Fighting for humanity
Why is religious fundamentalism on the rise, and how can we defeat terrorism, asks Nawal El-Saadawi*
HOW TO DEFINE "terrorism"? The main headline of the newspaper in front of me as I write -- the Portland Press Herald of 11 September, the anniversary of the attacks in the US -- reads "President George Bush declares that there is a need to extend police powers in order to fight terrorism". This declaration was made on the second anniversary of the 11 September attack. He explained that Patriot Act I, promulgated in 2001, was ineffective in the fight against "terrorism" and that new measures were necessary. These measures permit the revocation of US citizenship from people "suspected of having some relationship with terrorism"; removes the requirement for disclosure of information concerning charges and imprisonment; permits the sampling and recording of DNA from people arrested on suspicion of terrorism; allows access to private information; abolishes bail; and allows individuals to be arrested without the need to obtain a court subpoenas.
Are not these measures -- considered effective in the fight against terrorism -- also in themselves of a "terrorist" nature; a reflection of a "terrorism" imposed by the state, by the rulers of the US in the name of their "war against terrorism"? Perhaps that is why these measures are meeting with mounting opposition from law makers in the Republican and Democratic parties, from political and academic institutions, from people, organisations and associations for whom issues related to democracy and the loss of civil liberties are becoming a growing concern.
I keep wondering how the military intervention and occupation first of Afghanistan, then of Iraq, can further "the fight against terrorism for humanity". How can the increasing death and destruction meted out to the Afghan and Iraqi people quell the fires of hatred or dissipate the desperation which helps to fuel the loss of faith in collective, democratic action. I wonder why the killing of Palestinian men, women, and children by a technologically superior and nuclear capable army continues to be qualified as self defence; why military invasion and mass massacre by "coalition troops" is described not as "terrorism", but as a means of civilising and democratising the world and ridding ourselves of the "Bin Ladens" who have arisen, and continue to arise in various parts of the world. Could it be that all these forms of "violence" are "terrorist" in nature; that a more powerful "terrorism" has helped to create a far less powerful one; that they are locked in a struggle which nurtures and feeds both; and that in order to "fight terrorism for humanity" we need to fight both forms in order to expose this circle of violence? Could it be that we are -- and have always been -- the victims of "language" and of "terms" set by the more powerful, so that a form of "terrorism" exercised by the state internally, or a military invasion and occupation of another country, becomes a part of the "fight against terrorism for humanity or democracy". Can it be that only the opponent who resorts to more individual "terrorism" -- who throws bombs, or blows himself or herself up to kill others -- is qualified as "terrorist"?
That is why, when I think of that crime against humanity -- the "terrorist" attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001, in which 3,000 people were killed -- I also remember the coup against the Allende regime in Chile which took place on 11 September 1973 -- subsequent to which 30,000 people lost their lives under the Pinochet regime -- I ask myself why human lives have different values depending on where they live?
IS RESISTANCE TO FOREIGN occupation considered "terrorism"? Which brings me to another point. I am from the Arab region, from Egypt, and have lived for over half a century with the nightmare of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel has waged a war against the Palestinian people for years. It has been a war waged by a regular army -- armed mainly with the help of the US -- equipped with the most sophisticated of weaponry, including an unknown number of nuclear or hydrogen bombs, against a people with no army and no weapons to speak of; against a people whose children and youth fight tanks, rockets, Apache helicopters and Phantom planes with stones. As a result, the number of "terrorist" responses in the struggle waged by the Palestinian people for a land of their own -- for what is left of a land which was once their own -- has increased. This is a struggle for a place in which to live; for life against death or a living death.
The struggle is an uneven one. On the one hand we have Israeli occupiers demolishing homes, uprooting olive trees, building an apartheid prison wall, establishing settlements on land which is not theirs, killing, maiming and destroying. On the other hand, a helpless people many a time driven to desperation, and fighting to liberate themselves from foreign occupation. On one side there is military aggression; on the other, people engaging in self-defence, which according to international and national law, is seen as the right to defend life, means of providing food, water and home. How, under such circumstances, can I equate the Israeli soldier who harasses and hunts, shoots and destroys to take what is not his, with a young person who, humiliated, hungry and hopeless, ends his life by blowing himself up in order to kill those who are perceived as the source of their misery and as the occupier.
I have always been, and continue to be against "violence", against "terrorism" in all their forms. But I must understand what is going on around me, what motivates people to act as they do, what interests are involved. If I want to "fight terrorism" for humanity, I cannot equate the occupier with the occupied, the aggressor with the victim, the oppressor with the oppressed. I cannot forget the powerful multinational oil interests which provided a pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; nor the capitalist fundamentalist interests behind the Bush-Cheney- Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz "war on terror"; nor the fundamentalist Wahhabi-Saudi backing of Bin Laden and his Al- Qa'eda organisation.
Suicide bombers are looked upon as terrorists or religious fanatics. In most cases, these people -- whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus or others -- are the product of state, military and police terrorism. They are people who have suffered extreme grievances and violence, and whose utter desperation and loss of hope for achieving a just solution culminates in the taking of their own lives. Neither the American nor Israeli occupation forces, therefore, have the right to occupy the moral high ground when it comes to suicide bombers in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.
WHY TERRORISM in our age? "Terrorism" is not a new concept. It has existed throughout the ages, has been bred and nurtured by injustice and oppression, and is linked to extremism, whether racial, sexual, political or religious in nature. Often, it is a combination of more than one type of extremism.
However, the most common form of "terrorism" visible in recent modern and post-modern times has been religious fundamentalism. This form of terrorism has become entrenched in various parts of the world including Asia, the Arab countries, Israel and the US.
The question which arises here is why now, at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, should there be this wave of religious fundamentalism accompanied by anti-democratic "terrorist" extremism and violence? Why, in this technological age with the tremendous possibilities open to mankind -- particularly in relation to information and communications technology -- is there a regress towards religious and racial fundamentalism and its associated "terrorist" activities?
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that, despite the progress made on many fronts in this so-called "age of globalisation", technological progress has not only failed to resolve the difficulties faced by the vast majority of people in the world but has, in fact, increased the magnitude of these difficulties.
Faced with decreasing profits and the pressure of competition, the multi-national companies in control of the world economy have launched an offensive. Only one third of the world economy is related to the real -- that is the material -- economy. The remaining two thirds is based on the intangible, on investments and financial deals. The gap between rich and poor is growing. Unemployment is on the rise; social security benefits are being reduced; social services, where they exist, are becoming more expensive; currency is being devalued in most countries as a result of inflation. The social, economic, educational, health and cultural conditions of people in the world are in a sharp downward spiral. After achieving ostensible independence, the hopes of people in some developing countries are constantly dashed as their economy remains linked with multi-nationals which control "free market" and "free trade". Debt is rampant, and foreign investment -- dubbed "free trade", which is anything but free -- serves to pump money out of, rather than into, the country. In Europe and the US, people are wondering what happened to their "democratic way of life", to their "democratic impact" on the future of society. They are confused, uncertain, insecure.
In such an atmosphere of confusion, many seek solace and comfort in religion, hence the religious revival. Religion has always been used for political purposes and this, coupled with its revival, explains the resurgence of fundamentalist elements. In India, Hindu fundamentalism rules; in the US, a neo- conservative, neo-liberal capitalist and fundamentalist ruling group holds the reins of power; in Asia and the Arab countries Islamic fundamentalist movements have become larger; in Israel, Sharon's Likud Party and his coalition partners are largely fundamentalist.
Fundamentalism breeds "terror", whether in the state or within political and social movements. It breeds "terror" and terrorist responses to "terror". It breeds a hatred of democracy and a love of control, which is required to dominate and pacify the growing masses of restive people at home and abroad. Fundamentalism is the refuge and ally of the corporations, for in "God they trust" to lead people blindfolded, to make them resigned and humble, towards powers they cannot control. Fundamentalism helps those corporations create conflict where needed, to "divide and rule". It is an excuse for violence, militarism and war, since Satan must be fought, and Satan is everywhere: in Baghdad, in Pyongyang, in Tehran and in about 60 countries where terrorism has chosen to lie low.
HOW CAN WE FIGHT terrorism for humanity? Firstly by fighting war. War is the central issue in the world of today. If peace prevailed, conflicts, violence and "terrorism" would cease to grow. Slowly but surely nations and people would find it easier to learn to live side by side, engage in dialogue, turn their attention to solving the problems facing the world. Fundamentalist "terrorist" ideologies would wither away, and increased security would prevail. Rulers and politicians would no longer find easy excuses to implement "patriot acts", to reduce civil liberties and human rights, to restrict the democratic participation of people in mapping and deciding the present and the future of their societies, as well as that of the world. In the absence of war, invasion and occupation of other countries would no longer be feasible and the militarisation of the US -- which shores up its economic strength -- would steadily decrease. If peace prevailed, economic policies would change. Instead of arms, money can instead be spent on housing, hospitals, schools, production of goods and wages and social benefits; money would no longer be poured into the coffers of multinationals working to produce arms, nor into the media which beats the drums of violence, discord and war. In the absence of war, violence of all kinds against women and children, minorities and races, would no longer be as easy to perpetrate. In the absence of war, scientific research would move away from weapons of mass destruction; from rockets and planes and warships to making the environment healthy and preserving the riches of nature; to the development of welfare and health and knowledge. In the absence of war, the democratic evolution of society would move forward.
I say that if we really want to fight terrorism for humanity's sake, we must begin to fight war with determination, to mobilise people for peace and justice. And to do this we must help publicise the economic, political, social and cultural consequences of those policies implemented by the world's ruling minority, whose power base depends on aggression, militarisation and war.
Secondly, fighting war means the complete banning of all nuclear weapons. This is a view endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly, and enshrined in the Non- Proliferation Treaty which was signed by 187 nations. All countries in the Arab region, apart from Israel, have signed this treaty.
Israel has continued to develop its nuclear weapons in secret, a fact which known long before Mordechai Vanum made this public in The Sunday Times on 5 October 1986.
Nuclear proliferation in one country necessitates nuclear proliferation in other countries. The development of nuclear weapons by the US and Israel means other countries are required to obtain similar weapons for self-defence purposes, particularly in light of the US policy of launching preemptive attacks. The only solution, therefore, is to enforce global nuclear disarmament, without exception.
* The writer is a physician, novelist and activist who has authored numerous books on feminist and other social and political issues.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 2 - 8 October 2003 (Issue No. 658)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/658/op32.htm