By Tara Polzer, 12 Sept 2001

The question dominating the news reporting of Tuesday’s attacks on the World
Trade Centre and the Pentagon is “who”. Who did it? Who is responsible? Some
strategists and security experts are trying to answer “how”? But the central
question is not being asked anywhere. This question is: WHY?

Perhaps it is not being asked because the answer is assumed to be obvious.
It is buried deep within the US American psyche. Assuming the unquestioned
pre-eminence of the United States of America - militarily, economically,
politically, and especially morally - the only imaginable motivations for
such an attack are seen to be jealousy, blind amoral hate, or plain “evil.”
Who other than a deranged individual or fanatical group would want to hurt
the global representative of freedom, democracy, justice, and the liberty to
engage in competitive commerce? If this is the answer to “WHY”, then the
logical response is to seek out this individual or group and punish them
severely for their blasphemy, thereby exorcising the threat from the bosom
of the moral community.

HOWEVER, what if the answer to “WHY” is to be found partly within the fold,
as a direct cause of the actions of the believers themselves? Not so long
ago, in Oklahoma, Americans came face to face with themselves, rather than
with a distant other. This possibility has, so far, not even been raised.
But even if the attacks were planned and carried out by Afghans, Iraqis,
Palestinians, Serbs, North Koreans, Chinese (a progression from the most
current suspects to the would-have-been-suspects-not-so-long-ago) - what if
behind the extreme and unjustifiable means there was a justifiable motive?
What if the United States is co-responsible?

There are many voices, by no means all radical and certainly not all
terrorist, which recognise the contribution which US policy has made to
increasing inequality and poverty around the world. Voices which question
the universality of US American values and ways of life. If these (often
moderate, democratic, liberal, American) voices are given credence, then
forcibly eliminating an individual or a small group will not solve America’s
problem. It is more likely that a show of extreme military and political
power will confirm the grievance which tacitly or directly supports
terrorist activity around the world.

It is not a question of negotiating with or pandering to terrorists, nor a
question of denying the rage and fear and suffering of those who have been
directly and indirectly hurt by this attack. It is a question of recognising
that large parts of the global population see the United States as a
threat, and a question of recognising a measure of co-responsibility in
creating this support. This is directly in the interest of preventing
similar attacks in future.

This terrible attack should be seen as a chance for the US to reconsider its
role in the world, a chance to admit vulnerability in terms of the moral
basis from which it claims legitimacy for its power (since its vulnerability
in terms of physical security has been incontrovertibly shown). Rather than
repressing dissidence, as is so often the first reaction in times of crisis,
critical voices should be given a greater hearing than ever before. This is
a chance for the United States to truly claim the moral authority it seeks
by countering violence with democracy and debate, rather than with more
violence.