The View From Here: 9/11

Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts

Thursday, November 11, 2021

Senselessness, horror and futility of war not really discussed on Remembrance Day

War should be remembered for the utter horror that it is, the fact that politicians have sent other people's children off to die, and that Remembrance Day also commemorates a very ugly history.

By Fareed Khan

Today, November 11th, the nation marked another Remembrance Day – a day to remember the soldiers sent off to fight wars far from home who never returned. However, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks politicians in Canada and other Western nations have made a spectacle of the occasion. While on its surface the day is used to acknowledge Canadian soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice, it is now also used to instill nationalism and sentimentality in the populace, and for political gain by glossing over the ugly history behind this tradition.

War should be remembered for the utter horror that it is, and the fact that politicians have sent other people's children off to die. The red poppy and Canada’s national cenotaph represent sacrifice but they do not convey the true horror of what war is. As the veterans of the most horrific wars of human history dwindle the carnage and brutality they witnessed fades into the past and out of the public’s consciousness. When the last veteran of World War 2 is no more the true insanity of what war is will likely also fade and be forgotten.

The First World War need not have happened. It was the result of foolhardy European politicians, men with egos from both sides, who for reasons of imperial ambition broke a decades-long peace and sent men off to be slaughtered in the killing fields of Europe, and to the colonial outposts of European empires in Africa, the Middle-East and the Far East. “The Great War” inflicted death and carnage on an unimaginable scale with industrial efficiency. And estimated 17 to 22 million people died, of which more than 10 million were innocent civilians, and over 25 million were among the injured.

The outcome of that war and the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, where the winners sought outrageous amounts of reparations from the losing side, is what laid the foundations for World War Two. The dead in that conflict numbered more than 70 million by conservative estimates. The civilian dead in that war numbered more than 50 million. When the world went to war for a second time in the 20th Century there was a real enemy bent on evil and world domination. However, it was an evil whose seeds were planted by the actions and politics of the First World War's allied powers.

Only five short years after the end of World War 2, a collection of nations were at war again in the Korean peninsula after North Korea and China supported by the Soviet Union invaded South Korea. The Korean War was the first major conflict of the Cold War and had the potential to morph into a nuclear conflict. It too was a war of empire between the United States and the Soviet Union, the two strongest military powers in the world at the time. Over 3.5 million people died in the Korean War from both sides, with civilians making up 2,000,000 of that total.

There is no honour in war. It is senseless slaughter primarily for economic or political gain. That is what the majority of wars of the last century have been, with civilians comprising an increasing number of the dead because governments have found more lethal ways of indiscriminately killing, despite whatever they might say about trying to avoid civilian casualties.

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks approximately one million innocent civilians (the population of Ottawa) have been killed by Western nations (primarily the US) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, with one estimate putting the number of deaths as high as 6 million. But there are never any ceremonies to remember them, and the illegal war in Iraq, which Canada wisely refused to join, created the horror of ISIS that is now resulting in more innocent lives being lost.

So as Canada remembers the fallen today we should remember the ugly history behind why this day is commemorated.

We should remember that those who served and died were for the most part honourable, and many died needlessly for the sake of ego, greed, ambition and politics. Those who sacrificed believed they were fighting to protect democracy and freedom at home and innocents abroad because that is what the politicians who sent them off to fight told them.

Additionally, if we are going to honour the memory of the fallen we should do so not just by remembering them with pomp and circumstance on one day of the year. The best way that we can remember and honour them is to fight at home against hateful ideologies like fascism and white supremacy, to ensure that the rights and liberties which they were willing to die for are not taken away from us, and to ensure that the freedoms we value are not slowly stripped away by governments and politicians through instilled fear and stealth.

If we fail to do that, if we do not hold our politicians to account and stand up in defence of our rights, we are spitting on the memory of the fallen, and dishonouring the sacrifices they made to give us the freedoms and liberties many of us take for granted. We can do much better and we should.

Friday, May 16, 2014

9-11 Museum Opening Ceremonies Silent on the Hundreds of Thousands Killed by America's "War On Terror"

By Fareed Khan

It was a solemn day in New York City yesterday (May 15, 2014). This day marked the official opening of the 9/11 museum which commemorates the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The museum is the principal institution concerned with exploring the implications of the events of the September 11th terrorist attacks and documenting the impact of those events. But for the majority of American it is seen as the national memorial to the 2,977 people who were victims of 9/11. The museum opening received wide media coverage , as is appropriate for the opening of a memorial for such a tragic event.

But while it was solemn day for those in New York City the opening of the museum should also be marked as a tragic day for the millions of people who were half a world away, had no direct involvement in the attacks of September 11th, and yet are victims of 9/11 just as much as the people who died on that sunny Tuesday morning. I refer to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan who became victims of violence perpetrated by the United States and its allies as it lashed out in response to the events of September 11th.

The tragedy of yesterday's museum opening is manifested in the fact that while the deaths of the 9/11 victims are being remembered in the U.S. by the opening of a memorial that cost over $700 million to build, totally forgotten is the reality of the many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani men, women and children who died as a direct result of America's "war on terror", a war which was justified in the name of those who were killed on 9/11.

These are innocent victims who have no national memorials and are only remembered in the hearts and minds of their family members. Their deaths and life changing injuries are not and will not be an occasion for mass media events, museums or memorials. There will be no heartfelt speeches about them by political leaders. And the public will not see their photograph on a commemorative wall or hear the voices of their family members describing their tragic last moments of life. And there will be few in the United States or other western countries that will remember their faces let alone mourn for them.

It is conservatively estimated that the American-led efforts to combat terrorism has directly resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 people in Iraq alone, created approximately 4.5 million refugees in the countires where the U.S. has launched military actions, and has cost the American government more than $6 trillion. And this cumulative body count does not include those who have died due to the suffering caused by the destruction of civilian infrastructure (i.e. hospitals, water/sewage treatment facilities, power generation plants, etc.).

The solemnity of the New York City event was punctuated by the fact that it was attended by President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle. Also in attendance was a who's who of political heavy weights, including former president Bill Clinton and former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, former mayors Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani, and former New York governor George Pataki. In addition to the political celebrities in attendance were many family members of 9/11 victims as well as some of those who survived the collapse of the twin towers.

In his remarks during the opening ceremonies President Obama said that the "sacred place of healing and hope" will ensure that "generations yet unborn will never forget" the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

It is unlikely that what happened on 9/11 will ever forgotten given how the events of that day were seared into the memories of millions of people in the United States and hundreds of millions around the world by the media, by the volumes of academic research that has been devoted to this single act of terrorism over the 12 years since the event, and because of the geopolitical actions undertaken by the U.S. government in the aftermath of the attacks.

Yes, yesterday was a solemn day in New York City, and the September 11th attacks and their victims should be remembered. But we in the West also need to remember the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who have been killed and maimed (directly and indirectly) because of the so-called ‟war on terror”.

We need to remember the face of Ali Ismail Abbas, a 12 year old Iraqi boy, who lost his limbs as well as his parents and extended family when his family home was ‟accidentally” bombed by U.S. forces in 2004.

We need to remember the scores of people killed in a wedding party (including women and children) in southern Afghanistan in 2002 when the celebration in their village was bombed because military analysts incorrectly thought it was a gathering of Taliban insurgents.

And we need to acknowledge the physical and psychological trauma suffered by hundreds of thousands of families in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries who mourn their dead outside of the media spotlight, without multi-million dollar memorials commemorating their dead, and out of the minds of vast majority of people in the west who don't give a second thought to the innocent victims that have died and suffered, victims who are not memorialized in a museum in New York City. Only if we do that can we legitimately claim the right to our belief that we are a compassionate, caring and civilized society.

NOTE: All links in this article were current and working at the time of posting. If any links no longer work please post a note and the problem will be corrected where possible.

© Fareed Khan. © All rights reserved. All Rights Reserved.

Monday, October 07, 2013

The Eagle, The Beaver and Border Politics: Can Canada Remain Sovereign In A World Dominated by the U.S. and China

Updated October 7, 2013 11:04 PM

It's time for Canada to merge with the United States and create one giant capitalist economy on the top half of North America in order to be competitive globally in a 21st Century that will likely to be dominated by China.

At least that is the argument being put forth by National Post columnist Diane Francis in her most recent book Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country.

As the editor for the Financial Post and then columnist for the National Post newspapers over the years Francis never made any secret of her desire for a less regulated Canadian economy that more closely matched what exists in the United States. Having more freedom to conduct business would be better for the bottom line and better for Canada according to Francis.

As an American-Canadian Francis writes passionately about the many historical and cultural ties that bind her country of birth and her adopted country. Merger of the Century makes the case for erasing the formal distinction between the two entirely. The key justification she puts forth for the merger is that this would be the best way for Canada to counter the economic threat of countries like China and Russia, “which use state-controlled sovereign wealth funds to buy control of resources and key industries of other nations.” "The best option for the U.S. and Canada to survive the new economic reality would be to devise protective policies and to merge into one gigantic nation," Francis argues.

However, if you examine the online responses to stories of Francis’ proposal it has been overwhelmingly negative. Comments such as "Not in this lifetime" and "Over my dead body" pretty much sum up the sentiments expressed.

North American Union? Diane Francis Pushes U.S.-Canada Merger

Could Canada and America Ever Merge?

Writer’s idea that Canada and U.S. should merge likely DOA

Diane Francis on a Canada-U.S. merger

Seeing the story about Diane Francis' book reminded me about a book written by Canadian political economist, professor and author James Laxer a few years back. The book was titled The Border: Canada, the U.S. and Dispatches from the 49th Parallel and was published in 2003 only a couple of years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. During that politically volatile period there were voices (mostly from business and right wing politicians) calling for greater integration and lowering of security barriers between Canada and the U.S. for the sake of the economy. But the arguments put forth by Laxer made a very compelling case for why there is a real need for a border between Canada and the U.S.

He contended that borders act as brake points which limit the power of the state and allowed divergent ideas to find a larger field in which to germinate and grow. In the post-September 11th world, it asked pointed questions. Will Canadians acquiesce to U.S. pressure and allow policies to be implemented that violate Canada’s liberal-democratic traditions? Are Canadians willing to reassert our nationhood and defend our borders, or do we allow our priorities, our values, and our society to be subservient to the political priorities of the U.S.? Do we continue into the 21st century as a sovereign, independent nation?

Of course in the years since Laxer wrote his book some of those questions have been answered. Under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper the answers to those questions have respectively been “yes”, “no” and “maybe”.

Given the questions and discussions that have been raised by the Diane Francis book I thought it only appropriate that James Laxer's views on the importance of maintaining a division between Canada and the United States be given a second airing so that people could see the counter arguments to the idea of keeping Canada and the United States as separate political and cultural entities.

- Fareed Khan

*********************

SOURCE: http://media.cagle.com/9/2006/09/22/30613_600.jpg

T H E B O R D E R :

Canada, the U.S. and Dispatches

from the 49^th Parallel

A Critical Analysis By: Fareed Khan

______________________________________________________________

“If good fences make good neighbours, do we have the sort of fence that will allow us to maintain neighbourly relations with the world’s only superpower?”

With this question highlighted on the inside cover of his new book The Border, noted Canadian political scientist James Laxer sets out on a journey to discover what it means to be Canadian when you share a frontier with the political, economic, military and cultural behemoth that is the United States.

In The Border, Laxer paints a complex picture about the boundary separating Canada from the United States. Using personal experiences and observations from travelling back and forth across various border points over an eighteen month period, Laxer raises important questions about Canada’s historic relationship with our continental neighbour, as well as how that relationship will evolve in the 21st century. In a journey that takes him from Campobello Island on the east coast to Point Roberts on the west coast and up to the Yukon-Alaska boundary, Laxer illustrates that sharing a border with the U.S. has been an exercise in fear, frustration, tolerance and patience whether you are talking about the decades following the American Revolution or the months following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In addition, by recounting the historic and contemporary political, economic, social and cultural factors that led to the defining of the Canada-U.S. border he further illustrates how an invisible line can define the past, present and future of the northern half of this continent.

The Border can be divided into two sections. The first section mostly deals with the Canada-U.S. relationship before the September 11, 2001, while the second section deals with the period after that date.

Laxer provides this frame of reference by explaining in the preface his intentions when he set out to write this book. He states that it was, “. . . in an age that has now passed – the less fearful time prior to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C.” (p. 1)

However, he ends the preface by noting that, “My approach to the book changed after September 11. In the end I was afforded a unique perspective on the border before and after a date when the world changed. For North America, September 11 brought on a twin crisis, that of the role of the Unites States in the world, and that of Canada’s relationship with the Unites States. The Border addresses that twin crisis.” (p. 3)

By declaring this at the outset Laxer establishes a moment in time which he uses to focus the analysis of the relationship that has existed between Canada and the U.S. over the past two centuries. This reference point itself acts like the border between Canada and the U.S., becoming the doorway between a “simpler” more “innocent” period of the cross-border relationship and a new period of the relationship after “the world changed”.

However, this perception must be viewed as a paradox. By relating various historical and contemporary events, interspersed with personal border anecdotes of his journey, Laxer reveals that simplicity and innocence can hardly be the terms used to describe the history of the Canada-U.S. relationship whether before or after September 11, 2001.

Although the terrorist attacks are a defining event in the history of the U.S. and how it has affected its relationship with Canada, I believe that Laxer demonstrates there have been many more important defining moments in Canadian and American history that have had a greater impact on the relationship between the two countries. Throughout the book he relates some of these major events including: the Loyalist experience after the American Revolution, the outcome of the War of 1812, the Canadian view of the U.S. Civil War, Confederation, Prohibition, the Cold War, Quebec separatism, and more recently the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

All of these are seminal events that have defined the Canada-U.S. relationship and they are all events that begs the question, what does the border mean and what does it mean for Canadians? In a strictly technical sense the Canada-U.S. border is a mutually agreed upon arrangement between two parties that define the limits within the geographic mass of North America based on a set of historic, political, social, cultural, economic and physical circumstances. This arrangement exists only as long as each party remains committed to it. In a broader sense, however, Laxer demonstrates that the border means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

For many Canadians the border is an abstract political concept that guarantees the sovereignty and independence of the political entity that is Canada. It has allowed this country the freedom to become a society that, despite assertions (legitimate and otherwise) about the dominating nature of our southern neighbour, is separate from the U.S., and definitely different. As Laxer states, because of the border Canadians can control their own political, economic and cultural destiny. It is essential to who we are as a people and because of it the quality of life of the average Canadian is superior to that enjoyed south of the border.

For others, however, the border has a totally different meaning. For these people (primarily Canada’s business and economic elites and the political right) the border is seen as a barrier to Canada’s economic growth and prosperity. Laxer refers to these as the “deep integrationists” – those interested in the integration of Canadian policies with those of the U.S. Although not a new idea, this idea seems to have more advocates today than in past decades.

These Canadians call for the elimination of Canadian customs and immigration controls, harmonized visa, refugee and security policies, taxes lowered to the same levels as those in the U.S., and less government restrictions on the way businesses can operate. In effect these Canadians call for policies that would result in the loss of Canadian nationhood, and would lead to an effective loss of Canada’s independence resulting in the Canadian Parliament merely being a rubber stamp for policies made in Washington D.C. According to Laxer, these are the same elites that supported the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement – two policies that have led to a diminishing of Canadian sovereignty. He also refers to these Canadians as a potential “fifth column” – Canadians who are active in promoting the merging of Canada with the United States.

As an example of the lack of commitment these Canadians have to their country, Laxer cites the fact that the smoke had barely cleared after the September 11th terrorist attacks when Canada’s political right and corporate interests were, “. . . quick off the mark making the argument that the world had changed and that Canada needed to press for a wide-ranging deal with the United States to promote much closer North American integration.” (p. 259)

These arguments are based mainly on economic factors and do not appear to take into consideration that nationhood is about more than just the bottom line, and that the border is not there as a mere inconvenience for Canadian business elites.

Laxer counters the integrationist argument by stating that in light of U.S. government actions after September 11th that have curtailed American civil liberties and violated the U.S. Constitution, Canada needs the protection of our border with the U.S. now more than ever. By describing the damage that has occurred to some of the key pillars of America’s liberal-democratic traditions, he makes us witnesses to what could be the nascent footsteps of neo-fascism in the U.S. that can only be kept out of Canada by ensuring that our southern border remains intact and our sovereignty protected.

Since that fateful September morning, as issues related to “homeland” and border security have dominated discussions between the two nations, Laxer also notes that there are voices that have been and still are opposed to greater Canada-U.S. integration. These voices see Canada heading down the road of “Finlandization” – where Canada would need U.S. agreement to implement policies that impact on American interests – a situation similar to the relationship between Finland and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The Border cuts across a wide field of history and politics, and it illustrates the left-wing bent of its author on political, economic, social and cultural issues. It is a book authored by an academic that is not an academic book. This is clearly evident by the dearth of references and footnotes, and by the unwillingness to offer a fair criticism of Canada on matters where there is heavy criticism of the United States (e.g. slavery, civil rights violations). It is also illustrated by the ample of use of personal anecdotes and experiences – writing styles that are not necessarily compatible with a written work that is intended for academic reference.

This aspect of the writing jumps out at the reader in the introduction when Laxer begins by describing the view outside a railway car as he travels across the Prairies by train en route to Toronto. He uses the same style in several later chapters. This use of a travelogue style of writing is more indicative of someone writing for a travel publication, and although it might be disconcerting to some, I believe that this non-academic and unpretentious style makes the book accessible to a wider audience.

Laxer contends that borders act as brake points which limit the power of the state. By being written in a style that is more accessible to the general public, The Border also acts as a brake on those who argue for fewer border limits between Canada and the United States. It allows these ideas to find a larger field in which to germinate and grow. In the post-September 11th world, it asks pointed questions. Will Canadians acquiesce to U.S. pressure and allow policies to be implemented that violate Canada’s liberal-democratic traditions? Are Canadians willing to reassert our nationhood and defend our borders, or do we allow our priorities, our values, and our society to be subservient to the political priorities of the U.S.? Do we continue into the 21st century as a sovereign, independent nation?

In a steel plant the workers who work closest to the blast furnaces require extra protection to protect them from the intense heat of the steel-making process. The Border illustrates that similar to the steelworker, Canada’s physical closeness to the political heat of the U.S. requires that we maintain the protection of the border in order to protect this country’s sovereignty, society, economy, and culture.

The Border is an enjoyable if controversial read, and it should be on the bookshelves of anyone who feels that Canada needs to be protected from the overwhelming presence of the our neighbour to the south.

______________________________________________________________

It should be noted that since the publication of Laxer's book in 2003 a number of events have taken place that raise the question of whether in a globalized and technologically integrated world where trade is the lifeblood of the Canadian economy, can a nation as small as Canada ever be truly protected within its borders and pursue policies independent of the interests and pressures of its largest trading partners and glointernational corporations. Some of those events include the following:

negotiations to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership in North America;
Canada's discussions to ratify the FIPA treaty with China;
revelations that the American National Security Agency illegally spied on anyone communicating with those living in the U.S. and bugged the foreign missions of allies in Europe and at the United Nations;
possible collusion by Canada's Communications Security Establishment with the American NSA to spy on Canadians;
the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline and further developing the Alberta tar sands despite it's greenhouse gas footprint;
Stephen Harper's Conservatives withdrawing Canada from the Kyoto Treaty on climate change (the only country to do so) with no viable alternatives to address Canada's greenhouse gas emissions;
The Trans Pacific Partnership trade treaty and how it would give corporations leverage to bully governments; and
numerous other public policy issues too numerous to mention.

This begs the question, what do Canadians need to do to ensure that what is done in the name of Canada to protect its borders is done in such a way that those who benefit are not just the rich, the connected and the powerful, but also the 99% of Canadians who fall into the category of middle and lower income Canadians -- people who have seen their incomes essentially stagnate over the past two decades.