Message 03467 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxdeT03466 Message: 2/3 L1 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox] ein paar unbequeme Fragen



Kurt-Werner Pörtner  schreibt  in liste oekonux.de:
9.) Oekonux - na ja. Man sieht jetzt wieder, dass GPL-Gesellschaft, Free 
Software usw. Sandkastenspielereien sind. Das, was jetzt vorgeht, spielt
in 
einer anderen Liga. Fragen um Macht und Herrschaft sind letztendlich doch 
Fragen um Leben und Tod. Es wird keinen "freundlichen Übergang" in
Irgendwas 
geben. Wenn's die Herrschenden wollen, werden sie Free Software zu
Piraten im 
Cyberwar stilisieren und dementsprechend reagieren, selbst wenn ihr nur
eurer 
Oma ne Freude machen wollt. Echolon wird's schon richten. Das ist auch
eine 
Folge der "Entstaatlichung" der Gewalt, wo private Terrorbanden, Warlords
und 
verrückte Spinner mit viel Geld und nem festen Feindbild der 
"geostrategischen Lage" immer mehr den Stempel aufdrücken. Und die
Staaten 
oder das, was von ihnen übrig ist, wird sich immer mehr diesem "Niveau" 
annähern.

Du hast Recht, aber nur unter einer Bedingung:

Das gilt nur solange wie die globale Zivilgesellschaft das zuläßt und
nicht beginnt, ein paar unbequeme Fragen zu stellen.

Das folgende ist von Tony Judge, den Maintainer der Datenbanken der Union
of International Organisations in Brüssel. 

http://www.uia.org/data.htm

Wenn es einen Mann gibt, der eine realistische Perspektive auf eine GPL -
Gesellschaft repräsentiert, dann ihn. Denn er hat das Potential von
zehntausenden Organisationen ebenso wie das Inventar der globalen Probleme
und Problemlösungswege gesammelt - eine unvergleichlich gut organisierte
Wissensbasis.

Er hat die Fragen gesammelt, die sich seit 5 Tagen akkumulieren. Unbequeme
Fragen, die überall gestellt werden können, wo sich Menschen mit der
derzeitigen Situation auseinandersetzen...Fragen die auf enorme
Ungereimtheiten verweisen. Die Zivilgesellschaft stellt eben nicht die
"Fragen um Macht und Herrschaft", sie läßt sich eben nicht mehr einfangen
in der jahrtausendealten Logik von Befehl und Gehorsam. Sie stellt diese
vielmehr in Frage!


Some questions on the occasion of the abhorrent and horrendous 
attacks on 11th September 2001:  

CHALLENGES TO CIVILIZATION

Is the real challenge for civilization one of exacting punitive measures 
on the perpetrators of a crime or is it one of recognizing and correcting 
the patterns of our individual and collective behaviour that 
engendered that crime?   

How can the horror of the millions of innocent people who die 
prematurely around the world (or who live horrendous daily lives of 
degrading impoverishment and injustice) be adequately recognized in 
the face of the legitimate media focus on the horror of the recent 
suicidal attacks causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people?  

To what degree was the call upon the international community to 
commemorate the tragic death of thousands a regrettable insult to the 
far greater numbers whose tragic deaths in recent years have gone 
uncommemorated and unremembered? Where are the international  
memorials to the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda and Srebrenica, 
and the disappearances in Latin America?  

How can a civilized world reconcile the worldviews of the innocent 
people who inadvertently exacerbate lifestyle impoverishment with 
those of people who cold-bloodedly attack the symbols of what they 
perceive to be instrumental in the suffering of millions of innocents?  

Who sympathizes with the condition of those in distant countries and 
slums whose suffering goes unbroadcast by the media?  

UNHELPFUL INSIGHTS

One American commentator asserted that the "World Trade Center 
was the center of western civilization" (James Rubin, Former US 
Assistant Secretary of State, BBC, 11 September 2001). If  this is how 
western civilization is to be characterized, is it beyond belief that 
some groups might consider this a mark of an ungodly civilization 
lacking any core spiritual values -- other than those associated with 
material profit?  

Why did the same commentator then go on to claim that the rest 
of the world was "uncivilized"?  Is it  not then worth recalling 
Mahatma Gandhi's classic response to the journalist who asked him 
his views of "western civilization" -- and was answered that "it would 
be a good idea"?  

In seeking to label the horrendous attacks as "evil" acts against 
"western civilization" and "freedom", does this not further obscure 
the larger evil of the failure of modern civilization to effectively 
address the conditions of millions of people in the world -- and the 
fact that it is significantly dependent, for what it offers to the few, on 
the continuing deprivation of the many?

UBIQUITY OF "TERRORISM"

Is it not the tragedy of modern civilization that no fundamental 
transformation of socio-political reality  ? including the independence 
of  USA, Israel and many developing countries --  has been achieved 
in history without attacks that have been labelled by those in power 
as "terrorism" and "evil"?    

How many modern states have been headed by people who could be 
legitimately described as having engaged in terrorist activity?  What 
then is the nature of the "entire western world" of which "terrorists" 
are the "enemies" (Tony Blair, 14 September 2001)

How many modern states have sanctioned or supported terrorism in 
one form or another -- at least in the eyes of others?

Is it not the case that any group that feels excluded will find a way to 
punish those who have left it behind? For those with no other 
options, is terrorism not one of the few acts in which they can engage 
in a hostile modern civilization -- especially when they have nothing to 
lose but their lives?

BELIEF-CENTERED EXCLUSIVITY

Efforts are being made to frame the horrendous attacks as attacks 
on "freedom" and "democracy" within civilization as a whole.  To 
what extent does this constitute an exclusive appropriation of the 
values of freedom and democracy by a "western civilization" that is 
perceived by the attackers as opposing other peoples and cultures in 
their legitimate aspirations to "freedom" and "democracy" as they 
understand it?  

The President of the USA assumes that "God" is necessarily 
exclusively on the side of the American people (and the right-minded 
of the world) in their response to the "evil" nature of the attackers. 
The cultures with some sympathy for the attackers, and especially 
suicide bombers, assume that "Allah" is on their side in opposing the 
"evil" impact on their communities that they associate with aspects of 
American policy and "western civilization" -- they label the USA  and 
Israel as "Big Satan" and "Little Satan" respectively. Are there more 
fruitful ways to understand such a situation and what resources are 
devoted to this?     

Does "western civilization", or the preferred religion of the current 
president of the USA,  have an absolute monopoly on the definition of 
"good" and "evil"?  How is provision made for perspectives  that are 
radically different from those he defines as "good"?  

There is an extraordinary parallel between the unusual exclusivist 
perception of America as "God's own country", and of Israel as a gift 
by God to a "chosen people". Why have these perceptions justified 
encroachment on the lands of others, the displacement and death of 
indigenous populations, their restrictions to "reservations", and the 
development of a strategic framework for the expansion of "western 
civilization" into the spaces of other cultures?  

What strategic dangers for the future of civilization are likely to result 
from an alliance between two countries that perceive themselves to be 
blessed by a unique God-given innocence that justifies their self- 
righteousness under all foreseeable circumstances?  

CONTRADICTIONS

If the US-led coalition is to act, as proposed, without distinction 
against both terrorists, and the governments and bodies who tacitly or 
actively provide "haven, support, information, financial and other 
assets" (Colin Powell, 14th September 2001) to them, how will it 
respond to the support of "terrorism" in Northern Ireland by groups 
within the USA -- or to US support for activities in Latin America 
labelled there as "terrorist" or to its purported support of the Taliban 
as part of the war against drugs?   

How is it possible to comprehend  the stigmatization of the 
perpetrators as an "enemy waging a war by stealth" (14th September 
2001) by the president of the country  that is the proud inventor of 
"stealth technology" for use in a "Stealth" Bomber? To what degree 
was the bombing of Hiroshima an act of stealth?

How is it that a "peace-loving country", acclaimed as the "home of 
freedom and democracy", is so well-served by the conflicts around the 
world -- that it happily exacerbates through massive arms sales to its 
own commercial advantage?  

"Since what is good for business is good for America", to what degree 
is the pursuit of "freedom" equated indistinguishably with "freedom 
for US business interests" to implant themselves in any country 
whether or not this constrains the populations degrees of freedom ? 

How is it that the "home of freedom and democracy" (George Bush, 
13th September 2001) trains people for activities perceived elsewhere 
as "terrorism", has a reputation for political assassination, openly 
manufactures instruments of torture for profit, and prides itself on its 
arms industry -- and yet is astounded at some of the "irrational" 
reactions and hatred that this evokes?    

How is the high-minded defence of freedom to be reconciled with the 
suppression of information on the nature of the accidents that befell 
the attackers in the fourth plane? Was the plane, with its innocent 
passengers,  indeed shot down by an American fighter? What other 
relevant information has been unnecessarily withheld?  

MISAPPROPRIATION OF INSIGHTS

What questionable initiatives can be disguised by strategies 
purportedly undertaken in response to "terrorism"?  

Who seeks to define "terrorism" in a manner that is primarily 
supportive of their own opportunistic strategic objectives -- under the 
guise of eradicating "evil from the world"?  How is this policy to be 
distinguished from the excesses of the Soviet-era? 

What constrains efforts by those in power to extend the operational 
definition of "terrorism" to include elimination of dissent and 
opposition of any kind?    

To what extent does a hasty, vengeful response best serve the 
interests of some groups whose policies most need to be held in check 
in a civilized society?  What assurances are there that those warning 
of this will be heard?  

Is there a fundamental danger that American society will henceforth 
use its suffering from these horrendous attacks as an unquestionable 
justification for any future policies it chooses to follow -- following
the 
pattern of Israel in relation to the horror of the Holocaust?

What are the dangers that legitimate international agendas in 
response to terrorism will be perfidiously manipulated to serve as a 
Trojan horse to advance particular strategic objectives that are totally 
contrary to the declared rationale of any such coalition?

COMPREHENSION OF ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES

How is it that at the acclaimed center of western civilization there is 
apparently no comprehension whatsoever of what honourable and 
meaningful causes can drive people to commit suicide in such 
horrendous attacks on innocents?    

Rabbi Tony Bayfield (Guardian, 15 Sept 2001) states that "I am 
seething with rage at anyone who dares suggest that, in any way, 
such acts are even explicable, let alone justifiable".  Could he at least 
understand that some people are seething with rage that others 
(controlling trillions of dollars daily) dare to suggest that their 
negligence of the suffering millions of people is explicable, let alone 
justifiable?  

Whether the views of the attackers can be framed as misguided or 
deluded, is not comprehension a preferable basis for seeking a 
permanent cure rather than the denial of the realities of the 
perpetrators of such acts -- and of the honour in which they may be 
held in some deprived cultures?

What civilized cause is served by labelling the unknown perpetrators 
of such acts as having "no regard for the sanctity or value of human 
life" (Tony Blair, 14th September 2001) -- when it may be precisely 
because of the value they attach to the lives of their compatriots in 
misery that they have engaged in such acts?

If by any chance it was finally discovered that the attack was the 
responsibility of those associated with the militant right wing in the 
USA (cf as in the case of the Oklahoma bombing) ? how would this 
change the nature of the retribution sought?  Given that this might 
indeed have been the case, what learnings would that offer?     

Is it wise to assume that there is absolutely nothing of value to human 
civilization to be learnt from those who challenge the assumptions of 
western civilization and engage in such horrendous attacks in support 
of alternative perspectives?

Is western civilization so insecure and immature that it is incapable of 
learning from cultures with a radically different perspective -- whilst 
stripping them of their cultural treasures?  

In a complex society of different perspectives, does not failure to 
recognize the coherence and priorities of alternative truths for some 
condemn their opponents to falsehood and denial?  

DISSIDENCE AND CIVILIZATION

How are the values of the US-led coalition to be distinguished from 
universal values, from the traditional values of western coalition, and 
from American values? How can space be created for dissidence in 
modern civilization?

Is there a fundamental danger to civilized discourse of its becoming 
dominated by processes reminiscent of the witch-hunts of the 
McCarthy era  against "un-American activity" -- during which dissent 
of any kind could be readily reframed as subversive of western 
civilization?  

To what degree will the future response of western civilization to 
those who disagree, in any form, with the views of its major leaders, 
deteriorate into suppression of alternative and dissident perspectives 
of any kind? What have been the consequences of recent historical 
examples of such repressive behaviour?  

Is active disagreement and dissent of any kind to be tolerated within a 
world society dominated by "western civilization" and promulgation 
of the "American way of life" as an ideal?

How will permissible dissent be distinguished from inadmissible 
implicit support for what some may label as terrorist initiatives? 
Who will authorize "admissible" dissent from views upheld as intrinsic 
to the "American way of life"?

Rather than signalling the need for expenditure of resources on a  
campaign of retribution to bring a few people to justice, should not 
these horrendous attacks primarily signal the need for expenditure on more 
fruitful approaches to disagreement between civilizations and value 
systems -- as implied by the theme of the current United Nations Year 
of Dialogue among Civilizations?

CONSEQUENCES FOR CIVILIZATION

What will the measures of retribution envisaged do to the quality of 
western civilization and the significance of the values it claims to 
uphold?  

In adopting a vengeful, self-righteous mindset, infused with the 
strategies of those groups who habitually act in this mode, to what 
extent will western civilization become irredeemably tainted by values 
and qualities from which it has long struggled to distance itself?

What constraints are there on the proposed use of political 
assassination, and  the secretive strategy of "targeted killings", as a 
means of removing all those who express any opposition to the 
dominant American  view of civilization?  Will those opposing this 
strategy in any way also be considered legitimate targets?   

STRATEGIC COWARDICE

Does labelling those who act in this way as "faceless cowards" 
obscure a reality that needs to be understood -- making a mockery of 
their anonymous military counterparts who release bombs and 
missiles from a secure distance? And what of the faceless corporate 
executives who deprive families of lands and livelihoods that they 
have had for generations?

If the Nazi headquarters -- or the Kremlin at the height of the Cold War 
-- had been located in a building like the World Trade Center, would a 
similarly successful attack on it be labelled as "cowardly", "evil" and 
"irrational"? 

Rather than characterizing the attack as an act of evil, I see it as a  
terrible last act of desperation by people who believed they had no 
other way  to make themselves heard than to resort to violence and 
mayhem. It is  absolutely critical that we see not only their willingness 
to use horrible,  illegal means, but that we also hear their desperation 
which makes them view  such means as the highest form of heroism 
including the sacrifice of their  very lives.   (Greg Nees, Former US 
Marine, Letter to the President, 13 September 2001)

How are the "heroes" and "cowards" to be identified and 
distinguished in response to the suffering of millions around the 
world?

APPROPRIATE RETRIBUTION

Deepak Chopra (14 Sept 2001) asks: Why he and others did not feel 
equivalent anguish at previous horrors to which innocents have been 
exposed? What was the root cause of this evil? Can any military 
response make the slightest difference to this underlying cause? Is 
there not a deep wound at the heart of humanity? Who gave birth to 
the satanic technologies now being turned against us? If all of us are 
wounded, will revenge work? If you or I are having a single thought of 
hatred against anyone in the world, are we not contributing to the 
wounding of the world?

To what extent do the attacked appreciate that the "American way of 
life" is perceived by many to have been achieved at the cost of  ways 
of life in other cultures? Retribution may serve only to impoverish the 
ways of life in all cultures -- especially if it escalates uncontrolably 
into widespread war.

If "terrorist" acts are to be treated as acts of "war" -- providing legal 
justification for responses under conditions of "war" -- does this 
transform the legal status of such "terrorists" in the light of the 
Geneva Convention?  Or are such terrorists to be considered as 
unworthy of the human rights accorded to Nazis?  Or perhaps this 
treaty is also to be set aside?

How will it be possible to ensure that the treatment of the perpetrators 
does not simply transform them into martyrs -- empowering an even 
more savage and dangerous escalation of terrorism?  

To what extent will any retribution be justified by hard and 
incontrovertible evidence rather than by evidence that some might 
have reason to consider questionable ? as in the case of the US attack 
on the Khartoum pharmaceutical  factory after the East African 
bombings of US embassies?    

Does the mindset identifying civilization's "Public Enemy No. 1" 
constitute a displacement of blame to a safely distant, personified 
target of abhorrence -- thereby completely avoiding, through a 
scapegoating process, any uncomfortable questions and learnings 
about the weaknesses of modern society and its leadership?   

APPROPRIATE STRATEGY

Why were those with access to the best intelligence resources, not 
alert to the fact that the core of the western financial system was so 
vulnerable? What other assumptions of this quality have been made 
by them? What level of irresponsibility does this imply in the 
strategies they advocate?   

What do the military successes of such attacks suggest 
about the quality of the strategic thinking associated with the "Star 
Wars" initiative?   

If a single individual with a paltry $300 million resources is the 
prime suspect as the cause of such havoc, what potential threats to 
civilized society should be suspected of the limited number of people 
in the world with billions of dollars of resources at their disposal?    

Given the total inability of strategic intelligence services to anticipate 
the attack, what is the probability that the nature and quality of the 
response will primarily serve the cause of the original attacker?

Beyond the mass of information, accusation and allegation, who 
benefits from this attack? 

Does presenting this event as a coarse "revenge attack", or a 
mindless thoughtless act of barbarity, deny the underlying political 
advantage that is the true purpose and justification for some as yet 
unidentified group?

In adopting strategies of retribution normally condemned as 
inappropriate to a civilized state, at what point do states acquire 
characteristics of the "rogue states" that they seek to eliminate?

Given the highly symbolic nature of the attacks, is it possible to 
envisage any riposte that would be equally symbolic in nature ? 
reframing the challenge for both sides in a more fruitful manner?  

"WAR" AND OTHER METAPHORS

Modern societies have failed significantly, after many years of 
sustained effort, in their strategy of "war against drugs" and have 
been forced to question the value of the "war" metaphor in this 
connection. What does this imply for the success of the proposed 
sustained "war against terrorism" -- which has already been underway 
for many years?

In the "war on drugs" the pattern of denial fails to address the 
question of why people in "western civilization" (and in the "home of 
freedom and democracy") are so desperately dependent on drugs.  Is 
there a similar pattern of denial that inhibits any recognition of why 
some people struggle for meaning in other cultures in ways that are 
beyond the comprehension of people in western cultures?  

Like the "war against drugs", does the "war against communism" 
provide inappropriate preset mental templates for the "war against 
terrorism"?  

Is the "war" metaphor necessary to the stability of American and 
Israeli societies dependent on an external enemy to provide a measure 
of reconciliation between their own internal contradictions?  

Will the "war against terrorism" by the coalition of the western world 
provide some faceless people in power with a  new license to 
assassinate wherever  consider they it to be appropriate?

Is it the case that whilst western intelligence services have developed 
the capacity to "listen" to almost any conversation anywhere, they are 
effectively deaf in their incapacity to "hear" and comprehend the 
nature of what is being said about the desperate condition in which 
proud peoples find themselves?

Some people are always open to temptation by products and services 
deplored by their own culture. Is it comprehensible that the "freedom" 
to install an American hamburger chain in Mecca may be as abhorred 
by some of Islamic culture as would be any effort to install a brothel in 
the White House?  

If we are to truly resolve the hatred and violence, we need to 
understand that in their eyes, they see themselves as a tiny, heroic 
David fighting against a huge, monstrous Goliath who seeks to kill 
them and their way of  life. We certainly need not agree with their 
views, but we must understand  them if we ever hope to achieve a 
lasting peace and not a world that is  locked down and bereft of all the 
civil rights and freedoms we cherish so  highly.  (Greg Nees, Former 
US Marine, Letter to the President, 13 September 2001)

One of Christianity's founding myths is the action of  Jesus in the 
Temple of Jerusalem in response to the "money changers". Is it not 
comprehensible that the poverty and suffering of millions may inspire 
some to attack what they perceive as the "money changers" in charge 
of trillions of dollars in the "temple" of western civilization? It might
be 
asked why this is perceived as justified by some and completely 
unjustified by others?

To what extent does the insidious nature of international networks of 
terrorism parallel the insidious nature of international networks of 
unrestrained greed? Both have their hidden cells and faceless leaders. 
Will equivalent resources be allocated to rooting out the latter 
networks -- given the way they provoke the development of the 
former?

QUALITY OF DISCOURSE  

In whose interest is it to simplify and polarize the discourse in 
response to this strategically symbolic attack -- notably in support of 
strategically primitive retribution attacks?  

Why is the quality of media discourse about such an attack 
lacking in any acknowledgement of the perspective of those with 
some understanding of the attackers ? thus exemplifying the reasons for 
which they presumably undertook the attack?   

If "those who are not with us must necessarily be considered 
against us" (Hillary Clinton, 12th September 2001), to what extent will 
those who fail to associate themselves whole-heartedly with acts of 
retribution themselves be subject to some form of punitive sanction?

There are different kinds of discourse in response to the challenges 
faced by millions in poverty. Each may be judged as completely 
inappropriate according to other criteria. Each may nevertheless have 
its strengths and weaknesses. Should the attack be considered as one 
such response by desperate people of limited means -- just as the 
subsequent response by a people of unlimited means could be 
considered in terms of whether it improves the quality of discourse 
about the tragedy of life for many in modern civilization?

FRUITFUL INITIATIVES

What kind of civilization would respond to such attacks by 
galvanizing the immense resources of its "intelligence networks" to 
empower networks of people and groups everywhere to act more 
effectively in response to the sufferings of the world -- rather than to 
protect structures of privilege from the terrorist networks engendered 
and supported by such suffering?

In a time of increasing "democratic deficit", what intelligence has been 
devoted to alternative democratic processes to reduce the incidence 
of such desperate measures?  To what extent is any significant 
attention accorded to recommendations to this end?

Why is it that any initiative to discover new ways of framing 
intractable differences is itself condemned and marginalized? Should 
this not be recognized as the ultimate evil?

What pattern of denial encourages some to seek to stampede 
populations into particular beliefs from a moral highground that they 
define and occupy exclusively?

Does not the ultimate tragedy for civilization not lie in the total 
polarization of disagreement -- there can be "no more excuses; it is 
time to choose sides" (Bush, 14 September 2001)?

FOR THE FUTURE

How much more human sacrifice is required to ensure the further 
progress of civilization? 

How can we reorganize ourselves and find a design of a higher human 
order that will prevent such violence from occurring again -- or are we 
forced to accept that in time of neglect, violence, albeit unwelcome, 
must necessarily have its place?

Any more questions?



Ganz im Gegensatz zu dem was Du sagst glaube ich daß die GPL-Gesellschaft
die einzige Lösung ist, die uns noch bleibt. Und Tony scheint derselben
Ansicht zu sein.....



________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organisation: projekt oekonux.de


[English translation]
Thread: oxdeT03466 Message: 2/3 L1 [In index]
Message 03467 [Homepage] [Navigation]