The message that the "civilized" world should unite against "terrorism" has periodically been floated by various advocates of military action to dispel the terror chimera hovering on the edge of our thoughts since the World Trade Centre towers fell (I refuse to use the term 9/11, as I feel it cheapens and lessens the horror of the act and the fact). President Bush's call for a Coalition of the Willing was the first incarnation, followed rapidly by the imminent threat of Iraq's Ws of MD. Various ideologues still surface from time to time to reiterate how we must unite, respond, and "send the right message" to terrorists.
So that we are able to decypher the "right message" we must understand two things: A)what is a terrorist? and, B)the nature of propaganda.
In the 1950s, British SAS units parachuted into the jungles of Malaysia to win "the hearts and minds" of villagers to enlist in the fight against "insurgents." In 1956 the rebels of Hungary became known as "freedom fighters" as they pitted their Molotov Cocktails against Soviet armour. In the 1960s American forces in "the Nam" fought against growing numbers of Viet Cong "infiltrators" coming down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. At the same time Che Guevara led and inspired groups of "guerrillas" in various parts of Central and South America. When, in the 1970s, Arab groups started taking extreme action against either Israel, the USA, or established militarist governments in the Mideast, the word "terrorist," or "Arab terrorist" gained popular currency. Today "terrorist" is used, almost exclusively, to describe an individual Muslim, or small groups of Muslims, who use non-conventional tactics and weapons to demonstrate their opposition to cultural, religious, and/or economic change brought about by non-consultative and non-democratic means.
Propaganda is the use by governments, corporations, groups, both religious and secular, or individuals, to ensure widespread acceptance of their messages as fact, without verification or peer review. Protests against the seal cull, the WMD debacle, the “Domino Theory” of Communist expansion in SE Asia, the cult of personality of various dictators, the War on Drugs: all are examples of the efficacy of propaganda.
Governments are increasingly using mainstream media to disseminate propaganda. Indeed, in a recent survey of the relative freedom of the global press, the USA tied for 43rd place, alongside Croatia and Tonga. Canada fared a little better, but was still far from first place, thanks to the lack of diversity in press ownership, the political views of the owners, and the devolution of real and investigative reporting. Editorials regularly reflect the instructions of the owners’ political comrades. Reporters often compose articles using Google as a source. Corporations and political parties regularly use spin doctors as propagandists to “operate” on unpleasant truths, and present a version of that truth that appears more palatable, even positive, to target audiences.
In short, we are told what to buy, what to think, how to live, and what to aspire to by various shareholders in the propaganda apparatus. Few of us bother to research the veracity of the messages with which we are inundated. We, and our neighbours, accept what is written or broadcast simply because we tacitly but incorrectly believe that the distribution methods lend truth to the word.
News freaks will be aware of the feeling in the USA that they are acting, in good faith, as policeman to the world. This is not in response to a global consensus however, and is viewed by much of the world as military adventurism, petro-imperialism, or just good, old-fashioned aggression. A growing group of Moslem clerics and politicians, as well as lay persons, view American foreign policy as enabling and furthering a Judeo-Christian jihad against Moslems. The incursion into Moslem states by a Christian fundamentalist country is offered as proof of this jihad theory.
The world today does need a police/peace force, but it MUST be under the aegis of the UN. To effectively create this force, the UN requires some fundamental changes. One of those necessary changes must be the removal of the power of veto from the permanent members of the Security Council. Global change and well-being can only be achieved through consensus at the UN. Past efforts to respond to global crises by the UN have failed because of the Security Council veto or lack of consensus. The UN, as a global organisation, must rise above regionalism, special interest voting, nepotism, and corporate economic interests, and resort to diplomacy, the desire for peace and understanding, with the realisation that global cooperation is a necessary step on the road to achieving a modern and just civilisation. The UN must become a world body, not merely a forum in which one superpower tells the world what they plan to do.
We must attack the roots of terrorism, of marginalisation, of ignorance, and of inequality. We must talk, listen, negotiate, and compromise. We must pump aid into education, health, and economy building. We must foster tolerance, cultural and religious cooperation, and the vital and basic understanding that the globe is a fragile vessel of diversity in which we are all dependent upon the well-being, happiness, and friendship of our fellow passengers.
We do need a police force, but it must be a cooperative force, operating under global agreement, that will ensure that tyrants and demagogues will not be tolerated and that continued crimes against humanity will be punished, and, in time, become only passages in history books.
We need religions to work together on their different paths to spiritual fulfillment, to make the present a peaceful and bucolic place to sojourn on the way to their respective eternities.
We have the resources. We have the technology. Sadly, we still lack the will, moral strength, and cultural maturity to embrace global differences and diversity, and to effect change through cooperation rather than military intervention.
Call me a silly old hippie if you would, but it is time to “give peace a chance.”
