<nettime> Fritjof Capra: Trying to Understand

[One Infinity <sf@oneinfinity.com>]

This is the text of a talk given by Fritjof Capra the earlier this week at
the Black Oaks bookstore in North Beach, San Francisco.  There were 3
scientists in attendance, there to talk about their work; Fritjof took his
time to deliver this piece he prepared on understanding 9/11 events and
current worldwide situation from a systemic perspective.

I asked him for a copy to share with our own ongoing 911 listserv, thought
nettime would like it as well.

Enjoy,
Seth
One Infinity
www.oneinfinity.com

----------------

Trying to Understand

A Systemic Analysis of International Terrorism

by Fritjof Capra

Fritjof Capra (www.fritjofcapra.net), physicist, systems theorist, and
best-selling author, is a founding director of the Center for Ecoliteracy
(www.ecoliteracy.org), which is dedicated to education for sustainable
living.

The horrific terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11
mark the end of an era ‹ the end of over 200 years of invulnerability on our
continent. We had heard fundamentalist rhetoric about "striking at the heart
of America" for years, but we took it as empty threats. We did not recognize
the emergence of a new weapon on the international stage against which we
were defenseless ‹ the despair-driven, desperate suicide bomber.(1)

This new form of international terrorism exposes the dangerous fallacy of a
national shield against ballistic missiles. Missile defense is of no use
whatsoever when terrorists can turn commercial planes into missiles and
their fuel tanks into bombs with the help of simple box cutters.

A SYSTEMIC PERSPECTIVE

There is no simple defense against international terrorism, because we live
in a complex, globally interconnected world in which linear chains of cause
and effect do not exist. To understand this world, we need to think
systemically ‹ in terms of relationships, connections, and context.

Understanding international terrorism from a systemic perspective means
understanding that its very nature derives from a series of political,
economic, and technological problems that are all interconnected. This
terrorism is not "mindless," and it is not directed against our "freedom and
democracy," as our government wants us to believe.

Terrorism is always a weapon of the politically disempowered and desperate
who feel that they are unable to voice their grievances through conventional
political processes. In order to combat them effectively, we need to clearly
understand the terrorists¹ frustration.(2)

This does not mean that we should shrink from capturing the terrorists and
bringing them to justice. Their crimes are abhorrent beyond words. But we
must learn to distinguish between their criminal methods and fundamentalist
ideologies on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the often legitimate
grievances that drive them into committing such desperate and horrific acts.
We cannot fight terrorism effectively without understanding its roots.

We shall see in particular that much of Islamic fundamentalism is related to
the role of the United States in the Middle East and that extremist Islamic
movements often arise in direct response to American policies. Of course,
the United States is not the only power to blame. There is the insidious
legacy of European colonialism; yet American policies since World War II
have contributed significantly to the recent rise of fundamentalist Islamic
terrorism.(3)

INAPPROPRIATENESS OF MILITARY STRIKES

Understandably, the first reaction to the horrendous attacks on the United
States is the desire to "strike back." But responding to terrorism with
violence, rather than dealing with the context from which it emerged, will
continue to create more violence. We must recognize that military actions
will not succeed in eliminating the rise of militant Islamic movements. On
the contrary, they will result in the deaths of innocent Muslim civilians
that will further fuel anti-American hatred.

Retaliatory strikes against suspected terrorist targets trigger further
retaliation from terrorists and  thus escalate the cycle of violence, as
Israel¹s experience has shown. Surgical strikes make sense only when there
are military targets with heavy equipment, which the terrorist networks do
not have. Moreover, such strikes are often based on faulty intelligence,
which further exacerbates their negative effects.(4)

Since this terrorism is international, the response has to be international
as well. The goals of the coalitions and cooperation within the
international community cannot be limited to identifying and capturing the
terrorists, as they currently are, but must be extended to addressing the
underlying systemic problems. This will be the only way to marginalize the
terrorists and strengthen our security in the long run.

AMERICA'S IMAGE IN THE WORLD

The terrorism we are concerned with is directed against the United States,
and hence the attempt to understand its roots has to begin with the
understanding of America¹s image in the world. This image is multi-faceted.
It includes many positive aspects of our society ‹ such as individual
liberty, cultural diversity, and economic opportunity ‹ as well as the great
enthusiasm for American technology, fashion, sports, and entertainment,
especially among the world¹s youth.

On the other hand, the United States is seen by many as the driving force of
a global capitalism that is supported by military force and is often
socially unjust and environmentally destructive. Indeed, the buildings
attacked by the terrorists on September 11 were proud symbols of American
economic power and military might.
    
U.S. ROLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

To understand the political context of the  recent terrorist attacks, we
need to look specifically at the U.S. role in the Middle East. The common
view in this country is that we have assumed the role of peacemakers in the
region. In other parts of the world, and especially in the Muslim world, the
view is quite different. There is widespread anti-American sentiment, based
on a number of concerns.(5) They include resentment against

o our uncritical support for the Israeli occupation of Arab land, the
dispossession of Palestinians and for state-sponsored assassinations;

o our support of undemocratic and repressive Arab governments, in particular
that of Saudi Arabia;

o ten years of sanctions and military attacks against Iraq, which have
resulted in the deaths of half a million children;

o our massive military presence in the region (seen by Muslim
fundamentalists, especially in Saudi Arabia, as the presence of infidels in
the holy land of Islam), as well as our role as the largest supplier of arms
in the Middle East.

These grievances have contributed to the rise of several radical Islamic
movements, including Hamas and al Qaeda, the terrorist network of Osama bin
Laden.

Now, why do we support repressive regimes, ignore UN resolutions, and
promote violence in the Middle East? The answer, in one word, is "oil." In
the view of our government, the access to Persian Gulf oil is essential to
the security of the United States. In the Gulf region, like in many other
areas in the world, our policies are primarily resource-oriented, designed
to support our wasteful economy.

Thus, the U.S. role in the Middle East and its contribution to the rise of
radical Islamic movements are inextricably linked to our misguided energy
policies.

To assure American access to natural resources around the world, the U.S.
government continually tries to "stabilize" various regions and, in doing
so, has often supported undemocratic and repressive regimes. This has
included support to governments that have engaged in widespread terrorism
against their own populations.(6) Ironically, the U.S. has at times
supported hard-line Islamic movements. Indeed, some of the most notorious
Islamic terrorists today, including many followers of Osama bin Laden, were
originally trained by the CIA.(7)

Our support of repressive governments has helped to encourage underground,
often violent, opposition, and the fact that we ourselves have sponsored
terrorist attacks undercuts our credibility in the fight against terrorism.

RELATIONSHIP WITH SAUDI ARABIA

To understand the motivation of Osama bin Laden and other Islamic
extremists, we need to pay special attention to the U.S. relationship with
Saudi Arabia. This relationship is based on an extraordinary bargain,
concluded in 1945 between President Roosevelt and King Ibn Saud, according
to which Saudi Arabia grants the U.S. unlimited and perpetual access to its
oil fields (which contain 25% of the world¹s known oil reserves!) in
exchange for protection of the Saudi royal family against its enemies, both
external and internal. This bargain has shaped American foreign and military
policy for almost half a century, during which we have protected a
totalitarian regime in Saudi Arabia that blatantly disregards basic human
rights and tramples democracy.(8)

The main purpose of the Gulf war in 1991, originally code-named "Desert
Shield," was not to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, but to protect Saudi Arabia
from a possible attack and to guarantee U.S. access to the Saudi oil fields.
Since then, the U.S. has maintained and steadily expanded its military
presence in the Gulf. In addition we also defend the Saudi regime against
its internal enemies. The Saudi Arabian National Guard, which protects the
royal family, is almost entirely armed, trained, and managed by the United
States.(9)

The goal of Osama bin Laden¹s terrorist network is to drive the U.S. out of
the Gulf region and to replace the corrupt Saudi regime by what they
consider an "authentic" Islamic state. Such a state would be modeled after
that of the fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan, which  is many times more
repressive than the current Saudi regime. Nevertheless, as long as we
continue to support the totalitarian system in Saudi Arabia, our support
will fuel anti-American hatred.

CAUSES OF TERRORIST STRIKES

To summarize, at the core of the multiple causes of the recent terrorist
attacks against the United States lies the U.S. military presence in the
Persian Gulf and our support of the repressive Saudi regime. This presence,
in turn, is a consequence of our dependence on Saudi oil, due to many years
of misguided energy policies.

Bin Laden¹s terrorist network has declared an anti-American jihad, a
religious war, and finds it easy to recruit volunteers among Muslims who
feel frustrated and helpless about other aspects of the U.S. role in the
Middle East. These aspects include, in particular, the U.S. support of the
Israeli occupation of Arab land and the dispossession of Palestinians;
Muslim casualties of U.S.-supported military actions and assassinations, and
especially the death of large numbers of civilians in Iraq.

At a deeper level, the extremists often receive sympathy from Islamic
fundamentalists who are struggling to preserve their cultural identity in
the face of U.S.-led economic globalization.

A MULTI-FACETED ANTI-TERRORIST STRATEGY

The systemic understanding of the background of extremist Islamic terrorism
calls for a multi-faceted anti-terrorist strategy. The immediate goal,
obviously, is to identify and capture the perpetrators and supporters of the
terrorist attacks against the United States, and to bring them to justice
before an international court. Since the extension and scope of this
terrorism is international, it requires sustained international police work,
based on extensive and widespread cooperation among the international
community.

This means, in turn, that the United States will have to reverse its recent
isolationist stance and become a responsible member of the international
community. Instead of weakening or walking away from a series of
international treaties and conventions ‹ including the Kyoto protocol on
global warming, the Biological Weapons Convention, the World Criminal Court,
and the UN Conference on Racism ‹ the Bush Administration needs to realize
that cooperation with the United Nations and other multilateral agencies
will be vital to increase our own strength and security.(10)

In this international collaboration, it will be especially important to
enlist the help of Islamic states in portraying the extremists as enemies of
Islam, because no true Muslim would take thousands of innocent lives in such
reprehensible acts.(11) At the same time, our leaders need to help
counteract American religious stereotypes. We need to make it clear that the
vast majority of the world¹s Muslims opposes terrorism and religious
intolerance.(12)

POLICY SHIFTS

In the long run, the United States will be able to reduce the terrorist
threats only if it adopts a series of policy shifts to deal with the
legitimate grievances that often underlie terrorist acts. Systemic thinking
means shifting our focus from attempting to crush terrorist movements to
pursuing policies that discourage their emergence.

The following two policy shifts would go a long way toward increasing our
national security.

1. A reassessment of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf, including pressure on
the Saudi regime to move toward democratization and the provision of basic
human rights.

2. Promoting a peace agreement that includes the end of Israeli occupation
of Palestinian territories. This would bring the United States in line with
international law, UN Security Council resolutions, and with the views of
virtually the entire international community. In the words of the Israeli
novelist and peace activist Amos Oz,

"With or without Islamic fundamentalism, with or without Arab terrorism,
there is no justification whatsoever for the lasting occupation and
suppression of the Palestinian people by Israel. We have no right to deny
Palestinians their natural right to self-determination."(13)

CHANGE OF ENERGY POLICY

In order to carry out these shifts of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle
East, it will be crucial to sever our dependence on Saudi oil. A shift of
energy policy from the current heavy emphasis on fossil fuels to renewable
energy sources and conservation is not only imperative for moving toward
ecological sustainability, but must also be seen as vital to our national
security.

Such a shift is absolutely feasible with technologies that are available
today.(14) The recent development of efficient hydrogen fuel cells promises
to inaugurate a new era in energy production ‹ the "hydrogen economy."
 
A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that combines hydrogen with oxygen
to produce electricity and water ‹ and nothing else! This makes hydrogen the
ultimate clean fuel. At present, several companies around the world are
racing to be the first to produce fuel cell systems to supply electricity
for our homes and commercial buildings.     At the same time, car companies
are developing hydrogen-powered hybrid-electric cars that will revolutionize
the automobile industry. The gradual replacement of the U.S. car fleet with
these "hypercars" would eventually save all the oil OPEC now sells and, in
addition, would reduce America¹s CO2  emissions by about two thirds!

Moreover, if a hydrogen tanker struck a reef in Prince William Sound,
Alaska, this would have no adverse environmental effects, nor could a
hydrogen-fueled airplane be used as a bomb. In both cases, the hydrogen
would escape rapidly into the air on impact.

The hydrogen economy will eventually be realized, because it features
superior technologies ‹ more economical, safer, and ecologically
sustainable. However, this development could be accelerated dramatically
with massive investments by the federal government. Such investments would
not only bring tremendous environmental and health benefits, but would also
be an effective long-term measure against international terrorism.



FOOTNOTES:

1 See Robert Fisk, "The Awesome Cruelty of a Doomed People," The
Independent, September 12, 2001.
2 See Stephen Zunes, "International Terrorism," Foreign Policy in Focus
(www.fpif.org), September 2001.
3 See Stephen Zunes, "U.S. Policy Toward Political Islam," Foreign Policy in
Focus (www.fpif.org),
June 2001.
4 See ref. 2.
5 See ref. 3.
6 See ref. 2.
7 See ref. 3.
8 See Michael Klare, "Asking Why," Foreign Policy in Focus (www.fpif.org),
September 2001.
9 See ref. 8.
10 See ref. 2.
11 See ref. 4.
12 See ref. 3.
13 Amos Oz, "Struggling Against Fanaticism," New York Times, September 14,
2001.
14 See Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins, Natural Capitalism,
Little Brown, New York, 1999.

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net