|
|
Columns::September 24, 2001
Provost appoints interim dean of new school
Blue Key honors four for their contributions to state, university
President addresses minority enrollment at first University Council meeting
Worthwhile IDEAS
Professor studies ‘complex’ role that carbohydrates play in cancer
New director appointed to International Public Service and Outreach
Kudos
Campus News
 |
| Before a standing-room-only crowd in the Chapel, a panel of UGA professors from the departments of religion and political science discussed the events of Sept. 11 and the issues affecting the U.S. response. “By thinking, talking, and working together, we can become stronger, promote understanding, and contribute to a safer and better world,” said Gary Bertsch, forum moderator and director of UGA's Center for International Trade and Security. Photo by Peter Frey |
Tackling ‘Terrorism in America’
UGA faculty discuss attacks on World Trade Center, Pentagon
By Beth Roberts
beth@uga.edu
A panel discussion called “Aftershock: Coming to Grips with Terrorism in America” took place in the Chapel at noon Sept. 17.  The panelists, all UGA faculty members, made brief presentations and answered audience questions dealing with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. They emphasized the importance of focusing the American response not only on the apprehension of those who undertook the attacks, but also on preventing future terrorism by eliminating its causes. Participants were Jeffrey D. Berejikian and Loch K. Johnson of the political science department, Alan Godlas of the religion department, Han S. Park and Carlo Pelanda of the Center for the Study of Global Issues, and Scott A. Jones of the Center for International Trade and Security. Gary K. Bertsch, CITS director, was moderator.
The excerpts which follow suggest the character of the discussion, but the full presentation can be seen in a Webcast on the New Media Institute Web site (www.nmi.uga.edu).
Jeffrey D. Berejikian
Defining this conflict as a war, I think, leaves us open to legitimizing certain sorts of action that are morally dubious. . . . Is the struggle to protect U.S. citizens from terrorism a war, in the traditional sense of the term? Now many have argued that it is. One could argue, though, that it’s not, and could, for example, assert that this was instead an act of mass murder for political ends, that this wasn’t an attack on the United States government per se. . . . Gen. Wesley Clark, former commander for NATO, has urged our nation to think about this as a criminal act, not as an attempt to conquer the United States government.
Why is this distinction important? In a good old-fashioned war, we tolerate a good many things--among them, for example, the killing of civilians . . . an inevitable consequence of war By contrast, I ask you to consider this fact: as a society we have decided that we are going to be highly intolerant of “collateral damage” when we are pursuing murderers. We want the murderers punished, yes, but we don’t attack the neighborhood--killing a bus driver or a soccer mom--in an attempt to get the bad guy. The point here is that the way which we define this conflict--and we have a brief opportunity here to do it--has fundamental implications for . . . what we can consider to be moral and justifiable responses. . . .
I think that history has shown that the mobilization of society, especially an open society, is easiest when a moral consensus exists in the first place. So there are good tactical reasons--for lack of a better term--for first having a discussion about the moral guideposts that are going to guide our actions. But there is, also and always, a more principled reason for this. We could, I suppose, in the end simply decide to adopt the tactics and strategies of the terrorists. We could justify this by
 |
| Han Park (right) and panelists answered questions afterwards. Photo by Peter Frey |
arguing that this is the only way to fight them in a war. I think in the long run that this would be an unsustainable position . . . because it blurs the distinction between us and them, between civilized society and mass murderers. If that distinction is lost, we undermine the reason to continue fighting, because we have abandoned the principles we are supposed to be defending.
Now--all this is debatable, of course, and that’s really the point. It’s why I urge all of you to bring your own moral sensibilities to bear in discussion with your fellow citizens about what kind of moral principles ought to guide our foreign policy, in what is going to be a long and possibly unremitting campaign against those who would rather use violence than discourse to resolve the conflict.
Alan Godlas
I am . . . a member of the steering committee of the Study of Islam section of the American Academy of Religion. . . . In the light of recent terrorist attacks, we issued a statement . . . and I will first cite a few excerpts. . . .
“There are now some 8 million Muslims in the United States, and mosques are to be found in every major city. The overwhelming majority are peace-loving human beings who share the shock and despair of all Americans regarding [the Sept. 11] terrorist attacks. American Muslims are good neighbors, devoted to their families and to following God’s commands to do good works. They know that terrorist acts in the name of Islam are a perversion of their most sacred beliefs, and that the actions of a few should not characterize the whole.
“With over a billion adherents, Islam is the second-largest religion in the world after Christianity. Like Christians and Jews, Muslims believe in one God, who sent His prophets into the world to command the good and forbid the evil. Jesus is revered in the Quran, the sacred scripture of Islam, as are Abraham, Moses and the Virgin Mary. According to Muslims, the Quran was given by God to the prophet Muhammad some 600 years after Jesus’s birth. It was written in Arabic and Arabic is still the language of Islam. But only 20 percent of Muslims are Arabs, and about 50 percent of Arab-Americans are Christian. . . .
“Suicide is utterly forbidden in Islam, and war must be declared by the state, not by individuals. These injunctions explain statements by governments such as those of Syria, Saudi Arabia and Libya denouncing [the] attacks. Even radical groups like Hamas and the Taliban have denounced them, along with the Palestinian leadership. Such political statements must
 |
| Jeffrey Berejikian addressed the need for a moral consensus among American citizens. Photo by Peter Frey |
be taken seriously, as they are backed up by all major religious authorities in Islam. . . .”
Acts of terrorism such as those which occurred on [Sept. 11] are not attributable to Islam. Since Islam is not a cause of this terrorism, what are its causes? . . .
There’s been a movement in the modern period among a sizeable number of Muslims away from the flexibility and spiritual and psychological richness found in traditional Islam toward an Islam that emphasizes inflexibility and the need for political power. This shift has deprived many Muslims of the psychological depth that it is necessary to call upon when one is consistently confronted with suffering and unable to use legitimate political means to end it. Thus when confronted with decades of oppression, and being made to live without rights that Americans take for granted, a few individuals opt for terrorism.
The term “fundamentalist” is not an appropriate term for these terrorists. A better term is militant Muslim extremists. Many scholars regard these extremists not as fundamentalists but as modernists, who’ve often been influenced by the Marxist ideology of class struggle and the necessity for violent change.
A second and related cause of terrorism consists of the various forms of injustice and oppression in the Arabic Muslim world--oppression which in some cases the United States supports. . . .
Hence . . . education is the antidote to further violence on both sides. Some Muslim groups are attempting to revive the spiritual and psychological wealth of traditional Islam and thereby deal with the first cause that I mentioned. But all Americans can do their part to deal with the second cause of terrorism by becoming educated about the conditions of Muslims overseas . . . so as to learn ways we can help to alleviate the social and political diseases that can cause disaffected young men to see Muslim extremists as leaders.
Loch K. Johnson
With the help of allies, our military must excise this cancer, this extremism, without plunging the United States into a war against vast populations with whom we have no real quarrel. . . . We must find out exactly who and where the suspects are and then apprehend them by way of narrow, pinpointed operations. . . .
Military force, though, is only one of many responses that will be necessary. Our government must have better intelligence about terrorists. . . .
We are rightly proud of our free enterprise system, the great engine of the world’s economy, but we must take steps to close the horrific gap between the rich and the poor on this globe, or we will continue to be the target of the angry dispossessed. Certainly our foreign aid program has been pitiful. We duck our U.N. dues and shell out less per U.S. citizen each year than we spend for pet supplies and flowers. Perhaps instead of $300 rebates and quixotic missile shields, we should help the people of Kabul and Khartoum build schools and hospitals.
At home, we must upgrade our security measures, our airport, airline and harbor defenses, as well as sealing our border against the infiltration of terrorists. This does not mean we have to throw away the Constitution. Let us not repeat the terrible mistake we made against Americans of Japanese descent during World War II. . . .
The campus community has already shown great support and unity. . . . Let us continue in that spirit, especially by reaching out to our international students, who mourn with us. And as we pursue our studies, let’s vow to become more global in our orientation. . . .
Han S. Park
First, a reality check, the stark realities of the 21st century. The world is diverse--culture, ethnicity, nationality, religious persuasion, political systems. We don’t have two polarized ideological systems any more. . . . There is no global world order. . . . Everyone can have access to the means of mass destruction--including biological, chemical, even nuclear weapons. . . . Nationalism, even supra-nationalism, is on the rise. . . . And military or economic domination will not be able to restore world order any more. . . .
Finally, more specifically, war against terrorism is a wrong concept . . . because there’s no definition of winning such a war. . . .
I think Sen. Zell Miller is not alone in believing that we have to do something in retaliation . . . but it is important that we pull out these weeds, not kill the grass. . . . If we go in and bomb Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, all these nursing grounds for terrorism, what will happen? First of all, the sympathy and support we feel from all these countries in the world--including China, Russia, even North Korea--that sympathy and goodwill will dissipate very, very quickly the moment that we strike civilians and produce innocent casualties, [leading to] further alienation of would-be terrorists, especially in the Muslim world, and thus continuation of terrorism. We will not win the war against terrorism in this way. . . .
I think we should pull out the weeds . . . but it’s important to have a good soil treatment, environmental change. We should mobilize support in the world and win the war against terrorism and the causes of terrorism. . . . There are classes of young people who have the propensity to become terrorists--we have to work at that level. . . .
I would like to see . . . multicultural communication--prosperity, not exploitation; love, and not self-righteousness. I think we should lead a world cultural revolution of sorts, in which terrorism will find no sympathy.
|
|
|
|
|
