FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
12 Septemeber
2001
CONTACT: Derek Sweetman
202/907-4544
An Appropriate Response?
Washington, DC --
Terrorism is a political act, not the incomprehensible ramblings of a madman. It
has a goal -- the creation of fear -- and a reason, known at least to the
perpetrators. Along with our efforts to locate those responsible for the
attacks, we owe it to ourselves to examine the ways in which we may have been
complicit in encouraging and permitting this act.
This may be the only way
to truly recapture the sense of security we had before September 11. This in no
way means that the attacks upon the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were
justified. No amount of political reasoning should be allowed to morally
justify the taking of innocent life. It does mean, however, that there is an
explanation for the attack, and that is what we should be searching for, along
with the perpetrators.
It is natural when one
is affected by terrorism to respond with virulent hatred and a desire for
vengeance, but what is required to avoid further instances of this type is a
careful contemplation of the causes of these acts. Those perpetrating terrorism
are also consumed with hatred and vengeance for perceived wrongs. We risk
descending into the same spiral of violence and hate that we have sought to
avoid for so long.
The residents of New
York and Washington have shown what good neighbors Americans can be
individually; what is required is a realization among our leaders that we
should be such a good neighbor to the other groups and countries that share our
common global neighborhood. Part of this is recognizing when disputes occur and
doing what we can to diffuse the tensions they can cause.
This does not mean we
should immediately capitulate to the desires of others, especially when those
desires are diametrically opposed to ours. It does mean, however, that we
should recognize that it is unrealistic to expect others to capitulate to us.
Both airline and
international security experts have pointed out that this type of attack was
surprising, but not unexpected. They understand that there are trade-offs that
are made with any decision. In the case of airline travel, we often trade
convenience for security. In the case of foreign policy, we often trade limited
short-term military objectives for stable, long-term positive security. This
may be because we are a country with a short history and even shorter level of
patience, or a byproduct of presidential administration changes and the need
for reelection.
Countless commentators
have called these attacks “Acts of War” and have implicitly, if not explicitly,
stated that as such we are justified in making warlike responses. There are two
acute dangers to this approach. First, attempting to mobilize the country as it
was following the Pearl Harbor attack and rush headlong into conflict is to
admit that this attack has done exactly what it was intended to do: change
everything.
We cannot ignore what
happened, but we also cannot ignore the history of diversity and tolerance upon
which our country was founded and for which we have struggled through the
anti-slavery, suffrage, and civil rights campaigns. We cannot allow this to
change the openness of American society, even as we understand that we may need
to change some of our expectations of convenience.
Second, we cannot let
these attacks divide us. President Bush stated such in his speech, yet couched
this in terms of presenting a united front to the perpetrators. The real danger
is that fear and suspicion will unravel the rich and vibrant tapestry of
American society from within. It is vital that no individuals or groups be the
targets of American hate until we understand who is responsible and that, once
responsibility can be assigned, we not allow our fear to engulf targets who
were not involved.
If we find, as many
expect, that Osama bin Laden is in some way responsible, we must remember that
no man represents all members of an ethnic or religious group. We must ensure
that we do not become a country that operates on hate and fear instead of the
freedom and tolerance that has allowed us to achieve the success we have.
Derek Sweetman is Editor-in-Chief of OJPCR: The Online Journal of
Peace and Conflict Resolution and Executive Director of the Tabula Rasa
Institute. The Tabula Rasa Institute is a nonprofit organization that promotes
peace, understanding, and cooperation between people, groups, and nations by
providing the resources, education, and leadership necessary to improve our
world. Mr. Sweetman lives and works in Washington,
DC.
-- 30 --