Issue No. 613
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
21 - 27 November 2002 Issue No. 613 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | |||
|
The mutation of terrorism
Leaving the destiny of national liberation struggles to the mercy of the new US paradigm for understanding terrorism is ill-advised, argues Ayman El-Amir*
Confirmation of the authenticity of Osama Bin Laden's voice on the audio-tape broadcast by Al- Jazeera television network last week, in which he said, "as you kill you will be killed", has sent shock waves through Western capitals and put Europe and the United States on edge. Bin Laden's comments seem to have come as a rude awakening -- a reminder that he and his network are still alive and active. Perhaps, though, speculation by intelligence agencies across the globe that Al-Qa'eda may be preparing for a new round of blitzkrieg attacks has contributed to the sense of fear. The series of security alerts issued every other day might also be playing a part in the general nervousness. However, for one man's voice to suddenly cast such a gloomy spell over the world even though a fierce war on terrorism is in full swing suggests that people suspect Al-Qa'eda and its associates have undergone an ominous transmutation. The intensity of the US-led war against terrorism is probably breathing new life into Bin Laden's advocacy while transforming the global phenomenon of terrorism into a global ideology.
Unlike the first anniversary of 11 September, the first anniversary of the bombing of Afghanistan passed without much fanfare. More than 1,500 Al-Qa'eda suspects are in detention camps, under investigation or on trial. More cells are being uncovered, more operatives are being apprehended and more plots are being thwarted. Even so, it seems that lethal operations are being hatched in many locations: from Afghanistan to Yemen, from Tunisia to Moscow, from Bali to Kuwait and from Pakistan to Chechnya. Intelligence agency officials tell reporters that Al- Qa'eda is still intact, especially in south-east Asia, and the fight against terrorism is far from over. In the words of US Secretary of State Colin Powell, when he introduced the 22nd annual report on terrorism to Congress in May, "The terrorist threat is global in scope, many-faceted and determined." But it seems there is more to global terrorism than meets the eyes of those fighting it.
In this respect, the sympathetic reaction to Bin Laden's tape by Arab viewers who were polled by both Al-Jazeera and CNN, was an eye opener. A female viewer from Saudi Arabia offered supplication on behalf of Bin Laden, the most wanted man on earth on whose head there is a $25 million reward. On the so-called Arab street, Bin Laden and Al-Qa'eda are increasingly being seen through the prism of Israel's brutal war of occupation against the Palestinians and US plans to invade Iraq. Some Arabs identify with Bin Laden and his collaborators because the US-Israeli perspective equates Palestinian resistance with terrorism.
After the tragic events of 11 September, the US has cobbled together a coalition against terrorism. It consists in part of countries fighting political, ethnic or religious minorities in their own backyards, as well as other half-hearted allies, who were either lured or intimidated into joining the club.
In designing the grand scheme to fight terrorism, President George W Bush has also blurred the dividing line between terrorism and national resistance. "You are either with us, or with the terrorists", he told nations and governments who saw the issue as being more complex and he made 11 September the litmus test. Under his definition, the decades-long dialogue that sought to curb terrorism, while at the same time safeguard the right to struggle for national liberation, was lost. At times, the dialogue was frustrating and inconclusive, but over the years it produced 12 international conventions against terrorism. In order to legitimise the war on terrorism, the Bush administration had to delegitimise armed resistance for national liberation. This turned out to be a source of gratification for a number of countries that had historically, and paradoxically, been some of the staunchest supporters of the national liberation struggle. They, too, jumped on the bandwagon to benefit from the general definition of terrorism in tackling some domestic problems and insurgencies. National liberation and the armed resistance that often goes with it were abandoned by its allies and left out in the cold to fend for itself.
In a world of increasingly limited choices, the Palestinians, the Chechens, the Kashmiris, the southern Philippines Muslims of Mindanao and the Uighurs of the Xinjiang region in north- western China, among others, could not join the anti-terrorism front and delegitimise their own causes. They had, by definition, to lie on the other side of the fence and play the enemy. So it came to pass that anyone who fired a shot against a crushing power of occupation was classified as a terrorist.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and its Third World policies, and the compromised Non- aligned Movement, briefly left the international scene with a power vacuum that the United States soon rushed to fill. As the resulting unipolar international system successfully bridged the power gap, it inevitably created a lopsided balance of power. So, the destiny of national liberation, was left at the mercy of the new paradigm that was dictated by the international superpower. While assuming this position is an awesome international responsibility, the new superpower is often motivated by a narrow nationalist agenda, such as the pressures of the ascendancy of the new right-wing, or by unholy regional alliances of which Israel is the prime example.
In this iniquitous world, national resistance had little choice but to band together as a coalition of the underdogs. It faces the impossible mission of counterbalancing the raw power of the mighty superpower in an unconventional war. It is historically true, and politically justified, that national resistance includes the use of terror. This is equally true of the American Revolution. There have also been many examples of state terrorism against civilian populations, often supported and abetted by the United States, particularly in Latin America.
This vicious circle need not be the new global equation. The US and its allies, while defending their interests, may do well to revive the dialogue about the root causes of the phenomenon of terrorism.
The world views 9/11 from a different perspective, something the US and its most ardent allies may wish to understand.
* The writer is a former correspondent for Al- Ahram in Washington, DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York
|
| |||||||||||||||||||
