John Chalcraft, lecturer in Middle Eastern Studies at Edinburgh University, started the lectures by emphasising the current policies of the US, Britain and other participants in this so-called "war against terrorism" can only result in an increase radicalism worldwide. The circle of violence, he said, is fuelled by people who want to make is belief in a "clash of civilisations". The only way to break out of this circle would be a solution exclusively based on UN-resolutions rather than merely dropping bombs on the poorest country of this world. Additionally, he insisted on the urgent need to hold on civil rights, currently threatened by those measures, described to us as being primarily anti-terrorist.


Second to speak was John Erikson, professor of history at Edinburgh University and former advisor to NATO, unveiling some interesting details from behind the scenes of official politics (representation). He started by condemning the notion of the "clash of civilisations", describing it as an invention of the post-cold-war era, a decade when the US and other western countries weren't only struggling for global control but rather for a hegemonic structure on global scale. Alongside these efforts, the notion of "humanitarian war" had been introduced with the NATO-engagement in Kosovo. The "lofty, high moral tone in the speeches of Blair and Bush" in connection with the dropping of food-packages, he continued, obviously tried to suggest this humanitarian aspects of the measures taken. Despite this, we had to question the justification for the measures taken as well as our own responsibility within the global economic system. Outlining some of the most crucial examples of media-manipulation during the NATO-engagement in Kosovo, Erikson then pointed to lack evidence against bin Laden.

He also addressed serious criticism to various intelligence services, describing them as "bureaucrats who are, in the first place, worried about budgets" and merely competing with each other ("inter-competitiveness"). Erikson ended his lecture by outlining a shift away from a industrial-military complex towards a financial-strategic complex. The United Nations should therefore take a much more active role in economic issues, instead of leaving the business to organisations such as the WTO, the IMF or the World Bank.


Next was Tariq Ali, renowned author and anti-war activist, who started his speech by stating that this "war against terrorism" will definitely increase terrorism. By drawing a comparison to an IRA bombing in Brighton, which had almost killed the whole Tory government, he suggested that war could never be an appropriate answer to terrorist attacks. Unlike to the atrocities of September 11, the British government didn't declare war on Ireland or Catholicism and this reaction actually marked the initial start of the North Ireland peace process. Further on, Ali criticised the idea that the lives of Western citizens and US-citizens in particular would be seen much more worth than those of other countries - nobody would therefore dare to put the dead of September 11 in relation to the 20.000 dead in Chechenia and the 3.000 Iraqis dying each month as a result of the UN-sanctions. Generally he stated, that "one crime doesn't justify another".

Tariq Ali continued by raising the question why the "war against terrorism" doesn't include countries such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt, both of them not really renowned for their human rights record, and the hijackers of September 11 holding passports of these two countries. Saudi Arabia in particular, is governed by an extremely rich regime, almost as fundamentalist as the Taliban. Bin Laden, however, knew about the corrupt regimes, and besides the tragedy of the people in Palestine and Iraq, he wouldn't hesitate to name it - and also to name specific people. That's what made him so popular among the population of Arabic countries, most of them also run by authoritarian, corrupt regimes on the behalf of and funded by the West. Ali stated that bin Laden's criticism would hit the nail on its head, whereas his conclusion was of course horribly wrong. Nevertheless, many Arabs would be attracted by bin Laden, since for them he seems to be the only one who addresses this problems.

In his conclusion, Ali argued that lifting the sanctions on Iraq and an end to the application of double standards ("rough states") are the most important measures to be taken - better today than tomorrow.


Even more emotional than Ali's speech was that of Mike Gonzales, lecturer in Hispanic Studies at the University of Glasgow. He started by pointing out, how the meaning of certain terms had been turned around: like the "moderate coalition" defending "democratic values" that included states like e.g. Oman, who's fundamentalist regime actually agreed to participate in this coalition only after British offers of providing weaponry worth 1.1b Pounds; or like "terrorism": yesterdays terrorists could easily become statesmen of today (and vice versa). Gonzales strongly suggested, that in order to build up this anti-war movement, we had to "ship away this false language first".

One term, whose meaning hadn't changed, however, was Bush's notion of "crusade": like in the medieval ages, it would mean destruction, killing and terrorism against those left behind. War, he stated, had no constructive element nor could ever be "justified" - a notion that had in fact been introduced during the colonialisation of South America, describing a war against people "who would not 'respect' 'Western superiority'."

Since the end of the cold war, capitalist propaganda had been constantly telling us about the "end of history": now, that the world was no longer torn apart between the two poles, we have entered an era of peace, fueled a market, that could deliver goods to wherever they were needed. According to Gonzales, this view was clearly reflected in George W. Bush's rethorics: "Out of the blue sky, the planes..."

Mike Gonzales then gave an outlook on the coming years by citing a number of official statements; an outlook including war for many years and restrictions of civil rights in the name of the imperatives of war. He also stated, that racism against asylum seekers had already become legitimate by broadly ignoring internationally guaranteed human rights as a direct result of the September 11 attacks.

How little did all that fit into the scheme of the promised paradise! On a closer look, Gonzales argued, the past decade was in fact one of sustained violence and one of an increased gap between the rich and the poor with September 11 only exposing these deeply violent underpinnings.


Last but not least, Yasser Suleiman from the Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies presented his view on the current situation in the Middle East, concentrating on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Most of the speakers before he had already argued the importance of this question to the whole issue of September 11 and its aftermath. Suleiman's speech was at times quite controversial but nevertheless it provided a very interesting insight into the conflict from the Palestinian side.

Calling for an end of the Israeli occupation of "territory that legally belongs to the Palestinians", Suleiman argued that in his view that chances for a "two-state-solution" to the problem had already been missed years ago. Due to Israel's politics of building settlements "throughout Palestine", it became virtually impossible to devide the country. Therefore, Suleiman said, he could only imagine one state, where Israelis and Palestinians would live together in peace. This, of course, would be hard to achieve; as a first step Israel would have to open its borders for all Palestinians to enable them to return to their original homes. Further on, the problem could only be solved through a democratic election.