This essay was written in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York. Parts of it are now out of date, but I don't feel that subsequent events have rendered my arguments irrelevant.
So much has already been written about this in so many different places; I'm sure there is no-one out there who lacks a strong opinion on the matter, even if it is simply a feeling of anger, frustration or distaste; yet when I encounter conversations about this war, I observe a lot of shouting, a lot of re-stating of extreme positions, and very little constructive discussion, little in the way of strategic suggestions or real seeking out of information. Thus, I feel that the time has come for me to write a piece of my own on the subject, here, where I'm not foisting it on anybody; read it if you will.
The will to read, and to consider the opinions of others, seems to me to be the most important quality which anyone can offer in this dreadful situation. If it had been sufficiently practised in the past, we would not be in this situation now. Even if all we judge humanity to be capable of is self-interest, this situation is nonsensical, and can be explained only by ignorance (in some cases willful). Naturally, there are those who have an interest in war - corporations set to make a profit, political regimes whose grip on power might be strengthened by jingoism and the opportunity to introduce 'protective' totalitarian measures, and so forth. Their interests, however, are not the interests of the majority. It is time for the majority to resist being led, whomsoever is doing the leading. Thinking for oneself has never been more urgent.
I was horrified by the deaths in the World Trade Centre and in the Pentagon. For what it's worth, it took me over thirty hours to track down all of my friends and family members who lived and worked in the affected areas, so the incidents did not fail to affect me personally. I felt the same initial fears as thousands of Americans must have done. I was fortunate; I lost nobody; but of course that doesn't decrease my concern for those who did. Nobody deserves to die like that. As somebody who has spent a third of her life caring for victims of disease, I must assert that nobody deserves to die young for any reason.
I do not by any means consider it a qualification upon my concern for the American dead and their loved ones when I say also that I feel as much distress at the loss of the lives of those who are starving to death in Afghanistan, who have been shot or blown up in Iraq, who have been cut down by tanks in Palestine, and so forth. This is not about saying that one person's death means less, or is more acceptable, because another person has also died. There are no sides when it comes to human life. All of us value it, when we really understand what it is (when we understand that our perceived enemies are human beings like ourselves, every bit as capable of goodness and of error). My wish is that we understand that these lost lives are equally tragic by raising our appreciation of their value. Surely any reasonable person must conclude that the intrinsic value of a human life cannot be dependent upon accidents of birth such as homeland, skin colour, or cultural background. Those are trivial matters; when we allow our emotions to be distorted by them, we only make ourselves more malleable for politicians who may or may not have our best interests at heart.
I recently met the head of the Fire Brigade Union in Scotland. He was distressed and angry because he had been criticised by a leading populist newspaper for appearing at a rally in opposition to the bombing of Afghanisstan by US and UK armed forces; the newspaper called this an insult to the lives of those firefighters who had died in the World Trade Centre. The fireman, on the contrary, thought it insulting to those brave dead men that their names should ever be used as an excuse for violence. The Fire Brigade, as he put it, is an international humanitarian organisation dedicated to saving lives, not taking them; and that applies in any circumstances. New York's firefighters lost their lives in an attempt to save the lives of others. Let us honour them for that, and not work against the cause which they held to be so precious.
In this current situation, accusations of extremism are hurled everywhere, as each 'side' attempts to marginalise the other, and as individuals seek to ally themselves to a strong group of others; one's views suffer less aggressive criticism if one does not appear to be on one's own. George Bush and Tony Blair have insisted that all people must be either with them or against them in their grand yet unspecified campaign. All I can say for myself is that, when forced to make such a decision, I shall support whichever side causes the least loss of life; but I shall do everything in my power to avoid being forced to that, because I have no wish to support the killing of innocents for any cause. Others tear themselves between the fashionable positions which declare "Wipe out the enemy at any cost! Teach them a lesson which the world will never forget!" and those who say "Turn the other cheek; peace at any cost." I can settle for neither of these positions. As I value life, I do not find that peace is always the best solution, because peace often permits the perpetuation of injustice. Those who are starving are as much victims as those who are shot. There is no perfect solution. What is essential is the use of reason. All we can seek is a solution which minimises suffering. Let us stop bickering and work hard to establish such a solution. Every one of us who wishes to live in safety and liberty has a responsibility to do that. We must pursue our duty as individuals, no matter how it may conflict with the views of those around us, or with the rhetoric of politicians. Bravery is needed now not just on the battlefields, but within each one of us who ever wishes to speak with dignity, or to sleep with a clear conscience.
Although I was distressed by the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, they did not surprise me. I had long expected that some such thing would happen. Not only was it easy to figure out the logistics of such an exercise (and to manage it cheaply and easily - even to make a profit, via stock exchanges, as it appears those terrorists did); it was logical. Of course, that doesn't mean it was morally right, but we have already seen that there are people on all sides of this situation who do not place much value on the lives of individuals; morality, as with everything, is a matter of priorities (how many might be saved in the long term? someone might have thought; another: their souls are beyond redemption anyway; for some value souls more than life); and furthermore, there are some who place greater value on things other than virtue: money, power, prestige, pleasure, and so forth. To say that the 11th September attacks were logical is not to diminish the horror of them. It is simply to recognise that this was a natural development in the course of human history. It was the only powerful way in which an organisation with limited resources could strike a blow against an organisation with vastly superior resources (military, financial, etc.) We must then ask: why did anyone want to attack the USA? Let us consider how wide the list of possible suspects was in the first instance; that says something in itself. Some have argued that poor countries, responsible for their own plight, are jealous of the USA's wealth. Others say that the US has acquired its wealth by subjugating those others and keeping them in economic slavery. As always, the truth is more complex, and there are numerous factors to take into account. What I say is simply that, whatever the reason, the US, and its citizens, and every individual the world over who wishes to avoid becoming a victim of terrorism, cannot afford to ignore it. Appeasement has nothing to do with this. By all means, the US government should pursue and bring to justice, through due process of law, all those responsible for the 11th September attacks. It does make sense, though, to avoid breeding more resentment, and hence more terrorists. You could kill every terrorist currently alive; you could kill everyone who had ever even thought about terrorism; and still, if you ignored the significance of their motives, it would only be a matter of time until the danger returned.
Inequality breeds resentment. The only possible lasting peace must be based on economic parity. People who have enough to eat, and a roof over their heads, and are reasonably certain that their children will grow up, getting an education along the way, to enjoy similar conditions, are rather unlikely to travel halfway round the world and throw their lives away blowing up a bunch of strangers.
A great deal has been made of the culpability of religion in this war, with Islam, Christianity and Judaism each being accused of inspiring evil. To my mind, only the terminally naive buy that excuse. Religion does not diminish the responsibility of the individual. Of course these major world religions do not incite all of their followers to go out and kill members of other religions; if they did, we would never have known peace, anywhere, and there would be a lot less of us around to be fighting at this stage. Religion is not responsible for this; it is, like any ideology (liberty? equality? fraternity?) valuable enough in itself, but capable of being perverted and used as a tool to manipulate the ignorant. An individual who personally studies the holy books and spends much time contemplating God, under whatever name, will not (unless suffering from a serious psychiatric disorder) spontaneously go out and behave violently as a result. That aggression has nothing to do with God or with the principles underlying religion; it is introduced by middle men, by politicians. It flourishes where individuals fail to think for themselves.
I do not want anybody who reads this piece to go away and blindly follow what I have written, any more than I want people to dismiss it out of hand. I want people to think. And don't turn away. Don't tell yourself that this has nothing to do with you. This has everything to do with every one of us. It will only get better if we all take responsibility. If you feel that you have nothing to s have nothing to say, because you are not an extremist, I ask you this: do you want to abandon control of the world to those whoare?
Personally, I am opposed to the bombing of Afghanistan. Not only do I find it difficult to justify in moral terms; I consider it impractical. One cannot wipe out an idea by blowing up a few buildings (what few they are). It is the idea which is dangerous, and now that it has escaped the confines of Pandora's box, it will forever be at large in the world. What the idea says is this: it is easy to make a difference. It is easy for any one of you out there to improvise a weapon and drastically disrupt the lives of others. With the current anthrax panic in America, it has already been demonstrated that a mere bag of talcum powder, thrown over a stranger, will get results. Let alone walking into a Swiss regional parliament building and blowing away several representatives. Let alone finally getting rid of the wife you've grown to hate. The law never stopped anyone. All that stopped people was the myth of society, and free trade capitalism leaves little room for that. The world is dangerous now because individuals are empowered. By realising it, they have finally become free. This is liberty. This is democracy.
So what can be done?
The terrorists responsible for the 11th September attacks are a comparatively minor problem, but they must, of course, be brought to justice. It will be politically necessary to ensure that this justice is considered appropriate by as many people as possible. An international court with real powers might be a good solution. Whilst the hunt for these terrorists goes on, other terrorists, and those world leaders against whom a powerful charge of war crimes can be brought under the terms of the Geneva Convention, should be tried there, to demonstrate that this court is not in the pocket of any particular regime or alliance. Naturally, this will not be a popular solution with those politicians who may themselves have reason to fear such a court; but we will not achieve peace or justice if we allow the concerns of politicians to be prioritised out of proportion with the concerns of those people for whom they are responsible. The more of the people who come to believe in such a justice system, the more likely it will be that terrorists and war criminals in hiding will be turned in. It is easy for a modest man (a mercenary and revolutionary might still have that quality; or enough of his comrades might) to wander the world in hiding forever (round here, an illegal identity might be purchased for a mere five hundred pounds; plastic surgery is easily available; everyone is anonymous in the burqa; and so forth) - but it is not so easy to hide when one must always fear the treachery of one's friends and allies. Those who will not hand over such a person for financial reward will usually do so if they can be shown that it is right to hand that person over.
Taking military action against Afghanistan has played right into the hands of the terrorists. Does anyone seriously believe that they didn't anticipate that? Naturally, they knew what would come of their provocation; it was what they were aiming for. As Western politicians use the 11th September attacks as justification for military action, so al Qaeda will use that action as justification for further terrorist action; and they, right now, have the upper hand. It is very difficult for military action to flush out individuals. It is easy for a single terrorist to wreak mass destruction. Furthermore, in the long term, the economic balance is in favour of the terrorist. The best the military aggressors can hope for is to effectively hold civilians hostage against their countrymen's actions; but what if their countrymen don't care? Perhaps they are out for personal gain; perhaps they value souls more highly than lives; perhaps their strategy is geared towards what are very much long term objectives. They show no sign of caring. The bombing is not a solution, because it will not work. Furthermore, as this becomes apparent, Westerners lose faith in their governments' ability to protect them, which invites other forms of chaos. This is just beginning to become visible economically. It could get a lot worse.
What we must do, ultimately, is to play a long term game ourselves. This does not preclude short term action of whatever sort we deem appropriate, but it is something which we must start now, as we don't have a moment to lose. What we must do, if we are to make the world safer, is to recreate the notion of society. It may be a myth, but it's a myth which we can afford to believe in; and the more people who believe in it, the more it will become substantial. It must be international in scope, and multicultural. There can be no outsiders. What society means is that we take responsibility for our own behaviour towards those around us. We help out our neighbours; we feed those who are hungry, provide medicine for those who are ill, comfort those who are sorrowful, calm those who are angry. We listen to each other's concerns and really consider them. We must always be willing to learn. We educate ourselves from every available resource, and share the fruits of our education. We think for ourselves and encourage others to do so. We teach our children that there are very good reasons why it's worth being nice to other people, even when those other people are at an apparent disadvantage.
None of these things are outwith our reach. They start here and now, today, with every individual. With me. With you. We can make things better, but it won't happen without a lot of hard work. So put away your guns and flowers both, and don't try to hide behind God. This here is all we've got. We'd better get it right.
Many of those living in the USA, especially in the vicinity of New York and Washington, are now asking, how can anyone stand it? How does one cope with terror? How can one pursue the ordinary goals of life when one must fear constantly for one's safety, and for the safety of one's loved ones?
Owing to my personal circumstances, I am quite familiar with living with terror, and I should point out that the same can be said of at least a third of the world's population. How do people cope, day to day, not only with terrorist atrocities but also with the devastation caused by outright war, famine and disease, endemic violent crime and dangerous occupations? The truth is that we are an adaptable species, and that most of us are capable of being far tougher than we may realise. Furthermore, it is a matter of perspective. Thus far, three people have died as a result of anthrax attacks in the US. How does that compare with the average US citizen's chances of getting hit by a car when crossing the road? Thousands of people die in road accidents every year, yet very few are so nervous as to hide from the traffic. This is absolutely an appropriate comparison. We don't help ourselves by panicking, or by getting things out of proportion. We're mortal, and that really is unfortunate, but we won't successfully hide from death by avoiding opening the mail. We have to do what everyone else faced with daily terror does, and get on with getting what we can out of life, because we can never know when it might be over. That's not so bad. It's simply what it is to be human.
Above all, in this situation, we must remember that the weapon of a terrorist is terror. By far the easiest way for terrorists to achieve their ends is by causing people to panic. Panicked people not only put pressure on governments (in accordance with the terrorists' agenda), they also have a nasty habit of killing and injuring one another. Don't be a victim. You can choose not to play along with that one.
On a personal note, I would like to make a special plea to those people who have started, on their own initiative, to take antibiotics to protect themselves from anthrax, to stop what they are doing. If you are in a particular position of risk (for instance, if you are a US mail worker) and have been advised by your doctor or government to take such medicine, by all means do so; but otherwise, please understand that you are likely to be creating more problems than you solve. The overuse and misuse of this type of antibiotic is leading to a massive growth in the number or drug-resistant strains of bacteria. I have lived in fear of these diseases because any one of them could have killed my Donald within hours of reaching him, when he was most ill with his cancer treatments. I know what it is to fear plague. The thing is, these strains toughen up over time, and start to take out healthy people as well as the immunosuppressed. Misuse of antibiotics risks creating plagues which could easily kill hundreds or thousands of people, and which, in some cases, have already begun to do so. If the threat of disease bothers you, please don't add to the problem. Anthrax, specifically, can be treated after the fact (initial symptoms are similar to those of a bad cold), so if you're really scared, go to your doctor then, rather than starting in advance to take medicines the long-term use of which can also be damaging to your immune system.
If you have strong opinions about what is going on in the world at present, how can you express them? How can you make a difference? World events seem particularly grand and dramatic at the moment. It's easy for individuals to feel small and helpless; but really, most of us are not.
If you have web access (which I assume is how most of you will come to read this), you can start by going to one of the major search engines and looking up the contact details for your local and national political representatives. Don't hesitate to contact them to tell them what you think of their involvement in the current situation. Even if they don't read all of their correspondance themselves, it is almost always the case that somebody will, and your opinion will be noted and considered, in balance with others, when decisions are made. If you're not sure about your representatives' own opinions or degree of involvement, don't be afraid to write and ask, though bear in mind that, at present, you should be prepared to wait as long as a month to receive a reply. If you have heard nothing after that time, write again. It's not rude for you to do so. Those people are paid to represent you, and they cannot do so unless you tell them just how you wish to be represented.
As well as your immediate representatives, you may wish to contact political parties, pressure groups and other political organisations within your country. Most such groups, if they are of any size, now have a web presence, and are easily traced that way. The phone book provides an alternative avenue of research, and if that doesn't work then you can try your local libraries or even ask at your town hall. It's a lot easier to make your presence felt in politics than you might think.
Some organisations are holding demonstrations connected with the war. The CND website gives details of anti-war demonstrations scheduled to take place within the UK. University and College campuses can be a good way to find out about anti-war protests if you live in an area where there doesn't seem to be much going on. If you are for the war, and really feel that you can justify yourself in taking that position, then I would urge you too to get out there and find out when you might get the chance to demonstrate. I must, however, remind people on all sides in this situation of the value of demonstrating peacefully and without aggression toward dissenters. We really don't need riots to add to the chaos of war and terrorism.
Use the web, and use your local libraries, and use bookshops, too, if you can afford to, to read everything that you can about the politics and history of Afghanistan, the US, Pakistan, India, Uzbekhistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, and other nations close to this conflict. You might find that a knowledge of the language groups and consequent cultural differences in the area around Afghanistan is particularly revealing. Read about the Taliban and the Northern Alliance and al Quaeda. Seek out conflicting opinions. Don't let anybody tell you that there's only one way to look at these things.
Beyond that, the single most valuable thing you can do is to educate your friends and neighbours. This doesn't mean that you have to accost everyone you see and try to ram your politics down their throats. It does, however, mean that you should not let a casual racist comment pass without challenge, because now, more than ever, such comments can be really dangerous. You should ask questions, and encourage others to do so, no matter how nor from whom you are receiving information. Don't go out looking for fights - there's quite enough of that - but try to take responsibility for challenging ignorance where you find it and for enabling others to improve their grasp of the situation. If all you can do is to help one man to understand that the object of his anger is also a man, you will have done a great deal.
Last updated 13th May, 2005.