A Sea Change – Four Years On

Sorting out an old folder on the old family computer, I stumbled across this – an article I wrote as a piece of AS Level English Literature and Language coursework in 2004, when I was 17.

A few things are quite scary about this – firstly, it’s pretty good if I do say so myself, and makes me think that my writing standards have declined significantly at university (but perhaps this shouldn’t surprise me so much after all).

But, secondly and most depressingly, the “clampdown on civil liberties” that the 17 year old version of me saw in the nascent anti-terror legislation then has not stopped – it has gathered pace, as the passing of the measures for 42 days detention without trial show.

The momentum from 9/11 that gave sanction to the appalling ‘war on terror’ may have subsided – but it’s not completely clear that we’re moving into a new era yet. And we cannot move anywhere until the coalition troops get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

A Sea Change

A Look at Reactions to 9/11 and Their Effects

September 11th 2001 marked a sea change in the fortunes of the world. The event itself has become the epicentre of a political earthquake, whose shockwaves have penetrated the inner workings of society across the globe – it has become the most pivotal event in modern times since the end of the Cold War.

Fear Breads Hate

Post-9/11 paranoia was shamefully important in giving any reaction impetus. Difficult to overturn Eurocentric prejudices – legacies of colonialism – were inflamed. We always felt innately superior to the majority world. Stereotypically, terror has a non-white face that the media, particularly Hollywood, finds difficult to detach from. According to Jack Shaheen’s book Reel Bad Arabs, over 900 movies, from before and after 9/11, “project Arab… villains”. The archetypal Arab Muslim has a long beard and belongs to a terrorist cell, according to wild preconceptions. Islam has become inextricably linked to ‘Jihad’ and violence, creating a dangerous them and us mentality on religious grounds. This negative aspect of post-9/11 reactions appears anti-Muslim and only fuels the terrorist cause – fear breeds hate.

“Rewrite Half the Book or Have It Pulped”

There has been a clampdown on civil liberties since 2001. Under the guise of names like the Patriotism Act (US) and Terrorism Act (UK), these laws have allowed a degradation of some of the basic freedoms people, ironically, associate with the West. It is sad that the publishers of Stupid White Men advised Michael Moore to rewrite half the book or have it pulped: in fact, the ‘full’ version only appears in the UK. Still, the UK isn’t exempt from laws that, essentially, vilify asylum seekers. The terms ‘asylum seeker’ or ‘refugee’ – confused with illegal immigrants – have become synonymous with the term ‘terrorist’ in the language of governments and media. Whereas the diluting of free press may be traced back to before 9/11, with the establishment of Murdoch’s media empire, it is safe to assume that societal fear has been carefully spun to support government policy and sell sensationalist reporting. This is another negative aspect of our attempts to tackle terror – the terrorists are winning.

Like a Pendulum Throughout Time

Changing perceptions of what is Left or Right Wing have become apparent in the clampdown on civil liberties. People seemingly find an authoritarian, Right-Wing streak more acceptable. This is born out of fear of attacks – many want a more reactionary government focused on strict precautions against terror. Also, we find ourselves with a lack of respectable, Leftist alternatives. Ever since the Cold War, a prevailing and irrational fear of Communism – based on ignorance of its true ideological values and on its failure – has made the Left in general almost laughable. Capitalism and Machiavellian principles have seeped into society and affect people from childhood: stress on material values is a motif throughout the media and ever-intrusive advertising. Perceptions of Left and Right have swung like a pendulum throughout time. What is ‘universally’ Left or Right never varies, but the acceptability and perceptions of them are subject to change at different time periods and in different countries: for example, early 20th century Germans had a leaning towards authoritarian rule, whereas Britain had a tradition of parliamentary politics.

Knee-jerk and Reckless

The politicians’ reply to the audacious attack on the ‘free world’s’ people was knee-jerk and reckless at best, as called for by a society that clamours for an immediate solution to problems. Paranoia manifested itself in what Gore Vidal calls “perpetual war for perpetual peace” – the need for a war to satisfy the people’s concepts of security. This is the “War on Terror”, which began meaningfully in Afghanistan (2001): the ‘link’ between Afghanistan and al-Qaeda was acceptable to society and the war was widely supported. Although still believed to be a humanitarian success by many, the prevalence of lawless warlords, in the absence of the Taliban, has actually led to more violence against women (documented by Amnesty International) and more opportunities for terrorists (seen in the ongoing attacks). Questions were raised when more was done about oil pipelines, by an oil baron-cum-interim leader (Karzai), than the country’s dilapidated infrastructure.

2003’s war on Iraq was very different. The war was generally supported originally, showing that the ‘War on Terror’ still had momentum. However, significant protest (with several hundred thousand turning out in Hyde Park) and the fact that the decision to join the war came down to parliamentary debate suggests that the ‘links’ between Saddam and bin Laden were tenuous. Indeed, the UN suffered greatly for not supporting the war. Pro-war people saw the UN as unimportant, and thought they could act alone; unfortunately, a lot of other people see the UN as impotent in not stopping the unilateralism of the Coalition. Both attitudes undermine the UN greatly, changing the face of collective efforts in global politics.

After the war, when it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction or terrorist links, the war became a disaster for the Coalition. Although the war is still hailed as a humanitarian triumph, despite the country becoming a breeding ground for terror, public opinion is so angry at the farcical justification that the Coalition can no longer sustain the momentum from post-9/11 fear. The contrast between the secret nature of the ‘intelligence’ behind the reasons for going to war and the unprecedented public access to information via the media has lead to a level of scrutiny in governments’ actions that means the current course in the ‘fight’ against terror must change.

Things We Can Do

The term “war on terror” is decidedly inappropriate: you cannot answer indiscriminate terror with similarly indiscriminate war. The reaction to 9/11 has only furthered divisions and propagated hate of the West. Most painfully ironic, however, is the fact that terror has increased – and, if the recent Madrid bombings act as an example, we are witnessing a trend in direct attacks on the West.

There is certainly no relatively easy, short-term solution to the problem, but there are things that we can do. We must look at ourselves before we look at others. A change in Western foreign policy is required: significant change that will gradually improve relations. We can no longer support Israel, if it continues to break international law in its ‘dealings’ with the Palestinians; we can no longer wage unjustified, unnecessary wars that give terrorists focus and momentum; we cannot detain people indefinitely at camps like Guatanomo Bay; and we can longer force our ‘civilisation’ on countries that we deem ‘backward’, under the veil of playing Globocop. Simply put, we cannot espouse talk of a war on anything, whilst masquerading as protectors of the peace.