The aftermath of terror

MANY are the commentaries on the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre, the global response, the bombing of Afghanistan. Of them all, the most trenchant comes not from a columnist but from a political figure, Fidel Castro, the president of Cuba.

Particularly remarkable are the opening assertions in a speech he made in Havana on September 22. Unlike many who claim a fashionably radical outlook, Mr. Castro categorically refuses to justify terrorism: “No one can deny that terrorism is today a dangerous and ethically indefensible phenomenon, which should be eradicated regardless of its deep origins, the economic and political factors that brought it to life.”

Mr Castro proceeds to assess the probable outcome of the terrorist attack. His words carry the weight of a man with unimpeachable revolutionary credentials. “Who have profited? The extreme right, the most backward and right-wing forces, those in favour of crushing the growing world rebellion and sweeping away everything progressive that is still left on the planet. It was an enormous error, a huge injustice and a great crime, whomever they are who organized or are responsible for such action.”

This man who has steadfastly resisted the power of American hegemony for a period of forty years understands fully that building a more just world is indeed a project of building. The long work of struggle and liberation, of creating a more equitable and democratic world order, is not something that can be accomplished through dramatic video clips on television. Terror destabilizes, not constructs; and instability creates vacuums, filled, far more often than not, by those with fascistic agendas, whether that fascism is sponsored by religious fundamentalism or multinational capitalism.

The rest of Mr Castro’s speech castigates the American military intervention in Afghanistan. It points out that both the “billions of people living in the poor and underdeveloped world” and the economies of the wealthy nations will suffer dire consequences because of the terrorist attack. And it strongly objects to the fundamentalist rhetoric used by President George W. Bush: Mr Castro, after all, is deeply knowledgeable about the rapacious egotism of the American empire.

President Castro’s rejection of terrorism and his awareness that the terrorist serves not revolution but reaction are points accessible to men and women of goodwill everywhere. Granting them, it may be worthwhile to examine the specifically American aftermath of the terrorist attack.

For an observer in the United States, a number of effects become clear besides the fact of the American military intervention in Afghanistan. Granted, the immediate effects are fear, insecurity, and a military response. But as America’s greatest philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson, wrote in 1836.

“If there is any period one would desire to be born in, — is it not the age of Revolution; when the old and the new stand side by side, and admit of being compared; when the energies of all men are searched by fear and by hope; when the historical glories of the old, can be compensated by the rich possibilities of the new era?

Surprising consequences have ensued in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre.

The first is that some of the fundamental postulates of the Bush administration have been reversed in recent days. An essay I wrote for this newspaper three months ago lamented the isolationism of American foreign policy in the wake of US rejection of the Kyoto accords, chemical and biological warfare limitations, and international control of small arms traffic. Following the terrorist attack, President Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, isolationists all, have turned their attention to building international coalitions, to allaying fears that American military might will be wielded without consultation, and to reassuring Muslims that the United States respects and honours diversity.

Particularly noteworthy has been the response to the United Nations. For more than forty years Republicans have objected to the UN as a limitation on American sovereignty. They have starved that international body by withholding funds legitimately due from the world’s wealthiest nation. They have castigated each and every attempt by the United Nations to intervene in situations where a populace is at grave risk of destruction. Yet in recent weeks the Republican president has embraced the United Nations as necessary to finding a resolution to the political future of Afghanistan and affirmed its role as defender of the rights of citizens everywhere.

It should be emphasized that while American foreign policy has shifted from unilateralism to multilateralism, from non-recognition of a world beyond the borders of North America and Europe to a growing sense that the developing world is complex, the regnant powers in the United States are not, emphatically, ready to revise the current world order, in which wealthy nations dominate the world economy to the detriment of most of the citizens of the globe. There is no likelihood, either in political Washington or in the corporate boardrooms of America, that the United States will play a role in changing the inequitable distribution of wealth or income. Yet without real change in the distribution of wealth, the developing world will never be able to achieve its social goals; without significant change in the distribution of income, billions will continue to endure poverty, preventable illness and lowered expectations. Whatever the specific causes of terrorism, its breeding ground is that malignant mixture of despair and rage that is a concomitant of living in dire poverty in a world where material wealth abounds but is not shared.

A second consequence of terrorism has been the changed awareness of the American populace. Although Americans are no different from people everywhere in that a sizable percentage of people either ignore the news or do not deviate from their already-formed view of things, a truly large number of Americans have a greater understanding of the world today than they had on September 10. And not merely, one should add, that existence in the twenty-first century can be insecure and fraught with peril.

Three insights in particular have been borne home to a multitude of Americans. First, that the world does not end at the borders of the United States: A large percentage of Americans today comprehend that societies and nations have an existence autonomous from their dependence on American aid, culture, influence. At no moment in the past half-century have American citizens been as aware as they are today that nations are complex, and that the intermeshed relations between nations are likewise complex. Only someone who has lived in the United States for decades, or someone who has visited that country regularly and often, can understand just how astonishing it is that there is no widespread call for the American military to strike massively and without regard to international consequences.

The myth of the American ‘wild west,’ where cinematic cowboys (or in more recent movies, police officers) solve every problem by pulling out their guns and shooting every opponent in sight, seems held in abeyance. Whatever one thinks of the merits and justice of the bombing of Afghanistan, it is a patient and measured response, not an immediate strike by an aggrieved gunslinger who shoots at anything which moves.

Second, in the West in general and the United States in particular there is a growing awareness that more than a third of the world’s population follow the teachings of the Quran. Two months ago, perhaps five per cent of Americans knew how widespread Islam is; today, a majority does. And many are the Americans who have begun to understand that Islam, like Christianity, has many different schools, sects and internal traditions.

Although the period following the terrorist attacks saw an increase in incidents in which Muslims were reviled or abused on the streets of the American nation, it was far more frequent — far more — to hear pleas for tolerance, for acceptance of not merely diversity as a concept, but of Islamic religious practices and values in particular. If the United States has a particular claim of which it should be proud, it is that it aspires to embrace diversity and to tolerate difference. That it does not always live up to its aspirations cannot be gainsaid; but time and again, and it is especially noteworthy that this includes recent weeks, American society tries to grow into great tolerance for, understanding of, acceptance of human, variety.

The third change in American consciousness is perhaps the most important. All over the United States men and women (and children, too) have been asking, ‘How can anyone do this to us?’ On one level, as President Fidel Castro has noted, the answer is that nothing in either ethics or revolutionary strategy justifies terrorist activity. On another level, though, there is an increased awareness in the United States that a multitude of individuals and a large host of societies have justified grievances against the American nation. Americans in the United States today understand, to a degree heretofore unimaginable, that their nation serves as the keystone of a global structure which separates wealthy societies from impoverished ones, and as the international police force which enforces their continued separation.

It is amazing these days in America — I write as one who has spent most of a lifetime fighting for economic justice — to encounter the widespread condemnation, by old and young Americans, by the educated and privileged as well as the working classes, of American policies which have contributed to the enduring oppression of more than half the human residents of this planet. Political discourse, not the usual gossip about sports and movies and the weather, surfaces in most current conversation in the United States. That discourse revolves around truly central issues: the sizable American role in maintaining international poverty, American accountability in supporting pro-U.S. oligarchies instead of popular democracy, American responsibility for creating the very instabilities which have come to haunt the American nation.

While a large number of Americans today talk about these things, and are coming to understand them, the stalwarts of the Bush administration in Washington, the generals of America’s military and the best-suited executives in corporate offices are not among them. Until the ruling powers, powers both political and economic, pay attention to the newly arisen concerns of the American populace, not much will change in the fundamental economic relations between the United States and the developing world. But, and this is hopeful indeed, the possibility of change is at least thinkable. The poet Shelley wrote, famously, “If winter comes, can spring be far behind?” Although the answer is far less certain, we might likewise ask, ‘If the people change, can their government be far behind?’

The writer, a columnist, is Professor of English at the University of Vermont, US.

Media’s role in war

IN war, said Napoleon, the moral element and public relations are half the battle. And that was before radio and television.

For the first time, a Mideastern antagonist of the United States — Osama bin Laden — has not only mastered public relations, but is using the media as a potent weapon against the world’s mightiest military and media power.

Washington had planned to repeat in Afghanistan the success it enjoyed during the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq, when the Pentagon monopolized, filtered, and shaped all news coming from the theatre of operations. To this day, the number of Iraqis killed by US bombing remains secret.

However, researchers have just learned through the Freedom of Information Act that the US government expressly destroyed Iraq’s sewage and water treatment facilities, apparently knowing full well the result would be widespread disease and epidemics. In short, biological warfare. The US refuses to allow Iraq to import chlorine to purify water, claiming that the chemical could be used as a military weapon. Iraq’s inability to purify its drinking water continues to spread sickness across that blighted nation.

According to the UN, 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, have died from disease and malnutrition caused by US sanctions. Thousands more Iraqis are suspected to have gotten cancers from US depleted uranium munitions. When asked about this huge toll, then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright memorably replied, “the price is worth it.” One cannot but wonder if the anthrax terror now afflicting America is payback.

Israel’s American supporters are currently beating the war drums over Iraq. Such pro-Israel loudspeakers as ‘The Wall Street Journal’ and ‘The Washington Post’ have been straining every sinew to link the September 11 attacks against the US to Iraq. Their intent is plain: to push the United States into attacking Iraq, which is considered a major long-term threat to Israel. The Israel lobby wants to see Iraq demolished, Saddam Hussein killed, and partitioned into three weak mini-states. Israel’s American lobby is ready to fight to the last American to destroy Iraq.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban stole a march on the US by giving Al-Jazeera, the Arab world’s only uncensored TV station, exclusive coverage. Bin Laden uses Al-Jazeera and Pakistani media to promote his anti-US cause and challenge America’s control of information. As a result, the White House is trying to silence bin Laden by the disgraceful recourse of censoring America’s media.

The president of a democracy whose very essence is founded in free speech has asked the media to silence bin Laden and his allies under the laughable pretext that by wiggling an ear or rubbing a nose they communicate information to Muslim terrorists lurking in the United States. This would be comical were it not such a threat to the basic freedom of all Americans.

Almost as shameful, much of the US media has cooperated, reducing its role from useful critics to public relations hacks.—Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2001.

Stick ’em up

THE orders from on high say we must be calm and go about our business just as we did before. I’m not sure this goes for everybody.

The other day a man in a ski mask walked into the Marigold Savings Bank

He slid a note to the teller which read, “Give me whatever you have in your drawer.”

“What on earth are you doing?”

“I’m robbing your bank.”

“What for?”

“We’ve been told to do our normal things. Sticking up banks is what I do for a living. America is not going to let the terrorists scare us bank robbers into stopping doing what we do best.”

“Do you mind taking off your mask so that our cameras can get good pictures of you?”

“I always wear a ski mask when I pull a heist. Now hurry up, I have a plane to catch and I’m afraid to fly.”

“Do you have photo identification?”

“I do, but what good does it do if I’m wearing a ski mask?”

“You are probably right. Now the suitcase you handed me to put the money in. Did you pack it yourself?”

“Please, just empty out the drawer and let me get on with my job.”

“Did anyone else touch this bag before you handed it to me through the window?”

“What do you think I am, a double-crossing Taliban terrorist? I’m for America.”

The teller said, “You don’t have to get cheeky about it. Osama bin Laden has robbed many banks during his reign. If you are a terrorist, the money you rob from us will be frozen by the Treasury Department and you will not be able to spend it.”

The robber said, “I’ve never dealt with somebody like this. Don’t you ever panic when you’re held up?”

“I would, but I’ve been told if I lose my cool I’ll be fired. Do you have a permit for that gun?”

“No, you want to make something of it? Give me twenties, fifties and hundred dollar bills. And throw in a hundred Cipro pills.”

“We don’t have any Cipro in the bank.”

“Why not?” “It could cause panic.”

“All right, how about a gas mask?”

The teller replied, “You have to have a minimum of $500 in your checking account before we can issue you a gas mask. OK, the bag is full. I hope you have a nice day.”

At this moment, the FBI moved in and nabbed the bank robber. As he was dragged out, he yelled, “Why don’t the government people let us live the normal lives we had before?”—Dawn/Tribune Media Services

Focus on revival of the economy

HOW large the damage to Pakistan’s sluggish economy from the war on terrorism could be will depend on how long the war lasts.

President Pervez Musharraf would like the war to end before Ramazan begins by the middle of next month. The US secretary of state Colin Powell has also voiced such a preference, if possible. But both have said the objectives of declaring the war would have to be achieved before the war ends. So Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chief of staff of the US says the war might last until spring and even thereafter.

Winter in Afghanistan too begins by the middle of next month, which can make fighting tough, particularly if the US troops have to dig into the caves where Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants and the Taliban officials have sought refuge.

Meanwhile the UN officials and relief workers want a real suspension of the bombing so that they could rush food supplies and other relief goods to their destinations before winter begins. Otherwise two million Afghans may starve, they fear, and many may die, and increase the refugee influx into Pakistan.

Meanwhile the prompt manner in which the US and other Western countries are coming to the help of Pakistan is different from ground realities. The official policy of helping Pakistan in a substantial manner is one thing, but implementing that on the ground is something else. For example, while some of the US orders for our textiles and other items have been cancelled because of the uncertainties of the war, some of the goods which have reached New York have been held up by the port authorities even after customs clearance. And ships bringing goods from Pakistan have been ordered to be re-routed to New York only. That will make Pakistan’s exports far more costly in the US.

Adding to the complications and pushing up the cost of imports for other countries from Pakistan is the levy of the heavy war risk premium by foreign insurance companies. The government, following protests from our exporters, has invited the Lloyds re-insurers of Britain to visit Pakistan for discussing the issue and showing the lack of a real war threat to Pakistan.

Meanwhile Pakistani insurance companies are raising their premium for civil disorder and political violence in view of the rise in both and the large claims made on them by the insured. There is in addition the high cost of confirming LCs for imports and rise in other bank charges.

Fear of the damage that can be done to the economy apart, the frequent strike calls, closure of factories and ships leaving the port without their cargo, and pictures of violent protests in Pakistan which our importers abroad see on TV frequently, also result in cancellation of orders, particularly when they want to order goods for Christmas and New Year.

Meanwhile Western governments are trying to assist Pakistan to make up for its losses. The World Bank had earlier estimated the loss from the war at one billion dollars, and said if the war lasted longer the loss could be heavier. Commerce minister Razak Dawood had earlier projected loss of exports at 1.4 billion dollars. He has, following visits to US and other capitals, declined to come up with a new projections because of its adverse impact on our exporters and foreign importers.

Finance minister Shaukat Aziz had earlier estimated the loss at one to 1.5 billion dollars and them to two million, and has now raised the top figure to 2.5 billion dollars both in terms of loss of exports and fall in revenues because of the downturn in the economy. There are cynics among us who say the projection of loss seems to be increasing along with the rise in external assistance committed or indicated. That may not be wholly true.

The US which had earlier offered emergency aid of 50 million dollars and then raised the figure to 100 million, dollars, later indicated the possible availability of 500 million dollars. And now that figure has been raised to 800 million dollars until June, 2002. On a separate account 30 million dollars of soya bean seed and oil are to be given.

This is a far larger figure than the 200 million dollars offered by President Jimmy Carter after the Russians moved into Afghanistan which Gen. Ziaul Haq had dismissed as “mere peanuts.” The new aid committed went up following the visit of Colin Powell and lastly the visit of the US under-secretary of state for economic, business and agricultural affairs Alan Larson.

Larson says that having restored the relations between the US and Pakistan to normality the US is here to stay and work with Pakistan on a long term basis. He said: “We are working out modalities to provide meaningful, immediate and lasting debt relief to Pakistan to maximize opportunities and lay the foundation for a trade and investment relationship.

He said he had come to Pakistan on the directive of President Bush “for developing a long term cooperative arrangement with Pakistan.” The US is trying to be flexible about the modalities so that the relief is immediate, lasting and has a sustainable approach to Pakistan’s debt, and facilitates Pakistan to have a growing economy.

But the US does not want to come up with aid package by itself forthwith. It is consulting Japan, the largest donor to Pakistan until recently, and other donors of the Group of Seven industrial nations before it drafts its final package, particularly in respect of debt reduction or write off. Bilaterally Pakistan owes 3 billion dollars of debt to the US as that had suspended large scale aid as early as 1990 to prevent us from opting for nuclear weapons.

But before the US announces its package it wants the IMF come up with its Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility, the three-year package on which consultations between its major partners will be involved. And that package, says Larson, will be far larger than the earlier anticipated — 2.5 billion dollars — while IMF officials had spoken of 2 billion dollars. There has lately been talk of the figure being more than double of that in vies of Pakistan’s compulsive need for larger assistance, more so when Shaukat Aziz says this will be the last time Pakistan seeks a package from the IMF with is excessively rigid terms.

Larson also hinted that the debt relief which the US is discussing with other donors will be in the shape of debt write-off, but the amount written off and turned into a grant has to be used for the social sector, particularly education and public health. Canada has already taken the lead in this respect by offering to write-off its 385 million dollars debt on the basis that will be used for development of the much neglected social sector.

That is the basis on which half the debt of the least developed and most indebted countries of Africa was written off The same facility is to be given to Pakistan, provided we use the funds saved for genuine economic development and the social sector growth.

Larson sees great scope for larger economic growth in Pakistan. He says that if in Brazil private sector investment can rise from one billion dollars to 30 billions within a decade, and if at the other end one billion dollars of private investment in Poland could rise to six bullion dollars in eight years, the same kind of enhanced investment growth could take place in Pakistan.

Meanwhile the OPIC and the Exim bank of the US are to play their normal role in Pakistan now. OPIC has set apart 300 million dollars for use by US private sector for investment in Pakistan, while the Exim Bank has allocated 300 million dollars for larger trade between the two countries. That amount is to be used initially for buying new Boeing planes for replacing PIA’s aged fleet.

There is also a move for a free trade agreement between the US and Pakistan which can increase the volume of trade between them substantially. The US is already the largest investor in the petroleum sector in recent years and than be expanded to other sectors by the US investors who had earlier sought the OPIC cover and the Exim Bank assistance. Meanwhile the US is to increase its quota for import of textiles from Pakistan and reduce its duties, which delight Pakistanis. And following the normalization of relations between the two countries Americans investors may participate in our privatization endeavours far more than they would have done in the past.

The European Union has also been very helpful to Pakistan and has lifted the curbs on many Pakistan items and allowed an increase of 15 per cent in the textile quota over what it had conceded earlier to accommodate Pakistan’s exports which have risen to 2.4 billion dollars.

A war abroad, and a war at home

THE Afghanistan campaign drags on. The threat of a deliberate infusion of anthrax as a terrorist tool grows more pressing, with three fatalities reported and scores exposed to the disease. Even the White House postal facility is now said to be infected.

In fact, the week began with the anthrax story displacing news from the Afghan front to second place. The origin of the new menace has still not been identified. Is it linked to the September 11 attacks, as most officials now seem to believe, or is it the work of some domestic group or even a lone individual? New fears have been raised by the fact that mail sorting machines that handled anthrax-loaded post could themselves have become infected and pass on the bacteria to mail whose recipients may not be marked out as a victim.

The House of Representatives opened for business on Tuesday after a week’s closure as the entire complex was swept for signs of possible infection. Congressional buildings around the Capitol still remain closed. The anxiety also persists that the Capitol itself could be the target of a terrorist attack, and since the magnificent edifice is surrounded by residential areas, those who live in the leafy neighbourhoods are worried about the cost of an assault on the legislature.

In Afghanistan, as winter closes in, the window of opportunity for obtaining results may be slowly closing. Policy-makers appear to feel that they have inflicted considerable damage on the Taliban infrastructure, and that Kabul may within the next few weeks before Ramazan be ready to fall. But into whose lap? This is becoming an increasingly vexed question, with Pakistan pressing for a Taliban presence in some form in an interim, broad-based government and the Northern Alliance deadly opposed to any Taliban participation.

The alliance has US backing, but of a distinctly ambivalent kind: Washington does not want to hand over Kabul to the Alliance and, in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s words, crystallize opposition in other regions. The United Nations special representative, Mr Lakhdar Brahimi, questions whether any ready-made solutions are available, and he wants time to fully explore all options.

Afghanistan is both a military and political morass. Its economic problems pose another challenge: they go back to much before recent events, but haunt the task of both the military man and the politician. In developing countries, it is always the poor who suffer, whether it is a man-made calamity like a war or a natural calamity like a cyclone or an earthquake.

Overall, there is a mood of uncertainty here. America’s sense of security has been shaken. It’s only if you happen to be here that you can, beneath the humdrum routine of daily life, really understand how profoundly the carefree pursuit of good life has been affected. Indeed, since you have, for however short a time, become part of American society, you find yourself reacting in much the same manner as the vast majority of the people here.

The situation, particularly after the anthrax outbreak, has become really grim. America, which described itself as a nation at peace irrespective of how it stirred up problems elsewhere, is now fighting two wars, one in Afghanistan and one at home. The biological terror has been directed at legislators and media persons, but the handling of mail has lent it a far wider dimension to it.

There has been a sudden eruption if interest in Islam and political Islam. A biography of Osama bin Laden by Yossef Bodansky (Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America) figures prominently on the bestsellers’ lists of both The Washington Post and The New York Times, as does Ahmed Rashid’s book on the Taliban and Benjamin Barber’s Jihad vs McWorld. The average American, content within his own country, had only a vague idea of the world outside. Now he is bombarded with information on a daily basis and is perplexed to find that there are so many people and nations who do not like America. Why?

Since America is an open and resilient society, there is an intense debate underway on this question in both academic and journalistic circles. But the debate remains slightly off-focus, in the sense that it generally continues to be restricted to Islam rather than be concerned with the deeper problem of why in so many Muslim countries — and, rather importantly, not in Muslim countries alone — the regimes in power have been backed by the US despite those regimes’ total indifference to the values that America practises at home. How much of the oil wealth that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries enjoy has been shared amongst their own people? How much freedom and tolerance of dissent do people of these countries enjoy?

Some of these points were raised by the economist, Shahid Javed Burki, at a roundtable discussion arranged by the international correspondents committee of the National Press Club this week. He said concentrating on Islam and asking whether Islam condones suicide bombings and terrorism is a sure recipe to bring you out of context. Large numbers of people in Muslim countries were extremely angry at what their own governments were doing to them, Dr Burki said, and since these regimes were, as a result of policies of globalization, being kept in place by the US, America became a target. Islam was used merely as an instrument, just as the US used technology as an instrument in its quest for domination. The profiles of those who were allegedly involved in the September 11 attacks did not show them up as fundamentalists: there was no evidence that they were doing what they did because they believed the scriptures told them to do it.

Another participant in the discussion, former US ambassador to the UAE Quincy Lumsden also said, although from a different perspective, that what the US faced was a political agenda fuelled by religious zealotry. Another former US envoy (to Qatar), Patrick Theros, castigated foreign policy dilettantism that led to ignoring the consequences of the policies America was following abroad. An academic, Dr Edmund Ghareeb, referred to the despair, poverty and deprivation in many Arab and Muslim countries, and said terrorism, although contemptible, should not be seen as a totally irrational process.

The American left, while in no manner condoning terrorism, is also split on the issue. A lively debate has been raging in the columns of the weekly Nation between the academic and intellectual, Noam Chomsky, and Christopher Hitchens, the British journalist and motivating force behind a campaign to try former secretary of state and national security adviser Henry Kissinger for war crimes, who has now made the US his home.

Prof Chomsky wrote that when one estimated the human toll of a crime, one should count not only those who were literally murdered on the spot but also those who died as a result of that crime. In that connection, he recalled the US missile attack, in August 1998, on the Al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan that Clinton administration strategists had mistakenly taken to be a concern linked with Osama bin Laden and making chemical weapons.

Prof Chomsky argued that the attack on the factory had knocked out 90 per cent of Sudan’s pharmaceutical production capacity, and that this fact, combined with the effect of the sanctions imposed against that country, could mean that tens of thousands of people, mainly children, had suffered and died because of tuberculosis, malaria and other treatable diseases. Proportional to population, Prof Chomsky said, this was as if the bin Laden network, in a single attack, had caused hundreds of thousands of people to die and suffer.

Christopher Hitchens came down heavily on the “left’s tendency to rationalize the aggression of September 11” and used the phrase “fascism with an Islamic face” to describe the terror attacks. He also questioned easy acceptance of the theory that the attacks were linked to America’s policies in the Middle East, saying that the Taliban or Osama bin Laden had not particularly distinguished themselves by any interest in the Palestinian plight. The death squads who carried out the attacks on New York and Washington had not “favoured us with a posthumous manifesto of their grievances or a statement of claim”. Hitchens also referred to the oft-mentioned view that the US was instrumental in the creation of the Taliban, and agreed that three successive US administrations were responsible for under-reacting to the Taliban, but then raised the point whether a greater responsibility did not now devolve on America to undo that regime.

The debate goes on, sometimes skimming the surface, sometimes probing the very depths of the problem. But the early confusion created by the loose use of terms like ‘Islamic Terrorism’ and ‘America Avenges’ and ‘Crusades’ has not ended, and the average American should not be blamed if he fails to make a distinction between Islam and what some Muslims organizations or groups may be doing or the opposition to these groups that exists within Muslim societies.

Even abroad, it appears that the message that America’s war is against terrorism, not Islam, does not appear to have got through to the Muslim masses. Apart from the hate-crime incidents that have occurred here, America should also be worried about how the current atmosphere can bring out other negative emotions among its people, such as racism, that peace, prosperity and affirmative actions by successive government had pushed into the background.