 |
 |
I agree that the US has supported dictatorships which have suppressed their people and conducted state terrrorism against their own populace. I'm old enough to have been horrified by the pictures of the carnage in Santiago in the 70s and the support US gave to Pinochet in overthrowing a popularly elected Marxist Government. But terrorism against civilians has no moral justification whether it is in the West Bank, Afganistan, Ruwanda, or in the streets of Manhattan. Should this list be a forum for reflections on today's events? Are there lessons for a critical management group related to the behaviour of MNCs in host countries, their treatment of employees, their handling of environmental issues, the question whether they pay their dues, the support which they give to repressive regimes? I think there are. But there is no place for personal abuse. And as for the perpetrators: Oklahoma was not the work of foreign terrorists but of home-grown extreme right terrorist militia. Jim McDonald Senior Lecturer in Industrial Relations Department of HRM & Employment Relations University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba Qld 4350 AUSTRALIA +61 7 4631 2634; fax +61 7 4631 1533 [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Robert Ensor [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2001 6:37 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: FW: US under attack Emmanuel, While I share your sense that the self-righteous indigation of American politicians is misplaced given America's track record in supporting dictatorships and acts of state terrorism in many parts of the world, I do feel that a tremendous injustice has been done here to many people who are neither directly, and perhaps only at a very great distance, indirectly involved in any of the decisions of American foreign policy. I personally find it neither acceptable for people to vent their opposition to American foreign policy in this way; nor do I find it acceptable that America, as it has done in past months, withdraws into the comfort of its position of world economic dominance and distances itself from the plight of many peoples whose position is directly (and indirectly) affected by American foreign and economic policy. The suffering of one group in Iraq does not justify this type of retaliation. I fear that what has happened here is the reaction to the arrogance of the Bush administration's foreign policy of the last 9 months. The world has had to watch while Mr Bush felt that he was in a position unilaterally to break the ABM treaty; the world has had to watch while Mr Bush decided that the Kyoto Treaty would be undermined because it didn't suit America; the world has had to look on while Mr Bush decided that involvement in finding a solution to the problems in the Middle-East was not America's problem; the world had to watch while Mr Bush demonstrated his contempt for the real concerns of anti-globalisation protesters; the world had to watch while Mr Bush decided that it was time to impose a defence shield on the world (not in their interests, but it the interests of America); and above all, the world has also had to watch how a politician was willing to take possession of the Presidency of the US on the slightest and most questionable of majoritiese. I am afraid that what we have seen in Mr Bush is the arrogance of power, which unfortunately attracts the sort of action we have seen today. It has taken this brutal act to bring home to America that it is not possible to reap the benefits of economic and political domination without accepting the obligations that this brings with it to bring about equity and democracy, and to share out the world's wealth better. At least with Bill Clinton most people had the sense that, generally speaking, he wished the world well and did what he could to make a contribution to world peace. None of this justifies these attacks, nor is it meant to. There are many children whose parents will not return home this evening. There are many parents who have lost children, husbands who have lost wifes and wives who have lost husbands. The fabric of so many people's lives will be irrevocably damaged and shattered by this event. The media separates us from this, turning it into an alienated spectacle, a Hollywood film. As you are able to cut through the ideology pumped out by the media and the politicians by looking at the experiences of people elsehwere, so it is necessary to envisage and imagine the very real suffering occurring behind the images. The solution to this violence, however, is not star-wars type space shield and the illusion that America's interests can be advanced in blissful isolation of the rest of humanity. The American government and corporate America will have to start concerning themselves with the lot of others in the awareness that we share one planet and, increasingly, one global society. I fear, however, that unless major protests in American push Mr Bush out of the White House and restore an administration that is able to develop a responsible and inclusive foreign policy, we are yet to witness a reactionary response to this event. In this sense, I share Mike Chumers concerns for what is to come. Many comparisons have been made with the attack on Pearl Harbour. It is perhaps worth remembering that Pearl Harbour also heralded the end of American isolationism and the realisation that it could not distance itself from the conflagration occurring across the globe. A powerful concern for this planet and the welfare of all its peoples--not just Americans--will hopefully emerge from this catastrophe, uniting democratic forces the world over and promoting equity, poverty alleviation and democratic rights for all. Unfortunately, I do not believe Mr Bush is able to unite democratic forces in the world -- in 9 months he has already done too much to divide them. In the meantime, at least my sympathies are with those directly affected by this attack, in the awareness that much of the suffering in the world, as Emmanuel points out, that lies at the root of this vicious attack, interests neither the media corporations, nor much of the American public. Hopefully this will also change. Robert Ensor -----Original Message----- From: Critical Perspectives on Work, Management and Organization [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of emmanuel s.r. Sent: dinsdag 11 september 2001 21:20 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: US under attack Hi, I think I understand what the people in NYC and places "attacked" might be going trough right now. Still, this should also help us to think what the US Forces do to many people around the world EVERY DAY. How they bomb UNICEF camps in Iraq full with women and children, how they economically block countries, how they participate in wars just because the government thinks that what they should do, and in the end because that is the way to keep their power. Well, just something I have been thinking this morning and wanted to share. emmanuel santoyo _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp