Official YDS Statement on the 'War on Terrorism' and the US Domestic Situation After September 11th
(minority statement below)

The Young Democratic Socialists condemn the attacks on September 11th which claimed civilian lives in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. We mourn the victims, and we celebrate the heroism of those rescuers who died attempting to save others. The attacks were a vicious crime, and those co-conspirators in the attacks who remain alive are criminals who should be captured and tried before an international tribunal.

We oppose terrorism as a political tactic, and we do not believe that there is anything for progressives to defend about Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda network, or the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. However, we also do not believe that military intervention in Afghanistan will succeed in bringing to justice the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks, ending terrorism, or improving the terrible conditions suffered by the people of Afghanistan.

The bombing campaign undertaken by the United States has already resulted in many civilian casualties. Despite the claim that only military installations are being targeted, cluster bombs have been dropped in civilian areas, and a Red Cross building has been bombed twice. Worse still, major humanitarian organizations agree that the bombing places millions of Afghans at direct risk of starvation by preventing the arrival of critical food aid. Oxfam estimates that if the bombing does not end before the first snowfall, 500,000 people will be cut off from food aid for the winter; in total over 7 million are at risk of starving if the war continues. The minuscule food drops that the United States has sent into Afghanistan are insignificant next to the need that exists, and they function as little more than public relations for the military campaign.

There is little evidence that military action will make Americans or anyone else safer from terrorism. As the civilian death toll mounts, anger throughout the Muslim and Arab world at the United States only creates a fertile recruiting ground for extremist terrorist movements. And the Bush administration has not even provided convincing evidence that Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, or the Taliban are in fact directly linked to the September 11th attacks.

For all of the above reasons, YDS opposes the current military action in Afghanistan and calls for an immediate end to the bombing and withdrawal of troops. We oppose the vague, undefined 'war on terrorism', which has no clear targets and no clear end point. It is not yet clear how the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks can be brought to justice without an unacceptably high humanitarian cost. A "justice" that is brought at the cost of millions of dead Afghans is no justice at all. We believe that diplomacy and internationalism are the only rational responses to terrorism, and we struggle against militarism even as we seek alternative solutions.

The attacks on September 11th were a crime, and should be dealt with by legal rather than military means. In the short run, we seek a solution that brings the criminals behind the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians to justice. In the long run, however, we believe that the United States must reconsider carefully its policy in the Middle East, and consider carefully those aspects of US policy that are partly responsible for generating anti-American sentiment and reactionary, violent movements in that region. The war has had frightening consequences within the United States as well. The attacks on civil liberties and the continuing racist scapegoating and profiling of those perceived to be Arab and Muslim are also of serious concern. While they are distinct from the "war on terrorism" being waged in Afghanistan, they cannot be separated from it completely. We condemn racist scapegoating in all its forms, whether it be individual violence against Arabs and Sikhs, institutionalized racist practices such as racial profiling, or discrimination against Muslims and Sikhs by airlines which refuse to allow them on flights. We also oppose the disturbing new "anti-terrorism" law, which extends police powers and seriously threatens civil rights and personal privacy.

The US government's drive to war has also distracted attention from the increasingly dire economic situation in the United States. While billions are being spent on bombs and planes, thousands have lost their jobs as the country slides into recession. The "economic stimulus" packages which have been passed are mostly just handouts to corporations and the wealthy. We believe that instead of pouring money into a futile and bloody war, the United States government should be providing relief to working and unemployed people who have been hit hard by economic crisis. Resources should also be committed to those areas where it is possible to increase safety and security, such as the federalization of airport security, increased pay for security personnel, and funding for a public health care system with the capacity to respond to biological and chemical weapon attacks.

In this time of crisis, we uphold our socialist principles. We stand against militarism and racism, in defense of civil liberties and social welfare provision. As we honor the memories of those who died on September 11th, we fight to end the cycle of violence and prevent the loss of any more innocent lives.

Adopted by the Coordinating Committee of the Young Democratic Socialists Sunday, November 5, 2001.

top

Condemnation is not enough
A YDS Minority Statement on the Terror Attacks Against the United States of September 11th
(This is not an official position of YDS but represents the views of the dissenting Coordinating Committee members listed below)

"Peace, jobs and justice" has always been a slogan of our movement. The goal of human freedom and fulfillment has no greater enemy than the horrors of war. We are proud of our record of brave and often dangerous opposition to the many unjustified and cynical military actions of the US government.

It is with these principles in mind that the majority of the leadership of YDS joined the chorus of left voices condemning the US-led military operation in Afghanistan. No socialist can easily accept the suffering of innocent civilians, especially when this suffering is inflicted by a government whose history is riddled with the crass sacrifice of human rights in the name of political expediency. Along with our comrades who voted for the majority statement on the war, we are deeply critical of the methods that are being used to prosecute the current military campaign, methods which have and will continue to result in unnecessary civilian deaths.

However, we believe that the YDS, and the anti-war Left in general, has offered only one half of an argument. According to their statements, military action is not acceptable, but prescriptions for responding to the very real and immediate threat to the security of the civilian population of the United States are hazy at best. It is not enough to condemn what exists. As progressives, we must offer an alternative. As democratic socialists, this alternative must be as achievable as it is visionary.

The current military strategy, or any military strategy, our comrades assert, will not provide security for American civilians. We must ask: what will? The majority position is very thorough in its demands for increased domestic security, while failing to offer insight into the most critical element in any realistic security strategy: what to do about Osama bin Laden and his organization. Incompletely, our comrades assert that Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership must be captured and tried, but fail to offer any realistic methods for achieving this goal.

As socialists, we must be steadfast in our defense of the rights of the Afghani people, paramount among them the right to life. However, we must be equally steadfast in our defense of human rights in the United States. There is little in the majority position which recognizes the fact that the Al Qaeda organization has effectively declared war against the US, making no distinction between policy-makers, political leadership, military personnel and ordinary citizens. Al Qaeda has vowed to continue acts of terror against American targets, and is clearly implicated in the current biological attacks against US citizens.

The complicity of the Taliban regime is also a factor which is given short shrift in the majority position. According to Clinton administration officials, the US government has pressed the Taliban regime to deliver Mr. bin Laden into custody, making more than 20 overtures during the past three years. Each of these requests has been sharply rebuffed. Calling on the US and its allies to desist from a defensive military action in deference to humanitarian needs is not unreasonable. However, doing so without recognizing that the Taliban regime itself carries the supreme responsibility for safeguarding its people is myopic. Defense of bin Laden cannot be seen by any progressive or anti-fascist political analysis as legitimate self-defense. We must condemn the Taliban for sheltering a jingoistic, reactionary mass murderer at the expense of the needs of the Afghani people. We must criticize the US for carelessly destroying humanitarian aid buildings and killing UN workers. But we must also criticize the Taliban for openly destroying and confiscating humanitarian aid, for initially expelling international aid workers, and, ultimately, for not bowing to worldwide pressure to extradite bin Laden.

We look with horror on the recent murder by Taliban forces of Abdul Haq, an opposition military leader who entered Afghanistan unarmed in order to further negotiations to form an alternative Afghan government. His outspoken criticism of US military strategy made him an important, independent force for change within Afghanistan. We find the fact that he was captured and assassinated by the Taliban government as severely damaging to the notion that there is a purely diplomatic solution to the current crisis.

As students of history, we see a clear parallel between the Al Qaeda "movement" and European Fascism. Both formations are repugnant ideologically, and yet feed and grow as the result of legitimate grievances against existing social and political realities. The anti-war Left is absolutely correct to argue that terrorism will not be eliminated through military action. Fascism also was not effectively eliminated through military action alone. The Marshall Plan, Social Democracy, the creation of the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions, these were all indispensable for the creation of a global environment hostile to totalitarianism of the right. The roots of terrorism must similarly be eliminated, an effort which must include drastic changes in economic policy and the cessation of the US and other Western nation's unyielding support for the policies of the state of Israel. However, the immediate threat posed by Nazi Germany and their allies had to be accounted for as well. Only the most dogmatic and historically doomed factions of the socialist movement opposed military action against Fascism.

It is also important to note that the "brand" of terrorism practiced by bin Laden and Al Qaeda is radically different from that of other movements which have used anti-civilian violence for political ends. Until recently, and clearly as a publicity tactic, bin Laden had not issued any specific demands to the United States or other nations. His aim is to punish US civilians for the strength and power of the United States, not to force the US to change a specific list of policies. A wealthy man supported by other wealthy men, his communiqués before Sept. 11th focused far more on criticizing the US' purchase of oil from Arab countries at unprofitable prices than it did on the liberation of Palestine or US military hegemony. Many of the sponsors of Al Qaeda have a clear economic interest in disrupting or dislodging US interests in the Middle East. This fact cannot be glossed over in an attempt to use this opportunity to launch well-deserved criticism against US foreign policy.

It is not comfortable to endorse or support military action. If we believed that there was an alternative, or if the left were to construct one, we would heartily throw our voices behind it. However, given the facts and analyses listed above, we believe it is both responsible and necessary to include the use of military force aimed at the Al Qaeda leadership's apprehension within the broader effort to extinguish the flames of international terrorism. It is not our intention, as progressives, to give a blank check to the US military. However, we believe that any successful strategy focused on protecting civilians of all nations must include a limited use of force.

Specifically, we call for:

- A halt in large-scale bombing inside Afghanistan during the crucial pre-winter period.

- The permanent discontinuation of the use of cluster bombs and other untargeted weapons.

- A sustained, international, UN-supervised military effort to apprehend the Al Qaeda leadership, and to support the overthrow of the Afghan Taliban regime. We demand that this effort be more broadly constituted than the current one, that it continue to rely on the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, and that it rely more heavily on the utilization of ground troops.

- The remanding of the leadership of the Al Qaeda network to an international criminal tribunal.

- Coordinated juridical and police action to further disable the Al Qaeda network's capacity for terror.

- A United Nations-administered process for the creation of a democratic, sustainable government for Afghanistan. The defeat of the Taliban must not simply usher in a new set of despots.

- A unified strategy undertaken by the United States, the European Union and the Bretton Woods institutions aimed at shoring up the ability of Afghanistan's neighbors to cope effectively with the growing refugee crisis.

No socialist organization should uncritically join a war effort. However, we must be equally circumspect in our relationship to the growing anti-war movement. Ignoring the special circumstances of the current military campaign, most notably the fact that the United Nations Security Council has recognized it as essentially defensive and legal in nature, the growing antiwar movement has called, essentially, for the US government to do nothing in response to the murder of thousands of American citizens and residents. Ironically, while the antiwar Left has missed this point, Mr. bin Laden has recognized the United Nation's important role, condemning the world body for supporting the current US campaign.

Our position is informed by the positions of the Security Council of the United Nations, the leaders of the European Union as well as the majority of Socialist and Social Democratic parties. We see these important institutions as key players in international civil society and global governance. They should not be ignored or see their importance downplayed, either by the government of the United States, or by antiwar democratic socialists.

Peace is an important goal for socialists, but so, indeed, is justice. We believe that the antiwar Left adheres to a limited understanding of justice, a concept that rests at the core of our socialist values. Our struggle is dedicated to a justice for all, for working people, for minorities, for women, for the poor and the powerless. Lasting peace can only be achieved in a just world. To value peace so single-mindedly over justice does a disservice to all of the lives lost due to an inexcusable crime. It is disloyal to the citizenry of the world, who have been stripped of their right to live without terror. Any program for peace must insure justice as well. By insufficiently defending the need for real security for US civilians, the majority position does not.

We stand in solidarity and respect with our comrades on the other side of this issue within YDS, within IUSY and within the broad progressive movement. We offer this statement in the spirit of exchange, dialogue and healthy discourse. This is not an easy issue to grapple with, and we hope that our generation of socialists is able to make it through this conflict with a greater degree of unity than our predecessors have.

In order to build this unity, we call on YDS, as well as our comrades in IUSY, to concentrate efforts on defending the rights of Arab and Muslim citizens, pressuring governments to take the refugee crisis seriously, and helping to support the creation of a viable, democratic civil society within Afghanistan. It is through these actions, and not mere condemnation of violence, that our goals of peace with justice will be achieved.

Adopted on November 20 by the dissenting members of the Young Democratic Socialists Coordinating Committee: Co-chairs Joan Axthelm and Fabricio Rodriguez, International Secretary Mark Frank, Matthew May, and at-large member Ryan Tapscott

top