The roots of terrorism

Columnist SULTAN AHMED  goes into the reasons why there is terrorism.

America’s approach to combating terrorism is changing and becoming more realistic. Immediately after the stunning terrorist attack that demolished the soaring World Trade Centre towers and crashed a plane on the Pentagon, the citadel of America’s defence, it was “America’s war”. After a few days it became America’s “new war”. And that soon gave way on the CNN to “America’s war against terrorism”.

Although the word war was common in all the three definitions of the American approach to the horror, its real purport finally became clearer and more focused. Still the question arises: Is the US primarily concerned with shielding its territories or interests against terrorism or does it want to prevent terrorism around the world?

It was presumed until then that the American mainland was unassailable and it was too mighty a state for its main pillars like the Pentagon or the World Trade Centre to be threatened in a big way by small groups of terrorists of domestic or external origin. It was not the material damage done by the terrorists as much as the jolt to the American ego, to America’s impregnability and its basic assumptions which have stunned the Americans and made many of them question those beliefs seriously.

What the attacks showed was the victims of America’s wrong external policies, whether they be in the Middle East or elsewhere, can eventually reach the US mainland and play unexpected and unlimited havoc with a tremendous psychological impact on the Americans. What is clear is if President Bush had followed a less partisan or less unjust policy in the Middle East September 11th’s tremendous tragedy might not have come to pass and certainly not on that vast scale.

What that tragedy underscores is that in a rapidly globalising world the fall-out of major lasting acts of injustice cannot be confined to that area or region. The victims of such injustice or grave wrong doing are ultimately bound to reach the homes of the people who bring such suffering to them and avenge their miseries in the manner they choose.

President Bush now says those who support, shield, or harbour terrorists should be treated like terrorists. The victims of prolonged injustice around the world also think those who support the countries or groups who inflict miseries on them should also be treated like the perpetrators of such injustice or inhumanity. That is how many young Arabs have come to see the US because of its unlimited and blatant support for Israel.

Clearly in a globalised environment the manifestations of terrorism around the world have to be fought at a global level. If humanity has been able to escape world wars for the last 56 years that does not mean large scale injustice and inhumanity can continue in the various regions of the world without global ramifications. The world’s leaders have to try to bring peace and justice to all parts of the world where there are conflicts and tyrannies. Otherwise major powers backing the unjust or tyrannical rulers will eventually come to grief, as the US has come to learn at a terrible cost to itself now.

If the lone super-power of the world has tremendous power and capability for great initiatives in any direction, it has also tremendous responsibilities. The country which is virtually printing the world’s currency cannot simply enjoy that unique privilege and ignore the responsibilities or burdens that go with it.

Today, the US and its Western allies are engaged in fighting an enemy who seems to be in places but is not readily visible or easily identifiable. And in Afghanistan one sees the most powerful state in the world in conflict with the least resourceful and most backward state with no precise targets to hit to cause grave damage to the ruling Talibans. What we see there is the exact opposite of a conflict between two super-powers or a super-power and a group of small powers. That is how far the world has changed and the concept of war has become altered.

If the world must fight terrorism, the roots of that pervasive malady has to be identified and attended to. The roots of terrorism like in mass deprivation, discrimination, impoverishment and eventually social isolation. It springs from stark contrast between the very rich and very poor.

The poor of the world see the vast wealth of rich countries and how they enjoy them, thanks to the communications revolution, and realise they cannot come to have them within a reasonable time in the normal manner despite the many hours of work they put in each day.

When it comes to people like the Palestinians they feel dispossessed, deprived and discriminated against. They lost their homeland to Israel, and their lands to homes to the Jews. A large number of them cannot find employment while they remain scattered all over the Middle East where the rulers are wary of them.

Some have described the American tragedy as “the end of the cold war”. But those who describe it as the end of American unilateralism, as Francis Fukayama, has done are more accurate he says Tuesday’s attack marks the end of “American’s exceptionalism”. It has now little choice but to give up its self-absorption and join the rest of the world”.

President Bush thought he could make America impregnable through his National Missile Defence system despite its very high cost and its rejection by many other countries. And yet the US President was determined to go ahead with that. And now has come a major threat to the US from a large but unspecified force, while Osama bin Laden continues to be the villain of the piece for now. Eliminating him or eliminating the Taliban will not mean the end of terrorism in the world, though those who perpetrated September 11’s horror must be punished after a thorough enquiry.

Look at what is happening in Kashmir. For forty years the people of Kashmir agitated for the right to choose their own future largely peacefully. When that proved to be of no avail they took to violent demonstrations, and finally some of them have taken to terrorist tactics as the lone solution for their problems. And once terrorism begins some of them advocate greater extremism while some stand for restrained or selective terrorism.

If India had won over the Kashmiris, or a large majority of them, the lasting tragedy of Kashmir would not overwhelm us everyday. But India relies on force, guns and bullets and makes the situation far worse and has an overvigilant and exhausted army in Kashmir along with a frightfully soared police force and intelligence services.

In the olden days such frustrated groups or depairing minorities first protested, then demonstrated and took to violence and finally to guerilla warfare in some cases. It was argued that one guerrilla on the move can tie up 20 regular soldiers or more. The elusive enemy was regarded more effective than standing army with its cantonments and other fixed posts which the guerrillas can attack.

But now that approach has changed a great deal. These are not the days of Che Guevara. Instead a small group of persons armed with automatic weapons, like the ubiquitous Kalashnikov, hand grenades, plastic bombs and rocket launchers can play havoc with their enemies. Such attacks in extreme cases have escalated into the use of human bombs and car bombs which can destroy hundreds of persons at one go as happened in the two US embassies in Africa. These handy weapons fuel terrorism and achieve a great deal of success against organized official forces as in Kashmir.

These people do not have faith in the electoral system. They find that first past the post-system leaves them largely unrepresented in the assemblies and cabinets. They would prefer to have the proportional representation which is not popular with the rulers in Asian countries.

They live largely in intolerant societies, where the majority is often too intolerant. Hence, they too take to intolerance and their final expression is terrorism. Look at the campaign against the Shias by some extremist elements among the Sunnis. Ultimately the Shias have been forced to organize themselves and react violently in self-defence.

There can be violence and terrorism if the minority communities are not given their due rights. The majority community should try to absorb the minorities politically and concede their religious and social rights. Alienation and a sense of deprivation and ultimately outrage, is the seed of terrorism.

Above all intolerance breeds intolerance in response. The majority community everywhere has to be tolerant of the minorities even if it does not agree with it. Accommodating and absorbing the minority communities are essential for social harmony and political stability.

With fast modern communications the deprived people are able to get together and unite quick. And Human Rights organizations around the world increase their awareness and help them come to together. And handy modern weapons with tremendous power help them fight the system when they want it.

So, any country with many religions, social systems and differing traditions have to accomodate each other instead of aggravating the differences between them or focusing on the difference.

Fareed Zakaria writing in “Newsweek” says, ultimately the present war would be won or lost on political grounds. And right at the moment the task is not for the military but for police work — investigation to determine who was behind the US tragedy, who organized and financed that and who are the forces behind the forces that eventually struck on September 11?

The question now is: Will the US and the West as a whole correct its mistakes. Will it help fight injustice and inhumanity around the world and to reduce poverty and human misery? The much touted globalization cannot be only for trade or movement of money and services. It has also to bring about a just and fair world where injustice, intolerance and oppression are not permitted, much less encouraged in a partisan manner.

Commentators argue the new American tragedy will change the world. It may not change the world as much as it changes America, the way it lives and works, more like an island in itself. The notion that the government has not much of a place in the modern world is out. Markets cannot take over all its functions, particularly security. The American tragedy is expected to make the government more powerful, more intrusive and far more important which it has been in the Asian states. But the issue is: Will the West strive now to banish the root causes of terrorism around the world and reduce the visible injustice and inhumanity all around?