Shirin Vossoughi Vossoughi encourages
you to speak your mind at [email protected].
Click Here for more articles by Shirin Vossoughi
As the smoke clears in a traumatized New York, gas masks are
outselling flags and a nation braces itself for “Operation
Enduring Freedom.” I guess freedom in this sense means war.
But to do any justice to those whose lives were so tragically
taken, we must resist a call to arms and instead ask why these
incidents happened.
As privileged students who can sit around and think while
Afghanis flee from an already demolished country, it is our
responsibility to educate ourselves about what led to the Sept. 11
attacks and to take action to prevent any further uses of
terror.
If we can manage to sift through the corporate media to find
what’s left of international news coverage (down about 80
percent in the last 20 years, according to the Sept. 27 L.A.
Times), we can learn about, and help stop, the cycle of terrorism
that has destroyed many innocent lives before touching American
soil.
To treat Sept. 11 as an isolated assault rooted in some dark,
Middle Eastern evil is to evade responsibility for past atrocities.
Yet, it’s our tax money that’s used to fund what many
other countries or individuals view as terrorism. Note the United
States’ support for Iraq’s use of chemical weapons in
1984, or their role in the downing of an Iranian passenger jet in
1987, killing 290 innocent people.
 Illustration by JARRETT QUON/Daily Bruin Senior Staff And
unlike what the media tells us, such violence is not limited to the
Middle East. In Nicaragua alone, over 30,000 people were raped,
tortured or killed by Contra forces trained by this country under
Reagan. These are just a few examples of a foreign policy wrought
with support for what Vice President Dick Cheney likes to call
“unsavory characters” all over the globe.
President Bush’s statement, “either you are with us
or against us,” is therefore nothing new. In fact, it
pertains to the last 225 years of American history.
But beyond the reality of blood on the hands of the United
States comes the question of what defines terrorism. Is terrorism
simply an attack on a nation from the outside or does it include
any attempt to create terror for specific ends?
Will current debates on anti-terrorism legislation leave a broad
definition that includes protesters or dissidents? Is it fair, or
even correct, to label the recent attacks an “act of
war” or does such terminology simply prime the public to view
military retaliation as the only option?
Identifying terrorism as random acts of violence against U.S.
interests also perpetuates a dangerously racist attitude. We are
all horrified at the recent attack on U.S. civilians. But if we
don’t take into account the innocent deaths that prolonged
military action will undoubtedly result in, we declare that
non-American lives are worth less. We say that an American mother
weeps more at the loss of her child than a Palestinian mother whose
daughter is murdered by Israeli troops using weapons made in the
U.S.A.
The recent wave of hate crimes against Middle Easterners
supports this attitude of racial superiority. What does it say
about our “free and democratic” society if grief and
confusion so easily lend themselves to racist violence?
If it is true democracy and justice Americans believe in, we
must resist the attack on innocent human life ““
internationally and domestically ““ that may ensue in the days
to come. We must engage in serious dialogue about alternatives to
Bush’s violent and tyrannical plans while coming up with
long-term solutions to a political and economic system that begets
terrorism. Perhaps we could even push to build a true democracy,
one in which political parties actually oppose each other, social
services do not take the back seat to a military machine, and those
who object to violent retaliation are not accused of treason.
Instead of watching the next generation grow up in an era of war
and international repression, we have an opportunity to cultivate
critical thought regarding terrorism and its roots.
On CNN’s “Talk Back Live,” a young teenager
expressed her confusion at contradictory messages that tell our
youth to treat others with peace and respect while their government
drools at the prospect of war. The show’s guest, army veteran
Montell Williams, tells it to her straight: the youth have been
living in a peaceful bubble and must realize that the freedom and
democracy of this fine nation must be fought for and defended.
But doesn’t the green light given to Bush to take any
action he pleases contradict the idea of democracy? This is a
question that has serious implications even within American
borders. What about rapidly dwindling civil liberties on the
domestic front? Racial profiling is even more prevalent and
justified; “suspicious” immigrants can be held in
custody for an indefinite period of time or even deported, while
phone calls and e-mails are increasingly monitored. Do our laws
only hold in times of peace?
In the aftermath of violence, I can only hope that instead of
swallowing whole the heavily racist notion that
“civilization” vies with the East, or even Bush’s
ridiculously dumbed-down “good versus evil,” we probe
deeper to understand the reality of a complicated and historic
hatred.
If the system that deprives so many of the freedom we trumpet is
not understood and actively changed, then sadly, I fear that such
terror may only be the beginning.