Individuals who resort to violence and other radical means to change the world are often called terrorists by elites who seek to sustain the status quo. Not so long ago it was fashionable to refer to such persons as revolutionaries. Perhaps, this designation is still more appropriate in a world in which the word “terrorist” is so vaguely defined that one’s person’s terrorist might be the hero of a large number of people in the world. The test, it is suggested, turns on whether conditions are present today which warrant revolution.
Americans tend to view international affairs from their own insulated perspective. Perhaps this is unavoidable, but we cannot expect others not to do the same. And when they many others in the world will come to very different conclusions from Americans who often, isolated in their towers of hegemonial bliss, look at the world through stained glass windows that have been built from the resources and toil of the most vulnerable people in the world. In contrast, the view that many people in the world—the majority—will see is of a down trodden existence where their own country’s resources or wealth is squandered by their leaders or used to perpetuate their enslavement and a future that holds little promise. As the richest and most powerful entity in the contemporary international order, the United States, these people are often told, is in large part responsible for their plight. More recently they are also encouraged by both non-violent and revolutionary activists to do something about their situation. It is the justification of revolution, violent and non-violent, that this contribution examines.
Revolution is something “radical enough to change the whole fabric of government and/or society” (Arendt, 1964: 1). It is justified when a significant number of people can establish their oppression based on the violation of their basic human rights and the failure of lawful means by which to seek redress for these violations. The first condition—oppression—was expressed by John Locke in “An Essay concerning the true original, extent and end of civil Government” when he writes that "...a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people..." (Locke, 1690: para. 225). This he concluded gave rise to a right to revolt. The second condition (lawful means of redress) has been succinctly stated by Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara in the first chapter of this his book Guerilla Warfare when he writes that “[p]eople must see clearly the futility of maintaining the fight for social goals within the framework of civil debate. When the forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in power against established law, peace is considered already broken.” (Guevara, 1997).
In a globalized world revolution is justified when it can be shown that an international order exists that perpetrates oppression and prevents lawful dissent against an order causing oppression and those who maintain it. Within this equation it is important to recognize that we are talking about a standard of oppression based on the rights and rules to which the elites themselves have agreed. In doing so they have entered into a social contract or commitment to society upon which the legitimacy of their authority is based. This basis of legitimacy supercedes any law, constitution or treaty because it is the foundation upon which these enactments rest. Revolution is, therefore, an extrajudicial act, but one required by the violation of the basic premise upon which law is based. It is a state of anarchy, although one from which a new system may emerge. One may go so far as to suggest that revolution is sometimes a necessary state when oppression has become so institutionalized that there no legal alternative. Have we reached this state of affairs?
To justify revolution it not necessary to conclusively indicate that all the conditions for revolution are present. This is especially the case when individuals and groups have already begun to act on the basis of the assumption that revolution is necessary as have, for example, groups such as Hamas, the Shinning Path, and some might say the broad-based international Social Justice Movement, as well as individuals, such as, and perhaps most notably, Sheikh Osama Bin Laden. To rationalize the actions of these individuals and groups as acts of revolution it is sufficient to show that rational arguments can be made for the existence of the conditions that justify revolution. If these arguments can be shown, it is suggested that the case has been made to justify the actions perpetrated by these self-styled revolutionaries.
To test this hypothesis, let me concentrate on the United States. This is an appropriate concentration of enquiry because the United States is collectively the wealthiest, most resource consuming, and most militarily powerful country in the world. It is, in other words, an object, even if not the only or primary object, of most of the revolutionary movements, groups, or individuals just mentioned.
ACTS OF OPPRESSION
Are accusations against the United States and the elites that support it that it is oppressing vulnerable people around the world justified? Although this is a complex question deserving of careful study to provide a conclusive response, there is sufficient prima facie evidence that justifies such a claim. This evidence can be seen by examining indicators of oppression.
Indicators of Oppression
The indicators of oppression provide a view of the extent to which individuals enjoy security against the threat or use of force and from gross economic deprivation. The standards upon which these indicators are based emanate from the agreements of states. The Charter of the United Nations refers to human rights in broad terms intending to cover the most basic forms of protections against the threat or use of force and economic deprivation. The three instruments that make up the International Bill of Rights elaborate upon these protections. The first of these, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, includes both rights relating to the inviolability of the human person and economic and social rights. Another, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, contains a more comprehensive list of civil and political rights and the third, the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, contains a more extended list of economic and social rights. The first two instruments evidence binding legal obligations for the United States either because they reflect in large part customary international law—the consensus of the international community—or because they are treaties. In the latter case, the Covenant has been signed by the United States as well as almost 150 other countries (Steiner and Alston 2000: 136). The United States is also party to the American Declaration of Human Rights, which reflects legally binding norms (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1981, 1987; Inter-American Court of Human Rights 1989).
Understanding Oppression
Oppression is generally understood to be the subjugation of a person or persons to the will of another person or persons. The oppressor is relying on his acts being so “clearly inexorable and invincible” that they do not give “rise to revolt but to submission” (Weil 1951). In international affairs oppression inevitably involves a government. A government acts oppressively when it directly or indirectly prevents a person from exercising basic human rights. Traditionally this was thought to mean that a government is responsible for its own citizens, and that is all. Today however, the responsibility of government must, and has, been extended to its actions that might cause harm to citizens outside in another country. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has thus held the United States responsible for its actions outside the country (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 1999) and the European Court of Human Rights has held Turkey is responsible for the treatment of individual in Cyprus (European Court of Human Rights 1995). Social activists have also frequently claimed that oppression includes structural oppression of classes of people—for example the rich by the poor (see e.g. Naylor 2001). This extension of the concept of oppression and the attendant responsibilities is the natural collateral to the right of humanitarian intervention that has been invoked at least as a partial justification for a state’s intervention in the affairs of other countries (Chandler 2002). If states claim they have a right to act in other countries they must also be willing not to cause problems in those countries. Indeed, even under a more traditional understanding of state responsibility that state has always been responsible for causing harm in another country. Thus when the Charter of the United Nations was drafted it included a prohibition on the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” (art. 2(4)). As many more innocent people are killed today by poverty then by the use of force, it makes no sense to prohibit the use of force, but to allow economic oppression. Today both armed force and economic oppression are harmful enough to elicit a legitimate revolutionary reaction.
Combining this understanding of oppression with what has been stated above in relations to the standards by which oppression is evidenced it is possible to measure oppression by evaluating how the action of a state or states influence the enjoyment of individual’s basic rights. It will be important to both identify evidence of harm as well as to extrapolate evidence of who or what is causing that harm. In this case the task will be somewhat abstract and based on tertiary sources. While the evaluation might well be different if the evidence are interpreted differently, it is suggested that the interpretations given the economic, social and political evidence used below are valid explanations for the current situation in which billions of people find themselves today. In other words, a vulnerable person who is being oppressed could legitimately and reasonably interpret international affairs in such a manner as to attribute the harm he or she is suffering as is done below. Perhaps equally as important the rhetoric allied with some of the most violent attacks on the status quo rely on attributions of oppression similar to those suggested below. Thus with these brief understandings of oppression we can explore two areas in which oppression might be evident and which have already been indicated above. The first is military and the second economic oppression.
i. Military Oppression
Military oppression can be understood as a policy whereby a state or another corporate body imposes its will on others by the threat or use of force. In this context there is a difference between the use of force by criminals or even revolutionaries who are non-state actors. The use of force by non-state actors is of a different degree because it is not based on the legitimacy of the existing status quo, but seeks to challenge that legitimacy. To evaluate such violence in the same way as state violence would mean either that both are equally legitimate or equally illegitimate under existing rules. This does not accord with the international perception of states or non-state actors. The Charter of the United Nations, for example, is directly binding on states only. This is what states decided themselves. In doing so they made states responsible for controlling the actions of individuals, including armed groups, but that is something much different than recognizing that armed groups are direct responsibility under international law.
The state that has the greatest degree of military power in the international community is the United States. The United States’ military is often acclaimed as the strongest in the world (Anonymous 2002; Bryant 2000). This is not surprising as the United States uses its accumulated wealth to outspend (396.1 billion USD in its 2003 budget) all its allies (198 billion in 2003 budgets) by a margin of more than two to one and its declared enemies (16 billion in 2003 budgets) by a margin of almost 25 to 1 to maintain its military superiority. At the same time, the United States remains the largest arms dealer in the world. From 1997 to 2001 it provided almost 45 billion USD in weapons to virtually every nation on earth (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 2002). These nations included Israel which has been labeled a massive and serious human rights violator by numerous reputable non-governmental organizations (International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims 2002; International Federation for Human Rights, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network et al. 2002). The United States stockpiles of weapons are immense. They include not only the largest store of nuclear weapons in the world, but also an estimated 24,800 tons of chemical weapons (Erwin 2002) (Erwin 2002; United States Government Bureau of Arms Control 2001).
How has the United States worn this title of military superpower? And has it contributed to oppression? Some observers would argue that the United States has been magnanimous with its power (see D’Souza 2002). Did not the United Nations emerge as a result of the United States intervention in World War II? Didn’t the United States military power prevent communism from over running the world? Doesn’t the United States military, sometimes at least, bring much needed peace to a region like Kosovo? While there is some relevance to this perspective, oppression cannot be measured by examining when a state acts magnanimously, but must be examined by reviewing whether a state, in this case the United States, uses it authority oppressively. One can thus accept the very controversial and often challenged arguments that point out that some benefits have been provided to the world community by the United States hegemony. The pertinent questions, however, are: Has substantial harm been done by the United States? And, has maintaining the current international system under American hegemony been destructive of the basic human dignity of the persons subject to it all around the world?
To answer this question let one can review the activities of the United States military in the last fifty years. This task is not difficult as the United States has not hesitated to use its lethal arsenal of weapons. This included more international acts of aggression than any other country in the world in the last century. Since war was apparently outlawed by the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, the United States has napalmed Vietnam and Laos; it has carpet bombed Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia, Grenada, among others; it has deployed its chemical weapons against its own citizens both intentionally (Leitner 2002, 11 October; Federation of American Scientists 2000) and inadvertently (Tucker 2001); it has used fuel-air bombs against Iraq and Afghanistan, weapons that are intended to kill every living creature within their wide reach; it has fire-bombed of Dresden as well as other cites during World War II; it has used depleted uranium shells against Iraq in the Gulf War of 1991; and, of course, the United States is the only country in the world to use an atomic bomb against a civilian population, not once, but twice, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan. Even in the instances such as Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where arguments are frequently made based on the humanitarian character of these military interventions, the populations in these three areas have suffered greatly for whatever benefits they might have received. In the end grave questions arise about the benefits of these interventions to the local populations. Was it a benefit that more Kosovars were killed during the NATO bombing of Serbia than in the preceding 15 months of the Kosovo conflict with Belgrade (Gee, 2000)? Did the Iraqi’s benefit from the United States destruction of there infrastructure that almost overnight converted them from a country entering the realm of developed countries back into the dark ages of under development? And was it legitimate to destroy Afghanistan with months of heavy bombing to replace the Taliban regime with individuals who were responsible for as many if not more violations of human rights?
The future does not look any better. In announcing its strategic goals for the future of the military in a report entitled Vision 2020 the United Government declares as its avowed goal the total control of outer space (United States Government, 2002). This is to be attained by “Full Spectrum Dominance,” which means almost total control of the lives of people in strategic areas including rural areas on this planet as well as outer space. This is emphasized by a series of pictures ranging from photographs of outer space to a picture of a refugee camp, all which must apparently be ‘dominated’ (United States Government, 2002). Also in early 2002 a report was considered by Congress in which the United States government argues that its New Triad defense policy includes the use nuclear weapons to protect American interests even with first strikes (United States Department of Defense, 2002). In the foreword to this report Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld makes is clear that
[t]o meet the nation's defense goals in the 21st century, the first leg of the New Triad, the offensive strike leg, will go beyond the Cold War triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and long-range nuclear-armed bombers. ICBMs, SLBMs, bombers and nuclear weapons will, of course, continue to play a vital role. However, they will be just part of the first leg of the New Triad, integrated with new non-nuclear strategic capabilities that strengthen the credibility of our offensive deterrence (United States Department of Defense, 2002).
These reports, like the frequent statements of government officials, indicate the United States government’s willingness to use force whenever and wherever necessary to protect its perceived national interests that according to its own definition extend to the entire world, even to the extent of starting a nuclear war (Sanger, 2002). To emphasize his commitment to ‘total domination’ American President George Bush appointed the former head of the US Space Command, which is responsible for the Vision 2020 report, to chair the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s main military and security policy body. These actions indicate that concerns about respect for humanitarian principles, including the basic human rights of defenseless civilians, are being recklessly ignored.
The new Bush administration doctrine of “preventative war” hopelessly burrs any distinction between self-defense and aggression. As one observer has commented, “For a preventive war to be launched, a state needs only imagine itself to be under threat” (Xinhua News Agency, 2002: quoting Prof. Robert Manne). This policy is also another sign of America’s willingness top use its military superiority to coerce states into supporting its agenda and to maintain its dominance of the international community. It stands in stark contrast to the purposes and principles to which the United States agreed by signing and ratifying the Charter of the United Nations.
These examples provide the picture of a country that at the very least has made, and appears ready to continue to make, serious mistakes of judgment costing the lives of millions of people; and at worst a country prepared to implement a policy of oppression to achieve its interests using military force. These conclusions have become increasingly entrenched during the current Bush administration.
ii. Economic Oppression
Economically, the picture is similar and the same excesses can be observed as with the United States’ military endeavors. Although the United States economic preeminence has been challenged with the events of 11 September 2001, the rich of the world—the majority of whom live in the United States or who are American citizens—have still managed to protect their disparate wealth to a greater degree than less affluent individuals (Merrill Lynch/Cap Gemini Ernst & Young 2002). As a consequence the United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (9.84 trillion USD) remains more than twice that of the next closest country, Japan (4.84 trillion USD) and is about a third of the world’s total GDP (The Economist 2002). The same is true in terms of purchasing power where American purchasing power parity is more than 60 times higher than that of Vietnam, a country pummelled by the United States military for years, and almost twice that of China, a country with four and half times as many people (The Economist 2002). Thus while there is one person living in China who has a billion dollars, 242 billionaires live in the United State who account for a combined worth of 800.3 billion USD (Forbes.com 2002). Of Africa’s 54 countries, only South Africa has a single billionaire. Conversely, of the world’s 2.8 extremely poor people most are found in developing countries and none in the United States. Thus while in United States allegedly not a single citizen is living on less than $4 per day, in Africa almost half the people on the continent are living in such inhuman conditions (UNDP 2002). According to UNDP, “the richest 10% of the U.S. population has an income equal to that of the poorest 43% of the world. Put differently, the income of the richest 25 million Americans is equal to that of almost 2 billion people (UNDP 2002:19). This exasperating situation of inequality has been recognized by some of America’s leaders including President Bill Clinton who in 1999 admitted that Americans are “about 4 percent of the world's people … [but] enjoy about 22 percent of the world's income” (Clinton 1999). While the statistics concerning population are correct, others have suggested that the United States uses as much as 75% of the world’s resources (Roberts 2001). Whatever the figure, there is no doubt that the Americans benefit more from the world’s income than any other nation on earth. And it is not difficult to see how an observer could conclude that Americans enjoy a disproportionate share of the world’s wealth. The disproportionality in most cases is so large that it is also understandable how an observer in Sub-Saharan African could believe that he or she is not getting a fair deal.
Action by the United States government has been crucial in maintaining its economic advantage in the world. The same protectionism that the United States has abhorred in other parts of the world, it has itself implemented for itself. A stark example of the contradictions of American policy came to light recently when the Bush administration advocated the broad removal of tariffs, within 24 hours of announcing new multi-billion dollar measures to protect its domestic insurance industry (The Economist, 2002). For years similar protective measures have been, and continue, to protect the American steel industry and American farmers, among others. Moreover, even apparent concessions like the removal of tariff barriers are often disguises for protecting or projecting American interests. For example, removing tariffs on an equal basis will not give the majority of people living in poverty in developing countries any immediate advantage as few of these countries possess the infrastructure to utilize such a concession. Instead, many governments will be deprived of substantial revenue that they receive from tariffs. At the same time American consumers will benefit to the tune of 18 billion dollars from cheaper imports and American corporations will reap high investments returns from cooperating with governments that are willing to exploit their human and natural resources to get a quick buck from the American market. Viewed comprehensively the whole suggestion could well be understood as cruel hoax, or another means by which the United States expands its hegemony.
It is not that America does not invest around the world, but rather the opposite. Corporate America is entwined in America’s fight, as George Kennan put it, “to maintain this position of disparity” (Kennan 1948). The relevance of corporate involvement is underscored by Kalle Lasn who points out that “[i]n 1997, fifty-one of the world's hundred largest economies were corporations, not countries. The top five hundred corporations controlled forty-two percent of the world's wealth” (Lasn 1999). Of the five hundred richest companies, 197 are American. Even during recession, when many foreign companies are allying, American companies have survived well. For example, in 2002 among the major 500 companies, American companies “increased their share of total revenues from 29% to 42%” (Hjelt 2002).
If the ability to exploit natural and human resources is a conditio sina qua non for human development, the disproportionate exploitation of these resources by a few is a recipe for the impoverishment and exploitation of the many. America’s weak reaction to its huge ‘corporate greed scandals’ indicates that the United States government is unwilling to curb excesses occurring within it own borders for purposes of achieving greater equity in the distribution of the world’s wealth (Scheer, 2002). A policy that stunts economic growth in the United States is not acceptable to Americans. Nevertheless, under current circumstances the world’s rich, led by the United States, are drawing farther away from the poor everyday (UNDP 2002). This trend cannot be reversed without sacrificing or at least limiting the American interest in economic growth. Instead the current American administration continues to invoke American interests to continue its exploitative ways. One observer has claims that “[p]erhaps no president in recent memory has invoked the phrase ‘in the American interest’ so often and so early as George W. Bush” (Gedmin and Schmitt 2001).
This constant reiteration of an imperative American interest in the face of growing economic decline in most of the world and particularly in the poorest regions, contributes substantially to demonizing the United States in the eyes of the world’s poorest people. Together with the active military dominance exercised by the United States it is not surprising that this country is seen as the cause of all evil by people who see no hope of escaping poverty.
iii. International Systems of Oppression
It is not only that the United States directly oppresses people around the world, but also that it leads the elites of the world in perpetuating an unfair international system that substantially contributes to oppress even in places where the American government has little direct reach. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly then in the often-maligned American support of globalization. Through this process by which the free market and competition are propagated as the ‘American way’, the United States has maintained a system by which the poor are losing ground in their attempt to achieve social and economic parity with the rich (Khor, 2000). America’s obsession with consumption has spilled over to other parts of the world where the accumulation of wealth by elites has been the norm in international development. Rather than bringing the economic development that was promised to those who follow the ‘American way’ there have been more losers than winners.
In this system there are 487 billionaires around the world who possess a net worth that exceeds that of the combined net worth of 2.5 of the world’s poorest people. These 487 billionaires are worth 1.54 trillion million dollars (DiCarlo 2002), which would leave $5696.42 for each of the other almost six billion people if the remaining monetary wealth was equally divided (calculated using World Bank figures) (World Bank 2001). It is not however, as 7.1 million people—concentrated in the United States and western Europe—have a net worth of more than 1 million dollars (Merrill Lynch/Cap Gemini Ernst & Young 2002). The number of poor is also mounting. Today the World Bank estimates that almost half the world or 2.8 billion people live on less than $2 per day (World Bank 2001).
Moreover the developed countries where the poorest and the most seriously poor people are found are also often the most indebted countries. For example, in Africa where one of the largest numbers of people living in poverty is found “16 African countries have of a per capita debt of over US$ 500, 22 others have a debt of more then $200 per capita” (AEFJN 2000). In many of these countries this debt accounts for more than half the GNP. Much of the criticism of this situation focuses on the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) that are imposed on developing countries (Mohan, Brown et al. 2000). Two of the major sources of SAPs are the IMF and World Bank, both entities where the United States’ has a significant say in a decision making process that is extremely opaque. The SAPs are intended to force countries to respect principles of fiscal austerity. While they often have such an effect, it is their unintended but foreseeable consequences that have their greatest impact on the populations to whom they are applied. By forcing governments to divert substantial resources to debt repayment, the priority of international creditors, governments divert resources away from the priorities of their own people. Not surprisingly the areas away from which funds are diverted often include health, education and social security programs.
The international financial system is maintained by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Export Credit Banks, which are the main beams of the larger international system. By virtue of monetary contributions and its voting rights within the World Bank and IMF, its significant world wide control of capital, and the leverage of its banks, the United States controls the international financial system and manipulates it in its favor. While the consequences are observable the trail of guilt has been well obscured by the lack of transparency in policy making bodies of these institutions. For example, the World Bank’s loan agreements with countries are not made public nor are the minutes of the meetings of the Executive Board. Undoubtedly this is because the United States would not want it otherwise. As a result there are good reasons to believe that the stories about the threats and bribes that precede strategic decisions in these institutions. Indeed, the resulting decisions as evaluated by their impact are consistent with these suspicions.
The international system promoted by the international financial institutions (IFI’s) has maintained and increased the disparities between rich and poor. Thus, for example, while the GDP of the 20 richest countries in the world almost doubled between 1960 and 1995, the GDP of in the 20 poorest countries remained virtually unchanged (World Bank 2001). And while the average Gross National Product per capita in high income countries is 4,900 USD in 2002, in low and middle income countries combined it is 1,240 USD and in only low income countries it is 410 USD (World Bank 2001). During this period, the IFI’s and America’s USAID constantly urged countries to be vigilant about their monetary and economic policies and to put their faith in the market which would in turn bring growth. While this benefited some countries other than the richest some of the time, it severely harmed the poorest. In Africa the GDP plummeted from 1970 to 1997 and Africa’s share of world trade followed suit (World Bank 2000: 8).
Once again, it is not merely governments and IFI’s, but also the private sector that has contributed to this situation of disparity. Between themselves, private American and European corporations receive 72% of the corporate revenues that are going to the world’s five hundred largest companies, none of which are African (Hjelt 2002). In some cases, the meager investments they made in Africa were used by the host countries to violate the human rights of their own people. While the host governments are thus guilty of maltreating their own people, the incentives for such atrocities was often foreign investment. Nigeria and Shell’s treatment of the Ogoni people and Sudan and Talisman’s treatment of the people of the Upper Nile State are both well documented examples of where oil profits perpetuated human rights abuses. Moreover, even those profits did not accrue mainly to the host state. Instead the accrue to western-based companies, such as Canada’s Talisman Energy Company, with its wealth accumulating in the United States through its listing on the New York Stock Exchange.
That these inequalities of wealth actually kill people has been unequivocally demonstrated by research showing the strong correlation between health on the one hand and income, education and technical progress—all attributes of a broader concept of wealth—on the other (Wang, Jamison et al. 1999; World Bank 2001)(International Monetary Fund, 2000). It is also not by coincidence that the United States’ use of the world resources has increased as it has ascended to power and that today American use more of the world’s resources than any other people—in fact, Americans’ resource use, if continued at the same alarming rate, could extinguish life on our planet before the end of this century (World Wildlife Fund 2002).
This is an international economic order that is “out of control” (Korten 2001) with the United States at its helm. Instead of recognizing this and considering substantive reform, only superficial changes have been considered. Even the inadequate attempts at reform stumble on vested interests as is evidenced by the United States’ successful blocking of the United Nations General Assembly’s repeated attempts to encourage a new more equitable international economic order or to regulate the activities of transnational corporations. In general it is merely business as usual.
iv. Oppression through Resource Dominance
The United States encompasses only about five percent of the world population and approximately 6.25% of the world’s land mass yet it uses more resources than many countries that much larger and much more populous. This has been documented in studies showing that the per capita share of this expanded wealth in the richest countries of the world is approximately 15 times greater then that of the poorest countries, which account for the majority of the population in the world (Dixon and Hamilton 1996). As a consequence high income countries continue to consume the earth’s renewable natural resources at a pace faster then they can be replenished and at a level three times greater than the earth’s biological capacity (World Wildlife Fund 2002). At this rate it is questionable whether or not the earth will last another century. Polices will have to be devised to end this unsustainable exploitation to the earth. These polices might take into account, according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) more efficient production and consumption of resources, population control, and measures to protect the eco-system. The WWF does not suggest that another alternative suggests for countries like the United States that has shown its distaste of ecological efforts that affect its resource consumption or standard of living. That alternative is to act out of concern for oneself and not the world community. The United States’ rejection of the Kyoto Protocol is a good example of such an alternative. Moreover the United States’ commitment to economic growth at all costs is irreconcilable with making ecological concessions for the common good.
While consuming more resources the United States also safeguards its vital resources through protectionism that is harmful to most of the world. The decisions of the IFI’s related to resources exploitation have had some of the most detrimental impact on the poor. Equally often these decisions appear to favor the economies of the United States and its wealthier allies. Eminent personalities ranging from the German Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development to the Ugandan Prime Minister to accomplished academics have argued that the developed world agricultural subsidies harm developing countries and threaten food security (McCalla 2001). In large part due to the protectionism of developed countries an estimated 840 million people, 95% of them in developing countries, live with food insecurity—the threat of literally starving to death (Food and Agriculture Organization 2002b). In sub-Saharan Africa more than a third of the people are undernourished and international attempts to address this crisis have ground to a halt according to the world’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). The FAO also makes “it equally clear that the lack of progress does not result from a lack of knowledge about what needs to be done. It is not that we have lost our way but rather that we have not followed it” (Food and Agriculture Organization 2002b). When the 1994 Uruguay round of trade negotiations tried to ensure greater access to basic food commodities they failed, instead their policies led to an increase of 35% in the food import bills for many developing countries (Food and Agriculture Organization 2002a).
The existing order is based on an exploitative relationship between the north and the south, the rich and the poor as Immanuel Wallerstein has so succinctly argued for decades and in volumes of his writings (Wallerstein 1974, 1980, 1989). A recent book by Richard Howard Robbins adds that the basis of this system are the following four assumptions: (1) that human beings are motivated by financial greed, (2) that this somehow intrinsically benefits society, (3) that competition is better than cooperation, and (4) that materialistic consumption is an adequate measure of social progress (Robbins 2001). These are assumptions that the United States did not even apply to itself when it was a fledgling country building its fortune (Chang, 2002). And although numerous contemporary writers and social justice activists have protested against these assumptions, they continue to form the basis of American foreign policy and the policies of institutions in which the United States wields substantial influence.
It is an international order that is not sustainable unless the exploitative relationship is allowed to continue. The nuanced tuning attempted by the world’s international financial institutions has only perpetuated inequality and poverty in the name of fiscal austerity (Stiglitz 2002). As the selected data presented above indicates, progress in meeting the basic needs and in securing the basic human rights of the most vulnerable in world has come to a virtual standstill and in some instances it has been reversed. In such an environment the arguments for revolution provide rational alternatives.
THE ABSENCE LAWFUL MEANS OF CHANGE
The last peaceful defense against revolution is the authority of law. Law represents the agreed upon norms that most individuals will respect because they reflect their often strenuously negotiated consensus as to minimum rules for behavior. In the international community the norms of law are even more important because they represent the most basic point at which the people of the world can agree to live in peaceful co-existence. As the authority of law fades, the authority of naked power necessarily increases. Indeed revolution cannot be a legal right as it is the antithesis of legality. It is the alternative to the status quo which is the law. The moral authority of revolution thus rests in large part upon the failure of the law to provide enough protection so as to make acquiescence to authority a worthwhile alternative for the people of the world.
Law provides a system by which individuals can interact with each other with some basic assurances that their expectations will be met to a lesser or greater degree. The rules governing that order are the laws. The order itself is the construct of political and social space that the rules govern. In a perfectly functioning legal order the expectations of all individuals are met sufficiently to allow society to function in a minimally equitable manner. When the laws are oppressive or favor one group of people or a single person over the others in a vastly disproportionate manner then the legitimacy of this order can be questioned. This is because the basis of this order which is found in the expectations of the people to whom it applies is being ignored or abused. Nowhere is this breakdown more evident then when the last bastions of dispute resolution no longer function in a just manner.
The absence of lawful means of change can be examined by identifying relevant indicators and then examining the status of these indicators in political forums, domestic legal forums, and international legal forums.
Indicators of the Absence of Lawful Means of Change
Where oppression exists, the availability of means of redress can be gauged by the reliability of forums for dispute resolution. Some of these forums may be political such as the United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Conferences, the Commission on Human Rights or merely the ad hoc mechanisms of civil society. Other forums are judicial such as the International Court of Justice, domestic courts, and international human rights courts. And still other forums share the characteristics of judicial and political forums. These ‘quasi-judicial’ forums include the numerous international human rights law tribunals such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations Committee on Human Rights that is created by the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. It is relevant when examining these forums to assess whether the forum provides a remedy for the violation of basic rights and the degree of compliance with the forum’s decisions. Where high degree of compliance exists a sufficient legal remedy exists so as to suggest that a right to extrajudicial means is precluded. Where there is very low or no compliance then it is suggested that individuals may legitimately revolt as they no longer have any opportunity of lawful redress of their basic rights.
i. The Absence of Political Forums
When the United Nations was created in the 1950’s it was hailed as the first step towards world government. It was a forum in which diverse participants ranging from governments to individuals could find redress for their grievances when domestic procedures were inappropriate or unavailable. Today the United Nations is subservient to the will of a few governments. Because of this observers can easily perceive it to be a hindrance to their aspirations of a just world in which human rights are respected. Indeed, Iraqis or Palestinians can hardly void perceiving the United Nations is a biased organization in which hegemonic interests always prevail over their human rights.
The United States has been one of the primary reasons for this deterioration. First the United States has failed to ratify many of the United Nations’ most important human rights treaties (Human Rights Watch, 1998). Among the treaties which the United States continues to oppose is the world’s most widely ratified human rights treaty, the Convention on the Rights of the Child. To fail to join the world’s consensus on the most basic protection for children makes the United States, in the eyes of many observers, a renegade state.
More evidence for this view has been readily provided by the United States’ failure to honestly cooperate with the United Nations. The United States’ invasion of Afghanistan without a United Nations mandate is perhaps the most striking example. When the United States could have undoubtedly received the cooperation of the United Nations, it instead avoided even seeking such support. Instead the United States has resorted to threatening the United Nations when it does not blindly support America’s will and whims (Glennon, 2002). The United States’ recent lobbying and bullying of Security Council members to achieve the adoption of Resolution 1441 concerning Iraq evidences how its hypocritical policy professions are used to justify the slaughter civilians in the name of American interests (Podur 2002).
Thus even at the most basic level of activity of the United Nations, the country level, the United States has refused to cooperate. For example, when the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions issued his report on the situation concerning these rights in the United States, he was greeted by a barrage of criticism from American officials (Human Rights Watch, 1998). And despite calling for arms inspectors to return to Baghdad the Bush administration blackmailed the Un into providing them the Iraqi Declaration after the Security Council had decided not to do so, by refusing a to cooperate with the inspectors (Overington, 2002). It is again not hard to see how an observer could understand the United States’ hypocrisy within the United Nations to be a sign of the United Nations impotence as a forum for resolving disputes concerning the United States.
Domestically the United States’ has also insulated itself from the major critical check on unbridled government that its founders so highly valued: the press. Media control has extended so far that even comical criticisms of George Bush have been banned (Sky News, 2002) and the media has reported incorrect facts blindly relying on government sources (Chandler, 2002: 73).
As a result, American politics are often not subjected to either the formal controls of states within the United Nations system nor the informal controls of the press. This is despite the fact that the United States alleges its commitment to preserving both of these controls. This hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed by the world at large (Mayrghuni, 2002), and there can be no doubt that those who strive to vindicate the rights of oppressed peoples have noticed it. The United States’ record of open and effective political forums for resolving international disputes is dismal. It is thus not unreasonable for the oppressed and their champions to conclude that no political forum exists in which they can seek redress of their grievances.
ii. The Absence of Domestic Legal Forums
If political forums do not function adequately then perhaps legal forums do. After all the United States has prided itself on its adherence to the rule of law. In reality, however, if political forums do not function fairly, rarely do legal forums. This is not a coincidence in the case of the United States as some of the problems are structural and have been incorporated into the American Constitution. The very basis of this Constitution itself, it has been argued convincingly, is not basic human rights, which were an afterthought amended to the original document, but the economic interests of the land-owning elites in 18th century America (Beard, 1986). Even with the amendments the US Constitution does not provide for a minimally adequate list of social and economic rights (Jackson, 1999: 1436-1437). This has been reinforced by an American judiciary that has repeatedly refused to enforce such rights (United States Supreme Court, 1970) and continues to grant the executive almost unlimited authority over international affairs.
The lack of domestic judicial forums to protect one’s human rights is something that is pervasive as concerns economic and social issues in the United States. Thus, while United States courts protect a variety of civil and political rights that are in the Amendments to the US Constitution, they have refused to interpret this protection to be equal to that required by international human rights law. The most recent decision of the Court in the Hamdi Case indicates the lack of respect shown for international law in United States courtrooms as the court ignored the relevance of international human rights obligations that were legally binding upon the United States, including its courts (United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2002). More generally, by virtue of the incorporation doctrine the US courts consistently refuse to apply international law unless it has been enacted by domestic legislation. Thus for decades now the United States has been cited as violating international law by international tribunals, but it has simply ignored these pronouncements and continues to violate the law (see the next section below).
Finally, cases such as Bush v. Gore (United States Supreme Court, 2000) could easily indicate to an outside observer that the United States courts decide cases with an apparent political bias. In doing so, such an observer could conclude, the life tenured judges who come from the elites are making decisions that replace those of elected officials. Because of cases like this one and those cited above, an observer could not be faulted for concluding that there are no adequate domestic remedies against actions of the United States government that violate international law and their human rights.
iii. The Absence of International Legal Forums
Persons who have not found adequate means of redress through the political process or through domestic courts have little chance of obtaining redress before international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. That this is the case is not surprising because the United States has rejected the authority of most international judicial bodies. For example, the United States is one of a very few number of American states that have refused to accept the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Thus, today, Libya and Sudan, for example, accept the jurisdiction of more international judicial bodies than does the United States. And whereas the United States had accepted the jurisdiction of the United Nations’ preeminent international judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), it no longer does. Some may even demur that it never did accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction in practice. This is because in 1986, when it was bound to the jurisdiction of the Court and was duly adjudged to be in violation of international law and ordered to pay reparations, the United States ignored the decision of the Court (International Court of Justice, 1986). The Inter-American Commission—a quasi-judicial body—that does have jurisdiction over the United States by virtue of its membership in the Organization of American States, has also suffered the same indignity, time and time again—most recently by executing a prisoner in violation of international human rights law (see e.g. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2002). And as to consolidate its abhorrence of international judicial institutions the United States has opposed perhaps the most important judicial body in recent human history, the International Criminal Court.
Even when it comes to merely accepting international legal obligations in treaties that have no judicial bodies to control their implementation the United States has not participated. The most frequently cited, and by infamous example, is that of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Again, every single state in the world except the United States and Somalia have ratified this treaty—this means every one of the states that the United States perceives as its enemies has agreed to provide more protections to children under international law, then has the United States. And when the United States did adhere to the International Covenants of Civil and Political Rights, it did so without agreeing to the Optional Protocol that would have allowed individual petitions and with so many and such wide-reaching reservations that the Committee and other states, including the United states NATO allies, objected.
Again the conclusion of an observer could easily be that no international tribunal exists to control the United States’ actions.
* * *
The United States’ record of acknowledging legitimate international forums for dissent and for respecting the decisions of these forums has not been good. Instead the United States appears to be of the disposition that “what is good for America is good for the world” (Yanov 2000). Many Americans, some perhaps even in good faith and with a genuine concern for their most vulnerable fellow citizens, believe this is to be the case. For example, at the same time that American President Clinton recognized America’s disproportionate benefits in the world, he also suggested that this advantage could be mitigated by American-led trade when he stated that “[i]t is pretty much elemental math that we can't continue to do that unless we sell something to the other 96 percent of the people that inhabit this increasingly interconnected planet of ours” (Clinton 1999). Whether following this advice could have changed America’s relationship to the rest of the world and how, may be a subject ripe for speculation, but the reality is that the relationship has not changed.
Outside warnings have gone equally unheeded. In 2000, for example, Acting Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Lakshman Kiriella in his address to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) members warned that “[s]elf interest, the soul of the market is not enough. We have to put some heart into it; to add solidarity to self-interest, to rededicate ourselves to the moral commitment of assisting the disadvantaged. In the end it is only the belief in the basic unity of the humankind, in a sharing of responsibilities and benefits, that will give legitimacy and enduring force to our endeavour” (Kiriella 2000). Ultimately Clinton responded to the NAM’s call for abolishing tariffs and other concession that would allow the developing countries to compete for developed countries’ markets (Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the Group of 77 and China 2000) by claiming that such concession could not be made..
The Israeli-Palestine conflict is perhaps the most prominent example. While the United States allegedly made concessions to the Palestinian grievances by referring to a vaguely defined Palestinian state, it effectively precludes the establishment of such a state by its actions. Among these actions are: the continued military support of Israel, the continued failure to condemn Israeli attacks against civilians, the legislative recognition of Palestinian Jerusalem as Israeli territory, and the United States failure to provide a timetable for the creation of a Palestinian state. The United States hesitance to act to stop Israel’s violence in the occupied territories and its acquiesce in Israel’s de facto annexation of the occupied territories by the use of force, something vital to Israel’s attempts to exterminate the Palestinians, is a clear consent to a violation of international law that unambiguously prohibits the annexation of territory acquired by force. In a striking contradiction of this action, the United States attacked Iraq in 1991 for the trying to annex Kuwait by force. Similar contradictions can be seen in America’s stance on the International Criminal Court; the implementation of the death penalty on minors; the failure to consult states when their nationals are arrested; immigration and terrorism laws that deny persons under the control of American officials all rights of due process; the failure to ratify major treaties providing human rights for women and children; the failure to participate in the Kyoto Protocol; the failure to pay its full dues to international organizations; etc. The list is long and in many cases reflecting actions by the United States that are contrary to its obligations under international law.
The Results
The conclusions above indicate the occurrence of long term oppression around the world through the maintenance of an international order that treats a substantial part of humankind unfairly. So unfairly, in fact, that the very existence of vast numbers of people is threatened and their opportunities for development are negligible. The common feature of these victimized people are that they are poor, different from Americans, and often don’t agree with American ideology. Because of their differences they have been subjected to attacks using a variety of means ranging from naked force to economic coercion. This oppression is coupled with the failure of political and legal forums to provide adequate means of redress for basic grievances. Together the oppression and absence of lawful means of change create a structure of oppression. This structure is an international order that is constantly being strengthened by growing inequalities and increasing vulnerabilities. The structural nature of the combined effect of oppression and the lack of means of redress pervades the current international order and generates a sense of hopelessness.
The international order is based in large part on American domination that resembles imperialism. This can be seen from the disproportional advantage that the United States enjoys across several sectors related to the conditions necessary to sustain human life. Not only is American the world’s largest consumer of resources, but it also increasingly control the access to those resources giving this country a de facto strangle hold on life on our planet. Even where development takes place—to which the United States is frequently a contributor—that development often contributes to America’s increased superiority and dependence by the ‘partner’ on America’s assistance. The inequalities caused by this situation perpetuate an environment of oppression from which the majority of the people of the world are confined to an inhumane existence. While indeed this could be changed by a radical shift in American policy, such as the acceptance of a greater degree of equality and justice in the world, this is not happening.
Although there does sometimes appear to be change sometimes taking place, time and time again such incremental changes appear to be part of a strategy of mitigating dissent rather than pursuing substantive change. The empty acts of homage made by the United States and its allies, often offered at the altar of a disemboweled United Nations, are increasingly viewed as self-serving propaganda and merely an addition to an already bulging list of disingenuous actions. These actions pervade the political as well as the economic spheres of social life. The United States superior position and its inability to accept restrain makes equality a fiction in the international community.
This is indicated in many of the examples discussed above, whereby the most vulnerable people around the world are being treated as expendable in the interest of preserving American hegemony. Indeed, the statistics, arguments and examples cited above indicate that America foreign policy remains as dangerous for the majority of the people in the world as ever. In many respects, these examples even indicate that the danger is in fact increasing as the American government becomes increasingly competent in distorting reality by spinning its propaganda. Thus, for example, when the United States contributes to overseas development assistance it proclaims its virtues with the highest possible voice, although in the end it received its investment back several times over in contracts and staff hiring and, as indicated above, the plight of the most vulnerable ‘rest’ of the people is not improved. As the statistics discussed above indicate, overall, the most vulnerable people of the world are becoming worse off in relation to their more wealthy and affluent ‘equals’. This is neither the result of a single action or policy, nor can it be remedied by a single action or policy. It is the result of a broader strategy encompassing a complex collection of actions and policies which are aimed at maintaining America’s superiority throughout the world. Such policies are unsustainable and should be stopped. When they cannot be stopped by negotiation and cooperation in political and legal forums, the only recourse left is revolution.
Despite growing oppression and dwindling opportunities for adequate redress, revolution is not a simple choice. It requires that the revolutionary accept the consequences of rejecting the certainty of an imperfect system for the belief that there can be something better. It requires thinking outside the box and creating another means of organization whereby the past is disregarded to the extent that its organizational structure—institutions and ideas—limit the new. It requires an act of faith that must be preceded by a major breakdown of trust in the existing status quo. Ultimately it requires that things are so bad at present that individuals are willing to attempt change to the unknown.
Suicide bombings and paramilitary actions provide evidence that this time is upon us. The acts of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, FARC, and the Red Brigades, among other groups using violence to express their concerns, have been supported by statements that refer to the acts of oppression and injustice by western countries, primarily the United States. These groups claim to be acting on behalf of the oppressed people who have been denied opportunities to effectively make their claims in more peaceful forms. To reinforce their commitment to the most vulnerable people, these groups—considered terrorist by western, particularly the American, governments—have often implemented social policies that benefit the most vulnerable.
Whether or not these militant groups are honestly concerned with the welfare of the populations they assist, their claims of existing oppression are eminently credible because of the conditions of oppression are readily observable. Furthermore, the attribution of this oppression to the developed world, particularly the United States, is equally credible based upon evidence that is widely circulated throughout the public domain. It should, therefore, come without surprise that that groups like Al-Qaeda can direct violence against the United States with claims hat they are fighting American oppression.
The foot soldiers of the revolution are, however, only a part of a larger struggle. A revolution requires many types of individuals to be successful. It may include, for example, academics and intellectuals who criticize the global inequalities and injustices in their writings and teaching; human rights defenders and social justice demonstrators who clamor for a more just world; human rights lawyers who try to change the system from within and bring its inadequacies into full view; even politicians from within the system who are willing to point out its flaws. Not all of these individuals may be revolutionaries—i.e. really committed to change, but they all play a role in bringing change about. In fact, there is not reason to exclude any individual from a role in revolution in a modern world where one may empower oneself against even the most oppressive regimes. As Noam Chomsky has reminded us “[r]esistance is feasible even for those who are not heroes by nature, and it is an obligation … for those who fear the consequences and detest the reality of the attempt to impose American hegemony” (Chomsky 1968).
But why should a person support a revolution when that person’s standard of living, as that of most of those who read a contribution such as the present, is not personally threaten. There are many reasons, but two general categories into which they might fall. First, a person might be enlightened enough to bear the responsibility to which Chomsky refers and second, a person might fear the future, if not for him or herself, for his or her children or for future generations generally, that awaits a people who oppress so many people. The adoption of the moral standpoint in relation to revolution depends on one’s moral up-bring or one’s acquired morality. It is not irrelevant that the revolution described above aligns itself well with many religious teachings. Indeed the liberation theology of Latin America has much in common with so-called Islamic fundamentalism in so far as striving for justice is concerned. But even if one lacks the moral capacity to aspire to an ideal world based on equality, there are practical reasons for an individual to support a modern revolution. These reasons start with the recognition that the developing world’s population of oppressed people is growing at a much faster rate then the populations of developed countries. Soon India and China alone may possess more people living in poverty then the rest of the people in the rest of the world. It is rational to believe that such people will eventually rise up against their oppressors. Already persons with whom the oppressed have much empathy are doing do and recruiting for these small groups of ‘fighter’ is becoming increasingly easier as the oppression continues. A Machiavellian observer might thus understand that to fight on the side of the oppressor will eventually lead to one being identified with the oppressor and being an object of attack. Whether one wishes to absorb his responsibility as a single individual is one matter, whether it is legitimate to raise children into this situation is another. Thus while realizing that most people living in the developing world and especially the United States will rally behind these actors to—ignorantly or knowingly—secure a system which causes oppression, some from within this group may well feel that their future interests are better served by opposing the system. These people are unlikely to be the foot soldiers, but they can be a relevant and important part of a larger strategy.
But it is not the majority of Americans or elites around the world who suffer the worse deprivations, it is the common people of Africa, of the people in the poorest parts of Asia and Latin America and even North Americans who are too poor and disenfranchised to be heard, who are the oppressed (see e.g. Young, 2002). These are people whose resources and lives are used to fuel the standard of living in America and elsewhere in the developed world. These people are those who have been impoverished, bombed, exploited, interned and enslaved as cheap labor and who lack the necessities of life. It is these people who form the majority of the world but who hold the minority of power in present relations and who suffer the most. These are the people who are being denied their most basic human rights. These are the people who hold the right that American President Ibrahim Lincoln acknowledged when he exclaimed that the violations of the human beings most basic rights from “a moral point of view, justify revolution—certainly would if such a right were a vital one” (Lincoln 1861).
Although the foot soldiers in a revolution are oft rallied to cries of patriotism or duty to their country, the relationship of harm to action has never been a condition for the exercise of revolution. The American revolutionaries of the 17th century, for example, were led by individuals who had not so distressed lives as to require freedom from their colonial masters. Instead, the cause of revolution, as it was then, is often one of conviction as
[t]he dissident does not operate in the realm of genuine power at all. He is not seeking power. He has no desire for office and does not gather votes. He does not attempt to charm the public, he offers nothing and promises nothing. He can offer, if anything, only his own skin—and he offers it solely because he has no other way of affirming the truth he stands for. His actions simply articulate his dignity as a citizen, regardless of the cost (Havel 1986).
The revolutionary is often as much the idealist as the disgruntled.
Today revolution may precipitate from even greater distances whereby its instigators can be safely seated behind computers on the other side of the world. The attacks on the United States, a manifestation of revolution, were allegedly planned by Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, who we are to believe, operating on the other side of the world in a third world country. In truth, communications and the means to manipulate them have become so complex and yet accessible that we really do not know if Sheikh Bin Laden was perhaps watching the events that unfolded on 11 September from a hotel room in mid-town Manhattan. Indeed, he apparently safely watched while the United States government bombed Afghanistan—an campaign more deadly than any perpetrated by the British against the American colonists.
Americans can no longer claim that only a small majority of people in the world who hate them enough to attack them. As recent opinion polls show, there is increasing dissatisfaction with America in the international community, even among its allies. Furthermore, it is not just groups like Al-Qaeda who have committed themselves to revolutionary means of achieving their goals; increasingly they are joined by peasants who have been driven to such desperate situations that they feel there are no other means of recourse to save future generations (see e.g. CNN 2002). Around the world, diverse groups of diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds are joining together to oppose America’s hegemony. This can be seen in riots in South Korea, solidarity statements in Latin America, and pleas of social justice emanating from Africa. These groups often enjoy the sympathies of the most impoverished people, but also increasingly have the active and moral support of a growing number of academics and intellectuals and sometimes even elites, even if only unwittingly. The grounds for revolution appear to be swelling.
CONCLUSION
The changes that are necessary to allow for peaceful international coexistence among all people and to preempt violent revolution must be substantive, not illusionary. They require a literal counter-revolution in American thinking about its goals and policy priorities. They require a commitment to sharing the fruits of the world’s natural and human resources more fairly among the people of the world. They require a system that holds authoritative actors accountable to ensure the rights that they have pledged to uphold in the numerous international undertakings that they have given their people and the world community at large. If these goals cannot be accomplished the presently growing environment of inequality and injustice will be become unsustainable and unbearable. And unless these changes take place it is hard to argue that revolution—even violent—revolution is not a better alternative for many people.
The acts that we have dismissed as irrational terrorism, to be fought with all necessary means, may actually be the result of rational choice between alternatives. If this is the case, then a war on terrorism premised on violent repression actually perpetuates this vice. Instead a counter revolution is needed that listens to the dissatisfaction prevailing around the world today and tries to make our heritage a truly common one. If the elites of the world do not react to this warning then perhaps violent revolution is indeed upon us and all the laws and oppressive polices employed to defeat it will only fuel its fury. As American President John F. Kennedy reminded us in his inauguration speech in 1961, “[t]he world is very different now, for man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forbears fought are still at issue around the globe ... the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God. We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution.”
* * *
Does this conclusion mean that every person who kills or maims an American or one of the world’s elite is justified under law to do so? No, acts of violence are and will continue to be violations of domestic law and perhaps sometimes even international law. The cost is, however, much higher then the merely violation of laws. What is at stake is the legitimacy of those very laws, or viewed from an alternative perspective, the legitimacy of revolution.
Bibliography
AEFJN (2000). "Action Plan 2000, Debt Cancellation for African Countries." accessed at http://www.sedos.org/w_debt/aefjn.htm (16 November 2002).
Bryant, E. (2000). We’re Keeping Our Promise To Military Retirees (Public Statement by Congressman Ed Bryant).
Chandler, D. (2002). From Kosovo to Kabul: Human Rights and International Intervention. London, UK and Sterling, VA, USA, Pluto Press.
Chomsky, N. (1968). Supplement to On Resistance. New York Review of Books.
Clinton, W. J. (1999). Remarks by U.S. President Bill Clinton to farmers, students from the Seattle-Tacoma area who study trade, and area officials, at the Weyerhauser Facility, Transit Shed - Terminal 5, The Port of Seattle. Seattle, Washington, USA.
CNN (2002). "Guerrillas blow up Indian railway station." accessed at http://www.cnn.com (22 November 2002).
D’Souza, D. (2002). What’s So Great about America, Regnery Publishing, Inc.
DiCarlo, L. (2002). "The World's Billionaires: Behind The Rankings Of The World's Rich." accessed at http://www.forbes.com (14 November 2002).
Dixon, J. A. and K. Hamilton (1996). "Expanding the Measure of Wealth." Finance & Development 33(4): 15-18.
Erwin, S. I. (2002). "Chemical Stockpile ScrappingWork Proceeds, Amid Dissent." accessed at http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ (14 November 2002).
European Court of Human Rights (1995). Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), E.H.R.R.
Federation of American Scientists (2000). "Chemical Weapons." accessed at http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm
Food and Agriculture Organization (2002a). "Fact Sheet: The right to food." accessed at http://www.fivims.org/ (19 November 2002).
Food and Agriculture Organization (2002b). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2002. Rome, Italy, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Forbes.com (2002). "Billionaire and Economic Data by Country (as per 4 February 2002)." accessed at http://www.forbes.com/ ((15 November 2002)).
Gee, M., (2000). "Some incidents occurred,” Wednesday, 22 March 2000 (citing UN sources) (London, UK).
Gedmin, J. and G. Schmitt (2001). "Allies in America's National Interest." The New York Times.
Government, U. S. (2002). Joint Vision 2020.
Havel, V. (1986). An Anatomy of Reticence ("Anatomie jedne zdrzenlivosti," translated by E. Kohak). Vaclav Havel, Living in Truth (Twenty-two essays published on the occasion of the award of the Erasmus Prize to Vaclav Havel). J. Vladislav. London, UK, and Boston, USA, Faber and Faber.
Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the Group of 77 and China (2000). Declaration of the South Summit. Group of 77 South Summit, Havana, Cuba.
Hjelt, P. (2002). "The World's Largest Corporations Profits? What profits? It was a bad year for big business--and a year of big change for the global economy." accessed at http://www.fortune.com (15 November 2002).
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1981). Commission Decision in Case No. 1241, Res. 23/81, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.51, Doc. 48. (6 March 1981).
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1987). Commission Decision in Case No. 9647, Res. 3/87, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.71, Doc. 9, rev. 1. (27 March 1987).
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1999), Coard, et al, v. United States, Commission Decision in Case No. 10.951, Report No. 109/99, Annual Report of the I.A.C.H.R. (29 September 1999).
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2002). Michael Domingues v. United States, Report No. 62/02 (Merits) Case No. 12.285 (22 October 2002).
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1989). Advisory Opinion No. OC-10/89, Judgments and Opinions of the Inter-American Court. (14 July 1989).
International Court of Justice (1986). Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), 1986 I.C.J. Reports 14 (Judgment on the Merits of 27 June 1986).
International Federation for Human Rights, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network, et al. (2002). Open letter regarding EU/Israël Association Council meeting on 21 October 2002 addressed to the EU Foreign Affairs Ministers, EU High Representative for CFSP, Javier Solana, and EU Commissioner, Chris Patten.
International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (2002). IRCT media release, "Increased reports of torture by Israel in Occupied Territories" (12 April 2002). Copenhagen, Denmark, IRCT.
Kennan, G. (1948). US State Department Policy Planning Document No. 23. Washington, DC, USA, United States Government.
Kiriella, L. (2000). Hon. Acting Foreign Minister, Lakshman Kiriella’s Address to the South Summit in Havana, Cuba on 14 April 2000.
Korten, D. C. (2001). When Corporations Rule the World. Bloomfield, CT, Kumarian Press.
Lasn, K. (1999). Culture Jam: The Uncooling of America, Eagle Brook.
Leitner, B. (2002, 11 October). "U.S. Government Use of Chemical Weapons Against U.S. Citizens." accessed at http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/10/11_chemical.html ((16 November 2002)).
Lincoln, A. (1861). American President Abrahim Lincoln's First Inaugural Address on 4 March 1861.
McCalla, A. (2001). Remarks on a panel on "The Long Arm of Industrialized Countries: How Their Agricultural Policies Affect Food Security". Sustainable Food Security for All by 2020, Bonn, Germany, International Food Policy Research Institute.
Merrill Lynch/Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (2002). World Wealth Report.
Mohan, G., E. Brown, et al., Eds. (2000). Structural adjustment: Theory, practice and impacts. London and New York, Routledge.
Naylor, K. (2001). "Remarks at the SMAC Forum on Oppression and Resistance." accessed at http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/ (12 November 2002).
Overington, C. (2002). "US lets inspectors into secrets." accessed at theage.com.au (18 December 2002).
Podur, J. (2002). "Resolution 1441." accessed at http://www.zmag.org (15 November 2002).
Robbins, R. H. (2001). Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Boston, USA, Allyn & Bacon Publishing, Inc.
Roberts, R. (2001). "America and the World's Resources." accessed at http://invisibleheart.com/ (15 November 2002).
Steiner, H. J. and P. Alston (2000). International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, and Morals. Oxford, UK and New York, USA, Oxford University Press.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. New York and London, W.W. Norton Company.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2002). SIPRI Yearbook 2002 Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.
The Economist (2002). Pocket World in Fugures 2003 Edition. London, UK, The Economist and Profile Books Ltd.
Tucker, J. B. (2001). "Chemical weapons: Buried in the backyard." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 57(5): 51-56.
UNDP (2002). Human Development Report 2002: Deepening democracy in a fragmented world. New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2002). Yaser Esam Hamdi; Esam Fouad Hamdi, a next friend of Yaser Esam Hamdi v. Donald Rumsfeld; W.R. Paulette, Commander, Original Judgment, Case No. 02-6895 (decided 12 July 2002).
United States Government Bureau of Arms Control (2001). START I Memorandum of Understanding. Washington, DC, USA.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System, I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York, Academic Press.
Wallerstein, I. (1980). The Modern World-System, II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, l600-l750. New York, Academic Press.
Wallerstein, I. (1989). The Modern World-System, III: The Second Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730-1840's. San Diego, Academic Press.
Wang, J., D. T. Jamison, et al. (1999). Measuring Country Performance on Health: Selected Indicators for 115 Countries. Washington, D.C., USA, The World Bank.
Weil, S. (1951). Journal d’Usine. La Condition Ouvrière. Paris, Éditions Gallimard.
World Bank (2000). Can African Claim the 21st Century. Washington, DC, USA, World Bank.
World Bank (2001). World Development Report 2000-2001: Attacking Poverty. Washington, D.C., USA, et al, World Bank and Oxford University Press.
World Wildlife Fund (2002). Living Planet Report 2002. Cambridge, UK, A Banson production.
Yanov, A. (2000). Dangerous Lady: Political Sketch of the Chief Foreign Policy Adviser to George Bush, Jr. Moscow News. Moscow, Russia.
