationalTerrorism in theMiddleEast. There are many others. Some are quite
important. For example, in1975, Israel, meaning israeli
pilots with-USplanes and -USsupport, in december1975, they bombed a village
inLebanon killing over fiftypersons. No pretext was offered, but
everybody knew what the reason was. At that time, theUNSecurityCouncil was
meeting to consider a resolution which was supported by the entire world with
marginal exceptions, only one crucial exception, theUnitedStates, which vetoed
the resolution, calling for a diplomatic settlement of
theIsraelPalestineconflict, incorporatingUN242 and all of its wording of the
main resolution, security and territorial integrity and all those nice things
on the internationallyrecognised border. The offending part of this one was
that it also referred to palestinian national rights and that's notacceptable
to theUnitedStates. It rejected them then, and it rejects them now, contrary
to a lot of nonsense that you read. TheUS vetoed the resolution. That
terminated. I mean, it continued year after year and is still going on now, of
efforts of diplomatic settlement, which theUS has unilaterallyblocked. Israel
does not have a veto at theSecurityCouncil, so they reacted to the debate by
bombingLebanon and killing fiftypersons without a pretext. That's not in the
annals of internationalTerrorism either. There are manymorerecent cases,
including the twoinvasions of-YitzhakRabin and -ShimonPeres in-1993 and -1996 [which] US supported them
inLebanon. TheUS supported both of them, lots of deaths, hundreds of thousands
of people driven out and so on. Clinton had to back off his support for
the1996invasion after theQanaMassacre, over onehundredpersons in
aUNrefugeecamp. At that point he said, Can't handle this any more, you better
leave. There was no pretext of selfdefense in this case. This is just outright
internationalTerrorism or maybe aggression. And it continues. So let's go up to
the current intifada, which broke out on september30th of year2000. In the first couple of days, there
was no fire from palestinians, some stonethrowing, but Israel was in fact
usingUSattackhelicopters to attack civilian complexes, apartmentcomplexes, and
so on, killing and wounding dozens of people in the first few days.
TheClintonadministration responded to this by, I'll borrow
ourPresident'sphrase, by "enhancing terror."
RecallPresidentBush[Jr.] condemned the palestinians for "enhancing
terror" lastmonth, so I'll use his phrase in line with the guidelines. TheClintonadministration committed itself to enhancing terror
on october3rd by making a deal for thebiggestshipment in a decade of attack,
military helicopters toIsrael along with spare parts for
theApacheattackhelicopters that were sent a couple of weeks earlier. That's
enhancing terror. In the days rightafter, these
helicopters were being used to murder and wound civilians, attacking
apartmentcomplexes and so on. The press
cooperated by refusing to report this. Note:
not (Failing to report it), Refusing to report it. It was
specificallybrought to the attention of editors, and they simplymade it clear
that they were not going to report it. There is no question about the facts, incidentally, but to this
day it has not been reported, except in the margins. That policy continues.
Skip to december2001, lastmonth,
twomonthsago. George[Walker]Bush[Jr.] was condemning the palestinians for
enhancing terror and he contributed in the conventional ways to enhancing
terror, in crucial ways, in fact. On december15th,
theUNSecurityCouncil debated a european initiated resolution, calling on both
sides to reduce violence and calling for the introduction of international
monitors to assist in monitoring a reduction of violence. That's a
veryimportant step. That was vetoed by theUnitedStates who wanted to ehance
violence evidently. It's hard to think of any other interpretation
for this. The press didn't have to bother
giving an interpretation. The press didn't have to bother giving an
interpretation, because it was barelyreported. Then it went to
theGeneralAssembly where it wasn't reported at all and there was an
overwhelming vote supporting thesameresolution. This time, theUnitedStates and
Israel were notentirelyisolated in opposition as severalPacificIslands joined
in, Nauru and one or two others. So therefore, not the usual splendid
isolation. I don't recall that that was reported. About
a week before, tendaysbefore that, there was another major contribution to
enhancing terror. TheFourthGenevaConventions, according to the entire world
literally, outside ofIsrael, applied to theOccupiedTerritories. TheUnitedStates
refuses, it doesn't vote against this when it comes up in theUnitedNations, it
abstains. I presume the reason is theUnitedStates doesn't want to take
such an open blatant stand in violation of fundamental principles
ofInternationalLaw, particularlyunder the circumstances under which they were
enacted. If you recall, theGenevaConventions were established right after
theSecondWorldWar in order to criminalise the acts of theNazis, so saying they
don't apply is a prettystrong statement. However, outside of theUnitedStates
and Israel, the whole world agrees. TheInternationalRedCross, which is the agency
responsible for applying and interpreting them, agrees. In fact, as far as I am
aware, there is no further question about this. Switzerland,
which is the responsibleState, called a meeting of
theHighContractingParties for theGenevaConventions, that is, those like
theUnitedStates that are legallyobligated by treaty to enforce them, a high
solemn commitment, called a meeting on december5th
inGeneva and the meeting took place and passed a strong resolution saying,
determining that theGenevaConventions do apply to the occupied territories
which makes illegal just about everything that theUnitedStates and Israel do
there. They went through the list, settlements, displacements and everything
that goes on. TheUnitedStates boycotted the session. They got another country
to boycott them, Australia. According to the australian press, under
heavyUSpressure, Australia joined in boycotting them. If theUS boycotts it,
it's like a negativevote at theSecurityCouncil or theGeneralAssembly. It
doesn't get reported and it's out ofHistory. But that's another important step
to enhancing terror. All this took place, incidentally, in the midst of a
twentyonedaytruce, a onesided truce. The palestinians weren't carrying out any
acts, but a couple of dozen palestinians were killed, including a dozen
children. That was right in the middle of these efforts to enhance terror
[that] took place. Maybe that's an unfair interpretation and there is some
other motive that I'm not thinking of, but that's what they look like to me.
You can think about that. In any event, internationalTerrorism in theMiddleEast
certainlycontinues and has a longHistory and if you look over the record, of
course, it is mixed and complicated, but I think you will find that the balance
is prettymuch along the lines that I described, in fact, the balance reflects
the means of violence available, as it usually does. If you look around at
terror, in fact, that's why, in the whole range of terror, Stateterror is far
worse than individual terror for the obvious reason. States have means of
violence that individuals don't have, or groups. And that's what you find if
you look, I think, overwhelmingly. It is commonlysaid
that Terrorism is a weapon of the weak. That's completelyfalse, at least if you
accept the officialUSdefinition of terror. If you do that, then terror is
overwhelmingly the weapon of the strong, like most other weapons. Well,
that's History, but all of this stuff is out ofHistory. History
is what is created by welleducated intellectuals and it doesn't have to have
any resemblance to that thing calledHistory by naive people and if you check this, I think you will find
that’s true. Well, that's theMiddleEast. Let's turn to centralAmerica,
the other main focus of the plague by depraved opponents of civilisation
itself. Here, I will be brief because the core parts are uncontroversial, at
least, uncontroversial among people who have minimal regard for
InternationalLaw and international institutions and so on. Actually, the size
of that category is veryeasilyestimated, namely, ask yourself how often what
I'm going to say has appeared in the discussions about the evil plague
ofTerrorism in the past five months. Huge flood, but how much has been devoted
to some uncontroversial cases, again, uncontroversial if you think
theWorldCourt and SecurityCouncil and InternationalLaw have some significance.
Well, in1986, theInternationalCourtOfJustice condemned
theUnitedStates for internationalTerrorism, "unlawful use of force"
in its war againstNicaragua. Again I am going to keep to the guidelines,
[“]bend over backwards[“], and allow this to be interpreted just as
internationalTerrorism, not the warcrime of aggression. So we will call it
internationalTerrorism. The court ordered theUnitedStates to terminate the
crimes and to pay substantial reparations, millions of dollars. Congress
reacted by instantlyescalating the war by new funding to escalate the war.
Nicaragua took the matter to theSecurityCouncil, which debated a resolution
calling on allStates to observeInternationalLaw, mentioning no one, but
everyone knew who was meant. TheUS vetoed it. Nicaragua then went to
theGeneralAssembly which passed similar resolutions in successive years.
TheUnitedStates and Israel opposed and in one year they got elSalvador [to join
them]. All of this is out ofHistory. It has to be. It is just inconsistent with
their preferred image of whatHistory is supposed to be and, as I say, you can
check how much these uncontroversial cases have been referred to recently. And remember who were the individuals responsible: people
likeNegroponte, proconsul ofHonduras, Rumsfeld, special envoy to theMiddleEast,
and so on, plenty of continuity. TheUS reacted, as I said, by escalating
the war, and for the first time, giving official orders to its mercenaryforces to
attack what are called "soft targets." That's
what theSouthernCommand called them, "soft targets," meaning
undefended civilian targets like agricultural cooperatives and so on. That was
known and it was discussed in theUnitedStates. It
was considered legitimate by the left, so MichaelKinsley
who represents the left
in the mainstream debate, in an interesting article, he was then editor of
theNewRepublic, in which he said that, We shouldn't
be tooquick to condemnStateDepartmentauthorisation for attacks on undefended
civilian targets, because we have to apply pragmatic criteria. We have to carry
out costbenefitanalysis, and see whether, as he
put it, the amount of blood poured in is compensated by a good outcome, namely
Democracy. What we will
determine to be Democracy and what that means you can see by looking at
theStates nextdoor like elSalvador and Guatemala which were okayDemocracies.
And if it passes our test, then it’s okay. So, in other words,
internationalTerrorism is fine, assuming it meets pragmatic criteria, now
across the spectrum, left or right among We, that is, educated and privileged
intellectuals, not the population, of course. InNicaragua, the population had
anArmy to defend it, it was bad enough, tens of thousands of people killed, the
country practicallydevastated, may neverrecover, but it had anArmy to defend
it. In elSalvador and Guatemala, that wasn't true, theArmy was
theStateterrorists. TheUS-supportedState terrorists, they were theArmy. There
was no one to defend the population and, in fact, the atrocities were far
worse. Also, they are not aState, so they could not go to theWorldCourt or
theSecurityCouncil to follow legal means, of course, without any effect,
because "we," people like us, have determined that the world is going
to be ruled by force, not byLaw. And since we have the power, as long as we
determine that, aState that tries to follow legitimate means of responding to
internationalTerrorism doesn't having anything to do. But that's our choice,
nobody else's choice. You can't blame anyone else on that. There was, however,
popular resistance, not eliteresistance, but popular resistance to the
atrocities there so that theUS had to resort to an international terrorist
network, an extraordinary international terrorist network. Remember, theUS is a
powerfulState, it's not like Libya. If Libya wants
to carry out terrorist acts, they hireCarlosTheJackal or something. TheUnitedStates hires terroristStates, we're big guys. So the
terrorist network consisted of Taiwan, Britain, Israel, Argentina, at least, as
long as it was under the rule of the neoNazigenerals, when they, where they
were unfortunatelyremoved, they fell out of the system, saudiarabian funding,
quite a substantial international terrorist network, never been anything like it.
In contemporary terms, we might call it an Axis of Evil, I suppose. Sound of
laughter. The outcome, again keeping to the guidelines, We believe our leaders,
was hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered and
millions of orphans and refugees, every conceivable atrocity, the region
devastated. The single uncontroversial case, Nicaragua, which was the
least of them, that alone far surpasses the crimes of septembereleven[2001],
and the others suffered far worse. Again we are [“]bending over backwards[“] and
giving theUS the benefit of the doubt so we are only calling it
internationalTerrorism organised by depraved opponents of civilisation itself.
Well, that's the second major area, centralAmerica. All of this, however, is
off the record, too. TheCurrentHistoryjournal, and it's typical in this
respect, nothing that I just referred to is mentioned nor is it in the whole
scholarly literature, in fact, except way out at the margins. You can check and
see it just doesn't count. The[19]80s are described as the era of
Statesponsored internationalTerrorism, but they are not referring to any of
these things. TheUS was trying to prevent Statesponsored internationalTerrorism
by taking proactive means like themostmassive international terrorist network
that's ever been known. That's verytypical of the scholarly literature,
Journalism and, again, you can do a check. There has barely been a word about
any of this as the second phase of the war onTerrorism has been redeclared,
once again, with pretty much the same people and everyreason to expect some
more outcomes. Well, let’s continue. From all of this
an obvious conclusion follows, There is an operational definition ofTerrorism,
the one that is actually used, it means terror that they carry out against us,
that's Terrorism, and nothing else passes through the filter. As far as I know, that's a historical universal, I can't find an
exception to that. You might try. For
example, the japanese in-China and -Manchuria were defending the population
against chinese terrorists and going to create an earthly paradise for them if
they could control the terrorists. TheNazis in occupiedEurope were defending
the legitimateGovernments likeVichy and the population from the terrorist
partisans who were supported from abroad, as indeed they were. They were run from-London and
-Poland and -France, and so on. I said I can’t find an exception, you might
try. Also, as far as I am aware, this is
virtuallyuniversal among intellectuals, educated folks like us. Apart
from statistical error, this is the line that they take. Now, it doesn't look
that way inHistory, but you have to remember who writesHistory. That ought to
leave you with a little bit of skepticism. If
you look at actualHistory, not the one that's written, I think you will find that
this is the case and I could even maybe suggest it as a researchtopic to some
enterprising graduatestudent who aspires to a career as a taxidriver. Sound of laughter. Just to continue
to the present, let's just take the last couple of months. September11th was a perfectly clear example of
internationalTerrorism, no controversy about that, so we don't have to waste
time on it. What about the reaction? Well, it turns out the reaction is also an
uncontroversial case of internationalTerrorism. Again, let's keep to the
guidelines, we'll just listen to what our leaders say. So, on october11th,
PresidentBush[Jr.] announced to the afghan people that we will keep bombing you
until you hand over people who[m] we suspect of terrorist acts, although we
refuse to provide any evidence and we refuse to enter into any negotiations for
extradition and transfer, a clear case of internationalTerrorism. On
october28th, the british counterpart, AdmiralSirMichaelBoyce, who is the chief
of the british defensestaff, took it a step further. Remember,
getting rid of theTalibanregime was not a waraim, that was an afterthought.
Threeweeksafter the bombing began, that was added, presumably so that
intellectuals would have something to feel good about or something, I don't
know. Anyway, threeweeks after the bombing, that was added as a new
waraim and AdmiralBoyce announced to the afghan people accordingly, I think
this was thefirstmention of this waraim, that we will continue bombing you
until you change your leadership. First, that was all veryprominent, pageone of
theNewYorkTimes in both cases. Two, both cases are textbookillustrations of
internationalTerrorism, if not aggression, but we are still [“]bending over
backwards[“], and it's all off the record by usual convention. We're doing it,
so it doesn't count. It's only when they carry out what we officiallydefine as
Terrorism that it counts. Well, it's easy to go on, but let me just return to the weak thesis, There can't be a war againstTerrorism at
least as Terrorism is defined in officialUSdocuments, it's a logical
impossibility. This is a small sample of illustrations, you can go on
easily, but it's enough to show that that can't be true. Well, that's the weak
thesis. What about the strong thesis, that it is all so entirelyobvious that it
would be embarrassing to talk about it, because it's all right on the surface,
nothing hidden about any of this? Everything that I mention is
perfectlywellknown, you don't have to penetrate anything to discover it. No
obscure sources, nothing, just the obvious evidence. And you can easilyadd to
it, there's a ton of literature about it for the lasttwentyyears, but that
literature also can't be discussed because it comes out with the wrong
conclusion. So it's treated thesameway Terrorism is in our intellectual
culture. Again, choice, not a necessity. So we end up with a kind of dilemma.
If we are not honest, forget it. If we are honest,
there's a dilemma. Onepossibility is just to
acknowledge that we are total hypocrites, and then to at least have the decency
to stop talking aboutHumanRights, RightAndWrong and GoodAndEvil, and so on, and
say, We are hypocrites, and we have force, and we are going to run the world by
force, period. Let's forget about everything else. The other option is harder to pursue, but it's imperative unless we
would like to contribute to still worse disasters that are likely to lie ahead.
