Welcome to BASE21

The 'war against terrorism' which the imperialists have silently been implementing, is now going headlong, as US and allies drop bombs over Afghanistan this very minute. After the 9.11 terror, progressive forces around the world have been crying for 'peace, not war', in contestation against 'war of retaliation' and 'cycle of violence and terror'. At US make their attacks, campaigns demanding 'anti-retaliation' and 'anti-war, pro-peace' seem to be the only slogans that the progressives can adopt. However, it's getting a little difficult to erase the impression that international activists calling for 'peace, not war' are approaching and posing the question in a somewhat narrow method, compared to the broad exploitation of the 9.11 terror of US ruling elite, capitalists and their alliances.

Soon after the 9.11 terror, world leaders impelled by the US, rushed to denounce 'terrorism' that killed innocent civilians and promised any sort of support to the military action of the US. Those stigmatised by the US as 'rogue nations' such as North Korea and Iraq, also joined in the rush, whatever their inner motives may be. This train of anti-terrorism continues on the other side of the political spectrum. Almost all statements and comments from progressive organizations and activists start with words of condolence to innocent lives killed during the attack on the WTC and Pentagon, warning against the danger of terrorism. The 'anti-terrorism' statements from the progressive community do come from a wide spectrum of ideological backgrounds and context. From the bourgeois pacifism that shudders at any sort of 'violence' in general to the perspectives of revolutionary Marxists who view terrorism as being leftist opportunism contradicting the revolutionary majority, it is true there are vast differences in context between the various 'anti-terrorisms'. However, the 'anti-terrorism' proclamations from the progressive community ever since the 9.11 terror seem to have a shared analysis of the situation at hand - the urgent need to defend the ongoing counteractions of international social movements and trade unions, and protect the achievements of internationalist solidarity against the neo-liberal globalization. In other words, it seems to be an effort to identify the struggles and internationalist direct actions against neo-liberal globalization as being essentially different from the '9.11 terror which committed genocide against innocent civilians', in order to protect the movement against future attack from the ruling class as well as attaining justification for upcoming struggles.

The anti-terrorism statements from the progressive community reflect this judgement. But it also seems like the time has come for us to be cautious about the setbacks of these statements. First of all, taking into account that the definition of terrorism itself is very much obscure, antagonism against terrorism can become indiscriminate with antagonism against all types of 'violence' and end up negating even 'defensive violence' which oppressed peoples turn to as their last resort for survival against 'violence of the state'. While hundreds of indigenous people were being killed everyday by the Mexican government, the Mayan people eventually picked up their guns. It was the least they could do for their survival and it was a defensive act of violence. None of us accused the Zapatistas (EZLN) of terrorism. But now we are criticising an act of terror that is obscure in both definition and target. Thus what is important at this moment is 'what exactly is terror and who are the terrorists?'. Perhaps we are all terrorists in their eyes. This is confirmed when we look at some events that are taking place. As reported in the media, the Bush administration has already placed 'Anti-terrorism Act 2001' to be passed in the assembly, making it much easier for the government to wiretap computers an telephones without having to go to individual courts to get multiple search warrants. The government will also abolish restrictions that limit access suspects' bank records and credit card purchases, while regulations and control on immigrants and visiting foreigners become tightened. It is more than obvious that this act, under the justifications of 'eliminating terrorism' or 'maintaining national security', will be manipulated to strengthen racist·nationalistic·political discriminations. Britain is no different. After the 9.11 terror, the British government is considering introducing new ID cards and has pinpointed anti-capitalist radicals as 'terrorists' under its 'Terrorism Act 2000'. This atmosphere in the US and Britain is spreading internationally through the UN. The UN is demanding that each member nation take measures to freeze funds that feed into terrorist networks as permanent prevention against terrorism, and pass bills to outlaw any sort of direct and indirect support to terrorist groups. Thus, all members are being made to enact 'anti-terrorist bills'. This 'war against terrorism' is thus being expanded to deprive the people of their democratic rights and attack anti-capitalist, anti neo-liberal movements amidst the international wave of post-terror 'terrorism'. This wave was ascertained by the words of the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi. Last week, during his visit to Berlin, he identified Islam and opponents of global capitalism as the targets of a "western crusade" for "civilized values".

Both the right and left wing seem to share the common view that "terrorism is without doubt an act of 'evil', the fundamental elimination of which is the core problem that we face today". Whatever the right-wingers have in mind, they demand the elimination of terrorism through 'a new type of war', while left-wing and social activists -though there is a wide spectrum- state that the fundamental issues that lie underneath the attack, namely global inequality and injustice, the dominating foreign policies of the US, neo-liberal globalization etc. must be dealt with in the forehand. 'War begets other terrors and wars' and thus must 'teach peace' to root out terrorism. In this context, the international anti-war pro-peace movement seems like the only campaign that the world's progressive forces can adopt. But the question remains on whether the anti-war pro-peace campaign is the most effective strategy in breaking through this worldwide security havoc. The point is, what exactly is it that the Bush administration and the capitalists are ultimately aiming. If the 'war against terrorism' has nothing in fact to do with the 'elimination of terrorism' as many observers have pointed out, then the question of whether it really is appropriate for progressive groups to ponder within the framework of 'how to eliminate terrorism' and 'is it war or is it peace?' remain. The US ruling elite is using the terror as an 'opportunity' to restructure social order nationally and internationally. If we look at the US, as already mentioned, the CIA and FBI have been awarded unlimited investigation powers, basic democratic rights have been violated, and policies that have nothing to do with national security nor the elimination of terrorism are being introduced. Robert Zoellick, US Trade Representative, actually said that giving full fast-track to make trade agreement advances to the president is the best way to combat the 9.11 tragedy. Also capitalists are demanding their long-yearned corporate tax breaks and capital gain tax cuts under the name of 'war against terrorism'.

For sure, the arena formed by the 9.11 terror is being led and manipulated to their own interests by neo-liberalists, militarists, racists and right-wing reactionaries. Bush's 'war against terrorism' is nothing other than a permanent method of seizing control and attacking the basic rights and democracy of the people in and outside the US. In facing this so-called 'new type of war', the anti-war, pro-peace campaign of the progressive community must make a new turn. More inclusive analyses and counteractions are needed, with eyes further in the horizon. Indeed, the US bombings will cause great suffering to the already impoverished people of Afghanistan. It cannot be justified by anything and must be stopped through an international anti-war movement. But we must not merely stop at denouncing the actual act of bombing. A broader strategy is needed to counteract the deterioration of democratic rights, the racist violence, the attempts of the ruling class to lay-off workers and expedite free trade, and the increase of militarism all around the world. The present situation shaped by the 9.11 terror attacks will definitely become a turning point for social movements. How are we going to defend the achievements of international struggles against neo-liberal globalization, and strengthen our internationalist perspective against the 'fascist attack on a worldwide level'? The first turn has come, in the struggle surrounding the prospects of a new world and social order.

by Policy & Information Center for International Solidarity, picis@jinbo.net