So now we have March 11th to go with September 11th, but no-one could be this calculating surely?
Recent articles in the conservative press (e.g. by Martin Wolf in the Financial Times, reproduced below in full) have hailed the PSOE election victory as a win for al-Qaida. I can't help but think that this is an insult to the intelligence of the Spanish electorate. For a counter view, see A victory for Spain, not al-Qaida by Ivan Briscoe, at openDemocracy. Note, you may have to register first. This is free and well worth the effort, IMHO, as the quality of the writing at this site is generally of a very high standard.
Terrorism will thrive unless the world unites against it
MARTIN WOLF. Financial Times. London (UK): Mar 17, 2004. pg. 19
The defeat of the Popular party of Jose Maria Aznar, Spain's outgoing prime minister, has given al-Qaeda a resounding victory. That seems quite evident. The bombings have demonstrated the political effectiveness of terrorism; they have fractured the coalition in favour of the Iraq war; and they are likely to promote a realignment of forces against the US within the European Union, at the expense of Tony Blair. If this is not a victory for the terrorists, I find it hard to imagine what would be.
Whether the Socialists' victory is to be viewed in this way is a different question from whether Mr Aznar's party deserved the hammering it received. Many argue that the voters would not have responded as they did if the outgoing government had not attempted to pin the blame on Eta, the Basque separatist organisation. Many also insist that Mr Aznar should not have aligned himself with President George W. Bush's allegedly criminal war in Iraq. Both propositions are arguable. But the truth remains that the bombings transformed the result from the one expected. That - and that alone - is what must matter to the perpetrators of this outrage.
Too many people believe that people must be mad if they are evil. But it is far more sensible to assume that one's enemies are only mad "north-north-west". However insane their objectives, they understand what they are doing and why. That was true of Adolf Hitler. It is true of al-Qaeda's leaders as well. Osama bin Laden has made no secret of his objective, which is to restore the seventh- century Caliphate and drive "the crusaders" out of Islamic lands. Mr bin Laden (if he is still alive) will never achieve his objectives in full. But it is not inconceivable that his terrorist enterprise could obtain control over a nuclear-armed Pakistan or over Saudi Arabia, which contains a quarter of the world's oil reserves. And what would the world look like then? "Appalling" can be the only answer.
Driving powerful outsiders out of the Islamic world is a necessary condition for securing such broad aims. Success in that would enhance the terrorists' prestige among the populations of Islamic countries and so make pro-western regimes even more vulnerable than they already are. That is not an unattainable objective.
One of al-Qaeda's boasts is that it defeated and destroyed the Soviet Union. Now its enemy in chief is the US. Peeling off America's allies would be an intelligent way of isolating and, in the minds of the terrorists, ultimately defeating the sole superpower. Over the weekend, after a terrorist attack, the Spanish electorate threw out a government allied closely with the US. It would be surprising if at least as big an outrage were not planned for London. If the UK withdrew from the alliance as a result, an isolated US might consider abandoning the struggle inside the Islamic world. If it did, al-Qaeda would have secured its immediate objective. If it did not, the west would be fractured. Either way, the terrorists could reasonably believe that, notwithstanding inevitable setbacks, they were making good progress in their long war. Their prestige - and recruitment - would rise.
The election in Spain is now history. So is the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Democrats naturally accept the outcome of the Spanish election. Few even of the opponents of the war in Iraq presumably believe Mr Hussein should be returned to power. Recrimination over bygones serves no useful purpose. What is necessary, instead, is to form an intelligent view of the dangers that lie ahead. If we think carefully, the challenges we confront become somewhat clearer, even if all the answers do not - and cannot.
First, the Islamic terrorists are not going to vanish. Such terrorism can neither be prevented nor defeated altogether: there are too many targets and too many would-be perpetrators. Like it or not (we do not, of course, as al-Qaeda constantly reminds us), we in the rest of the world have to endure.
Second, the terrorists are prepared to go to any lengths to achieve their aims. This creates, in extreme form, the classic liberal dilemma: how do people who believe in freedom respond to those who would use that tolerance to threaten it. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum -let justice be done though the heavens fall - is an unacceptable motto in such circumstances. The first job of the state is to keep people safe. We cannot make our world perfectly safe from these terrorists. But people believed to be planning the deaths of tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of innocents can also not be allowed to roam freely.
Third, we cannot concede control either over nuclear weapons or over a large part of the world's oil reserves to such people. These are vital national interests. If the west were to withdraw from engagement in the Islamic world, al-Qaeda would be a long way towards what it considers to be its divinely ordained victory. Yet it is equally evident that the terrorists' home bases can be eliminated only if the Islamic world first makes it impossible for people dedicated to the mass murder of innocents to find a home of any sort inside it. Western policy must be guided by the aim of securing that co-operation from the Islamic world, however difficult that task may be.
Fourth, success even in limiting terrorism depends on the closest possible co-operation among the largest number of countries. Given this, virtually all the rhetoric and much of the practice of the Bush administration have been nothing short of a disaster. The administration might have secured support for the war in Iraq if it had not first trampled on the sensibilities of its allies. Language matters. The US cannot win this struggle on its own, or by military means alone. It needs to re-dedicate itself to the principle of acting multilaterally where possible and unilaterally only when necessary. But the rest of the world needs also to abandon its reflex anti-Americanism.
Finally, let us at least recognise the scale of the danger. Armed with nuclear weapons, fanatics of this kind could make fear the enemy of civilised life on this planet. These people are, alas, far from insane. They are true believers, unburdened either by restraint or by remorse. They have suffered losses since September 11 2001. But they have also made gains: the election result in Spain was one. They have learnt, yet again, that terrorism can work. The rest of the world has to unite in response. No good can come from squabbling over the mistakes of the past. If we cannot now co-operate wholeheartedly, only our mortal enemies will prosper.
There was the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and now we have the Tipton Three. There will, no doubt, be a book and a major feature film in time to come. I just hope, after reading Revealed: the full story of the Guantanamo Britons in today's Observer that -- in the process -- these three young men will be compensated in some small measure for the inhumane treatment they received at the hands of their US captors. The prospect of financial compensation from the US Government or their British co-conspirators would appear to be too politically unpalatable for words.
One of my fellow ecol-econ list members tipped me off about a report, recently released by The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, entitled The Cancer Epidemic as a Social Event. The increasingly large percentages of Canadian men and women contracting cancer is quite staggering, and while the medical profession attributes the cancer epidemic to genetic and lifestyle factors, the authors of the report maintain that carcinogens in our air, water, food, and workplaces are the significant causes of cancer. The full report is well worth reading. At the end of it one is left wondering what is going on those parts of the world where regulatory regimes are lax or non-existent. A media release on the report is reproduced below:
Cancer has become such an epidemic that 41% of Canadian males and nearly 38% of Canadian females will develop some form of the disease, and 27% of males and 23% of females will die from it.
While the medical profession and cancer research institutions attribute most of the cancer increase to genetic and lifestyle factors, the authors of a new CCPA study assert that carcinogens in our air, water, food, and workplaces are significant causes of cancer.
Economist Robert Chernomas and researcher Lissa Donner draw from reputable studies and findings to conclude that many cancers could be prevented if the cancer-causing chemicals were removed from our environment.
They note that in 2001, Canadian industries admitted releasing 18,455,237 kilograms of known carcinogens into our air, soil, and water. "Such industries have been called 'merchants of death' for putting profits ahead of human health"--but they have been aided and abetted by a lax regulatory and enforcement system that allows such deadly pollution to continue.
The authors are critical of the main objective of the fight against cancer, which is to find treatments or cures rather than promoting preventive measures. "Industries have argued that for every carcinogen there is a safe level of exposure. But our guiding principle should be that the safest exposure is no exposure."
Chernomas and Donner argue that the war on cancer can be won, but that the social, economic and political changes that are needed will require collective action by the environmental, occupational health and nutrition movements. Acting together, they can "stem the tide of cancer that is sweeping across Canada."
I'd watched a couple of episodes of The Awful Truth, so I knew who Michael Moore was, and with all the publicity surrounding Bowling for Columbine, I didn't need too much persuading to watch his award-winning documentary. My teenage daughters watched it with me and observed that the much maligned Marilyn Manson appeared to talk the most sense. They couldn't believe that adults could be so stupid. Stupidity, however, is a relative term.
I finished reading Moore's Stupid White Men this morning and while I'm glad I read it, I can't say I 'enjoyed' it. Yes, white men in powerful positions do stupid things, but they themselves don't think they're stupid. The scary stuff that Moore writes about in this book -- the fraudulent election of the US President in 2000, the increasing misery of the poor, human rights abuses, and the damage being done to the environment -- is plainly stupid from where I'm sitting, but for the neo-cons that control the media and ensure a compliant judiciary, it's rational behaviour if it furthers their narrow interests.
Moore's rallying cry in this book, put simply, is that 'there is more of us than them', and all the US electorate has to do is combat apathy and exercise its democratic right at the next election. Voters are showing their disaffection with the two main parties, but so far that has manifested itself in US voters turning out in increasingly smaller numbers. According to Moore, Ralph Nader did increase his vote by 500% at the last poll, but his share of the vote still remains miniscule. It may increase again this time around, attracting left-leaning Democrats. This, of course, plays into the hands of Dubya.
Getting back to Stupid White Men, it's well worth a read, but be prepared to be angry and depressed.