 |
|
September
11, 2001
Making
sense of the attack |
 |
Close to 7,000 dead,
nearly all of them missing. The world’s sole superpower struck at the heart of its
economic life and defence system, something that no state at war with the U.S. had
previously managed to achieve. A whole new scale of destruction, marking the advent
of “hyper-terrorism.” Suspects linked to obscure transnational networks believed
to centre around a billionaire warlord, hidden in a country that could not be more
different from America. No admission of responsibility. The September 11 attacks
were unthinkable. For this very reason, the shockwaves that ensued have been unprecedented.
First thoughts went to the victims, their families and the nation, in a spirit of
unreserved solidarity. Then, once rescue operations got underway and public security
measures were taken, came disbelief, rage and resolve, but also, on a more diffuse
level, the time for introspection and doubt.
American military forces are mobilizing and Operation “Infinite Justice,” (renamed
“Enduring Freedom”) has been launched. But to deliver what kind of justice, within
what legal constraints and against whom? Doing justice to the victims and preventing
more violence by dismantling terrorism is a legitimate and imperative obligation.
But the wall of an American Muslim insitute bears an anonymous warning: “An ‘eye
for an eye’ leaves everyone blind.” Retaliation against fanatics using force alone
succumbs to their logic. The military and security response can only be fair, and
thus effective, if it is part of a global answer to the key question: how and why
did we come to this?
So far, the words that are repeatedly cited– war, civilization and Islamism–stand
in the way of profound analysis. The first word is inappropriate, since wars are
fought between nation-states. The second has a painful history that can be traced
back to the Enlightenment, when humanity was divided into the “civilized” and “barbarians”
in order to legitimize Western conquests. This war-cry of “civilization” came to
paper over colonial expansion. Today, use of this word in the singular suggests that
the world contains only one civilization, relegating all others to an inferior or
even non-existent status. The third term, Islamism, describes a political and religious
movement advocating expansion of and respect for Islam. The term is increasingly
confused with its violent extremes, which are condemned by most Muslims. To line
up this skewed definition with the words “war” and “civilization” is to adopt exactly
the same way of thinking as that embraced by the alleged culprits. Actions that stem
from such an interpretation inevitably lead to a dead-end.
Reactions to the attacks as gleaned from the international press offer a starting
point for reflection. They point to significant fault lines. The attacks were clearly
a trauma for Americans, as well as for many people, mostly living in developed countries.
A very small number of people openly displayed abominable joy. A larger group, while
empathizing with the victims, looked upon these attacks as one more instance–albeit
a more dramatic one–of a plague of violence affecting the entire planet. This time
it had hit the U.S., as it had already struck many other countries. Yet perhaps the
greatest number of people around the world showed no more than indifference, as if
these events were happening on another planet, or did not break with life’s daily
routine.
More than half a century ago in London, when German bombs were still raining upon
the city, diplomats and an educated group of men and women gathered to reflect upon
the unthinkable events of their time. Why and how, in the heart of “Christian Europe,”
in the country with the most educated population, could Nazism surge and the Holocaust
take place? What new world order could prevent a return to barbarism? Their answers
are cast in UNESCO’s Constitution. They found that a denial of reason unleashed a
denial of human dignity. They attributed this to barriers erected between people,
which gave rise to “mutual incomprehension.” Their answer lay in a voluntary mission
that called for the development of the “free exchange of ideas and knowledge” for
the “purposes of mutual understanding”–the “United Nations.” They sought to give
meaning to a world that had gone adrift by restoring “the moral and intellectual
solidarity of mankind.”
True, the historic context was starkly different from today. True, the world has
strayed from the path traced by these visionaries. One probably explains the other.
But do these differences invalidate the visionaries’ conclusions and render their
path impracticable?
The UNESCO Courier, September 25, 2001 |
|
|
