by Eymard de Silva Wijeyeratne
The entire world has condemned the despicable attack on the World Trade Centre, and expressed genuine sentiments of sympathy and compassion for the loss of innocent lives. Yet, this same world, especially the Third World, should learn some important lessons from that attack. Unfortunately, the horrible spectacle of an aircraft slicing through the WTC is interpreted in very narrow terms to be a conflict between a violent form of religious fundamentalism, fostered and promoted by Osama Bin Laden, and a conglomeration of Western nations led by America.

This is a sympathetic nation that fails to recognise that the attack on the WTC and the retaliatory response of high-tech righteous indignation on the part of the Bush administration in Kabul, Kandahar, Jallelabhad and Horat are merely a symptom of a more widespread disease; namely, global meddling. Just as much as the fundamentalism preached by Osama bin Laden seeks to strike at key targets in America, other forms of fundamentalism, both religious and racist, seek to strike at the very survival of weaker nations. Whereas in the case of the former the recommended solution is an unceasing blitzkrieg with bunker bombs, in the case of the latter the recommended solution is a tortuous process of negotiation.

Fundamentalis

Getting down to fundamentals, is a perfectly legitimate enterprise. It means a return to the letter and spirit of the teachings of the founder of a religion. It could be likened to a pilgrim riding a horse to get to his final destination, whether it is heaven, paradise or some delectable come-on-inn in outer space. It is a progressive journey because it helps the gently moving pilgrim to gather the moss of self-discipline, self-assurance and self-esteem. What is loosely referred to as fundamentalism, however is an aberration which harnesses a libidinous surge of emotions to mislead and enslave the naive and the guileless. It could be likened to riding a rocking horse, which while keeping the pilgrim in stationary orbit, leaves him in an unfulfilled state of frenzy. In its worst form, religious fundamentalism hallows the use of violence and terror as a holy weapon forged to enforce absolute coincidence between what it deems to be the will of God and the regimented life of a people.

The other form of fundamentalism, which is predominantly Christian is found in Asia (including Sri Lanka) and South America, is apparently non violent but more insidious. It induces mass hypnosis through the use of soul music, chanting-in-ecstasy, holding hands, disbursements of money the hocus-pocus of mass healing and endless talk about human rights and the right to life to anaesthetise captive minds. Those who are thus anaesthetised are no longer sensitive to burning social issues such as poverty, injustice, cultural and moral degradation and corporate criminality. Inserting a clause in a Constitution to ensure the right to life becomes a mockery when people do not have food to eat and a roof over their heads. The United States of America, a vast land and a mighty nation, harnesses the soaring exuberance of its national psyche, which manifests itself as patriotism and booming national pride, to battle the violent form of fundamentalism promoted by Bin Laden. Regrettably, it appears to be nicely reconciled to the apparently non-violent form of fundamentalism which has taken root in Sri Lanka and other Third World countries, where the holy cowl of the ‘global village’ is used to snuff out the flickering flame of national consciousness, patriotism, national pride and self reliance. This form of fundamentalism is tacitly supportive of terrorism that is used by secessionist movements.

The conscience of the world

America’s motivation to act as the conscience of the world, especially in the Middle East, is generally attributed to its need to have permanent and non-negotiable access to oil supplies from that region. The truth covers a wider economic objective which implicitly admits that the capitalist model does not guarantee economic prosperity upto perpetuity for any given nation. While reading the Smithsonian of March 1993, I came across the observations of the Secretary of that Institution Mr. Robert McO Adams. In his leader (Horizons) he says that during and after the Second World War, it was common belief that America could feed the whole world. He goes on to say that while unlimited availability of fertile land and the unlimited influx of migrants provided the resource base, revolutionary progress in the production of agricultural machinery, the development of low-cost chemical fertilisers and hybrid varieties of agricultural seed material contributed to a cornucopia of farm produce.

Secretary Adams then issues a caveat that includes several factors which America should bear in mind, to avert a crisis in the future. He says that overproduction in America is well illustrated by the fact that while world grain production increased by 18 percent in the period 1981 to 1992, American exports of grain declined by 24 percent.

He cites the imagery used in the Wall Street journal of "pigeons roosting in silent Galveston grain shipping silos". At this point, he envisions a looming crisis, which would be caused by (a) subsidised production in Europe and other countries (b) the entry of low-cost producers like India, China and others, which use technology pioneered by the West and (c) the use of increasing extents of land as again increases in productivity. This would he says leave America with the only option of reducing production to maintain a viable price level. He then makes the observation that the exercise of that option would be a threat to food security in the face of increasing demand for food and animal feed. Such an outcome would adversely affect the whole world.

In conclusion, Robert Mco Adam makes the observation that "The individual nation-state is more and more caught up in a web of interaction that ties its risks and prospects to complex processes outside its capacity to control". Whilst talking of the need to be operatively conscious of the need to strengthen the security of the American nation and the "improved well-being of its children, he posits two strategies, one of which is "a widened domauin of responsibility for something beginning to approximate a framework of world governance to take positive account of the potentials, needs and aspirations of all peoples". Though terrorism should be unconditionally and unequivocally condemned, the question we need to ask is whether the attack on the World Trade Centre and the retaliatary attack on Afghanistan should not be viewed in the overall context of the inexorable movement towards world governance through which America and Western Europe would govern the rest of the world.

If the risks and prospects of mighty America are tied to complex processes outside its control what may we ask is the plight of Sri Lanka and other weak developing countries, which, as time passes will face major problems in respect of national security and food security. What again could we envisage as ‘improved well-being’ of our children and grandchildren? While Sri Lanka tries in vain to observe the prescriptions of the World Bank in paying fond attention to managing economic fundamentals, promoting the strategy of export-led-growth and rendering national governments totally impotent in giving direction to economic policy-making, it has wantonly neglected agriculture that would provide food for its citizens.

The childlike fascination for promoting the cultivation of gherkins and other crops for export is the complementary side of this deliberate neglect. Though we are familiar with the said spectacle of emaciated hands stretching out tin cans for food in parts of Africa, it is unlikely that the pool of politicians now available for election to Parliament could cultivate anything other than the weeds of dissension, sectarian interests and anarchy. If a bird in the hand is good for food, two in the Bush is food for thought.