From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Mon Jul 21 2008 - 20:02:33 EDT
U.N. Observer Says Governments Using Terror to Instill Fear in Communities
By Syed Akbar Kamal
The Public Record
Published in : Nation/World
Prof. Hans Koechler paid a visit to Auckland recently to deliver lecture on
‘The Global War on Terror - Contradictions of an Imperial Strategy'. He is
President of the International Progress Organisation (IPO) and a renowned
international jurist, activist expert on international law, injustice, and
power politics, academic and much-published progressive author: Dr
Koechler's clear perceptions on the subject assume greater relevance here
now, following the terror raids, arrests, and mass intimidation of Tuhoe
last October; and the subsequent Law Commission review now underway of NZ's
criminal and terrorist legislation.
Since 1972, UN Secretaries-General in their statements subsequently
acknowledged Professor Köchler’s contributions to international peace. In
April 2000, Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Professor Koechler as
international observer at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands (Lockerbie
Trial) which to this day remains unresolved largely due to the
non-compliance of the British government in releasing the supposedly secret
information to the court.
Darpan-The Mirror : Dr. Hans Koechler, welcome, welcome to Aotearoa. Thank
you for being willing on your holiday to spend some time sharing your
knowledge with us. You have talked tonight about the global war on
terror-what is it new about terror and terrorism in the current context?
Prof. Koechler: The new feature is that a kind of universal threat is now
being connected to the term terrorism and fear is being instilled into the
people because they are make believe that there is a threat to our western
civilization even to the very survival of the western community and to the
preservation of the identity that is emanating from this kind of illusive
enemy which is called international terrorism. That I think is the new
feature because in earlier decades, in earlier eras, terrorists acts were
specified and people identified certain-the interests coming from certain
specific groups but now apparently this danger is somehow general and vague
and entire civilizations are presented as a threat to our own civilization.
Darpan-The Mirror: So who is promoting this and why?
Prof. Koechler: As far as I can see it is promoted by the establishment,
powerful political and economic establishment, media establishment in the
leading countries of the western world. On top of them first and foremost
is the United States of America and in addition for instance the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and the Northern Island and some other Western
allies.
Darpan-The Mirror: And what do they have to gain from this?
Prof. Koechler: Well, frankly speaking, it is about the global power in a
situation in which there is no challenge to the Western supremacy and
particularly in which there is no real threat to the security of the
Western world. I mean after the demise of communists, after the collapse of
the Soviet block; apparently one feels the need to create another enemy
stereotype which will allow to somehow justify certain measures of control
over the rest of the world. Usually a government needs an enemy; people
have to be rallied around the government in defence against an enemy from
outside and this threat or the other which is now supposedly threatening
the west is presented as terror- or as terrorism or as the terrorists.
Darpan-The Mirror: You described it as self-defeating; why do you think it
is self defeating?
Prof. Koechler: It is finally doomed to fail because it necessitates a
constant a kind of perpetual mobilisation of the people and of the
resources of a country. When you present the threat as universal and when
there is no possibility to identify specifically certain groups from which
the threat emerges, you have to engage in a total of strategy of prevention
and you have to exclude even the slightest possibility of attack from
whichever direction and that means you have to be prepared 24 hours seven
days a week hundred percent. And for that reason somehow the …somehow
the…strength or the capacities of the countries that engage in such an
undertaking will be exhausted and the other reason why I think this is in
the medium and long term is a self-defeating exercise. And the other reason
is this kind of strategy antagonizes entire nations and even peoples and
civilizations in such a way that they will not feel any loyalty towards
those countries that engage in that struggle and they may challenge the
supremacy of those countries and they may be more determined in their
resistance than they otherwise would be, if there would be a kind of
rational relationship on the basis of the definition of mutual interest, as
also could be the case.
Darpan-The Mirror: Why have politicians, political leaders, intellectual
leaders in so much of the west not challenged? You gave the example of the
Japanese member of the senate who had raised issues and those issues had
not appeared in the mainstream media. What- Why do you think that is
occurring?
Prof. Koechler: I personally feel on the basis of my own experience now
over several decades having dealt with issues particularly of the Middle
East of the Muslim world that most of the people in the media and in the
academic community are just afraid for their own position. They do not want
to somehow be marginalized or that they do not want to be sidelined which
would be the case if they speak out critically against this entire
strategy. So it is a kind of opportunism or the kind of fear which people
are not able to overcome because very often if one really speaks out, one
is confronted with quiet strong media campaigns and the careers of some
people might suffer if they do speak out.
Darpan-The Mirror: But if we contrast that to the civil rights campaigns
and the challenges that there were to the suppression of rights during the
1960’s, 1970’s in the West- we are now seeing a revisiting of the
normalization, militarization, of suppression of fundamental rights. What’s
different? Why are we seeing those voices of dissent now?
Prof. Koechler: I think that as far as Europe is concerned, then I am only
an expert on these matters; in Europe as far as Europe is concerned the
entire social climate if one may use that term, is different compared to
the 1960’s and also our students in universities nowadays are much less
outspoken and are much more obedient so to speak as far as the politically
correct opinions are concerned. But maybe the situation now has to do with
a kind of overall opinion control or fear that has been instilled into the
people and no one dares to be or doesn’t want to be disloyal towards his
community or wants to speak out against the supplementary soft state.
Darpan-The Mirror: So how would you relate this to that of Palestine? We
have seen the stories of killings and maiming everyday; we have seen the
depravation of basic necessities of life- of access to electricity and to
water and food? How do you interpret or analyze the situation in Palestine
and the responses to it within the framework of your thinking?
Prof. Koechler: As far as I understand that I have followed the
developments in Palestine since 1970’s and that means it’s now more than
three decades, as far as I see it, most of what you refer to now, most of
the events are not adequately presented to the wider public; most of the
people would just not know what is really going on, the news’ are filtered
through the corporate media, if people would really be aware of the
situation…people live…under which people live in for instance the Gaza
strip, there would be some stronger and critical position against the
policies for instance of the western countries. But as far as I see it,
there is a lack of…lack of comprehensive information and the other problem
as far as Palestine is concerned is that is this linkage with Islam as a
threat and particularly terrorism-the linkage of Islam and terrorism.
Darpan-The Mirror: So when you are looking at the way the western states
respond to the use of force to suppress resistance movements, freedom
fighters, terrorists however they are defined by one side or the other.
What are the factors that you think drive the decisions of states now can I
put that in the local context…
Prof. Koechler: Yeah.
Darpan-The Mirror: Our government here for example had no problem with
recognizing the General who lead the coup in Thailand. The military
government there and the government here was perfectly happy to deal with,
had no problem in dealing with Musharraf in Pakistan; Bainimarama the
leader of the military coup in Fiji is ostracized, there are sanctions
against anyone in the military including one who wanted to come here in
January whose family members were part of the military, what are the kinds
of considerations do you think that drive the differential responses of the
western leaders to regimes that are actually very similar in their
particular style and in the suppression of rights attached to it?
Prof. Koechler: I would use the term of “the policy of double standards”. A
government applies certain principles of legality or certain criteria of
the rule of law selectively according to the specific constellation of
interest. And so it is no surprise to me, of course I am not aware of the
specific policies of the government here, but it is of no surprise to me to
see that the government applies certain principles or insists on the
implementation of certain principles in one case and totally overlooks
them. Of course in the neighbourhood there may be different interests…and
different from which your country may have…that explains…why one insists on
certain rules in this case and does not insists on certain rules in other
cases. Of course, that creates a credibility problem but I do not
know...frankly speaking upto the present moment I do not know of any
government which really would be consistent in the application of
principles and which would avoid in its foreign policy the so-called policy
of double standards.
Darpan-The Mirror: The New Zealand government has also made great play out
of the fact that it did not join the coalition of the willing in the
invasion of Iraq but it’s there in Afghanistan; Does that sound a
convincing clean hands kind of principled approach to you or do you have
problems with that kind of differentiation?
Prof. Koechler: In terms of legal doctrines, I would say I would have
problems with this kind of differentiation but one could say first of all
the government of New Zealand made a good decision in not sending troops to
Iraq may of the government that joined the coalition of the willing regret
this by now and some have already withdrawn their troops. So the government
here was lucky in having not fallen into that trap but as far as new
principles are concerned in my view the interventions in both countries
Iraq and as well as in Afghanistan are a violation of sovereignity of those
countries and both interventions are not duly justified or legitimized by
international law; even in the case of Afghanistan there is no
authorization of the intervention by American and NATO forces in that
country.
Darpan-The Mirror: So do you think International law has become so devalued
that it is no longer actually defendable in many of those instances or do
you think it is a recoverable concept that might still have some value if
it can be removed from the grip of the Security Council?
Prof. Koechler: I don’t know. Eventually it may already be beyond repair so
to speak. The big problem I see it that in a situation in a global
constellation in which there is no balance of power there is absolutely no
incentive for the hegemonial country to abide...to abide by the rule of law
or to obey the law. There is no incentive for instance for that country to
respect Security Council resolutions, on other way because of the veto this
country like for others can block any decisions by that Council at any
moment. But as far as Afghanistan is concerned the situation went even that
far that for instance my own country the Republic of Austria which
according to its constitution is permanently neutral according to the Swiss
model. Even my country has sent forces though in a very small number but
sent forces to Afghanistan. Of course people say that this is not
compatible with the statutes of permanent neutrality. Can be? It never can
be compatible but these things happen now and one is just reinterpreting
terms according to the constellation, political constellation of interest
at a given moment.
Darpan-The Mirror: So what’s your sense of what might happen in Iran? What
are your fears what might happen?
Prof. Koechler: I did fear that the United States together with their ally
in the Middle East plus one or two European countries might militarily
intervene in Iran and that was according to my knowledge… also the plan of
the United States administration two years ago...one year ago. What I see
now is the inter-actions services of that very country have expressed an
opinion that is contradicting the strategy of the President of the United
States. So now my hope is that the US is reconsidering its war plans
against Iran and that it will not attack Iran because it will totally
destabilize not only the situation in the Middle East but the situation far
beyond that region.
Darpan-The Mirror: You stressed a lot on the foreign policy in ideological
and the economic interests are also integral to this not only in the Middle
East but in the way many economies are now becoming almost dependent on
perpetual certainly many aspects of the economy are; Fiji where you are
going to go tomorrow the Fiji economy is dependent on remittances; almost
90% of remittances are coming from the security workers that are operating
in Iraq; you have an economy that becomes dependent on war and when people
come back and bringing the militarization back into the country itself, do
you see any similar kinds of militarization of economy within Europe and
America that might want to keep perpetuating this process?
Prof. Koechler: As far as Europe is concerned I do not yet see that
tendency firmly established. In United States it appears obvious to me that
there is a kind of self-perpetuating situation and that’s the economic
interests that lead to the involvement of the country into military
adventures. As far as our countries in the European Union are concerned I
think we are not yet reached that stage…the military industry in most of
the European countries is much less strong and much less developed than it
is in the United States.
Darpan-The Mirror: Just one last question…we become aware that terrorism
has become a domestic issue in this country with the arrests that were in
part under the Terrorism Suppression Act with most of those arrested being
Maori Sovereignity activists. Do you think the global war on terror is
actually having an internal dimension that legitimizes the use of state
power against its own dissident internal factions as much as against the
other in the global context? And how in that sense do you think we might
connect the domestic realities to the international experiences?
Prof. Koechler: I am in this country only since very short time so I am not
so familiar with the internal political situation however I do hope that a
distinction will be made between tensions that may exist domestically and
the international issues related to the so-called global war on terror. As
of the present moment I do not see any connection between what is going on
here between the government and the representatives of the native
population of New Zealand and the war on terror. And just hope that no one
will exploits this extremely emotional climate surrounding the global war
on terror for internal domestic politics or for internal security measures.
One thing…the one situation is to be totally kept separate from the other.
Darpan-The Mirror: Thank you very much for your time. We wish you safe
travel and we look forward to having you back here again before July.
Thanks!
Prof. Koechler: You are welcome!
Syed Akbar Kamal is Producer/Director for current affairs programme
Darpan-The Mirror on the World Wide Web.
--
Million.
Mpls MN
***HeGeRey ZBeLet LBe GhiDN'u Kt'ReKeBi AsBei***
AWET N'HAFASH!!!
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----