What is the proper response to terror?

Notes on the 11/3/02 meeting of HKPC's Kowloon Branch

Submitted by Steve Palmquist (moderator)

At short notice (just a little over a week), Ken agreed to

introduce the above topic at the 11 March meeting of the

HKPC’s Kowloon Branch. I suggested it to him because, with

his involvement in the Hong Kong Quaker Meeting, I thought

he might value the opportunity to present the Quaker

position on this topic. Only the next morning (12 March)

did I realize that our discussion was held exactly six

months (to the very hour!) from the 9/11 terrorist

tragedies in the USA. The topic originated, however, not

from my wish to think up something timely, but from the

same source as nearly all other topics discussed at the

various HKPC meetings I've organised: it was one of the

topics suggested at the end the previous meeting. (I prefer

this bottom-up method of selecting topics to a more

autocratic, top-down method.) So the topic's timeliness in

this case was just a neat bit of what Jung would

call "synchronicity".

Ken's introduction was, as expected, based on what Quakers

call their "Peace Testimony" - though he emphasised that he

would be using this as a way of raising questions rather

than assuming it holds all the answers. After recalling the

events of 9/11, Ken defined terrorism as "the use of

violence to achieve political aims" (Collins). He noted

that a chief problem this raises is how to identify who the

real terrorists are, since all sides seem to be using

violence in their attempt to achieve political aims. He

recommended we distinguish between three levels of

terrorism: individuals, groups, and nations. Why does

approximately one out of every six persons on earth hate

Americans? One reason is that Americans use more than three-

quarters of the earth's resources, even though they

constitute only a small fraction of the total population.

But an even more significant reason is that the U.S.

government has a history of supporting non-democratic

regimes in order to look after their own interests

(especially oil). The question, then, is: how should we

respond? After reading a number of excerpts from Quaker

literature, Ken suggested five things the U.S. government

could do to improve the current situation: (1) uphold the

rule of law by seeking legal rather than violent solutions;

(2) revise their Middle East policy; (3) forgive the debts

of third world countries; (4) work with third world

countries to solve genuine global problems; (5) give up

their self-styled role of world-domination. He concluded by

reminding us that individuals can also make a difference by

being politically active, and encouraged us to discuss what

we in Hong Kong could do.

The initial question time brought a few surprising twists.

When several people tried to pin Ken down to say what *he*

would do or thinks we should do, his answers were not

always obviously consistent with the Quaker Peace

Testimony. Instead, he repeatedly claimed ignorance on a

number of issues, and, when asked whether he thought

violence could be used in self-defense (as in defending his

family from an attacker), he agreed that it could be. His

view is that the current U.S. policy is using *too much*

violence, without first seeking other ways of solving the

problems, and is failing to create structures of

accountability for its own actions. When someone pointed

out that weapons are necessary in order to enforce the law,

Ken stated that their true purpose is to keep the peace

and/or for self-defense, not for offensive aggression.

Several people noted that we had been focusing so much on

issues relating to 9/11 and its aftermath that we had

ignored various broader, and more philosophical, questions

implied by the title of the discussion, such as: Is it even

possible to have a "proper" response to terror? What role

does religion play in causing and/or responding to terror?

Science? Is it right to curtail the freedom of many in

order to root out the misuse of freedom by a few? Could the

way we respond to *personal* situations that make us afraid

be used as a model for how *governments* should respond to

terrorism?

At this point the 14 attendees split into three groups and

discussed various issues in more detail. The group I was in

(which did not have a chance to air its views during the

closing discussion time) discussed a wide range of issues.

Here are a few insights I gleaned from the discussion: The

ambiguity of words like "terrorism" and even "war" reveal

how important it is, when trying to assess opposing

political stances, to examine the perspective being adopted

by the opposing parties. If there is ever any moral ground

for using violence, it must be based on one's own behavior

being better than one's opponent's; for example, if a

leader of a group or nation preaches democracy but then

turns around and uses undemocratic means of accomplishing

his or her aims, then he loses any justification for

forcing others to follow supposedly democratic laws. Free

and open public debate is a crucial aspect of combating

terror, though ironically, the public media can often have

the opposite effect on people.... We considered one

interesting option to the current U.S. policy of "striking

back": the victim of a terrorist attack could take this as

an opportunity to see things from the opponent's

perspective, and perhaps even to apologize as a result,

rather than to reinforce the absolute truth of one's own

perspective and thus marginalize the opponent still

further; if this were to be done, it would almost certainly

have the result of bringing out the terrorists from their

hiding places, whereas the current U.S. policy has forced

them to become even more intent on hiding than ever before.

During the closing discussion time we mainly discussed

issues raised by one of the other groups. In particular, we

debated whether a person's (or nation's) response to terror

(ism) should be "proportionate" or "disproportionate". The

assumption was that the current U.S. policy is an example

of the latter, and may be regarded as bad for that reason.

At least one person (an American) was vigorously arguing,

however, that this is a wise policy, both for personal and

for governmental application: simply getting rid of the

enemy is the surest way to solve such problems. The

opposing side (including at least one American) argued that

such an approach will inevitably lose public support and

create even further resentment around the world. When

reminded of the "eye for an eye" principle (which, by the

way, is generally regarded by biblical scholars as a

principle originally intended to outlaw the natural human

tendency to make the punishment *more* severe than the

crime), the former person claimed to uphold the maxim: "one

eye for ten eyes!"

Although the introduction was interesting and the

discussion very rousing, I was somewhat disappointed with

this meeting because the potential philosophical content

tended to be eclipsed by an attention to details relating

to various current events. In hopes of closing the meeting

on a more philosophical note, I challenged the proponent of

disproportionate response to terror with the following

thought experiment:

"Imagine that I leave this meeting feeling genuinely afraid

of you as a person because of the view you've just

expressed; now imagine I spend a month thinking about how I

should respond to such a terrifying way of answering

tonight's question, and decide that, indeed, the

only 'proper' response is to take your advice and fight

back disproportionately in order to protect my own

interests. So, as a way of implementing the principle you

have recommended, I come to April's HKPC meeting and,

seeing you here before the meeting starts, I approach you

with a knife and kill you. Now imagine that you could come

back to life and address us again on this issue. Would you

still affirm that I had done the right thing by responding

disproportionately to terror?"

The defender refused to answer this question on the grounds

that I was changing the topic, though nearly everyone else

present seemed to appreciate its force. After several

unsuccessful attempts to draw out an answer, someone

suggested that a *proportionate* response to such

terrifying speech would simply be to cut out the offending

person’s tongue! Ken closed the meeting by simply reminding

us of the simple Quaker position: violence begets violence.

Upon further reflection, it seems to me that our discussion

brought out the significance of Ken's closing statement in

some interesting ways. In my thought experiment, for

example, both the proportionate and the disproportionate

responses were violent. Why? Because in both cases I (the

imaginary I) dealt with my terror NOT by first looking

inward for its source and then asking how I could use this

as an occasion for better understanding my opponent, but

rather as a rationalisation for further isolating myself in

the safe, rational boundaries of my own assumptions by

lashing out against anyone who thinks differently. Sadly,

philosophers down through history have often been no better

than politicians in showing empathy to opposing points of

view. I think the whole realm of *reason* as a tool of

violence would have been interesting to explore.... Perhaps

on another occasion!

As a further footnote to the discussion, I should mention

that, while watching the news on t.v. the next morning, I

heard G.W. Bush say (at a commemorative talk given in

honour of those who died in the 9/11 tragedies): "Those who

have no respect for human life must not be allowed to

control weapons of mass destruction." When I consider

(among other things) Bush’s record in implementing the

death penalty in Texas, and the likelihood that at least

one or two of those he permitted to be killed were

innocent, I cannot but marvel at the self-righteousness

ignorance some politicians can evince, and mourn at the

violence it engenders. Bring on the philosopher-king??