The
Hypocrisy Over Beslan
By Joe Lauria
24 September, 2004
Information Clearing
House
After
9/11, exploring why it happened was often seen as tantamount to treason.
President Bush explained Islamic extremists struck because of who the
U.S. is rather than what it does: They were moved by hatred of Americas
freedom.
When Chechen terrorists
perpetrated a crime that overwhelmed the imagination by first terrorizing
and then murdering school children in Beslan, the State Department was
quick to answer why: it was because of what Russia does, not what it
is: Russias Chechen policy was to blame.
The hypocrisy is
startling. Terrorists who attack Russia have a reason grounded in political
grievances while those who strike the United States do not.
President Putin
cogently pierced the double standard: Why don't you meet Osama
bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in
talks?"
Russias brutality
in Chechnya is at the heart of Beslan, an unjustified evil visited on
children bearing flowers for their teachers, as unjustified as 9/11.
In a guerilla war, targeting civilians veers sharply into cowardice
and eliminates any sympathy for what might be a just cause.
But if the Bush
administration is smart enough to figure out the underlying causes of
terrorism in Russia, how come its not smart enough to understand
why America was attacked? The answer is that of course the administration
does understand, but it cannot admit it. Doing so would open a national
debate on decades of U.S. policy towards Arab and Muslim nations.
And that is exactly
what is needed.
An examination of
how the U.S. has spouted about spreading democracy since Woodrow Wilson
while propping up dictators is a good place to start. The Cold War justification
was to protect strategic interests from Soviet control. CIA-engineered
coups in Islamic Iraq, Iran and Indonesia resulted. That reason is now
gone.
Bush still talks
about bringing democracy to Iraq while his regime supports undemocratic
governments across the Muslim world.
If we take bin Ladens
statements at face value, we know he is moved by hatred of these regimes,
which he intends to overthrow. Not that bin Laden would replace them
with democracies. But pulling the levers at Washingtons disposal
to press Arab governments to reform steadily towards democracy would
undermine the extremists. In countries where there are no elections
for the executive or for a legislature, where there is no freedom of
the press, speech or assembly, how else can legitimate dissent express
itself except through blowing up bombs? Give people the vote and freedom
of speech and the terrorists will be marginalized.
Instead, Bush has
solidified bin Ladens arguments. The al Qaeda leader used to preposterously
say American troops were occupying Saudi Arabia because the U.S. has
a few thousand soldiers in barracks there. So Bush justifies bin Ladens
absurd remarks by indeed invading and occupying an entire Arab nation
that was long the center of Islam. The region has been inflamed and
a vacuum opened now filled by terrorists after the removal of a Cold
War-era dictator, once coddled, who was a bulwark against Islamic extremism.
Meanwhile Washington continues to coddle other Arab dictators and excises
out of the Senates intelligence report on 9/11 any references
to the Saudis possible role in the attacks.
The second point
that needs urgent debate is Washingtons total support for Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The Bush administration has ended negotiations
based on Madrid and Sharon has declared the Road Map dead.
Rather than change
his policy toward Palestine, that is, withdrawal from occupied lands,
suicide bombers attack, Sharon counterattacks, and suicide bombers attack
again. An unending Israeli military occupation perpetuates the violence.
Its the same
murderous cycle in Iraq, which seemingly wont end until that occupation
does. Instead Sharon has trained US forces in the Israeli tactics of
bombing houses of suspected militants, leading to more attacks and further
US responses.
On Chechnya, Putin
sends his foreign minister to Israel to pick up the same preemptive
strategy that was also liberally offered to Bush.
Putin, Bush and
Sharon have all responded to terrorism in like kind: they deny their
policies have anything to do with it and employ a militarism that is
leading to unending chaos.
They repeat the
mantra: We will not negotiate with terrorists. But negotiations arent
always needed. Unilateral changes in unjust polices are. Sharon doesnt
need dialogue with Arafat to pull back to the internationally recognized
1967 borders. Bush doesnt need to negotiate with bin Laden to
end his unyielding support for Arab dictators and Sharon. Putin can
pull his troops out of Chechnya, perhaps replaced with UN peacekeepers.
Militarists arent
needed, but statesmen with the courage to reevaluate trouble-making
policies, even at the cost of national interests. Only then might the
world pass through this era of terror.
Joe Lauria is a
journalist who has covered international affairs at the United Nations
for the Boston Globe, the London Daily Telegraph, the Montreal Gazette
and other publications. He is also an award-winning investigative reporter
for the Sunday Times of London.
Copyright: Joe Lauria