11/October 7, 2001
dr hc mult, Professor of Peace Studies
Director, TRANSCEND: A Peace and Development Network
June 18, 2002
USA, the West and
the Rest after September 11/October 7, 2001: a Midterm
1. Three Discourses:
Terrorism, State Terrorism and Retaliation
There seem to be three discourses, competing for
attention, to come to grips with September 11 (terrorism
in New York/Washington, killing about 3,000) and October
7 2001+ (state terrorism in Afghanistan, killing about
5,000) (2), summarized in the Table.
The first is the terrorist discourse. Inspired
by fundamentalist Islam, the shahadah ("I testify that
there is no God but Allah, and I testify that Muhammad is
his prophet") and the sword; the flag of Saudi Arabia is
a perfect symbol. To bring Allah's justice to America is
one element. Another, articulated by bin Laden, is
revenge for humiliation: "What America is tasting now is
something insignificant compared to what we have tasted
for scores of years. Our nation has been tasting this
humiliation and this degradation for more than 80 years".
The second is the state terrorist discourse,
articulated by fundamentalist USA. Thus W.J. Bennett, on
behalf of Americans for Victory over Terrorism:
"We are a target not because of anything we have done,
but because of who we are, what we stand for, what we
believe, and what our nation was founded upon: the twin
principles of liberty and equality". Charles Krauthammer
in Washington Post: "America won the Cold War, pocketed
Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic as door prizes,
pulverized Serbia and Afghanistan and -- highlighted
Europe's irrelevance with a display of vast military
superiority". Behind this geo-fascism one can sense
Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chess-Board: America's
Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. And
underlying that "a nation under God"; and the whole
tradition of the Pilgrims.
Acquaintance with these discourses is indispensable to
understand the mental frameworks within which
motivations--and capabilities--emerge. As pointed out in
the opening of the manifesto by 120+ American
intellectuals "The central fallacy of the pro-war
celebrants is the equation between "American values" as
understood at home and the exercise of United States
economic and especially military power abroad."
And this is where the third rational analysis
discourse for peace action, with peace journalism,
takes off. That discourse will include diagnosis
of why 11 September and 07 October happened as parts of a
retaliation cycle and to use that revenge for other
purposes. It would include prognosis of what will
happen, like rejection of fundamentalism on both sides
and of US policy abroad and at home, not because of
military overstretch but because of too much military
capability and excessive use. It would include
suggestions for therapy, for instance culturally
as dialogue among moderates and between them and their
fundamentalists; economically by taming the major "axis
of evil", the World Bank-IMF-WTO triad (Le Monde
Diplomatique, March 2002); politically through
conflict resolution in the Middle-East/West Asia; and
militarily through US massive base withdrawal and defense
of homeland security, at home.
Washington and Islamic fundamentalists today suffer
rapidly growing opposition, governmental and
nongovernmental, in the West and in the Islamic world.
When these four forces find each other in a unified
opposition to fundamentalism things will change.
9-11 and 10-7 pried the world open. The
mega-contradictions of class, gross political,
economic, military and cultural power gaps among and
within nations are there for us all to see. To narrow
those gaps is the longer term, indispensable, remedy.
Rational Analysis for Peace Action
Diagnosis of terrorism
Other is Evil
Both are Victims
Justice to USA
Let them suffer our suffering
Other is Evil
Prognosis for terrorism
Will continue unless crushed militarily
Continues unless: Conflicts solved
Cycle exit found
Must continue till Islam/Arabs are
Therapy for terrorism
and state terrorism
BY WAR against Al Qaeda, Taliban, host
HONOR OUR DEAD
BY INT'L COURT
Mobilize against fundamentalism
BY VIOLENCE till USA pulls out
HONOR OUR MARTYRS
The Other Actor
(Bypassed by modernity)
between Actors Economic Military Political
PAST & FUTURE
The Other Actor
USA & Christians
Economic and Military
PAST & PRESENT
"more than 80 years"
(Invaded by Westernization)
Terrorism can be eliminated like Nazism and
State terrorism breeds terrorisms
Provoke USA and USA provokes by
War a success:
Al Qaeda out
No US losses
War a failure:
Al Qaeda escaped
5,000 Afg killed
War a holy duty:
Afghan camps for
None, this is struggle for survival;
you are with us
or against us
Used to limit human rights;
Used as a pretext economically, oil
None, this is struggle for survival; of
Muslims against the infidels
2. Terrorism as
That one person's terrorist is the other's freedom
fighter is well known. Thus, Hitler's minister of
Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, frequently used "terrorism"
as defamation of his enemies:
30/01/1943: "We have been fighting
against this terrorist Jewish idea of conquering the
18/02/1943: "-Bolshevism is not only a
terrorist theory but also a terrorist practice". "As
national socialists it has been our duty to warn
against the effort by international Jewry to throw the
European continent into chaos through the terrorist
military power of Bolshevism". "This terrorist Jewry
has turned two hundred million people in Russia into
05/06/1943: "We also have to undo the often
very heavy effects of the British-American air
Sounds familiar, only with Muslims for Jews and Islam
for Jewry, in other words the two religions that
challenged the Christian claim to have both Messiah and
the only one God. And yet the term "terrorist" is
descriptive of something, and something important.
The problem dissolves by distinguishing between
terrorism as tactic and as goal in itself. Definitions of
terrorism include [a] violence against
civilians (unarmed, innocent, bystanding) and
[b] for political purposes. Whether
perpetrators of the terror are in uniform (state
terrorists) or not (non-state terrorists) is of minor
importance from a victim point of view. Uniforms do not
legitimize violence against civilians, nor does their
absence--referring to maxims of guerrilla warfare.
But what is that political goal beyond the tactical
use of terrorism in the sense [a,b] above? To
produce a change, bringing in a new regime/rule,
ruler or rulers opposed to status quo, or to prevent a
change, protecting that status quo. A terrorist does
not see terrorism as a goal in itself. But how do the
terrorists think that their atrocities can bring about
the desired political goal?
By making people rise against their rulers, or,
the opposite: by scaring people so that they do not
rise against their rulers.
The first theory assumes that the victims see the
situation the same way as the (state) terrorists do: your
rulers are so bad that they forced us to do this; remove
them and we shall stop immediately. More likely, the
victims will see the (state or not) terrorists as the
problem, and see the link to their own leaders as
indirect or missing. Maybe as point 2 on the agenda. They
will rise or bear grudges against the terrorists. And yet
this kind of stupid theory was underlying the Allied
bombing in Germany and Japan, the Baader-Meinhof RAF (and
Brigate Rosse), the killing of civilians in the Gulf and
Yugoslavia wars and September 11 and October 7. Terrorism
will continue till that hypothesis is out.
The other hypothesis is better: people may for some
time be terrorized into submission. The Prince may stay
in power because he is feared rather than because he is
loved, as Machiavelli advised. Authoritarian regimes are
usually based on this, as opposed to totalitarian
regimes, democracies and anarchies. But people are known
to rise against autocracies. Or they collapse by their
own weight, through demoralization. They are not
By this terrorism definition the 20th century with a
civilian toll in warfare increasing from 25% to above 75%
was terrorist. If a victory can be won through internal
revolt caused by external terror, then killing civilians
is rational precisely because they are defenseless. By
bombing from high altitude the military can also be
turned into lame ducks. And the pilots are invulnerable,
defying all classical rules of courage, honor and
dignity. This is the coward victory, hiding deep in cave
pits and high in cockpits.
The other problem is that there could be retaliation
against own civilians, by the same flimsy theory. And
that is an element of what happened on September 11. And
probably also on October 7+.
The first encounter the USA had with Islam was
similar: the blockade of the Mediterranean coast, then
known as "the Barbary Coast" (today Libya, Tunisia,
Algeria and Morocco), ordered by Thomas Jefferson in
1801. The enemy was referred to as a "treacherous set of
villains". Their crime: not piracy as was alleged, but
that they defended themselves against trade, then (as
today?) a criterion of civilization, the opposite of
barbary. "US agents turned to covert action--marched
across the desert from Egypt with several hundred Greek
and Arab mercenaries and eight US marines and covered 500
miles in 50 days" (WP 10/03/02). Then, as today, the USA
decides herself where her interests are located.
To what extent terrorist tactics were used in this the
first of well over 200 US interventions abroad is
unknown. But when the term is used today, in the
discourses mentioned, it is less to describe a tactic
than to defame those who use it as barbarian, villains.
As "evil-doers". And evil they are, using such tactics
against human beings. But, if "terrorist" is the last
word in the analysis, with no effort to understand
motives, then it does not bode well for dialogue,
conflict transformation, reconciliation, peace. The step
from "evil-doer" to "vermin to be exterminated" is short,
and is taken by Goebbels, as also by Bush and bin
One general hypothesis may be that terrorist tactics
is violence to retaliate, fueled by anger, with no
holds barred. Human beings will generally not resort to
terrorism as the first step. The violent prehistory may
include structural violence. And another general
hypothesis would be the opposite: violence fueled by
greed, a calculated strike in cold blood to force
capitulation, like what the West often did to colonize,
telling themselves they were fighting beasts. But what,
then, causes anger and greed?
Why do human beings use violence, in general? An
Table 1. A Typology of Violence
conquest SEVEN +
justice SEPTEMBER ELEVEN
Violence may be used to produce a result, for oneself,
or for a collectivity to which one belongs. Revenge and
conquest are such results. They are self-oriented. The
end reward is supposedly a feeling of satisfaction from
revenge and a booty--political, economic, military,
cultural--from conquest. Violence as punishment may serve
deterrence as an end, warning the same perpetrator not to
repeat and/or others not to do the same. There is no
booty accruing to the executor of the violence. But
violence as decision mechanism may be working according
to "winner takes all". Violence for conquest
incapacitates the other side so that the booty is up for
grabs, it differs from violence as decision mechanism if
the culture designates the winner (far) short of
incapacitation, and the violence stops.
Then there is violence as a goal in itself, as
consumption rather than to produce anything. We assume
this to be a rare case. "Justice" has been put in this
category, at the collective level, as an expression of
the will of higher forces. It is not revenge to satisfy
the sentiments of mundane actors, nor is it punishment
designed to deter. Justice simply is, in and by
September 11 is seen as an Act of Justice,
bringing Justice to the US essence, its economic and
strategic centers, to force them to submit to stay off
dar-al-Islam, Allah's lands. And October 7 is seen as
revenge and conquest, doing the latter under the
pretext of the former (and punishment, and justice). How?
3. Fundamentalism as
This is where fundamentalism enters, like terrorism a
term for Other. Self is seen as moderate/proportionate
and rational. Psychologically fundamentalism polarizes,
dehumanizes Other and bolsters Self. Whether terrorism is
triggered by anger or greed fundamentalism produces the
necessary numbing and legitimation.
The world is right now in the clutches of two
fundamentalisms pitted against each other. Relative to
the world population these are small groups, with
Wahhabite Sunni Islam and Puritan Protestant
Christianity, both some centuries old, at their core. But
they have powerful weapons at their disposal: suicide
bombing with the use of airplanes as bombs and carpet
bombing with the possible use of nuclear bombs. We are
dealing with deeply rooted pathologies which for
individuals are diagnosed as narcissism and megalomania
cum paranoia. But at the collective level they
still pass as expressions of devotion and patriotism. In
sick national cultures.
Here is a definition of
fundamentalism with seven elements:
1. Chosenness. The idea built into the national
narrative that the nation is chosen by transpersonal
forces, such as Yahweh for the Jews and the successors,
God and Alla'h.
2. Glory. The basis is usually a myth combining
a glorious past with a glorious future once the problems
of the more dubious, even ignominious, present have been
3. Traumas. The shocks, mythical or not,
suffered by a nation, leaving deep wounds, festering in
the collective subconscious, to be drawn upon,
particularly by leaders with similar wounds.
4. Dichotomy. The tendency to divide
everything, like world space states and nations, into two
parts, with sharp borderlines.
5. Manicheism. The tendency to attribute only
Good qualities to Self and only Evil qualities to Other.
God vs Satan.
6. Armageddon. The tendency found in the
abrahamitic religions to envisage a final battle between
God/Good and Satan/Evil.
7. Repression/Projection. A psychological
syndrome repressing, denying, the bad qualities of Self
(such as excessive violence in thought, speech and
action), and attribute them to Other.
Point for point this applies to both of them, making
them each other's mirror images with exchangeable scripts
(Osama Bush and George bin Laden) and implacable enemies.
Armed with suicide bombs and carpet bombing the result is
The Saudi Arabia state religion is Wahhabite Islam, a
purist Sunni Islamic movement, from Muhammad ibn Abdul
Wahhab, 1703-91. (3) Wahhabism has several important
aspects in this connection:
First, all Saudi territory is a mosque, a Sacred Land
of the two holy cities (Mecca, Medina) and the two holy
mosques (third is Al Aqsa in Jerusalem). Alla'h chose an
Arab. Mohammed, as rasul, Prophet, making Arabs Chosen
People. "Let there be not two religions in Arabia" was
Mohammed's deathbed injunction. Wahhabism sees itself as
the one, also turning against other Muslims (eg. Kerbala
Second, a very high level of asceticism, returning to
the original strength of Islam, the "Golden Age": no
music, no silky clothes, no decoration of mosques, no
alcohol and tobacco.
And third, frequent use of capital punishment,
bringing justice to perpetrators by putting them to the
sword; symbolized by the green Saudi flag with the sword
surrounded by the shahadah.
Saudi-Arabia is based on cooperation between the Royal
House and the high clergy of Wahhabism. Most inhabitants
are Wahhabites, like the Saudi ambassador to England who
April 13 published a poem praising suicide bombers. Bin
Laden is a Wahhabite. So are the Talibans. And in many
other terrorist Islamic groups Wahhabism is an element.
Obviously, the oil in Saudi Arabia and the US role (from
the first drilling for "black gold" by Standard Oil in
1933 via the Roosevelt-Ibn Saud agreement in 1945 up till
today) with all the wealth that followed is in flagrant
contradiction with the first and second of these tenets;
asceticism and only one religion.
What remains is Wahhabite brutality, especially
against women. What the Talibans did in Afghanistan at
the level of economic misery the Saudis have done and do
at a level of wealth that masks some of the ugliness. Few
human rights arguments used against the Talibans do not
also apply to that major supplier of oil for the West in
general, and the USA in particular.
We would expect true Wahhabites to be of the opinion
that the USA is driven mainly by economic and strategic,
material concerns, as witnessed by the oil concessions
and the military bases in their holy land. The choice of
targets September 11 follows. We would also expect that
their expectations were deeply confirmed when after the
October 7+ killing in Afghanistan the USA (UNOCAL) gets
oil pipe-lines and a military base (Kandahar).
Prejudices confirmed are no more prejudices; they
constitute knowledge according to normal science. And
will strengthen their resolve enormously, as already
revealed in the public opinion data showing 90-95%
support of Al Qaeda among Saudi youth after the war in
Afghanistan. No doubt the linkage between oil (UNOCAL),
oil infrastructure (Halliburton) and arms industry
interests (Carlyle group) and the present US leadership
provides extra confirmation, not only of Wahhabite but
also of marxist/leninist assumptions about class and the
Generally, it is very unwise to confirm the theories
of one's enemy. A wiser strategy would have been to
declare that the USA will stay off Afghanistan
economically and strategically. But then wisdom is a
scarce commodity, and particularly with the present US
leadership, strongly fueled by greed.
And no doubt also by anger. They did not bring
September 11 upon themselves. But they certainly knew how
to make use of it.
The similarity bordering on identity with US
Puritanism, a purist movement in Protestant Christianity,
is obvious. The first Pilgrims, referring to themselves
as "Saints" and to the rest of the world, including the
Quakers for instance, as non-believers, were also in
possession of a Sacred Land, they themselves being the
Chosen People, living off the Jewish archetype, with
Cotton Mather, Endicott and John Winthrop among their
The asceticism was proverbial. And so was capital
punishment, for instance against Quakers and the 20
"witches" in Salem 1692.
Laden nor George W Bush live in ascetic poverty. (4)
But they see their own land as sacred, their people as
holy, use religious idiom and are very facile with the
life of others, easily taking life as when Texas under a
duly elected George Bush as governor held the US death
penalty record. Civilian deaths 9/11 and 10/7+ were
simply "collateral damage".
Richard Drinnon summarizes in his famous Facing
To their minds they were the only carriers of
the last best hope of the Protestant Reformation.
Hence, while the English Puritan version of the
Protestant ethic was harshly intolerant, the New
England variation was even more so. The tempers of
Winthrop and Endicott were more hairtrigger sensitive
than Cromwell's when someone threatened to defile
their holy mission. Abroad, to be sure, Cromwell
hunted down the Irish, but he still fell short of the
unyielding fury the Saints turned on the New England
specimens of those "differing little from beasts",
those "savages" who had both a different color.
These fundamentalisms emerged at considerable distance
in space, only one century in time but, importantly, as
reform movements in two of the abrahamitic religions. The
third one, fundamentalist Judaism and its offsprings, is
presently at work massively killing Palestinians after
Nazi Germany committed genocide against them. Like
turning against Afghanistan after having been hit by
Saudis. Using terrorism and anger to mask occupation and
greed for land.
4. Why US
The thesis is not that US interventionism, 35
(assassinations)+11 (torture)+25 (bombings)+67(global
interventions)+23 (perverted elections)=161 cases of
political violence (6) is only fueled by anger and greed,
legitimized by fundamentalist tenets. We are also talking
about cool calculation, except, of course, when somebody
hits back (Pearl Harbor and September 11 and before that
slave and native revolts, Nat Turner 1831 and Wounded
Knee 1890). Almost all of the "interventions" are
compatible with the class conflict between and within
countries hypothesis. Interventions take place to
establish, maintain or reinforce bridge-heads for US
imperial activity, fueled by greed economically,
protected militarily, legitimized culturally. And much of
that legitimation derives from the Puritan pathology in
the US civic culture.
Two alternative hypotheses to explain this activity,
clash of civilizations, and promotion of
democracy/human rights should be explored. How would
the intervention pattern and US politics have looked to
confirm these hypotheses? Obviously very different.
For the clash of civilizations hypothesis to gain in
credibility there would have to be heavy
cultural/civilizational targeting, hitting mosques,
people praying, religious leaders, art treasures,
memorials. No such activity has been observed. To the
contrary, no massive refusal to grant immigration visas
to Muslims has been observed and the USA has been
admirably open to people of other creeds and to their
religious practices and artefacts. This may change, but
so far there is no evidence to support a clash of
civilization hypothesis. The USA fights "socialism", but
that is hardly a civilization; in addition, the economic
aspect of the general class conflict hypothesis fits the
data very well.
The "promotion of democracy/human rights" hypothesis
may receive some confirmation from US acts of commission,
but is then clearly disconfirmed by US acts of omission.
If promotion of democracy and human rights were the
- the Batista regime in Cuba would have been
intervened as much as the Castro regime;
- the Somoza regime in Nicaragua as much as the
- the military dictators in Guatemala as much as
Arbenz in 1954;
- the Jimenez regime as much as the Chavez regime in
- the Saudi Wahhabite regime as much as the Taliban
Wahhabite regime in Afghanistan;
- Israeli action against the human rights of
Palestinians/Arabs as much as any Palestinian/Arab
- Libya under King Idriss as much as under
- Kuwait under the al-Sabahs as much as Iraq under
- the Shah regime as much as Mossadeqh and
and so on and so forth - there are many such paired
What stands up very well against the data is a
systematic effort to protect and promote US economic
interests against governmental or popular forces that
might be contrary to those interests, whether in the name
of governmental nationalization or popular movements with
redistribution one way or the other on the program. And
then the military deployment pattern, including bases
abroad, to protect and promote those economic
In short, economic and strategic interests, against
Article 3 of the Covenant on Social, Economic and
Cultural Human Rights of 16 December 1966 which
stipulates that proceeds from natural resources have to
accrue to the people of those countries (the USA has not
ratified that crucial element in the International Bill
of Human Rights since it obviously gives people's needs
higher priority than the free flow of factors and
Of course, the rhetoric justifying intervention, for
the public at large in the USA, and abroad (except for
the missions to governments behind closed doors) will be
phrased differently. Of four classical Western patterns,
anti-Judaism, anti-Islamism, anti-communism and
anti-terrorism (from the days of the French revolution),
the US rhetoric used anti-communism for a long period
(and may do so again). Today ample use is made of
anti-terrorism, and may add (is already close)
anti-Islamism. The USA has an anti-semitic past, but
stays away from anti-Judaism/semitism, so far.
Some other elements have also been picked up to
justify military action, such as environmentalism and
humanitarianism. Unfortunately for the USA, the record of
action for economic and strategic interests accompanied
by generally acceptable rhetoric is too long and too
well-known for such spins to convince others than the
very gullible, or the chronic america-philiacs.
A low estimate of the number killed in the
interventions after the Second World War might be 6
million in the overt action by the Pentagon and 6 million
in the covert action by the CIA+ (the possible target of
the fourth September 11 plane?) (7) That gives us 12
million. To that should be added the victims of
structural violence. At least 100,000 die from basic
needs deficits due to seriously flawed economic
structures every day; a part of that is attributed to the
USA, also because of the tight relation to the economic
"axis of evil" cited above. With 10 people as a low
estimate of the bereaved for each person killed we can
talk about well above 100 million, maybe half a billion,
with strong anti-USA emotions. Somewhere in this hatred a
thirst for revenge is burning. But it took Islamic
fundamentalism to convert anger into action. And
Christian fundamentalism to be blind, deaf, numb to US
action. Only saying, "But we are a free country!" (8)
5. What Would a Rational
Analysis Look like?
Any rational analysis of September 11 would take as
point of departure two buildings as representing US
economic and strategic interests, and the (reported)
national origin of the 19 perpetrators: 15 of them
Saudis, the other 4 also Arabs. The hypothesis that some
Saudis have something against US economic and strategic
activity seems plausible and should have been a
centerpiece of any analysis of 9/11. Of course, in no way
should analysis stop at that point. When A is violent to
B then we should also analyze A for generally violent
tendencies, and B for general victim traits that do not
relate to A.
There is some validity to analysis of criminals in
general (relative deprivation, for instance) and victims
in general (making themselves too available, for
instance). But in no way should that kind of absolutist
analysis be permitted to stand in the way of relational,
reciprocity-oriented analysis, exploring the concrete
relation between A and B. To talk about "Islamic
fundamentalism" and "envy of US/Western civilization"
with no word wasted on A=15 concrete Saudis and B=very
concrete, symbolic buildings is feeble-minded.
The abrahamitic religions are more actor-oriented;
daoism and buddhism more relation-oriented. The same can
be said about psychology vs sociology. What is needed is
both. We need insight into what moves key actors like Al
Qaeda and the USA, and we have to analyze their relation.
September 11 was not a clash of civilizations but of two
fundamentalisms within them, and follows logically from
the premisses of those fundamentalisms. The same goes for
October 7+. That being said, most of the content of the
first and the third columns in the Table is
self-explanatory; a question of spelling out
fundamentalist logic. And this will continue till the
second column becomes discourse dominant and
non-fundamentalist actors become dominant actors.
As to the discourse: this is best seen from the media,
to be dealt with in the next section. A general theory
will run something like this: what is among people (like
that Gallup poll) yesterday will be in the media today
and be picked up by politicians tomorrow. As a general
trend, no doubt with very many exceptions. Thus, media
could cut down the lag by reporting peace-oriented voices
in the population, like the demonstrations in New York
April 5 and in Washington outside the White House April
20 2002 (not in the IHT, but on Japan's
Here is a double-tracked
TRACK I: The War on
Terrorism will continue, if not the full scale of
(around) 60 organizations in (around) 60 countries (9) ,
then some of it; right now Palestine, Pakistan and the
Philippines [3P]. Iraq follows? (10) No
operations will be at the Afghanistan level, partly
because the US economic/strategic interests were
paramount as a part of the general Central Asia
geo-strategy and had been planned for a long time, and
partly because the impact of September 11 was fresh,
could be used and the consciousness of US(-supported)
atrocities was low.
- Israel-Palestine is the mini-version of USA-the
World and difficult for the USA not to support with tanks
and helicopters etc. at the same time as this is where
the coalition is breaking up, and not only in the Muslim
world, and not only in the streets;
- Pakistan may be carried over into the much more
important Iran and release fully the potential of shia
- Philippines will spread from the jungles of Basilan
(11) and Muslim insurgency to get their lands back mixed
with Abu Sayyaf banditry to the politics in Manila and
this effort to bolster a flagging economy.
The USA is engaged in Mission Impossible. Islamic
militancy is diverse, ideologically rather than
vertically inspired and the US/West approach produces
more terrorist militancy than it eliminates.
That "terrorism produces state terrorism" is obvious,
in the sense that the evidence is openly available. This
shows up not only as a violent counterattack also killing
civilians, but as enormous increase in Pentagon budget
and readiness to use weapons of mass destruction, as
witnessed by the targeting of seven countries (how many
civilians?) for nuclear attack.
That "state terrorism produces terrorism", is less
obvious in the sense that the evidence is not openly
available. Terrorists cannot disclose their budgets but
use secret financial operations; they cannot leak
memoranda but try to hide them as well as possible. Their
motivations are carried in their hearts and their brains,
not in their memoranda. The only thing that shows is
action, the rest is conjecture. And even action may have
to wait for a long time, for instance till the
anti-terrorist measures have been relaxed after the
initial shock. Thus, the state terrorist production of
terrorism has to be seen in a longer time perspective.
Intergenerational transmission of terrorist motivation
should not be underestimated; the Palestinian refugee
camps being obvious transmission mechanisms.
Will there be new attacks on the USA, and/or the West
Above September 11 is seen as bringing Justice to
America; and Justice was served by the attack,
exhausting the motivation of that group which may have
annihilated all traces by annihilating itself. But other
groups, generated by the disproportionate and misguided
US atrocities in Afghanistan may want to punish America,
revenge or even embark to destroy America. The flying
bomb approach, far beyond the imagination of "experts",
has been exhausted. But they may once again out-trick
unimaginative experts. Suicide bombers from countries hit
by the USA/Israel and economic boycott are likely. So are
nuclear responses, planned for the "outer axis of evil",
from 3 to 7. (12)
That kind of response, basically as God=USA's
punishment would be similar to what happened August 6-9,
1945 in Hiroshima-Nagasaki. And September 11 can
certainly be compared to Pearl Harbor, and also to
kamikaze (13). The eclectic combination of Emperor
cult, state shinto, confucianism and zen buddhism
generated willingness to give up one's own life with
certainty, not only with the high probability of the
usual combat soldier. But there is a very important
Those young Japanese were not motivated by three
generations in refugee camps and two generations of US
interventionism killing millions. They were not suffering
from PTSD, collective or individual or both - creating
disorders where suicide is easily embedded, even without
the support of a fundamentalist creed. Again, the more
US/Israel atrocity, the more PTSD, the more suicide.
Suicide bombing is not only a way of deploying explosives
and attain martyrdom. It is also a way of committing
suicide when despair is soul deep.
In other words, the logic of the two fundamentalisms
will continue. They are both well coded, programmed and
trained. And they will both hope for dissent, even
uprisings in their favor.
TRACK II: The War on
Freedom (14) will continue. The massive, Christian
fundamentalist right (but not of the Falwell-Robertson
more lunatic variety) also makes use of the window of
opportunity created by September 11 to attack freedoms
gained after hard struggle against those forces. US
Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) mentions the
erosion of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth
Amendments, together major parts of the human rights
package. (15) The saying "Military justice is to justice
what military music is to music" is belittled by the
Guantanamo process: this is not music=justice at all but
a travesty. What is left to defend against terrorism? Why
confirm their hypothesis that there will be massive
A major aspect of the war on freedom is the war on
livelihood. "We Demand Money for Jobs, Education, Housing
and Health Care--Not for War & Corporate Giveaways!",
the April 20 demonstration in Washington, summarizes the
issue. "They have refused to increase unemployment
insurance for 100,000 travel industry employees and
400,000 workers in other sectors who lost their jobs" (as
a result of September 11). (16)
Then there is the failure to comply with the Geneva
Convention, focused on the 299 prisoners reported held in
Guantanamo and 240 in Afghanistan - reported by Amnesty
International (17) and all over.
These factors fuel the rapidly increasing, ever more
vociferous opposition in the USA. The experience of the
present author after talks and interviews in a September
11 struck and partly stunned USA is a deep distrust in
their own media ("We are being systematically lied to")
and a yearning for a deeper diagnosis-prognosis-therapy
than they are served by their leaders. Richard Perle:
"This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies.
There are lots of them out there don't try to piece
together clever diplomacy, just wage a total war."
This opposition can rapidly attain Viêt Nam war
dimensions. Conventional mainstream analysis is afraid of
imperial overstretch relative to military capability and
over-reporting of US atrocities. In fact, it may work
exactly the other way round: it is military over-stretch
and media under-reporting that make people stand up.
Abroad the coalition shows important cracks, not only
in the Middle East Muslim/Arab countries, but also in
NATO. Most important is the clear Saudi disinvitation.
also claiming that the USA has broken the promise by Bush
Sr in 1990 to vacate Saudi Arabia when the "job was
done". The Saudis say the job was to liberate Kuwait, the
USA that "the unfinished war"--often repeated by CNN to
prepare world population--"must be finished by toppling
Given the position of Saudi youth (96% of educated
25-41 years old supported in October 2001 "bin Laden's
cause") major uprisings are possible. The Royal House
fights for its life with peace proposals.
Tony Blair is under considerable pressure including
threats of resignation of cabinet members and survey
majorities against invading Iraq. And European NATO
members worry about the absence of a clear exit strategy;
a clear definition precisely of when the job is done.
In a survey in Britain, Italy, Germany and France (18)
"disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling
international policy" is (partly much) higher than
"approve" in the last three. Very strong majorities in
all four said "he makes decisions based entirely on US
interests", and "the USA is not doing as much as it can
to bring about a peace settlement between the Israelis
and the Palestinians". Demos all over. And rise of
non-fundamentalist Islam all over, but
Imagine that before the end of 2002 government and
non-government opposition, in the West and in the Islamic
world, are mutually visible to the point of coalescing.
Will the USA go alone even if compelling alternatives (a
Middle East Community for Israel-Palestine, pulling out
of Saudi Arabia, peace dialogue with Iraq/Iran) are
available? Possible, but if proofs of failure also are
available, at considerable risk. Even to the point that
Bush/Cheney just may not complete their
(unelected) terms, having become a liability to be
impeached away on the basis of high level economic (not
Some time in the future a turning point in the US
consciousness about the US role in the world from early
17th century till today is located; turning from
triumphalism and manifest destiny to shame and joining
the world as an equal partner. For Germany this was
around 1965, for Japan earlier. In both countries some
groups are hanging on. And for the USA September 11 may
still turn out the be a wake-up call.
How did the media react?
Too early to tell, of course. But using the first five
issues of WORLD PRESS Review (WPR) after 9/11 at
least gives an impression. The hypothesis would be that
Discourse I does not find its way into the media, that
Discourse II is the dominant discourse with Discourse III
recessive to start with but then gaining momentum as the
absurdity in addressing class grievances with blunt
killing power - terrorist or state terrorist - becomes
obvious to many or most around the world.
Before we look at the media, what did people in
general think on this issue? Fortunately there was the
poll by Gallup International in 33 countries right after
September 11, between 14 and 18 September. As opposed to
US polls people were given a choice: "In your opinion,
once the identity of the terrorists is known, should the
US government launch a military attack on the country or
countries where the terrorists are based or should the US
government seek to extradite the terrorists to stand
trial?" (the Libya model). And this was a clear majority,
around 80% on the average, in (UK 75%, in France 67%); in
Latin America well above 80%. Only three countries were
in favor of "attack": Israel 77%, India 72% and the USA
54% (these three are also bin Laden's "axis of evil").
No. 4 in favor of "attack": France, 29%.
This is the closest to the interface between two key
Western values, "democracy" and "globalization" and it
does not support the US-led West. With governments out of
synch with the world population where would we expect the
media to be located? In general in-between: as
nation-state institutions key media would be mainstream,
reflecting government positions; as sellers they would
also reflect the buyers. In addition there is, of course,
the political color of the media.
The reader should be warned that the WORLD PRESS
Review selects quotes from selected papers and this
author then selects from that.
Le Monde, Paris, 12/9: "In this tragic moment,
when words seem so inadequate to express the shock people
feel, the first thing that comes to mind is this: 'We are
all Americans!' -- Madness, even under the pretext of
despair, is never a force that can regenerate the world.
That is why today we are all Americans".
The Guardian, London, 14/9: "The Pentagon had
blood on its hands. The World Trade Center was a pillar
of mammon. But no one deserved to die in that way".
Granma, Havana, 12/9: "Television channels have
also been displaying images of Fidel offering Cuba's help
to the American people in these moments of sadness and
Ideele, Lima, 13/9: "What good has it done for
the United States, having the strongest military in the
world, to prevent actions like this? Undoubtedly, very
Rzeczpospolita, Warszawa, 14/9: "The first
reaction to evil is tremendous anger and the demand that
something spectacular be done. But I believe that there
are many reasonable people in America who hold the
opinion that restraint is in order and that the country
should not succumb to impulse". Czeslaw
The Island, Colombo, 13/9: "The horrendous
attacks in New York and Washington now quite clearly
indicate that the world cannot tolerate such terrorist
groups anymore, although terrorist group like that of the
LTTE exist today due to the munificence and tolerance of
Liberation, Paris, 13/9: "The hate is total,
absolute. -- A terrorist "Hiroshima" is now possible.
This is the message of September 11, 2001: America is
vulnerable and no holds are barred. The worst has not
happened, it is yet to come".
Sunday Star-Times, Auckland, 16/9: "U.S. money
helped terror cells, including bin Laden's, flourish in
Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion".
Gazeta Wyborcza, Warszawa, 11/9: "The attack
was the deed of madmen who--killed completely innocent
people to achieve ends that-obviously-cannot be achieved
that way". Adam Michnik
Mail&Guardian, Johannesburg, 14/9:
"Assuming that the killers are Islamic militants - and
the suicidal nature of the attack suggests this - it is
important to realize that theirs is minority version of
Islam. --most Muslims will abhor their tactics. --US
politicians immediately suggested that Afghanistan's
Taliban movement should be targeted. This represents an
obsessive focus on the alleged terrorist mastermind,
Osama bin Laden. Informed by a crude Manichean view of
the world as a battle ground between the forces of light
and darkness, America's fatal tendency in such situations
is to blame "rogue" states and diabolical individuals.
--- The root problem is that the United States is hated
throughout the Arab world and in many other developing
countries for the arrogance of its power".
NIN. Beograd, 13/9: "Americans direct foreign
policy and commit violence against foreign countries and
peoples in a very tangible way and for their own
interests, not always in the name of higher values.
America has reaped a whirlwind".
The Globe and Mail, Toronto, 14/9: "This is a
country that has come to believe in the ultimate
oxymoron: a safe war. -- based on the technological
ability to wage a war exclusively from the air. But it
also relies on the deep conviction that no one would dare
mess with the United States - the one remaining
superpower - on its own soil".
Daily NATION, Nairobi, 18/9: "It is not money,
military might, a well-funded Pentagon, or the CIA that
will save America. Only thoughtfulness and respect for
humanity will. The nation must come down and talk to all
of us-poor nations and rich nations alike. If we bridge
the equality gap we can have a safer world."
Aftenposten, Oslo, 13/9: "Manhattan is
silent.--everything was absurd in New York today.
--people sat and sobbed silently.--A man two places from
me stared at the floor, and I looked at him and he was
Al Ra'i, Amman, 13/9: "We-Arabs and
Muslims-sympathize greatly with the victims and families
of those killed and wounded, and we feel grief and
sadness from a humane perspective. However, it is
necessary to distinguish between the American people and
their political leadership and their militaristic
declarations--and their arrogance in their unparalleled
domination of the world.--It is not Islam that is the
"Great Satan", nor is it the Arabs. Rather, it is hatred
and fanaticism-two of the greatest mental illnesses since
the beginning of history-that have dealt us crippling
Japan Times, Tokyo, 14/9: "Even worse than
Lidove Noviny, Praha, 13/9: "The country's
attractiveness as an open and prosperous society,
offering a wide range of possibilities to capable people
from around the world, is not just a positive
El País, Madrid, 14/9: "Spain has shown
its full solidarity. It also suffers the scourge of
terrorism, one that does have a name: ETA (Euskadi Ta
Askatasuna), the Basque separatist organization."
Frankfurter Rundschau, Frankfurt, 13/9: "Europe
does not have to fall into the black-and-white mind-set
that the United States has come close to in calling some
nations 'rogue states' in order to recognize that its
soft policies toward certain countries cannot, after
Sept. 11, be continued. At the same time Europe needs a
strategy for combating terrorism, one that will not push
the world into a spiral of uncontrolled violence".
Outlook, New Delhi, 17/9: "The world's most
wanted man now lists his enemies in order of preference:
No. 1, the United States; No. 2, Israel; and No. 3,
India.--The motivation against the United States is its
alliance with Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War and its
anti-Palestine position. Israel is on his hitlist for
Zionism, and India for Kashmir".
The Straits Times, Singapore, 14/9:"Terrorism
must be fought globally"
NIN, Beograd, 11/10: "Having faced terrorism at
home, we have naturally and sincerely
joined...anti-terrorist coalition.. On the other hand, as
a country that was cruelly bombed by Americans two years
ago...we naturally cannot be part of those who would
wildly applaud...the same Americans because they bomb a
poor, starving, bigoted people under the pretext of war
against world terrorism".
El Mercurio, Santiago, 8/10: "We stand against
terrorism.. we stand beside the United States..creating a
broad coalition... a new climate of cooperation and unity
in a world shaken by the violence".
China Daily, Beijing, 9/10: "Terrorism is the
common enemy of the entire human race.--the United
Nations should play an important role in the global
efforts to fight international terrorism".
Granma, Havana, 14/10: "Now it's a war...whose
military operations will make terrorism much more
complicated and difficult to eradicate. It's a remedy
worse than the illness itself."
Al-Ahram, Cairo, 9/10: "Our wish is that United
States win the fight against terrorism. However, we do
not want this war to create new generations of
terrorists, who would be crueler and more atrocious than
The Straits Times, Singapore, 9/10:
"--governments should.. eliminate networks in their
midst, cooperate on intelligence matters, and monitor
financial transactions to starve terrorists of
Hatzofeh, Jerusalem, 8/10: "The Americans, the
only superpower, believe in the primitive idea that
murder is revenge. They also haven't heard that "one
makes peace with one's enemies"...You don't speak of
terrorists-instead you drop explosives on them..The
Americans are responding correctly, in a fit manner, a
fine and measured reaction...as we need to behave with
respect to our 'Bin Laden'."
The Guardian, London, 8/10: "--what is also
lurking here is...a Western fundamentalism. It believes
in historical progress and regards the West as its most
advanced manifestation.--the only way for other countries
to match its achievement is to adopt its political,
economic and cultural values.---its roots go back
to...Christianity's claim to be the one true faith. The
U.S. founding recipe of Puritanism and enlightenment
bequeathed a profound sense of being morally good. This
superiority now underpins the activities of international
corporations and the International Monetary Fund's
structural adjustment programs." (Madeleine
Al-Ra'i, Amman, 5/10: "--Taliban and...Al Qaeda
is the direct result of [U.S.-supported] domestic
repression of Islamist groups in Arab countries...The
solution to all these problems is this: The new 'cold
war' against terrorism cannot be one of bombs and
missiles but of diplomacy, economic support and
investment, and the elimination of the sources of
terrorism (such as poverty and repression)."
Khaleej Times, Dubai, 9/10: "The tragedy is
that the United Nations is led by a man who conceives his
duties as being mindful of American interests and
concerns.--he could perhaps be more attentive to the
interests..of all members of the world organization."
(S. Nihal Singh)
Die Zeit, Hamburg, 27/9: "German Chancellor
Schröder has promised the United States 'unlimited
solidarity'. Germany would also be willing to take
military risks...could deploy its frigate in the Indian
Ocean to contribute to putting pressure on Afghanistan.
And..minesweepers could be sent to Djibouti to secure sea
routes to Europe." (Theo Sommer).
Malaysiakini, Kuala Lumpur, 10/10: "In--this
hysteria-Muslims and non-Muslims of the world may well be
dragged into a conflict brought about by leaders who do
not represent their interests and--they did not even
elect." ("Muslims for neither Bush nor Bin Laden",
Farish A. Noor)
China Daily, Beijing, 2/11:
"Japan's..contribution to anti-terrorism war is positive
since terrorism is..a threat to all human beings.
But-despite the--pledge to contribute to anti-terrorism,
the motivations 'behind the scene' for passing the bill
should not be neglected."
Granma, Havana, 9/11: "--explosions powerful
enough to kill everything within square kilometers and
resembling tactical nuclear weapons in their destructive
potential--and thus deliver a victory that will satisfy
the expectations of U.S. public opinion."
DAWN, Karachi, 6/11: "The round-the-clock
bombing of Afghan cities by the Anglo-U.S. warplanes, and
the admission--that it was almost impossible to capture
Osama bin Laden or to occupy Kandahar should bring home
to Washington--that there was no instant military
solution to the political problems in Afghanistan."
Statesman, Accra, 30/10: "Conventional military
action is not the answer to this 21st century menace to
civilization. The killers who boarded those planes on
Sept. 11--were not in Afghanistan at all.--The conditions
that breed terrorism will have to be transformed."
Dagens Nyheter, Stockholm, 25/10: "(Basam) Tibi
goes straight to the heart of the matter: 'The goal of
the Islamic fundamentalists is to abolish the Western,
secular world order and replace it with a new Islamic
divine order..The goal of the Islamists is a new
imperial, absolutist Islamic world power'."
Le Monde, Paris, 4/10: "The fact that 15 of the
19 terrorists were Saudis might explain why the CIA and
the FBIU did not see the attack coming. Saudi Arabia
(was) considered as one of the United States' most
trusted allies in the Arab world.-their lack of
familiarity with the internal political situation in
Saudi Arabia and the motivations of its Islamist
Al-Sharq al-Awsat (Saudi-owned), London, 30/10:
"These idiots", a British professor specializing in
Islamic studies said to me, "are writing about Wahhabism
while ignorant of it".--an American professor, "if I were
to give any of these writers only two basic questions
about Wahhabism, they wouldn't know what to answer.--The
Kingdom is proud of its strong devotion to---Sheik
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.
Let us now try to extract some
carefully worded impressions:
 There is much critical commentary, but
absence of constructive commentary about solutions beyond
"dialogue" and "reduce poverty".(19) Governments looking
for advice find war, not peace journalism.
 Unqualified support for the USA is rare
(Le Monde, The Straits Times, Die
Zeit); possibly only in NATO countries (adding Poland
and the Czech Republic) as an expression of Article 5,
and as an expression of class solidarity sensing
that the terror may hit other countries in some of the
same political-economic-military-cultural position as the
USA. Unqualified support for the terrorist act is not
found in the media at all (but possibly in the minds,and
 The more a country has suffered or is
afraid of future terrorism, the more sympathy and support
of the USA (Israel, India).
 Countries use their history to understand
the present (Spain, Sri Lanka; Japan using Pearl Harbor;
Yugoslavia recent bombing by the USA)
 The more governmental the papers the more
against terrorism - governments often being a major
target (China, Cuba).
 Hard-line US reaction is met with general
and deep skepticism; and very few seem to believe in US
 Little or no investigative reporting can
be found; more shock, strong emotional reactions, with
more or less profound commentary (Madeleine Bunting is
fine but one-sided; Milosz may be right later).
 Generally, the media seem to have little
contact with Al Qaeda and the US leadership - hence
guess-work more than investigation - with the brilliant
exception of Al Jazeera TV network.
 Over time the critique of US military
action, given all the ambiguities surrounding
Afghanistan, increases - also with cartoons.(21)
 By and large the media correlate quite
well with public opinion.
 No commentary saw the two sides of the
battle in the same light.
The big exception to the last point is not media
commentary but the talk given by Malaysia's Prime
Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, opening the 57-member
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Kuala
Lumpur. Mahathir's simple definition of terrorism is
"people who attack civilians". This was rejected by the
foreign ministers, saying "We reject any attempt to link
terrorism to the struggle of the Palestinian people in
their exercise of their inalienable right to establish
their independent state" (Bangkok Post, 2/4 2002).
The controversy might have been avoided had the delegates
distinguished between terrorism as method and the
underlying motive. "We must win the heart and minds of
the people most likely to support terrorism", Mahathir
said, and added that Muslims had grievances which were
"real and truly unbearable, beyond mere understanding and
Summarizing the books published on September 11
(surprisingly few, actually) Gara LaMarche (22) makes the
I must also confess skepticism, after reading
so many thousands of words written about September 11,
from across the political spectrum, that anyone's view
of the world has been very much changed. What strikes
me most forcefully is how virtually everyone with an
opinion or an orientation has cut 9/11 to fit his or
her preconceived agenda.
The advantage of democracy is that media and people
generally can see mega-events like September 11 and
October 7+ through their prisms, which they always do
anyhow and that these prisms are different.
However, some requirements should be added to this,
such as sufficient concrete specificity, attention to the
particular case. Very few have the details at their
command like a Robert Fisk, through deep knowledge and
extensive investigative journalism. A world leader.
To that should be added the ability to see a conflict
from more than one side. And the ability to make visible
actions, words even thoughts that point toward exit from
retaliation, solutions, peace.
Conclusion: by and large the media fall short on these
1. Based on talks given in Norway (Trondheim and
Oslo), Nicaragua (Managua), USA (Ft Lauderdale, New York,
Washington and Honolulu), England (London), Indonesia
(Bali), Japan (Kyoto, Tokyo) January-April 2002, and in
many radio and TV interviews. This is a follow-up to
"United States, the West and the Rest: Diagnosis,
Prognosis, Therapy", based on talks fall 2001.
2. See <www.pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold> for
3. See, for instance, Paul L. Williams, Al Qaeda:
Brotherhood of Terror, Alpha, 2002, pp. 73ff.
4. Thus, George W Bush, a man of substantial means,
had hardly been abroad before he became president, not
only of the US but of the US empire, to impact
dramatically on a world he did not know.
5. Oklahoma University Press, 1997, p. 32.
6. After the Second World War only, see William Blum,
The Rogue State, A Guide to the World's Only
Superpower, Common Courage Press, 2000.
7. CIA has reportedly been mentioned in captured
documents earlier. But CIA was hit September 11: "A
secret office operated by the CIA was destroyed in the
terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, seriously
disrupting intelligence operations. - -The station was a
base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign
diplomats who were stationed at the United Nations"
(IHT, 6 November 2002). That an imperial USA bent
on world hegemony does such a thing is of course not
surprising; a little surprising is the lack of outcry,
open protest. And not everybody in the Twin Towers was
"innocent, civilian, bystander".
8. The catch-all US formula of "getting away with it"
as explored by Blum, op.cit., final chapter
9. Any struggle for the Daulah Islamiah Raya, a
pan-islamic federation or state, would actually involve
Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and parts of
(southern) Thailand, Cambodia and the Philippines - seven
of the ten ASEAN members (the others being Burma, Laos
and Viêt Nam) -- see TIME April 1, 2002. A
population of 260 million is very close to the USA.
10. There are, of course, other likely targets.
Somalia also has untapped oil and there is the additional
factor of US revenge, a very powerful motivator (with
people being prepared through the historically totally
incorrect story in Black Hawk Down). Kyrgyzstan,
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are through basing agreements
under de facto US occupation and there are US military
tent cities in 13 countries surrounding Afghanistan.
11. See Walden Bello, A "Second Front" in the
Philippines, The Nation, March 18, 2002.
12. Of these seven countries (Libya, Syria, Iraq,
Iran, Russia, China, North Korea) six are in Asia,
reflecting the US NATO-AMPO pincer movement against the
Eurasian continent, with 40% of the world population in
Russia, China and India alone (India is probably seen as
reliably anti-Muslim, possibly on the brink of civil
war). Four are predominantly Muslim and three are Arab.
Six of the seven have strong state capitalist/socialist
parties of which five are in power. Geo-politics,
Culture/Race and Class.
13. The number of kamikaze suicide pilots (also
of dwarf submarines) was 2,800 in the army and about
1,000 in the navy (there was no separate air force).
14. The title of the excellent publication by Nafeez
Mosadeq Ahmed, with the sub-title US Complicity in
9-11 and the New Imperialism, January 2002, at
15. In his famous A Prayer for America,
<email@example.com>. "The trappings of a state of
siege trap us in a state of fear--the War Games of an
unelected President and his unelected Vice-President".
"Kucinich for President" has been heard and seen in many
16. See <www.internationalanswer.org>
17.See, for instance, IHT, April 17 2002.
18. See IHT 19 April 2002.
19. Among the ten points in the "Assisi Declaration
for Peace" these two points can be found, but in a rich
context of "violence and terrorism are incompatible with
the authentic Spirit of religion and we condemn every
recourse to violence and war in the name of God". The
Declaration was not picked up much by the media, but then
it was short on concrete content.
20. A very explicit critique of "Die Herren der Welt",
"The Lords of the World", Der Spiegel, 8/2002
triggered a response in TIME March 11, 2002, "How
Europeans can be Useful" (by doing the peacekeeping, and
the USA does the combat job). Cross-national, even
cross-continental, "debates" among media are relatively
21. An example is the cartoon in THE TIMES,
portraying Blair as a lion with the well-known teeth,
dressed in stars and stripes, being trained by the USA -
already with medals from 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. "Very
faithful in spite of being treated badly". Reproduced in
Der Spiegel, 14/2002.
22. "Six Months On, and Counting", The Nation,
April 1, 2002.
TFF & the author 2002
Tell a friend about this article
Message and your name