The reflex of society is to assuage the pain of collective tragedy through myths and narratives that transform suffering into an integral part of the national fabric. The United States is now five years into the process of making sense of those unprecedented September 11 attacks, communally deliberating the past and the future: why were we attacked, how will we respond.
President Bush, the most visible influence in this process, commemorated the anniversary with a presentation of his own understanding of these questions. Regarding the past, he argues that we were struck by a monolith of evil, "a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent."
And for what future to create, what legacy to make of this transforming day in American history? The President proposes our response be defined by fear, a paralysis that forfeits our proud tradition of patriotic dissent, due process of law and respect for the value of human life to the trash heap of history, an artifact of more innocent days.
But this is not the first time that America struggled together to define a response to an adversary. In another trying era, President Franklin Roosevelt declared in 1941, "In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms." The freedoms he enumerated were the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way, the freedom from want and the freedom from fear. He concluded, "That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so?called 'new order' of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb." Prescient words still today.
Indeed we can again respond to an historic challenge in a way that cements this nation as a leader of the strong and the just. A project sponsored by the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University proposes one such effective solution, under the banner of what they term "3D Security" (http://dev.trellon.org/cjp/). In a volatile world, the key to our security hinges on our focus on Development, Diplomacy and Defense (the three D's).
Development refers to "efforts that build economic, social and political foundations and stabilize communities and societies." If security is the protection of freedoms, and essential freedoms include those from want and fear, development is critical. Development programs, from erecting educational and medical facilities to nurturing democratic institutions, can effectively expunge the fertile spawning
grounds of terrorism. By fighting to eradicate the radicalizing hopelessness of abject poverty, we rob our would-be enemies of new recruits while planting goodwill of our own.
Diplomacy refers to "communication or negotiation tactics that use political and legal channels to address conflicts." By dispatching our leaders to participate in official negotiations, and by encouraging discourse among religious, business and civil society leaders, we can continue a long tradition of resolving disputes at the conference table, not on the bloody battlefield.
Defense, finally, encompasses the myriad actions taken by military, homeland security, law enforcement and intelligence forces, among others. This includes "the logistical co-ordination of humanitarian aid after the 2004 tsunami, peacekeeping operations in places like Haiti and elsewhere, policing in places like New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, deploying special units to security zones and conflict areas, as well as waging a full scale war in Iraq."
Right now we are failing on all fronts. Regarding our commitment to development, we lag miserably behind other industrialized states, mocking the UN Millennium Development Goal that requests just 0.7 percent of our national budget be dedicated to aid. Our stinginess is making us less safe.
Diplomatically, it is clear that in too many cases direct talks are reserved as a reward for countries that already agree with us. As former Secretary of State Madeline Albright noted when she spoke at AU last spring, talking to other leaders is not appeasement. It is a life-saving means to a vital end.
Our defense policy is probably the most obvious failure. Generals and veterans of this war warn that the fiasco in Iraq is making us less safe by diverting critical resources and fomenting Arab resentment. Of the three D's, this is the only one that appears to be a priority today, and even so it is being grossly bungled. This administration's highly violent form of vengeance is analogous to taking a hammer to a beehive, exasperating the problem much beyond the original sting.
It is not too late to honor the victims of the September 11 attacks by redoubling our efforts to shine as the land of the free and home of the brave - free from cynical political exploitation of fear, brave enough to meet strife with creative approaches that are constructive in nature rather than violent, self-defeating destruction. Our national legacy - and security - depend on it.
Jacob Shelly is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs and a liberal columnist for The Eagle.
