A remarkable and compassionate response to the events of September 11th.


>From: Milan Rai <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Aftermath <[log in to unmask]>
>Cc: peacetemp <[log in to unmask]>

> Professor Robin Therkauf lost her husband Tom in the attacks on the
> World Trade Centre on 11 September. She has spoken out against
> war and for justice, not vengeance.
>
> ****************************
>
> Interview on the Today programme, BBC Radio 4, Tuesday 2
> October 2001
> Professor Robin Therkauf
>
> 'What we need less of is war rhetoric and war against Afghanistan in
> particular, and to explore the possibility of a judicial solution...
>
> 'The last thing I wanted was for more widows and fatherless children
> to be created in my name. It would only produce a backlash.
>
> 'As the victim of violence, I'd never want this to happen to another
> woman again.'
>
> ****************************
>
> Are we at war?
> Robin Theurkauf
> [The Friend, 28 September 2001]
>
> Robin Theurkauf's husband died in the attack on the World Trade
> Center. Even as she grieves, she has issued this call to look beyond
> military options.
>
> My husband, Tom Theurkauf lost his life in the World Trade Center
> disaster. We all direct our grief in different ways, this is mine.
>
> I offer these thoughts both as a new widow and mother of three
> fatherless boys as well as a scholar of international law and politics.
>
> We used to know what war was. It was the opposite of peace. Wars
> took place between states each with armies in uniforms and a
> hierarchical command structure. States went to war over territory or
> more recently over ideology. It is a legal status. One must declare it.
> At war's conclusion, we come to a peace agreement and return to a
> non-war condition.
>
> This seems different. The enemy stays in the shadows even as they live
> among us, organised in loosely connected cells. No state has declared
> war against us, at least in the familiar way. The action was designed to
> spread fear and hate and so we are not entirely sure what would be
> required to end this conflict.
>
> As we assemble a military platform in the Persian Gulf it is worth
> considering the fact that while political scientists know very few things
> with any confidence, there is substantial consensus on at least one
> relevant point. While this attack was intended to provoke, responding
> in kind will only escalate the violence. Further, if we succumb to the
> understandable impulse to injure as we have been injured and in the
> process create even newer widows and fatherless children, perhaps
> we will deserve what we get.
>
> Some have made the analogy to the attack on Pearl Harbour and in at
> least one way it is appropriate. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbour,
> thousands of young men volunteered to join the military. I can only
> imagine the success of radical Islam's recruiters after our bombs fall
> on their heads.
>
> If not 'war', what words should we use? I think a better name is
> 'international crime'. Restating the problems refocuses the solution.
>
> In the short term, the first priority should be to hunt down and
> arrest the criminals with the goal of achieving justice, not revenge.
> This is a task left not to the military but to investigative police
forces,
> who can prepare for a trial.
>
> Ordinary Americans also can take steps to fight back against this evil.
> We can combat fear and hate in part by reaching out to Muslims in
> our communities and by patronising Arab businesses. This show of
> solidarity will in part thwart these criminals' purpose of creating
> division in American communities.
>
> In the long term, eradicating terrorism will require the elimination
> not of a group of people but rather of a set of ideas. Paradoxically,
> eliminating the people will reinforce and further legitimise the ideas.
> Terrorist impulses ferment in cultures of poverty, oppression and
> ignorance. The elimination of those conditions and the active
> promotion of a universal respect for human rights must become a
> national security priority.
>
> Finally, the United States as a matter of policy must recognise and
> accept our vulnerability. In today's hyper-militarised environment, no
> state can ensure security within its borders without the cooperation
> of others.
>
> The Bush administration's unilateralism has been revealed to be
> hollow. Rather than infringe on our sovereignty, international
> institutions enhance our ability to perform the functions of national
> government, including the ability to fight international crime.
>
> Bombing Afghanistan today will not prevent tomorrow's tragedy. We
> must look beyond military options for long term solutions.
>
> Robin Therkauf is a lecturer in the political science department at Yale
> University



////////////////////////////////////////////
Dr David Wood
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
[Algorithmic Surveillance and Social Exclusion]

Centre for Urban Technology
School of Architecture Planning and Landscape
University of Newcastle
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 7RU
UK

[log in to unmask]
////////////////////////////////////////////