• Sept.17, 2001: Forum - "Aftershock: coming to grips with terrorism in America"
•Sept. 24, 2001: Center for Humanities and the Arts Forum - "Humanistic values in a time of crisis"
• Oct. 8, 2001: International Forum: Understanding Terrorism - "Afghani, Indian and Pakistani Perspectives"
• Oct. 15, 2001: Center for Humanities and the Arts / Center for International Trade and Security Forum - "International Students Speak about the War on Terrorism"
• Nov. 14, 2001: Cynthia Tucker, the editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, delivers the 24th Annual Ralph McGill Lecture - "The role of the press in the post-September 11 world"
 |
|
Betty Jean Craige Director of the Center for Humanities and Arts |
 |
|
Gary Bertsch Director of the Center for International Trade and Security  x |
xMonday, Oct. 15, 2001:
"INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS SPEAK ABOUT THE WAR ON TERRORISM":
Forum Hosted by UGA's Center for Humanities and Arts / Center for International Trade and Security
The Center for Humanities and Arts and the Center for International Trade and Security sponsored an open forum on Monday, Oct. 15, titled "International Students Speak about the War on Terrorism." Participants included Yuval Aviad Benartzi (Israel), Crista Brown (Jordan and Egypt), Laura El-Tantawy (Egypt), Moustafa Gharib (Egypt), Vidya Reddy (India), Youliana Ivanova (Bulgaria), and Tomas Brynjolfsson (Iceland). Professor Gary Bertsch moderated the discussion.
Betty Jean Craige
Director of the Center for Humanities and Arts
I
 |
 |
Because most of the recent programs have featured the University’s faculty, today the Center for Humanities and Arts and the Center for International Trade and Security are inviting international student leaders to share with us their views on the current crisis.
We believe that the fastest way to achieve a more peaceful global society is to increase intercultural understanding. The University of Georgia is fortunate to have students from many other parts of the world who can help us see events from multiple perspectives.
Our forum will take the form of a discussion among our students and will be moderated by Dr. Gary Bertsch, director of the Center for International Trade and Security. He will bring the audience into the discussion during the latter half of the program. The program will conclude at 1:10, at which time you are invited to come down to the front to engage in further discussion with our panelists.
Now I will introduce our panelists. They are Yuval Aviad Benartzi, who is from Israel and is majoring in computer science; Crista Brown, who has lived most of her life in Jordan and is majoring in middle school education; Laura El -Tantawy from Egypt, who is majoring in journalism and political science; Moustafa Gharib from Egypt, who is majoring in international business; Vidya Reddy from India, who is a graduate student in social work, Youliana Ivanova from Bulgaria, who is majoring in speech communication and political science; and Tomas Bryngolfsson from Iceland, who is majoring in political science. Now I’d like to turn the program over to Dr. Gary Bertsch.
Gary Bertsch: Thank you Betty Jean. We all recognize all of the wonderful things that international students bring to our campus. We benefit in so many ways from having an international university. Among other things, they can provide insight and experiences from their homelands that make us a better university.
Today we are fortunate to be able to talk with them, to draw upon their experiences, their values, their perspectives, to help us understand this challenging and difficult time that we are all living through. For Americans we have to recognize that this is not just an American challenge. This is truly an international challenge. And I think Americans will be more able to deal with this if we can deal with it working together with our friends around the world.
I’m pleased that we have this group around here today, and I’d like to begin with a very general question and ask any of our participants who might want to comment, to draw upon their experiences and their backgrounds to share with us maybe one of the most critical things they think that we ought to know as we go forward dealing with this challenge. Are there any lessons, or is there any advice, or are there any observations that they would share that Americans, that those of us in this auditorium today, ought to know about? Who would like to go first?
Vidya Reddy: I think the first thing which I experienced after September 11 from, you know, talking to other American students was that they felt very isolated, they felt that this happened to America.
I think that this was a crime against all humanity really. Many of us from other countries have experienced terrorism in many forms: suicide bombs, car bombs - for quite a long time, right from the first recorded terrorist attack on media, which was probably in 1972. Tthe Munich Olympics is when it really gained credence.
The other thing I really would like to say is about the media. Now, there is a hierarchy between data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. One needs knowledge for wisdom, but wisdom is not just knowledge, just as knowledge is not just information and information is not just data.
I have been extremely surprised with the kind of stuff the media’s been dishing out. I think it’s very important for all of us to know that there is an alternative side to what the general media presents.
Gary Bertsch: Thank you, Vidya. We are going to come back to a number of those points but let me just ask any of the others if there are any observations that you would like us to begin with.
Youliana Ivanova: Yes, I just wanted to say that many people from here were surprised when they saw people from other countries cheering when they learned about the attack that happened in New York and in the Pentagon, and I wanted to explain why this happened.
Many of the people in those countries have never had any kind of exposure to Americans. They don’t personally know any Americans. Everything they know about the American culture is from their media. Just as American media can be biased towards America, of course, media from other countries can be biased. This is one of the main reasons why these people were happy. They have been taught that America is evil since the moment they were born. We really cannot expect them to behave any other way.
Thomas Bryngolfsson: I just think that it is extremely important that Americans don’t turn this into a nationalistic campaign. This is not just something that is facing the U.S. and the U.S. citizens.
For example, of the 6,000 people who died in the World Trade Center bombings, there were people form 80 different countries, so it shouldn’t be viewed as the U.S. versus the rest of the world. They should try to incorporate as many people as they can and look at their viewpoints.
Laura El-Tantawy: I just wanted to add that I think this has actually been made into such a huge deal because America was the country that was attacked. If there was any other nation in the world that was attacked, it wouldn’t have been such huge issue.
I don’t mean to attack Americans and their views of themselves, but usually, you speak to some Americans and they are like, "We are the number one country…we have the power" and stuff. So just the fact that America was the nation that was attacked made a war against terrorism. Otherwise, terrorism is not really a new aspect. It’s been there for years now. Egypt was attacked by terrorism, Algeria has been attacked by terrorism...
Thomas Bryngolfsson: I just wanted to tie in what Laura and Youliana were saying about the attack and how it is perceived differently in other countries. The attack on America is not perceived as an attack on Americans but on their government. The impression that I had gotten even before coming to this country was like, America was the President and the people that work for him, and so whenever they’re not happy with something that the president does they label it as America or Americans. I think that distinction should be made clear.
Yuval Aviad Benartzi: I would like to say that we must view this terrorism attack as a serious warning for the future.
I come from Israel, a country that’s very susceptible to terrorism. We have many terrorism attacks throughout the year compared to the number of people living in Israel and the number of people living in the United States. Everyone in Israel knows someone who has been killed or hurt in a terrorist organization. That’s how hurtful this issue is for everyone in Israel and me as well.
I think we need to view this as a serious warning about the future. You can talk to pretty much every terrorist specialists, not a terrorist guy but someone who investigates terrorism and any experts in the Middle East, and they will tell you that if something isn't done now, then within 20 - 25 years a weapon of mass destruction will be exploded in the continental United States. This is something we cannot allow. We have to take a stand. We have to stop this.
There’s so many ways available to the terrorists. Having countries support them, allowing them to maintain bases, donating money... There are countries that we don’t really view as countries that help terrorism – like Switzerland. Where do you think terrorists keep their money?
Bin Laden inherited about $90 million from his legal family. His assets that have been frozen in the United States have been under $1 million. I’m sure that he has more funds. Where are they? Why aren’t they frozen? The world has got to come together as one and stop this before something more terriblehappens.
Gary Bertsch: You have all indicated that terrorism is something that all of your countries or some of your countries deal with. And it's, unfortunately a reality of today’s world.
The United States, our President, has been using the term "war." Is this a war that the United States ought to declare? What does that mean? What kind of challenge are we dealing with? Is this a war that we are all involved in? Is it a world war? Is it an American war?
Crista Brown: I think when you say "war" it usually means between two countries or a group of countries against each other. In this case, a war on terrorism isn’t against one particular country, say Afghanistan, because there are people in Afghanistan who stand against terrorism. So when we say a war on terrorism, it’s kind of vague.
Terrorism is spread around the world. We all know that. That this is a war implies that there can be a victory or steps toward a victory over terrorism. I don’t know how you do that. Saying that it’s a war on terrorism is really broad. I don’t know if that’s really a good definition.
Youliana Ivanova: I think I wanted to add to that point. You said, "Who is this really a war against?" I think the United States is just using the term "war" to get everyone to pay attention. Is this "war against terrorism" a phenomenon? I see terrorism really as a way of life.
Terrorists are not just people that are in it because they like killing. They believe they are doing this for a purpose. So, are we fighting Bin Laden and just saying this is a "war against terrorism" because we just want to kill Bin Laden? When he’s dead, will there be no more terrorism? Or are we just fighting the whole phenomenon of terrorism, which, to me, is impossible to fight. How are we going to fight a way of life? That strikes me as just a little bit odd. Eliminating Bin Laden is never going to eliminate terrorism. Look at the little kids that he’s been training. They' re taken off the streets where they’ve been starving. Their parents can’t afford to give them food or the education. They’re going to grow up learning that terrorism is right and that's it's OK to kill Americans, we have to kill Americans because they endorse Israel, they give them weapons. It’s just weird, really, the whole phrase "war against terrorism."
Yuval Aviad Benartzi: I actually think that the use of the word "war" is extremely bad. Since the U.S. fight against terrorism has started, they started looking for goals that it can show the public as a victory. The goal has moved from just being Al’Qaeda and being bin Laden into becoming the Taliban and making Afghanistan into a country that is opposed to Americans. But you have to remember that none of the people who died in the bombings were Afghanis to begin with. Much of bin Laden’s supporters come from other countries than Afghanistan, so when Bush first used the word war, he had to try to find a point where he could show the public he was winning a war. Now they have made the Taliban government and people of Afghanistan into the enemy, which I think is bad.
Vidya Reddy: Well, uh, to kind of follow up on that question, as well as what Laura and Yuval said, very often this terrorist was somebody’s friend yesterday, and I think something that should also be thought about is, is terrorism a system of beliefs you are attacking or is it a person? I mean, every terrorist group in the world has a different agenda, has a different interest, and I think that has got to be taken into account. It sounds very simplistic, but I think it just boils down to economics. And coming back to the question about where the money is, there was a statement from the State Department two weeks ago that really surprised me. Sri Lanka, which is to the east of India, has a national terrorist group, which has been going on for the past 20 or so years, and they do all the things which other terrorist groups do. They do car bombs, suicide bombs; in fact, there was a suicide bomber that blew up the former Prime Minister of India. The State Department two weeks ago said that they do not recognize this group, which is called the "LTT," as a terrorist group because they have come to the negotiating table in the past. It lends to a very strange setting of legitimacy to terrorist groups. If they say they want peace in the past, does that mean they are no longer considered a terrorist group?
Interestingly also, about a few months ago, the Far Eastern Economic Review had an article linking the finances of Al’Qaeda with those of the LTT. So what is happening? I think what most governments have to take cognizance of is that terrorist groups are networking around the world, so somebody’s dirty work is going to be done by somebody else’s terrorist group. And if you are not going to recognize somebody as a terrorist group just because they came to the negotiating table, then I wonder what really is terrorism and what it means to people.
Gary Bertsch: This opens up the question, What should the United States be doing, how should the United States respond? To what extend should it be responding unilaterally, multilaterally, and in cooperation with other countries? What advice would any of you give?
Yuval Aviad Bernartzi: The day after the September 11 bombing, President Bush made a speech that I think at least inspired me, and I was really thinking that this is really going to make the difference. He basically said the world is divided into those who are with us and those who are against us. Those who are with us will not support terrorism in any shape, way, or form. They, of course, will not give money to terrorists, will not have bases in their countries, and will not hold any terrorist funds in their borders. The terrorism must be stopped, and it’s not just bin Laden and not just the Taliban. This is just one terrorist organization like many, many more, and there’s many other countries that support it--countries like Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lybia, there’s many more, even Pakistan. And I find it really disturbing that there’s a sense of vengeance in the American people and America in general that we have to go after Afghanistan first, and after bin Laden first. Basically, it puts the President in some sort of a bind to make some sort of a treaty or an ally with countries like Pakistan and countries like Iran, which are harboring terrorism and are on the list of every free country in the world as a country that harbors terrorism, and yet the United States makes allies out of them This cannot be be. How can a country support both the United States and terrorism? It’s inconceivable in my eyes. Terrorism must be stopped because we just cannot live with it any more. It comes down to this: I look in the future and I would like a future where my children will be able to be free men, and terrorism will not allow that.
Gary Bertsch: In the case of Pakistan, there is a country right next to Afghanistan that can cooperate with the United States. The president of Pakistan said, "We will work with you." Should we ignore Pakistan, or should we try to work with them to deal with the problems in that region?
Yuval Aviad Bernatzi: One thing that I have to agree with--and obviously I’m a little more extremist than everybody here is--is that the term war is not exactly appropriate here because we don’t want to send troops and force our way everywhere we go. Politics is definitely a good way to solve problems. In the way of Pakistan, yeah, there’s a lot to talk about. We can definitely work with you, but some things have to change. You must stop harboring terrorism before any U.S. funds can be going to you, before we can work with you on a more important goal of putting pressure in Afghanistan, and ultimately putting soldiers in Afghanistan.
Youliana Ivanova: I just wanted to say that Bush saying that whoever is not with America is against America is a very wrong way of viewing the current situation because many of these countries, when they are faced with this kind of dual dilemma of, with, or against America, they will choose against America because that’s what their population wants. That’s how the people in these countries feel. I think Bush chose a way that can be useful to many countries by giving them only two options: you will either accept our view of the world and admit our way of living is the right one or too bad for you, we are going to bomb you.
And I think this is the reason why many of the Islamic countries are being so careful in admitting or in accepting the U.S. invitation to join in the war against terrorism because they are afraid that this might send the wrong message to their citizens--that yes, your government supports America. And instead of this, Bush and the administration can try to be diplomatic and not say that we are the only ones who are right and everybody else who is against us is wrong.
Gary Bertsch: I think it’s often difficult for us to understand it that in other countries, they have their own domestic problems, and constituencies are often very complicated and different from ours, so when their leaders act, they are not only having to respond to the United States and to what other countries want, but they have to deal with the realities of their own soil. Pakistan strikes me today as a very difficult situation. I think its leaders would like to do the right thing and work closely with the United States and yet, there are many people that have been brought up with this mentality that would find it easy to identify with bin Laden and those who are associated with him. I think we have to recognize these different situations.
Crista Brown: I think if we say it’s a war against terrorism, America versus the rest of the world, we need to have--I mean terrorism is a universal wrong, a universal evil, and I think what Bush was trying to say was more, if countries join America in the war against terrorism, not America trying to impose their way of life in these countries but rather all countries despite your backgrounds and everything, coming together against terrorism. I think that is what Bush was trying to say. But it’s hard, as Youliana was saying, for a country in the Middle East and different countries that have a history of a feeling of betrayal towards America or just anger towards America to join America at this stage. The general population doesn’t want that. But we need to come across that.
Vydia Reddy: I think a large reason why many of the populations of countries, though the governments feel otherwise, really have this anti-American feeling. It’s generally viewed that America has this foreign policy that is couched and euphemized, it’s a double standard. You have a set of rules for a country and a totally different set of rules for another country. American foreign policy should have more of a level playing field really. Going back to the question of Pakistan, in a coup about a year or two ago, America was one of the first countries that condemned this whole thing, in which democratic government was overthrown for a military rule. And now again America cozies up to Musheraf for obvious reasons also.
Moustafa Gharib: Yeah, I just wanted to comment more on what Crista was saying. At least from my impression about what president Bush was saying in that speech, it came across to me as a sort of an indirect threat to those countries that will stand in the way of the United States. What I perceive is an angry entity or something that wants retaliation and wants somebody to pay the price for this, and I think it’s probably a view that is shared by a lot of people, whether it be in the Middle East or Pakistan or Afghanistan. If you don’t say you are with us then you are against us and so I don’t think that’s actually giving the United States a fair opportunity to know who is actually a true ally and who is not. Because it’s more, do you want us to bomb you or are you going to be on our side, that kind of thing.
Gary Bertsch: I would just like to ask one more question before I open it up to the audience. And that’s the question of the bombing. Laura, what do you think of the bombing?
Laura El Tantawy: What do I think of the bombing? To answer this the short way, I don’t think it’s the best decision that America has made. I was actually doing some research this week and before even doing the research, I mean, what exactly are we bombing? We are bombing the people that, you know, they just don’t have anything. We are just bombing deserts. Those people, they don’t have a home, they’re starving on the street, their women are being totally brutalized, their men, actually, most of their men have actually died in their war with Russia and I just don’t know what we are really bombing. Are we just bombing the military sites? I don’t think we are just bombing their military sites because actually so many civilians have actually died, at least as far as my knowledge goes.
Gary Bertsch: Yuval, Israel strikes back when there is terrorism. What should the United States do?
Yuval Aviad Bernartzi: One point about the bombing, I found it really amusing seeing CNN last night and CNN broadcasted these facts. The U.S. has five aircraft carrier battle groups in the area, and the United Kingdom has one and another one on the way. Afghanistan has 25 military targets in the entire country. That’s what’s left in the country. Now, I’m no military expert, but it seems like a little bit of overkill- 25 targets could probably be done with one aircraift carrier. So you kind of wonder as to why is there so much military fire power over there and if there is going to be a net target just because of all of these extra weapons that’re over. But I mean, bombing Afghanistan, like was said before, really does no good, really makes no difference in the outcome of the war. The United States should absolutely strike, but I mean, it’s not just the United States. What needs to come now is the people all over the world that have had enough of terrorism to come up as one and say we cannot live with this anymore.
We would like to take an example of a country like Egypt that has been spending funds in anti-terrorism long before it has peace with Israel and became one of the United States’ allies as a consequence. Egypt is a very good example because it’s a Muslim country controlled by a very active parliament who actually has power and not just a dictatorship like many others, even though in the recent past it has been a dictatorship. Even under those dictators, they spent a lot of money against anti-terrorism acts
Egypt, even not as an ally of the United States, saw the danger of terrorism for free life, and as free men, they will not stand for it.
Dr. Bertsch: Any more comments before we open, Tomas?
Tomas Bryngolfsson: Coming from a NATO country, even though all NATO members enacted the Article five. I think the US population has to realize that those European leaders also have their own constituents and most people In Europe will not stand for innocent people dying. There has been a lot of sentiment just after a bombing from Iraq- sanctions against Iraq, at least in Western Europe where I come from. And the support for the U.S. will go away as soon as we see large amounts of innocent people dying. People start to see U,S. actions as pretty much the same actions as the terrorists killing innocent people.
Youliana Ivanova: Just in a reply to you, how do the people in Europe like to see 10,000 Americans and other countries’ citizens’ lives blown up without any active aggresion on American soil? A war is not a pretty issue. People will die and you know, in World War II for example, many, many civilians’ lives were lost, and yet it didn’t deter people from their ultimate target to rid the world of a Nazi party, which it ultimately achieved. You’ve got to weigh your options. In order to stop it we need to cut it from the root, get rid of the governments who support it, that fund it. If we don’t do it right now, what kind of a world will we be living in 20 or 30 years, and is that the kind of world that those people who have a problem seeing some innocent people die would like to live in?
UGA TODAY ] News Bureau ] Master Calendar ] Columns ] Georgia Magazine ]
UGA Home ] Admissions ] Directories ] Sports ] Alumni ] Weather ]
Search this site ] Search UGA sites ]
SPECIAL REPORT / September 11, 2001 : UGA Responds is produced by the UGA News Service, a unit of UGA Public Affairs.
Questions or comments should be directed to uc@www.uga.edu.
Copyright 2001 University of Georgia. All rights reserved
Number of visitors to this site:
since 10/15/2001