Hi Kelly, thanks for your response. The problem is not, I don't think, whether one negotiates with terrorists or not. After all, the US has for a long time brokered 'deals with the devil', including Saddam Hussein (against Iran), Osama bin Laden (against the Russians), the Afghani warlords (against both the Russians and later the Taliban) and dictators like Noriega, Pinochet, Mubarak, and a host of others. I find it ironic, however, that negotiating under the threat of violence in one case is illegitimate (terrorism) but perfectly justified in others (ie Bush's ultimatums).
I think you'd find that a lot of people would draw a lot of parallels between the colonial and imperial powers and what's going on in the world today. Many people are quite rightly pissed off at what seems like a pretty patronizing and confrontational attitude coming out of the White House at anyone who disagrees with a pretty narrow and horribly reductionist world view. I agree that there are indeed no easy answers and that the US is caught in a particularly difficult bind right now. On the one hand, when Bush was elected, he made a lot of noises that suggested an isolationist foreign policy direction. But post 9/11 it's been all about a pretty aggressive and interventionist attitude. And it's one that, I would argue is anything but 'clear and decisive' and, while ambitious, is far from admirable. I think a lot of people are wondering why exactly the US (or Britain, France, Germany, whoever else) has the right to determine what life should be like on this entire planet. Why are North Korea and Iraq 'rogue states' if they possess nuclear weapons but France and the US are not? Some say it's because the latter are democratic countries. Then why did the western world slap sanctions on India for developing nuclear weapons? India is the world's largest democracy, so what makes it 'less stable'? This is not in any way to argue in favour of nuclear proliferation; rather, I'm just saying that the rhetoric of freedom and democracy seems to be pretty replete with hypocrisy. I'd also suggest that though there is a grander scheme to this strategy of the Bush regime than simply invading Iraq, I think there has been a fundamental miscalculation of both the region and the world itself. As a matter of fact, instead of speculating on what is going to happen, I think we could all take a pretty close look at Afghanistan today and examine how exactly democracy and human rights and women's rights have 'flourished' there after the US-led bombing campaigns. Again, no fan of the Taliban was I, but the suggestion that military force can simply bring about social change is, I think, highly dubious, Regards, Pablo -- Pablo Shiladitya Bose Research Coordinator, Ethics of Development-Induced Displacement Project Research Associate, Centre for Refugee Studies Doctoral Candidate, Faculty of Environmental Studies York University, Toronto, Canada Tel: (416) 736-2100 ext. 20559 ___________________________________________________________ FoIB Mailing List - Bits, Analysis, Digital Group Therapy http://www.ianbell.com
