Francis Wood writes:

Thanks to Francis Wood of the Star Ledger for providing this insightful
perspective.

On Tuesday night, when President George Bush said, "America was targeted
for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in
the world," he was partly right.

The full explanation, however, is more complex -- maybe too complex
while the horror is still so horrific, the wounds so raw.

But however complicated and uncomfortable it may be, it's something we
too must acknowledge if we ever want to really understand why Tuesday
happened.

"Most Americans don't realize how the U.S. is perceived in the world,
even by our allies," says Robert Wood, professor of sociology at Rutgers
University/Camden. "I just came back from Europe, and I was surprised at
how they see us as out of sync with the rest of the world." In the Middle
East, he adds, "that's accentuated even more."

No, he doesn't think those pictures of West Bank celebrants reflect a
widespread view among Palestinians. "The vast majority we horrified," he
says.

But there is anger and bitterness nonetheless, and not only in the
Middle East. Over the years, Wood notes, we supported a number of repressive
dictatorships simply because of Cold War strategies. He cites Angola,
though he could just as easily have cited Chile, where we're only now finding
how deeply the U.S. was involved in overthrowing an elected government in
the early 1970's.

We supported the Shah of Iran, one of the world's leading violators of
human rights, because we liked his oil and his location. In Afghanistan,
according to the just-published "Fire," by Sebastian Junger (Norton), we blessed
the current Taliban leadership, the same people now suspected of shielding
terrorist Osama bin Laden, because we envisioned a pipeline that could
someday carry up to 200 billion barrels of Central Asian oil across
Afghanistan for portage to our shores.

Nor is this only about politics. We've sent other countries massive
amounts of DDT and other chemicals and medications our regulatory agencies found
unsafe for us -- sending the inevitable message, intentional or not,
that wecare more about our land, children and eagles than anyone else's.

Now Bush is right in at least one suggestion: We are a lightning rod for
the rest of the world's frustrations.

"They admire American technology and they don't have it," says Gerald
Pomper, professor emeritus of political science at Rutgers' Eagleton
Institute of Politics. "They admire our wealth, and they don't have it.
When you're Number One, you'll get people resenting you."

Or, in extreme cases, going a step further.

"Look at what happened," says Pomper. "They went for the symbols of
American capitalism, military strength and, if you assume the White House
was also a target, our government."


And we saw ourselves as innocent victims. "What did we do?" we asked,
and we answered: "Nothing."

But not everyone answers that way. In many places, we are seen as the
bully swaggering down the street, claiming the Middle East for our oil
spigot,
Mexico, South America and Southeast Asia for our cheap labor force. Nor
have even our better-intended actions always sown gratitude.

"The more complex legacy is where we had good intentions of economic
assistance and allied ourselves with institutions that enforced policies
that have proven very costly to some people," says Wood. "They have
focused on the payment of debt, with U.S. backing, that has caused a lot of
hardship in some countries. Think what it would be like if all the people who
received welfare had to pay it back with interest. That's exactly what
we've asked others to do."

"America runs itself as though the rules don't apply to us," says
Richard Leone, president of the Century Foundation. Our rejection of the Kyoto
environmental treaty is one recent example, but Leone also points to our

refusal to be subject to the World Court -- "at the very time we're
going around arresting war criminals and insisting they be tried in The Hague.
Such a position will inevitably generate some resentment."

In his classes next week, Wood will ask his students to look at the
terrorist attacks from several perspectives. First, they will "try to
understand how, from (the terrorists') point of view, what they did
makes sense. You don't have to agree, but it's an important part of
understanding, and it's better than simply saying we're facing the forces of
evil."

Second, they will "look at it from the point of view of a global system
in which the U.S. is extremely dominant -- not that every reaction is
justified."

Third will be "a comparison context," he says. "Anybody who has followed
the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians knows that bombing does
not solve the problem. It leads to constant escalation."

President Bush probably made the statement he had to make Tuesday night.
But let's hope that before he decides what to do next, with all its
long-term implications, he's advised by someone who has at least considered
Professor Wood's points.

"One of the worst mistakes we can make is to think we must act next week
or tomorrow or tonight," says Leone. "If we do it right, and we should, it
may take months, even years."

article by Francis Wood
copyright 2001 The Star Ledger