An Attack on Freedom
by Jody Williams, Nobel Laureate for Peace
Campaign Ambassador – International Campaign to Ban Landmines
September 11 was my mother’s 71st birthday. But her birthday did not matter because it was also the day of a coordinated, terrorist attack on the United States. Too many innocent people died – too many families lost their loved ones in this unspeakable, terrorist attack of unprecedented scope. We are all affected in one way or another and numb with horror and shock.
After such an assault, all normal activity seems irrelevant. When innocent civilian lives are taken in any kind of military or terrorist attack, the mind recoils. When it happens in our country, a country not at war, it seems impossible.
Under such assault, not only does all normal activity seem irrelevant, thinking beyond the absolute horror of the moment is virtually impossible. Trying to place the horror in a larger context seems irrational.
This latest terrorist attack has been called an attack on freedom. It obviously is. Civilians in an open society not at war have been killed. But many have expressed concern that other freedoms are at risk as well in the aftermath of the terror. History has shown too many times that when a country sees itself in a state of war, individual freedoms are subordinated to the survival of the state.
The attack is also described as forcing us to wake up and recognize that terrorism has taken on new proportions and nothing will ever be the same again. The country is ready to spend whatever it takes, to do whatever it takes, for as long as it takes, to respond. It is human nature to want to respond.
We do need to respond to the terrorist attack – but many worry what form the response might take. One U.S. commentator reported that a former high government official speculated that perhaps even a nuclear response should be considered. Hopefully, more rational minds will prevail. How can anyone possibly think that nuclear weapons – the most indiscriminate, destructive weapon of all – are appropriate to consider as a response to a terrorist attack?
Attacks on innocent people anywhere cannot be tolerated. Those who perpetrated this heinous crime need to be brought to justice. They need to be found and tried in a court of law. Their network needs to be dismantled. But I share the concern of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and of Human Rights Watch and many others who dedicate their lives to peace and justice and human rights that the very difficult question of how to respond must be considered long and hard and not contribute to an escalation of violence.
Human Rights Watch, located in both New York City and Washington, DC, (and a founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines) issued a statement about the attack that is well worth thinking about. It reads:
We profoundly condemn yesterday's cruel attacks in the United States and express our condolences to the victims and their loved ones. This was an assault not merely on one nation or one people, but on principles of respect for civilian life cherished by all people. We urge all governments to unite to investigate this crime, to prevent its recurrence, and to bring to justice those who are responsible.
Last night, President Bush said that the United States "will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbored them." Yet distinctions must be made: between the guilty and the innocent; between the perpetrators and the civilians who may surround them; between those who commit atrocities and those who may simply share their religious beliefs, ethnicity or national origin. People committed to justice and law and human rights must never descend to the level of the perpetrators of such acts. That is the most important distinction of all.
There are people and governments in the world who believe that in the struggle against terrorism, ends always justify means. But that is also the logic of terrorism. Whatever the response to this outrage, it must not validate that logic. Rather, it must uphold the principles that came under attack yesterday, respecting innocent life and international law. That is the way to deny the perpetrators of this crime their ultimate victory.
Fellow Nobel Laureate for Peace, His Holiness the Dalai Lama sent a letter to President Bush. After expressing his profound sorrow and shock at the terrorist attacks and offering his deepest condolence and solidarity with the American people as well as his prayers, His Holiness concluded:
I am confident that the United States as a great and powerful nation will be able to overcome this present tragedy. The American people have shown their resilience, courage and determination when faced with such difficult and sad situation.
It may seem presumptuous on my part, but I personally believe we need to think seriously whether a violent action is the right thing to do and in the greater interest of the nation and people in the long run. I believe violence will only increase the cycle of violence. But how do we deal with hatred and anger, which are often the root causes of such senseless violence? This is a very difficult question, especially when it concerns a nation and we have certain fixed conceptions of how to deal with such attacks. I am sure that you will make the right decision.
With my prayers and good wishes, The Dalai Lama
I conclude offering again my deepest sorrow and condolences to the victims of this unthinkable act. This attack has changed too many landscapes, some of them permanently. I hope that one of those changed landscapes is not outrage so immense that peoples committed to justice and law and human rights think about descending to the level of the perpetrators of such acts.