By katdow01 (17, Mackay, Australia)
Do you remember what you were doing on September 11, 2001? As the whole Western world sat glued to their television sets in horror as they watched the planes plough through the twin towers? The event that literally shaped the world’s future?
The aftermath saw the war against terrorism and the invasion of Afghanistan, in order to track down and bring to “justice” those responsible for the September 11 attacks. The invasion did not flush out the terrorists but resulted in the deaths of approximately three thousand five hundred civilians— five hundred more than were killed in the September 11 attack.
Who is the terrorist in this case? In May 2003 Amnesty International condemned the war on terror: “The war on terror, far from making the world a safer place, has made it more dangerous by curtailing human rights, undermining the rule of international law and shielding governments from scrutiny. It has deepened division among people of different faiths and origins, sowing the seeds for more conflict. The overwhelming impact of all this is genuine fear— among the affluent as well as the poor. ” Throughout history there are many examples of how violence leads to more violence.
Another are is the circumstances that prompted the following speech made by John F. Kennedy in 1961: “The freedom of the city is not negotiable. We cannot negotiate with those who say what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.” Kennedy made this statement in response to threats from the Russian government to withdraw America’s right to presence in West Berlin. When this quote is considered in context of the speech, it is stating that America is prepared to go to war to maintain the right to be in Berlin.
The dominant reading of Kennedy’s speech positions the audience to believe that America is under threat and to go to war; America would be fighting for “freedom.” However, an alternative reading reveals that the speech is carefully constructed to create fear and position the American public to support the actions taken by America to prepare for war.
What is war? War is conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or coalitions, with this conflict being conducted in order to achieve certain political goals. War also legitimizes violence. For example, if you killed another person outside war, it is defined as murder; however, under the banner of war if you take the life of another person of the opposing side, you’re classed as hero.
There are many conflicting definitions of terrorism. Today terrorism is used to define any act of mass destruction, killing and maiming people. A generally accepted definition of terrorism is politically motivated violence against non-combatants or innocent civilians. Conflict a situation in which at least one side demonstrates willingness to use military force to deal with the dispute or actually does so. In the context of international relations and diplomacy, power is the ability of one state to influence or control other states. Therefore, abuse of power can be defined as deliberate use of this power on someone less powerful to achieve a political aim. Is there really any difference between war and terrorism or is it really about whether you are in the oppressed minority or the privileged majority?
Essentially these are forms of violence, and where there is violence, there is deprivation of basic human rights, which only leads the marginalized feeling of disempowerment, likely to resort to terrorism or further acts of violence. It is terrorism that creates a culture of fear and hate between the sides, which is passed down from generation to generation. Therefore, it is crucial that countries, whether developing or developed, set aside their pride and weapons to discuss threats to world peace and subsequently human rights without resorting to violence or acts of terror.
To gain a full understanding of these concepts, it is possible to draw on the history of Ireland after the British invasion, because it is rich in examples of abuse of power, terrorism, war and conflict. Brian Friel’s play, Freedom of the City, and Jim Sheridan’s film, In the Name of the Father, both foreground events in the Irish-British history that clearly highlight abuse of power, terrorism, war and conflict.
Friel was born of Irish parents. Originally he was a teacher but became a fulltime writer in 1960. In 1973 he wrote Freedom of the City, which is based around the events of Bloody Sunday in the city of Derry, Northern Ireland, in the year 1970. The play foregrounds the abuse of power by the English government. The three main characters, Michael, Lilly and Skinner, who are running from soldiers, somehow find themselves in the parlor of the mayor. While Michael admires the scenery and Skinner pours himself a drink, the media outside are claiming that forty armed terrorists have infiltrated the guildhall. Each of the characters has a distinct personality and set of views. This allows the audience to get to know the characters as real people.
As the play progresses, we learn about each of the characters and why they were there on Bloody Sunday. Michael, for example, believes that as long as we don’t react violently, as long as we don’t allow ourselves to be provoked, ultimately we must win. “I marched three miles today and I attended peaceful meeting because every man’s entitled to justice and fair play and that’s what I’m campaigning for.” Later in the scene we discover why Lilly marched that day. As a mother of eleven, all she wants is a better life than the one she has now living in a two-bedroom house with eleven children, one of whom is disabled, and a disabled husband. Skinner, however, is at first reluctant to reveal to Michael why he marched that day but in later scene of the play he says to Lilly “because for the first time in your life you grumbled then someone else grumbled and someone else and you heard each other, and became aware that there were hundreds, thousands, millions of us all over the world and in a vague groping way you were outraged. That’s what it’s all about, Lilly. It’s about us- the poor- the majority- stirring in our sleep And if that’s not what it’s all about, then it has nothing to do with us.”
After hours in the guildhall, the military ordered them to lay down their “weapons” and come out peacefully. As they did all three were shot dead, three innocent victims that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The play itself switches back from Bloody Sunday to the present day happenings of the tribunal, and this is an effective technique Friel uses to foreground the sheer injustice of the events, both the deaths of three innocent people and the verdict of the trail, which ruled that the military acted appropriately against the three “armed terrorists” that “came out shooting.” Friel achieved his objective effectively by leaving the audience outraged and ready to march for the Irish cause.
In the Name of the Father was based on the biography Proved Innocent by Gerry Conlan, the accused leader of the group that later became known as the Guildford Four. In London the conflict between the IRA and English troops was escalating and both the IRA and the English had begun to resort to terror tactics. One such example of this is the Guilford Pub Bombing on October 5, 1974. Police were under enormous pressure to catch those responsible for the bombings. On November 28, 1975, the prevention of terrorism act passed. This gave police power to arrest anyone suspected of terrorist activities for up to seven days without charging them or without access to a lawyer.
While each of the Guilford Four were in custody, they were subjected to physical and emotional abuse until they signed false confessions compromising their innocence and implicating themselves as the Guilford bombers. This is an obvious abuse of power. The police had no leads to the real bombers and the two of the four fitted the stereotype of a member of the active service unit, or ASU, of the IRA— the IRA’s elite “terrorists.” Just because Gerry and Paul were poor Irish working class petty criminals they were sent to jail for life, yet another example of abuse of power by the English.
Ironically, the English also arrested Gerry’s elderly aunt, Annie McGuire. In the closing argument the prosecutor says, “Annie McGuire, the experienced bomb maker who wore rubber gloves while handling explosives in the kitchen of her home. She even let her children handle explosives: Vincent, aged sixteen; Patric, fourteen, who did not, could not, know any better. Giuseppe Conlan, her brother-in-law, the courier, who arrived with more explosives. ” Annie McGuire was sentenced to fourteen years. Her son Vincent served five years and Patrick served fours years.
Their father, Paddy Mcguire, and Giuseppe Conlan were both sentenced to twelve years. After fifteen years in a jail and the death of Gerry’s father Giuseppe, an English lawyer for the Conlan family found vital evidence that was withheld from the defense that proved the innocence of the four. The case against them was dropped and the four were set free. However, after the truth was revealed, no police were proved guilty of withholding evidence that led to the incarceration of the “Guilford Four” and the loss of fifteen years from the lives of innocent people. The following quote by Jim Sheridan rings true after watching In the Name of the Father and examining other examples of war, terrorism, conflict and abuse of power: “This is a story of someone who was able to achieve his own liberation in spite of the injustice done to him. On a larger scale, it’s important to understand that liberation is only possible if all sides of the conflict examine their actions and change.”
As I’m sure you’re all aware by now, the difference between war, terrorism, and abuse of power is NOT clean-cut. Each is linked and whether it is war, conflict, terrorism or abuse of power is only determined by which side you are on. A safer world can only be achieved when governments and political groups stop using violence against innocent people to achieve their aims and respect the human rights of all groups involved. Violence and terror only breed more violence and terror.
• History of Terrorism
• The Truth About Torturing Terrorists
