Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Try Clearer Thinking about “Terrorists” - Empire? - Global Policy Forum Try Clearer Thinking about “Terrorists”
By Ronald Spiers
International Herald Tribune
January 14, 2003
Confusion in America
President George W. Bush responded to the events of Sept. 11, 2001, surefootedly at first. He identified the forces behind the destruction of the Twin Towers as an evil that had to be fought with patience and close international collaboration on many fronts. America could not just strike out with blind military force.
He swiftly distinguished between Islam and the perpetrators, so as to steer domestic sentiment away from seeing this as a cultural or religious conflict.
He distinguished between terrorism with a "global reach" and local movements fighting in pursuit of geographically specific objectives. He called for a "war" and began to build a multilateral coalition with a range of financial, intelligence, military and police capabilities.
But Bush soon lost his way. The war metaphor took command. The distinction between Sept. 11 and local conflicts like those in Northern Ireland, Indonesia, Kashmir, Sri Lanka or Palestine, amenable to negotiation and political solution, quickly began to blur.
Al Qaeda is fundamentally different: fluid, borderless, clandestine, undeterrable and without conventional forces or headquarters. Its aims are difficult to spell out with precision. It has to be countered primarily with persistence and craft, probably over a long period of time.
The president and others in the administration began to mine the war metaphor for its political utility. Whatever the administration wanted to accomplish politically or economically it would seek justification for in the "fact" that America was "at war."
Orwellian images and language began to appear. "War" became "restoring international peace." Bush did nothing to mobilize public opinion to accept the sacrifices that war implies - the first thing a leader would do. Tax cuts could go ahead as planned, and energy saving was dismissed out of hand. "Go shopping" was the administration's message.
Letting this conflict become a broad war on "terror" has led to a loss of focus. The terrorists of Sept. 11 were criminals, pure and simple. They cannot be seen as freedom fighters struggling against injustice or occupation or for self-determination.
They can be ferreted out and disrupted only by careful intelligence and police operations, the same way criminal investigators go after an organized crime syndicate. They cannot be appeased, and their grievances cannot be negotiated away. Copycats all over the world have seized on the political utility of the war metaphor, rapidly adapting it to their own purposes: the Indians in Kashmir, the Israelis in Palestine, the Russians in Chechnya, the Chinese against the Uighurs. Opponents are all branded "terrorists" regardless of particular circumstance, and pretty much anything is O.K. in defeating them.
In America, the attorney general finds the war metaphor useful when he turns to constitutionally questionable measures to preserve a notional security. The confusion is increased by trying to justify a war on Iraq as a necessary part of the war on terror. There remains great confusion in the public mind about the motives behind broad sympathy for the Qaeda brand of global terrorism. Americans have heard too many simpleminded clichés from their leaders. Robotic repetition of "because they hate freedom" does not do as an explanation.
Americans are targets of terrorism for a variety of reasons, most of them political or economic. They need to understand what drives these supporters. Unlike al Qaeda, most can be dealt with politically. The United Sates, as the superpower, has inherited the mantle of all the accumulated resentments against a history of Western prejudice, broken promises and colonialist exploitation going back to the Crusades. Add a concoction of envy, frustration and anger at grievances such as poverty or fear of being overwhelmed by an alien Western culture, and specific miseries - particularly what is seen as unfair U.S. support of Israel in its treatment of Palestinians. These are factors behind "street" support for Al Qaeda. A resolution of the Palestinian problem, surely within reach with a determined international effort, would do much to reduce this support. Instead, Bush has put off indefinitely any efforts in this direction, while the problem gets worse and support for those behind Sept. 11 increases.
Surely some of these grievances may be beyond American power to resolve or mitigate. But at least Americans should get clearer thinking from their leaders. It begins with focusing on Al Qaeda while dealing effectively with the problems that underpin much of Al Qaeda's support.
About the Author: The writer is a retired American diplomat who served as undersecretary of state, undersecretary-general of the United Nations and ambassador to Turkey and Pakistan.
More Information on Empire
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C ß 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
