Issue No. 592
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
27 June - 3 July 2002 Issue No. 592 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
No military solution
Terrorism cannot be suppressed through military means alone. Reforming the world system itself is at least as important, argues Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
Sharon's plan to reoccupy the entire West Bank in retaliation for the suicide bomb attacks carried out by Hamas and other radical Palestinian opposition groups suggests that the Israeli prime minister believes there can be a military solution to the problem of terrorism. The assumption here is that, given its vastly superior military capabilities, Israel is bound eventually to wear down the Palestinian resistance movements responsible for terrorism. But things are not quite that simple. The lack of parity between the protagonists in this confrontation is part of a complex equation that needs to be looked at carefully.
During the Cold War the West's military capabilities were superior to those of the Eastern bloc. It had the ability to annihilate it, say, 30 times, while the Eastern bloc had the ability to annihilate the Western bloc only 20 times. There is no parity between 20 and 30 times. But people only die once. And, from that point of view, the two parties were equal. Each had the same capability to destroy the other.
Something similar exists in the present-day version of bipolarity, between a Western pole headed by the United States on one side and what Washington calls terrorism as the opposite pole on the other. Since the breakdown of the Soviet Union these two poles have come to replace the capitalism-versus- socialism polarisation of the Cold War era.
Once again, the ability to kill plays a key role in the equation. Suicide bombers do not possess sophisticated weapons of mass destruction -- at least not yet. But their readiness to die is a potent weapon, and they use it with devastating effect. It is a weapon that can be equivalent in destructive power to weapons of mass destruction. That is the new given the world has to contend with after 11 September, 2001. It became clear on that day that terrorism had broken away from such traditional practices as hijackings and hostage-taking, where damage-control is possible, and had now acquired a new and completely unpredictable dimension thanks to the introduction of the suicide factor as an integral part of its modus operandi. The new breed of terrorists' total disregard for life, including their own, extended the reach and scope of terrorism's destructive capabilities indefinitely, all the more so when human imagination and the element of surprise is added to the process.
All three elements were present in the 11 September attacks: suicide, imagination and surprise. Then came the anthrax scare, when the toxic substance was sent in powder form through the mail to hundreds of people, mainly in the US. More recently, there has been much talk about radiological weapons, notably, the so-called "dirty bomb" triggered through radio wave connections to a constellation of atomic bombs and which, with relatively limited requirements, can bring about devastating damage. The common denominator in all these weapons is imagination; there is also the fact that information on the latest scientific discoveries is available to all, including those determined to use them for destructive purposes.
It is obvious, therefore, that terrorism cannot be eradicated by military means. With enough imagination there is always a way for terrorists to hit back effectively. Confrontation through violence engenders still greater violence which, ultimately, could escalate into mutual annihilation. There is no way out of the vicious circle unless and until violence is replaced by politics.
The eradication of terrorism entails nothing less than the establishment of a new world order devoid of the factors which engender violent reactions. It cannot be eradicated through repressive measures. True, terrorist operations inspire revulsion and anger, but exacting revenge will not bring an end to the scourge. To react to terrorist operations, however heinous, with counter-violence is to engage in what is described as "state terrorism", which by no means eliminates the root causes of terrorism.
It is obvious from Bush's speech last Monday that his administration does not subscribe to this logic. It does not admit that the elimination of terrorism requires the discovery of an alternative world system which will eliminate its root causes, and has opted instead to resort to force and violence in its war against terrorism. Despite the fact that terrorism now occupies the forefront in the global debate, the need for an alternative world system has so far attracted very little attention. Priority continues to be given to repression or to the building of security fences along the lines of the Berlin Wall, while democracy is trampled underfoot under the pretext that it offers terrorists a safety net. This places counter-terrorism in both a moral dilemma and a logical quandary. To resort to violence as a means of overcoming terrorism, a phenomenon based on the indiscriminate use of violence, reflects an inability to move out of the spiral of destruction and on to a new and constructive path of addressing the reasons behind the phenomenon.
A question worth asking in this connection is whether the American administration enjoys a degree of independence vis-à-vis the Israeli government that would allow it to stand up to Sharon's logic of using violence as a way out of the present impasse. Or does the situation call for the involvement of a third party with greater independence towards the protagonists, an unbiased party which does not only see Israeli reactions to the Palestinian upsurge as "legitimate self-defence" but also as a dissemination of destructive acts which can ultimately reach a point of no return?
It is significant that Bush continues to blame Arafat for every suicide attack, despite the fact that Arafat condemns the attacks openly. It is no accident, of course, that these attacks take place each time there is a glimmer of hope that talks might be resumed. This should be sufficient evidence that the terrorist acts are aimed primarily against Arafat.
There are two Palestinian lines, exactly as there are two Israeli lines. One line, on both sides, does not believe in the possibility of peace and deliberately tries to undermine any chance for the resumption of negotiations. Another line, again on both sides, believes it is imperative to continue peace efforts, whatever the difficulties on the way. Sharon is an advocate of the first line, and Bush does not want to antagonise him. For both men, the issue that has priority over any other is Israel's security, even if the price of guaranteeing it is to end the existence of a Palestinian entity altogether. Sharon insists that Arafat should be removed, should no longer be regarded as a partner in peace talks; he even insists that the Palestinian Authority should be dismantled and its activists denounced as terrorists who deserve to be physically eliminated, even without a trial.
Sharon's line is still supported by the vast majority of Israelis. His credibility, severely compromised after the Sabra and Shatila massacres, was restored after the failure of Clinton's efforts at Camp David and the breakdown of the peace process. It is a line that is supported not only by Sharon, but also by Netanyahu, who is waiting for Sharon to make one false move in order to step in and replace him as prime minister.
As to the other line, its proponents are aware that there is no way out of the impasse as long as mutual violence prevails and the causes of the violence are not addressed. It is the line which admits that occupation is in itself violence, and that violence will not disappear unless occupation disappears. It is only by focusing on bringing the occupation to an end, and not only on bringing the violence it generates to an end, that the conditions will be created for doing away with violence altogether.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
