Self-Reflection after September 11

Sunday, September 23, 2001 7:32 PM

Here I sit, on the curb, in front of my office, waiting for a friend. From where I sit, down the road and across the East River, rises a tower of fading white smoke. It looks remarkably like a ghost.

It was an unconscionable act, an act of incredible hate and violence, that gave rise to this ghost, and gave fall to its predecessors. The loss of two great buildings. The loss of beauty. The loss of many human beings.

When I first saw it happen, I wanted to cry. Now I think I've developed a mental block about what happened. I can't seriously think about it. That is why I have so much respect and admiration to the men and women of the rescue operation, of the NYPD and the fire department and Mayor Guiliani, who brave that reality every day.

That said, the political repercussions of this act and it's response are going to be immense, and we must think about them. This is the defining moment of post cold-war politics, this will set the tone for the coming world geopolitical era. At this point we must think about the various international political processes that this act was caused by, and what new situation will be brought about, depending on the actions taken now. Contrary to what we hear from politicians and on the news, this is not a simple battle of 'Good vs. Evil', a battle against a vile enemy that hates us and everything we stand for. This is in fact a complex political situation, and has been for years, and deserves the attention of every citizen. We have to think very cooly and rationally about this transition and our role in it, both as a world and as individuals.

I speak not of nations, but of only the world and the individual, because that is all that matters anymore. The age of fiefdoms and villages is over. We are too interconnected as a world now - economically, socially and politically - to think of anything other than ourselves as individuals and the world we live in. Any other distinction seems just naively artificial. This act proves that.

There is reason to be worried. Frankly, the knee jerk reaction of violence by the American public and it's leaders - tinged throughout the nation with outright xenophobia and racism - is almost more troubling than the attacks themselves.

The sequence of political events that brought this situation about seem coldly ironic. Assuming from the news reports that Osama bin Laden was at least partially responsible for the acts last week, it would be useful to look at his history, and that of those accused of harboring him, Afghanistan's Taliban.

Osama bin Laden is the wealthy son of a Saudi industrialist, who became an Islamic militant after fighting and supporting a civil war in Afghanistan, a war that was the direct result of a previous civil war fought by US supported rebel mujahadeen against a Soviet backed leftist government. The Taliban (and bin Laden) were among the rebel groups that were funded, trained and supported by the American CIA in their battle against the Soviet backed (and later occupied) Afghani government.

After the defeat of the Soviets, and another lengthy civil war, the conservative Taliban emerged as the strongest of the rebel mujahadeen groups, and established ultra right-wing Islamic fundamentalist rule over much of Afghanistan. Currently they are reported to be harboring Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden, the purported leader of a network called al Qaeda, a group that has been allegedly coordinating terrorist activities against the United States for the last ten years.

Besides the obvious anger over America's blind support for Israel shared by all Islamic fundamentalists, al Qaeda's main point of rational policy conflict with the United States has been the presence of the American military in Saudi Arabia since America's involvement in the Gulf War. Saudi Arabia is home to Islam's holiest shrines, and bin Laden and other fundamentalists consider it an affront that infidel troops are occupying the holy land. bin Laden has been against US military intervention since the beginning of the Gulf War in 1990, and was even more incensed when US troops failed to leave the holy land within a reasonable time after the war. Angry that the Saudi royalty was being too inviting to America and it's interests, bin Laden squabbled with the Saudi government and was soon forced to leave, first to Sudan, and eventually after US pressure forced him out there, to the shelter of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

bin Laden has allegedly issued a fatwa, or decree, calling on all Muslims to kill Americans. bin Laden's group has been accused of involvement in numerous terrorist acts against the US, including the 1993 WTC bombings, bombings of US military bases in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of the Sudanese and Tanzanian embassies in 1998 and the bombing of the USS Cole off of the coast of Yemen in 2000. America has retaliated several times, including cruise missile bombings of suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, as well as of a pharmaceutical plant accused of producing chemical weapons in the Sudan.

One thing to note about this history is that as often as you see the hand of bin Laden, or al Qaeda, or anyone else involved with this, you also see U.S. foreign policy's hand quite a bit. Since the Cold War, during which the U.S. used various political, financial and military means, both overt and covert, to support various so-called governments and insurgencies in the battle against Soviet influence, in many cases the US has continued this policy of support and intervention, where and when it would benefit America's military and economic position in the world. This role can clearly be seen in the sequence of events that brought about the emergence of both bin Laden and the Taliban.

While the gross violence of last week's act is clearly appalling and indefensible, to be completely fair, bin Laden's political position vis-a-vis the Saudi government, and it's American supporters, isn't completely indefensible. The Saudi royalty has proven to be very inept at managing the nation's economy, leading one to wonder why such an oil-rich nation is so heavily in debt. This mismanagement comes at a crucial time for Saudi Arabia, as now it is imperative for all Middle Eastern oil producing nations to manage their wealth properly. The oil economy isn't going to last forever - at most another 50 years until oil reserves run out and alternative sources of energy are found. If this oil wealth isn't used to build an alternative infrastructure and economy in the meantime, soon the people of these nations will find themselves living in a desert with no sustainable economy or sources of income, like the people of Afghanistan. I don't think any nation would like to find themselves in the hopeless predicament of such poor, war-torn nations.

It is bin Laden and al Qaeda's position that such weak, greedy, shortsighted governments such as Saudi Arabia's are supported by American aid and given stability by American military presence, supporting leaders who are sacrificing the good of the people for personal wealth and power. It is in America's economic interest to maintain favorable governments in the Middle East as a reliable source of relatively cheap oil, so that it has to sacrifice less of its resources in the time before the oil-based economy ends and new sources of energy are found. But is it in the Saudi's interests? What will they do in 50 years?

America has pursued personal interests in foreign policy regarding internal politics of foreign nations many times before - all throughout Latin America, Indonesia, even in Afghanistan itself. The sad thing is that this often works to the extreme detriment of the people of these nations themselves, which often seems to be a relatively minor concern in American foreign policy. The example of Afghanistan is perfect - as the United States and the Soviet Union played out a power struggle in the mountains of Afghanistan over twenty years ago, did they every consider the fate of the Afghan people? That they were embroiling the nation in a decades-long civil war that would leave the nation a virtual pile of rubble? That they were diverting so many of the resources, both financial and human, of an already poor nation towards mutual annihilation? That would leave it's people so hardened to extreme violence and war so that people sleep with automatic machine guns, so that actions such as last week seem somehow morally and religiously defensible? Was this in the best interest of the Afghan people? Of the Vietnamese people? Of the El Salvadorian people? Of the Cambodian people? Of the Indonesian people? Of the Saudi people? Was it even in the best interest of American people?

Thinking of this, I am reminded of a passage from the Bhagavad-Gita, speaking of the characteristics of the "demoniac" mindset, intent on achieving as much worldly gain as possible...

"Giving themselves up to insatiable desire, full of hypocrisy, excessive pride and arrogance, holding wrong views through delusion, they act with impure resolves" - BG, CH16, V10

In my opinion, this is a pretty decent description of American foreign policy throughout the late 20th Century. And with our planned responses to this current act, we are in danger of extending it into the 21st. Numerous times we have either overtly or covertly become involved in the internal politics of independent, sovereign nations with other than philanthropic interests, violating the idea of 'self-determination' as set down by the Marshall Plan after WWII. Intent on world domination, first against the Soviets, and now against our own insatiable consumer desires, we expand our influence over the world, influence which we use to advance our own economic interests.

Is there anything wrong with this? The prevailing doctrine of capitalism would say not. If America has the financial (and military) might to expand its dominion and pad it's pockets, why should it not, even if it is at the expense of other nations and peoples? That is the fundamental tenet of capitalism, that in business all is fair if it means making more money.

But the events of last week seem to teach us otherwise. They should teach us that we all live in one world, that we are inseparable from each other, that the plight of one people is inseparable from the plunder of another. It is a small world now - economically, militarily, politically, socially - and we should realize that the whole world is interconnected, in ways we can't even imagine. We should be smart enough to realize this now, that the inexorable law of Karma still holds, that what goes around comes around. Did we really think when we were helping reduce nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan to rubble and chaos, that we ourselves would be immune to this? Why is it so shocking that the smoke and rubble is on American soil now? We have been laying smoke and rubble across the world, directly and indirectly, for a long time now... And we seem intent on continuing.

The rhetoric coming from Washington, especially from some high level Pentagon officials such as Secretary of Defense John Rumsfeld, is worrying. Some people in the White House and Pentagon seem intent on expanding this war of retaliation quickly, to encompass all of the Middle East, to topple unfriendly governments and movements in Iraq and Palestine, to once again meddle in the affairs of other nations to our own interest. (Secretary of State Colin Powell seems to be a notable exception to this, advocating a limited financial, diplomatic and tactical operation to pinpoint only the offenders themselves.)

In fact this is exactly what people like bin Laden want, to unite the Middle East against American influence, once and for all forcing an all out conflict between Islamic fundamentalism and American domination, the only two options seemingly open to the people of this troubled region. And as any ordinary Afghani or Iraqi will tell you, neither is particularly inviting, but given the choice, most would likely rather side with Allah over the American capitalist devil. As one Afghani grocer said this week, "I do not like Taliban or Osama bin Laden, but I will gladly fight the American devil to the death with them."

If Washington has its way, American foreign policy will continue the status quo and ignore world opinion and fight the war it sees fit, the war that best appeases the fanatics at home and scatters American influence and missiles over as wide an area as possible. However, this can't go on for long, as every force has within it the seeds of it's own demise. How long can the huge economic imbalances in the world go on, how long can countries like Afghanistan be made to suffer like this? The discontent and moral vacuum left behind can only lead to more and more acts like last week, more and more such disasters, until someone finally learns the lesson, if theres anyone left to take notes.

The quicker we learn, the better. The sooner America realizes the fundamental unity of the World, the interconnectedness of every individual, the sooner it can start playing its part in it. Acting not like a 'global policeman', but more like an ordinary 'global citizen', working within world organizations in a fair and impartial way for everyone's benefit. Making decisions for the good of the world, rather than for those that are lucky enough to live within it's borders.

We live in the greatest country in the world, in the closest thing to a true meritocracy that the world has ever seen. It is about time we expand this meritocracy outside of our borders and embrace the whole world within it, so that everyone can taste it's sweet juices. We should act like the proud role model we could be, rather than the big fat bully we now are. We should allow nations to settle their internal disputes according to their own dynamics, according to their own resources, according to what is best for them, without adding our finger to the pie and taking a lick. Then we will learn that what is best for the world is best for us, because in the end we are just one small part of it...

-- Tapan S. Parikh