|
True Security by Fritjof Capra We cannot fight terrorism effectively without understanding its roots. from Resurgence issue 211 THE HORRIFIC terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11 mark the end of an era — the end of over 200 years of invulnerability on the US continent. We had heard fundamentalist rhetoric about "striking at the heart of America" for years, but we took it as an empty threat. We did not recognize the emergence of a new weapon on the international stage against which we were powerless — the desperate, reckless suicide bomber. Understanding international terrorism from a systemic perspective means understanding that its very nature derives from a series of political, economic and technological problems that are all interconnected. Terrorism is always a weapon of the politically disempowered, who feel that they are unable to voice their grievances through conventional political processes. In order to combat them effectively, we need to understand clearly the terrorists’ frustration. This does not mean that we should shrink from capturing the terrorists and bringing them to justice. Their crimes are abhorrent beyond words. But we must learn to distinguish between, on the one hand, their criminal methods and fundamentalist ideologies and, on the other hand, the grievances that drive them into committing such desperate and horrific acts. We cannot fight terrorism effectively without understanding its roots. Indeed, we owe a systemic analysis and corresponding action to the victims of the attacks of 11th September, as Prime Minister Tony Blair stated eloquently in his speech to the Labour Party Conference: "[People] don’t want revenge. They want something better in memory of their loved ones. I believe their memorial can and should be greater than simply the punishment of the guilty. It is that out of the shadow of this evil should emerge lasting good: destruction of the machinery of terrorism wherever it is found; hope amongst all nations of a new beginning where we seek to resolve differences in a calm and ordered way; greater understanding between nations and between faiths; and above all justice and prosperity for the poor and dispossessed, so that people everywhere can see the chance of a better future through the hard work and creative power of the free citizen, not the violence and savagery of the fanatic." The terrorism we are concerned with is directed against the United States, and hence the attempt to understand its roots has to begin with the understanding of America’s image in the world. This image is multi-faceted. It includes many positive aspects of our society such as individual liberty, cultural diversity and economic opportunity, as well as the great enthusiasm for American technology, fashion, sport and entertainment, especially among the world’s youth. On the other hand, the United States is seen by many as the driving force of a new form of global capitalism that is supported by military force and is often socially unjust and environmentally destructive. To understand the political context of the recent terrorist attacks, we need to look specifically at the US role in the Middle East. The common view in the United States is that it has assumed the role of peacemaker in the region, but in other parts of the world, and especially in the Muslim world, the view is quite different. There is widespread anti-American sentiment, based on a number of concerns. They include resentment against:
These grievances have contributed to the rise of several radical Islamic movements. NOW, WHY DOES the United States support repressive regimes, ignore UN resolutions, and promote violence in the Middle East? The answer, in one word, is ‘oil’. In the view of the US government, the access to Persian Gulf oil is essential to America’s security. The US role in the Middle East and its contribution to the rise of radical Islamic movements are inextricably linked to its energy policies. To assure American access to natural resources around the world, the US government continually tries to ‘stabilize’ various regions and, in doing so, has often supported undemocratic and repressive regimes. Ironically, the US has at times supported hard-line Islamic movements. Indeed, some of the most notorious Islamic terrorists, including followers of Osama bin Laden, were originally trained by the CIA. To understand the motivation of Osama bin Laden and other Islamic extremists, we need to pay special attention to the US relationship with Saudi Arabia. This relationship is based on an extraordinary bargain, concluded in 1945 between President Roosevelt and King Ibn Saud, according to which Saudi Arabia grants the US unlimited and perpetual access to its oil fields (which contain 25% of the world’s known oil reserves) in exchange for protection of the Saudi royal family against its enemies, both external and internal. This bargain has shaped American foreign and military policy for almost half a century, during which the US has protected a totalitarian regime in Saudi Arabia that blatantly disregards basic human rights and tramples democracy. The main purpose of the Gulf war in 1991, originally code-named ‘Desert Shield’, was not to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, but to protect Saudi Arabia from a possible attack and to guarantee US access to the Saudi oil fields. Since then, the US has maintained and steadily expanded its military presence in the Gulf. In addition it also defends the Saudi regime against its internal enemies. The Saudi Arabian National Guard, which protects the royal family, is almost entirely armed, trained and managed by the United States. The goal of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network is to drive the US out of the Gulf region and to replace the corrupt Saudi regime by what they consider an ‘authentic’ Islamic state. Such a state would be modeled after that of the fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan, which was many times more repressive than the current Saudi regime, especially in its barbarous treatment of women. Nevertheless, as long as the US continues to support the totalitarian system in Saudi Arabia, that will fuel anti-American hatred. The systemic understanding of the background of extremist Islamic terrorism calls for a multi-faceted anti-terrorist strategy. The immediate goal, obviously, is to identify and capture the perpetrators and supporters of the terrorist attacks against the United States, and to bring them to justice before an international court. Since the extension and scope of this terrorism is international, it requires sustained international police work, based on extensive and widespread co-operation among the international community. This means, in turn, that the United States will have to reverse its recent isolationist stance and become a responsible member of the international community. Instead of weakening or walking away from a series of international treaties and conventions — including the Kyoto protocol on global warming, the Biological Weapons Convention, the World Criminal Court, and the UN Conference on Racism — the Bush Administration needs to realize that co-operation with the United Nations and other multilateral agencies will be vital to increase our own strength and security. Because of our rich cultural diversity, we should be in an ideal position to become active citizens of the world. One fifth of Americans, or their parents, were born in other parts of the world; five million of us are Muslims. In the long run, the United States will be able to reduce the terrorist threats only if it adopts a series of policy shifts to deal with the legitimate grievances that often underlie terrorist acts. Systemic thinking means shifting our focus from attempting to crush terrorist movements to pursuing policies that discourage their emergence. The following two policy shifts would go a long way toward increasing our national security.
In order to carry out these shifts of US foreign policy in the Middle East, it will be crucial to sever our dependence on Saudi oil. A shift of energy policy from the current heavy emphasis on fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and conservation is not only imperative for moving toward ecological sustainability, but must also be seen as vital to our security. More generally, we need to realize that the concept of security needs to be broadened to include considerations such as food security, the security of a healthy environment, social justice and cultural integrity. A global economic system based on inequity, over-consumption, waste and exploitation is inherently violent and insecure. An economy based on local self-sufficiency, decentralized renewable energy sources, and the continual cycling of materials will be ecologically and socially sustainable and thus globally secure. The shift to such a sustainable and secure economy is absolutely feasible with technologies that are available today. In particular, the recent development of efficient hydrogen fuel cells promises to inaugurate a new era in energy production — the ‘hydrogen economy’. A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that combines hydrogen with oxygen to produce electricity and water — and nothing else! This makes hydrogen the ultimate clean fuel. At present, several companies around the world are racing to be the first to produce fuel cell systems to supply electricity for our homes and commercial buildings. At the same time, car companies are developing hydrogen-powered hybrid electric cars that will revolutionize the automobile industry. The gradual replacement of the US car fleet with these ‘hypercars’ would eventually save all the oil OPEC now sells and, in addition, would reduce America’s co2 emissions by about two-thirds. The hydrogen economy will eventually be realized, because it features superior technologies — more economical, safer, and ecologically sustainable. However, this development could be accelerated dramatically with massive investments by the federal government. Such investments would not only bring great environmental and health benefits, but would also significantly increase our security. Moreover, massive federal investments to put a hydrogen infrastructure in place would create tens of thousands of jobs and would give the sagging US economy a tremendous boost. The obstacles that stand in the way of a secure and sustainable future are neither conceptual nor technical. All we need is the moral and political will. To quote Tony Blair once more, "This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us … Today, humankind has the science and technology to destroy itself or to provide prosperity to all. Yet science can’t make that choice for us. Only the moral power of a world acting as a community can … For those people who lost their lives on 11th September and those that mourn them; now is the time for the strength to build that community. Let that be their memorial." A longer version of this article is available on the author’s website www.fritjofcapra.net Fritjof Capra is the author of many books including The Tao of Physics, The Turning Point and Web of Life. |