Achin Vanaik on US Imperialism and Political Terrorism

By Anonymous (not verified) , 17 October, 2006
Author
ab

Achin Vanaik is an independent Indian scholar and journalist and Professor of International Relations and Global Politics at Delhi University. He was speaking at the Independent and Radical Bookfair in Edinburgh, Scotland, Britain, on Friday, 13th of October 2006, about Political Terrorism and the US Imperial Project.
Here are two audio recordings of his talk, which is about 30 minutes, and some notes on the talk.

Political Terrorism and the US Imperial Project

Achin Vanaik:
after 9/11 : statement of the US

  1. global war on terrorism
  2. doesn't distinguish between countries which host and perpetrators -> worldwide imperialismli
  3. takes decades 8-10 years
=> US SOFTWARE OF WAR

Definition of international political terrorism:
concepts of intimidation and violence

Understanding of terrorism:

    criteria:
  • ancient/modern phenomena ?- historical form?
  • acts/regimes/campaigns/tactics/strategy
  • neutral definition?
  • morality? 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler as positive example?
  • broad/narrow definition of violence? - policy of poverty?
  • objective/subjective definition?
  • philosophical: only acts which knowingly kill civilians? also acts which consequential kill civilians? (US foreign policies?)
Modern, ethic, acts and campaigns

- Acts: threats and carrying out
- by state terrorism and individual groups

differences:
- framework for understanding

    non-state terrorism
  • 2-ways-directional (opponents and supporters)
  • “propaghanda of the deed”: symbolic aspects of non-state terrorism
  • local
  • arbitrary/random character
state terrorism
  • one directional
  • blatantly open organisation: morally de-sensualised population
  • question of scare and scale: very huge in contrast to non-state terrorism e.g. US killed people in numbers of millions
  • grandios character of the “end” of state terrorism: “in the name of fighting communism” / ”in the name of democracy”
  • state-terrorism is not that random
  • usually takes place away from home population
    • Non-state terrorism can never defeat the other side militarily.
    State terrorism is our biggest problem today.

    Ideology - can be opposed

    Global War on Terrorism

    • militarise the solution to the problem
    • violence promoted in order to oppose violence terrorism is used to oppose terrorism
      more aggressive than state terrorism during cold war
      Discourses:
    1. War on Terror
    2. WMD
    3. Humanitarian Internvention
    4. Democracy -> regime change
    5. Failed States
    6. War on Drugs
    Effective and Impact on:
    - domestic population
    - Middle East
    - government and elites in other countries

    -> to understand the impact
    -> discourse: messianic and paranoiac

      Advantages:
    1. duration: long times
    2. geographical scope
    3. addresses failed problems within US public
    4. vasted interests justified and further followed up
    5. neoliberal
    6. WMD – nuclear terrorism
    7. demonisation of Islam and Muslims
    -> religion got connected with terrorism
    => historic: stronger resistance against imperialism, historical consistency against imperialism

    West Asia and Central Asia

    What do we do?

    1.Fighting Empire:

    -> politically defeat it
    => contest of wills
    Progressive Politcs: initiating that will to resist!

    2. universal
    - morally
    - politically (terrorism of the strang)
    - emotionally (universalist)

    “Never again …to my people.”

    long-term struggle, adjust political context, push for international and national laws

    UN court tribunal:
    - US, Israel, China, India not members