The US seems much in need of former US president Franklin Roosevelt’s maxim to stop fearing fear itself. Virtually all comment on the Mumbai massacre has mentioned Sept. 11, 2001, and al-Qaeda, and thus invited citizens to continue feeling afraid. No matter that Mumbai appears to have been primarily about Kashmir and the status of India’s Muslims.
No matter that Osama bin Laden has no dog in that fight. Any stick will do to elevate al-Qaeda as the US’ enemy No. 1.
Last week, the CIA warned of a terrorist threat that “might be unleashed” during the presidential transition, a threat that US President George W. Bush described as “dangerously real.”
Last Wednesday US president-elect Barack Obama was formally told by a congressional inquiry: “It is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction, either nuclear or biological, will be used in a terrorist attack” in his first year of office.
The inquiry demanded that an official must be appointed “to oversee efforts to prevent such an attack,” as if millions of Americans in and out of uniform were not doing that already.
Then London added its pennyworth, with a Home Office minister, Lord West, telling of “another great plot building up again” and a “huge threat” from al-Qaeda.
The purpose of all this scaremongering remains a mystery.
Reactions to Mumbai have seemed to suggest Americans are still seeking fellowship in their Sept. 11 pain, as after the London and Madrid bombings. Gone are the days when Americans would tell Britons to shrug off IRA terrorist attacks (many instigated from the US) and grow up. Any explosion anywhere now abets the extraordinary Sept. 11 iconography, underpinning the politics of fear that has been the leitmotif of the Bush presidency.
Debating this presidency in New York last Tuesday night, I found myself pitted against Bush’s impresario of fear, former deputy chief of staff Karl Rove. Nothing in his master’s glorious reign quite matched his “victory” over terror. The sense of unreality was equaled by Rove’s supporters, to whom all who did not fear the “Islamofascists” were “liberal upper-east side elitists,” an apparently crushing epithet. One assured me that Afghanistan would soon be won by merely “moving the surge” to Kabul. The whole evening was like the scene in Gone with the Wind where Southern gallants out-boast each other in predicting victory over the Yankees.
Rove was undeniably a master manipulator of fear politics, like former British prime minister Tony Blair’s director of communications, Alastair Campbell, who called him a “kindred spirit.”
Both Bush and Blair were led to portray al-Qaeda in its Tora Bora cave as they had former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, as a threat to their respective realms. It was what the sociologist Ulrich Beck described as an exaggerated risk “exploited as an elixir to an ailing leader.” On this the two leaders built a culture of self-validating counter-terrorism, where both the absence of any threat and the presence of one can be made equally supportive.
The media’s fondness for describing any explosion as “al-Qaeda-linked” has turned what was a tiny, if efficient, cabal of fanatics into a global menace, ridiculously on a par with Hitler and postwar communism. Whoever said the political brain has advanced over time was mad.
On every visit to the US I am stunned by the pervasiveness of fear. Terrified officials pounce on the slightest deviation from security rules. Americans must strip almost to their underwear to board even the shortest domestic flights. IDs are scanned in the meanest office blocks. Computers must be dismantled. National guardsmen troop out at dawn to protect New York installations “against the terrorist threat.”
The repressive Patriot Act — mocking a patriotism that was once built on courage and the rule of law — remains in operation. Getting through US immigration with a brown face is an indignity that many Indians and Arabs of my acquaintance now simply refuse to endure. I had trouble even with a Baghdad visa in my passport.
Obama, who is pledged to close Guantanamo Bay, is being challenged to say what he will do with what the conservative Weekly Standard asserts are “250 participants in the most devastating terrorist attacks in history” from “an enemy unlike any other this nation has ever faced.”
Britons should not smile at this hyperbole. The same madness afflicts British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s Home Office.
In the 1960s US political scientist Richard Hofstadter puzzled over the anti-intellectualism of much of US public life, echoing the remark of the Puritan, John Cotton, in 1642 that “The more learned and witty you bee, the more fit to act for Satan.”
Listening to the debate last Tuesday I realized how deep is that strand, how strong the line of descent to the war on terror from previous generations who likewise puffed up the mafia and home-grown communism.
The 1950s Kefauver commission on organized crime sought a foe to demonize as foreign, sinister and ubiquitous. The inquiry found that there was no national “mafia” worthy of the name, or of their attention, just disparate bunches of local hoodlums.
Kefauver and the FBI, whose burgeoning empire depended on him, were furious. They had come to need the mafia and its menace to justify their budget, effort and status.
The same synthetic sense of fear enveloped the McCarthy hearings on communism. A grain of truth was exaggerated to boost former senator Joe McCarthy’s standing as a defender of the people against a real and present danger, that of reds under every bed. Communism had to be erected as an internal weapon of mass destruction, and much cruelty resulted.
At least organized crime and communism posed genuine threats to US liberties. Al-Qaeda does not, yet it has become the ruling obsession of Bush’s courtiers. They see al-Qaeda fiends on every side, bearded mullahs, caches of bombs, ricin and anthrax. The precautionary principle has become fanaticized. By treating the unknown as an enemy, we ensure that the unknown becomes one.
Most of the outrages committed by graduates of the Pakistan terrorism camps are locally motivated, and will continue as long as such motivation survives. A network of criminal suicide squads with no coherent program has no conceivable hope of undermining Western democracy. It can just set off bombs, and will always do so if front-line policing is weak and constantly overruled by a grand “counter-terrorism” bureaucracy.
Just when the US had won a real victory in the century-old combat with communism, it allowed itself to be terrified by a band of fanatics who, in part through the US’ negligence, “got lucky once” and pulled off a coup on Sept. 11, 2001. For seven years its behavior at home and image abroad have been dogged by the reaction to it. The challenge to Obama, here as elsewhere, is immense.
The attractive feature of the US in which I once lived was its bold self-confidence. To find the survivors of the Bush presidency still cowering in a mental bunker afraid of a bunch of Arabs — and with British ministers for company — strips Western democracy of a leadership that should be both heroic and sensible. It is surely an un-American activity.
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
Numerous expert analyses characterize today’s US presidential election as a risk for Taiwan, given that the two major candidates, US Vice President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump, are perceived to possess divergent foreign policy perspectives. If Harris is elected, many presume that the US would maintain its existing relationship with Taiwan, as established through the American Institute in Taiwan, and would continue to sell Taiwan weapons and equipment to help it defend itself against China. Under the administration of US President Joe Biden, whose political views Harris shares, the US on Oct. 25 authorized arms transfers to Taiwan, another
RSS