|
Send to a friend
Printer Friendly PDF Format
Subscribe to FFF Email Update
Subscribe to Freedom Daily
The Farcical Definition at the Heart of the War on Terrorism
by
James Bovard,
January 30, 2006
A recent denunciation of U.S. government foreign policy offers insights into a paradox of the war of terrorism.
On January 24, 2006, the East Timor Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation denounced the U.S.
government for backing the 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor. In the following decades, a quarter million East Timorese residents died as a result of this incursion. The commission declared that U.S.
political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation.
The Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor were among the most barbaric actions of the late 20th century.
President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger met with Indonesian President Suharto in Jakarta the day before the invasion and gave U.S.
approval. The primary concern of U.S. officials seemed to be to get back to Washington before the bloodbath began.
Kissinger told Suharto, We understand your problem and the need to move quickly but I am only saying that it would be better if it were done after we returned. Kissinger, doing his best imitation of Lady Macbeth, urged Suharto, It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly.
Indonesia used U.S. military weapons to bombard East Timor and to crush resistance. The Indonesian military finally left East Timor in 1999, inflicting one more orgy of burning and killing on the island in the final days before its exit.
More people died as a result of the U.S.-backed invasion
of East Timor than were killed by international
terrorists in the subsequent 30 years. According to the
U.S. State Department, between 1980 and 2005 fewer than
25,000 people were killed in international terrorist
incidents around the globe.
The Bush administration, in its war on terror, stresses
that anyone who aids and abets a terrorist is as guilty
as the terrorist. By this standard, the U.S. government
was guilty of enabling the Indonesian government to
terrorize the Timorese people. The Timorese victims of
U.S.-backed aggression received far less than 1 percent
of the attention than have American victims of terrorist
attacks.
The U.S. government currently bankrolls and arms many
foreign regimes that terrorize their own people, including Colombia,
Indonesia, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. Frida Berrigan
of the World Policy Institute noted that the State
Departments 2002 Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices lists 52 countries that are currently
receiving U.S. military training or weapons as having
poor or very poor human-rights
records.
President Bush declared in 2002, Our mission is to
make the world free from terror. But the only way
that Bushs pledge makes any sense is by relying on
a myopic if not absurd definition of terrorism.
The United States has long insisted that government
agents cannot be terrorists. The FBI defines terrorism as
the unlawful use of force or violence against
persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government,
the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives.
Since government action is almost always lawful or at
least not considered criminal by the government itself
governments almost never qualify as terrorists under the
U.S. definitions.
A far sounder definition was offered by Israeli National
Security Council chairman Major General Uzi Dayan, who
defined as terrorist in a December 2001 speech any
organization that systematically harms civilians,
irrespective of its motives. This definition
catches all types of terrorism not just actions that
lack political blessings or official sanctions.
If a government systematically attacks civilians, the
government is no less culpable than private cabals that
blow up planes, buses, or cafes. By this standard, the
Indonesian invasion of East Timor was as much a terrorist
action as the bombings of Bali nightclubs in October 2002
that killed hundreds of civilians.
The U.S. terrorism definition is the key to the Bush
administration claim that the war on terrorism is
automatically a war for freedom. Without the
state-exempt concept of terrorism, fighting terrorism
would, in most parts of the world, have little or nothing
to do with defending freedom. With an honest definition
of terrorism, many governments in the Bush
freedom-loving coalition are guilty of inflicting more
terrorism than they prevent.
Having a state action exemption to the
concept of terrorism is like having a mass murder
exemption in the homicide statute. Any action
carried out by private citizens that would be considered
terrorism should also be considered terrorism if carried
out by government agents. he United States should recognize that its bankrolling and support of governments that terrorize their own people make a mockery of Bush's promise to rid the world of evil.
James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy [2006] as well as The Bush Betrayal [2004], Lost Rights [1994] and Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil (Palgrave-Macmillan, September 2003) and serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
|