Hair Trigger Response Won't help the West

Neil Arya

The Record

Oct 13, 2001

On June 22, 1985, a bomb planted on Air India Flight 182 from Toronto to London detonated over Shannon, Ireland. 329 people, mainly Canadians of East Indian origin, lost their lives. An hour later, at Narita airport near Tokyo, another suitcase bomb in transfer from a Canadian Airlines flight to Air India killed two baggage handlers at Narita airport in Tokyo. Sikh terrorists, who had killed the Prime Minister of India the previous year in their fight for an independent state, were proved to be responsible for the Narita incident. The other bombing is only now coming to trial in Canada. This day was by far the most massive terrorist attack on Canadian citizens.

The events of Sept. 11, with four plane crashes and over 6,000 deaths, leave all civilized people shuddering in disbelief, even one month later. Citizens from 40 countries including between 35 to 60 Canadians are known to have died. Many of these must have died horrible deaths, crushed, asphyxiated or burned. To target so many innocent civilians, for whatever political goals, is not only an act of war, but a crime against humanity. Canadians and other allies should stand together with our neighbours to the south in an international response. The perpetrators may be dead, but to be a deterrent to any similar groups who might be thinking of such dramatic statements to achieve their goals, but countries and people harbouring and encouraging them, must be identified and dealt with thoroughly and expeditiously. Evidence seems to point to Islamic extremists, in particular Osama Bin Laden's group as at least complicit and likely involved in planning and logistical support. Despite massive loss of life, the US has thus far been measured in its response, ostensibly weighing all evidence, assembling allies and not limiting its options to a purely military one.

As a physician I like to examine all available data and come to a proper diagnosis before developing a treatment plan. Sometimes rapid short-term action such as antibiotics is necessary, but preference must be given to long-term, cost-effective preventive management such as immunizations. Use of antibiotics must be proportionate to the illness for antibiotics can be harmful to the host organism, destroying good bacteria as well as bad. Similarly properly diagnosing the terrorism problem is essential before embarking on a treatment plan.

Are the proposed measures: military strikes on Afghanistan and others, border controls, increased tightening of domestic liberties, increased military budgets, likely to reduce or to exacerbate the problem? In the longer term we must examine why this happened now and reflect on how to prevent this from occurring again.

Thus far people, supposedly anxious for justice have vandalized mosques and harassed Muslim children in schools and beaten them in the streets. "Mistaken identity" led to the murder of a Sikh gas station attendant and to arson destroying a Hindu temple in Hamilton. A US Congressman considered anyone "with a diaper on his head" a legitimate target. To their credit our leaders have condemned such actions and refrained from launching a Crusade against Muslims.

To kill many innocents in other lands too, in the pursuit of the guilty would create an injustice, violating basic values held dearly by Canadians and Americans of right to life, liberty, freedom, justice and respect for law. The Air India bombing has taken 16 years to come to trial. Any response must be proportionate, otherwise the crime will be propagated further. To go after terrorism "everywhere" as some have suggested with indiscriminate attacks on Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Ghadafi, Hamas and Hizbollah, however satisfying to the US population may in fact exacerbate the situation. If many innocent lives are lost, resentment is cultivated, the supply of suicide bombers will only be increased. Even if we deny the biblical, "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord", the Gandhian truth "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," remains.

The policy of civilian sanctions on Iraq which has killed over half a million children and even more adults has inculcated a sense of grievance throughout the Muslim world. Israel's harsh treatment of families of suicide bombers and the Palestinian population has only bred more people willing to die for the Cause.

Coddling dictators, while abhorrent morally and making it difficult to enlist the help of allies has also proven less than pragmatic. Manuel Noriega was a CIA operative ‘managed’ by the US in Panama in the 1980's, until they suddenly and sanctimoniously realized that he was a drug dealer who had to be overthrown by the US military. Saddam Hussein was supported in the same decade against Iran for, as Robert Gates put it, "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch". Slobodan Milosevic was the man to be dealt with on Bosnia at Dayton. Finally it is the Mujahaddin in Afghanistan, whom the Reagan administration armed and trained as freedom fighters against the Soviet oppressor, who now form the forces of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban.

The Middle East Coalition being assembled by the US includes the military dictatorship in Pakistan, the corrupt autocratic and anachronistic Saudi regime and former Soviet republics, who are amongst the greatest violators of human rights in the world. The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan has elements which profit from the opium trade which the Taliban has tried to suppress. The chance breeding resentment and the next generation of suicide bombers by supporting such new and old friends is high. In addition others may also use this war to suppress internal and external threats in ways we wouldn't dream. Russia, which has launched another brutal Chechen war in response to what it sees as its terrorism, claims that it is about to really take the gloves off.

Some see harmonizing laws of Canada and the US (essentially Canadians adopting American standards), increased cooperation between our military and law enforcement agencies and curtailing some civil rights as being the answer. Forgotten in this view of Canada as the "weakest link", is that if it were true as initially alleged, that Canada were the port of entry for terrorists, it would have been US border personnel who let these people into their country and US airport personnel who let them on the US domestic flights with their knives. Past US unilateralism and isolationism, dismissive and disparaging of allies, makes it more difficult to count on them when you need them and fighting terrorism requires an international effort.

The military and economic might, which the US proudly paraded since the end of the Cold War, has been tragically shown to be vulnerable. Adding $20 billion or even $200 billion to the defence budget will not solve that problem. The $100 billion National Missile Defence plan would have offered no protection from these attacks, even if by some miracle, it works. We are also left to ponder, what might have happened if the terrorists actually had nukes? Horizontal proliferation occurs when nuclear powers refuse to eliminate their weapons. Many of us in the peace movement hope that enlightened self-interest might have the US leading the effort to abolish nuclear weapons rather than acting as a stumbling block.

Responding to violence with more violence, while satisfying emotionally, may not be in our best long-term interests. This situation also requires an entirely new way of thinking: establishing a correct diagnosis and developing a multi-tracked, just treatment. When the only thing you have in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Whatever our concerns about our governments’ actions, most Canadians and Indians are glad that neither country rushed to judgment or massive military retaliation with regard to our terrorist threat sixteen years ago.