Manipulating terror

Condemning terrorism is not enough. Its cause must be identified and fought, writes Hassan Nafaa*

---

Terrorism has struck again, and with a venom that brings to mind 11 September 2001.

Those responsible for the latest atrocities want to show that nowhere on earth is beyond their reach, that they can shift their theatre of operations at will, sneaking in to attack the underground in the heart of London, or a marketplace in Sharm El-Sheikh.

No sane person, whatever his or her political or ideological orientation, can do anything but condemn such terrorism and demand its perpetrators be brought to justice and sentenced to the harshest penalties. It does not take political insight to arrive at this opinion, just ordinary human feeling. The terrorists deliberately set out to kill and maim innocent people, ordinary members of the public who have nothing to do with the policies or governments the terrorists ostensibly oppose. They just happened to be in the way. To condemn such barbarity is the only acceptable reaction.

There is a vast difference, though, between the condemnation of terrorism out of moral principle and condemning terrorism with a view to exploiting it to further a particular political or ideological agenda. The first is a necessary prelude to combating the crimes perpetrated by terrorists, the second an opportunistic and reprehensible act.

Few things could be more repugnant than to hear regional -- or international -- political and ideological forces claim they are leading a global war against terrorism when, in fact, they bear much of the blame for manufacturing the conditions that have allowed terrorism to spread.

Not everyone who denounces terrorism actually stands in the opposing trench. There are forces that have come to have an interest in the terrorist phenomenon, heedless of the moral and legal ramifications or the dangers of breeding more terrorism. These forces, which have benefited from the growth of terrorism, are today callously turning the phenomenon to their own political and ideological ends. In doing so they fuel, rather than combat, terror.

America's neo-conservatives, led by George Bush, have profited immensely from the growth of terrorism since 11 September. That catastrophic event furnished them with the opportunity they had been seeking to pursue the project for global hegemony outlined in The New American Century. In its push to implement this project the Bush administration not only invaded Afghanistan, which some claimed was justifiable, but also invaded Iraq without any legal or moral justification. Iraq, it has been conclusively shown, had no connection with terrorism in general, and certainly not with the events of 11 September. Unfortunately, the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq provided international terrorism with a perfect breeding ground. Without this it is possible that the phenomenon might have been choked off.

Regionally, it is the Israeli ultra right, led by Ariel Sharon, that stands to benefit most from the rise of terrorism. They, too, took immediate advantage of the opportunity provided by 11 September, lashing out at the Palestinian armed resistance which they painted as a collection of Al-Qaeda-like terrorist cells. The Sharon government's atrocious violations of individual and collective Palestinian rights over the last four years have helped produce a pervasive sense of degradation and frustration in the Arab world. Its policies have also acted to aggravate the gap between Arab populations and their governments which have been increasingly perceived as powerless to defend Arab rights and dignity. Such perceptions, in turn, give impetus to those groups espousing violence as a means to overthrow their governments.

Domestically, there are those who have been happy to seize on the threat of terrorism to attack political Islam and in doing so they make no distinction between moderates and extremists. The mounting acts of repression, the arbitrary arrests and torture, that are part and parcel of this anti-Islamist campaign, have contributed to the growing political alienation felt by large segments of the populace. Add to this the corruption, despotism and abuse of power that characterises all Arab regimes and we have a recipe that not only fails to encourage popular support for the battle against terrorism but in some cases may encourage active support of the phenomenon.

To be effective, any strategy for combating terrorism must proceed along two parallel axes. First, it must strive to isolate fundamentalist extremism and curb its political and ideological influence, something that can only be accomplished by engaging the moderate Islamist trend. This trend, which does subscribe to democratic principles, is, after all, a significant force in society, and as such is perfectly positioned to counter fundamentalist extremism. The second part of the strategy operates on the regional and international levels and involves the formulation of policies that are less tied to the pursuit of US and Israeli objectives. Such policies should aim at mobilising Arab energies in pursuit of a more sensible and effective strategy for the conduct of the Arab-Israeli conflict, safeguarding the Palestinian resistance while keeping the door open to a just and comprehensive political settlement.

Unfortunately, to Egypt's own neo- liberals, such an approach to fighting terrorism is a form of heresy. Recently, voices have been raised urging us to engage fully with the US led war against terrorism. The argument goes as follows: a world war is in progress -- against terrorism -- which, though still in its early phases, can only be led by the US. Europe, after a long period of wavering, is now preparing to enter the fray, strengthened in its resolve by the recent London bombings. The Arabs must support this US-European coalition since it will, inevitably, prevail. As if to pre-empt those Arabs who are permanently addicted to placing bets on the losing side, in arguing their case neo- liberals insist that while, intellectually, the Arabs are with the US, in their hearts they are not. If the Arabs hope to win their rightful share of the spoils this time, they say, they must enlist heart and soul in the just war against terrorism.

The contradictions implicit in this argument are fairly obvious. Here I will address only the problems raised by the concept of a war against terrorism and, specifically, the premise that it has become a global war in which countries must fall into one of two opposing camps.

Terrorism is a symptom, the result of an ailment that must be diagnosed and remedied. It is not a visible "enemy" that can be identified, located and destroyed by conventional warfare but a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon and can only be eliminated by identifying its root causes and then systematically treating those causes.

Even if there were an identifiable enemy, and a comprehensive multinational military offensive was the best way to deal with it, this would require collective management of the war effort, if only during the alliance-building phase. And collective action requires leadership structures and hierarchies of command, as was the case in previous world wars. Here lies a problem, for there is a difference between the concept of command and the concept of domination. It is the latter the US wants. It seeks to dominate, not to lead. It no longer regards itself, as it did until the end of the Cold War, as a member of a group of powers, but rather as the sole power, with an unquestionable right to order and be obeyed, to define the meaning of terrorism, identify the organisations branded as terrorist and dictate ways for fighting them.

For the Arabs to rally behind Washington's command in the global war against terrorism means a tacit recognition of Palestinian Hamas and Jihad and the Lebanese Hizbullah as terrorist organisations. In practical terms, this means the Arabs will have to actively participate in plans to disarm and eliminate these groups, perhaps through military intervention, and toe American line in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is this what Arab neo-liberals want?

Anyone with a modicum of foresight perceives the danger inherent in the spread of terrorism and the need to combat it. It is also painfully obvious that the forces of corruption and despotism are hiding behind the banner of the war against terrorism in their desperate attempt to perpetuate their monopoly on power and wealth. Only when people come to realise that the fight against terrorism begins with the fight against corruption and tyranny, both at home and abroad, will we stand a chance of winning the war against terrorism.

* The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.