Wars Against Terrorism
'Wars' against terrorism would depolarise and de-escalate rather than making things worse. You cannot defeat terrorism, only reduce the risks and remove the desire to engage in it.
'Wars' against terrorism work strengthen the mechanisms of international law and therefore use the mechanisms and procedures of international law - i.e. The UN - not working outside them.
'Wars' against terrorism should not use the terminology of war at all, but the terminology and reality of law enforcement and police action, economic, social and enviromental justice and human rights. Only in this framework is international police action with armed support, within international law and with UN sanction and supervision, going to have support throughout the whole world.
"Wars" against terrorism would develop standards and procedures to base policies and actions on evidence. The Pakistani proposal, that an international commissions of respected judges examine the evidence against bin Laden, is very sensible for either legimitising any action against him the eyes of the world, or calling off the action against him.
'Wars' against terrorism would recognise that insisting that people and governments are either for, or against, you will drive some, who would otherwise be neutral, into becoming active enemies. Pressurised supporters are not reliable supporters (e.g. nuclear armed Pakistan which, if it goes into civil war, could arm bin Laden or the Taliban).
Wars against terror must be against all terror. In the long run they will not only be inconsistent, but futile, if they operate with, and through, alliances and military aid to terror regimes like Turkey or if finance and support secret operations - like the contras in Central America. When Archbishop Romero was murdered in his church by US backed terror squads this was terror too. Terror against the poor and against oppressed minorities like the Kurds is terrorism too. Between 2 to 5 million children are sold into slavery in the world every year according to human rights experts. These children are terrorised too. Trade in child slaves is the third most profitable source of profits for organised criminals. Child slaves are purchased to work as prostitutes and in pornography (100,000 in the Philippines for example), 300,000 children fight as soldiers (120,000 in Africa and 50,000 in Burma). A war against terrorism would be a war for these children too. If it isn't then, in ten years time, they will be the recruiting ground for the next el Quaida style networks.
'Wars' against terrorism must also act against regimes, countries and institutions whose systems of business, banking and financial secrets make possible the accumulation and deployment of huge sums for terrorist causes and hide the operations of people like Osama bin Laden - for example Switzerland. No banking secrets!
'Wars' against terrorism must involve honest discussions of 'blowback' effects - the way in which the secret services support enemies of enemies, sowing mayhem and then getting our fingers burned by nourishing the next generation of problems. Just over ten years ago Osama bin Laden was sponsored hugely by the CIA. CIA policy has produced a permanent destabilisation of Afghanistan, a culture of murder, paranoia and gun law, a militarised society run by militias than cannot now be disarmed. At best one warlord or militia replaces another. The futility of this kind of policy is revealed by the fact that the US may now be co-operating with Russia against its former allies Osama bin Laden. A full circle. Ironically, the 'freedom fighters' in Kosovo, supported by NATO, were also backed financially and practically by....Osama bin Laden. This is futile politics. And yet the current drift is to reinstate just this way of operating by the security services. According to the London Guardian the good of old days of covert operations, dirty wars and murder are to come back.
'Wars' against terrorism are not helped by actions that kill the innocent - e.g. Sanctions against Iraq have killed over half a million children, themselves the helpless hostages of a military regime. The Pope likened this to the Slaughter of the Innocents. The sanctions have exhausted the people of Iraq who might have opposed the regime but left the military untouched - thus strengthening that regime, not weakening it. They have nourished the hatred that creates the next generation of terrorists and suicide bombers.
Wars against terrorism involve making friends with, and supporting the victims of oppression, including the populations of oppressed by military regimes - it does not involve seeing these populations as a source of cheap labour. The recruits for terror actions come from communities with no hope left - like the Palastinians. When people start killing themselves in suicide terror actions there is no choice left but to take the pressure off the crucified communities from which they have come.
'Wars' against terrorism take in and give succour to the refugees from oppressive regimes and would involve protecting ourselves by befriending these refugees. Refugees who feel welcomed and safe are the best sources of intelligence against extremist threats.
'Wars' against terrorism involves moving to a society which does not set itself up obvious symbolic target with buildings and lifestyles which boast of their wealth and power nor which are dangerous in their operation and therefore are ideal targets for suicidal terrorists - e.g. nuclear power stations, dams.
'Wars' against terrorism mean economic strategies which reverse the destruction of local economies and environmental catastrophes - which feed social chaos, impoverishment and therefore the psychological roots of people reaching for the apparent certainties of fundamentalism.
'Wars' against terrorism would work towards reducing the dependence of countries on the energy, materials and markets of other countries - which produces the temptation to meddle in the affairs of those other societies. This is, for example, true of oil. The industrial counties dependence on middle east oil is a dangerous source of instability. It is the hidden background to the US and UK military presence in the Middle East as well as their activities in the Caspian Sea area - as well as the political presence along the militarised pipeline out of that area through the Balkans. (Dick Chaneys' company, Halliburton, is making a lot of money along the pipeline).
'Wars' against terrorism will almost certainly be accompanied by economic recession or even collapse which will feed discontent further unless bold economic leadership exists around new ideas which reverse the growing polarisation of wealth and power in the world - i.e. Local jobs, for local people, for local needs; public works to radically reduce the energy (oil) intensity of production and consumption; ecological restructuring of the economy; redeveloping local food production for local communities, energy saving in households, renewable energy programmes; long term dispersal of populations out of cities into sustainable communities which are too dispersed to be vulnerable to centrally directed terrorist attacks.
"Wars" against terrorism would recognise that this way of describing the problem is iself very western. A potential "clash of civilisations" will be perceived by people in other cultures in different ways and we have to make the effort to understand their ways. In the industrial countries we have lost sight of the extent to which we choose to see the world through the defining prism of economics, rather than through traditional spiritual beliefs. We do not see the extent to which economics has become an ideology which is the basis for many people's identity, as our common cultural and community binding force. If there is a culture clash, it is not between Islam and Christianity, it is between Islam as an identity and Economics as a identity. Watch the CNN and you will find that, far more than loyalty to a flag, they have loyalty to the ideas of technology, growth, money and the market. When CNN reporters and correspondents from the world over talk together they all share this common language and belief system of economics. This is the defining identity, this is the theology of our culture - and it is despised and hated by the people whose cultures and communities are under threat by it.
Brian Davey
September 2001
© BRIAN DAVEY