Get on Board
June 2, 2006
In March 1973, the O'Jay's hit, "Love Train," peaked on the U.S. charts. One of my favorite soul hits from the 70s, the song pleads for everyone around the globe to get on board the train of love, redemption and healing, no doubt what a nation then plagued by the Vietnam War and civil unrest needed to hear. I never tire of the simple refrain, "people all over the world get on board." The song's infectious hook makes you feel like you're the fool for not getting on this bandwagon. And it's a great dance song! Oh if only we were already riding that train. I'm not even sure we've ever gotten around to building the station, much less the tracks. I think the people are ready and some are even riding, but the government isn't responding to our public pleas.
One read of Amnesty International's Report 2006 confirms that the world's leading nation, the United States, is not progressing much in terms of human security and respect for human rights. Yes, we've had nearly five years of something our government calls a war on terror, or more recently, a global struggle against violent extremism, but where is the leadership on global security that prioritizes human development, safety, peace and social justice? Amnesty International's report couldn't put it more succinctly than this indictment of U.S. priorities: "Hypocrisy and a disregard for basic human rights principles and international legal obligations continued to mark the USA's 'war on terror'."
Amen to that. Anytime a report must put quotation marks around a policy you know that they mean it lacks global credibility.
I'll never forget when I first started giving public lectures after 9/11, many of which were on the war on terror. Several times during my talks someone in the audience would raise a quick hand and say something along the lines of "Why do you keep using the term, 'war on terror'? It's the so-called war on terror. Don't give it so much legitimacy." I explained to my critic that it would take far too much time to say "so-called" every time I referred to the WOT so it should just be assumed.
Well that answer really wasn't good enough then and it certainly isn't now. People need to stand up and declare that the empire has no clothes and is thus in no position to take the lead in resolving the terror threat. Don't get me wrong. I don't think that it's just the United States' sole responsibility to be the end all and do all in global human rights. What the U.S. needs to do is to take the lead by example, not rhetoric. This is why I cringed when I heard President Bush tell Naval Academy graduates on May 27th that this nation was winning the war on terror:
We are taking the fight to the enemy abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. We're denying the terrorists sanctuary, and making clear that America will not tolerate outlaw regimes that provide safe haven and support to terrorists. We're using all elements of national power to deny terrorists the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons they seek. We will not allow mass murderers to gain access to the tools of mass destruction. And we're stopping terrorists from achieving their ideological victories they seek, by working to spread the hope of freedom and reform across the broader Middle East. We understand that free nations do not support terrorists or invade their neighbors. We understand to make the world more peaceful and our country more secure, we will advance the cause of liberty.
President Bush also told Naval Academy graduates: "The best way to protect our citizens is to stay on the offensive." What's good offense to President Bush is becoming too offensive, and the U.S. can ill afford to continue to project an arrogance of power surrounding its own security to the exclusion of others. He also said that military technology is becoming so advanced that it's now possible in this "new era of warfare" to target a regime and not a nation, target the guilty, and not the innocent. Ask noncombatant nationals what it's like to be on the receiving end of a regime-targeted missile or bullet. They might challenge that statement. This president himself had to finally acknowledge in December 2005 that tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians had been killed in a war designed to uproot the Iraqi regime, not the nation.
The problem with any, if not all of this presidential rhetoric, is that while it may ring true to many in the U.S., it rings very hollow to most parts of the world. We are a nation that must accept that our global brand includes not only Hollywood and Madison Avenue glamour and shine, but also Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and Guantanamo Bay, all of which point to an executive that is more concerned with its own preservation and security than advancing the cause of global peace and justice.
Amnesty International's Report 2006 said that, "Individually and collectively, governments continued to pursue policies that often sacrificed human rights for political or economic expediency. At the same time, around the world, millions of people lent their weight to calls for greater accountability, more transparency and greater recognition of our shared responsibility to tackle these global threats collectively."
It's a little faint right now, but I can hear that train whistle blowing in the distance.
