Social cohesion must be guarded against divisive political rhetoric

1. That living in community is a natural state of man; and
2. That the natural condition of man is inherently good.

Marx wrote: "It is through love that we first learn to believe in the objective world outside ourselves ... Only in community with others has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in community, therefore is personal freedom possible to grow in sensitivity and insight and move beyond the bounds of self-absorbing bitterness and envy being endlessly betrayed and broken by natural superiors."

If man's nature is inherently good - then what is it that makes us commit egregious act of such grave proportions in wartime?

The lead prosecutor Grant Neimann in an opening address before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia suggested that humans are "universally capable" and that "provocation, incitement and propaganda can raise hatred to such an extent that ordinary people turn against each other on a bloodthirsty way".

Fundamentally, man's will is positive but an effective propaganda machine can break down the social fabric. Do you remember as a child chanting to the bully in the playground: "Sticks and stones can break my bones - but words can never hurt me"?

This is far from the truth. A war of words which conjures a perceived threat from a racial or ethnic group, if left unchecked, ultimately leads to support for advocates who promote wholesale slaughter.

This is why we must take a hard look at the leadership of our governments and our international leaders. This is particularly so in the wake of the random act of violence on September 11 and the consequent declaration of war against international terrorism that has given licence to the surrendering of reason.

Whether we are looking at a micro community or the global village the concept translates. We judge the health of a community by how it defines its citizens. The true heart of division in any community lies in the rejection of the person. We then should, as a reflex reaction, vent outrage at any promotion of values - whether at a local, national or international level - that sets any group of persons apart from the collective.

We need not look far for contemporary examples of blatant divisive methods employed by community leaders. The Howard government has skilfully taken a wretched group of "boat people" and contrived to use their plight for abominable ends, by linking their unfortunate circumstances to the question of national security. In the same way the Bush administration has identified a collection of states as "evil" and twisted words in the service of the military/industrial complex.

The use of labels is an effective tool-of-trade for leaders who rule by the adage "divide and conquer". This is because as the social cohesion of a community is eroded, collective identity becomes more fragmented - and as a consequence we become easier to placate and manage. But while we are "out to lunch" the ruling elite commits us to a ludicrous war on a terrorist enemy that has a fluid definition.

Invariably today's war of words is confined to non-state actors, yet many governments use terror systematically as an instrument of internal control. Still other states use the instrument of terror to promote international foreign-policy objectives, either directly or by state-sponsored covert operations.

Such is the hypocrisy of global governance that state-sanctioned action directed at civilian populations are referred to as "legitimate uses of force", "counter-terrorist activities" or "coercive diplomacy" - while civilian casualties pay the price with their lives and their limbs, in a cynical exercise where semantics define Western terrorism out of existence.