America’s behaviour fuels global terrorism

Harry Taruva
In recent times, the term “global terrorism” has been used to refer to engagement in terrorist activities when the actor knows or reasonably should know; gives material support to an individual; organisation or government to conduct a terrorist activity.
Interestingly, history shows that the United States of America has been the main target of global terrorism.

No other nation or people have been so exposed to terrorism as the Americans. Consequently, global terrorism has tended to be defined and interpreted in American terms and conditions. The end of the Second World War, the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union created an imbalance in global geopolitics.

The Americans (and lately their NATO allies) have emerged as the only military authority in the global village.

In International relations circles, scholars have argued that what has been termed global terrorism by the Americans and their allies in recent times is only a response by disgruntled groups and nations to American dominance, aggression and latter day imperialism, hence the feeling that global terrorism is only a threat and response to American interests. The US led invasion of Iraq and the manipulation of a UN resolution to invade Libya were not responses to imminent terrorist threats. These were acts of aggression which violated international law.

The emergence of ‘’global terrorist ‘’networks resisting American dominance and aggression has been attributed to American’s arrogance, especially after its victory in World War II.

Critics like Andrew Bacevich urge Americans to have a foreign policy ‘’rooted in humility and realism’’.

Others argue that there is a sense in which America sees itself as qualitatively different from other countries and therefore cannot be judged by the same standards as other countries, what is called American “exceptionalism”. A writer in Time magazine in 1971, described American exceptionalism as an ‘’almost mystical sense that America had a mission to spread freedom and democracy everywhere’’.

But the belief is American exceptionalism is linked to hypocrisy.

It is common knowledge that America keeps a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons while rushing to impose punitive sanctions on nations that embark on nuclear enrichment.

Lately, the Iranians have been isolated and bear the brunt of sanctions for crossing the “red line” imposed by the US. This explains their famous rift with the Iranians and the subsequent classification of the Islamic Republic as a “global terrorist” threat.

Yet is is clear that the Iranians are only a threat to American dominance, interests and Israel.

The US pretends to be concerned about human rights but has refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. They have publicly stated their opposition to torture but they have condoned and promoted it in the Guantanamo Bay and despite promising to close it during his first presidential term, Barack Obama has developed cold feet.

Americans advocate for national sovereignty but they have a history of supporting internal guerrilla movements and neo-liberal regime change political parties.

Americans have funded regime change movements across the globe including sponsoring the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act in Zimbabwe. Osama bin Laden stood up to fight what he believed to be American influence and dominance and he was labelled a global terrorist.

What kind of hypocrisy? The US has been criticized for inconsistent foreign policy. They have denounced human rights abuses in China while glorifying rights violations by Israel. In 2006, James Traub wrote in the New York Times Magazine: “When it comes to military force, the US will and can act alone.’’ In other words they do not respect international law. They respect their interests. Exposed here is the United States’ notoriety to cover its evil by loudly pointing at lesser evils from others and even advocating ‘’justice’’ to victims of dictatorships and tyranny, zealously doing it ahead of others. Because it is a superpower, the US molests smaller states and when smaller nations resist they are labelled terrorists and pariah states.

This is typical case of a pea standing next to a mountain. If Osama bin Laden was alive and if together with other listed terror groups like Hamas they were to face Barack Obama, it would be interesting to hear what they would say to him.

The world is supposed to applaud when the Americans molest and murder millions of innocent civilians in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.

They have the right to use violence where they choose and there can never be limits on the rights of the US.

They must act alone and all others must follow or risk being irrelevant.

What is clear in this analysis is that it is unacceptably barbaric if the violation is by Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Osama Bin Laden, Sudan or Iran. When someone does it and if it hurts American interests, it is global terrorism.

In the past, we have seen Americans issuing international terror warnings and even suspending operations at no less than 20 embassies.

The American Ambassador to Libya was put to the sword in Benghazi while the bloody showdown at Eastgate shopping mall in Nairobi in 2013 is the latest testimony of organized “terror ‘’ groups’ responding to American aggression.