By Dalya F. Massachi
The terrorist attacks of last year ripped open a gash in the psyche of most Americans. For the first time in our nation’s history we had to face the fact that some people – maybe even many people – didn’t like us. And they were ready, willing and finally able to make their feelings known in the most gruesome of terms – on our soil.
We were all shocked. For weeks. Our bubble of false security in the U.S. had been burst, about 3,000 of our fellow Americans had lost their lives, and one of our major cities was in ruins. Our knee-jerk reaction was to try desperately to point the finger of blame.
Once we had an inkling as to who had committed this horrific act, it only took a few days for individual American citizens to seek “revenge” on anyone who looked remotely Arab or South Asian. In classic “eye-for-an-eye” style, soon American and British warplanes set out to avenge the American deaths.
American flags suddenly appeared on every street, sometimes in virtually every home or business window for miles. Immigrants, especially, needed to make sure that they would not be smudged with the “unpatriotic” label. This went on for months – and is still an undercurrent in contemporary American life.
Many of us in U.S. civil society were extremely nervous and dismayed by this never-ending cycle of violence. We were also deeply suspicious of the rallying cry “United We Stand.” Was this supposed to mean that divided (that is, not going along with President Bush’s program) we would fall? Would we see the end of civil liberties, including the right to dissent?
Many of these questions (and some unpleasant answers) are still with us, a year into the “War on Terrorism.”
But this tragic and anxious time in the U.S. may also be a special opportunity. The American public seemingly has begun to take a few steps in the right direction toward global understanding and reconciliation. During this historical moment, we in the NGO community can shine a spotlight on our need, as Americans, to responsibly engage in the global community.
For many of my fellow citizens, September 11 was a wake-up call. It prompted them to ask questions about the U.S. and its relation to the rest of the world:
Many of my fellow citizens did not easily swallow the facile answers that Bush was promoting. Development NGOs stepped forward to provide information, opinions, websites and outreach to help answer some of these questions. Personally, I believe more can and should be done to maximize this newfound interest to reach its full potential.
In a study performed earlier this year for CARE in the U.S., 75% of the 809 voters they surveyed believed that national security and reducing poverty worldwide are related. They agreed that “although poverty does not lead directly to terrorist activities, when governments fail to meet the most basic needs of their people, poor nations can become havens for terrorists.”
According to a study of similar size commissioned by the Alliance to End Hunger, 70% of voters say they have become more interested in helping reduce hunger around the world since September 11.
I take these as hopeful signs that at least some Americans are beginning to reflect on the connection between poverty in developing countries and negative consequences for the well-being of people all over the world. There also is a strong sense of wanting to see the U.S. as a moral leader in ending global disparities. Perhaps recent events are leading to a willingness to look more critically at the role of the U.S. in allowing and/or perpetuating global poverty.
Americans are voicing their desire to become involved in global changes. They are hungry for truth and are becoming increasingly wary of what the traditional “experts” are telling us. They are struggling to understand the new global realities, but have had little preparation for doing so. The vast majority of Americans have never had to think about issues from a global perspective, often resulting in feelings of being overwhelmed, confused, anxious, fearful and hopeless.
I believe that this shift in mindset is also affecting private funders in the U.S. In the past year, many funders’ networks have discussed the impact of September 11 on their work and seem to be expanding their vision beyond our borders. They too are often in the dark as to where to go from here.
Unlike citizens of European countries, most Americans do not have any significant background in global issues. Few are familiar with world geography -- much less world issues such as fair trade, debt cancellation, or even globalization.
The need for development education, then, is quite obvious.
During the first few months after September 11, many would-be dissenters were not prepared to voice their opinions as the nation collectively grieved. The U.S. Congress also passed the PATRIOT Act, which had (and continues to have) a chilling effect throughout the country.
But more recently, many Americans have found their voices and are challenging the mantra of so-called patriotism. A contemporary anti-war movement has begun to emerge. People from many walks of life, and many related movements, have recognized the importance of coming together and finding a collective voice to register their criticism of the military-industrial complex, nuclear weapons, and capitalist globalization.
I think we can expand the traditional definition of development education to include this growing world peace movement. For many activists, their values are leading them to learn more about people all over the Middle East, and the socio-economic struggles they face.
There is also a growing distaste among many Americans for the withdrawal of the Bush Administration from a myriad of international treaties or efforts. Examples of this isolationism and unilateralism include the UN Fund for Population Activities, the Kyoto Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the International Criminal Court. In a time when many Americans are struggling to make sense of the world around us, we are beginning to see a decline in public support for the President’s attempts to turn inward. Indeed, Bush’s approval rating has plummeted from an all-time high in the autumn of 2001 (widely quoted to be above 90%) to somewhere in the 60% range now.
An alternative measure of his popularity is the wild success (24+ printings) of Michael Moore’s new book, Stupid White Men. It has been on various bestseller lists in the U.S. for months, and is similarly popular in Britain, Canada, Ireland and Australia. The book goes into humorous detail about the stolen election (also know as the “selection”) and first year and half of George W. Bush’s presidency – including much of his foreign policy. The book was due to be published last fall, but Moore could not get his publisher to release it until several months after September 11. Once it finally hit the bookstands, however, there was no stopping the tremendous outpouring of public support for it.
Is this global-minded interest broad enough to go beyond regions of current conflict with the U.S. – to places like sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia? I don’t know. But I do know that we have to start somewhere. And this appears to be as fine a place as any.
Clearly, there is no guarantee that the hopeful signs of post-September 11 change in the hearts and minds of Americans will spell long-term change in their interest level in global issues. But all indications show that there has been at least a little wave in consciousness. Americans are well-known to have short memories and even shorter attention spans. It remains to be seen if this spurt of interest will be the beginning of a long-term trend.