September 2002

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

Letter from Europe

Janet Bloomfield is the British Coordinator of the Atomic Mirror, which works to reflect and transform our nuclear world through the arts. She was Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament from 1993-1996. She is currently a member of the Global Council of the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons. She is a member of the Religious Society of Friends and serves as Co-Clerk of the Peace Campaigning and Networking Group of Quaker Peace and Social Witness in Britain. She also acts as a consultant to the Oxford Research Group.

July 19th, 2002.

At the height of the British Empire at the end of the nineteenth century a weather report was printed in the Times of London stating "Fog in Channel--continent isolated." Today, any European looking at the performance of the US government would be tempted to re-write that as "Bush in Washington--world isolated."

The Times headline epitomised the attitudes of arrogance and ignorance that ran through the empire upon which the "sun never set" and unfortunately those attitudes seem to have infected the sole superpower in the world today.

Trafalgar Square, London, where 30,000 joined an anti-war demonstration, Nov. 18, 2001. Photo: Cathy Hoffman

The radical elder statesman of British left wing politics, Tony Benn, addressed a meeting on Missile Defence at the House of Commons a few years ago and said "we understand what is happening in the US, we too were intoxicated with power." In fact we in Britain are still 'in recovery' from having an empire, but we are beginning to face the fact that our future lies with the European ideal. The so-called "special relationship" (which is much more special in London than it is in Washington) only obscures this future--it cannot prevent it.

So is there a distinctly European perspective post-September-11th that gives some hope of a restraining influence on US policy? At first glance it would seem so with the commitment of most European governments to international institutions and regimes such as the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto agreement on climate change, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Certainly the row over the ICC was the most strident so far and went to the heart of the difference between Europe and the USA over the increasing importance and saliency of international law in dealing with conflict.

But there is an underlying similarity to post-September-11 America in the wider European political mood that is deeply worrying. It is rooted in fear and the use of fear by elites, and those challenging them, to pursue their own agendas. The 'war on terrorism' is a 'war on the other.' The plight of refugees and asylum seekers who face horrendous journeys to try and find some place of safety away from war zones and poverty has been seized upon to win votes for the right. Sadly, centre left and centre right politicians have responded by becoming more hardline about the issue. The fact that most of these people are fleeing from the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Kurdish areas of Iraq is never discussed in the mainstream media. They are the inevitable result of the belligerent US and NATO action of the last few years. We have a responsibility to those seeking a better life and our governments have to face up to the consequences of their actions.

So many truly horrible things have been made possible by what happened last September. It made fear and violence the common currency of much of our politics. It made it easier for Bush and his people to ride roughshod over civil liberties and international treaties. It made it possible for Europe to accelerate the closing of its borders and for racist politicians to win large numbers of votes.

In this situation we must assert that our real enemy is not the other but political violence, whether it be the political violence of "non-state actors" or the most powerful nations. Essentially political violence is the use of fear to achieve one's goals. As Isaac Asimov said, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." It is the chosen weapon of those who lack the compassion and imagination to see another way. We have seen huge fear unleashed by al Qaeda and the Taliban and echoed to the rooftops by the Bush Administration. It disgusts me to see our political leaders manipulate the public with regular rehearsals of the "terrorist threat" without offering any hope of a global transformation that would attack the roots of terrorism.

If the politicians will not offer any hope then the people must take up the challenge. We need to follow the example of the relatives and friends of some of the victims of September 11 who went to Afghanistan in a spirit of openness and reconciliation. We Europeans need to recognise the depth of the wound inflicted on the psyche of the USA a year ago. Americans need to realise the depth of foreboding felt by Europeans about the direction of US government policy. By making a concerted effort to understand these underlying conditions perhaps we can begin to re-build a relationship that is severely strained at the moment.

As we reflect on the past year it is vital that we assert another set of values.Values of nonviolence, tolerance, democracy, dialogue. I would particularly emphasise the importance of dialogue. What is dialogue? This list was produced recently at workshop I facilitated for the Northern Friends Peace Board in Lancaster in the North of England:

listening, words, a two-way process, empathy, exchange, understanding, honesty, faith, taking risks, confidentiality, trust, exploration, rethinking, willingness to change one's point of view, building a relationship, shared responsibility, mutual respect, compassion for the other

This list was produced by 25 "ordinary people." Imagine what the concerted application of that list of attributes by politicians and negotiators would mean for the current problems of the world. We can apply all these things ourselves in our work for social change. Interestingly the group also defined what dialogue is not. They listed the following:

confrontation, provocation, manipulation, point scoring, making assumptions, blaming, closed minds, hostility, fear, prejudice, dishonesty, self-interest, a win-lose approach, selective hearing, pre-judging the outcome, unwillingness to change, impatience, arrogance, cynicism, collusion, fundamentalism

Sadly it seems that the second list is the common mode used by those in power and by those who seek it in our world today. We need to move from this to true dialogue. As we look across the Atlantic to each other let us take up the task of creating a dialogue of the people, a true international community.

Previous Article    Next Article