8pov

The world can certainly do better than this. Here's why.

Saturday, July 9

London Today

I don't like coincidences.

Nor do I support any form of terrorism; whether it is warfare or isolate attacks. There must be another answer than to kill.

Observe. British PM Tony Blair is in Scotland to attend the G8 summit. As the host of the G8 summit, he is in a position to strongly represent the environmental concerns of the much of the G8. He is furthermore in position to leverage the U.S. into a Kyoto-type plan for environmental concerns, having followed their lead into a messy war in Iraq.

Observe. The UK strongly supports the position of the U.S. in a war fought on false pretenses supplied officially by both great nations. Not only does the engagement continue in Iraq, but, dissent within both nations grows as each nation has recently re-elected their wartime leader. Is this democracy at work?

Observe. The city of London is announced, yesterday, as the host of the 2012 Summer Olympiad. This announcement brings with it the promise of massive investment in, and financial boon to London, widespread security concerns, and the stigma of corrupt influences
concerning the IOC.

Now: early reports link al-Qaeda to a bombing that has claimed 37 lives and hundreds of casualties. Those who were not killed experienced a range of injuries from smoke inhalation to lacerations to fractured and shattered bones to amputations. Certainly, there are those who cannot forget the 7|7 bombing. With wisdom, the veracity of a claim made by "an al-Qaeda linked website" must bee investigated. Motives to bomb London abound.

And now, for a slice of paranoia.

The one who stands the most to gain from this interruption, this diversion, is President Bush. He is certainly disinterested in the concerns of the G8 at this juncture, escpecially where it concerns "the environment" and "African aid." What he needs from going to Europe is EU and further UK support for his war. The diversion created by an attack on the UK, possibly the work of disavowed CIA operatives, is perfect. Besides, the Olympic win and the G8 conference provide exceptional cover and excellently contrast the implied reason for Bush's presence in UK, African aid.

End paranoid rant.

The American president hosted a summit meeting on June 20th which sought to clearly establish postitions held on trade, economics, and global affairs ahead of the Gleneagles G8 summit. Though the clear directives of investment opportunity and future relations between the US and the EU were discussed, the underlying factors of global affairs management muddied the discussion. EU Luxembourg President Juncker offered the following:

"We made clear in our frank and open and friendly talks with the President that the European is not at its knees, but that the European Union is playing the role it has on the international scene; that we feel strongly committed to the relations we have established with partners throughout the world[.]"

Remarks by President Bush in the press conference sought to demonstrate the importance of America's policies in continued relations with the rest of the world. Specifically, Bush remarked that only a portion of the EU body has contributed troops to the frontal engagements of the war on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. There yet exists division within the EU about bending to the will of America, specifically on the engagement in Iraq, and any implications therein. As reported by FOX News (a reliable source of info if I've ever seen one),

"Bush made a bury-the-hatchet visit to Europe in February to close the book on intense divisions over the U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq."

It seems that the hatchet remains unburied. US foreign policy upsets some EU members because the wish to remain distinguishable (read: foreign) from the US. As a result, it is impossible for these EU members to discern when such foreign policy will be used against them. Without the support of WMD justifying the incursion into Iraq; or a concrete link between Iraq, al Qaeda, and 9|11; worldwide support for the campaign against Islamic extremism has waned and other concerns -- the environment and African strife have risen.

Support for the war on Terrorism has instantly elevated across the Europe as the impact has been felt immediately. The lessons of past attacks, in the eye of the public, have not been learned as another successful attack has been carried off. Innocent people, pedestrians in the machinery of warfare and international politics, are dead again. If the richest and most powerful governments of the world cannot protect their people, who can?

Diversion (definition):
  1. A maneuver that draws the attention of an opponent away from a planned point of action, especially as part of military strategy.

Make a big mess over here so that no one realizes what is going on over there. The greatest diversive acts, terrorist acts, cause great confusion. The opportunity presented by diversive acts -- such as an act of terrorism -- is too clear to squander. If, then, these recent "acts of terrorism" are not truly perpetuated by terrorists, who is the beneficiary of the act? No human action takes place for no reason at all, there is something to be gained action, specifically in the imposition of such fear. Furthermore, it takes a terrorist act to avert the eyes of a nation; from intelligensia to the common man.

It is wise that the British government has stated that their investigation into the London attacks will not presume the claim of responsibility by an "al Qaeda-linked website." The culpability of another party, other than al Qaeda, could help to increase the awareness that the fight against terrorism need not focus on the conflict between the interests of capitalist western democracies and Arab interests. The implications of the G8 conference in combination with the award of the olympic games prove suitable targets for the rage of "terrorists" more "domestic" to the British isles.

Domestic terrorism still exists.

Never forget the notion of domestic terrorism. In the current political climate the basis of all terrorist action is the Islamic jihad; which contesting the political and moral authority of Western democracies. This is especially true in a world driven by a right-wing American administration pushing a foreign policy that, itself, seeks to supercede any external authority. These contests of self-determination always terminate in conflict; and, on an international level, armed conflict and warfare. The tactics of terrorism, the tools and techniques therein, are constantly within reach of the individual. This is the reason that a battle against terrorism is, in fact, a battle against ideas.

Domestic terrorists in the U.S. are not difficult to remember. The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, managed a reign of terror that lasted 17 years from within the contiguous 48 states of the USA. Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1996 is another example. The acts of Eric Harris and Dylan Kiebold at Columbine High School in 1999, if they had transpired in a post 9|11 world, would have ranked as acts of domestic terrorism.

Charles Bishop, a 15 year-old novice pilot crashed a single engine Cessna into the Bank of America building in Tampa, FL. Though he was pursued by a Coast guard helicopter, and although he violated MacDill AFB airspace -- prompting the scrambling of 2 F-15 fighters, which arrived too late -- Bishop managed to duplicate the acts of 9|11 hijackers. Bin Laden sponsored terrorists or a 9th grade student, it doesn't matter which, the acts are the same. Less than four months after 9|11, the response capability of the US military could not respond to this type of act.

(In)security

Now, four years after 9|11, with massive changes to security and identification standards, the world is no "safer." The mad dash to increase security, as demonstrated by the massive sucess of security-related businesses, has led to no change in absolute general security. Armed security details and bomb-sniffing dogs in every public place may reduce the incidence of such activity, but, there will always be a loophole available to exploit. A shift into chemical or biological weapons would suffice. Absolute security is not even found in the Orwellian world predicted by 1984. That world is becoming more symmetrical with the contemporary, but, as examined in the book, it is undesirable to achieve as its freedom from insecurity denies freedom to act.

Terror is not rooted in "ideologies of hate," it is rooted in acknowledging that with freedom comes insecurity. Almost all adult human beings have the physical capacity to kill, but, without motive -- emotive, ideological, or otherwise -- the act does not occur. Terror resides with the terrible; such terrible acts are suppressed in all but the psychotic. Induced psychosis, often the result of constant stress -- such as interminable warfare -- leads individuals to commit to terrible acts only because to bear the stress is more painful. What will become of humanity and humane action if the world succumbs to the constant warfare state promised by the war on Terrorism?

America seeks to secure itself absolutely against all threats. America seeks to rebrand and export democracy, presenting it as total freedom. These two directives clash in that total freedom implies a threat to security. Thus, the brand of freedom that American foreign policy seeks to export carries great reservations in the interest of security. This constitutes the spectre of all the same problems that affect millions of low-income Americans daily -- the actions of a police state that may injoin against any "free" action that violates "legal precedent" in the interest of national security. Thus, an American ideology of "freedom and democracy" omits the caveat of constant investigation.

Imagine a daily anal probe, for security's sake.

Freedom is NOT on the march. The spread of democracy will not save the world. Not in this campaign. Forcing the belief in democracy from without cannot attain the same balance that fighting for it from within has achieved in the past. Imposing democracy as a prerequisite for existence is an undemocratic process in and of itself. How is this invisible?

This crusade in pursuit of global homogenity has claimed many lives already. To those survivors of the London bombing, my support and empathy. Since I believe that there is no certainty to security, at any time, such an attack can be carried out here as well.

It has already been stated that Canada is the sole remaining "Crusader nation" that has not been attacked. The only guarantee in following the lead of the Bush administration is more bloodshed. The promise that the war on Terror "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" makes certain.

As a Canadian,
peacekeeping is the high ideal to which our militarized engagement in international relations searches. Where there is not peace, we seek to uncover it. To maintain peace, it must first be found. This war is no path to peace.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home