America’s war on terrorism
WHETHER it is arrogance of power or hurt pride, the Americans are once again gearing up for an overkill. ‘We want Osama bin Laden dead or alive’, President Bush declared as he vowed to wage a ‘crusade’ against international terrorism and to bring the culprits to ‘infinite justice’.
The two controversial expressions used by him to underscore his urge for revenge have since been officially withdrawn as the US president faced a barrage of criticism for resorting to what was seen as the ‘Wild West’ idiom. But the damage has been done. The worldwide sympathy for the victims of September 11 terrorist strikes is giving way to doubts and misgivings about the rationality of the US response. How many innocent people — men, women and children — will be killed in the punitive action being planned by the US is the most frequently asked question.
From all accounts the Americans will not stop short of making a ‘horrible example’ of the enemy, albeit the enemy in this case is not a tangible target like Saddam Hussein was when the US launched the operation Desert Storm in 1991. Osama bin Laden, the most wanted man on the US hit list is not a sitting duck. He can quietly disappear from the scene — that is, if he has not done it already.
And to destroy his network in Afghanistan the Americans don’t need to deploy forces like they are doing. The job could well have been entrusted to the CIA which has the expertise to plot coups and attempt assassinations. Ironically, former US president Bill Clinton said there was no need for the Congress to lift the ban on assassinations. It could still be done in self-defence, he said. But getting Osama bin Laden dead or alive, or neutralizing his apparatus in Afghanistan does not promise to be as spectacular a feat as the Bush administration thinks it needs to salvage American prestige.
Critics say the US has missed a historic opportunity to earn worldwide goodwill. Barring diehard fanatics, no one, regardless of one’s colour, creed or nationality, approves of wanton killings of ordinary citizens. The outpourings of sympathy for the American people would have contributed to rectifying the long-standing image of the ‘Ugly American’. For a change the Americans were victims of aggression and they could have used the opportunity to win friends and allies among the people the world over for a rational, just and popular drive against terrorism.
But they have opted for a show of force and that too far too excessive, arbitrary and indiscriminate. Little wonder, they are being censured by a growing number of observers for arrogating to themselves the authority to dictate terms for a coalition of forces for waging a war against terrorism. The dicey game, it is being said, is basically aimed at reassuring the American people that the US continues to call the shots in the world.
While one does not yet know in what precise terms the US game plan for pursuing the terrorists to their hideouts and bringing them to ‘infinite justice’ is being put together, they are rallying forces as if they are preparing for a massive military operation. Who they are targeting for reprisals is anybody’s guess. Afghanistan is one obvious target. Apart from securing the ‘prize catch’, the Americans are set on toppling the Taliban regime. They must have known by now that the Afghans are hard nuts to crack. The British and the Russians have bitter memories of fighting the Afghans on their soil. The Americans in any case do not wish another Vietnam to happen, knowing fully well that their public opinion could sway the other way if there were bodybags arriving from the battle front. In all probability the US will rely on elite troops and covert operations rather than a full-scale ground invasion.
A show of the US’s mighty air power would be inevitable in any punitive action. The Iraqis, for instance, are still being punished for their refusal to overthrow Saddam Hussein. But the catch is that there is nothing worthwhile in Afghanistan to destroy by bombing. The country is already in ruins — no strategic installations, no industry, no communication network, not even good roads — and there are no targets to hit if the purpose is to paralyze the Taliban administration.
Seizing Kandahar or Kabul in a lightning move following bombing raids may not be much of a problem but that would not be enough to turn the Taliban out of business. Any alternative leadership in Afghanistan, if sponsored by Americans will be seen as a Quisling and therefore unable to enforce its writ without the continued presence and backing of the occupation forces. This was precisely the blunder the Soviets committed when their tanks rolled into Afghanistan to prop up a puppet regime.
It is hard for the Americans to comprehend as to why Osama bin Laden has a high public rating in the Muslim world. They have willy-nilly agreed to furnish evidence of his involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks but still insist on acting the as prosecutor as well as the judge. However, their indictment of Bin Laden as the number one terrorist in the world does not cut much ice with the Muslim populace. Ironically, some western media persons have frankly acknowledged that his popular rating has gone up even in Saudi Arabia.
Those who admire Bin Laden include a great many people who have no concern with what he does. He has emerged as a hero for them because of his guts to stand up to the mighty superpower. Some commentators have compared him with Robin Hood who was a criminal in the eyes of justice but a benefactor for the poor and dispossessed whom he helped by robbing the rich.
Regardless of whether Bin Laden is a hero or a villain, he is indeed a man with a mission. If he is liquidated he is likely to acquire the halo of a martyr. And many more highly motivated individuals would appear on the scene to emulate him as a role model. The US resolve to fight terrorism does not take into account the roots of the problem but merely aims at dealing with its manifestations.
So long as the Americans wish to rule the world, or as the Chinese put it, establish their global hegemony, arbitrarily change the rules of the power game to suit their convenience and dictate norms of good behaviour to other nations, they are likely to encounter resistance in one form or another. And if they pursue double standards in their dealings — one for their strategic partner like Israel and the other for an irritant like Iraq — the aggrieved parties will be driven to desperation. Yasser Arafat has paid a heavy price for reposing his trust in the US mediation and accepting the land for peace deal with Israel. The one-time protagonist of ‘revolution till victory’ has been so mercilessly humiliated and turned so helpless that he has no choice but to beg for US benevolence.
The Americans are worried about the rise of Islamic fundamentalist forces. They see it as a threat to the ‘civilized way of life’. But they fail to understand or refuse to acknowledge the reality that they are themselves to blame for alienating the Muslim masses and pushing the radical elements into a militant posture. In the wake of a backlash at home, the US administration realized the folly of overplaying the theme of ‘threat to the civilized world’.
President Bush and his top aides have since launched a damage-control exercise urging the American people not to equate the Muslims or the Arabs with the terrorists. There are ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ even among the Muslims, they are being told. Nonetheless, the Muslim world is still apprehensive about the US’s real agenda and as the Saudi ambassador in London told a British correspondent, it does not relish the prospect of an invasion against a Muslim country.
The Saudi ambassador frankly said that he did not like the use of the term ‘the civilized world’, as it has the overtone that ‘we in the Muslim world were uncivilized’. The Americans, he said, do not need permission to act in whatever manner they deem it fit, but if they are trying to forge a coalition to fight terrorism they should be more sensitive to the feelings of their partners. The Saudi ambassador was keen to underscore the point that he did not care much if the Taliban were overthrown or what happened to Osama bin Laden, but the entire Muslim world would be inflamed if innocent Afghan people were killed in the process. The essential point of his advice to the Americans was to limit their goals and seek larger support for their cause.
An emergency economic plan
THE economic pressure on Pakistan is mounting. It was bad enough before the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US but it began gradually improving following the stabilization or damage control measures adopted by the military government, but new destabilizing pressures have arisen as old pressures become more acute.
Commerce minister Razak Dawood anticipates a 1.4 billion dollar deficit in exports this year, which means a fall of 14 per cent from the 10.1 billion dollar exports targeted this year.
And while the threat of war in the region that may last long in a sporadic manner has made many foreign airlines suspend their flights to Pakistan, PIA’s war risk premium has been soaring. And the financially beleaguered Pakistan Steel talks of having to pay Rs 10 million for each ship that brings iron ore and coal from abroad. The total of ships bringing the two items is 60 per year which means additional payments of Rs 600 million.
The Shippers Council of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry fears that the external trade of the country may come to a standstill because of the heavy war risk premium of over 100 dollars per container. Pressure on the government is on to bring about a reduction in the staggering rates. How far the government can be helpful in this area remains to be seen. The concession it may manage to obtain will be marginal; but if the war lasts for long, as concentrated strikes are not planned in any area of Afghanistan, Pakistan’s external trade faces a very serious crisis.
When exports drop as they become too costly for others or too non-profitable for our exporters, the imports can become far too costly after the hefty war risk premium, which may increase after the war starts.
In such an eventuality we may have to depend more on external assistance instead of foreign trade. And that has to come in the shape of grants instead of loans with or without interest to a gravely exposed frontline state in the looming war.
Meanwhile, prices of high speed diesel oil and kerosene have been increased at a time of sharply falling world oil prices. The explanation offered by the Oil Companies Advisory Committee that at the time the companies bought the oil world prices were high, or the fall in world oil prices has not been reflected in the prices of refined products is not acceptable to the consumers. And now the oil companies or the government which has a decisive voice in this area still has a new hobby-horse to push up POL prices or deny a reduction to reflect a drop in world prices: the new war risk premium of which we may be hearing much in the months to come to the outrage of the consumers.
Following that the price of furnace oil has also been increased which will make WAPDA and KESC step up their demand for higher power rates. If that is not permitted by the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority they may ask for large subsidies from the government or hefty loans, while old loans are written off.
Meanwhile, the transporters are up in arms. They want the price increase for diesel oil to be withdrawn. Otherwise they will go on strike. Usually after that they increase the passenger fares and freight rates, or the government agrees to higher fares prior to the strike. All that may increase the cost of goods and services at a time when vegetable prices in the city are already reported to have gone up by 14 per cent.
The threat of war and rise in the inflow of refugees from Afghanistan are inducing western countries to come up with emergency assistance to Pakistan. How many more refugees come will depend on how long the war lasts or how intense is the fighting or bombing by the US.
The US has come up with emergency assistance of 50 million dollars. And Japan has offered 40 million dollars and Britain has come up with 16 million dollars for use particularly in the Frontier province and Balochistan. In addition Britain is giving 16 million dollars for public health services and 15 million pounds more as Britain’s annual contribution for poverty reduction in Pakistan.
Finance minister Shaukat Aziz recently paid warm tributes to claire Short, the British secretary of state for International Development for her generosity in helping Pakistan. Canada, too, has withdrawn its sanctions against Pakistan. And more Canadian assistance should be forthcoming.
The inflow of such assistance and more expected later, and the uncertainty in the money market in the Gulf particularly Dubai, have resulted in a fall in the price of the dollar in the open market. In the confusing situation prevailing in Pakistan and elsewhere the large outflow of money from Pakistan appears to have abated. But whether more Pakistanis will opt for buying the dollars if it goes down further remains to be seen.
Will this discourage overseas Pakistan from sending their home remittances through the banking channel as cheap dollars mean less rupees at the Pakistan end or will they hold back the remittances for the time being and watch the scenario? The governor of the State Bank of Pakistan Dr Ishrat Husain says overseas Pakistanis should send their remittances through the banking channels to help the country as the large gap between the open Market and the inter-bank rates has almost been eliminated.
Meanwhile as the external accounts of Pakistan may be improving because of stepped-up external assistance and the withdrawals of sanctions by one country after another, there is bad news from the fiscal front at home. Tax collection during the first quarter of this year ending September 30 despite the vigorous efforts was only Rs 72.49 billion against Rs 79.74 in the same quarter last year, marking a shortfall of 9.3 per cent. And the gap is far larger from the target of Rs 81 billion set for the quarter.
And that is not the result of the aftermath of the tragic September 11, although the tax collection in September was Rs 26 billion against the target of Rs 35 billion which means shortfall of Rs 9 billion despite the large tax payments made by the non-salaried before the September 30 deadline.
The fact is tax collection in the months of July and August too recorded negative growth, either due to over-targeting the revenues or under-performance of the economy. As a result the tax collection target of rs 444 billion set for the current year against the original target of Rs 457.7 may not be reached.
The principal tax today is the sales tax which in the last quarter brought Rs 33.5 billion in the total collection of Rs 72.49 billion which marks an improvement of 6.3 per cent over the collection in the same quarter last year. Compared to that the income tax or direct taxes collected was Rs 19.39 billion against Rs 21.64 billion collected in the same period last year marking a shortfall of 9.93 per cent.
The excise duty collection in the last quarter was Rs 9.21 billion against Rs 12.74 million in the same quarter last year, which means shortfall of 27.7 per cent. If the large scale manufacturing sector has a growth of 8 per cent or more as officially claimed, how does the excise duty collection fall? If large scale industry is booming or doing far better than before excise duty collection should be rising instead of falling. The gap in this area needs to be explained officially.
Why is the direct tax collection falling if the economy has been doing far better than before? Income tax collection is low as the profit margins of business and industry are heavily squeezed. High cost of power and POL increases the cost of production and reduces the profit margin.
At the other end the spread of sales tax at the high rate of 15 per cent has reduced demand for goods and services. In a poor country the people cannot afford to meet their needs at any price.
Dealing with Taliban
THE first phase of the US ‘war on terrorism’ will likely be the attempted overthrow of the Taliban regime, which currently rules 90 per cent of Afghanistan. Washington is massing powerful strike forces around Afghanistan and has unleashed a fierce propaganda offensive in the US media against Taliban.
The Bush administration now says it will embark on ‘nation- building’ in Afghanistan. Translation: imposing a pro-US regime in Kabul that will battle Islamic militants and open the way for American oil and gas pipelines running south from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. Washington clearly hopes to make the Northern Alliance, a motley collection of anti-Taliban insurgents, the new ruler of Afghanistan, perhaps under its 86-year old exiled king, Zahir Shah.
Before we examine this truly foolish plan, a quick review of Washington’s record of ‘nation-building’ in the Muslim world — overthrowing unfriendly governments and replacing them by compliant ones:
Syria 1948 - the US overthrows the regime; Syria turns anti- US. Iran 1954 - the US overthrows nationalist Mossadegh, puts the Shah in power. Result: Khomeini’s 1979 Islamic revolution. Egypt 1955 - the US tried to kill nationalist Gammal Abdel Nasser. He turns to the Soviets. Iraq 1958 - the US puts Col. Kassem in power. He turns into an anti-American lunatic.
Indonesia 1967 - the US overthrows Sukarno, army and mobs kill 500,000 Sukarno supporters. Libya 1969 - the US helps a young officer, Muammar Qadaffi, seize power in Libya, then tries to kill him in 1986. Iraq 1975 - the US helps young Saddam Hussein seize power. In 1979 the US gets Saddam to invade Iran in an effort to crush Iran’s Islamic revolution - 700,000 die in the war.
Lebanon 1983 - US forces intervene in the civil war to prop up the Christian government, 240 US Marines die. Kuwait/Iraq - 1991 US goes to war against former ally Saddam, but keeps him in power. Somalia 1992 - US intervenes in civil war, loses men, flees. Iraq 1996 - the US attempt to create a Kurd mini-state collapses under Iraqi attack. CIA agents run for their lives.
Not a record to boast about. But undaunted by failure, the US has found its latest client, the Northern Alliance, and is moving with new-found ally, Russia, to quickly implant them in Kabul. This is a historical irony of epic proportions: in the 1980s the US spent billions to oust the Russians from Afghanistan; now it is inviting them back in. Equally shameful, the US has now conferred its blessing on Russian attempt to crush the Chechen uprising by echoing Moscow’s claim the insurgents are ‘Islamic terrorists.’ The next group certain to be demonized by Washington will be the Kashmiri Mujihadeen.
I write about the Tajik-dominated Alliance with unease. Its leader, Prof. Burhanuddin Rabbani, is an old, respected friend of mine from the earliest days of the great Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union. A classical Persian scholar and poet, Rabbani is held in great esteem by his fellow Tajiks, Afghanistan’s best educated, most sophisticated ethnic group.
Rabbani’s military commander, Ahmad Shah Massoud, was killed by Arab suicide bombers two days before the mass attacks against the US. Massoud was adored by the western-media, and was being groomed by his foreign backers as the next leader of Afghanistan. Few outsiders knew that the dashing Massoud was regarded as a traitor by many Afghans for allying himself with the Soviets during the war and turning against his fellow Mujihadeen.
In recent years, Northern Alliance has been armed and financed by a very odd assortment of bedfellows: Russia, Iran, the US, India, and France. The Alliance controls a toehold in north-east Afghanistan next to Tajikistan, a Russian satellite state where Moscow has 25,000 troops.
The mainly Tajik Alliance has lately beenjoined by the Uzbek warriors of Gen. Rashid Dostam, the brutal communist warlord who collaborated for a decade with the Soviets and was responsible for mass killings and atrocities. America should have no dealings with such criminals. Without Russian helicopters, armour, and ‘advisors,’ the Alliance would have long ago collapsed.
In all my years as a foreign affairs writer, I have never seen a case where so many Washington ‘experts’ have all the answers to a country that only a handful of Americans know anything about. President George Bush, who before election could not name the president of Pakistan, now intends to redraw the political map of strategic Afghanistan, an act that will cause shock waves across South and Central Asia.
Anyone who knows anything about Afghans knows: 1. they will never accept any regime imposed by outsiders; 2. an ethnic minority government can never rule Afghanistan’s ethnic Pashtun majority. Yet the US, heedless of Afghan realities, is racing ahead to overthrow the current Taliban leadership and replace it by a Tajik regime.
Washington’s plan for ‘nation-building’ in Afghanistan is a recipe for disaster that will produce an enlarged civil war that draws in outside powers.
Let Afghans decide in their own traditional way, through a national tribal council, called a Loya Jirga, to create a new, post-Taliban government whose strings are not pulled from abroad. As for King Zahir Shah, he is discredited as a ‘foreigner’ in Afghanistan and too old to even be a figurehead. Prof Rabbani would make a good president, provided he was seen first an Afghan, and only secondly a Tajik.
Pakistan appears to be washing its hands of the Taliban, who have done everything in their power to blacken their own name and that of the Muslims around the world. But now Islamabad must struggle to find a new government that will stabilize Afghanistan, yet which is not the creature of its Russian, Iranian, or Indian enemies. In short, back to 1989 in Afghanistan. Chaos, civil war and mass starvation loom in Afghanistan.
Washington’s ‘experts,’ would-be crusaders, and re-born Cold Warriors should look twice before they leap. —Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2001
Big spenders wanted
PRESIDENT Bush is sending out several messages. One is that we have to spend money to defeat the terrorists, whose main purpose is to destroy our economy. In order to do this, he said, we should take vacations, buy things and fly on the airlines.
In past wars, we were always asked to tighten our belts. This time we are told to spend, spend, spend.
If we don’t, we may reach the point where the FBI starts doing spot checks on who is spending and who isn’t.
Two agents go to the home of Martin Blitz. One says, “Blitz, our records say you haven’t spent any money this week. How do you think that’s going to look in Afghanistan?”
“I was going to buy a new car as soon as the crisis was over.”
“You are part of the crisis. If you don’t buy a car now, then the American flag means nothing to you.”
“I don’t have enough money to buy a car,” Blitz says.
“Then go out and borrow some. Use everything on your credit card. This is no time to save. Look fellow, every day you don’t spend money, Osama bin Laden will laugh at you. He knows what the gross national product is. What about buying new golf clubs?”
Blitz says, “I don’t play golf.”
“How about a ski trip?”
Blitz says, “I don’t ski.”
“It’s as good a time as any to learn.”
“I thought in wartime you were supposed to tighten your belt and even save the silver from your cigarette packages.”
“This is a different kind of war. Now when are you going to take your next flight?”
“I’m afraid to fly.”
“Man, you’ve got to fly to prove we’re the greatest country in the world. This is what we want you to do. We want you to book a flight and take your family to Disneyland. Then take a cruise to the Caribbean. If you do this, we’ll remove you from our list of suspected tightwads.”
Blitz says, “I’ll do it. This country needs me now more than ever. God bless our department stores.”
This is only one scenario of what could happen. I don’t think that our leaders are going to call in the FBI at this time, but they may have started profiling people who refuse to spread the wealth.
I looked out the window yesterday and Blitz was out there discussing plans for a swimming pool.
He told me modestly, “It’s the least I can do for my country.”—Dawn/Tribune Media Services
Grappling with prejudice and ignorance: WASHINGTON NOTEBOOK
IN CONTRAST to what it may seem from afar, the life of a correspondent in Washington working for a Pakistani news organization is not easy. When it’s quiet, there’s the searching for morsels on the websites or in newspapers to fill the day’s quota; when it’s busy, as it has been this past fortnight, there’s the dilemma of what to report and what to leave out.
If you work for a daily newspaper, the nine-hour time difference between Washington and Pakistan means there’s just about till 3 pm (midnight PST) that you can file. Often when developments are taking place as thick and fast as they have been since September 11, you have to decide whether to remain glued to the television set for updates from the cable networks or go the various briefings.
Being present at the briefings means capturing the odd nuance here or sensing the emphasis there, absorbing a bit of the atmosphere. The briefings, and there have been almost additional daily news conferences by the secretaries of state and defence as well as the attorney-general, start around midday, and if you attend even one of them, the chances are you will probably miss out something that has happened in between. No Pakistani news organization has an office in downtown Washington, which means that commuting time has to be taken into account. So, sometimes these days, you are forced to work from home, unshaven, ungroomed, and divide your attention between your computer and the television and the telephone. It’s a highly unsatisfactory way of working, but there it is. There’s no escape from it.
Where the September 11 attacks have changed so much, they have also, therefore, partly changed the life and working style of Pakistani journalists. The attacks have created emotional conflicts also. You might have wanted the religious extremists who hold all of us in Pakistan hostage to be checked; you might have boiled over with rage at what the Taliban did to the Bamiyan Buddhas and what they have been doing to their own people, particularly the women, and wished you could get rid of the Taliban albatross; you might have wished someone with guts to come and put an end to the Kalashnikov culture brought about by the Afghan jihad of the ‘80s. But now that some if it seems about to happen, you wish it had been done by Pakistan itself rather than under pressure and without the bullying “You are with us or you are against us”. There’s little comfort in being told that Pakistan is a front-line state. No one seems bothered about what the consequences might be. Where once Pakistan was not mentioned at all, now it is there in briefings and newscasts everyday. But, while official pronouncements have been scrupulously correct, there is a sneering tone underlying many of the things being said and written. You squirm when at a briefing you hear an American colleague ask Secretary Colin Powell whether Pakistan is to be trusted, whether the Pakistanis are “prepared to put their money where their mouth is”.
Or when a columnist for the right-wing National Review Online says the US should invade “their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” or when the chief editor of The Washington Times recalls, at a time when civilization is supposed to have progressed, how Gen John Pershing had dealt with “Islamist terror” in the Philippines in 1911 — by requiring six of those arrested to dig their own graves and see pigs slaughtered before they were shot to make sure they “never saw paradise” — and then disingenuously suggests that he is not recommending that kind of punishment for Osama bin Laden’s evildoers, but saying that “merely telling the story would tell the Taliban warriors, loud and clear, just how mean the infidels are prepared to be”.
You do not consider yourself a Pakistani journalist with chips on his shoulders who must ask a patriotic-sounding question at every briefingks but when basic issues are not raised and discussed, as for instance the causes that lead to anti-American anger or, in the narrower context, why India has been grappling with militancy for over a decade in Kashmir, then you feel a little frustrated.
When you see a learned piece in a national daily asserting that all of Balochistan is pro-Taliban and Al Qaeda, you cannot, can you, write a letter to the editor that the Balochs in Balochistan have been angry for a very long time at the demographic changes brought about in their province by the influx of Pathans from Afghanistan. What do you do when confronted with a straight piece of news management like Tuesday’s leak that the Bush administration was ready to declare support for a Palestine state before the Sept 11 attacks, but was overtaken by events?
No, it is a pretty difficult time for anyone trying to get the balance right. It’s not easy to get over prejudice, whether your own or someone else’s.
STATE Department spokesman Richard Boucher said at one of his briefings last week that he had received a message on his voice mail from a US citizen proposing that all Muslims in America should be rounded up because he (the citizen) could not distinguish between the good ones and the bad. The sentiment reflected in the voice mail has a disconcerting resemblance to the emotions that had stirred Americans in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbour, when a growing outcry against Japanese Americans had led Franklin D. Roosevelt, seen then as now as a liberal president, to authorize the internment of all persons of Japanese ancestry from the west coast.
More than 110,000 people, two-thirds of them native-born American citizens, were sent by bus and train to “relocation centres” ringed with barbed wire and guarded by army troops. They were paying for the crime of looking like the enemy — just as many Arab-Americans and citizens of South Asian descent must now be looking like the alleged hijackers involved in the Sept 11 attacks whose pictures are being repeatedly shown on television and published in the print media.
The experience of Japanese Americans is recalled in three books reviewed last Sunday by Peter Irons, himself the author of ‘Justice at War: The Story of the Japanese American Internment Cases’, in The Washington Post’s Book World section. Needless to say, the review and the books discussed have assumed a contemporary relevance.
One young Japanese American, Fred Korematsu, who had defied the orders of internment, was convicted and his conviction upheld by the Supreme Court in 1943 and 1944. It was only in 1983 that a federal judge vacated the conviction, and in 1988, Korematsu was invited to the White House by President Clinton to receive the Medal of Freedom for his “quiet bravery” and “patient pursuit” to preserve the “civil liberties we all hold dear”.
Reviewer Peter Irons refers to the ceremony where Korematsu was awarded the Medal of Freedom and says: “One of the guests at the White House ceremony was Norman Mineta, who spent three years of his childhood in the Heart Mountain internment camp in Wyoming and who now serves in President Bush’s cabinet as transportation secretary. Mineta’s role in protecting America’s airports and travellers after the ‘sneak attack’ on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon highlights the irony of calls for the internment of Americans of Arabic ancestry. Already, it is highly likely that government lawyers are reviewing the Supreme Court decisions in the Japanese American internment cases to see whether President Bush can invoke ‘pressing military necessity’ as justification for restricting the movements of members of another ethnic minority.”
The books reviewed are By Order of the President: FDR and the Internment of Japanese Americans by Greg Robinson; ‘Free to Die for Their Country: The Story of the Japanese American Draft Resisters in World War II’ by Eric L. Muller; and ‘Last Witness: Reflections on the Wartime Internment of Japanese Americans’, edited by Erica Harth.
IN the midst of the current war psychosis, any effort to promote peace and understanding must be applauded as an act of courage. For two days over the weekend, various groups of peace and anti-globalization activists held demonstrations in downtown Washington with the overriding theme of “Justice not Revenge”.
The first day was marked by a rally addressed by representatives of various organizations; on the second day, there was a march that went through many Washington neighbourhoods and produced greater involvement in the peace movement. There were a few scuffles with police on the first day, and odd attempts at counter-demonstrations, but the rally and the march both on the whole remained orderly affairs, drawing praise even from the DC police chief for the organizers’ “self-policing”.
There have been individual moves also to bring people together and remove suspicions and distrust. The management of an apartment complex, Watergate at Landmark, in Alexandria, just a few short miles from the Pentagon, organized an international evening devoted to peace and understanding. The initiative was taken by an Egyptian woman resident in the complex, but the management promoted the event, and nearly 150 people turned up in what was described as one of the best-attended social events ever in the complex’s history.
There were Americans and American-Arabs and people of various other ethnic groups, with each participant bringing a favourite dish, with the result that the tables were literally groaning under the weight of the assembled food. There was an eagerness to know, to question, to reassure.
It may have been a drop in the ocean, but it made overseas participants feel wanted and not shunned. Or perhaps there’s something in baked pies, humus, karahi gosht and pitta bread that brings people closer.
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.