Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

SACW #2 (26 Sept. 01)

Expand Messages
  • Harsh Kapoor
    South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #2 26 September 2001 http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex ... #1. Fortress America (Achin Vanaik) #2. A Citizens Statement from
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 25, 2001
      South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #2
      26 September 2001


      #1. Fortress America (Achin Vanaik)
      #2. A Citizens Statement from Pakistan
      #3. A Global Vigil For Peace on Oct 2 2001 [Gandhi's Birthday]
      #4. Not In Our Name (Farish Noor)



      The Hindu
      Wednesday, September 26, 2001

      Fortress America
      By Achin Vanaik

      ON SEPTEMBER 11 morning, two hours before we were supposed to land at
      Washington's Dulles airport, our plane got diverted to Montreal,
      Canada. Making our way down by land over the next two days into
      upstate New York, Maryland and Washington, one was able to get an
      insight into the public mood not just from the international CNN-
      type broadcasting stations or the major dailies but from a host of
      local TV stations and local newspapers as well as from the average
      citizen met and spoken with. The popular reaction provided sources of
      both hope and despair. Hope, in that the shared moral outrage
      expressed across boundaries of race, religion and ethnicity testified
      to the existence of a universal humanitarian decency. Despair, that
      this potential for a moral sensitivity that is impartial and
      universal was stymied by the rapid surfacing of a predominantly
      nationalist insularity of response to the tragedy.

      The main question that preoccupied Americans was not why did this
      happen but how could it happen? Or rather, insofar as the why
      question was posed it was quickly disposed of to most peoples'
      satisfaction. The perpetrators are mindless terrorists or religious
      fanatics who hate America and what it stands for which is decency,
      democracy, freedom, etc. Rare were the voices (mostly religiously
      inspired pacifists or uncompromisingly liberal elements) who were
      prepared to say that the U.S. must not seek revenge by waging war on
      Afghanistan or engage in activities that would itself amount to
      terrorism, i.e. killing the civilians of other countries. Rarer still
      were the voices of those who were prepared to point out, even as they
      expressed their pain and outrage against the attacks on New York and
      Washington, that the U.S. Government's actions abroad have helped
      create the breeding ground from which sub-state and combat group
      terrorists have emerged.

      Wholly admirable was the way in which people across the country
      united to support and offer help in carrying out the necessary relief
      measures. Similarly, there was a perceptive and sensitive discourse
      in the media on what the efforts to avoid such attacks in the future
      might portend regarding restriction of civil liberties thereby
      weakening the freedoms and decencies of American society. Barring the
      fringe, most public political figures opposed attacks on Americans of
      Arab, South Asian origin or on ordinary Muslims in the country. That
      would be a betrayal of the values that the U.S. is supposed to stand
      for. Even rightwing Republican leaders made it a point to say that
      this was not a war between the West and Islam but between the rest of
      the world and terrorism.

      Largely absent, however, was any recognition of the problems caused
      by American foreign policy. The record here is simply awesome, both
      in numbers and scale. It includes the nuclear bombing of civilians in
      Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the use of chemical weapons in Vietnam where over
      two million civilians were killed, the use of sanctions since the
      Gulf War which have led to the deaths of 1.2 million Iraqis of whom
      500,000 were children. Instead of any media self-introspection on
      these grounds, there was an even stronger display of
      self-righteousness than usual. Civilisation, best represented and led
      by the U.S., was under attack. Therefore, all those (whether
      countries, groups or individuals) who might refuse to support what
      the U.S. Government intended to do in retaliation were effectively
      enemies of not just the U.S. but of all civilised values.

      Given such a mood, it was hardly surprising that two leaders of
      Israel should try and seize the opportunity to harden the attitudes
      of the American Government and public towards the plight of the
      Palestinians. The former Israeli Premier, Mr. Benjamin Netanyhu,
      called for the destruction of the Palestinian Authority as a
      terrorist outfit while Mr. Ariel Sharon called Mr. Yasser Arafat
      another Osama bin Laden. They were supported by numerous prominent
      American personalities declaring in print and TV/radio that now
      America knew what Israel has been suffering all along. Matters were
      not helped by repeated broadcastings of film clips of Palestinians
      celebrating the attacks. Mr. Arafat's act of donating blood was not
      an effective counter in the public relations battle being waged by
      the American right and Israel at this juncture.

      One thing is quite clear. Even if the evidence the U.S. Government is
      accumulating is not sufficient to establish a legally defensible case
      about an accused or suspect (Osama bin Laden in this case), it simply
      could not afford to admit as much. The public desire for revenge is
      so strong that it has to act. There are several historical precedents
      for this, the most recent being after the 1998 bombings of U.S.
      Embassies in East Africa. The U.S. bombed a pharmaceutical complex in
      Sudan which suffered unknown ``collateral damage'' (i.e. civilian
      deaths) and has ever since blocked an independent U.N. investigation
      into its claim that it was justified in doing so because it was part
      of Osama bin Laden's network of activities.

      Of course, the U.S. Government is not simply responding to domestic
      pressure. The speed with which `long range thinking' was put into
      place was also remarkable. It is clear that it wishes to seize this
      opportunity to launch something like an 8-10 year campaign to attack
      (on all continents) all armed sub-state groups (and selected regimes)
      which are considered to be unacceptable to American interests. So the
      issue is not just Osama bin Laden and his network but the overthrow
      of the Taliban regime itself, followed by other targets to be
      highlighted as and when Washington chooses. This is not a war against
      terrorism but an effort to establish maximum freedom of
      military-political activity (of a kind and scale never before
      envisioned) for the U.S. throughout the world.

      Returning to India after the Washington trip, one was again shaken by
      much of the public and media response. After initial expressions of
      horror, the main preoccupation seems to be how India can obtain
      enough foreign policy benefit, i.e. swing the U.S. Government over to
      `our' side against Pakistan and its sponsorship of terrorism in
      Kashmir. The overall result is that only a small minority (though
      bigger than the even smaller minority in the U.S.) of publicly
      articulated opinion declares that in the fight against international
      terrorism, it is not just sub-state actors/combat groups (whether or
      not supported/sponsored by states) that are the culprits but that
      states themselves are guilty of directing/executing terrorism.

      Indeed, that the sustainability, diversity of forms, and sheer scale
      of state terrorist acts and campaigns is qualitatively greater and
      more dangerous than that of sub-state actors. Moreover, among the
      culpable states is not just Pakistan and its behaviour in Kashmir and
      Afghanistan but India (in Kashmir and the Northeast), Russia (in
      Chechnya), China (in Tibet), Israel, and a host of numerous other
      states with, of course, the U.S. itself as far and away the worst

      To any morally impartial view which seeks to fight international
      terrorism no matter who is responsible for it, the idea of
      establishing a concert of nations led by the U.S. as the main
      international mechanism (regardless of its getting a manipulated
      sanction from the U.N.) through which one must fight terrorism, is
      utterly unacceptable. One cannot legitimise as the main
      correctors/policers of international terrorism those who are
      themselves guilty of terrorisms which then not only goes unpunished
      or unrecognised but is made unrecognisable. The double standards
      involved here are not just morally shameful but politically
      counter-productive because they will lead to more widespread
      bitterness and alienation reinforcing the appeal of those who claim
      that sub-state terrorism is the only form of retribution to the
      strong to whom the principles of justice do not apply. It is time to
      stand up and oppose the U.S.-led coalition which will wage war on
      Afghanistan and to call on India not to join it.



      [Please note this is the final version of the statement issued to and
      published in the press. An earlier version was circulated on SACW 25
      Sept. 2001]

      Released on September 24, 2001

      1. We share the immense grief and suffering of families and
      communities caused by the brutal and murderous attacks upon innocent
      people in the US. Since the carnage was also inflicted upon people of
      all faiths and of many nations, including Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs
      of South Asian origin, there is also much sadness in thousands of
      homes across all of South Asia.

      2. We call upon people of all faiths and nations to affirm a
      commitment to peace, justice and democracy, and to reject all forms
      of violence.

      3. We call upon the US to review its policies in order to seek a
      world order that is equal, fair and just for all nations of the world.

      4. We call upon all states, to fully protect the social, economic and
      political rights of all residents in their country regardless of
      their ethnic and religious identity.

      5. We call upon all people, to ensure that action against terrorism
      addresses the root causes of terrorism, and that such actions are
      grounded in the rules of international law and consensus of United

      6. We call upon the Pakistan government to create conditions for
      development of a civil and tolerant society, to take urgent steps to
      curb individuals, groups and facilities that promote religious and
      ethnic militancy within Pakistan

      7. We call upon the Pakistan Government to ensure that the
      utilisation of any relief or economic benefits obtained as a result
      of the new situation is planned and executed in a transparent manner
      with the involvement of all interest groups, and are directed
      towards the well-being of the ordinary people of Pakistan.

      8. We call upon the Government of Pakistan to open up the media to
      allow public debate on all national issues.

      This statement is issued by Nazim F.Haji, on behalf of and in
      concurrence with a group of Pakistani citizens who believe that the
      urgency of the times calls for a renewed pledge to promote broad
      public participation in issues of peace, justice and democracy. The
      group sincerely invites fellow citizens of all faiths to lead towards
      a new Pakistan.

      Endorsements :

      Arif Hasan Nisar A. Memon Dr. Badr Siddiqi
      Yousuf Mustikhan
      Karamat Ali Dr. Tipu Sultan Dr. S.T.Sohail
      Dr. Rashid Jooma
      Naeem Sadiq B.M.Kutty M.B.Naqvi
      Dr. Zaeema Alvi Ahmad
      Dr. Shifa Naeem Syed Ghulam Shah Raza Hussain Shah Nuzhat Kidvai
      Dr. Aly Ercelawn Feroze Khan Najm ul Haq
      M. Akbar Khan
      Syed Qaiser Ali Umar Abbas S.Amir A. Husain




      An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
      Satyagraha is a relentless search for truth and a determination to
      search truth.
      Satyagraha is a process of educating public opinion, such that it
      covers all the elements of the society and makes itself irresistible.
      - M.K.Gandhi

      Remember your humanity ŠŠŠ.. Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell

      Since Sept 11 2001 our lives have been lived in the shadow of the
      awesome TV images of violent attacks in the heart of the USA,
      thousands of innocent lives lost, and countless acts of sacrifice and
      heroism of ordinary people.

      Even more fearsome has been what has followed: the unanimous sanction
      for mobilisation of unbelievable force levels for war; and the
      dangerous tendency by some sections of the leadership and the media,
      to reinforce the link between terrorism and Islam, thus fuelling
      resentment and attacks against peace loving people, mainly Muslims
      and Arabs, the world over.

      The internet has been flooded with thoughtful writings condemning
      terrorism and violence, news of vigils for peace, and petitions
      counselling caution and expressing fears that hasty action now may
      lead us into World War III.

      Our immediate concern is to forestall this last eventuality and to
      convey this urgently to world leaders on behalf of millions of
      ordinary citizens in a manner which will make a more powerful impact.

      One way of doing this could be by using the Gandhian strategy of
      Satyagraha - or non-violent civil action in the quest for truth- a
      tool invented by Gandhi for mass mobilisation through non-violent
      protest, and used effectively by Martin Luther King and Nelson
      Mandela among others. We believe we can and must seize this moment as
      an opportunity to raise our collective voices for Peace. People
      around the world are meeting in the spirit of non-violence to
      consider how we might all work together, to learn lessons from the
      past, reflect on the present and to find a way ahead which does not
      believe in an `eye for an eye'.

      Please join us in mobilising the widest possible participation in A
      GLOBAL VIGIL FOR PEACE on October 2 - Gandhi's Birthday - where
      friends and neighbors can meet, talk, commune in silence or in song.
      We do not necessarily need large rallies, but can plan a variety of
      imaginative localised actions in small groups in offices, schools,
      colleges, street corners, bus and train stations, community centres,
      and places of worship, in villages, towns and cities across the
      world. When many people walk together, surely we can build a new

      While we use Gandhi's name, we also remember innumerable goddesses,
      Gautam Buddha, Mahavir, Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohammed, Kabir,
      Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and millions of women and men all of whom
      worked for peace, tolerance,compassion and sharing in different parts
      of the world. Oct 2 was selected because it provides a convenient
      date around which to build on the proven abilities of persons like
      Gandhi to convince millions representing diverse beliefs and
      opinions, of the critical need for tolerance, equity and justice as
      critical ingredients for peace - and above all that the struggle to
      achieve these must be non-violent, because the means were as
      important as the ends.

      Co-ordinating action around the world on a particular date might also
      help achieve that important ingredient - a critical mass and
      hopefully a chain reaction of good impulses which indeed is the only
      way to achieve operation INFINITE JUSTICE!

      If you can, please gather signatures on a simple statement saying:



      Send these with your names and location to UN Secretary General -
      Kofi Annan, US President Bush, and your own Head of State.

      In any case let us know if you met and what happened when you met.
      `We' and `Us' are just a group of concerned friends from across the
      world - with no political affiliations but a shared vision for


      Dear Friends

      This is in continuation of my letter regarding the Global Peace Vigil on
      October 2, 2001 about which I wrote to you yesterday.

      It would really be very useful if you could organise something in your
      areas, regions etc.

      In case you decide to do something in your region/area send a copy for
      information to the following addresses where we can keep a record of all
      such actions.

      Harsh Kapoor <aiindex@...>
      Lalita Ramdas <lramdas@...>
      Kamla Bhasin <k.bhasin@...>

      Harsh Kapoor is setting up a website on this vigil and you will be
      about it.

      In peace and solidarity

      Kamla Bhasin



      Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:33:33 +0000

      Comment for New Straits Times (Malaysia)

      Not In Our Name

      By Farish A. Noor

      As the hawks of war gather to shed the blood of innocents once again,
      we are forced to hear our names being mentioned as the intended
      recipients and beneficiaries of such barbarity. While leaders of
      Western governments talk about launching 'crusades' in the name of
      'humanity' and 'civilisation', equally opportunistic self-proclaimed
      'leaders' of the Muslim ummah have begun to call for a 'Jihad' in the
      defence of Islam.

      What is blatantly clear for all to see is how the language of
      politics is being used and abused by politicians - be they dressed in
      suits or the mantle of the Prophet. And with this abuse of political
      discourse comes the utilisation of key terms and signifiers that have
      all but lost their meaning. Universal categories like 'Civilisation',
      'Humanity', 'Islam' and 'Jihad' have been put to work to further what
      can only be particularist aims, and worse of all, done with our 'best
      interests' at heart.

      So when the leaders of the United States talk about shedding innocent
      blood 'for the future of humanity', who are they referring to? Are
      they referring to their own supporters who are baying for the blood
      of others to be shed for the sake of vengeance? Or do they take into
      account the thousands of Americans who have come out openly in
      solidarity with others and who have called on their own government to
      choose the option of peace and justice?

      Likewise when the leaders of the Taliban and that self-appointed
      'warrior of Islam' Osama Ben Laden talks about the need for a 'Jihad'
      against the West, are they talking about their own fanatical
      followers? Or have they thought for even a second about the millions
      of Muslims the world over who regard their brand of reactionary and
      exclusivist Islam as repugnant and totally contrary to the teachings
      of the religion itself?

      We who are caught in between need to speak out against this flagrant
      abuse of political rhetoric that is carried out in our names. For
      millions of people the world over, terrorism remains an immoral and
      evil phenomenon that we all categorically reject. And this rejection
      is truly universal- No civilised society accepts terrorism as a
      justifiable act, whether it is carried out by rogue militia units or

      But what is even more important is for us to reclaim control of the
      discourse of rights, democracy and religion so that it does not fall
      into the hands of the Pharisees and war-mongers who can only turn it
      into a vehicle of war. 'Humanity' means much more that what the
      President of the United States may think, and 'Islam' certainly is
      too big a concept to be grasped by the narrow-minded mullahs of the
      Taliban and Osama Ben Laden.

      Should conflict occur- and the likelihood is that it will- the people
      of the world must come together to build and strengthen the bonds of
      common humanity that cuts across the barriers of politics, religion
      and race. The only meaningful alliance that can be built in the midst
      of this confusion is one based on a common understanding of universal
      justice that unites communities rather than driving them apart and
      against each other. Muslims in particular must realise that our true
      allies are those peace-loving advocates of democracy and justice in
      the West, and not the Mullahs who call upon us to murder others in
      the name of our religion.

      We may not be able to stop the abuse of political language, and no
      doubt there will be plenty more 'crusades' fought in the name of
      Civilisation or Religion in the years to come. But we need to make
      this point clear at least: The war-makers and terrorists of the world
      may well fight till the last man and the last victim, but this
      senseless bloodshed should never be carried out in our name.









      SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
      South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. Dispatch
      archive from 1998 can be accessed at
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/act/messages/ . To subscribe send a blank
      message to: <act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
      message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
      Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
      necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.