On being pro-America

IN THE broad sweep of American history there are good episodes and bad, like that of all the empires which have dominated the world.

Reacting to the September 11 terrorist attack, some detractors reach as far back as the subjugation of the Indians by the early settlers in a new and untamed land. Other negatives range from the obscenities of racism in the post-Civil War South; through the era of big-stick diplomacy; and up to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima to end World War 2.

Some choose to ignore the characterisation by Winston Churchill of the New World coming to the rescue of the Old. It is surely the accolade most appropriate as a peak of American achievement in that phase of world history.

There is no gainsaying the subsequent rise to world supremacy, despite the rabid abuses typified in McCarthyism, for example. And there is no denying the accumulation of wealth, the breath and breadth of freedoms which make it the land of opportunity - and, as it turns out, a vulnerable target for the envious.

We take the view that this kind of balance-sheet criticism which seeks to justify the terrorist attack is misplaced - and irrelevant, except in a search for answers.

There is no cause, religious or secular, which can justify the calculated sacrifice of thousands of lives, outside of wartime conflict. As for the religious motivation, we reject utterly the tenets of any faith thus distorted and used in an act of unadulterated evil.

We concede the arrogance of the simplistic choices offered by President Bush - of the rest of the world being pro-US or pro-terrorist. It is surely not that simple. Even so, we are on the side of what America stands for as a fortress of western democracy and as fount of economic support and opportunity.

We now know that even a superpower is vulnerable in a new world of devices that can be twisted into tools of terror. This is yet another dimension of the global context in which we as a small nation have to make adjustments to survive.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.

Back to Commentary