9/11
 
It is easier to demonize, to speak of punishment, than to ensure that more children do not grow into a new generations of fanatics. Published: The Vancouver Sun, September 15, 2001, Op-ed column By Deborah Jones One by one, 34 great silver birds, blown off-course by Tuesday's American catastrophe, alight. One by one, 6,000 travellers emerge, to fill Vancouver International Airport with a babel of languages and a multicoloured polyglot of nationalities. In the wake of the terrorist hijackings and destruction, it has become clear -- as U.S. President George W. Bush will later say -- we are engaged in "a monumental struggle of good versus evil." Moving within the airport crowd, I wonder which of these people epitomizes evil. The Japanese were once deemed evil. During the Second World War, their pilots executed suicide missions using planes as bombs and we stripped North Americans with Japanese genes of homes and goods before detaining them. Now, here, at the airport in a fresh time of fear, are 300 Japanese soldiers in full uniform, their Japan Air jet on the tarmac outside. But as their leader Colonel Koighi Isobe strives to find lodging for his men -- waylaid from their trip to an American camp for training -- they don't look remotely evil. "There are no problems," Isobe said cheerfully, watching his soldiers photograph each other before Bill Reid's sculpture of Haida Gwai'i. Evil seems absent among Australians. In a broad accent, Noel and Ronda Piper of Tweed Heads explain they don't even mind that their flight to the U.S. was diverted, because their son, who lives there, is safe. The Indians, too, seem all right, especially that Punjabi- speaking family in turbans and saris who smile as they lug their suitcases. What of that middle-aged Chinese woman? A traveller between Beijing and Los Angeles, she defuses my fears by politely asking, in Mandarin and English, where she can find a hotel. The Americans -- with whom we Canadians often battle over lumber and fish -- seemed merely sad and tired. An American Indian wearing a feather in his long hair sits wearily. Pale-faced businessman Marvin Rose of Phoenix, standing beside his wife Margarita, a Spanish-speaking woman from Colombia, sighs, "I should have been home in my bed six hours ago." These people don't all look alike. They don't worship alike. They don't speak similar languages. Historically, they regarded each other with such suspicion that some went to war. Today they have in common a franchised membership in the global community. And today, they're all marooned on America's northwestern edge because of a new menace -- a new kind of evil which sees fanatics undertake suicide missions in which pilots use planes as bombs. It easier to demonize these fanatics than to struggle to find out why they carry out such evil deeds. It is easier to speak of punishment than to ensure that more children do not grow into a new generations of fanatics. It is easier to simply see them as alien, rather than understand why they do what they do. "Other-ness" stalks the world. In Belfast's Arodyne area this month, for example, Protestant men and women threw stones, bottles, grenades and even a pipe bomb at children going to school, because the children were Catholic. "Other-ness" is rampant in particularly pitiful areas; in Jos, Nigeria, this week Muslims and Christians killed each other in hand- to-hand combat, and the world is watching Zimbabwe disintegrate as factions fight against those who are different. But the fact that the Japanese, the Americans, the Spanish, the Chinese, once feared each other is passe. Today, they do business with each other, play sports with each other, marry each other. Today, the feared Others are fanatics who cause carnage in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania. Theirs is, without doubt a truly evil deed, one that can be neither condoned nor tolerated. But to defeat them, and ultimately achieve the only true goal of never repeating such atrocity, we need to understand this Other. This crucial task will be neither as black and white, as simply good and evil, as we would like. Within the frail bodies of men, women and children, both ours and theirs, the same hearts beat, the same cravings are felt, the same blood runs red. Yet we do not see each other as fellows on a shared small sphere spinning through space, each deserving of franchisement in our global community. They, and us, only see the Other. We are indeed, as Bush says, engaged in "a monumental struggle of good versus evil." But this battle will not be won easily or simply, not in the long term. We will only win when the Other has ceased to exist and has joined the babel of languages and multicoloured polyglot of nationalities. Copyright Deborah Jones 2001 ~~~30~~~ Afghans need our money, not Americans Published: The Vancouver Sun, October 20, 2001, Op-ed column By Deborah Jones In this time of American patriotic correctness, some will regard these as sins of omission. I admit to them nonetheless, and I ask you to join me. I scurried past the firefighter collecting funds in Kerrisdale for New York victims terrorism without tossing even a dime in his outheld boot. I watched the Hollywood-style extravaganza that followed Sept. 11, featuring popular actors and musicians and televised in 60 countries, and didn't even think about responding to their pleas for donations. Tight-fisted, I stroll each day past collection boxes set up to help American victims in stores, supermarkets and warehouse outlets. My decision to not send money to the U.S. is not anti- Americanism. It is not a sign that my heart is hard and cold. It does not detract from my utter horror that some 5,000 people perished in the U.S. on Sept. 11 and that the fallout continues to blight us all. On the contrary, I have heartfelt sympathy for all of them, and us. But if I have money to give, I'll give it to the victims of Terror Tuesday who most need it: Afghans enduring such famine that the scale of starvation and disease may be our modern world's worst such catastrophe. This week, three aid agencies -- Oxfam, the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders -- joined to plead for help, saying the people of Afghanistan face a horror seven times worse than the 1980s Ethiopian famine. About 7.5 million Afghan people are in danger of starving because of drought, social conditions, their lunatic government and now the war. On the cusp of winter, which will make it impossible for food trucks to reach remote areas, two million have already run out of food. Worse, Oxfam's Richard Marcuse says: "As many as half of the children are malnourished, where one in three children are orphans, where the average life expectancy has dropped to 46 years per person." The UN estimates $550 million US -- half of what New York received -- will get the Afghans through the winter. The U.S. pledge of more than $300 million isn't enough and may or may not get through. Sending money to Afghanistan, home of the terrorist lunatics, does not detract from our solidarity with the U.S. No right- thinking person could say those Americans who were orphaned, maimed and otherwise affected by Sept. 11 are undeserving. But my resources are limited. My few dollars added to the $1 billion already given would be insignificant. I understand why people the world over, including those in B.C. who gave over $500,000 to New York victims through our firefighters' honourable efforts, have sent money what's arguably the world's richest city. That we help others in their time of need is proof of the abiding good in us. It symbolizes not only charity, but also solidarity. Many of us think we can't fight the shadowy threat of terrorism, and we have few means to convey our fury to those who devised the horror. But with every coin or bill we drop into a collection bin for the victims, we make a statement -- "Take that, Osama bin Laden." Enough, already. The Americans have systems in place to take care of their own. They've already received so many donations, they don't know what to do with it all. This week, Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, said, "People are throwing money at the disaster, and that may not be the most appropriate response." The appropriate response is to direct our charity to the starving Afghans, who are also victims of the fundamentalists who hate the U.S. It's dangerous, these days, to swim against the current of opinion and advocate helping Afghans instead of Americans. I have ambivalence about even writing this column; my cautious alter-ego screams: "Best lie low and keep out of the way until the wounded superpower stops thrashing and stops a while to lick its wounds." But if we sit back and let as many as 7.5 million Afghans die of hunger and disease, if we lack the humanity to help strange-looking foreigners even as we extend alms to our look-alike, think-alike neighbours, we will be guilty not only of a profound sin of omission -- I think we'll be guilty of mass murder. I am not by nature comfortable in telling others what to do, especially those readers who bear with me on this page. But I am opening my wallet and writing the biggest cheques that I can afford to Oxfam Canada, the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders, for Afghanistan relief. Please, do the same. Today. Copyright Deborah Jones 2001 ~~~30~~~ Canada’s siblings Canada and the United States share the world's longest undefended border; we are each other's biggest trading partner; our national defence systems and economies are intricately interwoven; we breathe the same air, share the same soil and water, are bathed by rain from the same weather systems. Published: The Vancouver Sun, October 27, 2001, Op-ed column By Deborah Jones The truck, stopped before me at a traffic light, sports a proud sign: "United we stand," it declares, right beside bright decals of the Stars and Stripes and the Maple Leaf. A house displays, in that understated Canadian way, small U.S. and Canadian flags attached, side by side, to a porch pillar. Expressions of solidarity with the Americans abound in the most unlikely of places in our reserved Canada. Before Sept. 11, such demonstrations were rare indeed. Before that dreadful day, we Canadians were more prone to agree when someone slammed the Yanks. Pick any subject, from American celebrity antics to Washington's United Nations debt to trade disputes, and we griped about those people: so rash, brash and obsessed with cash! Ugh, we shuddered, smug in our self-righteousness. Our self-righteousness ended with the deaths of Sept. 11. A death, it's said, shakes up family dynamics. Well, we North Americans are family, as our expressions of solidarity show. And much as we hate it, the terror of Sept. 11 -- and the continuing aftershocks -- shook us up. What now? Now is a time of dangers and opportunities for the Canada-U.S. relationship. A decade ago, I reported on "town hall" meetings of Keith Spicer's Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future, charged with delving into Canadian identity in the days when we fretted about the Constitution. One discussion among a group of Halifax high school students was typical. For hours the kids debated, and the only conclusion they could reach was that a Canadian was not an American. That still rings true today, after Sept. 11, but if you put Canada and America on the world stage, we'd look more alike than almost any other pair. We share the world's longest undefended border; we are each other's biggest trading partner; our national defence systems and economies are intricately interwoven; we breathe the same air, share the same soil and water, are bathed by rain from the same weather systems. Culturally, even though both sides may recoil from such a suggestion (many Americans view us as boring rubes, we see them as boorish rogues), the U.S. and Canada have much in common. We're both raw and young in the global scheme of things, moulded by waves of immigration from the First Nations onward, our populations existing together in a relative semblance of peace, moving toward a cohesive whole. Both countries extol similar values of equality, opportunity and democracy, both enthral others from less fortunate places. And, side by side, we jostle each other like adolescent siblings, the bigger Americans pushy and brash, the littler Canadians alternatively resenting slights perceived and real, and welcoming the protection of the elder. Big and tough as we both may be, neither of us has achieved our potential for wisdom, compassion and power. In a time of crisis, the dangers of this sometimes rivalrous, sometimes affectionate sibling relationship are rife. Canada, though geographically large, is tiny in population and financial clout. We're always in danger of being politically and economically overwhelmed by America, and that's especially true now with everyone either America's friend or foe. Canada, in a headlong rush to come to our sibling's defence, is in danger of plunging into joint projects, from rash military manoeuvres to establishing a continent-wide perimeter without sufficient planning and checks and balances. We're in danger of acquiescing to all and any American demands regarding suspects of terrorism, and letting slip our own cherished rights and freedoms. We're in danger of committing our resources, from water to petroleum, to American needs without sufficiently considering our own, or those of our joint environment. But there is also an opportunity, at this time in history, to move forward on issues that rankle -- all of the above included.Our borders, defence, economy and environment require friendly cooperation. Rarely are the Americans in such a mood to cooperate. The hijackings and devastation of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have made Washington painfully aware that it must engage fully in global diplomacy, feeling isolated as never before. We must engage them as never before. How? Siding with them, as far as is just and reasonable, in the war on terrorism. And in the longer run, working with the U.S. and Mexico to enhance the economy and quality of life for all on this continent, while retaining our own sovereignty and value systems. We may find some answers by looking overseas at in Europe, where nation states are developing a European Community with permeable borders, mobility for workers and a common currency. We may find some answers by looking inward at Quebec versus the rest of Canada. It's a relationship that, despite tremendous unease, has helped both French and English Canadian cultures to remain distinct from the influence of Hollywood, and enriched them. This week in the New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman lamented that other than supportive Britain, "We're all alone." Pshaw. Plenty of nations are lining up to support the Americans. As the Canadian outpouring of solidarity with the Americans shows -- from flying American flags on Canadian soil to sending the victims of terror millions of Canadian dollars -- the Americans are not alone, and never were. Canada's challenge, now, is to prove that to them -- without undermining our own position. Copyright Deborah Jones 2005 ~~~30~~~ Sovereignty another potential casualty Published: The Vancouver Sun, November 24, 2001, Op-ed column By Deborah Jones It's disconcerting how words, that a mere season ago, were unfit for conversation in polite North American company, are now bandied about with a shoulder-shrugging air of banality. Take torture, for example. The very mainstream Christian Science Monitor invites readers online next week to discuss with a "torture expert" the previously unthinkable question: "Is torture acceptable if it prevents terrorist attacks?" Terrorism has become another of our recent catchwords. It has oozed into our daily conversation to such a degree that it's even becoming subject to political correctness -- as exercised this week by Justice Minister Anne McLellan. In softening the anti-terrorist bill, she said suspected terrorists would be called "entities" instead, to avoid giving offence. Next on the list of our new household words? Try sovereignty on for size. Violations of sovereignty -- the absolute and independent authority of a state or a community or, in some definitions, a person -- have caused much agonized hand-wringing. In recent years the diplomatic credo of the developed world has been, "Mind your own business." Now, the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and the aggressive response of the West in its war on terrorism, are accelerating the process of redefining sovereignty. It's happening at home throughout Canada. Every day, we're rethinking sovereignty in a number of areas that would have been politically verboten not long ago. Rational debates about dollarization, for example, are reported in the news every week, without the kind of outraged hyperbole and angst about giving up our sovereignty that once greeted any proposal to kill the loonie and adopt the American greenback. Concerns about border security, and fears that our economy will be damaged if trade is hampered by a tighter border, have brought Canadians around to thinking positively about what was just recently unthinkable -- establishing a common perimeter around the U.S. and Canada and even merging our policies on immigration. Individual sovereignty, also, is being eroded as politicians introduce legislation that gives the police new powers to apprehend suspected terrorists -- er, "entities." Internationally, with the war on terrorism, we've entered a period in which mere concerns about sovereignty take a place far behind concerns about security, and in particular the security of citizens of the Western countries. This is especially evident, of course, with military actions in Afghanistan. But it began long before, not with bombs and airplanes, but with a growing consensus that the global community has a legal right to interfere in state affairs in some conditions, and that people the world over can be held to a legal standard through a world court. Not since the war-crimes tribunal of Nuremberg has the balance shifted away from sovereignty toward issues of human rights. From the history of European colonialism to revelations of dirty tricks by intelligence agencies, there were sound reasons citizens thought states should mind their own business. There were notorious examples of what happened when they did not, from the Vietnam War to the disappearance in the Congo of democratically elected left-wing leader Patrice Lumumba. Today, though, we're shifting again, and for proof we need only look at the growing power of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, where a war-crimes tribunal dealing with crimes in the former Yugoslavia is the first such tribunal since Nuremberg. Is this shift happening consciously? If we, as one of the Western powers, can bomb and invade a country like Afghanistan in pursuit of a terrorist like Osama bin Laden, where do we draw a line? Should we have violated Afghanistan's sovereignty years ago, and chased out the Taliban? Depending on how willing the world is to interfere, there were plenty of grounds for action: We well knew that the government was committing atrocities, from persecuting women to following policies that led to mass starvation, to destroying priceless antiquities and sculptures. Today, the Western countries fighting against terrorism are contemplating actions against other countries: Libya and Iraq, to name two, on the grounds their governments have harboured terrorists or condoned acts of terrorism. Tomorrow, which countries will we look at, and what will be the basis for taking action or leaving well enough alone? What will be the role of the United Nations in this decision? And what will be the rights of aggrieved countries, such as the United States in the case of the Sept. 11 terror attacks? And lest we mount our high horse and gallop off to save the world, we should consider whether we, too, are vulnerable to interference in our own sovereignty. If the world disagrees with our environmental practices in, say, the Great Bear Rainforest, or condemns the fact that a large proportion of Canadian First Nations people live in abject poverty, do other countries have a right to interfere in our affairs? It's time that we start asking ourselves some hard questions about sovereignty, and how important it is to us. Copyright Deborah Jones 2001 About this website: Text and photos by Deborah Jones except where otherwise noted. Please contact me for reprint rights. All material copyrighted ../About.htmlshapeimage_1_link_0
Struggling with terror
Home    Report    Think    Explore    Essay    Play    About