ANALYSING THE STATE OF TERRORISM
Romesh Senewiratne ©2001
In Manufacturing Consent (1988) Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman accused the USA government of being a terrorist state and supporter of state terrorism in other countries. They also explained how, through propaganda and taxation, the American public plays a role in supporting terrorism:
“It should also be noted that in the case of the largesse of the Pentagon and the State Department’s Office of Diplomacy, the subsidy is at the taxpayer’s expense, so that, in effect, the citizenry pays to be propagandized in the interest of powerful groups such as military contractors and other sponsors of state terrorism.” (p.22)
Chomsky and Herman provide several examples of the US government supporting state terrorism in Central America, South America and Asia – where repressive regimes guilty of terrorising their own populations have been armed, trained and financed by the US government. They have also been provided with favourable press releases by the State Department, dutifully reported in the ‘mainstream’, and Chomsky argues, ‘right wing’ press. Specifically, Chomsky compares the media coverage given to elections in Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua. He provides a detailed analysis of how US-state-supported right wing regimes in Guatemala and El Salvador were systematically described as ‘emerging’ and ‘fledgling’ democracies despite instituting torture, political arrests, assassinations and other abuses against their local opponents and critics. Meanwhile, election irregularities, bringing into doubt the legitimacy of the elected government’s right to govern were focused on in the US press in Nicaragua, where a ‘left wing’, socialist government was threatening US vested interests.
In recent months, the news media has been dominated by stories and reports about the so-called ‘War on Terrorism’ by the US government and its so-called ‘allies’. These ‘allies’ include Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece, Japan and Australia. Australia’s neighbouring ‘western state’, New Zealand, has also declared its support of the ‘War on Terrorism’ that has justified the bombing of Afghanistan and the killing of many civilians in this remote central Asian country. Australia, herself, has sent a few-hundred ‘specially trained SAS soldiers’ to join the frontline, if such is desired by the American leadership of the campaign. The USA is, after all, running the show. And what a terrifying show it has been. Now, after the inclusion of Iran, Iraq and North Korea in his ‘axis of evil’, President George W. Bush has vowed that the decimation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan is only the beginning of his government’s planned “War on Terror”. It was no longer a War on “Terrorism” – it has been broadened to a War on “Terror”. We were warned that Iraq was next on the list for military bombardment – unless the US government decided to bomb the Somalia first. Somalia, in the Horn of Africa, was accused of harbouring al-Qaeda ‘terrorist cells’, as were many other Third World nations. The less sturdy hearted might well have become a bit terrified by this news. Meanwhile Israel claimed that its increased bombing and terrorisation of the Palestinian Arabs was merely a contribution to the War on Terrorism. The Russian government argued that its war against the Chechnians was also a war against terrorists. The British government reiterated that the IRA were ‘terrorists’; the Spanish that the Basque separatists were, also, and the Sri Lankan Government continued its war against “Tamil terrorists”.
While it is reasonable to regard suicide bombers as ‘terrorists’ if they attack civilian targets in an effort to create terror, it is also true that certain apparently democratic states consistently perpetrate terror amongst their own populace and abroad. Also, few actions surpass war, itself, for causing mass terror. In the case of the US-led ‘War on Terrorism’, apart from the terror inflicted on innocent Afghani citizens (especially those in more remote areas), the domestic populace of the United States has also been terrorised. They have been warned that mindless biological and chemical attacks by ‘terrorists’ and ‘rogue states’ are likely, while the television stations have repeatedly shown video footage of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center together with terrifying predictions of similar attacks in the future. The threat of nuclear war, and the terrifying prospect of a full-scale nuclear holocaust, has been boosted by recent reports that President Bush has directed the US military to develop smaller nuclear weapons that might be used to augment ‘conventional’ weapons in situations where military targets are able to withstand such attacks. This follows a leaked report to Congress naming seven nations (China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya) that the US should be prepared to use nuclear weapons against.
Chomsky and Herman referred to “arms manufacturers” as “sponsors of state terrorism” by the US. The same could be said about arms manufacturers and traders outside the USA. To identify, then, these sponsors of terrorism it is necessary to identify the major manufacturers and sellers of weapons in the modern world. One needs also to identify the full range of weapons that are used in various armed conflicts – ranging from isolated acts of terrorism to full-scale wars (both declared and undeclared). This includes conventional weapons and unconventional weapons, including chemical and biological weapons.
Over the past few years much furore has been created by the repeated claim that ‘rogue states’ were in possession, or desired the possession, of ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Iraq was said to have such ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and this was used as a justification for bombing the country and enforcing crippling ‘economic sanctions’ against the country. A United Nations body has reported that half a million Iraqi children die every year as a result of these sanctions. Ironically, over 80 percent of the world’s ‘conventional’ arms (bombs, guns etc.) are produced by only 5 nations – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (USA, UK, Russia, China and France). These were the victorious nations in the Second World War, during which US President Roosevelt explained to the American public that the United States of America must become “the great arsenal of democracy”.
Since the end of the Second World War the US military has bombed 18 other nations (in addition to dropping bombs on its own soil and its Pacific Island ‘territories’ and ‘protectorates’). These, according to a recent BBC programme, include Iraq, Afghanistan, China, Korea, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos and Vietnam in Asia; Guatemala, Granada, Cuba, Peru, Panama and El Salvador in the Americas; Libya, the Congo and Sudan in Africa and Yugoslavia in Europe. During the carnage of the Vietnam War, more bombs were dropped by the USA on this small south-east Asian nation than fell on the whole of Europe during the Second World War. Of an estimated three million Vietnamese killed in this conflict, two million were civilians.
‘Conventional’ bombs are just one example of weapons of mass destruction that are not thus officially defined. Ironically, while those who claim to fighting against those developing ‘weapons of mass destruction’ focus on anthrax, botulism and Sarin, the more widespread development of conventional bombs and guns escapes proscription. Consider, for example, the recent successes of the Brisbane-based company ‘Metal Storm’. Metal Storm, a weapons developer boasting contracts with the USA and Australian governments, was recently reported (19.3.02, in the Courier Mail) as having developed a new 60mm projectile capable of disabling tanks and destroying bridges. The projectile apparently “raises the ‘burst effect’ or lethal area to up to five times greater than that of the conventional 40mm round”. It takes little imagination to work out what these projectiles could do to human beings – especially since Metal Storm has developed gun pods that can fire up to a million rounds a minute. Managing Director Mike O’Dwyer is quoted in the Courier Mail article, titled ‘Metal Storm ‘burst effect’ aims high’, as saying:
“Combine these capabilities with multiple barrels, and multiple rounds per barrel placed together as a gun pod, with the firing precision of fully electronic operation, and you have a potential weapon system capable of extraordinary firepower.”
How can these not be regarded as ‘weapons of mass destruction’? It is also obvious that weapons such as these could be used to cause and promote terrorism. Ironically, General Wayne A. Dowling left the Board of Metal Storm in October 2001 to take up an appointment as the US National Director for Combating Terrorism. The Chairman of the Board of Directors and the CEO of the ‘Australian’ company remains Admiral William (Bill) A. Owens (US Navy retired) who happened to previously hold the eminent position of Vice Chairman of the US Joint Chief of Staff, the second highest position in the US military. It comes as no surprise, then, to find that Metal Storm has been awarded a US$50 million grant (under ‘research and development’ funding) by the US government’s ‘DARPA’ (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) to further develop their weapons – specifically, the “high-pressure ultra-rapid burst rate”.
The world will undoubtedly be a safer place if a complete ban on weapons of mass destruction is implemented around the world – without fear or favour. It is especially important that those who have the most such weapons be pursued the most relentlessly. Of course, the nations with the most weapons of mass destruction are the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which continue to export these weapons to both their allies and their enemies. The idea that only nuclear weapons, biological weapons and chemicals are ‘weapons of mass destruction’ is clearly false. Even if this were the case, however, the same nations, but notably the USA and Russia, have the biggest stockpiles of these weapons. Along with the UK, the USA and Russia have long led the nuclear, biological and chemical arms races. In reality, however, in addition to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, conventional weapons (guns, mortars, bombs etc) obviously can cause ‘mass destruction’ as can armoured tanks, ships, helicopters and planes. If human life is included in estimates of ‘mass destruction’, psychological warfare, technological warfare, electronic warfare and economic warfare also take their toll – measurable in terms of mass destruction. Landmines have claimed several lives every day over decades – surely an example of mass destruction of human life. Surely it is time that those who develop, manufacture and peddle such weapons are regarded as having committed criminal acts constituting crimes against humanity and placed behind bars.
If the ‘War Against Terrorism’ is to be a just war, it will be necessary to prosecute the war against all terrorist states and organisations, including some currently at the forefront of the current war. Here we see the USA, Australian and UK governments vowing to pursue terrorists to the ends of the earth with tunnel and bunker busting bombs, heavily armed soldiers, spy planes and expensive electronic gadgetry. Meanwhile, civil liberties are controlled at home as the ‘surveillance machine’ grows in scope and complexity. Private security firms patrol the city streets and private prison corporations are employed by the government to staff public prisons and detention centres. Ironically, the detention centres in Australia and the UK are being used to incarcerate, with most virulence, those who are escaping some of the most cruel, repressive regimes elsewhere (which is why they have no identification papers or enough money to buy an airplane ticket).
It is also pertinent to ask what role the mass-media play in generating mass terror. Since Orson Welles’ famed radio broadcast of ‘War of the Worlds’ it has been evident that modern technological media can be used to create terror. Welles was not hunted down as a terrorist, and went on to have a celebrated career in the movies. His broadcast of War of the Worlds undoubtedly created terror, but this was regarded as justifiable in the name of art and innovation. What about more recent examples, though? Headlines screaming that disaster is imminent unless overpopulation can be stopped, or cancer, or AIDS, or ‘rogue states’? What about endless television commercials stressing the importance of life insurance, household insurance, disability insurance and car insurance? These certainly are designed to manipulate the viewer and build on their existing fears of the future. Then there are the numerous ‘disease awareness’ campaigns – many seeking funds for further research, but most financed directly and indirectly by the pharmaceutical industry in an effort to generate increased sales. There have been recent campaigns promoting awareness of (and concern about) depression, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, social phobia, schizophrenia, attention-deficit disorder, various cancers, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, asthma, stroke and heart disease. All of these have had the capacity to cause terror in the susceptible. These include those who are already anxious or depressed, those who have known family and friends to suffer from such ailments, and those who study and become clinically involved in the treatments of such people. These include doctors and nurses, most of who can recall developing ‘imaginitis’ at some stage of their undergraduate training, where they imagined that they may have had one of the conditions they were studying about.
When it comes to promoting drugs, pharmaceutical companies employ every trick in the book. They pay advertising companies huge sums to promote new drugs and new uses for old drugs. They talk of ‘markets’ for various drugs, and provide all-expenses-paid opportunities for supportive ‘experts’ to ‘independently’ explain why their drug is so much better, cheaper or safer than those of their competitors. At the same time, funding is provided by drug companies to research new drug treatments, including testing them on animals and testing them on humans. Meanwhile further funds are directed by the drug companies to various ‘trusts’, ‘foundations’ and ‘non-government organizations’ to raise public and professional awareness of various diseases, inevitably with a pro-drug-treatment message attached.
The US government has declared several ‘civil’ wars over the past decades – the ‘war on drugs’, the ‘war on cancer’, the ‘war on AIDS’ and ‘the war on drugs’. None of these wars was won, and the more cynical might suggest that their main objective was not victory but fundraising and political opportunism. It is common knowledge in political circles that wars win elections – especially wars directed against publicly hated adversaries.
On 28.3.02 the Brisbane Courier Mail carried a feature article titled ‘Drugs war lost at port’ by a lawyer who has held senior positions with Queensland’s Criminal Justice Commission and the National Crime Authority, Mark Le Grand. Le Grand claims that “three-quarters of people detained by police test positive for illegal drugs” and that “in 1998, it was estimated that more than 100,000 people in Australia had used heroin in the preceding 12 months”. This is presented, along with other statistics, to support the claim that “harm-minimisation” strategies introduced in the 1985 National Campaign Against Drug Abuse were not working. Seemingly at odds with the statistic regarding the number of police detainees who test positive for drugs, in the “harm minimization strategies”, according to Le Grand, “drug use is treated primarily as a health issue”. If this is the case, why do drug users still get arrested and sent to jail simply because of using “illegal” drugs? Why is the use of certain drugs regarded as a crime, if drug use is being viewed as a “health issue”?
In the USA drug policing, spearheaded by the FBI, is more aggressive than in Australia or most other countries. Young people in the US are not infrequently sent to jail for life for possession of illegal drugs, including cannabis. Meanwhile the private prison industry is one of the fastest growing in the USA. In Australia the Florida-based Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, which holds 40,000 prisoners worldwide, runs all the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) detention centres, in addition to several private prisons, through its Australian subsidiary, Australian Correctional Management (ACM).
Following the attack on the World Trade Center buildings on the 11th of September 2001, the United States government has declared another war, this one a “War on Terrorism”. Billions of dollars have been garnered for this war. Shortly after the new war was declared the bombing of Afghanistan began – ostensibly with the objective of “getting Osama Bin Laden”. Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi construction magnate, ex-CIA collaborator and financier of a jihad against the United States has been living in political exile in Afghanistan for many years, having been forced to leave Saudi Arabia after criticising the ruling elites there. Bin Laden, in his forties, has been demonised by the CIA and Pentagon as the Classical Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist Mastermind, but there is more to the story.
Like Saddam Hussein, the previous Moslem demon-figure, Bin Laden once had the support of the CIA. This clandestine branch of the US military armed and trained the fighters of both Bin Laden and Hussein. At the time Bin Laden was fighting the Soviet Union and Hussein was fighting Iran. When Hussein was a favourite of the CIA, the official Moslem demon-figure was the religious and political leader of Iran, the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Meanwhile the CIA were trading guns for cocaine in Central America and worse. These are just a few of the recent events of the Cold War that lead one to be sceptical about the current “War on Terrorism”.
Terrorism can be defined as the deliberate causation of terror. Terror is an extreme of fear, and is akin to horror. The creation of terror can have many objectives. It can be used to demoralise or otherwise cripple an enemy. It can be used for pecuniary gain. It can be used to confuse and disorientate. It can be used to sell things.
Many industries stand to gain from the current War On Terrorism. Those who manufacture surveillance and security equipment, those who provide training for and arm private and public security and military personnel (including paramilitary and terrorist groups), and those who supply emergency services, to name a few. Drug companies stand to gain, as does the mining industry and the military-industrial complex more generally.
But what are people the most terrified of? Many people are terrified of suffering, and some are terrified of dying. Some are terrified of going to hell after they die. What people envisage suffering to come from is extremely varied. People can also be unintentionally terrified or they can be intentionally terrorised. A fine line may exist between the two, especially when it comes to terror caused by the mass media and terror caused by the medical profession.
It is natural for people to fear becoming ill and especially to fear becoming crippled by illness. It is natural for people to fear pain. These fears may be greater or lesser in those who have experienced severe illness and severe pain. Both phenomena occur. People can become more resilient when subjected to physical and mental stresses, and many fear illness and pain without having suffered from either.
People also fear loss of independence and loss of personal liberty. They may fear attack from others (including other countries). People fear loss – loss of health, loss of status, loss of occupation, loss of loved ones, loss of material possessions or money. Some fear animals and nature. Some fear other people generally or specific types of people. Whatever people fear can become the subjects of terror.
When people are terrified they tend to react in one of two ways. They may panic and become immobilised or they may panic and behave unreasonably. Both reactions have been studied in detail during the Cold War, and are intuitively obvious. Terrified people exhibit physical symptoms – sweating, a racing heart, and perhaps shortness of breath – which can make them worry even more. These are the same symptoms of ‘panic attacks’, which can occur in the presence or the absence of active terrorisation.
In the late 1990s there was a systematic effort to convince doctors and patients to diagnose ‘panic disorder’. This campaign coincided with the marketing of a specific SSRI antidepressant for its treatment. Cure was said to be impossible, although successful symptom control with drugs was said to be likely. T-shirts and posters saying ‘PANIC’ were sold or given to patients and staff. Ray Moynihan wrote of this campaign in Too Much Medicine (1998):
“One of the top chefs in the country is catering at one of the best venues in the nation. A large gathering of doctors are about to tuck into a $100-a-head meal. The live satellite link with hundreds of their colleagues across Australia is soon to start: another lavish promotional event dressed up as a scientific gathering, courtesy of the pharmaceutical industry.
“This 1996 Sydney harbourside dinner was how the drug giant SmithKline Beecham chose to ‘educate’ doctors about the government’s approval of its new antidepressant, Aropax, for the treatment of a psychiatric condition called panic disorder. The night was just one component in a highly sophisticated marketing campaign to promote Aropax and this little-known disorder. The strategy included Panic, the book; Panic the video; and Panic, the T-shirt.” (p.115)
Aropax is not promoted as a cure for panic disorder – only a (long-term) treatment. This involves fear-mongering. Moynihan writes:
“Some of the educational material distributed by SmithKline Beecham paints an alarming picture of the widespread prevalence of panic problems in Australia, which, according to the material, can require ongoing drug treatment. Information from the company states that at some time in their lives at least one in ten people will experience panic attacks, and more than 3 per cent will suffer panic disorder, a ‘chronic condition requiring long-term treatment for the best outcomes’.” (p.148)
It may well be true that one in ten people have experienced panic at some stage in their life, the incidence is probably higher. ‘Panic attacks’ are, indeed common, and very amenable to reassurance. ‘Panic disorder’ is a different matter. The label is just that – a label for people who have frequent, or crippling panic attacks. This label is not to be confused with an explanation – it does not explain why individuals have panic attacks. It can therefore not be expected to provide a cure for such attacks.
To identify why people have panic attacks one must first identify what they are afraid of. Panic does not occur without fear. As mentioned before, people fear many different things although common fears and patterns of fear can and have been identified. Specific patterns have been named, such as “social phobia” (fear of social contact), “agoraphobia” (fear of open spaces) and “claustrophobia” (fear of closed spaces). To qualify for the label of “phobia”, a person’s fear needs to be both intense and persistent. The line between normal fears and mild phobias is blurred, however, and most ‘normal’ people have mild phobias when these are looked for.
It is worth looking more deeply at the connection between terror, horror and panic. Terror frequently brings panic, and panic is really a ‘normal’ response to terror – feeling terrified. Nobody feels terrified for no reason at all, although they may not be able to identify what they are terrified of. They may be terrified of objectively minor threats or even of things that are not threatening at all. Usually, however, it is possible to identify the source of anxiety by careful discussion, thus approaching the root of the problem.
Horror, on the other hand, is an extreme of dismay – an emotion involving something of the emotions of fear, revulsion (or disgust) and sadness. The common ground as fear-influenced emotions connects horror and terror. At the same time the effect of horror tends to immobilise whereas extreme fear (terror) tends to agitate or immobilise.
It is possible to become desensitised to horror and terror – one can get used to things that previously evoked such responses. This can occur at any age and is dependent on repeated exposure to the respective stimuli. An example of this is seen in chronic responses to horrifying and terrifying images and programs on television. In the same way it is possible to become desensitised to violence when one sees too much of it. Violence should evoke dismay, but often televised violence evokes enthusiasm and excitement. The television can be said to be responsible for mutating normal emotional responses at times.
It is only necessary to remember back to Orson Welles’ famous radio broadcast of ‘War of the Worlds’ to realise that radio programs can cause mass terror. Welles’ radio-naïve audience were fully convinced that the world was being invaded by aliens, a fear that has persisted in some quarters until the present day. Movies too can cause terror – and anxiety that persists after the viewer has left the cinema. Frightening ideas and images can remain in the memory indefinitely after a terrifying movie, video or television program. Such movies can cause nightmares and other signs of deep psychological distress. One can also become used to such experiences and desensitised to their terror. Or one can avoid watching them.
Other frightening stimuli are not as easy to avoid. The newspaper headlines blare from the street corners – “biowarfare attack”. Only on page three is it mentioned that only one person has died from this ‘attack’. The ubiquitous radio warns about rogue states harbouring terrorists who glorify their own violent deaths as martyrs. The insinuation that all fundamentalist Moslems are also fanatical terrorists is difficult to escape. Our political leaders repeat the rhetoric about ‘rogue states’ stockpiling chemical and biological weapons, while far larger stockpiles in the First World are ignored. Crippling chemical restraints, too are promoted in the First World as ‘valuable medications’, and the same drugs are sold by the First World to hospitals and dispensaries in the Third World. Textbooks denying the true history of these drugs are promoted around the world at the same time. These textbooks completely omit all references to past or present biological and chemical weapons research by the Allies, NATO and the United States, although it is common knowledge that such research has occurred in the past and continues to this day.
There are several infective agents other than anthrax that can be used to deliberately make people ill (the purpose of biological warfare). There are several other agents that can make people terrified of becoming ill or dying (the purpose of terrorism). Biological warfare can be employed without warning and without terrorism. Stealth warfare has been a favourite strategy by the US and Allies in recent years – epitomised by so-called “forward operations”. These are code words for surprise attacks, usually against Third World nations.
The most recent wars by the US – against Iraq and against Afghanistan have been examples of international terrorism and bully-boy tactics by the world’s biggest economy. Contrary to the cliches and the mass-media hype, it takes a lot of money and influence to create mass terror. Certainly the more money and influence one has at one’s disposal the more terror one can create. Surely this makes the United States of America, the home of Hollywood movies, the terrorism centre of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment