|
The September 11 attacks call for a very different commentary from that
which has dominated the media, whose main concern is to justify the use
that the hegemonic establishment of the United States wants to make of the
events.
The instinctive horror any normal human being must feel at the sight of
a massacre of large numbers of innocent people should not make us forget
the role in this of U.S. po1icy and that of its G–7 allies. This may be
the first such slaughter to strike on U.S. soil but it is far from being
unique. However, the media never made the same effort nor were they so
persistent when they covered Iraqi civilian casualties; or Yugoslavs
bombed by NATO; or Palestinians massacred at Sabra and Shatila on Sharon’s
orders and now being assassinated daily also by his order; or Egyptian
prisoners of war murdered in cold blood. What can well be called state
terrorism is no less horrific than that practiced by those who carried out
the September 11 attacks.
The American public needs to know that this is the reason why the
attacks on the United States have not met with universal and unqualified
opprobrium as it has been led to believe. The strategic choice of
targets—New York’s financial center and the Pentagon—has even been
applauded and not only by a handful of Islamic fanatics but by a large
majority of public opinion in Africa and Asia and a sizeable sector of
European opinion.
So far no light has been shed on what share of responsibi1ity was
carried by the actual perpetrators—highly organized Islamic kamikazes who
may or may not have been part of one or more networks. The truth may never
be known.
The present writer is one among many intellectuals who consider the
primary victims of political Islam to be its own Arab and Muslim peoples,
that the reactionary ideology upon which political Islam is founded offers
no viable answer to the problems of its communities and that its modus
operandi is unacceptable and even repellent. But it is precisely for these
reasons that political Islam has always been and continues to be “well
regarded” by the Washington strategists to whom it has often been allied.
The Taliban (like Osama bin Laden ) have been described as “freedom
fighters.” Their “rage” against the dreadful “Communists” (in actual fact
modernizing national populists) whose chief transgression—-in their
view—had been the opening of the schools to girls, drew no censure from
the Western diplomatic circles of the time nor was it denounced by their
feminist movements. Those referred to as “Afghans”—that is, Algerians,
Egyptians and others who were trained for assassination in U.S.–funded
camps and were coached by experts from the CIA and allied Pakistan—are now
exercising their “terrorist” skills in Algeria and elsewhere. Not only has
Washington never had the least objection to them but it has supported and
continues to support them to this day, saving its disapproval only for
those who struggle against Israeli occupation. This distinction cannot be
simply interpreted as sympathy within the dominant discourse for the
heralds of cultural “specificity.” The reason for it doubtless lies in the
North American establishment’s clear and cynical analysis: that political
Islam traps the people it victimizes and makes them powerless in the face
of the challenges of liberal capitalist g1obalization, and that this suits
dominant capital’s purpose.
At this writing, I do not know exactly what form Washington’s response
to the September 11 attacks will take. Most likely it will include massive
bombings and the killing of thousands of civilians, victims already of the
U.S. and its allies in political Islam. When it is over, whether bin Laden
is destroyed in this operation or not, a redoubled hate for Washington
will generate thousands of new candidates ready for revenge against
American targets. But, by according the power of the military terror it
possesses an increasingly decisive and exclusive role in the pursuit of
its hegemonic goal, hasn’t the ruling establishment in the United States
already made its choice? Beyond the horror or the killings that such an
option implies, it is doomed to ultimate failure as it triggers hate for
the United States across the world.
Such an option can only lead to the spread of a new “McCarthyism”
within American society, as it gives free rein to the demonization of any
opposition to the dictates of dominant capital—in the name of “national
security” and a “war against terrorism.”
There is no possibility of a united front against terrorism. Only the
development of a united front against international and social injustice
can serve to make such desperate acts by victims of the system useless on
their part and so no longer possible.
SAMIR AMIN is director of the
African Office (in Dakar, Senegal) of the Third World Forum, an
international non-governmental association for research and debate. He is
the author of numerous books and articles including Spectres of
Capitalism (Monthly Review Press, 1998). | 
