I entirely agree with Robert Mattes (September 17) that there is no logic to blaming the United States for the terrorist attack on itself. It is contrived (by long-standing axe-grinders) and disingenuous to do so.
The litany of sins usually brought against the US stem from, among others, real and perceived abuses during the Cold War in countering the explicit Soviet objective to dominate the world, or from its resistance to flagrant aggression by others. Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, El Salvador, Angola, Cuba and the Gulf War are oft-cited examples. Yes, the thought of one omnipotent superpower is disturbing in principle. And yes, we do sometimes experience the US as arrogant and naive.
Neither has the present administration done enough to exert their influence towards finding solutions in the Middle East. We resent their seemingly abrupt dismissal of the Kyoto treaty on global warming and aspects of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As happens in many countries, including South Africa past and present, they have sometimes acted in ways which in themselves tended to be destructive of the value system they purported to be protecting, but which they have none the less succeeded in preserving from all-out assault by the unspeakable Soviet Union, thankfully now demised. However, in spite of the warts, the US with its record as a free, open and humane democracy is, on balance by every measure, arguably still the most successful state the world has seen.
Reading on the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, even allowing for the input from propaganda factories, the impression is inescapable that there has on only a few occasions in history been such a clear-cut contention between good and evil as now. The Taliban came to power by force of arms and according to informed consensus represents only a small portion of the people of Afghanistan. They allow no freedom of religion, speech or association by way of political parties or otherwise. No legislative, executive or judicial institutions exist outside the strictures of the mullahs’ radical Islamism. The Afghan economy is based largely on criminality, notably the large-scale smuggling of opium, with at least the tacit support of the Taliban. No programmes of economic development or reconstruction to redress the abject poverty in Afghanistan are even being considered. No social services such as health care or social security are provided or being considered. Internationally accepted human rights are abused on a vast scale. And at the drop of a hat the Taliban and their cohorts declare “holy war” on anyone who does not agree that their way of doing things should be the standard throughout the world.
Osama bin Laden is on record as being determined to destroy the “infidel West” and dominate the world with his even more extreme form of radical Islamism. He exhorts “holy warriors” everywhere to kill Christians, Jews and especially Americans wherever they might be found. He is patently an amoral utilitarian who will exclude no means to achieve his ends. In this he clearly has the support of the Taliban. By overwhelming circumstantial evidence acceptable as proof by courts of criminal jurisdiction all over the world we are now painfully aware of his methods, which the vast majority of Muslims worldwide despise as much as any non-Muslim does. The support for the US from all leading Islamic states, confirms this. They must be appalled at what the Taliban and Osama are doing to their faith and to their security.
The US remains remarkably, given its immense powers of coercion by and large a benign influence to the good, no doubt due in large measure to its exemplary Constitution and culture of constitutionality. The collectively aggrieved and equally threatened nations of the world should expect and indeed demand of it to do so successfully, and offer their fullest assistance to that end. Maritz Spaarwater, Stanford