The choice is clear AS THE soft drinks advertisement says, "the choice is clear". The President of the United States has given the nations of the world a clear choice: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists". Only God and an unrivalled superpower can throw down such stark options without admission of any middle ground. There is plenty of moral and legal space if not diplomatic and political to be opposed to terrorism without endorsing all or any of the actions that the United States may wish to pursue against terrorism. Those actions have not even been made clear before the clear choice was issued, backed by the most massive compulsion for the "with us" option that any state can muster. Britain has pledged to "stand shoulder to shoulder" with the United States, implicitly no questions asked. Virtually all European nations have taken the same line. NATO has invoked its founding doctrine that an attack upon one member is an attack upon all, although the terrorist attacks upon the United States can hardly be regarded as a declaration of war by one state against another. Two weeks after the attacks, the plausible identification of the perpetrators and the enemy is yet to be done in a manner which could stand up in any US court of law, despite the labours of the mightiest intelligence agencies on the planet, agencies which were caught completely unawares on Tuesday, September 11. Osama bin Laden and his group remain 'prime suspects' on the strength of the word of President Bush and his advisers. The call for proof, running through the Islamic world more among the ordinary people than their frightened governments desperately trying to be on the right side of 'the choice', is a just and reasonable one defended by the US legal code rooted in the premise of innocent until proven guilty by due process. The wide middle ground between the poles of 'the choice', which the American government is unable or unwilling to see, is occupied by a handful of the weak and 'renegade' nations of the world. As US military might is massed against an indistinct non-military, non-national foe, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has called for moderation to avoid "an escalation of violence that might lead us to a world war". While expressing support for the US people and the need to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice, President Chavez judged President Bush's speech to be "rather harsh", as indeed it is. Then offering sound 'American' advice, the Venezuelan leader called on those who make decisions in the world to be illuminated by the word of God, by justice and prudence. We may choose to forget, but the Anglo-American system of justice and of liberal democracy, the envy of the world, rests on a foundation of the word of God, which Chavez says he espouses. According to him, fellow Latin American leaders to whom he had spoken, Cardoso of Brazil, Fox of Mexico, and Lagos of Chile, share essentially the same middle-ground views and are "worried". Hosni Mubarak, leading the poor, weak state of Egypt, which is a fair friend of the United States in a generally hostile Middle East, has repeatedly called for caution and moderation and the international rule of law. "What I don't stop telling the United States", he said, "is, don't rush into it. Wait until your investigation is completed. Hold your fire until you know who the criminals are". As far as can be seen at this time, Mubarak is right in labelling the attackers "criminals" rather than regarding them as military enemies. While underscoring that "Egypt has offered its full co-operation to the United States in hunting down the assassins", the President of that sovereign nation has reasonable "objections to joining the US-led coalition of nations to fight terrorism to American specifications. Speaking for many with clearer vision and greater moderation, Mubarak has wisely said that any military retaliation that kills innocent people will only fuel greater hatred against the United states and coalition allies. Those who are not terrorists today will be tomorrow, driven by the pain inflicted upon them by the deployment of brute force which they cannot avenge except by the tactics of terror. America has within her bosom the children of every race, religion and ethnic group on Earth who can release revengeful terror within for perceived injustices and oppression without. This is a time for great caution and supernatural wisdom in the face of a threat without precedent, not the rash display of military might which is an impotent force against the terrorist threat. Fidel Castro of communist Cuba recognises the terrorist attacks as "a huge injustice and great crime", but warned that Operation Infinite Justice could lead to an "infinite massacre of innocent people". Speaking from the middle ground, Castro has declared, "We have all been ordered to ally either with the United States Government or with terrorism. Cuba, with high morality, proclaims that it is opposed to terrorism and opposed to war." The self-appointed leader of the free world must not surrender the moral high ground to communist Cuba already an international icon of fighting for the underdogs of the world, often at great sacrifice. Pakistan, a poor, backward Islamic state which is sheltering more Afghan refugees than any other country has been literally brow-beaten into "co-operation". The poor, ravaged Afghan people, who may have to bear the brunt of any military solution, are ruled by a widely disliked and opposed minority government which has offered shelter to bin Laden. The placing of a higher value on American lives must not stand. The United States may have the military and economic muscle to enforce its will against lesser nations at this moment in world history, but it can claim no moral right and no justice by its own rules to transform into no man's land the middle ground between uncritically supporting it or supporting terrorism. Nor can she justify the devastation of a poor, weak state whose people are not the enemy and are generally seeking escape, by flight or fight, from a repressive government. The secret police In that historic speech of last Thursday (Sept. 20) when the 'clear choice' was given, President Bush also announced the creation of a Cabinet-level post to oversee 'homeland defences'. The Office is to co-ordinate FBI and CIA intelligence and security operations involving the military. A powerful 'Ministry of the Interior' has just been inaugurated in the world's greatest bastion of freedom. In the old communist regimes, and in the few which survive now including Castro's Cuba, and in the dictatorships of this world, the Interior Ministry is the instrument of Government charged with the responsibility of keeping the population in line. The Ministry operates the internal intelligence (spy) agency which encourages neighbours, colleagues and even family members to report on each other. It maintains its own military force to quell civil disturbances; and it operates the secret police. How far in this direction President Bush's Cabinet Office for Homeland Defences will drift or be pushed - in the face of terrorist and other threats, is left to be seen. The general tranquillity with which this ominous announcement has been met confirms that the American people are ripe to exchange hard-bought freedom for security, while their government flings out sharp, clear choices of loyalty to the rest of a cowering world. Martin Henry is a communications consultant.
|
