Zinn finds that since September 11th an atmosphere has been created in the USA
in which it becomes difficult to be critical of American foreign policy (2002: 62).
It has been said that the USA now has a national strategy that trumpets freedom
in the abstract but subordinates it to counter political violence in practice (Daalder
et al., 2002: 411). It is difficult to see how the political violence of the weak can
be defeated by the political violence of the strong. Kurth speaks of ‘a dialectical
and symbiotic connection, perhaps an escalating and vicious cycle’ between Islamic
political violence and American empire (2002: 404). Imaginative policies are needed
which seek to address the root causes of political violence, the poverty, insecurity,
lack of self-esteem, injustice, inequality, etc. underlying the frustration and anger
which expresses itself in violent form. Inverting political violence cannot eliminate
it. As Daalder et al.put it pithily, ‘unless the United States closes the gap between
its words and its deeds, it risks fuelling the very threats that imperil its security’
(2002: 411).Summary
The liberal tradition is the first to see violence in the political process as a
phenomenon to be condemned. The predominant view is that it is wrong to see the
state itself as a violent organisation. States may sponsor political violence, but
political violence is best identified as the use of violence against the state.
Salmi has distinguished between four types of violence. Only his notion of direct
violence involves physical force. The other concepts – indirect violence, repressive
violence and alienating violence – use the notion of violence too broadly and fail
to make the distinction between violence and the causes of violence. The distinction
between political violence and terrorism is also a crucial one. When people are denied
political and legal rights, they may resort to political violence. This violence may
be problematic (even counterproductive) but it should not be described as terrorism.
Terrorism only arises when political violence is directed against liberal states. Those
opposing liberalism might be of the left or the right, or take a position that is
ideologically ambiguous.
Marx generally identifies capitalist exploitation as ‘coercive’ (constraining would
be a better term) rather than violent in character, and regards violence as justifiable
where states deny political rights. Lenin, on the other hand, appears to justify
violence even against liberal states. Despite argument to the contrary, political
violence can be defined in general terms even though (like all phenomena) it is
certainly a variegated and heterogeneous phenomenon. It is only possible to eradicate
political violence if we can analyse its roots, although they may be extremely varied
and multiple in character.
States, it could be argued, use terror to tackle conflicts of interest, so that the
problem of political violence is connected to the problem of the state. Without
recognising this, counter-violent measures (as US policy demonstrates) can make a
bad situation even worse.462 Part 4 Contemporary ideas