Five Ways to Reduce the Foreign Terrorist Threat to the United States

1. Five Ways to Reduce the Foreign Terrorist Threat to the United State 

Mohan R. Limaye

(Written in the year 2002-03)

 

Summary

Nobody or no amount of money can guarantee total security.  If the United States, however, implements the following five courses of action, it will in my judgment reduce its external terrorist threat to a large extent:

1. Pursue genuine attempts to promote democracy in those areas of the world where presently authoritarian or dictatorial regimes rule.

2.      Be a good, well-behaved citizen of the world community of nations.

3. Call its troops home from abroad.  In other words, close down its military bases on foreign soil.
4. Serve as a model of human rights protection for other nations by protecting human rights here at home.

5.      Share its wealth with the poorest nations of the world, just because it has more.

Introduction

I write this essay to provide a largely non-American viewpoint, one educated Third-World perspective on this topic.  I’m a naturalized U.S. citizen, who spent his early youth in India and has by now spent over 37 years in the U.S.  This opinion piece, like an op-ed page, could serve as a springboard for discussion not only at an institution of higher education but at other forums as well.  Since this is not a scholarly paper, every statement is not supported by empirical evidence, nor is there a bibliography at the end as academic papers do.

Though the envy and love-hate syndrome of the world for the successes and wealth of the United States explain to a certain extent the resentment toward it felt by the people and governments of some countries, that is not the whole story.  Thinking that this envy wholly accounts for the 9-11-2001 terrorist attack will lead to delusion or complacency and hence a lack of incentive to reform or revisit the U.S. foreign policy.  That is why I’m not emphasizing the envy factor in my analysis below.

Another caveat needs to be mentioned at the outset of this paper: I’m using the term U.S. to stand for the government of the United States.  I’m occasionally employing the term “Americans” almost interchangeably with American administrations, thus blurring the distinction between a people and their government.  I’m, however, aware of the distinction and of the fact that a nation’s government, even in a democracy, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of most of its people.

After the harrowing event of 9-11-2001, the United States has understandably been preoccupied with both the immediate and the long-term threats to its security.  Presently, U.S. government agencies are taking measures of the kind that any competent and watchful law enforcement departments anywhere would take for protection from short-term dangers.  But the long-term threat will not diminish just through “police” or “intelligence/detective” measures, through even the innovative measures taken by the FBI and the CIA.  I believe that strategic policy actions are necessary for any sizable reduction in the long-term threat to the U.S. from foreign terrorists.  I, therefore, suggest that the United States implement the five above-mentioned courses of action to meet its objective of security-risk reduction. 

[1] Pursue genuine attempts to promote democracy in those areas of the world where presently authoritarian or dictatorial regimes rule.

Though the U.S. is the first modern democracy born out of a revolution, it has lacked fervor to spread democracy elsewhere.  On the whole, it was cool toward the independence struggles of the former colonies of the imperial West.  At best, it has exhibited a policy of benign neglect.  India, for instance, gained its freedom from the British and became a democracy without U.S. intervention.  In fact, the U.S. sided with the French in Indochina (today’s Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam), the Dutch in Indonesia, and the British in East Africa ( today’s Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania) when the people in those countries were fighting to gain their independence.  In WWI and WWII, one could argue America was fighting to save, not democracy, but the colonial rulers like the British, French, Dutch, etc., who were trying to hold on to their empires.  In fact, a third-world perspective can interpret both the world wars as a struggle between the well established empires of the time, on the one hand, and the aspiring or would-be empires, on the other.  In recent times, during the Cold War, the U.S. became addicted to propping up dictators as long as they were perceived to be anti-communist.  Most of the leaders (even though democratically elected) that the U.S. saw as left-leaning were eliminated (Examples:  A CIA-backed coup dissolved the last fairly elected parliament of Syria in 1949.  There is also considerable evidence that Iran’s Mussadegh in 1953 and Chile’s Allende in 1973 were assassinated with covert help from the CIA).  The U.S. however supported right-wing dictators even when they were hated by the populace:  the Shah of Iran, Marcos of the Philippines, and Suharto of Indonesia come to mind.

The United States needs to stop supporting such autocratic leaders if it wants to be universally perceived as the “leader of the free world.”  Some short sighted U.S. leaders encouraged Iraq’s Saddam Hussein (during the Iran-Iraq war) and created the Taliban with active support from Pakistan under the excuse of creating a force to fight against the Soviet Union in the 1980s.  Little did they see that they were creating a “fundamentalist” monster that would bite the moderate world.  The lesson to be drawn from these activities is that purity of means cannot be sacrificed even for laudable ends (Incidentally, Mahatma Gandhi insisted on the purity of means as well as ends).  We treat Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two authoritarian regimes that have been breeding grounds for terrorism, as our friends and clients.  By supporting such regimes, the U.S. makes enemies of those around the globe who are repressed seemingly with its blessings.  If the U.S. is going to intervene in foreign countries at all (which, by the way, I do not approve of), it should be done for just and ethical causes, not for greed, to ensure cheap oil supply, or to support U.S. multinational corporations’ interests abroad.  The world is thus dismayed when it sees, on the one hand, the U.S. supporting various despots while preaching democracy, on the other.

Thomas L. Friedman,  a New York Times political commentator, in an article “Where Freedom Reigns”  (August 14, 2002) emphasizes his point that, in a democracy like India, Moslems have not resorted to violence because they have legitimate ways open to voice their grievances and get them resolved.  He, therefore, asserts that “the U.S. is so wrong not to press for democratization in the Arab and Muslim worlds.  Is it an accident that India has the largest Muslim minority in the world, with plenty of economic grievances, yet not a single Indian Muslim was found in Al Queda?” 

One wonders whether the U.S. deems it safer to have despots around that it can control and bribe than take chances with democracies (as in India, Western Europe and, recently, in Indonesia and Latin America) that it may not be able to predict and control. Like other nations, the U.S. seeks stability and peace because they are good for business and general prosperity.  Though many methods (for instance, bribery and force) exist to achieve these goals, the U.S. may find that promoting genuine democracy will in the long term prove to be a more effective method to ensure lasting peace and security worldwide.  That said, I do not believe though that democracy can be gifted; it has to be won by the people themselves through their own struggle for it.

[2] Be a good, well -behaved citizen of the world community of nations.

What being a well-behaved citizen of the world entails for the United States is (a) not to be unilateral in its actions and decisions toward other countries but respect the wishes of the world as reflected in the United Nations and (b) not use that world body only when it serves the U.S. will.  Several examples of the U.S. ignoring or rejecting world opinion can be cited:  the Kyoto (Japan) accord on global warming, the issue of reparation for slavery which came up at the U.N. conference on racism and various other forms of discrimination, threats by the United States to stop or reduce payment of its dues to the United Nations, labeling nations at odds with its positions as evil or irresponsible, turning a blind eye to the tribal atrocities in Africa, and demanding exemption for its military officers from the jurisdiction of a currently-planned International War Crimes Court.  These behaviors seem like the symptoms of a “hyper” power.

Some Americans ask, “Why is the U.S. measured by a higher standard than the rest of the world?”  The answer invariably is: Because the U.S. sets itself up as God, judging and rewarding or punishing other countries based solely on its verdict, nations all over the world expect the U.S. to be like the unerring God and evaluate its actions in that light with standards higher than they would judge themselves by.  If American belief in its exceptionalism makes the U.S. claim to be the greatest country on earth, a New Jerusalem, its intentions and behaviors are bound to invite exceptional criteria and high moral standards.

 Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the U.S. has forgotten a modest stance necessary for a learner.  It seems to give the impression that the world has nothing to teach it.  Most U.S. media and a large number of American people have a very low tolerance for criticism.  The Bush administration, in particular, seems to prefer a monologue.  It would rather not hear what the rest of the world has to say.  It is this arrogant attitude that often invites negative feelings toward the United States (Pew Attitude Survey of June 2002).

Some more indications of what the rest of the world thinks about U.S. unilateralism and imperial attitudes became apparent in 2001 when the United States was not offered a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission.  Also, the political parties that protested against the U.S. approach to the Iraq issue gained more seats in Germany’s national assembly in the recent (October 2002) German elections.  To me, the current U.S. positions and actions are helping radicalize even those elements in the world that have been traditionally moderate.  The U.S. is looking for an enemy without, while in fact the enemy is within—U.S. imperial attitudes and arrogance of wealth and power.  Even though American imperial ambitions today aren’t territorial, they still bring up fear and animosity in many parts of the world. 

[3] Call its troops home from abroad.  In other words, close down its military bases on foreign soil.

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has favored a uni-polar world with itself as its military, economic, and cultural center.  Its policy discourages any potential single power from emerging in Asia or Europe; it attempts to nip in the bud any threat to its status as the sole super power.  Toward this goal, the United States keeps a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and does not itself pass the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), though it pressures other nations to sign the CTBT as well as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  The U.S. defense budget, moreover, is 40% of the entire world’s budget for defense.  The U.S. has been spending (since the presidency of Ronald Reagan) around $300 billion a year on its defense.  Its defense budget is more than the total of 15 next-on-the-list nations’ defense budgets.  The U.S. hawks would however maintain that, to police the world and punish the axis of evil, even higher allocations of funds are necessary.  War strategists have suggested that maintaining U.S. military presence all over the world is one way to keep at arm’s length America’s potential enemies and even to eliminate them before they have a chance to enter the United States.  Thus enter the doctrines of preventive and preemptive wars.

That’s why the U.S. maintains military bases almost on all continents.  But now that the Soviet Union is no more, some countries resent the presence of U.S. troops in their midst as an affront to their sovereignty.  Even though the governments of some nations may not protest the U.S. military presence in their midst very vigorously because of the economic benefits accrued, the citizens in many of these countries are often not happy about the client-state position their countries have to endure.  Witness the loud protests staged by South Koreans in January 2003 against the U.S. military presence in the demilitarized zone.  Similarly, many even moderate Middle Eastern Arabs (according to three surveys recently conducted by Al Jazeera, a Middle Eastern television channel), are in favor of the removal of American troops from Saudi Arabia.  The Philippines, for instance, had the U.S.- maintained Clark and Subic Bay bases removed from their country, but many bases elsewhere (in Okinawa, Japan, for example) are resented not just because they are inadequately monitored or policed but also because they serve as reminders of America’s imperial role in the world.  In my judgment, closing down these bases and bringing our men and women home will go a long way toward calming foreigners’ nerves and reducing the terrorist potential which feeds on such resentment.  Let other nations be left to protect their own sovereignty.  Closing down American bases abroad may appear to some Americans to weaken or jeopardize the U.S. position in the world.  However, paradoxically, in my judgment, it will strengthen U.S. security through the removal of this irritant “colonial” symbol from around the world, now that the Soviet Union, the other empire, no longer exists.  I’d suggest that the U.S. deploy its military power only at the request of the United Nations.  The five nations’ (Britain, China, France, Russia, and the U.S.) veto monopoly in the UN Security Council would, however, continue to jar with the sensibilities of other weaker nations.  

4] Serve as a model of human rights protection for other nations by protecting human rights here at home.

Outright killing or incarceration of hundreds of people during peacetime is not the only kind of violation of human rights.  There are also other subtler but very demeaning forms of human rights violations.  Dictatorships can be accused of the more obvious crimes against human rights, such as gassing its citizens, sudden and unexplained disappearance of dissenters, and long jail sentences without fair trials.  But the U.S., a civilized democracy, can be rightfully accused of several violations of human rights of the insidious kind not only in its past but right now.  The real issue is how you define “human rights.”  The outrageous acts, like the ones mentioned above, are classified universally as the most abhorrent kinds of human rights violations.  But I propose that the situations of the types listed below should also be labeled as human rights violations in a wealthy democracy like that of the United States: lack of healthcare insurance for over 40 million Americans, mismanagement and non accounting of $100 billion worth of trust funds held on behalf of native Americans for which the Secretary of the Interior has been chastised by a federal judge, and millions of people in despair induced by poverty, drugs, and resource-starved inner city schools.  In America we value the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  But how can there be a right to life when health care is denied to many millions of citizens?  Similarly, how can there be freedom or liberty for a large number of people when they have no money to exercise any choice?  And how can the very poor in America pursue happiness when happiness is tied to material possessions?  

As an example of my broadened definition of human rights, let me cite another case: Thousands of American missionaries have been targeting the poor of the world (through bribery and covert coercion) who do not have the means to resist attempts at conversion directed toward them.  Exploiting people’s poverty for conversion purposes through helping them “monetarily” and thus putting them under obligation is, in my estimation, one of the most disgusting forms of human rights violation.  Evangelical churches and their congregations in the United States in the meanwhile are congratulating themselves for a (noble!) job well done.  These conversions are taking place not because of the superiority of the (Christian or, for that matter, Islamic) dogma and philosophy but because these missionaries are armed with wealth to distribute to the needy, mainly in the Third World.  What’s even more revolting to me is how the new converts are surreptitiously encouraged to transfer their loyalties from their country of origin or birth to the country of the donors.  As a native of India, I have a direct experience of watching Christianized tribes in Northeast India clamoring for secession from India and for sovereign nationhood.  The U.S. must share the blame along with the other nations from where the proselytizers come.  Delinking the material help these missionaries provide from their zeal for and attempts at conversion will soothe many people around the world who are incensed by such unfair conversion attempts.   

Finally, the statistics of one young black male out of every four being currently incarcerated in U.S. jails is not flattering to the United States’ record on human rights.  In 2001 the Associated Press released a report under the caption “Black voters’ ballots invalidated more often.”  The story referred to an analysis which concluded that “black voters disproportionately are denied their votes in elections, either by accident or design” (The Idaho Statesman, April 6, 2001).  I suppose that the irregularities in the U.S. general (Presidential) elections of 2000 may have prompted the study.

[5] Share its wealth with the poorest nations of the world, just because it has more.

Though the terrorists who attacked the United States on 9-11-2001 did not come from the poor nations of the earth, the benign neglect demonstrated by the U.S. toward the poor of this earth does neither induce warm nor positive feelings for the United States.  Poverty has often led to radicalism, which in turn can lead to terrorism.  It’s therefore in the interest of the United States to empower the people of the developing world by pumping productive resources there.  Of course, monitoring where the resources go ought to be an integral part of this aid.  More hope for the poorest of this earth through wealth creation and its equitable distribution means less attraction for them to join terrorist organizations. It is fashionable in the U.S. to blame socialist policies, corrupt officials, red tape, and greedy dictatorships for the poverty of the Third World countries.  Very rarely, however, is it admitted that the very scant allocations of resources by the rich countries for the poor is the main reason why the poor have remained poor.  The wealthy will always say that you can’t solve problems by throwing money at them.  The poor, however, never say such things. They will gladly trade places with the rich. The world problem is, in fact, merely a macrocosm of the inequitable distribution of wealth within the United States itself.

It is unfortunate that the wealthiest nation in the world should act in such an insensitive and stingy manner.  Since Reagan’s presidency, the generous spirit of (post- WWII) Marshal Plan is dead in the United States.  Of all the industrialized advanced nations of the world, the U.S. gives out the least foreign aid (excluding military aid) in terms of the percentage of its gross domestic product (GDP).  Education, nutrition, freedom from disease, and infrastructure are the dire needs of the Third World today; and the United States, along with the other wealthy nations of the world, has the ability to remedy these wants, if it finds the will or readiness to part with only a small fraction of its GDP to leverage it for the enrichment of the lives of millions of people in the poorest regions of the world.

An ironic part of this issue of poverty alleviation is that many Americans call themselves Christian.  The hypocrisy and contradiction of this claim would be palpable or evident for anybody who interprets a “Christian” as someone who believes in Christ (as the Savior) and is committed to following in his path.  It seems like a large number of Americans follow “Christianity without Christ.” Almost everything Christ said and did (as the Bible tells us) was against greed and accumulation of wealth and for helping those in need.  The parable of the Prodigal Son, Christ’s reference to a camel more easily passing through the eye of a needle than a rich man being allowed to enter the kingdom of God, or the story of his turning water into wine (just enough for the guests, not for hoarding until the price of wine went up), etc. provide some evidence for my belief that capitalist America is really anti-Christ.  Jesus’ sayings and deeds are inconvenient for those who would rather hold on to their wealth and “domesticate” Christ than try to achieve equity along with growth. 
            I also need to expand upon the latter part of my fifth course of action, “Share its wealth … just because it has more.”   I say “just because it (the United States) has more” carefully and with deliberation for it lays to rest or circumvents the arguments of many neo-classical economists.  They often say that America’s wealth is not at the expense of other nations, that the poor deserve to be poor because of their “lack of character,” or there will always be poor people (and poor countries), or the poor will squander the money, or inequitable wealth-distribution is, in fact, good (for whomever!).

Conclusion

I believe that these measures, separately and together, will result in a noticeable reduction of terrorism directed at the United States.  The first measure, promoting democracy, will give people a voice.  They will also have no reason to blame the U.S. for supporting and protecting unpopular dictators.  The second measure, acting like a good citizen among nations, will reduce the resentment felt for the bully as well as the consequent desire to retaliate.  The third action, calling troops home, will allow America not to be perceived as an empire.  The fourth American action, serving as a model for human rights, will create admiration for the U.S.  And the fifth action, sharing wealth, will let the world see the United States as following in the path of Christ, not as a worshiper of Mammon, the god of wealth. 

Though I’m an optimist, I do not see much chance for positive change in the foreign policy of the United States.  There are two reasons for my doubts: First, as long as the U.S. government and a majority of citizens see the cause of terrorism purely external, they will be only concentrating on violent means and the instruments of war directed outwardly against the world.  There will be little movement toward changing U.S. policies.  Second, the three most significant national institutions that need to be introspective and self-evaluative – the school, the church and the media – have not, in my judgment, seen the need to change.  For example, American churches (more or less) toe the line of the wealthy few, instead of condemning rampant greed and capitalism run amok.  The school teaches whitewashed or airbrushed American history and strives to produce hyper-patriotic and occupationally trained citizenry rather than encouraging independent thinking and fearless inquiry among them – which is what education is all about.  The media, with a few exceptions, follow submissively the lead of the U.S. government and the so-called think tanks in matters of foreign policy rather than questioning the unexamined assumptions and conflicts of interest behind that policy. 

A question may arise at this point: What can average American citizens do to improve the situation?  For one thing, they can elect candidates to the national legislature and the presidency who believe in the program of action I’m suggesting in this essay.  For the second, they could keep questioning the motives of those who are pursuing the present shortsighted imperialistic policies.  For the third, they should write to their legislators and to the media to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo and demand positive change.  For the fourth, they could organize meetings, marches, and debates to awaken public conscience and awareness about the fact that the interests of a few are jeopardizing the wellness and security of a whole nation.

To my knowledge, very few American public figures – thinkers, opinion shapers, or political leaders – have recommended such a far-reaching and comprehensive program of action as I recommend here to reduce the post 9-11-2001 security problem of the United States.  No amount of money or no weaponry can buy total security for any nation.  I am, however, convinced that the measures I suggest here will go a long way toward making the United States more safe and secure than it has felt since that tragic and gruesome event.  In the bargain, the U.S. will also create and enhance a positive and endearing image for itself around the world.

The author acknowledges with gratitude the various suggestions made by Professors Jerry LaCava and Peter Lichtenstein, and my students (who choose to remain anonymous) at Boise State University, and Professor Gerald J. Alred of the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee. 

Mohan R. Limaye (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee), a Fulbright scholar from India, will retire from Boise State University in January 2003.  He has taught, researched, and published in the areas of intercultural business communication, workforce diversity, democracy, and global business.