Letters to the Editor

Fanatic terrorists not simply the spawn of Islam

On Oct. 18, professor John Fleming wrote a piece about the nature of the current Islamic world, as he sees it, and several readers have responded subsequent to that date. I would like to add my own thoughts.

As someone who teaches and writes on the Islamic world, I believe that professor Fleming has put the emphasis on the wrong place. He chose to write about books and literacy because that is what he knows. Nevertheless, he is making a broader claim about the superiority of Western civilization, and if one is going to make such an argument, other aspects of the Islamic world must be brought into the picture. Before discussing these other aspects, I'd like to say that, in my opinion, the overall frame of Western civilization versus the Islamic world is not a very productive one and has the unfortunate effect of reproducing the dichotomous world view of people like Osama bin Laden.

Professor Fleming's world is devoid of politics and of states, even though states are vital in shaping civilizations, the Islamic world included. Can anyone doubt that Christianity was changed by its elevation to the religion of the state in the fourth century? I could say many things about politics and states in the Muslim world today, but I will limit myself to just two points.

First, the current religious cast of politics in the region didn't bubble up out of something inherently fanatical in Islam. The reasons were much more mundane. A good place to start looking would be the presidency of Anwar Sadat. For a whole host of reasons, Sadat introduced religious rhetoric into the mainstream of Arab political discourse. He billed himself as the "pious president" and quoted liberally from the Koran as a way of buttressing his power. He was applauded in the West for making peace with Israel. Did anyone object to the fact that he insisted that the Islamic authorities in Egypt endorse the Camp David accords as well? Arab and other Muslim leaders — many of them supported by the West — have done a great deal to politicize Islam. We shouldn't be surprised, then, that their opponents have responded in a similar fashion. Second, I am sure that religious militants like bin Laden have always existed and will always exist. They exist in our own society. The key, again, is the role of the state. Does it disempower such people or does it give them encouragement? Many Middle Eastern governments have, at one time or another (and here I am thinking particularly but not only of the Saudis), chosen to encourage them, and thus the power of militants has grown out of all proportion to their numbers. The reasons are political, not cultural. These are very shaky regimes. Not only are they corrupt and oppressive, they are too close to the Americans who are widely reviled for their support of Israel. Unwilling to either democratize or cut their dependence on American aid, Muslim elites have chosen to try to shore up their legitimacy by throwing the Islamic radicals a wide assortment of bones. The Saudis, for instance, have been happy to fund Islamic radicals in Afghanistan over the course of the last 20 years (of course the Americans were happy to do the same in the 1980s). In this way they can present themselves as supporters of an Islamic jihad but make sure that the messy consequences of such an endeavor blow up in someone else's country. This insidious and long-standing policy has had the (unintended) effect of giving Islamic radicalism and its discourse a legitimacy and a power that it would not otherwise enjoy. Molly Greene Associate Professor of History

The United States must provide more aid to Afghanistan

The United States is on the verge of committing a holocaust in Afghanistan. Over seven million people in Afghanistan may not survive the winter due to starvation, according to the United Nations. As Princeton students finish their fast today in support of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, it is vital for our community to understand the role that we as a nation are playing in the ongoing famine.

Andrew Nastios, director of the U.S. Agency for International Development, stated that the United States gave $174 million of food aid to Afghanistan last year and has increased the amount scheduled for this year. He estimated that the United States supplies 80 percent of Afghanistan's food. Despite this aid, Nastios stated that 12 of 23 million Afghans are underfed, giving Afghanistan the lowest per capita calorie consumption in the world. In addition to the lack of food, Nastios said that Afghanistan has only 10,000 of the 400,000 tons of seed needed to plant the winter wheat crop. Nastios stated that he has never seen this large of a gap in any famine in the world.

If the United States is the biggest donor of food in Afghanistan and is planning on increasing its level of food donation in the area, what is it doing wrong? First, we must address the history of food aid to Afghanistan. Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.), in front of the House International Relations Committee on Nov. 1, stated to Mr. Nastios, "And, as you mentioned, the United States has been the largest contributor of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, but it has been channeled into the Taliban-controlled areas and that, even at times when private organizations were trying to help the non-Taliban-controlled areas, the last administration not only did . . . not facilitate it but thwarted those efforts. And I find that to be a heinous condemnation of the last administration, of which you are not responsible."

The allegation made by Rohrbacher only hints at the complex role that the United States has played in supporting the Taliban and in destabilizing the region since 1979. Ignoring the billions of dollars of arms that the United States pumped into fundamentalist Islamic military groups in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, the use of food to influence the conflict in post-Soviet Afghanistan is a grave violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention rules on Protection of Civilian Persons in the Time of War. In addition to the U.S. role in Afghanistan, support of Israel's treatment of Palestine violates the same provision. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Israel, reported, "Several NGO's allege that the Israeli government policies have created hunger and threaten starvation of the most destitute and have documented long-term or permanent damage to the nutritional needs of especially vulnerable groups, including children and refugees." These are not the types of actions that will stop the spread of global terrorism. These are the actions that gave Osama bin Laden his power in the first place.

More recently, the U.S. military has bombed Red Cross warehouses in Afghanistan on two separate occasions. Jakob Kellenberger, the Swiss delegate to the International Committee of the Red Cross, stated, "We deplore the bombardment of the ICRC warehouses, which was a violation of international rights." This bombing is incidental to the effect that the U.S. military campaign has had on displacing the Afghan population. Before the bombing began, almost one million Afghans were considered internally displaced persons by the United Nations.

The bombing campaign has forced more civilians to flee the cities of Kabul and Kandahar, making the planting of the few remaining stores of winter wheat seed almost impossible. While Nastios noted that one of the most important factors in averting disastrous famine conditions is stopping the displacement of civilian populations, the United States has continued to bomb civilian targets.

I have no doubt that the Taliban should be removed from power by military force and that bin Laden should be brought to justice. But, at what cost? And to what benefit? Johnathan Steele, reporter for The Guardian, quoted Aziz Tajik, a refugee in Afghanistan whose father and brother were killed when a missile struck the family home and whose daughter died of illness during their trip to Iran. According to Tajik, "If the bombing was used against terrorists, it's fine. But if it's against ordinary people and just forces us to flee, it's terrible." Tajik's situation illustrates the dangers of waging a war during one of the worst famines in recent history.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

The United States should recognize that its current military efforts could result in the deaths of millions of people. Bombing should be halted until after the winter to allow foreign aid workers to return to Afghanistan and internally displaced persons to return to their homes. In the meantime, a massive increase in the amount of food aid is needed. By refusing to stop bombing during Ramadan, the United States risks alienating moderate Islamic factions vital to stopping global terrorism. By halting the bombing and drastically increasing the amount of food aid, the United States has a much better chance of stopping terrorism and fighting for justice than by bombing Red Cross warehouses and Afghan hospitals. Mike Long '02