What if the terrorists make one or two demands which are just? Must a just demand be refused if it was demanded in the wrong fashion?
"But their demands are not just."
If their demands are not just, then it is irrelevant how the demands were made. It is irrelevant that the demanders happen to be terrorists. An unjust demand should never be met, no matter how the demands were made, even if the demands were made very politely and according to all the rules of civilized behavior.
But what if a particular demand is in fact just? Then should it be met, even though the demanders used terrorism?
Basically, the answer has to be yes. Perhaps there should be a deliberate delay, or there should be a detour by the decision-makers to make it appear that they are doing this not in response to terrorist acts, so as to discourage other future potential terrorists from resorting to the same means to get what they want.
But one way or another a just demand has to be met. Otherwise we are saying that we must perpetuate injustice even on innocent people because these few guilty ones demanded justice in an inappropriate manner.
Perhaps if the only ones to benefit from the demands for justice are the few who committed terrorism, then it would be right to reject the demands on the grounds that the demanders committed criminal acts and thus forfeited their right to make any demands or have their otherwise-just demands met.
But in the current "war on terrorism" the terrorists have made some demands which are not mainly for themselves, but rather for millions of others, i.e., for the entire populations of Mideast countries.
What if the demand that foreign military forces not be stationed in the Middle East is a just demand. Do people inhabiting a region of the world have a right to demand that foreign troops not be stationed on their soil and that foreign warships not be stationed in nearby waters ready to launch an attack?
Surely such demands have been made many times by many countries and have been given some legitimacy.
The closing of the bases in Saudi Arabia has been specifically demanded. Why shouldn't the U.S. meet this demand, and perhaps also close any other bases anywhere in the world where the local population has shown that it does not want such bases located there?
"But the government there approves of the bases."
Yes, but the Saudi government is not democratically elected and clearly does not reflect the popular will. Does a superpower have the right to defy the popular will and station its troops in a country if it can persuade a dictatorial regime there to agree to it?
Perhaps the answer is yes. The people at large are ignorant fools who don't know any better. Those military bases don't really hurt them, and they are necessary, so the people there should just accept it, and any terrorists should be hunted down and killed, because they are wrong. And so are any people who sympathize with them, and some of these innocent civilians may have to be killed too, unfortunately, because of their ignorance. That's not our fault.
This argument might be plausible. But it is not plausible until it is actually made by the proponents of the U.S. military bases. In other words, those who demand for the U.S. to have these bases and to carry on other military operations in the Mideast, such as the sanctions on Iraq, must be forthright and state this argument.
They must declare that the poor populations of Saudi Arabia and Iraq and other Mideast countries are too ignorant and foolish to understand and must be overruled. Probably they are inferior to us of the West, being of lower genetic stock, and cannot be granted the same rights of self-determination which Westerners enjoy. Their dictatorial regimes are a necessary control on them, being the rabble that they are. They must be kept under control, like insect pests.
Let the leaders of the West say this, and then they will have made their case. Until then, they do not have a case, and logic dictates that their interventionist policy is wrong.
The interventionist policy contradicts the present principle of self-determination, and it is assumed that all humans are entitled to self-determination. And in some cases where people might be ignorant, the solution is not to overrule them and deny them freedom of choice, but rather to promote more information and education among the populace.
Also, people who might be ignorant must be allowed to make mistakes. They must be allowed to choose a wrong course, because this is one way people learn, by making mistakes.
In the Philippines, a major U.S. military base was finally closed when that country became democratic and the general population chose to expel the Americans. And the U.S. finally gave in. Was this a tragic mistake?
From the U.S. point of view, perhaps it was harmful, because it made the U.S. a little bit weaker.
Perhaps it was also a mistake for the Philippines, because they might have enjoyed some economic benefits, and the base there didn't really do them any harm. But that is for the Filipinos to decide. And if it actually did them more harm than good, then it is for them to suffer the consequences of their mistake. The solution would be to educate them and persuade them to change their mind (or any other poor country which might be faced with a similar decision).
The right approach is not for the U.S. to impose what it thinks is right onto a population, because it knows better what is good for those people, and so set up a dictatorial regime to impose it onto the country in question.
If, on the other hand, it is simply a matter of U.S. interests vs. the interests of that regional population, and the U.S. must always advance its own interests, then there is an inevitable conflict being created between the U.S. and that population, and the U.S. should not be surprised at the appearance of dissident militants who resort to "terrorism."
The fact that they are "terrorists" is beside the point. The only reason they resort to "terrorism" is that they have no other choice. They are weak. What else can they do, against the vastly superior U.S. military power?
No, if it's simply a matter of U.S. interests vs. those people's interests, then there will be a war, and the poor people of that country or region will resort to whatever means they find necessary. When you're fighting for your interests, for your homeland, for your way of life, you use whatever means are necessary. And you may be content to remain a spectator and let "terrorists" carry on the fight for you, and give them tacit support in subtle ways.
None of this answers whether their demands should be met. The question has to be: Are their demands just or not? If only some are just, then which ones? Those just demands should be granted, no matter how they were made. And the unjust demands should be denied.
And when someone in power finds that dissidents are resorting to criminal methods to make their just demands, then that one in power must ask why it became necessary for the dissidents to resort to this instead of getting their demands met earlier by peaceful means. Those who have the power also have the responsibility to provide avenues whereby just demands can be presented to them.
Not always. But in some cases, yes, that will happen. N'importe! Those demands that are just should be met, and those which are not just should be denied. It's that simple. What other rule makes any sense?
Provide peaceful avenues for dissidents to present their demands, and make it easier for them to get their demands heard by these means. Make it easy for all peaceful dissidents to have a hearing, and make any criminal acts punishable. So the terrorists will be punished for their crimes as much as possible. But don't say that unjust policies must be perpetuated because some of the demanders did criminal acts. To do this is to commit further crime. One crime does not justify commiting another or perpetuating another.
E-mail your response to the above to: Polemiks@aol.com It will be posted here (but allow 2-3 weeks (or 4-5)).
Return to: SocialContract.com
Return to: WhyTheyHateUs.net