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.
It is almost three years since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a friendship with “no limits” — weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, they have retreated from such rhetorical enthusiasm. The “no limits” language was quickly dumped, probably at Beijing’s behest. When Putin visited China in May last year, he said that he and his counterpart were “as close as brothers.” Xi more coolly called the Russian president “a good friend and a good neighbor.” China has conspicuously not reciprocated Putin’s description of it as an ally. Yet the partnership
The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) said “know yourself and know your enemy and you will win a hundred battles.” Applied in our times, Taiwanese should know themselves and know the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) so that Taiwan will win a hundred battles and hopefully, deter the CCP. Taiwanese receive information daily about the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) threat from the Ministry of National Defense and news sources. One area that needs better understanding is which forces would the People’s Republic of China (PRC) use to impose martial law and what would be the consequences for living under PRC
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
Beijing’s approval of a controversial mega-dam in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River — which flows from Tibet — has ignited widespread debate over its strategic and environmental implications. The project exacerbates the complexities of India-China relations, and underscores Beijing’s push for hydropower dominance and potential weaponization of water against India. India and China are caught in a protracted territorial dispute along the Line of Actual Control. The approval of a dam on a transboundary river adds another layer to an already strained bilateral relationship, making dialogue and trust-building even more challenging, especially given that the two Asian
RSS