From the Polish daily newspaper Zycie Warszawy, a view of the conflict in Iraq, the "war on terror", and Poland's place in both, that shows points of similarity to West European deliberations on the rights and wrongs of what has happened in the world since Setember 11 2001, yet at the same time offers a different slant and emphasis from the usual Western perspectives on the matter. My own view of the author's arguments is that wbile I agree with many of the points he raises in the first part of his essay, some of the arguments presented in its second part are all too familiar from Western anti-war comment, and let his analysis down somewhat.
The article's author, Janusz Zablocki, begins by observing that the Iraq war is just as unpopular in Poland as in the rest of Europe, and points to some special reasons why this is so:
The changes we are observing in Poles' mood stem from several causes. The first is undoubtedly the blurred clarity with which the aims of this war are perceived, something all of world opinion is now experiencing. We realized that this war was of a preventative nature, and -- contrary to the whole tradition of international law to date, and without regard for UN sanctions -- it assumed that the United States has a unilateral right to attack a country considered to be potentially threatening to it, and thus constitutes a new, dangerous precedent in today's world. Despite this, we joined this war alongside the Americans as their allies, in the conviction that this was necessary to defend the peace and security of nations against terrorism, which had shown its menacing and ugly countenance to humanity in the attack on Manhattan on 11 September. These arguments met with comprehension in our country. For Poland, we expected a wider economic and political presence in the Middle East after the fall of Saddam.
But when Saddam's regime collapsed, it turned out that there were no weapons in Iraq threatening the world, nor was any evidence found of ties between Iraqi authorities and al-Qa'ida or the 11 September attacks. And so, questions began to appear concerning the credibility of the US President's statements, and of the information supplied to him by US intelligence. As Poles, we have a vital interest in the position of the United States; our overarching state interests demand that the United States should effectively provide leadership in the world. Meanwhile, what happened undermined world confidence in such leadership.
"Poland's overarching state interests," Zablocki continues, "under the current balance of forces in the world, demand for Poland to be in an alliance with the United States. They also demand for the United States, and no other power aspiring to this, should provide leadership in the world. Also in our national interests is a lasting US military presence in Europe, and a presence -- symbolic at least -- in Poland."
In criticizing features and elements of United States policy, Poland does not wish to disengage itself from an alliance with the U.S., the country which did the most to help the pro-democracy movement in Poland during the Cold War, and which has perhaps also done most to safeguard Poland's national security in the post-Soviet period. In fact, Zablocki argues, the time has come for Poland to present its own vision "not only of policy in Iraq, but also of a global solution to the problem of terrorism and relations with the world of Islam."
The "war on terrorism", Zablocki believes, is unwinnable
because the definition of terrorism that has so far been adopted is erroneous and meager, boiling terrorism down to merely a certain fighting technique, without comprehension of the psychological, socioeconomic, and cultural conditions from which it stems. There is no such thing as "world terrorism" -- this is a conceptual phrase that mixes up highly varied phenomena. It is not sufficient to believe that terrorists are simply morally bad people, because this blots out the truth that aside from "pathological terrorism," this phenomenon frequently manifests -- admittedly in improper and condemnable form -- the desperate resistance of weaker groups to extant injustice, to their deprival of elementary rights, to the violation of human rights and the rights of small nations, given the lack of a reaction to this from world opinion.
In reading these lines, one must bear in mind that this is a Polish commentator writing, from a Polish political persepctive, and with a deep consciousness of Poland's own history of resistance to some of the worst acts of terror - both from Nazi Germany and from Soviet Russia - that have been recorded in human history. While one may disagree with Zablocki on points of emphasis, it is hard to counter his characterization of some of the political violence in the modern world as being the result of what he terms "the despair of the tormented":
This is why the conceptual phrase "war on terrorism" is being willingly adopted today by regimes violating human rights; this is why assistance for the US President is being eagerly pledged by rulers who find in it absolution for their own actions, sometimes downright genocidal, against the freedom aspirations of oppressed nations: Chechens, Palestinians, Kurds, Tibetans, Uighurs. And in the future -- of anyone who at any time does not want to yield to the violence of imperialist powers. Vladimir Putin, in becoming President Bush's most valued ally, not only gained a free hand to crack down on Chechnya, but also -- after the Beslan tragedy -- quiet consent to declare his right to make preventative strikes against terrorists throughout the world. Up to now, the United States reserved this right exclusively for itself. Today Chinese President Hu Jintao, joining the world war against terrorism, at the same time expands it to include jointly fighting "separatism." The threat in this is that given such premises, the war on terrorism will take on traits of a new "Holy Covenant." We would not like to end up in the same ranks with such allies.
All of this makes quite a lot of sense - except perhaps for the inclusion of "Palestinians" among those who have been radicalized into violent opposition. For the radicalization of Palestinians surely stems largely from the ideological influence of the Moscow-trained Arafat - the radicalization of Chechens has proceeded rather from the brutal treatment they have received for decades by the authorities in Moscow. And it's a mistake to conflate these two areas of conflict, even though they may on the surface appear to be similar.
Zablocki also points to the ways in which the terrorists can achieve their goals by inflicting blows at the very heart of the democratic processes through which the West has evolved its freedoms:
Already now, the "Patriot Act" antiterrorist law opens up to the US Administration practically unlimited access to all the personal data of citizens, enables the police to listen in on their conversations, to search their apartments without their knowledge, and to check their bank accounts. Preventative actions demand that the oasis of freedom, prosperity, and security that the Euro-Atlantic West has so far constituted, and to which it owed its prestige and attractiveness in the world, would have to be transformed into a fortress fenced off from the rest of the world. This is a price that democratic Western societies will not want to pay, not just because they are ardent lovers of what they have already achieved, but also because they will depart in this fashion from their own system of values and will lose their moral title to act in the role of missionaries of freedom.
In such an unwinnable war, Zablocki believes, the best course may be to abandon the concept of all-out confrontation, and to seek the middle road of compromise and negotiation. Seeking contact, for example, with moderate Islamic opinion, not taking the extreme path adopted by figures like Putin, who refuse all negotiation, and who classify all dissent, whether moderate or not, as "terrorist banditry", and looking for ways in which the problems of oppressed minorities can be addressed, not by violence, but by influence and discussion.
It's only when, towards the end of the article, Zablocki states that tis "multilateral" approach to the problem demands, with relation to the Middle East, "a departure from identification with the policy of Israel" that one detects a depressingly familiar note in his argument, and begins to see substantial weaknesses in it - for why should Israel not receive support and backing from the U.S., just as Poland has received it?
Above all, Zablocki sees a historical role for Poland:
Poland's mission could prove to be tilting the balance in the debate, in favor of just such a path. Today, now more than ever, we have to take a deeper look at the recommendations given to us by Pope John Paul II. He was from the outset opposed to launching war against Iraq, and appealed for peaceful solutions to be sought. Due to the nature of the Vatican's mission and thanks to the dialog with Islam initiated by recent popes, it is predestined to play the role of a great mediator between the two worlds. Such mediation could make a valuable contribution to extinguishing the war between them, to bolstering the forces of moderation and reconciliation on both sides, to seeking peaceful solutions, and to increasing mutual comprehension and confidence.
The fullest support for such a direction of action should be provided by Poland, which as a result of its location and history of experience in contacting the Muslim East, which fought wars against it, but also set an example in its lands of the peaceful and concordant coexistence of Christians with Muslims settling here, bears all the traits to take the initiative on this issue. This is perhaps the most crucial element of the mission we have to perform in this new millennium.
Via Marius at Chechnya-SL
No comments:
Post a Comment