September 11 Attacks And The Australian example essay topic

The War on Terror, at least in the attack on Iraq, has been fought for reasons not entirely clear. However, suppositions may be drawn from certain events. Clearly, the argument made for the invasion of Iraq-its possession of weapons of mass destruction- is looking more disreputable by the day. Despite this, the Prime Minister, John Howard, is resolute in his arguments. As late as Monday 16th June 2003, Mr Howard was telling Parliament that investigations by the Office of National Assessments had found that US and UK intelligence agencies had "concluded that at least one of the three trailers found in Iraq was a mobile biological weapons production facility". He was referring to the discovery of alleged mobile biological laboratories.

Unfortunately, for John Howard, the evidence has proved inconclusive. (Forbes, M., 18/06/2003) It was the same kind of shadowy proof the "Coalition of the Willing" had used before the war-as in the case of Colin Powell's embarrassing presentation to the UN-and continues to use even now to assure us it was the right course of action. My contention is that the coalition's response to the threat of terrorism was justified on scant evidence and is more about facilitating the rise of US hegemony than making the world a safer place. Australia's own motivation for joining the campaign was obviously to ensure its protection by America. In addition, the Australian Government has encouraged racism and narrow mindedness amongst the population in order to serve its own purpose. 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".

(Lewis, W.H., 2002) Considering this definition, a question comes to mind: Is terror being used to fight terror? For, conceivably, the FBI's definition of terrorism could be applied to the US-led attacks on Afghanistan, and more recently, Iraq. Seen through the eyes of an Iraqi civilian who has suffered through 13 years of UN sanctions, wouldn't the war, and indeed the sanctions themselves, constitute a form of terrorism? And what of those 7 to 8 million starving people in Afghanistan who were denied food and other supplies when the US gave the order to Pakistan in September 2001 to stop the truck convoys that were such a vital lifeline?

(Chomsky, N., 2001) How would this barbaric act and the subsequent bombing of the country, be seen by the average Afghani? Would his or her view of the US's actions fit the FBI's definition of terrorism? Such a terrible and bloodthirsty punishment would not have been visited upon a First World Christian nation, even one that harbours terrorists. Can you imagine large parts of Ireland being bombed in order to destroy the IRA, even if it meant killing civilians in the process?

Both the US's attacks have been waged against Third World countries, who, it seems, (despite the supposed threat of WMD's in Iraq) were largely defenceless. While Bush and his ilk maintain the threat posed by WMD's was real and immediate, Australia's Defence Minister, Robert Hill, recently conceded that intelligence received on the extent of Iraq's WMD program may have been flawed. But is this really so? Or did the Government simply choose to pick the intelligence that worked for them? Andrew Wilkie, who resigned from the Office of National Assessment in protest of the war, claimed there was little justification for it, saying, 'Iraq does not pose a security threat to the US, the UK, Australia, or any other country at this time.

Their military is very small, their weapons of mass destruction program is fragmented and contained, and there is no hard evidence of any link between Iraq and al-Qa " ida. ' (Drogin, B., 17/06/2003) If this was true, and it seems now that it probably was, why did Howard and the hawks within his government continue to talk up the threat? Easy victories, easy targets. But what now? To whom do we turn our attention in the ever-widening War on Terror? And what, ultimately, will be the cost?

It is difficult to imagine we can achieve a better world by dropping bombs and exacerbating the misery of those who are already living in the most destitute of circumstances. In a sense, are we not like those we despise? As political columnist William Pfaff wrote after the September 11 attacks, "The riposte of a civilised nation: one that believes in good, in human society and does oppose evil, has to be narrowly focused and, above all, intelligent... Missiles are blunt weapons". (Pfaff, W., 17/11/2001) In addition to the poorly considered option used against Iraq, the Western world has shown an amazing amount of naivety when it comes to its planned "democratization". Arrogantly, the military planners expected the Iraqi people to embrace those who bombed them with open arms and accept, without question, a Western-style system of government, something entirely foreign to them.

Perhaps if historians had been at the helm, those calling for regime change would not have been so self-assured. For 1400 years Islamic conservatism has reigned in Iraq. Imperatives of the culture impose limits on diversity of outlook, whether religious or social. Western values clash heavily with these deeply held ideas. It is worth remembering that the influence of texts from ancient Greece, which led to the Renaissance in Europe, had little effect on the Muslim world. In their Golden Age they rejected the idea that man, not God, was the centre of the universe.

(Viorist, M., 17/06/2003) Although much of the rhetoric from Bush, Howard, Blair, et al., has emphasised the fact that the War on Terror is not synonymous with a war on Islam, the facts seem to say otherwise. Quite apart from the attack on two predominantly Muslim nations that has so far constituted the War on Terror, and the US's stubborn insistence that it will not allow Iraq to become an Islamic state, broader and more subtle examples of the inherent racism of the crusade have become evident. At home the increased budget and emphasis on border protection and the "Be aware, not alarmed" campaign speaks volumes about the nation's state of mind and the success fulness of the Howard Government's scaremongering. More than 1000 people have used a hotline "to report things", causing grief to Muslim Australians. Asked if he thought it better that Muslim women made themselves "less conspicuous at this time" by not wearing their distinctive headdress, Howard replied: "Obviously". (Pilger, J., 05/02/2003) Haifa Deen, a former member of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and award-winning author, spoke recently of the changes she has noticed within Australia's Muslim community.

She cited the September 11 attacks and the Australian Government's clampdown on largely Middle-Eastern asylum seekers as major events, saying that Australian Muslims began to feel "under siege and saw themselves as lumped together as 'the enemy'". She was also affronted by the children overboard scandal. "The slur was that people of Arab background could be so vile that they would throw their children overboard". (Laurie, V., 22/05/2003) As far as the children overboard scandal goes, it must be said that the Government used the Australian public's paranoia and xenophobia to its own advantage. Perhaps this event will only serve as a footnote in Australia's history. However, it is important, for it illustrates the way in which Australia's collective mind has narrowed since September 11.

People were all too willing to believe. Hot on the heels of the children overboard success-then, at least- came the proposed widening of ASIO's powers. The ASIO Terrorism Bill was to feature many outlandish clauses designed to erode the basic rights of citizens. Here are but a few: ASIO would have the right to hold people for 48 hours, then immediately re-detain them upon their release. There would be no right to silence, with up to 5 years jail for those who refused to talk. Moreover, the person would bear the burden of proving they did not have the information sought by ASIO, effectively reversing the presumption of innocence enjoyed by citizens today.

The right to legal advice would be denied in the first 48 hours of questioning, after which the person would only have access to a lawyer approved by the Attorney General, if they could afford it. There would be no automatic right to an interpreter. (It is difficult to deny the implicit racism of this proposal.) The legislation would apply to all Australians, including children, regardless of whether they are suspected of terrorist activities or not. (web) It should be noted, too, that the ALP is prepared to sanction the widening of ASIO's powers if the Liberal Party offers a few minor changes to its proposals, including the raising of the age of those who may be detained, a reduction in questioning time and access to legal council. They have allowed a clause that gives ASIO the right to detain Australian citizens for up to seven days, possibly in their own homes. (Crabb, A., 18/06/2003) The Opposition is anything but. Perhaps they believe we have the same mindset as the American public, 74 percent of whom thought, "It would be necessary for Americans to give up some of their personal freedoms".

(Vidal, G., 2002, p. 14) Academic Scott Burchell of Deakin University in Melbourne wrote, "confected wars against imaginary or exaggerated threats [are] an effective tool of social conformity and a powerful antidote to political dissent". (Pilger, J., 05/02/2003) The US, according to critics such as writer Gore Vidal, has adopted this belief as part of its foreign policy, forever waging wars against weaker nations, which may go some toward explaining why the events of September 11 occurred in the first place. But suddenly the stakes seem much higher, the threat more real, and consequently, attacks on other nations, more justified. Which is why the US government was able to sell the idea of Saddam Hussein passing on nuclear weapons to terrorists as a justification for war.

In fact it was this nightmare scenario, though it seemed apocryphal to many, that swung the US people behind the campaign. Already jumping at shadows, they were willing to support war, no matter how many foreigners died, just so long as their own safety was guaranteed. Not one to intellectualize too much, George W. Bush, in reference to the terrorists, would say, "We are good, they are evil". (Vidal, G., 2002, p. 14) To some this would be justification enough.

It was us against them. The freedom lovers against the freedom haters. The believers against the infidels, though, peculiarly, many would-be terrorists could justify a war on similar grounds. From a religious standpoint, Christian commentators in the US have been rare in adopting the pacifist attitude you might expect. John MacArthur, a Pastor-Teacher, author and radio personality, wrote, "When a foreign nation or a group of people like the terrorists attack America, they have struck a blow against an institution of God. And our government has a divine mandate to wield the sword to bring justice to those who are responsible, even if that entails waging war".

(MacArthur, J., 2001, p. 97) George W Bush may also have similar ideas. "He's the most recklessly religious President we " ve seen", said Annie Laurie Gay lor, the editor of Freethought Today, a publication of America's Freedom from Religion Foundation. "He's on a religious mission, and you can't divorce religion from his militarism. He believes in fighting righteous war". Chip Berle t, an analyst for Political Research Associates and an expert on right wing religious groups, said, "Bush is very much into the apocalyptic and messianic thinking of militant Christian evangelicals.

He seems to buy into the worldview that there is a giant struggle between good and evil culminating in a final confrontation. People with that kind of worldview often take risks that are inappropriate and scary because they see it as carrying out God's will". (The Progressive, 02/01/2003, p. 8) But perhaps those with more secular concerns have simply used the US President's religiosity, and the events of September 11, to their own advantage. In 1997, a lobby group calling itself the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was formed. Its members are amongst George W. Bush's current inner sanctum, and included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol. The main ideas advocated by the group were increased military spending, the spread of American ideals of liberal democracy and free trade, by military means, if necessary, and the prevention of the emergence of any superpower to rival the US.

Ten of the 18 PNAC members, who had written to Bill Clinton in his term pushing for regime change in Iraq, were elevated to key positions in the Bush Administration. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were given plumb jobs in the Department of Defence. Of course it was difficult for the ex-PNAC members to move on Iraq, until, that is, the events of September 11 occurred. Fighting wars to bring about regime change is in breach of international law. But after the events of September 11, a supposed threat from terrorists by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction offered a more plausible argument.

(Manne, R., 16/07/2003) The question, of course, is where will they take us now in this ongoing battle? Is it really about ensuring our safety and freedom or fulfilling the wishes of PNAC? If you believe the intentions of those ex-PNAC members is driving the US's foreign policy, then its intention seems fairly clear-to maintain, or even increase its superpower status. But what of Australia? Is our government willing to commit to every blind military enterprise in the War on Terror? Will we venture into Iran and the nuclear-armed North Korea to show our support to our bully-boy protector?

Australia stands at a crossroads in its history. It has the potential to be an agent for peace and tolerance, or it can head along a quite divergent road-one that invites terrorist threats and makes our society a paranoid and punitive one. At this juncture, we should look at where the Howard Government has led so far. We must consider Tampa, the children overboard affair, the way in which they exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, if indeed there were any, and the fact that they used this bogus danger as a pretext for war. We must examine their motives and forever be sceptical.

Bibliography

1. Anonymous, Bush's Messiah complex, The Progressive, 02/01/2003 2.
Crabb, A., Labor pact gives ASIO new powers, The Age, 18/06/2003 3.
Chomsky, N., The New War Against Terror (from a talk), 18/10/2001 4.
Drogin, B., Three months and 300 searches- and still no sign of the WMDs, The Age, 17/06/2003 5.
Forbes, M., Iraq laboratories find 'not conclusive', The Age, 18/06/2003 6.
Laurie, V., Invisible Muslims now under siege, The Australian, 22/05/2003 7.
Lewis, W.H., The War on Terror, A Retrospective, Mediterranean Quarterly 13.4 2002 8.
Pfaff, W., Herald Tribune, 17/09/2001 9.
Manne, R., Iraq scandal a threat to democracy, The Age, 16/06/2003 10.
Pilger, J., Howard whips up pro-war paranoia, Green Left Weekly, 05/02/2003 11.
Vidal, G., Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace- How We Got To Be So Hated, Nation Books, New York 2001 12.
MacArthur, J., Terrorism, Jihad, and the Bible, W Publishing Group, 2001 13.
Viorist, M., Why Iraqis are not embracing Western values, The Age, 17/06/2003 14.