[Peace-discuss] Pacifism and Politics

[Al Kagan]

I sent this letter to The Octopus about 2 weeks ago.  They said they 
were going to publish it this week, but it didn't happen.  I also 
sent a version of it to the Daily Illini a week ago with no response. 
So, I figure I will at least share it with you.

Pacifism and Politics

Dear Editor,

I have read several letters recently that equate pacifism to 
political anti-war arguments. While there are undoubtedly pacifists 
in our community who would oppose all wars, these folks are generally 
not writing the political letters against plans for a "war" on 
terrorism.  Sometimes it is hard to see the forest instead of the 
trees. 

Those who support a wider war that would certainly kill thousands of 
civilians are entitled to advance their opinions.  However one can 
hope that we all will form our opinions after considering the 
background and the many sides of the arguments. Those who equate 
pacifism to a political anti-war position are misunderstanding the 
whole discussion.

I am not a pacifist but I am opposed to going to war against innocent 
people who happen to live in a dangerous place.  If we really believe 
in the rule of law, we should be in favor of bringing terrorists to 
justice.  Why isn't anyone in Washington talking about capturing the 
alleged terrorists and bringing them to the International Criminal 
Court for a fair trial and legal justice?  President Clinton tried to 
kill Bin Laden and disable his organization by firing missiles at 
Afghanistan and Sudan but accomplished nothing except death, 
destruction and making more enemies. 

Remember that the United States Government armed the people who later 
became The Taliban in order to fight against the Soviet occupation of 
Afghanistan.  The U.S. helped create and then used these people as 
pawns to fight the Cold War. Of course, President Clinton had no 
trouble in finding and firing missiles into Bin Laden's camps in 
Afghanistan!  President Clinton also bombed Sudan's major 
pharmaceutical factory at the same time.  Clinton claimed that the 
factory was connected to Bin Laden's organization and that they were 
making chemical or biological weapons there.  Although the U.S. later 
admitted that these claims were untrue, Sudan has lost the ability to 
provide basic medicines for its people.  This is the devastating 
effect of the U.S. Government's first battle against Bin Laden.

I hope I have made my point clearly.  There is a difference between 
being a pacifist and opposing the likely scenario for a "war" against 
terrorism.  It is quite patriotic to oppose massive warfare that will 
likely encourage further terrorist attacks on U.S. targets.  It is 
certainly patriotic to try to hold the U.S. Government to the ideals 
set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. 

Instead of blindly following leaders, we need to wake up and take a 
good hard look at American foreign policy and its effects around the 
world.  We need to be able to admit that the U.S. Government is not 
the angel that it pretends to be.  When a sufficient number of people 
do that, we may be able to change the policies that encourage 
terrorism.

Al Kagan
-- 


Al Kagan
African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
Africana Unit, Room 328
University of Illinois Library
1408 W. Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801, USA

tel. 217-333-6519
fax. 217-333-2214
e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20011019/eb501f03/attachment.html