A space for non-violence
What are the origins of violent protest behaviour in the Arab region, and what role can Europe play in its elimination, asks Nader Fergany*
There is a concept of development, or human progress, which goes beyond traditional concepts of "economic" development or even "human resources development". In this concept, human welfare is not limited to the satisfaction of basic needs or having a decent income. Human welfare as defined by "human development", is based on the premise that access to knowledge, enjoyment of freedom, beauty, peace, security and human dignity are no less important than material and economic standards for development.
It is taken for granted in some discussions of terrorism from an American-Western perspective that terrorism is closely associated with Arabs and Muslims, or with Arab culture and Islam. I find this notion simplistic and naive. I also think it is incorrect.
Terrorism, in fact, has had many faces and national origins throughout history, definitely not all of them Arab. And if religion has sometimes been instrumentalised to justify terrorist activities, this surely has not been limited to Islam. Nevertheless, this naive stereotype has gained currency because of the ideological orientation of the so-called "war on terrorism" waged by the present American administration. As a result, this labelling of Arabs and Muslims as terrorists, as much as it is wrong, is motivated by a sinister political purpose, which should disqualify it from any serious intellectual discourse.
In fact the term "terrorism" itself is loaded with meaning, and is nowadays charged with political purpose, which is not always benign.
I believe that deprivation and injustice meted out by political arrangement at national, regional and, perhaps most important, global level -- in the absence of effective political machinery to address injustice and deprivation -- offers a more robust explanation for violent protest behaviour.
Most of the time, discussions of terrorism concentrate on acts carried out by informal dissident groups. In my view, however, state terrorism -- terrorism carried out by the state -- is more of a threat to peace, security and prosperity throughout the world. One variant of state terrorism, superpower terrorism, has become especially dangerous in the Arab region. The two main examples of this are, firstly, the unconditional support accorded to Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict by the West. This support has been spearheaded by the US, despite the fact that Israel, by perpetrating war crimes in the occupied territories, has violated international humanitarian law.
The second example is the invasion and occupation of Iraq by a coalition force, led once again by the US, comprising a dismal group of European and, shame of shames, Arab states, in the face of overwhelming popular opposition -- even in coalition countries -- as well as fierce resistance to the occupation itself. Arab countries have suffered greatly as a result of these two types of terrorism.
Building a system of good government at the national and global level is, I think, the best way of eradicating the breeding grounds for terrorism.
When I speak of a good governance, I am referring to an institutional system which is fully representative of the general population. To be institutional, all sectors of government must function effectively, remain transparent as well as accountable for its actions, both internally and to the people it represents. The system must be based on the strict rule of law; the law that protects freedom and is upheld by a strictly independent and efficient judiciary.
A programme of good governance would address deprivation and injustice effectively at both national and global level. Security-based responses to terrorism, on the other hand, can be considered non-solutions.
Arab citizens suffer intolerable injustices and deprivations as a result of bad governance at national, regional and global levels. In the absence of effective peaceful channels for combating injustice, people are forced to adopt violent expressions of dissent. Unless there is some type of governmental reform at all levels, violent dissent may be the main tool which shapes the future of the Arab region.
Individuals and groups resort to violent behaviour out of desperation because they feel injustice has been done to them, and they have no recourse to a peaceful -- and effective -- political mechanism to address this injustice.
This breeds anger and a sense of helplessness; a condition which breeds violence. Individuals perpetrating violent acts are usually oblivious to the fact that when the temple caves in, the perpetrator, as well as the "enemy", is buried with it.
This is not a justification for violent behaviour; it is merely an attempt to understand the phenomenon fully in order to be able to formulate effective strategies to prevent violent dissent.
Violent dissent occurs at various levels in the Arab region. Firstly at the national level, where unemployment and poverty are the only constant elements in the future of the vast majority of young people. This is in stark contrast to the trappings of extreme wealth and ostentatious luxury, enjoyed by some, which is linked to corruption, cronyism and nepotism. Effective political action, on the other hand, remains impossible because of the system of rigid and villainous oppression. What can the marginalised and downtrodden do?
In the absence of effective political machinery to address injustice peacefully, violent behaviour will always remain an expected, though not condoned, response to injustice.
Ruling regimes refer to those who resort to violent protest behaviour as "terrorists"; the oppressors place the blame on people for protesting against their despotic rule. They tout this all-too- facile explanation in their controlled mass media, and implement tough security measures, which do nothing but exacerbate present injustices, while leaving the root causes of "terrorism" intact.
From the vantage point of human progress, however, building up a system of good governance would be a much superior response, because this would, among other things, facilitate peaceful negotiations for change. But that scenario also means uprooting corruption and nepotism, ie doing away with the privileges of the present oppressors. This is why governmental reform remains a remote possibility fraught with tremendous trouble.
For violent behaviour at regional level, we only have to look to Palestine.
Palestinians have suffered under occupation and sheer oppression, conditions which have been exacerbated by excessive use of force by the government of Israel and its army in the Palestinian territories; actions that have enjoyed the unconditional support of a hegemonic superpower. According to human rights organisations -- some of them American, like Human Rights Watch -- Israeli activities in Palestine have been recognised as war crimes. Resisting occupation is a legitimate right, and the Palestinians are forced to resist in a violent manner because they simply have no other choice -- there are people whose lives, homes and institutions were ravaged in their own ransacked homeland.
These acts of resistance have also resulted in Israeli civilian casualties. From a purely humanitarian perspective, the loss of innocent civilian casualties is always a human tragedy. Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that the sufferings of the Israelis remain negligible compared with the injustices meted out by the Israeli government and army in the occupied territories. Furthermore, Israeli casualties can ultimately be ascribed to the policies of the government of Israel and the very act of occupation.
Again, Israel and the US call these Palestinians freedom fighters "terrorists". Once again, the oppressors assign the blame to those who protest against the misery brought about by illegitimate -- and inhumane -- actions.
Israel now wants to expel the (elected) Palestinian president from his homeland, with some Israeli hawks even declaring it better to liquidate him. In the face of a large majority of the United Nations Security Council -- 11 of 15 members voted in favour and Germany abstained -- the US vetoed a resolution preventing Israel to expel the president. A few days later, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly against the expulsion of the Palestinian president.
And recently we have witnessed a replay of the Palestinian scenario in Iraq which, under Anglo-American occupation, suffers injustices all too similar to those inflicted on the Palestinians. The main difference is that the US in this case is in the driver's seat rather than being the back-seat driver, as is the case with the Palestinian occupation. Occupation by sheer force, and the wholesale destruction of a country, naturally invites all forms of resistance. Can anybody expect otherwise?
It is certainly true that national, as well as pan-Arab governance, is decidedly bad and ineffective. Nevertheless, in both cases -- namely Palestine and Iraq -- bad governance at the global level has been instrumental in creating the injustices at the core of violent protest behaviour.
Bad global governance, operating on a platform of double standards, is responsible for the Israel-Palestine problem. And in the case of Iraq, the current US administration deliberately destroyed an international institution -- the UN, and the Security Council in particular, which is responsible for monitoring world peace -- to be better able to carry out their plans for the Arab region.
The purpose, in my opinion, was to usher in a new type of global governance in which the one "hyper-power" is the only voice that counts in international affairs. Can we expect a "just despot" regime worldwide?
I am afraid not. Under the neo- conservative "junta" in the US bent on global domination, we are likely to witness further injustices throughout the world, especially under the pretext of the US "war on terrorism"; this is nothing but a smoke screen for American imperialist plans forged by the neo- conservative elite currently in control in Washington.
Once again, influential figures in the current global government opt for tough security measures (wars and occupations, no less) on a world scale that add to the current backlog of injustice, thereby feeding the fountainhead of "terrorism".
Europe is not innocent in all this. The West, European countries included, has not shied away from dealing with oppressive authoritarian Arab regimes as long as these served European interests, while condoning the erosion of civil and political liberties of Arabs and Muslims. They have also tended to support Israel rather than uphold international law and human rights. In the case of Iraq, the leaders of the UK, Spain and Italy joined the US-led invasion under clearly false pretexts, and in the face of overwhelming opposition in their own country and throughout the world. A seemingly principled initial stand against the invasion of Iraq by France and Germany soon gave way to political appeasement of the US.
Now that the US administration, in collaboration with its wretched European allies, has destroyed this rich and beautiful country it wants the rest of the world to help pick up the pieces and bear the cost as well.
Under such conditions Europe appears to have lost its name as a credible global power upholding peace and security worldwide, or preaching democracy and human rights to the rest of the world, least of all to the Arabs.
And on 6 September -- only a few hours after the EU announced its intention to consider adding Hamas to its list of terrorist organisations -- an Israeli F16 fighter plane, a virtual gift from the US, flew over Gaza city and fired a rocket at a residential building in an attempt to assassinate an 80-year- old invalid confined to a wheel chair, who happens to be the spiritual leader of Hamas.
It should be noted that this frail old man is labelled a "terrorist", while the planes which fly over Palestinian residential areas and fire rockets at civilian targets are not.
Building good government at the national, regional and global level is the main ingredient for effectively combating violent protest in the Arab region, and in a manner consistent with the preservation of peace and justice, as well as human development throughout the world.
Violent protest is likely to persist, and escalate, until a system of good government has been put in place -- in other words, until a radical transformation has taken place within the current power structure -- at both the national and global level.
The main problem with current global governance is that it is uni-polar in nature, therefore a more engaged and proactive Europe would help reform global governance and contribute towards building an improved system. Europe has a major role and responsibility here; a role and responsibility which it has not yet lived up to.
A more effective globally active Europe is needed to help put in place, and maintain, a good system of global governance, whose aim it is to preserve peace and security, and promote human development in the world in general, and in the Arab region in particular.
The UN and it agencies is one way of achieving reform of global governance.
This would entail curtailing the veto power of some members of the Security Council and widening the decision- making base beyond the governmental level.
This, however, calls for a new Europe. A self-confident Europe that speaks with one voice and possesses the conditions for independent decision making and defending its choices if need be.
It is hoped that the two major events facing the European Union, namely drawing up a constitution and welcoming new members, will contribute to this purpose. Indeed every effort should be made to ensure that they do.
A third direction is for Europe to build effective coalitions beyond the Atlantic block. Asia surely offers important prospects in this respect but supporting the revival and vitality of an Arab and Third World blocks should not be ignored.
The reasons for this direction go far beyond the borders of Europe or any specific region of the world. They concern the welfare of all of humanity.
But make no mistake, this is not an invitation for intervention from outside. It is an invitation to Europe, and the West in general, to live up to its ideals of democracy and human rights, ideals that it has too often compromised for opportunism and political convenience. Change in governance in Arab countries, however, has to come from within, as this would otherwise constitute an infringement on the right to self- determination.
* The writer is the director of Almishkat Centre for Research, and lead author of the Arab Human Development Report.
