Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 02:38:32 +1000
To: <[log in to unmask]>
From: Phil Graham <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [CSL]: OBJECTIONS TO POLITICAL STATEMENTS?



At 04:02 PM 19/09/2001 +0100, Gustavo Mesch wrote:
> >  I am asking this list to stop posting political statements.

All statements are political to some degree. Yours is more overtly so
than
many.

I will state whatever I choose to, based on what I think is right.

> >In particular one sided and unilateral analysis of the
relationships
> between ultra
> > fundamentalistic moslems groups and western countries.

I haven't seen any of those. It might be your interpretation.

> >Most of them are one sided, supporting the well known views of
Iran,
> Irak, Hesbollah and
> > the Taliban on the Us. The purpose of this list is on Cyber issues
and it
> > is not correct to change it purposes to convert it in the voice of
those
> > that have killed thousands of innocent civilians in the US whose
only
> > crime was to get up and go to work.

I think you might be feeling a bit touchy and forgetting the history
behind
some of the most fundamental and foundational critiques of
cybersociety.
The most fiery debates on new technologies were sparked by the Iraq
war,
the first "remote control" war. You know, the one that "never
happened" in
Baudrillard's words.

I probably needn't tell you, but "Cyber" is an allusion to steering
[from
the ancient helmsman]. "Society" should be self explanatory. We just
saw a
new sort of technological violence predicated on the inherent violence
in
our quotidian technologies. It changed *the course* of global society.
It
is, from a very cold perspective, a cybernetic event, technologically
driven and dderived, and it affected the whole of humanity in so many
ways.
It has made many of us angry at many people. We are all angry, or sad,
or
hopeless, or hopeful, or just numb.

Many of the people who got up an went to work that day, only to be
killed,
were Muslims. Many were Jews. Many were Christians. ALL WERE HUMAN.
Following is a piece by Sohail Inayatullah which offers some scenarios
for
the future -- *the course of the future* as it is affected by the use
of
new technologies. Like him, I think the events should be prosecuted as
a
crime against humanity, not conducted as as a "war" against a vague
'ism,
the definition of which is as flexible as the person's politics who
defines
it. In fact, I think it should be AN END NOT A BEGINNING.

Peace to you and yours,

Phil
(ps the notes in the following contain some interesting statistics and
trends)
*********

FUTURES AHEAD
After the Terror

Sohail Inayatullah [1]

First, the recent events should be seen in global human terms as a
crime
against humanity. This is not only because those in the WTC come from
many
nationalities [2] but as well issues of solidarity and efficacy of
response
move us in that direction.. In this sense, the framework for dealing
with
this has to be from an International Court (and a reformed
strengthened
United Nations), just as those responsible for Rwanda and Srebrenica
(as
Tony Judge and others have argued, www.uia.org).

Second, an equation that explains terror is: perceived injustice,
nationalism/religious-ism (including scientism and patriarchy), plus
an
asymmetrical world order.

The perceived injustice part of the equation can be handled by the USA
and
other OECD nations in positions of world power. This means really
dealing
with Israel/Palestine as well as the endless sanctions against Iraq.
Until
these grievances are met there can be no way forward. It means
listening to
the Other and moving away from good/evil terms. This language only
reinforces that which it seeks to dispel.  It continues the language
of the
Crusades, with both civilizations not seeing that they mirror each
other.  Indeed, we need to move to a new level of identity. As  Phil
Graham
writes: "We are the Other. We have become alienated from our common
humanity, and  the attribute, hope, image, that might save us  is  the
"globalisation" of  humanity." [3]

The USA is a capitalist nation with military might buttressing it. Bin
Ladin and others are capitalists with military strength. Both are
globalized, both see the world in terms of us/them, both use ideas for
their position (extremists drawing on Islam; American intellectuals
using
linear development theory). Both are strong male. The USA builds twin
towers, evoking male architecture (as argued by Ivana Milojevic and
Philip
Daffara [4]). The terrorists use the same phallic symbol  the airplane
 to
bring it down. Boys with toys with terrifying results for us all.

The second part is a shared responsibility, within the Islamic world
especially, but essentially a dialogue of civilizations.  And here,
the
crucial language is a dialogue within religions, between the hard and
soft
side. Certainly the Taliban arguing that Muslims have a duty to fight
with
them in case of an attack on Afghanistan does not help matters.  The
Taliban has spent the last decade fighting against Muslims, why would
anyway desire to support such a state?  While the hard side is clearly
defining the future, but that not need be the case.   Fortunately, the
hard
side is becoming de-legitimized   Pat Robertson blaming the terror
attacks
on the USA moving away from God because of feminism, etc.) and Muslims
everywhere hopefully beginning to see that more terror will not work
and is
morally wrong (however, with civil war in Pakistan looming, the
prognosis
for this alternative perspective are not great). Still, the message
must
be: the injustices are real but non-violent global civil disobedience
(against companies, nations, leaders)  is a far more potent method for
long
term transformation.

The third part really is what the social movements can and must
continue,
challenging the asymmetrical nature of the world system, and pushing
for a
new globalization (of ideas, cultures, labour and capital, while
protecting
local systems that are not racist/sexist/predatory on the weak).  The
social movements can through their practice and image of the future,
show,
and create a global civil society, challenging the twin towers of
capital
and military.

SCENARIOS

There are at least three scenarios for the near and long term future.

1. Fortress USA/OECD. Australia has already chosen that route, with
basically a prison lock down ahead, especially to newcomers (who
desire to
enter the Fantasy island of the Virtual West). The costs for the
elites
will be very high given globalized world capitalism, and with aging as
one
the major long term issues for OECD. The Fortress scenario will lead
to
general impoverishment and the loss of the immigration innovation
factor.  In the short run, it will give the appearance of security,
but in
the longer run, poverty will result, not to mention sham democracies
with
real power with the right wing aligned with the military/police
complex.  Increasing airport security is a must but without root
issues
being resolved, terror will find other vehicles of expression. After
all,
fortresses are remembered, in history, for being overrun, not for
successful defense against "others."

2. Cowboy War - vengeance forever. Bush has already evoked the Wild
West,
and the Wanted  Dead or Alive image, indeed, even calling for a
"crusade"
against the terroists. Asks, Laurence Brown of the University of
Queensland, "where have we heard that language before." [5] We have
seen
what that leads to all over the world, and the consequences are too
clear
for most of us. Endless escalation in war that will look like the USA
has
won  once the bad  Muslims are nuked off the face of the earth, but
what if
a few survive? They will remember the latest round, and the response
will
be far more terrifying, with new sorts of weapons. In any case, with
the
USA army, especially the marines  rapidly becoming Muslim (through
conversion and demographic growth rates) [5], cowboy war will start to
eat
at the inner center. And once state terror begins, (or shall we say
continues) there is no end in sight. Bush as already stated the
assassination clause does not apply to Bin Ladin and others since the
USA
is acting in self-defense. Cowboy war, again, will work in the short
run.
Crowds will chant USA, USA, until the next hit. The CIA can get back
to
business, and continue to make enemies everywhere.

In this future, there is no real change to the world system. Once the
terrorists are caught, no changes in international politics or
international capital occur, simply OECD states become stronger, while
individuals become more fearful, anxiety prone.  A depression of
multiple
varieties is likely to occur (economic and psychological).

   3. Gaia of civilizations/international justice/ remedying
injustices
(especially in Israel/Palestine as well as the endless sanctions in
Iraq,
and injustices by third world governments toward their own people) to
begin
with, and new equity based multicultural globalization. This means
transforming the world system, focusing on a post-globalization vision
of
the future, and moving to a world governance system (human and animal
rights; indexing of wealth of poor and rich on a global level; gender
partnership).. In terms of epistemology, this means moving from the
strategic discourse, which has defined us for hundreds of years, to
the
emergent healing discourse (within, toward others, toward the planet,
and
for future generations).   Healing means seeing the earth as an
evolving
body. What is the best way to heal then, through enhancing the immune
system, listening to the body, or through massive injection of drugs?

Ultimately, this means far more of a Mandela approach, what Johan
Galtung
is doing via the transcend (www.transcend.org) network than the Bush
short
term approach.

This 3rd scenario is the global civil/spiritual society vision, and
one
that stands in strong opposition to the declared USA position and the
extremist groups all over the world.

The first scenario is very much a return to the imagined past, the
second
the likely future, and the third, for me, the aspirational .  This
means
moving beyond capitalist West and the feudalized, ossified non-West
(and
modernized fragmented versions of it) and toward an Integrated
planetary
civilization. I can see this civilization desperately trying to emerge
at
rational and post-rational levels, indeed, crystal clear at the mythic
spiritual level, and I can clearly see the huge stumbling blocks
perceived
injustices, the isms, and the asymmetrical world order, and national
leaders unwilling to give up their "god-given" right to define
identity and
allegiance.

Do we have the courage to create this emergent future. I am convinced
it
will emerge, I hope it will emerge through ahimsa and not versions of
endless terror. We need to choose life.

NOTES

[1] Professor, Tamkang University, Taiwan; Sunshine Coast University,
Maroochydore; Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Co-editor,
Journal of Futures Studies, Associate Editor, New Renaissance
(www.ru.org).
[log in to unmask], www.metafuture.org.

[2] Around 500-700 Pakistanis are presumed to be missing, as based on
data
from SBS Television Australia and Pakistan's The News. It is not only
Americans that are being attacked by certainly Muslims (possibly
around 900
or so in the WTC and  some in the Pentagon, perhaps, not to mention
attacks
of terror toward Muslims in the last 15 years from all sources) as
well.

[3] Personal comments. September 18, 2001.

[4] Personal comments. September 16, 2001.

[5] See his forthcoming piece on "The futures of terrorism," Journal
of
Futures Studies (November, 2001).

[6] Ayeda Husain Naqvi writes in "The Rise of the Muslim Marine"
(NewsLine,
July 1996, 75-77) that while hate crimes against Muslims rise all over
the
world, surprising the US military is one of the safest places to be a
muslim. Indeed, Qasem Ali Uda forecasts that in 20 years, 25% of all
US
marines will be Muslims and in a 100 years, most will be Muslim. Given
the
incredible influence that that former military personnel have on US
policies (ie a look at Who's Who in America shows that military
background
and law school education are the two common denominators on the
resumes of
America's most influential people.)

************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************