Kumi Naidoo calls for reality check

I'm listening to the opening panel of the Atocha Workshop on terrorism. Kumi Naidoo of Civicus  believes that by calling the war on terror a "war," governments are actually breathing more life into terrorism. Calling it a war, he believes, gives momentum, inspiration, and legitimacy to "those who would perpetuate attacks."  He says: "How you can wage a war against a tactic doesn't make sense." 

Naidoo is also concerned - as many of us are - that the discourse and language of "the war on terrorism" are being used by "regimes with no propensity to democracy." The "war on terror" provides convenient language to justify human rights abuses by non-democratic governments, crackdowns on dissidents, and "closures of democratic spaces." 

One example I'm quite familiar with is the Chinese government's use of the "war on terrorism" as a convenient excuse to lock up members of muslim groups in Western China - many of which do not advocate terrorism at all, they just want more autonomy. 

My group of bloggers and technologists is concerned that governments will use the war on terror as an excuse to crack down on freedom of speech on the internet.

Naidoo makes another fairly radical assertion: he believes that global civil society is becoming the "second superpower" that will be in the best position to fight evil, terror, poverty and injustice. Not governments.

Comments

[Trevor Hill]

This is very perceptive. I have been wondering for a long time why the occupation government in Iraq has not begun calling these actions 'criminal' or calling these people 'gangsters' or 'bandits' rather than terrorists...

In order to promote the perception of order, we need to promote the discourse of a civil society... When 3 people die in a murder here, we don't even call it a mass murder, let alone an 'insurgency'...

[Nick Lewis]

I don't know Naidoo's claim is really that radical... relatively speaking. Which sounds more like fiction:

1. Governments will eventually come around to the whole "human rights" thing... Regardless of the that governments tend to represent (forgive the Marxist overtones) the interests of those that have the most wealth; and regardless of the fact that UN is basically a worldwide coalition of those moneyed interests which we tend to accept as "a nation state"; eventually, the UN and the world governments will come around... Its their destiny! Don't you remember the UN charter?

Or....

2. The UN and our governments are structurally incapable of enforcing any sort of international morality. This structural fault is two-fold
a. Generally, what interests control the world's governments?
b. How will those interests interact on the international stage?

Thus, if people want change, their best and quickest option is to work (or fight) for it themselves. The UN can only write a nasty letter when it gets angry. The masses , on the otherhand, can make even the most powerful governments crumble once their presense is felt. Look at Russia... look at Ukraine... just to name a few. They are both a powerful reminder as to who is really in charge.

I really am not communist, btw. I'm just tired. :-)