Focus 580; Implications of 9/11 for international politics

This is focused 580 telephone talk program. My name is David Enge. Welcome back or Glad to have you with us if you've been listening this morning this morning in focus who we thought that we would try at least to have some conversation about some of the many difficult issues raised by the events of yesterday. And we have a couple of panels who have different areas of expertise and might have different and interesting things to say things worth thinking about and what we thought we would try to do in this part of the program would be to concentrate a little bit more on international political implications of what happened and we have two guests with us to help him do that here in the studio with me is Professor Ed Koch. He's professor of political science here at the University of Illinois has been with us many times before to talk about various and sundry things particularly issues that have to do with World and European security. Also joining us by telephone

Professor Stephens Souness. He's a senior policy analyst and Middle East editor at Foreign Policy in Focus. He is also associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco and he actually has also been on the program before and by telephone as a guest. We're pleased that both of them could give us some of their time. And as we talk. Questions are welcome that's part of the idea here. We had some folks call in the first hour raising some very interesting were the questions that were perhaps a little bit beyond the expertise of the first set of guests. And so perhaps we can return to those things or whatever is on your mind. I'm sure that our guests will do their best to give you some thoughts here in Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 we also have a toll free line good anywhere that you can hear us and that is 800 to 2 to a 9 4 5 5 3 3 3 W while here locally 800 1:58 wy a lot

for folks for whom it would be a long distance call. Thanks very much for being here and here on the telephone Professor Souness. Thank you for having me join you. Well thank you for talking with us here. Maybe the way I'd like to start in. By asking this question. So many people. Various analysts that I've heard talking about what happened yesterday and members of Congress and so forth have been talking about this events the events of yesterday being another Pearl Harbor. And they have said that this is an act of war. Last night I was watching some of the coverage on PBS and William Kristol said that he wouldn't be surprised if soon we would see the president speaking to a joint session of Congress and he might be talking about a declaration of war although of course he said we don't know whom we would be declaring war against. But there's been a lot of a lot of this kind of talk and I guess I wonder just to start out I want to ask you both and maybe I'll start here

with Professor Cole over whether you think. That's an appropriate analogy to say this was like Pearl Harbor and that what this is is an act of war is that it. Is that a constructive way to be thinking about this. I thought about that analogy and it's part half half right. That is the uncertainty of an attack and visited on an entire nation and shocking that nation into some general notion of unity and also how to deal with the security problem that have so OK. The second part of the analogy that there is somehow a nation state definable that you can attack and falsifies the problem though he have to define a problem with salt that is terrorism in this globalized framework that it itself requires a lot more thinking and identity than a simple solution since the word is it. Namely we got a new threat and to use just the Pearl Harbor analogy and the responses may be useful for psychological political mobilisation reasons initially but that won't be sufficient for definition of the

problem much less the response is necessary. Your alternative as a physical as you want to put on your headphones that you can hear you can hear him. Ask your friends you know it's the same sort of question whether you and you think that talking about what happened in that way using that kind of language is is appropriate. Accurate helpful. What do you think it is serves me in certain levels. I mean I think so. As with as with war it tends to bring out both the best and the worst in America. The sense of unity the sense of compassion for the victims the outpouring of everything from blood donations to the spontaneous religious services around the country is truly inspiring in the Bravia of course the individual such as police and firefighters and others. But we also see the rather dangerous I think a jingoistic xenophobic and militaristic tendencies we also sushi with war and above all harbor analogy of course is

this first of all we think about what happened to Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. Tens of thousands of them most of whom were loyal citizens were rounded up into internment camps and and certainly people in the Arab-American community American Muslims are certainly concerned about this. This all may mean to them in terms of everything from mob actions in hate crimes to an actual discriminatory government policy. The second concern of course is that in the case of troll Harbor we had a clearly defined enemy. If this was a work of a nation state there would be clear targets for military salutation they would be commanding control centers or be an intelligence headquarters there'd be military bases ammunition depots lines communication and the like. And this thing assuming it's Assad bin Laden or somebody like that we're talking about a decentralized network with very few tangible assets that could be bombed and in similar situations we've made some

terrible mistakes like in 97 when we bombed the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan which supplied half of scenes and I biotics that impoverished country on the false intelligence that it was a chemical weapons plant controlled by bin Laden. And and of course military strikes are not pinpoint. It could mean still more civilian casualties which would only bring more recruits to terrorist groups and other anti-American extremist. Well well given given all of this then how does the government of the United States respond to be at least two levels or three that actually if you take on the remarks of for his illness that is any action we take has to be consistent with an open free society. We can't slash out against people that for some xenophobic reason that's the. We believe that somehow they're connected with this particularly those who are connected now with Muslim

fundamentalism as the surface. Reaction to whom idea behind all these things. I would say first action has to be taken as at the international level. Why because it is a global problem. These people and they were not just talking about Middle East Europe was talking about terrorists to discover the Japanese discovered a few years ago the chemical attacks on the subways and people in that group are actually purchasing gland in Australia as bases of operation. So you have a globalized problem of vulnerable massed societies that is people living in urban societies not just here in the United States so the problem is global. And these people who are terrorists are using as your previous panel indicated weapons of weakness. That is they use weapons not to your strengths but to what's available to them and that means inflicting mass often devastation and life on

exposed vulnerable populations and not just simply in democratic societies. So the problem has to be politically globalized because the networks themselves are globalized in the support system. The best analogy I can think of to quickly grasp it is if there were fish floating in a large let's say global pond and these fish are supported not only by definable States but often by individuals groups within a larger international civil society. Consequently any action taken This is the second part of the reaction and practical aspects of it besides the globalization has to have to be calibrated to identify where those fish those infected fish if you will are found and to root them out but that can't be done simply by the part of United States because we live essentially in a decentralized system of nation states and decentralized power which drives you to unpalatable choices of cooperation not only with the easy parts of corporations or our allies but in reaching out. Do regimes

that we have not have necessarily good relations with but who have more direct contact with the need for the needed intelligence services and mechanisms to control and contain these kinds of terrorists. And then a whole series of practical things could be done and some of the murti in motion which is more intelligence sharing among our allies and then of course the actual creation of a military units capable of intervening but again on a multilateral level up until recently we've been moving away as everyone knows from multilateral cooperation and I think that you gotta rethink that whole process. And the unpalatable and difficult choices that that implies. I have several callers here and one of the people is on a cell phone and I'd kind of like to get that person said not to make them wait any longer. So right here I'd like to do that and this is the line number four.

Hello. Oh yes. Question for the professor from the standpoint of the journalists and their organizations. Those people are clearly very very highly motivated. I would like to hear an explanation of the logic they use to justify what we consider immoral but they clearly must consider immoral acts of killing falsehood. Not offending not participating. People who have done absolutely nothing. Let's yeah. No I don't know if this is a question it's possible to answer but you know if you think hard hard to get and two perverse minds that would do something like this. But in the perverse logic perhaps one could look at it this way that this may explain why some people a minority to be sure but some people on the street in the Middle East and elsewhere have been celebrating this. Not individual deaths necessarily but what this symbolizes that you know it

states because of our our oceans are we can friendly neighbors we've never known this kind of massive loss of life which has been known by Vietnamese Salvadorans Nicaraguans East Timorese Palestinians Lebanese who have died in the thousands and no small part because of U.S. policy and I think there is this perverse perspective that well let's show the Americans how it feels they done it to us. Let's see what it feels like for for us to to do it to them and I think it raises a question again. I want to thank you very clear I don't think this in any way justifies terrorism nothing in my mind can justify terrorism. But I think it's I think I respectfully disagree with President Bush when he says we are attacked because we are a beacon of freedom and liberty I think we were attacked because we have strayed from those principles in our foreign policy particularly in the Middle East where we have backed not just

the Israeli occupation forces were committing widespread human rights violations against the Palestinians but autocratic Arab regimes as well which participate in widespread human rights violations against their own people and I think we really need to really re-evaluate security. If we put as much emphasis on human rights international law sustainable development in democracy and our foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere as we do on arms shipments airstrikes punitive sanctions and the like. I don't think we would have seen the tragic events of yesterday. I'd like to believe that that were true. I think everything that presumes says there ought to be done for reexamining requirements to secure it are absolutely correct. One has to get at the motivations and one presumes that these are moral political and economic and social and I don't have any disagreement with that aspect. I think one has to come to terms with that. There are people who are radically opposed to

Western ways of life whether here in the United States or in Europe are radically opposed to market systems and both the strengths and weaknesses of those market systems obviously have to be considered in any kind of response to the motivations but I think you have a hard core of people that are so opposed to the kinds of open societies that were has been at the foundation of western and extended to places like Japan and in other prices of the world beyond the Western cultural setting that a different kind of approach has to be. Addressed to that kind of threat and they have to be isolated from what seems to be a large segments of the populations of the world that do want to in effect enjoy the benefits of a free society yes. We have two huge to the notions of freedom and democracy and progress as in this suggests. But I think we also have to psychologically

politically come to terms with the unfortunate aspect that even in hewing and indeed by cause of you. So those Democratic Union commitments that we may find ourselves exposed and will have to deal with those with a military and intelligence and intelligent response in coordination with the kinds of broad based commitments to a better will life not only for own people but for those abroad as well. You know one of the things I found myself thinking is that about was that the famous quote von Clausewitz quote about warfare being politics by other means and wondering whether it actually in a case like this it's difficult to imagine that there are political ends behind an act like this and then if that is the case then. I don't know where one goes for group for ground rules about thinking about dealing with action. Where in fact the only intent might be to cause

as much damage and kill as many people as possible. And that is the end. Not because you have some policy you're trying to achieve or because you're trying to persuade someone of the rightness of your cause. That that that merely killing people is the end. I think we I mean clearly the terrorists are frustrated and angry people. It's an emotive reaction not a rational one. I mean obviously not moral but I don't think it's even rational for as you describe and really achieving a political objective. What concerns me is often the response to terrorism is also often enacted by frustrated angry people as an emotive reaction and not necessarily rationally. We've had this phenomenon in recent years of kind of a foreign policy by catharsis. You know when it's. Feels good if we bomb some Middle Eastern country yet. Does it do any good. Again even putting the moral legal arguments aside on a very practical level I remember when we bombed those two Libyan cities back in 1986 knowing they would

kill more than 60 civilians in the process but rather than being a blow against Libyan terrorism as everybody was cheering it to be at the time. It is apparently what inspired those living intelligence operatives to blow up the PanAm airliner over Scotland the following year. And so I think we. What again makes it difficult is not just the irrationality of the perpetrators but in our anguish in our anger and our grief. The tendency even in a civilized nation such as ourself. System such as ours too. Lachelle in a similar way which in many ways puts us on the level of terrorist recruits. We're kind of combating it in many ways. Allows them to win by for pets awaiting the cycle of violence. I should perhaps hear introduce again our guests and we have some people who are holding on and also want to bring some some people who are listening into the conversation in the studio with me here is Professor Ed Koch. He's professor of political science at University of Illinois and has been

with us before many times to talk about issues like these. Joining us by telephone we have Stephen Souness. He is professor associate professor of politics and also chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco He's joining us by telephone. And questions certainly are welcome. The number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Also toll free 800 2 2 2 1 4 5 5. Let's talk with someone else here and that would be next person in line as in I believe in Champaign on line 1. Hello me. Yes you know I I don't want to come off naive here I think this is a very tragic incident and needs a strong response. But I'm curious how why how little I've seen since even the Iranian hostage crisis back in 79 why we've had so what appears to be so little attempt to.

Talk with Islam ik regimes. Let me construct may be a bit of a radical. The scenario is say I was president of states and I wanted to see this stuff come to an end. I call Saddam Hussein. We get together on the Aser islands and we talk about what's going on what do you want what do we want. Make it publicly concede that it's happening. It's not secret. I do that with Bin Ladan do that with Islam mixtape. Is there a way that we can meet the Islam IC state somewhere where we can de Americanize the Middle East and help them create their theocracy in such a way that we're actually getting at what these issues are. I think the other question is Where did this come from. Somebody told me that the movie on Lawrence of Arabia discusses the arbitrary dividing up of sheikhdoms before or after World War One

I don't know and that there is still a rage about that. And what's the root of this. Right those are those are very good and very complicated questions. We'll see if we can talk a little at least a little bit about them let's start with with the press corps I guess you know we can only talk a little bit about them because it's such a profound and difficult questions they raise. Into the focus and I go back to the useful remarks of Professor Souness irrationalities of two kinds here. The most critical one and goes back to your closets notion of bears on the remarks of your. Your caller. What do people think is valuable in life to them what kind of world do they want. And one has to come to terms that we now live in a world that's globalised that is our economic benefit. Canonical way of life or political of life depends on other people abroad many of whom are really

anger and have considerable hatred and in tag an ism to American power and all the symbols that are involved. Now that kind of rationalism where you have people who believe that their only success in life and their achievement of life is to actually destroy everything you value. It is not a common commensurable he can sit and eat on the island and talk it out because there are not reconcilable sufficiently optimistic that most people in the human race can find levels of disagreement but not to the point where they have to execute violent ways overturning each other's value system and so you've got a segment of the population that can only be dealt with by gaining the assistance of other people who may disagree with you and that's the point you were making about let's say the Iranian regime which is now moving towards efforts at reform and are actually now after 20 years attempting to gain better relationships with the West

since the US yes those people I think you can talk to and those are the ones you have to rely on even if you disagree with them in rooting out these kinds of terrorists who have these views of life in which their own lives are willing to be. Placed as a stake in the second part of rationality and goes back to our responses the West and US and specifically unless they're calibrated. That is unless they're focused only on heinous terrorism that's not acceptable to any civilized society even if they disagree with those in the West will only enlarge it seems to me the pool of support for these terrorists is going to occur specifically those in the Middle East. We have a lot of moderate Arab regimes that have simply cut and feet they can't deal with their own fundamentalist groups. Some of them who are supportive of these kinds of radical terrorist group NGs and one has to take account of that kind of lets say delicate political relationships that you deal with those different strategies work in the Middle East

that were not going to work with our allies because their allies are in effect much more agreeable standing at least in protection of their own territory so you need a very complicated set of strategies. But when you get down to a small hard group and I'll just give some arresting numbers we have six billion people in the world. If you just take 1 percent you've got 6 million 60 million and 1 percent of 1 percent 10 percent of that 1 percent gives you 6 million people which is not a inconceivable number who are not reconcilable the world they have and that means it's a lot of people out there that have to be controlled or at least coped with that potentially. Are moved the kinds of terrorist actions we saw yesterday. Professors in the US just quickly added I think the general idea that we should have more dialogue with the Islamic world is a very valuable one I think there are people like Osama bin Laden However that are beyond the pale. But I don't think on the goshi Asians would particularly help

unfortunately a lot of people don't realize this but bin Laden was once an ally of the United States. He hem and man the leaders of his movement were part of the more radical factions of the. Is on mujahedeen and the 1980s got direct U.S. support were trained in Pakistani refugee camps and even to training bases the U.S. bombed and 197 were actually built by the CIA during the war against the Soviet occupation and their puppet regime there. And I think it's yet another example of so-called blowback where short sighted policies similar to our support of Saddam Hussein in the 80s and many will Noriega. For a time we end up with these unsavory allies and some I guess I would respectfully take issue with professors a term we hear that a lot of moderate Arab regimes because often the so-called moderate regimes like Saudi Arabia are anything but moderate in terms

of basic values at least those of us in the West hold dear. And I think that's part of the problem that many of our call moderates because they're allies not because they're all moderate. To their own people. And finally I just want to mention that the Islamic Conference this morning which represents the 40 or so anomaly Muslim countries in the world voted unanimously with the sole exception of Iraq to condemn the terrorist bombings and to and and to commit their solidarity to the to the victims of yesterday's catastrophe. I do have some other callers and I know if we at least got a part of what the the caller had in mind. I I think we missed the whole origin of the conflict. The only thing I would add is that what the first professor said about how you have a different view of human life and so on was the very same thing that was said

about the Vietcong and whole human. And is that in the 70s I lived with a Ph.D. candidate who did research. And he found letters from home team in wanting to make peace with United States. And because we were so wrapped up in our own perspective we didn't believe any hope was there and we missed a window of opportunity and I think that any parties. Can it should at least try to hear each other no matter how vicious it might be. And with proper security and proper management we ought to visit with anyone and I would love to see it tried and then have it fail because it helps us have a a bit more of dignity as we do take the actions that we take we at least tried publicly tried. All right well I appreciate your comments so I have a number of other people I don't know if we will

go on in our next person in line is in Urbana line too. Hello hi yes i would like to know why you opinion his name the city gate. I didn't mean to say country countries have attacking the United States to go to war. We've been using some of the countries NATO will head to the United States and that is where they're going they don't have. You know what will happen if United States attack a country and that you deny that they have been of these terrorists. What do you think would be the consequence of you. Well again very fine questions for what. Because the president has made and other people in the ministrations made these very strong statements about we will take action against countries that would harbor the individuals responsible.

There had been the issue raised about whether there's some state support for this operation. So then that we have to take any consideration deciding what we do so and so from there then the question is what how will our allies respond particularly those who are members of NATO and will they stand with the United States when in whatever action the United States decides to take verbally they stand together but when you actually get the hard facts of inflicting violence and damage on other states naming attacks use Kosovo's a precedent or the whole problem the Balkans and you see that gaining consensus for that not even gaining instance of the American public if large numbers of our military are placed in harm's way. Leads to a lot of second guessing and support so I think the questioner is correct. That will be a difficult matter if you can identify by smoking gun purposes that somebody leading a nation state will

take Afghanistan take Iraq or something. As your candidates actually can be shown by evidence and that's not going to be easy to show because the terrorist groups themselves are sophisticated enough to in effect cut off these kinds of trails. And then if you've got those two in place that is some sort of consensus among your allies for a military attack purposes even if you yourself are going to conduct them and not expect other NATO's services to assist you and you've got some kind of a basis for claiming that a nation state actually assisted them you still get back to the problem of what do you do. Do you in effect inflict incalculable losses on innocent civilians another country in order to justify the loss of your civilian you get into simply revenge. And it seems to me under those conditions and you saw it already in Kosovo that the heavy that is the person who looks the immoral is the attacking party namely the United States or its NATO

allies. I don't have question answers to these questions just simply this juncture trying to identify the range of the problem that you face not only of first focusing on who the enemy an adversary is and that's not unclear and then when your response is simply military and it leads to is so radical. The consequences of large scale innocents and civilians being killed you just exacerbate your problem get into a spiral of mutual recriminations and and more terrorist attacks being visited on the United States and its Western allies. I agree anything but the most precise attacks will divide the United States from much of the rest of the world just when we need the cooperation of other nation states the most. Indeed we need just as the professor mentioned earlier that. We terrorism is an international problem we need international cooperation and

multilateralism unfortunately has not been a strong suit of the current administration and certainly a bombing campaign that this particular one that doesn't select civilian casualties will put the world's attention away from the victims of yesterday's tragedy where it belongs. And on to the response and I think really set back the efforts to prevent something like this from happening again. We're moving into about our last 20 minutes of this program and we have a little bit more time than we would ordinarily because the commodity markets are closed and we're not doing our usual report so I think we'll go right up to about noon and we do have some other callers and I think I just want to continue and give other folks a chance to share their thoughts and questions and the next person is in Bloomington and I believe in Bloomington Illinois on line 3. Hello. Hi Don't go. Hey I'm also concerned that these acts of terrorism are going to continue.

And I'm concerned. And also that we are going to act in some nature bombing mission that will simply promote more violence and it will be counterproductive. And that that really isn't the solution at all. Do you jerk bombing actions are not the solution I think the real solution to this terrorist problem will be if we distance ourselves from the Middle East especially our heavy support of the Israelis. And I'm sure there are many people who would disagree with that. But I think in my own opinion I think that the Palestinians also have a right to a homeland as well as the Israelis do. And I think that the Israelis should keep out of Palestinian territory and stay within their own borders and as long as the Israelis continue to grab Palestinian land and

put settlements there I think will continue as long as we continue to condone this. I think we'll continue to have terrorism here in this country. At one point I mentioned that to somebody yesterday and they said. To me gee whiz we need the Israelis. And my question in return was what for. During the Cold War I understand perhaps we had a listening base is there monitoring the Soviet Union and things like that but the Cold War is no longer with us. So I think what we should do is to be realistic. We should be realistic in the fact that this is what's causing it. This is what's causing our problems. We've spent millions and billions of dollars promoting our help to the Israelis. And this has nothing to do with anti-Semitism or anything like that. I think it's simply a logical solution. We should get out of there.

Let let me again turn to our guests I say and say first of all I much appreciate your comment and we'll get their thoughts. Maybe let me turn first to go to to Professor Jonas and welcome back. Do you think that United States policy in the Middle East will change as a result of what happened yesterday. I'm afraid if anything it's going to harden attitudes. And not have the kind of flexibility we need in terms of specifics involving Israel. I certainly think this is one issue which may have motivated the terrorist assuming again it isn't bin Laden or like minded group I don't think it's the only one I think there are other issues in terms of the sanctions in Iraq support for Arab dictatorships and and related concerns. I strongly believe that we do have a moral and strategic commitment to Israel's existence and Israel's legitimate security needs. But I think it's very wrong the way we have been supporting Israel's occupation I mean the

United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution just a couple months ago that called for sending unarmed human rights monitors. We condone the illegal confiscation of land in Palestinian land building of these illegal settlements despite we've blocked the enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolutions on this and. Other provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the like I mean there's I mean certainly Osama bin Laden the more faculty followers don't just object Israel's occupation they object to Israel's very existence. At the same and I don't think we should in any way change our commitment to Israel's existence. But I think the problem is definitely exacerbated by the way that the United States has condoned Israel's or repressive and illegal policies in the occupied territories and is it is one again not the only one but one of the issues which has gotten so much of resentment I mean so ironically are starving Iraqi children on the grounds that we need to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions while at the same time that our ally Israel and I should mention also

Turkey and Morocco and until recently and in Asia with their illegal occupations I think there's a double standard which is one of the things that promotes the kind of anger or resentment we find in the Arab world so I say do not abandon Israel. But I but. I have long had questions you know far before this event happened on the policy of giving the diplomatic economic and military support for the ongoing occupation. Well let me ask a professor the same question. You think that the United States is going to change its policy in the Middle East as a as a result of what happened yesterday which is going to build on. I think the remarks made by you. The moral and political commitment to Israel is clear and an eye on and the US exist as a state and its people to be free from the kinds of terrorism and pressures that they live under on a daily basis having

said. And this response that of course the caller's question. It would be nice to believe that we can get off the world and if we don't get involved in other political conflicts the Balkans the middle east northeast Asia Indonesia and keep counting that somehow all these conflicts won't affect us because we haven't been engaged and it's my considered judgment and this is another topic for discussion in another meeting. Is that in the absence of engagement of American power and leverage and specifically the issue of the expansion of the settlements Jewish settlements and the kinds of security arrangements that have to be mounted which means in effect pressuring and controlling the Palestinian population as a whole are simply nonstarters they're not. Capable of managing I don't see resolution of the issue between these

what I would consider to be enduring rivalries but they can be better managed that you don't have the kind of killing on mass bases that we have and refocus our question now not just simply on the Middle East but we face the issue as a human race and species of large numbers of her brain populations are fundamentally vulnerable to people who have not just simply a Middle East or a religious agendas but the agendas that they themselves have fabricated to in effect inflict harm on other people and I'm talking about mass destructive weapons that are readily now increasingly available to people even with modest resources at their disposal. And that's a wider issue than simply the Middle East and the focus on those in a far back end. I would think at the moment non resolvable political issues but they can be better managed. And that means the engagement of American power 50 percent of

the assistance of the United States approximately goes Israel alone. Seems to me and the rest a good amount of it goes to Egypt. What I'm driving at is that we take some issue with Professor and us on this that at least at this juncture one has to deal with avoiding a situation in which the radical elements specifically in the real Middle East take control of the politics of that region and that can't be done simply by washing our hands of that issue but having said that you should have terrorism isn't just simply the Middle East it's the issue of the joining of people with perverse views capable of access to mass destructive weapons attacking mass populations that's the condition we live in in the 21st century. I certainly don't believe we should disengage but might my concern be. By propping up some of these corrupt family dictatorships in the Gulf and regimes like Egypt and others this is what actually

promotes Islamic extremism it's kind of like during the Cold War we support these right wing military dictatorships in the name of fighting communism but that just created more Communists as nonviolent moderate means of changing society were suppressed so it drove many moderates into the hands of these a Marxist Leninist guerrilla groups I think similarly as long as we continue supporting occupying armies and autocratic regimes and in the name of curbing the Islamic threat it's actually going to create more of this kind of extremist reaction. We have other callers and again I like to include some other folks next in line is someone in Champaign I believe your line number four. Hello. Hi. I have a few comments I wanted to write. I gather and Professor Zumas has a strong position against Israel within the in the conflict between Israelis and the

Palestinians but I think the whole issue of the Israeli Palestinian conflict is really a red herring because I think the fundamentalists let's say seems within the Islamic world are much bigger than this and the conflicts are much more I mean for instance Osama bin Laden's conflict is primarily with the Saudi regime. The conflict of those who killed Anwar Sadat were Islamic militants in Egypt and it was all that has to do with the Egyptian politics if we look at the conflict between the Iranians and the Iraqis or the Iraqis and the Kuwaitis have to do with the sensually Islamic issues and secondarily with other issues. Even the. Is Iranians in Afghanistan and regimes are now having major conflicts. So I think it's important to really look at what is this fundamentalist drive within the Islamic world and what is it that could use this sort of terrorist activity both against each other as well as

against the larger world I'd like to hear responses. You know first of all I just need to take exception to your perspective they have a strong position against Israel I have a strong position against any country which occupy occupies another country whether it be Morocco in Western Sahara Indonesia East Timor Iraq and Kuwait and whatever. But I do very much agree with you in fact I mentioned earlier that it is indeed much more the Palestinian question is certainly one of the grievances on the ground icles take issue with it. But there are many many others and. And I'm not saying that a shift in U.S. policy would mean that this problem would evaporate again. The other guest of pointed out there certainly are extreme fanatics that are going to attack the west in the United States and whatever we do. But I would I would add as I've mentioned earlier I think there are many policies not just of unity of Palestine in the other areas as well where I think we do inadvertently fuel the

fire and I hope we can you know take the tragedy yesterday to think very carefully and sort of redefine if you will whether our current policy is is actually making our country more secure or it's leading making us more vulnerable for tragedies such as yesterday's events. I think the caller makes a very good point on differentiating the different politics and conflicts. Country to country the first point implicit in it is that look at the Muslim community stretching from western Africa all the way through Indonesia as one unified grouping is just a false notion the bulk of those people are committed to high religious values. Oh lesser of worth and merit and a Christian might be committed to. If you look from politics to politics Egypt Jordan Iraq Iran you find different structures of conflict that have to be influenced in

ways that are congenial to a Western and American interests. And and it's that kind of differentiated strategy which is very difficult to carry out in the first place and even more difficult to mobilize American sentiment for because it requires a kind of flexibility that professes and is a ready. Discussed but the last remark remark I would make and I guess I'm taking some issue with professors on this is not to make the best enemy of the good. I don't have any disagreement with the kinds of ideals that he's identified but the world it's been served up historically doesn't in fact have the kind of cleanness of moving to in effect the western model for everybody. That is implied by universal human rights that he's suggesting. And while I think the West and specifically US must always stand up for what's important to its to its values and work towards in effect their achievement in reality one also has to take in the reality of the issue on the ground that explains why the Egyptians showed up

here about two weeks ago begging the ministration to reengage itself in the Middle East because they're on their tremendous pressure. Yes they have to reform themselves and we've got to keep telling them that. And moreover using our assistance which is really quite sizeable for making those reforms our group faces on us on this but I'm not about to in effect let those systems go down the tube and let the radicals in effect control it. Politics in those specific nations or across that whole region again I would mention I'm not talking about imposing a Western model but the very least we should not be supporting regimes that torture and murder Muslims. And Arabs don't like to be tortured and murdered any more than Western Christians do. And again I think supporting these regimes is just the very thing that encourages these extremists but what do we get replacement for them. We certainly don't get as in the aftermath of the Iranian rise revolution 1070 sonnes congenial regimes that are essentially

sensitive to their own people. What caused the Iranian revolution is because the CIA overthrew the constitutional government of Mohammed most that back in 1953 armed and trained the Shah's dreaded savant secret police which tortured and murdered and eliminated pretty much the democratic opposition so the only thing that was left when the people finally were willing to rebel was an Islamic led movement that was taken over by extremists. I think you're right it's actually a very Iran rather is a very good example of what happens when we do it. If you serve in. Democratic and constitutional. I know it sounds like we're democratic in those societies strike me as just simply an imposition of a Western model even if it's an EU deny at the same time you're doing that. I'm not imposing anything I'm just talking about. Stop hurting Democratic movements stop hurting Democratic governments which unfortunately has been our history and we just have 3 4 minutes left I hope you forgive me for it for getting in between the two of you and wanting to at least get one more caller in

in the time that we have remaining And so the next person in line I believe here is also somebody in champagne's line number one. Hello yes I am calling from time paying and I want to tangle with purposes only for he's a clear indication of the situation immediately and I think nobody can deny do horrible acts that happened yesterday that gave innocent human beings. But I think America should go ahead and ask the American government responsibility for the policies in the Middle East. Let me explain to take number one as professors onus is explained. Let's remember that the Taliban regime do regime B-trees the Morse toward the regime right now in the face of it has found it a quantised a living hell for the Afghani was brought by the government and the cooperation be disability or ABS money.

Their apartheid regime of Afghanistan has come to probably read CIA intelligence and Pakistanis. And now let's not forget that President Reagan's comment that said to tend our back to Taliban is to turn our back to the root. This is wanting not recreate the sting the seas it is awful that the innocent people become the victim of these horrible acts but they are. Look at what happened last week last week in South Africa. The nations came and I they wanted to say that these are plotted regime of Israel. What is happening in Israel what is happening in Palestine. And I'm going to go through and quote there. What Raymond Lowell who was there former editor of Rand Daily maid This is written by a Jewish person Didion Livy in May of this year. He comes and goes and visits to Hebron and he says the situation is even worse than what was happening in our part of regime in South Africa.

400 people here in Hebron are cruelly controlled a huge majority of hundred and forty. What do you do not have any proof use the closures. There are the minority Jews over there this is just nothing but a worse situation than South Africa apartheid and yet government of America goes ahead and the same way that the gentleman who calls from Blumenthal said why do we have to support the apartheid regime. This is what happens when we go ahead and have double standards against terrorism and let me tell you what. In 1997 is right a newspaper and this Israeli newspaper Maariv m a r i v It revealed that then deputy military chief who took round assassination operation from a command center on a Navy missile ship off the shore of Tunis. He went and went ahead and there he operated the HOA's killing.

I would your heart burn as I receive this is what he is. Who or what is the professional terrorist here we just have forgive me for if for getting in here. For certain if you give a very clear picture of what CIA did in 1953 in Iran we are right. We just have fear we just have here about two minutes left and I do want to give the guest here an opportunity to have some sort of final word. You want to know where you would want to go even if you want to go first. I have to say I think that we all need to recognize that the acts of terror cannot be divorced from our policy in the Middle East and elsewhere I would say. Recommend readers look at Amnesty International Human Rights Watch and report on the governments that the US supports in that part of the world. And I think if I'm reading that I don't think I think you'll be surprised that we come out of this region.

We have the kind of movements we've seen is no accident that this most heavily militarized region in the world where 80 percent of the arms comfy United States is also where terrorist groups rise from as militarism by the states leads I think quite directly to the rise of militarism by irregular groups. And unfortunately the victims are civilians both in the Middle East and as yesterday's events tragically demonstrated here in the United States as well. Just a few remarks. There's no doubt that the United States has made massive mistakes Uranian crisis 1953 in the support of all sorts of dubious regimes alter the Cold War. But I'd like to focus on the press. In the future just as past mistakes the second point to be made is I don't think there's any one universal vision or strategy just going to work in a world in which people are divided over how the world should be

constructed. We talked only about the Middle East but we have larger countries that we also have to deal with who have different views of how the world should be organized in their role and I'm talking about China I'm talking about Russia. We have to as other callers have suggested not only talk to regimes in the Middle East but lead increasingly towards some minimal rules of civil conduct in which terrorism is not accepted and that leads to my last remark that's going to lead to a lot of compromises things we would like to have happen in the world that would suit our ideal version of human rights of democracy of wealth for all others and we just have to develop far more tough and flexible diplomacy and military responses to deal with that complex world and. While holding firm to what our values are at least in the territory that we control which is our own territory not other territories of the world. There we stop for the moment. I'm sure that for some time to come we'll be talking about all

these issues again but for the moment I want to say here to our thanks to our guests Professor Ed cocksure professor of political science University of Illinois. Thank you very much for being here and also joining us by telephone. Steven Souness He is associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. Professor Sonus thank you very much. Thank you. That's where we will stop of course they'll be more coverage of yesterday's events here throughout the day coming up here very shortly. We'll have some NEWS for you from National Public Radio this afternoon on the afternoon magazine and the interview portion of that program Celeste Quinn of course will be the host and they're going to be trying to give you an opportunity to talk about what happened yesterday from a rather different sort of perspective and that is to look at how it is. In a kind of emotional way. We managed to absorb and try to understand what happened so. More on that later on today. This is the information advantage I am five AWOL Urbana.