Mankind, A Fearful Flea Afloat in the Flotsam

When Osama Bin Laden declared war on the US, his threat had a mild element of humour. In the normal flow of events, individuals and their organisations do not use the language of diplomacy to announce or voice their stance. Osama seemed to be a bit presumptuous, as though taking on airs. Dissident groups resorting to acts of violence generally do so without a formal declaration that they now elect more forceful methods.

Ireland has a long history of violence with England. Yet there seems to be no formal declaration of war. In the instance of the American colonies there was a formal declaration of independence, written at the behest of a convention, and only after failure to achieve redress by more diplomatic means.

The American declaration lays out a long laundry list of legal lapses laid lengthwise, with minor mention of an intent to enter into armed hostility. It was a unilateral declaration that the colonial yoke was to be removed, and a threat to use any necessary force was tacitly implied. In actuality, muted hostilities had already begun, and the declaration was intended to justify to the other nations of the world a war already in progress. It was an early recognition that the opinion of other nations was worthy of note. It was accepted as a token of respect. It had ideals, resolution and humility. There was no suggestion that arrogance was born, or that superpower corrupts superbly.

For almost two centuries the American colonies kept a course to themselves, rarely competing in the continental contest for African or Asian assets. America had enough territory for the time, and no new non-contiguous turf was thought worth the taking. The Spanish-American escapade raised a few eyebrows that remain raised, though in general America has avoided the colonial disease.

America was pulled reluctantly into both WWI and WWII, and the failure to find accord with the Russians after 1945 has filled Americans with a dread of fighting a wearisome war against dictatorship and injustice. The role of superpower was thrust upon an inexperienced and unwilling people, accustomed to an insular serenity devoted to the peaceful pursuits of plowing, killing whales for lamp oil and sharp Yankee trading. Agriculture has become mainly a matter of meals made by mechanics, and electricity has mangled the market for whale oil, but the Yankee trading continues apace with unabated ardour.

America determined it would not succumb to the perceived evil of Communism, an anguish not to be suffered by free men. In the clandestine confrontation with communism all the dirty tricks of dishonourable conflict were discovered, disavowed, and then developed for domestic deployment. When the enemy spat tobacco into the eye, America protested, but soon practiced to chew and spit.

Behind the dainty draperies of democracy the detestable deceits of the demon were adopted, out of public display. After a few decades America became adept at such dirty dealing, and the temptation to enter the international arena with a concealed peanut shell in hand overrode the reservations of a more virginal time. In the drawing rooms and coffee shops of the world, CIA operations brought America contempt. The battles America entered were more often than not on the side of the dictator against oppressed people. Time and time again America gave material support to the enemies of democracy, defiant in damning and defeating their true allies, the fellow freedom fighters of the world.

Deceit and deception have demeaned democracy. America is, for the moment, not felt fit to carry the flag. The once revered fervor of America is seen led ring-in-nose by multinational corporate interests. There is a perception humanitarian values are absent, that an indifference to human rights persists so long as profits pour.

After WWII the allies converted industry from coal to oil. A dependency on Middle Eastern supplies developed, and the sons of the sheiks returning from Harvard with an MBA in economics soon made an OPEC of things. America was forced to maintain a presence in the Middle East, to protect the flow of oil, and to give support and aid to the fledgling democracy-cum-cummune of Israel. Though the defense of Israel conflicted with relations with the oil countries, the tightrope act continued throughout the Cold War.

America was alarmed by the situation in Iran, and the puppet Shah was installed over Mohammad Mossadegh's dead body. The Shah was put and kept in office by American arms, the secret service Savak, taught savagery by the CIA, and the complete destruction of democracy. America never looked so tawdry. The end of the Shah brought the Islamic reaction of the ayatollahs, who found it difficult to forgive and forget. The dissension over oil continues.

Iraq became an ally, and the genial general leading the levies against Iran was led into an unpayable debt of $US 50 billion or so. When he tried to find new sources of revenue to the south, claiming an ancient territorial boundary, he de-stabilised the Arabian peninsula. His old ally to the West rebelled. The Gulf War was a misunderstanding, one that led to an increased American military presence in the Middle East. Resentment caused by this continued presence contributed directly to the destruction of the World Trade Center.

After two US embassies were bombed, followed by the near sinking of a US warship, the situation became more serious. The US retaliated with expensive long range missiles. Not one, but scores of them were sent out in search of Osama and immediate family, with little regard for poor electronics or who might be visiting. The battle lines became more firm, and the declaration of war by Osama assumed greater face value.

It was something of a unilateral situation, in that the US did not respond RSVP with a formal agreement to join forces. A great state does not bestow an historic document on an unworthy opponent. It tends to lend undeserved dignity to the belligerent. He is instead considered a criminal, and the international police forces are put onto the case. No war is declared, and the military is not called into contention, simply because it is such a risky affair in these times, when such a declaration may easily blaze into a bigger bonfire than a backyard barbeque requires. A declaration of war is a serious business, especially in the nuclear age. Sane and sober men thus choose retaliatory rhetoric with great care.

It seems clear in retrospect that Osama felt his Islamic-centered demands were not receiving the respect he feels they deserve. He fanned the fire, in the form of four airliners full of fuel, flown full force into the face of his enemy. He got his response, ripe with respect, in the riposte of Mr. Bush's declaration of war.

The American declaration is nebulous at best, broader than necessary at worst. It includes Osama, his Al Qaeda organisation, and anyone or any government thought to be giving aid and support. It goes further, much further. It reaches out to any small hot spot on the earth. In the absence of defined borders, the discourse carries the decided dribble of a declaration of war against the whole world.

For the moment, the war seems restricted to those areas where a particular interest of the Americans is involved, such as the kidnapping of an American citizen. The president makes it clear that there is to be no reassuring restriction of future regions of retribution. The war, while undeclared and undefined, is to be worldwide, with no quarter given for national boundary.

Such words, issued in an important speech by the president of the US, may comfort some in the room, but for the rest of us it produces a quiver of alarm. Such fist-shaking fury, intended perhaps to fill the folks with fealty to follow fearlessly a furtive foe into the forests of the future, fills more with a fear of the fury itself. We watch as the outlines of a vendetta are drawn. It has all the appearances of the first fisticuffs of an appalachian family feud.

Where, one asks, is the dignity of diplomacy? Is the earth’s sole superpower to abolish the restraints of civilisation in search of real and imaginary enemies? In such a war, where are the safe sidelines for those who do not wish to be considered combatants? Apparently there are none. There is no middle ground. One must choose. "Either for us or against us," the man says. No passport in a passenger’s possession provides protection. None. Tourism is done.

It is thought he might mean to address only entire states, and there is some security in that. Yet the actions to date are also against small groups, and against individuals thought to belong or to support them. Perhaps that leaves a loophole for those who have no personal knowledge of terrorism or terrorists, and prefer to have none.

But no, there is the requirement that ALL are to decide, and have no hesitation about it, as such delay for deliberation is taken as sympathy with the aims of the enemy. Apparently careful consideration taints one's neutrality. A pointed finger is enough to be picked out for punishment. This is an insult to reason.

In the past it has always been possible to pardon American peccadilloes, because the perceived democratic ideals were sufficiently established, enshrined in the writings of the founding fathers. The documents they drew defined the dimensions of the democracy dream, and occassional diversions were corrected before the image of American fairness in defense of freedom became fatally fractured.

The situation has changed. Today the world sees those foundations faltering; the freedoms seem more fragile than before. The leadership has assumed the mentality of a Mafia don in the midst of a mob vendetta. He has gone to the mattresses, and has forced the rest of us to go there too. Those who stride into the street to speak for a sane and sober solution are subject to be shot.

In such situations, all the old wounds tend to be re-opened, said to be necessary in order to promote healing. But the opening of old wounds causes more blood to flow, and there is no guarantee that the present attempt to cleanse the canker and cauterise the cancer will succeed. For the moment there is only the pain, and the uncertainty. The world is not safe, either for democracy or dictatorship

America, the model for democracy, gives the world the impression of an elephant in must, that on occasion must be put down. That is not good for the elephant, and not good for those who assume the duty to do the deed. The behaviour is seen to be connected to a corruption of democratic ideals by the absolute power of unregulated multinational corporations. If it is the rogue corporation that is the problem, better to first pull that thorn from the body politic, sparing the bulk of the good beast of burden.

In the interim, while means are found to find and frustrate the causative organism, only the Americans themselves can rein in the rampant ruler-in-rage now loose in the rice fields of the world.

Kant counseled the maintenance of goodwill among men as the critical criterion of cooperation and an essential cornerstone for a cohesive community. It is goodwill that has been lost. Osama has forever forfeited his right to fraternise and define further his frustrations. That does not disqualify other spokesmen from a hearing.