Mr. Jonas Gahr Store,
Minister of Foreign Affairs,
21 October 2006
In the Introduction to the Report “Foreign policy strategy for combating international terrorism? issued by your Ministry in September 2006, I read:
“In the period following the terrorist attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001, international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have emerged as the principal threats to international security. Terrorism have since struck innocent civilians in Moscow and Madrid, on Bali and in Baghdad, in London, Mombai and Amman. Terrorism is a global threat and must be combated globally.”
I assume that you agree with me that a policy that is designed to be successful and is pursued in good faith, must be based on sound and solid premises.
Yet, the foreign policy drafted by your Ministry in “combating international terrorism? is not based on sound and solid premises.
The first premise mentioned above is that the mass murder committed in the USA on 11 September 2001 was a “terrorist attack on the USA”. There is no one shred of evidence supporting this premise. The US authorities have not produced any evidence that what happened on 11 September 2001 originated outside the United States, let alone in Afghanistan. I challenge you to provide me with any such evidence on which a policy can be based. I know that you will not respond to this challenge because you do not possess any such evidence.
The second premise mentioned above is that “international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have emerged as the principal threats to international security.” International terrorism is certainly NOT one of the “principal threats to international security”. This claim is utterly absurd and has no factual basis. If anybody can be blamed for the fear generated from terrorist acts, it is mass media who demonize and amplify sporadic attacks. In terms of victims, international terrorism is a totally trivial threat. More people die worldwide from snake bites or from lightning than from terrorism. Of those who die yearly in Europe from manslaughter, only 1 of 1000 die in a terror attacks. To designate such a trivial threat as a “threat to international security? (as you do) is a blatant misrepresentation, or more accurately an act of deception.
As for the proliferation of WMD, the premise is also deceptive, for it underplays the threat constituted by the continued possession and deployment of WMD by nuclear states, including the one state who has actually used such weapons. Proliferation is certainly a threat, but it is caused by the continuous refusal of nuclear states to abolish their own nuclear stocks.
For the above reasons, I believe that the policy you have formulated is based on a flawed facts and a flawed reasoning. Such a policy cannot be successful.
No response received