Monday, March 21, 2005
Confusing Determinations in the War Against Terrorism
Sunday's Times magazine carries an extensive discussion of the case of a former member of the PKK, Ibrahim Parlak. He had settled in Michigan, had a dearly loved daughter of seven, opened a restaurant and become a well liked member of the community. Suddenly he was picked up, declared to be a terrorist, and now faces deportation for his "crimes". There is no doubt that as a young man in Turkey's Kurdistan, he joined the resistance movement, then know as the PKK. He worked for them in Germany and then tried to reenter Turkey to assist them on the ground. Captured after six months, he was tortured for weeks. He finally caved in, leading the Turkish authorities to a store of weapons. After serving his sentence, he escaped the country, believing that both the Turkish authorities would continue to mistrust him while the PKK would treat him severely if they caught him. He sought and received asylum in this country on this basis. One reason for our reopening of his case is that in the interim the PKK was put on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations.
The PKK is a tough, guerilla movement that has campaigned for many years for Kurdish rights. It was impossible in the near past and is still difficult for Turkish Kurds to legally and nonviolently struggle for their rights. This means that Kurds, like many separatists before them (Minutemen?), have taken up arms against the government, fighting in endless skirmishes with casualties on both sides. Terrorist actions have characterized many such movements throughout history. According to the State Department's current standards, the Stern Gang and the Irgun that fought for Israel's independence in the 1940s would have been put on today's list of terrorist organizations.
If we look at how and why the State Department puts groups on its list, we will find that the ostensible standards are quite unobjectionable if unrealistic. But what is most critical here is the third criterion for inclusion on the list. This reads: "The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States." Not too bad if observed in a commonsense manner. However, in many cases actions against individuals are based on a warped reading of this criterion. The PKK has never had any interest in attacking the interests of the United States, unless we define the interests of the Turkish government as necessarily also the interests of our own. We are not only partial to Turkey. In 2002, the ETIM, a Uighur resistance movement in China was added to the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. (It was already on the UN's terrorist organization list; the UN simply adds any group that a UN member state submits to it.) Again, the Uighurs have no legitimate means of actually improving their status in northwest China. The fact is that the interest of the United States in better relations with China and Turkey is decisive in these designations, not whether the group is actually working against our interests.
The prosecutor Parlak's hearing declared, "He's not a freedom fighter. He's a terrorist. Parlak is not a freedom fighter. He's a terrorist." This repetition seemed to satisfy the judge. She declared his stay at an end (now on appeal — Turkey will not take him). The ignorance Americans involved in the INS, Homeland Security, and the FBI (the bureaucracies involved in this case) of the struggles for independence of peoples everywhere is astounding. From a more reasonable perspective, they would understand Parlak's story to be as follows: "He took up arms against the Turkish government because as a Kurd that was the only way to struggle for the rights of his people. He carried arms at times, engaged in fire fights, was captured, tortured, served his time and was released. He and his family decided he better get out. He did. He made a new life in the United States." We have now destroyed his life and the faith of an entire community (largely American by the way; he avoided Kurds) that because of an inability to understand that the whole world is not like Peoria. As the defense attorneys said, soon we will be jailing those who fought the apartheid government in South Africa. (Actually we won't: they are generally not Muslims, and the American government is friendly with the winners in that struggle.)
Sometimes we tire of definitions. But this time it is important. We must know what a terrorist is, and why he or she is a terrorist. We must know what an enemy of the United States is, and know the difference between being an enemy and being a terrorist. We must know what a struggle for independence is, and know when other than violent means are closed to a people it will turn to violence, however unfortunate that may seem. We must know how to distinguish between pasts that make a person's existence among us dangerous and pasts that can be counterbalanced by changes in behavior and situation. Parlak and many others picked up in the post 9/11 hysteria were making a contribution to their communities. Some were not, some were spreading hate or at least too open to messages of hate. These should be separated from the community or carefully monitored. But we are a long way from being able to make these distinctions. Until we seriously make this effort, we may lose as much from our officious diligence as we gain.
The PKK is a tough, guerilla movement that has campaigned for many years for Kurdish rights. It was impossible in the near past and is still difficult for Turkish Kurds to legally and nonviolently struggle for their rights. This means that Kurds, like many separatists before them (Minutemen?), have taken up arms against the government, fighting in endless skirmishes with casualties on both sides. Terrorist actions have characterized many such movements throughout history. According to the State Department's current standards, the Stern Gang and the Irgun that fought for Israel's independence in the 1940s would have been put on today's list of terrorist organizations.
If we look at how and why the State Department puts groups on its list, we will find that the ostensible standards are quite unobjectionable if unrealistic. But what is most critical here is the third criterion for inclusion on the list. This reads: "The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States." Not too bad if observed in a commonsense manner. However, in many cases actions against individuals are based on a warped reading of this criterion. The PKK has never had any interest in attacking the interests of the United States, unless we define the interests of the Turkish government as necessarily also the interests of our own. We are not only partial to Turkey. In 2002, the ETIM, a Uighur resistance movement in China was added to the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. (It was already on the UN's terrorist organization list; the UN simply adds any group that a UN member state submits to it.) Again, the Uighurs have no legitimate means of actually improving their status in northwest China. The fact is that the interest of the United States in better relations with China and Turkey is decisive in these designations, not whether the group is actually working against our interests.
The prosecutor Parlak's hearing declared, "He's not a freedom fighter. He's a terrorist. Parlak is not a freedom fighter. He's a terrorist." This repetition seemed to satisfy the judge. She declared his stay at an end (now on appeal — Turkey will not take him). The ignorance Americans involved in the INS, Homeland Security, and the FBI (the bureaucracies involved in this case) of the struggles for independence of peoples everywhere is astounding. From a more reasonable perspective, they would understand Parlak's story to be as follows: "He took up arms against the Turkish government because as a Kurd that was the only way to struggle for the rights of his people. He carried arms at times, engaged in fire fights, was captured, tortured, served his time and was released. He and his family decided he better get out. He did. He made a new life in the United States." We have now destroyed his life and the faith of an entire community (largely American by the way; he avoided Kurds) that because of an inability to understand that the whole world is not like Peoria. As the defense attorneys said, soon we will be jailing those who fought the apartheid government in South Africa. (Actually we won't: they are generally not Muslims, and the American government is friendly with the winners in that struggle.)
Sometimes we tire of definitions. But this time it is important. We must know what a terrorist is, and why he or she is a terrorist. We must know what an enemy of the United States is, and know the difference between being an enemy and being a terrorist. We must know what a struggle for independence is, and know when other than violent means are closed to a people it will turn to violence, however unfortunate that may seem. We must know how to distinguish between pasts that make a person's existence among us dangerous and pasts that can be counterbalanced by changes in behavior and situation. Parlak and many others picked up in the post 9/11 hysteria were making a contribution to their communities. Some were not, some were spreading hate or at least too open to messages of hate. These should be separated from the community or carefully monitored. But we are a long way from being able to make these distinctions. Until we seriously make this effort, we may lose as much from our officious diligence as we gain.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
