Some Private Thoughts

About Reign of Terror (and How To Stop It)
By Dragan Pavlovic, M. D.
Director and editor in chief, "Dialogue", Paris

20th December 2001

Warning: The arguments I am advancing below are bad, though not all. Some
may be good. I will be grateful to the readers if they helped me find those
good ones. However, the fewer good arguments we find, the better.

1. Introduction

Instead of entering the New Century as an architect of international peace, the United States has opted to promote war. No one can doubt that a serious international crisis is in front of us. We should and we must face it together as all other alternatives amount simply to wishful thinking. The present text offers an assessment of what the core problem is and seeks to extract some of the more important factors that merit to be attended to without loss of time. The factors in view have been largely neglected. Yet, this is not because they are obscure or invisible. They have been largely neglected because some of the measures proposed and even undertaken earlier –measures meant to “solve” the problem — have been the result of the basic problems themselves rather than of metanalysis. In consequence, these earlier measures pose a serious risk. They are apt to engulf us all into even deeper crises. While the suggestions that follow may come as a surprise some evidence will be given in their favor. The intent here is to show that, even if unexpected, the hypothesis is highly testable, that it has been widely known but nevertheless neglected.

2. The Problem

The unconventional terrorist attacks on symbols of the Western and particularly American economic and military power show with brutal clarity that an imminent conflict with the entire Islamic World is in the making. It is an international mega-crisis and, in order to handle it, one should locate its causes. They are rooted in the unequal development of technology, economic imbalance, conflicts of interests, rapid increase of urban society, cultural conflicts arising from unprecedented rapidity of communications, among others. To attempt to do something about these and prevent further deleterious effects in the immediate future would be self-defeating. Such basic and all-encompassing problems can only be attacked with hope for success through long-term co-ordinate measures and sustained social action. The factor of time imposes nonetheless the obvious need to act, to do something and do it as rapidly as possible. The tension between the long-term nature of dealing with the basic problems and the need to act immediately could even bear fruit as one identifies the most salient results of those general, structural factors. As the thus emerging results are acted upon, time will be bought to prepare and develop measures that can really address the core problems.

A few precautionary words are needed at the outset. Individual events will not be discussed here because their real nature remains unknown. However, we live in a world of aggression and we are almost unaware of it. In the last two decades aggression became an unseen banality, as there has been so much of it. If any proof is required one need only look at the television news any night. In fact, aggression is perceived today as normal behavior. Even its most egregious manifestations shock no more although they surely should. The sheer quantity of aggressive “words” spoken daily by our leading politicians and intending to harm other human beings, to kill the “other” persons, “out there,” should be the cause of general outrage. There is even a state of permanent war, constantly justified. The U.S. alone has fought 47 “just” wars in the last 50 years.

It will help, probably, if it is pointed out that there are about two billion people on this planet who cannot understand our protracted aggressiveness, our wars, our urge to kill, sanctified in the media, from early morning into late night. They learn, all of a sudden, that their internationally less – than- consequential heads of state are guilty of something and must be physically eliminated from power and in person. Along the way, many of the civilians themselves are killed, their lands are destroyed, their generation dispersed. Their whole life is wiped-out and, if they are lucky, very lucky, they will live long enough to witness a slow recovery of their particular land, coming into its own at the end of their lives filled with undeserving, unnecessary and deliberately induced misery.

Another word of caution needs to be advanced, namely that what is being proposed below is simply a hypothesis, like any other. It could be false and its proponent could be entirely wrong. Should it prove to be false, one would know at least that a serious effort has been made to demonstrate the legitimacy of a difficult hypothesis. The hypothesis does have at least one major characteristic. It is not pure exercise in logic but a real life hypothesis. As such, it could make our future far worse if deemed to be true while it is, in fact, false or, yet, if it is rejected as false while being actually true.

The hypothesis is as follows. We are facing diffuse terrorism coming mainly from the Middle Eastern countries (Middle Eastern Terrorism, MET in the later text) and state terrorism on the part of the U.S. in the form of New Fascism. The designation given this form throughout the text is “MEIT.” It stands for “Military and Economic Integrative Totalitarianism.” Diffuse terrorism and MEIT constitute the clear and present danger to both peace and human existence. As will be seen later on, we are dealing neither with Fascism in a strict sense nor with an extreme and rigid form of MEIT (as defined). It is probably correct to say that the U.S. displays a strong TENDENCY towards one specific form of the political behavior designated as MEIT. This concept, as used here, is far from being an exact description of the U.S. political practice. It is a convenient “ideal type” (after Max Weber) that serves to coherently outline the main characteristics of the interlocking U.S. politics and policies. It should be noted at once that this leaves alive the hope that a return to the traditional American democratic values is still possible.

3.The World Picture Sketch

Following the fall of the Soviet Union and advent of the U.S. as the sole superpower, allied with the West European countries, the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington gave the signal that the world is beset with unprecedented and most dangerous problems. A conflict between the poor and the rich, between different ideologies and economic interests has been defined for all to see. Such confrontation no longer involves the former Eastern Block and the West but literally all the southern part of the Asian Continent and the West. The confrontation is moreover becoming mainly military in nature. The desperate act of 11th September was carried out by individuals who gave their lives in the strong belief that terrorism provides the only means to inflict pain and damage on those whom they considered to be the cause of their peoples’ misery. This act was, at least conditionally, reflecting a conviction widely shared although we still do not know in fact who carried its implications out. Perceived as a criminal act in the West the terrorist attacks resonated on the other side as a courageous military action with the means available. Most likely, the plane hijackers came to believe that everyone would understand their motivations. It was, at best, an unrealistic credo and it did not work out that way. Yet, it would be even more unrealistic to think that something very real did not motivate the men who committed both unpardonable acts of terror and their own suicides.

Many states and individuals are faced today with the dangers of being either discriminated against, suffering shortages of the most essential elements for survival, or else annihilated altogether. Without being entirely dismissed, this does not also force all humanity to face the risk of a catastrophic global outcome but it does put the weaker nations in the very real dangers of greater impoverishment and possibly destruction on a massive scale.

4. The Causes

The driving force of Middle-East terrorism is a deep conviction of the non-Western World and more precisely among the Muslim nations and populations that they are being treated with hate and despised by the West and especially by the United States. This feeling dates back many centuries but it is linked to the western European and American racism that came into full view after World War Two. The second part of the Twentieth Century provides us with an exacerbation of hate, of being despised, of an unfair treatment for the non-Europeans of diverse religions and cultures. Certainly, Muslims and Arabs have been particularly targeted. American military presence in the region, combined with recent military actions and the maintenance of a state of war is the modus operandi of the U.S. It is also coupled with the U.S. willingness NOT to resolve the state of affairs. What puts the finishing touches on this conviction are instances of the U.S. collaboration with multiple terrorist groups representing opposing interests at the same time and place. It is painfully obvious that the U.S. unwillingness to resolve the problem of the Palestinian people plays a crucial role in this respect and is of over-arching importance. The ambiguous and often encouraging stance, particularly by the U.S., toward terrorism (i.e. training and support of Afghan terrorism, Albanian terrorism), and its own practice (assassinations, military interventions) have had, as is obvious today, mainly negative effects. The recent and undeniably arrogant positions toward some essential needs of Middle Eastern populations (refusals to put a real end to the Palestinian problem, the never ending brutal sanctions on the population of Iraq) are themselves heavy contributors to the atmosphere than engenders acts of terrorism. And, finally, the borrowing of the older Nazi minority policy by the West through encouragement of “human” rights and NOT “just state” rights, gave the notice that was interpreted with precision, namely that all means to achieve political goals are permissible and possible. This was a condition that justified armed rebellion as it legitimized terrorism across the board.

5. Fascism and its neo-Appearance

There are other similarities with WW II Nazis that could be listed. Fascism and Nazism are notoriously difficult to define and explain with precision. Dictionary definitions are seldom suitable since they generally shut the door to evolutions of the terms.

“Behemoth,” a superb study of the Nazi ideology and practice, was written during WWII (1) A list, shortly to follow, will provide a comparison of concepts to bring out some differences as well as striking similarities between the New U.S. Fascism and the Nazi ideology. Similarities are numerous, but differences seem to be not only in time but also in the most important and stated aims and certain methods. Although it may appear that two very different constructs face us it will certainly be striking to discover that they resemble one another in their most important aspects: their magic attraction, brutality, destructiveness and lack of a genuine and real universal humanism. The term “MEIT” is, for this occasion, appropriate.

A short account of “Behemoth’s” Chapter Five is compressed in Table I. Some other statements, terms, concepts and practices of National Socialism and MEIT that are generally known are also included. This is a presentation of methods closely related to each other, both having strongly correlated concepts and actions that offer a secure explanation. These powerful correlations should enable the reader to come to an obvious explanation for the aggressive policies of the U.S., a new “fascist” MEIT ideology.

Table 1. Nazi terminology mainly according to :Franz Neumann: Behemoth, Structure and Praxis of National - Socialism 1933 - 1944, Oxford University Press, 1942; 1944.

Nazi terminology NATO terminology

Dissimilarities

one Fuerer	oligarchy
blitz Krieg	permanent war
time limited action	long term action
relies on collaborators	relies on terrorism (Mujahedins, UCK, Contras, etc.)
leading power acts first	leading power acts either first, induces, or goes with (J. Nye*)
brilliant past	no past
military treat	economical and military treat
no obvious cultural pressure	cultural pressure
predominantly occupying	not real occupation (collaboration)
Similarities
high moral aims	same (selective human rights)
ends justify the means	same
technological superpower	same
power ground for exclusive rights	same
racism	no open racism, Anglo-Saxon chauvinism
strong nationalism	same
one party system	virtual “multy”-party system
strong national pride	same
anti-Semitism (Jewish)	anti-Semitism (Arabic)
Arian values	American values
human rights superior to state rights	same
space conquering forces	same (just potentiality)
popular conciseness of large spaces	same (just potentiality)
Central Europe (Mitteleuropa)	NATO Europe
federated super-state	NATO world
German spaces	NATO spaces
not internationalism	American interests, American model
interests of Reich	American interests
no League of nations	UNO in the service of the USA
destruction of France and England	destruction of Eastern European Empire
master race	American nation
guardian of honour	guardian of human rights
new military technique	same
use of the arms of massive civilian destruction	same
use of illegal arms	same
massive civilian victims	same
increase of “defensive” force of our people	same
birth rate stimulation	same
new International law to be used "outside" only	same
space possessing powers in the East	cheap producing powers in the east
there is no place for neutrality	we decided to know everything or American interests are everywhere (Brzezinski)
world economic socialism	New World order
racial will	minority will
racial self-determination	minority self-determination
individual rights make up group rights	same (applied on minorities)
proletarian race against	free market against
plutocratic democracies	national economy
United Europe	United World Economy
common philosophy	common philosophy
third Reich	NATO world
strong Reich	Strong America
incorporation into Germany	incorporation into NATO world of Europe
race is raw material	minorities are raw material
power should increase	same
political leader is one among many	same (political leader is a figure)
Versailles Treaty is invalid	Treaties are obsolete
loss of human lives is justified	same
killing children is justified	same (Albright)
propaganda	propaganda + media black-out
use of puppet Government	use of puppet Governments use of terrorist CIA activity
assassinassions	CIA assassinassions
use of bombastic language	same
controlled police state	same
divide et impere	same
power justifies rights	same
war is the solution	same
kill prisoners	take no prisoners (Rumsfeld)

Etc
___________________________________________________________
* Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye: Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition., Boston, Little Brown, 1977.
______________________________________________________

A number of cited similarities may help distinguish without difficulty Fascism and the U.S. neo-Fascism from classical imperial wars. There is one concept that is behind both devastating ideologies and we cannot avoid dwelling for a while on it. There is hardly any doubt that the Pentagon war hawks have carefully studied the Nazi ideology in order to use it wherever and whenever needed. There is some evidence that Franz Neumann helped a great deal in this avenue of endeavor without being most likely aware of its distant consequences down the road. Immediate promotion of the high principle of “humanitarianism” is today the main method employed in destabilizing and dominating other states as if they were under direct conquest. This is identical with the Nazi method. The earliest antecedent of how to promote ethnic rights as the means with which to divide and subdue recalls the “divide et impera” of the Roman Empire. But, the most notorious example of this method is a letter from the Prinz Max von Baden to the Reichkanzler Graf Herding. In it, von Baden explicitly suggests that the aggressive policies of the German Reich would fail if this method were not enveloped in the noble principle of promoting minority rights (2, 3, 4). Methodological problems were thus solved and Adolf Hitler accepted it with the words that “human rights brake State rights.”(5) It became an accepted doctrine. It is no wonder that Heinrch Himler would repeat it: “When handling foreign people in the East we will have to take care as much as possible to recognize different kinds of people and to promote them (…) I would like to add that we not only have great interest not to unite these people from the East, but on the contrary, to split them in as much as possible into more small pieces.”(6; our translation).

Remarkable is also the observation that Herman Goering made while discussing the methods of how to persuade people to go to war (7). There is a surprising similarity in recent events.

“Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on the farm wish to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor, for that matter, in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

6. MEIT defined

We think we could now state the main characteristics of MEIT that stands for Military and Economical Integrative Totalitarianism. Let us have a look of the definition of fascism that is given below:

FASCISM A political doctrine opposed to democracy and demanding submission to political leadership and authority. A key principle of fascism is the belief that the whole society has a shared destiny and purpose which can only be achieved by iron discipline, obedience to leadership and an all-powerful state. Fascism first developed in Italy, under the leadership of Benito Mussolini (dictator of Italy from 1922 to 1943) and later influenced the development of German fascism in the Nazi movement led by Adolf Hitler (dictator of Germany from 1933-1945). While fascism increases the power and role of the state in society and suppresses free trade unions and political opposition, it preserves private ownership and private property (8).

Although, as shown in Table 1. above, there are important differences – implying that the new concepts have to be defined; the characteristics given in a definition are also central for the US MEIT. That the US political system is authoritarian is not controversial, although if the term "totalitarianism" is employed it should be understood to include the political system as a whole - some kind of international totalitarianism. Its democratic structures although existent, are alienated from the citizens and we would prefer to use "democtratism" to denote it. Even number of American political theorists and politicians would admit that a “republic” is a better term to use. Suppression of individual liberties is not extensive but is open-ended and openly justified as well as is extensive propaganda and media control. The main characteristic of MEIT is a tendency to expand to unlimited international space, to impose or partially impose a particular goal on other communities, to force them to comply to the economical demands that are no subject to any negotiations. And if resistance is shown by the weaker state, military means are easy to employ and often are the first measures used. Contrary to all the declared principles, “undemocratic” states, as long as they would integrate into economical system, are tolerated. Permanent power growth is justified by the power itself. Similarity with Nazi ideology and practice is obvious.

The driving force of MEIT is their unparalleled military power (thanks to technological advances) that generates ambition to ensure submission of the whole world and assure the acquisition of surplus goods for itself as well as control of main energy sources. Imposition of Western values, as superior, serves to justify the actions. Western values are considered in turn to be superior because of unprecedented success of technology in the West, this of course being a circular explanation. Humanitarian actions are considered as justified even if they include highly inhumane methods and the just war (bellum justum) concept is in its unprecedented renaissance – to ignore jus in bello all together!. It is claimed that the US decisions are not a subject to democratic argument, since the US is a democracy itself. This undermines any need for UN consultation or any examination of the rightfulness of US decisions, as repeatedly declared by the most prominent US politicians. It is implied that power (Might) is generating not only Rights but also knowledge. This is absurd, of course. Increased knowledge about the physical world could teach us how to go around in relation to nature, but increased knowledge about the social world would not allow us ever to prescribe to others how they should organise their society; we would need first to explain the meaning of life itself, and we are far from this. US methods for achieving the mentioned targets are unlimited and its use of terrorism is justified by an entirely ambiguous objective to defend the "human rights” of ethnic minorities (except when they are turned against the US). The arms that the US is using are considered legal even if the other side does not have them, and the arms the weaker side might use in response, are considered illegal. Guided missiles are, for example legal, yet suicide bombers are not. The atomic bomb would be legal, but bacteriological war illegal, etc. These methods are identical with those used by fascists-nazis before and during WWII.

7. Some Aspects of MEIT - The New World Fascism

In all countries listed below (Table 2.) people love America, love American people - and hate the US. Because of obvious reasons. In how many countries is the US not liked? In too, too many. Why? The list is too long. We will try to give some reasons, but it should be clear that this is just the tip of an iceberg. As professor Bill Thomson stated (referring to the Americans in one letter on the Internet):

“We Americans, comprising some 4% of the world's population, consume approximately 40% of its resources. We appear to assume that the resources found in other parts of the world are somehow our birthright. Imagine how this is experienced in third world countries, many of whom have been the recipients of United States military attacks.
1. We maintain this consumption, in large part, because we have the most powerful military in the world, and since WW II we (the Americans; my note) have not hesitated to use it for political and/or economic gain in places like

Table 2.
________________________________________
China (1945-46),
Korea (1950-53),
China (1950-53),
Guatemala (1954),
Indonesia (1958),
Cuba (1959-60),
Guatemala (1960),
Congo (1964),
Peru (1965),
Laos (1964-73),
Vietnam (1961-73),
Cambodia (1969-70),
Guatemala (1967-69),
Grenada (1983),
Libya (1986),
El Salvador (1980s),
Nicaragua (1980s),
Panama (1989),
Iraq (1991-present),
Sudan (1998),
Afghanistan (1998) and
Yugoslavia (1999).

2. We have bombed each of these countries in turn, and in NO case did a democratic government, respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result. Through our weapons and/or proxies, innocent civilians of Indonesia, East Timor, Chile, Nicaragua and Palestine have also been victims of the United States. Is it any wonder that the level of hatred of the United States is so high? Former President Jimmy Carter stated, "We have only to go to Lebanon, to Syria, to Jordan, to witness firsthand the intense hatred among many people for the United States, because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers, women and children and farmers and housewives, in those villages around Beirut...as a result, we have become a kind of Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful. That is what precipitated the taking of hostages and that is what has precipitated some terrorist attacks." (New York Times3/26/89)

3. Forty-nine percent of our income tax dollar goes for present and past military-related activities. On April 16, 1953, former President Dwight Eisenhower noted that "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed." For the cost of a Stealth bomber, we could put an additional teacher or social worker in every middle and high school in the United States. The cost of the proposed missile defence shield would add several more. Which of these options would add most to our national security?"

We have to admit that to characterise the US in such a way must be extremely surprising to many, particularly to the Americans. The Germans were also surprised that such a noble task, that the Third Reich apparently declared on all levels, proved to be a real human catastrophe. Every single aggressive action of Germany was justified in a simple and convincing way. If we examine the list of the US wars – more then 47 in number, as some historians have stated – each was fought outside American territory, each had its justification coupled with ambiguity and almost all finished with obvious disastrous results: poverty, social destruction, injustice and misery. The number of wars, even if some were (for the sake of argument) fully justified is frightening and we have to be blind not to see in it the most aggressive foreign policy ever in history. Egoistic nation-centric optics of both Germany and the US disabled their own populations to view from a global perspective the real meaning of that deadly ambition. Both wanted to establish a kind of order - to bring a profoundly idealised world picture which did not count with the fact that the real world is populated with a milieu of peoples that have their own history, customs, traditions, life philosophy, preferences and limitations. The doctrine of sacrifice for the benefit of further generations was also characteristic of communist ideology. Today US ideology imposes that principle on others. The end of WWII already showed signs of that aggressive ideology in Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and in defeated Germany and many other countries (a list given above). Carpet bombing is an Anglo-American invention, introduced, presumably, by Air Chief Marshals Arthur Travers Harris and Charles Portal in WWII. Those criminal activities par excellence have nothing to do with people of America (similarly, the WWII crimes had nothing to do with German people). The macro factors, governments, state administrations and gross social structural factors are in the origin of the most important social events. As professors Frank Jackson and Philip Pettit state, macro factors “program” for the micro events (9). This would not completely eliminate the responsibility of all individuals but makes it negligible in comparison with the responsibility of particular individuals that take decisions and contribute directly to the character of macro factors. However, there is a dangerous catch there. Although the macro factors (governments in our case) evidently modulate public opinion, it is taken that in principle, and this is an invention that makes part of the American dream: every individual is a maker of his own success and happiness. In the other words, if we have bad politics, bad government – we are responsible (and not that government!). On our dispositions we always have democratic ways to correct those mistakes, choosing somebody else for the office; if the new man would fail, WE would in fact fail again! This is the perpetuum mobile of our western democracies. It seems to me that the communist governments lost because they openly claimed responsibility and then, when their politics failed, they had to take the consequences. In the western democracy we, the people, are always responsible. This is of course serious problem that could be solved if more responsibility would be claimed from the people who take decisions.

8. Conclusions

The algorithm of terror is simple. A high ethical principle is declared and its immediate fulfilment linked to aggression if necessary. This was also the method of the great German Reich when trying to establish a "higher" model of society. Today it is the high principle of "humanitarian rights". Both are not defined in concrete terms permitting their use for a given purpose that stays undeclared. If we would accept the principle, and since the principle is a high moral one, we would have to, then it is inconsistent not to accept the means. The more elevated the principle the more immediate aggression is justified. Our personal social experience contradicts this of course. In our closed world, we mean society, aggression does not pay off. It is however possible outside of our social circle. Criminals shrink their social circle and follow its moral rules perfectly well. State criminal activity takes place outside of its borders (as the US is doing) or inside its borders, but separating societies to which aggression is possible or forbidden (as in Nazi Germany where Jews were persecuted but not the “Aryans”).

Is the hypothesis here proposed sound? We would claim that it might be, without going further. We have nevertheless compared a simple explanation of the behaviour of the US, based on power driven illusion of superiority that justifies imposition of its own values with bellicose means; an explanation that concurs with current explanation of policy that is based on complex concepts of actual foreign relations that is full of contradictions, unexplained actions and that is rich with ad hoc hypotheses. A simple theory that explains the majority of events against a very complex theory that fails to give satisfactory explanation without auxiliary means. That presented concept of MEIT may be false in some details and not accepting it as it has been given here is understandable. However, accepting delivered image of what is current policy in essence, is hazardous not only because it is delivered by the controversial actor itself, the US, but also because we see clearly, no doubt about this, that it contains blatant lies about its motives and moral concerns.

Yes, it is possible to kill off all who are on the “other” side (citing Mr. Rumsfeld, “not taking prisoners”) and create a “better”, uniform and obeying world. The Nazis failed though...
Appendix

1.Solution

There is a solution to the problem. The one promising choice we have today is NOT to accept as an excuse for indiscriminate and immediate action ANY lofty moral principle altogether. Future generations should be made aware of this need. Past struggles, revolving around the “highest” general and moral principle, led to great tragedies. Fast targeting always became an “obligation” since high moral principles “demanded” it. As over-arching, morally determined ideologies, Communism, National Socialism and the New World Order share the same devastating feature. The self-propelling mechanism is encapsulated in extremely elevated moral principles that preclude any resistance to its immediate implementation and any defense against the inhumane means employed. In contrast, one is inclined to believe that Karl Popper’s “piecemeal engineering” strategy of human progress is the only sane road leading to a better world.

Be that as it may, it should be stressed that the means and not the ends alone make our actions humane or miserable in nature. Even the means employed in achieving some relatively modest political aims will enhance the results if genuine humanitarian concerns are present. Yet, great aim, represented by ugly and faulty means could push all of us into the Dark Ages. We must abandon, first and foremost, the insane ambition to “change the world in our lifetime,” irrespective of one or more “guiding” and intensely moral principles. If the intent is to bring IMMEDIATE “justice” to the whole world the use of extreme violence will be endemic in order to attain such a goal. This would insure a reserved place in Hell and it would be richly deserved.

2.Immediate Action

Opposing the one coherent, non-diffused and structured terrorist form of the MEIT (U.S. Fascism as defined earlier) acquires paramount importance. A host of multiple and simultaneous actions need to be taken. The reason for this is obvious. Since the driving force of terrorism projects itself from the MEIT, the U.S.-style Fascism should become the focus for remedial actions. But, this is not likely to be a short-term endeavor and it might just be possible to arrest terrorism sooner rather than later to buy time for a global efforts to evolve and develop. Some actions against MEIT are a conditional sine qua non for effective action against Middle-Eastern terrorism (MET). Middle Eastern countries are in dire need to block MEIT. A global approach will help gain their confidence and they could become a significant anti-MEIT force, especially when they enter into collaboration with Western countries not involved in MEIT. Some guidelines will be suggested while being far from comprehensive.

It is imperative to come into a solid agreement that declarations of the very highest possible moral principles when coupled with IMMEDIATE gratification produce substantial human tragedies. Means must be found to prevent such repetitions and slow any progression without delay. This prescription is hardly novel but it cannot be reiterated enough because of its basic importance. This is not a plea for amorality but for arrest of madness as even lofty principles do not require immediate MEIT-induced terrorism. Instant moral gratification obliterates the cruelty of means employed, including the killing of completely innocent civilians.

Aggressive politicians seek justification all the time for their immoral acts while counting on the persuasive nature of instant moral gratification. This practice can be ignored at the low level of local politics, where damage is limited and not decisive. But, when human lives are at stake, it must be made very clear what the logic behind happens to be and defeat it by the process of merciless unmasking.

Unless Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” is followed, it is high time to recognize that state rights are at least equal with human rights and that it is the “just state” and “justice” for ethnic minorities that must be protected at an equal pace as a matter of imperative priority.

It is essentially the UN action and not the U.S. terror that must be put into action to destroy terrorist organizations, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It should not be left to the U.S. to clone terrorist actions that it condemns when perpetrated by others against itself. Secondly, the supposed non-targeting of civilians (“collateral damage” in MIET language) should not be acceptable as “regrettable” explanation. It is not at all enough. Not harming civilian life while targeting terrorists is an absolute must that should be internationally DEMANDED. If, for no other self-serving reason, because such U.S. acts are both morally and strategically wrong as the cycle of vengeance spins out alienating the rest of the world. In this sense, even the UN military anti-terrorist actions must avoid civilian casualties at all cost – meaning that they, in reality, probably will NEVER be possible.

Unquestionably, the U.S. must accord primacy to the Palestinian problem. It should not be allowed to fester but lasting peace will require fair treatment for everyone in the area. The American People might wish to bring to justice those fellow-Americans who created and promoted international terrorism, by financing, training, arming and helping in many other ways terrorist movements all over the world, Al Quaida included. There has to be a stop to the politics of state terrorism, to breaches of International Law as well as an end to the neglect of the U.S. obligations to the international community and the United Nations.

If this bill of particulars is accepted the question becomes one of how to proceed at present? Certainly, all of the cited points should be put to work concurrently, without being thwarted by bureaucratic impedimenta. Other solutions do exist but they are interlinked with the more fundamental structural problems outlined in the beginning. It may well be unrealistic to envisage that a major decision to act in a truly “just” way may come about. This is because, to act in a “just way,” one would have to address and, where possible, to repair previous injustices. Where, however, is one to discover how far to go into the past in such an ennobling endeavor? Many Arabs, for example, would like to see a number of top political figures from the West being brought to court for their previous crimes together with their own Arab “terrorists.” The great majority of the Arab populations are convinced that a couple of million Arabs had died directly or indirectly as a result of various U.S. activities in the Middle East during the past 20 years. From their perspective, the WTC disaster is a “minor” tragedy, if first in America yet a minor incident, when compared with the long-term and lasting miseries inflicted upon the Arabs by the U.S.

Not a few would wish to call the WTC disaster a “terrorist act” either. If war is accepted as a means to achieve certain end or ends irrespective of the weapons used than the means used by ”their terrorists” are not less legal than the U.S. guided missiles, which they do not possess anyway. If only the powerful are to decide all sophisticated weapons systems would become entirely “legal” as the weaker are simply bombed into submission or destroyed in a massive way without the loss of a single U.S. soldier. It only follows that the more sophisticated means of destruction come into play the greater becomes the chance that ripostes will come through the so-called “terrorist” methods and acts at work.

If it were possible to start acting in a just way without, however, repairing earlier injustice in its simplest form, this would mean that the U.S. should not “bring to justice” those behind the WTC tragedy. Then the Arab and other Muslim extremists might, given the condition, accept to put terrorism on hold. Of course, against indications already to the contrary, this is not realistic. The first three points are the closest to how the real world looks like but that each could be attempted and may be partially feasible in results, reducing, but not removing, the risk of more confrontations.

3. Instruments

The previous section concerns mainly the action that is needed within the shortest possible time- frame in order to avoid deadly deviations. A more basic approach is necessary though. There is hardly any doubt that a global initiative is required even if precise means are not yet defined. Something of an original approach, suited to the specific problems, appears to be a must.

Inter alia, the UN role should be put under scrutiny. A commission needs to be appointed to examine the UN activity and assess the status of the organization in connection with both its Charter and International Law. There should come into existence an Alliance for the Defense of State Sovereignty. It is this body that should be at the initiative for all the other listed actions. It is, in essence, an “anti-NATO” alliance that would assemble particular states in opposition to the NATO Alliance (without excluding at least some NATO member states) with the precisely defined objective to protect particular countries against attacks and pressures not in accordance with International Law which protects states, their sovereignty as well as peace.

There should be an all-Muslim conference, possibly but not exclusively of the leading Muslim theologians. It could contribute immensely to the Middle Eastern peace process by expurgating terrorism in favor of peaceful and democratic solutions that take into account all sides.

This might be followed by a World Pace Conference. It may well be the more urgent of the instruments while it examines recent events as relating to the UN and International Law and justice.

Another salient instrument would be an anti-terrorist Tribunal for the U.S. The active U.S. support for terrorism in recent decades needs to be examined and exposed. Its adverse effects have appeared all over the world and only most recently within the U.S. borders. Its exposure and international condemnation are bound to have a strong and persuasive moral impact not only within the countries that have supported terrorism but also within the United States itself.

4. Answers to the four Common Sense Questions.

One often comes across common sense arguments that look solid but are, in fact, faulty Our present day media are full of them. In the last ten years, we have been regaled with such absurdities as “the situation is critical and we do not have a better choice than to go to war.” The makers of wars themselves always put this argument forward. All of this is designed to distract us from free thinking by imposing single-minded solutions. If all of this had been rejected at the start in favor of finding the correct solutions through pertinent questions we would most assuredly not have been so deeply enmeshed in crises of today. Some questions are in order:

(1) If we are misinformed, do we really have a right to act? And, in so doing, make mistakes?

(2) If all the “authorities” hold the same opinion do we, as a people, have to accept them?

(3) Are the U.S. aggressions to be tolerated simply because the U.S. is the sole remaining super-power?

(4) Do we have any real choices?

(5) Are not all wars basically the same as civilians die and are maimed and their properties destroyed? In some recent instances this became even more pronounced as SOLDIERS were protected and civilian targets were destroyed with mainly CIVILIAN casualties.

These common-sense questions often have to be answered in a non-common sense fashion. Otherwise we risk having to live our lives in common-sense induced miseries. One must however except the first question since it may indeed have a common-sense answer. There is ALWAYS a duty before acting –particularly if our actions have heavy ethical implications—to make the maximum effort to REALLY learn all about the matters at hand BEFORE acting.

The subject matter of this relatively short text is such that a lot more has to be learned about events in order to be able to accept or reject the rhetoric that comes with them. This is not such a difficult if somewhat onerous task in our age of communications. It can be done with relative ease where there is a will.

The second question concerns obedience to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). There are indeed areas of life where failure to obey authority might engender great difficulties. Cognitive authority is based on knowledge that one can seldom challenge with much success. Administrative authority, on the contrary, can be challenged on the bases of either knowledge or common sense since it is not based on expert knowledge. There are no “experts” on whether Afghanistan should be bombed or not. As there are assuredly experts on molecular biology or fluid mechanics. This is not only an issue of common sense but, also, of morality. Again, the moral nature of an argument DEMANDS an examination of the argument itself and what it really rests on. The present writer doubts that his subject here could be left to rely on any authority whatsoever. The fact that a majority of Western politicians have similar points of view is entirely meaningless. If anything, this fact invites a very careful examination of the arguments invoked. Foreign Policy has nothing to do with knowledge of a foreign country. The reason is simple. It will not be governed by the real needs of the country at which Foreign Policy is directed. The governing factor is self-interest of the acting country. Experts do exist but are virtually invisible when their dissenting opinions challenge the interests of politicians promoting a particular foreign policy. One can recall, as an example, that pivotal American politicians expressed surprise at “how come that the Serbs occupied Bosnia?” That the Serbs were in Bosnia for the past Thirteen Centuries, an easily verifiable fact, did not seem to bother anyone. One might encounter a replica by asking a newly-minted “authority” on Afghanistan (that had learned only yesterday that Pashtuns live in this land) what is the language spoken by the Afghans, for example?

Would the planet earth be out of its present-version of Hell without the United States? This is, however, not the question posed by the current crises at all. In any case, the randomly distributed power secured a balance of power and produced a relative stability in the second part of the Twentieth Century. It may seem absurd but nuclear deterrence ensured stability. As French political philosophers pointed out some centuries ago, a Power that has no opposition would inevitably succumb to “absolute corruption” and project terror. The Greeks knew this as well and tried to limit mandates of dictators who were sometimes needed in times of crises. The present World acutely needs guidance from international Justice and International Law as such guidance can hardly come from the U.S. despite all the pious local statements of “respect for and adherence to.” The ideals of International Justice and Law will have to be reinvigorated and made to matter as so much has been already invested in them over the centuries since Hugo Grotius, the founder of International Law. To do less is to insure that the current earthly Hell will look puny at some not too distant future date. Perhaps, ways may be found to assure the APPLICATION of the extant International Law, instead of validating self-serving amendments.

The question of whether there really is a choice deserves a common-sense answer. There always is a choice. The arguments proposed in this text have shown that there are a number of alternatives on hand. Equally, another look at Table I will lead to the realization that there is a significant difference between the NAZI and MEIT wars and the imperial wars. The majority of concepts from the same Table are definitely not typical of imperial wars.

5. Not a Conclusion

We all want a better world, more justice, more rights, more economic security, more freedom and more of humanism, perhaps even simple kindness and respect. At the same time, we would like to have all this fast. No sane person can disagree with these goals but the means used to attain them are absolutely miserable and contemptible.

Humanism is distinctly losing out. We are even witnessing the ultimate twisting of Humanism in war, bombing a people while dropping food packages and causing mega numbers of refugees. The exact antecedent of Afghan refugees was in Kosovo. Ethnic Albanian refugees only came out by the hundreds of thousands ONLY AFTER the NATO (primarily U.S.) bombs and missiles began to descend from the undefended skies. The NATO propaganda, widely disseminated, attributed this “claim” to the “Serb propaganda.” At least, in contrast, no one has as yet argued seriously that the Afghan refugees fled only from internal struggles. The first step into DECENCY needs to be grounded in actuality. It will never come about through psychological conditioning and manipulation. The advocates of war must be stopped at the gates.

Innocent people die and are maimed in the havoc of wars and it is the Mankind’s OBLIGATION to protect them from war-induced disasters, first and foremost by avoiding wars at any price. As there are always individuals who will kill innocent people through their decisions we must identify and expose them as being extremely dangerous. All societies should learn how to protect themselves from persons of such inherent evil, in fact of such deep ignorance – since we maintain the evil IS ignorance - in local positions of power and influence.

All problems of society that existed centuries ago are still present. Over two thousand years of “Civilization” have been too short to solve even the essential controversies. Alas, there is a shared but the false conviction that a great deal has been achieved, as we are dazzled by the scientific progress alone. In any other sense, the achievements are rather un-enviable. Democracy seems to disappear as soon as vigilance in its defense and its maintenance begin to sag. There is hardly a general desire to learn about “other” peoples, their desires, customs, esteems, convictions and hopes. “Our” values, institutions and customs are invariably and inherently superior and there can be no foot-dragging in efforts to impose them on everyone else.

When “scientific” progress is mentioned, one often forgets that we have also surpassed by far our ancestors in the ability for mass killings. We are convinced to be justified in so doing but do not remember that “primitive peoples” from the past were equally convinced but only less able to cause massive destruction. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make real advances in the huge field of morality if we delude ourselves into having already attained a state of justice and moral wisdom. It should be possible however to facilitate the task, to make it simpler by aiming for just one, single thing, one improvement only. Even assuming that the present writer is actually wrong in his essay, there is a single but essential objection to be made to the whole Western society and especially the U.S. as the sole super-Power of today. It is inherently justifiable through a simple question – “Why kill?” If the U.S. could bring itself to just try and stop killing people abroad that would be a very good start indeed.

Notes.
1. Franz Neumann: Behemoth, Structure and Praxis of National - Socialism 1933 - 1944, Oxford University Press, 1942; 1944.

2. Die Denkschrift des Prinzen Max von baden uber den „ethnischen Imperialismus, In: Reinhard Opitz (Hrsg), Europastrategien des deutchen Kapitals, 1900-1945, Paul Rugenstein verlag, Koeln, 1977.

3. Some significant passages we could find in Mathisa Kunzel. Mathias Künzel: Der Weg in den Krieg:, Elefanten Press, Berlin, 2000, p 95-96: "Seit über achtzig Jahren wird Machtpolitik in Deutschland auf besonderer Weise verbrämt. Im März 1918 verfasste Prinz Max von Baden, der bald darauf zum Reichskanzler ernannt wurde, eine Eingabe an den Kaiser. Ihr Titel: DIE DENKSCHRIFT ÜBER DEN ETHNISCHEN IMPERIALISMUS" (In: Reinhard Opitz (Hrsg), Europastrategien des deutchen Kapitals, 1900-1945, Paul Rugenstein verlag, Koeln, 1977, S. 420-440).Behandelt wird darin eine Fragestellung von höchster Aktualität: Wie kann eine imperiale Machtpolitik so präsentiert werden, dass sie selbst "im Lichte der schärfsten Weltkritik, auf Zustimmung stößt". "Will der deutsche Imperialismus dem Ansturm der Demokratie mit ihrem Anspruch auf die Weltverbesserung Stand halten, so muss er sich ethnisch fundieren". Mit dem reinen Machtanspruch kann die Demokratie mühelos fertig werden...darum müssen wir allgemeine Menschheitsziele in unseren nationalen Willen aufnehmen."

4. As cited in Mathias Kuntzel: (Idem): Schon bei Baden werden jene "Menschheitsziele" aber volkisch definiert. Der Weltkrieg, der er den "Panzer" der früheren Weltordnung sprengte, habe die Geschicke ganzer Völker erneut zur Entscheidung gebracht.....Neu entstandene Staatengebilde bedürfen die Anlehnung und des Schutzes.... Wir sind ihre Nachbarn und Befreier.(p. 254)

5. Idem. Ein anderer Ideologe griff dies auf und gab diesem Gedanken eine Überschrift die auch heute nicht nur bei Konservativen, sondern auch im grün-alternatieven Lager auf Beifall stößt:" MENSCHENRECHT BRICHT STAATSRECHT" Der Autor dieser Lösung, Adolf Hitler, präzisierte diesen Gedanken wie folgt (" A.Hitler, Mein Kampf. Bd.1, 35 Auflage,München 1934,S.104.): "Wenn durch die Hilfsmittel der Regierungsgewalt ein Volkstum dem Untergang geführt wird, dann ist die Rebellion eines jeden Angehörigen eines solchen Volkes nicht nur Recht, sondern Pflicht...nicht die Erhaltung eines Staates, sei der höchste Zweck des Daseins der Menschen, sonder die Bewahrung ihrer Art ( ....) Dieser Vorstellung entsprechen wurde im Zweiten Weltkrieg sogenannte "Volksgruppen-Komandos" auf der Suche nach "Volksmischgebieten" durch ganz Europa gesandt, um dort den "Völkischen Selbsterhaltungstrieb"(Hitler) von staatlichen Minderheiten im ersten Schritt aufzuwiegeln, dann ihnen das Bedürfnis nach "Autonomie" anheim zu geben und drittens deren Staaten bei Bedarf auseinander zu sprengen. "In Frankreich sollten mehrere neue Staaten entstehen, für jede "Minderheit" einer. Die Bretonen, Burgunder oder das "Volk" von Savoyen rief die deutsche Zentralgewalt zum Kampf auf. Deutschlands Europapropaganda pries "Autonomie", "Identität"...., heizte den Separatismus an und spaltete die okkupierte Nationen. (See also Walter von Goldenbach and Rüdiger von Minov in a book Von Krieg zum Krieg, Köln 1999, p.6.

6. Heinrich Himmler (15. Mai 1940) (In: Reinhard Opitz (Hrsg), Europastrategien des deutschen Kapitals, 1900-1945, Paul Rugenstein Verlag, Köln, 1977, Teil IV: „Bei der Behandlung der Fremdvölkischen im Osten müssen wir darauf sehen, soviel wie möglich einzelne Völkerschaften anzuerkennen und zu pflegen, also neben den Polen und Juden die Ukrainer, die Weißrussen, die Goralen, die Lemken und die Kaschuben. Wenn sonst noch irgendwo Volkssplitter zu finden sind, auch diese.
Ich will damit sagen, dass wir nicht nur das grosste Interesse daran haben, die Befohlkehrung des Ostens nicht zu einen, sondern im Gegenteil in möglicht viele Teile und Splitter zu zergliedern.
Aber auch innerhalb der Völkerschaften selbst haben wir nicht Interesse, diese zu Einheit und Grosse zu furen, ihnen vielleicht allmählich nationalbewusstfein und nationale Kultur beizubringen, sondern sie in unzaelige kleine Splitter und Partikel aufzulosen."

7. Internet (reference unknown)

8. (Robert Drislane, Ph.D. and Gary Parkinson, Ph.D. The online version of this dictionary is a product of Athabasca University and ICAAP.)

9. As we have pointed out earlier (D. Pavlovic, Justice, tribunal et héritage helléniques “Dialogue”, No 18 (Editorial),. 1998): Quoi qu'il en soit, il ne sera pas simple non plus de partir de la responsabilité pour arriver à la culpabilité. Mais une telle approche, une approche structurelle globale, permettrait de mieux analyser le processus d'éclatement d'un conflit et satisferait en même temps au droit international. Ainsi condamner des crimes individuels prendraient son sens véritable et le tribunal sa pleine valeur juridique. D'ailleurs, la plupart des théories servant à expliquer les phénomènes sociaux ne tiennent pas seulement compte des facteurs micro (les individus) mais également macro (les institutions, les structures, les normes sociales).

La question du passage du niveau micro au niveau macro a été longtemps discutée et la littérature en sciences sociales continue à en débattre. Max Weber, en 1904, dans "De l'éthique du protestantisme et de l'esprit du capitalisme" (Max Weber, The Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism, Scribner's, 1958) en a donné un exemple classique en expliquant l'influence des valeurs sociales religieuses sur l'organisation économique de la société.

Passons maintenant brièvement aux explications théoriques. D'après certains théoriciens (ceux du holizam méthodologique, le point de vue prédominant), (i) les facteurs macro filtrent les préalables psychologiques des phénomènes, neutralisant tous ceux ne concernant pas ces phénomènes (Robert Nozik, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basil Blackwell, 1988, p.22), (ii) les facteurs macro produisent les préalables psychologiques aux phénomènes (Louis Althusser, Reading Capital, New Left Books, 1970, p.180), ou bien (iii) les facteurs macro programment la réalisation des phénomènes en accroissant leur vraisemblance (Frank Jackson et Philip Pettit, "Structural explanation in Social Theory", in David Charles et Kathleen Lennon, Reduction, Explanation and Realism, Claredon Press, 1992). D'autres théoriciens (ceux de l'individualisme méthodologique) privilégient les facteurs micro (Jon Elster, Explaining Technical Change, Cambridge University Press, 1983). Enfin, certains chercheurs prennent en considération aussi bien les facteurs micro que macro et proposent une solution complexe de compromis (James Bohman, New Philosophy of Social Science, Problems of Indeterminacy, Polity Press, 1991). Le comportement agressif des groupes est un phénomène social qui, comme tout autre, peut faire l'objet d'une analyse des relations de cause à effet. Punir les crimes de guerre commis, bien que ce soit totalement justifié sur le plan moral, ne supprime pas la cause des crimes. Les conditions de guerre, qui d'un point de vue théorique correspondent au niveau macro, en sont une cause incontestable.

---

Dragan Pavlovic
e-mail: draganparis@hotmail.com