Is BP an Environmental Terrorist?

John Buell
Author of Evil Doers: Demonization and the End of Civil Debate in American Politics (NYU Press)

“Extremist Muslims” here and abroad are readily suspectedof violent acts, termed terrorists, and denied minimal rights. BP, however, istreated as a person entitled to full protection of the law. Even in the eventof an indictment, BP need not worry about the status of its Miranda rights orits ability to mount the best defense money can buy. Both Faisal Shazhad and BPshould be indicted and given fair trials, but crime and terrorism, like all centralpolitical concepts, have complex baggage, carry limits, and should start awider debate. Why are BP executives not designated as environmental terrorists?Corporate PR often brands nonviolent opponents of ecologically destructivemining, drilling, and forestry practices ecoterrorists. The term however,better fits BP’s behavior. Even had Shahzad succeeded in his plot, far fewer would have died than will perish from the Gulf oil eruption. Toxic fumes arealready disabling some clean up workers and over many years pollutants willtake many of our youngest or most vulnerable. 

 Since BP did not intend such a catastrophe, shouldn’t itbe exonerated? As Rand Paul says, accidents just happen. Nonetheless, becauseaccidents do happen, corporations are obligated to avoid riskiest sites, tomaintain all possible means of accident remediation, and to follow strictprecautions. This company knowingly violated vital regulations. It riskedcountless lives for the sake of economic power. It has a history of retaliationagainst internal whistleblowers. Even now it prohibits its temporary cleanupcrew from bringing their own respirators as protection from toxic fumes. Indefiance of an EPA request, BP spreads a dispersant banned in Europe. It majorgoal, says one environmental writer, is “to hide the body.” 

Despite a reckless past and inept and highhandedmanagement of the current crisis, the company continues to call the shots. Byspending a mere four percent of its profits on alternative energy BP rebrandeditself as a can-do corporate friend of both economic growth and the environment.
If BP were owned by the Taliban, however, its every pastdeed, ad, and utterance would be scrutinized and ridiculed. Religiously andoften ethnically different from the US mainstream Moslems here and abroad areoften automatically cast in one light. Some of our religious leaders chargethat Islam is fundamentally a violent religion. These extremist Christians havea language and rhetorical style that often resembles that of the radicalIslamists. Pat Robertson doesn’t speak for all US Christians, but his viewsalways command a hearing.

The sacred texts and sects of Islam, like those ofChristianity, include some violent rhetoric and violence- prone agendas, thoughthe bulk of both traditions condemns violence. Even Islam’s most rhetoricallyviolent sects, as with the Christian right, have varying targets and don’talways resort to violence. Nonetheless, those political and media figures thatare willing to acknowledge Islam’s divergent currents still often paint anyMuslim cleric who criticizes the US with the same brush. 

They “hate us for ourfreedom” and seek to destroy us, as President Bush says. Portraying those whooppose our policy even rhetorically as vicious and out to destroy our way oflife, itself a concept ill defined by Bush, may reassure us as to the worth ofour own values and policies and give us a sense of purpose. It does, however,play upon and reinforce an attitude toward US Arabs that long antedated 9/11.Bush I, Bush II, and Obama have all taken very different conflicts as anoccasion to present war as an opportunity to fashion and restore a proud,enduring identity that would match or exceed that of an idealized WWIIgeneration. Here is Obama’s take: “Now this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. And unlike the Civil War or World War II, we can't count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and -- in all probability -- 10 years from now.” Obama’s apparent pessimism is laced with a hidden sugar coating, thepromise of an enduring purpose, something many Americans now find lacking inturbulent times and for which they feel a desperate need.

Radical Islamists have not of course attacked Sweden wherecultural freedoms, especially for women, exceed our own. And just where, inwhat numbers or frequency, or why people are plotting to take American lives ishardly specified nor is evidence provided.

One careful study by the establishment- oriented RandCorporation, little discussed by the mainstream media, suggests that domesticterrorism is grossly exaggerated. Rand pointed out: “…since September 11, 2001…the problem, while serious, was wildly overblown. There have been… 46 incidentsof Americans or long-time U.S. residents being radicalized and attempting tocommit acts of terror (most failing woefully) since 9/11. Those incidentsinvolved… 125 people… about six cases of purported radicalization and terrorisma year…In comparison From January 1969 to April 1970 alone, the U.S. somehow managed to survive 4,330 bombings, 43 deaths, and $22 million of property damage. 

If the rate of such attacks does increase, does thisconstitute proof that Taliban or Osama is stirring up US Muslims? Our politicalleaders seldom contemplate the possibility that US citizen terrorists likeShazhad might have been disturbed by US drone attacks on Pakistani or Afghancivilians rather than inspired by Taliban leaders. Despite some press reportsabout Shazhad’s anger regarding drone attacks, Obama’s top counterterrorismadviser, John Brennan, brushed such reports aside and insisted the suspect was“captured by the murderous rhetoric of Al Qaeda and TTP that looks at the United States as an enemy.” 

Perhaps closer scrutiny of the suspect’s own words isn’tneeded if one doesn’t want to confront problematic aspects of our own idealsand actions.

Though BP has a full say in our media, we seldom hearMuslim extremists themselves. Even ordinary, nonpolitical Muslims who havecontributed to our safety hardly receive a mention. Salisbury reminds us of:“Alioune Niass, the Sengalese Muslim vendor who first spotted the… smokingSUV…If it were not for the Times of London, we would not even know of hispivotal role in the story. No mainstream American newspaper bothered tomention…Niass,…”
Documenting Niass’s role might blunt prevalent monolithicstereotypes of Muslims and also plant the notion that getting the cooperationof minority communities is more effective in curbing violence than generalizedsurveillance or racial profiling.

And when violence is wreaked on Muslims in this country,few mainstream media conclude that Americans are uniquely violent or daresuggest that Muslims too can be victims of terrorism. Pierre Tristam comments:“Few of you know that 10 days after the [incident] in Times Square, an actualterrorist attack took place in Jacksonville when a firebomb exploded outsidethe city's biggest mosque,… 60 worshippers were praying inside when the bombwent off… The bomber is still at large. The Jacksonville Times-Union [and otherlocal media] did an admirable job of covering the story... But… that terroristattack drew almost no attention from the national media… the terrorists-fromthe Oklahoma City bomber to the Fort Hood attacker to the Times Square bomberto, most likely, the Jacksonville bomber-are American. There's convenience increating a false sense of security by identifying Islam as the evil andAmericans as the good guys. But it's demonstrably not true.”
Quoting, or discussing the particular motives of extremistsects is especially suspect and often harshly attacked. The radical and oftenrhetorically violent social right generally escapes scrutiny—and certainlyfaces no prospect of assassination by the CIA-- because it is white andChristian and its goals and aspirations often are too close to the mainstreamfor comfort.

Discussion of the specific motives of radical Islamistgroups is off limits because it is taken as excusing terrorists. An oddposition, when we consider our justice system. In murder trials, part ofconfirming guilt lies in establishing motive. Showing the motive of a murdererhardly excuses the crime. Motives may partially exonerate, but they can alsosuggest how despicable some crimes are. In any case, if our goal is safetyrather than buttressing our own sense of righteousness, shouldn’t we want toknow as much as possible about the criminal? To combat BP and Taliban crimes,we need to understand both the cultures of predatory capitalism and variousradical religious sects both here and abroad. The concept of crime must beapplied as carefully to corporate actions as to those of extremist religioussects. The Left must avoid a double standard. If we are willing, as we shouldbe, to assess the motives and context of the Times Square bomber’s actions, wemust adopt the same breadth in our examination of other Manhattan reprobates.There is little to admire in Lloyd Blankfein or BP’s CEO, but both are part ofa corporate culture and worldview that idolizes wealth, has celebratedderegulation, disrespects government, regards fines for law violation as a costof doing business, and places a premium on immediate rewards. That cultureemerged amidst the crisis of liberalism a generation ago. Following the sharprun up in oil prices in the wake of the oil embargo and late seventiesstagflation, Republicans ran on a plank of economic deregulation and bashing ofgovernment. Many Democrats followed close behind. Not surprisingly bothregulation and regulators easily got a bad name.

More broadly, the sense of cheap oil as a right has becomebuilt into the culture and is part of the context in which BP operates. Oneformer oil executive is not far from the mark in suggesting that one reason BPoperates in deep water is that coastal residents abhor rigs but want the oil.Out of sight, out of mind. 

Reluctance to deem BP a criminal or terroristreflects a broad social dependence on cheap oil. It leads to unwillingness bylarge sectors of the public to acknowledge fully the multifaceted risks of oildependence. The US lags the world in its response to global climate change.Guardian columnist George Monbiot points out that as the consensus amongclimate scientists grows, public skepticism gains ground. 

Natural science isunlikely to control the outcome of this argument. Social and religious values,even core sense of identity, play at least as big a role as the naturalsciences. Consider environmentalists’ precautionary principle. Even if there isdispute as to the extent of man-made global warming, shouldn’t we err on theside of caution by reducing carbon emissions?

All of us, however, understand threats in terms of somefundamental set of core values. If one is convinced that free- market- drivengrowth can solve any problem, that government invariably screws up, and if onehas a core sense that he or she is a strong, self-reliant being, then taxes orregulation involve disproportionate risk. The cautious course is not tointervene. As economic or environmental tragedy unfolds, many may cling all themore to the socially and economically conventional course. The Exxon Valdezbrought us only double- hulled tankers to import even more oil safely.

Greenhouse gas proposals could hardly come at a moredifficult time. Working class Americans fear for their jobs, worry aboutimmigrants and rapid cultural change, and are angry about Washington policiesthat bail out bankers. The white working class has a sense that little has beendone for them for a generation. They rightly worry about who will bear thecosts of new environmental initiatives.
For much of mainstream culture, a quasi-religiousperspective is part of core attitudes on these issues. Following sociologistErnest Becker, Monbiot suggests: “the fear of death drives us to protectourselves with "vital lies" or "the armour of character".We defend ourselves from the ultimate terror by engaging in immortalityprojects, which boost our self-esteem and grant us meaning that extends beyonddeath. “
In the US, one popular immortality project has been abelief in a nature that can be fully understood in law-like terms andmanipulated through free markets to serve growing individual prosperity. Andboth as symbol and contributor to that faith the auto has played a pre-eminentrole, especially in a society that valorizes individual mobility.

This cultural and political background does not of courseexcuse BP of its responsibility to abide by accepted safety standards. Clearviolations of law should be punished, but if our desire is to reduce corporatecrime, we need to address the context in which both corporate and politicalterrorists or criminals regard themselves as above the law. In addition, weneed to articulate positive alternatives to the culture of growth ifenvironmentalists are to have much influence on a squeezed and insecure workingclass.
Today corporate crime and theoterrorism feed on each other. A rhetoric of international conspiracies undermining our freedomsstrengthens the Cold War era national security state. That state has alwaysfostered secretive dealings between government, the media, and supportivecorporations. Corporations and governments have economic and politicalinterests in pumping up the threat level. The atmosphere of imminentcatastrophe creates a context in which CEOs and even substantial portions ofthe population can see corporations and political leaders as independent of anydemocratic political check and entitled to special support. This support inturn reinforces their power. A rhetoric of free markets and deregulationdiscourages public or worker checks on corporate power-- though not substantialgovernment beneficence toward the most powerful corporate interests. A socialconservative evangelical discourse adds support to a black and white worldviewand demeans the most vulnerable citizens, often scapegoating them for economictroubles, thus sidelining economic reform. This self-reinforcing mix may makeus less safe. Though a minority even among Muslim radicals, theoterroristsreceive and enjoy disproportionate media focus on them. They use suchattention—and the excesses to which Western democratic governments go—as anoccasion to gain recruits.

How would Americans feel if a foreign power, even onecommitted to uprooting acknowledged evil, frequently—albeit “accidentally”--killed thousands of civilians through high tech assassinations? These are thequestions that a dogmatic faith in our own values, ways of life, and policiesoften excludes. If there is a way out, it may require a renewed emphasis ondecent jobs and social justice. We must also strive for more attentiveness tothe selective use of concepts of crime and terrorism. These foster and reflectracist and religious divisions that impede all reform efforts. We must alsochallenge our more is better mindset. Endless consumption may not be so much“human nature” as a process driven by corporate controlled information, statusanxieties fed by inegalitarian workplaces, long and involuntary working hoursfor those lucky enough to have full time jobs, and the product choices ofothers. All of these are immunized from critique and reinforced by acountermodel portraying a group of radical terrorists out to undermine ourfreedoms. At the philosophical level, we might contemplate the possibility thatnature itself is not designed to suit our purposes. Not only oil spills in deepand forbidding waters, but also volcanic eruptions and earthquakes may remindus that nature is not always fully predictable. But the nature that inflictssporadic tragedy also gives us the unexpected splendor, from rainbows to the emergence of life itself. If wecan reconcile ourselves to the possibility of untimely death and give ourselvesmore free time for interests and skills little developed, consider orreconsider what time with family and contemplation of our habitat brings us, wemay develop more capacity to enjoy a pluralizing society and a pluripotentialnature we need not conquer.