Home
Previous letters
Subscribe
Useful links
About me
Contact me
|
WORLD CITIZEN LETTER: 519
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
WCL 519 July 2006
The immorality of the terrorist state
It is consoling for subjects of nation-states to look to the benefits that they respect, such as health-care and social services of many other kinds. But despite policies aimed to diminish their consumption, huge revenues from taxes on alcohol & tobacco make state treasuries partly or largely dependent on these things for solvency. Furthermore, drugs that ruin lives, health and lead to all other forms of anti-social behaviour are generally most freely available in the state prisons.
Old-fashioned nation-state wars may be much less prevalent, but since the UN was set up to abolish war our world has had some three wars annually. Sovereign states have either been eager to assist one (or both) sides in such conflicts and have rarely done anything to halt these until they have grown nearly beyond control or were having serious economic effects that disturbed the large states. Nevertheless, the United States fought a war in Vietnam for 20 years with all the accoutrements of terror and violence that its rulers routinely deplore.
It may also be that terrorism from the Tamil Tigers or the Chechen resistance is worse than many other examples. But both these groups although not in control of sovereign states, are striving to achieve just that. Eta, the Basque terrorists, fought for half a century to break away from Spain under the terrorist Franco regime and set up their own nation-state. Accordingly, they imitated the terror with which Franco had begun his rule. It is never too early to practise government by terror. Most terrorists, from genocidal Rwandans to the ex-sergeant Idi Amin, see the immense value of getting hold of the state machinery to give full reign to terror.
The sins of sovereign states are well known and many but they are still by no means fully appreciated for their full bill of iniquities. But of these, probably the most serious is Terrorism. From Genghis Khan down to Adolf Hitler, the really widespread examples of using terror for political ends come from established rulers, commanding empires or nation-states. The participation or connivance of the administrations directed by government make the execution of terror both straightforward and effective. In comparison, the efforts of anarchists, rebels, or revolutionaries, are usually puny.
Even today, with the trumpeted 'war on terror', the greatest effort of al-Qaeda, a nasty and vicious gang of muslim fanatics, could only rise to the destruction of a few thousand people in the New York twin towers. The American response, beginning with 'shock and 'awe' has already accounted for some 100,000 ordinary Iraqis and the help provided by home-grown terrorists, given their new opportunities and examples by the US army, keeps the total rising.
Where else is terrorism flourishing? Obviously in Burma, with the established military regime not only trying to repress internal dissent, but also to terrorise the outlying non-Burmese tribes. In China and Russia, the small-scale terror of their communist revolutions paled into insignificance when compared with the scale and violenceof the official regimes of terror once they had established the machinery of government. But in China, the Japanese army in 1937 succeeded in setting a standard of terror in Nanking rarely surpassed anywhere.
John Roberts
Comment on this letter
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
Comments on this letter
|
|