In the Name of God
Global Alliance against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Collection of Papers Presented at The International Conference on Global Alliance against Terrorism for a Just Peace (May 14 -15, 2011)
Islamic World Peace Forum
2012 IWPF; Global Alliance against Terrorism for a Just Peace, 2012, pp640. ISBN: 978-964-04-5626-2 National Library of I.R. of Iran Control Number: 2825715 © 2012 IWPF All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher, except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IWPF. www.peacetribune.com www.iwpeace.com
Global Alliance against Terrorism for a Just Peace, Collection of Papers Secretary of the Conference: Dr. Davoud Ameri Editor: Dr. Nader Saed Supervisors: Dr. S.R. Ameli, Dr. A. Kadkhodaee, Dr. E. Aminzade, Dr. S.F. Mosavi, Dr. E. Mottaqi, Dr. F. Izadi, Dr. H. Hosseini, Dr. N. Saed, Dr. M.H. Mozaffari. Publisher: IWPF Publication Year: 2012 Price: 355000 Rials ISBN: 978-964-04-5626-2 Contents
Part I: Terrorism; Conceptual and Theoretical Dimensions Definition of Terrorism and Indictment of State Terrorists...... 19 Dr. James B. Thring Terrorism, Perception, and Justice...... 35 Imam Mohammad al- Asi Jihad and Terrorism: A War of the Words………………………. 49 Moazzam Begg Terrorism as a Basis for Islamophobia and Confrontation with the Muslim World...... 65 Dr. Ebrahim Mottaqi Terrorism: Definition, Causes, and Ways to Fight It...... 73 Dr. Bahig Mullah Howeish Nuclear Terrorism: Theory and Practice...... 79 Dr. Ali Daee Terrorism: Preliminary Observations...... 93 Abdul Rauf AlShayeb The Perspectives of Islam on Just Peace...... 97 Mohammad Salar Terrorism: Its Origins and Theoretical Foundations...... 101 Dr. Rouhollah Ghaderi Terrorism: Vital Remarks...... 119 Félix Angel Herrero Duran Terrorism, Need for Unity in Definition...... 123 Saber Nojoumi and Amin Valizadeh
Part II. Terrorism and International Community The New World Order and Terrorism Implications...... 135 Dr. Manuel Galiana Ros Terrorism and Contemporary International Law...... 141 Dr. May Alkhansa A Case History of State Terrorism: The Siddiqui Case...... 153 Dr. Victoria Catherine Brittain The Great Lie: How the selective implementation and reporting of incidents of terrorism perpetuate the Lie that Muslims are mainly responsible for terrorism...... 167 Massoud Shadjareh The Global War on Terror and the Prawn behind the Stone.... 179 Prof. Chandra Muzaffar US-Israeli State Terrorism Threatens World Peace...... 197 Dr. Mohideen Abdul Kader The Zionists, “War on Terror” in the Middle East and the Reshaping of the Muslim World: Pakistan’s Unique Case Study...... 207 Zaid Zaman Hamid East and West Share a Common World and Must Seek Common Solutions to Common Problems...... 231 Dr. Nikolay Slatinski Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of Divide and Rule...... 249 Arzu Merali Self-Defense in Response to Terrorism: Prohibitions and Limits...... 275 Dr. Nader Saed Democratization and Freedom in the Middle East: Challenges of Muslim Future...... 293 Mirnes Kovac Crime of Terror in the Case Law of the ICTY...... 299 Dr. H. Najandimanesh and Z. E. Ghahfarokhi Some Observations on Global Alliance against Terrorism for a Just Peace...... 315 Dr. Cynthia Ann McKinney Islamic Awakening and the Global Alliance for Peace and Security...... 319 Dr. Hassan Bashir Interpretation of International Peace and Security According to the Charter of the United Nations...... 323 Dr. S. Qhasem Zamani Challenges Facing International Humanitarian Law in Fight against Terrorism...... 329 Dr. Pouria Askary Function of International Dispute Settlement Systems from Viewpoint of Peace: Weaknesses and Strengths...... 349 Dr. S. Baqer Mirabbasi Poverty and Injustice...... 357 Dr. S. Abdolmajid Mirdamadi Human Dignity and Right to Peace...... 367 Dr. Mohammad J. Saed
Part III: Media, Cultures and Just Peace A Critical Approach to American Virtual Colonialism...... 383 Prof. Saied Reza Ameli Culture- Means of Mass Communication- Terrorism; an up- to- date trilogy ...... 401 Dr. Stergios Katichoritis Authoritarian Media and Terrorism –Al Jazeera as an Example...... 415 Abdul Hussein Sultan Terrorism in Misusing Religion for Violence...... 427 Dr. Hans Ucko Modernities, Networks, and Terrorism...... 439 Dr. David Hovhannisyan Imperialism and Preventing the Media Activities against Terrorism...... 447 Mohammad Hassan Akhtari Inter-Religious Dialogue and Global Peace...... 453 Dr. Ignatios S. Stavropoulos Media Terrorism as a Western Weapon...... 457 Hassan Abedini
Part IV: Just Peace as a Solution against Terrorism Terrorism as a Result of fall of Spirituality ...... 465 Mohammad Ali Taskhiri Just Peace as the Solution of Terrorism...... 471 Prof. Syed Hussain Kamaluddin Akbar Education of Just Peace for Prevention of Terrorism...... 485 Prof. Massimo De Santi On “Just Peace” and Peace Education...... 493 Prof. Allicia Cabezudo The State of Divine Justice in the Face of Terrorism...... 505 Prof. Ahmed Rasim Al- Nafees The World Needs a Just Mechnism to Face International Terrorism...... 511 Sheikh Hasan Ali Al-Triki Religious Tolerance: Some Observations in the Context of Islam–West Encounter...... 515 Prof. Muhamad Suheyl Umar Joining Forces Globally against Terrorism for the Just Peace...... 555 Dr. János Drábik The Two-way Symmetrical Communication and a Just Peace: A Critical Examination of United States Public Diplomacy.... 573 Dr. Foad Izadi Exploring Non-violent Alternatives to Terrorism...... 597 Dr. Paul Maillet The Right to Peace: A Defense-Security Approach...... 609 Dr. Reza Kalhor Culture of Peace and Facing Terrorism...... 613 Dr. Zouhair A. Almahmeed Preface / 9
Preface Terrorism is an inhumane act and a catastrophe for human society. Today many of the Goverments claim to combat terrorism, yet what we see in reality throughout the world is that the globe is afflicted with injustice, violence, whereas the Creator of man has declared it a safe cradle and a domicile for the thriving of talents and an evolutionary path leading to him. On the other hand, we observe that all fair people gifted with divine temperament, disagree with violence and terror. Now the question is why all these opponents who are somehow recognized as combatants of terrorism, haven‟t succeeded in bringing about peace and security for themselves as well as the human race? The answer to this question may also somehow clarify the various aspects of terrorism. The first problem in fighting terrorism is the lack of a precise and clear definition. For example, one of the researchers on terrorism has compiled and classified 109 definitions of terrorism. The second problem is the lack of fairness about terrorism; that is, especially in the international arena, “Terrorist” has become an easily accessible label used by certain groups to suppress their opponents and we witness irritation and arousal of the thoughts and ideas due to such attitudes. The third challenge in fighting terrorism pertains to today‟s complexities. In this age, we come across various and numerous methods and means of terrorism. It is observed that terrorism is not just limited to physically exterminating people and individuals but evidences also show that terroristic attacks, in violent and physical modes, have attained a more deadly characteristic and are also of more variety and quantity categorized in the economical, cultural, mass media, personal media, and informative fields and sometimes even the nations‟ entities are the targets of terrorist attacks. With respect to aforesaid issues, it‟s clear that combating terrorism is a difficult goal which demands global endeavor; although governments and international organizations greatly combat this phenomenon in an organized manner, the man of Twenty First Century faces serious threat as a result of such violence and terror. This significant Global Alliance 10 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace issue has made civil coordination in the global battle inevitable and indicates the need for an international alliance in addition to the methods implemented earlier. Naturally, among the preliminary requirements of fighting the scourge is to specify the goal. The Conference on “Global Alliance against Terrorism”, by inviting international elites who have proved their endeavors against terrorism and active international NGOs, endeavored to bring up the subject of „Just Peace‟ as a universal objective to mobilize numerous groups to combat terrorism in the true sense. The Conference tried, on the one hand, to offer a definition of terrorism which is comprehensible to all through international elites‟ synergy, and on the other hand endeavored to implement a fundamental and cultural motion to the fight against terrorism through the elites. This attitude, given the characteristics of the communication age in which people are interconnected without political and geographical limitations and every one can play an effective role anywhere in the international arena, endeavored to increase the legal, cultural and political capacities of the truthful and real battles against terrorism and accordingly offer a common conceptual horizon for identifying and redefining terrorism away from the incomprehensive views or the views biased in favor of political interests.
Peace; Hisorical Process Human has made enormous endeavors to establish peace, however the conditions and instability of the world is fast deteriorating. One of the pathologies related to the structures of the peace processes in the world is that justice is fading away in the international systems and at contemporary discourses. The just peace is a discourse for meeting today and future‟s challenges regarding the just peace for preventing and countering terrorism. The International Conference on “Global Alliance against Terrorism for a Just Peace”, held in Tehran in May, sought to analyze the structure and frameworks of preventing and countering terrorism. The Conference was organized by the Islamic World Peace Forum and a number of NGOs.
Today, one of the fundamental challenges in achieving global peace and justice is terrorism. Basically, to have a realistic viewpoint on peace and Preface / 11 justice in the world, and to endeavor to realize it, we should necessarily adopt a pathological approach to terrorism and we should obviate its pathologies so as to provide a suitable ground for realization of peace in the world. Accordingly, the Islamic World Peace Forum, endeavored to adopt this subject for the future Conference on Tehran.
The alliance that we mean is not an alliance of the governments, but the alliance of the elites, NGOs and the civil groups, because we believe that governments, being preoccupied with various issues, are not much able to come up with a commonly agreed conclusion and converge with each other for a serious and honest fight against terrorism in the world. On the other hand, we observe that the elites of the world have a good knowledge of this and are well motivated to realize the just peace. We organize an alliance to mobilize against global terrorism. Many people in the world try to uphold the banner of fighting terrorism however this approach may not yield favorable results if the very viewpoint if inaccurate. Our aim is realization of peace and justice in the world. Therefore we believe that these two subjects can be complement each other and can cover each other in a fixed concept to reach the goal. Many alliances have been established by the elites in the world in various fields such as the environment, etc; however, they have not been able to conduct extensive works without the support of governments. The world didn‟t pay much attention to the environment till now, but the elites‟ alliance and establishment of a global discourse has formed a general demand which is still called for and it has taken effective measures in protecting the environment today. If we can establish the global elites‟ alliance for the field of terrorism and for realization of the just peace, we will be able to establish a global discourse which will help us take effective measures.
Common Understanding for Establishing Conceptual Alliance Establishment of an alliance requires a common understanding. Today, a common definition for terrorism and peace in the world does not exist. Today, there is no specific definition and program to counteract terrorism and one of the reasons why we insist on the participation of elites is that they can help draw up a commonly accepted definition which is free from Global Alliance 12 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace individual interests. Undoubtedly, we will be able to reach a general understanding once we have this definition. Then, this unified conceptual horizon will enable us to organize a common discourse. So, we need to think over the common concept initially and then pay attention to the ones who have common preoccupations in this field. Thus we will be able to establish a common alliance for a common discourse. Today there are fake discourses, unfortunately, held in the world about peace in which they claim to be pacifists but they don‟t practice it; they try to bring about a kind of alleviation and since this alleviation does not involve justice for all humans or all parties to terrorism, their work is not basically of the nature of peace and is just an instable alleviation. That will facilitate the way for the activities of terrorists and invaders and will limit the suppressed. Such alleviations may never guarantee peace and there will always be unrest and upheaval in the related regions. In order to think on peace, we should consider amending the affairs and this depends on implementation of justice. Justice with deep roots will be stable and is called „Just Peace‟. Despite all the needs of humans and the attempts made in the international arena, and all the claims and propagandas in this field, why can‟t we see any serious combating of terrorism in the true sense? Are the societies unable to counter terrorism or isn‟t there a serious and honest combat? I believe the second case is true, that it seems the required capability both in the governments and in the international organizations and institutions and even in the civil groups to counter terrorism seriously and effectively in the world and even the feasibility of realizing a just peace exist; however, in order to bring this capability to the stage, there should be a general will based on the common aim and understanding. One reason to why the governments and international organizations have not been able to take serious and effective measure to counter terrorism globally, is that there are extensive conservative measures in this field. There isn‟t either a common definition and sometimes countering terrorism stands against the interests of certain powers. Thus, these powers cannot make serious decisions against terrorism and therefore most international measures taken globally yield no results. One of the reasons why we have an eye on the elites is that we believe that the elites can solve the problem and they can also help us establish the common definition and understanding of Preface / 13 terrorism; they can provide discourses without special preoccupations affecting the objective. They can try to mobilize all people and various organizations to achieve this goal. Then, I believe this general mobilization can be effective in conjunction with the effective measures taken by international organizations. We believe that Terrorism cannot be attributed to any religion and no religion approves terrorism. Secondly, all religions emphasize the just peace. Therefore, the aims of this Conference are in conformity and affinity with the aims of divine religions. Therefore, we believe that the divine religions and especially the elites and the scholars should play a significant role in achieving a unique definition and a common understanding. We intend to organize a civil conference; a conference where the NGOs and the elites are to participate at. So, it‟d be better that the task is executed by them and we should not underestimate this huge capacity. It‟s OK to receive support from interested governments in this field however we intend to emphasize on the active participation of civil institutions.
Just Peace: A Comprehensive Discourse The idea of the Islamic World Peace Forum in establishing the global fora, is the just peace and all the discourses organized at the Forum are aimed at the prevalence of this concept. In order for the aforesaid idea to have scientific basis, the Islamic World Peace Forum has made various attempts and tries to provide the initial literature for this task. In the next stage we tred and try to propagate this initial literature throughout the world and together with the global elites turn this initial conference in a common conference to an evolved discourse and organize joint conferences amongst ourselves and various global centers. Thus, the Just Peace Conference will gradually be developed. In this respect, we endeavored to communicate effectively and organizationally with a part of the elites of the world in the religious, scientific and civil fields. Here are expressed some of such communications. Along with dozens of effective measures that we take and follow up in the Forum, we organized a conference in Tehran in which we spoke with a large number of global elites about the initial concepts. Thence, we organized three regional and international gatherings. First, we had a conference in Vienna with the participation of 30 Iranian scholars and the elites from Global Alliance 14 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace various scientific centers of the Europe. We also held a meeting in cooperation with Jawaharlal Nehru and the India-Iran Friendship Association in Delhi attended by more than 40 scholars from Southeast Asia and the subcontinent focusing on the subject of peace. They presented their views in this field. The third meeting was held in North America in the Canadian city of Ottawa where we held discourses on the subject of just peace in cooperation with the elites and scholars of that country. We intend to hold other meetings to deal with this issue. We aim, through all these various meetings and programs of the Forum, to offer and furnish the idea of Just Peace with the participation of global elites and receive their assistance to criticize, investigate and perfect this idea so that the Conference will attain further scientific and cultural richness. Today the Forum, by organizing this Conference, has effective relations with civil groups worldwide and many academic scholars, authors and elites are congruent ideologically in this regard. We endeavor, through their assistance, to transform the idea of a just peace to a global common discourse.
The Final Declaration of the Conference The final declaration of International Conference on Global Alliance against Terrorism for a Just Peace referrered to the achievements of the specialized panels of the conference in general. For example, in one of these panels we discussed about the concept of terrorism and necessity of clarifying it. You observe that some part of the declaration refers to creating some kind of conception and view in this due. One of the other issues investigated in the specialized panels was the ways of combating terrorism and establishing “Just Peace”. The final declaration specially emphasized that the ideas for combating terrorism should be according to this issue. One of the issues, which was investigated in the conference and referred to in the final declaration, was relying on the Just Peace negotiation as an aim and strategy for the global movement to combat terrorism and achieve a secure world. Creating some stable relation between the world‟s scholars was the other issue emphasized in the final declaration. In this due a committee of enthusiastic scholars was suggested to be set up to preserve regular contact with the scholars participated in the conference as well as contact other scholars interested in this field in such a way that we could Preface / 15 gradually achieve the objectives of conference. This suggestion was welcomed by the participants of conference. On the other hand, the final declaration emphasized that the conference‟s achievements should not be limited to this level and they should be announced to all those, who are active in the field of peace and combating terrorism. So, one of the articles of this declaration mentions that the issues investigated in the specialized panels and also the final declaration should be notified to the other scholars, NGOs active in the field of peace, and also some countries which support the peace. The other prominent issue mentioned in the final declaration was that the conference‟s participants decided to select the Islamic World Peace Forum as the permanent secretariat of the International Conference on Global Alliance against Terrorism for a Just Peace to conduct necessary planning for continuing this movement. Big objectives can be achieved by small steps. Global alliance is a very big concept and on the other side holding this conference is a small step to achieve that. We should not forget that the alliance to which we are referring is intellectual. With all of its positive effects and widespread coverage, International Conference on Global Alliance against Terrorism for a Just Peace was an initial step that has no end and requires progress. We are trying in this forum to get much closer to these objectives through taking other steps and making continuous efforts. As I mentioned, it is anticipated in the conference to set up a permanent committee of scholars to develop relations and we hope that by establishing such units in the world we will move gradually toward creating a comprehensive alliance of the scholars who seek the Just Peace. Many theoretical tasks have been accomplished in the world about the issue of “Just War” but negotiation in terms of “Just Peace” has been paid attention less and this approach of the Islamic World Peace Forum to make establishing “Just Peace” a key objective to achieve a peaceful world is of great value . In the Islamic World Peace Forum we chose “Just Peace” as the main issue of negotiation in the conference. When we mentioned this concept it was not familiar even for many of our colleagues. But it was an informed decision based on several investigations. This negotiation could fortunately establish a norm in the world and reach the global intellectual Global Alliance 16 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace fields.Of course, we do not claim that we have devised this concept and put it into global negotiation for the first time in the world but the aspects we have specified for the Just Peace are basically different from those of the previous negotiations. We are referring to the theories in terms of justice which guarantee global peace and security, respect different ideas and are flexible according to the different cultures and civilizations. The Just Peace we refer to is derived from the religious especially Islamic principles and pays a lot of attention to the human‟s dignity and paves the way for his elevation. Therefore, I strongly believe that the Just Peace negotiation is able to open its way in the global field and reach a dominant status. We will continue the follow-up measures and develop this concept through planning, scientific and intellectual achievements, holding different camps in the world, and cooperation with the world‟s intellectuals. Of course, if it is required we will strengthen this concept‟s theories more and more through cooperation with other scholars as well as more study and investigation. We do not doubt that the International Conference on Global Alliance against Terrorism for a Just Peace has taken the initial steps and we are required to use more energy for establishing a negotiation in the world which is based on the human‟s nature and moral values. Some 10 books published by the Islamic World Peace Forum and distributed in the conference are some part of this forum‟s products in the scientific and intellectual fields. The forum had also previously published such books and this task will be surely continued, because we believe that we should promote the literature of “Just Peace” negotiation. The mentioned books had been prepared for the conference but our intellectual products are not due to be limited to this level. We try to continue fulfilling our duty in developing the Just Peace discourse and it‟s concepts through taking larger steps and publishing books in the world‟s popular languages.
Secretary of the International Conference on Global Alliance against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Definition of Terrorism and Indictiment of State Terrorists / 17
Part I
Terrorism; Conceptual and
Theoretical Dimensions Global Alliance 18 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Definition of Terrorism and Indictiment of State Terrorists / 19
Definition of Terrorism and Indictment of State Terrorists Dr. James B. Thring
Abstract Origin of recent Middle East terrorism is Zionists in Palestine. Defines levels of terrorism; 1) Hopeless individuals, e.g. Palestinians. 2) Terror groups with just cause, e.g. IRA. 3) State-sponsored terror, using assassins, drones and substitute terror outfits, e.g. US-sponsored Al- Qa‘ida and MeK etc against Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Sudan. 4) State terror, e.g. US carpet-bombing of Afghanistan and Israeli massacre of Gazans. 5) Super-state terrorists, e.g. Zionists; Kissinger, AIPAC, Wolfowitz, Rothschild, Perle, Rockefeller et al., driving USA to global state terrorism, attacking Friends of Palestine on false premises, e.g. Iraq. Evaluates a nuclear-armed state that massacres and maims without restraint or redress, as more terrifying than lone suicide bombers. Discusses legal redress via national courts, the ICC and ICJ, with cooperation of Non-Aligned Nations. Deduces that totalitarian control of judiciary as well as governments, UN, world banks and media holds little chance of success. Concludes that unless this global stranglehold can be broken or reasoned with, the world may react to unreasonable suffering, destruction and injustice, by spontaneous revolution. Further scenarios of hope and disaster need constructing and elaborating as a backdrop to planning the best way towards Just Peace.
Founder of the, Planning for Peace in 1983, the Ministry of Peace in 2002 and Legal Action Against War in 2003 in attempts to build an effective antiwar lobby. He visited the Holy Land several times from 1997 and compiled a paper on ‗Crimes Against the Palestinians‘ with a view to prosecuting Netanyahu et al. and later produced ‗Strategies for Palestine‘ to help extricate the nation from its on-going Nakbha. He was Secretary to Professions for World Disarmament & Development (1983-6) and served on the Committee of Engineers & Architects for Social Responsibility (1980-91). Global Alliance 20 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
1. Introduction ‗Terrorism‘ in the Middle East originated in the last century with the Zionists; Bn‘ai Brit, the Stern gang, Irgun, Hagannah and Mossad which murdered UN chiefs like Count Bernadotte and Lord Moyne and tried to murder many other statespeople critical of their aims and methods, from Ernest Bevin to Mary Robinson.1 State terrorism is far more inhuman, in terms of people killed and maimed, lives wrecked and infrastructure destroyed, than ‗terrorism‘ by individuals or groups. Consider the devastation and tens of thousands killed by the Israeli Defence Force in Lebanon, particularly the Sabra and Chatilla camps, Quilya, Jenin and Gaza.2 Or George Bush‘s ‗Shock & Awe‘ attack on Iraq killing over 100,000;3 or the homely labelled ‗carpet bombing‘ of Afghanistan, killing untold thousands. An insidious variation on state terror is the siege; the near total blockade of supplies of food, water and energy, even building materials, as imposed on Gaza and Iraq for over a decade. This terrifies the public despite the alleged target being the ‗regime‘. Covert state-sponsored terrorism, is morally worse still, as the great states hide behind groups like Al-Qa‘ida, which remain targets even after they have served their purpose.4 A subset of this category is the terror organisation with its own motives such as the Mujahideen-e Khalq, which is used by the US and Israel to terrorize populations for external political gain. For example, the Iran Policy Committee in the USA called for the MeK to be released from the ‗Terrorist List‘ as; ―Encouraging diasaffection with the regime among the Iranian population would be
1. Mayhew, C & M. Adams (1975) Publish it Not: The Middle East Cover-up‘ Signal Books, Oxford, UK 2. Thring, J (2010) ‗Crimes Against the Palestinians‘ monograph Ministry of Peace, London. 3. Simons, G (2008) ‗They Destroyed a Country and Called it Freedom‘ Legacy Pub., Surrey TW9 2WA, UK. 4 . Gray, J (2003) ‗Al Qaeda and what it means to be modern‘ Faber & Faber, London. Definition of Terrorism and Indictiment of State Terrorists / 21 lever to which Tehran would be far more responsive because it would threaten the regime‘s very survival.‖5 Official hypocrisy adds to the terror spread by the omnipotent states, labelling independent leaders like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi as ‗Dictators‘ whilst dictating that they comply with their diktats or face ‗all necessary means‘ to make them step down. Another version of this hypocrisy is to attack those loyal to a government under the ‗Humanitarian Intervention‘ shroud, to pretend to ‗help‘ the rebels whilst indiscriminately killing and maiming greater numbers of ordinary citizens. Finally, there is media twist-speak, miss-labelling ‗terrorists‘ as ‗victims, and loyal defenders of a country as ‗nationalist belligerents‘, ‗killing their own people‘. This is a form of terrorism because it can lead to false imprisonment or false attack. It also spreads uncontrollably and once established is hard to rectify. The few individual terrorists, who kill themselves in the event, are suicidal, having lost all hope of justice, using the only weapon available to them against the super-state terrorists who have caused their resignation from this world.
2. Who are the Super-state Terrorists? The USA has evolved as a Terrorist State by its unprovoked or falsely instigated attacks on such poor countries as Viet-Nam, Central America and Afghanistan. The more recent attacks, particularly on Middle East countries, have been driven by the shadowy Neo-Cons such as Henry Kissinger, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol and Richard Perle, who formed the Project for a New American Century and wrote the ‗Full Spectrum Dominance‘ agenda under the anodyne title, ‗Rebuilding America‟s Defences‟ 6. This
5. Akins, J (2006) ‗Appeasing the Ayatollahs and Suppressing Democracy: US Policy and the Iranian Opposition‘ Iran Policy Cttee, 1001 Pennsylvania Av. NW, Washington DC 20004 (p.88) 6. Kristol, W et al. (2000) ‗Re-building America‘s Defences‘ Washington. Global Alliance 22 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace was actually a plan for the US to take military control of the Persian Gulf. The high priests of this group are largely Friends of Israel, zealous members or supporters of AIPAC (American-Israel Political Action Committees) or Zionists who have an agenda to make Israel the place in which, after Armageddon, the Messiah will take his ‗chosen seat‘.7 In other words Jerusalem will become the global capital. In the interim they believe they have to destroy any support for the Palestinians, the legal occupants of the Holy Land and their supporters, particularly Iraq8 and possibly Iran.9 Their ‗public‘ strategy was set out in „The Clash of Civilizations‟ i.e. the clash between Islam and Judeo-Christianity.10 This is an artificial clash because the differences are largely political, i.e. they scarcely exist except in the minds of religious zealots and can be resolved by comprehension and discussion. But the Zionist Neo-Cons quickly converted it to the ‗War on Terror‘, parroted by George Bush to justify attacking any country or person who criticized or was not ―with‖ the US in its unbridled attacks on such countries and individuals as the 7 listed in his ‗Axis of Evil‘, namely; Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Syria. None of these countries has attacked any other country, save the US-fostered Iran-Iraq War and none have threatened the USA. Unfortunately, the UN Security Council has been coerced into joining this ‗war‘ by American threats to states‘ representatives who do not support US war aims. The starkest examples have been the US attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya, using ‗All necessary means‘, before diplomatic efforts had been exhausted. All three countries were attacked on false information, enhancing suspicions that the real motives were illegal or immoral, such as destroying ‗threats to the Zionist entity‘ or grabbing oil, gas and gold reserves, or both.
7. Mearsheimer, J & S. Walt (2007) The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy‘ Penguin, England 8. Piper, M. Collins (2005) ‗The High Priests of War‘ American Free Press, Washington DC. 9. Thring, J (2006) ‗Peace with Iran‘ Ministry of Peace, London. 10. Huntingdon, S (19 ) ‗The Clash of Civilizations‘ Definition of Terrorism and Indictiment of State Terrorists / 23
NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) as a relic of World War II, has been led gladly into these terror attacks because it is seeking a role and its friends in the arms industry are ever pushing sales. With so many member states it is overwhelmingly powerful as a war machine and what it does appears to be ‗democratic‘. But are smaller nations bullied into agreeing what it does by the arms dealers again? Terror of a ‗softer‘ variety is also employed by global corporations, using their financial muscle to persuade states and small companies to buy their products or face trade sanctions or ‗disaster‘. The GM (Genetically Modified) Food monopolists use the fear of farmers being exposed to poor crop yields or failures from disease if they refuse to buy the seeds ad infinitum. The international banks also use financial terror to make countries accept their practises or suffer excessive interest rates, rampant inflation and recession or even war. It is suspected that the Rothschilds, for instance, target those states which have refused to accept their banking presence. Libya is the latest example where Rothschild‘s International Crisis Centre, run by Zbignew Brezinski and George Soros, is believed to be fuelling the unrest because Qaddafi threatened to take the whole of Africa and the Middle East on to a gold currency which could effectively insulate them from dollar dependency and its unstable future.11 A new version of state terror is unfolding behind the Arab Spring. The Alliance of Youth Movement set up by Jared Cohen and Joe Liebman as staunch Friends of Israel and National Endowment for Democracy, set up by Gershman, another Zionist, deliberately aim to stir up youths and people disgruntled with their lot, to rebel. Their rebellion is given the popular cause of ‗democracy‘ to entice western sympathy. In the case of Libya, which has one of the most democratic systems available where every citizen can raise policy for discussion in the Peoples Congresses, the media has turned the liberal government into the ‗terrorist‘ and the rebel into the ‗democrat‘.12
11. Brown, E (2011) ‗All about Oil, All about Banking?‘ globalresearch.ca 12. Thring, J (2011) ‗Peace with Libya‘ Ministry of Peace, London. Global Alliance 24 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Similar groups in Washington sponsor terrorists, such as the Iran Policy Committee chaired by James Akins, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose report „US Policy & the Iranian Opposition‟ 13 claims that ―States like Iran that seek to …export terror abroad…are a threat to the international community‖. Yet their final conclusion is to help the M- e K by removing it from the US Terrorist List because; ―The best way to empower the Iranian people is to support their organized resistance movements, especially the M-e K‖. This is the US exporting terror abroad. The MeK have even murdered their own people in the Kurdistan Region. Another group in Washington, the Save Darfur Coalition, created by the American Jewish World Service, sponsors terrorism in Darfur with hundreds of millions of dollars.14 It has been found guilty of exaggerating the death toll as well as blaming Islamic Khartuom rather than disparate migrants from surrounding poorer African countries. Muammar Qaddafi suggested that the unrest was a western trick to grab Sudan‘s oil. The recent move to split North from South Sudan suggests he was right. Finally the 400 oligarchs, fabulously wealthy families who control 80% of the world‘s wealth can exert terrifying pressure on countries, some of which have smaller GNP‘s than the families‘. These include primarily the Rothschilds15, with the Rockefellers, Oppenheimers, Baruchs and Schiffs close behind, for example. Details are hard to find for obvious reasons but a good guide is membership of the CFR, the Bilderberg Group and the IMF.
13. Akins, J et al. (2006) ‗Appeasing the Ayatollahs and Suppressing Democracy: US Policy and the Iranian Opposition‘ (p.97), Washington DC 20004 14. Hoile, D (2005) ‗Darfur – the Road to Peace‘ (pp.274-7) European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council. 15. Perry, R (2000) ‗The Fifth Man‘ Faber, London. Definition of Terrorism and Indictiment of State Terrorists / 25
3. What are their Motives? Unlike suicide bombers, whose last desperate cries of hopelessness gain them nothing material, the oligarchs‘ motives are extremely materialistic and avaricious. Their schemes for financial aggrandisement, profit maximization and domination or destruction of competition, cause widespread social distress but with little damage to them or their shareholders. Some of this may be acceptable in a well-policed and judicially adroit world. But ‗policing‘ is labelled as ‗fascist‘ or ‗dictatorial‘, so the laws needed will apply to the law-abiding citizen, not to those big enough to eschew the law. This gives them power over politicians, the media, the lawmakers and the populace as well as the economy. It also gives them control over resources and land, which in turn, give them control of mass consumption. This absolute power breeds insouciance, disrespect for justice and morality and a lack of sensitivity which of course permits them to cheat, deceive, use dangerous materials and practises and even call on governments to apply military aggression on opponents or angry mobs. This is terrorism of a particularly lawless and inhuman variety. Another driver of this form of terror is the extreme form of religious code especially where criticism is disallowed. The most pernicious example is Talmudic diktat, even exposure of which attracts a death sentence. It usurps unique God-given prejudice16 for its Jewish subscribers.17 It thus breeds arrogance towards the rest of humanity and a contempt for international law, as recently expressed by Israeli Minister Zvipi Livni. It even sanctions Biblical pre-emptive genocide against inhabitants of the ‗Promised Land‘, as witnessed befalling the Palestinians and creeping through the Islamic world; Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, resisting the threats in order to support their brethren.
16. Pranaitis, Rev.I.B.(1985) ‗The Talmud Unmasked‘ Imperial Academy of Sciences. 17. Shahak, I. (1980) ‗Jewish History, Jewish Religion‘ Pluto Press, London Global Alliance 26 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
4. What are their Methods? An advantage taken by this religious group is to have what even nations now indulge, a long term strategy. Fundamentally, this derives from the Torah and Old Testament, which set out the notion that God‘s Chosen People would inherit the Earth and have dominion over it. In the 19th Century the Learned Elders of Zion set out Protocols for taking control of humanity through manipulation of the mass media, banking, industry and government.18 Many Jews claim this was a forgery. But it has largely come to pass. Even by 1916, Henry Ford tried to warn against falling into their trap in his seminal book The International Jew19. The more recent strategy was outlined above in the guise of a strategy for the USA, the Project for a New American Century which is essentially a Zionist plot to march the US into wars for Israel.20 Islam and the rest of the world may need to learn from this strategic planning if it is to survive. A vital arm of this strategy is defamation of enemies of Zion using media domination to portray the innocent as the terrorist and the war-mongers as victims. The PLO was first in recent times to suffer from this twist of the reality. Libya has been targeted twice now. Iraq and Afghanistan have been decimated by it. Iran is being set up as the next innocent victim, followed by Pakistan, Sudan and Malaysia.21 This malicious propaganda leads to an alacrity to launch attacks on whole nations and terrorize into submission those who are left. The defamation of ‗non-compliant‘ leaders who try to seek justice for their brothers in the Holy Land usually attracts the black label of ‗dictator‘ who ‗kills his own people‘. This was never more unjustly applied than to Muammar Qaddafi, who not only retired as ‗Leader‘ of the Al-Fateh Revolution in 1997 but specifically tried to devolve power to
18. Reed, D (1978) ‗The Controversy of Zion‘ Dolphin Press, Durban, S.A. 19. Ford, H. (1916) ‗The International Jew‘ reprinted by Ford Motor Co. from ‗The Dearborn Independent‘ 20. Ostrovski, V (1994) ‗The Other Side of Deception‘ Harper Collins, New York. 21. Hoile, D (2007) ‗Darfur; the Road to Peace‘ European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council, London. Definition of Terrorism and Indictiment of State Terrorists / 27 the people on the lines set out in his ‗Green Book‘.22 So if anyone is killing Libyans, it is likely to be the infiltrators, funded and encouraged by Rothschild‘s International Crisis Centre, the Alliance of Youth Movement and the National Endowment for Democracy described above. It is now exacerbated by NATO whose forces are infamous for indiscriminate killing and ‗collateral‘ damage. The ‗dictator‘ label, however, still sets the stage for assassination of leaders such as Moyne, Kennedy and bin Laden, or contrived judicial execution of those such as Saddam, or the mysterious sudden death as in the cases of Arafat or Milosovic. False-flag terror, terror using enemy identities so that it gets the blame, is a particularly insidious form of terrorism as it instils an innate fear that the apparent attackers are more active than they actually are. The evidence surrounding the attacks in the USA on September 11th 2001 points to a sophisticated series of operations that bin Laden could hardly have orchestrated from a cave in the Tora Bora, such as the wiring of Building 7 and probably the WTC towers for demolition, or the ‗failure‘ of the cameras round the Pentagon, or the no-show of two thirds of the staff in the twin towers on the day, or the insurance of the towers for $2B each by owner Larry Silberstein just a few months before, or the absence of US defence aircraft.23 Similar doubts surround the bombing in London on 7th July 2005 which coincided with a security services dummy operation at the same stations on the same day and the fact that the alleged bombers were discovered not to have been able to catch the train they were said to have caught because it did not run.24 Sanctions are an even more widespread method of terrorizing a nation, leading to internal struggles and recriminations against the leadership. In Iraq they led to the deaths of around a million people, half of them
22. Al-Qaddafi, M (1975) ‗The Third Universal Theory‘ World Centre for Studies & Research, Tripoli. 23. Tarpley, W. (2007) ‗9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA‘ Progressive Press, California, 92252. 24. Kollerstrom, N (2009) ‗Terror on the Tube‘ Progressive Press, California. Global Alliance 28 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace children under five: a truly terrifying strangle-hold as the regime had no WMD to find inorder for the sanctions to be lifted. The word itself is a euphemism for a medieval siege with much more terrifying resonance. Finally, there is full scale war, the ultimate form of terror, which no ‗terrorist‘ can indulge in and which harms everyone, not necessarily the leaders it is usually claims to be aimed at. The destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are again cases in point. The deployment of unmanned drones has added a more terrifying dimension to war, as not being able to see the enemy makes people perpetually on edge and in genuine fear of their lives.
5. How to Arrest the Super-state Terrorists? It is conceivable that coordinated global legal action, using InterPol or national police forces or even citizens arrests under the Geneva Conventions could begin to arrest the super-state terrorists like Netanyahu, Bush, Blair, the Rothschilds or any of the other oligarchs mentioned above and put them on trial with a view to incarceration to prevent further bloodshed and suffering and discourage their malevolent followers. But they are so powerful that they can bribe and cajole law- makers to change the law. For example, in the UK it will shortly be forbidden for magistrates to grant warrants to arrest state War Criminals like Zvipi Livni or Netanyahu. It would be necessary to form a United Non-Aligned Nations Organisation to gather the strength and world-wide support to curtail the oligarchs‘ activities. This was tried by Muammar Qaddafi in his vision of a Great Mathaba which found favour in most African and Middle East countries.25 It has not been realized, probably because the culprits can see that it may spell the end of their hegemony.
25. Qaddafi, M (2000) ‗The Great Mathaba‘ Conference, Tripoli Definition of Terrorism and Indictiment of State Terrorists / 29
6. Charges Stirring up public disorder is an offence in the UK, especially when it leads to death and destruction. So this charge could be brought against those behind the International Crisis Centre, the Alliance of Youth Movement and the National Endowment for Democracy working in the UK. If they can be proved to have deliberately incited rebellions in the Arab world it may be possible to fit this charge into the offences in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. If the terrorist attacks committed by Mossad, the CIA and MI6 can be brought to court with sufficient evidence and protection, the crimes are heinous enough to warrant serious investigation, followed by trials and appropriate prison sentences. It would also be reasonable to extract compensation, as Libya was forced to pay for Lockerbie, even though the case against Al Megrahi was flawed, as one judge exposed after the trial.26 There have been many terror attacks against Libya and other countries which need to be investigated. First should be into those who broke in to Heathrow on the morning of the Lockerbie flight and may have placed the unaccompanied bomb in a loading trolley. More serious would be action against Mossad who used a false transmitter called Trojan in the Tripoli HQ of Libyan Intelligence, giving out Israeli-generated signals that Libya was plotting to attack various targets including the Berlin discotheque and the airliner.27 The latest of their terror campaigns against Iran, apart from threats of nuclear attack, was their insertion of Israel‘s Stuxnet virus into the controls of the nuclear processing plant at Natanz. This could have caused a nuclear accident capable of devastating a whole region and would count as a crime against humanity. It has been suggested that the same device may have contributed to the melt-down of the Fukushima plant in Japan following the Tsunami.
26. Simons, G (2003) ‗Libya and the West, from Independence to Lockerbie‘ Centre for Libyan Studies, Oxford, I B Taurus, London W2 4BU 27. Ostrovski, V (1994) op.cit. Global Alliance 30 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
War Crimes against Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and 19 other countries since the World War II by the US and associates evince all the crimes of indiscriminate killing, use of illegal weaponry such as dU, phosphorus, dum-dum bullets and cluster bombs. They include mistreatment of occupied populations and Prisoners of War, as at Quilya, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. These will be investigated and brought to court via the UN when China and Russia have enough weight to bar the USA from vetoing the charges. The long list of Crimes Against Humanity by the USA and allies, again in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and many other countries, include massacre of civilians, poisoning of water supplies, deprivation of rights to life, interference in government and suppression of legitimate resistance. These should also be investigated by the ICC, again when it is independent enough. The fact that the major criminal parties, the US and Israel in these offences, have not signed up to the ICC does not obviate the purpose of prosecution, which is not only to try and arrest the perpetrators and high command but to discourage others and most importantly, to free the global community from the pervasive, terrifying threat of such unjustified campaigns. The most serious crime in international law, Genocide has also been committed against these same peoples in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan: they have been targeted as a nation and as groups within those nations with the deliberate intention of killing all or some members of those groups. The Zionists have long held the objective of wiping the Palestinians from their land despite the bloodshed to be expected.28 The UN/US siege of Iraq caused at least 450,000 infants deaths according to UNICEF, but when Mrs Albright was asked how she felt about the policy, she notoriously replied; ―We think the price is worth it‖ and continued it for a further seven years, thereby admitting ‗intent‘.29 It is also possible to argue that the merciless hunting and killing of Taliban ‗insurgents‘ is genocide of an ethnic or political group with intent to ‗wipe them out‘.
28. Simons, G (2006) ‗The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine‘ 29. Simons, G (2006) ‗The Scourging of Iraq‘ Faber Definition of Terrorism and Indictiment of State Terrorists / 31
7. Likely Success To achieve success it would be necessary to begin by taking action against the criminal hierarchy in various national courts in countries signed up to the Geneva Conventions. This began to show promise in the UK when Daniel Machover obtained warrants for the rest of a number of Israeli commanders such as Almog and even Zvipi Livni. It has now being made impossible for such arrests to be called for by citizens without approval of the Public Prosecutor. But it could be tried all over the world. The chance of persuading the ICC to act is not so high, as the criminal oligarchs seem to terrify judiciary as well as governments. One of its judges confessed to the Minority Rights Group in London that until it had indicted a few tin-pot dictators in places like the Rwanda and Yugoslavia it would not take cases against the UK or USA. It has no police force and depends on national forces to arrest and deliver suspects. It is also under the final arbitration of the UN Security Council, despite being nominally independent. The International Court of Justice could issue judgments, as it has done against Israel‘s illegal Apartheid Wall and squatters in Palestine. But it seems reluctant to enforce its judgments and has no police to do so. A UN Special Tribunal could call for arrest of suspects and issue judgments which can be enforced, as shown by the trials of Milosovic and other Serbian leaders. But the bias in these cases holds no hope for justice when it comes to the criminals in the USA, the UK, Israel and the rarefied world of the oligarchs.
8. The Implications The unfortunate consequence of not being able to obtain justice against the real terrorists in the top echelons of society is that the people become disillusioned with law and order and begin to take physical action to call attention to their plight, deprivation, repression and other complaints, as witnessed across the Arab world at present. If and when these insurrections spread to other parts of the Muslim community and then to the whole developing world we will be overwhelmed by a Global Global Alliance 32 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Revolution. This will serve nobody‘s interests unless it is carefully guided. It may even help the oligarchs who take opportunities to grab land, infrastructure and other assets while they are cheap and unpoliced during the chaos.
9. Future Scenarios A set of scenarios is needed to characterize the future options. These would heighten awareness of the global predicament and the consequence if nothing or not enough is done to avoid a revolution or to arrest the underlying causes. Doing nothing plays into the hands of the super-state terrorists who will get away with murder and pillage on a global scale, extrapolating from past performance. Scenarios also provide a positive vision to aim for If the free world can unite against the hegemony and the new leaders are not sabotaged in the process, there could be hope, especially if the legal systems can be persuaded to arrest the culprits. Another possibility is that the ‗SSTs‘ (super-state terrorists) will terrorize, murder and pillage each other‘s estates as their greed and power drive them to ever more avaricious goals. The media could help to graphically portray what may happen but it is already largely syndicated to the oligarchy. Notable exceptions are Presstv, China‘s CCTV and Russia‘s RT, but they do not reach the minds of the majority in the west. The internet could fill this gap. Is there a Diplomatic route to resolving this predicament? Delegations of the wise and influential to government committees and politicians, armed with these scenarios and how they would damage the interests of even the most powerful might help for a limited time. They need to be carefully planned, expeditely executed and aimed at the appropriate people. A more mature and historically inevitable way forward is to create a form of Global democracy. The idea of a World Constitution & Parliament was floated by Philip Isley in the 1980‘s and important representatives of over 100 countries signed the Constitution.30 But it was ambitious and needed
30. Isely, P et al. (1981) ‗Constitution for the Federation of Earth‘ World Constitution & Parliament Assoc. Delaware. Definition of Terrorism and Indictiment of State Terrorists / 33 considerable effort to move it forward and appears to have died with him. Even if and when eventually implemented it is likely to be commandeered by the oligarchs.
9. Conclusion Terrorism is a threat to peace. But it is the peace of the oligarchs which is usually aimed at. And it is the terror deployed by the oligarchs, via weapons of mass destruction, financial fraud, the defamation in the media, legal muscle and political bribery that is most deadly, destructive and dispiriting. This is what gives rise to individual suicide bombers. If the oligarchs cannot be brought to justice owing to their very control over the judiciary, governments, finance and the media the rest of the world may resort first, to non-cooperation with the terrorist states and oligarchs, using the same language they, in the Security Council, quote from Chapters VI & VII of the UN Charter: If peaceful measures fail, is it fair to move to revolutionary pressure (‗all necessary means‘) for equilibrium? Preferably a negotiated settlement could be engineered. But there is as yet no arbitration council competent to enforce it. Would a World Constitution and Parliament help or would that, too, be hi-jacked by the oligarchs? Probably, but it is surely a necessary step in human evolution to a stable global community? Planning alternative courses under a range of evaluated scenarios is an essential first step against such a well-planned and ruthless hegemonic dictatorship of super-state terrorists.
Global Alliance 34 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Terrorism, Perception, and Jusice / 35
Terrorism, Perception, and Justice Imam Mohammad al-„Asi
Terrorism is a word used by state coalitions, by states, sub-state actors and even individuals to rationalize acts of violence or to respond to acts of violence. Each of these entities may have its own definition of the word ―terrorism‖. Many interests have undertaken their own wording of what the word terrorism means. The following is a sample of terrorism definitions. Terrorism: 1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. A terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.1 Terrorism: Coercive and violent behavior undertaken to achieve or promote a particular political objective or cause, often involving the overthrow of established order. Terrorist activity is designed to induce fear through its indiscriminate, arbitrary, and unpredictable acts of violence, often against members of the population at large. It may be ‗official‘, as under Stalin, or ‗unofficial‘, as employed by various opposition or underground movements. Such movements are usually minority groups (such as the IRA) who feel there are no other means available to them of achieving their objectives. Terrorism may be confined to a specific territory or may have an international dimension, manifest in hijackings and hostage-taking.2 Terrorism: Actions undertaken by governments, individuals, or groups using violence or threats of violence for political purposes. International
Imam of the Islamic venter in Washington. 1. Webster‘s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, Random House, 1996. p. 1960. 2. The Cambridge Encyclopedia, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p. 1094.
Global Alliance 36 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace terrorism has included aircraft hijackings, political kidnappings, assassinations, bombing, arson, sabotage, and the holding of hostages. Most terrorism is practiced by groups representing extremist political parties or positions. Typically, terrorism of the Left is aimed at promoting revolution against the established order, and terrorism of the Right is used to preserve and protect a privileged group or class.3 A somewhat longer definition of terrorism follows, and we thought it may serve a transition definition into the core material of this paper. Terrorism: There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. In the United States, three official definitions exists. According to the U.S. Defense Department: ―Terrorism is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies as to the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological.‖ According to the [U.S.] State Department: ―Terrorism is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.‖ Finally, according to the [U.S.] Justice Department: ―Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.‖ None of these matches the definition used by the British government in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2000: ―The use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause of action which involves serious violence against any person or property, endangers the life of any person or creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public.‖ The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act, 2001, has two separate definitions of terrorism, both of them overlong and complicated. Since terrorism is an international phenomenon, a globally
3. The American Political Dictionary, Jack C. Plano, Milton Greenberg, 8th Edition, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1989, p. 512. Terrorism, Perception, and Jusice / 37 accepted definition is essential. In the absence of it, the debate about the relationship, if any, between terrorism and resistance to military or colonial occupation remains unresolved. While the list of twenty-two terrorist groups published by Washington in November 2001 included Lebanon‘s Hizbullah, thus resulting in its assets being frozen in the U.S., Lebanon refused to follow America‘s lead, arguing that it distinguished between those organizations that practiced terrorism and those that sought to liberate their occupied countries or territories by all means Another important factor in this case was whether a particular terrorist faction had a global reach — an essential prerequisite used by America to make its list of banned organizations. In the view of the Lebanese government, Hizbullah lacked a global reach. Not an ideology like fascism, capitalism, socialism, or Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism is a method that is open for deployment not only by individuals or groups, but also by governments. Indeed the term entered political vocabulary two centuries ago as part of the ―Reign of Terror‖ or just ―The Terror‖ (1793-94), unleashed by the government of the Republic of France, established a year earlier by the French revolutionaries, when some 12,000 people were executed as counter- revolutionaries. In the Middle East the most dramatic example of sate terrorism was in Syria. To crush the Islamist-inspired insurrection in Hama, in February 1982 the government deployed thousands of troops to quell it. Before order was restored, between 5,000 and 10,000 people, including 1,000 soldiers, lay dead, and a quarter of the historic old city was razed. And the bombing of King David Hotel in Jerusalem by Irgun, led by Menachem Begin, in April 1946, which killed ninety-six civilians, including fifteen Jews, was the first massive terrorist political act of its kind in the Middle East of recent times.4 What this writer has observed is that the acts of violence that are committed by the majority non-state entities are correlated with an absence of institutionalized and inclusive state sponsored justice. The
4. The Essential Middle East, Dilip Hiro, Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York, 2003, p. 518-19.
Global Alliance 38 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace world has many forms of political administrations, many governmental ideological orientations, and many national-interest based regimes. These ruling classes leave out of their decision making processes certain components of their populations. This systemic and ongoing exclusion of population segments from the decision making process breeds a sense of alienation, discrimination, which sooner or later turn into economic dispossession and political bitterness. Having no channels for redress these marginalized segments of the population usually turn to acts of violence to recapture their social standing as well as their self- determination. On the other hand, we have governments and militaries that sit at the pinnacle or power in their own countries. They have a ―system‖ running for them. And many times they do not care whether that system is just and equitable or not. This premeditated officialdom that is unconcerned with its own citizens well-being and political participation but rather with its money-making status quo begins to use violence and to rationalize the use of violence to preserve that lucrative status-quo. That use of violence reaches proportions of terror and terrorism. Therefore, we have state terrorism, and we have plenty of it . But you would not be able to easily ascertain this fact simply because the mainstream media have decided to concentrate on terror from ―below‖ rather than terror from ―above‖. By that I mean that the use of force by poor and dispossessed people who usually are left with no other choice and which is usually justifiable are branded as outlaws and terrorists by the mass media. In stark contrast to that, the state apparatus that has the overwhelming concentration of weapons of death and destruction and who, usually without justification, use that disproportionate force against very vulnerable citizens go, by and large, unnoticed by the same mass media. The United Nations has never been able to define terrorism, though several times the world organization has condemned it in the abstract or specific acts of it. The explanation for this should not be sought in the predisposition of diplomats for meticulous precision. They are forced to Terrorism, Perception, and Jusice / 39 operate in that murky realm that mixes semantics with politics, and politics has dominion. Diplomats on any given side of an issue are forced to promote certain political agendas, and, to reiterate the well-known saying: one man‘s terrorist is another man‘s freedom fighter. The anti- colonial third world exempted guerrillas fighting for independence from this denomination. The United Nations did recognize the legitimacy of liberation movements fighting for independence, but that still leaves open the question of how the fight was carried on. Washington either excused infractions committed by those third world governments it supported, or labeled them ―violations of human rights‖ rather than the more abusive term, terrorism. A definition of terrorism has become critical since Washington has become engaged in ―the war on terrorism.‖ The question has become: just what is it that we are fighting against? The General Assembly and the Security Council dutifully condemned the attacks of September 11th, and this time the Security Council ordered the members of the world organization to report on the actions they are taking to combat terrorism. One hundred and seventeen responses were received, and the chairperson of the Council‘s counter terrorism committee stated that ―an extremely good start‖ had been made. However, human rights groups warned of the dangers of a battle where there is no definition of the enemy. Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, charged that what has been done in some countries is to use the international duty to act against terrorism as an excuse to suppress the legitimate expression of grievances and to justify the oppression of minorities.5 Due to the disproportionate influence of the government of the United States in world affairs and its incessant interference foreign policy the word, the definition, and the concept of terrorism has been utilized to pursue with deadly force and with terrorism itself those who it has deemed terrorists and terror organizations. The attacks of September 11, 2001 breathed a new life into US policies against those it, unilaterally or
5. State Terrorism and the United States From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism, Frederick H. Gareau, Clarity Press Inc, Atlanta, 2004, pp 12-13.
Global Alliance 40 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace in conjunction with hyper-powers, defines as terrorists. In the weeks immediately after 9/11 the US government went into an official equating of terrorism with Islam — even though there is no policy statement that puts such US actions into words. What came into vogue was a ―war on terrorism‖. The geographical region of this ―war on terrorism‖ became the Islamic East and its surrounding areas. The Islamic East‘s immediate historical background: the zionist occupation of Palestine, the 1948 war, the Suez Crisis of 1956, the Israeli war of aggression in 1967, the 1973 war, the Camp David Accords, the Israeli-zionist invasion of Lebanon (1982), the First Palestinian Intifadah, the so-called Peacemaking and shuttle diplomacy of confidence building between Arabs and Israelis in the late 1980's and throughout the 90's, the Second Palestinian Intifadah – all of these now were to be offset by the American administration‘s war on terrorism. ―The American people themselves have become victims of this American government‘s war on terrorism. Six weeks after 9/11, Bush‘s Justice Department wrote up a long memo with the subject line: ―Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.‖ The whole concept basically shreds the American Bill of Rights.6
6. Bill of Rights: The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Bills of rights, sometimes called declarations of rights, are also found in all state constitutions. They contain a listing of the rights a person enjoys that cannot be infringed upon by the government. Many important rights, such as trial by jury and the guarantee of habeas corpus, are stated in other parts of the United States Constitution. All bills of rights contain provisions designed to protect the freedom of expression, the rights of property, and the rights of persons accused of crime. No rights are absolute, however, and all are subject to reasonable regulation through law. Bills of rights are restrictions on government rather than on individuals or private groups. History teaches that unchecked governmental powers can lead to the decay of freedom. A bill of rights provides the legal mechanism through which the individual can challenge the oppressive acts of governmental officials in courts of law. Without guarantees for individual freedom, democracy would become meaningless and unworkable. Some state bills of rights antedate the federal Bill of Rights. The federal Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as a condition for its ratification, on the insistence of people who feared a strong central government. Although these rights were intended to restrain only the national government, since 1925 the Supreme Court has gradually extended them as Terrorism, Perception, and Jusice / 41
In short, ―legal and constitutional rules regulating law enforcement activity are not applicable.‖ The [US] military could even ―attack civilian targets, such as apartment buildings, offices, or ships where suspected terrorists were thought to be.‖ And later, ―First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.‖ All they‘ve got to do is say the word and they can put you under surveillance without a warrant. To me, this smacks of an attack on the foundations of democracy that plays right into the hands of terrorists. It also sets a precedent for the kinds of tactics we went on to see at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere.‖7 As is obvious, there is no universal or consensual definition for terrorism. What can be said, though, is that the absence of justice spawns terrorism. And the more pronounced the absence of justice is the more violent the terrorist response becomes. In between the absence of justice buildup and the terrorist reaction there is a time interval which is measured by variables pertinent to each issue or case. One important remark about the marketing of the terrorist label is the element of power and predominance. The more a particular group or regime has power and clout the more it is in control of public perception pertaining to terrorism. If we were to strip the mass media of its power connections and manipulations we would come to understand that the magnitude of terrorism is proportionate to the power its perpetrator possesses. Looked at from another angle, the fostering of injustice is much more a responsibility of people in power than it is of people without power. And injustice is the root cause of terrorism. Keeping that in mind, we can scan the information and the propaganda about terrorism that circulates in the public media almost everywhere and eventually wind up perceiving of ―reactionary terrorists‖ as much more lethal than ―proactionary terrorists‖. Almost everyone who consumes the main
restraints upon state action through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 7. 63 Documents The Government Doesn‘t Want You to Read, Jesse Ventura with Dick Russell, Skyhorse Publishing, 2011, p. 250.
Global Alliance 42 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace stream media‘s take on terrorism is convinced or just-about-convinced that such groups as Hamas, Hizbullah, the Muslim Brotherhood are terrorist organizations; not to mention other sub-state entities that stand up for fairness, equity, and social justice around the world. It does not occur to the average consumer of information in the main-stream media that such state actors as the USA and Israel qualify as mega-terrorists in today‘s world. The US is an incubator of personnel and a sponsor of officials who are responsible for the very conditions that breed terrorism and then these personnel put into practice the terrorism of the state. We shall take one example that verifies the above – The School of the Americas. ―The Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano has written about the School of the Americas, now renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. He writes that in the United States, ―military nurseries [have] been growing specialists in the violations of human rights.‖8 It seems that if the United States was really interested in shutting down terrorist training camps, it could start much closer to home in Fort Benning, Georgia. Yes, we live in an age of irony. There was the Stone Age, and now there is the Age of Irony. The government says it is determined to close terrorist camps, yet here in the United States the School of the Americas has trained people who have engaged in terrorism, trained people who then became organizers of death squads in Central America. If you put up photos of the graduating classes of the School of the Americas on the wall, you wold have a rogues‘ gallery of terrorism. I think of the El Salvadoran death squad leader Roberto D‘Aubuisson; of the graduates who took part in the massacre of 811 people in El Mozote in December 1981; of the many generals and dictators who went through the School of the Americas. In fact, some of the manuals used in the
8. Upside Down: A Primer for the Looking-Glass World, Eduardo Galeano, trans. Mark Fried (New York: Picador USA, 2001, 195. Terrorism, Perception, and Jusice / 43
School of the Americas give advice on how to carry out what amount to terrorists acts.9 You know, the Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega went to the School of the Americas and then became an employee of the CIA; but then suddenly he becomes an enemy and a terrorist, so we go to war to capture him. But we probably won‘t go to war to capture Kissinger anytime soon. The United States has consistently opposed the creation of an international war crimes tribunal because it could be used against people in the U.S. government and military. They are very explicit about it. In effect, the government is saying: ―Yes, we have people who have committed war crimes, but an American by definition cannot commit a war crime. In fact, Kissinger wrote recently that the proposal to create an international court is a bad idea.10 Well, naturally it‘s a bad idea, because he would be one of the first people who would be up there on the witness stand trying to explain his support for death squads and repressive governments in Latin America, war crimes in Southeast Asia, and the apartheid South African government.11 Don‘t believe what is said in the mainstream media about political freedoms in the USA. By the year 2002, 71 demonstrators had served a total of 40 years of jail time for protesting in front of the School of the Americas.12
9. SOA Watch (www.soaw.org); Frida Berrigan, ―Beyond the School of the Americas: U.S. Military Training Programs Here and Abroad,‖ Arms Trade Research Center, World Policy Institute, May 2000; Dana Priest, ―U.S. Instructed Latins on Executions, Torture; Manuals Used 1982-91, Pentagon Reveals,‖ Washington Post, 21 September 1996, AI; Tina Rosenberg, ―Another Hallowed Terror Ground,‖ New York Times Magazine, 13 January 2002, 6: 26. 10. ―The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction,‖, Henry A. Kissinger, Foreign Affairs 80, no. 4 (July/August 2001): 86. 11. Terrorism and War, Howard Zinn, Seven Stories Press, New York, 2002, pp 54-56. 12.State Terrorism and the United States From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism, Frederick H. Gareau, Clarity Press Inc, Atlant, 2004, p 22.
Global Alliance 44 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Ten of the graduates of the school became the president/dictators of their countries, 23 became ministers of defense.13 UN Report: The School of the Americas has graduated over 500 of the worst human rights abusers in the hemisphere.14 From Latin American to the Islamic East, Washington has a record – a bloody record – for equipping and financing regimes that deny justice to their citizens and therefore beget terrorism at both ends of the spectrum: the rulers and the ruled. In 1957 Washington helped the Shah create SAVAK, the notorious Iranian secret police. The Ba‘thists came to power with the help of the CIA. The agency provided lists of communists whom the party then hunted down, tortured, and killed. Saddam Husein was referred to as ―Our S.O.B.‖ The U.S. approved 241 dual-use exports to Iraq, among the precision machine tools to be used on SCUD missiles, computers for chemical weapons production, and bacterial and fungus cultures. The Reagan administration became a co-belligerent with Saddam later in the Iran-Iraq war. The US government looked the other way after providing to the Iraqi Ba‗thi government weapons of mass destruction to be used against Islamic Iran and the Kurds. Washington has a long record of complicity in Israeli state terrorism. The past seven decades have been an on-going Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. The purpose of the Deir Yasin massacre was to strike terror into the surrounding Palestinian population so that they would leave to make room for ‗returning Jewish immigrants! And Washington fiddles its fingers! Washington has a hand in the Israeli development of nuclear bombs. Washington has been financing Israeli state and vigilante terrorism to the tune of well over [the official] three billion US dollars a year.
13. Ibid, p 23. 14. Ibid. p 24. Terrorism, Perception, and Jusice / 45
The Bush administration has openly declared that aggression is the national policy of the United States; and Obama has become the caretaker of that policy. The Bush administration projected unto world public opinion a dangerous new world, and Obama has fueled that danger. The US has been upgrading its war making capacity in a manner that is blind to any principles of justice at home and abroad. No consideration has been given to US negotiation of solutions, discontinuation of policies that generate or increase the enemy‘s anger and hatred, or adoption of new policies that would decrease their numbers and help prevent the creation of new crops of terrorists. We are conditioned by the barrage of public information, carefully engineered by editors and columnists, to think of terrorism as ‗the weapon of the weak‘. Very few of us have the mental courage to take the definition of terrorism into the bully‘s turf. We are systematically conditioned to think of retail terrorism, never to think of wholesale terrorism. We take this whole issue of terrorism and its definitions into the imperialist and zionist terrain and accuse the racist and capitalist regimes in Tel Aviv and Washington of being terrorist regimes. They, together, are accountable – along with their client regimes in the Islamic East – for inflicting terror and pursuing terrorist policies against populations in their hundreds of millions from Africa to Asia and throughout the southern hemisphere of the world. Is it not the absence of domestic justice and the activation of imperialist and zionist terrorist policies that has cost the people of ‗Iraq over one million ‗Iraqis dead, almost one million ‗Iraqi widows, and around four million ‗Iraqi orphans. There is an estimated one million ‗Iraqis who are internally displaced and over one million ‗Iraqis who have fled their homeland – living as refugees, scattered around the world. Is not ‗Iraq because of American policies a horror house of terror? The math is easy when comparing ‗Iraq with the United States. Had the same terror policies been applied to the United States we would have over ten million dead Americans, almost ten million American widows, forty million American orphans, around ten million Americans internally
Global Alliance 46 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace displaced, and over ten million Americans forced out of their own country... Tell me! Had this magnitude of a tragedy happened in the United States, would not the perpetrator of it be called a terrorist? Afghanistan is yet another extensive and sweeping illustration of mega- terrorism. The zionist Israeli nation-state stands accused of systematic and calculated terrorism against the Palestinian people. Over 300,000 Palestinians have been killed in the course of Israeli occupation of Palestine. No family in Palestine has been spared the terror of Israeli policies and designs. After all this, a question lingers on; how shall the world community be spared the ugly and the bloody bouts of terrorism? The answer to that is simple. The antidote to terrorism is justice. But, then, how do we bring about the necessary justice to rid our societies of terrorism? There are many definitions of justice itself, and we relieve ourselves here of counting and discussing these definitions. To put it in a few words, justice or social justice can only be defined in an objective way went it issues from the divine. A race‘s definition of justice is race centered, doing injustice to the ―other‖ race(s). A national definition of justice is nation focused, doing injustice to the ―other‖ nationality. An ethnic definition of justice is ethnicity specific, doing injustice to those who are not of that particular ethnic stock. A class definition of justice is class obsessed, thus doing injustice to ―other‖ classes... etc... So a definition of justice would have to come from outside the human condition to be fair to all. And this can only mean that we will have to look for this justice in the Divine Writ that has come to us from our Maker and our Creator who is fair to all – regardless of race, ethnic origin, nationality, gender, class, etc... How longer do we humans have to suffer from injustice, crimes against humanity, genocide, terrorism, and the oppression of materialist powers? I say the following not because I am a guest in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I say it because it is the truth. The Islamic Republic of Iran and its Terrorism, Perception, and Jusice / 47 steadfast leadership has broken new grounds in giving the region and the world a practical demonstration of what it means to be independent of superpowers and terror-powers that have poisoned human relations. It was not an easy step forward. The people in Islamic Iran have endured wars – hot and cold – but have persevered. The tenets of justice have taken root in this model for humanity. In the coming generation, the fruits of this pioneering Islamic leadership will become available for all who look forward to a world of harmony and mutual coexistence. We do not say that the society in Iran is living in a utopia; no it is not. But it has done its homework and if it persists it will be able to show the rest of the world what social justice means. In this regard, the Islamic order in Iran — with all its difficulties and challenges — is a generation or two ahead of others. Our presence here is a building block that aims to move this whole notion of social justice forward. By breaking new perceptual grounds we will have contributed our bit to a better tomorrow – a world that is free of terrorism and a new world order that is living in peace by the imprimatur of justice. We honor the martyrs who gave their lives to make our presence here possible. We salute the leadership of the Islamic Republic for its selflessness and dedication throughout the past three decades of external and internal challenges. And we greet the sponsors of this Conference who took it upon themselves to convene such a Conference when the world stands at a critical crossroad. And may the peace and justice of heaven become the peace and justice of earth.
Global Alliance 48 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Jihad and Terrorism: A War of the Words / 49
Jihad and Terrorism: A War of the Words Moazzam Begg ―Do not oppress and do not be oppressed. The Noble Quran During my years of incarceration at Bagram and Guantánamo Bay, I was interrogated well over 300 times. One of those interrogations, by the CIA, in my third year of US captivity, I still recall with a sense of amusement. The agent insisted on repeating the word 'terrorist' when referring to me. Nothing new, I thought. Then, he used an Algebraic equation in a rather puerile way in order to get me to cooperate. ―Your situation is X+Y=Z,‖ he said as he wrote out his findings. ―'X' is you, 'Y' is your non- cooperation and 'Z' is terrorist – a terrorist who will stay here for a very long time. After three years of this sort of thing, I was no longer intimidated by the US military or the alphabet agencies. I replied by telling him that Algebra was an Arabic word that clearly struck terror into the hearts of people in the West – and the East for that matter (at least if you were a teenager studying trigonometry). But I also told him Algebra wasn't the only Arabic word that frightened the West, and he knew it. There are hundreds of English words that have etymological roots in the Arabic language. Most of them are taken for granted and attract little
Moazzam Begg is one of nine British citizens who were held at Camp X-Ray, Guantánamo Bay by the government of the United States of America. Moazzam has authored numerous pieces that have appeared in major broadsheets around the world – and regularly writes for the Guardian Comment is Free – and, has written an award-winning book detailing life as a Muslim living in the UK and his further experiences in Guantánamo. Enemy Combatant is the first book to be published by a former Guantánamo Bay prisoner – which has been translated into several languages. He is also featured in a number of award-winning documentary films including, Al-Jazeera's Prisoner 345, Taking Liberties, Torturing Democracy, National Geographic's Guantanamo's Secrets and Taxi to the Dark Side which received an academy award (Oscar) in 2008. He is also a published poet and some of his poetry appears in the highly acclaimed anthology, Poems from Guantanamo which was launched with Amnesty International alongside poet laureate Andrew Motion.
Global Alliance 50 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace controversy when used by ordinary English-speaking people. For example, "Arabic numerals" revolutionised and replaced cumbersome Roman ones; the words alkali, chemistry, arsenal, cipher, admiral, magazine, sherbet, syrup, tariff, zenith, algorithm and even checkmate are but a few that hark back to an Islamic and Arabic past that helped civilise the world . A few words were regarded with a simultaneous sense of repulsion and admiration – of the exotic and mysterious, like assassin, Saracen and harem‟.1 But there is an Arabic word used in the English language today that provokes more confusion, suspicion, hostility and fear than all others: jihad. And the time has come for Muslims to reclaim it. The word jihad comes from the root verb jahada which linguistically means "to struggle". The Arabic lexicon describes jihad as 'making the utmost effort to attain something beloved or to save oneself from something disliked.' It is from this literal interpretation that many Muslims – and non-Muslims – erroneously limit the concept of jihad solely to internal, spiritual struggle. Whilst recognising the importance of the spiritual jihad – the jihad of the nafs (self) – there is a critical danger in applying literal interpretations to words that have widely accepted meanings according to the consensus (ijma)of Islamic teachings and jurisprudence (shar‟i meanings). This approach does little to address the very real problems that issue from deliberate mistranslations and misconstructions of Arabic words and concepts - against which Islam is not immune.2 The five daily prayers in Islam are referred to in their singular form as salaah. There is no dispute in this matter and anyone attempting to restrict the practice of prayer to the linguistic definition, which simply means
1. Al-Mawrid: A Modern English-Arabic Dictionary (1992) by Munir al-Ba‗albeki 2. There is a common misconception espoused by many Muslims today that Islam means peace. It does not. Islam means 'submission'. Salaam means 'peace'. Also, according to the post-prayer supplication Muslims say daily, Allah is peace: 'Oh Allah! You are peace and peace comes from you …' Sahih Muslim. When greeting each other Muslims say, 'as-salaamu alaikum' (peace be upon you) and not ‗Islam alaikum‘ (submission be upon you) Jihad and Terrorism: A War of the Words / 51
'connection', would be guilty of heresy. Likewise, a similar reinterpretation of the Islamic obligation of zakaah – a tax Muslims are required to pay that assists the poor, beggars, tax-collectors, orphans, travellers, recent converts to Islam, prisoners and even the mujahideen – to its linguistic meaning, "purification", would also be entirely rejected. Those who engage in jihad are called mujahideen and those killed doing it are called shuhadaa (martyrs) who have obtained a rank unparalleled in the hierarchy of the Hereafter.3 It would seem absurd for people who interpret jihad as "the daily struggle of life" to call themselves "mujahideen" in life and "martyrs" subsequently in death [by natural causes]. The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes jihad as a 'religious war of Muslims against unbelievers; campaigns for or against a doctrine.' Indeed jihad is commonly described in the West as 'holy war.' But holy war in Arabic would be Harb al-Muqadassah and this phrase is simply not found in the Quran or the Sunnah (the Prophetic way of life) which are the best (and only, from an Islamic perspective) sources to understanding the concept of jihad – or any other Islamic teachings – even if the cumulative evidence does point clearly to the concept of jihad as primarily one of physical struggle and warfare. Jihad and Qitaal (fighting) are mentioned collectively over one hundred times in the Quran. Both appear often with the words fee sabeel lillah (in the path of Allah). The subject of jihad is addressed in great detail throughout the Quran; some very large chapters deal almost exclusively with the topic. All the authentic books of ahaadith (Prophetic sayings and actions) contain hundreds of chapters under the title of jihad. This is also true regarding hundreds of general books of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) as well as those written exclusively about jihad. The chapters in these books refer to the issues surrounding the physical jihad: virtues, exhortations, preparation, rules of engagement, war booty, supplications upon meeting the enemy, burial rites for martyrs and immense rewards in
3. The Noble Quran, Surah al-Baqarah (1:54) And say not of those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, ―They are dead.‖ Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not.
Global Alliance 52 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace the metaphysical world. All of this is in contrast to any peripheral discussion of the jihad of the nafs (self) which some have argued erroneously is the greater jihad.4 And, although there are many reports of women like Safiyyah bint Abdul-Muttalib, Nusaybah bint Ka'b, and Khawla bint Azwar directly fighting in battles – apart from their normal accompaniment of the men and nursing the wounded during battle – the jihad prescribed for women and the elderly was the Hajj (obligatory pilgrimage to Makkah)5 Islamic scholars have classified jihad into many categories, but they can generally be summed up into four: (1) Jihad of the nafs (self), (2) jihad against the shaytan (devil) [desires], (3) jihad against unbelievers and hypocrites and (4) jihad against oppressors and evil-doers. Thus, limiting jihad to any singular interpretation would be incorrect. The best approach is in recognising that the varying levels complement rather than contradict one another. Even the physical jihad can be waged by the heart and tongue,6 as well as through wealth and actions. The hadith of the Messenger: 'The mujahid is the one who strives against his own soul,' does not negate or contradict other ahadith [plural of Hadith] that mention jihad as 'the peak of the matter'7or as a deed that is unmatched in reward.8
4. Al-Bayhaqi relates when the Prophet returned from the battle of Badr he said: 'We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad'. However, this hadith is a da‘eef (weak) according to al-Iraaqee. Ibn Hajar says in 'Kashf al-Khafaa' that this is not a saying of the Prophet but rather a tab‗iee (from a later generation). Ibn Taymiyyah says: "this hadith has no source and nobody in the field of Islamic knowledge has narrated it" [al-Furqan]. See also Manaar as-Subl by Ibn al-Qayyimal-Jawziyyah. 5. Narrated by 'Aisha: 'I said, ―O Allah's Apostle! We consider Jihad as the best deed.‖ The Prophet said, ―The best jihad (for women) is Hajj Mabrur. ‗ Sahih al-Bukhari. 6. The Prophet said: 'The best jihad is to say a word of truth in front of an oppressive ruler.' Ahmed and Ibn Maajah. Also, 'The master of martyrs is Hamza bin Abdul- Muttalib, and, a man who stood up to an oppressive ruler where he ordered him and forbade him so he (the ruler) killed him.' Sunan Abu Dawood. 7. The topmost issue is Islam and its [central] pillar is the prayer and the peak of the matter is jihad in the way of Allah‗ reported by Ahmed and Tirmidhi. 8. When asked by someone as to who was the best of people, the Messenger replied: 'A believer who performs jihad with his life and wealth.' Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also in al- Bukhari, when asked by someone to describe a deed equal to jihad in merit the Prophet replied: 'I do not find such a deed.' Jihad and Terrorism: A War of the Words / 53
Jihad was even described by the Messenger of Allah as 'monasticism' (abandonment of worldly affairs) – the ultimate jihad of the self: 'Every nation has its monasticism and the monasticism of this nation is jihad.'9 However, the Quran also describes both jihad and qitaal as a transaction for which the ultimate prize is achieved by paying the ultimate price: Indeed Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their wealth in return for Paradise. They fight in the Way of Allah, they kill and are killed…10 And: O you who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a grievous torment? That you believe in Allah and His Messenger and you perform jihad in the way of Allah with your wealth and your lives…11 According to the consensus of the Islamic schools of thought (mathaahib), jihad (with wealth and in person, in the military sense) becomes an individual obligation, like prayer and fasting, on Muslim men and women when their land is occupied by foreign enemies or when an invasion is imminent. That obligation extends to neighbouring Muslim peoples until the enemy has been expelled. If the whole body of believers abandon it, they are in a state of major sin; if enough of them do it to complete the task, they are absolved.12 Jihad using wealth is also obligatory in securing the release of Muslim prisoners. Imam Malik said: 'If a Muslim is held as a prisoner of war…it is obligatory on others to secure his release, even if it requires all the Muslims wealth.'13 Some scholars even argue that had jihad been emphatically prohibited in Islam, it would become permissible by necessity when Muslims lands are invaded, in the way that pork becomes permissible for the Muslim if there is nothing else to eat.
9. Al-Mu‘jam by At-Tabaraani 10. The Noble Quran, Surah at-Tawbah (9:111) 11. The Noble Quran, Surah as-Saff, (61:10-11) 12. Kitabul Jihad by Imam Hasan al-Banna 13. Tafseer al-Qurtubi
Global Alliance 54 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
The order permitting the nascent community of believers who had migrated to Madinah after facing persecution in their native Makkah came shortly after the fledgling Islamic state had been established and primarily so that the beleaguered Muslims could act in their own defence: To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to defend themselves), because they are wronged - and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory - (they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right - (for no cause) except that they say, “Our Lord is Allah....”14 Later, as the community grew and the threats to it as well, dire warnings were issued for Muslims who abandon jihad: If you do not march forth Allah will chastise you grievously and will replace you with another people, while you will be in no way able to harm Him. Allah has power over everything15 and in the Prophetic hadith: 'A nation does not abandon jihad except that it is humiliated.' 16 The Quran lays out an unbridgeable difference between those who remain behind without a valid excuse and those who continually engage in jihad: Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and are not hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in faith) has Allah promised good: but for those who strive and fight has He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.17 Historically speaking though, whenever the Quran calls for aiding the oppressed, as in the following verse: And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You
14. The Noble Quran, Surah al-Hajj (22:39-40) 15. The Noble Quran, Surah at-Tawbah (9:38) 16 . Al-Mu‘jam by At-Tabaraani. 17. The Noble Quran, Surah an-Nisaa (4:95) Jihad and Terrorism: A War of the Words / 55 one who will help”18 people have always obliged. Over time, that response has dwindled, but Prophet Muhammad said: 'There will not cease to be a group from my people, fighting upon the truth manifest over those who fight them…'19 Although in the West jihad is often seen as 'terrorism' it is correct to describe it as 'tourism'. The Prophet Muhammad ' said: 'The tourism of my nation is jihad.'20 This is one reason why many Muslims from thousands of miles away travelled to places as far and wide as Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, Iraq and Afghanistan. During the 1980s, the word 'mujahideen' became almost exclusively associated in the West with the fighters of Afghanistan resisting the Soviet Union's occupation of their land. This name was ennobled throughout Europe and America and, the rallying cry, under the banner of jihad, was endorsed by fataawa (religious edicts) from Islamic scholars as well as Western leaders and politicians.21 Even Hollywood waded in, lionizing 'the glorious mujahideen' with a dose of Sylvester Stallone in Rambo 3. A fact conveniently brushed aside today is that Afghan and Arab mujahideen units were brought over to the UK during the 1980s and given training by SAS (Special Air Services) commandos in the picturesque mountains of Snowdonia‗s National Park and the Scottish Highlands. Testimony from the instructors tells of how they found these mujahideen, often mountain-men themselves, so easy to teach. In fact, it was due to the British supplied 'Blowpipe' anti-aircraft missile system that the face of the war in Afghanistan changed. But not in the way which was intended.
18. The Noble Quran, Surah an-Nisaa (4:75) 19. Sunan Abu Dawood 20. Sunan Abu Dawood 21. In his magisterial discourse on jihad during the soviet occupation, Defence of the Muslim Lands, the charismatic scholar, Sheikh Abdullah Azzam resurrected the famous 13th century fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah which states: 'As for the aggressive enemy who destroys life and religion, nothing is more incumbent [upon the believer] after faith than his repulsion.' Al-Fatawaa al-Kubraa, Ibn Taymiyyah.
Global Alliance 56 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
The Mi 24 soviet helicopter gunship, nicknamed 'the Devil‗s Chariot', with its terrifying arsenal of mini-guns and rockets, wrought havoc upon the lightly defended mud-brick villages of the Afghans. They had very few anti-aircraft capabilities and that is why the British supplied them with 'Blowpipe' – which turned out to be highly ineffective. It is at this point that the US began sending clandestine supplies of heat-seeking Stinger anti-aircraft missiles which produced a kill-rate of 7:10. This became the catalyst in changing the face and direction of the war, the jihad, in Afghanistan.22 Of course, there was widespread international support for the Afghan, Arab and Muslim resistance fighters back then and they were not referred to derogatively as 'jihadists' (instead of mujahideen) who practiced 'jihadism' (instead of jihad) and 'Islamism' (instead of Islam). However, it can be argued that the mujahideen were not, as a practice, carrying out strikes against civilian targets in the West either. In the early days of Islam – and even before that – duels of strength would be fought between champion warriors of opposing forces in single combat. This was part of the test of manhood (rajoolah) encompassing individual skill and courage. The Messenger of Allah and his companions were renowned for their ferocity and steadfastness in battle against the enemy as much as they were for their mercy and magnanimity towards the vanquished. In one of the most celebrated duels ever recorded in Islamic history, during the Battle of the Trench, Ali, the Prophet's cousin, accepted the challenge to fight Amr 'the greatest warrior in Arabia'. After a long, harrowing duel between the two fighters, Ali managed to subdue his opponent. However, just as the final death-blow approached Amr spat in Ali's face. What Ali did next has resounded throughout Muslim history – both Shi‗ite and Sunni – as the quintessential example of selflessness, even if it is seldom practiced today. Ali rose calmly from Amr's chest, wiped his face, and said. ―Know, O Amr, I only kill in the way of Allah
22. See The Bear Trap: The Defeat of a Superpower by Mohammed Yousaf and Charlie Wilson‘s War: The Extraordinary Story of How the Wildest Man in Congress and a Rogue CIA Agent Changed the History of Our Times by George Crile Jihad and Terrorism: A War of the Words / 57 and not for any private motive. Since you spat in my face, my killing you now may be from a desire for personal vengeance. So I spare your life.23 There is no rajoolah or honour in killing unarmed civilians. One of the most revered personages in the Muslim world – after the Prophet Mohammed – is Salahuddin (Saladin) Al-Ayubi. Liberating Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the crusaders has earned him the respect and love of all Muslims. Even in these days of great trauma and turmoil, it is not unusual to hear Imams of mosques pray for the emergence of a modern Salahuddin. But it is the admiration the West has extended him that has truly set Salahuddin apart. His largesse towards his enemies is the stuff of legend and his chivalry was simply exemplary. His qualities of humility, piety, bravery, honour, integrity and generosity are what most Muslims still aspire to. His recapture of Jerusalem in 1187 was comparatively tame to the wanton bloodlust perpetrated by the crusaders in 1099. He even pardoned many of those who fought against him as well as freeing a huge number of captives, giving rights of free passage and worship to civilians. And yet, some non-Muslims who have been objective enough to challenge Western misconceptions of Islam have fallen into the trap of denial. In his impressive book about the life of Salahuddin, the historian Geoffrey Hindley writes astonishingly: 'In the twenty first century, this term jihad has powerful resonance in the Islamic world. Although the word is not found in the Quran, it was in use from a very early date.'24 Such flagrant errors only enhance the notion that there is insufficient desire and erudition in the West to really understand Islam.25 In the wake of the attacks on September 11 the US administration attempted to launch its 'war on terror' under the name of Operation Infinite Justice. However, the ill-advised Bush junior, referring to this
23. The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin Al-Waleed: His Life and Campaigns by Lieutenant- General A.I. Akram 24. Saladin: Hero of Islam by Geoffrey Hindley 25. The word jihad is mentioned either directly or referred to as a concept 164 times in the Quran.
Global Alliance 58 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace crusade soon realized how offensive it might sound to potential Muslim allies that the USA was now establishing itself on a par with the Divine. The rewording that followed was equally inapt. Operation Enduring Freedom demonstrated clearly how the Bush administration believed freedom was not a right that all human beings have from birth till death. Rather, it was something to be endured – at least if you happened to be a captive of US forces. It was more like Operation Ending Your Freedom‗for us and the thousands more who were later detained around the world. It began with a desire for justice, mutated into a wanton act of revenge and is now a war against a faith and the resources its people are gifted (or cursed) with. Muslims have learned the meaning of Bush's and Obama's American justice in Guantánamo, Bagram, Abu Ghuraib and the multitude of secret detention sites dotted around the world. The process of extraordinary rendition [kidnap, false imprisonment, torture]; religious, racial and sexual abuse; cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment are all designed to terrorise victims and have produced false confessions to justify more occupation of Muslim land. It is terrorism of the very worst kind, especially since it is carried out in the name of virtue. Inside the detention camps of Guantánamo – where the iguana is protected by law under the Endangered Species Act – 'the detained men have no human or legal rights. Everything afforded to them is a privilege', including toilet paper. Outside each of the camps there is plaque that reads Honor Bound to Defend Freedom. The stark irony lies in there being about as much honour in this as there is freedom. There was little honour too in the strikes against civilians which claimed 2,976 lives in the US, 191 in Spain and 52 in the UK. But at least we know these numbers because each individual counts. In stark contrast, thousands of tonnes of tomahawk missiles, hellfire rockets, cluster bombs, smart bombs, phosphorus bombs, vacuum bombs, 1500lb daisy- cutters and billions of rounds fired from machine guns and assault rifles have killed more people in Iraq and Afghanistan than anyone knows for sure. Estimates put the numbers at anything from 100,000 to 2 million. Jihad and Terrorism: A War of the Words / 59
The reason why there are no reliable figures in either country is because no one counts. Neither the killers, nor those killed. They are worth much less than collateral damage. They are not even numbers. They are nothing. If what happened on in the USA on September 11 – or anywhere else – is described correctly as terrorism‗ due to the deliberate taking of innocent life, then what do we call this? The word terrorism 'entered the English language in the late nineteenth century after the French revolution and the ensuing Reign of Terror' (or the [Great] Terror) gave birth to French democracy.26 However, since the notion of terrorism was first applied to a state rather than to an individuals or groups, it has been almost impossible to arrive at a single definition. Hence, there are over a hundred of them. The only common factor agreed upon is the inclusion of violence – or the threat of violence – to reach an objective. The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes the terrorist as 'one who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government or community.' It is not surprising that more recent definitions of terrorism, such as the one found in the American Heritage Dictionary, omit the inclusion of governments as potential candidates: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. It is not surprising too that Muslims have become angry and have even responded with actions rejected by Islam to unleash their outrage. However, if resisting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was jihad, if
26. The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes terrorism as: The systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. It [terrorism] has been used throughout history by political organizations of both the left and the right, by nationalist and ethnic groups, and by revolutionaries. Although usually thought of as a means of destabilizing or overthrowing existing political institutions, terror also has been employed by governments against their own people to suppress dissent; examples include the reigns of certain Roman emperors, the French Revolution (see Reign of Terror), Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Argentina during the "dirty war" of the 1970s.
Global Alliance 60 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace the repelling the massacres by the Serbs in Bosnia was jihad, then how can resisting the current occupation of these Muslims lands be anything else? Was jihad simply a tool that could be used and discarded according to interests? Clearly, some governments – past and present – acting to promote-self interest have not shied away from declaring their aims.27 The problem is that very few people care to distinguish between people who fight – or are willing to fight28 –. On 28 June, 1940, Nazi forces occupied the British Channel islands; the enemy was knocking at Britain's southern door. Whilst the bulk of British soldiers were engaged in operations around Europe, North Africa and the Far East, over 1.5 million men joined the Home Guard or Dad's Army as it affectionately became known. The contingency plan against a successful German occupation of Britain included the re-training of these men in guerrilla tactics. That training began in Osterley Park, London, where communist veterans of the Spanish civil war taught British volunteers how to make Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), Molotov cocktails, hand-grenades and how to sabotage and terrorise potential Nazi occupiers. The success of this training spread and several more camps were opened.29 Of course, the Nazis were defeated on their own soil but, they would have been in for a surprise had they landed in Britain. The Nazis would no doubt have been welcomed by the far-right in Britain – as they had been in many other countries – and would have labelled any
27. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.‗ Lord Palmerston, remarks in the House of Commons defending his foreign policy, March 1, 1848.— Hansard‘s Parliamentary Debates. 28. 28Counter-terrorism legislation passed since 2000 in the UK has criminalised engaging in, preparing to engage in, glorifying, supporting or simply researching jihad. Muslims have faced the full brunt of the law in this regard. Despite the apparent duplicity involved, one can invading forces abroad and those who choose to bring their fight to unarmed civilians who have little to do with it (and in many cases oppose the war too). To add, recent history shows how terrorism‗ has been closer to home than previously acknowledged – and it was sanctioned by the British government as a legitimate means of self-defence. 29. See The Home Guard by David Carroll Jihad and Terrorism: A War of the Words / 61
British resistance as terrorists‗ as they had the relatively small percentage of French who resisted the occupation. The irony lies in the fact that little is celebrated – especially in the US and UK – about the French contribution to the allied effort in World War II today, except the French résistance. Admittedly, there is sometimes a fine line between resistance and terrorism, and we often can‗t tell the difference – or make distinctions based not on principle but on how the language has been defined for us. The Arabic word irhaab is today used to describe terrorism. However, the usage of this word has altogether dissimilar roots and applications to its European counterpart. The Quran states: And prepare against them [the enemy] whatever you are able from power and from steeds of war [weapons and stratagems] in order to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy of Allah and your enemy…‗30 Although the striking of terror‗ referred to in this verse is sometimes incorrectly used by some Muslims to justify terrorism, it is clear according to both classical and contemporary Quranic exegesis that the reference is to an army preparing for battle. But even armies – Muslim or not – are not mobilised, supposedly, to threaten and terrorise civilian populations. Another Quranic verse sometimes misappropriated in the same way is: And if they transgress against you then transgress against them the way they transgress against you…31 to justify indiscriminate acts of violence against civilians as a justifiable retaliatory tactic of war, going beyond the 'collateral damage' argument. But the same verse ends with: And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear him making it clear that however brutal the enemy may be, Muslims are still required to do that which is conducive to fearing their Creator. The Quran states also: And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but
30. The Noble Quran: al-Anfaal (8:60) 31. The Noble Quran: al-Baqarah (1:194). An-Nahl (16:26) mentions: And if you punish, then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted [by their hands]. This derives from the Islamic principles of Qisaas (the Law of Equality) and requires further comment.
Global Alliance 62 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.32 Indiscriminate slaughter and rapine are not practices sanctioned by Islam. During the war – or jihad – in Bosnia in the 1990s, thousands of Muslim women were systematically raped by Serbian soldiers under the leadership of indicted war criminals Slobodan Milosovic, Radovan Karadic, and Ratko Mladic. In addition to this, hundreds of thousands of Bosnians were brutally killed and ethnically cleansed from their own homes. Subsequently, thousands of Muslims from around the world once again volunteered under the banner of jihad to come to the rescue of their beleaguered coreligionists. However, Islam forbids Muslims from reciprocating in kind regardless of the crimes perpetrated by the enemies of Muslims. Muslims would never contemplate setting up rape-camps for captured Serbian women – or any other women. It was after encountering the body of a non-Muslim woman killed in battle that the Prophet said: She is not one who would have fought.‗ He then said to one of companions: Catch up with Khalid [Ibn al-Waleed, the hardly be surprised at a government doing all it can to prevent people harming its interests within its own borders– including its military – and abroad, even if those interests are based around illegal, immoral and unwinnable wars. Foremost Muslim general] and tell him not to kill women, children and prisoners. 33 The Messenger was even more specific later, exhorting his soldiers not to target women, children, old people, clergy and unarmed villagers. He also emphatically forbade the use of fire to kill, mutilation of corpses, cutting down vegetation unnecessarily or torturing captured prisoners. At the battle of Uhud Abu Dujana, one of the foremost companions of the Prophet was entrusted with the honour of fighting with the Prophet‗s sword after promising to use it with it bravery. In the thick of the battle Abu Dujana encountered a woman of the enemy who was exhorting her army to kill Muslims. But the ferocious Abu Dujana held back his hand
32. The Noble Quran: at-Taubah (9:36) 33. Sunan Abu Dawood and Ahmed Jihad and Terrorism: A War of the Words / 63 saying, I respect the Prophet's sword too much to use it on a woman.‗34 The woman was in fact Hind bint Utbah (the wife of Abu Sufyan who was leading the Quraish army against the Muslims) and, at that point, an avowed enemy of Islam. Although jihad does seek to terrify those who are engaged in oppression, abuse and violation of the sanctity of Muslims (and those under their protection), ordinary, decent human beings should not have to fear it, even when their own governments have committed crimes in their names. The purpose of jihad is to protect – not oppress. Being just to the enemy might be the hardest jihad of the nafs but it is still incumbent upon Muslims. This notion couldn‗t be clearer than in the Quranic verse: O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allah.35 In conclusion, jihad is an inseparable component of Islam which embodies the very highest principles of faith, morality and rules of wartime engagement. It is the belief of Muslims that 'jihad is an „ibaadah (act of worship) that will continue until the Final Day.'36 But as it is waged, in all its forms, Muslims must neither allow their oppressors to overcome them nor to become their teachers in the process. In doing so, the concept of jihad in Islam can be reclaimed once again by the Muslims.
34. Seerat Ibn Hisham Vol. 2 35. The Noble Quran: al-Ma‗idah (5:7) 36. Sunan Abu Dawood
Global Alliance 64 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Terrorism as a Basis of Islamophobia and Confrontation with … / 65
Terrorism as a Basis for Islamophobia and Confrontation with the Muslim World Dr. Ebrahim Mottaqi
The Western countries need special discourse to confront Islamic world. In general, any kind of geopolitical, ideological or strategic confrontation needs to be based on a discourse. Following the Cold War, equating Islam with terrorism has marred reputation of Muslims in the United States and Europe. Realities on the ground prove that confrontation is the main purpose of that approach. This has been just a first step in political and strategic behavior of the West. Theorists have emphasized that to oppose political units war of credits should precede war of armies. This is the same as psychological warfare which represents organized efforts to mar credibility of the main players of the Islamic world. Existing evidence shows that terrorism is a symbol of political and security discourse. American neocons have, in parallel with European counterparts, turned terrorism into a new discourse which can be considered equal to Islamist groups. This approach has taken shape following the fall of the Soviet Union and has been then taken to European countries. Rightist groups in the West take a relatively uniform approach to Islamist groups and their main goal is to discredit Islam at international level. Theosophical debates aim to translate political and media concepts into social actions and hostile strategic conduct. Therefore, equating Muslims to terrorism can be an organized effort to minimize social protests against Western politicians.
Professor of International Relation at the University of Tehran.
Global Alliance 66 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
1. Depicting the Muslim world as the main enemy of the West The first step in confrontation with the Muslim world is to make it appear the main enemy. Various aspects of this process are evidence in Western media and the press. If Western citizens and elites are aware of a new enemy, they are sure to consider it as a security threat and blame all negative events on it. A poll conducted after explosions in Oklahoma City showed that negative attitude toward Muslims was rapidly soaring in the United States. This was a result of the strategy adopted by the Western media, press and strategists to making new enemies. At a time of widespread political, social and economic crises, this will be a good step to simplify problems. Western media name Islamic groups and countries as the main source of animosity. Muslims are thus unacceptable persons and sources of security threats. Repetition of this model and inactivity of the Muslim world in the face of an organized warfare launched by the Western media has further exacerbated the situation. Obama‘s executive order in January 2010 was an example of making the Muslim world look like an enemy.
2. Conflicting approaches to terrorism Several efforts have been made to get countries agreement on a clear definition of terrorism and its symbols. Different approaches to terrorism, however, have prevented this. A report in 1989 indicated that problems with defining terrorism were in place after relative détente between east and West. Similar efforts were made following 9/11 with no avail. Conflicting approaches to terrorism include the following:
A. Legendary approach to terrorism This kind of approach has been taken by countries which were historically influential, but which have lost that influence. Depending on legends may cause panic among officials who fight terrorism, but cannot draw support from people in whose name legendary acts of terrorism are committed. Legendary terrorism which revolves around a golden time in the past or a future utopia can overthrow the existing order with violence. However, Terrorism as a Basis of Islamophobia and Confrontation with … / 67 unlike Communion or rules of diplomacy it cannot introduce replacement rituals after violent takeover. Western countries are trying to make the world believe that Islamism is a nostalgic reaction to the Western world which has been continuously strengthening its foothold since the 16th century. The most important forces of legendary terrorism include eschatology and millenarianism. In other words, they think about emancipation, social change and violence as means of starting a new age. Some Western strategic analysts put much emphasis on communication aspects of globalization in explaining terrorism and linking it to the Muslim world. They have reached the conclusion that contemporary terrorism is not only the result, but part of the globalization movement. Unlike some theories of international relations, such violent reactions are an answer to interventionist role of mainly Western cultural currents.
B. Crisis of meaning and terrorism Postmodern approaches maintain that social and cultural components are the sole sources of meaning in the Third World and cause radicalization of spiritual groups. The former US Secretary of State William Rogers, however, announced in his address to the United Nations in 1972 that terrorist acts were totally unacceptable attacks on the international system which should be condemned throughout the world. The crisis of meaning is a result of most-modernism and post- structuralism which has its roots in cultural and identity models. To draw a clear line between terrorism and anti-terrorism is a special task for modern states. Schultz, a former American secretary of state, announced in 1985 that when ―they‖ reached an agreement on ―their‖ definition of terrorism, the distinction between terrorism and anti-terrorism would be evident. He said the United States understood the difference between terrorism and freedom fighting and have no difficulty in differentiating them.
Global Alliance 68 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
3. The Muslim world and terrorism in the US approach The United States has put restricting the political Islam on top of the political agenda of its intelligence agencies. Neoconservatives have played a prominent role in political developments of the United States. Although such plans as the Greater Middle East, promotion of democracy and military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were temporarily supported by other countries, unilateral approach taken by the American statesmen and disregard for international regulations both in political and military terms, increased the need for redefinition of the US national strategy. The approach taken by radical groups under the Republican presidents (2001-09) proves that confrontation with Islam as source of terrorism has increased and that trend has also continued under President Obama. Although the United States and big powers form a single front against Islam, this does not mean that cooperation with other powers is default option of US efforts. The current situation proves that the United States is no longer able to achieve its political and economic goals without assistance from other big powers. The United States‘ inefficiency in fighting terrorist groups has encouraged them to cooperate with such terrorist tendencies as Al-Qaeda and Taliban. They are now trying to sow discord in the Muslim world. To understand the viewpoints of rightist Christians toward the Islamist ideology, one should divide their reactions to before and after 9/11. In fact, September 11, 2001, marked a watershed in their approach to Islam. Rightwing Christians have been among the most important opponents of social rights for the African Americans in 1960s. They even assassinated Martin Luther King in the name of religion and Christianity. Following 9/11, the tone of their books and articles changed and emphasis was put on two points. Firstly, Islam is violent in nature and this has been proven on September 11. Secondly, and more importantly, the God introduced by Islam is different from the God of Christians and Jews. They try to pitch Islam against other religions, including Christianity and Judaism. They have leveled charges against Muslim figures, especially Prophet Terrorism as a Basis of Islamophobia and Confrontation with … / 69
Mohammad (PBUH). They published a book entitled ―Unveiling Islam‖ in 2002, which sold more than one hundred thousand copies. Its authors claim that Islam has no relation to other religions and Muslim leaders consider followers of Moses and Jesus Christ as sons of Satan, not followers of a different faith. This is symbol of Islamism and attribution of all kind of violence to Muslims. They maintain that violent jihad and armed conflict is ―indispensable part‖ of Islam claiming that terrorists causing 9/11 were not just a radical group to have used Quran for their political ends. They had deep understanding of Quran and following its teachings on jihad. Such an approach shows that the West considers Islamism and political Islam as embodiment of terrorism while, on the other hand, providing grounds for confrontation with Islamic institutions.
4. The model of interaction with Muslim world against terrorism At a time that Islamic world is plagued with terrorism, the question is whether multilateral cooperation against terrorism is necessary or even possible? What role each political and international group will have to play to create regional and international balance? To answer these questions, we need to analyze the West‘s understanding of Islamism. Evidence shows that Islamism has been portrayed upside-down in the Western world and many rightist American groups are trying to provide a single definition of Islamism. This will amount to an effort for polarization of international politics along the lines of ―terrorism‖ and ―democracy.‖ Under such conditions, Western countries only highlight military and political measures taken by combatant groups and present them as Islam. Graham Fuller, a political scientist in Rand Institute and former deputy director of the National Intelligence Council has written an article entitled ―A World without Islam,‖ in which he asks ―How would a world without Islam look like?‖ Then he answers that the world would have reached the same spot that it has reached now. His reaction to measures of conservative groups indicates that the West is up to an unfair image of
Global Alliance 70 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Islam and is trying to introduce terrorism as the symbol of Islamism while introducing Islam as a main support for terrorism. Fuller is, in fact, addressing a group which considers Islam as the root cause of all problems. He then depicts a situation in which Islam is absent. Under those presumptive conditions, the same events would have happened and even 9/11 attacks would be inevitable. Fuller maintains that even if Islamist groups did not exist, other political and ideological groups would have committed similar acts of terrorism. Fuller condemns the views of some neoconservative experts that introduce Islam as the root cause of all conflicts. They try to introduce a new phenomenon they call ―Islamic fascism‖ as sworn enemy of the West which is providing grounds for a third world war. Therefore, all kinds of confrontation between the United States and Islamist groups will take place within framework of political and cultural concepts and literature. This will amount to an ideological conflict. In other words, although Islam can be easily blamed as the culprit, past and present conflicts do not make way for blaming any religious faith. Some analysts have slammed Fuller‘s article and have likened it to a fiction story. Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, also maintains that the main problem facing the modern world is not revival of Islamic, but an upsurge in terrorist activities. Haass means that Islamism in our time can reproduce various aspects of the culture of peace, cooperation and partnership. Meanwhile, terrorism has quite different roots from Islamism and the West should review its behavioral model. Thus, though political circles in the United States avoid any differentiation between Islam and terrorism by using such designations as ―Islamic terrorism,‖ others are trying to encourage correct understanding of Islam and minimize current tensions which arise from pure misunderstandings.
Terrorism as a Basis of Islamophobia and Confrontation with … / 71
Conclusion Islamism is resurgence of new normative approaches by certain groups that are trying to rebuild their forgotten identities and conceptual frameworks. It aims to promote cooperation in various areas of the Islamic society to help it regain its true identity and give birth to the Islamic ummah. The approach taken to Islamists by conservative political groups in the West is quite to the opposite of the former approach. As a result, there is conflict between conceptual and normative frameworks of the West and Islam. On the other hand, there are various signifiers in the Muslim world which can prevent the birth of an outright Islamic discourse. Under such circumstances, organized groups in Western countries have tried to oppose ideological approaches of the Muslim world by producing new concepts and norms. To achieve this goal, they have produced discourses which are based on false conceptual frameworks. According to this approach, Islam is equal to terrorism, on the one hand, while on the other hand, they try to marginalize all Islamic processes. This will radicalize normative concepts of terrorism as a symbol of a new discourse with modern approaches in international relations. Western countries have tried to create concepts and link them to some social and international symbols in order to reproduce conflicts. Under such circumstances, the Western politics stands for concepts which are social in nature, while on the other hand, helping to differentiate the Western countries from the rest of the world on the basis of their ideological policies.
Global Alliance 72 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Resources 1. Rapoport, Darid (1984) Fear and Trembling: Terrorism Tree Religious Traditions, American political Science Review, No.38 , Vol.3. 2. Whine, Michael (1999) A New Medium Far Communication , Command and Control by Extremists , in: www.ict.org.il 3. Shultz, George (1980) Transnational Terrorism: a chronology of Events 1968 – 1979 , Greenwood: Westport . 4. Georges – Abeyie, Daniel (1983) Perspectives in Terrorism , Wilmington: Dej , scholarly Resources. 5. US National strategy for public Diplomacy and strategic communication , June 2007. 6. Cimino, Richard (2004) New Boundaries – Evangelicals and Islam After 9/11 , in: www.religionwatch.com. 7. Oldfield, Duan (2002) Making Sense Of a world Trans formed, A paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the American political Science Association , Boston Massachusetts , August 29 J September. 8. Boyer, Paul (2003) when U.S. foreign policy Meets Biblical prophecy , AlterNet. 9. Ba – yunus, Ilyas and M. Moin Siddigui (1998) A Report O Muslim population in the United states of America , Center for American Muslim Research and In formation. 10. J Leach, Ellory (2003) New Coalition on Conservatism , Chicago: Chicago State University press. 11. the National Security Strategy of the United States , 2002. 12. Fuller, Graham ( 2008) A world without Islam , Foreign Policy , Jan – Feb. 13. Ghazali, Abdus (2008) Imagine A world without Islam , Jan , 17 , in: www.Countercurrents.org. Religion & Ethics Newsweekly (2009) in: www.pbc.org
Terrorism: Definition, Causes, and Ways to Fight It / 73
Terrorism: Definition, Causes, and Ways to Fight It Dr. M. Bahig Mullah Howeish
Definition Terrorism is all violence committed by a state or an organization against the innocent in order to achieve the objectives of propagandist, political, or military goals at the expense of another party. Terrorism is foremost a form of negative thinking and abnormal, aberrant, and pathologic behavior. It is attributed to a narrowness in perspective and a limitation of intelligence, and reflects weakness of problem-solving intellectual faculties. The criminal acts of terrorists are undertaken under the pretext of defending their ideological ideas. These criminal acts induce a kind of mass terror, and include the attacks done by some political regimes or the great powers. They do not distinguish between innocent and non-innocent and attack indiscriminately, including the siege of cities and their means of communication and the prevention of supplies of food, medicine and fuel for civilian purposes. These are terrorist actions regardless of the perpetrators excuses and justifications. Armed actions that violate international law and undermine human rights are included in the classification of terrorist actions, and therefore the perpetrators and instigators of them must be subjected to justice in competent national or international courts. Moreover, their defiance against the rules and principles of ethics, society, and politics is not a new phenomenon. It can sometimes be a natural result of powers being affected by their power and dominion, by
Representative of Europeans Muslims at the United Nations, Quarn translator into Spanish.
Global Alliance 74 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace their ego, and by their confident arrogance of their knowledge and abilities. This ethical and egotistical crisis often leads to tyranny and double standards when dealing with problems and social and political crises. This duplication turns into a common behavior and even becomes a strategy for the tyrannical, who generalize ―I‖ for anything positive and ―the other‖ for anything negative. Based on the above we can conclude that the phenomenon of violence and acts of terrorism is a kind of a return to slavery, in the sense that those who practice terrorism abandon values and ethical norms. In their dealings, the ―other‖ is considered to have no option but to obey them and work under the dictates of the "I" given. "I" is considered the master and the "other" is the targeted object that should obey.
Causes of violence and terrorism The growing phenomenon of terrorism is inversely proportional to the level of enjoyment of rights, the administration of justice, and ruling by social and political ethics. Terrorism deprives the "other" of his rights and of justice in the name of protecting him and lowering his social, political and ethical responsibilities. The act surpasses the limits of humanity. Terrorism results in a cycle of violence and revenge. Terrorism is a form of deviant infidel thinking, acted out in sick and twisted behaviors that are outside of rational thought. It is expected that the reactions of terrorist are impulsive, extremist ,wild, extravagant, and unbridled. But the equation of action and reaction simply balance, as increased frequency and ferocity of terrorist operations are directly related to the frequency and ferocity of immoral political power, the violation of law, and the use of double standards in dealing with people. The study of the phenomenon of terrorism requires an analysis of its various factors and facets (multifactorial and multifaceted analysis). One of the factors is static thought, whether in its ideological or its religious form. This happens, for example, with the extreme application of capitalism, which believes that the worker is subject to the will of the Terrorism: Definition, Causes, and Ways to Fight It / 75 aristocracy. The logical reaction of this was that the working class reacted with violent movements in a struggle to recover their rights and freedoms. Moreover, the tyrant dictator depends mostly on the ethics and behavior commensurate with the situation, rather than relying on morals, values, or principles, because the intent is to control and reduce the rights of others to a minimum to prevent things from getting out of hand. That is why we find that he picks rules according to what he deems appropriate to dealing with the circumstances, regardless of truth or justice. This in turn pushes the citizens to rebel against the "king" and the rules of his system, even when that system is called ―legal‖. They fight to recover their usurped rights and freedoms. They may appeal to the tyrant‘s reason and common sense, but if he refuses the angry and oppressed people will choose violence and commit acts of revenge, even going as far as terrorist actions. Here presents itself the role of civil society organizations, which can pre- empt the genesis of terrorist groups by working to stop the injustice, oppression and persecution practiced by the tyrant as a kind of prevention when crime looms on the immediate horizon. Ideological terrorism is a form of institutional tyranny with authoritarian thought or regressive autistic thought that is completely isolated from its surrounding and uses its own language and logic. But authoritarianism and autism in their social and political forms makes a deep gap between the ruler and the ruled and leads to a lack of trust between them. With the lack of trust, each party tends to take hostile, irritating positions to assess the emotions of different social groups. This leads to social blocs within the same society, which are pushed into making larger social clusters, and which organize themselves according to the form and strength commensurate with their position in the system, and using the same weapon as that of the system. Religious terrorism and coercively forced secularism are two sides of the same coin; both are characterized by poverty of thought and a decline in adherence to moral values, both strain to control and manipulate the emotions of the masses, both used the method of having two levels of
Global Alliance 76 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace truth, and both depend on the philosophies of altruism and exclusivism. It is not required to fight against secularism because we do not have the right to force anyone to leave what he believes. But we do have the right to protect ourselves from the burden of forced secular, as this is a violation of human rights and freedoms. The practice of forced secularism is only the practice resorted to by an ideology that is past its time. Secularism is a kind of cult, just as in communism Stalinism became the religion of the state, with the slogan "Religion is the opium of the masses". There is also an ―Oedipus Empire‖ or imperialism which colonial powers are still dreaming of. They believe that rights are awarded on two levels. They aim to extend their political and economic dominance and make colonial culture into the national culture, using legalized criminal tactics. Collectively, they make up the fertile soil in which international terrorism grows, terrorism that comes to extend beyond geographical or political borders. This is what happened in Somalia – world fleets looted Somali fisheries without any scruples, defying commitments and laws about the standards of fishing. The greed of the fleets even went to the extent of preventing Somalis from fishing in certain areas. This led to the return to the phenomenon of maritime piracy and by extension the ability of commercial ships from different nationalities to cross the sea. In conclusion we must point out that the voluntary isolation of academics and intellectuals from what is happening around them in the street has contributed indirectly to the inflation of injustice and has become like cancerous tumor that creates tension between groups, which later turn to terrorism.
How to fight terrorism We know that technological superiority does not necessarily mean ethical and political superiority. We also know that the secular powers are no guarantor of peace. Since they have lost their ability to fight injustice and terrorism, we must recruit ourselves for the task. Thus, the International Conference on Global Alliance Against Terrorism for Just Peace was¨ Terrorism: Definition, Causes, and Ways to Fight It / 77 held on May 14 to 15, 2011 in Tehran. It advises us to consider the following: - That morality and moral behavior are renewable forms of energy that can be recovered and returned to social life. - That normal international relations should be based on the dictates of human intelligence and not on the dictates of fear, terror, or distrust. - That the interaction and sharing between religion, culture and education lead to recovery from psychological and behavioral illness and orient the individual and community towards a system of values. Religion, culture, education represents the three sides of the triangle that surround the problem of terrorism. - The objective is to restore wellness to the relationship between the "I" and "other" so that we can get to an understanding, moderate, and just ―I‖ and develop a ―we‖ that is distinct yet mutually reinforcing. - Sincere dialogue and dialectics stimulate the human intelligence, deepen mutual understanding, and push the man to understand, face, and resolve life's problems. - Peace can never be achieved as long as there is injustice and arrogance. We are invited to humanize the relationship between the parties of crisis, and this requires us to: - Embrace the philosophy of hope not that of despair - Promote a culture of mutual respect between religious followers - Reconcile the values and culture of the current world in order to find a solid base for cultural groups to be placed horizontally and equally to others, rather than in a hierarchy - Build a world saturated with faith and common values and universal values, rather than the current world we live in that denies values and ideals under the guise of personal freedom. - Urge rulers to rule with political elegance rather than political repression and tyranny - Fight against terrorism with all our capabilities and address its roots. Urging terrorists to change their ways because the path of truth and freedom is not paved by the shedding of innocent blood. We must strive
Global Alliance 78 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace to treat their deviant behavior as a learned behavior derived from tradition or learning, and therefore the treatment must be proper education. - Any initiative undertaken should not swim in the theoretical horizon of the problem, but move in the practical horizon. We must act based on our aspirations, not only on what is possible. Nuclear Terrorism: Theory and Practice / 79
Nuclear Terrorism: Theory and Practice Dr. Ali Daee Abstract Nuclear terrorism is among terrorist operations which has been emerged in discussions about international security and universal peace during past decade as the nuclear activities and establishments in the world have been increased, the Soviet was dissolved and also the organized terrorist groups tended to have nuclear bomb. The concern of international society is intensified in the light of the threat that the effects of probable use of nuclear weapon in terrorist operation can cross the borders and cover great group of people and places. Anyway, the 2005 UN Convention about suppression of nuclear terrorism is the result of these concerns and indicating the seriousness of the condition of security environment. The present article explicate the conceptual and real domain of nuclear terrorism danger by conceptually investigating and analyzing the issue. Key Words: Terrorism, Nuclear Terrorism, International Law, 2005 Convention, International Security.
Introduction Nuclear terrorism is the use of nuclear bomb, radioactive materials or nuclear explosive materials or the threat of using them by people or groups beyond the control of government to create terror and do terrorist operations or to threat to use it against nuclear establishments. Beside this definition, one can define governmental nuclear terrorism which is the support or use of non-governmental agents by governmental agents in performing nuclear terrorist acts. Nevertheless, nuclear terrorism is a term which covers many of various probable scenarios and different consequences of them.
PhD in public International Law, University of Allame Tabatabaee.
Global Alliance 80 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Of course, it should be mentioned that, with regard to nuclear terrorism, there is a concern that the issue becomes a plea before universal great powers which may misuse it to prevent other countries‘ measures from achieving peaceful nuclear science. In fact, showing the threat bigger than it actually is also entails conformity of other big powers with America and in this case, these powers can easily create obstacles for other independent countries, such as Islamic Republic of Iran, in achieving this technology in an unjust manner by posing such issues; an approach which will be called negative approach for combating nuclear terrorism. The question is that with what aims and strategies do big powers which have the greatest amount of nuclear capacities, power plants and establishments in the world and more importantly are protected against any dangers with the most complicated technologies, truly pose such issues as nuclear terrorism? Is it not that posing of such issues (although no one denies the just combat with these threats) is more for justification of big powers‘ acts to prevent other countries from achieving peaceful nuclear technologies. Anyway, there is no doubt that combating phenomenon of nuclear terrorism (in case of existence of objective and documented reasons for that) is in favor of all countries and universal society. Countries and international organizations are required to actively adopt necessary mechanisms. But these measures are effective in case that they are taken in an equal manner and in this way political orientations do not overcome legal relations and nuclear rights of all countries are respected in the same way. So, proposing new issues such as nuclear terrorism with purposes other than maintaining international security and using it unjustly as a pressure lever against countries which intend to use nuclear energy peacefully, will not be useful in combating terrorism in all its form. Besides probable political misuses and defects of this phenomenon, one cannot and should not totally ignore the threat resulted from nuclear terrorism. May be it is due to this reason that American efforts in harmonizing other compliant of international law in international criminalization of this phenomenon and establishment of legal framework Nuclear Terrorism: Theory and Practice / 81 to combat nuclear terrorism have been successful; in so far as several binding and non-binding international document have been rendered in this regard. All of these efforts constitute the universal approach toward combating terrorism. In this article, by reviewing the approach of nuclear powers in combating nuclear terrorism and linking it to peaceful nuclear technology, it is intended to investigate whether the negative approach of these powers can be effective in combating this phenomenon or not?
Showing Nuclear Terrorism Danger Bigger than It Actually Is After September 11 attacks, the United States considered the situation suitable to review the efficiency of nuclear suppression and non- proliferation of nuclear weapons again. Based on this review, the United States adopted a policy well-known as preventive attack. From the beginning, scenario of nuclear terrorism is also engaged in addition to September 11 event, in such a way that one month after this event ―George Tenet‖, the former manager of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), informed George Bush that reporters of the organization noted that Al-Qaeda has transferred to Washington 10-kiloton nuclear bomb which it had stolen from Russia. This warning made ―Dick Cheney‖ together with some other federal employees to move to an unknown place so that in case the bomb exploded in Washington, the American government can continue its work. (1) Of course, later it was said that the news was not true but the issue had its mental effect. The American government according to its strategy in combating nuclear terrorism and by using all its political capacities and its influence in United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency, in its first step wants countries‘ intensive and serious supervision on their nuclear establishments and material production. United States also wants severe security measures by countries for preventing terrorist groups from achieving the technology and stealing nuclear materials and attacking the power plants. In fact, United States which considers itself the leader in combating terrorism including nuclear terrorism, obliged itself to plan
Global Alliance 82 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace targeted programs for combating achieving of terrorist groups to nuclear materials and equipments. (2) One of the main concerns of American nuclear experts is the security problems in some of nuclear sites of countries which became independent of former Soviet; America considers them as a serious threat for universal society. After years of condensed negotiations with Russia and gaining its agreement and protection and providing budget for raising security coefficient of these sites, America allocated some special plans to combat this threat in such a way that it is said this country spends 1 milliard dollars yearly on this ground.(3) After September 11, America also has adopted severe security measures around its nuclear power plants.(4) Within the international arena, in addition to controlling the International Atomic Energy Agency, it has also stressed on the following issues in the course of its policies for combating nuclear terrorism: a) helping the countries in assessing their protective system and cooperating with other countries in tracking smuggling of nuclear materials and equipments. b) emphasizing on the fact that the Agency and its reinforced system of inspection have pivotal role in preserving international security. c) helping the International Atomic Energy Agency to establish Information Bank about smuggling of nuclear materials and equipments in accordance to its aims and strategies. d) providing some costs of International Atomic Energy Agency for combating nuclear terrorism. Besides the above mentioned measures, America also follows a fundamental strategy with the justification of combating nuclear terrorism; a strategy which is known as ―a universe with three No‖. ―No‖ to existence of nuclear materials and equipments which are not under the control of government; ―No‖ to achieving of non-nuclear countries to atomic weapons; and ―No‖ to achieving of non-nuclear countries to peaceful nuclear technology. In this strategy there is no distinction between peaceful and non-peaceful nuclear technology. Based on this assumption, the less nuclear states exists, the less nuclear terrorism Nuclear Terrorism: Theory and Practice / 83 danger will be and this issue will strengthen the security of America.(5) This American strategy implies the revision of article 4 of 1968 NPT Convention on Prevention of Production and Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which grants its member states the right to achieve peaceful nuclear technology in return for not producing nuclear weapons. It is not easily possible to revise or change the nuclear rights of NPT member states and in return for overlooking this right an exchange should be given. From the viewpoint of American strategists, they will give countries which do not have this technology and join the American policy on this ground cheap nuclear fuel and atomic reactor in order to help them in providing their atomic energy and America itself undertakes to manage fuel residue. It‘s interesting to know that ―Mohamed El-Baradei‖, the former general director of International Atomic Energy Agency, along this policy of America wanted the internationalization of fissionable materials and prohibition of enrichment activities and reproduction in all countries outside this framework.(6) Apparently, this proposal is not practical but it‘s an affirmation of necessity of preventing from nuclearization of new countries contrary to article 4 of NPT. From the viewpoint of American government and the Agency, the speed growth of new countries requesting the achievement of peaceful nuclear technology increases the problems resulting from inspection and verification and the Agency will lose its control over it. According to United States Foreign Minister in ―Foreign Policy‖ newsletter: ―...we seek to strengthen each of the elements of comprehensive non-proliferation system: preventing from proliferation of nuclear weapons, promoting disarming and accelerating the peaceful use of atomic energy. We adds a new element to these three elements: preventing from nuclear terrorism. The most effective way of decreasing nuclear terrorism threat is to make sure that nuclear materials which can be used in weapon production are protected from being stolen or seized. It is for this reason that United States has suggested a proposal based on which it will establish security of nuclear materials which are at risk in a period of four years; a plan approved by United Nations Security Council.
Global Alliance 84 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
... we will seek reinforcement of ―Suppliers Group‘s‖ limitations with regard to transferring reproduction and enrichment technology. We will also promote multilateral arrangements of supplying nuclear fuel and consumed fuel in such a way that countries which seek to peacefully use nuclear energy or its expansion can follow their non-military nuclear projects without spending heavy expenses and without having the problems of establishing centers for enrichment and reproduction.‖(7) It is not surprising that other nuclear powers also defend the policy of America; because this policy means to keep monopoly of nuclear club in nuclear energy market and maintain their long term profits in this domain. In this regard, America, by causing western countries to join it, uses economic tools, sanction and political isolation against opposed governments with this policy including our own country which is trying to put end to such monopoly. The other axis of this policy is to encounter black market of selling nuclear equipments. Based on this, America by using all its military, economic and political capacities and by strengthening the control system of exports, unilaterally and multilaterally by internal criminalizing and establishing security about these measures encounters and destroys networks of nuclear equipments smuggling including ―Abdul Qadeer Khan‖ network, the father of atomic weapons in Pakistan. It is based on this policy that America in a project named ―Proliferation Security Initiative‖ (PSI)(8) gathers 95 countries to inspect consignments of ships suspected of transporting nuclear equipments by limiting freedom of seafaring in open sea. Along with these measures, United Nations Security Council and General Assembly continue to internationally criminalize these measures. In this regard, issuing of 1540 resolution of the Council and ratification of the Convention on Combating Nuclear Terrorist Acts are important. On this basis, in the discussion of combating terrorism and specially nuclear terrorism, United States as a caretaker of the discussion, cause Russia to become cooperative with its policies in international arena and Russia in its turn has taken some measures on this ground including Nuclear Terrorism: Theory and Practice / 85 purifying and making safe some nuclear reactors in satellite countries of former Soviet. Meanwhile, one should not forget that the American strategy of ―a universe with three No‖ are in favor of Russia‘s profits from different security, economic and political aspects particularly that Russia has been the first country which was faced with real nuclear terrorist threat of Chechen separatists, the issue which will be discussed further in next part. Except for measures and position of Russia, America and its western confederates in this regard which follow American policies, the positions of developing countries are also important. There is no doubt and disagreement about the fact that nuclear terrorist danger is a universal challenge and requires universal joint effort; but what there is doubt and dispute about is the institutionalized structure of this struggle and the mechanism of financing for that which has been the concern and dispute of developing country. Among the three ―No‖ of America, two of them are accepted by these countries and one of them is not. These countries agree with strengthening of control and supervision of nuclear establishments and materials. Combating nuclear weapons‘ production is also a conventional covenant; but preventing from achieving peaceful nuclear technology is a non-deprivable right which cannot be disregarded and the sectional advantages of America in this regard are not desirable. The positions of these countries including Islamic Republic of Iran are shortly presented below: nuclear terrorism is a universal threat and combating that should be universal. B) combating nuclear terrorism should not resulted in limitation of the Agency‘s acts in various domains specially peaceful use of nuclear energy. C) emphasizing on the fact that combating nuclear terrorism should not create any problem in peaceful use of nuclear energy. D) combating nuclear terrorism should be within the framework of United Nations and in the direction of universal combating with nuclear terrorism.
Global Alliance 86 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
The positions of western countries which support United States measures in combating nuclear terrorism are as follows: A) the danger of nuclear terrorism does not only threaten countries which posses nuclear materials and establishments; it is a universal threat. B) to combat nuclear terrorism, nuclear security should be increased, so the Agency can increase nuclear security of the members within the framework of technical cooperation. C) asking all nuclear countries to reinforce their protective measures to prevent from nuclear stealing. D) cooperating with other organizations such as International Police and World Customs Organization to prevent from smuggling of nuclear materials and equipments. E) considering the close relation of nuclear terrorism and general policies of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the necessity of its strengthening. As can be seen, the most important dispute between western countries with nuclear technology and developing countries on one hand is the negative approach of America with regard to achievement of other countries to peaceful nuclear technology and on the other hand is the institutionalized mechanism of combating terrorism. The latter issue was settled by approving the Convention on Combating Nuclear Terrorist Acts and making it binding, but the first dispute still remains in force. the Reality of Nuclear Terrorism Although before the terrorist attacks of September 11, the existing assumption of universal society about powers of non-governmental groups in security challenges only limited to planting bombs in trains or exploding in some public and governmental places, this event showed that non-governmental agents have new power for performing terrorist attacks across the world. Despite the fact that terrorist organizations do not still access to modern armaments and genocide weapons, western information services have warned that it is not unexpected that terrorists access to nuclear weapons in near future, because on one hand, estimations show Nuclear Terrorism: Theory and Practice / 87 that the saved enriched Uranium around the world is enough for production of thousands of nuclear weapons, and on the other hand, based on some reports some terrorist networks including Al-Qaeda explicitly showed their tendency for having nuclear weapons and even Osama Bin- Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda intended to buy nuclear materials from Sudan in 1993. To prove this issue, Americans often refer to confession of one of Al-Qaeda member in a court in New York. But the only concern is not Al-Qaeda, the contemporary international society also faces with challenges and threats of other non-governmental agents which affect international security. Their concern is due to the fact that although such groups do not have any relation with Al-Qaeda, they can be affected by its hostility and aggression. But the question is that what factors do cause a terrorist group to resort to nuclear terrorism? The answer to this question can help us better understand the reality of nuclear terrorist danger. It should be mentioned that resorting to nuclear terrorism requires intentional decision-making by an organization which tends to such resort. In making such decision, two elements are very important. First, assessing the issue that to what extent resorting to nuclear terrorism will be effective in promoting the goals of that organization. Second, assessing technical power of the group in resorting to it. Nuclear terrorism is favored by those groups which seek manifest consequences with strong mental effects; these groups want to show their power without considering its consequences. With regard to selecting the type of nuclear terrorism, the power of the group in having access to nuclear materials and equipments, technical ability, or freedom in accessing to radioactive and nuclear materials, or freedom in targeting establishments in this regard are determinative. Thus, in making decision about resorting to nuclear terrorism balance should exist between tools and goals. On this basis, a terrorist group which wants to resort to nuclear terrorism should define its strategy and tactics of its resort by considering the goals and tools at its hand; it should define whether its intention of resorting to nuclear terrorism is massacre of people of targeted country or not? Whether it seeks violent destruction or it seeks mental effect? And
Global Alliance 88 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace whether it has necessary tools for choosing each of the mentioned strategies or not. It should be noted that in making such decision, the leader of group plays a fundamental role but it‘s not end of the process because there exist some problems and obstacles about each of the above cases which can resulted in neutralization and thwarting of the operation. One should not forget that in some cases, crossing the red lines can resulted in making some decisions by targeted government which cause the extinction or deadly damages of terrorist group. Thus, deciding to resort to nuclear terrorism is not a simple decision; there are complicated factors in making such decision the arrangement of which complicates decision-making in this regard. So, any terrorist group will not seek nuclear terrorism. Having reached to this point, one should see whether there has been any group which could make such decision or not? American introduces Al- Qaeda as the center of nuclear terrorist threat; but other terrorist groups also have backgrounds like that, even though their operations have not been as extensive as the Al-Qaeda operations. In fact, the first group which decided and performed its decision about resorting to nuclear terrorism is Chechen Separatists. The first operation of this group was in 1995. In this event, Chechen Separatists planted a handmade bomb consisting of Dynamite and Caesium-137 in ―Ismailovski‖ park in Moscow, but due to any reason they changed their mind and informed the reporters about place of the bomb. Although this event is the most well-known event in relation to nuclear terrorism, this group are very skilful in planning nuclear terrorist operations and its activities does not limited to above mentioned event. The Chechen Separatist group started to plan nuclear terrorism in 1992 with ―Dodaf‖ as the leader of group. The plan included stealing of an atomic submarine from Russia Pacific Ocean armada. They wanted to plant bomb in atomic reactor of the submarine and one of its atomic rockets and asked the Russian government to pull back its forces from Chechen in return for releasing of the submarine. Of course, when the plan was disclosed, the Russian officials prevented from its enforcement. Nuclear Terrorism: Theory and Practice / 89
It‘s interesting to know that ―Islam Khasokhaoof‖, the chief of Chechen Separatist General Staff, once had been the commander‘s deputy of the former Russian Pacific Ocean atomic armada; of course it is said that this plan resulted in the death of ―Dodaf‖. Moreover, the agents of this group stole some radioactive materials from Gruzini nuclear residue site in 2000 and some radioactive steel from ―Vladivostok‖ atomic power plant in 2001.(9) Another example is ―Aum Shinrikyo‖ Japanese group. This group which is a radical group was established in 1987. The group absorbed many chemists, biologic experts and etc. against Japanese government and established an arsenal of chemical factors. Using chemical materials in terrorist acts was the method of this group. One of its acts was terrorist attack to Tokyo central subway station in 1995. Nevertheless, the joint researches of American and Japanese governments showed that this group has five-hectare factory of producing chemical weapons in Tokyo but it has not been successful in enriching Uranium.(10) The above mentioned examples indicate that despite the existing problems about resorting to nuclear terrorism, there are non-governmental agents which can be successful in deciding to resort to nuclear terrorism.
Conclusion If we accept that there are groups which can resort to nuclear terrorism and the danger of nuclear terrorism is a real threat and also accept that the junction point of system of non-proliferation and combating terrorism is the reason for preventing non-governmental agents from achieving nuclear weapon, material and equipments; it‘s true that the comprehensiveness of Nuclear Weapon Non-Proliferation Treaty is effective in preventing from nuclear terrorism but this issue should not be interpreted in such a way that deprive countries from achieving peaceful nuclear energy. In the discussion of combating nuclear terrorism and non- proliferation system, it should be mentioned that combating terrorist groups and preventing from achieving of non-governmental agents to that is necessary; but using it as an excuse and politicizing it in Treaty and
Global Alliance 90 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
International Atomic Energy Agency with regard to countries which their political orientation does not conform with approach of world nuclear powers can make non-nuclear countries doubtful of the reliable process of non-proliferation system. Combating nuclear terrorism by preventing non-governmental agents from achieving nuclear weapons, radioactive materials and the primitive tools of producing these material have other techniques. Having a look on the issue of controlling armament (non-proliferation) and the essential subject mentioned in the discussion of combating terrorism, one can understand that this goal can be achieved by another ways, one of the most effective of which is complete elimination of nuclear weapons specially tactical nuclear weapons and their eradication, an important goal emphasized in article 6 of ―NPT‖. Realizing this issue on one hand requires honesty, raising real political understanding and consciousness of nuclear powers about the issue, and avoiding instrumental use of it, and on the other hand requires universal trust for strengthening non- proliferation system. It is obvious that the dual and politicizing behavior of nuclear powers and adopting negative approach by them will not be useful for this system and the goal of eradicating nuclear terrorism.
Nuclear Terrorism: Theory and Practice / 91
Resources
1. Graham Alison, ―Nuclear Terrorism‖ , New York: Times Books, (2004) p.1. 2. Chris Brown, ―Global Terror and the International Community‖, in: Christopher Andersen (ed.), understanding Global Terror, Polity Press, 2007, pp. 57- 59. 3. Charles D. Ferguson and William C. Potter, ―The four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism”, California: Monterey Institute of International Studies,( 2004), p.159. 4. Ibid, p. 218. 5. Graham Alison, op .cit, p.141. 6. Mohamed Alberadei, ― Towards a Safer World‖, The Economist, 16 October 2003. 7. Hillary Rodham Clinton, ―The Next Steps on Nonproliferation‖, Foreign Policy, November 28, 2009. Available at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/28/the_next_steps_on_nonprolif eration?page=full 8. US Government Document, U.S. Department of State, Proliferation Security Initiative, 31 May 2003. 9. Simon Saradzhyan, ―Russia: Grasping Reality of Nuclear Terror‖, BCSIA Discussion Paper 2003-02, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, March 2003, available at: http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=ISP&ctype=paper&item_ id=374. 10. Staff of the Senate Government Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation, Global Proliferation of Weapon of Mass Destruction: A Case Study on the Aum Shinrikyo, Sec III, 31 October 1995, available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1995_rpt/aum/index.html.
Global Alliance 92 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Terrorism: Preliminary Observations / 93
Terrorism: Preliminary Observations Abdul Rauf Al Shayeb
It is my pleasure to participate in this conference, though my joy is incomplete due to circumstances that have prevented me from coming to Tehran to participate in person. However, I preferred not to be cut off from this conference completely, so I sent word offering my modest contribution. I am with you in spirit though circumstances have prevented me from being with you in person. I do not think that any subject of a conference can be more important and prestigious than the issue of fighting terrorism. Especially in the Arab world, which faces the dominance of global arrogance, of the United States, of the Zionists occupying Israel, and all those, from the West to the East, who follow in their footsteps and who have no higher aim than to infringe on vulnerable peoples, steal their wealth, shed their blood, and erase their history and their heritage. There is no better evidence of this than what the people of Bahrain are witnessing: organized terrorism carried out by militias of Al-Khalifa‘s, the oppressor of our people in Bahrain. This regime is supported by the occupying Saudi forces invading our land in violation of our sovereignty and dignity, after having received the green light to carry out the orders of their masters the Americans and the Zionists, the enemies of the people and the Great Satan. I won‘t, in these brief moments, describe what is terrorism, which has been manipulated by the arrogant States in an attempt to terrorize the people‘s understanding of this concept. But I will refer to examples of the concept of terrorism. I refer you to the reality experienced by our people and which these days of terror has imposed by force of arms and bullets in Bahrain.
Secretary General and Leader of Bahrain Freedom (the Khalas) Movement, and the President of the Pupular Committee for Martyrs and Torturen Victims.
Global Alliance 94 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Gentlemen, that terrorism in our Bahrain is exercised by the Authority and the Peninsula Shield Forces, an infringement of Muslims, an attack on their homes, and an encroachment on their wives and children. Our honor is being abused by these barbaric armies who expropriate everything and renege on every principle and value. Terrorism is illustrated by their use of force against unarmed people, who have no fault but that they are demanding their legitimate rights just like the rest of the Arab people. Terrorism in all its forms has been practiced against us, starting from ideological terrorism when the demands of our movement were twisted and presented as sectarianism. Terrorism continued as religious terrorism when troops attacked houses of God, demolished more than fifty mosques and places of prayer, burned the Holy Quran, and infringed on Shiite mosques, convoys, and guesthouses. I can find no more clear illustration of terrorism than the actions of these invading forces and military aggressors, who for their victory attack with all kinds of weapons, unarmed and peaceful people who hold nothing but flags and flowers. Dear attendees, the concept of terrorism has been discussed and debated in academic circles, till it is almost lost in the maze of politics and politicians. Coming up with an agreed-upon definition is a difficult task, but harder than that is to stand up against terrorism and support its victims. The face of real power is not he who can convince the world of his concept of terrorism, but he who can face it, defuse it, eradicate it. How can terrorism be removed from countries that are used to feeding on it? We must be practical – you can‘t give what you don‘t have. The dictatorial terrorist United states will not one day bring forth leaders of peace and democracy. Do not expect the crow to sing the song of a nightingale. The pot only exudes that which is inside of it. When the globalist masons intermarry with the Wahhabis, terrorism is their natural offspring. Terrorism is now being legalized by the U.S. Congress, implemented into the policies of the White House and the Pentagon, and set as a goal by the Mossad. Terrorism: Preliminary Observations / 95
Dear brothers, I am standing here with my hands outstretched, begging you to support the oppressed and to support the termination of all forms of terrorism and genocide inflicted on our people in Bahrain. The terror inflicted Al-Khalaifa regime has exceeded all reasonable and logical limits. We must mobilize all our energies to fight for our people and their rights. The regime did not leave any crime uncommitted. They are doing what they can stop the advance of vulnerable peoples towards freedom, independence, and dignity. But the idea that they can stop this advance is only an illusion, held in the heads of the ruling tribal families in the region. The ruling tribal families felt isolated so they tried to expand their circle of the Gulf Council of Cooperation (GCC). They intended it to be an Arab council of only the countries that are governed by families and tribes. They wanted to expand the circle to Jordan and Morocco, the furthest country of the Arab League, because only these two countries are ruled by tribes and families. However, they failed at making this alliance against free peoples who are seeking freedom and independence. Look at how these dictators collude with each other. They engage in public terrorism against the peoples of the region, who are not allowed to ally and cooperate for independence. If the people tried to cooperate they would be accused of conspiracy and treason. The rulers ignore the fact that they are conspiring against their own people, allowing U.S. bases in their countries, and walking guided by the Zionists whose presence they normalize. They forget that they give to their own people nothing but shame and death, murder and destruction. We have to stand together today and say no to terrorism in all its forms: ideological, political, religious, cultural, security, and military, whether conducted by individuals, peoples, or governments. We aspire that this conference will come out with new recommendations to add to previous conferences held in this matter and new ways to eradicate the sources of terrorism and reinstall peace in the region and the world. What the Libyan, the Bahraini, and Yemeni people are subjected to, from killings to torture to detention, should not be repeated in the rest of the world. We must strive to rid these people of their authoritarian governments, who
Global Alliance 96 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace have used their authority to go against their people. Otherwise these scenes will be repeated in other countries. Bahrain, Libya and Yemen are today the doors of change for the Arab and Islamic world. If the revolutionary movements of these peoples fall, the region will fall into the swamp of terrorism from head to toe. Current governments of these countries are establishing the bases of oppression and aggression against people of the entire region. Their pace of establishing alliances for this purpose has become too fast. Our only hope is that we get out of this conference powerful recommendations of how to oppose with the alliances in power and stop the scheme, backed by U.S., to stifle freedom, who knows that there is no place for America and Israel in the region if the peoples in it were liberated and independent. In conclusion, I hope that we will all be guided to serve the vulnerable, fight against terrorism and terrorists, and stop the expansion of ideological and physical roots of terrorism where it initiates.
The Perspectives of Islam on Just Peace / 97
The Perspectives of Islam on Just Peace Mohammad Salar
One of the goals of sublime mission of the prophets and messengers of God is fighting injustice and cruelty, establishing and consolidating peace and creating justice in the world. The life of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and the Islamic Great leaders are based on creating an Islamic utopia where monotheism, peace, purity and brotherhood would be ruling that land. The Holy Prophet of Islam mentioned the philosophy of his prophecy as a mission of moral. If the ethics are not dominant in the society, creation of justice will be impossible. If we institutionalize ethics, the result of human morality would be justice. If ethics were created in the community; thereby peace, nonviolence, brotherhood, friendship and human relations will be established. Basically the three secrets of the spread of Islam and also the fast and strong tendency toward the religion of Islam were the ethics, honorable behavior and the interaction of the holy Prophet (PBUH). As the Holy Quran says: [3.159] ―Thus it is due to mercy from Allah that you deal with them gently, and had you been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you.‖ The date of introducing Islam indicates the fact that the Prophet of Islam as the harbinger of precious monotheism, peace and justice was able to bring together the ignorant and scattered Arab community and establish peace and brotherhood based on monotheism and deism in that shattered society. The Holy Quran describes peace, intimacy and happiness as the source of good and welfare and as the Holy Quran says: [4.128] ―Peace and reconciliation is the best practice for humans.‖
The president of the Executive committee of the Conference.
Global Alliance 98 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Berceuse of this, the Holy Quran in several instances calls for the creation of peace, security, unity, friendship and peaceful life and says: [2.208] ―O you who believe! Enter into submission one and all and do not follow the footsteps of Satan; surely he is your open enemy.‖ The enemies of Islam accuse this great and divine religion and its followers of creating violence, however, these false propagandas against the life-giving religion of Islam are in the case, when we can clearly see that Islam, even in the arena of defense and war has also recommended non-violence and human behavior. If we refer to the date of Islam and have a look on the instructions of the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) as a commander in chief in the war or wars and his holiness Ali (AS) and other infallible Imams (PBUT), the Prophet (PBUH) points to some important reminders which were to criticize the cutting of trees, showing good behavior towards the elderly, children and women, not contaminating the drinking water of the enemy by poison and not contaminating the environment. These are all indicating that wherever Islam pursues the issue of defense, the use of violence has been prevented, and has recommended the use of war in the framework of purely military areas. In the life of the Prophet (PBUH) force and coercion were never used or recommended in accepting Islam religion, to the point that the Holy Prophet even rejected the suggestion of some of his followers regarding their children›s obligation to accept Islam, while he was referring to this verse, [2.256] ―There is no compulsion in religion.‖ Mahatma Gandhi, the late Indian independence leader said: «There is no compulsion in Islam. Personal life of Mohammad (PBUH) is a prominent sign and obvious example that the philosophy of force and coercion in religion is rejected.» Unfortunately some of the enemies of Islam inadmissibility attribute accusations against the Prophet, and they also accuse Islam of violence; although we are also to be blamed about it, since we have not been able to introduce the life and the way of our great and beloved prophet to non- The Perspectives of Islam on Just Peace / 99
Muslim people very well, as his life and ways have been full of love, kindness, mercy and compassion; so we should apologize before the Prophet, however, the mentioning of this point is essential that the sacred religion of Islam in the inevitable wars has respected and preserved human dignity, human values and has had emphasis on these. Imam Ali (AS) recites a narration from the Prophet (PBUH) that when he sent him to Yemen, he recommended that he should not start a war with anyone until he has not invited him to Islam, and if God guides one person through him, he will receive the goodness and the worth of the world. So we can see that inviting and dialog in Islam are prior to war. Islam commands that if we have a treaty with the enemy, then we should be loyal to that alliance, as long as the enemy has not breached the treaty. Prophet (PBUH) and Ali (AS) were very much faithful to this principle. Islam has prohibited the mutilation of the enemies (i.e. cutting ears and nose and other body parts), and the Holy Prophet (PBUH) always advised those Muslims who were going to jihad to refrain from these kinds of inhuman behaviors. In this way, Islam has banned such inhuman acts during and after wars. Islam has recommended humane treatment towards the prisoners of war, and has provided some ways for their release. So the basic strategy of Islam is to preserve peace and security, and upholding social justice and the prohibition of the use of force. This is when the greatest crimes of history is done towards Muslims and oppressed people of the third world countries by those who claim to have the leading slogans of peace, security and democracy. Examples of such behaviors can be seen in many countries, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, the occupied territories of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Bahrain, and .... Jews, Christians and Muslims were living together in peace and tolerance in the time when Spain was ruled by Muslims. Even today millions of Christians and a small number of Jews, Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Hindus are living together in the range of Morocco to Malaysia, under the ruling of Muslims. They are not only having a good life with tolerance and tolerance, rather many of them in their countries are considered the
Global Alliance 100 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace richest groups, such as the Copts in Egypt or Chinese Buddhists in Malaysia. These groups have never been subjected to «ethnic purification;» while considering the horrendous crimes of Nazis in Germany, the Muslims and Jews in Spain after the 1942 or the Tatars in tsarist Russia and today the Muslims in Bosnia have been subjected to ethnic purification. A lot of people talk about the Muslim world in a way that, as if it is the Muslim world that has docked its warships in the Gulf of Mexico and is threatening the United States of America, but as we can see, it is the United States‘ ship is deployed in the Persian Golf and has the control over the economic resources of Muslim people in the region. Holding the «The international conference on Global Alliance against Terrorism for a Just Peace,‖ while there is a wave of Islamic awakening in the Middle East and North Africa, and the cluttering of the equations of American and European colonialists and their henchmen, will be an extremely valuable opportunity for the World Summit to expose the ugly face of state terrorism and achieving peace, and searching for appropriate approaches to deal with terrorism. We can very well conclude that Islam is a religion of peace and tranquility and always in Islam peace has been preferred than war and killing. Moreover, we can conclude that militarism and battle in order to impose public policy and culture is unacceptable and baseless in Islamic view. Terorism: Its Origins and Theoretical Foundations / 101
Terrorism: Its Origins and Theoretical Foundations Dr. Rouhollah Ghaderi
1. INTRODUCTION Up to now many studies about the origins of terrorism and how to deal with it has been done. But often, emotions, fanaticism and attitudes instead of wisdom and logic of these studies have been the ruling. Today, religious- political biases are created stronger motivations for terrorism. Jenkins shows that political and social processes and bureaucratic needs and media structures how have shaped the concept of terrorism. This has important consequences: Some groups become evil and satanic, while some others receive free tickets for performing similar actions.1 Gary Bernstein believes that with using intelligence gathering and military force can not be stopped terrorism. The best way to combating terrorism is that the world thirst for freedom be watered;2 West dual approach to terrorism shows aspects of discrimination on how to combating common violence in the global arena that unfortunately alone has taken aspect of strategic and security - military. American statesmen and majority of its Medias has long spoken of terrorism and not the causes of it; In other words, their way of fighting terrorism more focuses on "Effect" and not "Causes" of terrorism. A common mistake is that we only refer one root cause of terrorism. From this perspective, Politicians and Policy-makers should be able to put
Assistant professor of Imam Hussein (AS) Comprehensive University. 1. See Philip Jenkins. Images of Terror: what we can and can‘t know about terrorism. (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2003). 2. Gary Bernstein and Ralph Pezzullo.Jawbreaker – The Attack on Bin Laden and Al- Qaeda: A Personal account by the CIA‘s Key Field Commander. (United States: Crown Press, 2005).
Global Alliance 102 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace in place opposite side and from that position look at the world and to judge about it. But In general terrorism usually occurs in conditions that power and wealth is distributed unfair and discriminatory. In such an atmosphere and space, one side enjoys more of the political, economic or social power and the other side to compensate for its weakness - and perhaps sense of discrimination- resorts to the tactic of terrorism and aggression. This phenomenon is quite noticeable in authoritarian countries. In general all studies have been done about terrorism, Shows a close link between terrorism and inequality. Whatever inequality and discrimination be more in various fields including political, social, cultural, religious, economic, racial, and ethnic and etc, Risk of acts of violence including the assassination is greater. Ted Robert Gurr get the economic roots of terrorism comes to the conclusion that Poverty alone can not account of the roots of terrorism. His studies show that terrorism anywhere can be exposed, but its occurrence in developing countries than rich countries or poor. Accordingly we can say that countries are experiencing rapid modernization, are seen more terrorism. Economic Changes in circumstances bring into existences that are suitable for the occurrence of instability and the emergence of various movements, especially militia and extreme ideological movements. Active members of terrorist groups generally are poor and uneducated young people; therefore formed inequalities in a country can be a good field for violent political movements and terrorism form the special shape.3 For Laqueur one of major cause of spread of terrorism is the national deprivation and social injustice.4 Laqueur believes that objective and subjective factors and also psychological, emotional as well as aggression factors could be the emergence and growth of terrorism.5
3. Ted Robert Gurr.Economic Factors in Addressing the Causes of Terrorism.(The Club de Madrid.2005).p 19 4. Laqueur.The Age of Terrorism.(New York: Little Brown & Company,1987).p73 5. Ibid.pp235-6 Terorism: Its Origins and Theoretical Foundations / 103
Many other researchers believe that the phenomenon of international terrorism result from oppression of legitimate and liberation movements.6 See examples of these researchers are anti-colonial liberation movements for decades 50 and 60 A.D following the emergence of public protest.7 Following the protests different groups and organizations were created to overthrow their government. Many of theories believe that group's tendency toward terrorism is a time that other routes do not exist for a change, including economic struggle, peaceful protests, wants and demands of public and war based on accepted criteria. This criterion associated with "ratio ultima" (last resort) in theory of just war. So the picture that they draw people there are oppressed that have no other way. To any legitimate political action are given, Have to try all possible, everywhere have failed to have finally reached where no path other than resorting to demon of terrorism. Or should be Terrorist or not to work. Therefore, many researchers believe that the phenomenon of international terrorism caused by oppression of liberation and legitimate movements.8 Professor Antonio Cassese - famous Italian jurist - the four major causes for the new terrorism on such counts: A) existence of highly authoritarian governments and a deep economic inequalities in their community; B) the growing gap in the international centers of power and thus increase the poles of benefits that had characterized the Cold War. The centers of supporting rebel groups in other countries that had the roots or political- religious or ideological common interests, and used them as a tool to impose their policies. C) inability of the international community including the United Nations I providing an appropriate response to requests of nations to reduce discriminations and economic, social, political inequalities in international level and lack of preventive mechanisms to avoid of economic and social conflicts explosion in National and transnational levels; D) expand of utopian ideology and also
6. Abraham H.Miller.Terrorism and Hostage Negotiation.(Colorado:Westreview Press,1980).p1 7. Laqueur. op.cit. pp22-23 8. Abraham H.Milner.Terrorism and Hostage Negotiation.(Colorado,Westreview Press,1980).P1
Global Alliance 104 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace human rights doctrine.9 For Cassese, International Society legitimizes some of terrorism motives and causes, but condemns ways to realize these aspirations and goals are used.10 Actually lack of achieve the goals of the UN Charter, including "respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms" and intangible progression the economic, political and social conditions, has created sense of frustration, suffering, despair and misery in many countries among the nations. Although these factors may don't be causes of terrorism, but provide "favorable mental conditions or state that direct or indirect result in to commit such [terrorist] violence".11 Accordingly, discrimination, inequality, lack of development, intolerance and the lack of culture the tolerance towards minority groups, the most important factors in the emergence of terrorist groups are considered. Generally, terrorism is born when the people with resorting to legal means available to achieve its goals are frustrated. In this case, people disillusioned legal system, are driven the methods violence. It should be noted that in international terrorism, provocation and financing these people from foreign governments also provokes the emergence of terrorist groups. In such a situation clearly comprehensive respect of universal human rights, including civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, not only can prevent the emergence of violent groups but also eliminate "existence cause" of terrorist groups from within and without. But really where are roots of the rebellious and uncontrollable anger and what is catalyst of political, economic, social, cultural and civic conflicts and also violence and aggression? Is Terrorism a phenomenon of endogenous or exogenous? In other words, whether terrorism is effect of internal or external roots or both? Answer to these questions and such questions will be possible only if the concept of terrorism definite and
9. Antonio Cassese.Terrorism,Politics and Low.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1989).pp3-4 10. Ibid. 11. Soundy Prepared by the U.N Secretariat in Accordance with the 6th Committee at its 1314 meeting (27Sep. 1972), Cited in M.Cherif Bassiouni(Ed). International Terrorism and Political Crimes. (Illinois: Charles C.Thomos Publishers, 1975).PP 5-7. Terorism: Its Origins and Theoretical Foundations / 105 explanted accurately and comprehensively in accordance with reality. Accordingly the following analysis of the terrorism concept studies, will be studied some important theories of terrorism, including neo-liberalism, historical sociology, critical theory, post modernism, constructivism, frustration-aggression and rational choice theory and then provide conclusion of the article.
2. TERRORISM CONCEPT STUDIES Terrorism theoretical the most ambiguous and practically the most complex phenomena is that humans have been faced with it and strongly to suffer from conceptual, epistemological and methodological crisis. So far no single and exact definition of terrorism yet offered in academic and political circles of the world to be basis for joint and coordinated action of governments and international organizations. This is because unfortunately still there is no single global understand and perception of terrorism. Indeed in the same way junkman has noted as the authors "ink on paper" for providing conception and instances of terrorism as the same amount of terrorists have poured "blood of their victims" in the earth. Perhaps one reason so far of any terrorist group haven't considered itself as "terrorism", because "terrorist" further is a political label to discredit and destroy the opposition. On the other hand seems to be one of the reasons why so far no single and exact definition of terrorism yet offered, because to explain caused a pledge and countries don't want to be placed under any obligation and responsibility beyond their national interests and security against terrorism. Therefore because of lack of intersubjective consensus, even now the international community doesn't offer a universal and acceptable definition because each actor definition of this concept results from its security interests. Hence in light of such ontological and epistemological dilemma that " One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".12 Accordingly, some governments due to
12. Christine Chinlund.‖Who Should Wear the Terrorist Label?‖ Boston Globe, 8 Sept.2003, at A15. Available at: www.boston.com/news/ globe/ editional_opinion/editionals/articles/2003/09/08 who-should-wear-the-terrorist-label/.
Global Alliance 106 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace their worry about national security are unwilling to cooperate against international terrorism. They feared lest themselves become the victim and target of terrorist attacks. Of course, in the lexical meaning of terrorism, there is less difference. terrorism etymologically result from the Latin root "terror" or the Greek root "Tras" that means fear and actions of the individual or group and is referred to that way of creating fear, panic and force to reach the goal. Terrorism is followed up with aggression to collect or small target population, the larger society face up to fear and passivity to achieve their goals. So key Criterion in terrorism is to be "terrible" and "Violence- centric" and also don't to be similar the target (victim) and goal of terrorists. "To kill these to fear those", this is a philosophy of terrorism. With several victims died, some large amount terrified hostages alive can be achieved. Robert E. Goodvin believes that terrorism means the strategic use of terror. This means terrorism is a strategic feature and is intended to create terror.13 Chomsky believes that if the only common feature among the proposed definitions of terrorism to kill civilians with political goals, no country like the United States has been committing terrorist acts. He seems to have formed this custom and practice within the political discourse that will allow promoting the idea that terror will be considered weapons of the weak against the powerful. However, must not forget the powerful war against terror, which leads to killing more civilians from, is terrorism examples. In fact, a regular war against terror with more advanced and destructive weapons takes victim more than war of terrorist irregular.14 For Chomsky terrorism is a powerful weapon and if you know the weak weapons, have said the wrong word.15 Now some officials are trying to label of terrorism to all opponents, thus benefiting from the false label "terrorist" is very common. John Murphy believes that some governments simply any excuse to exercise his
13. For more information See: Robert E. Goodvin.What‘s Wrong With Terrorism?.(Polity, UK, 2006). 14. Noam Chomsky. Hegemony or Survival: America‘s Global Quest for Global Dominance. (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2003). p189 15. Ibid. Terorism: Its Origins and Theoretical Foundations / 107 opponents turns terrorist label.16 In fact, hegemonic power to act upon the concept of terrorism / terrorists as a political label to discredit opponents and especially the ongoing challenges in the way of continuing their domination and hegemony. Discreditization process of anti-hegemony (opponents of hegemony) caused the marginalization of the opposition and can not provide any ideological justification.17 According to Jenkins "Labeling terrorism" by the hegemonic and dominate powers has became a political tool. His opinion at the international level, terrorism is a label that the strong uses against the weak.18 Nevertheless, although the definition of terrorism due to conflict of ontological and epistemological knowledge between the government and different perceptions from national interests and security, this matter has made it difficult, but it can be proposed as a definition of terrorism Such can be defined(Ghaderi's proposed definition): ‖Terrorism means acts of violence and frightening (due to its sudden and surprise) and yet consciously and organized with generally political purposes and ideological - and even economic, socio - cultural and etc - individually or collectively, and with every possible means (Because the end justifies the means!), Against the civilian population and the innocent victims of terror that often terror victims (random selection or targeted of the civilians is one of the features and criteria for terrorism), are not the main aim and purpose‖. Putt exactly, correct product the terrorist process is not material and somatic attack towards victim (target), but is psychological impact, influence and behavior change the goal entity. accordingly the terrorist victims who may be a person, group, or even places of religious, cultural, economic, political and Etc., must carefully (not non-distinctive and blind) be selected up to guarantee a maximum psychological impact on the goal. These are obtained with choose the victims who have symbolic importance for the goal entity. So terrorism is logical and rational choice
16. John F.Murphy.‖Defining Terrorism: awayout of Quagmire". Israel Year book on Human Rights. Vol, 19.N, 11.1989. p13 17. Philip Jenkins. Images of Terror: what we can and can‘t know about terrorism. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2003.p4 18. Ibid.p22
Global Alliance 108 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace of fatal (destructive) force for to achieve a special (political) purpose meaning obedience of goal entity and of the terrorists will and demand. Some of the indicators and examples of terrorism are: Bombing, Killing Random, Hostage Taking, Kidnapping, Piracy (maritime security weakening), air piracy (endangering air safety and aviation), Hijacking and so on that accepted them as a terrorist crime between majorities of governments. Therefore, any acts of violence can not be called terror, although it can be considered a crime.
3. TERRORISM THEORIES It should be noted that there is no theory in international politics that can claim to have access to the truth. Because In such case, theorist values can be hiding behind beyond of its views. Theories of International Relations studied and analyzed International Politics from different views and outlook. Hence, each just explains a part of reality. And this is very simplistic and miserliness that want resorting to one theory and only one theory to understand all facts and developments in the international system - particularly the complex and ambiguous issue of terrorism. Because according to Robert Cox –theorist of critical theory in IR- ―Theory is always for some one and some purpose‖. However, a good theory should be away from the internal contradictions and link between a large number of themes and not just a specific subject area, and above all that though any theory is not free of value, but it should efforts to judge regarding fundamental beliefs and values fairly. Accordingly the following studied some of the important theories of international relations, to analyze the roots of terrorism, violence and aggression.
A. Neo-liberalism Theory It seems obvious link the economic and political benefits signify the close connection between neoliberalism and what is called the battle against terrorism. Neo-liberalism Means business and regulatory common set of rules in the world after the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO). International Monetary Fund (IMF) serve as an example of two Terorism: Its Origins and Theoretical Foundations / 109 features the obvious insecurity and injustice in the international financial system. Although the Fund is one of the largest complexes the staff of professional economists, but it has been charge of all these policies imposed on Southern countries that rather than detract from its vulnerability, it has increased. Obvious example also has been mentions of the Fund toward opening the gates on the capital markets without attention to effective regulatory framework.19 While the unequal trade relations between North and South reduce current income of the South, what increase the revenue gap in long-term is political- legal unfair structure the ownership of ne-oliberalism. This effect can be obvious in the so-called "intellectual property" that is tough to defend in over time and place in the neo-liberal world order. The most important opportunity that has provided contemporary neoliberal order, to create strong incentives for collective movement among the southern nations that formation of new terrorism and Al-Qaeda can be largely the product of these processes. Doubtlessly, poverty affects over international terrorism and result in appearance and growth of terrorism. Countries with a high percentage of poor population more expose to growing terrorist groups. Poor countries are victims of international terrorist groups' actions under the pretext of Shelter. Recruitment the terrorists in such countries due to an increasing dissatisfaction from poverty. International terrorist groups that often have considerable financial resources can be as confident resource for poor people. On the other hand individual live in the poor communities in due to extreme poverty and dissatisfaction of the status quo more readiness to attract such groups. Therefore, the most important strategy against terrorism is eliminating poverty and unemployment in these countries and in particular increases the Capacity-building among governments to prevent of the terrorist groups recruitment and their growth.
19. Peter Evans.‖Neoliberalism as a Political Opportunity: Constraint and Innovation in Contemporary Development Strategy‖. In Kevin Gallagher (Ed) Putting Development First: The Importance of Policy Space in the WTO and IFIs. (London: Zed Books, 2005).
Global Alliance 110 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Thus, increasing poverty, resources crisis and unfavorable conditions in developing countries that are occurred due to continuous exploitation of the developed countries, have been cause further spread of poverty and hunger in this countries. These factors make it by itself that this individual to combat exploiters to resort terrorist actions. So from this perspective, the origin of terrorism is poverty and hunger and the world countries should to deal with this problem should focus their main attention to the eradication of poverty. Hence poverty as one of the main origins of terrorism that stems from the unfair distribution of power and Wealth between countries of the north and south areas, is considered. Important and noticeable point is that poverty is not as the only main factor to account for violence but this problem can do a combination of poverty, injustice and the petition in the present world. Peace and security only with counter-terrorism [as the effect] is not possible but also should poverty [as the cause] further be considered.
B. Historical Sociology Theory In summary we can say, the main features of historical sociology, the interest to this point is how we suppose the structure indisputably (and naturally) , are the product of a complex set of social processes. Such that the formation of the new terrorism also was product of domestic, regional and historic transregional complex process especially after Cold War, the first half of 1990. Separate investigation and analysis regarding history cultures and its sociology, indicates that human has a variety of feelings, that its orientation determines by the process and quality of human life. And this process either individual or collective creates reflections that result in aggression. So from the perspective of historical sociology, the origins of terrorism should further will be analyzed in history of communities.
C. Critical Theory Critical theory that can properly considers as "theory of dominant denial" - under the influence of Karl Marx- proposes this hypothesis that the aim Terorism: Its Origins and Theoretical Foundations / 111 of understanding the world, to transform it. Knowledge should be change tool. Richard Ashley admits Cox argument that maintaining the established order requires domination relations20. Ashley Favored theme is current facilities for the development of anti-hegemony forces within and against the dominant order that is capable of leading to greater independence of action. Accordingly, critical theorists seek to knowledge for a political objective: Liberation of humanity from oppressive structures of the world politics and the world economy that is controlled by hegemonic powers in particular America capitalism. They want to unveil from dominance face of the north on the south, thus is following the overthrow of the social and economic current system. Critical theorists are very political. The purposes are exactly the same purposes of the new terrorism in order to system change that is followed by "Sayed Qutb" opinions and ideas. Therefore, critical theory seeks emancipation the human of the oppression structures in world politics and global economy that is controlled by hegemonic powers....21 R. Cox about the internal contradictions in the existing international order refers to the social movements that can create effective challenges against inequitable world order. These according to Stephen Gill, is counter- hegemonic forces that challenge dominant political and institutional arrangements. The challenge requires shaping set of alternative values, concepts, and considerations for anti-hegemony. Counter-hegemonic forces entirely have not clear nature and may be progressive or not.22
20. Richard Ashley, K.‖Three Modes of Economism‖.International Studies Quarterly. Vol, 27.No, 4. 1983. p477 21. Robert Jackson and George Sorensen. Introduction to International Relations. (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). 22. J. Steam and L. Pettiford.Internatioal Relations: Perspectives and Themes.(London: Longman, 2001).p117 - S. Gill.‖Epistemology, Onthology, and the Italian School". In S. Gill. Historical Materialism and International Relations.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).p43
Global Alliance 112 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
D. Postmodernism Theory Emergence of Postmodernism phenomenon result from the intersection of political and epistemological developments. The developments of the mid-1960s, gradually has found more coherent form and in the 1970s A.D., resulted the emergence post-structuralism (Postmodernism philosophical arm)." Jacques Derrida" - post-modern philosopher – considers terrorism as sign of a kind of failure in current order in modernism defensive mechanism that were designed to protect the system, but used against itself. For Habermas, intolerance of religious - fundamentalism of modern era – is kind of defensive reaction against modernism and in defense of traditional methods of life – such that Postmodernism also has risen against modernity. He understands violence of terrorism that results from fundamentalism, like the pathological form of communication that result from suspicion and lead to communication failure. Thus, reforming the structure and type of communication can overcome the problems due to terrorism. Thus terrorists like Al-Qaeda that can be considered as by product globalization, don't be relevant to nature of Islam but it is reaction (response) to the mistakes of modernity. From this perspective, Ashley and Walker's emphasis is on the plurality and diversity, "giving voice" to "marginals" and their own words," Exiles"23.
E. Constructivism Theory Constructivism theory with emphasis on identity and discourse in international relations rooted in "problem of knowledge sociology", which was introduced in 1970s by Peter Berger and Thomas Lakeman. From this perspective, the reality is made and polished of society. "Thus Since terrorism is a political-social Construction; conceptualization about it results from collective to establish connection and language and is designer of a bridge of the common sense. From this perspective, the actual function the definition of terrorism is "de-legitimize» the other
23. R Ashley and R.B.J. Walker." Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies". International Studies Quarterly 34, 3.p3.1990. Terorism: Its Origins and Theoretical Foundations / 113 identity. These common meanings can - according to constructivism - create common ideas that based on it; patterns of friendship and hostility construct special discourses. Within this discourse is that discourse of or "with us" or "against us" specifies semantic boundaries between terrorist and anti-terrorist. Thus, terror is social - political action for revival the marginalized discourse and in other words brings defeated discourse along to text. Current terminologies the terrorism is related to ethnic, national, or religious minorities that feel is not heard theirs sounds. Worse that they have been suppressed, have been marginalized, and have been humiliated, the people according to Frantz Fanon, are "Wretch of the Earth".24 Terrorists somehow resort to social construction the reality with tools of their knowledge. Terrorists seeking the restoration of identity that have been transformed due to social interaction. Relationship between identity and terrorism is a mutual relationship. Norms, values and attitudes is all as a social construction and in the context of ontology and discourse define terrorist action. So the whole concept of terrorism is Intersubjective theme and is affected by ontological and epistemological dimensions. Perhaps, and probably terrorism at one time only was a political problem, but today has become a religious - political and or identity problem. In other words, we see new terrorism with religious doctrines. For example, Osama Bin Laden's famous fatwa against the United States call that says "to kill the Americans and their allies - the military and civilians - is the duty of every Muslim individual that can to be done in each country and with every possible means. This individual Muslim action summarizes to release Holy Mosque (Mecca) and withdrawal from all Islamic countries.25
24. Frantz Fanon. The Wretched of the Earth. (New York: Grove Press, 1963).P 117. 25. Robert A. Pape. "The Strategic logic of suicide terrorism". American political science review. Vol, 19. No, 3. (August 2003). p 343
Global Alliance 114 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
F. Frustration – aggression Theory One of the most important factors in creating violence and aggression is frustration and failure. This theory in 1939 was raised by Dollard. According to this theory, aggression is obvious at the time (when) that the man face with frustration, to lose the credibility and reputation, failure and so on. In logic of Frustration – aggression whether Frustration results in aggression or not, depends on mutual impact the four component sets: A) the importance of purpose under the exclusion (for example, right to self-determination and emancipation of occupation; B) The intensity of exclusion experience (for example, military occupation, repression, imprisonment, unemployment, the marginalization); C) frequency of exclusion experience (for example, police harassment, targeted killings, humiliated conflict at checkpoints) ; D) prediction the punishment (penalty) to attack the sources of exclusion perceived26. According to Daollrd, always frustration leads to the kind of violence27. Dollard utters failed person attacks to any thing or the man that consider him as cause of frustration and failure. Accordingly, choosing terrorism is not ever to achieve illegitimate dominance, but sometimes results from despair and desperation: "the helpless people easily to get attract the terrorist organizations". Social inequalities and lack of social justice based on the theory of frustration- aggression can Leads weakness party to conflict that ever and necessarily is not associated with rational behavior. Therefore efforts the international community to establishing social justice and eliminating poverty and inequality of societies can prevent from terrorist actions that out of necessity to do. Accordingly, governments that deprive a group from Right to Self-Determination are responsible for violent acts performed by them.
26. J.L.W.Dood, Dollard, N.E.Miller, O.H.Mowrer and R.R.Sears.Frustration and Aggression. (Newhaven: Yale University Press, 1939). 27. Ibid. p 8 Terorism: Its Origins and Theoretical Foundations / 115
G. Rational Choice Theory The most important presupposition in rational choice theory is that many important forms of political actions result from deliberate choices to achieve to hypothetical purposes.28 In rational choice theory, every individual has choice accessories (ie rational capacity, time and being isolated of feelings). Guiding principle in rational choice theory is that human behavior is targeted, measured and consciously. Terrorists and leaders of terrorist groups not only act rationally in practice, but sometimes also resort to useful and un-useful evaluation of the terrorist act.29 Therefore, as explained Alex Schmidt, attacking innocent and defenseless human beings is a kind conscious political strategy to persuade or dissuade the people who are not among the victims30. Therefore, terrorist attacks focus on the civilians because they are valuable tool for transferring terrorists' message to goal and to reach their demands. Always terrorists are not looking for to obtain maximum profits and benefits and privileges and too ambitious goals. Thus one of the terrorist strategic orientations (and also suicide terrorism) is timing, suspend or delay the campaign that often be performed by strategic decisions the leaders of terrorist organizations. This suspensions probably accomplishes with this justifies that much attacks and following up the maximum benefits could result in reversed consequence and prevent them from obtaining mandatory purposes, for example, efforts to obtain full or partial concessions from the government aimed at political goals the terrorists. Terrorists understand these issue that the following goals to get out of the logistical ability and their facilities may result in unpleasant consequences for them. For example, terrorists never threaten macro interests and the government existence security. Because they know that their ability in terms of manpower, technology, military power and
28. Margraves Heap and et al. The theory of Choice: a critical Guide. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1992). PP 3-26 and 93-130 29. Pape. op.cit. 30. David Rapport. The politics of Atrocity. (New York: John Jas press, 1977). p 47
Global Alliance 116 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace economic ability, especially in democratic national governments, ability and their political support is not as targeted government and thus are realized if governments feel that macro interests and their existence security be under threat of terrorists, resort to comprehensive action against terrorists that in this case terrorists will lose. Therefore, the terrorists based on the logic of "strategic defense, tactical offense" to organize their terrorist actions. In fact, terrorists often are not looking for maximum purpose but in the specific time seek determined purposes and declared before. Because they know governments for small targets, have not recourse to big operations and as a result will not willing to pay the cost of these operations. And for small terrorist actions resort to small actions that mainly terrorists are winner. Especially the suicide issue here is very effective. Because killing and terrorizing civilians by terrorists, damage to the credibility of governments in citizens safety fields and especially when terror is suicide. Because for the citizens and public opinion, the incidence of a terrorist incident is a problem and punishes the agents is other issue. This means that the government has failed to solve the problem of terrorism. Thus, governments have to surrender oneself to small and minimum demands the terrorists. Terrorists understand the mechanisms of playing and as a result try to determine possibility of achieving the objective in the real conditions. This does not mean that terrorists are never looking for maximum purposes, But depending on their teachings, beliefs (religion), universal values, beliefs and especially their ideologies, are following ideals that further relate to theoretical rationality31 and method of their theoretical understanding regarding their teachings. However, terrorists depending on theoretical rationality ie with inspiration from its opinionative, mythological, ideological sources and... Select maximum long-term purposes. But the path toward these purposes, based on active rationality and rational prediction analyses the possibility of achieving interests and short-term purposes. In Rationality strategic are
31. Basically, when speak of the terrorism cultural and opinionative- religious roots, is related to the field of theoretical rationality. Terorism: Its Origins and Theoretical Foundations / 117 considered rational calculations of others in choosing their purposes and actions. In general, what is the name of the new terrorism is well known, is that their attacks is irrational ie don't consider rational calculations of cost – benefit. But what is terrorism, coupled with old and new is a kind of rationality, but has changed nature of rationality - material pure rationality and spiritual pure rationality and or quantum combined rationality.
CONCLUSION Basically, the phenomenon of terrorism as old as history and government politics among humanity. Terrorism is a tactic historically weak enjoys for frightening stronger and strong for frightening weaker. But today a phenomenon of terrorism has taken new shape and is becoming a dominant theory in our life among governments and nations. The reality is that terrorism often is reaction to broadening economic structures, political preferences, cultural attitudes and style life governing the West. In such circumstances the way that power and wealth distribution is completely unfair, entities that fewer enjoy of these components in the world resort to tactic of terrorism for compensate of their weaknesses. What terrorist activities oven kept warm, is tangible discrimination and double standards in the international community than some cultures that to assemble field and ground of growth and proliferation of historic complexes and beliefs of terrorist and even deviation of public opinion toward protection from terrorist activists. From this point of view," terrorism is resultant the accumulation of historic repressed complexes and beliefs". Therefore, failures, economic pressure, domination, insulting a society taboos cause complexes that this complexes in expediency situations has become aggression, violence and terror. From this view of point, terrorism is product of oppressed anger and inability vis-à-vis tyranny and dominant. Yet, no theory could not and can not to be acceptable as model of explanative and descriptive for species of violence. Probably diversity of violent behaviors is intrinsic barrier to provide a general theory.
Global Alliance 118 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Certainly, disaster conditions and unfavorable the current international community is the result of oppression and injustice and the powerful greed. In such current international system, "Ethics is an illusion and Law as such ie the powerful consensus". It also accepted that terrorists night- long don't become terrorist. No one is not born terrorist and aggression and violence is a social construction. Terrorism is a by product of our own function. Understanding of terrorism can not be studied except structure and system the Ruling the world. However, "Terrorist is Terrorist" and same guilty, outcast and insufferable. And because it is one of the most serious and most dangerous manifestations of threat to international peace and security, is condemned at all its forms and manifestations, on the side of anyone, anywhere and for any purpose. And that is why and always believed that "the End - though legitimate and holly -don't justifies the Means". Therefore, nothing justifies terrorism. This means that separating terrorism to good terrorist and bad terrorist is biggest damage and Achilles' heel for combat against terrorism phenomenon. Unfortunately, politics is so complicated that one country can in sync combat against terrorism and at the same time effort in support of it.
Terrorism: Vital Remarks / 119
Terrorism: Vital Remarks Félix Ángel Herrero Duran
Here are the questions I answer it: 1- Terrorism is inherently bad, has two variants, the state of insanity or madness caused by despair, this occurs mainly at the individual and often the response to another terrorist. And terrorism organized groups or states, is the most vicious and sophisticated, and it is not only the direct cause of death, blood and tears but also is the source of terrorism of the desperate. 2- By sheer logic would have to ask who gets the benefits, and the answer is clear, the multinational weapons, the predators of the global wealth, the new slave of the corporations. 3- the colonialist countries are the Evil Empire, despite its apparent democratic forms, are in the hands of lobbyists linked to Zionism and the big global trusts, their governments do not do it to their people but to their employers and They use state terrorism to create confusion and terror end up with governments that truly defend human dignity. 4- easy question to answer, the countries of the Evil Empire manufactured weapons, create wars to sell their production (eg Saddam Hussein's aggression in the Islamic Republic of Iran), if there were no wars productions would not be necessary and death his powerful industries would collapse. Why do wars happen often in countries with mineral wealth? They already pay the credits to buy weapons with its mineral wealth, and this is a formula over the plunder to submitting the tyrants of the Evil Empire to the free peoples of the planet. 5- The war of aggression is one of the most ruthless terrorist formulas, interestingly most of the wars have been sponsored by lobbyists need for the arms industry to output a production that otherwise would not sell.
the President of Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Entities.
Global Alliance 120 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
The weapons are bought to kill another against the will of the same and the trade should be more forbidden the drug trade. Islamophobia and xenophobia in the countries of the Evil Empire used to prepare public opinion in these countries, properly manipulated by the media to applaud the attack on Libya or any other country, and then also claim that the costs of the war pay the Libyan people, ie the families of the victims of these weapons. The United States gave the green light to Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait and Kuwait had to pay the expenses gringos his release, before they had paid Saddam and the weapons that invaded Kuwait. 6- It is simply the implementation or use of new technologies in the field of terrorism. 7- Unfortunately the UN was born flawed, is in the hands of the powerful and arrogant, the Security Council is ineffective and partial, to buy the votes of the corrupt in poor countries (poor because of the Evil Empire steal their riches ) is mixed or interest imposed by the courts. O reformed UN or this will be increasingly futile. 8 - Just Peace, difficult to achieve while the human being is free from the bondage of Satan, many millions of people work for Just Peace, but others work for the exploitation of men, many men have fallen into the path of martyrdom preparing the coming of Imam Mehdi, we will continue that way over our consciousness, our intelligence, our words and our written to convince people that the Just Peace will come, the Imam Mehdi will bring power and kneel before the arrogant. The arrogance of the powerful countries of the Evil Empire know they have their days, their time has passed, the Almighty will put an end to their arrogance, will substitute other people, I do not trust the leaders of powerful countries, I trust in the Almighty. 9 - in fact people do not think that the greatest terrorist threat are the armies of the Evil Empire and its weapons of mass destruction. 10 - Allah (swt) has made man and woman and thinking beings capable of reason, we must help mankind to find happiness in the way of good Terrorism: Vital Remarks / 121 speech and writing are used to promote the culture, if give words and writings of peace by promoting a Culture of Peace. 11 - Peace with Justice is only done while do not be oppressed and oppressors Paz. 12 - It is a form of terrorism among other things serves to justify the terrorist attacks in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Libya, also serves to the people of the country in the hands of the Evil Empire can not see that humanitarian aid performed with long-range missiles with unmanned combat aircraft and missiles and cluster housing depleted uranium. 13 - State Terrorism occurs when the state falls into the hands of a group that uses it for their own benefit at the expense of people's interests, states act in the hands of terrorists within its borders both com or outwards, not make discrimination between victims, following the premise of English Churchill "England has no friends has interest," the State today Is the quintessential terrorist Zionist Entity of Israel, with impunity thanks to their control over the government of the United States of North America practiced all forms of terrorism. 14 - Because of the sacrifice of many thinkers of different ideologies, but united by the pursuit of justice, the world still holds the barbarism to which the Evil Empire would like to bring the peoples of the world. 15 - The power to change the religious leaders over the conscience is very strong, but there are false leaders and false prophets, they serve neither the man nor his Creator, they are infiltrators from the Evil Empire, are those with try to destroy the earth seed, we do not serve religious leaders who live in palaces, luxury and softness are false leaders are frauds aupados to charges that are the most moving human-like puppets. The day religions and schools of thought are true leaders this is the day that marked the decline of Mal irreversibly.
Global Alliance 122 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Terrorism, Need for Unity in Definition / 123
Terrorism, Need for Unity in Definition Saber Nojoumi *, Amin Valizadeh **
Abstract Acts of terrorism in the early decade of the 21st century, taking place under any motive and excuse, have shaped a new outlook of the Western world to the phenomenon of terrorism. This new approach developed an evolution in the definition of terrorism at the world level which, prior to being in accordance with the main cause of the crime, derived from political aims. Among different outcomes of this new perspective was that terrorism was generalized to all acts of violence. The new discourse of the West on terrorism, prior to being attached to the nature and identity of this phenomenon, is hidden in political and security targets of the West in its outlook to the power to control the world, especially in the aftermath of the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Despite the fact that today all countries univocally condemn terrorism, the concept of terrorism and its constituting elements are not known. Records show that the international community has so far made great efforts to define terrorism but has not yet reached a consensus in this regard. Terrorist incidents in recent years prepared the ground so that terrorism was placed on top of international issues. In order to confront such an ominous phenomenon, first boundaries of terrorism should be identified so that legal reactions could be adopted against it. Keywords: Terrorism, international law, legal concept
* M.A. graduate in International Law, Allameh Tabatabaei University ** M.A. student in International Law
Global Alliance 124 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Introduction Several terrorist attacks which occurred in the closing decades of the 20th century, underlined the need for a global and comprehensive fight against terrorism in the beginning of the third millennium. The UN Security Council took advantage of the situation for adopting general anti- terrorism regulations and issued several resolutions, including Resolution 1368 (12 September 2001) in which it identified international terrorism as an element threatening peace and world security and explicitly referred to the right to defend oneself against such attempts and Resolution1373 (28 September 2001) in which it obliged countries to carry out or refrain from implementing certain measures. The 9/11 incident -- occurred under whatever excuses -- resulted in the shaping of a special outlook of the Western world to terrorism phenomenon. But, after a while and subsiding primary sensitivities, exercising legal and political approach towards terrorism was further emphasized by lawyers and experts. The war logic that was adopted by the United State and its allies in the aftermath of 9/11 incident (under the pretext of legal defense) was brought under criticism and its results, instead of reducing terrorism, unfortunately caused further escalation of violence and increase in terrorist acts throughout the world. This new outlook brought about changes in the definition of terrorism worldwide that prior to being in conformity with the original crime it was originated from political targets. One of the outcomes of this new outlook was that terrorism was promulgated to any type of violent act. The new Western discourse on terrorism prior to having any relation with the nature of this phenomenon was connected to political and security targets of the West in its approach towards power for controlling the world, especially in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Terrorism either domestic or international has been spread throughout the world and become one of the most complicated and difficult tasks and challenges the world is confronting in the beginning of the 21st century. So far many questions, including its definition, have remained unanswered. Today no generally accepted definition could be offered in the international law for terrorism and the present definition could only Terrorism, Need for Unity in Definition / 125 embody limited cases. In civil law, like international law, there is no consensus about definition of terrorism due to the prevailing political disputes among countries which has naturally affected this subject matter. In fact, each country views the issue from the angle of its own interests and would interfere its own priorities in this regard. This factor (adherence of terrorism from political interests) has resulted in developing lack of consensus over building a comprehensive agreement. Another point is that terrorism is basically a political concept and gaining importance the world over, especially in the aftermath of 9/11 incidents, is the most important reason for its political nature.
Need to define terrorism ―Terrorism is an easy and impossible concept and in fact the widespread wave of campaign against terrorism and multiplicity of its usage in political literature and international law would make less people concerned about the sound meaning of this term.‖ 1 Discussions about definition of terrorism have more become an art rather than a scientific and academic topic. With regard to lack of a general definition for terrorism, the mass media for description of its performance use such terms as ―rebels‖ or ―guerrillas‖. However, developing an applicable definition of terrorism would help us to better understand the term and best instruments to fight with it. Definition of terrorism would also help those who are exposed to such an accusation and in fact put an instrument at their disposal to defend themselves.2 Some experts in the field of terrorism such as Walter Laqueur are dubious about debates over the subject as they argue whether unending discussions over terrorism would end up to a fruitful conclusion. Walter Laqueur believes, ―Even if a comprehensive definition which would embody all important aspects of terrorism would be achieved, it would be
1.Seyed Qassem Zamanai, ―Status of International Standards of Human Rights in Fighting Terrorism‖, Legal Researches, Vol. 8, 4th year, 2005, p. 43. 2. HH.Acooper," Terrorism: the Problems of Definition," the American Behavioral Scientist , Feb 2001; Vol 44,Iss. 6, pp. 387-388.
Global Alliance 126 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace rejected by some due to ideological reasons.‖ 3 In the absence of a comprehensive definition for terrorism, this concept would be equal with any type of violence that the analyst optionally chooses and finally this would be political considerations that determine how a stance of terrorism should be quoted. As a reality, terrorists would continue their operations due to lack of consensus over definition of terrorism and absence of punishment by the governments or agencies of international organizations.4 Terrorism is not the only concept for which there is no definition in international law, for example the term ethnics which has plenty of applications in international documents of human rights lacks a definition which would be acceptable to all from international point of view. But, this does not mean that no definition would be reached or at least described. Possibly it might be opined that a complete definition of this phenomenon, if it exists at all, would at least encounter the issue of inclusion (embracing all cases) and also contraction or that any definition of terrorism would be characteristic of a specific region. 5 However, it should be admitted that ―terrorism for hundreds of years has created major problems and although an end could not be put to it, it could be understood, managed and finally resolved.‖6 Development of a definition would encourage terrorists to be motivated and pay attention to ethical points and thus decide to change their approach (such as guerrilla wars) in order to realize their goals and thereby confine the scope of international terrorism. 7
,(Walter Laqueur، the Age of Terrorism,( Little Browll and company, Boston 1987 .3 pp. 149-150. 4. Kshitij Prabha, Terrorism: An instrument of Foreign Policy, (South Asian Publisher New Dehli, 2000), p.13. 5. Caleb Corr, "Terrorism: why the Definition must be Broad," World Policy Journal, spring 2007, 1, p.48. 6. Dennis J. Sandole, Terrorism and Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, (Georgemason University, Aukland, 2006), p. 84. Case Western Reserve ٫"Terrorism: The Difinitional Problem‖٫ Alex P. Schmid .7 .2/3, 2004 , pp. 379-380 Vol.36٫ Journal Of International Law٫
Terrorism, Need for Unity in Definition / 127
Therefore, with regard to the above-mentioned points it could be said that although fight with such an ominous phenomenon is possible even in the absence of a comprehensive definition, and the international community is currently carrying out its campaign against terrorism under such circumstances (lack of a comprehensive definition). But, obviously in the case of consensus over a specific definition it could be hoped for an overall and comprehensive encounter with this phenomenon and its legal regime could be considered all-embracing with a general definition.
Approaches in definition of terrorism The question in this section is about those involved in defining terrorism. In response to this question first the ―conceptual definition‖ should be separated from ―administrative concept‖ as those involved in the two areas are different from each other. In the conceptual concept lawyers, politicians, sociologists, historians and specialists are active whereas in the second group, that is to say in administrative concept, official government institutions, international organizations and different agencies take part. Clearly, definitions of the second group would not be sophisticated as much as the definitions of the first group since they have been compiled to confront a group which opposes their interests. In international organizations it is further noticed that official views of the governments in defining terrorism which is under the influence of their political approaches and interests, gain more power in comparison with academic definitions by researchers. As for the disagreement among researchers, it should be said that it is normal as each definition could reflect interests of the person who is offering that definition. In politics, ―terms‖ are not neutral and are important. Given that terms often convey legitimacy or condemnation of something and are used as instruments to mobilize public opinion8, the term terrorism in organizational definitions usually has the same application. In response to the first question, who are involved in defining
8. Alex. p Schmid, op.cit. p. 385
Global Alliance 128 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace terrorism, reference should be made to the following individuals and institutions: national parliaments, the executive, the judiciary, regional organizations and the United Nations on the one hand and academics, victims, audience and media on the other hand. The term terrorism, in the course of its shaping since 18th century, has been constantly faced with widespread changes in its semantic orientation; sometimes it has been used in positive concepts and sometimes for creating fear and hatred. Therefore, terrorism could be referred to as an ―essentially contested concept‖. The meaning of contested is clear but what about ―concept‖? ―Concept is the orientation of a term and is indicative of efforts for confining term in a stable meaning, confining it for referring to the events and incidents in the outside world.‖9 A concept is a ―word‖ which has meaning orientations and is used for making reference to specific events. The issue of transferring a term into a concept takes place in a process of conversion and transformation and the factor ―intention‖ would enter the scene at this point. The relation between the intention, the term and the concept resembles a triangle. With the help of an intellectual process, an intention would change a term into a concept and would make the concept of a term ―communicable‖. A definition is basically an equation, a new and unknown concept, which is explained with the help of combination of at least two terms. But, if only one element of the multidimensional aspects would be available, in that case a ―synonym‖ or translation of a term should be discussed and not a definition.10 For example, defining terrorism in ―what terrorists are involved with‖ is a blatant description of the term itself (self-definition) or interpretation of terrorism which is translation of a term rather than its definition. In the definition of terrorism as a multidimensional term, in addition to full recognition of the concept, it should be differentiated from other similar concepts. In fact, relations of terrorism with some other
9. Ibid., 10. Alex.P. Schmid, op.cit, pp. 400-401. Terrorism, Need for Unity in Definition / 129 concepts such as liberation struggles have caused several problems on the way of reaching a consensus in defining terrorism.
Characteristics of a proper definition In reaching a comprehensive agreement on and a proper definition of terrorism the following points should be taken into consideration: 1-Discussing terrorism and its response demands deliberations of each specific period; for example terrorists of the 19th century could not be compared with terrorists of the present time. Therefore, paying attention to the era and time is one of the most important factors in a proper definition.11 2-Preventing emotional orientations in defining terrorism: following emotions would result in calling an enemy a terrorist and a friend freedom fighter. Unfortunately, most of studies about terrorism and liberation uprisings have less moved towards rationalism and more towards looking at terrorism from an emotional angle.12 3- Terrorism could be carried out both by government and non- governmental agencies. Therefore, excluding each class of the payers could inflict major harm on the definition. Making reference to state terrorism is among major reasons for opposition of the West to a comprehensive definition of terrorism. 4- Moral condemnation of terrorism is less confronted with a problem among different characteristics that are mentioned in the definition of terrorism. The difference between an instance of bomb explosion in a primary school and for example a liberation movement is clearly understandable; while the latter might entail some support the former is totally condemned.13
11. Dennis J.D. Sandole, op. cit, p.1-5. 12. Ibid , p. 94. 13. Benjamin R. Barver, op. cit, p.55.
Global Alliance 130 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
5- A proper definition should firstly cover all operations that might be identified as terrorism and should have all serious connects with humanitarian legal issues.14 6- A proper definition should be compatible with legal justice and should have international performance guarantees. 7- Given that terrorism is a multi-dimensional definition certainly any simple definition would be insufficient and incomprehensive. According to Walter Laqueur ―terrorism is a dangerous concept for simplification and generalization‖.15 8- In the study of terrorism paying attention to the following points is of great importance: terrorism is a complicated and verified phenomenon and in its study one should not be entrapped in extreme generalization. In the study of terrorism, history should be rationally used as an analytic tool. Finally, ―terrorism is an example of human interaction which has been misled and, therefore, for its study and recognition, proper human conditions should be employed, concepts such as reality and psychology.‖
Conclusion It should be admitted that a one-sided thorough definition of a phenomenon which has been turned into one of the most important security challenges of many countries today, could be highly abstractive. In this way, following a specific order and accompanying of policy scholars, lawyers, governmental experts and even sociologists, economists, and psychologists is also needed. No doubt, for a concentration on terrorism, first a definition should be presented in order to fully clarify its nature. But, for different reasons not only countries have failed to reach a common definition of terrorism also the United Nations is facing the same problem. Scholars and experts from different
14. Bruce Broonhall," State Actors in International Definition of Terrorism From a Human Rights Perspective", Case Western Reserve Journal of in International Law, 2004, p.p.421-422. 15. Walter Laqueur, op .cit, p. 9.
Terrorism, Need for Unity in Definition / 131 countries have tried to offer definitions to bring public opinion closer for confronting this phenomenon. However, such definitions are accepted by some while are rejected by some others. Among major reasons for disagreement in this regard, variety of instances, targets and motives could be cited as examples. The United Nations has repeatedly tried to offer common definitions for terrorism that could be accepted by all countries but has failed as interests of the big powers lies in that concepts such as ―liberation movements‖ should be turned into terrorism. But, some other countries are supporting those movements and are calling for their support. Currently, in numerous resolutions and announcements of the Security Council and General Assembly and in international conventions on fight against terrorism, this phenomenon has been considered a ―threat to international peace and security‖ and in contradiction with targets of the UN Charter. In the International Court of Justice, although no reference has been made to terrorism in the articles of association of the Court, but with regard to Resolution E of the Rome Conference and Article 123 of the articles of association which has predicted a revision in it and also with regard to developments in the aftermath of 9/11, it is possible that in a near future all would be witness to the inclusion of terrorism in crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court. Although after the elapse of seventy years since the emergence of the topic of terrorism at international level and compilation of dozens of conventions, protocols, resolutions, announcements and statements in this respect, still there is no definite expression on the concept of terrorism. But, anti-terrorism conventions (either global or regional) have prepared strong backgrounds for taking measures against terrorism. However, while it could be admitted that so far the international law has failed to reach an internationally accepted definition of terrorism, with the consensus that has been developed among governments in expressing their disgust of the phenomenon and in announcing their readiness for a serious fight against terrorism, the issue of condemning various shapes of terrorism has gained more popularity. It seems that in a near future the
Global Alliance 132 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
United Nations would be capable of preparing a comprehensive document in the field of terrorism in such a way that it could be accepted by all members of the international community. The New World Order and Terrorism Implications / 133
Part II
Terrorism
And International Community
Global Alliance 134 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
The New World Order and Terrorism Implications / 135
The New World Order and Terrorism Implications Manuel Galiana Ros
TERRORISM AND FREEDOM The New World Order´s (NOW) goal is the establishment of a world government by law, this is legalising a situation that ―de facto‖ exists, in most countries in this planet. This NWO preaches and has been busy imposing regulations that must result in a globalization, the way they want it, totally against the laws of Nature: A) Freedom for goods and merchandises to circulate without restrictions. This in theory wonderful purpose, being ultimately handled and implemented by the large multinationals, basically constitutes a kind of commercial terrorism. First of all, it will be the large corporations who will determine which low prices have to be paid to the producing countries of food and raw materials, in the third world mainly, being also able to impose if so they want silent sanctions against these countries not willing to follow their decrees. B) Freedom for people moving out of their countries of origin (mainly from poor countries) based on the theoretical need of cheap labor in more developed countries. This is a system that could perhaps work in an unlimited world, with unlimited resources, but we are already starting to experience in Europe mainly, due to the present and foreseeable even worse economic situation that the immigrant collectives will be facing in the short term a situation where most of them will have to return to their counties of origin.
Member of Cultural Council to the Ministry of Education, Spain.
Global Alliance 136 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
It has to be mentioned that the alibi proposed by the ―System‖ in order to have access to this cheap labor is mainly that these poor people are fleeing from wars or poverty. The truth is that wars are most times caused and/or manipulated by western interests and that special interest should be put in avoiding these to happen. The poverty in many third world counties is also caused due to the high level of corruption of their local oligarchies, guided by the ―Money Masters‖ of this world in this effort. We can consider both above situations as a kind of terrorism. C) Another kind of terrorism is that one being imposed from United Nations organizations in order to impose throughout the world immoral and anti natural values such as: The well known ideology of ―gender‖ as an euphemistic way to describe ―sex‖. The politically correct speech being delivered worldwide is that the difference between a man and a woman is simply cultural, there is nothing natural about it. Consequently any human being is free to determine their sex, regardless of the one Nature has provided. A logical promotion of anti natural Homo- Bi- and Transexual values is being extended till the last corner of the planet. The idea of the ―traditional‖ family is so far being ―tolerated‖, but there is a strong drive towards boosting the existence of monoparental families (most just with a mother) and the totally anti Divine plan homosexual ―marriages‖, including the right to adopt children for these by nature non fertile couples. Radical feminism through the corresponding lobbies, financed in a generous way by the ―System‖ are being instrumental through totally controlled mass media in order to promote all the above and also the following: The right for women to carry out abbortions (in case of those of minor age, even without their parents´ consent or knowledge. The ―nasciturus‖ is contemplated by UN legislation as a mere appendix of a woman who can in consequence get rid of it without any responsibility. This programme is almost fully installed in most western countries and the UN organization for children care UNESCO is in charge of promoting The New World Order and Terrorism Implications / 137 legislation changes in third world countries if they want to receiving some funding for other purpose.
OTHER WAYS TO PROMOTE TERRORISM IN MORE THAN ONE DIRECTION The fact that the following corporations: FOX NEWS, TIMES WARNER, DISNEY, SONY, BERTELSMANN, VIACOM and GENERAL ELECTRIC, control in a direct or indirect way more than 85% of the information that is published worldwide must be considered as a clear act of cultural terrorism. Alternative versions of events happening internationally can only be followed through Internet of by means of small alternative media. The mainstream media will follow an editorial line strictly following the directives most likely issued by a joint committee linking all above seven groups. In this chapter against cultural rights of people we can also mention that in some countries in Europe, some people are in jail due to the horrible crime of publishing, writing or even selling books. I want to mention the case in Barcelona (Spain) of Pedro Varela, owner of a book shop and publisher who is in jail since last November 2010, for selling and editing books that are not included in any list of ―forbidden books‖. A judge sentence, seen by many experts in law as ―anticonstitutional‖ has been applied on the victim. Another four Spaniards are awaiting sentence based on the same crime. The main charges against these people are these of being clearly ―anti- Semitic‖. This is the official terminology used in a deceptive way by the legislation of many western countries. I mean deceptive, because they make use of the term Semitic, actually meaning Jewish. The well known arrogance of that ethnia comes to the point where they want to identify semitic with jewish, when everybody knows that over 95% of semitics are arabs. In any case, in the West, you have the freedom to ridiculize the moslim Prophet and to perform plays in theatre and movies about Jesus, like
Global Alliance 138 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
CORPUS CHRISTI to be made public by September showing him and his apostles as homosexuals, but if one dares confronting the new RELIGION and try to make public arguments and/or evidences which will confront some of the truths as told by the winners in World War II, then you will end up in jail. All necessary efforts must be made in order to reverse this situation and that ideas can be freely expressed so that people may reach their own judgement about any given case. Financial and monetary terrorism is the term to be applied to the present situation. If the total amount of ―digital money‖ existing in all banks, down to the last tax haven were consolidated, we could see a grand total of ―theoretical‖ funds (because over 90% of these have not been even printed ever) that could buy about 19 times all products and services on earth. Perhaps the time is not too far out when all the indebted countries of this world, after some totally necessary ―political changes‖ that may be pushed by their respective populations, may officially ask who would be the ultimate recipients if the moneys due would be returned (condition impossible to fulfil as it would mean undergoing conditions that most people is not going to accept) State terrorism is the chapter with which I will close the present article, which has been drawn in order to complement ―traditional terrorism” For those people aware of the last state of the art regarding advances in audio visual electronic devices and systems, besides the full control on banking operations existing, it is quite clear that an organisation like AL QUAEDA, formed, trained and financed by the CIA in the 80´in order to get the Russians out of Afganistan, cannot if their creators do not have the will, become independent and still less act against the country and interests of their founders. In consequence a well informed person must assume that most AL QUAEDA´s actions are totally guided (perhaps one could think that some minority groups of foundamentalists trying to do their own tasks are also believed to be the same) The 11 S in New York is very clearly the most significant example of disinformation with the purpose of criminalisig Islam, following a long The New World Order and Terrorism Implications / 139 ago well defined route of action in order to eventually promote a Third World War. The easiest way to jump over any ―theory of conspiration‖ would be to let the American Associations of Architects and Pilots explain with in detail videos, what a demolition is actually like and also which would be the chances for people with a training of days or weeks to conduct the kind or aeronautical spins we all could witness. Something similar can be applied to the events of the 11 March 2004 in Madrid and the 7 June in London, always with the purpose to criminalise Islam in order to justify a total war against terror. This terror is necessary for the continuity of the military complex in the west and the protection of their benefits.
Due to the logical space restrictions in the book to be published, I will end up my article here. Many more details can be found in my last book published in Spain THE NEW WORLD ORDER .
Global Alliance 140 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Terrorism and Contemporary International Law / 141
Terrorism and Contemporary International Law Dr. May Al Khansa
Introduction All types of terrorism that intersect with the system of international interests, economic development, and freedom of the market (criteria defining the new international system) have created objections to the link between the emergence of violence in all its forms and applications, and the strict, coercive, and unfair regulations imposed by them on the other countries of the world. The justification for operations of state terrorism, selective attitudes, looting of people‘s resources, economic dominance, military action, and the imposition of economic blockades – all this is justified by allegations that they will bring peace, human rights, and democracy. The United States has carefully silenced opposing opinions and disseminated only its own definition of terrorism. It has made sure to prevent any commitment to a specific legal definition of terrorism created by unified global public opinion and by international institutions and organizations; instead, they prefer – the United States – to keep the definition open to different options and explanations. It was necessary for the United States, in order to implement its plan in the Middle East, to put a non-Arab element between the Arab countries as its starting point for any military action in the region. This was the reason for their recognition of the Zionist entity and their alliance with (Israel). Since then the United States has worked to strengthen Israel by all and any means. And for (Israel) to be able to take a strong stand in the face of the Arab countries as a whole, it must be shown as an economic, political, and military power. So it was that the United States provided all the
The President of the Beirut- based International Coalition against Impunity (HOKOK), Member of Gaza Supportes Union, PhD in International Law.
Global Alliance 142 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace required support for Israel to enjoy recognition and become a force not to be reckoned with. For this purpose, there has been U.S. support of Israel in global institutions that ignore the aggression on Palestinian territories and the killings and displacements, starvation and genocide.
State Practice and the International Order The United States continues a policy of persuasion, threats, and intimidation in order to create an international coalition that allows them to monopolize the right to self-defense and the fight against terrorism. The attack of September 11 provided the U.S. with a good opportunity to reshuffle their cards; it was time to settle all accounts with opponents of their approach to capitalism and globalization. The map of the fight against terrorism that was prepared by the United States could not be expected to be limited to only one or two targets, and does not accept any restrictions or specifications, but includes all who take exception to the American way. In such an atmosphere, and within the backdrop of widespread accusations and questioning of the concept of liberation movements and national struggles, including the recent questioning of the Lebanese resistance, it seems that there is a formula whose strands are still being woven, based on the assumption that alternatives to capitalist thought don‘t exist, and that the global system of capitalism will continue to strengthen its positions in a decisive way without competitors or concerns. Their tasks of the time are centered around how to grab all the cards of the political game and put them in the hands of the U.S. administration and its strong arm of globalization, in order to give it the legal right and international cover to impose its hegemony and its definition of terrorism, despite the recognition of many of the arbitrary crimes committed by the U.S. administration. This motivates the escalation of the struggle and energizes the masses to deter the threat posed on humanity by the arbitrary and selective policies that prioritize the interests of capitalism. Here emerged the heroic Palestinian resistance, which has continued to resist since then. Entering its sixth year, the Terrorism and Contemporary International Law / 143
Palestinian uprising is still at the height of its power. With every criminal act done by Zionist enemy forces and attacks carried out on our children, elders, and women, hands rise and voices shout for the victory of the Palestinian resistance. But where is international law in all of these massacres and atrocities? Where are the international institutions that are meant to deal with establishing global peace and creating a better world of kindness, love and nonviolence? In what follows, we will see some of the statements of international law and some of the acts of global institutions that are supposed to be there to protect the vulnerable and to help the oppressed. Of course, in principle, no law endorses violence and fighting. But is there an applicable law that punishes acts of violence, especially in a unipolar world of patronage? The United States was at the center of several attempts aimed at the definition of the phenomena of political violence, and the distinction between terrorism and legitimate resistance to occupation. The first decision issued by the General Assembly of the United Nations concerning the treatment of terrorism (Resolution Number 3034, Date: 18/12/1972) was clearly on the side of confirming the legitimacy of struggle for national liberation and on distinguishing between this and the problem of international terrorism. The resolution, which was endorsed by 76 countries and opposed by 35 countries, with 17 states declining to vote, stated: "The General Assembly, deeply perturbed over acts of international terrorism which are occurring with increasing frequency and which take a toll of innocent human lives, Recognizing the importance of international cooperation in devising measures effectively to prevent their occurrence and of studying their underlying causes with a view to finding just and peaceful solutions as quickly as possible, Recalling the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
Global Alliance 144 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
...Reaffirms the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of all peoples under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination and upholds the legitimacy of their struggle, in particular the struggle of national liberation movements, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter and the relevant resolutions of the organs of the United Nations; Condemns the continuation of repressive and terrorist acts by colonial, racist, and alien regimes in denying peoples their legitimate right to self- determination and independence... Invites States to take all appropriate measures at the national level with a view to the speedy and final elimination of the problem, bearing in mind the provisions of paragraph 3 above...‖ And the General Assembly of the United Nations once again in 14/12/1974, at meeting number 2319, reiterated the legitimacy of people‘s struggle for liberation by all available means, including armed struggle, from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation. The General Assembly strongly condemned all governments that do not recognize such rights of peoples under occupation and in particular the people of South Africa and the Palestinian people. International law clearly allows the right of powerless peoples to practice armed struggle in their path to liberation and independence. A resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14/12/1974 had a major impact in the recognition of the right of resistance and armed struggle in defense of freedom and independence, and has turned into an international, legal, and public duty of rights for peoples under occupation. The resolution stated: "Any attempt to suppress the struggle against colonial and alien domination and racist regimes is incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights..." At a conference for the development of humanitarian law, held in Geneva in 1976, two protocols were acknowledged that considered that wars of Terrorism and Contemporary International Law / 145 liberation are international wars. It said in Article I of Protocol I that wars of national liberation are legitimate and fair, and all international laws apply to them. National liberation movements have an international character, as they are conducted by countries that are still in the making. Examples of laws that legalize resistance to occupation are many, innumerable in fact. However, injustice remains a reality; Zionist forces continue to violate laws and international agreements. Why not disregard all agreements and legal contracts, since they are backed by the only power in the world? The United States has, since the establishment of the state of (Israel), provided them with moral, material, political and military support, and is no longer bothered by escalating reactions to its continued support of (Israel), though its actions are contrary to logic and inconsistent with the idea of democracy that is flaunted by the United States and presented as a weak excuse to intervene in the affairs of the Arab world and to justify the invasion of some of its countries.
The Security Council Resolutions Regardless of what the Security Council represents as systems, laws and decisions that take the character of justice and equity, their actions are, in fact, completely different and take the character of oppression and injustice, as is the case of Palestine and Iraq on one side and Israel on the other. Decisions are obligatory on the first and not binding on the second. Take Israel and South Africa, two racist regimes; the first system is no longer described as a racist regime by decision of the Security Council, the second is no longer a racist regime because of the demise of the system; yet this is not called, as some would like to call it, selective attention or double standards. The truth is that the Security Council of the United Nations is an International Zionist Security Council, and therefore there is no so-called double standard, there is only one standard that measures all things according to the vision of the Zionist Israelis. This standard is what created the State of Israel and maintains its survival and continuity.
Global Alliance 146 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Let‘s ask these questions: How many countries were concerned about the fate of the Jews? What is the need for the existence of a state for the Jews, since Judaism is a religion and not an ethnicity, and even if it is, how does this give them the legitimacy to establish a state? There are Kurds, Armenians, Albanians of Kosovo and many others who are already on their own land! Why doesn‘t the Security Council make nations for them?! Instead, it condones their extermination and repression, especially if they are Muslims, such as in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya, or enemies to an ally of the Jews as in the case of the Kurds of Turkey. When it comes to Iraq, however, the Kurds in the north have become a matter of humanitarian concern to the Security Council. What is the interest of the nations of the world and the Security Council in the establishment of a Jewish state when the regimes in most countries are secular, even in most Arab and Islamic states; if not for the Security Council being purely Zionist. But how did the Jews achieve this? The answer is very simple. They are able to ensure a majority for the issue of any decision they want to pass by working behind the scenes and exercising persuasion and intimidation, both economical and political, on the members of the Security Council. In addition there exists the right of veto by the permanent members, including three states in favor of Israel because of being economically controlled, when only one is enough to disable any decision that does not serve the interests of Zionism. As for the two other countries, Russia and China, we cannot hope for any good from them, as they are often going along with America for the sake of political appeasement, they have a poor track record when it comes to human rights in China, or the persecution of their neighbors and or ethnic and religious minorities in Russia, not to speak of the multi-faceted economic temptation. If one of these two countries thought to use the veto on any decision that serves the State of Israel, it would be labeled as anti- Semitic and Nazi, and the World Zionist media machine would start humming; hence these things become settled in advance. This policy was recently revealed to the public, when America threatened the vulnerable Terrorism and Contemporary International Law / 147 state of Colombia by imposing an economic boycott because it voted in favor of an international protection force for Palestinians. In the following, I will give only examples of the decisions that were opposed or vetoed by the United States in order to support Israel and protect it from punishment. 1) A draft resolution submitted by India, Indonesia, Panama, Peru, Sudan, Yugoslavia and Guinea declaring regret at the (Israeli) occupation of Arab lands. (July 26, 1973) 2) A decision presented by Pakistan, Panama, Tanzania and Romania providing for the right of the Palestinian people to exercise self- determination and the establishment of a free state in Palestine in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and the need for the (Israeli) withdrawal from the territories they have occupied since June 1967. (January 25, 1976) 3) A draft resolution providing for the involvement of the PLO in discussions with the same rights as the Member States of the United Nations. (April 30, 1980) 4) A draft resolution imposing sanctions on (Israel) for the annexation of the Golan Heights of Syria. (January 20, 1982) 5) Arab draft resolution condemning the attack on the Al-Aqsa Mosque. (April 20, 1982) 6) A draft resolution condemning oppressive (Israeli) practices against the Palestinians in the occupied territories. (September 13, 1985) 7) A draft resolution calling on (Israel) to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. (January 1986) 8) A draft law condemning (Israeli) violations of the sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque and rejecting (Israel‘s) claim of Jerusalem as its capital. (January 1986) 9) A decision condemning (Israel‘s) kidnapping of a Libyan passenger plane. (February 7, 1986) 10) A decision condemning (Israel) for using the iron fist policy towards the Palestinian Intifada in the occupied territories in the wake of expelling 8 Palestinians. (April 15, 1988)
Global Alliance 148 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
11) Statement rejecting (Israel‘s) practices in the occupied Palestinian territories and inviting (Israel) to abide by the Geneva Convention on the rights of civilians in time of war. (February 1, 1989) 12) A draft resolution submitted by the non-aligned countries to send an international commission to the occupied Arab territories with the goal of fact-finding about (Israeli) repressive practices against the Palestinian people. (June 1, 1990) All of these decisions were not enough for the world to know that Israel is an aggressor state, receiving support from the unjust superpower. The United States continues to support its ally Israel in its violence and killings, destruction and displacement.Not only does the U.S. support (Israel) in the Security Council, but it also pursues a harsh policy towards all those who condemns (Israel) and its terrorist acts. It has therefore issued countless resolutions to impose sanctions on these countries; we will mention some of them below: 1.80% of the members of Congress approved a bill to deprive the Soviet Union of the rights of "most-favored," but only in the case of the abolition of taxes on the migration of Soviet Jews to (Israel). (1973) 2.The United States decided to stop its contribution to the budget of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) because it stopped (Israel‘s) membership. 3.The United States threatened to withdraw from the Inter-Parliamentary Union if the union issued a decision considering Zionism as a form of racism. (1984) 4.The United States insisted on deleting the paragraph on the need to convene an international conference for peace in the Middle East, and postponed the vote for the sixth time. (1990) 5.The U.S. administration announced that Moscow will get a billion dollar loan after allowing the migration of 360 thousand Soviet Zionists to (Israel). (1990) As well as the U.S.‘s infinite support for (Israel), it contributes to marginalizing the Arabs and ignoring their demands for freedom and stability, to ensure that its ally will enjoy security and protection. Terrorism and Contemporary International Law / 149
Disregarding the desperate attempts of the Arabs to save the Palestinians from the terrorist Sharon and his massacres, and imposing normalized relations with (Israel) on some Arab states, these countries went along with the will of great power for fear of the penalties that may be imposed in case of rejection. a.The political agenda of the Republican Party opposes establishing a national homeland for the Palestinians. b.The U.S. State Department announced that the United States does not agree with declaring an independent Palestinian state. c.The U.S. President, during a meeting with the leaders of the Zionist- American community, stated that the United States is still refusing to make any contacts with the PLO. (1979) d.The U.S. Senate decided to stop U.S. military aid to Jordan unless Jordan recognized (Israel) and committed itself to undertake direct negotiations with them. (1991) e.Former U.S. President Clinton threatened to reconsider U.S. relations with the Palestinians if they made a one-sided declaration of a Palestinian state.(2000)
Humanitarian Agencies in the United Nations What do these organizations call for? They call for human rights, women‘s freedom, birth control, children's rights, and other freedoms and rights. Calling for these rights and freedoms often takes political form. Look at the countries accused of violating these rights and freedoms, it is the Arab-Islamic countries first, Muslim and non-Arab countries second, and communist countries third, and for any other countries they are only talk and no action. What are they expecting? Look at social life in the West, which allows these freedoms and rights, and you'll find that the answer is as follows: Freedom of thought has resulted in idolatry, atheism and the worship and consecration of physical things. Women are liberated so they gave up their traditional role of motherhood and raising their children; this has led to all kinds of immorality, pornography, prostitution, and women are
Global Alliance 150 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace treated as pieces of meat, vulnerable to predators. Children are liberated so they disrespect parents and teachers, rebel at puberty, leave their families, and care only to satisfy their own instincts and desires. From the above we can conclude that this claim of protecting rights and freedoms is actually rebellion against human nature and norms, and against the spiritual and moral values provided by the monotheistic religions as a way of life. It aims to destroy the family, which is the cornerstone of building societies, deprive the father of his leadership role, leading to the dismantling of relations between family members and the loss of shared visions for survival and continuity, and to increase illegal birth - children of adultery - the mankind‘s greatest evil before God. As for us, we are on our way to face these Zionist claims with the efforts of our thinkers, experts, and specialists in the fields of emancipation, liberation, and economic and cultural, reform. And we achieve this soon, unless God calls us to rest in peace first.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund The mission of this organization is to provide advice on the so-called economic reform programs, and then provide loans and takes guarantees for repayment. But does this institution care about the fate of the funds provided, and does it follow the implementation of corrective programs? What is the nature of these programs? In fact, most of the money goes into the pockets of influential people in government positions and as expenditures for government agencies. Follow-ups are only done when the indebted countries are in economic crisis or are unable to pay interest because of debt. The fund then comes up with new proposals such as raising taxes, fees, and prices on everything so that they can collect the debt payments. The result: higher prices, fees and taxes; the victim is first and foremost the burdened citizen. A new debt is added as a way out of the economic crisis and is rescheduled again with the old debt. Then a new crisis happens as a result of the continuous flow of national capital from consumer and non- productive societies to the outside, as well as theft and embezzlement, and Terrorism and Contemporary International Law / 151 then new debt, and so on and so forth. The national debt inflates to astronomical numbers - people cannot even pay the annual interest. Political decisions are therefore confiscated or rather bought, as were bought the decisions of the Soviet Union in the Gulf War and after. (Gorbachev) and his group embezzled a total of four billion dollars as the price for the destruction of the Soviet Union, a destruction wrought so that the Jews could run the world exclusively through their new global system. After removing his rival from the Kremlin through force of arms, Russian President (Yeltsin) completed the sale, stealing throughout his years of ruling a total of seven billion dollars in aid money from the International Monetary Fund. When it was discovered by the Russians, (Yeltsin) was just around the corner from being prosecuted. But events in Dagestan started out of nowhere and fake bombings in Moscow occurred, which did not result in any victims. These led to an unjustified war launched to eradicate terrorism in Chechnya. The Russian people were distracted, and forgot about (Yeltsin‘s) embezzlement, who presented his resignation and publicly conditioned his successor (Putin), to not prosecute him when he took power. Who enabled (Yeltsin)? And how did the unknown (Putin) become president of Russia? Jewish billionaire (Soros) declared that the man responsible is the other Jewish billionaire (Berezovsky), who provided funding for the Islamist rebels in Dagestan. After the start of the invasion of Chechnya, funding was stopped, and thus the Chechen Muslims were the victims of a plot by (Yeltsin, Berezovsky, and Putin).The managers of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank are people who are bought and sold. Or, rather, they are people who haven‘t had enough of the injustice happening to the Palestinian people, they are on the move in the politics and economies of the West. Each generation builds on what was started by the last and adds modifications to it, thereby hastening the implementation of their satanic plan. The most recent thing that they invented as a chapter in this long book, is the idea of globalization, which is nothing more than a diabolical revelation to spread the satanic doctrine
Global Alliance 152 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace and impose it on the peoples of the world as a prelude to plundering their wealth and using them as slaves. Yes, globalization was established to end all that is originally Arab, all that is good and resisting. The people who take aid from the U.S. are imprisoned to its repressive policies that always take the side of Israel. Any country that wants to get a loan, donation, or aid from the International Monetary Fund is made to obey the orders of the big powers and as a result ignore the daily crimes of (Israel) against the struggling Palestinian people. Yes, the only condition to get international aid is to accept Israel, and smile at or ignore its crimes. In the midst of this small, materialistic world, there is hope for a better tomorrow. We should never lose hope nor surrender to oppression and injustice. Israel will be eliminated; there is no question about that. On this, what remains to be said is that the only international institution that is capable of putting a limit to Israel and its outrageous violations to international law, is the International Criminal Court (ICC). If Israel has succeeded in preventing the arrival of the international investigating committee more than once, as it is scared that the truth of the war crimes that it has committed against Palestinian families will be revealed, this doesn‘t necessarily mean that Israel can whitewash its history and reputation in front of the world and public opinion. If the UN has failed in protecting Palestinian rights, this doesn‘t mean that the Palestinians are going to give up easily. Israel‘s violations are many and the evidence is there, but is there any one to listen? Is there any one to see? The whole world has covered their eyes and ears and decided not to see or hear, but in the end the truth will prevail, and no matter after how long, the Palestinian people will go back to their precious beloved land and Israel will come to an end. A Case History of State Terrorism: The Siddiqui Case / 153
A Case History of State Terrorism: The Siddiqui Case Dr. Victoria Catherine Brittain
Abstract This Article analyzes the State terrorism- a case study of Dr Aafia Siddiqui – an iconic victim of the ―war on terror‖. This US-educated Pakistani woman‘s story illustrates many aspects of the war on terror waged by the US and its allies, and is a reminder of how much Muslim women have also suffered in this ten years – not only on behalf of their husbands, brothers and fathers, but also in their individual capacity. The paper will discuss the facts I have researched over a long period of the kidnapping of this woman and her children in Pakistan; the denials over years by two states – the US and Pakistan – of any role in her disappearance; the systematic use of the western media to demonise Dr Siddiqui as a significant Al Qaeda operative bent on terrorist acts in the US; her reappearance after five years in bizarre circumstances in Afghanistan; her trial in the US for attempted murder of US soldiers, which gave her an 86 year sentence for a crime where no forensic evidence linked her to any murder attempt; the ruthless treatment of her very small children as part of the attempt to destroy her. Dr Siddiqui‘s family‘s untiring attempts to get her released from US custody lead into a more general discussion of the heroism of so many families who have sought justice in the new lawlessness that has ruled
A former associate foreign editor of the Guardian. Her books include Hidden Lives, Hidden Deaths and Death of Dignity. She was co-author with Moazzem Begg of Enemy Combatant, a British Muslim‘s Journey to Guantanamo and Back, and two plays about Guantanamo familes. These three books are also published in Arabic. She has spent much of her working life in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
Global Alliance 154 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
the world since 2001. The paper is inspired by my work for nearly ten years with families who have lost their husbands, brothers, sons, fathers to US prisons, and are directly involved in using legal efforts, media, mass meetings and forging imaginative links with all those who will try to help their fight for justice. Key Word: siddiqui, Terrorism, Pakistan, Afghanistan, US.
In 2003 an MIT-educated expert in children‘s learning patterns, Dr Aafia Siddiqui, disappeared with her three children in Pakistan. Was she, as the Americans said, an Al Qaeda operative who in 2008 emerged after five years undercover, carrying a handbag full of chemicals and plans for major terror attacks in the US, and then attempted to shoot US soldiers? Or was she, as her family, and most people in Pakistan have always maintained, seized by Pakistani agents for reasons unknown? Now new evidence of the kidnapping of Dr Siddiqui prises open part of one of the most shocking of the myriad individual stories of injustice in the war on terror. It also underlines the recklessness and perfidy of a key United States‘ partner in the war on terror, which carries its own threat of explosion. Dr Siddiqui was sentenced in a New York court last year to 86 years for attempted murder of US soldiers in Afghanistan. Her mysterious five-year disappearance before that, her reappearance in Afghanistan in 2008, her subsequent trial in the US, and the confusion surrounding all these events, have made Dr Siddiqui‘s a symbolic case in much of the Muslim world. Now a senior law enforcement officer has claimed to have been involved personally on the day she was seized, with her three children, by Pakistani police agents in Karachi in March 2003 and handed over to the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI. The FBI put out a ―wanted for questioning‖ alert for Dr Siddiqui just before she disappeared. She was later high on the US wanted list, with the US claiming that she was living undercover as an Al Qaeda agent. She was a "clear and present danger to the US", the then- U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said in 2004. For all these years the Pakistani government repeatedly denied holding her, and after her arrest in A Case History of State Terrorism: The Siddiqui Case / 155
Afghanistan in 2008 spent $2 million on US lawyers for her trial. After her conviction, the Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, committed himself to work for her return from a US prison. Dr Siddiqui had become, ―the daughter of the nation‖ and the centre of a popular cause he could not afford to ignore. The new evidence, on a secretly recorded audio tape, is a potential earthquake in the chronically unstable political situation in Pakistan, where rage against the US runs deep and wide, especially as civilian casualties mount with the use of drone aircraft. Already the case of Aafia Siddiqui has periodically brought tens of thousands of people out on the streets in the last two and a half years in protest at what has been done to her by the United States‘ military and legal systems since she reemerged, in US custody and seriously wounded, in 2008. The Pakistani media have always claimed that the ISI was responsible for her disappearance and that the Americans were involved too. The tape reopens the whole question, not just of Dr Siddiqui, but of the corroding effect of the US alliance with Pakistan‘s military and intelligence elite in a war on terror which has had so many Pakistani victims. The ISI has run its own agendas, hand in glove with various US officials at various periods, ever since the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and then becoming godfathers of various Afghan factions tearing that country apart. There are plenty of astute Pakistani journalists with the language skills to use this tape to the utmost to embarrass their own security services and the government. For the US too there are questions to answer about the extensive cover-up of what happened to Dr Siddiqui and her three children - two of whom are US citizens, and appear to have spent five traumatized years separated from their mother and from each other, in various prisons. It is scarcely credible that high officials in the Bush and Obama administrations over the years were unaware of what their troublesome allies in Pakistan had done with her and her children. On April 21 2003, a ―senior U.S. law enforcement official‖ told Lisa Myers of NBC Nightly News that Siddiqui was in Pakistani custody. The
Global Alliance 156 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace same source retracted the statement the next day without explanation. ―At the time,‖ Myers told Harpers Magazine, ―we thought there was a possibility perhaps he‘d spoken out of turn.‖ According to the Associated Press, ―[t]wo federal law enforcement officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, initially said 31-yearold Aafia Siddiqui recently was taken into custody by Pakistani authorities.‖ But later, ―the U.S. officials amended their earlier statements, saying new information from the Pakistani government made it ‗doubtful‘ she was in custody.‖ An FBI spokesperson also formally denied that the agency had any knowledge of Dr. Siddiqui‘s whereabouts, stating that the FBI was not aware that she was in any nation‘s custody. Dr Siddiqui‘s mother was visited by an unknown man a few hours after her disappearance and warned to keep her mouth shut if she ever wanted to see her daughter and grandchildren again. In 2003, in a closed hearing when the FBI had subpoenaed some documents from Dr Siddiqui‘s sister, an FBI official confirmed to her family that she was alive and well, but would answer no questions on her whereabouts. The new audio evidence was secretly taped in a social situation last year; children can be heard in the background. It was given, unsolicited, to one of the many lawyers involved in Dr Siddiqui‘s case in the US. The source, whose identity has been protected, told lawyers at the International Justice Network that he had made the tape after a social evening when he had heard shocking things about Pakistani counter terrorism, about the fabrication of evidence, and about Dr Siddiqui‘s disappearance, discussed casually by a senior official. He felt outraged and returned for a second evening with a recorder and got some of the previous discussion repeated. ―If it can help anyone I had to do it,‖ he said to the IJN Executive Director Tina Foster who has represented Dr Siddiqui‘s family since January 2010. IJN are experienced hands in war on terror cases. They represent a number of prisoners in Bagram air base prison in Afghanistan, some of them rendered from Abu Ghraib, Dubai and Thailand by the CIA, as well as several disappeared people in Pakistan.) A Case History of State Terrorism: The Siddiqui Case / 157
The witness is a Pakistani/American and he has been extensively interviewed by IJN‘s lawyers who tell me they are entirely confident of the tape‘s authenticity, the source‘s account and thus the identity of the prime subject. IJN‘s source says he was introduced by a mutual friend whose home he was visiting, to a man he identified to lawyers at International Justice Network as Imran Shaukat, the Superintendent of Police for Sindh province. A full report, and the four hour tape, in Urdu, Punjabi and English, is being released by the International Justice Network in the United States at 6am EDT Monday, and can be accessed here and, here with the permission of the witness. Portions of the tape concerning Dr Siddiqui were made available to this reporter and were independently translated for this article. As of midnight Sunday, EDT, this excerpt can be listened to here. Mr Shaukat (who is voice 2 on the tape) says, ―I am stationed in Karachi. I head the counter terrorism department for Sindh province.‖ In the key passage in the tape for the Siddiqui case he is asked by: Voice 1 (who is the witness) ‖Did you arrest her?‖ V 2. ―Yes, I arrested her. She wore glasses and a veil….. When she was caught she was travelling to Islamabad….She was hobnobbing with clerics. ….. V 1 ― So what happened after the arrest. Did ISI ask for her custody?‖ V 2 ―Yes, we gave her to ISI‖ V 1 ―ISI or something else?‖ V 2 ―ISI, so we gave her to them.‖ Mr Shaukat also describes her as ―stick thin‖ and ―a psycho‖, and, elsewhere as ―not a handler, a minor facilitator‖ – presumably for Al Qaeda - and he mentions a connection to Osama Bin Laden. Asked then why couldn‘t she help them get Bin Laden, he replies, ―Well, they are not fools. They wouldn‘t inform her of their forwarding address.‖ And he says too about the children, ―we took them with us. They were American nationals, children are American nationals, they were all born there.‖ There is some discussion on the tape about the return of her daughter, Maryam. (Two unidentified voices are also heard.)
Global Alliance 158 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
V1: Oh, another thing. They found her daughter yesterday. V2: She‘s home already. V1: Yes, she‘s home. She speaks English only. She was in the prison. She is seven or eight years old. And she only speaks English. UM1: Eight years old? V1: Yeah. Children were in prison and they spoke to them in American English. UM1: Is she home? V1: Yeah. They got her home. V2: They were actually, I. V1: Really? V2: It‘s five or six months. UM2: Is she in Karachi? V1: She got home today, yesterday. V2: Well, it goes back to before I came here. V1: I read the news just yesterday, today. Maybe, in the night. V2: It‘s two or three-months old. All that has been reported in the public domain to date is that Maryam was returned a day or two before the recording. But, according to the childrens‘ lawyer, Tina Foster, Mr Shaukat‘s description is consistent with how Maryam was repatriated to Pakistan. Elsewhere in the tape Imran Shaukat talks about how the Pakistani police and ISI work to ―disappear‖ or to use people they have taken into custody. According to Amina Masood Janjua at Defence for Human Rights, there are currently about 500 people who have disappeared in Pakistan as part of the ―war on terror‖ – this does not include Sindhi and Balochi separatists. Part of the audio describes the doctoring or manufacturing of documents, creating false identities, using body doubles, with reference to various terrorist attacks, including Mumbai. ―This is a game of double dealing, direct them right and exit left,‖ Mr Shaukat says at one point. Such details are an explanation of the extraordinary litany of contradictory stories about Dr Siddiqui, including curious reported A Case History of State Terrorism: The Siddiqui Case / 159 sightings by family members, that were launched into the public domain over the five years after her disappearance. In this John Le Carre world of ruthless manipulation of the vulnerable it is impossible to know how, or whether, she could have been used in counter terrorism‘s goal at the time of finding Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan. From other sources it has been established that Dr Siddiqui was separated from her children for the five years of her ordeal, and that the two older children, born in 1996 and 1998, were not together, but in separate prisons, and that the third child, Suleman who was six months old on the day of the disappearance, probably died then. For nearly eight years now, manufactured confusion has surrounded the disappearance and the subsequent whereabouts of Dr Siddiqui and her three children. The confusion only deepened with the second section of the story, which was her mysterious reappearance in 2008 in Afghanistan, and the bizarre circumstances of her being seriously wounded by two shots to the stomach by a US soldier. John Kiriakou, a retired CIA officer with extensive background in Al Qaeda- related work told ABC News, ―I don‘t think we‘ve captured anybody as important and as well connected as she since 2003. We knew that she had been planning, or at least involved in the planning of, a wide variety of different operations.‖ Such statements set the tone for the Western media on her return under arrest to the US. Her subsequent trial in New York, ending with the 86 year sentence, is the third section, when, extraordinarily, Al Qaeda and terrorism were not made part of the case against her which was narrowly focussed on the alleged attempted murder incident. Dr Siddiqui‘s background was an unexceptional one of a highly educated young woman from a privileged, professional family, some of them settled in the US and most of them educated in the West. She spent a decade studying at universities in Texas, and at MIT - where she graduated in biology summa cum laude - and at Brandeis, where she took a PHD in cognitive neuroscience. She specialized in the science of how children learn, and in addition had a class teaching dyslexic children.
Global Alliance 160 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Besides her academic work she lived a busy life in the Muslim community in Boston, attending cake sales and auctions to raise money for Muslim refugees in the Bosnian war. She was married to a doctor from Pakistan in a classic arranged ceremony conducted by phone. The couple had two children. Life in Boston soured when her marriage began to break down. There are reports from her professors in Boston that they saw her with bruises on her face. And her husband, Dr Amjad Khan, told Harpers Magazine reporter Petra Bartosiewicz in 2008 that his wife had once had to go to hospital after he threw a bottle at her. There are photographs of her with a deep cut across her face. She returned home to Pakistan in late 2001. In a brief reconciliation back in the US a few months later she became pregnant with her third child. On August 15, 2002, after an incident in which witnesses claim that Dr Khan pushed him, Dr. Siddiqui‘s father collapsed and died of a heart attack. A few days later, while Dr. Siddiqui was still pregnant with their youngest child, Suleman, Amjad Khan separated from her and immediately married again. Dr Khan gave custody of the children to Dr Siddiqui on condition they received an Exclusively Islamic education Dr Khan came under FBI suspicion in May 2002 for various items purchased by him on the internet when the couple were living in Boston. He said they were for big game hunting, and he was not arrested, but both he and his wife had come under suspicion. In March, 2003, a global alert went out with both of them wanted for questioning by the FBI. A few weeks after Aafia Siddiqui disappeared, her husband had a four-hour interview with US and Pakistani agents, and US suspicions of Dr Khan were dropped. About two months later Dr Khan travelled to Saudi Arabia for some time. Dr Khan told Harpers Magazine – ―The Intelligence factory – how America makes its enemies disappear‖, by CounterPunch contributor Petra Bartosiewicz - that his ―contacts in the agencies‖ informed him then that Siddiqui had gone underground. He went on to say that he had no idea where his children were —a claim he would later contradict. He also told Harpers that he and his driver saw Siddiqui in a taxi in Karachi in A Case History of State Terrorism: The Siddiqui Case / 161
2005. But they did not follow her. After her arrest in 2008 Mr Khan told a reporter from the Pakistani daily News that he thought his former wife was an ―extremist‖ and that of course she had been on the run. After Ms Bartosiewicz left Pakistan, she had an email from Dr Khan saying that he had received ―confidential good news‖ from the ISI that Mariam and Suleman were ―alive and well‖ with their aunt Fowzia. (In fact at that point one was in prison and the other was dead.) Dr Siddiqui‘s disappearance in March 2003 came amid a feverish whirl of arrests and disappearances in Pakistan, including Khaled Sheikh Mohammad, who has claimed to have been the master mind of 9/11, and many other Al Qaeda related attacks, and has been named as the killer of US journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002. Khaled Sheikh Mohammad was important enough to the Americans to be water-boarded 183 times. Shortly after Dr Siddiqui‘s disappearance, Khaled Sheikh Mohammad‘s nephew, Ammar Baluchi, was arrested in connection with 9/11. The two men were taken to Guantanamo Bay, then to various CIA-run secret prisons known as ―black sites‖ for torture, before being returned to Guantanamo Bay. US officials then had Dr Siddiqui on an Al Qaeda ―wanted‖ list and linked her to Baluchi, claiming he was her second husband. Her family, and other sources in Pakistan have denied the marriage, but it remains probably the most repeated detail about her and the one that has given her an indelible image as a terrorist. This was not the only lurid story about her – she was also alleged in a UN report to have been a courier of blood diamonds from Liberia for Al Qaeda with a sighting reported there in June, 2001. Her lawyer, Elaine Sharp stated that Dr Siddiqui had been in Boston at that time and she could prove it. That story died away, but the further damage to her reputation was done. For five years nothing sure was in the public domain about what happened to her and the children, though the rumours grew, turning her into a tragic martyr for many, or a poster for Al Qaeda ruthlessness for others . Several former detainees at the Bagram prison in Afghanistan
Global Alliance 162 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace claimed to have seen her there, while US officials quoted in Wilileaks denied she had been. A senior Pakistani journalist, Najeed Ahmed, followed the story for five years and reported witness testimony of someone who claimed to have been part of the arresting team, which he said was a joint operation with the FBI. (Mr Ahmed made a public statement about his research in 2009, but died the next day, reportedly of a heart attack.) In mid-July 2008 Pakistanti lawyers filed a habeas corpus for Dr Siddiqui in Islamabad. And within days, in Act 2 of the drama, Aafia Siddiqui reappeared, in Ghazni, in Afghanistan, allegedly carrying in her handbag chemicals, instructions for making biological weapons, and plans for terrorist strikes with mass casualties in the US. She was then involved in a shooting incident in a police station in Ghazni in which she was badly wounded by a US soldier. It is uncontested that she was seated behind a curtain in a small room, where, according to the US soldiers, one of them put down his gun and she came from behind the curtain, seized it and attempted to shoot. She says she merely looked round the curtain. None of the soldiers or FBI personnel present was hurt, but she was hospitalized with two shots in her abdomen and brought under arrest to the US. Act 3 was her trial in New York for attempted murder of soldiers and FBI agents with an M4 rifle, picked up from the floor near a US soldier. There were no charges of terrorism or Al Qaeda links. Dr Siddiqui had a tangle of high-flying legal teams, several of whom were not on good terms. Her first court appointed lawyer, Liz Fink, a famous New York political lawyer, withdrew, and the second team appointed by the court, was headed by Dawn Cardi, an expert in matrimonial and family law. The lawyers funded by the Pakistani government were led by Linda Moreno, an attorney with successful experiences in two high profile war on terror related cases, those of Professor Sami Al-Arian and Ghassan Elashi, and who is a Guantanamo Bay defence lawyer with security clearance. Ms Moreno is also known for earlier political work as one of the lawyers for the American Indian Movement leader Leonard Peltier. Her team included Charles Swift, formerly a military defender of Guantanamo A Case History of State Terrorism: The Siddiqui Case / 163 detainees who made a reputation as a critic of the Military Commission system, and Elaine Sharp. Even the narrow grounds of the case on the shooting was full of curiosities and contradictions: there was no physical evidence on the gun of Dr Siddiqui having held it, no bullet casings from it or holes in the walls of the small room where it took place, except from the other gun which wounded her. Defence counsel made two visits to Afghanistan to get the forensic evidence, which could, and should, have got the whole case dismissed. Linda Moreno described the defence forensic case as ―very compelling, with no physical evidence whatsoever that she ever touched the gun….no DNA, no fingerprints, no bullets recovered, no bullet holes.‖ The military and FBI witnesses, Ms Moreno said, contradicted each other, and under cross-examination even contradicted their own earlier stories. She went on to say that ―the government wanted to scare the jury with stories of her alleged terrorist past, and steered away from the actual case.‖ One key piece of evidence was not in the trial and only emerged from Wikileaks, which revealed a Defense Department report that was not released by the military, so was unavailable as evidence in Dr Siddiqui‘s defence. The incident report does not say Dr Siddiqui fired the gun she is alleged to have snatched and fired, merely that she "pointed" it. ―Six American soldiers took the stand – powerful testimony for a jury. I argued, what happened at the front, stays at the front. The Wikileaks document would have added to my argument about the dubious credibility of the soldiers,‖ Ms Moreno told me. Dr Siddiqui‘s relations with her lawyers were impossibly difficult and she tried repeatedly to fire them. Most never saw her except in court. Linda Moreno told me, ―She was clearly damaged – extraordinarily frail, very tiny. It broke my heart when Aafia did not trust anyone, me, the other lawyers……although I could understand it. She reminded me of American/Indian resisters I worked with way back……. her resistance was clearly to the legal process and she saw all the attorneys as part of that process.‖ Against the lawyers‘ strongest advice, Dr Siddiqui spoke in court herself. She said that she had been tortured, and rendered to the US,
Global Alliance 164 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace and that her children were also tortured in ―the secret prison‖. The government never rebutted these allegations. But she lost the jury, who looked openly sceptical. ―Sadly, she came over as sometimes arrogant and capricious, and sometimes rambling‖ according to Ms Moreno. Another observer said, ―She was very articulate, intelligent, well-spoken, and people mistook that for well functioning.‖ With so much confected fear and prejudice against her going back years, a media that did not hold back in its characterization of her as Al Qaeda Mommy, and the impact of six soldiers testifying against her, a New York jury‘s guilty verdict was probably a foregone conclusion. But Judge Berman‘s sentence that would put her away for life, was not. Ms Moreno described the event, ―in my 30 years of trials I have never seen anything like what happened on sentencing day – the judge walked into court and handed out preprinted power point presentations on how he had come to decide on 86 years…….‖ Two veteran lawyers not connected with this case, but with extensive experience in other cases related to the war on terror, described the sentence, respectively, as ―extraordinary‖, ―ridiculous….. outrageous‖, and one described the case as ―absolutely full of holes.‖ An appeal is planned. Meanwhile part of the story of the missing five years is in the heads of two of her three children - the two older ones who are US citizens. When they emerged – separately - in Pakistan, they were reunited with Dr Siddiqui‘s mother, and her sister , Fowzia, who is a Harvard-trained child psychiatrist and neurologist, in Karachi. They have never told their stories, but even the little that is known hints at the horror this family has lived through. The older one, Ahmed, then aged 12, told his aunt that he only met his mother the day after she was picked up in Ghazni, and that he did not recognize her after five years apart. Fuzzy film footage of them together being questioned in a press conference the day after his mother was found has long circulated on the internet. This was the morning before the shooting incident. A Case History of State Terrorism: The Siddiqui Case / 165
Ahmed remembers nothing about what happened to him next, only that he was visited by a US consular official in Afghanistan who told him that he was a US citizen. The official also told him that his brother, Suleman, was dead. Ahmed remembers being taken out of the taxi where he was with His mother and siblings five years before, and remembers, before he lost consciousness, seeing the baby, six month old Suleman, lying in the road and bleeding. Ahmed, told his aunt that he had been called Ali, and several other different names, while he was in custody, and that when he was told his name now was Ahmed, he knew that meant he was going to be moved again. She initially reported that he was suffering from PTSD and that he needed extensive psychological help. His sister Maryam, reappeared nearly two years later, in April 2010. She spoke perfect English with an American accent and no Urdu. She was simply dropped off outside the family home in Karachi with a note on a string around her neck. At some stage the Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai was contacted by the family for help in getting both children back. There are very powerful vested interests that have worked to prevent Dr Siddiqui from ever giving an account that would be believed of what happened to her. The same interests are still at work trying to prevent the two children from ever becoming witnesses in this backstory of the war on terror. Late last year a kidnap attempt was made on the children, despite the family home being guarded by armed Pakistani police 24 hours a day. Two men, carrying firearms and holding big sacks, were found behind the door of the children‘s bedroom by their grandmother. The men ran off when she screamed, and were driven away by a waiting car nearby, before the police guards to the house could catch them. The release of the tape gives a lever to Pakistani public opinion and Pakistani opposition politicians such as Imran Khan, who have long supported the family, towards forcing an end to this sinister ordeal, with the return home of Dr Siddiqui. Whether Dr Siddiqui will ever be able to tell the full story of what happened to her over five years is another question. It is hard to imagine making anything close a recovery from such multiple personal and family
Global Alliance 166 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace traumas, in which she was isolated from every solid link with her past identity. Did the ISI use her, or her identity? on errands to Al Qaeda? ―A minor facilitator‖, as the tape calls her? The contradictions in her own reported words, such as allegedly telling FBI agents while she was in a military hospital shot through the stomach and in restraints, that she was indeed married to the notorious Khaled Sheikh Mohammad‘s nephew Baluchi, are manifold, but not any guide to the truth. In her initial weeks in a US prison in Brooklyn she exhibited deeply disturbed behaviour such as saying she was saving her food for her children. Her mental state has since deteriorated and is very unpredictable, according to lawyers. She is now incarcerated in solitary confinement in the Carswell Federal Medical Centre at Fort Worth, Texas, the only US prison medical facility for women. She has no contact with the outside world. Three of the four prison psychiatrists who interviewed her for the court said they believed she was ―malingering‖ and that her mental illness was faked. But, given the record of some doctors‘ contribution to government work in the war on terror, it is hard to find this persuasive in the face of the known facts of her separation from her children in traumatic circumstances, her long isolation, and the documented brutal procedures of the ISI in many other cases. In the US none of the lawyers, doctors, politicians and intelligence agents who devised and participated in the horrors done to so many individuals as part of the war on terror, have paid any price in public for it. But in this case there is the force of public opinion in Pakistan which will demand nothing less than public trials of those responsible for ordering Dr Siddiqui‘s kidnapping, as well as those who carried it out, and were part of the vast charade that has been played with her over those years.
The Great Lie: How the Selective Implementation and Reporting of … / 167
The Great Lie: How the Selective Implementation and Reporting of Incidents of Terrorism Perpetuate the Lie that Muslims are Mainly Responsible for Terrorism Massoud Shadjareh
Introduction The Greek tragic dramatist Aeschylus famously said, ‗In war, truth is the first casualty‘. It is a line which we have repeatedly heard and one which is uttered at some point in every war. It is no different when it comes to the ‗war on terror‘. One of the greatest myths circulated and promoted by those pursuing this open-ended and borderless war is that the greatest threat to the liberal democracies of the world comes from Islamist terrorism. Such propaganda is peddled out day in – day out by the mass media and given legitimacy by political leaders who exploit every opportunity to foster a climate of fear in which Muslims and Islam are demonised as the ‗great threat‘. Even a cursory examination of the statistics surrounding the commission and attempted commission of terrorism acts in Europe and elsewhere over the past few years clearly suggest that this is not the case and that Muslims are responsible for a tiny percentage of all such acts. The Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels is reported to have said that: ―If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.‖
Manager and Chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) in London.
Global Alliance 168 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
In reality, the greatest threat to the entire world today is not Islam or Islamist terrorism or Muslims but the Truth.
The Great Lie The idea that ‗Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims‘ is axiomatic in some circles but is not factual at all. In January 2010, researchers at Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, released a report entitled ‗Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim- Americans‘, which concluded that the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim- Americans has been exaggerated. A closer look at the statistics reveals why. A report by the FBI in 2005 provides a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 until 2005.1
According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al- Qaeda.
1. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1 ‗Terrorism 2002 – 2005‘ The Great Lie: How the Selective Implementation and Reporting of … / 169
Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two. It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group. If a terrorist attack does not fit the ―Islam is the greatest threat to our existence‖ narrative, it rarely receives any media attention, thereby re-enforcing the stereotype that all terrorists are Muslims. The average American would be hard pressed to recall the name of any Latino terrorist despite most acts of terrorism for this period of time being perpetrated by members of this category. The global policy think-tank, The RAND Corporation, recently came to a similar conclusion in its report, ‗Would be Warriors, Incidents of Jihadist Terrorist Radicalization in the United States since September 11, 2001‘2. The report found that ―[Of the] 83 terrorist attacks in the United States between 9/11 and the end of 2009, only three…were clearly connected with the jihadist cause‖, a meagrely 3.6% of attacks. Fifty of the 83 terrorist attacks were committed by environmental extremists and animal rights fanatics, ―which account for most of the violence.‖ Furthermore, the report found that not a single U.S. civilian has been killed by a result of Islamist terrorism since 9/11. However, fourteen soldiers have been killed, thirteen of those during the Fort Hood Shooting. The reality is that statistically Muslims are amongst the least likely to carry out a terrorist attack on the United States. The same can be said for Muslims in Europe where statistics for terrorism trends across the continent are published every year by Europol. Under the heading, ‗Number of failed, foiled and successfully executed attacks per member state and affiliation‘, the following statistics are available. In 2006, out of 498 such attacks, one was considered an Islamist attack, the vast majority of attacks being committed by separatist groups in Spain and France3. In 2007, there were 583 such attacks, four of
2. RAND Corporation, ‗Would be Warriors, Incidents of Jihadist Terrorist Radicalization in the United States since September 11, 2001‘ (2010) 3. EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report TE-SAT 2007
Global Alliance 170 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace which were considered Islamist in nature.4 In 2008, out of 515 such attacks, a single attack was committed by Islamists.5 In 2009, the number of terrorist attacks in Europe almost halved to 294, with again, a solitary act being attributed to Islamist terrorism.6 The figure further fell last year to 249 with three such attacks being considered to be Islamist in nature.7 In total, out of 2139 terrorist attacks committed in Europe in the five year period from 2006 to 2011, only 10 were attributed to Islamist terrorism, a meagre 0.4%. The vast majority of such acts were committed by separatists in France and Spain who accounted for over 80% of terrorism committed in Europe in the same period. If this is the reality of the terrorism threat today, the question then arises as to how the perception that Muslims are mainly responsible for terrorism is allowed to fester unchallenged. When one examines the situation more closely, it becomes apparent that there are a number of factors which lead to this perception including, but not limited to, rhetoric of political leaders, disproportionate and hysterical coverage of Muslim incidents by the mass media, and historical animosity towards Islam. Another factor which I will scrutinise further, with particular emphasis on the UK, is the selective implementation of anti-terrorism laws, so as to give the impression that a real and grave threat is posed to us by Islamist terrorism above all else.
Defining Terrorism Any study of the topic of terrorism, or indeed any topic, should always begin with examining how it is defined under the legislation. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism is defined as: ―For the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause‖, the use or threat of action ―designed to influence a government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public‖ which involves any
4. EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report TE-SAT 2008 5. EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report TE-SAT 2009 6. EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report TE-SAT 2010 7. EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report TE-SAT 2011 The Great Lie: How the Selective Implementation and Reporting of … / 171 violence against any person or serious damage to property, endangers the life of any person, or ―creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.‖ A very convoluted and confusing definition which many will struggle to understand. So let us break it down and note a few key points. Firstly, the definition is not limited to life-threatening actions, acts of violence, or serious damage to property. It also includes actions which create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or which are designed to seriously disrupt an electronic system. This latter aspect is so broad that it could potentially include any action which could result in the malfunctioning of a microwave, or more realistically a fax machine. Secondly, the definition does not just cover actions but also the threat of action. Therefore, one can be a terrorist without actually committing one of the above acts; a threat of such action is sufficient. Thirdly, the purpose of the action is not restricted to attempting to intimidate civilians but also to try and influence government. However, the government one is trying to influence need not be the British government. It can be any government anywhere in the world. There is no requirement that the government should be the government of a democratic country. It applies equally to tyrants and despots, where dissidence is outlawed. Finally, there needs to be a motive – the action must be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. So what has this definition meant in practice? As a result of this shockingly broad definition of the crime of ‗terrorism‘, almost all acts of political opposition to dictatorial regimes anywhere in the world have been criminalised, even where the actions are non-violent, such as a mass faxing campaign which could result in the jamming of a government fax machine. It is for this reason that for over a decade, political dissidents from Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and elsewhere have been arrested, detained and subjected to punitive measures in the
Global Alliance 172 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
UK, merely for opposing the regimes in their countries and trying to overthrow them. It is precisely due to such vagueness that the authorities can choose to selectively implement the legislation according to the political agenda of the government rather than in a just and equitable manner.
Proscription of Organisations Concerned in Terrorism One of the greatest powers given to the Secretary of State is to proscribe an organisation she believes is ―concerned in terrorism‖8. The effect of proscription is to completely ostracize an organisation and its members. Once proscribed, it becomes a criminal offence to invite support for that organisation, arrange meetings to further its political activities, address meetings to encourage support for the organisation, and invite others to provide money and support to further the political activities of the organisation. Proscription occurs without a case being proved in court. The organisation does not get to defend itself against the proscription. It can only appeal against proscription after the fact.9 Thus the Home Secretary can in effect criminalise the members and supporters of an organisation without even having to prove any wrongdoing on their part. When the Act was first passed on 19 February 2001, there were 14 proscribed organisations listed under Schedule 2 of the Act. All 14 were Republican or Loyalist groups operating in Northern Ireland who were already proscribed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. On 28 February 2001, the then Home Secretary Jack Straw submitted a further 21 foreign groups for proscription. Four additional groups were proscribed in November 2002. A further 15 foreign groups were proscribed on 14 October 2005. Another 8 organisations have since been proscribed. Out of these 48 groups, 34 are ‗Islamic‘ / ‗Muslim‘ groups, the vast majority of which have never threatened the UK nor pose a threat to UK but are engaged in conflicts or in struggles against repressive regimes abroad such as in Libya, Egypt and Uzbekistan. In light of recent
8. The Terrorism Act 2000, Section 3 9 .The Terrorism Act 2000, Sections 4 - 7 The Great Lie: How the Selective Implementation and Reporting of … / 173
Western intervention in Libya to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi, the irony of the proscription of such groups for their opposition to Gaddafi is clear for all to see. Two of the organisations on the list have been proscribed for the offence of ‗glorifying terrorism‘. The application of the law seems to be heavily influenced by political considerations. Not a single Hindu or Zionist extremist group has ever been proscribed, despite much evidence of their involvement in terrorism. Even Zionist terrorist organisations, such as Kach and Kahane Chai, have not been proscribed, despite being banned in the US, and in Israel itself. On the other hand, organisations such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ)and Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)whose sole objectives are to remove the tyrannical rulers who govern their countries, are proscribed, despite posing no threat to civilian populations in their own countries or elsewhere. Indeed, on 24 October 2005, ten days after proscribing LIFG, then Home Secretary Charles Clarke gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in which he defended the scope of the definition on the basis that "there is nowhere in the world today where violence can be justified as a means of bringing about political change."10 In other cases, organisations opposed to the Iranian government, such as the People‘s Mojahedeen Organisation of Iran (PMOI), have been proscribed but due to a higher political agenda, have avoided the consequences of such proscription allowing them to not only fundraise and recruit members but to also propagandise and successfully campaign for their own de-proscription. Following a ruling in its favour by the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission on 30 November 200711, the organisation was legalized in the UK on 24 June 2008. On 26 January
10. Joint Committee on Human Rights, Counter Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Terrorism Bill and related matters, third Report of Session 2005-06, 5 December 2005, at paragraph 12. 11. Lord Alton of Liverpool & Ors (In the matter of the People‘s Mojahedeen Organisation of Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, PC/02/2006, 30 November 2007.
Global Alliance 174 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
2009, the EU Council of Ministers also agreed to remove the PMOI from the EU terror list. Even while it was proscribed, the PMOI operated with much freedom and with little hindrance within the UK with its membership including 16 members of parliament and 19 peers. It produced and published a freely available newspaper ‗Mojahed‘ in the UK as well as operating a TV station, ‗Iran NTV‘, in London. Both of these were regularly used to fundraise for the MKO and advertise bank accounts based in the UK. On 7 July 2005, the very day London was attacked by terrorists, a meeting of parliamentarians and lawyers was held in the House of Lords to announce the formation of a group of British lawyers to challenge the proscription of the PMOI. During a period when many Muslims were being arrested and prosecuted on allegations of fundraising for resistance groups in Palestine, Chechnya and Afghanistan, the MKO, a then proscribed terrorist organisation openly held a bank account and fundraised with the support of members of the Houses of Parliament.
Selective Implementation Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the police to arrest someone without warrant on suspicion of being a terrorist as defined under section 40. There is no requirement for the police to give the grounds for their suspicion. Home Office statistics12 show that from 11 September 2001 until 30 September 2010, a total of 1851 people were arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000. Only 261 of these were charged under anti-terrorism legislation with a mere 127 convictions, less than 7% of those initially arrested. The vast majority of offences for which people were convicted were
12. Operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and subsequent legislation: Arrests, outcomes and stop & searches, Great Britain 2009/10, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/10; Operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and subsequent legislation: Arrests, outcomes and stop & searches, Quarterly update to September 2010, Great Britain The Great Lie: How the Selective Implementation and Reporting of … / 175 possession of an article useful for terrorism, membership of a proscribed organisation, or fundraising for terrorism. Almost all (92%) convicted terrorism prisoners identified themselves as Muslims. These figures raise a number of concerns. Firstly, the police arrest powers under terrorism legislation are being abused in order to arrest individuals where there is no reasonable cause. Secondly, a large number of individuals who would describe themselves as belonging to religions other than Islam are not being prosecuted under terrorism legislation, if they are even been prosecuted at all. This, coupled with the extremely low media coverage given to such cases, completely skews the statistics in relation to the religious affiliation of those convicted, thereby allowing the perception that all terrorists are Muslims to continue to fester unchallenged. A few examples follow. On 7 July 2007, the second anniversary of the London bombings, police found two home-made bombs in the Manchester home of Gregory Whittam. Whittam was said to spend hours browsing websites which demonstrated how to make bombs, and was deemed to have an obsession with explosives. Whittam was never charged under the Terrorism Act and instead given a two-year community supervision order. On 14 January 2011, Whittam was again arrested after a raid on his home in which police found several chemical liquids capable of making explosives. Again, Whittam was not detained under the Terrorism Act but under the Explosive Substance Act 1883, and has been bailed until July this year. It is unlikely that Whittam would have received such leniency had he identified himself as a Muslim. In 2007, Robert Cottage and David Jackson, two former members of the Far Right party, the BNP, appeared in court after police discovered in their homes the largest cache of firearms and chemical explosives ever found in the West Midlands region. The two men also possessed a rocket- launcher, a nuclear biological suit, documents outlining plans to blow up mosques and Islamic centres throughout Britain, notes about a possible attempted assassination of Tony Blair (then prime minister), and notes about an impending civil war against immigrants in Britain. Cottage
Global Alliance 176 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace believed that if there wasn't "blood on the streets", the country would be "lost". He received a two-and-a-half-year sentence for his crimes. His co- defendant, David Jackson, walked free. In that same year, Neil MacGregor, a racist former soldier threatened to bomb Glasgow Central Mosque and behead a Muslim every day. MacGregor claimed that he became angry after watching the beheading of a British hostage in Iraq. MacGregor‘s audacity was that he made the threats by phone and email to Strathckyde Police. Despite the severity of the offence, MacGregor was only originally placed on probation for three years for the offence after being brought before a Sheriff Court. It was only after he breached the terms of his probation by disappearing to London after one year that he was jailed for 12 months in April 2011. Again, had MacGregor been a Muslim radicalized by watching videos from Iraq, he would have been dealt with very differently by the authorities and would likely to have been prosecuted under terrorism legislation in the High Court and sentenced to a 15-20 year prison sentence upon conviction. In February 2010, Far-Right fascist Darren Tinklin, was convicted for three years for making explosives in his home, including a pipe bomb. He was not convicted of terrorism. There are some members of Far-Right groups however who have received heavier sentences having been convicted of terrorism. Nevertheless, due to the almost total lack of media coverage given to such individuals, the perception remains that Muslims are the greatest threat to the civilian population. In June 2008, Martyn Gilleard was jailed for 11 years for terrorism offences and 5 years following the discovery of child pornography at his flat. Gilleard had stashed four home-made explosive devices, as well as bullets, swords, axes and knives in his flat, as he wanted to ―save Britain‖ from ―multi-racial peril.‖ He also had printed off instructions on how to make a bomb and how to kill someone with poison, which were found alongside much Nazi memorabilia. In January 2010, a BNP member Terrance Gavan was sentenced to 11 years after police discovered 54 improvised bombs, including nail bombs, The Great Lie: How the Selective Implementation and Reporting of … / 177 as well as 12 firearms in his home. He was reported to have a strong hostility towards immigrants and planned to target an address he had seen on a television programme that he believed was linked to the 7 July bomb attacks. Markedly absent from all of these cases were the ingredients usually found following the arrest or conviction of a Muslim terrorist – mass hysteria, calls for public unity and Britishness, praise for the police and security services, roundtable conferences to discuss the problem of extremism, experts queuing up to commentate on the terror threat. Nobody hardly batted an eyelid because nobody really knew and if they did know, they didn‘t really care. Despite many of those convicted of offences, which could be prosecuted under terrorism if the prosecution willed it, belonging to fascist parties such as the BNP, no attempt is made to proscribe it. In addition to the above record, John Laidlaw, who says he was a BNP member (the BNP deny this), threatened to "kill all black people" before going on a shooting spree at Finsbury Park tube station. He shot two people, missed a third target, and hit a white woman - apparently by accident. Tony Lecomber, group development officer for the BNP, has convictions for handling explosives and for an assault on a Jewish teacher. This was when he was the party's Propaganda Director, back in its pre-'modernising' era. Former BNP member David Copeland was, of course, the infamous nail bomber who killed three people and injured 139 with a series of bombings around London. Ex-BNP activist Mark Bulman tried to firebomb his local mosque, and daubed swastikas on local businesses he thought were 'ethnic'. Stephen Bailey, a Lincoln BNP member, is a convicted arsonist. BNP member Terry Collins was jailed after conducting a reign of racist terror and arson against his neighbours. His confederate, fellow BNP member Allen Boyce, taught Collins bomb-making instructions. The former leader of the BNP, the deceased John Tyndall, had numerous convictions including one for organising paramilitaries. The list goes on and on. This does not include the records of those members convicted of rape, racially aggravated assault, threats, harassment and incitement. Yet,
Global Alliance 178 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace the BNP is considered a legitimate political party and has its leader Nick Griffin invited to share a platform with other mainstream political leaders on the BBC flagship show, Questiontime. Contrast this with the proscription of two Muslim groups for ‗glorifying terrorism‘ despite none of their members holding convictions of the type BNP members have.
Conclusion Far from constituting the greatest threat to the civilian population in the world today, Muslims statistically have been found to be the least involved in acts of terrorism. The majority of terrorist attacks committed in Europe comes from separatist elements in France and Spain and in the US, from the Latino community. It is crucial that civil activists, lawyers, and policy makers carefully study the actual statistics and question why governments and the media stubbornly insist on perpetuating the myth that Muslims are primarily responsible for terrorism in the world today. One such reason has been explained in this paper – the issue of selective selective implementation of anti-terror legislation and selective reporting of incidents of terrorism. There are many others, all of which contribute towards the practical manifestation of Goebbel‘s ‗big-lie‘ theory today. The Global War onTerror and the Prawn behind the Stone / 179
The Global War on Terror and the Prawn behind the Stone Prof. Chandra Muzaffar
‗Udang sebalik batu‘ or ‗the prawn behind the stone‘ is a well-known saying in the Malay language that alludes to concealed, ulterior motives behind a person‘s word or deed. The Global War on Terror (GWT) is the stone that conceals a huge prawn, the Washington-led drive for global hegemony. I shall attempt to reveal the prawn by first analyzing the actions and manipulations of Washington and its allies since the launch of the GWT. I shall then look at the episode that led to the GWT itself, namely, 9-11. This will be followed by a peep at the thinking that preceded 9-11 which will help to shed more light on the ulterior motives behind the GWT. After that ---after exposing the prawn--- I shall argue that the drive for global hegemony has failed. Numerous instances of failure will be enumerated. I shall conclude on an optimistic note: that a non-hegemonic world is emerging on the horizon.
The President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). And also the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Malaysia Foundation. He is the Professor of Global Studies at the Science University of Malaysia in Penang. He has published more than 20 books on civilizational dialogue, international politics, religion, human rights and Malaysian society. Among Chandra‘s publications are A Plea for Empathy (2010), Exploring Religion in Our Time and Muslims Today: Changes Within; Challenges Without (2011).
Global Alliance 180 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Actions and Manipulations Afghanistan, Central Asia and Pakistan As soon as the Washington elite and its allies launched the GWT, it became obvious to discerning observers that there were hidden motives behind it. A US led military coalition ousted the Taliban from its perch of power in Afghanistan in October 2001 because it protected Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind the terror attacks in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001. With Afghanistan under its control, the US extended its tentacles into the Central Asian republics for two cleverly concealed reasons. The first is linked to energy. The US elite ---acting partly in response to the demands of the oil barons--- is determined to gain control over the rich oil and gas resources of Central Asia. Writing soon after the invasion of Afghanistan, a political analyst noted that, ― The most coveted resource on earth is the giant oil-field in the Caspian Sea region, that competes in scale with the riches of Saudi Arabia. In 2010 it is expected to yield 2.3 billion barrels of crude oil per day, in addition to 4850 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year.‖(1) The analyst was convinced that, ―The United States was determined to a) take possession of it b) eliminate all potential competitors c) safeguard the area politically and militarily and d) clear a way from the oil-fields to the open sea.‖(2) In fact, in early June 2002, the US engineered an agreement between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Central Asian republic of Turkmenistan which would allow for the ―construction of a 1.9 billion pipeline from the Turkmen natural gas fields at Daulatabad through to the south-western Pakistani port of Gawadar.‖(3) A parallel oil pipeline was also envisaged at that time. The construction of the pipeline was supposed to start in 2006 but has been delayed mainly because the southern part of Afghanistan through which the pipeline is expected to run is still under de facto Taliban control. There has also been some talk in oil and political circles that the US is contemplating building a pipeline from Azerbaijan through Afghanistan ending up in either India or Pakistan. The Global War onTerror and the Prawn behind the Stone / 181
The second reason is connected to Washington‘s perpetual quest for military supremacy. Within months of the invasion of Afghanistan, the US established military bases in three of the Central Asian republics, namely Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Of course, its strongest military presence is in Afghanistan itself, under the banner of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Whenever the US sets up military bases, the economic factor ---in this instance, securing control over oil and gas--- is an important consideration. Often, geopolitical interests also figure prominently. Through its military presence in Central Asia, the US has sent a strong signal to Russia which in the name of the demised Soviet Union had exercised suzerainty over the Central Asian republics. The US has now expanded its military power right into Russia‘s backyard. It is also a message to China. By flexing its military muscles in the region, the US is in fact telling China which shares borders with a couple of the Central Asian republics that it is in a position to curb its (China‘s) growing economic and political influence in Asia. (4). Enhancing its strength in Afghanistan and Central Asia is not the GWT‘s only mission. The GWT has also helped the US to tighten its grip over Afghanistan‘s neighbor, Pakistan. The Afghan-Pakistan border zone is apparently the home of terrorists associated with Al-Qaeda, the clandestine organization which Osama heads. By assisting Pakistan to combat terrorists, the US has sought to exercise greater political control over the world‘s only Muslim nuclear weapons state. The US‘s post 9-11 relationship with Pakistan is also an attempt to dissuade the latter from getting closer to its historical ally, China.
The Middle East However, neither Pakistan, nor Afghanistan nor the Central Asian republics are the real reason for the GWT. It is Washington‘s desire to exercise total hegemony over the Middle East that is the driving force behind the GWT. The invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003 was
Global Alliance 182 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace supposed to be the lynchpin in this drive. Iraq not only possesses the second largest oil reserves in the Middle East which in turn is the world‘s most important oil exporter but a lot of its oil wealth --- 47 out of 71 discovered oilfields --- remain untapped.(5) Besides, Iraqi oil is just below the surface and therefore relatively low in terms of cost of production, and is of high quality as well. At a time when global oil production has peaked and the global demand for oil is increasing at a rapid rate, one can understand why Iraqi oil with all its advantages has become such a magnet, tempting the world‘s sole superpower to embark upon an unjust and immoral war. With the Tigris and Euphrates flowing through the land, Iraq also has a huge reservoir of water in a region where the scarcity of this commodity could lead to serious hydroconflicts in the future.(6). Iraqi water, apart from Iraqi oil, could be one of the reasons why the US- led conquest of Iraq was such an important trophy for the US‘s intimate ally, Israel. For Israel, and for Zionists in the US and Europe, the conquest of Iraq also meant the elimination of Saddam Hussein, one of their most determined adversaries---- an adversary who commanded the economic wealth and the scientific and military potential to challenge Israel‘s regional hegemony. (7) One of the baseless allegations directed at Saddam to justify his overthrow was that he would make his non-existent weapons of mass destruction available to terrorist groups bent on attacking the US. This allegation about aiding and abetting terrorist groups has been used against a number of political actors in the Middle East by both Washington and Tel Aviv since 9-11. It was to crush the Hizbullah ‗terrorists‘ that Israel launched its 34 day aggression against the people of Lebanon in the middle of 2006. Washington and London gave full support to Israel, as part of the GWT. Needless to say, for Washington, London and Tel Aviv, any group that resists their hegemony over the Middle East and is determined to protect the people‘s freedom and independence, is a terrorist organization. The Global War onTerror and the Prawn behind the Stone / 183
Another political actor that has been labeled a conduit for terror is Syria. Because it is committed to the protection of its sovereignty and independence, Syria has been subjected to increased pressure from the US and Israel in the wake of the GWT. The Islamic Republic of Iran which will also not yield to US hegemony or Israeli dominance is projected as yet another sponsor of terrorism in the mainstream Western media. There is another reason why Iran is being targeted. Washington and Tel Aviv want Iran to stop its nuclear research because they fear that it could lead to the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Though the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified through numerous inspections that Iran‘s nuclear research program is for civilian use, the US and Israel --- both nuclear weapons states--- insist that Iran should be denied a right exercised by dozens of other states.(8) Here again, Washington has stretched its notion of a GWT to protect what it perceives as Israel‘s security. Controlling Iran may have yet another motive. Iran is after all one of the world‘s major oil exporters. For Israel, the GWT serves yet another purpose. It provides a convenient rationalization for its own war against Palestinian freedom fighters. Ever since its establishment as a state in 1948 with the help of the Western powers, Israel regards any use of force against it by Palestinians and other Arabs as an act of terror. Very few Israelis are prepared to acknowledge that since Israel was created through the usurpation and annexation of Palestinian land and the expulsion and elimination of the Palestinian people, the dispossessed have a right to resist Israeli subjugation by whatever means available. For many Israelis, Palestinian freedom fighters, especially from the resistance movement, Hamas, are just terrorists, pure and simple. This is why when 9-11 happened, the Israeli leadership saw that catastrophic carnage as an opportunity to draw the whole world to its side in its battle against so-called ‗terrorist groups‘. (9) From our analysis so far, it is clear that the GWT is designed to further the agenda of the US and its allies. Apart from oil and geopolitics, it is also meant to serve the interests of Israel and Zionist groups elsewhere.
Global Alliance 184 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
These goals are often intertwined. Some of the same goals will re-appear as we look at the GWT in other parts of the world.
The Horn of Africa Since the beginning of the GWT, the US and the West in general have escalated their rhetoric against the Sudanese government for its alleged ‗genocide‘ in Darfur. While it is true that a quarter million people may have died in that part of Sudan in inter-tribal warfare, and the government is not free of blame, it would be wrong to accuse Khartoum of deliberately wiping out its own people. The conflict is rooted in a struggle over grazing rights and access to water between subsistence farmers and nomadic herders, aggravated by years of drought and famine. It is not, as the Western media has made it out to be, a straightforward conflict between Arab militias sponsored by the Khartoum government and Africans. As the Black Commentator of October 27 2004 put it, ―All parties involved in the Darfur conflict--- whether they are referred to as ‗Arab‘ or as ‗African‘ are equally indigenous and equally Black. All are Muslim and all are local.‖ (10) The centres of power in the West and their media have systematically distorted the situation in Darfur and presented a certain segment of the population as victims of State terror in order to justify eventual Western military intervention in that region. Darfur, it is believed, has huge oil reserves and ―large deposits of natural gas. In addition, it has one of the three largest deposits of high-purity uranium in the world, along with the fourth largest deposit of copper.‖(11) It is also important to remember that Sudan is geographically the biggest country in Africa and strategically located on the Horn of Africa. It borders seven other African states. Most of all, the Sudanese government refuses to submit to US hegemony and pursues an independent foreign policy which has sometimes collided with US interests in the African continent.(12) Sudan for instance has close ties with China. China is actively involved in Sudan‘s oil industry and in other economic enterprises. Washington wants to curb growing The Global War onTerror and the Prawn behind the Stone / 185
Chinese influence in the continent especially in those countries with tremendous economic wealth and potential. Instead of examining the Darfur situation in depth and developing some understanding of how the US is trying to achieve its hegemonic agenda in Sudan, a whole spectrum of groups and individuals in the US have been drawn into the ‗Save Darfur‘ campaign. Hollywood celebrities, media personalities and top politicians are all part of it. The push for the campaign is coming from prominent Zionist organizations and right-wing evangelical Christian groups in the States. The way in which the media has been reporting on Darfur, complete with dramatic images of dying children and dead mothers, has undoubtedly played a significant role in the mobilization of American public opinion against the Khartoum government. Somalia is the other state on the Horn of Africa that is on the US radar screen. After its 1993 debacle in Somalia, Washington has chosen to intervene this time through a US friendly state in the region. On 24 December 2006, the Bush Administration got the Ethiopian government to mount an invasion of Somalia. The excuse concocted by the invaders was that the government in power in Somalia, the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) had terrorist links and was sheltering al- Qaeda suspects and bases in the country. It should be noted at this juncture that the UIC which had come to power in June 2006 after ousting a bunch of effete, corrupt leaders, brought a degree of law and order to most of Somalia--- something Somalia that had not seen for more than 15 years. Using Islam as a rallying point, it managed to unite the warring clans that have been the Achilles heel of Somali politics for so long. The UIC also began to implement effective measures against corruption and abuse of power. What irked Washington however was the UIC‘s determination to protect Somali independence and sovereignty. Washington saw it as a threat to its interests. Located on the Horn, Somalia, like Sudan, is strategic. The Horn provides access to the Red Sea and is a vital link to the Indian
Global Alliance 186 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Ocean. It explains why the US has an aircraft carrier in the region and a military base in Djibouti. There is also the question of oil. A 1991 World Bank study of the petroleum potential of eight African states ―puts Somalia (and Sudan) at the top of the list of prospective commercial oil producers.‖(13). This is one of the main reasons why since the end of the cold war, the US has been trying hard to gain control of Somalia. As we have seen, it has now employed al-Qaeda and the GWT to secure a foothold.
Southeast Asia From the Horn of Africa we move to Southeast Asia which has a central role in Washington‘s grand strategy for global hegemony. As soon as the GWT commenced, policy makers and planners in Washington were talking of re-establishing a military presence in the Philippines to help the Arroyo government combat Muslim terrorists in the southern part of the country.(14) The renewed terrorist activities of a renegade group, the Abu Sayyaf, provided the excuse for the dispatch of a small contingent of US military advisers and soldiers to the Philippines. But the real reasons behind the US attempt to strengthen its military presence in Southeast Asia are more complex. Southeast Asia is where the Straits of Malacca is. It is one of the world‘s most important sea-lanes. Half of the world‘s oil and one-third of its trade pass through the Straits.(15). Even US military personnel from its Pacific Command have to go through the Straits en route to the Middle East. For a nation seeking global hegemony, control over such a vital sea-lane--- and indeed control over all vital sea-lanes --- is critical. Besides, ―Southeast Asia, with its over 570 million people and a combined nominal GDP of $880 billion, has outrun other traditional partners as one of the US‘ largest trading partners and investment destinations. It also has the world‘s largest reserves of tin, copper, gold, and other resources such as rubber, hemp, and timber; new oil and gas reserves are still being explored and their true potential is yet unknown.‖(16). It is not surprising therefore that Washington wants The Global War onTerror and the Prawn behind the Stone / 187
Southeast Asia --- a region with which it already enjoys close ties--- to remain firmly on its side. There is an additional reason why the US is determined to ensure that this scenario does not change, come what may. It is its fear of China. Southeast Asia is China‘s immediate neighbor. Apart from geography, there are deep historical and cultural ties between China and Southeast Asia. Trade, investments, and interactions in the fields of education, technology and tourism are more extensive and intensive than ever before. For the US, ―of the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States…‖(17). This is why the US is seeking to surround China ― with the full range of its military infrastructure--- bases, weapons, pre-positioned equipment, undersea warfare capabilities, persistent surveillance, training sites, and all other capacities that would allow the US to take control of the region and rapidly deploy in case the need arises.‖ (18). US strategic manoeuvres in other parts of Asia also reveal its obsession with the containment of China. It is pushing hard for the re-arming of Japan as a way of counteracting China‘s potential military strength. At the same time, the US is reinforcing its military relationship with India --- partly through Israel--- and has promised India that it will help the latter to become a world power, presumably to take on China. (19). There is no denying that the US will go all out to ensure that no nation or group of nations will ever be able to challenge its military supremacy. We shall elaborate upon this later. The GWT, there is no need to emphasize, is part of the US strategy to achieve global hegemony through control over critical resources such as oil and crucial routes and regions. It is also designed to secure Israel‘s interests in the Middle East. If the GWT is so important to the pursuit of Washington‘s global agenda, shouldn‘t we look more closely at that one episode which triggered off the GWT? What exactly happened on 9-11?
Global Alliance 188 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
The 9-11 Episode The official version of 9-11 is that on 11 September 2001, Muslim hijackers had used airplanes to attack the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C, killing a total of almost three thousand women and men. Within weeks of the tragic episode, analysts and journalists in the US and Europe began to raise questions about the official version of how events unfolded on that fateful day. There were calls for a truly independent inquiry into 9-11 from organizations and individuals in various parts of the world, including the US. These calls have gone unheeded. The critics of the official version ask why were the airplanes that hit the WTC not intercepted, especially since there was evidence that they had been hijacked? Did the WTC Towers collapse due to the impact of the airplanes and the heat it produced, or was the collapse caused by explosives placed throughout the building as some experts have argued? Was it really an aircraft that struck the Pentagon or was the building hit by a missile? What explains President George Bush‘s bizarre behavior when the attacks occurred? Did US officials have advance information about 9-11? (20) There are so many unanswered questions about 9-11 that there is now a movement in the US which is seeking to establish the truth about that episode. Was 9-11 deliberately orchestrated by perhaps the CIA or a group within it, the US military and the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, to provide the legitimacy and the justification for a global war on terror that would witness the invasion of oil rich, strategic Muslim countries as part of the US‘s diabolical plan for global hegemony? One should not be surprised that the US, or other states for that matter, whether big or small, sometimes orchestrate events or incidents in pursuit of their clandestine agendas. In 1962 for instance US Defense Chiefs hatched a plot that comprised a series ― of pretexts which would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.‖(21) Fortunately, the plot known as ‗Operation Northwoods‘ was rejected by then President, John F. Kennedy. However, in 1964, another US President, Lyndon B. The Global War onTerror and the Prawn behind the Stone / 189
Johnson, was complicit in the blatant fabrication of the ‗Gulf of Tonkin‘ incident that was used as the justification for the carpet- bombing of Vietnam in the sixties at the height of the Vietnam War. It is because of this backdrop that the Austrian political philosopher, Hans Kochler, has been trying to persuade Muslim governments and others to demand that the US Administration tell the truth and nothing but the whole truth about 9-11.(22) Can we expect the Administration to do this when the truth may expose its sordid role in one of the most concealed and camouflaged episodes in history?
The Roots of the GWT That 9-11 is part of the drive for global hegemony is borne out by some of the ideas that were articulated by some influential groups and individuals in the years preceding the episode. We regard these ideas as the roots of the GWT which, as we have seen, is the strategy that the Bush Administration has adopted in pursuit of global hegemony. As soon as the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, then Defense Secretary, Dick Cheney, got his Deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, to produce a document that would be the basis of US‘s post cold war military planning. That document, the 1992 Defense Planning Guide, states, ―our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that formerly posed by the Soviet Union… Our strategy must now re-focus on precluding the emergence of any future potential global competitor.‖ (23) Though George Bush Senior‘s defeat in the 1992 Presidential election prevented Cheney, Wolfowitz and their friends from implementing the Defense Planning Guide, the new President, Bill Clinton, was also determined to perpetuate US military superiority. His military forays into Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan were meant to prove the point. It was his Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, who once asked her Chief of Staff, Colin Powell, ― What‘s the point of having this superb military that you‘re always talking about if we can‘t use it?‖(24).
Global Alliance 190 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
These bellicose pronouncements and actions were not enough to convince the hardliners that Clinton was willing to harness US military prowess to the hilt. Even if he was, there was the other problem of convincing the American public that the US should flex its military muscles in foreign countries. One of those hardliners, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, was of the view that consensus on foreign policy issues will be difficult to achieve ―except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat‖(25). Brzezinski had also noted that the American public had ― supported America‘s engagement in World War 11 largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.‖(26). Three years later, in 2000, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and some other hardliners, known as the neo-conservatives (neo-cons), advanced a similar argument that the process of transforming the thinking of the people on the US‘s external military role was ― likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--- like a new Pearl Harbor.‖(27). It is this line of reasoning that contributes to the doubts and suspicions surrounding the 9-11 attacks. Was 9-11 the new Pearl Harbor? Was it that ‗catastrophic and catalyzing event‘ that was deliberately manufactured to facilitate the GWT? If the doubts and suspicions have increased it is because the neo-cons had coalesced around George Bush Junior before his election to the Presidency in early 2001, and had allegedly convinced him that Washington should seek global hegemony through its military supremacy. The neo-cons laid out this mission in the document quoted above entitled ‗Rebuilding America‘s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century‘ as part of their Project for the New American Century. It was published in 2000. In it the neo-cons say that, ―At present, the United States faces no global rival. America‘s grand strategy should be to preserve and expand this advantageous position as far into the future as possible…‖(28). Two leading neo-con ideologues, Robert Kagan and William Kristol were even more forthright. In their words, ―A strong America capable of projecting force quickly and with devastating effect to important regions of the world would make it less The Global War onTerror and the Prawn behind the Stone / 191 likely that challengers to regional stability would attempt to alter the status quo to their favor…. In Europe, in Asia and in the Middle East, the message we should be sending to potential foes is: Don‘t ever think about it.‖(29) It is significant that the thinking of the neo-cons was absorbed into the Bush Administration‘s official National Security Strategy released in September 2002.(30) The document justifies a new aggressive US foreign policy that includes pre-emptive strikes against perceived enemies. It espouses US domination of the world through expansion of its global military power. In a nutshell, the desire to seek global hegemony through military might expressed itself immediately after the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, it received renewed emphasis only with the ascendancy of Bush Junior. The GWT, as we have observed a number of times, is the instrument that Washington and its allies employ in their quest for global hegemony. In a sense, the GWT conceals the US‘s pursuit of military hegemony. It diverts attention from global hegemony itself.
Dying Prawn But the US helmed endeavor to impose global hegemony is provoking resistance everywhere. If we began with our first category of states--- Afghanistan, the Central Asian republics and Pakistan---this is obvious. In Afghanistan, immediately after the invasion of October 2001, it appeared for a while that the US and its NATO partners had everything under control. Now the Taliban and other resistance groups are striking back. They have regained lost territory and are killing NATO troops. This is what happens very often when a guerrilla movement is pitted against a technologically superior, militarily advanced force. The guerillas may suffer losses; they withdraw; after a while, they regroup and then they attack again. Most of the time, guerilla movement's triumph in the end--- especially when they are fighting against foreign occupation of their land.
Global Alliance 192 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
In the Central Asian republics too, the US is not having an easy time. In July 2005, ―Uzbekistan ordered US troops to leave and to close their base. Kyrgyzstan has since called for a review of the basing agreement with the US and now charges ―market rent‖ for the US‘ continued use of the base, up from $3 million to $200 million a year. Azerbaijan refused to station US troops.‖(31) Both these Central Asian republics, together with Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a regional grouping initiated by China and Russia in 2001. It now includes Mongolia, Pakistan, India and Iran as observers. Called the ― NATO of the East‖ by some analysts, the SCO is perceived in some circles as a military counter-balance to the US in the region.(32). It conducted a widely publicized large-scale joint military exercise in August 2007. The situation in Pakistan is somewhat different. While President Musharraf is a US ally, a significant segment of the populace is totally opposed to US hegemony. In fact, antihegemonic sentiments have become stronger in the wake of the GWT which, as we have seen, has impacted directly upon the nation. Resistance to hegemony is even stronger in the Middle East. In the course of the last 5 years, tens of thousands of Iraqis have died defending the sovereignty and independence of their country. It is true that a number of the dead are victims of the Sunni-Shiite violence generated largely by the US-led occupation of Iraq just as senseless, mindless acts of terror that target innocent civilians have also claimed countless lives. The Iraqi resistance has also gone through the ebbs and flows that are germane to any struggle for liberation. Nonetheless, both armed and non-armed resistance to occupation—the latter is given very little publicity in the mainstream Western media--- remains strong. The majority of the Lebanese people are also against hegemony --- the hegemony of Israel, the US and certain other Western powers. As the conduit of that resistance, the Hizbullah not only defended the territorial integrity of Lebanon against Israeli aggression in July-August 2006 but also proved that it was capable of rendering the much lauded Israeli air The Global War onTerror and the Prawn behind the Stone / 193 force impotent and ineffective. Today, Hizbullah led resistance has expanded beyond the Shiites, numerically the largest group in Lebanon, to embrace segments of the Sunni and Christian communities. Syria continues to resist US-Israeli hegemony. So does Iran. The governments in both these countries, as we have observed, are determined to protect the independence and sovereignty of their nations against overwhelming odds. It is a determination that is shared by the Syrian and Iranian people. However, more than the resistance of Hizbullah and Iran, the most remarkable resistance to hegemony in the whole of the Middle East is the resistance of the Palestinian people. In spite of everything --- expulsions, assassinations, embargoes, sanctions and indeed, ethnic cleansing---the Palestinians have refused to yield to Israeli occupation and subjugation even though they know it is backed by the world‘s strongest military power and its Western allies. Palestinian resistance has been the greatest stumbling block to the Israeli, US and Western dream of establishing total hegemony over the oil and strategic routes of the Middle East. Since control and dominance over the Middle East is sine qua non for global hegemony, the Palestinians--- more than any other people on earth --- have thwarted the triumph of US helmed global hegemony.(33) From the Middle East to the Horn of Africa. Sudan is another nation that has been staunch and steady in its resistance to US and Western hegemony. A sizeable section of the Somali citizenry is also not prepared to surrender to US hegemony embodied in the military presence of its surrogate, Ethiopia. The violence that engulfs Somalia at this point in time --- a million have fled its capital Mogadishu---is a direct or indirect consequence of the Ethiopian invasion of December 2006. There is also subtle resistance to the US quest for hegemony in Southeast Asia. Though the US military has easy access to ports in the region and some Southeast Asian countries even host US military installations, no state is prepared to allow the US to set up a military base on its territory. More important, both Malaysia and Indonesia have been consistent in
Global Alliance 194 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace their opposition to any attempt by the US to exercise control over the Straits of Malacca. However, little Singapore, the third littoral state as far as the Straits is concerned, is prepared to accommodate US interests but it carries much less weight than its two neighbors on this and other major regional issues. All Southeast States are also not willing to undertake any measure or embark upon any scheme that will antagonize China. In fact, all of them, to a greater or lesser degree, value their close relationship with their huge northern neighbor. This attitude towards China has been a source of frustration to the US which as we have seen is seeking ways and means of curbing China‘s rise as a new Asian and global power. We have shown that in all the four regions that we have studied there is resistance to US hegemony. This is why we have concluded that the prawn --- the quest for global hegemony--- is not doing well. In fact, if we went beyond the scope of this essay and examined in depth certain other developments, such as China‘s economic ascendancy, Russia‘s military re-assertion, the rejection of the Washington Consensus by a number of Latin American states, the concerted opposition to US hegemony from an important segment of global civil society, and the growing chorus of critical voices in the US itself questioning aspects of US foreign policy, we would be convinced that the prawn is actually dying! There is no doubt at all that the death of the prawn would augur well for the world. When the Washington elite and its allies realize that their attempt to exercise global hegemony is a failure and that it is better for the US to be a republic rather than an empire, there will be less anger and antagonism towards the US from other nations and peoples. Hopefully, it will lead to greater understanding and respect for one another within the human family. Within such an atmosphere it will be easier to work towards a world where justice and equality signify the relationship between nations and peoples. Yes, a world where there is justice and equality for all human beings is possible ---- if there is no prawn behind the stone. The Global War onTerror and the Prawn behind the Stone / 195
Endnotes 1) See Uri Avnery ‗The Great Game‘ Internet Posting 9 February 2002. 2) Ibid. 3) See Peter Symonds, ‗New US empire is no accident‘ Bangkok Post 16 June 2002. 4) See ‗The War on Terrorism and Hegemonic Power‘ in my Muslims Dialogue Terror ( Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: International Movement for a Just World, 2003). 5) See Chapter 4, ‗ Asia, Oil and Hegemony‘ in my Hegemony: Justice; Peace (Shah Alam, Malaysia: Arah Publications, 2008) forthcoming. 6) Larbi Bouguerra Water Under Threat ( London and New York: Zed Books/ Alliance of Independent Publishers, 2006). 7) See Muslims Dialogue Terror op.cit especially chapters 12 and 13. 8) See Hegemony: Justice; Peace op.cit chapter 6. 9) James Petras The Power of Israel in the United States (United States: Clarity Press, 2006). 10) Quoted in Sara Flounders ‗The U.S Role In Darfur, Sudan Oil Reserves Rivaling Those of Saudi Arabia?‘ JUST Commentary August 2006. p.10 11) Ibid. p.10 12) Glenn Ford ‗A Tale of Two Genocides, Congo and Darfur‘ JUST Commentary October 2007. 13) See my ‗Somalia: The US Intervenes Again‘ JUST Commentary January 2007. 14) The US operated the Clark air base and the Subic naval base in the Philippines until 1992. These bases were forced to close as a consequence of an earlier popular uprising against the Marcos regime. For a discussion on this in the context of democracy and terrorism see my ‗Hegemony, Terrorism and War – Is Democracy the Antidote?‘ Widener Law Review X111(2), 2007. ( Delaware, USA: Widener University School of Law, 2007). 15) Herbert Docena ‗At the Door of All the East‘ The Philippines in United States Military Strategy Report ( Bangkok: Focus on the Global South, November 2007) p.29.
Global Alliance 196 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
16) Ibid. pp 28-9. 17) Ibid. p.34. 18) Ibid. p.37. 19) See my ‗Containing China: A Flawed Agenda‘ in Asia-Pacific Geopolitics Hegemony vs Human Security J.A. Camilleri et.al (editors) ( United Kingdom: Edward Elgar, 2007). 20) For an insightful analysis see David Ray Griffin The New Pearl Harbor (Gloucestershire, Britain: Arris Books, 2004). 21) Ibid. pp 101-2. 22) Professor Hans Kochler made this point at the Roundtable on ‗The Global War on Terror‘ organized by the International Progress Organization (IPO) with the cooperation of the Center for Policy Research and International Studies ( CenPRIS), Universiti Sains Malaysia,( USM) in USM on 13-14 December 2007. 23) ‗At the Door of All the East‘ op.cit p.10. 24) Ibid. p.12. 25) The New Pearl Harbor op.cit. p.96. 26) Ibid. p. 96. 27). ‗Rebuilding America‘s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century‘ www.newamericancentury.org p.51. 28) ‗At the Door of All the East‘ op.cit. p.12. 29) See ‗Introduction: National Interest and Global Responsibility‘ in Present Dangers Robert Kagan and William Kristol (editors) (San Francisco, California: Encounter Books, 2000) p.16. 30) ‗The National Security Strategy of the United States of America‘ Report ( Washington D.C. : White House, September 2002) 31) ‗At the Door of All the East‘ op.cit. p.104. 32) Ibid. p.104. 33). See my ‗Resisting Hegemony; Raising Dignity‘ in Asking,we walk The South as new Political Imaginary Book One Corrine Kumar (editor) ( Bangalore, India: Streelekha Publications, 2007
US-Israeli State Terrorism Threatens World Peace / 197
US-Israeli State Terrorism Threatens World Peace Dr. Mohideen Abdul Kader
Two nuclear powers, Israel and the United States, with a long history of engaging in terrorism, aggression and violation of international law pose the greatest danger to world peace. In June last year, Israeli commandos stormed the Mavi Marmara carrying aid to Gaza and killed nine unarmed passengers and wounded dozens of others. The whole world except the US criticised this Israeli piracy in international waters. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan described it as state terrorism and said: ―We are not going to remain silent in the face of this inhumane state terrorism.‖ This month, while Israel and the West celebrate the 63rd anniversary of its founding the Palestinians will be commemorating the 63rd anniversary of their Nakba (Catastrophe). Israel was founded through violence, terrorism and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian inhabitants. For example, on April 9, 1948, Menachem Begin‘s terrorists attacked Deir Yassin, a village of 700 people, killing 254 mostly old men, women and children and wounding 300 others. Of this atrocity Begin commented: ―Deir Yassin massacre was not only necessary, but without it the state of Israel could not have emerged.‖ Begin and the other terrorist Yitzhak Shamir were rewarded for their terrorist activities by becoming prime ministers of independent Israel.
He studied law in London and has been in legal practice since 1970. He is now the Vice President of the Consumers Association of Penang and Legal Advisor to Third World Network, and a Board Member of Citizens International and a Council member of the Friends of the Earth, Malaysia.
Global Alliance 198 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Ever since it's founding, Israel has adopted terrorism as state policy. It has assassinated Palestinian leaders, abducted parliamentarians, demolished homes and carried out ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem. It has indiscriminately killed women and children. A United Nations official, Prof Richard Falk, recently confirmed that Israeli forces killed 1335 children in direct military operations and arbitrary shootings. Under the Dahiya doctrine, Israeli forces also target civilians and non- military infrastructure. During Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2009, they killed 1400 persons, mostly civilians including women and children. Hospitals and schools were bombed or rocketed. 15000 homes were damaged. They intentionally destroyed farmlands with tank bulldozers, wrecking 17% of it and leaving 30% unusable. The Goldstone Report concluded that Palestinian civilians and their non-military infrastructure in Gaza were not collateral damage; they were intentionally and deliberately targeted for destruction. Israel‘s nuclear arsenal and its readiness to use it as well as its belligerence towards its neighbours constitute a serious threat to world peace. Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons with sophisticated delivery systems including long range missiles, submarines and aircraft. Under its Sampson Option, Israel is prepared to launch a massive nuclear attack against ‗enemy‘ nations if it considers its existence threatened. Israeli leaders have been repeatedly threatening Iran saying it constitutes an existential threat. After his 2009 meetings with Netanyahu, President Barak Obama threatened to attack Iran if it did not ‗come clean about‘ and curb its nuclear programme. Iran is not the only Israeli nuclear target. Even Russia is included because of its technical assistance to Iran for its nuclear programme. Martin Van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, told David Hirst of The Observer in 2003: "Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother. ... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that US-Israeli State Terrorism Threatens World Peace / 199 will happen before Israel goes under." It is this mindset of Israeli leaders and many Israelis that can lead to a nuclear conflagration. In the US terrorism is institutionalised in its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and embodied in its military doctrine of ‗rapid dominance‘. CIA is the arm of the US government for bringing about regime change. In its covert activities the CIA carries out murders, sabotage of economic and social infrastructure, sponsors terrorist proxies, propagates black propaganda and finances groups opposed to the regime. In the 1980s, CIA financed and trained the Contras to destabilise Nicaragua which had replaced a cruel dictator with a radical independent nationalist government. It planted mines in civilian harbours and sunk civilian ships in an attempt to overthrow the Sandinista government. A Human Rights Watch report found that the Contras were guilty of targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination; kidnapping civilians; torturing and executing civilians, including children, who were captured in combat; raping women; indiscriminately attacking civilians and civilian homes; seizing civilian property; and burning civilian houses in captured towns. According to a former CIA analyst David Mac Michael, the object of the CIA terrorist programme in Nicaragua was to use the proxy army to ―provoke cross-border attacks by Nicaraguan forces and thus serve to demonstrate Nicaragua‘s aggressive nature‖, to pressure the Nicaraguan Government to ―clamp down on civil liberties within Nicaragua itself, arresting its opponents, demonstrating its allegedly inherent totalitarian nature and thus increase domestic dissent within the country‖, and to undermine the shattered economy. The same strategy is being applied by the CIA for bringing about regime change in Iran. It is working with Mossad to assassinate Iranian scientists. It is supporting terrorist groups like the Pakistan-based Jundullah to carry out sabotage and murder inside Iran. It is instigating sectarian conflicts and carrying out subversive activities to destabilise the Iranian regime. In 2009 Congress approved funding $120 million for anti-regime broadcasting into Iran and $60-75 million to support violent underground
Global Alliance 200 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace movements. A report in Le Monde Diplomatique revealed that millions of U.S. dollars are covertly administered to NGO human rights activists in Iran. These revelations have been confirmed by former U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns. The US has no respect for international law and the UN Charter. In the case brought by Nicaragua against the US in the International Court of Justice, the Court decided: The US by training, arming, equipping, financing, and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua has acted against the Republic of Nicaragua in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another state. The US government dismissed the Court decision as an irrelevant pronouncement by a ―hostile forum‖. In the same year it vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law. A resolution to the same effect was adopted by the General Assembly in 1987 with only the US and Israel voting against it. On the US‘s arrogant contempt for international law, Prof Chomsky commented: ―The guiding principle, it appears, is that the US is a lawless state and this is right and just, whatever the world may think, whatever international institutions may declare...A corollary is the doctrine that no state has the right to defend itself from US attack.‖ The rapid dominance theory used by the US military relies on aerial bombardment and weapons of mass destruction. It does not distinguish between civilians and soldiers. Its goal is ―to rain terror from the skies on civilians and their infrastructure, thereby forcing capitulation of their political/military leadership.‖ The earliest example was the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 2003 the US launched its illegal war on Iraq which devastated the country and reduced what was once the most developed Arab country into a bread basket case. The ‗Shock and Awe‘ attack destroyed hospitals, schools, water supply infrastructure and other social amenities. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University estimated that 601,000 violent US-Israeli State Terrorism Threatens World Peace / 201
Iraqi deaths were attributable to the U.S.-led invasion as of July 2006 which has increased to over 1 million by 2011. The whole social fabric of Iraqi society has been fractured with sectarian conflicts almost daily leading to the killing of thousands of innocent civilians. More than 5 million people have become refugees or internally displaced persons. In Afghanistan, U.S troops have been routinely killing civilians. In December 2009, American troops dragged eight innocent children from their beds and shot them dead. The children were aged 11 to 17, six of them at high school and two at primary school. In February 2010, 23 male civilians were killed and 12 women and children wounded in a helicopter attack by U.S Army Special Forces. In July 2008, an American plane took out an Afghan bridal party of 70-90 persons of mostly women on their way to meet the groom. The bride and 27 other members of the party including children were killed. In August 2008, a memorial service for a tribal leader was hit by repeated U.S air strikes that killed at least 90 civilians, including 15 women and up to 60 children. Among the dead were 76 members of one extended family. In Pakistan civilians including women and children have become the main victims of drone attacks operated by U.S military personnel from the United States like playing a Nintendo game. Of the 44 drone strikes carried out in 2009 only five were able to hit their actual targets but at the cost of 700 innocent civilian lives. The use of drones violates the war- fighting principles of distinction, necessity, proportionality, humanity. Philip Girald, a former CIA officer states: ―Drones are currently killing people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. … the United States is not at war with any of these countries, which should mean in a sane world the killing is illegal under both international law and the US Constitution.‖ The US is the major nuclear power with 5,113 warheads operationally deployed, in active reserve, or held in inactive storage. It is the only country to have used nuclear weapons. In the recent Nuclear Posture Review President Obama declared that the U.S. would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear, NPT-compliant states but he excluded Iran
Global Alliance 202 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace from it. The threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear NPT- compliant Iran is state terrorism. The ICJ had ruled that ―the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law‖. Victims of state terrorism who resort to violent methods to confront their oppressors are labeled as terrorists. The Mujahidin from Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia who resist foreign occupation and fight to defend their homeland, families and national honour are condemned as terrorists by those who kill babies, children and women and claim to be acting in self-defence. Israel and the US refuse to acknowledge that their policies towards Palestinians, Afghans and others –aggression, occupation, killings, violation of human rights- that instigate individual and group terrorism. The Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad put it dramatically before the judge in his court hearing. He said: ―... until the hour the US pulls out its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia, and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, we will be attacking US.‖ When the judge asked why he tried to kill innocent Americans, Shahzad said: ―the people select the government; we consider them the same.‖ As for children, he said: "the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill women, children. They kill everybody." Thus his resort to terrorism: "I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I'm avenging the attacks." On the motive behind individual or group terrorist attacks, Robert Pape of the University of Chicago wrote: "The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign -- over 95 percent of US-Israeli State Terrorism Threatens World Peace / 203 all the incidents -- has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.‖ Despite the overwhelming evidence, both Israel and the US are in a state of denial that their state terrorist policies breed individual and group terrorism. They put the blame on Muslims and Islam. Muslims are being targeted as purveyors of extremism, terrorism, violence and conflicts, and followers of a religion that is backward, oppressive, undemocratic, and inherently unjust. Islam is being maligned in the media as a religion that preaches violence. Bush‘s war on terror continues, without fanfare, directed against Muslims. In the West, Muslims are being discriminated and their human rights violated. Thousands have been detained under anti-terrorist laws without trial for years. They have been subjected to physical and psychological torture. Islamophobia is on the rise and becoming mainstream. Attacks on mosques and violence against Muslims are increasing. These acts of oppression are bound to produce undesirable responses from the victims. There can be no global peace without the state actors renouncing terrorism, abandoning their policy of regime change, dismantling the institutions that spread terror and violence, and committing themselves to the rule of law. This Conference must lead to the establishment of a global alliance against terrorism and for just peace. It must involve progressive governments and progressive non-governmental organisations (NGOs). There must be a plan of action for bringing the issue of state terrorism to the global agenda and for raising the consciousness of the international public about it. We must strongly support the national liberation movements in Palestine, Afghanistan, and Somalia and the movement for democracy and overthrow of dictators and authoritarian governments in the Arab-Muslim world. We need a secretariat to coordinate networking and effective communication among members of the alliance.
Global Alliance 204 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
References 1. Shukri, Mohamed Aziz, International Terrorism A Legal Critique, Amana Books Brattleboro, Vermont 2. Chomsky, N, Who are the Global Terrorists?, CHOMSKY.INFO, May, 2002 3. Chomsky, N, International Terrorism: Image and Reality, CHOMSKY.INFO, December, 1991 4. Grosscup, Beau, Cluster Munitions and State Terrorism, Monthly Review, April 26th , 2011 5. Pilger, John, Time to Recognize State Terror, AntiWar.Com, September 17, 2004 6. Sherwood, Harriet, Israel accused of state terrorism after assault on flotilla carrying Gaza aid, guardian.co.uk, June 1st 2010 7. Hirst, David, The war game, guardian.co.uk, September 21st 2003 8. Falk, Richard, UN official: Israeli occupation killed 1,300 Palestinian children since 2000, middleeastmonitor.org.uk, May 4th, 2011 9. Wikipedia, United States and state terrorism 10. Kantar, Max, International Law: The First Casualty of the Drone War, zmag.org, December 12th, 2009 11. Savage, Charlie, U.N. report scolds U.S. on growing use of drones, International Herald Tribune, June 4th, 2010 12. Porter, Gareth, Report Shows Drones Strikes Based on Scant Evidence, Inter Press Service News, October 18th, 2010 13. US Attacks in Pakistan Killed 700 Civilians in 2009, The Penisula, January 3rd, 2010 14. In Pakistan, more civilians fall victim to US drones, PressTV , January 1st, 2010 15. Over 700 killed in 44 drone strikes in 2009, DAWN, January 2nd, 2010 16. Savage, Charlie, U.S. is under pressure for drone strikes, International Herald Tribune, May 29th – 30th , 2010 17. Engelhardt, Tom, Killing Civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, Information Clearing House, August 5th, 2010 18. Shanker, Thom, Bumiller, Elizabeth and Norland Rod, Karzai splits with U.S. over night raids, New York Times, November 17th, 2010 19. Starkey, Jerome, Western troops accused of executing 10 Afghan civilians, including children, Information Clearing House, December 31st, 2009 US-Israeli State Terrorism Threatens World Peace / 205
20. Mckelvey, Tara, Covering Obama‘s Secret War, Columbia Journalism Review, May & June 2011 21. Bandow, Doug, Terrorism: Why They Want to Kill Us, Information Clearing House, July 02nd 2010 22. The pink revolution in Iran and the ―left‖ Vol.5, No.3, Special Issue (Summer 2009) 23. Wikipedia, Covert United States foreign regime change actions 24. Stan, Israel‘s Dahiya Doctrine Undermines Its ‗Collateral Damage‘ Claims In Gaza, December 30, 2009, Middle East, World 25. Iran Jundullah leader claims US military support, 26 February 2010, BBC News 26. ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran, April 03, 2007
Global Alliance 206 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
The Zionist, ―War on Terror‖ in the Middle East and the … / 207
The Zionists, “War on Terror” in the Middle East and the Reshaping of the Muslim World: Pakistan, s Unique Case Study Zaid Zaman Hamid
The History Almost ninety years ago, in the beginning of the 20th century, a most shattering and devastating blow was suffered by the Muslim world as its maps were radically re-drawn by the invading and victorious Western powers when the Ottoman Empire was defeated and dismembered. The maps of the Middle East were re-drawn after the First World War by the Zionists, a fact one would not be able to look up in history books. People know and are reminded in continuum about the Germans and the war in Europe, but what they are tactfully kept oblivious about is that there existed a Muslim state in the beginning of the 20th century, called the 'Ottoman Empire', which stretched across continents from Russia to North Africa. It was the 'One Single Muslim Empire'. After the First World War, this empire was Balkanized, creating smaller, modern states as seen today. It was during this outrageous and sacrilegious pillage of the Muslim lands that the State of Israel was sanctioned to the world Jewry by the triumphant British Empire. It took another great war a few years later, with horrendous bloodshed and destruction of humanity, both in the East and the West, to finally materialize the dream of the Zionist Jewry- the State of Israel in the Holy Lands. A political, military and ideological dagger pierced the Muslim heartland.
A security consultant and strategic defense analyst. He is the founder of BrassTacks, a unique Pakistani Think Tank devoted to the study of regional and global political events and their implications for Pakistan and Muslim world's security and interests
Global Alliance 208 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Pakistan was born almost at the same time as Israel. Both countries, representing two diametrically opposite religious ideologies hostile to each other, were born to be enemies and have remained in a state of covert war ever since. Against all odds, Pakistan rose to become a nuclear power, the only one in the Muslim world posing a direct and existential threat to the state of Israel and world Jewry. India, a State which is secular on paper only, is led and controlled by idol worshiping Brahmin pagans with extreme hostility towards Pakistan, hence becoming a natural born collaborator of the Zionist State.
The Environment Present times are witnessing the unraveling of the most sinister and evil plans devised against humanity since the last hundred years. The Soviet Union met their Waterloo in their Afghan misadventure, the war that triggered the demise of the Soviet Union and the roll back of the Soviet Empire. That was the period when the map of the world actually started to unfold the way we see it today. Since that time, the strategy of the dominant Neo-con Evangelicals or Zionists has been to dismember the hostile states into smaller countries we see today. After nearly 90 years the maps are being re-drawn once again, marking smaller states. First the Soviet Union was dismembered, then they came closer to home, in Europe, and Yugoslavia was made the next target. Yugoslavia and Soviet Union, as countries, have been wiped out from the world map. The latter had the largest, most powerful military in the world and Yugoslavia possessed the fifth largest army in the world, but both the countries do not exist today. Yugoslavia was once a country . divided into smaller states in 90.s under 4th generation war doctrine which is now applied in the greater Middle East on Muslim lands! After having accomplished this mission in the 1900s, their attention now focused towards the Middle East. The Soviet threat being safely eradicated, the American Neo-cons were free to operate in the Middle The Zionist, ―War on Terror‖ in the Middle East and the … / 209
East and create the greater Middle East. Subsequently, we find them invading Afghanistan and then Iraq. Their strategy now is to create headless states, dismember them into smaller components and create enough anarchy in the region, destabilizing these small states so that they are incapable of posing any resistance to the organized state of Israel. Basically, all the major Muslim countries in the Middle East are being dismembered; their maps are being re-drawn. As the 21st century unfolds, the contemporary times are witnessing yet another epic struggle within the Muslim heartland. The Muslim world is desperately fighting an existential war, this time against two violent ideologies which have invaded from opposing prongs. The entire Muslim heartland . from the Arabian Peninsula to the greater Middle East including Pakistan - is the battle ground, and the ultimate prize. Not just that the heart and soul of the Muslim world is at stake, even the geography is once again threatened to be altered radically. Neo-con objective of WOT -- Division of large Muslim countries and making them headless failed states! Iraq, Sudan down. Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan are already under attack at various levels! Somalia, another headless failed state being dismembered. In terms of phenomenon and scale, the threat is so severe and unique that it has baffled even the finest Muslim thinkers, philosophers, Generals and analysts who are desperately trying to understand and then cope with the staggering emotional turmoil and the ensuing ground violence within the Muslim lands. The ideological, political and military confusion and chaos is so complete within the Muslim world that mature reason and sound logic has almost given way to irrational radicalism or defeated resignation to fate, as violence, anarchy and the dizzying pace of unfortunate events cripple the capacity of the Muslim world to develop even a reactive response let alone a pro-active one. There is no strategic threat analysis, hence no long term response strategy. The Muslim political leadership, despite hanging on to power, has crumbled in totality to rise to the
Global Alliance 210 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace challenges, hence giving a free run to the invaders, leaving the hapless Muslim population to the wolves. Once again it seems sharply clear that the colonial and anarchic invading forces- operating on external and internal axis -- will further attempt to divide, conquer and dismember the Muslim countries into smaller territories. The 4th Generation war deployed in the greater Middle East today was first applied, experimented and perfected upon pro-Soviet Yugoslavia in the last decade of the 20th century, obliterating the country into history. Now the American wars are being waged right into the Muslim heartland, with genuine threats of re-drawing of greater Middle Eastern Maps as well. After bringing death and destruction to Afghanistan and Iraq, Pakistan is now in the eye of the storm, already staggering under the sheer scale of violence, war, chaos as well as political and economic anarchy. However, the threat is still manageable, downslide can be checked and rock solid responses can be built but this remarkable turnaround would need a genuinely great leadership with vision, courage and spiritual prowess to dream and then achieve the seemingly impossible under these desperate conditions.
The prongs Today, the Muslim world finds itself between the two proverbial jaws of an alligator, facing the following invading prongs from opposing directions: 1. The Western Crusaders, US, NATO, Neo-Cons and the Zionists. Using the full might of the western military and industrial power, backed by the massive use of information warfare and Psy-ops weapons, another wave of physical colonization of Muslim lands has begun. 2. The Radically anarchic Takfiri Kharjee religious militants. Exploiting the heretical interpretations of religious ideals, these terrorist gangs have been on the rampage within the Muslim lands, primarily targeting Iraq and Pakistan with devastating effects. By declaring war on the Muslim lands from within their territories, the Kharjees have become the most The Zionist, ―War on Terror‖ in the Middle East and the … / 211 valuable assets for the Western crusaders to justify their global wars and colonization. The War on Terror (WOT) actually means Wars of Crusades by Zionists within the Muslim world for its colonization, using the radical ideology of Kharjees as a justification for invading and forcing the Muslim society to accept this invasion by presenting to them the Kharjee ideology as a bigger threat to the Muslim world. So even if the Kharjee threat is not real in certain lands, creating, fabricating and promoting the phantom bogey through orchestrated media campaigns and psy-ops, remains an integral part of the entire Zionist war effort. While Zionists invade Muslim lands and occupy them, they want the Muslim world to fight and finish off the Kharjees first. On the other hand, it is the ultimate desire of the Kharjees to bring about a massive, high intensity conflict between the Muslim world and the Crusading Zionists so that a power and leadership vacuum within the Muslim world would allow Kharjees to break out and grab power, just as the Assassins did in the past during the Crusades. The Zionists as well as the Kharjees want each other to finish off the Muslim world, and one is using the bogey of the other to justify their presence within the Muslim heartland and society. Both are waging a war against the Muslim world with devastating effects and the battleground is the Muslim urban societies. In reality, they are often willing partners with the agenda to destroy the status quo within the Muslim world through violent means. The net result for the Muslim world will be total and complete destruction, if any or both of the ideologies are successful.
The Great Game Having understood the ideology of the two invading prongs, we come to the grand strategic objectives of the Neo-Con foreign policy for the 21st century in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. This is the larger game of the Neo-Cons for which an "enemy" had to be created and the Zionist backed Kharjees played this anarchic role, within the Muslim world, rather brilliantly.
Global Alliance 212 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
1. Defense and Security of Israel and to create weak, headless States in the Middle East, even changing geography to create a new Middle East. Stopping Muslim countries from acquiring nuclear weapons or destruction of nuclear potential of existing Muslim nations is an integrated part of this objective. The end objective is the so called "greater Israel" 2. Containment and destruction of political and militant Islam. 3. Control of fuel assets. 4. Control of global trading routes, oil pipelines and strategic water ways like the Persian Gulf, Suez, Bosporus, horn of Africa, Gibraltar, Malacca straits. 5. Encirclement and Containment of Russia. 6. Encirclement and Containment of China. We emphasize that everything, repeat . everything that is happening in the ME, Africa and Asia has to do with one or more of these objectives as well as the clash between US foreign policy and the rest of the regional players who have a stake in preventing the US from achieving these objectives. These world wars and global agenda have nothing to do with "war on terror". The "WOT" is the new great game to gain strategic foothold in the 21st century. Political heavyweight, Zbigniew Brzezinski, clarified the importance of Central Asia to the US plans for global dominance in his book, The Grand Chessboard: Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some 500 years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power. For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia.and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. How America manages Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania The Zionist, ―War on Terror‖ in the Middle East and the … / 213 geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75% of the world's people live in Eurasia and most of the world's physical wealth as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60% of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources. (The Grand Chessboard) To achieve the above stated six Grand strategic objectives, the Muslim lands need to be further dismembered. US forces need to be based within Muslim lands. Ethnic and sectarian wars need to be ignited in order to create "new blood borders" on ethnic and religious lines. Muslim nuclear potential needs to be blunted. Defense of Israel is not possible if Pakistan or Iran possess nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. If Pakistan does not agree to surrender its nuclear weapons and missile program, then TTP Kharjees have to be deployed to create such mayhem and anarchy within the state that Pakistan becomes a failed and dysfunctional state forcing the world community to "step in" to prevent the "proliferation" of nuclear weapons into "wrong" hands. The New Middle East map planned by the US, for which multiple wars would be launched in the region, is similar to what is shown below. The US government has recently officially denied any such plans, but the events on ground and US force positioning in the region, point towards what the US denies. Know your enemy -- The emergence of Zionist Christian, Evangelical Neo-con thought in the United States . The Christian Zionists reshaping the entire Muslim world! The modern, easy to understand name for Zionists is Neo-Conservatives Christian Evangelicals and they rule the United States of America today with their ideological allies in London, Tel-Aviv and Delhi. The Christian Zionists believe that the State of Israel must be protected at all costs as that is the place where the final war with the Anti-Christ, Armageddon, will take place and Christ would return to earth to lead the good Christians. Hence, their fanatical loyalty to Jewish Zionists and their ideals of creating a greater Israel in the Middle East at the cost of the Muslim world. The Crusades of the Middle Ages were religious wars; the
Global Alliance 214 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Crusades of the 21st century are equally fanatical in religious fervor, driven by the same ideals which drove the frenzy of earlier Crusades. For example, today, Pakistan is in a state of war, fighting an asymmetric high intensity war within its own borders against an Indian backed terrorist insurgency with a religious facade, which is based in the remote tribal regions bordering Afghanistan but is waging a ruthless decentralized war against the State and the civilian population in the mainland urban environment. In the last 3 years alone, on the average, Pakistan has suffered a suicide attack, bomb blast or an attack on the security forces on almost daily basis. Hundreds of the finest officers and soldiers as well as thousands of civilians have given their lives in a war which has drawn staggering toll on Pakistan.s economy and society. At least 3 serving General officers, many other Brigadiers and other senior military officers have died in ambushes, suicide attacks and assaults by the insurgent militants on military and civil installations in major cities of Pakistan. Regional offices of Pakistan.s military led Intelligence agency ISI have been attacked. Even GHQ was targeted for an audacious attempt at targeting military leadership. At one point in Swat, almost 2.5 million people had to leave their homes in a mass migration to allow Pakistan army to conduct military operations in an area bigger than England. Cantonment and sensitive areas of Islamabad, Peshawar, Lahore and Rawalpindi give the looks of cities under fortress defenses. Universities, hospitals, hotels, bazaars, funerals, Masjids, schools, none have escaped the most ruthless and bloody war by the TTP terrorists. Till 2007 and 2008, the TTP was having its reign of terror almost unchecked with large regions of Swat valley and FATA under their influence. But then the army began to get the grips on this new form of 4th generation war for which Pakistan army was not initially trained mentally, emotionally, militarily or logistically. Fighting a high intensity counter insurgency war within its own borders in an urban environment in home cities was not the form of warfare any army would want to fight. The Zionist, ―War on Terror‖ in the Middle East and the … / 215
Despite lack of any previous experience to fight such a war, Pakistan army performed with stunning success, breaking the back of the insurgency in Swat, capturing the South Waziristan bastion of the terrorists and taking back almost all regions of FATA which were previously under terrorists. control. It's not over yet and the war continues in remote tribal regions as well as in the cities where insurgents regularly cause chaos, assassinations and bomb attacks. Pakistan army has given great sacrifices to fight the ruthless Zionist backed insurgency of religious fanatics and takfiris The centre of gravity of the terrorists is in Afghanistan from where they get their weapons, money and have sanctuaries . backed by CIA, Afghan regime and Indian RAW. So far, Pakistan has been fighting a reactive war within its own borders and has left the safe havens of the insurgents untouched inside Afghanistan. On another axis, on a lesser intensity, CIA, RAW and Afghan RAMA have stirred up another insurgency in Baluchistan by supporting the Secular Marxist Pakistani Baluch Separatists seeking to break Baluchistan away from Pakistan. The mode of operations against the State include blowing up gas lines, destroying power cables and State infrastructures as well as attacking security forces and assassinating non-Baluch settlers from rest of the country. Baluchistan consists of 42% area of Pakistan but has only 4% of population divided between Pashtuns, Baluchis, Makranis, Brahwis and Sindhis. With only a small segment of Baluch falling under the spell of armed insurgency and also due to the remoteness of the region, the situation in Baluchistan due to BLA/BRA militancy is not as critical as it is due to the TTP insurgency but still, it is a serious menace. Military has not been used in Baluchistan as yet and only Para military forces, Police and local militias have been doing the security duties. Baluch seperatists backed by CIA. Also, Jundullah created within Baluch separatists. to create anarchy in Iranian Baluchistan Apart from these two above mentioned active armed insurgencies, there are secular political parties which have armed wings and also have separatists. agendas and have been involved in urban violence especially
Global Alliance 216 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace in Karachi. Both MQM and ANP maintain armed militias in the city and though they are in the government also, are waging a ruthless and brutal war of assassinations and counter assassinations on the streets in Karachi. Both MQM and ANP are fondly close to India and reject the creation of Pakistan as a State and have dismissed the Islamic ideology of Pakistan. ANP especially had been instrumental since 1947 to dismember Pakistan on ethnic Pashtun lines. Lately, MQM and its leader Altaf Hussein has also been vocal against the creation of Pakistan and has even suggested "reunification", basically suggesting that India should take control of Pakistan! In future, both these parties could become major threat and turn into active insurgencies especially in Karachi and urban Sindh. For now, while they remain in power politically and are allies of the PPP government, they are also playing the assassination game in a turf war and are keeping their armed wings as insurance policy against any government or military operation against them in future. The strength of a Muslim society lies in its ideology and morality and once you weaken the Islamic ideology and the strong moral and social values that knit the Islamic society together into family and social networks, then that society is ripe for takeover through a foreign invasion. Pakistan is facing multiple insurgencies; Pakistani media is heavily influenced by western corrupt pornographic material and the Indian muck and filth from the Bollywood film industry. Pakistan.s education system has been handed over to the western universities; Pakistani text books are being written and designed by the western universities right now. The education system has polarized the society completely. There are generations who have been brought up in an education system in a society where they cannot speak the native language. This is what they have done to Pakistan. There is financial corruption and mismanagement. Every day riots erupt somewhere in the country. People are literally begging for necessities like water, electricity, power, and gas, the resources that are normally taken for granted. This is what they have reduced Pakistan to today, and this is what they are going to do to many Muslims lands which they are softening up now for this process. The Zionist, ―War on Terror‖ in the Middle East and the … / 217
Now, using the pretext of Osama Bin laden, US is threatening Pakistan with anther war. Once again, we see US using the pretext of terrorism to justify its planned invasion of another Muslim land. Same strategy, different theatre of war! The same justifications they would give to wage wars against Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim lands. Libya is not already divided into two countries. Sudan is divided. Syria in Turmoil and Yemen at war. More wars are coming in the Muslim lands and Muslim leadership is frozen in time and fear. Once the Muslim lands are softened up through 4th generation war and support to insurgencies and political/religious violence, they will not be able to resist a nuclear weapon armed state of Israel when it starts to expand into the Middle East for the Greater Israel. Israel is the only country in the world which does not have defined boundaries. Since 1948 till today every year the boundaries of Israel change. They annex more settlements, they remove the villages of the Palestinians, they usurp their lands, build walls, re-draw the boundaries. For the last 62 years the Israeli boundaries have been changing constantly; it has no defined boundaries; any land which can be grabbed, whether within the defined boundaries today or even beyond, becomes Israel.s land as per their map. Google the map, search for Greater Israel, and you will see where the Greater Israel stretches to; which Muslim countries come into those lands and then you will know why they are doing this to Middle East including Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The Americans have been trying for many years now to stage some kind of an internal coup in Iran but they don.t have any assets on ground. Iran is one country that does not have an American Embassy and an American Embassy is always the nest of spies. It is always a devil's den wherever they are. In Pakistan, they have made the biggest embassy in the entire region and they're constructing massive blocks inside, giving clear indications to the Pakistanis that Americans wish to stay here for an indefinitely long time. When the Americans have an embassy on ground, they can do this. In Iran they have a problem; they have to come through second hand
Global Alliance 218 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace sources. They have been trying for many years now and after the recent elections when President Ahmadinejad was elected, they tried bringing about a revolution even at that time, but that fizzled out. Iranians are pretty tough in this regard and they hang the protestors if it is confirmed that they are working on behalf of the CIA. In the 50's there was an elected popular government of Musaddaq in Iran, he was a nationalist and he had nationalized the entire oil field and the entire oil companies, which were primarily British petroleum and western oil companies. Roosevelt.s grandson was sent by the CIA with suitcases full of dollars to stage a coup against Musaddaq. He bought off people, groups, gangsters, commoners and even socialists and orchestrated a coup against Musaddaq, consequently dragging him through the streets and hanging him, and then they installed the Shah of Iran as the state head. That is how the Shah of Iran came into power. So, Iran has been a playground for the western intelligence agencies for a long time now. It has become especially important because of this particular government which is maintaining its own independent stance. The Americans are now trying to raise the wave of emotion in this region to give the perception that there is an indigenous revolt brewing in Iran, which is totally false. It.s orchestrated just like it was in Egypt, but in Egypt people were fed up of Hosni Mubarak so they came out in millions. In Iran, they.re not fed up of their leadership that's why they came out in hundreds. This is the difference between the two. The ultimate nightmare for the Americans and NATO is that Pakistan and Iran may form a strategic collective security arrangement. Then that alliance can expand to include Saudi Arabia and Turkey as well as China and Russia. It would completely throw the entire American game plan in the region in topsy-turvy because there are a hundred and fifty thousand American western troops and Blackwater in Afghanistan right now and their 84% supply-lines, from toilet paper to helicopters, everything goes from Pakistan; 60% fuel that the Americans and the NATO use in Afghanistan goes from Pakistan as well. The Zionist, ―War on Terror‖ in the Middle East and the … / 219
This is no conspiracy theory. These are the hard core grand strategic objectives, strategies, policies and operations of the US foreign policy for the 21st century, already set in motion a decade ago through the orchestrated "Pearl Harbor" of 9/11 under the code name War on Terror (WOT). The primary battle grounds chosen for the invasion, occupation and waging multiple theatre high intensity wars are Afghanistan and Iraq, with the entire greater middle East being the theatre of war and now Pakistan being the next direct target and battle ground for the 4th generation war already raging in full intensity with devastating consequences for the country. Afghanistan and Iraq are the staging areas for more high intensity wars and for the control of the global trade routes, natural resource regions and for containing hostile ideologies and civilizations; all under the facade of WOT.
Hindu Zionists - Hitching the ride with Western Zionists Hindu Zionists are no different from their Judeo-Christian counterparts in antipathy towards Islamic world, but suffer from an intrinsic inferiority complex against Muslims due to the fact that the Muslims had ruled India for a thousand years till 1857 and then India fell into the hands of the British for another 90 years. Hindu zealots are burning with anger to avenge their 1000 years of shame and subjugation at the hands of the Muslims, but lack the courage and ferocity to do the job themselves, especially against Pakistan, their arch- enemy. They need Western Zionists to do the job for them. It is the ultimate dream of their foreign policy and diplomacy to get the western countries to attack and destroy Pakistan. One can still remember the eagerness and impatience of the Indian government to offer bases to the US forces after 9/11 to attack and destroy Pakistan! Just like the Israelis, the Indians also plan to fight Pakistan to the last American! Regarding Hindu Zionists and their objectives, Vijay Prashad, on August 8th, 2001, in a fascinating and thought provoking article titled Hindutva and Zionism, writes:
Global Alliance 220 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
"The fantasy entertained by the Hindu Right government is that an alliance with the world's lions (USA-Israel) will allow India to sup at High Table, to eat high on the hog. Certainly the expectation is that trade will follow the military tie-up.For that reason, we see a wholesale sell-out by the Hindu Right to US-Israeli foreign/military policy objectives. The Hindu Right recognize the persistence of US imperialism, and Israeli sub- imperialism -- and they want a piece of the action in South Asia. It appears that the Hindu Right seeks the franchise for US lackey against what it sees as Islamic fundamentalism and Chinese Communism. But the alliance with Israel is not so strange after all, because at the ideological level, Hindutva is much like Zionism, for both extol the importance of the Race-State, and both cast aspersions at the presence of a Muslim minority. An India-born analyst at the Zionist Freeman Center in Houston, Texas, makes just this connection: "Islamic fascists see Bharat [India] as the soft spot to propagate their irrational creed and foment violence. India tries to placate them. Israel expels them. This is what Bharat should do. If they hate Hindu Rashtra so much they are free to leave for dar-ul Islam." At the unofficial level, the links seem to be growing. Among semi-fascists the links are deep. The restless lions of west and south Asia join the tigers of East Asia to encircle China and the predominantly Muslim states of west and central Asia" Having seen through the American game, it is time to build the responses. Pakistan is now taking the full brunt of this massive 4GW. As a softening up operation, a bloody overt as well as covert war has been waged against Pakistan on all axis, by exploiting internal political instabilities, igniting sectarian wars, supporting insurgencies, staging economic collapse, launching media psy-ops .and to target the country diplomatically under the pretext of supporting "terrorism". Creating "terrorist" groups within Pakistan and in other Muslim lands is as critical a dimension of this war as waging the "pre-emptive war" against them. Though, no Muslim country, from North Africa to the Far East, is safe in this war, Pakistan is the hotly contested battleground now. The Zionist, ―War on Terror‖ in the Middle East and the … / 221
These challenges and the crises are also the greatest of opportunities for Pakistan. America.s wars have turned into military and economic disasters for the occupation forces. Under the staggering burden of two active wars and global deployments, the US economy at home is collapsing. NATO and US supplies pass through Pakistan giving incredible leverage to Pakistan to decide the fate of the US war in Afghanistan. Despite facing the most ruthless wave of terrorism and insurgencies, the Pakistan army has held its ground and emerged triumphant against overwhelming odds. Pakistan.s strategic and nuclear assets still remain safe. Now, following is the brief summary of the ridiculous situation in which Pakistan finds itself today due to these US "dirty wars". It is a masterpiece of Pakistan.s foreign and national security policy blunders, failures and confusion, fully exploited by the Zionists and Kharjee Fascists. 1. US is threatening to invade Pakistani tribal areas and regularly attack targets of its choice using Drones and other means. Relations between the US and Pakistan are tense, nervous and based on mistrust and betrayal. The US supplies pass through Pakistan, making the US vulnerable to developments in Pakistan. War in Afghanistan is not going as the US had planned, creating a military and political crisis for the United States and NATO, making the US even more nervous and jittery regarding Pakistan. The US now want Pakistan to fight Afghan Taliban and other resistance groups on behalf of the Americans, and is using all forms of carrots and sticks to push Pakistan into another war in North Waziristan. Now with OBL drama, another war directly threatening Pakistan is just around the corner. 2. Pakistan is still not sure about its role in Afghanistan and remains clueless regarding an Afghan policy and has no defined rules of engagement with the US. Even after nearly 10 years of Afghan war, Pakistan neither has a vision to protect its interests and assets in Afghanistan nor any defined and declared national security goals. Despite the anarchic chaos and the conflict within Pakistan due to US presence in Afghanistan, the government and the military is still not sure what is good
Global Alliance 222 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace for Pakistan . American presence in Afghanistan or their withdrawal from it! 3. Kabul government remains hostile to Islamabad and is supporting multiple insurgencies, aiding the Indians to establish bases all along the western border, staging terror campaigns inside Pakistan and protecting wanted terrorists. Pakistan has not made any significant breakthrough in the Northern alliance nor taken any independent initiative to play an aggressive role as a peacemaker in Afghanistan. Islamabad.s hesitation and lack of confidence to get involved is fatal. 4. TTP Kharjees, Al-Qaeda and their allied militant gangs have maintained their open war against the State of Pakistan. Their supplies remain open from Afghanistan making it impossible to eliminate this threat decisively despite major gains made by the army against these terrorists. The entire judicial system of the country has failed to respond to the threat. Security forces are fighting a reactive war where the advantage remains with the terrorists to hit urban soft targets of their choice with surprise and impunity. 5. Afghan Taliban and other Pasthun resistance are still not treated as assets for Pakistan nor are they offering any direct support to crush the Kharjee insurgency against Pakistan. Although they have not declared any war against Pakistan, they are extremely unhappy with the way Pakistan has handled the entire crisis. 6. Indian Zionists continue to work on the plan to get Pakistan beaten up by the Americans. They have been on this agenda since 9/11, when they had offered bases to the US to attack Pakistan! It is the Indian desire to create a situation in which an open confrontation is developed between Pakistan and the US where the US would be doing the dirty job of destroying Pakistan to the utter pleasure and advantage of India. US and India have now successfully forged an open and aggressive alliance against "Islamic" threat from Pakistan. Meanwhile Indians are busy trying to crush the Kashmiri uprising and resistance in the valley, taking advantage of the favorable environment in the region against Islamic militancy and Pakistan. The Zionist, ―War on Terror‖ in the Middle East and the … / 223
7. The government in Islamabad remains incapacitated, corrupt and dysfunctional almost turning Pakistan into a banana republic if the army and the Supreme Court were not there to salvage some dignity. The economic and governance collapse is almost total with real possibilities of a street level anarchic chaos unless the regime is changed urgently. This is what both, the Zionists and Kharjees, had planned to bring about from the very beginning and is being facilitated by the corrupt regime. 8. The national media remains equally confused and directionless, even hostage to the Kharjee terrorists and the Neo-Cons. US information warfare has penetrated deep into Pakistani media controlling the direction, content and the perception management of the Pakistani nation. Despite massive devastation and TTP driven war against the State, the media remains dreadfully silent to nail and name the perpetrators. The "free" media has willfully surrendered its "freedom" to the dreaded terrorists. 9. Despite having closest and common national security interests, Pakistan has still not used the power and clout of regional friendly countries like China, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to exert itself in the region or in Afghanistan to create a favorable space for Muslim countries. 10. Iran remains isolated from Pakistan despite some cooperation on security and economic levels. Both countries have not yet discussed Afghanistan and American presence seriously nor have forged any common strategy to secure Afghanistan after the US withdrawal or even to force a US withdrawal. Iran's present stance in support of Kashmir and to support Pakistan against American threats is a very positive welcome development which must be reciprocated by Pakistan in equal warmth. 11. Americans are trying to create another Persian Gulf War between Arab and Persian Muslims. Pakistan must play the role of mediator immediately to bring down the frictions between Muslim nations around the Persian Gulf else Muslim world would be doomed.
Global Alliance 224 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
12. Pakistan has still not built any relations with Russia who has great interest in countering US aggressive postures in the Eurasian region and is looking for allies in South and West Asia. The Challenge and the Response: The biggest failure of Pakistani leadership so far is that they have failed to see the threats emerging from the Neo-Con ideology! The Neo-cons are as sinister an existential threat as the Kharjee terrorists, but in Islamabad Neo-Cons are taken as friends and masters. While Kharjee terrorist threat is considered as the biggest national security risk, the Neo-Con colonial and hostile agenda against Pakistan and in the region is dismissed as just a conspiracy theory! This sheer lack of political, historic and philosophical vision, touching the limits of stupidity and insanity by the political leadership, has brought Pakistan to this unprecedented critical stage. Pakistan has still not decided if the US presence in Afghanistan is part of the problem or part of the solution for Pakistan.s national security challenges. It cannot get more pathetically ironic than this. It is the US presence in Afghanistan which is causing all the chaos and anarchy in the region: Indians, Kharjees and the terrorism breed under the US umbrella. When Afghan Taliban were in control in Afghanistan between 1996 to 2001, not a single incident of bombings, terrorism and insurgency was reported in Pakistan. Indians had been eliminated from Afghanistan and drugs were not flowing into Pakistan. There was no insurgency in Baluchistan. Pakistan had not lost a single soldier or civilian to political terrorism during that period. TTP never existed. Even if the so called Al-Qaeda existed in Afghanistan, they were kept in strong check by the Afghan Taliban, never causing any security hazard to Pakistan. Even today, a certain mindset exists in the Pakistani government and policy makers that strongly feels that the US must stay in Afghanistan to bring "stability". They feel that NATO supplies must pass through Pakistan so that Pakistan may maintain leverage over US in Afghanistan. It is believed by them that if Pakistan demands the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, it would make US openly hostile towards the Islamic The Zionist, ―War on Terror‖ in the Middle East and the … / 225 republic and it would impose sanctions on Islamabad and the country would collapse under the economic meltdown! They believe and propagate that Afghans are not capable of managing their own affairs; hence a foreign Western force is required to eliminate terrorism from the region. The Neo-Con perception management and disinformation teams have done a fantastic job at spreading despondency and strategic confusion within the Pakistani leadership. Major segments of the Pakistan government are open collaborators with the Neo-Cons. They are not expected to protect or understand Pakistan.s security needs. But even a segment of the patriots, for lack of understanding of the Neo-Con threat and their great game against Pakistan, believe that the US should continue to stay in Afghanistan and give the above-mentioned reasons as an excuse. This great confusion within the political leadership is the precise reason why there is still no Afghan policy or vision in Pakistan despite having suffered so much since the last 10 years. Let us make it clear firmly and decisively: If Pakistan wants to come out of the crisis, there is no option but to be ruthless. 1. There can be no peace in Pakistan if the US remains in Afghanistan. It is the US presence which has brought Pakistan to this brink. The sooner we throw the Americans out, the better. The leverage, which Pakistan has over US for economic and military aid, due to their supply lines passing through Pakistan, is nothing compared to the damages, losses and chaos which is created in the country due to the US presence. 2. The US is broken economically as well as militarily. The two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have broken the back of the Neo-Con war machine. There is no way the US can threaten Pakistan militarily. This major US vulnerability should be powerfully exploited in strategic negotiations to demand a US withdrawal and to eliminate Indian influence from Afghanistan. 3. Pakistan must now decisively demand a US withdrawal from the region.
Global Alliance 226 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
4. A regional political and diplomatic power bloc between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Turkey and Russia can be created which should further bolster Pakistan's posture in demanding a US withdrawal. All countries are anti-US and want an exit of the western forces from Afghanistan. 5. Pakistan, in cooperation with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey must aggressively and openly engage with all factions of the Afghan conflict and exert its due role in bringing the warring Afghan factions closer for peace. Most of the Northern alliance factions are former Afghan Mujahideen parties of the Afghan Jihad era and can easily be brought back into our fold. So far, no serious attempt has been made to bring them back. 6. Pakistan should proactively and preemptively hit at TTP and Kharjee bases in Afghanistan and exert pressure on the US, NATO and Afghan regime to "do more" to check and control the logistics and supplies of the terrorist networks. The war against Kharjees will have to enter Afghanistan by all covert and overt means. 7. Zero tolerance and no mercy policy towards Kharjee terrorist with special military courts to put to trial and eliminate the captured militants. Since the civilian courts have totally failed to respond to the threat, the clauses in the military law should be invoked, which allow for a military court martial for the captured "civilian" terrorists and insurgents. 8. The Neo-Cons. influence on Pakistani media and policy making to be eliminated and replaced with indigenous, homegrown national security and media policy to revive the national ideology and patriotism. The crisis is staggering. The challenge remains phenomenal. The stakes are of life and death for this nation. If it were not for the army, the country would have already disintegrated under the two prong Kharjee and Zionist threat axis. Pakistan has never faced such monumental existential threats of such staggering intensity in such a short duration of time. What is cruelly ironic is that this crisis is self created by the leadership since the past 10 years, and has emerged due to the deliberate blunders of policy, diplomacy, politics, and strategy and perception The Zionist, ―War on Terror‖ in the Middle East and the … / 227 management. The solution lies in undoing the damage done on the above -mentioned points. The crisis is still totally manageable in the shortest possible time. The problem is sharply defined and solutions clear. Assets are available, resources are at hand, military strength available to enforce political decisions and the global and regional geo-politics rapidly turning into Pakistan's favor; the military gaining ground against internal threats and beginning to hard bargain with the foreign forces, but still we see a complete lack of coherence in the national policies. The ship remains rudderless and in seriously turbulent waters. The crisis of leadership is phenomenal, undoing all the sacrifices made and the advantages gained on ground. If saving Pakistan means bringing a regime change in Islamabad first, then so be it! Just imagine that if the supply-route from Pakistan is blocked, due to any reason, either due to anarchy, hostile public sentiments or due to a strategic alliance between Pakistan and Iran, 150,000 western troops in Afghanistan would be dead meat. The entire US game plan of staying in Afghanistan and trying to come down southwards through Baluchistan into the Persian Gulf Waters, will end. From one side they.re encircling Iran, and from the other, they are encircling Pakistan and then they are in the soft belly of China and Central Asia. Afghanistan is the most strategic location for the entire Asian continent right now. But the American presence there depends upon Pakistan.s support. And that is why they fear the coming together of Pakistan and Iran, because Iran already has an ideologically motivated government, though they are not a nuclear-weapon state but they are a very strong nation. In Pakistan, we have very organized, much disciplined armed forces and they are keeping this federation together. They are not secular, they are ideologically motivated, are pro-Islam, anti-American, anti-Indian and they are the source of stability in the region. And Pakistan is a still the only nuclear-weapon force in the Muslim world. The worst fear that the Americans have is of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran getting into a closer defensive cooperation of the Islamic
Global Alliance 228 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace block in a collective security arrangement. While they have a corrupt government in Pakistan, they're working feverishly to dismember the Pakistani state. Insha.Allah they will never be able to do that because the patriots and the armed forces people have understood the game. But In Iran, they have to topple that government in quick time because the more they delay the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear-weapon state or Pakistan getting rid of its democracy, increases. They are also worried that a patriotic government may come in Pakistan and form an alliance with Iran and other regional countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, China and Russia. This kind of security block is something they're trying to prevent. This region has many nuclear-weapon states in close proximity. Russia is a nuclear-weapon state, so are China, Pakistan, India, and Iran is becoming one. So this region is the most explosive and volatile and of course the Americans are sitting in the heart of it: In Afghanistan. While they are reshaping the Middle East, the actual focus of the Americans would be on Pakistan and on a secondary level, on Iran. In Pakistan, they have already annihilated the political government. The Pakistani government is totally pro-American, doing whatever the Americans are telling them to do. Another point worth mentioning is that often the world media projects Pakistan as the epicenter of terror. That Pakistan is a failing state and the world should take away the nuclear weapons from Pakistan. This would be the greatest blunder that humanity would commit if Pakistan is brought under pressure. The civil society, the patriotic elements, and the people who are seeking the truth- the alternate media, they must see through this Zionist game. They must acknowledge the fact that Pakistan remains the last obstacle in the Israel, Zionists and Neo-cons. expansion plan in the greater Middle East because Pakistani armed forces train the armed forces of the entire Middle Eastern Muslim countries. Pakistan in the past has always been called for help when Israel had attacked Egypt and Syria in 1967and 1974. These countries had requested Pakistan and Pakistani Air defense units for help. Pakistani fighter pilots went to Egypt The Zionist, ―War on Terror‖ in the Middle East and the … / 229 and Syria and Pakistan is the only Muslim country in the world which shot down Israeli aircraft in an air to air combat. This is a fact that nobody knows in the world. That is why the Israelis are terribly scared of Pakistan. Pakistanis have a history of shooting them down. They have a history of defending the Arab lands and that is why they say they need Pakistan. One of the greatest reasons for bogging down Pakistani forces inside Pakistan was this precise fact that Israel does not want Pakistani forces to be free to defend Arab Muslim lands when Israel starts to change the geography of the Muslim world. Indians have joined hands with the western Zionists in this evil game against Pakistan. The projection about Pakistan that The Indians also give in the western media is cunning, evil, and sinister. It is a propaganda disinformation war against the Pakistani state. They are raising the western emotions against Pakistan and they want to get Pakistan beaten up from the west. In reality Pakistan is not just stabilizing Asia but also the Middle East and the Greater Middle East. Pakistan exists in the eye of the storm. Pakistanis are fighting an existential war not just for their own country but also for the entire Ummah. If Pakistan goes down, Allah forbid, there is no power on earth stopping Israeli and Hindu Zionists, expanding into Asia and Middle East. The threats of "Islamic" nuclear weapons are the balancing factor and the protective shield that Muslim world has. Muslim world has no other option now but to form a united Islamic security block. Either we stand united or we fall divided! The threat is not just for one nation or a few. The entire Ummah is under attack and on the verge of being annihilated if we don't wake up and rise to forge a united, aggressive and pro-active defense of our faith, ideology, honor and lands. We must resist with dignity! There is no other path of honor and glory!
Global Alliance 230 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
East and West Sahre a Common World and Must Seek Common … / 231
East and West Share a Common World and Must Seek Common Solutions to Common Problems Dr.Nikolay Slatinski
In this article I will examine five aspects of the phenomenon of terrorism.
I. Terrorism - cause or consequence of global insecurity In my opinion, terrorism should not be defined as the largest, let alone as the only disturbing problem of our civilization and could not be analyzed in isolation from other serious problems facing humanity. Terrorism can be viewed in a much lesser extent as a cause for global insecurity and escalating chaos in world affairs, and in much greater extent as a consequence of systemic, structural, cultural and economic failures, and of growing symmetrical and asymmetrical risks and challenges. In this sense, we, global community, people of different religions, cultures, nations should focus on essential causes for the current and future crises on global and regional level, instead of waging so called GWOT (Global War on Terrorism), which is totally distinct from real problems of our world. The focus of the West on GWOT replaces the actual agenda of our civilization and wastes precious time and resources, instead of attacking the most dramatic dangers and threats, which, if they are not adequately answered, could push the world into chaos and anarchy. Our fragile Planet is facing serious problems and some of them are really very worrying: ● Climate change and environmental degradation;
Associate Professor, Bulgaria.
Global Alliance 232 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
● Deepening of the gap between North and South, i.e. between rich and poor countries; ● Depletion of strategic resources (oil, gas, timber, minerals, drinking water); ● Overloading of the world with weapons and technologies that can lead to devastating military conflicts, to natural, anthropogenic and technogenic disasters, to massive destruction, pandemics and mass casualties. These problems are common and we must seek common solutions, based on common approaches, that unite people of different ethnicities, cultures, religions and regions, and not divide them and confront each other. For historical reasons, for its economic and military power, the West (i.e. the community of most developed countries) has a key position on the global stage as leading geo-strategical, geo-political, geo-economical, and recently geo-energetical factor. The West carries an enormous responsibility for the world development, peace and security. For better or worse, many of principles, understandings, legal norms that are shared nowadays as global, are based in a very large extent on the legacy and on the values of the European (and then Western) civilization: ancient Greek philosophy, Roman law, Renaissance humanism, the ideas of democracy and human rights. This requires from the West an wise approach, strategic leadership and visionary thinking – only they could allow the West to lead the world on the way of a smooth and manageable transition from the current uni-polar geo-political model with a single superpower to a multi-polar, pluralistic and much more democratic geo-political model. The dominating ultra-liberal geo-economical model has at least two major drawbacks: ● First, it is not universal - from this model is benefiting the so-called. "Golden billion". ● Second, this model consumes irreversibly most of the vital strategic resources of the world (oil, gas, wood, minerals, water). East and West Sahre a Common World and Must Seek Common … / 233
This model is leading our civilization to the abyss. But the existential problem is that on the ―playing field‖ and under the rules of this ultra- liberal geo-economical model the West can not be defeated. This is the West type of Game, and in this Game the West is the best player. This determines the unique mission and responsibility of the West: leaders of the Western world must find political courage to work for the transformation of current unjust and dangerous model to a much more just and sparing our planet resources model of economic development. We need a model for further development in which the serious risks and challenges can be at least to some extent manageable and put under control. If the West does not find leaders who can work for a different type of development, and if Western politicians continue lead the West (and the whole world) on the same suicide way, only because it is profitable for the West and because they do not possess the necessary political courage, the world's future looks very pessimistic. We must realize that we are all in the same boat and that states and peoples are increasingly interdependent and interrelated. It is no longer possible to believe that the problems of one separate community, or state, or religion, or civilization are only its own internal problems - they are common problems. We need to realize that the time for finding sustainable and workable solutions to global problems is running out. The question that stands before humanity is the question of Hamlet: To be or Not to be.
II. Terrorism vs. Islam Current development poses many injustices, and hundreds of millions, billions of people feel deprived, discriminated, threatened because of the way our world is functioning. But we will not be able to find a safer, more sustainable and more humane geopolitical and geo-economic model of our world if we start on the path of confrontation and use the language of hatred. We should go and work together and only together for a lasting, effective and just peace.
Global Alliance 234 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
We have to build bridges, not barricades. We have to find common language for common solutions of our common problems. Of course there exist many differences and distinctions among different states, religions, politics and worldviews, but for me it would be much better to try to understand each other instead of finger-pointing and labelling the other as the Other. Because when the other becomes the Other it is much more easier to thing on him as Evil, as Devil. We need dialogue, because 100 monologues are not equal to 1 dialogue. We can work much better when we seek what unites different Peoples, States, Policies and Religions, instead of focusing on what divides them! It is not the best idea to think that: ● We do the right things, and They do the wrong things; ● We are good gays, and They are bad gays; ● Our ideology is the correct one, and Their ideology is incorrect; ● Our religion is the true one, and Their religion is untrue. As I said - we need not the Language of Hatred – it divides Me against You. We need the Language of the Synergy, based on the ―We‖-power. My home country Bulgaria is an excellent example for an inter-religious cooperative behaviour with her model of common living of Christians and Muslims. This model is based on tolerance, cooperation, mutual respect. Majority of Bulgarians are Orthodox Christians, but we have democratically elected Muslims in parliament, government, local authorities. Our country respects the number of Muslim poets, writers, artists, actors and sportsmen. As a sincere friend of Iran and Iranian people, as a person brought up to respect the opinions and believes of others, I will sincerely admit that I feel a sense that among many of my Muslim colleagues exists some kind of a strong conviction that the West and the world as a whole appear too biased negative attitude towards the great religion of Islam and towards the Muslims. Some scholars, professors, experts even speak and write openly about the existence of a conspiracy of the West against Islam, and that the West is almost striving to destroy the Islamic world. Over the past few years this gave a strong emotional coloration of several conferences East and West Sahre a Common World and Must Seek Common … / 235 and other scientific and professional meetings, and occasionally replaced the creative atmosphere of these expert gatherings with the exaltation of a political rally, at which speak no reason and science, but emotions and passions. But I am convinced that there exist no global conspiracy against Islam and its believers! Vast majority of the Christian world (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) relates with the sincere respect to the world of Islam and sees in its face a great community of partners, friends, brothers and sisters. To believe that terrorism is fought on Christian religious grounds and seeks to destroy the Islamic world - it's too easy an explanation of very complex problems. No doubt, there are some hidden, invisible objectives behind the war against terrorism, as well as outright economic interests, associated with the strategic resources such as oil and gas. But to this war must not be attributed plans and ambitions for a new crusade! By doing so, among other things, people who carry this propaganda mislead and misinform Islamic societies first of all. This wastes energy, which could be used otherwise for solving some of internal problems of these societies. In my view to see the Islamic world as a victim of global conspiracy is a blunder. With such explanations some people could gain mass support, but their societies will face the risk of not seeing the whole truth. Christianity and Islam are partners, not enemies! Anyone who tries to hound Christianity and Islam against each other in the war against terrorism, in practice ranks in the camp of terrorists. Instead to give a platform to extreme ideas, radical propaganda and aggressive positions (both in the West and in the East, both in the Christian and in the Islamic world), we should give a chance to people who lead a policy of the outstretched hand, to individuals with an independent opinion who do not say what political and religious leaders want to hear but say what respective nations must hear. Let me say again and again - whenever you are looking primarily what connects people and less focus on what divides them, then inevitably
Global Alliance 236 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace arises a sense of community, of need of each other, of attachment to each other. Each individual, every nation must make an analysis of its life, of its good features and its shortcomings. The answer for most worrying issues is very often not outside us but inside us. Our world is too small to divide it among ourselves, we must share it - together and jointly. But when we talk about terrorism, we must be both critical and truthful, both anxious and objective. Ideologies and religions in itself (unless they are fascist, obscurantist and misanthrope) are not guilty for the escalating acts of un-human and mediaeval actions of brutality. Guilty for that are those who use these ideologies and religions as tools to breed violence in the name of political, economic, social or other objectives – no matter strategic or tactical, no matter local, regional, continental or global… At the same time we should not turn a blind eye to real problems of terrorism facing the world, the different religions, including Christianity and Islam – such as: ● acts of suicide bombings (many performed by women); ● usage of religious symbols in some hideous brutal actions – for example in beheading of hostages; ● promotion of religious ideas about holy war for recruiting terrorists and motivating them to commit acts of destructive violence; ● gloat of some communities when other communities have been subjected to acts of terrorism, etc. Debating such issues would benefit all and would make us stronger in combating terrorism, in its rejection as a means to achieve any goals and purposes. No one religion should be accused, that she breeds terrorism and preaches violence. Religion is a delicate thing, one should not trample with boots on the raw nerves of the believers and we should respect each religion – as I said in their deepest essence all big religions are humanistic. East and West Sahre a Common World and Must Seek Common … / 237
However, we should carefully analyze why societies of certain great, philanthropic, compassionate religions allow small radical groups to use these religions in order to justify and motivate their terrorist acts. Every religion has to find strength and truthfulness to neutralize and condemn the terrorists who parasitize on her ideas and in that way discredit her in the eyes of one part of humanity.
III. Terrorism and Just Peace Just Peace Paradigm is full of deep content, it is extremely timely and useful and everything has to be done to develop it as a theory and to implement it in practice. We must strive not for any kind of peace but for a just peace. The West is not always deep enough considering and rationalizing this view. Tying in a common theme of both the War on Terrorism and the strategy for achieving Just Peace brings us to the following considerations: Wars are among the greatest evils of mankind. But generally wars (armed conflicts) can be divided into two types: ● Unjust Wars. ● Just Wars. Europe and the West in general have done very much to develop philosophically the paradigm of Just War. The basics of this paradigm were the intellectual searches of the First Modern European - Saint Augustine, who formulated the idea that Just is the war which is fought for a just cause. This idea was developed further and its common principles has been established (down in two groups, respectively Low of war and Law in war - Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello). Interestingly, in the early Middle Ages, in the ancient lands of Bulgaria, the Bogomils (a spiritual movement, close to Manichaeism and alternative to the official religion) made an outstanding contribution to the theory of Just War, formulating the principle that even the Just war must be fought in a just way.
Global Alliance 238 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Principles of Just war can be applied to the use of violence in achieving political objectives. Need for that stems from a question with regard to terrorism that remains open and with sharp disputes and contradictions: abound the boundary between Terrorism and the Fight for freedom. If we reject any use of violence, then what must do people who have exhausted all peaceful means of liberation, of achievement of their goals, aspirations and ideals? I think that when we try to clarify what is terrorism, the emphasis in the use of violence should be placed not only on question "Is violence applied?", but also on question "Why is violence applied?". Now I can formulate my working hypothesis: Those who use violence to achieve political objectives, can generally be divided into two groups: ● Terrorists. ● Freedom Fighters. When violence is applied to impose somebody‘s will, culture, ideology and identity over the others, to create chaos, to destroy the normal course of things, then we could speak about Terrorists. When violence is applied to achieve freedom (from slavery, from oppression by foreign state, from imposition of foreign culture, religion, identity, ideology), then we could speak about Freedom fighters. Under the prevailing thinking of the American elite, any violence applied to achieve political goals (of course – political goals that do not meet the U.S. interests) is terrorism. In such an approach the only asked question is: "Is violence applied?". The European approach is as a rule different - a huge part of the European elites is asking the another question "Why is violence applied?". And here it becomes clear that both approaches are in extreme - the American approach, because it is not interested in the objectives, but only in the means applied to achieve them; and the European approach – because it is interested only in the objectives, but not in the means applied to achieve them. Obviously, the European approach could mean that if the objectives are noble, progressive, patriotic, all means for achieving them East and West Sahre a Common World and Must Seek Common … / 239 are acceptable. Then each rogue or terrorist could raise a higher purpose and use violence and commit brutal acts of terrorism. The outcome of this dilemma is given again by the logic of Bogomils, i.e. in pursuit of just objectives one must act in a just manner. This means that between freedom fighters and terrorists there is a thin dividing line and it is passing through the full, explicit, categorical UNACCEPTABILITY OF DESTROYING - intentionally! – the life, the health and property of innocent people, as well OF ATTACKING on a particular kind of infrastructure – e.g. hospitals, religious facilities, schools and universities, as well dams, nuclear plants and others. I am firmly convinced that using terrorism is impossible to change an unjust peace into a just one. Even in achieving Just Peace we must achieve it in a just way. Only achieved by just means peace is truly just. Let me add a little more about Just Peace. In the West, when we think about Peace, we consider it as a special, vital, necessarily value - as a value in itself. We believe that the presence of peace is enough to ensure the normal life of society – life without violence and coercion, with freedom and stability. And we ascribe to Peace only positive qualities. But the existence of Peace does not automatically lead to the realization of all these positive qualities which we ascribe to Peace. Without any doubt, even peace, if it's unfair, can suppress people and deprive them of freedom and future. Peace is not the end of the process, but its beginning. Peace is only a prerequisite, it is necessary but not sufficient condition for a better, safer, more stable life. The rich, the powerful, the advanced, the successful seeks Peace in order to realize his own advantages, to reap the results of these advantages. Meanwhile, the poor, the weak, the developing (the underdeveloped), the unsuccessful can not enjoy Peace if this Peace maintains, "conserves" its shortcomings and deficiencies and doesn‘t bring him prosperity, security, stability.
Global Alliance 240 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
For the West Peace is a quantitative value, i.e. the more peace – the better. But for the East and-or for the developing countries Peace is much more a qualitative value, measured by justice. West really needs to understand that developing countries want not just a peace, but a just peace. Any peace which doom these countries to slow or no development, to doubtful or difficult to achieve perspectives is not a desired value for them because such kind of incomplete peace is seen by them as a continuation of the old policy (colonial, robbing, exploiting, seizing, repressive), but with other means. Of course, the establishment of Just Peace is a question our mankind could not answer so far for 70-90 centuries. Great politics always have been in favour of the stronger: internationally - in favour of the most developed countries; at national level - in favour of the richest groups. In this sense, to believe that it is possible quickly to achieve peace for everyone and just peace for all is tantamount to utopia. The main what we should do, however, is to endeavour to build more just and more solidary relations among states and among social groups within states. If the states and peoples could realize how fragile and vulnerable our world is and how quickly it could collapse into chaos and anarchy, then humanity could go towards the Kantian Perpetual Peace where resolutions of the conflicts will be sought by peaceful means and where common goals, common values and common interests will be placed above individual corporate, group, private and selfish interests. Now the most important thing is to begin to form, to shape, to create, to develop a new culture of thinking about the future and destiny of our world. This culture must be based on awareness of the 4 critical limitations: ● limitation 1 - of resources at our disposal; ● limitation 2 - of time for decision making; ● limitation 3 – of opportunities to manage escalating risks; ● limitation 4 – of scenarios that could lead the world out of the global crisis and could guarantee the survival of our planet.
East and West Sahre a Common World and Must Seek Common … / 241
IV. Terrorism as a problem of global and regional security Terrorism is not a new phenomenon - it accompanied mankind throughout its history from ancient centuries to modern times. Now, however, more and more today terrorism is but one of asymmetric responses to current global asymmetries. Such polarizing asymmetries - in wealth, influence, military power, quality of life, prospects and hopes are "preserved" in the established geopolitical and geo-economical status quo, which constantly generates instability, insecurity, injustice and immorality. At the same time we must be clearly aware that the change of nowadays destructive status quo can be done in two ways. ● One way is this to be done from "top", from ―above‖ and by legal means - through dialogue between states, through modernization of existing organizations and international relations, through finding pluralistic, sustainable alternatives to current political, military, economic, financial and social asymmetries. ● Another way is this to happen from "bottom", from ―below‖ and by illegal means - through violence, through crime and terrorism. The first way to change the status quo sounds idealistic, but this is the only opportunity for manageable and sustainable exit from the current global - political, economic, social, cultural and moral - crisis. The second way is the darkest possible scenario in which the medicine for the disease is worse than the disease itself. Tragically, those elites and leaders who want to use terrorism as a strategic instrument and to turn it into a weapon to achieve their interests are not at all a few. Different individuals and communities of people are incited ideologically or inspired religiously to commit acts of terrorism by some leaders, by some organized groups or by some states, which are incapable to find the right ways for their societies and instead of that offer easy, but impossible solutions to all these complex and intractable problems. These leaders, organized groups and states give to desperate individuals or communities of people simple explanation for their marginalization,
Global Alliance 242 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace for their failures in the struggle for surviving or modernizing, for their social or intellectual misery, for their status of outsiders. There were, are and will be states, which use their might, their military capacity for the achievement of their aims and objectives on the Grand World Chessboard, and their use of force and violence is too often a form of imperial behaviour that can be compared to terrorism. There are many studies of individuals (―kamikaze‖) who resort to suicide actions. Their motives may be different - psychological, social, ideological, religious. These people are generally a means for others. It is essential that countries and societies must not tolerate and nurture such culture of death and of ritual suicide, and must not celebrate these terrorists as national heroes. At the same time, we must attack the deep roots of terrorism such as poverty, underdevelopment, exploitation, poor education and health, repressive regimes, crumbling statehood, poor environment, crime and insecurity. We should carefully treat these impairments of societies which push many people to the social bottom and make them feel themselves totally powerless. Some of these desperate and doomed people deceive themselves that by terrorist acts they could use the power of their powerless to avenge more powerful people and make them feel powerless. So suicide men or women imagine that they mete out retribution and in this way interchange the places and roles of victim and executioner. Terrorism, and organized crime as well, must in no case be underestimated! We are faced with different scenarios of development and one of them is a gradual interlacing of the networks of organized crime and terrorism and their transformation into geo-strategic factor. If this combined network structure, Organized Crime & Terrorism Network (let's call it OCTopus-N structure) is undervalued and put out of Pandora's box, it could bring real claim to its role as one of the poles in the future grand geopolitical game. East and West Sahre a Common World and Must Seek Common … / 243
Networks of organized crime and terrorism are like cobwebs: flexible and mutating, highly adaptive kernels and nuts such as sects and secret brotherhoods, quickly learning new communication technologies and fluently manipulating both human communities and individuals. These networks are becoming a state without territory or a territory without state. They operate with increasingly large and inexhaustible resources. Organised crime and terrorism "write" sounding headlines in the media and command the cameras where and what to reflect. They are ingenious in violence, they have a monopoly over time and space in which they operate, they have constantly changing forms, methods, objectives, resources for optimal impact. We - the normal states, democratic societies, reasonable people - are re-active, they are pro-active. At the same time democratic forces in each country must be vigilant not to allow political elites to use the war against terrorism as a pretext for strengthening their power over their societies - by creating a powerful police, powerful special and other types of repressive services. There is a real danger, that infatuated in the global war on terrorism (when societies and individual citizens are inclining to allow their rights to be limited in the name of more security), we could face someday a situation, when under the slogan of combating terrorism the elites have created force structures, ready to serve them for protection against all who disagree with their excessive power. Political, cultural, scientific, religious leaders, opinion leaders, leaders of local communities have a special role in the enlightenment of the societies, in raising of public culture, in finding of a new language - positive, modern, turn not to the past, but to future. Every society needs values, principles, objectives and ideals. Leaders, religious scholars, intellectuals, scientists must explain to their societies that there is no incompatibility between values and cultures of different nations. They should stimulate creative, joint and creative thinking and not build the image of the enemy. The world today is facing many serious problems. These problems can not be solved by intuition, improvisation, propaganda and public
Global Alliance 244 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace relations. They must be dealt with extremely intense mental efforts, with strong participation of science, with a lot of will and perseverance. At this moment of truth leaders can no longer rely on unlimited populism, they can not go behind or together with their nations and seek only to meet their daily needs. Leaders are therefore leaders - to lead their nations, to be in front of them, to help them see not one day, one month or one year ahead, but to see 10-20 years ahead, i.e. to see to the horizon and beyond. Very often the leaders - political, religious, intellectual, scientific - prefer to lead obedient, disciplined people who blindly obey their will. Leaders now need competent, engaged, active and enlightened people who think critically, who see themselves not only as a part of problems, but as a part of the solutions to these problems. Our World is experiencing urgent need of a new type of leadership - strategic thinkers and visionaries, global security managers, bold, modern and highly educated individuals. Only with such leaders serious challenges, facing the world could be overcome. Nowadays the world is full of conflicts. But the vast majority of these conflicts are not among nations, among cultures, among religions, among civilizations. The overwhelming majority of these conflicts are among the elites of the states, they are in the heads of the leaders of these states. If earlier leaders needed conflicts to rally their people behind themselves, now, in today's landmark time, leaders need peace, they need just peace because only in those circumstances, they can mobilize their peoples to prove worthy of the challenges they face. Leaders of great religions of the world must recognize their role not only as leaders of their religions, but also as leaders of the world. They must preach the values of peace, cooperation and mutual respect. They must not tolerate terrorism and terrorists. They should not allow religious temples to become shelters and hangouts for terrorists. They should not insult other religions and accuse them of all possible sins and crimes.
East and West Sahre a Common World and Must Seek Common … / 245
V. World and terrorism – the way ahead After the Cold War the World is highly changed, changed is the very paradigm of security. In place of the old Westphalian world of nation-states comes a new, globalized world. When the old order is collapsing, the good old organizations which were the foundation of that gone old world order have to find energy and strength to transform themselves and come up with the times in order to be the basis and the new world order. Or they would inevitable drop out and dye slowly and on their place will come new - more relevant – organizations of this new world order. Of course, it is possible to have another, much more grimmer scenario – when the disorder occurs. Therefore, the United Nations should be changed and filled with new content, new mission and new role. The UN organization needs radical and democratic reforms to keep its place as the key institution for global security. Otherwise the UN will remain a lifeless relic of past times. Especially dramatic disagrees with reality the Security Council of the UN - of the 5 members with veto power 4 are Christian states, 3 are NATO members, 2 are members of the EU. Whole continents, great civilizations, large states are excluded from the permanent members of the Security Council. This erodes the legitimacy of the UN and reduces its credibility. There can be no just peace if the main organization, existing to ensure that just peace is not just constructed and by its structure and rules of action actually discriminates against the vast majority of the world humanity. Security is now common, shared and indivisible – it exists for everybody or nobody has it. Terrorism is a negation of both democracy and security, and war against should not face us to the unsolvable dilemma "Democracy or Security". Proper counter-terrorism means "Democracy and Security. " We strive not just towards a world free from terrorism but towards a democratic world free of terrorism. The sharp limitation of democratic freedoms may facilitate the war against terrorism, but it would be a
Global Alliance 246 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace victory for terrorists - because they fight against our values and ideas, against our faith in God, in justice, in democracy, in rule of law, in human rights. It is strange that lately, those who have taught us democracy, are willing to teach us how to limit democracy - because of more effective counter-terrorism. Security goes hand in hand with freedom and human rights. And we should not think that less security means more freedom, and that less freedom means more security. For many of our current troubles we blame globalization. But globalization should not be demonized, but humanized. We need to rethink the globalization and its challenges. We should seek solutions to globalization problems in a peaceful, equitable, ecological and sustainable manner. And most important of these problems is the problem of the development of the world. Development today poses many injustices, inequalities and double standards. Security is inseparable connected with the development. Without development there is no security and there is no security without development. The question before us is - what development we really need? We do not need any development, but development that generates security, i.e. sustainable development. We need a global culture of solidarity, empathy and mutual assistance. This global culture does not only mean the treatment of damages from major disasters, but also modernization of lagging behind regions, strategies for catching up (accelerated) development and efforts to overcome political, social and environmental shortcomings. It is important to understand that the strategies for aid and development can not be intrusive. Development and democratization, modernization and models of state building must be recognized by the nations to whom they are directed and those nations should accept them peacefully as a better alternative, and without fear that by these means, advises, investment and models their identity, integrity, culture and traditions are under threat. East and West Sahre a Common World and Must Seek Common … / 247
If we want to overcome the dark prophecy for the imminent and unavoidable Clash of civilizations we should begin to consider a new process analogous to the Process of Helsinki (in the 70‘s of 20th century), which did so much to reduce fatal tensions between two antagonistic systems of capitalism and socialism. We must unite around the following understandings, which will allow us to build a qualitatively new anti-terrorist and pro-peace culture: (1) The world needs Dialogue of Civilizations. To build trust between different civilizations, however, we should not perceive reality according to our own attitudes, stereotypes and prejudices, but according to reality as it is; we need to hear through the ears and see through the eyes of others - with more ethnic and religious, ethical and cultural sensitivity. (2) No one religion should be accused, that she breeds terrorism and preaches violence. (3) Terrorism is a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon. Actually there is not one and only one terrorism, but many terrorisms, various terrorisms. Every terrorism must be understood in its unique cultural, ethical, religious, social, historical and political context. (4) We should not put an equal sign between freedom fighters and terrorists (5) It is necessary to strengthen further the leading role of UN in combating terrorism. (6) There is a pressing need for reforming and transformation of other existing international and regional organizations and for strengthening of the cooperation between them. (7) All UN member states should accede to existing international legal instruments for combating terrorism and a comprehensive convention against international terrorism should be adopted. (8) Countries that harbour terrorists or sponsor terrorism should be most energetically condemned and punished be sanctions imposed by the Security Council of UN. (9) Rehabilitation measures and strict control are needed towards the failed and failing states.
Global Alliance 248 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
(10) We should not restrain ourselves only with efforts to combat the terrorism, but must attack first of all the root causes of terrorism. (11) Although the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals is so far extremely insufficient, all possible measures must be taken reach as many of these targets by 2015. (12) Much more intensive efforts are needed to dry up the financial roots of terrorism and to counter the interlacing and symbiosis of terrorism and organized crime networks. (13) Much more important becomes the role of education in all its aspects and especially in the sphere of culture, religion, literacy, in the termination of educational practices in many countries where children learn to hate peoples, religions and cultures different from them. (14) Developed societies must make much more efforts to integrate immigrants and to raise their physical, social and psychological status. Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of … / 249
Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of Divide and Rule Arzu Merali
Abstract In order to develop a co-operative strategy against "terrorism", this paper argues that those concerned with challenging it need to address how terrorism is understood by themselves and the communities they serve. This paper contends that internalised racism is the elephant in the room, when these issues are discussed in terms of international relations, diplomacy and civil society movements. Defined in its simplest form as a form of self-hatred that results from the constant bombardment of negativity surrounding one's identity and culture, and the superiority of "white" "European" culture, internalised racism is known to impact on the health and well-being of minority individuals AND communities. This paper seeks to apply the characteristics and impacts of this process of internalisation to thinking and praxis of transnational communities of faith and colour, including states that are defined as "outside" the norms and standards of "white" "European" international diplomacy and relations. We need to look at how being mutes or a muted group as a state of minority being, is in fact transforming into Internalised Racism and its impacts.
This paper argues that whilst racism that creates the various, health, education and intra-community violent outcomes for minorities is systemic and institutionalised, the security discourse that has developed in the last decade, actually actively seeks to promote this
Member of the Islamic Human Rights Commission.
Global Alliance 250 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
internalisation as a way of controlling not only minority communities but global communities that pose a threat to current power hegemonies. Policies implemented by Western governments have consciously sought to stigmatise and devalue normative thinking that deviates from the hegemonic norm, resulting in compliant civil society and governmental actors in the developing world. More needs to be done to address how Internalised Racism also permeates how marginalised communities as states or international actors (NGOs, IGOs etc) deal with international diplomacy, as well as between themselves. This paper contends that an internalisation of racism is a core cause of internecine, sectarian conflict and bloodshed, even undermining of universal causes e.g. the liberation of Palestine. Just as various strategies have been developed to combat internalised racism as part of various civil rights struggles, so this paper argues, must NAM and Muslims states and movements come to terms with the operation of such prejudice in their thinking and look to develop solutions that value cultures, faiths and ways of thinking that do not reflect an external „norm‟ that devalues all else. ------Notes on 'Whiteness' This paper avers to the term white. This term does not denote skin colour but rather refers to a state of mind exhibited by supremacist cultures that claim variously Christian, liberal, Western, enlightened, European ideals and values. They form the opposite that the black consciousness movement of Steve Biko and SASO (Biko, 1987) tried to counter. More aptly, in his introduction to the work of Steven T Newcomb (2008), Peter d'Errico writes: ―This is not a statement about skin color. It is a statement about demographics and the historical development of a conceptual framework. Indeed, the white man's imagination has spread to the minds of many who are not white. The target of critique is a metaphorical, rather than literal, whiteness. It's about a way of thinking, not the color of the people who think that way.‖
Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of … / 251
Who understands terrorism and how? Terrorism is a glib term that has been used repeatedly in the last 30 years to often but not solely to describe Muslim resistance groups. The criteria used to define what a terrorist is usually vague both in philosophical terms but also legal terms. Various reports and briefings by Fahad Ansari (2005, 2006) indicate how far and all encompassing the last decade worth of legal definitions of terrorism and supporting terrorism can mean. Sitting on a platform with a supposed terrorist even if it is to oppose them can mean you are guilty of a terrorist offence and therefore also a terrorist. Likewise a text quoted by a Muslim in an academic context can see that person arrested and convicted whilst a non-Muslim can quote with impunity. These are the peculiarities and hypocrisy of extant laws and the definitions imposed by Western governments. They are not new. Scroll back 40 years these were applied to the Irish in the UK, scroll back a century and more, these were applied to Native Americans in what is now called the USA. The responses to this by activists, NGOs etc who would oppose such definitions if often and understandably along the lines of one man's terrorist is a freedom fighter, or pointing out the hypocrisy of applications, or pointing out the bigger crimes committed by governments. They are all legitimate responses, but they do not take us any nearer a definition of terrorism. Indeed they suggest that "terrorism" is not only an abstract concept but pathologically subjective. There is no core basic characteristic that can define any number of phenomenon as terrorist and there is no intrinsic idea of terror as a bad thing. Another set of reactions, which includes those of states, which is to happily accept these deifinitions when they target those we believe to be terrorist, whilst oppose them as perverse when they apply to resistance movements. Whilst this also has validity it does not take us out of the bind that we are still battling terms set by others who do not have an interest in understanding terror as a universal concept or one that can be derived through an understanding of the oppressed / objectively decided.
Global Alliance 252 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Thirdly there is the internalisation of all these definitions and the arguments that precede them and we are witnessing this in the UK at least with the younger generation and its so-called leadership. This will be discussed in fuller detail below, because there is a link between how those who have been fighting for social justice and global justice issues have conducted their discussions and the effects of internalisation upon significant sections of global society. If we are really seeking to work cooperatively to end terrorism or diminish its effects, we need to be able to break out of the cycle of definitions described before. A number of approaches need to be pursued, one of which includes asking people what they believe terrorism to be. This approach has been used cautiously because there is a perception that by asking this you will get a mob mentality response, as if everyone, at least everyone e.g. in the western world may answer as those who rather disgracefully partied at Ground Zero upon news of Osama Bin Laden‟s death, or as if their answers will mirror some sort of Nazi rhetoric. Even if true, using the idea that numerical superiority of answers, is somehow an indicator of right and righteousness – a democracy of definition. Firstly – this is impressionistic and needs to be scientifically tested, but the author contends we may still be surprised at the multiplicity of voices that exist. More importantly however is the rejection of the notion of some sort of "democratic decision making" with regards to Tackling internalised racism and the terrorist agenda of divide and rule definitions. We as activists and those concerned in academia with issues of justice that go beyond the rhetoric of Capitol Hill or Whitehall have certain notions. If we believe freedom fighters have been mislabelled terrorists then we believe some people, somewhere, maybe even we, are unfree. By being unfree and therefore in our estimation having the right to resist, even with force, we must be recognising that what they oppose oppresses them. That oppression – even the use of that word – is often disregarded. It is often discussed as the possible cause of "terrorism" e.g. we have the ongoing fight between activists and government in the UK over the 7/7 bombers and their motivations: governments have foisted the idea that Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of … / 253 they hated "our way of life" on us (Blair, 2005; Cameron, 2011). Whereas, the bombers e.g. the 7/7 bombers, themselves and those who seek the bigger picture, indeed some who support them would say it is because of the US / UK allied war in Afghanistan and Iraq (Siddique Khan, 2005; Briggs et al, 2006; Brigg & Birdwell, 2009). So that oppression is deemed the cause of their acts of terrorism. Speak to someone on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq and they may well define terrorism not as or solely as the acts of those of 7/7 but of the actual oppression itself. So we fall into the realm of states as terrorists. However this is also problematised by the use of such terms in political slanging matches. What makes it perhaps less subjective or superficial are the any number of normative lenses through which we can analyse the acts of states. Both international law, and concrete systems of Islamic thought can be used to measure – to coin a common phrase "Who the Real Terrorist are". If we are to take oppression – systemic and systematic – as opposed to individual or small group acts, as the basis of a definition of terrorism, then we need to expand beyond the idea of mass or individual acts of physical violence as the sole expression and determiner of what oppression is. Violence can be emotional, it can be psychological and it can operate on a community or society wide level. Before proceeding, a first recommendation is placed here because it addresses the core of the foregoing – naming the problem. There is an Islamic narrative of Haq and Batil and of oppressed and oppressor. When discussing "terrorism" there isn't a problem in averring to Quranic concepts. They do translate often in the main and not just the particular because these are universal concepts. Of course there are differences, but there are universal understandings. Making the links between then and now, or the cosmic narrative may be lampooned by some, but – and this is a key concern – by not openly doing so, by dressing up concerns as somehow other than divinely inspired, the de-Islamitisation process is legitimised by our own communication praxis, whether public, political or academi, which is then furthered at the grassroots level by the
Global Alliance 254 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace internalisation of other societal issues. Essentially a recommendation is posited here before the main problem is fully indetified.
What is internalised racism? There is little utility in rehashing Fanon (2001) here. His conceptualisation of the processes of subjugation, ensuing internecine violence, the creation of a liberal class of native that speak as "native informants" to the oppressed in socialising any transformative movement to the norms of the colonial power inevitably white, European and Christian. The author wishes to focus on how civil rights organisations define the operation of internalised racism among minority communities, because this is where in the West at least the battle for definition and freedom from being defined / restrained / suppressed exists. It takes Fanon's descriptions of the psychological impact of internalisation of the racist norms of colonialism and reapplies them to contemporary situations at the local and global levels. In particular it looks at internalised racism as not simply the effect of systemic racism bit a systemic form of oppression that is deliberately utilised to further suppress "people of color" "minorities" "Muslims" etc. The term has both academic applicability and usage amongst civil rights movements – mainly in the USA. The academic literature focuses predominantly on the physical and mental health effects (Tull et al, 1999 etc.), as well as on destructive behaviours including intra-community violence and crime (Bruce, 2006). There are also several works that raise the issue of self-identification through internalised racism and the monitoring and control of social behaviour (Pyke & Dang, 2003) The Women's Theological Centre (WTC, 1995) is one of several local organisations which, while dealing with intracommunity issues, sees the operation of this in a global context. Internalised racism is: ―... the situation that occurs in a racist system when a racial group oppressed by racism supports the supremacy and dominance of the dominating group by maintaining or participating in the set of attitudes, Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of … / 255 behaviors, social structures and ideologies that undergird the dominating group's power„. It involves at least four essential and interconnected elements:
1. Decision-making Due to racism, people of color do not have the ultimate decision-making power over the decisions that control our lives and resources. As a result, on a personal level, we may think white people know more about what needs to be done for us than we do. On an interpersonal level, we may not support each other's authority and power – especially if it is in opposition to the dominating racial group. Structurally, there is a system in place that rewards people of color who support white supremacy and power and coerces or punishes those who do not.
2. Resources Resources, broadly defined (e.g. money, time, salaried work etc), are unequally in the hands and under the control of white people. Internalized racism is the system in place that makes it difficult for people of color to get access to resources for our own communities and to control the resources of our community. We learn to believe that serving and using resources for ourselves and our particular community is not serving ―everybody.‖ There is also often a self-imposed barrier that makes it difficult for us to respectfully access the resources of other peoples, particularly other peoples of color.
3. Standards With internalized racism, the standards for what is appropriate or "normal" that people of color accept are white people's or Eurocentric standards. We have difficulty naming, communicating and living up to our deepest standards and values, and holding ourselves and each other accountable to them. Too often, we instead grab onto standards set in reaction to the abuse of systemic racism.
Global Alliance 256 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
4. Naming the problem There is a system in place that misnames the problem of racism as a problem of or caused by people of color and blames the disease - emotional, economic, political, etc. - on people of color. With internalized racism, people of color might, for example, believe we are more violent than white people and not consider state-sanctioned political violence or the hidden or privatized violence of white people and the systems they put in place and support.‖ In their opinion, the effect and impact of these is effectively divide and rule of disparate communities under a supremacist culture. Importantly, this divide and rule actually fosters violence between subjugated communities. Whilst these discussions of internalised racism have taken place within nation state contexts, it is important to test the parallels in transnational communities, particularly within civil society and the putative political classes of the marginalised world / South / periphery. This paper has already outlined how (4) control of language and the discursive practice of the dominant group (Hall cited in Ameli et al, 2007) have a symbiotic relationship which marks out any discussion of "terrorism" and the quest for a just peace, in a way that must be tackled by non-dominant groups if they are really to take the initiative in controlling their lives and reducing / eradicating unjust violence. If we take each of WTC‟s terms and apply to current discourse in simply the UK Muslim communities vis a vis definitions of terrorism and the relationship between Muslim civil society and government, this gives us an idea of how even in just one national context we see how the idea of "terrorism" has become a defining feature of minority suppression – ostensibly Muslims, but arguable of other minorities and political dissidents – and which then is intimately linked to oppression committed "abroad".
Decision-making A "Know Your Rights" leaflet initiative in the UK by IHRC was launched in the wake of the successive anti-terrorism laws, resulting in three Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of … / 257 leaflets. A counter leaflet was produced by a government approved organisation, one of whose key members was the Chair of secular rights organisation Liberty. That leaflet was entitled Know "Your Rights and Responsibilities" and outlined how Muslims should show responsibility vis a vis the current security situation. The leaflet was heavily promoted by government agencies, and was seen as more appropriate than the IHRC leaflet which was criticised for allowing potential terrorists to use the law to their advantage by some white judges and police officers. Alarmingly this narrative then led to a major Muslim organisation developing the Know Your Rights and Responsibilities leaflet, to essentially assuage but also capitalise on the narrative of white power. The author is unaware as to how far the other leaflet was directly or indirectly influenced by government or the mainstream secular rights organisation, however it is clear that the conditionality of Muslim citizenship exhibited in the second leaflet – that they have peculiar responsibilities as citizens vis a vis terrorism than other citizens – is one that was accepted by a major Muslim organisation and promoted through its network of some 400 mosques in the UK. The same organisation in 2004 after the Madrid train bombings issued a letter to all mosques in the UK advising and asking Muslims in the UK to report anything suspicious to the police. This emphasised in the public psyche and enhanced the stereotypes and association of variously: The mosque as a potential site of terrorist plot, and a base for terrorists Muslims – particularly practising Muslims – as terrorists Islam – as a source of terrorism By contrast, just as the IHRC leaflets were universal and had applicability to all, a letter issued after the Madrid bombings by a London coalition of Muslim organisations asked for prayers and calm after the event. The difference prompted this critique by Shadjareh (2004): ―It's the difference between being a part of society, however marginalised, and perpetuating the idea that you are an unruly guest, your stay determined by different conditions than for everyone else.‖
Global Alliance 258 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
In recent conversation with Muslim activists from Australia, the author was advised that one Muslim organisation took the Know Your Rights leaflet example to the main civil rights organisation in the country with a proposal to do a joint leaflet applicable to the Australian context. They were advised that it would be more "appropriate" to do a Know Your Rights and Responsibilities leaflet. It appears then that the idea of civil and political rights has different conditions visa v is minorities and particularly Muslims. By nor succumbing to this, Muslims and other marginalised communities can effect small acts of autonomy. The trend amongst mainstream Muslim / minority organisations however has been the opposite. Their critique of those not accepting the dominant narrative succumb to the idea that only white power and dominant culture know what is best for us. Similar conclusions can be drawn vis a vis other issues not related irectly to a security discourse. In response to a request to review the findings of Ameli et al (2006b) on Muslim expectations regarding law in the UK, one potential reviewer - a Muslim legal specialist – stated she could not promote the recommendations, based on the qualitative research that for those Muslims who wished for it, shariah law courts for civil matters should be established. In correspondence she stated that such claims would only serve to make Muslims more unpopular and would bring further discrimination and hatred against them. Again, legitimate claims by Muslims, are accepted as unacceptable according to the dominant narrative – that Muslims seek extra rights, that by doing so they deserve the hatred and prejudice levelled at them. Further, the fact that the claim is made additionally because such provisions exist already for other minorities in the form od Beth Din courts for the Jewish communities, even relegates Muslims to a lower rung than other minorities and less deserving in their own perception. The idea of white / western superiority in decision making has its most devastating potential exhibited in current events. Conflict Resolution is a necessity that Muslims and other marginalised people require action over. The example of Libya and the NATO intervention is instructive. A peace Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of … / 259 delegation from the UK found little or no support from the mainstream and therefore also the Muslim community who appeared to support the narrative of NATO intervention based on the idea that the opposition were "Islamic", regardless of the clear harm caused both in the immediate and long term to Islamic aspirations for freedom, justice and independence. So caught up are Muslims in the dominant narrative that expressing any dissent to the current conflict as a result of the NATO intervention is expressed as anti-Islamic, rather than an opportunity to seek other forms of resolution that may actually be able to deliver a just future for Libya and the region. At the time of writing, similar dilemmas and machinations over Syria unfold. The dominant narrative portrays events in Syria as a sectarian conflict, even though opposition to Bashar AlAssad hails from many communities, and even though the Syrian government has, despite its many manifest failings including internal repression, has sought to bolster the Palestinian struggle and provided material support for it. Those seeking to topple Assad from the grassroots have every right to oppose him. However the involvement as exposed through Wikileaks (EA Worldview, 2011) of US government in Syrian human rights and civil society organisations raises the spectre of an uprising that serves and is vocally supported by white media and government. Effectively the genuine grievances of the masses are being exploited not in their service but of a civil society grouping seeking US approval and ultimately undermining support for the Palestinian cause as a result. Again the challenge now is for non-white / US / western actors i.e. Muslims and their institutions to resolve this conflict before it achieves a US policy goal.
Resources This needs little elaboration. The issue of land and dispossession stems back to the British Empire and the theft of the land and resources of indigenous peoples and the genocides that accompanied them. The usurpation e.g. of the Americas, and the resultant decimation of the native
Global Alliance 260 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace population from 13 million to a few hundred thousand, is rarely acknowledged and assumed to be the perogative of the wasteful west, we hardly question it. The vast wealth of nations is usurped both through violence but also complicity. This is not simply a question of active collaboration between historical figures fighting against their own people or helping the perpetration of injustice against them. Complicity can be unconscious, pervasive and contemporary, the result of imbuing notions of inferiority conferred by the subtlety of white / coloniser laws that transform the dispossession into the normative legal underpinnings of the state (Newcombe, 2009). Taking this down to the local level, we have the issue of funding resources and the funding of Muslim organisations in the UK. Decades old funding streams for Muslim organisations from the UK government were cut overnight on the basis that they were single purpose. Whilst there was some protest, those most reliant on this funding had to socialise themselves to this regimen in order to receive funding. A similar example was the retargeting of such funding toward "preventing extremism". Again smaller grassroots organisations who are not supported by Muslim money, internal or external, who have not grasped the significance of internal institutions, were forced to adopt this language in order to survive. A more nefarious adoption came from leading organisations, who were the key players placed to protest having the ear of government. However that place was already part of a vicious circle whereby Muslims have positioned themselves as moderate from the time of Rushdie in 1989 against those who were able to mobilise in their own interest in the tens of thousands. That example is one whereby the manpower of Muslims their salaried and social work was disseminated via competition for power that in fact was simply the legitimisation of supremacy. Therefore those who supported the fatwa against Rushdie had the support of the majority for this stance, but those who stated they opposed both Rushdie and the fatwa, were able to leapfrog in their eyes the others in gaining the ear of power. Muslims in the UK today suffer the consequences of such Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of … / 261 appeasement, as the resources available from government and community have been funnelled through such organisations. Even externally funded organisations that hail from resistance movements in the Middle East have sought the same place and used the same organisational tools. In their operation they compete rather than work co-operatively with other organisations. This is why we have multitudes of conferences on Palestine, on Islamophobia that exclude key organisations. In depth qualitative and quantitative work on Islaophobia, citizenship, Muslim expectations et al led by Ameli (2004 – 2007) is highly regarded in radical academia, but successive pieces of research by non-Muslims good or bad or similar have been adopted by Muslim organisations for the reasons outlined.
Standards Just as the conflict over Rushdie sought to silence aspects of Islamic law applicable to the situation in favour of a discourse that supported white norms, a recent campaign to support Sheikh Usama Hassan highlighted the supremacy of white terms. Hassan was allegedly threatened for espousing the Darwinian Theory of Evolution at a mosque. Despite denials from those accused of threatening him, a campaign was launched in his support entitled "Defend Usama Hasan -- Support Freedom of Conscience and Oppose Intolerance"1. A combination of secular Muslim organisations, mainstream umbrella organisations and fringe groups added their voice to this campaign, yet few if any have leant their name or support to the many ongoing cases in the UK, including where people have been imprisoned or taken to court for expressing their views. As this campaign was targeting Muslims it again highlighted a Muslim concern with the inappropriate behaviour (as perceived by its elite) of Muslims regarding the values of dominant society, in this case both free speech and Darwinian Evolution Theory. Such support has not been forthcoming in the case of the "Lyrical terrorist" Samina Malik, a 22 year old shopworker who was given a 9 month suspended sentence for penning poetry that depicted violent
Global Alliance 262 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace images of "beheading" "kuffar" (Trescott, 2007). Ironically, the British state did not pursue prosecutions in the case of Usama Hasan's alleged attackers. However the Court of Appeal did quash Malik's sentence. The law that convicted Malik however remains ambiguous and prosecutions for possessing material that is deemed to glorify terrorism remain possible. Additionally there have been several convictions of Muslims for downloading material – including material downloaded for the university studies – like the Bomb makers manual, the Terrorist Handbook etc. which, had they been downloaded by a non-Muslim would have been deemed 1 The campaign was waged primarily via a Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_187296237972197#!/ho me.php?sk=group_187296237972197&view=doc&id=187536391281515 by the law to be without liability. Likewise, as regards a white / non-white double standard, racist / right wing activists found with bomb making equipment were not tried under anti-terrorism laws, despite having a list of potential targets, including various mosques and the former Prime Minister Tony Blair (Ansari, 2007). The support of one type of free speech over another – of a white narrative over and non-white narrative, mirrors governmental initiatives that speak directly to the goal of socialising Muslims to Western values (Blair, 2005; Cameron, 2011).
Naming the problem – the ability to define reality Or blaming the victim. The cycle of self-blame, whereby the rise in Islamophobia or invasion of countries can be easily blamed on Muslim stupidity or criminality – Taliban, al-Qaeda etc rather than the precursors to their acts of violence or otherwise – invasion of countries, bombings, theft of resources, forced impoverishment, that preceded these acts is pervasive and on the rise (Merali, forthcoming 2011) in the UK context, and exemplifies the internalisation of the narrative or merit and of deserving. Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of … / 263
Vis a vis these particular examples, and what we see playing out inb the Arab Spring now and what in part we saw during the Iran – Iraq war is the internalisation within the global Islamic community that racism which makes each particular vye for the affections of the US / West against other particular Muslims. The sectarianism exhibited takes the form not of a discussion or dialogue or even direct conflict between e.g. Shias and Sunnis, but any or all of these as an adjunct to the main conversation of one or sometimes both sides with dominant powers e.g. the USA. As such, Sunni chauvinism was served by Iraqi antagonism against Iran in 1990's being played out as a sectarian conflict in the psyche of various parts of the ummah, rather than as a war of aggression against a nascent Islamic movement led by a secular tyrant in support of US imperial aggression. This led to the placement of a Sunni stereotype as moderate in comparison to Shias in the 1980s, and served to demonise the nascent Hizbullah movement at the end of the 1980s in Lebanon that sought to tackle Israeli aggression. Notable adoption of this line, within Islamic movements, include the following self-blame narrative produced by Liberty for the Muslim World in conjunction with the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Westminster (Tamimi in Tamimi ed, 1993): "Until elections were held in countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, Kuwait and most recently the Yemen, the phenomenon of Islamic resurgence was continued to be viewed in the West as an intolerant fundamentalist movement seeking to seize power through militant endeavours in order to impose strict Islamic laws that did not – at least in the eyes of many Westerners – respect human rights, tolerate differences or recognise the other". "Although in the West much of this perception has been the product of historic misconceptions and disinformation dating back to the 11th century Crusade, the anti-West, Khomeyni-led Iranian revolution of 1979 and the subsequent tension between the West on the one hand and Iran and Iranian-backed militants in Lebanon on the other created and optimum medium for the revival of fears, anxieties and hostilities. Very
Global Alliance 264 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace few people in the west were really interested in understanding the background of Iran's revolution. Not much was said about the fact that it was essentially a popular revolution to rid the country of a dictator who – thanks to the support of his Western allies – oppressed his nation and attempted to force his people to abandon their culture and traditional values". Through the eighties neither the public nor the media in the West had the time or perhaps the willingness to learn more about Islam, which was given extremely bad coverage which associated it with terrorist activities... Had the Shah of Iran been a just democratic ruler, none of this would have happened. Had the West not protected and supported despotism in Iran, the former oppressive regime would not – as a measure of radical reaction – have been replaced by another form of dictatorship that seeks to legitimise its theocratic despotism through the adoption of some anomalous interpretation of Islam. ―It is now evident that in the cases where democracy was respected – such as in Jordan, Kuwait and Yemen – the Islamists have been incorporated into the system and have played a constructive role through power sharing.‖ Several internalisations are apparent. The entire publication expresses itself as targeted to a Western audience to explain Islamic political aspirations. This conversation at the outset, sets out a stall of preference of one type of movement over all others as Islamic. The blame for the misconceptions in Western eyes is blamed in a contemporary context on Iran and its alleged activities. Iran's own political movement and Islamic resurgence is described in terms devoid of any Islamic appellation. The Shah did not try and destroy Islam, but Iranian culture and traditions. The government of Iran, which even during the war years held regular elections, is described as a theologically deviant project, despotic and oppressive. Pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli aggression resistance is also demonised in a way that panders to existing notions of Islamic otherness. The narrative is not that Islam and Muslims are demonised per se but that not all Muslim conform to this demonic depiction, however some do. Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of … / 265
Likewise, the strange partnership of Western public and media are absolved of much blame for their ignorance by having no time or perhaps no willingness to learn about Islam, whereas such misconceptions can be blame directly on Iran and its alleged supporters and activities and beliefs. Likewise, elements of Shia communities have posited themselves in the noughties as the antidote for a demonised portrayal of Sunnism / Salafiism. The creation of the so-called Shia-cons in the USA is instructive, given the foregoing discussion vis a vis Syria and Libya. Shia clerics were funded by the US in the run up to the Iraq war, and were actively courted to promote a US agenda on Iraq (Asadabadi, 2011). Part of their agenda included the setting up of UMAA (Universal Muslim Association of America): ―... [to] readily engage in interfaith programs with members from the Zionist lobby AIPAC. The idea is to desensitize the Muslims over the issue of Israel and Palestine while engaging in dialogue with the Jewish Community. Recall the Neocons want to convince the Zionists and the American Jews that the Shi'as are an asset when it comes to the war against Iran‖. ―Organizers of the annual pro-Palestinian Al-Quds Rally in Washington DC cited that Shia-Con clerics refused to attend the rally and discouraged members of their congregations from attending as well.‖
Beyond Stigmatising Dissent – Crushing a Better World As a by product of the oppressive system that already exists that portrays otherness as inmincal, Muslims, minorities, disenfranchised and marginalised and dissenting others (these categories are not mutually exclusive), all these are muted and bombarded with negativity that is inevitably internalised. It cannot be the fault of individuals and grassroots for that internalisation. This raises the question as to who should be responsible for dealing with the causes and effects of internalised racism. Ultimately it requires a revolution amongst those that hold power – either as an internally driven, moral narrative or an externally forced one to deal
Global Alliance 266 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace with the causes of internalised racism. To make this concrete, the Women's Theological Center (2005) state: ―The struggle against racism for white people is a long and difficult one that involves their learning to live in the world as peers with people of color. To do this requires no less than for them to dismantle oppressive structures that give them an unjust power over peoples of color and to learn to live in this country and the world as nothing more or less than a part of the whole. This is long hard work.‖ Where does that leave us while we wait for that to happen? In terms of dealing with the effects of internalised racism, it has to be at the level of civil society and its leadership, and Muslim civil society worldwide is powerful in terms of numbers if not effect. However as with all others arenas, internalised racism operates in this arena too, on the individuals who comprise civil society. The knowledge of this internalisation, held by corrupted power has been utilised and transformed from tacit understanding to polemic and then policy. The following examples mainly focus on the UK, but they are worth further study in extrapolating to other scenarios. What happens at the local is intimately linked with what happens at the international. Ameli et al (2006) have applied muted group theory to the situation of Muslims in the UK context. Karmerae (1981) used this theory to describe how women function within a patriarchal society – they have a way of being and language between themselves which power – in this case men, do not or will not comprehend. Women therefore have to express themselves according to the language of power and those norms when speaking to power or trying to operate in the public sphere controlled by them. This has been developed notably in Ameli (et al 2006b), to fit the experience of minorities, in this study Muslims. That internal discourse / language is one that in the mid-90s was a cross between easily comprehensible dissent that bleeds through the muted linguistic barriers into a mainstream that still sees such dissent crushed, and crushed more aggressively when it comes from said minority. Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of … / 267
A case in point to exemplify this first contention is the idea posited and promoted as polemic and policy by erstwhile Prime Minister Tony Blair after 7/7 – that Muslim have an unjustifiable sense of grievance. This was an all encompassing statement and covered everything from foreign policy to disproportionate underachievement in education, social injustice, poverty, discrimination etc. These comments built upon a governmental project, knowledge of which was leaked in the public sphere in the early 2000s, where government proposed to socially engineer a compliant Muslim community (Thomson, 2003). As part of this key scholars were picked out to promote the idea amongst the young precisely that their sense of grievance was unjustified. As a result – and we see its effects now through various programmes, The City Circle, Radical Middle Way, that espouse the idea of citizenship and Britishness but actually undermine the former and simply degrade all ideas of universal humanity with the latter. As a result of this polemic, we are moving from a scenario where the civil society component of Muslim communities negotiates being muted to one where it has fully internalised racism as a result of government's utilisation of the power of internalised racism. Whereas before you had Muslim civil society leaders believing, say in the fatwa against Rushdie or armed resistance against „Israel‟ but feared the repercussions of saying so, or did not feel confident to express it, or understood the problematic of trying to break their mutedness on these issues, you now have a civil society leadership that actually believes these things are wrong because those who hold power say so. That moral right they own to determine what is right and wrong has been internalised. We have been sold subjecthood in place of citizenship. The only thing left for us to scramble up the ladder against each other. Other models that enforce supremacist ideologies include interfaith / intercommunity conflict resolution. An example taken from Nigeria in the late 1990s early 2000s has contributed to models in the West. The Pastor and Imam project saw an Imam and pastor working together to ostensibly overcome communal strife that in the past saw violence escalating to
Global Alliance 268 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace deaths between the communities. One of the issues that the Pastor and Imam brought up as part of their outreach work was the issue of Palestine. According to the Pastor, there immutable link between Muslim narrative and support for the Palestinian cause resulted in a reverse and unthinking action amongst Christian groups to ―support Israel‖ thus you would see Israeli flags flying at Christian demonstrations. Part of the conflict resolution their model follows is to remove the external from internal discussions. To do this Muslims must be desensitised from their affiliation to the Palestinian cause, as a result Christians will drop their affiliation to Israel. This project took hold at the end of the nineties, and it is significant that Nigeria has started hosting Israeli security training for its security personnel in the last decade.
Do non-white / Western international actors internalise? There are no definitive answers, and the author does not wish to malign any non-Western state or group in generalised terms. However we should all be aware of certain trends. One of the factors in the academic literature regarding internalised racism is that even those with high self-esteem can and do internalise and we need to be constantly aware of the dangers of this. Key examples, include the affiliations and language of resistance movements. In recent years there has been a shift in tone from one of pan- Arabism, pan-Islamism, or non-aligned solidarity to that of national struggles. Once the idea of transnational solidarity as wrong or less important has been internalised, the dilemmas facing resistance movements increase further. By internalising their own situation as qualitatively worse, let‟s say in Syria than in the UK (the same idea, that you are better off here than elsewhere is promoted by the UK and other West / White governments), internalises the normativity of a colonialist narrative. By seeing other Muslim / Islamic / non-Western activism as inferior these resistance movements then latch on to supposedly superior external support – the price then is not only undermining of alternatives but to actually hand over that resistance movement‟s power and its soul Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of … / 269 to the West. The obstacles that may exists in fostering alternative unity and movements can be overcome and the fact that for some considerable time 30 years ago they were overcome, set in motion a programme of divide and rule by the USA and UK. This change from mutedness and the struggle to be heard on your own terms into an delusion of empowerment by adopting western ideals (human rights language, the language of liberalism and individualism) actually reflects a real disempowerment. This is socialisation to oppressive norms, whereby you recognise your own lower status yet believe yourself to be better than others elsewhere both in terms of the national social mores you live in and yourself as morally superior over others. During the Egyptian revolution – amongst some of the most moving pictures were those of demonstrations around the world in support of the protestors. In Iran these demonstrations saw millions on the streets showing their support. In response to this news, and the comments made that the path of revolutions in the region started some 30 years ago, the head of Ikhwanweb – Khaled Hamza made a media statement distancing himself and Ikhwan from Iran, by claiming in his words ―Khamenei is trying to hijack the revolution‖ and then quoting Maryam Rajavi's hope that the government of Iran would be overthrown claiming it was undemocratic. He even went so far as to describe Rajavi as the "democratically elected leader' of the NCR (Hamza, 2011). Again we see the positioning of self as authentic and palatable to Western eyes, but also, as the article paraphrases, his claim that ―...that the Egyptian protests are not an Islamic uprising, but a mass protest against an unjust, autocratic regime which includes Egyptians from all walks of life and all religions and sects.‖ Evidencing the internalisation of the narrative that Islamic activism, Islamic anything is bad, that it discriminates against others, that it is inappropriate. This is the statement of one part of Ikhwan, albeit its communication unit. At the same time very respected elders of Egyptian Ikhwan met with
Global Alliance 270 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Ayatollah Khamenei with all due reverancde, however the distinction is stark. This new move within resistance movements to disassociate Islam from the narrative in order too prove themselves progressive or simply just palatable bears all the hallmarks of internalised racism. Joyce E. King in 1991 coined the term dysconscious racism that could be applicable to way institutionalised civil society groups based originally in resistance can operate. More thinking on this needs to be undertaken to find ways of obviating the current rejectionism between facets of oppressed peoples representation. King says: ―Dysconsciousness is uncritical habit of mind (including perceptions, attitudes, assumptions, and beliefs) that justifies inequity and exploitation by accepting the existing order of things given. If, as Heaney (1984) suggests, critical consciousness ―involves an ethical judgement [sic]‖ about the social order, dysconsciousness accepts it uncritically. This lack of critical judgment against society reflects an absence of what Cox (1974) refers to as ―social ethics‖; it involves a subjective identification with ideological viewpoint that admits no fundamentally alternative vision of society‖. ―Dysconscious racism is a form of racism that tacitly accepts dominant White norms and privileges. It is not the absence of consciousness (that is, not unconsciousness) but an impaired consciousness or distorted way of thinking about race as compared to, for example, critical consciousness. Uncritical ways thinking about racial inequity accept certain culturally sanctioned assumptions, myths, and beliefs that justify the social and economic advantages White people have as a result of subordinating diverse others (Wellman, 1977). Any serious challenge to the status quo that calls this racial privilege into question inevitably challenges the self-identity of White people who have internalized these ideological justifications. The reactions of my students to information I have presented about societal inequity have led me to conceptualise dysconscious racism as one form that racism takes in this post-civil rights era of intellectual conservatism.‖ Overcoming IR in non-Western supremacist worlds Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of … / 271
Just as there are community strategies to deal with internalised racism within communities, we need to rebuild the pride, self-love, mutual love and respect of the oppressed other as our oppressed brother or sister (regardless of background), and above all fix in our minds once and for all that the journey God has set us on is one we can negotiate with our values and with good leadership. The fact that we don't is not only the operation of internalised racism but a violent act against our communities that in turn can be characterised as oppression or terror. By failing to see how this works we are all complicit in this form of terrorism. We need to develop ideas but also institutions to tackle the dyscfunction we face. Last year in Jakarta I was at a meeting of NGOs when a participant - a leading Islamic human rights lawyer from Turkey - suggested we campaign for the OIC to set up its own human rights court a la European Court of Human Rights. The author immediately internally mocked such a suggestion. However this is exactly an example of internalisation. Whilst not without problems given the current state of the ummah, we need to be brave enough to moot these types of ideas and more, and for those within civil society, like the author, who claim to care for justice, to be able to respect and care for this type of thinking and develop these conversations within our world, where the struggle should not be for power but for justice.
Global Alliance 272 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Resources 1. Ameli, S.R. & Merali, A. (2004) London: Islamic Human Rights Commission 2. Ameli, S.R., Elahi, M. & Merali, A. (2004) Social Discrimination: Across the Muslim Divide London: Islamic Human Rights Commission 3. Ameli, S.R., Azam, A. & Merali, A. (2005) London: Islamic Human Rights Commission 4. Ameli, S.R. & Merali, A. (2006) Hijab, Meaning, Identity, Otherization and Politics: British Muslim Women London: Islamic Human Rights Commission 5. Ameli, S.R., Faridi, B. Lindahl, K. & Merali, A. (2006) Law and British Muslims: Domination of the Majority or Process of Balance London: Islamic Human Rights Commission 6. Ameli, S.R., Marandi, S.M., Ahmed, S., Merali, A. & Kara, S. (2007) The British Media and Muslim Representation: The Ideology of Demonisation London: Islamic Human Rights Commission 7. Ansari, F. (2006, 2nd edition) British Anti-Terrorism: A Modern Day Witchhunt London: Islamic Human Rights Commission 8. Ansari, F. (2007) „The Crime of Rhyme: The Extraordinary Case of Samina Malik‟ http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=1328 9. Asadabadi, S.M. (2011, May 20) „The Secret War: The Zionist Spy and the Formation of the Shia-Con (aka UMAA)‟ http://oppression.org/site/index.php/world/americas/148-the-secret-war-the- zionist-spy-and-the-formation-of-the-shia-con 10. Blair, T. (2005, July 16) „Full Text: Blair Speech on Terror‟ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4689363.stm 11. Biko, S. (1987) I Write What I Like, London: Heinemann 12. Briggs, R. & Birdwell, J. (2009). Radicalisation among Muslims in 13. the UK. MICROCON Policy Working Paper 7, Brighton: MICROCON. 14. Briggs, R., Fieschi, C. and Lownsbrough, H. (2006) „Bringing it Home: Community based 15. approaches to counter-terrorism‟ London: Demos 16. Bruce, D. (2006, September) „Racism, Selfesteem and Vilence in SA: Gaps in the NCPS‟ explanation?‟ SA CRIME QUARTERLY No 17 pp32 - 36 17. Cameron, D. (2011, February 5) „Full transcript | David Cameron | Speech on radicalisation and Islamic extremism‟ New Statesman Tackling Internalised Racism and the Terrorist Agenda of … / 273 http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/02/terrorism-islam- ideology 18. EA Worldview (2011, April 20) „Syria WikiLeaks Document: The US Government Support of Opposition Groups, Civil Society, and Human Rights (April 2009)‟ http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/4/20/syria- wikileaks-document-the-us-government-support-of-opposi.html 19. Fanon, F. (2001) The Wretched of the Earth , London: Penguin 20. Hamza, K. (2011, February 5) cited in „Ikhwanweb: Egypt‟s Revolution Is a People‟s Revolution with No Islamic Agenda‟http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=27963 21. King, J.E. (1991) „Dysconscious Racism: Ideology, Identity, and the Miseducation of Teachers‟ The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Spring, 1991), pp. 133-146 22. Kramerae, C. (1981) Women and Men Speaking; Frameworks for Analysis Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House, 23. Merali, A. (2011 forthcoming) „Blaming the Victim and the Big Lie‟ (working title), Paris: Maison des Science de l'Homme 24. Newcomb, S.T. (2008) Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, Goldon: Fulcrum 25. Pyke, K. & Dang, T. (2003, June 01) „―FOB‖ and ―Whitewashed‖: Identity and Internalized Racism Among Second Generation Asian Americans‟ Qualitative Sociology Netherlands: Springer 26. Siddique Khan, M. (2005) „London bomber: Text in full‟ BBC News On- line http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4206800.stm 27. Shadjareh, M. (2004, April 1) „Aliens in their Own Country‟ The Guardian 28. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/apr/01/britishidentity.race 29. Tamimi, A. ed.(1993) Power Sharing Islam London: Liberty for Muslim World Publications 30. Thomson, H. (2004, June 3) „Blair government‟s strategy to police Britain‟s Muslims leaked‟ World Wide Socialist Web‟ http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/musl-j03.shtml International Committee for the Fourth International 31. Trescott, C. (2007, December 6) „'Lyrical terrorist' sentenced over extremist poetry‟ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/06/terrorism.books 32. Tull, S.E., Wickramasuriya, T., Taylor, J., Smith-Burns, V., Brown, M., Champagnie, G., Daye, D., Donaldson, K., Solomon, N., Walker, S. Fraser, H.
Global Alliance 274 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace and Jordan, O.W. „Relationship of internalized racism to abdominal obesity and blood pressure in Afro-Caribbean women.‟ Journal of the National Medical Association, 1999 August; 91(8): 447–452
Self-Defense in Response to Terrorism: Prohibitions and Limits / 275
Self-Defense in Response to Terrorism: Prohibitions and Limits Dr. Nader Saed
Abstract Unfortunately in the contemporary international community use of force is still an important alternative in the foreign policy of some states. However, the influence of international law in the society has made the states to explain use of force in the light of legal standards and institutions in order to be stay immune from international criticism and opposition. Legitimate defense is among the most essential legal institutions and has the highest ability to resort to. After the September 11, the efforts made to spread the potentials of self-defense to the policy of powers that basically use military option has resulted in ambiguities about the range of latent legitimate measures in this right and the way of its conformity with some new situations specially terrorist attacks as well as innovation in producing concepts such as combat against potential future threats (forestalling). International Court of Justice through the approach of preserving the existing order and the "principle" of prohibition of use of force has replied to these ambiguities and has made it clear that self-defense to what extent has the capacity of contraction and expansion. In this paper, self-defense and the frameworks of its application in combat against terrorism is analyzed. Key words: the sovereignty of state, self-defense, military-defense, armed attack, terrorist attack, International Court of Justice, common law.
PhD in International Law, member of Lawyer Without Borders (LWB) in Iran, Director of Academia Department of the IWPF.
Global Alliance 276 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Introduction International community is the accomplishment of the linkage among international actors on the basis of mutual consent and pursuing the common interests. The significant characteristics of this society are: the existence of various and different interests; the lack of solidarity in relationship; the lack of a developed organized structure; the lack of three executive, judicial and global executive powers or the globalized transnational powers' organization; the lack of the concept of international sovereignty vs. national sovereignty; inequality in national power; the essential establishing of legal standards of this society on the consent and concordant will of traditional actors and the significant role of states as the legislators and, at the same time, followers of the governing rules in the society; the existence of a different process of power-making; making efforts to establish rules; and, globalization of national values and norms. In such society, the current legal system is mainly state-centric and the role of states in the processes of establishment, interpretation, execution and even assurance of the implementation of rules is definite.1 One of the necessities of stable life in this society is to ensure the minimum basics of peace and stability in the light of which the prohibition of war and using it as a national policy is legitimated. Hence, during the creation of the first association or the appearance of the first international community in its certain concept (United Nations), prevention of war was also taken into consideration. Of course it was not so amazing; a society which was
1. Of course the state-centric characteristic of the structure of international community, and as a result international law, doesn't mean negation or denial of the existence or effectiveness of international actors especially international organizations. However, the existence of international organizations, both state and non-state, does not emit the priority of the significance of states' role in determining the agenda of international community and in establishing states' common interests as the criterion for defining the objective of legal rules. It seems that such society is centered on the interests of states and their cooperation. Self-Defense in Response to Terrorism: Prohibitions and Limits / 277 created after the First World War should basically pay attention to the prevention of such conflicts.2 Anyway, the Second World War showed that neither the thoughts of founders of United Nations nor the methods and bases of this international organization has not been as desirable and strong as to modify the individual and, sometimes, collective tendencies of states in the favor of co-existence and acceptance of minimum of common interests. However, the founders of the United Nations were looking seriously to address this weakness and, at the end, the paragraph 4 of Article 2 on strengthening the 1927 Kellogg-Briand Pact was ratified by the San Francisco Conference. Taking into consideration the letter of the charter and regarding as foundations the thought of the founders of United Nations as well as paying attention to the procedures of this organization to the end of 20th Century, one can say that the charter, in this regard, had a general principle with two exceptions3 and justifying the existence of new exceptions and/or the conceptual expansion of existing exceptions, would tighten the circle of principle and thus the possibility of use of force against international peace and security is provided. But the September 11 events and the ratification of Security Council 1368 and 1373 Resolutions has given a new life to the discussion of self-defense and has created an opportunity in the light of which the need to develop the conceptual domain of "armed attack" or assault and therefore to develop the possibility of use of self-defense has been raised among lawyers and even indisputable groups in some countries. Even some assume these developments as objective reality and claim themselves to be the creators of a new rule in international common laws. According to
2. Nader Saed, "The Criticism of Expansion the Concept and Scope of Legitimate Defense in the International Process of Combat against Terrorism," Islam: A Victim of Terrorism, Tehran, The Islamic Association of Islamic Peace, 2009. 3. Of course, some claim that "a new exception can be found to the article 51 of the Charter by using international conventions". See: Research Group of Pars international Law Institution in Tehran, "The Rule of Use of Force in International Relations after the Crisis of Southern Ossetia", The Journal of Legal Research, No. 13, 1387, p. 165.
Global Alliance 278 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace this rule, they can use self-defense against terrorism4 and such use of force is not inconsistent with contemporary international law and the UN Charter, in a way that because of its being basically and inherent right, there is no need to obtain the Security Council resolution. The present paper is a survey and analysis of the institution of self- defense (military defense)5 in the light of teachings that International Court of Justice has issued in its contentious cases and advisory proceedings after September 11. In this regard, the advisory opinion of 9 June 2004 about the Construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is of great importance. The importance of opinions of the Court, specifically advisory opinions, is that "in the introduction of each order, institutions (theses) and anti-institutions (anti-theses) are combined and at the end the new word which is formed of the combination of the best elements of mutual views is given."6 Therefore, in the analysis of each order, the basic arguments of the order (verifications) should be separated from the content of decisions (the outcome of verifications) which have a limited validity.7 Although the recent case is more important for the applicants of contentious or advisory proceedings of the Court, the preliminaries of the order have effect8 on addressing a general theory of the international law9 and, therefore, the explanatory and interpretive aspects of the existing laws hidden in the orders of the Court are of
4. As it is mentioned in the second paragraph of this article, International Court of Justice in several opportunities during 2003 (the cases of oil platforms, the fight of Islamic Republic of Iran against USA), 2004 (Advisory opinion about the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian Territory), 2005 (Congo Vs. Uganda) and 2006 (Congo Vs. Rwanda) has denied the claim of existence of a new common law. 5. In military literature, defense is a subject beyond the application of military power and a part of defensive measures is managed through non-military canals (non-operating defense). In this article the concept of military defense is the application of military power in response to armed attack which has happened or is imminent by thresholds defined in international legal order. 6. Falsafi, Hedayatollah, The International Law of Conventions, Tehran: Farhang Nashre No, 1996, p. 35, footnote 16. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid, pp. 25-26. 9. Ibid. Self-Defense in Response to Terrorism: Prohibitions and Limits / 279 important documents that can be applied to stop the illegitimate use of self-defense in unlawful and selective fight against terrorism. However, the primary point is that why the Security Council entered such innovation in 1368 resolution.
I. Changes in the Security Council's Approach to Terrorism Most legal analyses of terrorism and fight against it deal with the new phase in United Nation's response to international (and internal) terrorism which has begun after the September 11 attacks. This method of analysis makes it impossible to study the change in the Security Council's approach to this phenomenon. Meanwhile, "terrorism has been the deep wound on the face of twentieth Century"10 and Security Council had taken up a position on international terrorism and its relation with international peace and security even before these events. The first resolution of the Security Council on Terrorism is the case 666 resolution ratified in 1990 during the Kuwait war. While citing to the existing conventional standards, especially the Convention against Hostage, this resolution considered the Iraq's actions in Kuwait for controlling the prohibition of foreign nationals' exit of the country and hostage taking and imprisonment of people as terrorism and condemning the terrorist acts of Iraq outside its borders, called on that country to acknowledge it is bound to ban terrorism.11 Following this the Council by ratifying case resolutions showed a normal response (condemning and calling upon states and, regarding Taliban, establishing a monitoring committee) to terrorist acts such as the assassination of high political officials (resolution 1044 in 1996 on the unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Hosni Mubarak and 1267 in 1999 on the assassination of Iranian diplomats in Mazar Sharif), terrorist bomb attacks to political
10. Manfred Lachs, "International Law in the Dawn of 21st Century", translated by Amir Hossein Ranjbarian, Foreign Policy, 7th Year, no. 1, Spring 72, p. 89. 11. For a more comprehensive study See: Sonboli, Nabi, "Studying the Function of the United Nations in Fight against Terrorism," Foreign Policy, Year 15, No. 4, Winter 2002, pp. 1133-1141.
Global Alliance 280 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace places (resolution 1189 in 1998 about the bomb attacks to the US Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania), Taliban acts (resolution 1267 in 1999 and 1333 in 2000 and 1363 in 2001). The aforementioned special resolutions have been issued in the form of Chapter VII of the Charter. Accordingly, the Council up to 1999 had put terrorism merely in its case agenda and made periodic and provisional decisions appropriated with the events. But this year coincides with the public meeting of the Council and introducing the terrorism issue in the permanent agenda. In 1999, the council by ratification of Resolution 1269 showed its public approach to terrorism and hence it was in accordance with the public approach of General Assembly in 1994 when it had ratified the Resolution 49/60. In this Resolution, the Council while giving a definition of terrorism in accordance with the brief definition given by General Assembly, called upon the states to take some measures in fight against terrorism. In none of these measures, the possibility of use of force, explicitly or implicitly, was mentioned. The Resolution 1373 is the continuation of this public approach but with binding principles and frameworks. With this resolution, the Council not only introduced use of defending force into the fight against terrorism but also turned the approach of 1999 Resolution from a recommendation to a Charter requirement. No specific reason can be found for this change except that the host city of United Nations was the victim of a bomb attack and a great number of civilians were killed and the atmosphere of fear had taken over all US cities and other countries and this attack was attributed to non-state actors, specially Al-Qaeda – which already had been considered as a terrorist group in Western public opinion – and more important this attack was against the United States of America. The procedure of change in the Security Council's function on terrorism will show somewhat that if such attacks were really terrorist and were taken against other countries including Asian, African and South American countries, the Council would rarely emphasize so hard on the suppression of terrorism and terrorists and grant the highest reactive action i.e. use of force not as a collective security but rather as a Self-Defense in Response to Terrorism: Prohibitions and Limits / 281 legitimate defense to the victim country. Another reason for this claim is that in the past decade, tens of terrorist acts have been done in different parts of the world, but the Council has not paid due attention to them or, in their processing, has never cited the right of self-defense.12
II. the Framework of Inherent Right of Legitimate MilitaryDefense The laws of use of force or the laws of war have anticipated specific arrangements and conditions for defensive attack in the relations of governments. In fact, these laws, in the light of the principle of prohibition of use of force, which today is a jus cogens,13 by giving a clear understanding of legal principle related to these attacks, will make it possible to analyze the specific events and judge about them on the basis of the specific situation and conditions of each case. Self-defense is an inherent right according to the sovereignty rights of states which has been the result of degradation of absolute sovereignty (the right of war)14 to relative sovereignty (prohibition of aggressive war): governments, with the deprivation of absolute right of war and acceptance of prohibition of use of force, sufficed to its narrow survival in the form of right of defense
12. The same lack of the repetition of the right of self-defense against terrorist acts and events can confirm that this right set in Resolution 1368 is a case issue (USA-Al-Qaeda) and cannot be generalized to other cases or be interpreted as a public right. 13. Antonio Cassese, International Law in a Divided World, translated by Morteza Kalantarian (Tehran: The Office of international Legal Services of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1991), p. 174, no. 70. The statements of the representatives of the states of former Soviet Union, Cuba, Poland, Cyprus, Sierra Leon, Uruguay, Czechoslovakia, Federal Germany, Ecuador, Italy, White Russia, Switzerland, Norway, Malaysia and Chile in the Conference on Rights of Conventions, the statement of US representative in the sixth Committee of General Assembly 1976. (UN Doc. A/C/6134 SR. 44, pl 130) and the statements of Japanese representative in Security Council in Malvinas Islands Case (S/R/2350. 3 Apr. 1982, p. 27) all prove the commanded rule of the prohibition of use of force. International Court of Justice has also confirmed such explanation and the Paragraph … of Advisory Opinion concerning the construction of a wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory is one of these cases. 14. Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Humanity and Sovereignties: A Passage into International Law, translated by Morteza Kalantarian, Tehran, Agah, 82, p. 172.
Global Alliance 282 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace against the foreign invasion (beside the UN collective security) and promoted the place of such phenomenon to jus cogens.
1. The Conditions of Creating the Right to Military Defense In the approach of international legal order, national security and defending it is an accepted and emphasized issue but according to regulation and subject to normative discipline. In fact, defending national security and making efforts for its realization and assurance, is the specific task of every state in international system owning various actors and lacking transnational power; and in the society that is not able to deny this situation, the governing law is international law. The Court, that has "the duty to say the facts according to the existing formal rules,"15 inevitably confirmed this. Although every state has the right to defend its fundamental and vital interests of national security, the mentioned objective cannot justify, in its turn, the unlimited means and methods of choice in this regard. Such finding is mainly analyzed and explained in the Court's vote in the oil platforms case in detail. In the advisory opinion regarding the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, what is of great importance to the Court is that "the selected measures in order to protect the essential interests of national security should comply with applicable international laws". The form and substantive conditions of creating the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense include: the existence of an initial foreign attack, whether concrete or imminent; the realization of the threshold of military measures which form the concept of armed attack;16
15. Falsafi, ibid, p. 26. 16. According to common law, armed attack is an example of use of force that apart from being direct or indirect, has a wide range and intense effects". See: Seyyed Ghasem Zamani, "The Judicial Policy of International Court of Justice toward the principle of prohibition of use of force", in a group of writers, The Role of International Court of Justice in the Continuation and Development of International Law, Tehran: Iranian Society of Studies on United Nations, 88, p. 77. This issue is emphasized in the Court's vote on Nicaragua Case (Paragraphs 119 & 120) in the same manner. Furthermore the criterion in this regard, as is stated in the Court's vote on the Oil Platform Case (2003), is collective method, i.e. considering all the effects and results of attacks by the aggressor. Self-Defense in Response to Terrorism: Prohibitions and Limits / 283 attribution of aggressive attack to a state; attack by a government;17 reaction from the state under attack or other states that had requested the help of the state under attack18; necessity and proportionality in defense; the commitment of the defender to report to Security Council; and, finally, the lack of commanding decision of the Security Council to stop the defense.19 In the meantime, announcing the proceedings to the Security Council is a requirement out of essential requirements of self- defense which have been added to the common laws before codification of the Charter. Nevertheless, considering the decisions of the Security Council about international peace and security (Article 25 of the Charter) pervades over the inherent right to defend, this right has lost its absolute and unquestioned character regarding the common laws before 1945. As Prof. Cassese has explained, "The UN system relies on three basic pillars: not only use of force but also military threat is banned; the responsibility of Gendarmerie has been entrusted to the Security Council; and finally, the right to defend has been given to countries exceptionally and as long as the Security Council has not intervened."20 The "self-defense" claim puts the burden of proof on the defender that the urgency and severity of attack had caused the inevitable use of force by the defender21. However, this does not meant that the final judge to
See: Heybatollah Najdimanesh, "Self-defense in the Procedures of International Court of Justice: Continuity or Development?" in: a group of writers, ibid, pp. 94-95. 17. Article 51 of the UN Charter has recognized the right of self-defense only for its "parties" and not absolutely "states". But in the procedure this right can be considered for "every state". See: Robert Bledsoe and Boleslaw Boczek, ibid, p. 417. 18. The intervention of third states is only true in collective self-defense. 19. It is said that one of the other conditions is that "the objective of the reaction is prevention of future attacks by the aggressor". Heybatollah Najandimanesh, ibid, p. 91. It seems that the mentioned objective is to complement this basic specific work that reaction should repel the aggressive attack and turn its effects to the situation before the aggression. 20. Antonio Cassese, The Role of Force in International Relations, Translated by Morteza Kalantarian, Tehran: Agah, 75, p. 75, p. 64. 21. See: Jamshid Momtaz, "The Natural Right of Self-defense in Iran-Iraq War", Rethinking the Aspects of Assault and Defense, (Tehran, Secretariat of International Conference on Assault and Defense, 1989) p. 189.
Global Alliance 284 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace realize these conditions is the same as claimant state, rather the primary recognition is accompanied by the acceptance of the risk of violation of peace or international commitment of that state. To give a better interpretation, " self-defense doesn't mean that the country using the defense can be the final judge and potent to judge about its own behavior. Because that country is responsible for what it does. Therefore, if the country has an ill-consideration in its judgment and turns the defense into a weapon for conquering the world and lawlessness and uses this natural right as means for aggressive war, it would be responsible. Hence it cannot be the only judge of its acts."22
2. Twofold Concepts of Article 51 of the Charter One of the key reasons of Israeli Regime for construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was self-defense and, therefore, the Court found the opportunity, in advisory opinion of 2003, to re-process its previous announced positions in detail and to "defend" its own reputation as well as the respect for the principle of prohibition of the use of force. In Israeli Regime's view, "the construction of the wall complies with Article 51 of UN Charter, the regime's inherent right of self-defense and Security Council Resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001)." In order to evaluate this claim, the Court once again reminded the right to self- defense and standards that apply to it and emphasized on its own previous proceedings in Nicaraguan case as well as its opinion on the case of oil platforms that defense is only legitimate when the conditions mentioned in Article 51 of the Charter, including "armed attack by one State against another State" is present. In relation to the lack of such condition considered as the reason for construction of the wall, the Court has acknowledged that: "Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defense in the case of armed attack of one State against
22. One of the votes of Nuremberg Court, cited from: D.W. Bowett, Self-defense in International Law, (London, Manchester University Press, 1958), pp. 150-151. Self-Defense in Response to Terrorism: Prohibitions and Limits / 285 another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State. The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. The situation is thus different from that contemplated by Security Council Resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), and therefore Israel could not in any event invoke those resolutions in support of its claim to be exercising a right of self-defense." What is worthy to note is that the above-mentioned explanation by the Court can be considered as a credit given to a doctrine according to which self-defense against non-state terrorism can be also invoked. In fact, there are two totally different impressions of this viewpoint of the Court. The range of right of military defense is base on the two approaches of broad and strict interpretation. The Approach of Broad Interpretation According to this impression, if this resolution had not any relevance for the creation of the right of defense, there would be no need for the Court to enter the analysis of conditions and components of self-defense; however, the Court entered the debate in detail. It must be noted that Security Council in Resolutions 1368 and 1373, which were issued respectively in reaction to September 11 attacks, considered terrorism as a threat to international peace and security, assimilated self-defense and Article 42 and invoking to Chapter 7 of the Charter and using its terminology23 confirmed the existence of self-defense.24 From the perspective of use of force, the ambiguity of the contents of this resolution have had and has the capability to be interpreted in different ways, so that both the legitimacy and non-legitimacy of armed attack can
23. "Response to International Terrorism: The Expansion of Borders of International Law towards a Stable Freedom", translated by Mohsen Sharifi, Foreign Policy, (special No. 4, 2001), p. 1152. 24. Nabi Sonboli, "Studying the Function of United Nations in Combat Against Terrorism", Foreign Policy, (Special Issue 4, Winter 2001), pp. 1135-1141.
Global Alliance 286 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace be raised relying on Afghan issue.25 In the meantime, Resolution 1373 has a more general range and is not limited to September 11. In this resolution, Security Council, following the legislative process, all at once selects what had been predicted in several international anti-terrorism treaties and in this way benefited from Chapter 7 of the Charter and its own powers to play a role in the replacement of the processes of treaty rights. The Approach of Strict Interpretation However, it seems that the above explanation does not mean the implicit confirmation of creating self-defense in Security Council resolutions on fight against terrorism. Because first of all the concept of opponent is not true and meaningful in all cases. Secondly the Court explicitly has accounted self-defense as true only in relations between states. Thirdly if the Court was willing to verify self-defense for non-state actors, it would not point to such a critical issue implicitly. Furthermore, the expedient of principle of "useful interpretation" is that self-defense should be limited mainly to "governmental" terrorist act which is in accordance with international context of paragraph 2, Article 4 and text of Article 51 of the Charter. On this basis, one could find no match in Resolution 1373 which indicates that non-implementation of the provisions of this resolution as well as organizational commitment of the members and even anti-terrorist treaties would provide the right of self-defense for other countries. On the other hand, the expedient of respect for the "principle" is the prohibition of a broad interpretation of "exception".26 Therefore, the principle of prohibiting use of force deems it as necessary that the domain of legitimate military action should not go beyond the "certainty magnitude"27, i.e. the text of Articles 42 and 51.
25. To be informed about the effect of these interpretations on the States' sovereignty, See: Seyyed Kamal-al-din Mohammad Rafii, "September 11 Event, War against Terrorism and the Sovereignty and Security of States", Defense Policy, (Nos. 38 & 39, 2002), pp. 83-106. 26. See: Zamani, ibid, p. 76. 27. Ibid. Self-Defense in Response to Terrorism: Prohibitions and Limits / 287
III. Self-defense against Terrorist Attack and Non-state Military Measures As it was mentioned above, self-defense is an institute which can be invoked when it is the reaction of one state to another state's "armed attack". Since 2001, this question always has been raised that "can armed attack be also considered as synonymous with the armed attack included in Article 51 of the Charter from the perspective of concept and the threshold of the intensity of military effectiveness? On the other hand, can this inter-governmental organization be used and applied when the measures taken by non-state actors results in violence?
1. The Concept of Armed Attack and Terrorist Attack International Court of Justice in its opinion on Nicaraguan case against United States expressed that armed attack is to be understood as meaning not merely action by regular armed forces across an international border, but also the sending by a State of armed bans, groups, irregular forces or agents on to the territory of another state.28 On the same basis, planned terrorist attacks organized or done by any state could be included in armed attacks that the victim state might show in reaction to those attacks. Nevertheless, the Court in the next parts of its opinion, assigned a threshold that terrorist or irregular operations are considered as armed attack only when its scope and effects is such that if it is done by regular armed forces, it would be considered as an armed attack rather than a mere border event.29 It seems that despite different interpretations and impressions of this Resolution, one cannot accept that terrorist attack is a kind of armed attack as defined in Article 51 of the Charter to be resulted in the right of
28. ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14, at para..195. The Court was quoting from Art. 3 of the Definition of Aggression, annexed to UN GA Res. 3314. 29. Christopher Greenwood, "Humanitarian Law: The Historical Development and Legal Basis", translated by Hosein Sharifi Tarazkuhi, in: Seyyed Ghasem Zamani and Nader Sa'ed, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, Tehran: Shahr-e Danesh, 2008, p. 20.
Global Alliance 288 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace self-defense30, unless it is done against a State by another State and has all conditions and thresholds of the severity of the military attack which is mentioned in the Resolution as the definition of aggression. In fact, the application of self-defense against terrorism is true if only the terrorist act is done by a State and owns high military intensity and is similar to armed attacks. In such case, "terrorist attack of a State can be considered as an armed attack and in this way self-defense makes sense".31 However, in the case of attacks to World Trade Center in New York, Security Council, without identifying the factors of attack and proving the concept of armed attack, emphasized on inherent right of individual or collective self-defense for United States in both 1368 and 1373 Resolutions. It should be asked that "could Security Council change the concept of armed attack or other elements of self-defense?" Is the right in two above-mentioned Resolutions applied only to certain cases or can be used for other cases as well? Regarding the introduction of aforesaid resolutions and preliminary studies for their codification, it can be confirmed that the Council in the two Resolutions forthrightly and without considering the standards of public rights has recognized self-defense against so-called terrorist attack of September 11 as an inherent right for the victim country. Of course, some lawyers for avoiding the expansion of this dangerous measure deny the origin of such an issue. Another approach is that the Council has taken such a measure but basically it has not the competence to establish such a right. In identifying the right of defense, Security Council cannot change its elements in public law. Another view is that the Council has been merely considering a certain case and this does not necessarily means that it can be applied to similar cases or in all terrorist acts. The final approach is that the right of self-defense resulting from Security Council
30. Jamshid Momtaz, "Legal Dimensions of Combat against International Terrorism", A speech delivered in Center for International Higher Studies, University of Tehran, The Bulletin of the Center for International Higher Studies, (2nd Year, No. 1, January 2001), pp. 1-13. 31. Hasan Sadati, "The Laws of Self-Defense in the Light of Terrorist Attack of September 11, 2001 in the United States", Legal Viewpoints (Nos. 23-24, 2001), p. 65. Self-Defense in Response to Terrorism: Prohibitions and Limits / 289
Resolutions "for the United States and its allies cannot be considered as carte blanche according to which they can do whatever they recognize as appropriate."32
2- Self-Defense against Non-state Terrorist Actors As long as there is no change in Article 51 of the Charter and common law, self-defense in dominant only in relations among states and cannot be applied to non-state terrorist groups and their armed attack against states33 including the state of the location of these groups or other states34. Therefore, Dr. Kirgis, member of American Society of International Law, has focused on this important point and has expressed doubts about the possibility of invoking self-defense on September 11 attacks. In his opinion, "If the party responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is not the government of the country from which the terrorists operate, a question could arise whether use of armed force that causes injury to that country is lawful."35 In response, he says that the UN Charter was not drafted with such situations in mind. However, the reasoning which might be given is that if the state is knowingly harboring the terrorists, the principle embodied in Article 51 will extend to this situation.36 The basis of above citation is the Resolution of aggression
32. "Response to International Terrorism: The Expansion of Borders of International Law towards a Stable Freedom", translated by Mohsen Sharifi, Foreign Policy, No. 4, 11th year, Winter 2001, p. 1164. 33. The only opponent of this Court's finding has been Judge Thomas Buergentahl. In his opinion, "the right of self-defense is not applied only to state actors and armed attacks against Israeli regime from the Occupied Territory should be considered in the framework of this issue, in conformity with Article 51 of the Charter". 34. International Court of Justice in the case of Nicaragua, in studying the concept of armed attack only mentions relationship among states. See: Nicaragua Case, ICJ Rep. 1986, para. 195. 35. Fredric Kirgis, "Terrorist Attacks on the world Trade Center and the Pentagon", ASIL Insights, (Sep. 2001). www.asil.org/insights.htm. 36. The records and procedures of Security Council, especially its reaction toward Israeli Regime's attack against Tunisia because of the location of the headquarters of PLO in this country denies this view. In October 1985, Israeli planes bombed the headquarters of PLO in Tunisia. In Security Council, Israeli regime claimed that the bombardment has
Global Alliance 290 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace definition in which supporting armed groups in military measure against a state is considered as an aggression.
Conclusion UN Charter, strengthening the spirit of Locarno Treaty and Kellogg- Briand Pact banning the use of force, identified three exceptions in this regard: military measure according to collective security system (Article 42), self-defense (Article 51) and, finally, military confrontation with the policies of the enemy states of UN members (Articles 53 and 107). Among these, the third one, because of the reasons of the Charter and its being temporary as well as the membership of enemy and defeated states in the Second World War in the Charter (and that the condition for their membership, according to the article, is their peacemaking interests), seems obsolete.37 International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion on the Construction of a wall in Palestinian Territory, paid attention to the components of self-defense and gave response to new claims after the September 11 attack to spread the frameworks of this right. Regarding the right of self-determination of nations and its relation with staying immune against the states' use of force, the Court started consolidation of international stability and order. On the principle of self-determination of nations, the Court expressed that this issue has been given significant attentions in UN Charter and has been re-emphasized by General Assembly in 2625 Resolution, according to which every state has the duty to refrain from any kind of coercion aimed against the political independence of any state included in this Resolution. Article 1 of both International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well as International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights once more have emphasized the right of self- been legitimate because Tunisian state has knowingly harbored the terrorists whose aim was Israel. Security Council, in Resolution 573, condemning this measure, severely rejected this claim (i.e. considering supporting terrorism as equal with armed attack) with 14 positive votes and without any opponent and with the US abstention vote. 37. See: Robert Bledsoe and Boleslaw Boczek, The International Law Dictionary, Translation and research by Alireza Parsa, Tehran: Ghomes, 1996, p. 401. Self-Defense in Response to Terrorism: Prohibitions and Limits / 291 determination of all peoples and have reiterated that all State Parties to these Covenants shall promote the realization of the right of self- determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. The Court recalls its previous procedures in which it emphasized that recent development in nations' role in international law about non-autonomous territories, as being respected in the Charter of the United Nations, has made the autonomy principle applicable to all (such territories) and the people's right of autonomy is a jus cogens. The aforesaid right will provide nations and actors who are trying to obtain this right on behalf of the nations with rights that might require resistance or armed measures. However, in reaction toward their acts, the concept of self-defense will not be applied. Ultimately, the decisive finding of the international judicial procedure is that Israeli regime in no case38 can invoke the right of self-defense or the state of emergency to negate outrageous aspect of a wall that has violated some of the most important international obligations and standards tremendously and systematically. "As a result, the Court finds out that the construction of the wall and the regime related to it, is contrary to international law "including the rights of self-defense and self- determination. In this regard, Judge Al-Khasawneh with a sarcastic expression about the Israeli operation under the title of Peace Negotiations says that "if these negotiations are not to produce non-principled solutions, then they should act according to law and good faith". "States have accepted that the final authority to determine the legitimacy or illegitimacy acts of international actor is the International Court of Justice" and therefore, the judicial procedure based on the decisions of this Court is the final word. But this "final word" sometimes has the minimum aspect. In fact, although if the judicial declaration about the illegitimacy of such organized and planned measures is sometimes a necessary step for
38. Contrary to some impressions, the aforesaid advisory opinion has not left any place for the impression that the construction of the wall or other non-forcible measures can be explained in the light of self-defense. The court is on the opinion that since there has been done no armed attack, defense has no place here. The defense in the Article 51 of the Charter means military defense: a defense appropriate with the attack.
Global Alliance 292 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace preserving "contemporary international order", it would never be enough. The international community of states and all governmental and non- governmental civil organizations should be the custodians of international order and use their capacities to preserve this order, to improve the system of producing, monitoring and implementing that order. In the meantime, the United Nations and especially the General Assembly and Security Council, by taking into account the Court's decision, should deliberate upon a way to end the illegal situation resulted from the construction of the wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory and the regime related to it. It seems that the last paragraph of the Court's final decision in its advisory opinion on the construction of the wall has not caught the attention of the United Nations and its organs so much after 5 years of its codification; rather, non-state organizations of human rights and humanitarian law have taken the burden to pursue it. Although the Court itself cannot issue a vote according to desirable rights and use the works of a legislator"39, through "the broad interpretation of principles and rules, seeks to ensure the survival and continuity of international system"40 and it seems that eleven years after the September 11 events, it has properly displayed its specific work. Ultimately, the court with this coordinated and homogenous procedure, has remained immune from the emotional atmosphere of innocence-shows after these events and the deliberate highlighting the tragedy of victims of terrorism – which mostly affected the structure of the United Nations – 41 and has said a decisive "no" to some powers who were seeking to expand the range of self-defense in order to give legitimacy to their military operations in some regions and against some countries and nations and hence has made the costs of military option outside the accepted legal cases costly and expensive.
39. Mohammad Reza Zia'I Bigdeli, "The Courts Mission in Preserving International Law". 40. Hedayatollah Falsafi, "The Interpretation in International Court of Justice". 41. The ratification of Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1737 is the most significant result of these emotions which gave America to ride the wave of public opinion and to use this vital opportunity to pursue its national interests and hence the so- called process of "international combat against terrorism" was created in contemporary literature. This conceived the world with continuous changes. Democratization and Freedom in the Middle East: Challenges of … / 293
Democratization and Freedom in the Middle East: Challenges of Muslim Future Mirnes Kovac
This short analysis, is based on a short message which inspired me deeply throughout these days as we witness criminal actions of regimes in Libya, Yemen and Bahrain.
The main idea of my work is that as soon as freedom is established in the Middle East - parties and movements inspired by Islam will gain power in regular democratic contest. The response of my then supervisor was negative. I insisted on the thesis and upon Hamas won the elections in Palestine, I e-maild him telling him: "Did you see that I was right. The response of my Supervisor was very short: Wait for a while and we will see that is not the way things go in international relations. After that I understood one thing I did not understand earlier: there exists a hegemonic force in the global system that tries to channel all developments. I hope that recent developments in the Middle East, at least, in some sense, overcame this trend). When the "Age of revolution" had been happening from both sides of Atlantic at the end of 18th and early 19th centuries it was mainly characterized by the yearning of peoples for freedom, to slide out of burden of absolutistic monarchies and chains of all kinds. People wanted their honor and dignity, property and prospective of future to be realized in constitutional states and republics. Looking at what is happening in Middle East and North Africa in last six months I wonder as if those ages of revolutions were in fact postponed in Arab world. It seemed that the
The editor of the bi-monthly Preporod Islamic Magazine published in Sarajevo. He graduated in Islamic Studies from the Faculty of Islamic Studies in Sarajevo University and has an MA in International Relations from the University of Sussex, UK.
Global Alliance 294 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace dawn of new age in Middle East had to wait for whole 19th and 20th. The centuries to break out with the end of first decade of 21st century. The period of fermentation reached the point where it has no returning, where it must break on all sides.
Islam as a Freedom Religion There exist no religious faith that emphasizes freedom and entrusts it with such a special status as Islam did in its worldview. In Islam freedoms is absolute feature, a seal and guarantee that only Almighty gives to its most exquisite creature, man, as a sign. "And indeed We have honored the Children of A dam, and We have carried them on land and sea, and have provided them with all good things and have preferred them above many of those whom We have created with a marked preference", says Quran (17:70'). And this honor and feature is unquestionable. It is a feature by which human is human, No religious worldview puts freedom of man at such exalted place as Islam. Islam in itself, in its historical emergence proved itself as all-encompassing revolution of freedom. In addition, Islam in its practical realization is simply not possible without freedom. The very pre-condition for religious observance, i.e., for a person to be obliged for any kind of worship is at first place to be free individual. For a slave the rules were almost totally different, or, one can says that Islam did all what was needed for slavery to diminish by the force of intrinsic energy of Islamic message. For its disappearance (at least in formal medieval fashion) Islam ensured all necessary elements! Besides, according to the teachings of Islam, any contract or promise are meaningless unless person is free. Freedom is the quality by which human beings were dignified to the extent that angels were commanded by God (according to Qur'anic story of creation) to bow before Adam. With all this said, there exists no worldview that rose up against social injustice. It is done in such an open and explicit way to the extent that Islam in its worshiping precepts proscribed one part of person's property to be given in alms for those in need. On the other hand, Islam by its nature is fundamentally opposed to Democratization and Freedom in the Middle East: Challenges of … / 295 any kind of iconism, cult of personality or any type of worshiping of beings or idols. Islamic art, it is very evident, completely excludes imagery and is iconoclastic per se.
The Customary Planet of Oppression abs Slavery All this are mere facts and figures according which Islam distinguished itself throughout centuries by its idea and mission, from other religious traditions, faiths and movements. However, nowhere on the planet more oppression and slavery, at least until recently, were present than in Muslim lands, and especially in the countries of Middle East and North Africa (MENA) - torture, despotism, decade-long rulers and leaders with their portraits everywhere from coins to large billboards and statues on the streets ... All public life was in tune with praising their "greatness" - so fundamentally incompatible with lands where calls for worshiping only One God and praising His Greatness (Allahu Akbar) were heard regularly five times a day. This internal conflict was rising with rising awareness and education of masses. For, the systems of control created for twentieth century were eventually defeated by systems of free communications of" \ st century, as one analyst wisely noted. The system that enabled people to freely say what they think and share it with their fellow citizens and in doing so not to be interrupted or prevented, overcoming by it the largest barrier and agent in Muslim world, and Arab world especially, - the agent of fear. "We are not afraid anyrnore!" still resonates as most widely heard parole of Arab awakening from Tunisia, Cairo, Sana, Benghazi, Misurata, Dar'aa to Bahrain and even further into countries yet to be affected by this momentum. It has to be noted that, as we mentioned at the beginning of this short text, revolutions in the West were scientific, political and economic, and their very prominent feature was that they were a kind of upheaval against religious authority and by that religion itself. And there appeared the conflict between freedom and faith, between science and religion, between rule of God and rule of man.
Global Alliance 296 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
The most evident fact in Islamic awakening, and Arab Street shows this very vividly, that conflict of this kind does not exist in this region. There is no conflict with religion, as this kind of conflict does not exist, in principle, in Islam. And evidently this conflict is absent from the current Arab street. In this case the religion is on the same side of revolutionaries. Also, very symptomatic is that in recent upheavals on the Arab Street we had not seen any antiAmericanism, anti-Israelisrn or any anti-Western slogans, which was unavoidable feature of any gathering and demonstrations in past times. The demonstrations without burning American and Israeli nags were unthinkable, and rarely this occasions were extensively used by ruling regimes as a kind of justifications for repressive measures and projecting picture in the West that authoritarian regimes were necessity for those masses to be kept in check and becalmed. Nowadays, however, the conflict exists but only in those domains where the principle of freedom and justice clashes with practice of tyranny and personal interests of ruling elites in the region that is "satanically united in defence of ruling tyrants". Any step, no matter how painful it would be, and according to what we have seen in past six months, will be hard and demanding. It can ensure the climate for strengthening freedom because it has deep spiritual foundation, otherwise, if stronger global support fails it can lead the whole religion in much onerous turmoil. It is not surprise therefore that the heart of Muslim world, and especially its Arabic part, represents very challenging region, because it was for decades and centuries black hole in sphere of freedom around which all possible geo-political and economic interests were interlocked. We see their reflexion today in positioning of key global players and their reluctance to firmly take a stance towards voices of freedom and change.
Hypocrisy of International Order For, many interests could be at stake here and that is one of the explanation of hypocrisy of international (dis)order and policy of waiting and keeping the status quo and striving to get the best out of it for own Democratization and Freedom in the Middle East: Challenges of … / 297 interests. Nevertheless, that huge will of people for better future, more honest and dignified life in freedom and welfare has a real chances, and above all things, it has a legitimate and historical right for all this to take place. For, it had been too long that an Arab lived in internal conflict - his or her faith was teaching him or her that there were no slavery, but soon as he steps out of a mosque he or she sees slavery at every corner! His or her religion constantly reminds that there is no cult of personality, not even those of Prophet's, and soon as he or she walks at street gigantic billboards of various leaders, kings and princes hanging on buildings and towers are striking directly with messages that they are here and the life is not possible without them! His or her faith teaches that there must not be exploitation of human beings, but as soon as he or she steps out luxury life, fancy cars, yachts and villas of the elites prove just opposite and more strikingly all what he or she sees is taken from him or her. His or her religion teaches that dignity is not in one being male or female, black or white, not even being Muslim or non-Muslim, but in being human, but as soon as he or she takes more insightful look at the situation he or she finds that women in Muslim land do not have even close status as they had in the lifetime of their beloved Prophet. His or her Islamic tradition and worldview teach and recognize sanctity of human dignity, but those who conceit that in their hands is everything, they took it all and usurped it and that is the main reason for him or her to go out on the street and demand the change without any fear. For all these reasons the experience of Arab awakening is unique and exceptional. However, the West had its own experience of change, revolution and democracy. It was remarkable and unique but it was not the only experience of change possible. Arab Street proved it in the best way possible. It proved and is still proving that it has intrinsic potential to offer its own way out of tyranny and despotism. It has its own way that will not put the religion and democracy on the collision course, as many in the West feared. It simply does not have that kind of need. I will end my short reflection with the message I saw at the Facebook
Global Alliance 298 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace status of one young Libyan which inspired me deeply throughout these days as we witness criminal actions of regimes in Misurata in Libya and in Bahrain cities. My name is Freedom. Born in Tunisia, raised in Egypt, studied in Yemenifought in Libya and now in Bahrain ... I'll grow up in all the Arab world ... It must be this way; the other way is just something unimaginable!
Crime of Terror in the Case Low of the ICTY / 299
Crime of Terror in the Case Law of the ICTY Dr. Heybatollah Najandimanesh Zahra Elyasi Ghahfarokhi
Abstract: One of the major developments in the area of international law, in general, and international criminal law, in particular is the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The Tribunal was established by the UN Security Council in 1993 in reaction to the atrocities committed in the Balkans. Dealing with several criminal cases, the Tribunal- as an international criminal tribunal- for the first time interpreted the rules of the Geneva Conventions 1949. Certainly, consideration by the ICTY of the crime of terror is of high importance, for yet there is no consensus on the definition of this crime among the members of the international community. Because of the lack of such consensus the states adopting the Rome Statute (1998) couldn‘t insert the crime of terror in the Statute. Considering of this crime, its definition and its elements by the tribunal may pave the way for establishing consensus among the states in regard the definition of the crime. This research deals with the crime of terror and its actus reus and mens rea in the light of the tribunal`s case-law. The crime of terror, under the relevant circumstances, may be regarded as a war crime or a crime against humanity. Key Words: Crime of terror, Terrorism, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), armed conflict
Assistant Professor of International Law. Researcher of Law
Global Alliance 300 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Introduction While international law, originally, governing the relations between states, today it has so developed to regulate the conducts of the individuals.1 Today, the rules of international law in this field are called international criminal law. In other words ‗international criminal law concerns prohibitions addressing the individuals whose violations are punishable‘.2 Under these rules if the acts of the individuals are in violation of the treaty and customary international law, in particular international human rights law, they regarded to bear criminal responsibility. There is no doubt that these rules are made to protect human beings. It may be said that ‗sovereignty- oriented approach has been replaced by a human-oriented approach slowly… . Protecting the legal interests of states, international must consider protection of human beings slowly…‘.3 In the past whenever these rules were being violated, the international community, appropriate to its mechanisms and devices, reacted these violations. Among these, one may refer to Nuremberg and Tokyo courts. These courts may be regarded as the first relative successful efforts to treat the violators of the laws of war and humanitarian law. Because of defects in the structure of these tribunals and their activities, the international community tried to take a basic step in establishing a permanent international criminal body. To this end, the UN General Assembly asked the international law commission to prepare the draft of an international criminal court`s statute.4
1. It is so clear that international organizations are also governed by the rules of international law. 2. Robert Cryer et al., 2007, p. 1. 3. Tadic Appeals Judgement (2 May, 1995), para. 97. Tadic Appeals Judgement (2 May, 1995), para. 97. 4. See generally at: M. Cherif Bassiouni, "From Versailles to Rwanda in Seventy- five Years: the Need to Establish a Permanent International Criminal Court", Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 10 (1997) pp. 11- 62; M. Cherif Bassiouni, The Statute of the International Criminal Court and Related Instruments: Legislative History, 1994-2000, New York, Transnational Publishers, 2001 and M. Cherif Bassiouni, "The Time Has Crime of Terror in the Case Low of the ICTY / 301
Calling for establishing an international tribunal for prosecuting individuals bearing responsibility for crimes against peace and crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia was made by the leaders of the world in 1992. Those who made statements in the UN in this regard confirmed the principle of individual responsibility for grave breaches of the Geneva conventions of 1949 and other international crimes. In particular, in 13 July 1992 the UN Security Council, in resolution 7645, recalled the parties to the conflict that they are bound to respect the international humanitarian law and especially Geneva conventions and those who commit the grave violations of these conventions or order these violations are individually responsible (Para. 10). Further, in 13 August 1992, reaffirming the principle of individual responsibility in resolution 7716 (para. 1), the Council called the parties to stop any violation of international humanitarian law, including those were as practice of ethnic cleaning (para. 3) and under UN chapter 7 rules decided that failure to its calling shall result in further measures being taken under UN charter (para. 7). Adopting of the Council resolution 780 in 6 October 19927 may be regarded as an important step in establishing an international tribunal as a ‗further measure‘.8 By this resolution, the Council asked the UN General Secretary to create an impartial commission consisting of experts for collecting evidence of violations of Geneva conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law (para. 2). After that, a group of three rapporteur appointed by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe as well as commissions of lawyers from France and Germany contributed to establishment of such tribunal and codifying
Come for an International Criminal Court", Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 1, pp. 1-43 (1991). 5. 13 July 1992, S/RES/764. 6. SC Res. 771, 13 August 1992, S/RES/771. 7. SC Res. 780, 6 October 1992, S/RES 780. 8. The Council in resolution 771 called the parties to end the violations of international humanitarian law otherwise ‗further measures‘ shall be taken under the UN charter( para. 7).
Global Alliance 302 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace its statute. The UN General Secretary, then, employed these drafts for preparing its report to the UN Security Council under resolution 808 (22 February 1993). Establishment of an international tribunal for prosecuting individuals responsible for grave violations committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 has been entirely agreed in resolution 808. Finding under article 399 of the UN Charter that the situation in the former Yugoslavia was constituted as a threat against the international peace and security in the meaning of the chapter 7, the UN Security Council decided to establish an international tribunal as an effective action in order to prevent the commission of the crimes, trying the responsible persons and contribution to the restore and maintenance of peace. The UN General Secretary`s report prepared according resolution 808 dealt with several legal issues in relation to creation an ad hoc international tribunal and it also had prepared the draft statute for the tribunal. The UN Security Council, under chapter 7, in resolution 82710 unanimously adopted the UN General Secretary`s report and the statute of the international criminal tribunal for former Yugoslavia (hereinafter the international tribunal) annexed to it, without changing it.11 According to the Security Council, establishment of the tribunal ‗shall contribute securing that such violations shall be stopped and effectively suppressed‘.12 The Council, therefore, followed two major aims by establishing the tribunal: ‗firstly, the tribunal shall prevent the individual from committing similar crimes in the future; and it therefore contributes to reduction of the crimes. Second, implementing of justice seemed to be necessary for it guaranteed that violations of international law would not
9. According to article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. 10. S/25704, 3 May 1993 11. John R. W. D. Jones, 2000, p. 40. 12. S. Trifunovska (ed.), Yugoslavia Through Documents: From its Creation to its Dissolution, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1994; D. Bethlehem M. Weller, The Yugoslavia Crisis in International Law: General Issues, Part I, Vol. 5, Cambridge International Documents Series, Grotius/Cambridge University Press, 1997. Crime of Terror in the Case Low of the ICTY / 303 remain without punishment‘.13 The Security Council, about the special case of the Former Yugoslavia, created a subsidiary body as an effective measure, but of judicial nature, under chapter 7 in the framework of the requirements provided for by article 29 of the Charter.14 This body shall do its functions independently and independence of political considerations. In performing its judicial functions, it is not subject to the control or authority of the Council. However, the term of the tribunal`s work will depend upon the restore and maintenance of international peace and security in the territory of the former Yugoslavia as well as the decisions of the Security Council in this regard.15 Until now, the Tribunal completed the proceedings against 120 persons of the total 161 persons against whom the indictment had been issued.16 Certainly, it is of high importance for the Tribunal, as an international criminal body, to deal with the crime of terror; because there is no consensus among the members of the international community about this crime. The absence of such consensus, among other things, caused the international community couldn‘t insert the crime of terror in the International Criminal Court`s Statute. Consideration of this crime by the Tribunal may pave the way for consensus about the definition of this crime. This article deals with the concept of terror, its actus reus and mens rea. The crime of terror has been considered as a war crime in the case-law of the Tribunal. It is necessary to mention that the legal element of the crime is Article 3 of the Tribunal`s Statute, Article 51 of the Additional Protocol I and Article 13 of the Additional Protocol II.
13. Pierre Sob, 1998, p. 152. 14. Article 29 states: ‗The Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions‘. 15. See generally H. Najandimanesh, Protection of Cultural Properties in the Time of Armed Conflicts: Case Study of the Former Yugoslavia, Thesis for LLM, Allame Tabatabaie University, 2005 and also H. Najandimanesh, Contribution of the ICTY to the Development of International Criminal Law, PhD Thesis, Allame Tabatabaie University, 2008. 16. See www.icty.org
Global Alliance 304 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
1. Concept of the Crime of Terror in the Case-law of the Tribunal: Terrorism as a War Crime ‗Terror‘ literally means ‗to make extreme fright and horror among the people‘. According to Oxford ―terrorism: resort to violence for political purposes or to compel the government to act or refrain from doing via making horror among the people‖.17 It is right to say, therefore, that foundation and the essence of ―terrorism‖ is: creating horror and fright among the people in order to exercise pressure upon the government. Although the international community at the time of council of the League of the Nations started to combat terrorism, but increasing the terrorist attacks in 1970s caused the UN to pay attention to terrorist actions. UN General Assembly, in December 18, 1972, decided to establish an ad hoc committee on terrorism. The committee failed to give a definition of the terrorism. Since the international community failed to agree on a comprehensive definition of all forms of terrorism, it was gradually decided to insert combating against certain forms of terrorist actions in its agenda. Among other things which considered in the case-law of the ICTY is violations of international humanitarian rules and international human rights law at the time of the armed conflicts. The parties to the conflicts occurred in the former Yugoslavia in 1990s committed the gross and serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. The Tribunal, therefore, according to its statute had the jurisdiction to decide such violations. The crime of terror, as a war crime, was dealt for the first time in Galic case by the tribunal.18 The Tribunal, then, dealt with the crime in Dragor Milosovic in detail. Milosovic`s charges, inter alia, included violations of Article 3 of the Statute and Article 51 of Additional Protocol I and Article 13 of Additional Protocol II.19 According Article 51 (2) of Additional Protocol I and Article 13 (2) of Additional Protocol II: ―The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall
17. Oxford Advanced Dictionary Learners Dictionary, 2009, p. 1233. 18. Galić Trial Judgement and Appeal Judgement. 19. D. Milo evi Trial Judgement, para. 873. Crime of Terror in the Case Low of the ICTY / 305 not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.‖ Terrorist acts in internal conflicts against the civilians and those who do not participate in military actions are also prohibited. The first sentence of Article 51 (2) of Additional Protocol I and Article 13 (2) of Additional Protocol II ―incorporate a general prohibition of attacks on civilians, while the second sentence prohibits a specific form of attacks on civilians‖.20 So, the crime of terror includes violent acts or threats the primary purpose of which is to spread horror among the civilians. According to Galic case customary international law prohibited and criminalized the crime of terror. The crime is regarded as violation of laws and customs of war which are the subject of Article 3 of the Tribunal`s Statute and it is, therefore, subject to the Tribunal`s jurisdiction.21Under the existing legal rules of international humanitarian law the terrorist acts against the civilians are prohibited. In other words, terrorist acts against the conflicting parties and or combatants may not be considered as war crime, but it may be regarded as the crime of terror. According to the ICRC commentary on the Additional Protocols the terrorist acts, referred to in some provisions of the protocols without saying that such acts need to be against the civilians, impliedly indicates that terrorist acts against objects (such as civil aviation establishments) are prohibited and considered as crime.22 The trial chamber in Galic case stated that the prosecutor didn‘t give any definition of terror in the initial proceedings, but during the trial, the prosecutor adopted a definition under which terror is regarded as ―extreme fear‖.23 Neither Trial Chamber nor Appeals Chamber considered the term of ―terror‖. Only the Appeals Chamber stated, in
20. Galić Appeal Judgement, para. 87 Galić Appeal Judgement, para. 87. See also Galić Trial Judgement, para. 98. 21. Ibid, paras 86 – 87, 90, 98. 22. ICRC, Commentaire des Protocoles Additionnels (Geneva, Nijhoff, 1986), 1t 1399 (para. 4538). 23. Galić Trial Judgement, para. 75.
Global Alliance 306 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace footnote, that ―terror may be defined as extreme fear‖.24 The Trial Chamber adopted this definition in Dragor Milosovic case.25The Trial Chamber, in Dragomir Milosovic, advocated the definition presented by the prosecution as follow:26 No one knew whether they might be the next victim. It affected every waking moment of their lives. People for 15 months […] knew absolutely no sense of safety anywhere in the city. Terror is [...] the intentional deprivation of a sense of security. It‘s been [sic] the primal fear that people feel when they see someone in front of them gunned down and that moment of panic when they try and run to help the victim, waiting for the next shots to come, and you‘ve had ample evidence about that. And it‘s not just [...] the fear that comes from being nearby the combat. This is a fear calculated to demoralise, to disrupt, to take away any sense of security from a body of people who have nothing [...] to do with the combat. According to the Tribunal the existence of an armed conflict may be regarded as a general requirement for applying Article 3 of the Statute and also of the crime of terror pursuant to Article 51 of Additional Protocol I and Article 13 of Additional Protocol II. the Trial Chamber notes that it needs to distinguish between terror in times of peace and terror in a situation of armed conflict as understood in international humanitarian law.27 Most international conventions are confined to terror not governed by international humanitarian law. The International Convention against the Taking of Hostages of 1979(Art. 12); International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997(Art. 19(2) and Nuclear Terrorism Convention of 2005 adopted this attitude. However, the scope of the Draft Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism was, and still is, a very contentious issue and was considered a ―key central focus‖. Currently, the Draft Comprehensive Convention
24. Galić Appeals Judgement, Footnote 320. 25. D. Milo evi Trial Judgement, Para. 883. 26. ibid., paras. 885- 6. 27. Ibid. para. 887. Crime of Terror in the Case Low of the ICTY / 307 against International Terrorism contains an exemption for the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict.28According to the Tribunal ―attacks directed against the civilian population are equally prohibited in the international instruments dealing with the crime of terror in peace time‖.29 Noting that the crime of terror only covers acts or threats of violence which are specifically intended to spread terror among the civilian population, the Trial Chamber stated that ―It must be established that the terror goes beyond the fear that is only the accompanying effect of the activities of armed forces in armed conflict. The prohibition of spreading terror among a civilian population must therefore always be distinguished from the effects that acts of legitimate warfare can have on a civilian population‖.30 Certainly, there is a certain degree of fear and intimidation among the civilian population in nearly every armed conflict. The Trial Chamber notes that the closer the theatre of war is to the civilian population, the more it will suffer from fear and intimidation. This is particularly true in an armed conflict conducted in an urban sphere, where even legitimate attacks against combatants may result in intense fear and intimidation among the civilian population, but to constitute terror, an intent to instil fear beyond this level is required. After all, the Tribunal holds that the circumstances of a particular armed conflict must be taken into account in determining whether the crime of terror has been committed, or whether the perpetrators intended to ―spread terror among a civilian population.‖31
28. Ibid. See footnote 3042 and see also Draft Comprehensive Convention against International Terrorism, Article 20(2) (A/61/37, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996, Tenth Session (27 February – 3 March 2006), p. 4. 29. Ibid. para. 887. 30. ibid. para. 888. See also Galić Trial Judgement, para. 101. 31. ibid. para. 888.
Global Alliance 308 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
2. Elements of the Crime of Terror in the Case-law of the Tribunal The crime of terror against the civilian population consists of the elements common to offences falling under Article 3 of the Statute as well as the following elements: a. Acts of violence directed against the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities causing death or serious injury to body or health within the civilian population; b. The offender willfully made the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities the object of those acts of violence; and c. The crime was committed with the primary purpose of spreading terror among the civilian population. The crime of terror, therefore, consists of actus reus and mens rea. It is worthy to note that under these elements the violent acts or threats must cause to death or serious injury to body or health within the civilian population. The following section will deal with these elements.
A. Legal Element of the Crime of Terror Under the case-law of the ICTY the legal element of the crime of terror may be found in Article 3 of the Tribunal`s Statute, Article 51 of the Additional Protocol I and Article 13 of the Additional Protocol II to the Geneva conventions.32
B. Actus reus of the crime of Terror The actus reus of the crime of terror consists of the acts or threats of violence, directed against civilian population or individual civilians, which cause serious injury to their body or health.33 The crime of terror like the crime of the illegal attacks against the civilians is not limited to direct attacks against civilians or threats thereof but may include
32. This issue was discussed in the prior section of this article in detail. 33. Galić Appeal Judgement, paras 100, 101. Crime of Terror in the Case Low of the ICTY / 309 indiscriminate or disportionate attacks or threats thereof.34 While the actual infliction of death or serious injury to body or health is a required element of the crime of terror, ―both the Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber in the Galić case held that actual infliction of ‗terror‘ on the civilian population is not an element of the crime‖.35 Although the nature of the acts or threats of violence may be different, the important element- as we shall see in the next section- is that the acts or the threats must be directed with the specific intent of spreading terror among the civilian people.
C. Mens rea of the crime of Terror The crime of terror, surly, requires the specific intent.36 The mens rea of the crime of terror consists of two parts: general intent and specific intent.37 The general intent is that the perpetrator must have wilfully made the civilian population or an individual civilian the object of acts or threats of violence,38 while the specific intent is ―spreading terror among the civilian population‖.39 As stated about the actus reus of terror, according to the tribunal actual infliction of ‗terror‘ on the civilian population is not an element of the crime, but the fact that the civilian population suffered and experienced terror during an armed conflict may be used as corroboration of the intent to terrorize.40 The trial chamber, in Galic case, defined the crime of terror as such: ―willful violent acts or threats against civil population or individual civilians with the primary purpose of spreading terror among the civilian population‖.41 ―Primary‖ does not mean that the infliction of terror is the only objective of the acts
34. Ibid., para. 102. 35. D. Milosevic Trial Judgement., Para. 880. See also Galić Appeal Judgement, para. 104; Galić Trial Judgement, paras 65, 134. 36. Ibid., para. 878. See also Galić Trial Judgement, para. 137. 37. Ibid. 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid., para. 992. See also Galić Appeal Judgement, para. 104 and Galić Trial Judgement, para. 133. 40. Ibid., Para. 880. 41. Galić Trial Judgement, para. 133.
Global Alliance 310 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace or threats of violence. Other purposes may exist simultaneously with the purpose of spreading terror among the civilian population, provided that the intent to spread terror is principal among the aims of the acts of violence.42 The tribunal is of the view that perpetrators of the crime of terror may have military, political or other goals. Consequently, the war crime of terror does not need proof of ultimate military or political goals.43 One may say that the ―primary purpose‖ for crime of terror is fully new and innovative. All other crimes with specific intent require the proof of the necessary mens rea. In other words, there is no hierarchy for intent. In fact there was no classification of intent in international criminal law before the Galic case. The tribunal, so, by its case-law inserted the hierarchy of intent in international criminal law which is not supported by doctrine. The specific intent of the crime of terror can be inferred from the circumstances of the acts or threats of violence, that is, from their nature, manner, timing and duration.44 According to the trial Chamber, attacks during cease-fires and truces or long term and persistent attacks against civilians, as well as indiscriminate attacks, may be taken as indicia of the intent to spread terror. The Trial Chamber considers that the specific intent may also be inferred from the site of the attack. The fact that, during the siege, civilians were targeted and attacked at sites, well-known to be frequented by them during their daily activities, such as market places, water distribution points, on public transport, and so on, may provide strong indicia of the intent to spread terror.45
42. Galić Appeal Judgement, para.104. 43. D. Milosevic Trial Judgement., Para. 879. 44. Galić Appeal Judgement, para. 104. 45. D. Milosevic Trial Judgement., Para. 881. Crime of Terror in the Case Low of the ICTY / 311
Conclusion According to the case-law of the tribunal, the crime of terror, as a war crime, consists of the following elements: a) committing any violent act or threat (actus resus) b) specific intent to spread terror among the civil population or the civilians individually(mens rea) This approach may be criticized in two aspects: first, in regard to actus reus, it is better for the tribunal to use any ―illegal act or threat‖ instead of ―violent act or threat‖. The second, in respect to the crime of terror, result is of special importance. The tribunal shows us in its case-law that the crime of terror requires legal elements like those are necessary for attacks against the civilians. The crime of terror also needs an additional mental element of the ―main purpose of spreading terror‖. So it may be regarded as an aggravated crime and the most serious form of an illegal attack against the civilians. It is necessary to mention that the crime of terror is not related to war time; it also may be committed in peacetime as a crime against humanity. After all, the case-law of the tribunal, alongside the doctrines, could remove some of the ambiguities about the crime of terror. Although in the case-law of the tribunal, the crime of terror as a war crime has been debated, but this case-law may be useful in reaching a criminal legal regime on the crime of terror in national and international level.
Global Alliance 312 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Bibliography Books: 1.Bassiouni, M. Cherif, The Statute of the International Criminal Court and Related Instruments: Legislative History, 1994-2000, New York, Transnational Publishers, 2001. 2.Cassese, A., P. Gaeta, J. Jones (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Oxford, 2002. 3.Cryer, Robert, Hakan Friman and Darryl Robinson and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambridge University Press, 2007. 4.Jones, John R. W. D., the Practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Second Edition, Transnational Publishers, 2000. 5.Oxford Advanced Dictionary Learners Dictionary, 2009. 6.Trifunovska, S. (ed.), Yugoslavia Through Documents: From its Creation to its Dissolution, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1994. 7.Weller, D. Bethlehem M., The Yugoslavia Crisis in International Law: General Issues, Part I, Vol. 5, Cambridge International Documents Series, Grotius/Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Thesis 8.Najandimanesh, H., Protection of Cultural Properties in the Time of Armed Conflicts: Case Study of the Former Yugoslavia, Thesis for LLM, Allame Tabatabaie University, 2005. 9.______, Contribution of the ICTY to the Development of International Criminal Law, PhD Thesis, Allame Tabatabaie University, 2008.
Articles: 10.Bassiouni, M. Cherif, "From Versailles to Rwanda in Seventy- five Years: the Need to Establish a Permanent International Criminal Court", Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 10 (1997). 11.______, "The Time Has Come for an International Criminal Court", Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 1, pp. 1- 43 (1991). 12.Cassese, A., ―The Multifaceted Criminal Notion of Terrorism in International Law‖, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 4, 2006. Crime of Terror in the Case Low of the ICTY / 313
13.Sob, Pierre, "The Dynamics of International Criminal Tribunals (Perspectives on Achieving Effective Human Rights Protection)", Nordic Journal of International Law, (1998), 67: PP. 139-163. 14.Weigend, T., ―The Universal Terrorist –The International Community Grappling with a Definition‖, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 4, Issue 5, 2006, pp. 912- 932.
Cases: 15.Prosecutor V. Dusko Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Appeals Judgment of 2 May 1995. 16.Prosecutor V. Stanislav Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeals Judgment of 30 November 2006. 17.Prosecutor V. Stanislav Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Judgment of 5 December 2003. 18.Prosecutor V. Dragomir Milosevic, Case No. IT-98-29/1-A, Appeals Judgment of 12 November 2009. 19.Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milosevic, Case No. IT-98-29/1-T, Trial Judgment of 12 December 2007. Documents: 20.SC Res. 764, 13 July 1992, S/RES/764. 21.SC Res. 771, 13 August 1992, S/RES/771. 22.SC Res. 780, 6 October 1992, S/RES 780. 23.Report of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, A/64/205- S/2009/394, 31 July 2009. 24.Report of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, 17 August 2005, A/60/267-S/2005/532. 25.Report of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, 21 August 2006, A/61/271-S/2006/666. 26.Draft Comprehensive Convention against International Terrorism, Article 20(2) (A/61/37, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General
Global Alliance 314 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996, Tenth Session (27 February – 3 March 2006).
Websites: 27.http://www.icty.org 28.http://www.icrc.org/IHL.NSF/INTRO/470?OpenDocument Some Observations on Global Alliance Against Terrorism for a Just Peace / 315
Some Observations on Global Alliance Against Terrorism for a Just Peace Cynthia Ann McKinney
How wonderful to be at a Conference where the word "love" is used; we are here because we love humankind. We are here from all corners of the earth; we are against terrorism; we want peace. However, we must clarify peace. What kind of peace do we want? President John F. Kennedy answered his question by saying: ". . . not a Pax Americana" imposed on the world by weapons of war. He went on to say that the kind of peace we want is the kind of peace that makes life worth living--peace for all men and women for all time. No Justice, No Peace. No Truth, No Justice! But, today, U.S. policy is rooted in lies, injustice, and war. And at home, the people of the U.S. suffer. Racism is acute, despite and maybe because of President Obama; hatred is rampant with hatred of Muslims, incarceration of Palestinians, targeting of immigrants, the lynchings of Blacks, disappearances of Latinos, and the pauperization of the people. People inside the U.S. are under attack in the realm of policy: • poor education opportunities--some communities experience 50% high school dropout rates • poor health care--Americans pay the most and get less; according to the Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook, the US is 50th in the world in life expectancy and if that is not bad enough, it picks on countries like Iraq (ranked 145th in the world), Pakistan (166th), Gaza (111th), Libya (58th), and Cuba (57th). In infant mortality, the US is worse than the European Union and Israel.
The Farmer member of the USA House of Representatives(1993-2003 and 2005- 2007), nominated for President of the United States by the Green Party in 2008. She served as Commissioner in the Citizens' Commission on 9-11
Global Alliance 316 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
The U.S. used to be a wealthy country with much to give to the world, but now the country is being plundered and the economic policies now promote the oligarchization of our country. The country is coming apart a the seams even a sit terrorizes the world and applies the death penalty to whole countries. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that we are a country of guided missiles and misguided men. Today, that is still true. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. also said that the U.S. was the greatest purveyor of violence on the planet and sadly, that is still true, too. But, there is some good news, too. And that is, despite the tightly controlled U.S. media, despite the deceptive political structure that is not now--if it ever was--democratic, the core American people who are the true peace people, are beginning to see the truth. We cannot bring our country to peace and respect for human dignity without the solid foundation of the truth. Those in the service of hatred, war, Zionism are being seen for what they are. So now, our challenge is what to do with this awakening. The answer, I believe, is whose revolution gets funded. I personally know the importance of this. During the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S., Black people were able to erase bad laws and write better ones. They didn't have a lot of money, but they had enough. And what they lacked in finance, they made up for in unity and strategy. Therefore, it is at this moment, when things appear so bleak that we must redouble our efforts and not give up. We must believe that we can remake the world in a more peaceful reality. Finally, I am saddened as an American at what my country is doing to the world. am saddened that our first African-American President presents a false perception of the Black political consensus in the U.S. when he participate in war crimes and global death and destruction. These wars constitute a crime against humanity, crimes against the peace, and crimes against our planet. I believe the people are ready, but now we have to organize ourselves in Revolutionary Love, as Malcolm X said, "by any means necessary." Some Observations on Global Alliance Against Terrorism for a Just Peace / 317
Thank you all for caring about justice, peace, and human dignity. Thank you for inviting me to this Conference. Thank you for having it and thanks, especially to the Organizing Committee for making sure that I arrived on time!
Global Alliance 318 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Islamic Awakening and the Global Alliance for Peace and Security / 319
Islamic Awakening and the Global Alliance for Peace and Security Dr. Hassan Bashir
Terrorism is a kind of anomie. It is the lack of social norms from the rational perspective. The French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1951), coined the term "anomie" to mark those people and individuals lacking norms, who do not comply with the general rules of the society. Some other researchers believe that anomie "is associated with the diversion and it can even create it." (Arthur Asa Berger, 1379: 158) Terrorism is a kind of anomie which is formed against the general norms of the human society and it is trying to create and trigger some kind of diversion in the general social situation. Moreover, terrorism is a moral and doctrinal diversion which is against the human nature, and causes it to crash down. Basically "anomie" is the direct result of "mechanical" outlook which is governing the religious, social, and ethical aspects of a group of people. On the other hand, there is the "organic" outlook which is the direct product of complex legal relations based on religious or social agreements and contracts. Anomic groups experience the dissociation of mass consciousness in which notions such as right and wrong, good and evil, injustice and justice are severely undermined, suffering severe fluctuations. Anomie is in fact a social phenomenon that affects individuals and society. It does not exist only because some people can not comply with the community, but it is mostly the result of community structure and arrangements which these communities create for some people and lead them towards diversion.
professor of International Relations.
Global Alliance 320 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
With this view about anomie, one can define terrorism. Terrorism is indeed a social diversion. It is an anomie and a human diversion. This is in fact the direct result of broader social diversions which pave the way for such a deviation. But despite this fact, terrorism can not be defined as a natural reaction against these diversions in the individual and social structures. Contemporary terrorism is a blindly anomic move which tries to justify itself as a natural reaction against the global deviations. But in fact, it is itself a great diversion which is extremely threatening the world. This threatening move is trying to achieve the so called peace and security through terror and destruction. It is a philosophical anomie in people›s belief and it is why it has the highest rate of incidence in religious groups. Terrorism in its current form has imposed lots of costs on the international community. The Western society is reacting just like the colonialism era in which it always tried to pretend itself as a more superior, more rational, more regular and more civilized compared to the inferior oriental people, what they mean as Muslims; in the new colonialism the situation has not changed and the West tries to pretend that there is still a deeper, wider, and amore philosophical gap between the orient and the occident. In this age, the new trend of oriental studies are based on a new discourse; expanding the policy of cultural differences, making other identities inferior to the West and finally creating a kind of discrimination in terms of civilization. In this new situation, the West is trying to replace the concept of "violence' with the notion of terrorism in the eastern community (Islamic community) and to create a new barbarism in the name of the Islam and to marginalize the Muslim population. In such a situation of global terrorism, fighting with the terrorist movement is not enough, and we must try to eradicate such a philosophy. If the West is trying to introduce terrorism as a new indicator for the global Muslim community vis-à-vis notions such rationality, peace, and civilization, we must be skeptical about the real fight against terrorism. So the first step in the suppression of international terrorism is the Islamic Awakening and the Global Alliance for Peace and Security / 321 intellectual change in the governing policies of the West which links terrorism to the Muslim world. Although terrorism in the current world is related to a few number of Muslims, but the main cause of this terrorism is the discrimination, injustice, oppression and exploitation which is the direct result of Western policies. This definition never wants to justify terrorism in the current world, but rather on the contrary, it can be said that the current wave of terrorist attacks is the product of the West and some of the despots in the Islamic world. Such an impression means that the terrorism is the new global policy for the suppression of nations standing against oppression and arrogance. Therefore international peace and security, can not only be achieved by repression and eradication of some terrorist movement-which must be continued in the future- but beyond that the established global policies must be taken into consideration and there must be a reconsideration in the global counter - terrorist policies. It should also be emphasized that the failure to end the global social conflict is the most important factor depriving the current world from peace and security. International peace and security is in fact a process that requires a global alliance and coalition. This alliance should be formed without any discrimination and injustice. One of the basic elements of such a coalition is to identify the key factors and actors of the global terrorism. This identification and understanding also should be independent of any philosophical or religious discrimination. If terrorism is attributed to Islam, only because of some extremist Islamic movements, and its ugly, unfair and inhumane nature is completely accepted, so the Zionist regime of Israel which has caused the Palestinian people to leave their motherland should also be described as a terrorist organization. Here again there is no place for such discriminatory analysis which want to purify some terrorist movements, because it is the biggest obstacle in achieving peace and security in the world. Today, unfortunately, the world is witnessing the largest human discrimination throughout the history. This discrimination is more than a terrorist act to kill and eliminate a few people. Instead of targeting one individual, this move has targeted a nation for many years and exercise
Global Alliance 322 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace various terrorist plots every day to destruct it completely. Palestine is facing such an approach and the peace and security would not be achieved without returning what belongs to the Palestinians. The contemporary Islamic awakening in the Muslim world is another correcting move against injustice, discrimination and terrorism. In this new situation, the Islamic world is completely aware of the western plots and conspiracies to introduce the Muslims as a group of uncivilized people. However Muslims are seeking to eliminate those internal and external factors by their peaceful and non-violent revolutions. But the state sponsored terrorism seeks to suppress these popular uprisings and with the help of imperialistic propaganda, the corrupt governments are trying to justify their efforts and to deviate the people›s movement. Today, the behavior of the Bahraini government is a clear example of the state terrorism within the Islamic world which is faced with the silence of the western societies. This kind of discrimination in dealing with terrorism, not only expands its circle, but it will threaten the international peace and security. In such circumstances, the international community should seek to review its human experience of the recent centuries. Without correcting the past mistakes we will not achieve the global peace and security in its desired form. Islam is the doctrine of peace and security. Islam is based on peace and tranquility. Throughout the history, Muslims treated all different tribes and nations with respect. Humanity must now test pure Islamic thoughts both at the intellectual and practical levels. Such a test could be considered as a new foundation for the new human society in which there would be no place for anomic groups, terrorists and the Zionists. Interpretation of International Peace and Security According to the … / 323
Interpretation of International Peace and Security According to the Charter of the United Nations Dr. S. Qasem Zamani
Introduction We are here to discuss a right which has been sought by humans for many centuries without much success to realize it. Sometimes, it has been reflected in literature and, at other times, it has been pursued through laws, especially international law and from the viewpoint of states and international organizations. God has created human beings and has blown his own soul in them and the same God has made humanity of human beings a guarantee to establish and maintain peace. In reality, however, the situation has been quite different. As you know, the first international institution assigned to protect international peace and security was the League of Nations which came into being after World War I to prevent repetition of such wars which constitute a blatant violation of international peace. Perhaps when the covenant of the League of Nations was being drawn up, that organization and its affiliated organs and even member states did not have a good grasp of the concept of peace. Given the conditions of ―armed peace‖ era before World War I, which started in 1914, founders of the League of Nations were bent on just preventing another war. They ignored the fact that war was brought about by certain causes. That is, when setting goals and priorities of the League, due attention was not paid to fundaments of peace. They were oblivious to causes and grounds which create or strengthen peace.
Assisstan Professor, Allameh Tabatabaei University‘s School of Law.
Global Alliance 324 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
World peace: Failure of the League of Nations and endeavors to found the United Nations Apart from structural and institutional weaknesses of which the League of Nations suffered, it considered peace to only mean the absence of war. Naturally, without due attention to the root causes, peace will be quite fragile. Therefore, social, political and economic crises in member countries of the League of Nations soon caused it to fail and in less than two decades after its establishment, World War II began. When the war was still raging, it was quite clear that instead of defining peace in its negative sense, it should be addressed more basically. Governments which had started the war were totalitarian states where people‘s rights were easily ignored. They were fascist governments which were not truly based on the will of their nations, had no respect for human dignity and, as such, fanned the flame of the Second World War. Therefore, when the Charter of the United Nations (which is the main subject of my discussion) was being formulated, they tried to learn lessons from bitter experience of the League of Nations in order to prevent the new organization to tread on the same path. The main reason for the creation of the United Nations was to ―protect peace,‖ but this time, they did not suffice to just the negative meaning of peace. The United Nations set out to deal with all forms of conflict and aggression. Paragraph 4, Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations has recommended member states to ―refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force. ‖ Also, Article 51 recognizes ―the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations. ‖ Later on, a council called the Security Council was established which enjoys extraordinary powers according to Chapter VII of the Charter to counteract factors that threaten peace, breach peace or constitute an act of aggression. The totality of the United Nations system, though, is not limited to these general goals. Disarmament and arms control were other missions of the Organization and special organs were established for that purpose. The approach taken by the United Nations to peace was, however, an Interpretation of International Peace and Security According to the … / 325 infrastructural approach and included international security too. Combining ―peace and security‖ especially throughout Chapter VII and establishment of the Security Council instead of ―peace council‖ was a totally attentive and informed measure. In its first article which enumerates organizational goals of the United Nations, that is, in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, the Charter of the United Nations takes peace to mean much beyond absence of war and prevention of military aggression. It announces that the purpose of the United Nations is also to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. These are major goals which the United Nations aims to achieve. The peace considered by the United Nations is not just a domestic peace, but there is strong relationship between domestic and international varieties of peace. It was clear that in a world which is getting smaller as a result of technical developments to become a global village, peace was an indispensable concept. Therefore, Paragraph 7, Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations advises governments not to jeopardize international peace and security on grounds of domestic issues.
World peace and security without borders The relationship between domestic peace and security within borders of a given country and security of international community has been frequently reflected in the procedure adopted by affiliated organs of the United Nations. It would be sufficient to take a look at various resolutions passed by the Security Council and General Assembly on racial segregation. They pay special attention to supervision over elections in various countries and to domestic terrorism. No borders can be conceived between these two kinds of security. Political borders just divide countries and break down the concept of peace into domestic and international
Global Alliance 326 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace ones. Factors threatening security of a country rapidly reverberate across the globe and spread from one country to another. Security, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations, is a human and collective security beyond the concept of security described in Chapter VII of the Charter. Threat against peace is different from threat or use of force. Various organs of the United Nations including the Security Council, General Assembly and International Court of Justice have interpreted peace in relation to their own powers without officially defining it. Nowhere in the Charter has a solid definition of peace been provided. Therefore its true meaning will transpire in time. This was done, for example, by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on the situation in Namibia. The Charter of the United Nations was drawn up in 1945, but its contents will be defined in the course of time. The Charter has given birth to an institution and has set the course of that institution, but has also pointed to concepts whose accurate definition will be determined in the course of time and with respect to social necessities of international life.
Conclusion Peace is a dynamic, not static, concept. International peace and security is no more limited to treaties aimed at preventing war. Protection of environment; fighting contagious diseases like AIDS and swine influenza, and alleviating poverty and illiteracy are other issues which further strengthen peace. The United Nations is the name of this organization, but how nations can remain united or become united with other nations? Can they be indifferent to destiny of other nations in international community while talking about international peace and security? All nations share the same fate. Only a small part of sustainable and just peace is related to disarmament and arms control. A large part of it hinges on the elimination of poverty or reduction of class divide between developed and developing countries. Based on international resolutions, many international differences should be addressed; otherwise, international peace will be at Interpretation of International Peace and Security According to the … / 327 great danger. We must also try to build peace and do not suffice to peacekeeping. Peace should be built. The United Nations has not been passive toward peace and all its organs, including UNESCO and UNICEF, have been trying to realize it. Although political factors have somehow prevented realization of true peace, if suitable grounds were provided, class divide will become narrower and international community will not have to worry about peace. The international community should be concerned about maintaining peace when it is superficial and only limited to external structures.
Global Alliance 328 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Challenges Facing International Humanitarian Law in Fight … / 329
Challenges Facing International Humanitarian Law in Fight against Terrorism Dr. Pouria Askary
Introduction When talking of terrorism, we need first to remind the bitter reality that civilians, since long, have been the main victim of terrorist attacks. However, right from the beginning we should take into account that even states and nations are not spared from the consequences of such operations against civilians. For instance, in 1914, assassination of an Austrian prince in Sarajevo triggered the World War I. This event, together with the 1917 Russian Revolution, robbed the 19th and 20th century Europe from peace and tranquility. In recent years, too, before the Sept. 11, we had witnessed widespread terrorist operations against civilians. The Sept. 11 attacks and the subsequent US attack against Afghanistan in a bid to ''eliminate'' terrorism, once again and this time more than ever, brought the attention of the international community to the issue of terrorism.1 Formerly, it was believed within the academic circles that IHL reflected in the four GCs and their APs cover all types of terrorist acts committed in the course of an armed conflict. Therefore, the existing IHL was considered sufficient for addressing the consequences of the then terrorist operations. However, events of the past two decades along with the huge
The legal advisor and IHL Programme Responsible of the ICRC in Iran. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Original in Farsi. 1. Hans-Peter Gasser, ''Acts of Terror, ''Terrorism'' and IHL'' IRRC, 2002, vol 84, p 547
Global Alliance 330 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace global changes we have witnessed, especially concerning power relations, all make it necessary to reconsider such concepts.2
International Law and Prohibition of Terrorism At present, no specific international treaty can be found within the international order that contains a comprehensive rule to ban terrorism, and to be applicable in all circumstances. In fact, the only instrument to be referred to as the ''Convention on Ban and Punishment of Terrorism'' drafted in 1937 by the community of nations, which never became binding. Some other documents have been approved to face other types of terrorism3, including the following 13 int'l instruments: 1. Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (binding since 04.12.1969) 2. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (binding since 14.10.1971) 3. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (binding as of 04.06.1971) 4. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (binding as of 20.02.1977) 5. International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (binding as of 02.06.1983) 6. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (binding as of 08.02.1987) 7. Protocol on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation (binding as of 06.08.1989) 8. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (binding as of 01.03.1992)
2. Hans-Peter Gasser, ''Prohibition of Terrorist Acts in IHL'', IRRC, August 1986, No. 253, p 200 3. Comprehensive List: http://untreaty.un.org/emglish/terrorism.asp Challenges Facing International Humanitarian Law in Fight … / 331
9. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (binding as of 01.03.1992) 10. Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection (binding as of 21.06.1998) 11. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (binding as of 23.02.2001) 12. International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ratified in 1999) 13. International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (ratified in 2005).4 Apart from such international treaties, there are also other important instruments ratified by states at the regional level, as well as other instruments shaped subsequent to resolutions released by UNGA and UNSC. UNGA has taken terrorism into account in several important documents, including the ''charter of cordial relations'' (1970) in which the commitment of governments to refrain from organizing, stimulating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts against other states is reminded, and the resolution for ''defining aggression (1974) which prohibits the dispatch of armed groups, militia or mercenaries to carry out armed operations against states. It was in resolution 687 of UNSC that for the first time the international convention on fight against hostage-taking was raised, referring to hostage-taking as a ''manifestation of terrorism''. UNSC has issued several resolutions concerning the fight against terrorism, considering in its latest resolution the involvement of a state in terrorist acts a threat to international peace and security.5 In resolution 1368 dated Sept 12, 2001 and resolution 748 dated March 31, 1992 concerning Lockerby case, international terrorist operation is considered
4. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism-convention.html 5. Seyed Kamaleddin Mohammad Rafii, ''Sep. 11; fight against terrorism and state sovereignty and security'', Defence Policy journal, Nos 38 & 39, spring and summer of 2002.
Global Alliance 332 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace to be a threat to global peace and security.6 (However, there is much dispute on whether a terrorist operation can be considered by itself a threat to global peace and security, which is not the subject of our discussion here.) A high-ranking delegation selected by the UN secretary general redefined terrorism in their proposal for restructuring the UN. According to this report, ''the capability of UN for developing a comprehensive strategy fails to offer a desirable definition for terrorism due to the incapability of state parties to reach a consensus over an anti-terrorist convention. Since 1945, a collection of more concrete standards and norms, including the UN Charter, Geneva Conventions and Rome Statute has regulated the decisions made by states to use force, binding states to comply with some rules in wartime. Nevertheless, norms governing the use of force have not developed by non-governmental entities the way they have by states. This board believes that the definition of terrorism must cover the following aspects: A) Recognizing in advance that use of force by any state against civilians is considered in GCs and other international instruments as war crime or crime against humanity. B) Emphasizing that acts referred to in the 12 anti-terrorism conventions (today 13) are considered terrorist acts, and declaring that according to IHL, terrorist acts are banned in armed conflicts. C) Referring to the definitions stipulated in the int'l convention of 1999 to prevent financing of terrorism as well as related UNSC resolutions. D) Describing terrorism as any act, in addition to the acts so far banned by existing conventions on terrorism, GCs and UNSC resolution 1566, carried out to kill or injure civilians or non-combatants, when such acts, taking into account their nature or context, are aimed to intimidate a population or force a state or an int'l org to refrain from taking any measures.
6. Dr. Mohamadreza Ziaei Bigdeli, ''An analysis of recent UNSC resolution on fight against int'l terrorism'', article presented in the conference on terrorism and legitimate defence from the perspectives of Islam and int'l law. Challenges Facing International Humanitarian Law in Fight … / 333
UN secretary general says in his report titled ''more freedom, development, security and human rights'' about transnational terrorism, ''Terrorism is a threat to all the principles supported by the UN. It is time now to put aside state terrorism, since the use of force by governments is now supervised according to international laws and regulations. The real meaning of the right to resist occupation must be understood. This cannot include deliberate homicide or amputation of civilians.''
Definition of Terrorism None of the above-mentioned treaties defines terrorism and terrorist acts. Terrorism is a social phenomenon having different dimensions in various cases. For this reason, lawyers and states have not been able to provide a complete different comprehensive definition for terrorism. In Convention 1973, as mentioned earlier, terrorist acts are defined as follows: ''Criminal acts directed against a state or intended to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons, or a group of persons or the general public.'' As noted this definition is vague and unclear and does not indicate which group of acts is intended. In recent years, (1996) UN general assembly formed an ad hoc committee for preparation of ''comprehensive convention on international terrorism''.7 In article 2 of its proposal, this committee has provided a definition on terrorist acts. According to article 2 prepared by this committee: ''Any person committing a crime within the concept defined in this convention, in such a way, illegally and deliberately, to: kill or injure other person or cause a serious damage to public or private property or the damages caused make a major economic loss'' and the purpose of the above-mentioned acts (its inherent or parallel objective) is to intimidate a group of people or force a state or an
7. UNGA Res 51/210, 17 December 1996.
Global Alliance 334 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace international organization to do or not to do an action, such acts are referred to as terrorist acts. It is obvious this definition does not include all the aspects of terrorism. However, we all clearly can figure out the meaning of terrorism to some extend when facing such term and the following elements come to our minds: Terrorism is an aggression or intimidation against civilians, their lives, properties and welfare. There will be no distinction in an act of terrorism. Behind terrorist acts, there are political goals that cannot be achieved legally. Among terrorist acts there are some acts planned in an organizational strategy through time. In terrorist attacks, some objectives are targeted directly, which have no role in fulfillment of their wishes. (such as civilian objectives) The aim of committing such acts is to create state of terror so that the committer can reach his goals Terrorist acts humiliate human dignity
Terrorism and International Humanitarian Law IHL is in fact a set of principles applied when armed violations reach the stage and threshold of an international or non-international armed conflict. Firstly, Humanitarian Law includes four Geneva Conventions and its additional protocols and then consists of all the binding documents regarding armed conflicts and customary IHL. IHL does not provide a definition on terrorism; however, it prohibits the forces from attacking civilians and civilian objectives. Such acts are called ''terrorist acts'' when they are committed in peacetime. According to one main principle in IHL, the parties to the conflict should always discriminate between civilians and military personnel and their objectives. (Article 48, first protocol).Some special rules originate out of this main principle all of which are aimed at protecting civilians. Some of these rules include: Challenges Facing International Humanitarian Law in Fight … / 335
Prohibition on conducting a deliberate or direct attack on civilians and their objectives, prohibition on indiscriminate attack, prohibition on using human shield (article 51, protocol) and other protection principles. (article 57, first protocol). IHL also prohibits taking hostage civilians or other person who do not participate in armed conflict (article 147 of fourth convention and common article 3 and article 75 of first protocol). IHL also prohibits terrorist acts and measures in some cases. Article 33 of fourth convention stipulates: ''Collective punishment and any terrorist act or intimidation are prohibited.'' and in part D, paragraph 2 of article 4 of first protocol, terrorist acts directed against those who have not participated in conflicts are prohibited. Additional protocols of four Geneva Conventions also prohibit any actions spreading terrorism among civilians. (Paragraph 2 of article 51, first protocol and paragraph 2 of article 13 of second protocol)
The cases we mentioned here prohibit those actions in international and non-international armed conflicts that guarantee a definite and personal advantage (from military point of view).
Fighting against Terrorism and Humanitarian Law It appears that the global fighting against terrorism can be neither considered as an international armed conflict, because such conflicts happen only when the states confront each other militarily nor as non- international armed conflict, because it is not clear who should be considered as warring parties. Meanwhile, if fighting against terrorism become like armed conflict, the IHL will be applicable. US and its allies' war against Afghanistan (October 2001) and Iraq (April 2003) can be referred to as internal armed conflict. Anyhow, it is necessary to mention if the aggressions are not armed conflicts, then the binding principles of human rights, national criminal
Global Alliance 336 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace law international criminal law shall be enforced in fighting against terrorism.8 After terrorist attacks of September 11, and subsequently US and its allies' attacks against Iraq and Afghanistan, the efficiency of the international legal system has always been challenged. The question is whether we can consider fighting against terrorism as an armed conflict and if so what type of armed conflict. In the next parts, we have tried to review and analyze theses issues.
''Fighting against Terrorism'' is like an International Armed Conflict Certainly, we can call Afghanistan war, starting in October 2001 and ending in June 2002 when the new government of Afghanistan was recognized worldwide, as the beginning point for ''Modern Fight Against Terrorism''. On September 11, 2001 'the United States was attacked' as US president claims and subsequently on October 7th of the same year,US armed forces and its allies launched a large-scale air raid on major cities, military targets and camps in Afghanistan. One day after September 11 terrorist attacks, the Security Council condemned such attacks issuing resolution 1368 and referred to the attacks as threats to international peace and security. A few days later on September 28, the Security Council ratified resolution 1373 asking all the states to avoid supporting terrorist operations financially or in any other ways. The US government gave an ultimatum to Taliban to surrender Bin laden. Taliban refused US request and finally US launched a large-scale attack against Taliban and Al-Qaeda with collaboration of Pakistan, Uzbekistan, England and NATO. Generally once clashed reach the level or threshold of a conflict, principles of IHL should be observed. To investigate other issues, we should clarify the situation of conflict first then decide on the applicable law. In Afghanistan crisis, since there were
8. ICRC, official statement, 21/07/2005, ''the Relevance of IHL in the context of Terrorism and '' some recent development and challenges in the field of IHL''.
Challenges Facing International Humanitarian Law in Fight … / 337 many parties to the conflicts, we faced a complicated situation. Therefore determining the applicable law requires determining relations of parties to the conflict.
A. US and Taliban According to article 2 of Geneva Convention, ''in case of official war or any other armed conflict between two or more states from high contracting state parties, these conventions shall be enforced unless one of the states does not confirm the situation as war'' . In ICRC's opinion, the de facto existence of a conflict suffices to enforce these conventions. Regarding US-Taliban conflict can be defined as above. In another word, such conflict can be considered as internationally natured-armed conflict. (US and Afghanistan both are state parties of Geneva Conventions).
Regarding part 3 of paragraph A of article 4 of Geneva third convention stating: ''the personnel of armed forces, who are under control of a state or an authority and are not identified by the arresting state, are considered as POW.'' It should be stated that not recognizing Taliban as Afghanistan's government does not affect recognizing a conflict as international armed conflict. In another words, we cannot consider such recognition as a prerequisite for identification of international armed conflict. Therefore, we must say that the conflict between the US and the Taliban was an international armed conflict governed by the Geneva Conventions and the majority of the regulations stipulated in the 1st additional protocol was applicable in this context in the form of the customary international law because the two states since the two are not member to the 1st additional protocol.
B. US allies and Taliban Regarding US international allies such as Britain, we should also maintain that there has been an international armed conflict between those states and the Taliban, making IHL rules regarding such conflicts obligatory. (Britain is not a party to protocol either)
Global Alliance 338 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
C. Al-Qaeda and US It is clear that Al-Qaeda forces are not considered as Afghanistan's regular armed forces, hence, recognition of relations between US and Al-Qaeda seems a little complicated. As per paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 13 of 1st and 2nd Geneva Conventions and paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 4 of 3rd Geneva Conventions, the Humanitarian Law is extended to cover guerilla forces, volunteer groups who are part of armed forces of an state and organized resistance movement of a hostile state provided that: - They have one authority as head in charge of its forces - They have a fixed emblem identifiable from far distance - They openly carry guns - They behave according to rules of war in their military operations
Could Al-Qaeda be considered as part of Taliban forces? Geneva Conventions defines no criterion for this matter. Therefore, the case will be decided based on State's local law that is Taliban government here, however, this would be a very difficult task in a country like Afghanistan with all the shortcomings in its legal and judicial system and irregular military forces. Such issue should be decided based on relations between Al-Qaeda and Taliban.
Did Al-Qaeda belong to Taliban? (as one side to the conflict) It seems that the phrase ''belonging to one of the parties to the conflict'' that has been mentioned in Convention is a very flexible concept, meaning the de facto existence of relation between Taliban and Al-Qaeda indicates that Al-Qaeda belongs to the Taliban. Many American authorities confirm this in their speeches. Regarding four conditions stipulated in part 2 of paragraph A of article 4 of 3rd convention we can say that generally Al-Qaeda forces were subject to these four conditions. Hence, they should be considered as Taliban Challenges Facing International Humanitarian Law in Fight … / 339 forces when encountered by US forces.9 . Now we will review and analyze some of the current situations in brief:
Treatment with Al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees Shibergan Prison One of the most horrendous reports that has ever been published in the media is related to transfer of 6,000 Al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees to Shibergan prison by American and northern coalition forces in metal containers. The people transferred in these containers were huddled into each other with no water, food or even air-conditioning. Many were suffocated in the course of this transfer or died of thirst and those who survived to reach the prison were held in inhumane conditions. They were being tortured from time to time with only a piece of bread as their lunch. They had to bear the coldness of the weather. No one took care of their wounds and injuries. There were also Al-Qaeda forces from Pakistan, Burma, and Bangladesh among Taliban forces.
Ghondooz prison On November 26, 2001, nearly 9000 Taliban and Al-Qaeda people were encircled in Ghondooz by coalition and allied forces, following an agreement made between Taliban leader (Molla Fazel) in Ghondooz and northern coalition forces. It was agreed that all the forces get unarmed after siege and a general amnesty is applied to them; whereas, the northern coalition forces overruled this agreement, people were arrested, tortured and then killed.
Military Fort The fort is located in the north of Mazar-e-Sharif. The Taliban and Al- Qaeda forces, mainly Pakistani, Uzbek, Chechnyan and Arab, who were arrested in Ghondooz were transferred to this fort. Neck breaking and
9. Terrorism, counter – Terrorism and Jus in bello, Avril McDonald, Seminar on IHL and terrorism, San Remo, 2002
Global Alliance 340 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace throwing acid on their bodies were just some examples of torture the prisoners went through. These brutal actions were done mainly to those who attempted to riot or escape.
Bagram Air base Many prisoners were tortured in this base by American forces. According to reported cases, to some of which we referred to above, we can categorize the mistreatment of American, British and northern coalition against Al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners as follows: 1. Willful and extrajudicial executions and killings (in contradiction with articles 13 and 14 of third conventions and common article 3) 2. Torture (articles 13 and 14 of 3rd convention, article 7 of Civil Code Treaty, article 2 of convention regarding prohibition on torture and common article 3) 3. Lack of water and food supply (articles 26 and 20 of 3rd convention, common article 3 and Martines Condition in regards to respecting humanitarian principles). 4. Problems in transfer of prisoners (article 20 of 3rd convention, and common article 3) 5. Humiliating behaviors (common article 3) 6. Resorting to excessive force for oppressing riots (article 42 of 3rd convention) 7. Blocking the investigation process (article 121 of 3rd convention) 8. Treatment with prisoners in Guantanomo
The fact that Afghanistan conflict is of international nature means that four conditions of Geneva Conventions and customary IHL regarding theses conflicts are applicable. (US and Afghanistan are not parties to tje protocol), hence, the rules of the first protocol regarding protecting war victims governs this armed conflict since international customary law exists. According to article 4 of the third convention and article 43 of the first convention, in international armed conflicts, the personnel of armed Challenges Facing International Humanitarian Law in Fight … / 341 forces and other parties under control of commandership are considered as combatants. The main feature of a combatant is that he can participate in the conflicts directly and be immune from criminal prosecution for the actions they have done which are in accordance with the Humanitarian Law (such as attacking authorized military targets) In case of captivation, the combatant is considered as POW and he should not be put on trial and judged only because he has participated in the conflict. The party who holds the POW in captivity can keep on holding him until the end of active conflict. It is of course possible to prosecute POWs for committing war crimes or other criminal actions during or before the period of captivity. As per article 102 of the third convention, the verdict for a POW is valid only when it is issued in the same courts and according to the same judicial rules that applies to the people of the state, which has arrested the POW. According to article 45 of the first protocol and article 5 of the third convention, if it is not clear whether a detainee should enjoy POW status, he will be held in POW condition until a competent court decides. A competent court is a court, which is established by local law and according to the judicial proceedings governing that court, is quailed to determine the status of persons. From ICRC point of view, such court should not necessarily be a military court. It can be a judicial or administrative court. As mentioned earlier, once the conflicts are over, the POWs should not be held in captivity any longer. However, according to article 119 of the third convention, the POWs who are legally prosecuted due to committing a crime or offence related to criminal law, may be kept in prison until the legal procedures are taken and, if required, until the end of their punishment period. In any case, if the period of their captivity is extended, the third Geneva convention will not be applied for their condition, in other word they should be covered by other legal system such as local laws or Human Rights. According to paragraph 3 of article 51 of the first protocol, civilians are protected against attacks until they directly participate the conflicts. What
Global Alliance 342 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace has to be mentioned here is that from point of view of many lawyers, those civilians who participate in conflicts and carry guns cannot enjoy immunities as the military forces. They are referred to as 'illegal combatants who may be prosecuted for participating directly in the conflicts. 10 Following the start of the war against terrorism, the status and protection of civilians who had directly participated in the armed conflict and had been captured by the enemy forces have entailed extensive discussions. Some legal experts, whom are in the minority, believe that the humanitarian law does not provide any protection to such persons.11 Others have opted for a more moderate stance and consider such persons to come under protection only by the Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and article 75 of the 1st protocol. On the other hand, some refer to the 4th Geneva Convention. According to them, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, civilians who have directly participated in an armed conflict are among persons protected by this convention, on the condition that they meet the 'nationality' criteria mentioned in the 4th Geneva Convention. According to article 4 of the 4th Geneva Convention, persons captured by their own state or the invading state during war or invasion, at any time and in any form, shall be protected by this convention. But those civilians who do not meet the mentioned criteria are protected only by Article 3 common and article 75 of the 1st protocol (or customary humanitarian law referring to the same cases). Therefore, we cannot find examples of persons who are altogether deprived of protections provided by the international humanitarian law in armed conflicts. According to the 4th Geneva Convention, protected persons might be detained due to security reasons (articles 41 and 78). But nevertheless, such persons, according to articles 43 and 78 of the 4th Convention, will have the right to immediately make an appeal request to a court or an
10. See: Richard Bautes, ''So-Called Unprivileged Belligerency'', BYIL, No. 323, 1951 11. See: Ingrid Detter, The Law of War, Cambridge University, 2000. Challenges Facing International Humanitarian Law in Fight … / 343 administrative board on the decision made on his case. And, in case the detention or forced residence is confirmed, the court or the administrative board shall deal with the case at lease twice each year so that if the situation allows, the preliminary decision is changed in his favor. According to article 5 of the 4th Geneva Convention, such persons shall be treated humanely and not be deprived of fair legal proceedings. In addition, article 132 of the same Convention says each detained person will retain all rights provided to protection persons as soon as the security in his country or the occupying state allows. As such Article 75 (3) of the 1st Additional Protocol states "Any person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict shall be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons why these measures have been taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for penal offences, such persons shall be released with the minimum delay possible and in any event as soon as the circumstances justifying the arrest, detention or internment have ceased to exist." Article 133 of the fourth Geneva Convention says, " Internment shall cease as soon as possible after the close of hostilities. Internees in the territory of a Party to the conflict against whom penal proceedings are pending for offences not exclusively subject to disciplinary penalties, may be detained until the close of such proceedings and, if circumstances require, until the completion of the penalty. The same shall apply to internees who have been previously sentenced to a punishment depriving them of liberty. By agreement between the Detaining Power and the Powers concerned, committees may be set up after the close of hostilities, or of the occupation of territories, to search for dispersed internees." 12
12. See: Adam Roberts, "The Law of War in the War on Terror", TMC Asser Press, 2003.
Global Alliance 344 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Fight Against Terrorism Equal to an Non-International Armed Conflict If we consider that the conflicts we have witnessed after formation of the national government in Afghanistan (11 June 2002) are non-international armed conflict, given that Afghanistan is not a member of the 2nd protocol, the regulations stipulated in the common article 3 in the Geneva Convention and the customary international humanitarian law are applicable here.13 Once can resort, also, to human rights regulations in this case. Aside from discussions related to the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, the foremost and the key question should be whether terrorist activities, witnessed currently in various parts of the world, and reactions shown to them, are equal to a non-international armed conflict. At any rate, it has to be said that humanitarian law regarding non- international armed conflict will govern armed conflicts between states and non-state elements and or between these elements. According to article 2 of the 2nd protocol, this protocol is applicable in all armed conflicts which happen within the territory of one of the members to the protocol or between the armed forces acting under the responsibility of commandership, having such control over a part of the country's territory that enables them to carry out military operations in a collective and controlled manner. As it can be seen, this article takes into account a series of criteria including "control over a part of the territory" or "under commandership" of the armed groups. In this brief wrap-up, it has to be mentioned again that the international humanitarian law only governs armed conflicts, both international and non-international. Therefore, if the threshold of violent incidents do not reach the level of an armed conflict, regulations stipulated in the international humanitarian law will not govern these violent incidents and instead regulations stipulated in the human rights, domestic laws or regulations stipulated in the international criminal law will govern. After
13. Afghanistan became a member of the 1st and 2nd additional protocols in 10 Nov., 2009. Terrorist Acts and Groups: A Role for International Law, Jelena Pejic, BYIL, 2004. Challenges Facing International Humanitarian Law in Fight … / 345 this brief conclusion, we continue our discussions on human rights regulations governing non-international armed conflicts. The outcome of a balance and reconciliation between a state's right of sovereignty and humanitarian considerations is application of the international humanitarian law in a non-international armed conflict. In a non-international armed conflict, at lease of the parties is not the "state". Today, it has been generally accepted that the common article 3 to the four Geneva Conventions and the 2nd additional protocol have explicated on the minimum standards required for limited violence during a non- international armed conflict and of course, the customary law conforms and completes regulations in such treaty rules. According to note (D) of paragraph 2 of the 2nd protocol, carrying out terrorist acts during a non-international armed conflict against persons not taking part in the hostilities is banned. The 2nd additional protocol also stipulates regulations regarding military operations. The most important of such regulations refers to the principle of making a distinction between persons directly taking part in the hostilities and persons not directly taking part in the hostilities as well as the injured and the sick. Article 13 of the protocol talks about protection for the civilian population as such that "civilian population, individually and collectively, shall not be subject to attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population is banned. Citizens shall be entitled to protections stipulates in this section, unless when taking direct part in the hostility". Regarding non-international armed conflict, the status of a "combatant" or a "prisoner of war" does not exist and therefore, even armed group forces taking part in the hostilities might face prosecution according to domestic penal law merely for taking part in the hostilities. At any rate, in addition to the common article 3, the 2nd protocol, both in articles 5 and 6, deals with the rights of persons deprived of their liberty as well as issues related to penal prosecution. In addition, such persons are entitled to guarantees provided in the human rights and domestic laws.
Global Alliance 346 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Conclusion There exist only two types of armed conflicts: International and Non- international And when "fighting against terrorism" occurs in two forms, the international humanitarian law shall be respected. When violence occurs outside the framework of the legal concept of an armed conflict and or a person is arrested on charges of terrorist activities outside a conflict, the humanitarian law will not be applicable and instead, domestic laws, the international criminal law and the human rights regulations will govern. The humanitarian law does not provide a definition of terrorism, but declares as illegal (during war) almost all acts that are considered as terrorist during peace. From the viewpoint of the International Committee of the Red Cross, terrorism is a phenomenon. As such, intelligence, judicial and police measures or confiscating assets belonging to terrorist groups and their supporters are considered acts which cannot be referred to as war. On the other hand, terrorism as a "phenomenon" cannot be considered as one of the parties to a conflict. Therefore, the ICRC prefers to use "fight against terrorism" instead of "war against terrorism". In its paragraph 2 of article 51 of the 1st additional protocol and paragraph 2 of article 13 of the 2nd additional protocol, the humanitarian law explicitly bans acts that lead to promoting terrorism among civilian population, as well as the following acts that can be considered as terrorist acts: - Attack against civilians and military objectives (paragraph 2 of articles 51 and 52 of the 1st additional protocol and article 13 of 2nd protocol) - Indiscriminate attacks (paragraph 4 of article 51 of the 1st protocol) - Attack against places of worship (article 53 of 1st protocol and article 16 of the 2nd protocol) - Attack against infrastructures and factories containing dangerous elements (article 56 of the 1st protocol and article 15 of the 2nd protocol) - Kidnapping (article 75 of the 1st protocol, article 3 common of the Geneva Convention and note (2) section (B) of article 4 of the 2nd additional protocol) Challenges Facing International Humanitarian Law in Fight … / 347
- Murder of people not taking part in hostilities or are no longer taking part in hostilities (article 75 of the 1st protocol, common article 3, note (2) section (A) 2nd additional protocol).
According to the international humanitarian law, in international conflicts, members of armed forces and some other armed forces which can directly take part in armed conflicts should they have the conditions. These are considered as legitimate fighters and combatants who cannot be prosecuted merely for taking part in an armed conflict if they respect humanitarian law. Should they be arrested, they shall be considered as prisoner of war. If civilians directly take part in fightings, they shall be considered as "illegal fighters or combatants" and might be prosecuted and convicted according to the law of the detaining state for taking part in the conflict. At any rate, both in face of legal combatants and illegal combatants should receive human treatment while in detention. With respect to the term "enemy's combatants", it has to be said generally that what is meant is both legal and illegal combatants in an international armed conflict who are on one side of the war front. This term, in the fight against terrorism, is used by persons who consider the fight as "an armed conflict". They call persons, which they believe are affiliated to terrorist groups or collaborate with them with the same name, without paying any attention to the condition of their detention. As mentioned, armed forces and meeting the criteria to be considered as "combatant" during an international armed conflict, if arrested, shall be considered as a "prisoner of war". In non-international armed conflicts, because states are not willing to provide immunities to persons detained in the hostilities under domestic laws and regulations, the status of "combatant" and "prisoner of war" is not taken into consideration. Therefore, from the viewpoint of the international humanitarian law, the terms "combatant" or "enemy combatant" has no meaning outside the realm of an armed conflict. Whatever these people are called, if they are detained in the course of an armed conflict, they are protected under the
Global Alliance 348 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace international humanitarian law. Also, should persons be detained outside an armed conflict, domestic regulations and human rights will govern their situation.14 But with respect to illegal combatants detained during an international armed conflict, these persons shall not be considered as prisoners of war, but their protection will be in the framework of the 4th Geneva Convention if they meet the national criteria and the 1st protocol if the detaining party is a member to this protocol. At any rate, such persons could be put on trial due to taking part in the hostilities and held in detention as long as their freedom is security threat. But persons that do not fall under the protection of the 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions, as reflected in article 75 of the 1st protocol, are protected by the customary international humanitarian law, domestic laws and human rights. In non-international armed conflicts, because the terms "combatant" and "prisoner of war" do not exist, all persons taking part in the hostilities might face prosecution according to domestic laws. For such persons, in addition to common article 3 to the conventions and the 2nd protocol, domestic laws as well as human rights will also be applicable as to their situation.
14. These are cases which the US Supreme Court has referred to in the Hamdan v.s. Rumsfeld and the Israeli High Tribunal has referred to in the targeted killings, admitting that no person can be found as to whom there is no protection system. Function of International Dispute Settlement Systems from Viewpiot … / 349
Function of International Dispute Settlement Systems from Viewpoint of Peace: Weaknesses and Strengths Dr. S. Baqer Mirabbasi
Introduction This article focuses on the ―function of international dispute settlement systems from viewpoint of peace‖ as well as their weaknesses and strengths. When depicting international expectations from dispute settlement mechanisms, a few points should be taken into serious consideration. What is a dispute settlement system in general? What developments have taken place in this system throughout history, especially in the past few years? Then, a mention will be made of the functions of this system from viewpoint of peace. Finally, its strengths and weaknesses will be discussed on the basis of our accepted conceptual model for efficiency of this system with respect to peace, especially negative peace (avoidance of war). As Dr. Saed has noted about conceptual structures and objective frameworks of global peace (especially discourses influencing legal understanding of this concept),1 the issue of peace can be studied from various viewpoints and there are useful texts on every one of those viewpoints. The subject I am going to discuss here is what can be done to prevent war and invasion and even establish and maintain peace. I will address this dimension of rights which govern peaceful settlement of international disputes. Other authors in this conference will explain about various issues related to peace, but here, we must focus on legal requirements. In other words, domestic lawmakers interpret laws, but
Professor of Public International Law,University of Tehran. 1. See N. Saed, Right to Just Peace, Tehran, IWPF, 2011.
Global Alliance 350 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace when it comes to international law, we give viewpoints on the basis of resolutions. I will take a cursory look at efforts which aimed to establish peace before discussing the results of those efforts. Then a mention will be made of strengths and weaknesses of those efforts; that is, peaceful means of dispute settlement.
History of the laws of peace This issue has not been discussed at length. There are no binding instruments on the right to peace and available literature is limited to statements and recommendations, especially when it comes to the human right on peace which is called ―the right to peace.‖ An international instrument on this right, however, has not been formulated yet. Therefore, I will focus on necessary measures which have been taken. Ancient civilizations of Rome, Greece and Iran used mechanisms to prevent war. We want to know what has been done to establish positive peace since that time. Arbitration and mediation are among ancient institutions. In the Middle Ages, both the Christian and Islamic civilizations were familiar with these concepts, which will not be discussed here. Our legal discussion pertains to the time when international community comprising various governments came into being; that is, the time when governments properly existed. However, I skip this issue too due to lack of enough time. The next stop is when international community took official steps through treaties to prevent war and settle disputes by peaceful means.
A. The Hague Peace Conferences A collective treaty on peaceful settlement of disputes was, for the first time, adopted during The Hague peace conferences in 1899 and 1907. Here, we will focus on the year 1899 and analyze developments which are known as ―peaceful means.‖ The 1899 treaty, to which more than 100 countries are members, includes such instances as negotiation for dispute settlement, mediation, reference to arbitration commission, and referring cases to a reconciliation commission. As a result, arbitration was, for the Function of International Dispute Settlement Systems from Viewpiot … / 351 first time, introduced as a binding institution and the world believed that if such methods were made official and accepted by the states, they may refrain from the use of force. Those instruments tried to make arbitration compulsory by obliging the states to refer to arbitration in case of differences, but opposition of some countries including Germany aborted that process. The third conference of The Hague in 1914 was supposed to lay the grounds for the establishment of a justice court. Some believe that if that court had been established, perhaps later wars, including the World War I could have been avoided. However, that effort was rendered void due to the beginning of World War I. Following that war peace plans were proposed and this time pioneered by the then president of the United States. Some parties, however, opposed measures which were taken in Versailles peace conference to prevent war, including establishment of a political organization called the League of Nations. That organization was vested with certain powers in order to settle possible disputes.
B. Establishment of International Court of Justice following World War II Articles 12 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights proposed establishment of an international court of justice. This was the first major step to be taken in human history which was supposed to bind countries to peaceful means of dispute settlement. Further steps led to the establishment of International Court of Justice. To institutionalize this development founders of the Covenant maintained that if arrangements could be made to prevent war, they could be institutionalized by governments. Therefore, the opposite of war, that is, peaceful settlement of disputes came under more emphasis. The Covenant, however, had not totally prohibited war and ―justified war‖ had been recognized which led to some misunderstanding on the part of various states.
Global Alliance 352 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
C. Establishment of the United Nations Despite those efforts, World War II broke out and later efforts were made through the Charter of the United Nations. Some international legal experts maintain that the Charter is the gist of decades and perhaps centuries of human efforts at establishing peace. Therefore, the Charter has considered international security as one of its most important goals and has emphasized on this goal in Article 2, especially paragraphs 3 and 4, where it prohibits invasion and all kinds of the use of force. In the third paragraph of the same article, the Charter of the United Nations has specified that countries should settle disputes through peaceful means. As a result, the content of the Charter became universal and totally binding. Emphasis has been also put on peaceful means in such international instruments as the General Assembly statement (1970), in Manila statement and in decisions of a summit meeting of the Security Council member states in 1992. They assigned the Secretary-General of the United Nations to present a plan to promote peace and delineate ways for the establishment of the peace which had been purported by the Charter of the United Nations. Other secretaries-general also presented similar plans. This was a brief history. Now, what a dispute settlement system is in view of this brief history? In general, such a system comprises three kinds of mechanisms which include legal methods used to settle disputes; human rights methods, which are somehow new; and non-legal methods.
Legal mechanisms Legal mechanisms are as old as history. Today, the highest emphasis is put on arbitration by international community in order for governments to settle disputes through arbitration. Disputes between the United States and Iran soon after the (1979) Islamic Revolution constitute a good example to the point. As tensions soared high and threat of war was looming, the problem was sent for arbitration and an effect of arbitration is gradual establishment of peace between belligerent countries. Function of International Dispute Settlement Systems from Viewpiot … / 353
One may wonder whether 27 or 28 years of arbitration between the United States and Iran has been actually successful, but they have been actually effective in solving problems. Hostage taking at the American embassy in Iran was another example and resultant problems were solved through international arbitration. Today, the Charter of the United Nations pioneers this mechanism.
Political mechanisms The Security Council has been able to play its role one way or another following World War II. During the Cold War, the Council was not very active, but after the fall of the former Soviet Union the world has reached a consensus that the Security Council can be instrumental in solving some global problems. It should be noted that preventing situations which may take the international community toward war is one of the main endeavors of both the General Assembly and the Security Council. They, for example, take steps to prevent production and proliferation of nuclear weapons and control nuclear arms. In its famous decision in 1996, the International Court of Justice opined that international community is not authorize to use nuclear weapons as a means of defending its interests, but it can be used in defense.
Theoretical and practical capacities in international community The Security Council and General Assembly, as two main organs of the United Nations have done their best to safeguard peace. However, two factors have been influential in the international community‘s approach to these peaceful means, its approach to peaceful methods and protection of international peace and security.
A. Precedence of legal methods Many treaties and international instruments have been adopted in the past 50 years through which countries have accepted to resort to peaceful means in order to settle disputes. At least this is true about 50 percent of
Global Alliance 354 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace legal instruments. International treaties have prescribed resorting to peaceful means legally binding for all the states. It is for this reason that this issue is of special importance, at least, from a legal point of view. In fact, states are usually willing to settle disputes on the basis of rights and relevant norms. Clearly, as recourse to legal methods increases, so does international rule of law and universalization of international law. If states considered the existing rights as conforming to justice and their rights, they would be more willing to promote their rule and let them govern their behaviors.
B. State sovereignty and consensual nature of dispute settlement mechanisms This is strength for peaceful means. Another forte of such methods is that they are at the disposal of countries, that is, states are free to use them. International community is based on independence and sovereignty of states has decided to oblige countries to do something. Since resource to peaceful means is arbitrary, it is desirable to the states. In fact, it is inherent to sovereignty of states that you cannot force them into doing anything. For example, although mediation is through consent of states, but it is also a negative point that states should agree to it before a case could be brought up before The Hague Tribunal. Since there is no universal government, this will cause some degree of inconsistency. This is a weakness of peaceful means. Also, decisions made through peaceful means are not binding for the states. For example, decisions of The Hague tribunal can be enforced through the Security Council. However, such guarantee does not exist with regard to other peaceful means.
Conclusion The arbitrary nature of those decisions has been somehow combined with a certain degree of compulsion. That is, although states are free to choose dispute settlement methods, this does not mean that they are also free not to choose them. Obligating states to resort to peaceful means (that is any method apart from armed conflict, armed violence, sanctions and other Function of International Dispute Settlement Systems from Viewpiot … / 355 pressures not compatible with their commitments) to settle disputes is a customary rule of international law. In the past years, peaceful means have evolved in the eyes of international community as a suitable method to establish global peace. International treaties bind countries to choose for such means. In some instances, there are solid interpretations of such means which have been accepted as strict norms. Therefore, commitment of states to these requirements, that is, to avoid recourse to force and use peaceful means, is now a universal value. Let‘s hope that the international community will finally find ways to achieve sustainable peace and the Iranian legal community will do its part by analyzing necessities of doing so.
Global Alliance 356 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Poverty and Injustice / 357
Poverty and Injustice Dr. S. Abdolmajid Mirdamadi
In order to make their children familiar with the religious principles of the Islamic culture, Muslim parents teach them the principles of Islam. First they are told that these principles are tawhid (monotheism), „adl (justice), nubuwwa (prophecy), imama (leadership), and ma„ād (resurrection). Growing older, they read in their schoolbooks about three principles of faith: monotheism, prophecy, and resurrection, and about the principles of our Shi‗i confession, i.e. justice and leadership. The most important criterion in the context of our confession therefore is justice. God has created the world in justice and established this principle in all the domains of His creation. We may identify mainly three areas in which justice is at stake, namely justice in creation, in legislation in general and in the field of punitive measures in particular. Justice is also demanded of religious leaders, imams, witnesses and judges. In the modern age, beyond that, even social justice is demanded, whose range is much wider than the theological and personal area. The purpose of referring to justice in this context is to diagnose the opposite, i. e. injustice, because in Islamic culture, ‗poverty‘ and ‗injustice‘ represent negative and abominable states of affairs. This means that, from the perspective of Islamic theology, poverty and injustice are not of an independent nature or willed by God, but an imperfection with regard to those things that are ordained by God.
PhD of Human Rights Law.
Global Alliance 358 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
I. Therefore, God has not created poverty and injustice, he rather established justice as a principle of creation. Seen from a Quranic perspective, after monotheism justice is the most important thing in human life: 1. ―There is no god but He: that is the witness of God, His angels, and those endued with knowledge, standing firm on justice. There is no god but He, the Exalted in Power, the Wise‖. (sūra 3, Āl ‗Imrān, v. 18). 2. God has sent all the prophets in the first place to implement justice: ―To every people (was sent) an Apostle: when their Apostle comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.‖ (Sūra 10, Yūnus, v.47) 3. The revelation of the divine books is likewise directed towards the proclamation of justice. Thus the Quran says, ―[…] nor follow thou their vain desires; but say: ‗I believe in the book which God has sent down; and I am commanded to judge justly between you. […]‖ (Sūra 42, al- Shūrā, v.15). And another verse says, ―We sent aforetime our apostles with Clear signs and sent down with them the Book and the Balance (of Right and Wrong), that men may stand forth in justice; […].‖ (Sūra 57, al-Hadīd, V. 25). From these verses we know that the prophets are commanded to establish social justice.
II. Beginning with the above mentioned principles – with justice in creation, legislation and in the field of punitive measures – the Muslim scholars have defined social justice in a threefold manner: 1. Justice in the sense of the equality of all human beings in the history of creation, with regard to human dignity and their position in relation to God. In contrast to this concept of justice is the denial of the equality of men and women, the denial of respect for human life, of the right to personal property, of the right to self-defence, of the right to freedom of opinion Poverty and Injustice / 359 and expression, of the right to make use of the divine gifts, and of the right of each individual to determine his/her own fate. We may identify the scope of justice in three areas especially: in the area of the political exercise of power, in the cultural field and in scientific work. According to an utterance of the Prophet Muhammad, human beings are like the teeth of a comb. Furthermore, Imām ‗Ali, the first imām of the Shī‟īs, sent a letter to the Province governor of Egypt, which is nowadays known as a historical document on human rights, saying, ―Oh Mālik, do not attack other people like a bloodthirsty wolf. Because they are divided in two groups: either they are your sisters and brothers in religion or they are created (as humans) like you.‖ (Nahdj al-balāgha, Letter to Mālik al- ashtar). And in the said letter we find another passage, ―The best deed for you is the most just one, the one which is closest to truth. The goal of your activity shall be the contentment of people.‖ We all know that the population in Egypt at that time consisted of Muslims, (Coptic) Christians, and other groups. In our world, many liberal thinkers, too, were of the same opinion, and we may recognize in the ―Universal Declaration of Human Rights‖ of 1948 the result of their endeavors. This Declaration became the basis for the acknowledgment that all human beings, on an international level, are equal in rights with regard to their dignity and worthiness, to the value of the various cultural traditions and of all scholarly works that refer to human beings. That is, the equality of all human beings has to be seen as recognized by Islam and Christianity, especially also in the documents of Vatican II, their program being the acknowledgment of human dignity in the various religions and peoples. In today‘s worldwide situation, which may be defined as the epoch of dialogue, we note that human identity is expressed in its cultural framework, which includes the geographical position, ethnic affiliation and religion, as well as the existence of certain forms of government. Thus it is necessary to do justice to the variety of cultures, to refrain from any form of degradation, and to avoid cultural paternalism in the context of political or military exercise of power.
Global Alliance 360 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
These principles must be embodied in just relations among people and mutual support in the framework of the international relations of governments and peoples. Beyond that, through dialogue a deeper mutual understanding among people must be achieved and the cultural level raised in those fields wherever possible. The dialogue among civilizations, religions and cultures not only involves the removal of walls and borders, but also the opening of windows in order to know more about the situation of others. If we ignore legitimate borders and force our way into foreign areas, this will certainly not produce good results. In doing so, the opportunity of cultivating dialogue, cooperation and tolerance will be destroyed. It will end up with the kind of problems that are today known to us in many countries of the world. In addition to the respect for the convictions of other faiths and with its basis on common religio-philosophical principles, from the perspective of faith and of those truths that are rooted in it and of the continuing interreligious dialogue about these truths the final assessment must be left to God. Thus the Quran says, ―If it had been thy Lord‘s Will, they would all have believed, – all who are on earth! […].‖ (Sūra 5, Yūnus, v. 99). And, "[…] To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single People […]." (Sūra 5, al-Mā‘ida, v. 51). Finally, we have to do justice to the worldwide development and spreading sciences that are useful and necessary for the implementation of just conditions. For this will enable us, in the sense of a long-term development, to convey to all people the results and findings of science and technology, especially in the field of agriculture and industry. Because hoarding and concealment of knowledge and of results of the research must be prevented, since they have been produced in the past through joint endeavors of people in various civilizations. They all belong to the heritage of the whole mankind, and all people must be in a position to use their fruits without discrimination. According to a well-known utterance of Imām ‗Alī, the tax on knowledge in the interest of the poor is the dissemination of knowledge. Poverty and Injustice / 361
2. Another meaning of justice refers to the varying modes according to which people are granted what meets their individual wants and capacities. Such differences do not only not imply any discrimination, they rather correspond to the true meaning of justice. Thus Sūra 49 says, ―O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other […].‖ (Sūra 49, al-Hudjurāt, v. 13). ―And He has subjected to you, as from Him, all that is in the heavens and on earth […].‖ (Sūra 45, al-Djāthiya, v. 13). Finally Sūra 17 says, ―We have honoured the sons of Adam; provided them with transport on land and sea; given them for sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them special favours, above a great part of Our Creation.‖ (Sūra 17, al-Isrā‘, v. 70). Furthermore, God has left to us the determination of our own personal and social conditions: ―[…] Verily never will God change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls). […]‖ (Sūra 13, al-Ra‗d, v. 11). He also says that we have to bear the consequences of our own activities: ―that man can have nothing but what he strives for‖ (Sūra 53, al-Nadjm, v. 39). The extent of benefit, therefore, corresponds to our personal involvement. Whoever tries harder, will get higher remuneration. By that, however, I want by no means to be claiming that it is just that today 80% of the worldwide resources are for the benefit of only 20% of the world population. Rather, I would like to raise the following questions: - Is the fact that such a small minority disposes of 80% of the riches really due to the endeavors of these 20% - or is it rather a consequence of hoarding knowledge and of a sort of materialism that ignores spiritual and human values? Is it not a consequence of modern imperialism, of the exploitation of peoples, which becomes possible by controlling the word‘s natural resources? - Yet, if we have to assume that these riches were finally produced by the efforts of all, does this inequality not cry out against human conscience and are there no limits to be observed?
Global Alliance 362 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
- Even if we do not respect morals, are there no principles at all for the distribution of wealth to be followed in the framework of divine and human laws? The Islamic prescripts, valid for the economic field, take therefore on principle into consideration those differences and differentiations that result from the various gifts and efforts of individual human beings. In this context, however, importance is attached to the issue that there shall be no excessive accumulation of wealth in the hands of individual people or groups. Fortune and goods must be distributed to avoid poverty and discrimination. ―[…] And there are those who bury gold and silver and spend it not in the Way of God: announce unto them a most grievous penalty‖ (Sūra 9, al-Tawba, v. 34). We close this section by quoting Imām ‗Ali who once said that he never saw any accumulation of great fortune without thereby violating the right of a poor (Nahdj al-balāgha). 3. As to the third meaning of justice, I would like to explain it by two dicta of Imām ‗Ali: "Justice means that everyone obtains his right‖ (Nahdj al-balāgha). And: "Justice means that everything gets to the place that it deserves‖ (Nahdj al-balāgha). This means that justice aims at the right of him who has a right. In Islam, therefore, rights are stressed in a special way, and justice is respected as a holy matter. Islam defines the rights to which all regulations in detail must correspond, primarily in the field of wealth formation. In this connection there are rules that, as previously mentioned, limit the accumulation of property assets. So, for instance, God is seen in Islam as the proprietor of all things. Man has no absolute property. Property in truth is only a confidential pledge on the part of God, which makes it possible for us to satisfy our needs and those of our family and of those who are needy (cf. Qur‘ān 70,24 f. and 17,26). The observance of these obligations guides society on the path of social justice and relieves it of poverty. Islamic literature speaks of poverty in a twofold manner: one kind of poverty is valuable – it is mainly celebrated in the literary works of the Sufis and mystics. They refer to the prophet Poverty and Injustice / 363 who said that poverty is an honour for him. This kind of poverty is poverty related to God and leads to independence of all other people. The second meaning is of a negative nature. About it there is a saying of the Prophet: that poverty is a great death. According to Imām ‗Ali, poverty can lead to unbelief. Other sayings make cultural and religious poverty a subject of discussion; it is then seen as ―a red death‖. This kind of poverty is the worst. In the understanding of Imām ‗Ali, right is wide-ranging and comprehensive; but when practice is at stake, right is in danger of being restricted. In other words, de facto we try to cut down the rights of others. Applied to the present-day situation: our thoughts have a worldwide horizon, but when acting, we repeatedly remain restricted within certain spheres of interest. Thus, in practice we prevent justice from being implemented by sticking to restrictions and limitations, by dividing reality into the spheres of ‗we‘ and ‗the others‘, by fixation on nationality, descent, cultural and ideological affiliation to a certain ethnic group, language or history, to certain values and traditions, etc. Not only Islam, but the teachings of all religions, the opinions of philosophers and sages, all Weltanschauungen and ideologies have been striving to establish justice in our world and resisted oppression and discrimination. They do not tire of demanding respect for human rights in our day, too, for all those who are poor and starving, oppressed and tortured, the homeless, refugees, prisoners and victims of war, prisoners in general, women and children. Numerous organizations have been founded for that purpose. It is also expressed in the ―Universal Declaration of Human Rights‖ and other conventions. All the more is it regrettable that justice was not only unable to spread, on the contrary, since the Declaration of Human Rights the situation has worsened. After all the present-day worldwide political situation shows most clearly how war and poverty, social and family problems, drug addiction and trade in bodies are spreading evermore. Last year‘s statistics mention 1 billion people who are starving and 200 million undernourished children; 30 people die per minute due to hunger
Global Alliance 364 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace and drug addiction. The permanently increasing number of people sick with Aids, the increase of violence in families, rape and sexual abuse of children, high divorce rates – all that shows that our world does not progress on the path of justice. It was Kofi Annan, ex UN Secretary General and one of the most eminent international personalities of the present day and age, who, during the Conference of Ministers of the 77 group in Sao Paolo, referred to the fact that justice, in our present-day world, plays a much smaller role than was the case some 40 years ago.
III. As followers of our religions, we can only appeal to the conscience of the open-minded people of the world, of the compassionate citizens, the faithful, of those who love justice, of countries and governments, to do more in order to prepare the grounds for more justice in the world. Finally, I would like to put down five points: 1. All religions are principally convinced that, in the future, justice will gain acceptance in the world. The religious scholars and the followers of religions are obliged to do their utmost in the interest of justice. But we must be aware that a just order can only be established by overcoming ignorance and discrimination, by supporting mutual understanding and deepening tolerance through dialogue. A violent attitude and the application of oppressive methods that contradict the spirit of religions will never contribute to the establishment of justice in the world. 2. In terms of power and culture, the whole of mankind must on principle be considered as equal. With this in mind, respectful relations with other peoples, cultures, civilizations and religions on a global level must be cultivated. Dialogue may prove to be an appropriate means towards the re-enforcement of cultures; it may help to achieve a higher standard. 3. More attention must be paid to religious education, especially by encouraging morals in order to avoid family problems, and to the protection of one‘s own body and of one‘s spiritual welfare. The basic teachings of religions, such as the Ten Mosaic Commandments, Jesus‘ Poverty and Injustice / 365 moral directives and Muhammad‘s peace treaty with the people of Mecca must become our cultural guidelines. 4. I underline that man has the right of disposal of his/her own assets and property, but at the same time we must be aware that in all that we have collected, the poor, the weak and disabled, etc. have participated. To create a just world and to eliminate poverty, it is necessary that we let the disadvantaged participate in our wealth. 5. We must turn away from waste, hoarding of fortunes, striving for power and from any kind of oppression. The implementation of more justice verily can prepare the ground for the solution of the problems of mankind and can also serve the spreading of democracy and freedom.
Global Alliance 366 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Human Dignity and Right to Peace / 367
Human Dignity and Right to Peace Dr. Mohammad J. Saed
Abstract Today, ―right to peace‖ is as a human final aim and ―human dignity‖ is as its fundamental element which will be the first point of any efficient pattern and the first expression of any human measure at international level. Hierarchy of human dignity within the concept and nature of peace is a result of meaning peace with respect to mentally and materially human needs, the just-oriented and dignity-based peace discourses and its priority on the static and state-based discourses seeking inequity. The essay is trying to appear the conceptual extent of the right to peace and find its nature and base along with these categories on human dignity as the rightful and intrinsic value of human being. This is also attempting to understand the first link and relation between the right to peace and human dignity and indeed, appear its place at the sphere of right to peace. Key Words: peace, human dignity, war, right to life, human rights and international human rights system.
Introduction Peace along with democracy and development are the third sides of a triangle each of them play the role to make other and all together make the final aim of the world. No doubt, peace and its appearance is the human final aim nowadays and human rights thoughts, meantime, can provide the grounds of new beds on which it can be relied to take place the importance in a premature process. The right to peace is at the extent of the third generation of human rights, namely solidarity rights,(Vakil et all, 1383:58), which is called to the
PhD in Criminal and Criminology Law, Attorney at Law.
Global Alliance 368 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace name because of the necessity of global interaction among states in case of appearing the rightful aims of common life. Thus, to make a border in this relation does not have a mean and the effort is accounted as a duty prosecuted by all nations without attention to being designed borders among states and nations. The whole approach of the essay is based on a ―human-oriented‖ peace discourse and far from its ―state-oriented‖ one. In the framework of Hegel‘s Dialectic rule, it circulates on the orbit that peace is an antithesis of war and is against human war and violence to preserve his life and insure his dignity. Perhaps, it is the peace is the final aim of human and the common goal of humankind because the ―aim‖ always is a category which is obtained after making a continuous effort during a long time. So, it can be appeared ―the right to peace‖ in the same concept. In such a situation, human dignity as a value of human being, born with him, is in any places and times, with any thoughts of human by virtue of its fundamental being. Thus, it is of the same important as the peace is. The present essay is trying to recognize the concept and extent of peace, its intellectual bases as a fundamental right in preserving the human life and insuring human dignity in a human-based discourse by focusing on explanation of the human dignity place in the body of right to peace or right to human life in a peaceful realm, so that it can be lastly identified the place of human dignity at the sphere of the right.
Part I: the Right to Peace; a Terra Incognita The history of human life always speaks about war and folklore tales consisting of military thoughts and actions, and two World Wars are typically completing the human destroying process for humankind. Enjoying human ―the power of insanity‖ in the language of Nietzsche (Nietzsche, 1380:25) his meaning was ―the power of reason‖ points out him that the way of saving human life and his dignity is not war and violence, but being an area having peace and compromise which insures the present days of humankind and its continuing. It is in such a position that the right to peace or right to life in peace finds a mean for him and it Human Dignity and Right to Peace / 369 will slowly be his given aim in his mind all times at the national and international levels. Although the tiresome effort has always been a rightful theoretical perspective of humankind but tendency to obtain to personal interests and human intrinsic motive on seeking power is an obstacle to get the completely high aim of human. It was on the basis of such tendencies that Kant did not image to receive the human final aim at the time he lived and called ―personal power, tendencies and lusts and also tendency to independent sovereignty in the minds of governors‖ as obstacles in this course and spoke of ―perpetual peace‖ (Kant, 1384:339). While having a complete peace in the present world is a fictional expectation of human being, it does not mean that we should leave off the efforts and expect to happen a miracle to make it. Although the author agree to the realist thought but it should be said in a contingent way with the international institute of peace studies in Oslo that humankind has an empathy ability and increasing the convergence level in the light of social feature of human in the society is an inevitable thing.
1. The Conceptual Frame of Peace Most authors divide peace into two parts: positive and negative peace. Sometimes, they speak of ―radical peace‖ along with the two mentioned ones in a peace-based approach. Negative peace means only ―non-war‖ and positive peace means ―being justice‖ (Cortright, 2008:21). In the peace-based approach, the tranquil of peace with its third sides, positive, negative and radical one, the function of negative peace is ―to decrease the possibility of war and settle disputes‖ and that of radical peace is ―to eliminate domination‖ and meantime, positive peace follows ―structural violence‖ as its function(Abdollah Khani, 1383:53). In some ancient literatures, peace, as a human common aim‖ is called ―non-war‖ and ―non-violence‖. The definition which is talking about ―the negative dimension of peace‖, while we cannot lay aside it, but it seems that it cannot involve the whole sphere of peace conceptually, because the findings of peace studies indicate that it should be considered peace more than the lack of war. While the approach on non-war was referred by
Global Alliance 370 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Gandhi, some believes that he got it of the thought of Shell. In this relation, Gandhi spoke of non-violence instead of peace and insisted on the necessity of overcoming injustice. In view of the authors allocating the expression to Shell, the meaning of Sell did not focus on the negative dimension of peace, namely, ―violence‖ is a way on which ―the less cruelty‖ can come over ―the very passive‖. So, ―non-violence‖ is a devise by which ―the very active‖ can come over ―the less cruel‖. Non-violence has a negative structure; so that the most importance point can be spoken about it is that it is not anything. The word prevents the negative power of violence. This group says that the English language was unable to have a word for such a position. So, Shell used the word to define ―non-violence as the power of cooperation‖, that is, a collective action based on a mutual consent, instead of a ―compulsory power‖ resolving an act through threat or the use of force. Some other says that we should abandon the term of peace and use ―elimination of violence‖ instead of it. Although the reason and philosophy of using the word is vague, it will not be any effective result conceptually except changing the face of what is called peace nowadays. The right to peace means that to life in peace or in other words, that to self-determination. The term gives a negative conception to peace which circulates on the orbit of ―not ought to do‖ and orients human to not pass the preserving borders of human life and his dignity for the purpose of saving human life and respecting his dignity. If we consider a relation between the values like freedom, justice and solidarity, and the right to peace, the value of freedom from which we can derive autonomy and non harm to human, promises to be an environment full of security and safety for man, within which it cannot see any face of war and violence. The status talks about the milieu lastly grants ―human security‖; the one which will be appeared in the conceptual frame of peace for ―states‖, when the borders were drawn among ―nations‖. In positive dimension of peace, some thinkers like Galtong sees peace a devise to pursue the aims including cooperation and convergence in order to obtain a better world. The thought seems to be based on idealism, so Human Dignity and Right to Peace / 371 that it is trying to make a better world on the basis of the human ability about cooperation and convergence and through avoiding the use of threat and force and war and enjoying other peaceful ways to reject the existing disputes. The notion can typically be seen in the United Nations Charter which is seeing available to receive collective measures by justice- oriented ways and the ones based on international law. For him, peace should be meant a thing more than non-physical intentional violence. So, he insists on eliminating ―structural violence‖ which is a cause to injustice in his view. Indeed, he increases the concept of peace to describe the positions of negative peace having violent and unjust results. Violence in this extensive concept refers to any circumstances which ban human being to obtain his total abilities. Positive peace is to overcome the circumstances limiting the human capacities and also to insure the opportunities to his understanding and to receive his intrinsic abilities. In fact, positive peace points out a peace-based status which prevents from waging any war and violence among nations and states through settling the disputes happened among nations (in a human-oriented discourse) and states(in a state- oriented discourse). In the description, ceasefire is only example of positive peace. In the area, the kind of violence, from the direst, mental to structural ones, lay in the core of peace and till there are not each of them, peace will not be in the real world (Beyleveld, 1998:665). Peace is a category beyond non-war. This includes the preservation of society having order and justice as well; ―having order‖ in view of being protection against violence or blackmail by violators, and ―having justice‖ in view of protecting against exploitation and abuse through more power and authority. Peace researchers today argue that peace does not mean non-dispute and conflict. Being dispute is intrinsic to human relations, while it must not be with violence. The first challenge for peace practitioners is to find the ways by which societies can settle the disputes without physical violence. In this concept, peace is as a dynamic process without having the final spot. The goal of the practitioners is to develop more effective ways for settling disputes.
Global Alliance 372 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
What is meantime important is that peace appears in circumstances a potential threat endangers its security and dignity, in a manner that if the threat appears in practice, peace will lose its life and even will not, its place of being will be so weak that it can be considered equal to lose.
2. The Nature of the Right to Peace In most legal literatures more than speaking about the nature of peace and a category of which it is called as a right (human right to peace in the light of human society and state right to peace in the light to global society constituting states), the base of their arguments to justify the right have been on the basis of statutory documents at the international and transnational levels, so that it seems that the nature has been as a terra incognita. Although international documents insisted on the right any way and called it as a human final aim, but what is the first cause for considering it as a human desire? The nature of peace as a right has the third sides which relate to humankind on the one hand and to sovereignty of humankind in terms of ―state‖ on the other hand and lastly to be global peace.
A. the Nature of Human-based Peace In the human nature of right to peace, humankind is as an active player in the social scenario, changing his surrounding by his reason and making everyday new things for the purpose of receiving his own final aims; the ability which obviously knows the aims and orders to human the necessity of preserving them all times. To save human life by human in favor of human against some humans and also, to respect the human place and dignity as his given values in the world are as the same final aims the reason recognize them and must pay attention to make them by providing their grounds and beds (Jonz, 1376:45). A safe environment and a milieu full of peace and compromise, mentally and physically, are as examples of the relevant grounds and beds in order to provide the final aims; the environment devoid of any war and Human Dignity and Right to Peace / 373 violence; the one in which it cannot see either individual violence or structural one; the one within which mental violence rarely pays attentions of minds to itself. Similarly, making grounds for having such an environment, space or any other sphere also needs it that human knows on his nature in the pros and cons of human actions and subsequent to aware of philosophy of his appearance, understands his dignity in the area. It is by using the concern that a safe environment and the one full of compromise for him will be an environment to achieve his final aim. In such a situation, peace for him, in fact, is not ―aim‖ but a ―device‖ to obtain his promised truth and even by supposing accepting it as an ―aim‖, it will be the ―procedural one‖ which provides other requirements to move human towards his final aim (Andorno, 1387: 219).
B. the Nature of State-based Peace When states like individuals are imaged at more extensive level like human world, they are as active players who administer a society on the basis of its sovereignty with its limit borders. Meantime, if the state plays a role as a ―manager‖ or ―governor‖, its place in the society will be deferent. The player has a significant role in both human-based and world-based right to peace. Since a state, as a manager or governor, monitors on the behaviors of its members on the one hand, it has a duty to prepare relevant circumstances for saving their life and respecting their dignity through taking appropriate measures; the duty which indicates a safe environment to guarantee mental and physical integrity of humans; in other words, the duty by which both the making of disputes among its members is ceased to exist, it prevents from any interventions of neighbor societies in its territory and if there is being conflict of interests among them, it can ban to make any war. Thus, it both makes peace among its members and acts to moderately with the neighbor societies though using or having peaceful thoughts (Chalmers, 2007: 64). In addition, states at the sphere of world-based or global peace, like human-based peace, plays the role within its own borders. Since the global player as the greatest group and member of human society can
Global Alliance 374 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace make very effect on the human world by enjoying various political, social and economic instruments, if peaceful thoughts come over its whole policies at the transnational level, it can help effectively to provide and make grounds of appearing peace in the human world. No doubt, when the thought of a state is on waging a war and domination on other nations through powerful devices, it cannot find a road to develop peace and consequently its constable sovereignty on the human world. It is the same that the nature of state-based right to peace is similar to the two sides of a coin which are effective within its own borders on one side and at the international level (regional and global) on the other.
C. the Nature of World-based Peace Out of its active players who appear in the form of ―individuals‖ doing a role in the social process as well as out of collective groups constituting a class and mass of persons in the name of ―states‖ or others, human world has itself an independent legal identity like individuals and collective groups having their own nature, namely the same whole personality which is bigger than a body of its members or parts and it thus has an independent social place with a single nature. In such a view, peace appears as an obvious cause and stable element for the independent personality of human world, otherwise is equal to the absence of the feature. Although the mentioned human world is of the independent and single personality but devices of making its ideal conditions will be prepared by its members, individuals and entities like groups, including states. Therefore, the weak practices of its members in a generic manner cause seriously damage and harm to the body of the world. Taking sad and abnormal policies in the First and Second World War are the best examples of the policies made by its members; the policies which its unsatisfactory effects help doubly to express the necessity of being peace more than past and accelerate in the development of its concept and extent (Dworkin, 1977: 99) Having regard to such a thought, can we consider the United Nations whose members do not have the same place by excuse of peace and Human Dignity and Right to Peace / 375 security, a protector and regulator of the peace? If the rightful aim of the UN is global peace for mankind, recognizing the different roles for its players and making an artificial right so-called ―veto‖ will not mean at all and will not insure the aim in fact. What advantages can be imaged by the right of veto for global peace and its preservation? It is the considerable note that the given aim of the UN, as stipulated in article 1 of its Charter, is preservation of international peace and security and the aim means to limit the width of powerful instruments and thoughts among states in order to make it, while the holders of the right to veto are the states which has been entitled the right by the same powerful devices and thoughts, and here are the same states act to breach peace by making war and disorder in international peace for the purposes of achieving their interests.
Part II: the History of Right to Peace and Human Dignity in International Human Rights System While the league of nations on 28 June 1919 saw to guarantee international peace and security requiring to respect the principles of international relations and international provisions on the basis of justice and human dignity, the introduction of the UN Charter, adopted in 1945, dealt with human dignity and its relation to peace in a more relatively knowingly view.
1. The Basis of Identifying the Right to Peace The UN Charter states that ―WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small… AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security and….‖
Global Alliance 376 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
On the category also has been insisted in introduction of the UNESCO Statute. In the document the member states maintain that ………….. Just some next years in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the its first expressions, world community concluded that recognizing the intrinsic dignity of all members of human family and their inevitable rights constitute the basis of freedom, justice and peace in the world, and it expressed on its certain decision to help to social development and make a better position of life in a free environment along with saying the given faith in case of fundamental human rights, dignity and equality referred to in the Charter, where it says: ―……………….‖ At this time, identifying human intrinsic dignity is of such an important that out of the sovereignty of states in case of peace, is a fundamental base of peace in the world being the priority to respecting human rights must be paid attention. The said dignity in the position is an intrinsic and inevitable which must be based in any actions taken on peace. Indeed, human inevitable dignity which is, in fact, the heritage of common humanity, reinforces the soul of brotherhood and as effective bed-making causes to provide peace and security in the world. Pursuant to the approach, in the Declaration on enjoying scientific and technological developments in favor of peace and mankind‖, adopted On 10 November of 1957 by the UN Assembly, it was insisted on not making any limitation or prevention of using the provisions on human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights as well as the International first and second covenants on civil, political, social, cultural and economic rights. Although the Declaration had affirmed the right to peace for states by ―peace system‖ for the first purpose of saving international peace and security, and respecting human rights as a necessity for development of their friendship relations, till 1978 when the UN Assembly adopted ―declaration on the equipment of societies for life in peace‖, this importance, the right to peace, was not started in a given form and in a formal manner. The declaration in order to implement the principle called states to insure to take international and national policies for the purpose of achieving a life in peace, especially on Human Dignity and Right to Peace / 377 the young generations, and in this relation, referred to the right to human intrinsic life in peace as the first principle (Roche, 2003:3) Following the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, it was trying to insist on the global aim and slogan in other international documents. In introduction of the international Covenant on Cultural, Social and Economic Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both adopted in 1966, as the significant ones in the regard, identifying intrinsic dignity and equal and inevitable rights of all members of human family as just as the universal declaration on human rights considered as the basis of freedom, justice and peace in the world. In addition to it, the former document in article 13 states ―…….‖ And article 10 of the international covenant on civil and political rights says that ―…………‖ To this background for human dignity to provide the tranquil of justice, freedom and peace was referred in other documents, too. It is the substantial point that to insist certainly on human dignity and its priority on the role of states shows the governance of human-based thought in relation to peace.
2. Human Dignity; the Bright Shade of the Right to Peace In the thought of global peace, human dignity appears as the fundamental element without which peace, as such, will not be made. Although peace as a perquisite to achieve totally to all human rights and values, namely, respecting human dignity but if the lack of peace causes to defect all human rights and non-respecting his dignity, the grass breach of the rights and dignity will also be equal to the threat of peace and resulted in its absence after a short time (Kirchner, 2004: 7) Meantime, one of the fundamental bases of the right to peace can be considered in the form of ―human dignity‖ and its practice in fact. On the other hand, human dignity can be taken into account a base on which peace and right to peace appear in the light of that and indeed by its stability beyond the borders of international players, states, so that it can
Global Alliance 378 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace accounted human dignity as the background of peace on one side and as one of the bases of peace on the other.
Conclusion: Dignity-based Peace Peace is a word and indeed a notion derived from the appearance of governmental borders among various nations. If human society is considered in a face without arraying states and sovereignty, the save of life and its continuance for it is the first aim to get it uses his reason. The life and its continuance, prema facia, require respecting the dignity belonging to human per se. Therefore, since to save life and its continuance on the one hand and human dignity on the other are as the necessities of stability of mankind in the global world, when human societies are identified in the form of states and recognized through identifying the borders, devoid of the societies, they made an independent community with a single personality. So, for providing the requirements of saving human life in the new community, they must try to not only make its grounds and beds but also lay aside the obstacles of its development. The whole thought of global community to make the importance appears in the face of peace and ―world peace‖ in fact. Indeed, ―world peace‖ dominates in the light of its world-based nature and shows its necessity. It is obvious that in the said nature, it was insured the two natural aspects of human-based and state- based peace. So, their separation from together does not mean their division of functions together (Nordenfel, 2004: 6). As a result, in the position, when peace would be called to the name that it was based on the dignity of human being. On the other hand, human dignity will be happened only when it can first image to be a relative peace in the human world. Also, as said in the essay, while peace is prema facia, a human final aim but it is as a coin with two sides. On one side, it is only a ―device‖ to guarantee the being of mankind and respect human dignity. On the other, it is as a ―result‖ to insure the life of humankind and respect the dignity of his being. So, we can find a relation between both of them, in a manner that there cannot be one of them without another. Human Dignity and Right to Peace / 379
Resources 1. Beyleveld, Deryck and Brownsword, Roger, Human Dignity, Human Rights 2. and Human Genetics, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 5. 3. Human Genetics and the Law:Regulating a Revolution, Sep, 1998 4. Chalmers, Don and Ida, Ryuichi, On the International Legal Aspects of Human 5. Dignity, in: perspectives on human dignity, edited by Jeff Malpas and Norelle Lichiss, Springer Publication, 2007 6. Kirchner, Stefan, the Human Rights Dimensions of International Peace and 7. Security: Humanitarian Intervention after 9/11, Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 25 October 2004 8. Nordenfelt, Lennart, the Varieties of Dignity, Health Care Analysis, Vol.12, 9. No.2. June 2004 10. Roche, Senator Douglas, the Human Right to Peace, the Simons Centre for 11. Peace & Disarmament Studies, Vancouver, April 2, 2003 12. Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 13. Press, 1977) 14. Ruth Macklin, ‗Dignity is a Useless Concept’, British Medical Journal 327 (2003) 15. R. Andorono, Dignity of the Person in the Light of International Biomedical Law, medicina e morale, 2005/1:91-105, translated into Persian by mohammad jafar saed (Ph.d), medical law, Vol. 1, No. 1, Summer 2007. 16. Abdollahkhani, Ali, the Theories on Security, publisher: Tehran Abrar Ma‘aser institute on international studies, Vol. 1, First Published: Farvardin 1383. 17. Vakil, Amir Saed, Human Rights and International Peace and Security, Majd Publisher, First Published: Esfand 1383. 18. Jonz, V. T., Masters of Political thought, translated into Persian by Ali Ramin, Amir Kabir Publisher, Forth Published 1376. 19. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, Also Sprach Zarathustra, translated into Persian by Daryoush Ashouri, Aghah Publisher, twenty-sixth published 1386. 20. Manochehr sane‘ee darehbidi , Lessons of Kant’s Ethics, Naghsh va Neghar Publisher, Third Published 1384.
Global Alliance 380 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
21. Teriov, Theri and et all, Modern Security Studies, translated into Persian by Davood Heidari, foreign affairs ministry publisher, first published 1373.
Human Dignity and Right to Peace / 381
Part III
Media; Cultures and Just Peace
Global Alliance 382 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
A Critical Approach to Amerivan Virtual Colonialism / 383
A Critical Approach to American Virtual Colonialism
Prof. Saied Reza Ameli
Introduction Colonialism has experienced various phases. During the old colonialism, material world was in control through territorial explorations, warfare, hard power, and use of tactics of political colonialism. The old colonialism rose in 15th century and expanded by the end of 20th century. Although colonial powers claim that colonialism is beneficial for the development of colonized nations, it has been mainly focusing upon meeting interests of colonialist as well as spoiling political, cultural, and economic sovereignty of the colonized territories. Steadily, management of colonies became a complex dilemma for European colonialists, particularly Britain. Raising public awareness played an important role in de-colonization. In the next phase of colonialism, called neo-colonialism, culture and thoughts of the nations were targeted. Through this new wave of colonialism, the colonized nations were kept backward through specific political and economic policies. The new way of colonialism, which had begun after the second World War, still works as a way of influence and hegemony. With the emergence of virtual space, new ways of dominance were established. With vast potentials this new wave of colonialism can be referred to as virtual colonialism. Although the first colonialist countries were Portugal, Britain, France, Spain and the Netherlands (the United States can also be considered a victim of European colonialism) the United States has since played the
Professor of Communications and American Studies, University of Tehran.
Global Alliance 384 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace leading role in neo-colonialism as well as virtual colonialism. Since colonialism has primarily focused on intellectual metamorphosis of the societies and individuals, in virtual colonialism, which applies soft power mechanisms, the ultimate goal is to divest a user ability to think independently, therefore making him/her as a member of American cultural society. Meticulous study of eight leading global portals, surprisingly all American and interactively engaged with American political and security organizations, reveals that virtual space, as a milieu for colonialism and divestment of users‘ independence is being employed to get the users to join into American culture. Being aware of the great potentialities embedded in the virtual space, some institutions have managed to establish ―virtual empires‖ through which they have managed to successfully exert their global cultural, political, and economic hegemony. Needless to say, this hegemony has provided the western countries, particularly the United States (as the leading emperor), with enormous power. It is obvious that such observation, are often labeled as ―conspiracy theories‖, and authors of these thoughts are condemned as skeptics, exclusivists, and pessimists. The point that should be of utmost importance is the nature of power and hegemony. If we believe that hegemony exists, we must agree that contemporary global power has achieved a dual-space capacity. Violent apparatus and armies act on the first space while in the second space (mind and virtual space), is being dominated by soft power that captures the thoughts of individuals and societies. Only through critical analysis can one thoroughly comprehend the covert and overt facet of virtual colonialism, which is seen as the ground for expansion of American hegemony through virtual empire. This school of thought, i.e. critical studies, deploys a painstaking method upon which intrinsic ongoing norms of a phenomenon are shattered. There have been variously different critical studies traditions. In the 1930s, the world had witnessed the rise of critical sociology in Germany, and consequently in Anglo-Saxon nations in the 1960s. Social, political, and economic changes in the West along with media empowerment and expansion of A Critical Approach to Amerivan Virtual Colonialism / 385 territory of soft power have prioritized necessity of applying critical studies to account for capital system and prevailing liberalism. Habermas (1984) has pointed to critical studies for information analysis. Using genre, Bakhtin developed a speech classification that has surprisingly strengthened analysis of others‘ speech (Paivarinta, 2001:212) and founded a novelty analytical model that Paivarinta calls ―genre theory‖. According to this theory, typology of genres and interrelationship between the genres will provide a base for information analysis. In Left tradition, critical studies seek for the flaw and shortcomings of capitalism and, as a result, are consistent with postmodern theory that attacks principles of modern system (James, 2008). In critical realism, the existence of meaning in outside reality and moreover its comprehension through scientific inquiry is accepted (Easton, 2010). Therefore, in this approach, critical analysis is to decipher the meaning from the outside phenomena. Critical analysis transcends beyond the commonplace trends and facts; it is an intellectual endeavor to see ―trans-variables‖ in place of being immersed in immediate variables of an event, and to comprehend thoroughly existing social dynamics. Critical thought is aimed at anatomy of social, political and economic facts and moves beyond the current commonplace knowledge about these facts. Throughout this book, our critical analysis is focused on phenomena that require us to have a free mind about the commonplace understanding of them. This in turn entails a concentrated effort to analyze the long-term functions of these phenomena in a detailed manner. Emergence of critical thinkers like Adorno, Benjamin, Horkhaeimer, Marcuse, and their next generation such as Habermas indicates violation of current norms and attention to social obligations (kanerton, 2006). Although critical thoughts, due to ideological links originated from materialistic thoughts, could not be sufficiently persuasive, it benefited from enormously destructive power. The power that is still visible among postmodern schools but it led to intellectual anarchy because of not being successful to develop an alternative. In fact, critical tradition is traced to
Global Alliance 386 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Emanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Carl Marx (1818-1883) (Ingram, 1990:1). This school of thought has been evolved in various intellectual structures but the shared points of these schools are secularism and laicism. Interestingly, justice and freedom on the one hand, and pleasure on the other hand are the main concerns of this tradition (same, p: 275). But the question arose here is whether justice, freedom and delight are possible without relationship with God and are the anarchy and inefficiency of the criticisms resulted from divine affiliations? The author strongly believes that the track record of Western thought has shown that diagnosis of the problem has not necessarily translated into solving the problem in those societies. It merely acted as an alarm for the status quos that it cannot create ―sustainable pleasure‖. In reality, sustainable pleasure and thorough justice without ―divine and religious affiliation‖ can hardly materialize. Therefore, in order to accurately analyze the shortcomings and the flaws associated with the commonplace understanding of all phenomena, one can devise a ―critical divine analysis‖ which is mainly based on God‘s vision for humanity. As analyzed in this book, although these flaws can be analyzed critically, hegemonic attitude is generally originated in polytheistic look which replaces God with individual, community, ideology, race and ethnicity to dominate the world. This way of Godly approach to power is rooted in the weakness of human being, which has brought about injustice, corruption and prejudice. Critical analysis of eight virtual giant companies acting as the main internet portal and sub-portals requires a detailed understanding of the concept of power and its various forms such as covert and overt power, soft and hard power, cultural and political power, and finally ―far- ranging‖ and ―close-ranging‖ power. In addition, in recent years the forms, potentials, and ranges of power have expanded tremendously through its dual-spatial nature. This makes it crucial for us to further analyze the dual-spatiality of power. Moreover, in analyzing the anatomy of virtual powers it is inevitable to meticulously examine the position of Islamic Republic of Iran as well as the Iranian users vis-à-vis these powers. A Critical Approach to Amerivan Virtual Colonialism / 387
The Concept of Power In dictionaries, power is defined ―as the ability to do something… power stands for the ability to achieve what one seeks‖ (Nye, 2008:38). Consequently, leadership would be impossible in the absence of power. Those who possess more power, in any relation, have more opportunities to make or resist a change (Nye, 2008). In addition, power means the ability to influence others‘ behavior in order to achieve desirable results (Nye, 2008). On the other hand, power might be construed as proliferation of an idea. All processes orienting toward proliferation—at production, distribution, and consumption—reflect power. For instance, proliferation of liberal- democratic system along with French laic or English Protestantism or American modernism features around the globe, points to the presence of the Western socio-politico-economic culture in non-western countries. Besides, proliferation of American and new European architecture and urban design system, and, furthermore, western education system can be correctly conceived as the expansion of the power of the West relative to the East. Therefore, the concept of soft impact has gained precedence over the idea of hard power and confrontation. The more the proliferation and acceptance of ideas and outlooks, the stronger and more comprehensive the hegemony of soft power would be. Despite the fact that some argue that power is merely attainable through exerting force, there are clearly other ways to achieve ones‘ desirable results. First is to coerce someone to do something. Second and diametrically different from the first is to persuade people to do something through creating appropriate motivation and encouragement. Thus, the concept of power is divided into two parts: soft power (by implicitly luring people through influencing their values, culture, politics, and institutions, organizing priorities) and hard power (through exerting explicit military and economic force) (Nye, 2008:43). Thus, the common denominator between hard and soft power is their final goal of influencing others‘ behavior and proliferation of a specific model, whereas their distinct features lies in the method and ways through which
Global Alliance 388 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace this final goal is materialized. In other words, there are two types of power: a. the command power or changing what one does by force and b. the co-optive power which translates into changing what people are willing to do themselves (Nye, 2008). In addition, some argue that power is about having potentialities and resources that could possibly determine the results.1 Joseph Nye consider the following spectrum for power:
Figure 1: The Spectrum of Power (Nye, 2008)
On this spectrum, soft power tends to the end of behavioral pole while hard power is positioned to the opposite end (Nye, 2008:47). In his key work, Power Rules, he mentions different genres of power including: power of ideas, power of leading, charismatic power, persuasive power, and power of values (Gleb,2009). In addition, this book addresses various definitions of power from different political schools. I view liberals as tending to define power in terms of mutual understanding, leading, communications, principles, values, persuasion and argument. They usually see coercing others as an extremist action and turn to it as the last resort. On the other hand, American conservatives incline towards their personal interests rather than universal principles. Conservatives also insist on coercion and force than persuasive initiatives. They believe that American way of life, politics, and economics is the most effective way and those opposing it are either in error or have evil intentions. In their opinion, to confront threats, military force and generation of fear work effectively. Unlike the liberals, they are hardly concerned about representing a brutal picture of themselves, and even moderate politicians possess a mix of
1.The defeat of the United States in Vietnam despite her resource as well as military superiority may create serious challenges for this definition of power. A Critical Approach to Amerivan Virtual Colonialism / 389 different perspectives and lack any coherent ideology. They have hardly made any significant progress in political discussions. Although this group has failed to develop any coherent strategy, they emphasize on rational pragmatism and truth. Their ideas are rarely welcomed by masses of people (Glebe, 2009). Examining several American presidential campaigns, I will assert that force exertion is costly and futile whereas emphasis on values and dialogue has worked significantly, and that the behavior of conservatives has significantly harmed the American interest. According to Glebe, ―power is to force people to do something which they are not willing to do. It is also resource and status management as to exert psycho-political pressure‖ (2009:28). Thus, power can be exerted through charisma, leading, values, persuasion, and similar methods since there are plenty of shared interest and values in international affairs among citizens of different nations. On the contrary, the nature of power becomes harsher, more explicit, and more complicated when dealing with governments, which possess the least commonalities amongst each other. In the international scene, leadership and attempts to persuade is hardly accepted and exerting force is often replied back by force itself. As a result, power behaves differently depending on the various relations and conditions it is applied. Generally, western works on power are often ambiguous. One of the most important traditional definitions of power is what Robert Dahl, professor of political sciences at Yale University, develops. In his essay, The Concept of Power, he asserts: ―A can influence B as long as it can drive B to do something which was never done in absence of exertion of the force by A‖. Here, A coerces B actively since B expects and fears pressure from A. The central point here is exertion of pressure so as to alter rather than persuade. Dahl also sees power as a mix of psycho-political leverage with superiority in use of opportunities and resources. He firmly believes that power holders need heed their reputations (Glebe, 2009:33).
Global Alliance 390 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Soft and Hard Power The concept of soft power or ―absorptive power‖ was first coined by Joseph Nye. Advantage of this kind of power is its power of influence which reduces the cost of remaining strong through convincing others ―to like what we like‖. Soft power is absorption of others through the mechanisms which are beyond physical force which highlights obligation rather than cooperation. This absorption is exerted through both tangible and intangible mechanisms. This does not mean that soft power will always employ non-violent methods of convincing when challenged by a hard power. Instead, in such situations the soft power could turn into physical and explicit use of force. Soft power is sort of social turning toward prevailing system‘s expectations. Nye (2004, a&b) believes that soft power is the power to change the demands and expectation of a society towards the direction that is desired by the holder of the power and furthermore legitimize this change in direction. In short, soft power is an influential mechanism on changing the ―social preferences‖. The very distinction between hard and soft power lies in tangibility, physical destruction, visibility, and being fearful of the holder of the power. These are usually embedded in military power through use of force and military weapons or physical colonial presence. Unlike hard power, soft power does not possess visible components of influence and force: it lures, tempts, and looks desirable. Soft power diffuses its components in variously different ways and machines that are not explicit and do not act overtly. Through the assistance of hard power, soft power seeks macro and long-term goals. As a result, the virtual space has provided new grounds for both the creation and use of the soft power. This space has generated independent capacities for soft power and its various links with the physical world. It includes some exclusive features like cohesion, decentralization, digitalization, and easy accessibility which have offered new capacities. Development of communication in the virtual space has tremendously increased interactions between nations A Critical Approach to Amerivan Virtual Colonialism / 391 and peoples and in fact the second wave of globalization has been occurring in this space. As communication develops in this space—that is, ―ever-present communication‖ or ―instant communication‖ along with unauthorized accessibility in ―other spaces‖— time and physical space become irrelevant to users (Ameli,2004,a). Actually, the intrinsic potentialities of virtual space have made it possible for its users to always have widespread present at all times. Dualization of virtual and physical armies is seen as a new possibility that would stretch the reach of the armies of the superpowers to all individuals and places possible, creating a virtual empire. As it was mentioned earlier, soft power lies in absorption. Since no one accepts to be manipulated, soft power works so covertly (Nye, 2008:43). Soft power is the ability to get people to help us achieve our ultimate goals. Soft power is in never absolute and it firmly believes in efficiency of education, mutual understanding, and communications (Nye, 2008:99). In fact, democratic powers are not concerned about power distribution but try to develop leading opportunities. They, however, are restricted to exert explicit power. As a result, even in cases of police exerting power, they try to create a persuasive picture of the event in order to legitimize the action of the police for ordinary citizens and therefore convincing them into cooperation with the police force. Likewise, they create, promote, and manage the international free market and therefore control the world through the global economy (Nye, 2008:130). Virtual powers also take advantage of ―participation of people in power generation and development for the powerful ones‖, and increase the information might of the so-called superpowers through the attendance of millions of net users on google.msn, yahoo, Wikipedia, facebook, and YouTube. In the contemporary world, individuals are simultaneous members of several communities. Therefore, they find it difficult to make concrete decision. This is exactly the time actually that preferences can be influenced and formed. In such times, revolutionary leaders like Gandhi, provoke a peoples of nation to act collectively in the public interest
Global Alliance 392 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace instead of personal ones. On the contrary, opportunist leaders can create a situation mixed with fear and hope where individuals are encourage in seeking personal interests and therefore paving the way towards the personal interests and goals of such leaders (Nye, 2008:62-64). According to Michael Mumford and Judi Van Dom, pragmatist leaders use both methods simultaneously (Nye, 2008:67). Later, Nye and Richard Armitage developed the concept of ―smart power‖ which is a combination of hard and soft power (Gleb, 2009:69). This point indicates that those advocating soft power do not altogether refute use of military action. Rather, they believe in the integration of soft and hard power in order to maintain their control. In short, words and wars complement each other (Nye, 2008:142). In order to lead through soft power, three ingredients (skills) are required: emotional intelligence, communications, and wisdom. Emotional intelligence is about self-control and discipline which makes a country or the leader popular for the people. By communication it is meant the ability of a country or leader to communicate effectively with others. Finally it is through wisdom that a country or a leader can create an appealing picture of a concept or an event that could attract others (Nye, 2008: 72-74). On the other hand, hard power also has important tools such as organizing skill and political intelligence -- versus social intelligence-- which eventually will integrate into soft power in order to constitute smart power (Nye, 2008:83). In Power Rules, Lezli Grebe argues that the gap between advocates of hard and soft power lies in Jefferson and Hamilton perspectives which could also be visible in Obama and McCane presidential campaigns in 2008 (Grebe, 2009:68). In general the countries that are successful in creating and exerting soft power at the global scene are: 1. The countries whose prevailing culture and customs are closer to universal norms. 2. The countries that are linked to more communicational channels. 3. The countries that have gained strong reputation because of their effectiveness in both domestic and international affairs. A Critical Approach to Amerivan Virtual Colonialism / 393
Soft Power and Virtual Space Virtual space acts as a tool for soft power and soft power is the reference for generating virtual space. ―The end of the cold war is the start of the soft war‖, in which the war has become tremendously equipped both in the physical and the virtual worlds. Soft power acts in a field of colonialism and fermentation, where ―countless users‘ are the main generators of power for ―the enemies of humanity‖. In recent decades, the world has witnessed ever-increasing technological advancements, particularly in communication. From invention of radio and television to the rise of 24-hour news networks broadcasting the latest news live and across the globe, all have been making the world a small place by reducing distances. As information technology advanced we have been experiencing ―virtual feudalism‖ in which overlapping communities constitute multilayered identity and citizenships. Whereas once knowledge used to generate power, today the ―virtual feudalism‖ based on information flow among various networks is the main producer of power. Information flow has soared citizens‘ participation in social management in democratic societies and has made management to be more participative in nature and less command oriented (Nye, 2002). Therefore, the more people are exposed to information flow, the more separate cultural link to each other. Furthermore, various sphere of social life such as household affairs, work, recreation, education, reality, and fiction are all included in domain of influence of global information flow (Adrian, 2007:12). These connections have not led to a centralized world. Rather it has caused decentralization. Joseph Nye enumerates three features for information: the flow, the competition, and the strategic importance. Of course, the flow of information is influenced heavily by the source of information. Furthermore, one who distributes information faster and with more credibility, may gain and exert more power. Governments also use information and its flow to acquire credibility and power and at the same time undermine their oppositions (Nye, 2002:68). The literature concerning the relationship between soft power and virtual space and how various internet networks can work to exert power, is
Global Alliance 394 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace meager. Because of the significant impacts of these networks on societies, and furthermore because of some recent major events, such as the aftermath of Iran‘s 2009 presidential elections, it is highly crucial for researchers to examine the dynamic and potentialities of soft power and virtual space within which it operates.
Strategy and Instrument In Superpowers of Soft Powers, Yasushi & McConnel (2008) has compiled some articles which address different aspects of soft power in the United State and Japan. Higher education, high culture, public culture, public diplomacy, and civil society are instruments, which their role in soft power has been examined in this book. In the chapter on higher education, the book outlines how foreign students‘ perspective and thoughts are enormously influenced by American universities (2008:42). Upon returning home, these students incline to establish organizations and institutions identical to those experienced in the United States, particularly in educational and academic fields. Their relationship with American way of thinking is kept through graduate students societies, academic conferences, and unofficial academic groups (Yasushi and McConnel, 2008:43). Today, social virtual networks have made it easier for such links and relationships to be maintained. The establishment of Association of International Educators or NAFSA in the United States in order to exchange professors and students between American universities and other universities around the world indicates the significance of this issue for the United States. American people are primarily exposed to other nations‘ soft power. In another article, the role of Japanese animations, children programmers, computer games and some other cultural products on American children and teenagers has been explored. These products have occasionally motiavated American youth to learn Japanese language and travel to the country. In fact, during previous decades there has never been such an enthusiasm. Furthermore, Japanese products that are seeking success in American market often need A Critical Approach to Amerivan Virtual Colonialism / 395 to conceal their Japanese identity and be ―Americanized‖ (same,101). At the end, globalization of Japanese public culture does not translated into Japans‘ soft power because it does not link the Japanese public culture to other aspect of Japanese society so as to generate interest towards the country itself (same, 105). In reality, of three ingredients the Nye sees necessary for the establishment and maintenance of soft power-- that is, culture, political values and foreign policy (same, 102), Japan only enjoys the first one. Non-governmental organizations can be seen as one of the most robust instruments of exerting soft power. Their soft power usually is not limited to geographical borders, but is international. In spite of the fact that these bodies introduce themselves as independent from governments, in practice they act in favor of some governments. Katsuji & Kaori divide NGOs into religious, Donontisti, and Wilsonist groups. The prominent feature of the third group is that it sees its philanthropic purposes consistent with American foreign policy, and majority of American NGOs are classified as such (same, 265-266). Most of these NGOs possess considerably large budgets and occasionally receive financial aids from governments. Information technology advancements contribute to the expansion of these organizations around the world. But some networks have emerged which are not sub-divisions of NGOs but work actively and are able to draw a considerable range of people from a very wide geographical area. Some of these networks basically act in virtual space. It is hard to understand the main motives and interest of NGOs (same, 268). Virtual social networks are important tools to exert soft power. In an article addressing the role twitter in Iranian post-elections events in 2009, the impact of twitter has been evaluated as strong as that of CNN during Persian Gulf War. Furthermore, it may be correctly hypothesized that the request of U.S. Department of State from Twitter to postpone their regular maintenance during Iranian events, is entirely in agreement with the purpose of toppling Iranian government, which had also been sought after by previous Neo-conservative government. Furthermore, it is not far from
Global Alliance 396 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace truth that U.S. Department of State used the communications on Twitter as a source of intelligence on events in Iran (Burns & eltham, 2009: 305). In fact, Twitter is an efficient alternative to radio and television networks which were previously used to carry out the plans of the United States in other countries. Twitter and similar social virtual networks have yet another advantage: through the volunteer role of people in such networks, these networks cannot anymore be accused of propaganda machinery of the United States. Explaining some methods to which twitter users resorted in order to advocate protests in Iran, Burns and Eltham (2009) argue that this method was not successful to change the Iranian government and even alter the result of election since it hardly overcame the governments‘ apparatus. The United States did not show enough enthusiasm to support Iranian protesters with military assistance or providing weapons because it was not willing to leave public diplomacy in favor of covert operation. It is moreover possible that the United States government which has been working to advance its intelligence operations in Iran has viewed the role of Twitter in organizing protesters in the aftermath of Iranian presidential elections in 2009 as an interesting case study that needs to be examined in more details. Examining the Iranian case in detail, Burns and Eltham point out the inefficiency of soft power and social media technologies to compete with hard power (same, 306). In fact, this example reveals apparently the complementary role of soft and hard power and that is why both genres of power need to be deployed simultaneously in order to achieve the desired objective. In short, close study of Twitter‘s role in Iranian presidential post-election unrests, underlines inefficiency of sheer use of soft power (Burns & Eltham, 2009:306). In reality, soft power facilitates the ground for using hard power in order to enhance its efficiency as decreasing the severity of its application. Virtual games are of other methods that soft power can be exerted throughout the virtual space. Capacities of online games, or Massively Multiplayer Online Games, along with numerous online participants is A Critical Approach to Amerivan Virtual Colonialism / 397 seen as a rich ground to exert soft power. Adrian believes that these games are effective through three ways: 1. ―one-to-many-player network‖ or designer‘s influence on the players. In fact, designers‘ opinions and values are exerted in the design of the game and are conveyed to the players. 2. ―Many-to-many- player network‖ which includes interactions between players through chartroom, email, personal and public messages, and other platforms. 3. ―one-to-many player network‖ or player‘s relation with the community of players in which a player can express his/her own values and ideas through different methods such as determining personal features of appearance in the game environment such as the Avatar(Adrian, 2007:15). Virtual world of the games have offered a milieu for exertion of soft power as well as public diplomacy in which concepts such as war, peace and so on can be conveyed.
Soft Power through Virtual Empires: Determinations in Free Frameworks Latest statistics reveal that more than 206 million internet websites are active (Netcarft, 2010). This number indicates the existence of extremely massive amount of data in virtual space. Despite the free appearance of virtual space, it does not denote equal access to the data for the users because users have to choose a few specific websites among the extremely many websites available to them. This fact leads to promotion of the status of the search engines like Google, yahoo, binge (msn) because it is the search engines that offer you a limited number of websites among the millions available, with certain ranking and pre-programmed algorithms which determine the ranking rules. This can be inferred as ―soft filtering of power‖ or determination within the free frameworks of information. Although the engines never prohibit you from entering any other websites, they automatically create a virtual distance between you and some websites ─and make you closer to those having higher ranks─
Global Alliance 398 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace through their ranking algorithm. Nye believes that power does not merely belongs to information generators, but the central power is held by those editing the gigantic amount of information and creating a distinction between credible and non-credible information (Nye, 2002). The huge amount of current information in the space as made it to difficult judge over information credibility. The most valuable capital of these search engines lie in their legitimacy because users select their desirable engines with their confidence to them which is largely based on their neutrality, speed, efficiency, comprehensiveness and etcetera. In reality, the engines act as users‘ agents in the virtual space. Thus, ―legitimacy‖ is seen as central component of the rise and fall of virtual empires in the near future. It is through legitimacy that these search engines gain tremendous degree of soft power over their users because they can direct the flow of information on various issues such as politics, economy, and culture. Therefore, despite the free nature of virtual space, the search engines can covertly lead their users toward the discourses that are consistent with various predefined objectives of the search engines. Successful social network sites are other central components of virtual space. These empires like facebook, my space, and twitter intend to form social communities whose citizens are users from all over the world with various nationalities. Surprisingly, the Facebook empire possesses over 500 million members. These virtual communities have various cultural, social, and political values. Facebook has managed to redefine the concepts such as ―friend‖, ―relationship‖, and ―family‖, as well as the culture of routine daily activities such as greeting. Although users make significant contribution to create these communities, the principles and discourses dominating these virtual communities influence their members in creating their own identity. In the mean time, private companies and enterprises are vastly superior to their governmental counterparts. Governmental companies may be easily accused of prejudice and hegemony, whereas private companies, seemingly, do not show any ideological tendencies and instead, pretend seeking transmission of cultural and political values for economic profit. Besides, private sector benefits from mechanisms that attract audiences A Critical Approach to Amerivan Virtual Colonialism / 399 and influence their preferences. As mentioned earlier, these features are highly helpful n absorbing users and acquiring legitimacy. Its superiority in terms of soft power also continues in real world. Mathew Freezer, in the tenth chapter of ―superpowers of soft power‖, points to several failures of U.S public diplomacy in Middle East unlike Hollywood, as a notable private sector. Private sectors‘ advantages over its governmental counterpart in virtual space is far more than what Freezer stated about the real world because bias and invidious in virtual space, which intrinsically must be free and accessible, is rarely tolerated. So majority of virtual empires are owned by private sectors, and are seemingly free and neutral. Many virtual empires like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, and so on belong to the private sectors of the United States and seemingly there is no relation between them and the government, although it sometimes happens that some news on governmental interference on their policies are leaked. Sometimes, even some of these empires act against current U.S. policies. However, too much attention to comprehend to their relationship with the U.S government will lead to overlook more important point. These empires play the key role in transmission of fundamental Anglo-Saxon culture such as ―liberalism‖, ―democracy‖, ― freedom‖, ―human rights‖, pluralism‖, individualism‖, ― free trade market‖, and so on and they never need any financial assistance from the United States government. Moreover, some of the empires like MSN and Amazon transmit the U.S. popular culture to the users through advertisements and informing over cinema, music, sport, literature, and even how to cook various American dishes. Nowadays, some values like ―democracy‖, ―freedom‖, ―human rights‖, ―and ―pluralism‖ have all become universal. This indicates that the United States has been relatively successful in soft power absorption through both real and virtual spaces. As argued earlier, this soft power takes complementary role for the U.S. hard power to meet its goal. In order to comprehend the nature of the U.S. virtual dominance which is mainly soft in nature and managed by private companies, a detailed analysis of U.S. virtual empires is required, which is carried out below.
Global Alliance 400 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Bibliography 1.Adrian, A. (2007). The Soft power of Virtual Reality, Int. J. Liability and Scientific Enquiry, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, p.10–17. 2007. 2.Ameli, S. R. (2004,a/1383). ―Simultaneous Communication Technologies and Dual Globalization of Culture‖, ―teknolozhiha-ye hamzaman-e ertebatat va du fazaei shodan-e farhang‖. Didgah quarterly. No.1, Vol. 1. 3.Ameli, S. R. (2004,b/1383). Globalizations: ―Concepts and Theories‖, ―mafahim va nazarie-ha‖. Arghanoun quarterly, 24 (4): 1-55. 4.Burns, A., & Eltham, B. (2009). ―Twitter Free Iran: An Evaluation Of Twitter‘s Role In Public Diplomacy And Information Operations In Iran‘s 2009 Election Crisis‖, Record of the Communications Policy & Research Forum 2009, p. 298-310. 5.Easton, G. (2010). Critical Realism in Case Study Research, No. 39, pp. 118- 128. 6.Gelb, L. H. (2009). ―Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy‖, Hapercollins E-Books, 2009. 7.James, K. (2008). A Critical Theory and Postmodernist approach to the teaching of accounting theory, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, No. 19, pp. 643-676. 8.Netcarft. (2010). "March 2010 Web Server Survey", March 2010, Retrieved March 18th, 2010, from Netcraft: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html 9.Nye, J. (2002). The Paradox of American Power. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 10.Nye, J. (2004). Power in the Global Information Age, London: Rutledge. 11.Nye, J. S. (2002). The Information Revolution and American Soft Power, Asia-Pacific Review, Vol.9, No 1. 12.Nye, J. S. (2008). The Powers to Lead. London: Oxford University Press. 13.Paivarinta, T. (2001). The Concept of Genre Within the Critical Approach to Information Sytems Development, Information and Organization, No. 11, pp. 207-234. 14.Yasushi, W., & Mc Connell, D. (2008). Soft power superpowers: cultural and national assets of Japan and the United States, East Gate. Culture- Means of Mass Communication terrorism; an up-to-date trilogy / 401
Culture- Means of Mass Communication- Terrorism; an up- to- date trilogy Dr. Stergios Katichoritis
Abstract The paper begins with the definition of the concepts Culture, Media and Terrorism. Culture is defined as the cultural activity with the spiritual and material projects, values, traditions, customs and aesthetics that shape our way of life. The term of Media of Mass Communication is defined as the official source of information concerning both real and unreal, virtual reality. The definition of terrorism is presented as the systematic use of violence, exercised by organized groups with political, religious and ideological motivations. We live in a world, grounded in material culture that builds a model of life based on the degree and the capability of consuming industrial products. Consuming capitalism and the collapsed Marx theory underlined those social systems with sets of values based on total human components. The diffusion of this concept, sometimes referred to as a new ―religion‖, has detracted spirituality from human social evolution. An efficient means for the development of this new religion is the financial power that directs the media to formulate such a fictional consciousness. On these conditions, it is clear that the anger of destitute and oppressed people can lead to organized actions of violence and aggression. This conclusion should be severely doomed, since it brings about inequalities in favour of people with financial power and it also restrains the upgrade of humankind‘s spiritual values. The new culture that would reject the materialistic consumerist
BA in Philosophy; PhD in Sociology; Doctor at the Panteion University of Athens; Former Perfect of Achaia; Former Vice- Perfect of Western Greece.
Global Alliance 402 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
perception will not arise by means of violence and darkness, but through the divine light of mind and perception.
1. Definition Approach To start with, please allow me to present my personal views on each separate part of this trilogy.
A. Culture: In the Greek language, the term was first presented in the ancient times. From the derivation point of view, it is considered to share the same origin with the words citizen and city (politismos- polis- politis). It is preceding to the term civilization, which arose in the linguistics much later, that is around in the 18th century, in the sense of cultivation in the fields of agriculture and animal breeding.1 The term evolves and prevails under the concept of personal refinement and spiritual development in the 19th century. This development is achieved through education, principally aiming to fulfil values and ideals both on national and individual level.2 In the Greek perception, the meaning of the term ―culture‖ is to a great extent dual. In more detail, on the one hand the term refers to the political pursuit with material and intellectual goods in the frame of social activities. On the other hand, the word ―culture‖ is related with the mental cultivation of values, tradition and knowledge. These principles determine the way of every level of social life. Culture is an evolving definition, which can be directly influenced by social and geographical qualities such as tribe, nationality, religion, language and every other factor governing and expanding social coherence. It is commonly accepted and proved within the years that when we use the term ―culture‖, we usually refer to a non- static, vulnerable and mostly
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture ―... the concept first emerged in eighteenth- and nineteenth- century in Europe..‖ 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture ―...it came to refer first to the betterment or refinement of the individual, through education, and then to the fulfillment of aspirations or ideals.‖
Culture- Means of Mass Communication terrorism; an up-to-date trilogy / 403 developing term. It is a fact that during their ―existence‖, the different types of civilisations were either faded, dismissing their identity to a narrow or total extent or they were simply transformed under the view of social change. Nonetheless, the fact that several civilisations, in any structure they endured through the years, passed their intellectual accomplishments on later culture or social generations remains indisputable. Examples of such culture models were the Greek civilisation, the Chinese, the Persian as well as the Roman civilisation. This statement becomes reinforced through the assumptions the experts drew, after the end of the Word Summit for setting and broadening the concept of Culture strategies in 1982, in Mexico. This Summit, known as MondiaCult3, came to the conclusion that Culture in its wide sense, represents nowadays a body of spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features. This body constitutes a fundamental attribute of a society or a social group, regarding its system of values, tradition, religion systems as well as the set of arts, linguistics and movements of thought.
B. Media of Mass Communication: People are determined by their internal need for communication. However, it was this specific need that allowed the Mass Media to obtain immense power. The technological breakthrough both in the conventional and the electronic Press set new conditions in people‘s daily life. Mass Media comprise the contemporary ―Janus‖, the ancient Roman God of two faces; the one representing evil and the other goodness. This is justified since they are tightly related to not only the powers of progress and salvation but also at the same time to the forces of oppression and brutality. Unfortunately, these days information passes through the filters of propaganda of commercial interests and the dominant economic forces of each state. This results to the distortion of the factual truth and even worse to the deliberate formation of civil moral sense.
3. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0004/000493/049367eb.pdf
Global Alliance 404 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
The value system of an organized society is indeed synonymous to its financial foundation. Nonetheless, this social feature cannot be regarded as the primary cause of the above effect. What many of those embracing Marx‘s theory did not perceive, is that objective reality is not automatically reflected in the consciousness of the individual, based only on its economic value. This, sadly led to the depreciation of the intellectual and psychological mechanisms, involved in the formation of human convictions. This lack of appreciation created the illusion that only the material base of the society, as well as the equal distribution of the produced wealth, forms the ideological mechanisms of the construction. The question, set in our times, is in which ways and forces the Means of Mass Communication should be utilised by the people of spirit and growth, before they become imprisoned by the conservative power of a solely consuming society.
C. Terrorism: A current definition for this type of behaviour conduct is the premeditated and deceitful reaction or pressure, exercised by organised groups. Their motives are usually financial, religious, political or any alternative ideological ones, supported by the systematic use or the threat of use of violence. This violence is openly addressed either to individuals, social groups, decision-making mechanisms or properties. However, most of the times, the ultimate aim is the functioning conditions of a government or a political regime so as to extract political, ideological and financial profits. Research has indicated that contemporary terrorism is presented mainly in two patterns; firstly, as a result of the conflict between the Eastern and the Western civilisation. Secondly, as the outcome of socio- economic inequalities, derived from the imperialistic policy of the West at the expense of the East. Historically, terrorism failed to overthrow the Eastern regimes in target and this comprises in fact a threat to the established order and authority. Under the view of this failure, since terrorism contributes to the political establishment of the totalitarian governments, the latter will install Culture- Means of Mass Communication terrorism; an up-to-date trilogy / 405 terrorism to the extent this activity is necessary for the fulfilment of their goals. Definitely, the most interesting side of terrorism is its psychological effect, being organised by the Mass Media, fabricating an alternative reality full of specifically targeted transmissions and subterfuges. Under this framework, every taken measure for confronting terrorism becomes justified. In general terms, the scenario of terrorism produces social injustice and disparities between the wealthy West and the deprived East. This scenario validates the extravagant amounts spent on armament programmes so as to furnish the West against the threats coming from the East. It moreover legalises steps taken by governments against potential or even inexistent threat with the form of firm legislative frames, repressive practices and preventive actions. It has been fairly stated that the entire responsibility for the phenomenon of terrorism leans against the vast socio- economic inequalities on a global rank. On the other hand, the West bears the responsibility of expanding the threat of terrorism. This ongoing menace will seize up to an end merely when the financial harassment of Eastern countries by the West is brought to an end.
2. The unfortunate trilogy of a civilisation in transition
A. The Frame of Consuming Culture The consuming way of life, with the continuing pursuit of material products of use, determines the natural components of the Western lifestyle. This lifestyle is further underlined through its cultural entities which rule a gradually increasing number of civilisation models around the earth. These civilisation models expand in millions of people. However, this development comprises neither a viable nor an essential part of the human nature.
Global Alliance 406 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Consuming, as a cultural value, is booming in a spectacular pace year by year. This flourishing entails the increase of pressure on the natural function of the planet itself. Sadly, its capacities are concrete and it can no longer support the enormous expansion of human demands. Everything leads to the assumption that Plato‘s ―Kingdom of Ideas‖ has been substituted by the ―Theory of Existence‖ and the ―Spindle of Necessity‖ as well as by ―Being and Time‖ of Martin Heidegger. It is a fact what Oswald Spengler claims in his book ―The Decline of the West‖, that is Western civilisation, captured in its materialistic cover, is condemned and the reversion is highly unlikely. It is indeed being led towards destruction, on circular stages, through the promotion of the technological evolution. It is time we referred to the socio- economic and geopolitical field of the present technological consuming culture, on the occasion of the current financial crisis. In so doing, we should take into consideration the taste of death well- hidden behind the innocent face of the use of goods and services as well as behind the technological prosperity of the markets. Never before the national states faced their position in the geo- economic and global power system being re- defined in such an unexpected way. This was initially achieved through the drastic raise of the oil and food industry prices and later through Stock Exchange subsidence and bankruptcy. In 2008, within 8 days, we encountered radical changes in the system. Specifically, we witnessed: A world change under the frame of financial collapse of not only long- eternal, multinational business colossus but also in the sense of economic failure of entire state units. The introduction of new social variables with principal victims the social cohesion, the social state, the labour relations and the Social Insurance conditions. The dissolution of the neo- liberal ideology and the need to go back to the security offered by the conventional form of the State. The inflation of the immaterial capitalism seems to have been demolished under the pressure of the current conditions. Culture- Means of Mass Communication terrorism; an up-to-date trilogy / 407
It has been attested that the accumulated pressure occurred, mainly because the ‗oil era‘ is reaching the end. We are already at the threshold of a new energy policy era and the international players aim to concentrate more and more monetary surplus values. In so doing they will ensure their sovereignty in the next day of the new economic reality, while the game cost leans against the shoulders of the people. We live in a world of constant technological progress. This constant progress will be the generic cause to determine the future, since the conclusion of the financial crisis we are experiencing is yet unknown. The global financial problem of the last few years can be considered neither metaphysical nor odd. As an outcome, it is interconnected to the fluctuations and changes during the course of the capitalistic system. The humanity has witnessed several similar fluctuations since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1760 with tremendous results. Nevertheless, the current fluctuation appears to be the most hazardous one. It‘s interesting to make a short reference to these fluctuations; 1760: the Industrial Revolution becomes a fact on the sparkle of the British technological achievements in the field of metallurgy and fabrication. This change led to collisions during the process of colonialism with tens thousands of victims. The age of steel and steam- engine; it brought about enormous conflicts among the Great Powers of that time with hundreds thousands of victims. Accomplishments in the field of Electricity and gas- engine machines signal the next fluctuation. During this era, United States of America along with Germany dominates over the British. People witness the First World War with millions of victims. Biochemical and jet medicine as well as nuclear power and Computers Technology are the features of the next stage of advancement. The universe is set back on the track of World War II with 50 million victims. After World War II, we observe the establishment of two new systems, known either as the capitalistic world or the communist. There were two great difficulties for these new- born worlds:
Global Alliance 408 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
The first one, from the practical point of view, was the so- called Third World and the way this part of the continent participated in the worldwide production process along with the political systems of governance. The second problem was the sentiment of religion that people shared, mainly the Christian and Islamic part of the populations. In the first part, west capitalism was the power which took the responsibility for ―enslaving‖ people, especially through Soviet propaganda. The latter promoted a new religion formation ―Marxism‖ in order to realise this project. Imam Khomeini is very well- known for his views. 1.13th Communist Party Conference, 1924; the struggle against people‘s religious bias needs to come to an end. This will be done by closing the churches and the mosques and by promoting propaganda against faith in a material way of expression. 2.Komsomol magazine, June 1942; the most effective way on the battle against religion is exercising extensive propaganda concerning the material and scientific view of the universe. 3.Komsomol magazine, October 1942; the Communist Party should not maintain a solid attitude towards religious matters. As a Science proponent, it will carry on with the Propaganda as religion is brought against scientific advancement. It becomes obvious that the nature of the above perception is in conflict in all levels; a conflict that blends in time religions, nations, states, societies and countries smashing every single of their original components. It is the new blood hunter, wishing to lead the world. Concluding, in the new upcoming era there will be no aspect of our life that will remain unaffected. The fallouts will not contain purely economic dimensions but they will introduce alternative lifestyles. Nevertheless, we aspire that, beyond the Crisis, a new beginning is about to be launched. The oil era seems to be coming to an end. Besides, even the stone - age never seized because there were no more stone supplies. It ended because in the new transition they were impractical. Culture- Means of Mass Communication terrorism; an up-to-date trilogy / 409
In times of stock market aggressions, derived from the immaterial capitalism the globalisation has induced, the philosophers, incapable of influencing the course of events, have abandoned the Means of Mass Communication. As Hegel has cited, “… when philosophy paints grey onto grey maybe a form of life has got older wand we fail to breathe life into it once again. The owl of Athina, the bird of wisdom, flies only when the night has become to fall …” We take a great deal of pride in Natural Sciences, the struggles and the accomplishments of the West civilisation; from the Greek times to the Renaissance, from Descartes to Newton and the vast scientific and social acquisitions, from establishment of Democracy and the Social state to development of Pharmacy and man‘s opening to the planetary system and space. However, we have to point out that we ended up considering technology, material and consuming as ultimate ideals. We failed to perceive that these can be forces which keep the reins of progress and need for constant profit; forces that constrain the art of poetry in favour of technology, politics instead of Philosophy and materialism instead of esprit.
B. The Means of Mass Communication to the service of material cultural imperialism In modern societies, the participation of citizens‘ majority in politics is not feasible without Media‘s support. This is due to Media‘s ability to allow the exchange of views on a public level, open dialogue and public exercise of practice. History has proven that in cases where the Means of Mass Communication were controlled, principles as freedom of speech and democracy have been abolished. The functional role of publicity has been consolidated in the Constitutions, protecting the fundamental right of free and public expression; that is the institution of political parties, the Parliament and the Press. Under the frame of this problematic, the Media plays a critical role in the formulation of the public opinion. Media‘s contemporary profile is accredited to the technological achievements and the transition of social conditions. Their leaping and
Global Alliance 410 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace multiform growth evidently indicates the integrating Community of Informatics. Hence, industrial societies and the traditional means of production belong to the past. The swift transfer of the workforce‘s employment from the primary and secondary sector of services, along with the steady increase at the production of manufactured goods and services of information technology, are the principal elements of the American and EU economies. The production of industrial and energy commodities has been displaced by data processing. Social processes have been directly influenced and moderated, by the development of the Media and Information Systems. Many scientific fields, such as Sociology, Political Sciences and Psychology have conducted several important studies regarding Media influence and the formation of Information Community. A rather interesting theory belongs to Janes Beniger, which supports the existence of a Control Revolution, driven by the Media, in the developed countries. The Control Revolution consists of a compound and rapid procedure, during which the product (information) is collected, restored, disseminated and transmitted. This procedure is directly connected to the prevailing technological and economic circumstances, which could by default affect the social control. These social changes in the Means of Mass Communication and the technology of telecommunications contribute to the increase of the enforcement of political and financial control by the upper class. Prior to this development, the control of general social activities was based upon interpersonal relations. Upon the establishment of bureaucracy mechanisms in the Media organisational units, control embraced a totalitarian meaning. This new context facilitates the upper class to be in charge of the social structures and functions in a much wider level than in the past. At this point, the word control represents a more generalised sense; that is, the intended influence through a determined target. It includes the entire scale, from the absolute control to its weakest form, any possible influence which could be exercised on the level of conduct. Culture- Means of Mass Communication terrorism; an up-to-date trilogy / 411
The information transfer, its processing and the control constitute indispensable components of Cybernetics, a new science field defined by Norbert Weiner. According to Weiner, Cybernetics depends on the absolute space of Control and the theory of transition, either concerning a machine or an animal. The information process and the dissemination procedure are requisite elements of the control function. Therefore, in case authorities wishes to maintain the control in every level need to align itself with the development of information processes. The new era of the Capitalistic system depends largely on its cultural growth and strengthening. Cultural imperialism is another aspect of the political, economic and military imperialism. The latter intentionally uses the Media, especially Television, as the driving force for penetrating its ideological standards. In so doing, it aims to shape a particular citizen model which corresponds exactly to the contemporary requirements of capitalism. This citizen has to be indifferent, passive, alienated, consumer and mostly atheist. During the interwar period, until World War I, the Media and mainly radio are used by fascistic and authoritarian regimes in great success. Later in the years, television grew to be the effective weapon used by dictatorships of the Third World. In the West, the Means of Mass Communication are used in a much discreet and tactful way, without dismissing though their primary objectives. The social layers which happen to question this role have limited if not zero possibilities of intervention in the Media‘s structure and operation.
C. Terrorism; a hazardous, atrocious and illicit conduct The 11th September of 2001 is the day, when the entire world believing in the US domination, collapsed along with the World Trade Centre. It is unquestionable that this incident consisted a historical turn page and has been imprinted in people‘s minds.
Global Alliance 412 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
George Bush, President of the USA at the time, went on declaring the world war against terrorism. Below a chronological course of events which intervened from 9/11 until nowadays is cited: 1.2001: The United States invades Afghanistan, as the country agitating the terrorists. 2.2004: The United States invades Iraq, under the same charges along with the so- called WMD pocession. 3.The announcement of Osama Bin Laden‘s Death. Since 9/11, there have been enormous efforts to relate the phenomenon of terrorism to a religion conflict mostly between Christianity and Islam. Under this framework, ―war against terrorism‖ acquires different features and dimensions. The war is now defined as ―the Clash of Civilisations‖. However, this new frame is way far from reality. The ―Clash of civilisations‖, a theory proposed by the political scientist Samuel Huntington, supports that the principal source of conflict, during the Post Cold War era, will be people‘s cultural and religious identities. Despite Huntington‘s efforts, it is impossible to adopt neither the claim that terrorism constitutes culture, nor that it is a product of dispute between Christianity and Islam. First and foremost, currently there is neither a solid Christian world nor a concrete Islamic one. The majority of the West populations show limited interest towards Christian principles. This indifference has led to a new tendency towards material and secular humanism of new dimensions. In older times, terrorism was used by groups uninterested or even hostile to every form of religion. The only new element nowadays is the development of terrorism, in means of technology, which is extensively used in a further religious aspect. Obviously Islam rests closer to Christianity compared to Hinduism, Buddhism and the traditional Chinese or Japanese religion groups. This occurs as the latter depend on completely different philosophical conditions and system thoughts. Both Islam and Christianity are followed by religion layers which date back to Abraham‘s traditions. The common Culture- Means of Mass Communication terrorism; an up-to-date trilogy / 413 points regard in general the mutual concession of God‘s existence, the conviction about humanity‘s common origin, the faith in the name of prophets who were God‘s representatives on earth, faith in Resurrection of the Dead and in the Final Judgment. Many forms of religion expression are parallel; pray, charities, Advent, faith confession, celebrations and honour respect. Moreover, the perception of God, the Saint Trinity, Jesus‘ divinity and all its stemming dimensions. In social perception, the differences mainly focus on woman‘s position and significance as well as freedom under the boundaries religion sets. Besides, this explains the fact that people belong to different types of religion. For centuries, the Orthodox population has lived together with Muslims in peace, despite the differences. In many cases, this coexistence is the leading factor for peace and stability, with the absence of conflicts and terrorist actions. There have been moments in history that human alliance was related to the violent enforcement of the one or the other religion. Such belief has no longer reasonable grounds. Violence brings about only violence, harassing the true meaning of religion. Proactive approach and productive dialogue will avert hostilities in Christian- Muslim relations. Koran cites in chapter 49; ―Oh Humans! You have been created by one (sole) man and one (sole) woman; your creation led to the creation of populations, tribes and nations. The most virtuous among you will be the honoured in the eyes of Allah‖. We need to resist to the immense repulse, being widespread in several parts of the world, through acts of love and supreme virtue. In the modern pluralistic society, the only safe way out is to empathise each other particularities and respect every person‘s dignity and religious choices. The financially developed countries of the West should seriously take into consideration the radical changes in the behaviour of the underprivileged part of the planet. In the 20thcentury plenty of them become re- orientated towards communism, which coincides to the historical materialism. It promotes important religious axioms, such as social justice, brotherhood and equality. On the other side of the world, in Asia and Africa, Islam
Global Alliance 414 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace puts people‘s faith on the far right of religious spectrum. Thus, this might result in another form of conflict. Western wealthy societies bear the responsibility to become fair and just, recalling their Christian tradition and origins. If they persist in remaining indifferent, we will witness severe collisions in different parts of the planet.
Conclusion It should be taken as granted that a probable disintegration of our ―culture‖, will lead to the economic, political, social and moral collapse of the States as well as the entire existence of the planet in its current shape. If we wish to avoid such a demolition, the dominating models in the value system of this culture need to be reformed. This will offer the people a new sense of existence, satisfaction and social pretention through limited consumption products. There is the primary need to establish a fruitful dialogue among the involved religions. Everyone, in sincere consciousness, has to follow the rules of co- existence and tolerance and those dictating cooperation in matters of a just society and love. There is no doubt that an entire new era emerges. Perhaps, under the twilight of this new history, we face a fresh new veil of the luminous dawn.
Authoritarian Media and Terrorism –Al Jazeera az an Example / 415
Authoritarian Media and Terrorism – Al Jazeera as an Example Abdul Hussein Sultan
The Historical Relationship between Media and Terrorism The relationship between terrorism and media dates back to God‘s creation of man. Cain and Abel were the sons of Adam. When God accepted Abel‘s sacrifice but not Cain‘s, Cain became angry and threatened to kill his brother. Abel reacted with tolerance, saying ―If you do stretch your hand against me to kill me, I shall never stretch my hand against you to kill you, for I fear Allah; the Lord of the universe" (Quran, 5:28). Despite his brother‘s tolerance, Cain committed the first offense and terrorist act on earth by killing his brother. When the Quran‘s verses came down they condemned this criminal action; with God saying ―So the Nafs (self) of the other (Cain) encouraged him and made fair-seeming to him the murder of his brother; he murdered him and became one of the losers‖ (Quran, 5:30). The Divine media revealed the seriousness of terrorism and violence against people and society, saying that that whosoever transgresses against one human being transgresses against the whole human race: ―if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind‖ (Quran, 5:32). The inter-related relationship between media and terrorism has continued throughout history to this day. In every stage of history there have been terrorist actions that have been supported and justified by the media, especially when the media is controlled by tyrannical and repressive authorities. An example of this is when the Umayyad dynasty led an
Editor of Ad-Dar, a daily newspaper published in Kuwait.
Global Alliance 416 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace extensive propaganda campaign against Imam Ali (A.S.). They used their authority to force prayer leaders to curse and insult the Commander of Believers (Imam Ali) from their podiums at Friday prayer for a period of 70 years. In these times podiums in mosques and poetry were the most successful popular media. Both were controlled by the ruling authorities. Here it would be relevant to recall an anecdote. Muawiyah (the first Umayyad ruler) was attending prayer. When the speaker finished he was about to step down from the podium without cursing Ali, but Muawiyah got his attention and told him that he hadn‘t finished his speech because he hadn‘t yet cursed Ali. The speaker obliged by saying ―Muawiyah asked me to curse Ali. The curse of God be on him‖ leaving ambiguity as to who was meant by ―him‖. Muawiyah said ―I swear I‘m not sure if you cursed me or him!‖ Due to their aggressive media campaign, the Umayyad regime succeeded in creating a negative atmosphere and hostility towards Imam Ali (A.S.). This started a chain of crimes against the pure imams, including the Commander of Believers Imam Ali (A.S.), who was assassinated in his chambers in Kufa. The unjust media campaign continued unabated. After the Umayyad began their caliphate they committed crimes in the city of Altaf. This was followed by the Husseini mass massacre in Karbala, which was also an effect of the disinformation spread by the Umayyad media, led by Yazid Ibn Muawiyah, who circulated that Imam Hussein was anti-authoritarian. Yazid used the media to make sure that the people of Syria didn‘t realize the value of Imam Hussein (A.S.) and thus did not defend him. Obaid Allah Ibn Ziad and Alshamr Ibn Zel-Gaushan contributed to the media campaign by lobbying the people of Kufa to fight against Hussein and his family. Following this was the invasion of Medina as well as other battles and crimes, even against unarmed civilians. The media justified these inhumane crimes, using the mosque podiums to repress the public and silence opposing voices. This went on until the fall of the Umayyad state.
Authoritarian Media and Terrorism –Al Jazeera az an Example / 417
Contemporary Media The media continued to play a strategic and influential role throughout history until the present day, and has always been pivotal in guiding public opinion and trends and the formation of public attitudes and behaviors. It does this through news and information communicated via modern mediums. This makes the media, in all its different forms and with all its different resources, capable of bringing about fundamental changes in both individuals and communities, through knowledge, awareness, enlightenment, formation of public opinion, and dissemination of information and data to the public. The media has become an essential part in the formation of people‘s beliefs and attitudes, in addressing them and influencing them. This makes it necessary to consider to take into account the circumstances of each community and its environmental, cultural, and social values, in order not to prejudice its unique identity. Neither should the media ignore the other segments of societies (minorities) or exclude them from expressing their views and opinions. Thanks to the information and digital revolutions, the world has become more accessible, via small devices the size of a handbag or that can fit inside a pocket. These days media has become the language of the time; it cannot be ignored or dispensed with. Therefore it should be understood and well- handled as a tool for social and political communication, without being against it. The information tools of modern media have become more responsive to the circumstances and challenges of the political and social arena. They are open to all possibilities in the light of the tremendous advancements and developments that the world has achieved, as well as innovations in the quality of news and information transmitting. Media, however, can also be dangerous. It can be used to fabricate news, photos, or videos, use unreliable anonymous sources and ―eyewitnesses‖, overly repeat emotional scenes, set up fake calls, hosting ―canned‖ strategic analysts, manage the conversation in such a way that cuts an idea that one would want to finish, asking questions that have pre-agreed answers, etc. Perhaps most dangerous of all is presenting trusted figures,
Global Alliance 418 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace whose objectivity is also trusted, while they are in fact part of the media and simply used to attract a wide audience. One would be surprised if one knew that these figures are playing a deceptive role rather than acting on their own independent judgment. The influence of media is not only due to owning modern tools and using them successfully, but also due to using these tools to present issues objectively. This is what most media is missing these days. Instead, media policies and goals depend on what is needed in the media market to promote their product and hence reach the widest audience. This is what leads the modern, and especially the Western, media to play a role in promoting terrorism, and is what creates the relationship between terrorism and the media. Terrorists create the event, and media markets is. This raises a lot of questions about the nature of the relationship between terrorism and the media. For example the media adopt terminology and labels that impose on the minds and instincts of the audience. It is not surprising to learn that broadcasters and presenters of a television channels live in luxury and some of them make 30-40 thousand dollars per month.
The Relationship between Terrorism and Media The unprecedented spread of the phenomenon of terrorism in the world is in part due to the advance of global media and the ease of dealing with it on an individual and a collective level. Can terrorism live and spread without support from the media? Does media coverage feed terrorist operations and encourage those who stand behind them to commit more of these actions? And does the media help in spreading the culture of terrorism and as a result contribute to the increase in the rate of violence and terrorism? Any person, party, or country who has a political project must first have a form of media! There is no doubt that the phenomenon of terrorism is today a global concern. It has serious implications on the security and stability of societies and nations. It is clear that terrorism is an organized criminal activity that aims to create an atmosphere of fear and terror by threatening Authoritarian Media and Terrorism –Al Jazeera az an Example / 419 to use violence against individuals and private and public property. This dangerous phenomenon aims to destabilize order and stability in communities, affect politics, and hurt national economies through the use of violence and the killing of innocent civilians in order to create a state of general chaos. Terrorism is the ―unlawful use of violence to create a state of public intimidation in order to achieve political objectives. Others classify terrorism as ―organized violence directed against society or even the threat of such violence by groups that have an organized nature, aimed at creating a state of chaos and threatening the stability of society in order to control or undermine it. These groups do not discriminate between civilian and non-civilian targets in getting their political goals‖. What terrorism aims to do is create an atmosphere of chaos, intimidation, and malicious rumors, to destabilize the public order, and to raise doubts and concerns in the public and turn them against the political authorities under the pretext of their inability to protect the security of the public. Terrorists tend to be armed with various media in order to promote their goals and reach their objectives. They use their media to mislead the security forces on the one hand, and to influence and control public opinion on the other, through publicizing terrorist operations as they carry on. Publicizing such news helps them to achieve their goals and objectives. Terrorists see media coverage of their crimes as an effective indicator of the effect of their actions, to the extent that failure to attract sufficient media attention is the mark of a failed operation. Hence the importance, to terrorist organizations, of the use of the media to promote and support their terrorist actions and ideology. They spread it through their ongoing attempts to get their existence and actions under the spotlight of the media. Psychologists and researchers believe that terrorists might stop their operations if they knew that they would not be covered by the media or have the numbers of casualties publicized. This belief is based on the grounds that psychological warfare only works when the event is transmitted to the public. This has been described by former British prime
Global Alliance 420 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace minister Margaret Thatcher. She stated that free publicity is like oxygen to terrorists – something they can‘t live without, and gives them strategic and tactical gains. Media supports terrorists – purposely or inadvertently –by giving them a halo that they do not deserve, considering that the goals that are wanted by both the media and the terrorists are fame, power, and influence over people‘s minds. This idea was explained by Professors Bruno Frey and Dominic Rohner of Zurich University, Switzerland in their work Blood and Ink: The Common-Interest Game between Terrorists and the Media (2006). They state that both the meida and the terrorists benefit from terrorist actions. Terrorists get free publicity for their actions, and the media benefits financially because reports published about terrorism increase the number of newspaper readers and television viewers. As a result the media increases their sales and value, as well as the value of their advertising. This prompted David Broder, a reporter for the Washington Post, to suggest denying terrorists access to any forms of media covering terrorist attacks. (This is especially important for prominent advertising agencies that have a monopoly on major advertising partners, i.e. the media. It is also important for research centers that rate newspapers according to how popular they are and the affiliation of these newspapers to a political project). Interviewing terrorists is considered by them as a prize or reward for their criminal acts, as it gives them an opportunity to speak to the public about the reasons and motives that prompted them to act. This could lead to understanding of these reasons and thereby increase the chances of the occurrence of more terrorist actions. For example a lot of the people arrested for terrorist actions in Iraq said they had been influenced by what was broadcasted on satellite channels to get involved with the groups that conduct bombings and suicide attacks. Repeatedly broadcasting tragic scenes and exaggerating the damage done, in addition to the views of the terrorists that are intended to create fear, is dangerous and can have very negative repercussions. These negative Authoritarian Media and Terrorism –Al Jazeera az an Example / 421 repercussions only serve to further the goals of the terrorists. This is amplified by the competition between different medias to be the first to broadcast events related to terrorism. Being the first to give a press release attracts readers and viewers. This makes clear the ability of terrorist organizations to adapt and take advantage of the media and means of advanced communication in order to further their own operations and criminal agenda.
Al Jazeera One of the most prominent examples of the negative relationship between media and terrorism is Al Jazeera. The Arab media in general is weak and unprofessional. The main reason behind this is that all Arab media is controlled by Arab rulers, which means that the media is necessarily a follower of the regime and dedicated to their official point of view. Hence it is non-democratic, non- independent, and controlled. Independence is one of the most important conditions of success for a free media, yet the majority of the Arab media is only a mouthpiece of the state, controlled, and unable to compete with the free and independent Western media. The most prominent example of this is Al Jazeera. If we reviewed the history of the founding of this channel, the methods of financing it, their methods of dealing with events, particularly inIraq, and the culture and behavior of the staff of the channel, we will find objective reasons and clear facts that indicate and confirm the prejudice of this channel and its relationship to individuals, organizations, countries, and regimes that are essentially partners in terrorism. We should not forget the relationships between some of the staff of this channel and Israel, Saddam Hussein‘s regime, Qaddafi‘s regime, Abdullah Saleh, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, and other actors of global connections, including leaders of Arab countries with tense situations. If we take the issue of Iraq as an example, the involvement of Al Jazeera in terrorism against Iraqis is clear and certain. This was confirmed by Saad al-Shuli, deputy director of the channel, in one of the media
Global Alliance 422 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace conferences held in Amman, Jordan, when he said: ―This channel [Al Jazeera] has dealt with intelligence in Saddam Hussein‘s terrorist regime‖. He justified this deal with the weak justification that it allowed him to obtain certain information and access to Iraq. Furthermore Al Jazeera is known to have dealings with the dictator regime in Baghdad, as evidenced by one of the documents issued by the Ministry of Culture and Information, found after the fall of Saddam Hussein‘s regime. The document confirmed the support of Saddam Hussein‘s regime to Al Jazeera to the order of 50 thousand euros per month, in a secret and urgent letter that was signed by the former Minister of Culture and Information, Mohammad Saeed al-Sahaf. Al Jazeera was and continues to be a hotbed of terrorism, and it has been doing this using different styles, modes, and formats, as are reviewed below: First, Al Jazeera broadcasted early all videos showing terrorists slaughtering hostages; it was in fact the first channel to broadcast the video of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi slaughtering an American contractor working in Iraq. This was followed by broadcasting the bodies of American civilians killed in other areas of Iraq. This shows Al Jazeera‘s devotion to the culture of killing and terror, and demonstrates how it became the first promoter of terrorism in Iraq after having promoted it successfully in Afghanistan. Second, hosting Islamic extremists, chauvinist-nationalists, and enemies of the new Iraq to talk about the culture of slaughter, describe terrorism as an action of resistance, and justify under flimsy slogans that have nothing to do with Islam. Long before the fall of the fascist regime, some nationalist military extremists had even suggested targeting oil pipelines and infrastructure of the country, which is what happened later. Third, disseminating and promoting takfiri fatwas issued by men who have nothing to do with the real Islam. After the fall of Saddam Hussein‘s regime Aljazeera witnessed presentation and discussion of many of the fatwas, some issued by scholars of countries that sponsor terrorism. These fatwas justify acts of sectarian terrorism in Iraq, killing unarmed civilians Authoritarian Media and Terrorism –Al Jazeera az an Example / 423 and innocent people in mosques, churches, Shiite mosques, religious processions and funeral gatherings under the pretext of Jihad. Fourth: The clear manipulation of terminology, as Al Jazeera has created a dictionary of its own concerning Iraq, targeting the unity and security of Iraq and its people. This dictionary includes terms such as "Sunni Triangle", "Shiite south", "Kurdish north", "so-called Governing Council", and other terms that are trying to divide Iraq along political, sectarian, or ethnic lines and to question all political entities and the Iraqi state. Fifth: attacks on religious symbols in Iraq. Al Jazeera has followed a clearly sectarian policy. Since April 9, 2003, Al Jazeera has attempted to incite sectarian strife in all its programs, the most recent example being hosting Fadel al-Rubaie, Ba'athist and former ally of Saddam towards the end of the regime, on its notorious show ―Opposite Direction‖. In this show Fadel al-Rubaie publicly offended Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. The aim of this piece was to incite sectarian strife and pave the ground for civil war. Sixth: the duplicity in reporting Arab news and events, and the falsification of facts, leading to lack credibility. Objectivity, and impartiality. While Al Jazeera was covering the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, it deliberately ignored events in Bahrain, especially after Saudi forces falsely and slanderously swept the Bahraini land under the Peninsula Shield. The forces of the Peninsula Shield committed massacres against civilians and infringed on religious shrines such as mosques and Shiite mosques, burned the Quran, and other terrible crimes against humanity. Al Jazeera did not pay attention to any of these crimes. The enormous material potential that Aljazeera has allows it to have an active presence on the internet and other media information networks and thereby promote its destructive ideas and recruit young people into their ranks. This confirms that the media has become a dangerous weapon that benefit terrorists, who are now able to send messages that have a direct negative effect on individuals and communities. In one survey conducted in Iraq that questioned whether media was playing a role in fueling
Global Alliance 424 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace terrorism, the results showed that 80% of respondents stated that the media absolutely plays this role. Another disadvantage is that terrorist groups can exploit the media to express their demands in a way that encourages those from poor or neglected social groups to turn to terrorism as an option. In addition, conflicting information about terrorist attacks spreads confusion, and can lead to sympathy for the terrorists. The media may also play a role in transferring instructions to active or sleeper terrorist cells or establish new contacts with allied groups.
Confronting Terrorist Media Attention is being focused on confronting terrorist media in order to resist extremist ideology and prevent its influence on public opinion, particularly the youth, and thereby prevent the influx of new blood to the artery or terrorism. The fight against terrorism, therefore, does not depend only on security measures, but also on a comprehensive strategy that promotes a culture of dialogue and rejects the culture of violence. This requires a focus on the wording of the news so as to ensure delivery of the truth and not falsely impact the psyches of citizens. There have also been voices calling for the need to reconsider the content presented by the press and media, and to replace it with a new focus on countering the spread of the phenomenon of terrorism and violence. There needs to be a concerted response to media that destructively influences the minds of young people and threatens the security of people and their communities. Destructive information on the internet needs to be dealt with through legislation to ensure the closure of sites that promote violence and extremist ideas, particularly sites that are attributed to Islam and thereby provide a distorted image of the true religion. Some speak of the existence of satellite channels and internet sites that show how to make explosives and carry out terrorist operations. These channels and sites falsely give out advice that they claim is based on Islam, but is in fact alien to it. This trend requires opening media spaces where scholars and leaders of thought and opinion can highlight the image of an Islam calling for tolerance, moderation, justice, and advocacy with wisdom and beautiful Authoritarian Media and Terrorism –Al Jazeera az an Example / 425 preaching and discussion about what is best, away from extremism and violence. In addition contacts, courses and joint workshops should be established between the representatives of official bodies and media representatives on how to deal with terrorist media to ensure public interest. For example, in response to terrorists fabricating facts, how can the media fill the information gaps in such a way that they terrorists cannot take advantage of it? This requires staying as far away as possible from the excitement of publishing terrorism-related news. This also requires caution in disseminating information terrorist incidents, and refraining from displaying or describing the terrorist crimes in a way that could encourage others to commit them, that shows the terrorists as heroes, or that justifies their motives. On the other hand there is a need to expand media coverage that promotes popular participation and voluntary contributions from individuals and civil society organizations in addressing the phenomenon of terrorism and extremism and that educates citizens about the dangers of terrorism and its negative effects on security and stability. In other words, the media‘s role should be to raise awareness about the dangers of terrorism. We must also reduce the number of scenes presenting blood, violence, destruction, and murder, in order to prevent the habitual viewing of such scenes. Here one can not overlook the importance of coordination with the security services in relation to the publication of the facts of terrorist events, taking into account the impact of such publication on public opinion, so as to take away the opportunity from terrorists to monopolize the media focus as they seek. In addition one must face the psychological effects of terrorism.. Coverage should be focus less on the details of the terrorist action and the official and public reactions, and more on how to help the reader or viewer form a national opinion and turn this position into a positive action. This can only be done through an active, professional, trusted media that has earned both popularity and credibility.
Global Alliance 426 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Conclusion In conclusion we raise the idea of forming a team of international media experts that would discuss ways to raise media awareness of the dangers of terrorism. Such a team would give international media the opportunity to build a broad base of international public opinion surrounding terrorist ideology and crimes, and strengthen efforts to eliminate or reduce terrorism. May God help us in this task.
Terrorism in Misusing Religion for Violence / 427
Terrorism in Misusing Religion for Violence Dr. Hans Ucko
Following the killing of Osama Bin-Laden, we are again reminded of the tragic interconnection between religion and violence, not only that the world's most well-known terrorist is dead but that his death in many circles was celebrated. That terrorism is violence is a truism. We also see that religion is used to nurture terrorism and violence. Terrorism can come dressed in religious language and discourse in many communities and contexts around the world. The intention of this paper is to plead or argue that people committed to a religious tradition with intent stand up against any attempt to justify terrorism and violence with the help of religion. There are so many expectations that people of religion are unequivocal against terrorism and that they and preferably together in a global alliance against terrorism are constructive in fostering an education that religion is never used as a tool for conflict but an instrument of peace-making. Following the death of Bin-Laden there were in some American Christian circles, a dangerous language of triumphalism. Hearts were filled with pride and the killing was hailed as an enormous victory. Dismayed by the quasi-sports-victory tone of the celebrations that arose in the USA -- chanting "U-S-A, U-S-A" as if it was a celebration of a victory in football, the US rabbi Arthur Waskow wrote a piece entitled ―How to address the death of a mass murderer?‖, where he said: ―The Torah describes Moses and Miriam leading the ancient People Israel in a celebratory song after the tyrannical Pharaoh and his Army has been overwhelmed by the waters of the Red Sea. Later, the Rabbis gave a new overtone to the story: ―The angels,‖ they said, ―began to dance and sing as
A minister of the Church of Sweden and a member of the World Council of Churches (WCC).
Global Alliance 428 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace well, but God rebuked them: ―These also are the work of My hands. We must not rejoice at their deaths!‖ Stories like these are needed, when the voices of triumphalism and indignation are ringing, using religious imagery to pit one religion against the other. One is good; the other is evil. One represents God, our God; the other speaks for another god. We have heard it in many places and we hear it increasingly with other words today in many places of Europe, when Muslim immigrants are the focus of attention: ―Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. Their God is not our God, the Son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God and we believe it is a very evil and wicked religion.‖ There are, thanks God, sensible people who hope that the killing of Osama Bin-Laden would become a turning point in the so called war against terrorism.
A call to soul-searching I don't know if our time is more violent than other times. Through the advances in communication, travel, global trade and large-scale migrations we are however made aware of conflicts in a way that is new to us. Acts of terror have through media a way of making violence heard and seen in a way that was maybe less common before. Although there certainly is an increase of conflicts since the end of the Cold War, it is the particular situations of civil conflict and unrest, where religious traditions and affiliations are mobilised to lend legitimacy to the claims of conflicting parties that is to be addressed here. Religion, together with ethnicity and nationalism, serves as an identity marker in order to define group membership and draw lines of distinction. Religion may not be the cause of conflict but it has proved to be an intensifier of conflict and in public perception, conflicts are easily perceived as religious conflicts. The events of 11 September exacerbated this situation. The attacks were perceived as expressions of a confrontation between militant Muslim fundamentalism and western (Christian) culture - or as a conflict between Christian and Muslim civilisations. They seemed to validate the thesis of Terrorism in Misusing Religion for Violence / 429 a ―clash of civilisations‖. The language of ―jihad‖ and ―crusade‖ gained broad currency. Through all of this, religions were suddenly thrust into the centre of global politics. The most difficult terrorism is the one that is tinged with religious undertones. Here the terrorist makes him/herself the particular emissary of God and one dismisses moral or ethical considerations, because one thinks oneself to be beyond it. Such acts of terrorism capitalising on a reading of our religious traditions destroy not only the intended victims but destroy also slowly religion in our world or rather contribute to defining religion as a tool for exclusion and hate of the other. Confronted with these developments, many political and economic actors on the global scene have begun to look for help in managing the dangerous dynamic of violence. There are appeals to religious communities and their leaders for initiatives of moderation, moral orientation and reconciliation. Most religions have been implicated in actions of war or the use of violence for religious purposes. But so far, there has been very little self-critical reflection about these features in the history of religions. We now need a commitment to look into the heart of religion and address the role of religion and violence in our religious traditions. The issue of violence in its various manifestations and the question how there could be an interreligious co-operation towards building a culture of peace and reconciliation is more and more important. When addressing the question of religion and violence, particularly as it comes across in many acts of terror, it is essential that we as people committed to a religious tradition not become defensive or apologetic, only lifting banners or slogans with the ideals of our religions. It is true that Islam is literally the religion of peace. It is true that Om Shanti, shantihi is the emphatic Vedic blessing. It is true that Jesus greeted people with the gift of peace, ―Peace be upon you‖. It is true that there is an absolute emphasis on compassion and ahimsa in Buddhism. It is true that Judaism has given the world the word and concept shalom. It is true that in many cases, based on their ideals, religions seek to contribute to building peace. However, we know that they are also involved in
Global Alliance 430 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace situations of violent confrontation. There is, in the religious field, a surprising coexistence of love and violence, of affirmation of inclusiveness and practices of regrettable exclusion. Religions are more than often legitimising violence. There are groups within our religious families who seem to need violence to affirm their own beliefs. Christians cannot run away from the effect of religious language such as ―Onward Christian soldiers‖, and acts such as the Crusades, the Holocaust or apartheid. Hindus cannot run away from the role of religion in the caste system. Muslims cannot run away from their responsibility in relation to those who in the name of Islam encourage suicide bombings and other acts of terror. Jews cannot run away from Jewish self-definitions that God supports the rights of Jews to all of Palestine and a forced transfer of the Palestinian people. We have to ask penetrating question about the role of religion in violence and terrorism. Religions are no innocent bystanders. I will now for the sake of illustration and maybe as an example for other religious communities focus on the history of Christianity in relation to violence. There are many instances of violence in both the Bible and throughout Christian history. Although the Bible begins with the affirmation that God saw the universe that had been created as ―very good‖, we discover already in the beginning of the Bible the human predicament in terms of alienation between God and human beings, and between human beings and nature (Gen.3). This chapter is immediately followed by the story of the brutal murder of Abel by his brother Cain. Cain, the murderer, is the one who begins human civilisation under the protection of God. But violence is also attributed to God: ―Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, ―I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created - people together with the animals and creeping things and the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them‖ (Gen. 6.5-7). This attribution of violence to God is to continue in much of the rest of Terrorism in Misusing Religion for Violence / 431 the Bible. The devastation brought on Egypt, the conquest of Canaan, including the genocidal acts of wiping out whole tribes is all depicted as acts done by or supported by God. Within the first few books of the Bible we come across the many dimensions of what is generally covered by the word ―violence‖: Violence as a human response arising from jealousy, fear, or hatred (Cain and Abel) Violence as judgement or punishment (The flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) Violence as structured oppression (The Hebrews under the Egyptians) Violence as part of a liberation struggle (Events connected with the Exodus) Violence in war and conquest (The occupation of Canaan) Violence as part of maintaining law and order (punishments related to the breaking of the social laws) Violence as part of religious duty or practice (The sacrificial system)
Christian thinking has particularly focused on the concept of ―sacrifice‖. Christian theology, in the theory of Atonement, claims that Jesus had to die a violent death in order to placate God's anger over the sins of humankind. Jesus ―sacrificial death‖, ―shedding of blood for our sins‖, and ―paying the price of sin‖ etc. are common themes in Christian hymnody, piety and theology and leave us with the question of the relationship between this fact of violence and the will of God. Christ is described as an innocent victim, a scapegoat, who through his vicarious suffering assures the peace of the community: ―Upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed‖ (Is 53:6). This sacrificial interpretation of the meaning of the violent death of Jesus has continued to shape Christian thinking especially in the form of the medieval doctrine of atonement by Anselm of Canterbury. Another area where violence plays a major role lies in the way some biblical imagery and theology depict the problem of evil in terms of violent and ongoing ―battles‖ between good and evil, light and darkness,
Global Alliance 432 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
God and Satan. Hence, the eschatological vision in the Book of Revelation presents a cosmic battle between the powers of evil and good, in which the powers of evil, after a violent struggle, are conquered, overcome, subdued and eventually abolished by God and God's angels. Power, conquest, and domination take the centre stage in these images. Violence is also present in Christian images of mission and evangelisation of the world. Military language like ―conquering the world for Christ‖, ―deployment of missionaries‖, ―mission strategy‖, ―soldiers of Christ‖, and ―evangelistic crusades‖ are still very much in use in some sections of the church. The word crusade was one of the first words used by President Bush to capture the response to come of the US to the attacks of September 11. There is no way around it: parts of the history of the church are written in blood. The burning of heretics, Inquisitions, Crusades, Holocaust, Slavery, and the ruthless violence that accompanied the establishment of Christianity in Latin America, Africa, and Australia are all part of the history of Christianity. There is, as we all know, another stream within the Bible that resists violence as being against God's will. God is loving, forgiving and compassionate (Ps. 103). God demands righteousness and justice in human affairs. Clear and unambiguous prohibition of killing is part of the Ten Commandments. There are detailed provisions against social and economic violence in the form of relentless advocacy for justice, especially in favour of the poor and the oppressed. All the eschatological visions in the Old Testament deal with the cessation of violence and a state of reconciliation between nations, between God and human beings. Although Jesus is also presented as saying that he has come ―not to bring peace but a sword‖ (Mtt.10. 34), and reproaches the unrepentant cities in harsh language (Matt.11. 20-24), the bulk of New Testament witness presents Jesus as one who advocated radical non-violence. ―Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword‖ (Matt.26.52). There is nevertheless an ambiguity in relation to violence, which has influenced Christian discussions on violence. Are there situations in Terrorism in Misusing Religion for Violence / 433 which some measure of violence is justified? Some are very clear that, in accordance with Jesus' own teachings, violence is not justified under any circumstance. Within the mainstream of the Church, ―the historic Peace Churches‖ (mainly the Mennonites and the Quakers) have adopted the pacifist position of rejecting war and violence for any reason. The idea of the Just War has constantly re-emerged and has influenced the discussions and jurisprudence on the conduct of modern wars. Another area of intense Christian discussion is on the use of violence to resist evil. Is there a ―positive‖ use of violence, for example, by an armed contingent of the United Nations, to prevent massacre of innocent peoples. The tragedies in Rwanda and Bosnia, for example, are cited as instances where limited and well-directed violence or armed intervention would have saved the lives of thousands of innocent victims. There are, however, many Christians who believe that any use of violence would only breed more violence, and maintain that we should work harder on developing measures to predict, prevent, and manage conflicts and on finding peaceful ways of resolving conflicts. Many groups have arisen within the Christian fold that put greater emphasis on ―Conflict Resolution‖, ―Peace Making‖ and ―Prevention of Conflicts.‖ Is there a legitimate use of violence? How do we look upon liberation struggles? Some opt for non-violent resistance, as advocated by Gandhi and by Martin Luther King Jr., others insist on allowing the oppressed to decide on the nature of the struggle that is appropriate in a given situation. Many liberation struggles were born in acts of terror and the liberation leaders were referred to as terrorists. Nelson Mandela was once called a terrorist by his enemies but is today considered a very much respected world leader also by most of his former adversaries. One can at the same time be called terrorist by some and liberator by others. It lies in a way in the eyes of the beholder. We share with each other, irrespective of our religious tradition the dilemma of violence in the very heart of our religious traditions. During my time in the World Council of Churches I was involved in a multifaith project called ―Thinking Together‖. This was a group of Jews, Christians,
Global Alliance 434 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, who had chosen to work together on those issues that are problematic in our religious traditions and especially so in a world of religious plurality. One such issue is the question of religion and violence and the involvement of our religious traditions in situations of violence. I would like to refer to some of the participants in the group, a Buddhist monk, a Hindu scholar, an imam and a Jewish educator, all of them honestly and admirably self-critical in relation to religion and violence. Their statements have direct repercussions for any consideration on the concept and reality of terrorism. The Sri Lankan Buddhist monk Deegalle Mahinda said: ―Both in theory and practice there is in Theravada Buddhism no space for professing violence since the basic tenets of Buddhism are completely against imposing pain on oneself or others. And yet, there are examples in Buddhist scriptures of the sanctioning of violence.‖ There is the story of ―the Sri Lankan king Duããhagãmani, who killed Elãra and was remorseful. A group of eight holy monks came to comfort him. The king Duããhagãmani confessed that he had slaughtered millions. The monks said: ―From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. … Unbelievers and men of evil life are not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for you, you will bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha. Cast away care from your heart, O ruler of men! Thus exhorted by them the great king took comfort‖. The Sinhala community in Sri Lanka reinterprets this myth. Such nationalist readings demonstrate the pervasive power of the myth in the present conflict in Sri Lanka.‖ The Hindu scholar Anant Rambachan said: ―The most famous Hindu of all times, Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) is widely perceived, especially in the West, as embodying the Hindu worldview and ethos. Gandhi made ahimsa (non-violence) the cornerstone of his philosophy and practice and spoke of it as constituting the essence of Hinduism. In the light of Gandhi's significance, many were surprised and bewildered when, on December 6, 1992, thousands of Hindu volunteers broke through police cordons and demolished the Babri mosque in the holy city of Ayodhya in North India. Many were armed with tridents, the traditional iconographic Terrorism in Misusing Religion for Violence / 435 weapon of Shiva and were led by Hindu holy men chanting “Jai Shri Ram‖ (Victory to Ram). … More recently, we continue to witness the outbreak of violence between Hindus and Muslims in the state of Gujarat, precipitated by the tragedy at the Godhra railway station when Muslims set ablaze a train with Hindu passengers. … Religious chanting and the invocation of the name of God accompanied many of the acts of violence perpetrated by Hindus upon their Muslim neighbours. … while Gandhi championed the ethic of ahimsa, there are ancient traditions within Hinduism, which sanction violence under certain circumstances, and that ahuimsa and himsa (violence) have coexisted uneasily in Hinduism for centuries.‖ South African imam Rashied Omar said. ―Terrorist violence is never far from popular understandings of Islam. Even conventional academic perspectives regard the political agenda's of Islamists (or rather ―Islamic fundamentalists‖ as they are pejoratively described in the literature) as having a predilection for violent paths to social change. According to this view, it is the religious dimensions, namely Islam that is the primary source of the contemporary terrorist violence. In direct opposition to this perspective, apologetic Muslims categorically deny that Islam has anything to do with terrorist violence. In their view, all violence in which Muslims are implicated is a debasement and vile distortion of the true and noble teachings of Islam. As with all received understandings, there are elements of truth in both of these formulations. The first one largely understates the contemporary socio-political and economic conditions under which Islam is implicated in violence, and the second one ignores the fact that virtually all Muslims accept that Islam is not a pacifist tradition and allows for and legitimates the use of violence under certain conditions, the definitions of which may differ from one Muslim scholar to the other. It is here that a large measure of the problem lies. Under what conditions does Islam condone the use of violence? This critical dilemma is not unique to Islam. All religious traditions agonize about the question of what might constitute a ―just war‖ and it becomes particularly acute in situations of deadly conflict.
Global Alliance 436 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Just war is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Makkah inflicted on the Muslims (2: 191; 2: 217), or to preserve decent values (4: 75; 22: 40). Jihad denotes any effort in pursuit of a commendable aim. Jihad is a comprehensive concept embracing peaceful persuasion (16:125), passive resistance (13:22; 23:96; 41:34) as well as armed struggle against oppression and injustice (2:193; 4:75; 8:39). Moreover, jihad is not directed at the other faiths. In a statement in which the Arabic is extremely emphatic, the Qur'an insists, "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!"(2: 256). More than this, the protection of freedom of belief and worship for followers of other religions has been made a sacred duty of Muslims. This duty was fixed at the same time when the permission for armed struggle (jihad al-qital) was ordained (22:39-40).‖ Deborah Weissman is a Jewish educator. She said: ―… all of our traditions must develop or employ a more peaceful hermeneutic for interpreting our classical texts. … I personally believe that the peaceful, more humanistic texts must be given greater weight than the violent, exclusivist or anti-humanistic ones. My reasoning is that in order to be aggressive or racist, one doesn't need divine revelation. Violence and racism unfortunately seem to have been woven into the fabric of human life for millennia.‖ … I personally think that serious hermeneutic and educational work must be devoted to developing new understandings of the concept of the Chosen People. …we ought to be a chosen people, as example, not as exception. .... One of the problems of having been victims for so long—and I direct these remarks at both Palestinians and Jews—is that it becomes difficult for us to recognize that we are also victimizers, and to assume moral responsibility for our actions. Paradoxically perhaps, it is much more comfortable to think of ourselves as victims. Victimhood gives one a sense of self-righteousness and surely promotes national unity. But it also obscures our culpability for unjust behaviour.‖ There is a need for a new thinking in relation to religion and violence to become more aware of the complexity of the concept of violence and its manifold expressions in personal, social and religious life. The thirst for Terrorism in Misusing Religion for Violence / 437
―power,‖ that goes with violence, has been an abiding temptation to religious traditions, and Christianity for its part has succumbed to the lure of power, both in its theological expression, ecclesial structures and its mission practice. It should, therefore, engage in an honest self- examination to understand how it has imbibed, consciously or unconsciously, structures of domination, power, exclusion, and discrimination in its teachings, practices and structures. I think there is in Christianity today a conscious effort to look more closely at itself in relation to religion and violence. We cannot eradicate violence but we can focus on unmasking the logic and dynamic of violence. Often violence presents itself in religious language, in mythological terms, associating violence with the powers of the sacred. We have a common task to work through interreligious encounter and in dialogue, towards mutual commitments to withdraw any moral or ethical legitimisation in support of violence as a means in response to conflict or in the pursuit of political, economic, cultural and even less religious ends. The unholy alliance between religion and violence must be broken for the sake of life for all. The struggle against the ―spirit, logic and praxis of violence‖ includes more than the development and application of ways of peaceful non-violent means of resolving conflicts. It is a moral and spiritual struggle in which the religious communities have to take the lead, beginning with the critical assessment of their own involvement in the emergence of a culture of violence. This offers itself as a possibility for interreligious cooperation. I believe that the time has come to call forth an old ecumenical principle and apply it to our multi-religious reality: ―That which we can do together, we should not do separately‖. This principle would be given new life, when we look upon it as a challenge for a concerted effort by people of different faiths to overcome the spirit and logic of violence, which through the ways of terrorism in many communities around the world today seems to have the upper hand. Religious communities need to today actively to challenge those who hijack religion to bolster their visions of destruction.
Global Alliance 438 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Modernities, Networks and Terrorism / 439
Modernities, Networks, and Terrorism Dr. David Hovhannisyan
1. I would define terrorism as violent acts intended to deter, neutralize or eliminate opponents, and used in the struggle for power (political, economic, informational, etc.) by means of influencing the media space of the attacked society. 2. In the past, terrorism was different: it was local, and pursued local, specific goals. Even the Marxist terrorism, with its global ideology, was worshiped by local groups, which were the bearers of a common ideology and strategy. At the same time, some Islamist movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb-u-Tahrir, or Daawa wa-Talib, are global in nature, but prefer to remain non-violent, and focused on local interventions. 3. The succession of recent events such as the massive uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, the intervention by Saudi Arabia into Bahrain, military actions of NATO against Libya, the announcement of Osama bin Laden‘s death by the U.S. administration, new waves of migration and resulting problems, as well as the continuous unstable situation in Iraq and Afghanistan make an impression that the international media space due to the mentioned acts of violence has been plunged into chaos. I can hardly recall another time which witnessed so many mutually-contradicting conspiracy-saturated publications. Quite often these seemingly insightful publications do not explain anything. Obviously, we are facing a new reality, where all the established institutions and the state order itself, as well as all international organizations, starting with the UN and ending with regional international structures are being questioned.
Yerevan State University.
Global Alliance 440 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
4. At least three cases of military intervention in independent states (Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya) have demonstrated that the use of force was not only supported but also sharply condemned and that the perception of military actions taken by the international coalition was far from being unequivocal. This indicates that the system of governance and management in today's world is not entirely relevant to modern global processes. It is obvious that this kind of precedents may be treated as a constant threat to those countries that seek to pursue policies consistent with their perceptions of national security. Again, the indifference to the fact of introduction of foreign military forces into the territory of independent Bahrain is worth mentioning, where the Shiite majority protested against the Sunni minority harassment. 5. Without a doubt, the idea of blameworthiness of dictatorial regimes that hold power in their hands, using all the means at their disposal to use force against the citizens of their countries, gives hope that the level of state violence will be much lower than now. However, it is also clear that the mechanisms for determining the justification for military action against the individual states /regimes are still very imperfect and inefficient. In addition, the international evaluation of certain events that take place during the procedures, which are designed to ensure the relevance of ongoing processes and their compliance with the norms enshrined in the constitutions and laws, often provokes criticism and accusations of double standards. While independent non-governmental organizations have an enormous influence on public opinion and the media space, such a policy pursued by the world's centers responsible for decisions of global significance is likely to become an anachronism. 6. From our point of view, the analysis of all the above processes and characteristics should take into account the fact that the current stage of globalization processes is characterized by ―the simultaneous existence of several modernities and a variety of modernities‖. Modernities, Networks and Terrorism / 441
According to Alberto Martinelli, this means that ―today's global world exists in a huge variety of cultural traditions and institutional structures‖.1 And this in turn takes for granted the existence of traditional regulatory systems, which are customary for abovementioned ―cultural traditions and institutional structures‖. Any attempt to destroy them leads to resistance and struggle, and their very destruction turns into a chaos. Even the fact that these models are outdated can not justify the desire to destroy them. S. Eisenstadt believes that ―many of the movements that developed in non-Western societies articulated strong anti-Western or even antimodern themes, yet all were distinctively modern‖.2 According to him, the existence of multiple modernities is also caused by the existence of different programs of modernity and various social actors who interpret these programs. In my opinion, these ―different programs of modernity‖ are adaptation models generated by different cultural systems to match the modern civilization system. These models, in turn, give rise to the globalization projects or generate models accompanying other globalization projects. 7. However, in the light of the development of well-known tendencies which determine the principal trends in world politics, it is probable that currently the most pressing issues are those connected with combining the world community‘s efforts in the war against different types of international terrorism. This task is very important, especially for the South Caucasus region, which has been used as a conduit for combatants and weapons, and where there is also a risk of various types of fundamentalist ideologies hostile to traditional forms of Islam spreading. Regardless of whether we recognize the existence of such terrorism or not, we still witness explosions and deaths all over the world, people continue to live in an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, and none of the relevant institutions is able to solve these problems. On the one hand, new communication technologies allow every individual to be freer and more
1. A.Martinelli. Global modernization. Rethinking the project of modernity. SAGE Publications, 2005, p.137. 2. S.N.Eisenstadt. Democracy and Modernity, Leyden, ed.J.Brill, 1992, p.55.
Global Alliance 442 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace independent. Today people are able to easily obtain necessary information and to both plan and implement their personal projects. On the other hand, however, the same conditions make it possible for each and every individual to resort to violence and intimidation either all alone or via the network of those sharing his or her views – intimidation of those who do not share his/her views and resist their implementation. 8. It is quite clear that changes in the way that American society relates to the realia of the modern world are linked to 11 September, as a result of which they have started the very serious process of reevaluating their system of values and, in particular, to bid farewell to the last remnants of their isolationist approach to determining relations between America and the rest of the world. On the other hand, the actions of the shahids3 have raised a number of questions in American intellectual circles relating to the universality of the values being regarded by them as fundamental. In this way, both of the dominant principles which have, up till now, taken it in turns to determine American society‘s approaches to the ―United States — rest of the world‖ system of relations have been called into question. Attempts of the Obama administration to somehow revive and combine these approaches have so far been unsuccessful. 9. The new challenge posed by a concept is difficult to define as world or international terrorism has been personified by the Bush administration in the shape of a certain ―al-Qaeda‖ organisation (the real al-Qaeda differs in terms of its characteristics from the myth that has been created under the name ―al-Qaeda‖) — and a ―Terrorist number one‖ identified as Osama bin Laden (the real person known as Osama bin Laden, of course, differs from the myth that has been created), thus creating a goal and at the same time a target for their actions. In my opinion, the reason why the US adopted precisely this approach in a situation that demanded a quick response and a demonstration of the new administration‘s readiness for any type of challenge — apart from specific reasons connected with the time, place and participants in the action — was a fundamental difference
3. The Arabic word for witnesses, the term is used in Islam to refer to ―martyrs‖ — tr. Modernities, Networks and Terrorism / 443 between the system, structure, and function of the State and the system, structure, and functions of networks, which include the system defined as ―Wahhabism‖ or ―Radical groups‖. This system‘s ―all-embracing‖, universal character can be observed in the list of names given to the system by its ideologues at various stages of its development — ―Green Internationale‖, ―World Islamic Congress‖, ―World Islamic Front‖, etc. The principal characteristics of the ―allembracing systems‖ (networks) — their universal system of values, their reliance on mystical, religious principles of community and their rejection of national [principles]; and the branching and ―borderless‖ nature of their structure which does not have a centre and, therefore, has a very flexible leadership and is well protected against external threats — are fundamentally different from the system and structure of the State. The functions of these two systems are also directly opposed: the State is called upon first and foremost to protect its borders, territory, society and citizens, while the network has as its goal the infiltration and erosion of borders and of those concepts on which borders rest. 10. At the same time, it is patently evident that international illegitimate systems can only effectively be combated by legitimate systems of the same quality and level aimed at protecting the norms of international law and the rules of social intercourse in the world community. A system that has the same characteristics and attributes, [but] which relies on the law and the support of the states and organisations that established it, can vie with an underground network systems. It would appear that reinterpreting the tasks and functions of international and regional organisations will be one of the determining principles of modern politics. 11. ―War against international terrorism‖ is an expression that dates back to the Bush administration. By the time Barack Obama became the 44th president of the United States, not only American intellectual circles but also the country‘s ordinary citizens were aware that the only real world power since the end of the Cold War appeared to find itself in a very
Global Alliance 444 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace unenviable situation, and this was primarily due to the fundamental ideological and strategic miscalculations. Even Zbigniew Brzezinski was forced to recognize this paradox: ―Even the most powerful superpower can lose the right way and put its leadership under threat if its strategy and understanding of the world would be wrong‖. The consequences of ideological mistakes cannot be promptly eliminated. To achieve this, one should rethink the past and develop new ideological principles, put them into circulation and ensure their promotion in order to formulate the new vision and new strategy for the most preferred future. All this requires time and willingness to pass through a deep reflection. Barack Obama won the election because he met the expectations of Americans, and most importantly, he met the aspirations of the elites to gain time which they needed to rethink the situation and to find possible ways out of a serious crisis. It should be mentioned, however, that even the existence of all the necessary prerequisites is not enough to seamlessly change the core ideological principles. Such a policy was likely to be rejected by the bearers of the values on which the neoconservative ideology was based, including such key values as the uniqueness of the American way of life, conviction that the American social model is the only possible pattern for all other nations, the primacy of the vital interests of America, etc. It is noteworthy that this ideology in one way or another formed the basis of foreign policy pursued by some of Obama's predecessors and played a consolidating role for business groups actively involved in energy and military industries. The foreign policy program presented during Barack Obama‘s election campaign showed that the new administration will seek to dissociate itself from the Bush administration's foreign policy including elimination of conflict zones in the relations with European allies, and declared a policy of ―reset‖ toward China and Russia, and the planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and a softer rhetoric in relations with Iran, and clearly Modernities, Networks and Terrorism / 445 articulated the US policy of rethink with regard to the immediate geographical environment. At the end of May 2010 Barack Obama unveiled a new national security strategy (NSS). It is the constitutional duty of every occupant of the White House, and the content of this document traditionally defines the strategic priorities of the country in the coming years. In the published document, the expression ―war against international terrorism‖ is missing. According to influential American analysts, such as Stephen Biddle, Larry Garrett and Paul Stairs, this fact indicates the most positive aspect of president Obama‘s re-evaluation of political intentions of his predecessor. Another crucial innovation noted by all observers is that under the new head of state, America departs from the practice of individual actions in its foreign policy, and deviates from Bush's go-it-alone approach. Note that the ―Bush doctrine‖ provides the right to wage a ―preemptive war‖ against any country or terrorist group deemed a threat to the United States. The basic principle of the doctrine of Barack Obama was the idea that the U.S. cannot and should not confront today's threats alone. This is about the settlement in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US continues to keep its troops, as well as about the situation caused by the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea and the Middle East conflict settlement. Commenting on the provisions of the doctrine, Obama said: ―The United States must strengthen existing alliances, build new partnerships and promote human rights worldwide as it pursues a strategy of global leadership… We are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping out of the currents of cooperation. We have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation.‖ Thus the following concept was formulated as a basic principle of the US new military and political doctrine: as opposed to the concept of "pre- emptive war," the threats to U.S. security should be deterred based on ―multilateralism‖,
Global Alliance 446 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
―consistently working with partners to identify threats‖. Recent events have shown that the declared national security strategy has not been fully incorporated. Delivering the commencement speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Obama said the United States would continue to pursue a significant goal - the defeat of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Not so long ago, the U.S. leadership has stated that the leader of al Qaida is destroyed. Does it mean that the threat from al-Qaeda today is insignificant and, thus the American troops would be withdrawn? 12. The death of Osama bin Laden symbolizes the end of the war against terrorism designed to signify not only the start of presidential campaign, bat victory of America over the "dark forces", but also the victory of the state over the network, in other words, over a pole of world power - over the periphery. However, the whole course of social and technological development demonstrates that things go the other way around. 13. In light of the above, the need for all the countries of the South Caucasus region to collaborate in the area of the anti-terrorist struggle — which should naturally lead to a fairly serious re-evaluation of the values in the region — becomes apparent.
Imperialism and Preventing the Media Activities Against Terrorism / 447
Imperialism and Preventing the Media Activities Against Terrorism Mohammad Hassan Akhtari
Counter cyber attacks we must achieve a level to produce hardware and software. Imperialism of U.S. and Israel is preventing the independent media such as the Iranian media, to cover the real news and developments. From his point of view, although the independent media were successful in triggering the Islamic awakening and consciousness, but due to the imperialistic policies, the results are not so satisfactory. Emphasizing on the fact that today the living situation of the people are severely affected by the propaganda of western media, he says: «due to unequal competition between media, information flow does not have the real transparency. Following is our interview with him about imperialistic media and their role in the global terrorism.
The role of media in dealing with terrorism and the global peace The role of media in confronting terrorism could be analyzed in two ways: first the question is what role the media can have in this case and second whether the current media of the world are dealing correctly with terrorism? In this aspect, we can say that there is no doubt about the huge role of the media in many issues related to people and governments. Media have a great deal of impact on all facets of human life. In other words, with a broader look across the world we can say that all classes and social groups and their activities are covered by the media. Today media is a tool that provides many of the communities with a power to influence the everyday life of people.
Secretary General of the World Assembly of Ahl al-Bayt (AS)
Global Alliance 448 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Therefore, the media is playing the major role in many of the issues raised in different societies. This leading role is extremely important. One can even claim that many moral, political, social, scientific and economic issues are influenced by the media and they can be eventually transformed into a new state because of the media. So the key role of media in dealing with concepts like terror and terrorism can not be denied. We must bear in mind that one of the main functions of the media is the power of enlightenment. Terror and intimidation in the community is the direct consequence of a phenomenon like terrorism which can only be treated by this enlightening role of media, resulting in the eventual awareness of society.
The function of the media in the establishment of peace and justice The media can support the efforts to combat terror and make peace in the community. Peace and justice are issues that have been respected in different cultures for a long time. All the people are speaking about peace and its fruits for the society. Media is one of a few tools that can strengthen the foundations of peace and justice in the communities, so I believe that the mass media can be helpful in creating the individual and collective peace in the community. To what extent have the media realized their function in creating peace and justice and to fight against terrorism? What I said was all about the inherent capabilities of the media. But it is not clear how much the dominant media in the world are using these capabilities. In other words they have not been able to use all inherent capacities to realize their goals. In some cases they didn‘t want to apply all these capabilities and in some other cases they have not been able to apply them. This failure is caused by many limitations such as political pressure and inhumane orientation. Today many people are criticizing the media because of the problems they have in terms of impartiality. So they are not working properly. The highest volume of complaints is found about Imperialism and Preventing the Media Activities Against Terrorism / 449 the widespread television and radio stations that are very famous among the people, but many of the audiences are not satisfied with the way they are covering the news. Unfortunately, the global media, especially those having good properties and equipments, are under the influence of imperialism related to the United States and Israel. In fact the big powers of the world are completely monitoring and using the media for their special purposes and it prevents the media from using their capacity for counter terrorism programs. Today, we see that many hegemonic powers are committing the worst crimes in different parts of the world and the media are keeping silent. There is no place in the media for the demands of millions of innocent Muslims who are suffering different atrocities. It is only a small sample of silence in the media dominated by the imperialism. Regardless of this, there have been destructive wars by international imperialism in the past hundred years around the world that damaged the life and property of millions of innocent people, but again, it was not noticed in the global media in a proper manner. For example in the case of Palestine, the cameras were going to show the miseries of the Palestinians, but the media keep silent on the issue and the Palestinians were introduced as criminals who are trespassing the territory of Israel!! Therefore there is always a kind of vacuum in the coverage of the news about Palestine in all the media dominated by the imperialism. What about Iran's domestic media? are they somehow influenced by the imperialism of the media and is there any special role for them to play? We have seen that only a number of independent media are standing against imperialism and they try to broadcast the real news about Palestine and the Israeli atrocities. The media in the Islamic Republic of Iran are in this category. However, these independent media activities again are not tolerated by the imperialism and there are always many problems. Satellite televisions are switched off, reporters are prevented to cover the news and developments, the offices are shut down in different
Global Alliance 450 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace parts of the world, all these are the problems and limitations for independent media. In today's world, Islamic media and the few other independent TV channels, are suffering the imperialism pressure and therefore they can not participate in a fair competition. However, Iranian media have been able to play a good role in awakening the Islamic movements, including their impact on the world opinion during U.S. invasion of Iraq or the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Gaza. Sometimes we see that any picture from the Palestinians, even the pitiful conditions of their life is not tolerated by the hegemonic media. Why are they criticized for publishing these images? This is because they don‘t want the oppressed Palestinian people to gain a face and reputation for their struggle for freedom. When the independent media broadcast scenes of oppressed Palestinians, there may be more anger and criticism toward the imperialist media. In fact, media officials in such a situation start to deny anything and this denial can not be continued for ever. Generally speaking, because of imperialism, the big role that the media are playing today in many issues, is totally deceitful and unfair.
The Islamic principles to deal with terrorism and peace By referring to the holy Quran, we realize that the Islam is the religion of tolerance, safety and peace. Islam means obedience to God›s commands and decrees and consequently it will be useful for intellectual and physical mobility of the community. In the Islamic teachings, peace and friendship are among the fundamental values and it is based on tolerance and patience towards Muslim and other people. Quran tells Muslims to behave in a peaceful manner with others (Muslims and non-Muslims). Hazrat Ali (AS) addresses Malek Ashtar and says: "The people who are beside you including Muslim or non- Muslims are your brothers and you should always be with the oppressed people". Imperialism and Preventing the Media Activities Against Terrorism / 451
Islamic commands and teachings in fighting with terrorism and establishing peace are very extensive. Islam challenges any corruption among the population. Indeed corruption is an obvious example of the terrorism in the society which paves the way for the violation of peace. Let us not forget that God sent the prophets, with the aim to promote peace and friendship among the people. Islam says men are equal in terms of humanity. Prophet Muhammad describes the people as the components of a body and Saadi also expresses the same meaning in his famous poem which is now on the entrance of the United Nations. In the provisions of Islam, there has been always an emphasis on the kindness and friendship toward family, fellow citizens, neighbors and people in general. The Word of God and his Messenger always emphasize on the kindness and assistance to each other, and also on the justice as the biggest necessity for the human society which has been always introduced in the Islamic faith as one of the characteristics of the Muslim society. God does not like those violating the rights of others. Islam condemns any infringement of the privacy and property of people. This is aimed at establishing peace and justice in the society. What do you think about the cyber terrorism and what tools and solutions does exist to deal with such a crime? Retaliation has been introduced as the main strategy to avoid the repetition of such crimes and it is also mentioned in the holy Quran. Muslims are recommended to retaliate in cases where they have been attacked. In general, according to Islam, countering any action should consider the type of action and to respond to it in an appropriate manner. In other words, in retaliation to the enemy, there must be an assessment of the tools and equipments of the enemy. Accordingly, to counter any terrorist act in the cyber space, such as computer viruses, information theft or other instances of cyber crime, the tools and methods must be analyzed in a proper way. The type of retaliation is also different; sometimes it is a counterattack, and sometimes preventing the enemy from conducting the next attack.
Global Alliance 452 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
But in general we should not allow the enemy to contemplate the next conspiracy. In the electronic environment there must always be a kind of preparedness to deal with the enemy, and in the cyber space it is just the same. All this rational ideas are confirmed by the religion. One of the important factors in the cyber war is the self-sufficiency in terms of producing the software and hardware. Having these facilities is essential today for the development of the society. Today we are importing equipment from different countries to satisfy our needs and to be able to participate in cyber space. These equipments are designed by the enemy and due to lack of self-sufficiency; we are faced with problems such as cyber terrorism. If we want to have a safe place in cyber space it is needed to achieve a level in which we are able to produce the needed equipments. As long as we are using the hardware and software made by the foreigners, this problem will not be solved. We can describe the cyber terrorism as a new concept which is the result of new technological developments, used by people in an ungracious manner. He believes that the consequences of cyber warfare are much more devastating than the classic wars.
Inter-Religious Dialogue and Global Peace / 453
Inter-Religious Dialogue and Global Peace
Dr. Ignatios S. Stavropoulos
Not just today, but always, religions have constituted one of the pillars of the culture of every nation and tradition. Even in modern secular states, religion and believers often influence the development of legislation. The global community is becoming a great neighbourhood where people and religious traditions interact directly with great ease. The traditions of Muslim believers come easily to Europe and America. At the same time, the traditions of Christians and Jews spread to traditional Islamic countries of the East. This communication is effected on two levels. The first is the personal level, that is direct contact between people. This means the organisation of international enterprises, the performance of mixed marriages, other social contacts, and various celebrations, all with the peaceful participation and coexistence of people of a different faith - religion. The second level of communication is institutional. Representatives of different religions or denominations, and of course the religious leaders of different faiths, including Jews, Christians, Muslims, now come into more direct contact and are impelled to start a dialogue. Inter-religious dialogue is now happening and represents the hope of many who believe and fight for tolerance and peace between peoples. These dialogues can create a trend, but cannot (and should not) be an instrument of power for the domination of one over the other. It is essential for the international community to establish the belief that the trust and acceptance of others does not require the renouncement of one's faith, tradition and the religion of their fathers. The religious culture of a
BA (Div), Athens University; PhD, (Sociology) Panteion University. Secretary General, Metamorfosis Greek Orthodox Monastery, Nafpaktos, Greece.
Global Alliance 454 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace people is the culture that God gave to us all. It is a shared resource, such as water and air, and we need to protect it, as we strive to protect the environment. The basic principles of religions include, among else, faith in One God, love for man who was created eternal and moral teaching. Especially the holy books of monotheistic religions, such as the Holy Bible of the Jews and the Christians and the Holy Koran of the Muslims found moral teachings affecting the lives of millions around the world. Islam is the geographical and spiritual neighbour of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. These two religions have many internal - theological and external - ritual differences. However, it is not possible for the one world to abolish the other, and theologians, lawyers, and intellectuals cannot abolish our differences. Nonetheless, we can all unite to protect common goods. As we all want the progress of the young generation, we say no to drugs and yes to the protection of the family, so all we can say yes to peace and no to terrorism. We can all say no to war, yes to peace. We live in an era when the need for religious dialogue has matured. The current need for coexistence in ―our common home‖, our planet, and the easy, thanks to technology, direct communication, bring us all closer, regardless of the religion of our cultural identity. A deeper knowledge of the different ―other‖ decisively helps in understanding, peaceful coexistence, and cooperation in solving common problems. We should no longer justify, in the name of the true God and our religion, any war, any injustice, aggression, violence or terrorism. The Creator of the universe, the true God, who created the world out of love, did not create it to be destroyed by man. The current critical conditions of cultural and social transition, but also the intellectual and economic crisis, impel all those who believe in the true God to work hard together to achieve mutual understanding, mutual acceptance and ultimately a peace of nations.
Inter-Religious Dialogue and Global Peace / 455
There is a common guideline and that is the word of God. The sacred Scriptures meet in the following text of the Holy Quran. This states:
“It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgement between right and wrong)”.
The moral message of truth, which is one and unique in every religion, dictates now more than ever the need to first find the inner peace of our heart, which reconciles us with God and fellow man, and then outer peace, which eliminates all terrorism, fear and wars.
The road to peace is the sacred obligation of the faithful and their religious imperative. The time is now!
Global Alliance 456 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Media Terrorism as a Western Weapon / 457
Media Terrorism as a Western Weapon Hassan Abedini
Introduction Media Terrorism is a weapon used by western liberal democratic media to propagate waves of Islamophobia worldwide. The media of Islamic World can combat this phenomena only by training the skilled manpower, accessing modern software and hardware equipment and reflecting the truth. The word terrorism is among the words that are encountered with direction and semantics crises and many various definitions in different political, international media and international law have been prepared for it based on various exemplifications since it was coined. Media Terrorism was first coined in 1980s in the media affiliated to western liberal democracy after ‗Anwar Sadat‘, the then president of Egypt, was killed by ‗Khaled Eslamboli‘ who was a radical Muslim, to make the thoughts of the world pessimistic towards the Islamic World by propagating waves of Islamophobia and opposition to Islam. However the same media did not use the subject of Terror in the 1990s in their news when ‗Yitzhak Rabin‘ the then president of the Zionist Regime was killed by a radical Jewish named ‗Yigal Amir‘. However, the previous century was somehow the year of terror and horror due to occurrence of various terroristic incidents; from the assassination of the Austrian crown prince by a young Serb before the First World War to the terror of Gandhi by a radical Hindu, which are all described as terrorist incidents. Various terrorist events have occurred till now, such as the explosion of a chemical bomb in a Japanese subway station by a radical Buddhist, or the massacring of a group of Korean people in one of the universities of that
A media expert and a member of the Cultural Committee of the Conference.
Global Alliance 458 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace country by a radical Korean. These are all terroristic incidents but the western media use the word only for Muslims and Islamic World to increase propagating waves of Islamophobia and opposition with Islam. You might have heard this famous expression of Hollywood cinema: ―Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims.‖! A negative propaganda is deeply inherent in this short and seemingly simple sentence, that the Islamic World is interlinked with terrorism and points the finger of accusation at Muslims all over the world.
The Western Media and Terrorism After the Soviet Union was dissolved, western liberalist scientists such as ‗Samuel Huntington‘ and ‗Michel Fokoyama‘ mentioned the Islamic ideas as contradictory and opposing point to western liberal thoughts in their analyses and described Islam as the future challenge to western civilization in works such as ‗The War of Civilizations‘ and ‗History End‘. This viewpoint was gradually developed by the western neo- conservatives and found an executive status when they entered the political and military arena in George W. Bush‘s Administration in the form of attaching Iraq and Afghanistan and ultimately the western media could inspire public opinion that Islamic thought is a serious threat to the western liberal democracy and should be repulsed. Is the war of civilization between Islam and the West inevitable as western neo-liberalists claim, or the policies based on the theory of civilizations conflicts has halted the discourse amongst civilizations? From the religious standpoint, the war between The Good and The Bad has always existed and will always exist, however the subject is different in the West regarding Islamic thoughts. We should keep in mind that both western and eastern blocs could estimate each others‘ power of extermination during the Cold War and until the Soviet Union was dissolved. Both of them were aware of each others‘ hardware and software capabilities however the balance was upset after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and after the Islamic World was considered the new Media Terrorism as a Western Weapon / 459 opposing and conflicting point to the western liberal democracy, due to unawareness of the West about Islamic world. Today, Muslims might hold weak hardware and assets but stand at a higher position in religious beliefs and thoughts and are superior in terms of faith and strong belief and the Islamic thought is progressing on the basis of this faith and belief. Therefore the western liberal democracy is endeavoring to ruin Islamic thought in the minds of the people by employing Media Terrorism weapons, news and reports, movies and television serials, computer games and caricatures. Thus, we cannot expect conformity between Media Terrorism and the professional morality principles in the field of media. Exploiting media terrorism to counter one idea, one person or one group can be achieved in the form of media techniques and obviously the more surreptitious they are, the more effective they will be. These are the instances of psychological operations and the soft war which was implemented by the western world along with the hard war during the late years of twentieth century.
Media Terrorism and its Impacts Media Terrorism naturally has no real basis and it is founded just on demolition, therefore the reality is revealed and the addressees realize the truth. We should keep in mind that one can deceive a group of people by lies for a specific period of time but it won‘t work to dominate over all the people and forever and it should be warded off. It is possible to counter Media Terrorism by training experts in the field of media software and hardware and by accessing modern technologies and programmed media productions. I believe that having access to satellite transmitters is so important. For example, if we invest seriously now on launching telecommunication satellites, we can express the truths for the world public over satellite channels without interruption. In western view, after the Second World War the world was based on three axes of accessing atomic bomb, development of western liberal democracy culture and the free economy; however, after the dissolution
Global Alliance 460 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace of the eastern bloc, these axes changed. Today, the world is based on three axes of replacing the religious and theological thoughts with human- based thoughts, stable development based on globalization and media pervasive relations. I shall remind here that the last axis, that is the pervasive media relations, plays more of a key role than the other two axes. As we could earlier identify the important targets of the West and East blocs according to their missile arrangements during the Cold war, today we can identify the target points of psychological operations by looking at the satellite arrangement. Today, Middle East is known as the Islamic World centroid and is naturally the center of the target in which the Islamic Republic of Iran is located right in the middle, a country that has promulgated pure Islamic thought or in other words the Islamic Revolution in the last three decades. The proof to this claim is the development of the satellite Persian channels.
Some Concluding Remarks Waves of awareness have been flowing in the Middle East for years and no one can deny it. Despite efforts by the liberal democracy movement led by the United States to maintain their puppet governments, the movement of Islamic advocacy and Islamic resistance is spreading and is getting stronger day by day. Today, Islamic groups participate in parliaments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine. Thus, the Islamic movements throughout Middle East Islamic countries such as Tunisia and Egypt would dominate over dictators such as Mubarak and Ben Ali, if the there weren‘t the surreptitious pressures of the United States of America. As a matter of fact, the western media, following the same media terrorism, try to job, food and freedom as these countries‘ demands, whereas the truth is that they demand Islamic justice. Never forget that Islam is a producing culture and supreme and transcending thought. Media Terrorism is based on obscuration and unrealistic news; however the western liberal democratic ideology constantly looks for challenges since it is not compatible with Islamic thoughts. It observes how the Media Terrorism as a Western Weapon / 461
Islamic veil of a Muslim woman or girl residing in Europe or the United States or the establishment of a mosque in a western country turns to a controversial issue in the liberal democratic media; while such a thing does not exist in Tehran, the capital of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Several churches exist nearby in Vali Asr Sq. right in downtown Tehran, for the minority Christian community and this demonstrates the peaceful relation that exist in Islamic thought. Therefore, the Islamic World Media just need the truth to be disseminated and that‘s adequate to counter media invasion.
Global Alliance 462 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Terrorism as a Result of Fall of Spirituality / 463
Part IV
Just Peace as a Solution against
Terrorism
Global Alliance 464 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Terrorism as a Result of Fall of Spirituality / 465
Terrorism as a Result of Fall of Spirituality Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Taskhiri
The spirituality is the only way to save today's humans. Any abuse in the rights of others results in a serious threat to peace. From this perspective, terrorism is primarily considered as one of the threats to the global peace. Definition of peace and terrorism As a generally summarized definition of a just peace and also the concept of terrorism, we could say that a peace is a state in which the minimum rights of both conflicting parties are met carefully. Of course, compromise or better to say the state of peace is the basic step to meet the minimum rights of the parties, resulting in other steps, including cooperation to achieve long term goals. Terrorism is any move that threatens the political, economic and legal security and abuses the rights of others. It is a move against humanity and if we want to achieve a just and peaceful environment, we should deal with all the inhumane and inconsistent movements which are against peace. I believe that every move which is aimed at the destruction of humans and can lead to tension and conflict between them, such as Nazism, Zionism, and apartheid must be challenged seriously. Terrorism is also one of these movements against humanity and human values, so we must fight these perceptions and attitudes to pave the way for a just and peaceful dialogue. If we identify the principles and framework of just and peaceful dialogue, the appropriate approaches would come out automatically. Framework and principles can be summarized in the following categories: 1) seeking the truth and moving based on reality because the infrastructure of the discourse is basically the move to recognize the truth, 2) respecting others
Secretary General of the Islamic Religions Approximation Assembly.
Global Alliance 466 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace and accepting diversity of ideas in the communities, 3) peaceful behavior with others, 4) arranging an space for the dialogue free of stress and pressure, 5) having an organized methodology for the dialogue to run a healthy discourse; in other words, one must avoid tensions and conflicts in times of dialogue. Accordingly, I believe that these are the implementation strategies for establishing a just and peaceful environment and the most important factor is the expansion of rationality in all areas such as system of thought, behavior and inclusion. The next important factor is to give priority to dialogue rather than physical confrontation. In Quran we have a full course of healthy dialogue that can be modeled for the just and peaceful environment. Accepting diversity and plurality can also pave the way for such an understanding. The fourth point which I mentioned in the previous question, is the need to remove all anti-human ideas such as Nazism, Fascism, Zionism, apartheid and the like that are purely anti-human. I believe that the most destructive way and style of thinking is to preach relativism in morality, because the man, who believes in relativity, can not believe in any absolute moral value and someone who does not believe in absolute values, can justify and commit any treason. Generally, great divine religions such as Islam, Christianity and Judaism have the high moral grounds to save man from the destructive tendencies, because all religions are against sedition and division, they are against degradation of security, discrimination and also relativity. But it is Islam in particular, that has the religious vision which can set clear goals in this regard. Islam has a great and comprehensive stance in terms of dealing with rationality and acceptance of diversity and plurality of ideas. I believe Islam is the most complete religion regarding justice and peace that can finally provide a robust foundation for peace.
Terrorism as a Result of Fall of Spirituality / 467
The impact of national cultures on removing the obstacles of peace Do not forget that culture has the highest impact. Terrorism is rooted in many factors. For example, ignorance or cruelty that might induce a terrorist movement. Prejudice to an idea and method can result in extremism and finally lead the individual to a terrorist act. The fall of Spirituality is another factor paving the way for a terrorist act, i.e. when there is less or no impact of spirituality on the individual he gradually becomes a savage and starts mass killings of other human beings. We must take spirituality into consideration in order to deepen the attitudes of people and restore their human nature. Any return to human nature which manifests itself in the behavior is a kind of blocking to the terrorist movements. So the best way to combat terrorism and to push the individual and society toward justice and peace is to emphasize on spirituality and education of the people. Humans are bound to their nature and it makes them emotional. Of course emotions are shaped in accordance with natural requirements, but sometimes there are barriers that separate man from his natural behavior and lead him to the diversion. One of these obstacles is the lack of rationality in balancing between human needs and how they are satisfied. Sometimes the man›s internal needs are blind and to satisfy them we must apply reason ad rationality in order to separate their positive effects from the negative ones. Because reason is the power which can create a balance between human needs. Of course, reason alone can not have this control, unless it is affected by the revelation. Revelation plays the director role in this regard and is responsible for the rationality. Rationality itself is the director of human needs. Therefore one of the most important causes of the deviation is the lack of reason in satisfying human needs.
Analyzing the existing international norms Unfortunately, the international law and its enforcement organizations have failed to reach a unanimous front against terrorism. Perhaps one of the reasons behind this failure is the lack of understanding about
Global Alliance 468 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace humanity and the spirituality of the religions, is a broad and decorated process which confirms with the desires and interests of superpowers. Since these organizations have not correctly recognized God›s principles and positions they have resorted to the political superpowers who wish to maintain their position and prevent the international community to achieve legal standards in terms of combating terrorism. International conventions are under the heavy influence and impact of secularism. They did not follow the normal route and were led away from revelations. They focused only on the humanity of the human beings and didn‘t regard him as the servant of God on the planet; therefore, they failed to achieve that ideal goal. The failure to achieve justice and peace is the mere result of adherence to human interests and escaping from the religion and spirituality. International organizations have had some positive effects in terms of universality and harmony between nations and governments which can not be denied at all, but the fundamental flaw in the system is their defiance from the God›s laws under the pretext of secularism and human situation. On the other hand, these organizations are dominated by those superpowers that only take care of their own interests and use these organizations to realize those goals and interests. For example, United States claim to be against terrorism and also claim to be the supporter of freedom and human rights, but U.S. is the main sponsor and supporter of the dictators. It also violates human rights. These superpowers have dual standards in terms of such issues. Sometimes they claim to be the supporter of democracy, but they provide full support for those who violate the principles of democracy. They perpetrate terrorist acts and run prisons in which there is no sense of respect for the human beings. They regard themselves as the harbinger of anti-terrorist movement in the world, but they violate the basic facts in this regard. This is one of the main causes of alienation with the nature of human being. When people are distanced from religion and humanism becomes the main idea, the human being considers himself as the God which results in many challenges and problems. God addresses Prophet (PBUH) Terrorism as a Result of Fall of Spirituality / 469 in the Quran and says: «did you see the man who was praying his own passion. Can you guarantee him?) (Verse 43, Chapter Forqan). In fact, those people who pray themselves instead of God, they can not be guided at all.
Governments and achieve a just and lasting peace If the governments seriously try to achieve peace, they must be under the direction of sharia law and revelation. They must recognize sharia and what it decrees about humans in order to not to abuse the right of others. God says in the Holy Quran: « work together in the way of goodness and piety and don‘t cooperate in aggression and sin, because Allah›s punishment is severe) (Verse 2 Chapter Maedeh). If all governments pay enough attention to this principle, we can hope to achieve that goal.
Global Alliance 470 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Just Peace as the Solution of Terrorism / 471
Just Peace as the Solution of Terrorism Prof. Syed Hussain Kamaluddin Akbar
Terrorism as a word has been derived from the Latin word terror, which means great fear. It is different from all other crimes in that its purpose and objective is to put the people in a state of terror and to pressurize government to act in a direction or not to act in that direction.1 At present, we are in the age of terrorism because the present age has witnessed terrorism to such an extent that its parallel has not been seen in the human history. Probably the modern civilization and its very nature are responsible for such type of approach. On one hand the industrialization and technological development, transportation, communications are responsible for growth of terrorism, while on the other hand sophisticated weapon like heat seeking missiles which can be fired from light shoulder launchers are now relatively easy for various terrorist movements. The more dangerous thing is chances of access to biological chemical and nuclear instruments of destructions. The advancement of science and technology are turning all modern societies into potential victim of terrorism. At present, we are in the age of terrorism because the present age has witnessed terrorism to such an extent that its parallel has not been seen in the human history. Probably the modern civilization and its very nature are responsible for such type of approach. On one hand the industrialization and technological development, transportation, communications are responsible for growth of terrorism, while on the other hand sophisticated weapon like heat seeking missiles which can be fired from light shoulder launchers are now relatively easy for various
Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Allahabad (India). 1. H.O Agarwal, International law & Human Rights (Allahabad, 2008) is" Ed.,p.633.
Global Alliance 472 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace terrorist movements. The more dangerous thing is chances of access to biological chemical and nuclear instruments of destructions. The advancement of science and technology are turning all modern societies into potential victim of terrorism. The world has seen many wars and carnages. These acts took away the lives of both armed and unarmed, military personnel's and civilians. The terrorist do such type of illegal activates indiscriminately and innocent and unconcerned persons are subjected increasingly to daily risk anywhere in the world. More over the purpose of the terrorist groups is to make the media as their agent for intimidation and black mail. Sometimes the terrorist have the support of the state government or political groups existing in any state system. State policy may also hamper efforts to deal with terrorist and terrorism. Imprisonment of the terrorist inspires the terrorist groups to use terrorism as a weapon for their release.2 The world seems so helpless before this problem. The highest body of the international community at present is the United Nations but because of ideological and political differences among member states, has been unable to take appropriate and effective measures to check terrorism. The vested interest of the developed countries and their dual standards were also the obstacles in the way to reach a universal consensus on the definition of terrorism and possible strategies to get a proper solution of the problem.
Effect of Globalization on Terrorism Globalization has converted the problem of terrorism from regional phenomenon to a global phenomenon. Global terrorism is viewed in cultural, economic and religious terms linked to globalization. Naturally the terrorism has become deadlier, more difficult to combat than it was in the past. One should not forget that terrorism is a weapon of the weak conducted by minority of individuals who promote an extremist ideology and it often fails to create political change.
2. Probably of this reason Osama Bin Laden was killed in US Operation in Pakistan. Just Peace as the Solution of Terrorism / 473
Sometimes the terrorism is divided into local terrorism and global terrorism. Global terrorism which can also be described as International terrorism, which is connected with the problem of globalization of terrorism requires the effect of these activities in two or more states. Since the interest of more than one state is involved therefore International Law is concerned with global terrorism.3 Global Terrorism may be caused either with or without violence in time of peace or in time of armed conflict.4 Western States do not agree for the inclusion of governmental acts within the scope of International terrorism but the third world countries and Non Aligned countries are of the view that International terrorism includes the acts States as well.5 In late nineteenth and early twentieth century terrorism has rarely an impact beyond national borders but the late twenty century and the first decade of the twenty first century are witnessing the problem of globalization of terrorism. Globalization has improved the technical capabilities terrorist and had given them global reach but it had not altered the fundamental fact that terrorism represents the extreme view of the minority of the global population. In other words globalization has changed the scope of terrorism but not its nature.
Characteristics and Features 1. Definitions of Terrorism vary widely but one thing is common and that is the use of violence. 2. The violence takes many form and often indiscriminately targets non combatants. 3. The purpose of terrorism may vary depending upon the ideology of the terrorist group. 4. Historically the term terrorism describes the State violence against the citizens during the French Revolution but it is not uncommon in pre
3. H.O Agarwal, International Law & Human Rights (Allahabad,2008),p 633. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid.
Global Alliance 474 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Islamic period and in the regime of Ommayads and Abbasids. Even in the reign of Hazrat Ali the war of AI Jamal and Guerilla warfare of Muawia by making the combatants groups to cause terror in the territories of Hazrat Ali, similarly the whole movement of Kharijites. 5. Over past half century the terrorism has come to mean the use of violence by small groups to achieve political change. 6. In the modern context terrorism may be defined as the use of violence by sub-state groups to inspire fear by attacking civilians to draw wide spread attention to a grievance provoking a server response or wearing down their opponents morals to achieve political ends. 7. Broadly the terrorist may be classified into four categories although it is not perfect division: A. Left Wing Terrorism: This group is encouraged by the philosophy and ideology communist movement. B.Right Wing Terrorism: It has drawn inspiration from Fascism. C.Ethonationalist / separatist terrorism: It was developed especially in the immediate post World War II years influents by the wave de- colonialization. D. Sacred Terrorism: It is based on religious ideology or agenda. 8. Realists suggest that the political violence used by the terrorist groups is illegitimate on the basis that States monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its own boundaries or outside it. The earlier category is where a country fights terrorism within its own political boundaries and though it's also necessary to consider these acts of government against the citizens or immigrants of that country but it usually does not arouse so much hue and cry nor that much destruction. The other group is where one powerful nation or a group of them calls a state rogue state or terrorist state and attack it on grounds of fighting terrorism. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 by United States is justified by the US on grounds that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction and if it is not checked now the world will face irreparable damage, but in course of time the US and Allied forces had failed to justify the charges levied against Iraq, and the total destruction damaged the credibility of Just Peace as the Solution of Terrorism / 475
US as claimant of global champion for individual right and freedom. As we have observed earlier the attempts to fight terrorism have failed so far. For global peace and for antiterrorism attitude the two kinds of moralities need to be studied closely, one the morality of means and the other the morality of the end. The terrorist think that the means are immaterial if the end is justified. Definitely it is to be opposed but the same standard may be applied in case of the states and governments having the political power and having the support of the International bodies. Therefore, the states should also not be justified in achieving justice at the cost of unjust means. Until this attitude of justifying all kinds of acts by the state or a group or groups on the basis of the importance or holiness of their ends is abandoned we cannot have global peace.
Peace and Justice Peace like so many other universal values is mostly experienced in a relative sense, but in absolute sense peace leaves no room for injustice. Sometimes the peace is created artificially by compelling the oppressed class not to raise their voices against the oppressors; naturally it is not the peace in proper sense. We may use the peace for many different purposes in different senses but actually peace is that where everyone in the society and every nation in the international community get his due share, neither he is a oppressor nor he is an oppressed. There shall be a rule of law at the individual level, national level and international level. The best solution was provided in the famous "Document of Instructions" given by AIi-lbn- Abi Talib to Malik Al Ashtar Al Nakhai, when he was appointed as the Governor of Egypt and surrounding areas. Do justice for Allah and do justice towards the people as against yourself, your near ones and those of your subjects for whom you have a liking, because if you do not do so you will be oppressive and when a person oppresses the creature of Allah, then instead of His Creature ,Allah becomes his opponents and when Allah is the opponents of a person He tramples his plea ;and we will remain in the position of being at war with
Global Alliance 476 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Allah until he gives it up and repents. Nothing is more inductive of the reversal of Allah's bounty or for the hastening of His retribution than continuance in operation, because Allah hears the prayers of the oppressed and is on the lookout for the oppressor.6
Just Peace It is submitted that peace leaves no room for injustice but to differentiate it from the relative sense in which peace is used we will use the term just peace to denote absolute peace. The idea of just peace calls for consideration from two angles, one is the analysis of the concept of just peace and other is the justification or reason behind the propagation of just peace. It is not sufficient to know what just peace is and how it can be achieved. It is also equally important to ask whether it is actually desirable? And does it have moral grounds? The international community makes the concept of justice as a tool to support their political and economic interests. Particularly the developed countries are more involved in this kind of approach for example their concept that the Arab Countries cannot have democracy because by very nature the democracy does not suit them and therefore, the people of Arab countries are to be controlled by a dictator otherwise there would be total anarchy and chaos in the society. Ironically the same community of nations supports the concept of democracy for another country with much zeal and fervor. There is no justification of divergent views on a universally accepted norm for different nations. On one side the International community accepts that all human beings irrespective of their nationality, gender, color, religion, cast or any other point of distinction have a right to live peacefully and the democracy is best means to support human freedom human rights and promotion of society. On the other hand in practice the same community encourages and protects the kingship in the Arab world. Similarly these nations are supporters of sovereignty of nations but for their vested interest they often ignore the sovereignty of the weak nations.
6. Nahjul Balagha, "Peak of Eloquence" tans.sveo Ali Reza,p.535. Just Peace as the Solution of Terrorism / 477
Our approach is all the humans are equal as members of human community. Today in a civilized world no one calls anyone else less human than himself, but what it means to be human? Whether just to be a particular type of body and some needs of that body makes a person human like hunger thirst sexual desire, need to have rest, aversion from pain, desire for pleasure and attempts to preserve one's life. There is nothing especially human about these except that we cook our food we rest on bed we have more types of entertainment than animals and that our societies have more complex relationship than' those of animals. When we look at animals and humans they have much the same qualities except one very major difference -that is, the animals used to live earlier in the same way as they are living today, there is not much difference in their life style except some minor changes caused by climatic changes .: But as humans we have made a lot of material progress with time but on both positive and negative sides. There is a tendency in humans to get better from what they are. It might be better in the sense of money are bodily pleasure or in sense of studies or in sense of moral uplifting or in some other field. Humans are in doubt with this desire that animals totally lack. Animals are content with getting their immediate needs fulfilled. Even in the case of those animals that are marked by their skills of planning for the future, no sign any of any progress is seen over the long period of history. Definitely ants save their food for future and probably they have been doing it since they came into being, but none of them tried to freeze it so that it can be used for a longer period of time than their ancestors were doing. The reason to distinguish human from other creatures is to know the real nature of humans for a proper solution of just peace. The animals are governed by their instincts, their love, aversion, relationship and strife all are dependent on their instincts and all their activities are balanced by the nature itself. Neither they increase their power nor do they form groups and sub groups associations or nations to exploit others and their resources. Once their urge is satisfied the animals stop all type activities in that direction, it may be constructive or destructive. Sometimes the
Global Alliance 478 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace animals fight in groups but after the end of it, no group tries to punish the other. After the Second World War the two important cities of Japan Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely destroyed by atom bombs of United States to teach a lesson to Japan. This is a great problem that having intellect and a memory given by that intellect, the human may act constructively and destructively both. Unlike animals they are not governed by nature and their activities are not balanced by nature. The humans sometimes may create imbalance in the nature. So the most striking feature the humans have is that all humans have a desire to get better or rather a need a, natural urge to get better, if that desire is not fulfilled we are reduced to the status of the animals or below that. Quran says: "Many are Jins and men, We have made for Hell, they have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not and ears wherewith they hear not, they are like cattle-nay more misguided, tor they are heedless (of warning).7 Since there is no ground to say that one has more right to be human than any other we have to accept that we all have a right to lead this life the way a human life demands. and is it is possible to achieve this end without having freedom? There is an old story that a boy wanted to see the city so his master sent him to the king with a note having instructions that give this boy a cup full of water and send him to see the city but, there shall be a guard behind him with a naked sword and if a single drop spills from the cup tell him he will be executed on the spot. When the boy came back from his journey, the teacher asked him,"How did you find the city?" The student replied angrily "How could I see anything with the fear of the naked sword on the back of my neck." What was taken away from that boy? Was he tied? Were his eyes closed? Nothing but the fear of death took away from him his freedom to look around and be conscious of his environment which suggests that freedom never means literal freedom. It should always be real freedom. Freedom itself is the basic need of the humans as well as the way to fulfill our
7. 7:179. Just Peace as the Solution of Terrorism / 479 needs. It is the greatest human value because without freedom the idea of justice and peace has no existence. The human society is just in the true sense of the word when there is a real freedom. Justice does not mean the enforcement of certain orders on the violation of some rule or law. It is a very narrow way of looking at justice. It actually means giving to him what rightfully belongs to him. In just society people have their freedom and since they have freedom they can lead a life desirable as human life. Hence there is a little or no rule for strife. In this idle situation the actual peace will work in the society from within and not peace that is enforced from outside. Thus it is imperative for 'Just Peace' that it is not imposed from outside. And it is equally important that all sections of society are made aware of it and efforts are made to ensure that 'Peace' start taking roots from most basic unit of society and upwards. Thus there is a need to ponder on how to effectively inculcate and embrace the concept of 'Peace' from most basic level of society. 'Peace' being a universal value like 'Freedom', 'Justice' etc should have same meaning and should deliver same results for all humans alike, but unfortunately in a world of diversity, our differentiators are more explicit and tend to weigh more than our similarities and thus end up delivering different meanings and deliver different results for same universal values. Hence there is a need to find a common denominator which applies equally to all humans, which transcends all differences, which glorifies diversity with a sense of unity. This common denominator is value of humanity. We as individuals may differ with each other on thousands of identities, but our human identity still binds us together. Perhaps one of the reason why injustice and consequently the problem of terrorism seems so unsolvable today, is that our society has regrettably surrendered or ignored its prime identity of being a Human. We value all identities which make us diverse, and then use these diverse identities as a means to chaos, prejudice and bias. Although it was never willed to be like that. Nature willed in diversity, a beautiful spectrum, like a blooming spring garden, with a variety of hues and aroma.
Global Alliance 480 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Thus the question that needs to be asked is why have we as humans been so aloof from our human identity? Why we don't want to bond with another human based on humanity and prefer the differences we have based on our other identities. Why we don't understand that vested interests have always and will always continue to exploit this weakness of our in causing strife and chaos. It is this tendency that. All injustices perpetrated on the face of this earth are causality of this ignorance. It is so evident today to notice the extent of damage done to the international society as a whole. One of the best ways to tackle this issue is to take refuge in teachings of True Religion. Religion proposes to lead humans on the path of humanity. Prevalence and preservation of true religious principles in a society can be a good step towards bringing us back to humanity and restoring the balance of 'Peace' based on 'Justice'. But as with all methods there is a caveat here too, misuse of religion is a grave problem which can exponentially worsen the state of society and thus should be heavily guarded against. Coming back to the question of diverse identities, we are all born and brought up with different identities given to us by our surroundings. They no doubt have great value as the Quran says (the verse about diversity and its purpose). So Allah has made these diversities to make this world more beautiful but when these identities are pressed too hard they create an imbalance. Whether it be the ethnic identity, national identity or religious or any other identity when it is highlighted as the greatest value than people sharing these identities are lead to believe that they are superior to others who lack these identities. There is no way to justify why it is better to take pride in ones love for ones country as superior to ones love for ones religion or the latter to ones caste or sect or that too ones family? all of these are identities that fill the human canvas with color and if a human is ripped of them then the picture will be colorless. But before being anything else he is a human and that is his greatest identity. Imam Ali a.s. said at a place "Treat others with respect for he is either your brother in faith or your Just Peace as the Solution of Terrorism / 481 equal in humanity".8 This statement shows that Islam finds all humans having equal value Unless we educate our masses that before anything we are humans and so is our neighbor or any other being we cannot break these fragrnents that give rise to injustice. These injustices coupled with exploitative tendencies and vested interests in a long run give rise to specter of terrorism. Not only the coming generation needs to be raised with this idea but our generation has to unlearn our narrow values and must learn this greatest value. For removal of injustice an establishment of a just society we have two different kind of solution, one which is given by the modern International Law and the other provided by the Islamic shariat.
Legal Control on International Terrorism The number of attempts have been made to control International Terrorism within an outside the League of Nations and the United Nations. There is always a great problem as pointed out by W. Friedmann: "Both the League of Nations Covenant and the United Nations' Charter representing a society of the nations that is aware of the need for International Organizations but unwilling to surrender the essentials of national sovereignty are compromises.".9 After the establishment of the United Nations few conventions have been concluded for the suppression of specific forms of International Terrorism, e.g. in case of air craft high jacking,10 acts against Internationally protected persons,11 taking of hostages,12 conventions to ensure the safety and security of United Nations' and associated
8. Nahjul Balagha, "Peak of Eloquence" trans. Syed Ali Reza, p.537. 9. Legal Theory (London,1967),5th Ed.,p 577. 10. Tokyo convention 1963;Hague convention 1970;Monterial convention 1971. 11. Convention of General Assembly,(Dec.13th 1973)enforced on Feb 20,1977. 12. General Assembly Resolution 34/116 dated Dec. 7 1979.
Global Alliance 482 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace personals,13 convention for the suppression of terrorist bombing,14 convention for the suppression of the financing of the terrorism,15 convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism .16 The General Assembly has repeatedly expressed its deep concern about all forms of terrorism which in danger are take innocent human lives, jeopardize fundamental freedom and seriously impaired the dignity of the human beings the Security Council in resolution17 declared that one of the most serious threats to International Peace and security in the 21st century is the act of terrorism and this the challenge to all states and humanity. General Assembly in a resolution on human rights and terrorism stated that terrorism creates an environment that destroys the freedom from fear of the people. All these measures to check terrorism either at national level or at International level have been proved insufficient and in effective.
The Approach of Islamic Shariat The cannon law of Islam covers all aspects of our life. International Law in Islam is also the part of Islamic shariat it is a kind of relationship among the states. The foundation of shariat is justice and therefore, International relationship should also be based on justice. For Muslim society justice is not only necessary for this worldly life but it is the basis of the life of the next world. Therefore, Islam encourages the formation of a just society in which everybody will be protected and his rights are to be honored. Quran therefore condemns those people who disturb the world peace order. Quran speaks: "When it is said to them 'Make not mischief on the earth' they say 'we are only once that put things right"'18 "Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief but they realize
13. General Assembly Resolution 49/59,Dec.9,1994. 14. General Assembly Resolution 51/164,Dec.5 1997. 15. General Assembly Resolution 54/109,Dec 9,1999. 16. General Assembly Resolution of April 13,2005, came into force on July7, 2007. 17. Resolution No 1377 adopted on November 12, 2001. 18.2:11. 18. 2:11. Just Peace as the Solution of Terrorism / 483
(it)not".19 The word "Fasad" or mischief has very wide canvas and includes all kinds of terrorism in it. There isa difficulty which is pointed out by Quran that when it is asked from mischief creators 'Mufsid" that don't disturb the order of peace in this earth or in the universe they argue that we are the reformers. It is provided in Quran how the reformers will be identified from the mischief creators. It is on the basis of Aqal or reason. It means the reformer is that person Who is certain about the truth of his massage and program and therefore, he invites others to accept is program on the basts of Aqal and reasoning. On the other hand the mischief creators who hare Mufsids in the eyes of Quran compel others to accept their massage, mission or program on the \ basis of their personalities, power, fear etc. Therefore, the terrorists of all kinds are to be placed in the class of Mufsids. When Moses (A.S.) was sent as the Prophet to eradicate cruelties, inequalities, exploitation etc, the holy Quran narrates: "And remember we rescued you from Pharaoh~ people who afflicted you with the worst of punishment, who slew your male children and saved alive your females; in that was a momentous Trial from your lord".20 Although Moses (AS) was sent as a reformer but the allegation against him was "Said the chiefs of Pharaoh's people 'wilt you leave Moses and his people to spread mischief in the land and to abandon thee and thy gods~ He said "there mail children will slay; (only) there females will be saved alive. And we have over them (power) irresistible. ".21 We have a clear guideline for just peace in Islamic Shariat and it is totally based on concept of justice mercy and endeavor to reform. Therefore first of all the Muslim community and Muslim Nations will present an ideal Society based on real justice . Then we hope the other will also try to follow it. The prophet of Islam followed the Rules of Islam not on the
19. 2:12 20. 7:141. 21. Quran:7:127.
Global Alliance 484 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace basis of reciprocity as the moral International Society thinks. Our modern International law suggest that we will follow the human rights and good relations with the other nations and human beings if they reciprocate otherwise we will be barbarous to them in Islam the ideal set by the prophet and after him his best disciple Hazrat Ali against his enemies in various important battles shows that Islam demands justice not on the basis of reciprocity but because justice is the spirit of human life and universe and our religion Islam has no existence without peace and justice.
Education, Just Peacs for Preventation of Terrorism / 485
Education, Just Peacs for Prevention of Terrorism
Prof. Massimo De Santi
1. Introduction Footsteps from Defence to Attack through Terror methods is what we use to call as Terrorism. This sort of mankind has its roots in our past. We can say that in the history of human beings a great part of inventions were created just to reach this goal: we all know about the famous scientist Archimede with his mirrors that fired enemies army ships. What we have to decide is where the war begins and where the terrorism takes war-place. Also war is a typical human behaviour, we don‘t have another similar one in animals and nature world. We can say terrorism manipulates fear, the human anguish, to gain partial or global power and control. Every sort of animals, not only wild beasts, use typical defense mechanism when they have to face something dangerous or something they think it is. This behaviour is always directed toward the other, to the attainment of submission or to obtain the enemy‘s escape. When the human beings discovered the fire, used it to scare them. Animals can be aggressive for their biological aspects instead of humanity. Men are aggressive as animals , but they can get more aggressive just for the teaching, for a Culture reason, that‘s why we can commonly talk about a sort of anthropological aggressiveness. That‘s the line we have to cross: to struggle violence culture as a method that had caused conflicts during all the history of populations. We have to smuddle through this point for an
Professor of Nuclear Physics at the University of Pisa, Italy, and Director of the International Committee of Education for Peace.
Global Alliance 486 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace evolution of the world. The UNESCO, the international UN agency for education and culture of people, in the 1991- Siviglia declaration (Spain) resumed that the biological aspect doesn‘t ―charge humanity for war‖ as like “in human beings minds wars born‖. That‘s why a culture of peace has to start in our brains. Men invented wars, men can invent also peace, first of all with the beginning of a process that recognizes our responsibility. Today in war we use intercontinental missiles launched from thousand miles to stun or frighten populations or radar invisible airplanes that can wound everywhere without being identified. All these weapons are used to spread fear. Terrorism becomes something invisible. That‘s the difference between animals and human beings: animals use to scare in a way that has to be as clearer as possible, for human beings fear gets bigger and bigger when you can not see the danger, can not see from where it arrives, or when. In this sense terror turns from an individual dimension to a global one. That‘s why today we can gather that ―terrorism‖ is something universal, international in its aspects. We have lots of historical examples, as Japanese ―Kamikaze‖ during the II World War, terrorist attacks used in the civil wars, the US launch of atomic bomb that in a while magnified fear power not only for Japan but for all mankind. In the end, with the beginning of the third millennium, the US Twin Towers outrage opened a new scene in terrorism strategy and in the history of humanity. Also the UN never find an international definition for the word ―Terrorism‖.
2. Terrorism Roots Gathered that terror mechanism starts in our brain and spreads in our history, our times, is a first important step in understanding terrorism that‘s why war and terrorism are used to reach economic, social, politic, religious and cultural goals. Therefore now this word has some different aspects:
Education, Just Peacs for Preventation of Terrorism / 487
Individual terrorism When a person behaviour is like animals ones threatening others with words, weapons, or using body strenght to frighten and submit other people.
Social terrorism When a group of people is organized to dominate other groups or society aspects through some coercitive ways to maintain them in a condition of inferiority, under control, often applying the Ancient Roman method called ―Panem et Circensem‖ (―Bread and Circus‖-Weaning-) to brainwahed them, stopping their faculty of criticism thinking and submitting them to their power.
National and International Terrorism Every nation is structured with its system of State Laws keeping people- control, also putting down riots, or some opinions not allowed to their rules, including a kind of psychological terror and fear between society members. All those aspects have been applied not only inside a state government but to a higher, supernational level, to extend a kind of culture, religion, economy, including the history of Colonialism conquering natural and mineral resources of other regions and states. Colonialism was and still IS a real sort of terrorism, that today goes on with new kinds of sophisitcated and untrustworthy domination strategies dangerous for people life and for their inalienable rights. In modern kinds of terrorism there are some importants aspects I‘d like to introduce:
3. Economic and Social Aspects Social and economic parameters of a society obviously condition people quality of life, their ways of thinking and in their neuronal faculties. When a society is organized to maintain power in a few hands and a person is discriminated by his social, racial and familiar situation there are all the conditions to increase hunger and hate, a fight for the power and the conquest of rights. Sometime also great process of civilization
Global Alliance 488 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace and right evolution like the French Revolution can develop and degenerate into a real terror system, as we know ―the terror dictatorship‖ of Marat and Robespierre in France immediately after the 1789, even if it did‘t last for long time. This is a development that we often find in Modern History events. When alienated and exploited classes rise again the system sometimes comes out a situation nor better then the previous one. The crossing line is that every revolution ha s to include a truly democratic process. Today we can see how injustices and marginalizations, the confinement in a ―ghetto‖ dimension are real also in those states so called ―democratic‖, and can degenerate into violent form of roughhouse and terrorism. The important things is that these nations have in their history, traditions, Ethics and Laws inalienable rights written and accorded by a division of the powers that maintain their societies in situations more equilibrate than other countries ones.
4. Ethics and Religious Aspects Religion during human history process has been used to gain power and dominate other populations. In the name of the Lord many people has been killed and submitted. I think for example to the Christian Crusades, their massacres as the one taken place in Magonza, lots of violences to convert and destroy other kinds of culture, the Inquisition Court, and real war processes. The word ―Peace‖ is written in religious texts but the corrupted power system can often turn it into terroristic strategies. There‘s a concept that‘s basic in every path of peace and it‘s that kind of Ethic that made possible the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed in Paris, December 1948. In that vision of the world one of the worst kind of terrorism is the Western concept of ―humanitarian war‖ –a true contraddiction in words- that involves several countries or entire areas against ethnic or national groups of people.
Education, Just Peacs for Preventation of Terrorism / 489
5. Terrorism Prevention In the preface of the UN Bill adopted in 1945, June 25th is underlined that UN are born to prevent wars and to guarantee peace, social equality and safeness all around the world. Sixtysix years‘ve been passed, we can say this high and great aim has not been realized yet. Today, local conflicts and wars are spreading more and more and we are under risk of a planetary nuclear war. After the years of the two opposite block (US and Soviet Repubblic) and their end, trust between nations became more fragile and conflicts and terrorism now overwhelmed lots of world areas across the five continents. Today Un is not controlling the uprising of these tragic events, and the use of national army and weapons is not the right answer. That means no UN neither Nations can defeat terrorism. We have at this point to come back and analyze terrorism roots, searching for its hidden reasons through a global vision of what cause it: economic, social, environmental, cultural and religious factors. Terrorism is an universal problem and that‘s why we have to prevent and struggle it standing together as a unique community, the human one. Terrorism is a mortal trap that involves lots of countries and populations, destroyes people lives and culture models, and it‘s a real threat for the evolution of the world. We are crossing a point of no-return, we have so many weapons, nuclear weapons, mass destruction weapons: the spark that could cause a catastrofic war to break out may explode everywhere. Defeat terrorism and, most important, prevent it, means first of all fighting against ourselves, trying to respect and learn different culture and men different from us, not imposing our model of living, laws, economic systems. Often war is seen as a natural solution against people we can not understand, we haven‘t the will to recognize and respect in their civil and social rights, as in their way of conceiving a society and nation. We have lots of wrong ideas and prejudims, it happens when we don‘t ―know‖ anthropologically a population features. The beginning if this new millennium have been the scene of so much illusions: I‘m thinking above all to the Westerners project to fight Islamic
Global Alliance 490 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace terrorism by war, as in Iraq and and in Afghanistan as well, without really learning and understanding reasons of this social phenomenon. Many terrorism attempts had been place after these politic of war, Middle East keeps on burning, quite every day we can see terroristic attacks in a game that seems to be with no end. The best way to defeat terrorism is in its PREVENTION. That‘s the direction that UN, an the international community should take, through a planetary program financed and declared by UN, realized in every country in collaboration with UNESCO, UNICEF, humanitarian organizations and local and international NGO. This kind of project takes patience studies, coherence, care, diligence and a serious political, social commitment. That‘s the only road we have to walk to stop terrorism. We have to promote an inter- religious and inter- cultural dialogue between populations, if we want to stand up for peace, breaking the circle of innocent pacific citizens killed by bombing and terroristic attacks and finally making this world we‘re leaving in a safe place. In the name of the children of the world, our future, with no differences of religion, skin colours, or ethnical, we have to promote a Pedagogical Revolution, a Planetary Education, a Peace- Psychopedagogy if we want to live together in our planet, in a world where nation will not lift up sword again nation and where our children will never have to learn war anymore. In our brain we should have written as an unforgettable memory the knowledge of an ethic respect for everyone and every culture and population of the Earth.
Conclusion Every kind of terrorism can be defeated only by social justice and world peace. Social justice methods have to be enforced without any colonialism but only with the development and the exstension of inalienable rights as the ones written in the Declaration of Human Being Rights initialed in Paris, 1948, December the 10th and with an international cooperation that ―walks the talk‖ in a serious way. Education, Just Peacs for Preventation of Terrorism / 491
We can have Peace only through culture, learning, experienced education and respect for the ―Others‖, and loving our children and teens more than our enemies , stopping the murders of that future that terroristic thought sentences to death. There is no hope with self-centered attitude. International ethical consciousness citizens participation in the decision- making process produces Life and Future.
Global Alliance 492 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
On Just Peace And Peace Education / 493
On Just Peace and Peace Education Prof. Alicia Cabezudo
What is peace? The concept of peace linked to Ethics in contemporary peace research literature and peace education is defined broadly rather than narrowly (see Figure 1). Peace is considered conceptually on a variety of scales and levels from the personal to the global. Rather than defining peace negatively, as the interval between wars or outbreaks of physical violence, peace is defined in a positive and integrated way. It is taken to denote not only the absence of open hostilities but also the presence of peacemaking processes and conditions likely to ensure a secure, durable peace. It implies a state of well-being and an active process in which justice, equity and respect for basic human rights are maximized and violence, both physical and structural, is minimized. The concept of Peace is tightly interlinked with human rights, justice and solidarity - we are now talking on JUST PEACE. A broad rather than narrow concept of peace is taken as the basis for discussion here and basically as the upper value for an ethical work where Peace must prevail over all. The concept is defined ―holistically‖. It is seen not only as the absence of direct violence but as a state and active process of well-being and security in which human rights are respected, the environment is protected, and basic human needs in food, shelter and education are met.
A historical overview on the definition of peace The idea of peace has evolved significantly through history: the Greeks used the word eirene to designate the periods where there were no wars
Professor, PhD in Education and Social Sciences.
Global Alliance 494 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace between the Greek cities. This concept of peace, then, referred to the peace they had among them, as they could use that word while they were in war with the Barbars. Similarly, at times of the Romans, pax meant the state of security and legal order inside the territory of the Roman Empire. Pax, was used for describing the times when there were no rebellions against the roman system, even if there were wars with the Barbars. Understood in modern standards, pax would mean the absence of rebellion to an occupation. Despite nowadays some countries still use the concept of peace as it was considered by the Romans, it has since then evolved significantly. In opposition to peace defined as the ―absence of‖ (absence of war, violence, etc.), the actual concept of peace is defined in positive manner, as ―the presence of‖ (justice, etc.). The first historical examples around the Mediterranean Sea that related the concept of peace to positive values, were shalom and salaam, that linked peace to justice, and to fair economical relations between people. Both concepts, with some nuances, are also linked to the relation with God. In the sixties, the concept of peace defined in positive terms is taken up again. At that time, the peace researcher Johan Galtung relates it to many positive values as horizontal and cooperative relations between people, state of law, social welfare, etc. Still today, peace is defined differently according to cultures: while in Asia cultures influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism emphasise a lot more in the personal level (to be in peace with oneself), Western cultures share a concept more oriented to society. And why is it important to have a clear concept of what we mean by peace? Usually peace is considered as an unreachable utopia, and is described in very abstract terms. If, instead, peace is defined in more concrete terms, with specific examples of what peace should be and what peace should not be, then it is a good start to begin walking that way.
On Just Peace And Peace Education / 495
Figure 1: Defining Peace in opposition to Violence
PEACE
Broad definition of ―Peace‖ as an ethical value. JUST PEACE. The concept is defined ―holistically‖. Narrow definition of ―Peace‖ It is seen not only as the absence of - ―The gap between wars‖ direct violence but as a state and - Absence of war active process of well- being and - Absence of terrorism security in which human rights are - Absence of physical respected, the environment is violence protected, and basic human needs in - Absence of corporal food, shelter and education are met. punishment, etc.
Structural violence (indirect) “Physical” violence (direct): war, terrorism, physical Cultural violence: religious torture, street bashings, intolerance, fundamentalism, corporal punishment, domestic racism, sexism, poverty, ecological violence, child abuse, etc. imbalance, etc.
VIOLENCE
The definition of peace that will be referred in this chapter is "the process of accomplishment of justice in the different levels of the human relation.
Global Alliance 496 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
It is a dynamic concept that makes us arise, confront and solve the conflicts in a non-violent way and that has the aim of obtaining harmony of the person with itself, with the nature and with the other people1‖. This definition remarks the idea of the dynamism of peace that, just like democracy or justice, can always be improved. Note also that the definition highlights the importance of arising, confronting, and solving conflicts.
The purpose of Peace Education The goals and purpose of peace education are often misunderstood. The most common misperception is that peace education is simply education about peace, in which content such as peace movements and leaders - from Mahatma Gandhi to Martin Luther King - are delivered as a special course or program of study. Teaching about peace is absolutely beneficial, particularly in a world where history is most often viewed through a lens of violence. However important it is that we teach about peace, it is even more relevant that we teach for peace, or better yet toward peace. There is a wide consensus amongst peace education practitioners and theorists from around the world that peace education is education both about and for peace. An education for peace is overt in its intentions to understand, confront, resist and transform violence in all its multiple manifestations. All societies educate their members toward social purposes. Peace education seeks to transform society by changing the goals sought by education, particularly as guided by public policy. The social purpose of achieving a culture of peace is one that calls for the renunciation, delegitimation, reduction and ultimate elimination of violence in all its multiple types and forms.
The characteristics of Peace Education Peace Education has two characteristics: comprehensive and holistic.
1. Seminario de Educación para la Paz-APDH. Educar para la paz. Una propuesta posible. La Catarata. Madrid, 2000. On Just Peace And Peace Education / 497
Why Comprehensive? In the work for peace education it is emphasized the comprehensive process in which content, methodology and process are comprised and call for reflection upon the following statements: How you come to know? What it is that you know? How you will use or act upon that knowledge in the world. There is a strong interrelationship among purpose, content and process. The ―how we come to know‖ part is the process, or in educational term it might be described as the pedagogy. The above statement alludes to the idea that the ―how we learn‖ is as relevant as the ―what we learn‖. Such thinking illuminates the importance of the learning process in the development of active and critically engaged learners. Betty Reardon defines comprehensive peace education as ―a generalized approach to education for global responsibility in a planetary nuclear age; it operates at all levels and in all spheres of learning, includes all fields of relevant knowledge, and is a lifelong, continuous process‖ (Reardon 1988, 74). A comprehensive approach to education begins with the open identification of its social purposes and the values it comprises. Content and process are then determined so as to be consistent with the social purposes. In Betty Reardon‘s definition, global responsibility comprises the social purposes of the education, all fields and spheres of learning comprise the content, and the ―how we learn― is defined as an active, malleable and continuous process. The emphasis on content comprising ―all levels and all spheres of learning‖ is also of special relevance to comprehensive peace education. Drawing from all fields and disciplines of knowledge, peace education seeks to learn from as many perspectives as possible in addressing complex social realities and conflicts. Peace education is based in such values as democracy, nonviolence, community, cooperation and social justice. Philosophically it embraces difference and diversity and also recognizes and values the autonomy of the individual learner. In consistency with these values peace education
Global Alliance 498 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace learning is often pursued through critical, reflective learning modes. In such learner-centered methods authentic values are autonomously developed by and within the learner, not inculcated by instructors. It is a process oriented learning in which emphasis on how to think and does not dictate what to think. Emphasis is given to capacitating learners with relevant skills and knowledge for active engagement in civil and political society. With what issues and to what degree a student is engaged is ultimately of his or her own choice.
Why Holistic? Peace education recognizes the complexity of the human experienced, personally, interpersonally and as an extension of self into society and the world at large. The obstacles to peace are recognized as multiple and interrelated. As we become aware of this, we come to realize that there is no simple approach to educating for peace, and that the pedagogy of peace education must provide for experiences in multiple modes of thinking and learning. A holistic perspective helps learners to observe both the direct and indirect relationships between forms of violence at all levels as well as the values, practices and necessary conditions needed to overcome them. The importance of such thinking is in the ability for ―expressing global awareness in terms of holism, which can link the individual directly, rather than through stages, to the wider environment‖ (Aspeslagh and Burns 1996, 11). Conflicts and forms of violence which reveal themselves in local contexts are almost always related to larger social phenomenon.
The Aims of Peace Education Educating for Peace should aim to: Help to understand some of the complex processes leading to violence and conflict at the individual, group, national and global levels, and be aware of some of the ways in which these conflicts may be resolved. Cultivate attitudes that lead to a preference for constructive and non- violent resolution of conflict. On Just Peace And Peace Education / 499
Help to build the personal and social skills necessary to live in harmony with others and to behave in positive and caring ways that respect basic human rights. Develop ―human learning communities‖, in people - children, youngsters and adults - are encouraged to work together cooperatively to understand and find solutions to significant problems.
Proposing General Contents The content of peace education is typically chosen to address the specific manifestation of violence within a particular site - school, home or community. This list identifies several overarching values concepts that can be used as frameworks for the delivery of peace education content (Brenes, 2003) Human Rights, Duties and Responsibilities Democracy and Civic Participation Nonviolence and Conflict Transformation The Relations of Power, Social Change and Continuity Disarmament and Development Global Civic Culture / Global Citizenship/Global Solidarity Globalization and Interdependence. Multicultural and Intercultural Societies The Mass Media and the TICS in the Present World. Ethnic and Religious groups all over the World. Spirituality and Interfaith learning Ecological Sustainability / Environmental Justice Economic and Social Justice Rights of the Children Gender inequality Building Futures , constructing Culture of Peace
Global Alliance 500 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Core values and skills for enhancing Peace Education A peace perspective relates closely to teaching about and teaching in peace. Human values are internalized sets of belief or principles of behavior held by individuals or groups. The values which follow are chosen because they are deemed to be universally acceptable and desirable, based on what is best described as ―international humanism‖ and are embodied in such Charters as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Rights of the Child, on Women‘s Rights, etc. which are reproduced on the project‘s website. Consistent with such values are attitudes which should be nurtured in the learning process and which themselves strongly influence the process, quality and outcomes of both learning and assessment. In keeping with the general philosophy of Peace Education, it is not expected that the values listed should be delivered dogmatically; rather the learners should be encouraged to examine the context and implications of their own values and those of others to arrive at a set of values best create a climate of peace. Likewise, the attitudes we wish to see developed begin with the individual and then, though reflection, are examined at group level, in the community, at national and ultimately on a global scale. Two vital components in this process of acquisition are the role of community service and the willingness to take action. In the following matrix you will find the main themes to be approached in Peace Education and the values to be enhanced related to each theme.
On Just Peace And Peace Education / 501
Human Protection of Co-operation Preservation Self and Inter- rights and the Spirituality and solidarity of cultures Others nationalism democracy environment Self- Respect for Awareness of awareness, Interdepenence Love of peace the family the rights and Aspiring to Dignity reliance, of people and and harmony and all its duties of inner peace esteem and nature members citizenship discipline Appreciation and Respect and commitment empathy in to maintain Freedom of Appreciation our Equality among and improve thought, Equality Interdependence of one’s own relationship nation the conscience culture to others; environment and belief loving and for the caring survival of all species Appreciation of the Harmony Conflict world’s between Promotion of Freedom of Moral Justice resolution by cultural nationalism, a sustainable religious courage peaceful means heritage and regionalism and environment practice human internationalism achievement Open- Mutual Mutual mindedness, Awareness of understanding, Sensitivity to respect for Protection of trust, global issues co-operation and social and the the peoples’ tolerance, and their respect among cultural religious rights equanimity peaceful individuals and change observance and resolution societies of others reconciliation Equality of Culture of peace Inquiry and treatment Participation and co-operation creativity of religion by the state Freedom of speech and expression Freedom of
belief
Table 1. Categories of values related to main general contents
It is expected that linked to specific themes and enhancing values as we see in the above matrix the learner will develop the skills necessary to be a proactive and effective peacemaker. These can be summarized under the headings of thinking skills, communication skills and personal skills. We propose the following especially significant for Peace Education:
Global Alliance 502 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Thinking skills Communication skills Personal skills Critical thinking Presentation Co- operation Information handing Active listening Empathy Creative thinking Assertiveness Adaptability Reflection Negotiation Self- discipline Dialectical thinking Non- verbal communication Responsibility Social literacy Respect Self- respect Global concern Open mindedness Vision Social responsibilities
Table 2. Expected skills
Peace education will not achieve by itself the changes necessary for peace. Rather, it prepares learners to achieve the changes. It aims at developing awareness of social and political responsibilities, guiding and challenging people to build their own learning from individual and collective actions. It encourages them to explore possibilities for their own contribution to resolving the problems and achieving better conditions for living their lives by themselves and with others. Peace Education can definitively help to provide the requisite inspiration and direction to move beyond a culture of violence to envisioning and working towards a better world for all where culture of peace and JUST PEACE prevails. On Just Peace And Peace Education / 503
Recommended Bibliography: 1.Adams, D. (2002). Moving from a a Culture of War to a Culture of Peace . In the Newsletter of Fellowship of Reconciliation, September /October . 2.Adams, D. & True, M. (1997 ) . UNESCO‘s Culture of Peace Programme: An Introduction . In International Peace Research Newsletter . Volume 35, Number 1. (15-18) 3.Aspeslagh , R ( 1998 ) . Educating for a Peace Culture. In Three Decades of Peace Education Around the World . An Anthology ., ( 321-338 ) London: Robin Burns and Robert Aspeslagh Ed 4.Bjerstedt, A (2002 ) . Peace Education and Teacher Training. Views expressed 1994 and 2002. In Peace Education Miniprints. No 104 . (2 -21) 5.Boulding, E ( 2000 ) . Information, Communication and Learning . In Cultures of Peace. The Hidden Side of History (211-232). New York: University Press Syracuse 6.Cabezudo, A & Haavelsrud, M ( 2007) . Rethinking Peace Education . In J. Galtung & C.Webel (Eds.) Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies (279-296) . New York: Routledge 7.Freire, P. & Faundez, A (1989). The pedagogy of Asking Questions (34-43). The Need to start where the People are .(87 – 96) . Reinventing Education - Towards a National Popular Culture.(76-82). In Learning to Question. A Pedagogy of Liberation. Geneva: WCC Publications 8. Galtung, J ( 1998 ) . Conflict Theory and Practice: a perspective . (14-19 ) , Conflict Outcomes and Conflict Processes (22-27) , Comments on Conflict Theory and Practice: a perspective (25-27) . In UNDP/UN Ed . Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means 9. Haavelsrud, M. (1996) .Education in Developments. Tromso: Arena Publishers 10. Haavelsrud, M. ( 1995) . The Substance of Peace Education . In International Educator, Vol 10, No3. (29-33) 11. International Schools Association (1998) .Education for Peace.A Curriculum Framework K-12 . Geneva: Inter.Schools Association 12. Krieger, D & Ong, Carah . (2005) .Hold Hope, Wage Peace.Santa Barbara: Capra Press 13. Odora Hoppers, C. (2006) .Diversity Tolerance and Justice / Human Rights and the Human Rights Approach . In Knowledge, Democracy and Justice in a Globalizing Wordl .Paper presented at the Nordic Research Association
Global Alliance 504 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Conference, Orebro University -March 2006 14. Reardon, B ( 2006 ) . Human Rights as Education for Peace . In G.Andreopoulos and R.P. Claude Ed Human Rights Education for the Twenty- First Century , (21-34) . New York : 15. Reardon, B & Cabezudo,A. (2002) .Learning To Abolish War. Teaching Toward a Culture of Peace. NYC: Hague Appeal for Peace 16. Reardon, B . (2000) Peace Education: A Review and Projection. In Bob Moon, Sally Brown and Miriam Ben Peretz, eds. International Companion to Education,NY. Routledge. 17. Salomon , G & Baruch , N .(2002). The Nature of Peace Education: not all Programs are created equal. In Peace Education .The Concept, Principles and Practices Around the World (3-13) 18. UNESCO ( 2005) Draft International Implementation Scheme . Education for Sustainable Development: promoting values . In the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005-2014 (14-10 ) 19. United Nations (1999). Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace .a) Resolution A/RES/53/243 -October 10th 1999 20. United Nations (2005) . International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, 2001-2010 . Resolution A/RES/59/143 - February 25th 2005 21. Wintersteiner W., Spajic-Vrkas, V. & Teutsch R. Eds (2003) . Peace Education in Europe. Visions and Experiences. Munster/ New York/ Munchen/ Berlin: Waxmann
The State of Divine Justice in the Face of Terrorism / 505
The State of Divine Justice in the Face of Terrorism Prof. Ahmed Rasim Al- Nafees
It goes without saying that there is no agreed-upon definition of terrorism within the arena of international politics, despite the general consensus on the conviction that it is necessary to fight it. Brian Whitaker‘s article, published in the Guardian on May 7th, 2001, discussed this problem, saying ―the definition of terrorism is closely linked to self-motivation and there is no general agreement on the specific definition of the term‖. From the viewpoint of the U.S. administration, Whitaker says: ―terrorism is planned violence practiced against noncombatants by groups that do not represent states or are underground in order to have political influence on the public‖. ―International terrorism is practiced against citizens of several states or within the borders of several countries‖. The author raises questions concerning the definition, one of which is the meaning of ―non-combatant‖. Does it include combatants on their vacation, like the American soldiers who were killed in a nightclub in Berlin in 1986? The author also wonders about the reason for the inclusion of the attack on the battleship USS Cole in Aden. It is included on the list of terrorist acts, despite being an action taken against a warship carrying fighters, not tourists. He also wondering about the significance of a paragraph included in the definition of terrorism, which says ―an attack on any facility or military group is considered as a terrorist act when there aren‘t any military operations announced or declared‖. This contradicts the definition given at the start, which limits terrorism to hostilities directed against non-combatant targets. And why are attacks on armed Zionists settlers included in this definition?
Professor at the Mansoura University, Egypt.
Global Alliance 506 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Why – asks the writer – is any attack on the settlers considered a terrorist attack, while the attacks of armed Israeli settlers are not? Why is Israel's brutal way of dealing with the Palestinians included in the human rights file and not within the terrorism file, despite obvious similarities between terrorist groups and the crimes and acts perpetrated by Israel? The writer then states his point of view about the American stand of overlooking state terrorism and putting the burden entirely on terrorist groups. The writer goes on to say that this is the opposite of the definition in the Oxford Dictionary, which states ―terrorism is ruling through aggression‖. Meanwhile, aggression for the continuation of ruling remains legalized and codified. The writer his point of view at the end of the article: ―the terrorism that they are talking about is violence perpetrated by those they don‘t like‖. I say that the American definition of terrorism is ―Any violence perpetrated by whomever this administration doesn‘t like, regardless if it is right or not‖.
The definition of terrorism In our point of view, terrorism is aggression with a special nature. It is not aggression waged by a country on another country or a tribe on another tribe. In these cases, the other country or tribe has the opportunity to defend itself. There are international and human laws, customs control, and legislation concerning the use of force, the rights of prisoners, the prevention of targeting non-combatants, reducing human loss of life, and preserving heritage. Legislation commits warring states to make these pledges both before and after the fighting. The definition of aggression is every action that aims to take the rights of others or to prevent them from claiming their usurped rights either by force or by fraud and deception. The Quran says, ―Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors‖ (Quran, 2:190). The above definition includes acts of treachery performed by some countries or their intelligence agencies and that are outside the framework of international law. For example the shooting down of Iranian civilian The State of Divine Justice in the Face of Terrorism / 507 aircraft by the U.S. Navy stationed in the waters of the Gulf. The U.S. warship "Vinson" launched sea-to-air missiles towards an Iranian civil plane carrying 290 passengers, mostly women and children, in July 1988. Pieces of the plane and bodies fell over the waters of the Gulf. This incident followed on the deaths of more than four hundred Iranian pilgrims. Saudi security forces killed pilgrims in the holy city of Mecca on Friday, the sixth of the month of Dhu al-Hijjah in 1407 Hijri, or 1987 in the Roman calendar. More than a hundred and fifty thousand pilgrims were protesting in the streets of Mecca, chanting slogans of Islamic unity. It was called the Protest of Innocence. Saudi security forces blocked the main road in front of the march and began a brutal offensive attack using firearms, stones, and sticks. They killed more than four hundred pilgrims from Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan, Iraq and other countries. They also wounded nearly five thousand pilgrims and arrested hundreds, especially the wounded, women, and the elderly who had been unable to escape. Terrorism goes against all values and standards. It is a model of treachery and betrayal in terms of targeting non-combatants and infiltrating into places where people are peaceful and unable to defend themselves. In the end aggression has a definition, even if this definition is still unknown and being researched. Terrorism is aggression against moral, community agreed-upon, legitimacy. It may also extend to be aggression against international legitimacy and international humanitarian law. Terrorism is as old as history itself, but modern terrorism is linked to the West‘s desire to mobilize the world, using force against resistance or anybody who seeks to escape their political and military siege. They accuse others of terrorism in order to attack and eliminate them.
Contradictory Concepts We mentioned at the beginning that the definition of terrorism is subject to considerations that are defined exclusively by a group of the strongest countries in the world. These countries can gather enough votes in the Security Council and decide to wage a war on this or that country under
Global Alliance 508 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace allegations of possessing weapons of mass destruction or accusations of being related to terrorism. This strategy has clearly manifested itself in the past few decades. Although international law is clear in its emphasis on the right of peoples in occupied territory to resist the occupier and force them to leave, the occupying countries can claim that the occupation is the implementation of UN resolutions. This is the case in the occupation of Iraq. They can also claim that Palestinian resistance is an act of terrorism, although until now the world does not recognize the right of in the acquisitions of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. International law, then, is law that can be interpreted in different ways, especially as mechanisms of enforcement are almost wholly owned by the major states. This is what the global system is. In this system the major countries are the judge, jury, and police who carries out the provisions issued against the countries they don‘t like, and leave the countries they like immune. Because the imposition of concepts through generalizing them has become an integral part of the mechanisms of international politics, it has become necessary for leaders of the Islamic world to contribute in the formulation of concepts. This must be done through participation in the debates. They must insist on right terminology and it‘s correct use, for terms such as resistance and liberation movements, and not accept the attempts of the West to impose their vision and will on us. In addition, our belief in the state of divine justice that without a doubt is coming, leads to the promises of the inevitable progress of the Islamic nation. It will be at the forefront of leadership and be a pioneer in the world. This faith requires us to consolidate the concepts of true justice brought to vulnerable people, their rights and the respect owed to them. We know elaborated stories and news told about Imam Mahdi. The age appears to underline that he will ―fill the earth with justice after it was filled with injustice and oppression‖. This is a clear sign of the globalization of justice - it will not remain limited to the territory of one of the regions of the land. It will be facing the globalization of oppression The State of Divine Justice in the Face of Terrorism / 509 and injustice, which is a feature of the global system that is led by the forces of global arrogance. Now it becomes clear that the world is eager for new global leadership that rationally assesses the balance of justice between people and puts an end to the double standards. Especially after that the leadership of the current world powers has increased the tension in the relations between states and peoples through its insistence on granting the aggressors immunity from any accountability. This is highlighted in the scandal of the Goldstone report, which accused Zionists of crimes committed against humanity and the excessive use of force. They insisted on pursuing their opponents through international courts, including the trial of the killers of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The leadership of the global system that is about to become antiquated and will be replaced by the leadership of the system of Divine justice. The current leadership condones crimes of genocide practiced by its friends for the sake of oil interests, despite the fact that these friends are convicted in multiple incidents of terrorism, 9/11 being the most important one. This leadership mobilized the world to falsely accuse and assassinate Rafik Hariri, for no other reason than that he opposed the Zionist occupation and American hegemony over the Arab and Islamic world.
Mahdism and Denunciation of Terrorism The Mahdioa messianic approach is the approach of Ahlu-elbait, the prophet‘s household, peace be upon them and their way of understanding Islam and dealing with others, even when the others are combatant enemies. Terrorism, as noted above, combines two unfavorable characteristics: the first is treachery and disregarding covenants and conventions, and the second is the shedding of sacred blood on the weakest suspicion. There is no doubt that the Mahdoa approach or the approach of the household of the prophet (peace be upon them) emphasizes respect for covenants and conventions. The Almighty said ―And the covenant of Allah fulfill. This has He instructed you that you may remember. And, [moreover], this is My path, which is straight, so follow it; and do not
Global Alliance 510 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace follow [other] ways, for you will be separated from His way. This has He instructed you that you may become righteous‖ (Quran, 6:152-153). ―And fulfill the covenant of Allah when you have taken it, [O believers], and do not break oaths after their confirmation while you have made Allah , over you, a witness. Indeed, Allah knows what you do‖ (Quran, 16:91) Imam Ali bin Abi Talib, stresses the meaning of this: ―When held between you and the enemy is an agreement, or you give him a promise, make it your custom to fulfill your promise, and watch that you be honest… It is not ordinance of God Almighty that most people, upon meeting, break up according to their own liking, and disperse their views. Maximizing the fulfillment of covenants is necessary; the polytheists among themselves without the Muslims are likely to be treacherous. Free yourself, for it is not pleasing to God to be ignorant. God says to be merciful‖. The second reprehensible is shedding blood without a legitimate reason. This is a moral sin –―Do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except when by right he was killed because he used his authority to oppress rather than guard. Even then, do not be extravagant in his murder (Night Journey 33). Imam Ali bin Abi Talib said: ―Beware of shedding blood and resolve arguments otherwise. It is something to curse, of the greatest consequence, and leads to the likely disruption or demise of grace, when blood is shed without a right). Islam believes in the definition terrorism by Alsutin University: treachery and blood shed unjustly separates us from him (peace be upon them). What is absent from Islam is the belief and actions taken by the West and by Wahhabim, in which terrorism is defined by their political goals and opportunism, rather than moral principles that benefit all people. People who listen to the holy Imams and follow the Quran are now on a continuous rise, and their victory is certain.
The World Needs a Just Mechanism to Face International Terrorism / 511
The World Needs a Just Mechnism to Face International Terrorism
Sheikh Hasan Ali Al-Triki
A linguistic not on the Arabic translation of the word terrorism: Before starting on my ideas, I would like to point out that the word ―terrorism‖ has been mistranslated into Arabic as "erhab" )fear), when in fact a more accurate translation in Arabic would be "erab" (terrify), as the English word ―terrorism‖ is derived from ―terror‖. I think that this error in translation was intentional. It was desired to translate the English word ―terrorism‖ into Arabic in a way that would differ from the following verse of the Quran, which says ―And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged‖ (Quran, 8:60). ―Terrifying‖ is mentioned in this verse as a positive thing: the use of force needed to deter an enemy, especially in defense or as a resistance to abuse. The word as used here does not indicate aggression or attacking others. The word terrorism, on the other hand, has a very negative connotation. The Arabic translation of terrorism therefore became Erhab (fear), and is used to mean assault and aggression on others in order to create an atmosphere of terror.
Why Does the World Need an International Just Organization? An Arab TV channel hosted a show called ―the Industry of Death‖. They promoted it by saying ―If terrorism is an industry, then who makes it? Who finances it? And who markets it?‖When it asked this, answers would
Head of Muslim Association of Britain.
Global Alliance 512 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace immediately come to my mind. If we do a bit of research into terrorist groups we will quickly discover who stands behind their industry! If we research their funding, we will realize the countries that fund them! If we research their promotion, we will see what channels are promoting terrorism, as well as the countries that stand behind them. These channels broadcast the criminal acts of terrorist groups moments after they occur, and some of them obtain the rights to broadcast terrorist actions exclusively. The final analysis will show that those who are behind terrorism are the same ones that scream at the world about fighting terrorism. The United States of America, Britain and the other arrogant countries are what make terrorist organizations and groups like al-Qaeda and the Taliban and MEK (khalq), etc. They create them in order to use them against their opponents, such as the former Soviet union, the so called rogue states, and others. Those organizations and groups were used by these countries to their fullest extent. I think there is no need to mention that these countries are the main sources of terrorism in the world (the Zionist entity) and have supported, sponsored and defended it for the past six decades of the last century. The major powers did and still use these terrorist groups and fund them in one way or another, either directly or indirectly through its allies in the region like the Saudi, Qatari and former Egyptian regimes and other traitor Arab former regimes. These powers were promoting terrorist organizations and groups through some of the Arab channels that are part of the U.S. -Zionist project like Al Jazeera, Alarabiya Alhurra , and others. These channels broadcast crimes of these groups minutes after they occur, sometimes under the pretext of having the first scoop, and terrorist groups send recording to that channel exclusively!!! Most people are aware of this reality, but they cannot do anything to change it, as no one can accuse, judge, or punish such major countries. Those powers have fortified themselves with a combination of factors that prevent them from being judged or punished for their crimes of creating and supporting terrorist organizations and groups. The World Needs a Just Mechanism to Face International Terrorism / 513
Some of the main factors that protect the major terrorist makers and sponsoring countries are the following:
1. Capitalist Economic System: The major powers have fortified themselves with the capitalist economic system, a system that now dominates the global economy and the resources of people. It has become an economic empire. This ultimately results in two groups of countries; rich countries (advances) and poor countries (backward), the latter being easily controlled and occupied. Examples of the dominance of the great powers, through the capitalist economic system, on people‘s resources are: A.The price of a barrel of Coca-Cola is higher than the price of a barrel of oil, and sometimes even the price of a barrel of some types of mineral water imported from the West is higher than the price of a barrel of oil!!! B.Western countries that import oil from the East are benefiting more from the oil than the producing countries! C. The money made from the oil of underdeveloped countries in the East goes into the reserves of Western banks. Yet when Eastern countries go to borrow from the bank, the banks charge them high interest rates, even though they are borrowing from what should have been their own money!!!
2. The International Legal System The major powers are protected by international organizations (the UN and its Security Council) through an international legal system that is designed for the sole purpose of protecting these powers and their interests, as well as the interests of their allies. The clearest example of this is when the United Nations and the Security Council can‘t make the Zionist entity abide by even one resolution. The binding resolutions only seem to apply to Arab and Islamic countries!!! In addition the right to veto any project belongs to the major powers sponsoring terrorism and their ally the Zionist entity.
Global Alliance 514 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
3. Extensive Information and Media System The major powers are also supported by one of the most powerful media systems in the world. They have a wide range of satellite channels, websites and newspapers. This media system promotes terrorism on the one hand, and works to hide the crimes of these super powers on the other. It sometimes brainwashes people and falsifies facts. Having strong economic, legal and media systems is very important. When these three systems are strong, even small states like Qatar can successfully intervene and influence world affairs disproportionately to their geo-political size. Not to mention the powerful military system owned by the major powers.
Conclusion What is the solution? How can free people face global terrorism? We believe that the solution lies in a number of practical steps that free people can do: 1. Fair economic system Free nations should seek cooperation with humanitarian organizations to find a good economic system for the liberation of people from the yoke of economic slavery and economic dependence to the terrorist-sponsoring powers. 2. Impartial legal organizations: Form legal systems and international humanitarian organizations that are independent, free, fair, and just as an alternative to the unfair and unjust organizations owned by the major powers. 3. Honest media Work towards forming objective and honest channels of communication that are capable of competing with the media of the major powers, and that are capable of gaining supremacy by the power of truth and righteousness.
May peace and God's mercy and blessings be upon you.
Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 515
Religious Tolerance Some Observations in the Context of Islam– West Encounter Prof. Muhammad Suheyl Umar
Soiling one‟s tongue with ill-speech is a sin The disbeliever and the believer are alike creatures of God. Humanity, human respect for human reality: Be conscious of the station of humanity. … The slave of love who takes his path from God Becomes a loving friend of both disbeliever and believer.
Thus sang the sage, Iqbal the poet-philosopher, in his magnum opus, the Javid Nama (Pilgrimage of Eternity). He was not the sole spokesman. In the years immediately before and after the First World War, the western world was hearing to three poetic voices. The first was Tagore;1 the second voice was of T. S. Eliot;2 the third voice was that of Iqbal.3 In the
Director of Iqbal Academy, Professor of Islamic Thought at the University of Islamabad. Javīd Nāma in Kulliyāt i Iqbal, (Persian), Iqbal Academy Pakistan, Lahore, 1994, p. 672-673. 1. He received the Nobel Prize of Literature in 1913. The Preface written by W. B. Yeats to the anthology of Tagore highlighted the mellowness of his voice and the representation of the Indians as a humble and harmless race. 2. Whose ―Love Song of G. Alfred Prufrock‖ appeared in 1915. It was a view of pessimism and boredom. 3. His Secrets of the Self appeared in Persian the same year, although his Urdu poem had been common recitals in India for more than ten years by then. His book was translated into English in 1920. It was clear that out of these three new voices, his was the voice that the west was going to ignore. Ironically, this was the only voice in that age which was inviting its listeners to get real, and do something to change the world to a better place.
Global Alliance 516 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace late stage of secular modernity, when Iqbal pondered over the problems of his age, melancholy had become a collective mood. Melancholy used to afflict individuals who felt rejected and exiled from the significance of the cosmos. By Iqbal‘s day it had turned into a cultural malady deriving from a world that has been drained of all meaning and which had come to cast doubt on all traditional sources– theological, metaphysical, and historical. The dominant mood of Iqbal‘s time was ―A desperate search for a pattern.‖ The search was desperate because it seemed futile to look for a pattern in reality. In terms of its mindset or worldview the modern world was living in what has been called the Age of Anxiety, and Iqbal, feeling the pulse of the times, was trying to look beyond symptoms to find the prime cause. Through his studies and observation of the modern world Iqbal had come to realize that there was something wrong with the presiding paradigm or worldview that his age had come to espouse. What was that which generated the feeling that something had gone wrong with the world and the Time was again out of joint? East and West both seemed to face a predicament! Iqbal was seriously thinking about the grave question. I am no longer concerned about the crescent and the cross, For the womb of time carries an ordeal of a different kind. 4 In Iqbal‘s view, the crisis that the world found itself in as it swung on the hinge of the 20th century was located in something deeper than particular
4. I am... kind. By ―the crescent and the cross‖ is meant the historic confrontation between Islam and Christianity that took the form of the Crusades in the Middle Ages. Iqbal is saying that, unlike many other Muslims, who remain mentally imprisoned in the past, allowing their thought and action to be determined by certain crucial events of former times, he is more concerned about the momentous developments taking place in the present age. Iqbal does not specify what he means by ―an ordeal of a different kind‖ (fitnah-i dīgarī)—whether he means a particular major development, like communism, or whether he uses the singular ―ordeal‖ in a generic sense to refer to several major and decisive developments taking place on the world stage. The main point of the verse, in any case, is that the issues of the present and the future have greater claim on one‘s attention than issues belonging to a past that may have no more than historical or academic importance. In the second hemistich, ―the womb of time‖ is a translation of damīr-i ayyām, which literally means ―in the insides of time.‖ See M. Mir, (ed.), Iqbāl- Nāmah,, Vol. 5, No. 3-4, Summer and Fall, 2005, p. 3-6. Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 517 ways of organizing political systems and economies. In different ways, the East and the West were going through a single common crisis whose cause was the spiritual condition of the modern world. That condition was characterized by loss– the loss of religious certainties and of transcendence with its larger horizons. The nature of that loss is strange but ultimately quite logical. When, with the inauguration of the scientific worldview, human beings started considering themselves the bearers of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, meaning began to ebb and the stature of humanity to diminish. The world lost its human dimension, and we began to lose control of it. In the words of F. Schuon: The world is miserable because men live beneath themselves; the error of modern man is that he wants to reform the world without having either the will or the power to reform man, and this flagrant contradiction, this attempt to make a better world on the basis of a worsened humanity, can only end in the very abolition of what is human, and consequently in the abolition of happiness too. Reforming man means binding him again to Heaven, re-establishing the broken link; it means tearing him away from the reign of the passions, from the cult of matter, quantity and cunning, and reintegrating him into the world of the spirit and serenity, we would even say: into the world of sufficient reason.5 In Iqbal‘s view, if anything characterizes the modern era, it is a loss of faith in transcendence, in God as an objective reality. It is the age of eclipse of transcendence. No socio-cultural environment in the pre- Modern times had turned its back on Transcendence in the systematic way that characterized Modernity. The eclipse of transcendence impacts our way of looking at the world, that is, forming a world view, in a far- reaching manner. According to Iqbal‘s perspective, Transcendence means that there is another reality that is more real, more powerful, and better than this mundane order. The eclipse of transcendence impacted our way of looking at the world, that is, forming a worldview? It was an issue of the greatest magnitude in Iqbal‘s opinion. He was convinced that
5. F. Schuon, Understanding Islam, reprinted, Suhail Academy, Lahore, 2004, pp. 26.
Global Alliance 518 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace whatever transpires in other domains of life– politics, living standards, environmental conditions, interpersonal relationships, the arts– was ultimately dependent on our presiding world view. This is what was wrong with the presiding paradigm or worldview that his age had come to espouse. In Iqbal‘s view, Modern Westerners, forsaking clear thinking, allowed themselves to become so obsessed with life‘s material underpinnings that they had written science a blank cheque; a blank cheque for science‘s claims concerning what constituted Reality, knowledge and justified belief. This was the cause of our spiritual crisis. It joined other crises as we entered the new century–the environmental crisis, the population explosion, the widening gulf between the rich and the poor. The Man who saw a thorn and spoke of the garden?…6 That science had changed our world beyond recognition went without saying, but it was the way that it had changed our worldview that concerned Iqbal. More importantly, the two worldviews were contending for the mind of the future. The scientific worldview is a wasteland for the human spirit. It cannot provide us the where withal for a meaningful life. How much, then, was at stake? That was the fundamental question; and it surfaced again and again throughout his prose and poetry. The overarching question that occupied Iqbal at that time related to the view of Reality; of the WORLDVIEWS: THE BIG PICTURE. It was of great consequence to ask as to WHO WAS RIGHT ABOUT REALITY: TRADITIONALISTS, MODERNISTS, OR THE POSTMODERNS (which he anticipated)? The problem, according to his lights, was that somewhere, during the course of its historical development, western thought took a sharp turn in a different direction. It branched off as a tangent from the collective heritage of all humanity and claimed the autonomy of reason. It chose to follow reason alone, unguided by
6. Armaghān i Hijāz, in Kulliyāt i Iqbāl, Persian, Iqbal Academy Pakistan, Lahore, 1994, p. 860. Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 519 revelation and cut off from its transcendent root.7 Political and social realms quickly followed suit. Autonomous statecraft and excessive individualism in the social order were the elements that shaped a dominant paradigm that did not prove successful.8 Iqbal struggled with the conflicts that existed between the scientific and traditional worldviews. There were five places where these contradicted each other. According to the traditional, religious view spirit is fundamental and matter derivative. The scientific worldview turns this picture on its head. In the religious worldview human beings are the less who have derived from the more. Science reverses this etiology, positioning humanity as the more that has derived from the less; devoid of intelligence at its start, evolving and advancing to the elevated stature that we human beings now enjoy. The traditional worldview points toward a happy ending; the scientific worldview does not. As for the scientific worldview, there is no way that a happy ending can be worked into it. Death is the grim reaper of individual lives, and whether things as a whole will end in a freeze or a fry, with a bang or a whimper is anybody‘s guess. This fourth contrast between the competing worldviews concerns meaning. Having been intentionally created by omnipotent Perfection–9 or flowing from it ―like a fountain ever on,‖– the traditional world is meaningful throughout. In the scientific worldview, meaning is minimal if not absent. ―Our modern understanding of evolution implies that ultimate
7. See Martin Lings, ―Intellect and Reason‖ in Ancient Beliefs and Modern Superstitions, rpt. (Lahore: Suhail Academy, 1988, 57-68; F. Schuon, Gnosis Divine Wisdom London: J. Murray, 1978, 93-99; S. H. Nasr, ―Knowledge and its Desacralization‖ in Knowledge and the Sacred (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981, 1-64; Huston Smith, Forgotten Truth (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1992), 60-95. Also see his Beyond the Post-Modern Mind, Wheaton: Theosophical Publishing House, 1989). 8. See René Guenon, ―Individualism‖ in Crisis of the Modern World, (Lahore: Suhail Academy, 1981, 51-65. Also see Social Chaos‖ in the same document. 9. less anthropomorphically described in Plotinus‘s wording
Global Alliance 520 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace meaning in life is nonexistent.‖10 Science acknowledges that ―the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.‖ In the traditional world people feel at home. Nothing like this sense of belonging can be derived from the scientific worldview which is the dawning of ―the age of homelessness.‖ Iqbal realized that an age comes to a close when people discover they can no longer understand themselves by the theory their age professes. For a while its denizens will continue to think that they believe it, but they feel otherwise and cannot understand their feelings. This had now happened to his world. Even today, when traditional peoples want to know where they are– when they wonder about the ultimate context in which their lives are set and which has the final say over them– they turn to their sacred texts; or in the case of oral, tribal peoples (what comes to the same thing), to the sacred myths that have been handed down to them by their ancestors. Modernity was born when a new source of knowledge was discovered, the scientific method. Because its controlled experiment enabled scientists to prove their hypothesis, and because those proven hypotheses demonstrated that they had the power to change the material world dramatically, Westerners turned from revelation to science for the Big Picture. Intellectual historians tell us that by the 19th century Westerners were already more certain that atoms exist than they were confident of any of the distinctive things the Bible speaks of. This much is straightforward, but it doesn‘t explain why Westerners aren‘t still modern rather than Postmodern, for science continues to be the main support of the Western mind. By headcount, most Westerners probably still are modern, but I am thinking of frontier thinkers who chart the course that others follow. These thinkers have ceased to be modern because they have seen through the so-called scientific worldview, recognizing it to be not scientific but scientistic. They continue to honour science for what it tells us about nature or the natural order/natural world,
10. As John Avis and William Provine have said, Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 521 but as that is not all that exists, science cannot provide us with a worldview– not a valid one. The most it can show us is half of the world, the half where normative and intrinsic values, existential and ultimate meanings, teleologies, qualities, immaterial realities, and beings that are superior to us do not appear.11 In his second lecture, ―The Philosophical Test of the Revelations of Religious Experience‖, in The Reconstruction of Religious thought in Islam Iqbal has made a very perceptive remark:12 There is no doubt that the theories of science constitute trustworthy knowledge, because they are verifiable and enable us to predict and con- trol the events of Nature. But we must not forget that what is called science is not a single systematic view of Reality. It is a mass of sectional views of Reality– fragments of a total experience which do not seem to fit together. Natural Science deals with matter, with life, and with mind; but the moment you ask the question how matter, life, and mind are mutually related, you begin to see the sectional character of the various sciences that deal with them and the inability of these sciences, taken singly, to
11. This important point is not generally recognized, so I shall spell it out. The death- knell to modernity, which had science as its source and hope, was sounded with the realization that despite its power in limited regions, six things slip through its controlled experiments in the way sea slips through the nets of fishermen: 1. Values. Science can deal with descriptive and instrumental values, but not with intrinsic and normative ones. 2. Meanings. Science can work with cognitive meanings, but not with existential meanings (Is X meaningful?), or ultimate ones (What is the meaning of life?). 3. Purposes. Science can handle teleonomy– purposiveness in organisms– but not teleology, final causes. 4. Qualities. Quantities science is good at, but not qualities. 5. The invisible and the immaterial. It can work with invisibles that are rigorously entailed by matter‘s behaviour (the movements of iron filings that require magnetic fields to account for them, e.g.) but not with others. 6. Our superiors, if such exist. This limitation does not prove that beings greater than ourselves exist, but it does leave the question open, for ―absence of evidence is not evidence of absence‖. 12. Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, (referred to as Reconstruction, here after), Iqbal Academy Pakistan/Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore, 1989, p. 26.
Global Alliance 522 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace furnish a complete answer to your question. In fact, the various natural sciences are like so many vultures falling on the dead body of Nature, and each running away with a piece of its flesh. Nature as the subject of science is a highly artificial affair, and this artificiality is the result of that selective process to which science must subject her in the interests of precision. The moment you put the subject of science in the total of human experience it begins to disclose a different character. Thus religion, which demands the whole of Reality and for this reason must occupy a central place in any synthesis of all the data of human experience, has no reason to be afraid of any sectional views of Reality. Natural Science is by nature sectional; it cannot, if it is true to its own nature and function, set up its theory as a complete view of Reality. Where, then, do we now turn for an inclusive worldview? Postmodernism hasn‘t a clue. And this is its deepest definition.13 The generally accepted definition of Postmodernism now that Jean-Francois Lyotard fixed in place decades ago in The Postmodern Condition is, ―incredulity toward metanarratives‖.14 Having deserted revelation for science, the West has now abandoned the scientific worldview as well, leaving it without replacement. In this it mirrors the current stage of Western science which leaves nature unimaged. Before modern science, Westerners accepted Aristotle‘s model of the earth as surrounded by concentric, crystalline spheres. Newton replaced that model with his image of a clockwork universe, but Postmodern, quantum-and-relativity science gives us not a third model of nature but no model at all. Alan Wallace‘s Choosing Reality delineates eight different interpretations of quantum physics, all of
13. Ernest Gellner defines Postmodernism as relativism–‖relativismus über Alles‖ (Postmodernism, Reason and Religion)– but relativism is not an easy position to defend, so postmoderns do everything they can to avoid that label; Clifford Geertz‘s ―anti- antirelativism‖ is a case in point. The T-shirts that blossomed on the final day of a six- week, 1987 NEH Institute probably tell the story. Superimposed on a slashed circle, their logo read, ―No cheap relativism‖. By squirming, postmoderns can parry crude relativisms, but sophisticated relativis is still relativism. Postmoderns resist that conclusion, however, so I shall stay with their own self-characterization. 14. Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition, Minneapolis, Minnesota University Press, 1984, pp. xxiv, 3ff. Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 523 which can claim the support of physics‘ proven facts.15 A contemporary philosopher described the situation as “the Reality Market Place”– you can have as many versions of reality as you like. Another analogy can pull together all that we have just said and summarize the difference alluded to in these remarks. If we think of traditional peoples as looking out upon the world through the window of revelation (their received myths and sacred texts), the window that they turned to look through in the modern period (science) proved to be stunted. It cuts off at the level of the human nose, which (metaphysically speaking) means that when we look through it our gaze slants downward and we see only things that are inferior to us.16 As for the Postmodern window, it is boarded over and allows no inclusive view whatsoever. In the words of Richard Rorty, ―There is no Big Picture.‖ This analogy is drawn from the works of one of the traditionalist writers, namely, Huston Smith, who is by far the easiest to understand. It is fascinating to note that Iqbal not only mediates between these conflicting views in exactly the same manner by pointing out to the shortcomings and achievements of all the three paradigms objectively but– and that is remarkable– uses the same analogy. Smith or Iqbal never met or read each other! Iqbal agrees that there is a Big Picture and his writings give us to understand that the Postmodern view of the self and its world is in no way nobler than the ones that the world‘s religions proclaim. Postmoderns yield to their dilapidated views, not because they like them, but because they think that reason and human historicity now force them upon us. Iqbal would argue that it is not necessarily the case and the present predicament is the result of a tunnel vision that we have adopted but which really is not the only option for us. Here is Iqbal‘s depiction of the conceptual shift that the enlightenment project and modernity‘s world view had brought in the human thought, the damage that it had done to the academia. Cultures and
15. Alan Wallace, Choosing Reality, Boston and Shaftsbury, Shambala, 1989. 16. No textbook in science has ever included things that are intrinsically greater than human beings. Bigger, of course, and wielding more physical power, but not superior in the full sense of that term which includes virtues, such as intelligence, compassion, and bliss.
Global Alliance 524 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace their world-views are ruled by their mandarins, the intellectuals and they, as well as their institutions that shape the minds that rule the modern world are unreservedly secular. The poem is addressed to our present day intellectual mandarins, the leaders of the academia.17
To the Schoolman The Schoolman is an architect The artefact he shapes and moulds is the human soul; Something remarkable for you to ponder Has been left by the Sage, Qā‟ānī; “Do not raise a wall in the face of the illuminating Sun If you wish the courtyard of your house to be filled with light” the illuminating Sun) in this analogy) خورشید What does the metaphor of try to convey which, in the parallel analogy used by Huston Smith, is depicted by the stunted/slanted window of Modernity that resulted in a truncated, tunnel vision and the Postmodern window, boarded all over, thus precluding the possibility of any world view what so ever! And this the ,(فتنۂ عصر ِ روان) is intimately connected to our initial remarks about challenge posed by the modern age of secular modernity and materialism, which Iqbal, like Rūmī, takes up. The most important question that concerned Iqbal in this period related to the conceptual shift that the enlightenment project and modernity‘s worldview had brought in the human thought, the damage that it had done to the academia, and the means of repairing the ills. Iqbal‘s contemporary discourse was marked by incredulity. Incredulity toward metaphysics. There was no consensual worldview. The incredulity took many forms that grew increasingly shrill as they proceeded. Minimally, it contented itself with pointing out that ―we have no maps and don‘t know how to make them.‖ Hardliners added, ―and never again will we have a consensual worldview! In short, Iqbal‘s contemporary discourse was filled with voices critiquing the truncated worldview of the
17. ―Shaykh i Maktab‖ Kulliyāt i Iqbāl, Urdu, Iqbal Academy Pakistan, Lahore, 1994, p. 494 Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 525
Enlightenment, but from that reasonable beginning it plunged on to argue unreasonably that world-views (or grand narratives) are misguided in principle. Wouldn‘t we be better off if we extricate ourselves from the worldview we had unwittingly slipped into and replace it with a more generous and accurate one that shows us deeply connected to the final nature of things? Iqbal contemplated.18 He had realized that a world ends when its metaphor dies, and modernity‘s metaphor– endless progress through science-powered technology– was dead. It was only cultural lag– the backward pull of the outgrown good– that keeps us running on it. Already at the opening of the last century, when Postmodernism had not yet emerged on the scene, Yeats was warning that things were falling apart, that the centre didn‘t hold. Gertrude Stein followed him by noting that ―in the twentieth century nothing is in agreement with anything else,‖ and Ezra Pound saw man as ―hurling himself at indomitable chaos‖― the most durable line from the play Green Pastures has been, ―Everything that‘s tied down is coming loose.‖ T. S. Eliot found ―The Wasteland‖ and ―The Hollow Men‖ as appropriate metaphors for the outward and the inward aspects of our predicament.19 Poetry of first magnitude or great poetry itself works as a bridge and with inevitable particularities always carries an aspect of universality. It brings you face to face with questions that are truly perennial human questions and not just Muslim or Christian or Hindu questions; who am I? What does it mean to be human?? Where have I come from? Where am I going? What is this universe and how am
18. The views about the prevailing human predicament converged. Fresh ―infusions‖ were needed. The opinions about the nature and origin of these fresh ―infusions‖ that could rectify or change it for the better were, however, divergent. Some of Iqbal‘s cotemporaries tried to find an alternative from within the dominant paradigm. Others suggested the possibility of a search for these fresh ―infusions‖ in a different direction: different cultures, other civilizations, religious doctrines, sapiential traditions. What could it be? 19. It is not surprising, therefore, that when in her last interview Rebecca West was asked to name the dominant mood of our time, she replied, ―A desperate search for a pattern.‖ The search is desperate because it seems futile to look for a pattern when reality has become, in Roland Barth‘s vivid image, kaleidoscopic. With every tick of the clock the pieces of experience come down in new array.
Global Alliance 526 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
I related to it? Great poetry may seem grounded in a certain particular idiom or a specific universe of discourse but it always opens out onto the universal. While Iqbal‘s cotemporaries were lamenting the state of the world with its shaky institutions and rudderless situation with the dominant mood of melancholy, without suggesting a viable alternative, Iqbal had a message of hope. The conclusion is that if for the survival of humanity it is necessary for man to respect his fellow-men; in the same way it is necessary for him to learn to respect religions other than his own. It is only through the adoption of this moral and spiritual approach that, borrowing Iqbal‘s phrase, ―man may rise to a fresh vision of his future.‖ And this brings us to the opening point of our discourse, ―Be conscious of the station of humanity‖ which is intimately related to the question of the ―Other‖– religious, cultural, political– which, in turn, subsumes the issue of ―tolerance‖ that we wish to address in this paper from the point of view of Kinship of Thought between Islam and the West. It, however, calls for a few remarks of a different order as our point of departure. I would allow Robert Whittemore to make the point. He had observed: 20 Examine Western philosophy from an Islamic standpoint and one characteristic of it is inescapable: from Thales to Wittgenstein Western thought has been for the most part invariably insular, insufferably parochial. European and American thinkers, in so many ways so diverse,
20. In his 1966 article, referring to Iqbal, Robert Whittemore, ―Iqbal‘s Panentheism‖ had remarked, if we seek through the pages of most modern European and American philosophy for a mention of his name, Iqbal is unknown even to the compilers of philosophical dictionaries and encyclopaedias. (One prominent exception was Hartshorne & Reese‘s Philosophers Speak of God (Chicago, 1953), pp. 294-97. The situation has changed since. In the last few decades, Iqbal has been studied by a number of scholars in the West. And, to be sure, he is now being mentioned and discussed in philosophical encyclopedias, dictionaries, and handbooks published in Western countries. For example, in Robert L. Arrington‘s edited volume A Companion to the Philosophers (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), Iqbal is one of the eight philosophers included in the section on Islamic and Jewish philosophers, and he is in respectable company in Diané Collinson, Kathry Plant, and Robert Wilkinson‘s Fifty Eastern Thinkers (London: Routledge, 2000). Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 527 have been from the time of their Greek forebears virtually as one in their provincial assurance that such ontological, cosmological and theological speculation as is worthy of their notice is a product of their Western culture. The philosophy of Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938) affords a notable case in point. In the world of modern Muslim thought he stands alone. His Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam aspires to a place akin to that occupied by al-Ghazali‘s Ihya Ulum al-Din (―Revivification of the Religious Sciences‖). His philosophical poetry is regarded by many Muslim scholars as a worthy postscript to the Diwan and Mathnavi of Jalaluddin Rumi.‖ This echoes the views expressed earlier during the century by the French metaphysician René Guénon as a prelude to his masterly study Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines.21 Guénon had termed it ―The Classical Prejudice‖ leading to ―intellectual myopia‖. The attitude manifested itself in a different mode after the advent of Modernity when the Western cultural imagination turned away after its encounter with the stunning variety of cultural worlds that appeared for the first time in the Age of Discovery. This inward turn sparked the appearance of all sorts of imaginary realities and was responsible for the withdrawal of the Western thinkers of Enlightenment from the whirling world of cultural values into an utterly imaginary world of ‗objective‘ forms of knowledge.22 It was
21. René Guenon, ―The Classical Prejudice‖, Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines, Sophia Perennis, Hillsdale, NY, 2004, p. 19. The book was originally written in French and appeared in its first English edition in 1925. 22. Those interested in learning more about some of the criticisms we have in mind might begin by looking at the books cited by Lawrence E. Sullivan in his masterly study, Icanchus Drum: An Orientation to Meaning in South American Religions (New York: Macmillan, 1988), pp. 884-85. What he says in the passage leading up to the suggested reading applies also to Western perceptions of Islam: ―One of the great disservices to our understanding of South American religions [read: Islam] has been the perception of tribal peoples [read: Muslims) as slavishly dedicated to an unchanging order revealed in the images of myth and handed down unquestioned and unmodified from one generation to the next. This attitude accompanies the evaluation of ‗myth‘ as a banal and inane narrative. Tribal peoples (representing ‗archaic‘ modes of thought) childishly cling to their myths,
Global Alliance 528 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace specifically a Modern phenomenon as, during the Middle Ages, despite the outwards conflicts and even protracted wars, intellectual exchange had continued at a deeper and more meaningful level. In this regard it is useful to investigate how the West engaged with the idea and practice of tolerance as it had manifested in other religions and cultures and how does it relate to the historical trajectory through which it became established in the West.
Tolerance– Religious and Secular Tolerance is a multi-faceted concept comprising moral, psychological, social, legal, political and religious dimensions. The dimension of tolerance addressed by this essay is specifically religious tolerance, such as this principle finds expression within the Islamic tradition, and how it came to be enshrined in the Western thought after the Enlightenment. Further to that we would try to look at the shared legacy of the idea that suffered a diverse destiny in the West. Religious tolerance can be defined in terms of a positive spiritual predisposition towards the religious Other, a predisposition fashioned by a vision of the divinely-willed diversity of religious communities. If the diversity of religions is seen to be an expression of the will of God,23 then the inevitable differences between infantile fantasies, whereas mature contemporaries jettison myths with the passage of ‗historical time‘ and the entrance‘ into ‗modernity. ‗It would be fascinating to study these and other justifications proffered for avoiding a serious encounter with the reality of myth [read: Islamic thought) and symbolic acts.... This is, however, not the place to carry out a history of the ‗modern‘ ideas of myth and religion. It is enough to suggest that the Western cultural imagination turned away when it encountered the stunning variety of cultural worlds that appeared for the first time in the Age of Discovery. Doubtless this inward turn sparked the appearance of all sorts of imaginary realities. The Enlightenment, the withdrawal of Western thinkers from the whirling world of cultural values into an utterly imaginary world of ‗objective‘ forms of knowledge, and its intellectual follow-up coined new symbolic currency. These terms brought new meanings and new self-definition to Western culture: ‗consciousness/unconsciousness,‘ ‗primitive/civilized,‘ ‗ethics/mores,‘ ‗law/custom,‘ ‗critical or reflective thought/ action.‖ 23. The fundamental message of the Qur‘an as regards all previous revelations is one of inclusion not exclusion, protection and not destruction. Arguably the most important Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 529 the religions will be not only tolerated but also celebrated: tolerated on the outward, legal and formal plane, celebrated on the inward, cultural and spiritual plane. As is the case with secular tolerance, here also one will encounter a positive and open-minded attitude, one capable of stimulating policies and laws of a tolerant nature towards the religious Other, but the root of this attitude derives from a principle going beyond the secular domain: the tolerant attitude emerges as the consequence of a kaleidoscopic vision of unfolding divine revelations, a vision which elicits profound respect for the religions of the Other, rather than reluctantly, begrudgingly or condescendingly granting mere toleration. Tolerance born of a divinely ordained imperative cannot but engender respect for the religious Other. But the converse does not hold: one can be tolerant in a secular sense outwardly and legally, without this being accompanied by sincere respect for the religion of the Other. Moreover, the purely secular approach to tolerance carries with it the risk of falling into a corrosive relativism of the ‗anything goes‘ variety. It can lead to the normativity and particularity of one‘s own faith being diluted, if not sacrificed, for the sake of an abstracted and artificial social construct. The Islamic tradition, in principle as well as in practice, provides compelling answers to many questions pertaining to the relationship between religious tolerance and the practice of one‘s own faith. The lessons drawn from the Islamic tradition reveal that tolerance of the Other is in fact integral to the practice of Islam– it is not some optional extra, some cultural luxury, and still less, something one needs to import from some other tradition. This being said, one needs to take note of an irony: the essential sources of the Islamic faith reveal a sacred vision of diversity and difference, plurality and indeed of universality, which is unparalleled among world scriptures; the practice of contemporary verse in this regard is: ‗We have revealed unto you the Scripture with the Truth, to confirm and protect the Scripture which came before it ... For each We have appointed a Law and a Way. Had God willed, He could have made you one community. But that He might try you by that which He has given you [He has made you as you are]. So vie with one another in good works. Unto God you will all return, and He will inform you of that wherein you differed‘ (5:48).
Global Alliance 530 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Muslim states, however, not to mention many vociferous extra-state groups and actors, falls lamentably short of the current standards of tolerance set by the secular West. In consequence, it is hardly surprising that many argue that what the Muslim world needs in order to become more tolerant is to learn to become more modern and secular, and less traditional and ‗visionary‘. This kind of argument, however, ignoring and belittling the vast treasury of ethical and spiritual resources within the Islamic tradition, will succeed only in making Muslims more, rather than less, intolerant, by provoking defensive backlashes. But we would come back later to the issue of this apparently more intelligible demand that we must pass through an Enlightenment, voiced by the late Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn when he wrote that ―Christianity and Judaism have gone through the laundromat of humanism and enlightenment, but that is not the case with Islam.‖24 A more fruitful approach would be to encourage an honest acknowledgement by Muslims that, as regards the practice of religious tolerance, the secular West has indeed set high standards, albeit at the price of a corrosive relativism, a price which is becoming increasingly apparent to many with the passage of time. Instead of being seen as contrary to the Islamic vision, however, such tolerant codes of conduct can be seen as formal expressions of the universal principle of tolerance inhering in the vision of Islam itself. In this sacred vision the plurality of paths to the One is viewed as a reflection of the infinitude of the One; tolerance of diversity and difference on the human plane thus flows as a moral consequence of this divinely willed plurality, becoming thereby not
24. Fortuyn‘s religious views are detailed in his book Against the Islamisation of our Culture, published in 1997 (cited in Angus Roxburgh, Preachers of Hate: The Rise of the Far Right, London, 2002, 163) to celebrate Israel‘s fiftieth birthday. He believed that Islam, unlike his own strongly-affirmed Christianity, is a ‗backward culture‘, with an inadequate view of God and an inbuilt hostility to European culture. He called for massive curbs on Muslim immigration, and for greater stress on Holland‘s Christian heritage. A prominent homosexual activist, Fortuyn also condemned Islam‘s opposition to same-sex marriage. Cited in Angus Roxburgh, Preachers of Hate: The Rise of the Far Right, London, 2002, 163. Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 531 just a social ethic, but also an expression of the wisdom of the One, being ordained first ‗from above‘, and then here below. Tolerance within the framework of a divinely ordained schema expresses both an obligation and a right: a moral obligation to permit people of different faiths to manifest their own specific ways of embodying and radiating these universal values, and the spiritual right to benefit from the specific manifestations of these universal values oneself. This accords with the very purpose of diversity as envisioned by the Qur‘an: „O mankind, We have created you male and female, and We have made you into tribes and nations in order that you might come to know one another. Truly, in the sight of God, the most honoured amongst you is the most pious amongst you‟ (49:13). The Prophet was asked: ‗which religion is most loved by God?‘ His answer can be seen as a succinct commentary on the above verse. Instead of referring to such and such a religion, he highlights the key character trait which should be infused into the soul by all religions, or by religion as such; whichever religion is most successful in producing this trait becomes ‗the most beloved‘ religion to God: ―The primordial, generously tolerant faith‖ (al-hanafiyya al-samha). This strongly authenticated saying highlights the centrality of tolerance to the religious endeavour as such; it also implies, as does verse 49:13, the absolute equality of all believers, the sole permissible hierarchy within humanity being that based on intrinsic piety, not on such extrinsic factors as gender or affiliation to tribe or nation, race or religion. Given this view of equality on the human plane, and the Islamic belief in universal and cyclical revelation–no community being deprived of authentic divine revelation and guidance– intolerance of the Other is reprehensible both morally and spiritually.
Tolerant Islam or the Liberal West? Which came first? Before directly addressing the principle and practice of tolerance in Islam, let us ask ourselves the question as to what is the provenance of the secular concept of tolerance in the West, for this provides some important–and ironic–lessons in this domain. In 1689 John Locke, one of
Global Alliance 532 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace the founding fathers of modern liberal thought, wrote a famous text, ‗A Letter Concerning Toleration‘. This letter is widely viewed as instrumental in the process by which the ethical value of religious tolerance was transformed into a universal ethical imperative, as far as individual conscience is concerned, and into a legal obligation, incumbent upon the upholders of political authority, as far as the state is concerned. It is evident from this letter that Locke was deeply struck by the contrast between tolerant ‗barbarians‘– the Muslim Ottomans – and violently intolerant Christians. The contrast was compounded by the fact that Muslims exercised more tolerance towards non-Muslims than Christians did to each other, let alone non-Christians. In his letter, Locke ruefully reflected on the absurdity that Calvinists and Armenians were free to practice their faith if they lived in the Muslim Ottoman Empire, but not in Christian Europe: would the Turks not ‗silently stand by and laugh to see with what inhuman cruelty Christians thus rage against Christians?‘ Locke passionately proclaimed the need for ‗universal tolerance‘, whatever one‘s religious beliefs, and, indeed, in the prevailing Christian climate, despite one‘s beliefs. Following on logically from this secular principle of tolerance was the right for non-Christians to live unmolested in the state of England, and be accorded full civil and political rights: ‗…neither pagan nor Mahometan nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.‘ This strict separation between religion and politics, church and state, so often viewed only as part of the evolutionary trajectory of western secularization must also be seen in the light of the historical interface between mutually intolerant Christian states and denominations, on the one hand, and a vibrantly tolerant Muslim polity, on the other. The current unquestioned right of freedom of religious belief and worship in the Western world is thus not simply a corollary of secular thought; it is a principle inspired, at least in part, by the influence of Islam. The spectacle of Muslim Ottoman tolerance was something to which Christendom was used: ‗Better the turban of the Sultan than the mitre of the Pope‘, was a well-worn saying among Eastern Orthodox Christians, Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 533 acutely aware of the fact that their rights were more secure under the Ottomans than under their Catholic co-religionists. Ottoman conquest was followed almost without exception by Islamic tolerance of the conquered peoples. ‗Tolerance‘, according to (Reverend) Dr Susan Ritchie, ‗was a matter of Ottoman policy and bureaucratic structure, and an expression of the Ottoman interpretation of Islam, which was in most instances stunningly liberal and cosmopolitan.‘ She argues convincingly that this Ottoman tolerance decisively influenced the process leading to the famous Edict of Torda in 1568, issued by King John Sigismund of Transylvania (which was under Ottoman suzerainty), an edict hailed by western historians as expressing ‗the first European policy of expansive religious toleration.‘25 It is thus hardly surprising that Norman Daniel should allow himself to make the simple–and, for many, startling–claim: ‗The notion of toleration in Christendom was borrowed from Muslim practice‘ (emphasis added).26 Ottoman tolerance of the Jews provides an illuminating contrast with the anti-Semitism of Christendom, which resulted in the regular pogroms and ‗ethnic cleansing‘ by which the medieval Christian world was stained. Many Jews fleeing from persecution in central Europe would have received letters like the following, written by Rabbi Isaac Tzarfati, who reached the Ottomans just before their capture of Constantinople in 1453, replying to those Jews of central Europe who were calling out for help: ‗Listen, my brethren, to the counsel I will give you. I too was born in Germany and studied Torah with the German rabbis. I was driven out of my native country and came to the Turkish land, which is blessed by God and filled with all good things. Here I found rest and happiness … Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes, and our commerce is free and unhindered … every one of us lives in peace and freedom. Here the Jew is not compelled
25. Susan Ritchie, ‗The Islamic Ottoman Influence on the Development of Religious Toleration in Reformation Transylvania‘, in Seasons—Semi-annual Journal of Zaytuna Institute, vol.2, no.1, pp.62, 59. 26. Norman Daniel, Islam, Europe and Empire (Edinburgh, 1966), p.12.
Global Alliance 534 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace to wear a yellow hat as a badge of shame, as is the case in Germany, where even wealth and great fortune are a curse for the Jew because he therewith arouses jealousy among the Christians … Arise, my brethren, gird up your loins, collect your forces, and come to us. Here you will be free of your enemies; here you will find rest …‘27 At the very same time as the Christian West was indulging in periodic anti-Jewish pogroms, the Jews were experiencing what some Jewish historians themselves have termed a kind of ‗golden age‘ under Muslim rule. As Erwin Rosenthal writes, ‗The Talmudic age apart, there is perhaps no more formative and positive time in our long and chequered history than that under the empire of Islam.‘ One particularly rich episode in this ‗golden age‘ was experienced by the Jews of Muslim Spain. As has been abundantly attested by historical records, the Jews enjoyed not just freedom from oppression, but also an extraordinary revival of cultural, religious, theological and mystical creativity. Such great Jewish luminaries as Maimonides and Ibn Gabirol wrote their philosophical works in Arabic, and were fully ‗at home‘ in Muslim Spain. With the expulsion, murder or forced conversion of all Muslims and Jews following the reconquista of Spain–brought to completion with the fall of Granada in 1492–it was to the Ottomans that the exiled Jews turned for refuge and protection. They were welcomed in Muslim lands throughout north Africa, joining the settled and prosperous Jewish communities already there. As for Christians under Muslim rule in Spain, we have the following interesting contemporary testimony to the practice of Muslim tolerance, from within the Christian community itself. In the middle of the 10th century embassies were exchanged between the court of Otto I of Germany and court of Cordoba. One such delegation was led by John of
27. Quoted in S. A. Schleifer, ‗Jews and Muslims—A Hidden History‘, in The Spirit of Palestine (Barcelona, 1994), p.8. Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 535
Gorze in 953 who met the resident bishop of Cordoba, who explained to him, how the Christians survived: 28 We have been driven to this by our sins, to be subjected to the rule of the pagans. We are forbidden by the Apostle‘s words to resist the civil power. Only one cause of solace is left to us, that in the depths of such a great calamity, they do not forbid us to practise our own faith … For the time being, then, we keep the following counsel: that provided no harm is done to our religion, we obey them in all else, and do their commands in all that does not affect our faith. Even so fierce a critic of contemporary Islam as Bernard Lewis cannot but confirm the facts of history as regards the true character of Muslim- Jewish relations until recent times. In his book, The Jews of Islam, he writes that even though there was a certain level of discrimination against Jews and Christians under Muslim rule, ‗Persecution, that is to say, violent and active repression, was rare and atypical. Jews and Christians under Muslim rule were not normally called upon to suffer martyrdom for their faith. They were not often obliged to make the choice, which confronted Muslims and Jews in reconquered Spain, between exile, apostasy and death. They were not subject to any major territorial or occupational restrictions, such as were the common lot of Jews in premodern Europe.‘29 This pattern of tolerance characterised the nature of Muslim rule vis-à-vis Jews and Christians until modern times, with very minor exceptions. As the Jewish scholar Mark Cohen notes: ‗The Talmud was burned in Paris, not in Cairo or Baghdad … Staunch Muslim opposition to polytheism convinced Jewish thinkers like Maimonides of Islam‘s unimpeachable monotheism. This essentially ‗tolerant‘ view of Islam echoed Islam‘s own respect for the Jewish ―people of the Book‖.‘30
28. Richard Fletcher, The Cross and the Crescent—Christianity and Islam from Muhammad to the Reformation (New York/London, 2004), p. 48. 29. Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (Princeton, 1984), p. 8. 30. Mark Cohen, ‗Islam and the Jews: Myth, Counter-Myth, History‘, in Jerusalem Quarterly, no.38, 1986, p.135.
Global Alliance 536 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Whence the sacred vision of Islam? The intrinsic nature of the Muslim polity is derived from the Prophet‘s embodiment of the Qur‘anic revelation. His acts of statesmanship should not be seen in isolation as a series of historical events, but as a series of symbolic acts which, more powerfully than words, uphold the inviolability of the religious rights of the Other and the necessity of exercising a generous tolerance in regard to the Other. The seminal and most graphic expression of this sacred vision inspiring the kind of tolerance witnessed throughout Muslim history is given to us in the following well-attested episode in the life of the Prophet. In the ninth year after the Hijra (631), a prominent Christian delegation from Najrān, an important centre of Christianity in the Yemen, came to engage the Prophet in theological debate in Medina. The main point of contention was the nature of Christ: was he one of the messengers of God or the unique Son of God? What is important for our purposes is not the disagreements voiced, nor the means by which the debate was resolved, but the fact that when these Christians requested to leave the city to perform their liturgy, the Prophet invited them to accomplish their rites in his own mosque. According to Ibn Ishaq, who gives the standard account of this remarkable event, the Christians in question performed the Byzantine Christian rites.31 This means that they were enacting some form of the rites which incorporated the fully-developed Trinitarian theology of the Orthodox councils, emphasising the definitive creed of the divine sonship of Christ–doctrines explicitly criticised in the Qur‘an. Nonetheless, the Prophet allowed the Christians to accomplish their rites in his own mosque. Disagreement on the plane of dogma is one thing, tolerance–indeed encouragement–of the enactment of that dogma is another. One should also mention in this context the tolerance that is inscribed into the first Muslim constitution, that of Medina. In this historic document a pluralistic polity is configured. The right to freedom of worship was
31. A. Guillaume (Tr.) The Life of Muhammad—A Translation of Ibn Ishaq‘s Sirat Rasul Allah (Oxford, 1968), pp.270-277. Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 537 assumed, given the unprejudiced recognition of all three religious groups who were party to the agreement: Muslims, Jews and polytheists–the latter indeed comprising the majority at the time the constitution was drawn up. Each group enjoyed unfettered religious and legal autonomy, and the Jews, it should be noted, were not required at this stage to pay any kind of poll-tax. The Muslims were indeed recognised as forming a distinct group within the polity, but this did not compromise the principle of mutual defence which was at the root of the agreement: Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection 32 against treachery.‘ To sum, the record of tolerance in Muslim history must surely be seen as the fruit of the prophetic paradigm, which in turn derives from and is a commentary upon, the vision revealed by the Qur‘an, to which we should now turn. Notwithstanding the many verses critical of earlier religious traditions, the fundamental message of the Qur‘an as regards all previous revelations is one of inclusion not exclusion, protection and not destruction. Arguably the most important verse in this regard is: „We have revealed unto you the Scripture with the Truth, to confirm and protect the Scripture which came before it ... For each We have appointed a Law and a Way. Had God willed, He could have made you one community. But that He might try you by that which He has given you [He has made you as you are]. So vie with one another in good works. Unto God you will all return, and He will inform you of that wherein you differed‟ (5:48). This verse, supplemented by a multitude of other proof texts (given in the endnotes), establishes four crucial principles that enshrine the Qur‘anic Vision which both fashion and substantiate an open-minded approach to all religions and their adherents and inculcates the attitude that if God is the ultimate source of the different rites of the religions, no one set of rites can be legitimately excluded from the purview of authentic religion. :
32. F. E. Peters, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Princeton, 1990), vol.1, p. 217.
Global Alliance 538 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
the Qur‘an confirms and protects all divine revelations;33 the very plurality of these revelations is the result of a divine will for diversity on the plane of human communities;34 this diversity of revelations and plurality of communities is intended to stimulate a healthy ‗competition‘ or mutual enrichment in the domain of ‗good works‘; differences of opinion are inevitable consequences of the very plurality of meanings embodied in diverse revelations; these differences are to be tolerated on the human plane, and will be finally resolved in the Hereafter.
33. ‗there is no compulsion in religion‘ (2:256); ‗Permission [to fight] is given to those who are being fought, for they have been wronged … Had God not driven back some by means of others, then indeed monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques–wherein the name of God is oft-invoked–would assuredly have been destroyed (22: 39-40). 34. The plurality of revelations, like the diversity of human communities, is divinely- willed, and not the result of some human contingency. Universal revelation and human diversity alike are expressions of divine wisdom. They are also signs intimating the infinitude of the divine nature itself: ‗And among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the differences of your languages and colours. Indeed, herein are signs for those who know (30:22).‘ Just as God is both absolutely one yet immeasurably infinite, so the human race is one in its essence, yet infinitely variegated in its forms. The fitra, or primordial nature, is the inalienable substance of each human being and this essence of human identity takes priority over all external forms of identity such as race and nation, culture or even religion: ‗So set your purpose firmly for the faith as an original monotheist, [in accordance with] the fitra of God, by which He created mankind. There can be no altering the creation of God. That is the right religion, but most people know it not‘ (30:30). The diversity of religious rites is also derived directly from God, affirmed by the following verse: ‗Unto each community We have given sacred rites (mansakan) which they are to perform; so let them not dispute with you about the matter, but summon them unto your Lord (22:67). For every community there is a Messenger (10:47). And We never sent a messenger save with the language of his people, so that he might make [Our message] clear to them (14:4). Truly We inspire you, as We inspired Noah, and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as We bestowed unto David the Psalms; and Messengers We have mentioned to you before, and Messengers We have not mentioned to you (4:163-164). (emphasis added) And We sent no Messenger before you but We inspired him [saying]: There is no God save Me, so worship Me (21:25). Naught is said unto you [Muhammad] but what was said unto the Messengers before you (41:43). Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 539
In our times, the secular principle of separation between church and state derives much of its legitimacy from the religious tolerance which fidelity to these principles fosters and protects. As stated earlier, this cannot be disputed on empirical grounds. However, what must be recognised and resisted is the temptation to universalise the particular historical trajectory by which tolerance became established in the West, and apply (or impose – as observed in the representative trend manifesting in the Mr. Fortuyn‘s observation) this trajectory normatively to the Muslim world. Political analysts are fond of pointing to examples of religious intolerance in the contemporary Muslim world and attribute this absence of tolerance to the ‗backwardness‘ of Islam, and in particular to the insistence by Muslims that religion must dominate and fashion the whole of life, that restoring God to the public and the private sphere is non-negotiable and essential. This refusal to separate ‗mosque‘ from ‗state‘, such analysts conclude, is one of the main reasons why the Muslim world lags behind the West as regards both the principle and practice of religious tolerance. This type of analysis is not only simplistic and erroneous; it also obscures an irony at once historical and theological. The principle of religious tolerance has historically been one of the hallmarks of Muslim society, right up to its decline in the pre-modern period– a decline accelerated by the assault of western imperialism, mimetic industrialism, and corrosive consumerism, all of which diminished radically the spiritual ‗sap‘ of the Islamic tradition, and thereby the ethics of tolerance and compassion. In contrast, the intolerance which characterised Christendom for much of its history only began to be ‗deconstructed‘ in this same period, with the advent of western secularism. In other words, the rise of religious tolerance in the West appears to be correlated to the diminution of the influence of Christian values in public life in the modern period; conversely, in the Muslim world, it is the decline of the influence of Islamic values that has engendered that peculiar inferiority complex of which religious intolerance is a major symptom. Through the emasculation of this spiritual heritage, all sorts of imported ideological counterfeits– from apologetic liberal Islam to militant radical Islamism–
Global Alliance 540 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace have been manufactured in an effort to fill the vacuum, most of them appearing as the desperate but impotent reflexes of a decaying religious form. In such a situation, what is required is a return to the spirit of the tradition, not another form of mimesis; it is therefore highly ironic that Muslims are being called upon to follow the path of secularisation in order to become more tolerant. Rather, Muslims ought to be invited to become aware of the tolerance which truly characterises the spirit–and the history–of the Islamic tradition; to use this tradition as the yard-stick by which to critically gauge contemporary Muslim conduct and attitudes; to strive to revive and revalorise the principles of tolerance, diversity and pluralism which are enshrined at the very heart of this tradition; and to realise that tolerance is ‗neither of the East nor of the West‘: no religion or culture can claim a monopoly on this universal human ethic. For Muslims, then, being tolerant of the religious Other does not require imitating any philosophical teachings on tolerance the Western thought has to offer, but rather returning to the moral and spiritual roots of their own tradition, while benefiting from and acknowledging the positive aspects of practical tolerance enacted by western nations in the realms of public law, human rights and political governance.
Shared Legacy: Diverse Destinies! The last remarks bring us to consider the question that we evoked with reference to the remarks of Pim Fortuyn. Mr. Fortuyn‘s views have generated many debates in the Islamic communities in the West and even reverberate in the Islamic world where the question has gained space in the prevalent discourse. There are arguments in defence and responses that challenge the argument but the insistent question of Mr Fortuyn remains with us. Do we have to pass through his laundromat to be made internally white, as it were, to have an authentic and honoured place of belonging at the table of the modern reality? Islam has a great history of universalism, that is to say, that Islam does not limit itself to the uplift of any given section of humanity, but rather announces a desire to transform Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 541 the entire human family. This is, if you like, its Ishmaelite uniqueness: the religions that spring from Isaac (a.s.), are, in our understanding, an extension of Hebrew and Occidental particularity, while Islam is universal. Islam‘s civilizational eminence stemmed from a spectacular plenitude. Of the other religions of the pre-Enlightenment world, only Buddhism rivaled Islam in massively encompassing a range of cultures; however Islam, uncontroversially, was the foundation for a still wider range and variety of cultural worlds.35 Has this triumphant demonstration of Islam‘s universalism come to an end? Perhaps the greatest single issue exercising the world today is the following: is the engagement of Islamic monotheism with the new capitalist global reality a challenge that even Islam, with its proven ability to square circles, cannot manage? The current agreement between zealots on both sides – Islamic and unbelieving – that Islam and Western modernity can have no conversation, and cannot inhabit each other, seems difficult given traditional Islamic assurances about the universal potential of revelation. The increasing numbers of individuals who identify themselves as entirely Western, and entirely Muslim, demonstrate that the arguments against the continued ability of Islam to be inclusively universal are simply false. Yet the question, the big new Eastern Question, will not go away this easily. Palpably, there are millions of Muslims who are at ease somewhere within the spectrum of the diverse possibilities of Westernness. We need, however, a theory to match this practice. Is the accommodation real? What is the theological or fiqh status of this claim to an overlap? Can Islam really square this biggest of all historical circles, or must it now fail, and retreat into impoverished and hostile marginality, as history passes it by?
35. In particular, we may identify distinctive high civilizations among Muslim Africans, Arabs, Turks (including Central Asians), Persians (including, as an immensely fertile extension, Muslim India), and the population of the Malay archipelago, radiating from the complex court cultures of Java.
Global Alliance 542 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
The same argument underlies the claim that Muslims cannot inhabit the West, or– as successful participants– the Western-dominated global reality, because Islam has not passed through a reformation. This is a tiresome and absent-minded claim and is often advanced by those who are simply cannot troubled to read their own history, let alone the history of Islam. A reformation, that is to say, a bypass operation which avoids the clogged arteries of medieval history and seeks to refresh us with the lifeblood of the scriptures themselves, is precisely what is today underway among those movements and in those places which the West finds most intimidating. The Islamic world is now in the throes of its own reformation, and our Calvins and Cromwells are proving no more tolerant and flexible than their European predecessors.36 A reformation, then, is a bad thing to ask us for, if you would like us to be more pliant. But the apparently more intelligible demand, which is that we must pass through an Enlightenment, articulated in the late Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn‘s remarks cited earlier remains with us.37 In this regard the case of the
36. The defining demand of the Reformation was the return to the most literal meaning of Scripture. Hence Calvin: ‗Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and simple one, and let us embrace and hold it resolutely. Let us not merely neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions which lead us away from the literal sense.‘ (John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians (Edinburgh, 1965), 84-5. Is this what the West is demanding of us? That a Muslim state should, in consequence, be a ‗city of glass‘, like Calvin‘s terrified Geneva? 37. Fortuyn was not a marginal voice. His funeral at Rotterdam Cathedral, reverently covered by Dutch television, attracted a vast crowd of mourners. As his coffin passed down the city‘s main street, the Coolsingel, so many flowers were thrown that the vehicle itself almost disappeared from sight, recalling, to many, the scenes attending the funeral of Princess Diana. The election performance of his party a week later was a posthumous triumph, as his associate Hilbrand Nawijn was appointed minister for asylum and immigration. Fortuyn‘s desire to close all Holland‘s mosques was not put into effect, but a number of new, highly-restrictive, policies have been implemented. Asylum seekers now have to pay a seven thousand Euro deposit for compulsory Dutch language and citizenship lessons. A 90 percent cut in the budget of asylum seeker centres has been approved. An official government enquiry into the Dutch Muslim community was ordered by the new parliament in July 2002. (These are old statistics but, I presume, the situation has deteriorated since then). Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 543
Netherlands is especially pertinent because it was, until very recently, a model of liberalism and multiculturalism. Indeed, modern conceptions of religious toleration may be said to have originated among Dutch intellectuals. Without wishing to sound the alarm, it is evident that if Holland can adopt an implicitly inquisitorial attitude to Islam, there is no reason why other states should not do likewise. Fortuyn, a highly- educated and liberal Islamophobe, was convinced that Islam cannot square the circle. He would say that the past genius of Islam in adapting itself to cultures from Senegal to Sumatra cannot be extended into our era, because the rules of that game no longer apply. Success today demands membership of a global reality, which means signing up to the terms of its philosophy.38 How should Islam answer this charge? The answer is, of course, that ‗Islam‘ can‘t. The religion‘s strength stems in large degree from its internal diversity. Different readings of the scriptures attract different species of humanity. There will be no unified Islamic voice answering Fortuyn‘s interrogation. The more useful question is: who should answer the charge? What sort of Muslim is best equipped to speak for us, and to defeat his logic? Fortuyn‘s error was to impose a Christian squint on Islam. As a practising Catholic, he imported assumptions about the nature of religious authority that ignore the multi-centred reality of Islam. On doctrine, we try to be united - but he is not interested in our doctrine. On fiqh, we are substantially diverse. Even in the medieval period, one of the great moral and methodological triumphs of the Muslim mind was the confidence that a variety of madhhabs could conflict formally, but could all be acceptable to God.39 Fortuyn and others who share his views work with the
38. The alternative is poverty, failure, and - just possibly - the B52s. 39. In fact, we could propose as the key distinction between a great religion and a sect the ability of the former to accommodate and respect substantial diversity. Fortuyn, and other European politicians, seek to build a new Iron Curtain between Islam and Christendom, on the assumption that Islam is an ideology functionally akin to communism, or to the traditional churches of Europe.
Global Alliance 544 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace assumption that Islam is an ideology40 and given the nature of the Islam- West encounter the emergence of ‗ideological Islam‘ was, particularly in the mid-twentieth century, entirely predictable. Everything at that time was ideology. Spirituality seemed to have ended, and postmodernism was not yet a twinkle in a Parisian eye. In fact, the British historian John Gray goes so far as to describe the process which Washington describes as the ‗war on terror‘ as an internal Western argument which has nothing to do with traditional Islam. As he puts it: ―The ideologues of political Islam are western voices, no less than Marx or Hayek. The struggle with radical Islam is yet another western family quarrel.‖41 Nonetheless, the irony remains. We are represented by the unrepresentative, and the West sees in us a mirror image of its less attractive potentialities. Western Muslim theologians as well as many Muslim theologians living in the West– René Guénon, S. H. Nasr, Tim Winter, Tage Lindbom, Roger Garaudy to name just a few–frequently point out that the movements which seek to represent Islam globally, or in Western minority situations, are typically movements which arose as reactions against Western political hegemony that themselves internalised substantial aspects of Western political method. In Europe, Muslim community leaders who are called upon to justify Islam in the face of recent terrorist activities are ironically often individuals who subscribe to ideologised forms of Islam which adopt dimensions of Western modernity in order to secure an anti-Western
40. The great tragedy is that some of our brethren would agree with him. There are many Muslims who are happy to describe Islam as an ideology. One suspects that they have not troubled to look the term up, and locate its totalitarian and positivistic undercurrents. It is impossible to deny that certain formulations of Islam in the twentieth century resembled European ideologies, with their obsession with the latest certainties of science, their regimented cellular structure, their utopianism, and their implicit but primary self-definition as advocates of communalism rather than of metaphysical responsibility. 41. The Independent July 28, 2002. There are, of course, significant oversimplications in this analysis. There are some individuals in the new movements who do have a substantial grounding in Islamic studies. And the juxtaposition of ‗political‘ and ‗Islam‘ will always be redundant, given that the Islamic, Ishmaelite message is inherently liberative, and hence militantly opposed to oppression. Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 545 profile. It is no surprise that such leaders arouse the suspicion of the likes of Pim Fortuyn, or, indeed, a remarkably wide spectrum of commentators across the political spectrum. Islam‘s universalism, however, is not well-represented by the advocates of movement Islam. Islamic universalism is represented by the great bulk of ordinary mosque-going Muslims who around the world live out different degrees of accommodation with the local and global reality. One could argue, against Fortuyn, that Muslim communities are far more open to the West than vice-versa, and know far more about it. There is no equivalent desire in the West to learn from and integrate into other cultures.42 Islam, we will therefore insist, is more flexible than the West. Where they are intelligently applied, our laws and customs, mediated through the due instruments of ijtihad, have been reshaped substantially by encounter with the Western juggernaut, through faculties such as the concern for public interest, or urf– customary legislation. Western law and society, by contrast, have not admitted significant emendation at the hands of another culture for many centuries. From our perspective, then, it can seem that it is the West, not the Islamic world, which stands in need of reform in a more pluralistic direction. It claims to be open, while we are closed, but in reality, on the ground, seems closed, while we have been open. There is force to this defense but does it help us answer the insistent question of Mr Fortuyn? Historians would probably argue that since history cannot repeat itself, the demand that Islam experience Enlightenment is strange, and that if the task be attempted, it cannot remotely guarantee an outcome analogous to that experienced by Europe. If honest and erudite enough, they may also recognize that the Enlightenment possibilities in Europe were themselves the consequence of a Renaissance humanism which was triggered not by an internal
42. On the ground, the West is keener to export than to import, to shape, rather than be shaped. As such, its universalism can seem imperial and hierarchical, driven by corporations and strategic imperatives that owe nothing whatsoever to non-Western cultures, and acknowledge their existence only where they might turn out to be obstacles. Likewise, Westerners, when they settle outside their cultural area, almost never assimilate to the culture which newly surrounds them.
Global Alliance 546 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
European or Christian logic, but by the encounter with Islamic thought, and particularly the Islamized version of Aristotle which, via Ibn Rushd, took fourteenth-century Italy by storm. The stress on the individual, the reluctance to establish clerical hierarchies which hold sway over earthly kingdoms, the generalized dislike of superstition, the slowness to persecute for the sake of credal difference: all these may well be European transformations that were eased, or even enabled, by the transfusion of a certain kind of Muslim wisdom from Spain.43 For the humanities, George Makdisi traces European humanism to Islamic antecedents44 saying that ―‗the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the reception of both movements, scholasticism and humanism, from classical Islam by the Christian Latin West.‖ The implication being that without Islam, the medieval world might have endured forever. However Westerners, unlike the Moors of Cordova, proved less able to tolerate diversity or fecundation by the Other, and their own Renaissance and Enlightenment only added to the European‘s absolute sense of superiority over other cultures, a prejudice that was augmented further by an escalating positivism that finally dethroned God. Garaudy thus concludes that only by radically challenging its own version of Enlightenment and accepting a Muslim version, rooted in what he calls the Third Heritage (the first two being the Classics and the Bible), will the West save itself
43. It has been made with particular elegance by Roger Garaudy, for whom its highest expression unfolded in medieval Cordova, a city which witnessed a combination of revealed and rational wisdom so sophisticated that it was a ‗first Renaissance‘. Saint- Simon and others had claimed that the Middle Ages ended once Arab science was transmitted to the West. The case for classical Islam as an enlightenment that succeeded in retaining the sovereignty of God thus seems a credible one. It has been made with particular elegance by Roger Garaudy, for whom its highest expression unfolded in medieval Cordova, a city which witnessed a combination of revealed and rational wisdom so sophisticated that it was a ‗first Renaissance‘. Saint-Simon and others had claimed that the Middle Ages ended once Arab science was transmitted to the West. Also see Luce Lopez-Baralt, The Sufi Trobar Clus, IAP, Lahore, 2000. 44. George Makdisi, The Rise of Humanism: Classical Islam and the Christian West: With special reference to scholasticism (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990), p. Xx. Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 547 from its ―deadly hegemonic adventure‖, and ―its suicidal model of growth and civilization.‖45 Nonetheless, it is clear that the Christian and Jewish Enlightenments of the eighteenth century did not move Europe in a religious, still less an Islamic direction. Instead, they moved outside the Moorish paradigm to produce disenchantment, a desacralising of the world which opened the gates for two enormous transformations in human experience. One of these has been the subjugation of nature to the will (or more usually the lower desires) of man. The consequences for the environment, and even for the sustainable habitability of our planet, are looking increasingly disturbing. There is certainly oddness about the Western desire to convert the Third World to a high-consumption market economy, when it is certain that if the world were to reach American levels of fossil-fuel consumption, global warming would soon render the planet entirely uninhabitable. The second dangerous consequence of ‗Enlightenment‘, as Muslims see it, is the replacement of religious autocracy and sacred kingship with either a totalitarian political order, or with a democratic liberal arrangement that has no fail-safe resistance to moving in a totalitarian direction.46 The West is loath to refer to this possibility in its makeup and
45. Roger Garaudy, Promesses de l‘ Islam (Paris: Seuil, 1981), 19. 46. Take, for instance, the American Jewish philosopher Peter Ochs, for whom the Enlightenment did away with Jewish faith in God, while the Holocaust did away with Jewish faith in humanity. As he writes: ―They lost faith in a utopian humanism that promised: ‗Give up your superstitions! Abandon the ethnic and religious traditions that separate us one from the other! Subject all aspects of life to rational scrutiny and the disciplines of science! This is how we will be saved.‘ It didn‘t work. Not that science and rationality are unworthy; what failed was the effort to abstract these from their setting in the ethics and wisdoms of received tradition.‖ (Peter Ochs, ‗The God of Jews and Christians‘, in Tikva Frymer-Kensky et al., Christianity in Jewish Terms (Boulder and Oxford, 2000), 54.) Another voice from deep in the American Jewish intellectual tradition that many in the Muslim world assume provides the staunchest advocates of the Enlightenment. This time it is Irving Greenberg: ―The humanistic revolt for the ‗liberation‘ of humankind from centuries of dependence upon God and nature has been shown to sustain a capacity for demonic evil. Twentieth-century European civilization, in part the product of the
Global Alliance 548 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace believes that Srebrenica, or Mr Fortuyn, are aberrations, not a recurrent possibility. Muslims, however, surely have the right to express deep unease about the demand to submit to an Enlightenment project that seems to have produced so much darkness as well as light. Iqbal, identifying himself with the character Zinda-Rud in his Javid-name, declaims, to consummate the final moment of his own version of the Mi‗raj: Inghelab-i Rus u Alman dide am: ‗I have seen the revolutions of Russia and of Germany!‘47 This in a great, final crying-out to God. Another aspect of the question needs attention here. Western intellectuals now speak of post-modernism as an end of Enlightenment reason. Hence the new Muslim question becomes: why jump into the laundromat if European thinkers have themselves turned it off? Is the Third World to be brought to heel by importing only Europe‘s yesterdays?48 Iqbal represents a very different tradition which insists that Islam is only itself when it recognizes that authenticity arises from recognizing the versatility of classical Islam, rather than taking any single reading of the scriptures as uniquely true. Ijtihad, after all, is scarcely a modern invention! An age of decadence, whether or not framed by Enlightenment, is an age of extremes, and the twentieth century was precisely that. Islam has been westernized enough; it sometimes appears, to have joined that logic. We are either neutralized by a supposedly benign Islamic liberalism that in practice allows nothing distinctively Islamic to leave the home or the mosque– an Enlightenment-style privatization of religion that abandons the world to the morality of the market leaders and the demagogues. Or
Enlightenment and liberal culture, was a Frankenstein that authored the German monster‘s being. […] Moreover, the Holocaust and the failure to confront it make a repetition more likely - a limit was broken, a control or awe is gone - and the murder procedure is now better laid out and understood. (Irving Greenberg, ‗Judaism, Christianity and Partnership after the Twentieth Century‘, in Frymer-Kensky, op. cit., 26.) 47. Iqbal, Javid-Nama, translated from the Persian with introduction and notes, by Arthur J. Arberry (London, 1966), 140. 48. The implications of the collapse of Enlightenment reason for theology have been sketched out by George Lindbeck in his The Nature of Doctrine: religion and theology in a postliberal age (London, 1984). Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 549 we fall back into the sensual embrace of extremism, justifying our refusal to deal with the real world by dismissing it as absolute evil, as kufr, unworthy of serious attention, which will disappear if we curse it enough.49 Revelation, as always, requires the middle way. Extremism, in any case, never succeeds even on its own terms. It usually repels more people from religion than it holds within it. Attempts to reject all of global modernity simply cannot succeed, and have not succeeded anywhere. To borrow the words of Tim Winter, ―A more sane policy, albeit a more courageous, complex and nuanced one, has to be the introduction of Islam as a prophetic, dissenting witness within the reality of the modern world.‖50 In response Basit Koshul has very pertinently observed:51 [It] means that the dissent from the Enlightenment can only be ―within the limits of reason alone‖. It also means that the prophetic witness will have to play the indispensable role of affirming witness from outside the Enlightenment tradition– affirming some of the deepest aspirations of Enlightenment ethos from the Qur‘anic perspective. .... I‘d like to explicitly articulate the logic underpinning both of the approaches offered above with respect to the ultimate goal of Islam in its encounter with the modern West is not to critique-condemn-replace but to redeem-reform- embrace. ... The critique is a means towards redeeming, which itself is a
49. Traditional Islam, as is scripturally evident, cannot sanction either policy. Extremism, however, has been probably the more damaging of the two. Al-Bukhari and Muslim both narrate from A‗isha, (r.a.), the hadith that runs: ‗Allah loves kindness is all matters.‘ Imam Muslim also narrates from Ibn Mas‗ud, (r.a.), that the Prophet (salla‘Llahu ‗alayhi wa-sallam) said: ‗Extremists shall perish‘ (halaka ‘l-mutanatti‗ūn). Commenting on this, Imam al-Nawawi defines extremists as ‗fanatical zealots‘ (al- muta‗ammiqūn al-ghālūn), who are simply ‗too intense‘ (al-mushaddidūn). 50. ―Faith in the future: Islam after the Enlightenment‖, First Annual Altaf Gauhar Memorial Lecture, Islamabad, 23 December 2002. 51. Basit Koshul, ―Studying the Western Other..‖, in The Religious Other– Towards a Muslim Theology of Other Religions in a Post-Prophetic Age, Iqbal Academy Pakistan, Lahore, 2007, pp.
Global Alliance 550 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace prelude to reforming with the ultimate goal being the embracing of the afflicted paradigm/event.52 In the final analysis if there is one unredeemable part of the Enlightenment tradition it is the fact that it allowed its critique of illumination, wisdom and the Divine turn into an outright rejection because of the reification of the critique. The flip-side of this reified critique is the fact that the Enlightenment affirmation of individualism, universalism and materialism became a set of reified/dogmatic assertions based on completely abstract concepts rather than a living (and life- giving) ethos. It is obviously the case that the Enlightenment and post- Enlightenment analysis of illumination, wisdom and the Divine laid bare deeply problematic aspects of traditional culture that were not known before. But instead of endeavouring to redress these problematic aspects of traditional culture as a ―philosophic healer‖ using the resources already present in the afflicted paradigm, Enlightenment thought played the role of a colonizing imperialist on a mission to civilize the savages by means of socio-cultural engineering. In short the only unredeemable aspect of
52. I think that Murad is much closer to advocating a ―redeem, reform, embrace‖ approach to the Enlightenment than appears to be the case at first glance. This is suggested by the proposal he makes regarding contemporary Islam‘s engagement with modern feminism. The following is a quote from the concluding part of Murad‘s essay titled ―Islam, Irigaray and the Retrieval of Gender‖: http://www.masud.co.uk.islam./ahm/gender.htm Feminism, in any case, has no orthodoxy, as Fiorenza reminds us; and certain of its forms are repellent to us, and are clearly damaging to women and society, while others may demonstrate striking convergences with the Shari‘a and our gendered cosmologies. We advocate a nuanced understanding which tries to bypass the sexism-versus-feminism dialectic by proposing a theology in which the Divine is truly gender neutral, but gifts humanity with a legal code and family norms which are rooted in the understanding that, as Irigaray insists, the sexes ‗are not equal but different‘, and will naturally gravitate towards divergent roles which affirm rather than suppress their respective genius. Murad is arguing that the most fruitful Islamic response to modern feminism is ―redeem, reform, embrace‖ rather than ―critique, condemn, replace‖. In this particular quote if the term ―feminism‖ is replaced with ―Enlightenment‖ and if the ―sexism-versus-feminism dialectic‖ is replaced with the ―modernism-versus-traditionalism dialectic‖ then it obvious that the ―redeem, reform, embrace‖ approach is as applicable to the Enlightenment in general as it is to feminism in particular. Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 551 the Enlightenment is that its stance towards non-Enlightenment paradigms is one of critique-condemn-replace. It should not be hard to see where we naturally fit. The gaping hole in the Enlightenment, pointed out by the postmodern theologians and by more skeptical but still anxious minds, was the Enlightenment‘s inability to form a stable and persuasive ground for virtue and hence for what it has called ‗citizenship‘. David Hume expressed the problem as follows:53 If the reason be asked of that obedience which we are bound to pay to government, I readily answer: Because society could not otherwise subsist; and this answer is clear and intelligible to all mankind. Your answer is, Because we should keep our word. But besides that, nobody, till trained in a philosophical system, can either comprehend or relish this answer; besides this, say, you find yourself embarrassed when it is asked, Why we are bound to keep our word? Nor can you give any answer but what would immediately, without any circuit, have accounted for our obligation to allegiance. But why are we bound to keep our word? Why need we respect the moral law? Religion seems to answer this far more convincingly than any secular ethic.54 Religion offers a solution to this fatal weakness. Applied
53. David Hume, Essays (Oxford, 1963), 469. 54. In spite of all stereotypes, the degree of violence in the Muslim world remains far less than that of Western lands governed by the hope of a persuasive secular social contract. [17] Perhaps this is inevitable: the Enlightenment was, after all, nothing but the end of the Delphic principle that to know the world we must know and refine and uplift ourselves. Before Descartes, Locke and Hume, all the world had taken spirituality to be the precondition of philosophical knowing. Without love, self-discipline, and care for others, that is to say, without a transformation of the human subject, there could be no knowledge at all. The Enlightenment, however, as Descartes foresaw, would propose that the mind is already self-sufficient and that moral and spiritual growth are not preconditions for intellectual eminence, so that they might function to shape the nature of its influence upon society. Not only is the precondition of the transformation of the subject repudiated, but the classical idea, shared by the religions and the Greeks, that access to truth itself brings about a personal transformation, is dethroned just as insistently. [This has been discussed with particular clarity by Michel Foucault, L‘Hermeneutique du sujet: Cours au College de France (1981-2) (Paris, 2001), pp.16-17] Relationality is disposable, and the laundromat turns out to be a centrifuge.
Global Alliance 552 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace with wisdom, it provides a fully adequate reason for virtue and an ability to produce cultural and political leaders who embody it themselves. Of course, it is all too often applied improperly, and there is something of the Promethean arrogance and hubris of the philosophes in the radical insistence that the human subject be enthroned in authority over scriptural interpretation, without a due prelude of initiation, love, and self- naughting. Yet the failure of the Enlightenment paradigm, as invoked by the secular elites in the Muslim world, to deliver moral and efficient government and cultural guidance, indicates that the solution must be religious. Religious aberrations do not discredit the principle they aberrantly affirm. What manner of Islam may most safely undertake this task? It is no accident that the overwhelming majority of Western Muslim thinkers have been drawn into the religion by the appeal of Sufism. To us, the ideological redefinitions of Islam are hardly more impressive than they are to the many European xenophobes who take them as normative. We need a form of religion that elegantly and persuasively squares the circle, rather than insisting on a conflictual model that is unlikely to damage the West as much as Islam. A purely non-spiritual reading of Islam, lacking the vertical dimension, tends to produce only liberals or zealots; and both have proved irrelevant to our needs. Are we to conclude that modern Islam, so often sympathetic to the Enlightenment‘s claims, and in its Islamist version one of their most powerful instantiations, has been deeply mistaken? The totalitarian forms of Enlightenment reason which recurred throughout the twentieth century have discredited it in the eyes of many; and are now less dangerous only because postmodernism seems to have abolished so many of the Enlightenment‘s key beliefs.55 If the ideal of freedom is now based less
55. Vaclav Havel could write that ‗the totalitarian systems warn of something far more serious than Western rationalism is willing to admit. They are […] a grotesquely magnified image of its own deep tendencies, an extremist offshoot of its own development‘ (William Ophuls, Requiem for Modern Politics: the tragedy of the Enlightenment and the challenge of the new millennium [Boulder and Oxford: Westview, 1997], 258); this seems somewhat outdated. Relogious Tolerance Some Observaions in the Context of Islam-West … / 553 on ideas of inalienable natural rights than on the notion that all truth is relative, then perhaps mainstream Islamist thinking will need to unhitch itself more explicitly from the broadly Western paradigms which it accepted for most of the twentieth century. Yet the relation Islam/Enlightenment seems predicated on simplistic definitions of both. Islamism may be an Enlightenment project, but conservative Sufism (for instance) is probably not. Conversely, even without adopting a postmodern perspective we are not so willing today to assume a necessary antithesis between tradition and reason.56 The way forward, probably, is to recognize that Islam genuinely converges with Enlightenment concerns on some issues; while on other matters, notably the Enlightenment‘s individualism and its increasingly Promethean confidence in humanity‘s autonomous capacities, it is likely to demur radically. What matters about Islam is that it did not produce the modern world. If modernity ends in a technologically-induced holocaust, then survivors will probably hail the religion‘s wisdom in not authoring something similar.57 If, however, it survives, and continues to produce a global monoculture where the past is forgotten, and where international laws and customs are increasingly restrictive of cultural difference, then Islam is likely to remain the world‘s great heresy. The Ishmaelite alternative is rejected. But what if Ishmael actually wishes to be rejected, since the one who is doing the rejecting has ended up creating a world without God? Grounded in our stubbornly immobile liturgy and doctrine, we Ishmaelites should serve the invaluable, though deeply resented, function.
56. Hans-Georg Gadamer, tr. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, Truth and Method (second edition, London: Sheed and Ward, 1989), 281. 57. Is this what Melville, whose days in Turkey had made him an admirer of Islam, meant when he made Ishmael the only survivor of the Pequod?
Global Alliance 554 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
of a culture which would like to be an Other, even if that is no longer quite possible!
Joining Forces Globally against Terrorism for the Just Peace / 555
Joining Forces Globally against Terrorism for the Just Peace
Dr. János Drábic
Is it possible to fight against terrorism non-violently, with peaceful means? Since for the individual, for human communities and for humanity itself the greatest value is human life, we feel that the right of individual and collective self-defence is a human and political right which has to be absolutely observed by everyone. Is the right of individual and collective self-defence part of the individual and collective defence of life or not? Can one use even violent means if his life is attacked violently? How does the right of fear correlate to the right of self-defence? Does anybody have the right to defend himself violently if he sees that his life is threatened by real danger? Our standpoint is that the right of fear is part of the right of self-defence. Do, however, real fear and danger authorize someone to employ preventive violence to defend his life in direct proportion to the threat? How do all of these correlate to the universal and non-relatvizable ethics, to the absolute ethical order of the Kantian ‗categorical imperative‘? The rule of self-defence corresponding to the universal ethics is that in case of a mortal danger the attacked theoretically can employ all possibilities available to him in order to defence his life. The employment of aggression and the ethical judgement of the practice of warfare, however, essentially differ depending on whether it is the combating parties who lose their life or innocent civil inhabitants become the victims. If during the armed aggression innocent people lose their lives too – by, not deliberately, but with great negligence, resigning to the
Professor, an expert on globalization in Hungary.
Global Alliance 556 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace collateral effect deemed inevitable -, then we can speak about the unwanted consequences of an armed action. According to a widely accepted view, terrorists deliberately attack outsider civil inhabitants who accidentally become targets and victims. They regard the assassination of randomly picked victims as a means for reaching their aims, therefore also as permitted and in most of the cases, as desirable. Thus in both cases it concerns the death of innocent outsiders. Still, their judgement is clearly separated. The reason for this is that intention plays a key role. Terrorists, who randomly and deliberately kill, act in an immoral way, violating the universal rules of ethics, and therefore are to be considered evil, guilty and indictable for killing their innocent victims. According to adjudication they kill premeditatedly and therefore conduct manslaughter and murder. Those on the other hand, who respond to the aggression carried out by terrorists explain this by saying that they only counter against terrorists and against those states and political systems that support terrorism. When innocent outsiders lose their lives during the respond to terrorist actions – even if this tragic outcome was foreseeable – they did not murder, but killed their victims in a morally justified and rightful action deemed as an inevitable collateral effect. The point is that they did not mean to kill innocent civilians even when their deaths could or should have been taken into account. They only negligently resigned themselves to this possibility. In the academic literature dealing with terrorism this double judgement is called the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE). The adherents of this view say that those who caused the death of innocent people by a secondary aggression responding to the primary terrorism acted in a way that is not morally condemnable and therefore they are neither responsible nor indictable for the deaths of those people not participating in the battles. Camilo C. Bica analysed this question in his study Terrorism and Response: A Moral Inquiry into the Killing of Noncombatants, which he conducted for an academic discussion in 2004. The theorem of the author is that the killing of innocent outsiders in a terrorist attack or in an Joining Forces Globally against Terrorism for the Just Peace / 557 unintentional consequence of an aggression responding to this falls under the same ethical judgement. Both of them are to be ethically condemned. Neither of them can be regarded as warfare action but as murders. Bica distinguishes collateral aggression from accidental killing and the killing of outsiders which can happen in spite of the fact that the necessary precautions have been taken. It is an ethically grounded claim against others which at the same time requires that those others respect this right of distinction. In the case of privilege the claim to regard its observation by anybody else as an obligation cannot be made. The right to life and liberty belongs to the most important human rights. This is a fundamental value such as the right, for example, to live as members of a national community devoted to its traditions, which national community has not only territorial integrity but political sovereignty too. The individual has the right to be a member of a civic community. It is an inalienable right of all people to assert these fundamental rights by individual and communal self-defence if these rights are violated or threatened. Fundamental rights mean the assertion of human dignity and these are parts of our ethical world order. These rights are expressed in the above-mentioned Kantian ethical imperative. These rights and the obligations linked to them cannot be regarded as absolute. In case of conflicts these can be overwritten by more important, vital rights and obligations. Another important aspect is whether in case of a self-defensive answer, aggression (including the extermination of someone) and war are acceptable and justifiable means or not in situations when human rights are severely violated. A situation of this kind can be a devastating attack. The ethical justification of a response to this depends on how unlawfully it violated the fundamental rights of the victim and ignored the obligation of respecting these fundamental rights. In the response to an aggressive attack everything becomes equal, all means are permitted, both in individual, collective and national self-defence. After committing aggression the disregard of the aggressor‘s right to life as an absolute ethical value is acceptable. Such a sanction is permitted irrespective of
Global Alliance 558 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace whether the aggressor acted consciously and intentionally or under the influence of aggression, unintentionally. In a case like this aggression leading to death and warfare are both justifiable responses, because – as we referred to it – in self-defence everything becomes equal. Warfare falls under the regulation of international law even when it is a response given to terrorism. The theory of just war and several international agreements, treaties and contracts include the international legal characteristics and rules. These criteria can be divided into two main groups: one of them concerns when it is possible to start a war, and the other one how a war has to be conducted, what kind of warfare rules have to be observed. War is just if it is a proportionately given response to an aggression. And the manner of warfare can be regarded as acceptable if it does not cause injury to civilians taking part in the war and do not threaten their lives. From the aspect of ethical judgement, both criteria are important. In a just war both have to be fulfilled. The killing of civilians not taking part in the war is an outrage to be seriously condemned and therefore falls under absolute prohibition, irrespective of the question whether it can serve the purpose of something ―greater good‖ in the long term. The fulfilment of the requirements for the right to war is a value judgement, so we what we have to answer is whether we consider it just or unjust. The judgement of the manner of war depends on whether the combatant differentiates in the question of the non-combatants and facilitates that the innocent civilians‘ right to life is not violated. Michael Walzer differentiates in his work between just and unjust wars and acknowledges that an unjust war can also be conducted in a just way protecting the lives of civilians. Outsider civilians do not take part in the fights in the case of a just war either. If life-protecting discriminative measures are not taken against them, their deaths are to be regarded as murder and homicide in the case of a just war as well. It can be similarly regarded as crime against humanity if the war is conducted for such political, religious or social reasons which are typical of terrorism. According to the international regulation of war, even unjust Joining Forces Globally against Terrorism for the Just Peace / 559 wars discriminate in favour of outsider, non-combatant persons and ensure that they are unharmed. Terrorism – in contrast to war – deliberately undertakes the wounding or killing of innocent outsider persons. Discriminative treatment and the ensuring that citizens remain unharmed are the double requirements of the war regulated by international law and they are inseparable. Those who violate this, let it be an individual, a group or the state, their behaviour is the most important characteristc of terrorism, the ‗differentia specifica‖, the decisive distinguishing feature. This is, what differentiate war from terrorism, and in a war the killing of someone from wilful homicide. It does not concern the general judgement of war if the perpetration of homicide and crimes against humanity are qualified as isolated actions of ethically confused individuals. However, if these actions are not occasional deviations but parts of a policy or strategy controlling warfare actions then this warfare cannot be put into the category of international legally regulated war and be regarded as a war. It is possible to conduct an unjust war justly, but it is impossible to conduct a just war unjustly. The killing of anyone is to fall under serious jurisdiction. A wartime action having such consequences has to have a strong ethical reason that makes it allowable to kill a human in an emergency. It has to fulfil the ethical requirements of both starting and waging a war. These requirements do not only have to be explanations, but sound justifications based on fundamental needs, vital interests and great, noble values. They have to support the wartime action well or, using the same standard in the ethical sense, they have to be neutral, objective and impartial. Not even in the case of colliding principles and values is it permitted to suspend the order of the universal morals neither in war, nor in any other clashes. Immoral behaviour is never inevitable or acceptable, therefore there are no necessary crimes. Morally justified and ethically acceptable actions do not entail the calling to account or culpability. More and more people refer to the opinion that in an aggression responding to terrorism it is impossible to avoid unintentional collateral consequences. They differentiate between the deliberate consequences of
Global Alliance 560 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace terrorism and the collateral, unintentional consequences of the responding aggression. Thorough analysis shows, however, that all these are only excuses aiming deceit for rationalizing retaliation or revenge. It is innocent outsiders who get killed during a response-aggression too if we omit the ethical command to protect civil inhabitants in order to reach political and warfare aims. Both terrorists and those responding to terrorism violate innocent persons‘ right to life and do not meet their obligations to respect these fundamental rights in all circumstances. Both of them are responsible and lose their right to refer to self-defence in order to justify their procedure causing the deaths of innocent people. Because of their actions both of them have to take ethical condemnation, retaliation and punishment into account. From an ethical perspective there is no difference whether innocent people are killed during a terrorist attack or during the collateral consequence of a retaliation. Killing falls under the same judgement in both cases. Neither of them can be regarded as a wartime action. Neither terrorists, nor those answering them are combatants, therefore, if they kill innocent outsiders they are to be regarded as criminals who have conducted homicide. If it is inevitable during a wartime action that innocent outsiders unintentionally or deliberately get killed then we have to condemn every war – that is, war has to be prohibited -, or one should refrain from the ethical qualification of wartime actions. During wartime actions the killing of terrorists is allowed. The qualification of a certain action as proper or improper, acceptable or unacceptable depends on how we describe that action and the aims connected to it. The acceptable, objective description of the action is indispensable for the ethical appraisal, which demands putting aside of prejudice, ideological partialities and linguistic manipulation even if their absolute omission is not possible. Not all individual and collective self-defences can be regarded as ethically right. Aggression leading to death is only one of the possible answers. It is only acceptable if it is an ethically justifiable part of a just war. For that very reason it has to undergo severe restrictions and control. Joining Forces Globally against Terrorism for the Just Peace / 561
It can also happen that instead of aggression leading to the deaths of innocent people someone responding to aggression has to choose a means which is more hazardous, expensive, politically less expedient, consumes more time, but does not involve the wounding or killing of innocent people. Such a strict restriction can hinder the ability of a certain state in protecting its sovereignty, territorial integrity and the lives of its citizens. But by the high measure it can force combatants to omit the ethical characteristics in the warfare as they are hard to keep. Consequently, it is either needed to subordinate the ethical aspects to the military necessities including the killing of innocent people as unintentional collateral effect, or ethical aspects have to be totally put aside. In this case ethics gets subordinated to the tactics of warfare, and moral aspect only matter when they help the interests of the combatants. As ethics protects the most fundamental needs, interest and values of individuals and communities, from which the most important interest is the protection of life, therefore ethics cannot be regarded as a manipulable means of secondary importance serving the needs of diplomacy and warfare. Our attitude to universal morals has to be just and free of prejudice, omitting relativizing hypocrisy. Undoubtedly, in a war and in a response given to terrorism innocent outsiders get killed, whether incidentally or unintentionally. As victims of terrorism we serve a right aim when we fight against terrorists and we also choose aggression as a response. This, however, does not give an exemption from the obligation to differentiate between combatants and civilians, and to always ensure the protection and integrity of the latter – the persons not taking part in the fights. The circumstance of being victims of terrorism does not authorize us to become terrorists ourselves by adopting the methods of terrorists. The implication of aggression and the threat to use it aim to obtain political concessions from a government by fighting. In terms of terrorism the psychological effect exerted on the state-governmental power is very important. The comprehensive analysis of battle and its support suggests
Global Alliance 562 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace that actually there are no such people who do not take part in the fights. If we analyze the participatory persons, the obtaining and flowing of information, the executed operations, the supply and the background assistance, the policy and strategy, then we can see that even young people and the elderly, moreover women, who are all forbidden from direct battle actions, can provide such an important support that can be of decisive importance. The statement of Carl von Clausewitz, that war is the continuation of politics only with other means, can be applied in some aspects to terrorism as well. Politics can also be defined as a targeting behaviour where claims and needs are greater than resources. In this respect terrorism is only another name for the aggression aiming the satisfaction of claims or for the threat by using aggression. Depending on ideology, interests and value system, a person who is a terrorist for one is a freedom fighter for another. The question whether we face terrorism or not depends in many cases on the ethical aspects by which we judge the aims and means.
Can a State Be a Terrorist? As there is no uniformly interpreted and international legally accepted definition of terrorism, for practical reasons it is everything which is regulated by international law but whose subjects are not states and governments but individuals, groups and other, non-state organizations. The laws of war are only binding for states and governments. If only one of the parties is a state then the responding aggression is also non-state, that is, semi-state. In this case we can talk about asymmetric implication of aggression in which state and group aggressions occur at the same time. According to one of the judges of the International Court in Hague, ―Terrorism is a term without any legal significance. It is merely a convenient way of alluding to activities, whether of States or of individuals widely disapproved of and in which wither the methods used are unlawful, or the targets protected or both.‖ Joining Forces Globally against Terrorism for the Just Peace / 563
David Rodin formulated that ―Terrorism is the deliberate, negligent, or reckless use of force against noncombatants, by state or nonstate actors for ideological ends and in the absence of a substantively just legal process.‖ And the definition of Daniel D. Novotny is the following: ―An act is terrorist if it is committed by an individual or group of individuals privately, i.e. without the legitimate authority of a recognized state; if it is directed indiscriminately against non-combatants; if the goal of it is to achieve something politically relevant; and finally, and if this goal is pursued by means of fear-provoking violence.‖ Our standpoint is that it is a fundamental distinguishing feature of terrorism that one of its means is the deliberate or negligent killing of innocent people as well and therefore terrorism cannot only be conducted by individuals and groups but states too. Theodor P. Seto writes in his study „Morality of Terrorism‖ (http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v35-issue4/seto.pdf) that we must not use different ethical standards in the judgement of terrorism conducted by state and non-state actors: ―there is no reason to treat states differently from anyone else, except when they are acting as neutral enforcers of neutral rules‖. (p. 1259) An action carried out by a state which in terms of international law is regarded as just falls under another judgement in terms of ethics. International law has never intended to draw ethical lines. It seems a convenient solution to leave out the actions carried out by states from the definition of terrorism. The repetition of responsive, never-ending violence has to be taken into account in the case of terrorist actions carried out both by states and non-state actors. Mutuality and reciprocity apply to states just as much as to non-state actors. Consequently, if we condemn politically motivated violent actions of a certain type carried out by terrorist individuals and groups, then we similarly have to condemn those violent actions that were carried out by certain states, their armies or intelligence agencies in a similar way.
Global Alliance 564 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
If our standpoint is that when violent actions are carried out by the American army in Iraq or by the CIA in other parts of the world they are to be considered just and therefore politically justifiable, then we have to judge similar violent actions carried out by others in a similar way. The fact that the violent actions falling under the concept of terrorism are carried out by an army or intelligence of a state does not make these either more ethical or more acceptable than if they had been carried out by another, non-state organization or a terrorist group made up of private individuals.
Primary and Secondary Terrorism The prerequisite for primary, i.e. initiative terrorism is a tense general situation conditioned by conflicts in which the hostilities between the opponents are irreconcilable. In a situation conditioned by such sharp conflicts a provoking act is enough for triggering off a terrorist action. A situation full of such conflicts comes about when the power relations are extremely disproportionate. On one side a huge superiority takes place in the field of finance, economics, political view dominance and military power against which the other side, the inferiors, the disadvantaged are more and more defenceless. Extremely asymmetric power relations create the conditions for terrorism. The characteristic of asymmetry is that too much power gets concentrated and centralized on one side and the inferiors are not capable of enforcing their own interests because the system of checks and balances does not exist. The side in possession of the power – as well as the state law enforcement organization – takes advantage of the asymmetric situation. This appears in the most different measures of the state and government that possess the monopoly of violence. This state violence, namely the excesses of primary terrorism, the abuses of this huge power is what the individuals, groups and other non-state organizations respond to with their counter-attacks. The series of never-ending and responsive violent attacks starts. Based on the law of cause and consequence, all terrorist actions are responses and causes of another action at the same time. In Joining Forces Globally against Terrorism for the Just Peace / 565 this process every action is a response and a starting-point, a satisfaction and another provocation at the same time. It is a bizarre version of the violent actions responding to one another when one party ―takes revenge in advance‖. This is actually an attack, an aggression, one type of preventive war. Its cause is usually that the attacker reflects its own intentions and fears on its assumed future opponent and takes revenge in advance for the uncommitted crimes attributed to him. In this sense preventive war is previous revenge. For that very reason it is extremely important to objectively analyse when preventive war can be regarded as justified self-defence. This is not an abstract theoretical question but a real problem, as nowadays, for example against Iran – because of its nuclear program aiming energy production – the possibility of a preventive war cannot be precluded. Iran‘s nuclear programme is supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency and there is no evidence that Teheran is in possession of nuclear weapons. What can be said at most is that owing to the fulfilment of its programme Iran will have a nuclear background which can facilitate to produce nuclear weapons for just self-defence in case of emergency. However, this is not more than an assumption about an intention lacking evidence. Those who would like to stop Iran‘s peaceful – international legally allowed - nuclear programme supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency are already in possession of nuclear weapons. Therefore it has to be examined how preventive and responding violence can be employed in case of self-defence. It has to be explored to what extent the right to fear can be regarded as part of just self-defence. The reality of fear also has its characteristics. There is fear that can be supported by rational arguments and there is the ungrounded creation of hysteria serving propaganda and delusion where the reference to fear is in fact only a pretext used for disguising preventive aggression.
The Two Types of State Terrorism One is when it is the state or one of its organizations that carry out the terrorist actions. The other type of state terrorism is when a state supports
Global Alliance 566 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace the individual and collective terrorist actions of non-state level by financing them, providing them with weapons, training them, offering shelter to the perpetrators and taking care of their families. In the first case a state can be regarded a terrorist if it carries out terrorist attacks itself in consequence of which outsider innocent civilians not taking part in the fights can also get injured or die. States and governments are also obliged to protect the innocent civilians. Carrying out terrorist attacks organized on a state level and publicly executed by an army does not exempt states from this obligation nor does the question whether the war – according to the international legal laws referring to it – is a just war or not. If this just war is waged by killing a large number of innocent people then just war also counts as terrorism. Self-defensive war is also to be condemned ethically – that is it falls under the same judgement as terrorism – if the state at war do not take measures to protect the lives of innocent civilians, if it resigns itself to killing them as the undesirable collateral effect of war. The essence of terrorism is to take away the most important value from innocent outsiders, their right to life. That is why terrorist actions can be carried out both by organizing them on a state level and by using non-state level organizations. In the case of the other type of state terrorism the decisive question is that on the basis of which characteristics does an organization supported by the state in the way detailed above count as a terrorist organization. It has to be answered, for example, that according to which criteria can the actions of Hezbollah in Lebanon or the activity of Hamas in the Gaza Strip be considered terrorism. So far a generally accepted definition of terrorism does not exist, therefore, as far as we are concerned, we use the definition of Theodore P. Seto, teacher of the Los Angeles Loyola Law School with the difference that we also include the state among the potential perpetrators. According to this, terrorism means murder, destruction, the demolition of something politically valuable and the one committing it – according to Seto – is not a state, a government or one of its publicly active agent or Joining Forces Globally against Terrorism for the Just Peace / 567 organization. In accordance, secrecy, concealment, surprising and unexpected action is also part of the terrorist act. As we referred to it, the writer of these lines regards the state too as a terrorist if it uses violence in a way, publicly or disguised, that endangers the lives of innocent civilians. Therefore, terrorism can be considered a politically motivated violence, which ethically – regardless of the state or non-state status of the perpetrator - falls under the same judgement. The United Nations failed to define terrorism in a way that could be generally accepted because there was an irreconcilable conflict between the viewpoints of the different groups. The United States and the CIA supported the Taliban during the soviet occupation of Afghanistan. At that time it regarded the members of this movement as freedom-fighters, however, today they are at the top on the list of registered terrorists. Similar problems emerged in connection with the Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Hamas in Gaza. There was an agreement that if the opponents – let them be state or non-state actors – endanger the lives of civilians in order to provoke the responding state terror for reaching their political and economic aims, then the international community – based on the resolutions of the Security Council, the Geneva Convention and international law - has to protect the civilians from genocide and has to impede the perpetration of crimes against humanity against them. For practical reasons, the United States Department of Defense regards terrorism as a violent act committed – premeditatedly and for political purposes - by non-state organizations and secret groups aiming the injury of non-combatant civilians.
Iran’s Right to Concern and Fear One of the obstacles of overcoming terrorism, which is not emphasized often enough, is the employment of double standard. The general practice in many respects follows the principle of ‘societas leonina‘, that is, rights are also only due to the stronger. Strength and power overwrite the power of arguments. Quod licet lovi, non licet bovi. This Latin saying in English is used in three ways: „What is legitimate for Jove (Jupiter), is not
Global Alliance 568 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace legitimate for oxen.‖ In its short version: „Gods may do what cattle may not‖. And in everyday language simply this way: „What permitted to one person (or group, or State) is not permitted to everybody.‖ The double ethical and legal judgement becomes evident if we substitute Iran in the international legal documents condemning state terrorism with another state whose one certain violent act realizes the characteristics of terrorism detailed above. Then we can see that several states exist that are not on the list of those accused of state terrorism, but according to the criteria employed against Iran – namely if the competent did not employ double standard – they would get on this list. In principle Iran also has the right to mutuality, equality of rights, equal treatment, relations based on mutual benefits, the omission of the practice of double standard. And if this is the case then all the claims and demands against Iran have to be extended to the states employing sanctions against it. Let us consider these requirements and demands. Iran‘s relationship with the other parts of the world is remarkably intricate and complex. In the geopolitical region where it is situated the security of the Persian Gulf, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the race for resources and hegemony are eminently important. Iran‘s relationship to the European Union, Russia, China, India and to the other countries of Asia, Africa and Latin-America is mainly defined by economic interests. In terms of Europe, however, political disagreements also become important, among which we can rank the questions in connection with the employment of nuclear energy. Iran‘s relationship with the United States is extremely complex, while tensions increased in the nuclear question, in a series of other questions common interests influenced the bilateral relations. The standpoint of those analysts who would like to describe Iran‘s extremely complex situation with a sole doctrine does not carry conviction. Let it be the export of revolution, the religious commitment of the leading elite of Iran or simply the reference to the Persian imperialism. Iran regards itself as one of the significant states of the region of the Middle East, and cannot really do otherwise in consequence of its geographical situation, territorial Joining Forces Globally against Terrorism for the Just Peace / 569 extent, size of its population, its economic potentials and its cultural influence leaning on several thousand year old traditions. The standpoint of Iran that the same rights are due to it in the Middle East as are to the United States, the European Union, Saudi Arabia or Egypt is international legally grounded. The influence exerted on neighbouring countries also belongs to these rights. On the other hand, Iran has enough reasons to feel strategically endangered. Since 2003 the most powerful armies of the world are effectively present at its borders both in the east and in the west. American troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Several battleships of the American Navy are situated in the region of the Persian Gulf. Turkey is member of the NATO. America is the ally of Pakistan and now Azerbaijan is also cooperating militarily with the United States and Israel. Northward can be found the second greatest nuclear power of the world, Russia. To the east there are China and Pakistan, and in the south-east, India. Westwards there is Israel which according to official American sources has about 200-250 nuclear bombs that can be put into action. Besides Iraq and Afghanistan mentioned above, the American forces are also present in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. And the waters of the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf are not only watched by the nuclear missiles and the American battleships and submarines equipped with bombers, but Israel has also placed several German made submarines which are equipped with nuclear weapons too. Those who regard Iran as the country most actively supporting terrorism should only imagine themselves in the place of Iran. The government of every responsible state is bound to take into the possible developments into account, that is, to see to its security. The repetitive mention of state terrorism serves for depriving Iran on the ground of combating terrorism of its rights that are due to all the other states. Among these is for example the peaceful employment of nuclear energy which is a right due to Iran as well under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The aim of the strategy hiding behind the sanctions against Iran is to keep the leading position of the dollar in the oil trade, to secure the global control of energy sources, to
Global Alliance 570 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace preserve the atomic monopoly of the Western powers and their ally Israel, to preserve the hegemony over the Islamic world and to keep the real challenge, China in check, to slow down the growth of its economic and military power. The UN Security Council Resolution 1540 – adopted after being initiated by the United States – makes common action easier against the production of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and against the manufacturing of the devices suitable for shooting them at a target. The Security Council Resolution also facilitates the use of force in order to carry out the resolution. The United States and Israel have been accusing Iran for years for conducting secret programmes in order to develop nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The accusation of supporting terrorism makes it easier for them to keep the possibility of a preventive attack against Iran on the agenda. It is facilitated by the UN Security Council Resolution 1373 against terrorism. This states that all countries have to prevent the operation of those organizations on their territories that finance, plan and carry out terrorist actions against other states and their citizens. They also have to prevent these groups and organizations from recruiting new members on their territories. The United States and Israel accuse Iran of supporting and supplying with weapons the organization of Hezbollah in Lebanon which they regard as terrorist. Iran denies these accusations. The United States has not managed so far to prove its standpoint with evidence. The United Nations even today does not regard Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. As far as its peaceful nuclear programme is concerned, Iran has explained on several occasions on the forum of the UN why it needs the enrichment of uranium and why it is not in its interest to develop nuclear weapons. Teheran documented in one of its report the efforts it makes to overcome terrorism as well. Teheran has also been denying from the beginning that it had been in any contact with Al-Qaeda. The Iranian-American rivalry about the hegemony over the Middle East is going on at present too, therefore, the conflict intensified in the nuclear question today is one of the significant problems of the Iranian-American Joining Forces Globally against Terrorism for the Just Peace / 571 relations. On the 1st of October 2009 Iran took part in the conference in Geneva held by the attendance of the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany. Here a draft agreement was formulated according to which another nuclear establishment would be put under international control and Iran would transport its low-enriched uranium to Russia or France for further enrichment in order to make it employable in the research laboratories of Teheran previously built by Americans. Ahmadinejad Iranian president showed ready to cooperate with the International Community in the nuclear question, including the United States as well. The completed draft agreement would mean a significant step forward. With its fulfilment the nuclear conflict would not end at one blow, but the rules and procedures concerning the management of the conflict would change. Since the Paris Agreement adopted in November 2004, when Iran accepted to voluntarily suspend the enrichment of uranium, it was now that an opportunity which could have restored mutual confidence in this delicate matter came about. The low-enriched uranium would have been refined in Russia and this would have reduced the amount which could have been available for Iran to produce the atomic bomb, if it was true at all that Teheran really wants this and the matter was not only an assumption not even backed up with evidence. This agreement, if it had come into force, could have made the production process of nuclear fuel international, which the International Atomic Energy Agency has suggested on several occasions and which Iran has never refused. If we really want to overcome terrorism then the same international legal and ethical standards have to be used for the judgement of both the perpetrators and the victims. The employment of an equal standard can only be enforced by the decentralization of the horizontal and vertical power relations of the world and by placing the world order of monetary rule under supervision. For that reason we have to make efforts to divide the spheres of monetary power and real economy as well as to divide the political and military power on a global scale. These power branches could secure the system of checks and balances, which would facilitate
Global Alliance 572 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace the establishment of power relations much more balanced than those of today. It is evident for us that not only the establishment of a new monetary system is needed, but one of new property relations based on performance, too. In this form can international relations serve the entire humanity‘s most basic needs, interests and values. Only by changing the present monetary system of the world can a more just allocation of resources be achieved and can the enforcement of interests adequate for - and almost equally powerful with - social justice secured. Primary terrorism derives from overgrown power differences leaning on extreme financial differences, during which the power centre that has come by excessive power obtains the freedom to abuse the freedom of others. It is for that very reason that the responding, defensive violence has to resort to asymmetric means and battle methods almost regarded as terrorist to enforce its just self-interest against the selfishness of excessive power. If we want to overcome terrorism then first we have to pull down and place under control the excessively strong power centres which today can abuse their power, forcing the weaker to defend themselves even with means that can be regarded as terrorist.
Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 573
The Two-way Symmetrical Communication and a Just Peace: A Critical Examination of United States Public Diplomacy Dr. Foad Izadi Abstract The present article employs the theory of two-way symmetrical public relations as the basis for a just and peace-oriented public diplomacy. The article critiques U.S. public diplomacy for failing to act according to a two-way symmetrical perspective and finds such public diplomacy without ethical legitimacy. U.S. public diplomacy as such is assessed as a mere tool for advocating the unjust foreign policies of the United States and as a threat to the attainment of a just peace in the world. Keywords: Public diplomacy, United States, American, Two-way symmetrical model, global just peace
Introduction Scholars take two distinct approaches when criticizing the effectiveness and legitimacy of U.S. public diplomacy activities. A group of public diplomacy critics view the phenomenon as an image-building activity and propose that tactical, skills-based, or administrative changes will improve the effectiveness of the endeavor.1 The proposed changes under this rubric of scholarship include systematic assessment of the effectiveness of public diplomacy campaigns2 and increases in the budget for foreign public opinion polling.3
Assistant Professor, Facutlty of Word Studies, University of Tehran. 1. Foad Izadi, "Is Measuring U.S. Public Diplomacy Effectiveness Possible? Revisiting the Debate after 9/11" (paper presented at the annual convention of Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC, August 2007). 2. Edward P. Djerejian, Changing Minds, Winning Peace: A New Strategic Direction for U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim World (Washington, DC: The Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World, 2003),
Global Alliance 574 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
There is another group of scholars who challenge the dominant framework that continues to drive current public diplomacy initiatives and insist that short of major structural changes public diplomacy lacks ethical legitimacy and will prove ineffective in achieving substantive international support for U.S. foreign policies.4 According to these scholars, ―current public diplomacy efforts being implemented in the Middle East embody the one-way flow of communication of early development campaigns‖ with the emphasis ―on massaging the minds of the public, on building an image, and shifting public opinion about the United States.‖5 Scholars use different terminology for a public diplomacy approach that incorporates such structural changes. Among these are new public diplomacy,6 dialogue-based public diplomacy,7
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/24882.pdf. ExpectMore, "Program Assessment, Public Diplomacy," U.S. Office of Management and Budget., http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10004600.2006.html. 3. Peter G. Peterson et al., Finding America's Voice: A Strategy for Reinvigorating U.S. Public Diplomacy - Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 2003), http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/public_diplomacy.pdf. 4. Rhonda Zaharna, The Unintended Consequences of Crisis Public Diplomacy: American Public Diplomacy in the Arab World (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy in Focus, 2003), http://www.fpif.org/pdf/vol8/02diplomacy.pdf. ———, The Network Paradigm of Strategic Public Diplomacy (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy in Focus, 2005), http://www.fpif.org/pdf/vol10/v10n01pubdip.pdf. Nancy Snow, "U.S. Public Diplomacy: Its History, Problems, and Promise," in Readings in Propaganda and Persuasion, New and Classic Essays, ed. Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006). Mohan J. Dutta-Bergman, "U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Middle East: A Critical Cultural Approach," Journal of Communication Inquiry 30, no. 2 (2006), Inderjeet Parmar, "Responding to Anti-Americanism: The Politics of Public Diplomacy," in Anti-Americanism: History, Causes, and Themes, ed. Brendon O'Connor and Martin Griffiths (Westport, CT: Greenwood World Publishing, 2007). Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor, eds., Handbook of Public Diplomacy (New York: Routledge, 2009). 5. Dutta-Bergman, "U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Middle East: A Critical Cultural Approach," 116. 6. Jan Melissen, "The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice," in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, ed. Jan Melissen (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005). Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, "Advancing the New Public Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 575 culture-centered public diplomacy,8 network-oriented public diplomacy,9 and multistakeholder diplomacy.10 This alternative approach ―builds on a vision for peaceful coexistence of nations and seeks to minimize global security threats in the world through the process of mutual dialogue.‖11 In line with the latter group of scholars, the present article takes a critical approach to evaluating U.S. public diplomacy activities and asserts that when public diplomacy fails to adapt a two-way symmetrical communication model it becomes a threat to a just peace in the world. The author aims to provide a sketch of a model of public diplomacy that is based on two-way symmetrical communication as the basis for moving toward a world of just peace. This dissertation examines the conceptual framework that is promoted as the basis of a ―new public diplomacy.‖ Clearly, this dictates examining two questions: what is meant by a new public diplomacy, and what would characterize two-way symmetrical dialogue. For public diplomacy to move beyond propaganda, Snow is among those who assert it has to incorporate two-way communication.12 Melissen too
Diplomacy: A Public Relations Perspective," The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 2, no. 3 (2007). 7. Shaun Riordan, "Dialogue-Based Public Diplomacy: A New Foreign Policy Paradigm," in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, ed. Jan Melissen (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005). 8. Dutta-Bergman, "U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Middle East: A Critical Cultural Approach." 9. Zaharna, The Unintended Consequences of Crisis Public Diplomacy: American Public Diplomacy in the Arab World. ———, The Network Paradigm of Strategic Public Diplomacy. 10. Brian Hocking, "Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Foundations, Forms, Functions and Frustrations" (paper presented at the International Conference on Multistakeholder Diplomacy, Malta, February 2005). Jovan Kurbalija and Valentin Katrandjiev, eds., Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Challenges and Opportunities (Malta: DiploFoundation, 2006). 11 Dutta-Bergman, "U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Middle East: A Critical Cultural Approach," 118. 12. Nancy Snow, "U.S. Public Diplomacy: Its History, Problems, and Promise," in Readings in Propaganda and Persuasion, New and Classic Essays, ed. Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006).
Global Alliance 576 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace has such a vision for the new public diplomacy practice.13 He states, ―public diplomacy is similar to propaganda in that it tries to persuade people what to think, but it is fundamentally different from [propaganda] in the sense that public diplomacy also listens to what people have to say.‖14 However, he suggests that the U.S. government‘s approaches to public diplomacy have not yet fostered genuine dialogue. One way public diplomacy can encourage dialogue is by adopting two-way symmetrical public relations rather than concentrating on image management.15 Public relations scholars stress the importance of nurturing long-term relationships with stakeholders through two-way communication strategies with a symmetrical perspective as a viable framework for ethical public diplomacy.16 Fitzpatrick ―questions the moral appropriateness and acceptability, as well as the practical implications, of public diplomacy philosophies and practices motivated and directed by the self-interested desire to gain power over those to whom public diplomacy efforts are directed.‖17 She states that two-way symmetrical public diplomacy maximizes the realization of the sponsoring nation‘s self-interest while respecting the rights of its global stakeholders. In addition, Kohut believes that the effectiveness of U.S. communication efforts rests on major policy initiatives that take into account the interests of global publics.18
13. Jan Melissen, "The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice," in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, ed. Jan Melissen (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005). 14. Ibid., 18. 15. James E. Grunig and Larissa A. Grunig, "Models of Public Relations and Communication," in Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, ed. James E. Grunig, Larissa A. Grunig, and L. A. Ehling (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992). 16. Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, "The Ethics of ―Soft Power:‖ Examining the Moral Dimensions of U.S. Public Diplomacy" (paper presented at the annual convention of International Studies Association, San Diego, CA, March 2006). 17. Ibid., 1. 18. Andrew Kohut, "How the United States Is Perceived in the Arab and Muslim Worlds: Testimony of Andrew Kohut, United States House of Representatives Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 577
The New Public Diplomacy Debate In the last few years, policy experts and public diplomacy scholars have carefully scrutinized U.S. public diplomacy efforts to find out whether improved structures and methods could help the United States to develop a more successful public diplomacy strategy. Some experts believe that the United States government can improve its public diplomacy operations to help win the war on terrorism.19 Others call public diplomacy ―the holy grail of American foreign policy‖ and insist that ―other countries are not going to buy what the United States is selling.‖20 According to these critics, ―It‘s not the packaging that others dislike. It‘s the product.‖21 Such a view is suggestive of the limits of America‘s soft power. Other scholars assert that ―short of major policy initiatives, there appear to be limits on how much U.S. communication efforts in the region can achieve.‖22 Critics having this view suggest the need for congruency between action and image. In addition to these criticisms, scholars call for a transformation in how public diplomacy is practiced. Zaharna, for example, suggests that the problem with the current U.S. public diplomacy structure is its emphasis on information dissemination and the control of communication environment.23 She proposes that ―network is the new model of persuasion in the international arena and will define America‘s
International Relations Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations," http://pewglobal.org/commentary/pdf/1001.pdf. 19 Peter G. Peterson et al., "Finding America's Voice: A Strategy for Reinvigorating U.S. Public Diplomacy - Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations," (Washington, DC2003). Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Public Affairs, 2004). 20. David Edelstein and Ronald Krebs, "Washington's Troubling Obsession with Public Diplomacy," Survival 47,, no. 1 (2005): 89. 21. Ibid. 22. Kohut, "How the United States Is Perceived in the Arab and Muslim Worlds: Testimony of Andrew Kohut, United States House of Representatives International Relations Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations." 23. Rhonda Zaharna, "The Network Paradigm of Strategic Public Diplomacy," (Washington, DC2005).
Global Alliance 578 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace effectiveness as a new paradigm of public diplomacy.‖24 Similarly, other scholars assert that developments in the field have brought about a ―new‖ public diplomacy, which is fundamentally different from propaganda.25 Gilboa indicates that new public diplomacy is not a mere state activity, but rather an interdependent activity of state and non-state actors, such as non-governmental organizations, private educational institutions, labor unions, and political parties.26 In addition, it is a form of soft power that utilizes two-way communication techniques, strategic public diplomacy, information management, nation-branding and online image management. According to Gilboa, new public diplomacy is ―a communication system designed to create a dialogue with both foes and allies.‖27 An additional component of the new public diplomacy is ―the blurring of traditional distinctions between international and domestic information activities.‖28 According to Melissen, due to the revolutionary changes in the communication technology and the forces of globalization, it is increasingly challenging to separate communication aimed at homeland audiences and public diplomacy messages aimed at foreign publics.29 Thus, with the line delineating public affairs from public diplomacy fading, new public diplomacy has become more challenging. At times, the government intentionally cultivates the blowback of its international public diplomacy messages. One instance of such an
24. Ibid., 1. 25. Rhiannon Vickers, "The New Public Diplomacy: Britain and Canada Compared," British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6,, no. 2 (2004). Melissen, "The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice." Brian Hocking, "Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Foundations, Forms, Functions and Frustrations" (paper presented at the International Conference on Multistakeholder Diplomacy, Malta, February 2005). Shaun Riordan, "Dialogue-Based Public Diplomacy: A New Foreign Policy Paradigm," in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, ed. Jan Melissen (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005). Snow, "U.S. Public Diplomacy: Its History, Problems, and Promise." 26. Eytan Gilboa, "Public Diplomacy: The Missing Component in Israel's Foreign Policy," Israel Affairs 12,, no. 4 (2006). 27. Ibid., 718. 28. Vickers, "The New Public Diplomacy: Britain and Canada Compared," 191. 29. Melissen, "The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice." Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 579 operation in action, according to the New York Times is the Bush administration‘s ―multimillion-dollar covert campaign to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media and pay friendly Iraqi journalists monthly stipends.‖30 In this, the U.S. military employed the services of the Washington-based Lincoln Group public relations firm, to whom it submitted pentagon-drafted articles for translation into Arabic and placement in Iraqi press or with Iraqi advertising agencies without mentioning their authorship. ―Western press and frequently those self- styled ‗objective‘ observers of Iraq are often critics of how we, the people of Iraq, are proceeding down the path in determining what is best for our nation,‖ one such article opened, according to the New York Times.31 What appears to be the voice of an independent Iraqi columnist then reverberates to the domestic media to soften opposition to the war effort. Melissen identifies the most important distinction between traditional and new public diplomacy to be the direction of communication.32 While, traditionally, diplomacy, in general, and public diplomacy, in particular, was seen in a ―hierarchical state-centric model‖ of international relations, new public diplomacy operates in a ―network environment‖ in which the public is actively participating in the give and take of messages.33 This is an indication for the need of an instrumental public diplomacy role for non-state actors such as NGOs. According to Hocking, in a hierarchical model, ―the foreign ministry and the national diplomatic system over which it presides act as gatekeepers, monitoring interactions between domestic and international policy environments.‖34 Hocking maintains that the United States has approached post-September-11 public diplomacy with this ―top-down‖ mentality. This is evident in the prescriptions given for improved public
30. Jeff Gerth and Scott Shane, "U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers," December 1 2005. 31. Ibid. 32. Melissen, "The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice." 33. Ibid., 12. 34. Hocking, "Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Foundations, Forms, Functions and Frustrations", 35.
Global Alliance 580 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace diplomacy: allocation of more resources and better coordination. Similarly, Snow suggests that the U.S. government has traditionally approached public diplomacy as a ―two-track process,‖ employing a one- way track of information dissemination while arguing that the effort is mutually beneficial in outcome.35 The network model of public diplomacy requires a movement beyond the one-way dissemination of information to foreign publics toward a more dialogic engagement with the target populations.
Two-Way Symmetrical Public Diplomacy For more than 25 years, public relations scholars have continued to debate the importance of two-way communication and balance of interests for building strong relationships between an organization and its publics. In this process they have developed symmetrical models for successful public relations. Furthermore, as Signitzer and Coombs observe in their comparative study of public diplomacy and public relations, the objectives of both are conceptually similar.36 Therefore, it appears useful for scholars of new public diplomacy to examine relevant public relations literature. Like public diplomacy, public relations has been undergoing a fundamental redefinition in the past few decades as public relations scholars are stressing the importance of nurturing long-term relationships with stakeholders through two-way communication strategies with a symmetrical perspective. Many of the elements of new public diplomacy are, in this sense, congruent with elements of ―excellent‖ public relations.37 Ledingham makes the case that relationship management should act as the general theory of public relations.38 J. Grunig, L. Grunig, and Ehling
35. Snow, "U.S. Public Diplomacy: Its History, Problems, and Promise," 227. 36. Benno Signitzer and Timothy Coombs, "Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Conceptual Divergences," Public Relations Review 18,, no. 2 (1992). 37. James E. Grunig and Todd T. Hunt, Managing Public Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1984). 38. John A Ledingham, "Explicating Relationship Management as a General Theory of Public Relations," Public Relations Review 15,, no. 2 (2003). John A. Ledingham and Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 581 believe that the establishment of quality relationships is the basis for excellence in the field, which could be done through reconciling the organization‘s goals with the expectations of its strategic stakeholders.39 As Melissen notes, ―A lesson that public diplomacy can take on board from the sometimes misunderstood field of PR is that the strength of firm relationships largely determines the receipt and success of individual messages and overall attitudes.‖40 To theoretically conceptualize public relations practices, Grunig and Hunt gave a four-model typology of public relations practices: press agentry/publicity, public information, two-way asymmetrical and two- way symmetrical.41 These models were conceptualized based on the two main variables of direction and purpose of communication. The direction variable consists of one-way and two-way communication. In models with a one-way direction of communication, public relations is about disseminating information. In two-way models, public relations is about exchanging information. As Yun puts it, ―one-way means disseminating information, whereas two-way means an exchange of information.‖42 The purpose variable is whether communication effects result in a balance of interest (i.e., have symmetry or asymmetry). In Yun‘s words, ―symmetry refers to communication effects on both sides and, thus, collaboration or cooperation, whereas asymmetry means one-sided effects and, thus, advocacy.‖43 The two underlying variables of direction and purpose determine the communication goal of public relations: control versus adaptation. Also, they determine the communication role public relations
Stephen D. Bruning, eds., Relationship Management: A Relationship Approach to Public Relations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2000). 39. James E. Grunig et al., eds., Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1992). 40. Melissen, "The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice," 21. 41. Grunig and Hunt, Managing Public Relations. 42. Seong-Hun Yun, "Toward Public Relations Theory-Based Study of Public Diplomacy: Testing the Applicability of the Excellence Study," Journal of Public Relations Research 18,, no. 4 (2006): 293. 43. Ibid.
Global Alliance 582 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace serves: advocacy and dissemination versus mediation. Furthermore, the two variables show whether and how organizations use research. The press agentry model is descriptive of public relations programs ―aimed solely at attaining favorable publicity for an organization in the mass media, often in a misleading way.‖44 The goal of public relations in the public information model is to disseminate accurate but only favorable information aimed at changing the behavior of the public. The two-way asymmetrical model is aimed at persuasion and is typical of organizations that use social science research for developing messages that appeal to their stakeholders‘ attitudes. All the asymmetrical models are aimed at changing the behavior of the publics but not those of the organization. The two-way symmetrical model is based on research and attempts to manage conflict through negotiation with strategic publics.45 Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, was a leading advocate of the use of psychology and other social sciences in the public relations industry.46 In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays promoted an asymmetrical approach to public relations that is founded on social scientific theories: ―If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?‖47 What Bernays called the ―engineering of consent‖ stands in stark contrast to the ethically sound two-way symmetrical approach.48 In 1985, James E. Grunig headed a six-member team to study the characteristics of excellent public relations programs. Based on an
44. James E. Grunig, "Image and Substance: From Symbolic to Behavioral Relationships," Public Relations Review 19,, no. 2 (1993): 143. 45. Ibid., 143-45. 46 Edward L. Bernays, Crystallizing Public Opinion (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1923); Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda (New York: H. Liveright, 1928); Edward L. Bernays, ed. The Engineering of Consent (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press,1955); Edward L. Bernays and Burnet Hershey, eds., The Case for Reappraisal of U.S. Overseas Information Policies and Programs; Incorporating Congressman Fascell's Report (New York: Praeger Publishers,1970). 47. Bernays, Propaganda, 71. 48. Bernays, ed. The Engineering of Consent. Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 583 expansive review of theories from public relations, management, sociology, psychology, marketing, communication, anthropology, philosophy, and feminist studies, the team arrived at a new theory of excellence in public relations ―to explain how and why communication makes organizations more effective.‖49 ―Excellent public relations,‖ according to Larisa A. Grunig, James E. Grunig, and David M. Dozier, ―is managerial, strategic, symmetrical, diverse, and ethical.‖50 The two- way symmetrical model of communication is one of the key defining characteristics of excellent public relations departments. Such a model thrives when the dominant coalition‘s ―worldview for public relations in the organization reflects the two-way symmetrical model‖ and the organization has a ―symmetrical system of internal communication.‖51 Critics of the four models developed by Grunig and Hunt have said that the conceptualization was too simplistic ―to capture the complexity and multiplicity of the public relations environment.‖52 Cancel et al. proposed that an advocacy to accommodation continuum would more accurately describe the practice of public relations. Earlier, Murphy had argued for a mixed motive approach to public relations.53 Similar to Grunig‘s theory of two-way symmetrical public relations, Murphy suggested that game theory gives ―equal centrality to sender-receiver reflexivity;‖ however, it also proposes ―a continuum of conflict-cooperation.‖54 She further asserted that Grunig‘s two-way symmetrical model is similar to ―games
49. International Association of Business Communicators, "Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management," (San Francisco, CASeptember 1991). 50. Larissa A. Grunig, James E. Grunig, and David M. Dozier, Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002), 306. 51. Ibid., 9. 52. Amanda E. Cancel et al., "It Depends: A Contingency Theory of Accommodation in Public Relations," Journal of Public Relations Research 9,, no. 1 (1997). 53. Priscilla Murphy, "The Limits of Symmetry: A Game Theory Approach to Symmetric and Asymmetric Public Relations," in Public Relations Research Annual, ed. James E. Grunig and Larissa A. Grunig (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989). 54. Ibid., 117.
Global Alliance 584 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace of pure cooperation,‖55 which are hard to find in the real world. Murphy proposed that, in reality, public relations is practiced based on mixed motives: ―a sliding scale of cooperation and competition in which organizational needs must of necessity be balanced against the needs of constituents, but never lose their primacy.‖56 In reply to these critiques, J. Grunig and L. Grunig said that the two-way symmetrical model is not congruent with pure accommodation, in Cancel et al.‘s terms, or pure coordination, in Murphy‘s terms.57 Later, L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Dozier clarified on their conceptualization of symmetry: ―Total accommodation of the public‘s interest would be as asymmetrical as unbridled advocacy of the organization‘s interests.‖58 The two-way symmetrical model, according to L. Grunig et al., is in fact equivalent with the mixed motive model proposed by Murphy and better serves the interests of the organization when compared with asymmetrical models. Cameron, Cropp, and Reber softened their criticism of the ―excellence‖ theory: "The excellence theory offers a compelling model for public relations to achieve a higher calling for as a profession. The theory moves practitioners from a role as persuasive hired guns or mere communication technicians serving as in-house reporters towards a role as managers using research and dialogue to build healthy relationships with publics. Excellence theory may quite often lead to more ethical and more effective public relations performance, particularly over longer term. Cameron and other proponents of the contingency theory of accommodation in public relations argue, however, that the theory must be elaborated upon and qualified to become a more mature and comprehensive theory".59
55. Ibid., 122. 56. Ibid., 127. 57. Grunig and Grunig, "Models of Public Relations and Communication." 58. Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier, Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries, 314. 59. Glen T. Cameron, Fritz Cropp, and Bryan H. Reber, "Getting Past Platitudes: Factors Limiting Accommodation in Public Relations," Journal of Communication Management 5,, no. 3 (2000): 243. Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 585
Responding to critics‘ suggestions for a continuum, J. Grunig and L. Grunig modified the original four discrete models into the two continua of craft and professional public relations.60 They indicate public relations practices are variants of ―craft‖ and ―professional‖ forms of public relations.61 The craft public relations continuum is marked by the two extremes of propaganda and journalism, both of which are one-way communication models. The two-way communication models are also placed along a continuum, with pure asymmetry at one end and pure symmetry at the other. It is the centrality of two-way communication that distinguishes professional public relations with the practice of public relations as a craft.
Craft Public Relations I------I------I------I Propaganda Press Agentry Public Information Journalism
Professional Public Relations I------I------I------I Pure Asymmetry Two-way Asymmetrical Two-way symmetrical Pure Symmetry (Excellent public relations)
Figure 1. Four models of public relations placed on two continua62
In essence, a dialogue-centered paradigm of public diplomacy calls for a shift from craft public relations to professional public relations, with an emphasis on symmetrical practices. Nelson and Izadi suggest that as
60. Grunig and Grunig, "Models of Public Relations and Communication," 312. 61. Ibid. 62. Ibid., 313.
Global Alliance 586 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace public diplomacy approaches the symmetrical end of professional public relations, it strengthens its ethical legitimacy.63 Therefore, a new public diplomacy is to be distinguished from the old to the degree to which it engages in two-way symmetrical relations rather than one-way propaganda.
Theoretical Underpinnings of Dialogue and Symmetry The dialogic models of professional public relations are moves beyond the one-way models of communication management, in which the primary goal is to disseminate information about the organization‘s activities and decisions in order to reduce uncertainty in the environment.64 The information model of communication management is epitomized by Lasswell‘s famous formula: ―Who says what to whom with what effect.‖65 Shannon and Weaver‘s Sender-Message-Channel- Receiver model of communication is also indicative of the public information approach.66 The two models of rhetorical dialogue and relationship management are departures from the one-way, sender- centered approach to communication management. Heath identifies rhetoric as the essence of public relations and referred to this process as ―enactment of meanings.‖67 He asserts, ―rhetoric is a dialogue of opinions, counter opinions, meanings, and counter meanings – the process by which interests are asserted, negotiated, and
63. Richard Alan Nelson and Foad Izadi, "Ethics and Social Issues in Public Diplomacy: Concepts, Controversies, Challenges and Opportunities," in Handbook of Public Diplomacy ed. Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor (New York: Routledge, 2009). 64. Betteke van Ruler and Dejan Vercicv, "Reflective Communication Management, Future Ways for Public Relations Research," Communication yearbook 29,, no. 1 (2005). 65. Harold D. Lasswell, "The Structure and Function of Communication in Society," in The Communication of Ideas, ed. Lyman Bryson (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1948), 37. 66. C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1949). 67. Robert L. Heath, "A Rhetorical Approach to Zones of Meaning and Organizational Prerogatives," Public Relations Review 19,, no. 2 (1993): 143. Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 587 constrained.‖68 Persuasion is central to the rhetorical perspective, which ―treats persuasion as an interactive, dialogic process whereby points of views are contested in public.‖69 Based on this view, persuasion is not equivalent with ―linear influence,‖ instead it is based on argument and counterargument.70 Heath contends that persuasion as rhetorical dialogue would result in zones of meaning whereby organizations and their publics arrive at shared understanding of problems through debate and argumentation.71 Issues management is one way organizations attempt to harmonize their actions with their stakeholders‘ needs and expectations. Heath defines issues management as ―the management of organizational and community resources through the public policy process to advance organizational interests and rights by striking a mutual balance with those of stakeholders.‖72 Issues management comprises of the four steps of issues identification, scanning, monitoring, and analysis. According to Heath and Nelson, issues management has the two goals of adjusting the organization to the public and helping the public understand the complexity and requirements of the organization.73 Through issues management, organizations aim to meet or exceed the expectations of key publics and build mutually beneficial relationships. Heath maintains that issues management is not just beneficial for large corporations. It is a management tool that is also applicable to nonprofit organizations, governmental agencies, and activist groups.74 According to Heath, issues management and normative two-way symmetrical public relations are ―companion efforts to achieve similar ends but with different means.‖75
68. Ibid. 69. Ibid. 70. Ibid., 143-44. 71. Ibid. 72. Robert L. Heath, Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1997), 9. 73. Robert L. Heath and Richard Alan Nelson, Issues Management: Corporate Public Policymaking in an Information Society (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1986). 74. Heath, Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges, 3. 75. Ibid., 7.
Global Alliance 588 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Nelson proposes that issues management ―presupposes a willingness for organizations to not only seek to change others but also be prepared to reform internal policies and practices as well.‖76 J. E. Grunig and L. A. Grunig indicate that the rhetorical approach to persuasion is compatible with the two-way symmetrical model of public relations since both parties have a chance to persuade the other.77 Similarly, Riordan finds it necessary for public diplomacy to adopt a dialogue-based paradigm in which the parties of dialogue arrive at shared meanings.78 Genuine dialogue, he notes, is the means for achieving credibility with foreign publics. Grunig says that problems of public relations cannot be solved merely through image management.79 ―Public relations must be concerned both with and symbolic relationships and not with symbolic relationships alone.‖80 He states that these behavioral relationships are based on several key components: ―dynamic vs. static, open vs. closed, the degree to which both organization and public are satisfied with the relationship, distribution of power in the relationship, and mutuality of understanding, agreement, and consensus, trust and credibility, and the concept of reciprocity‖81 Therefore, the problem with the public information and press agentry models lies in their preoccupation with symbolic relationships while ignoring behavioral relationships. In addition to symbolic relationships (as in mediated messages), public diplomacy should concern actual behavioral relationships.82 Hence, not only should the communication of messages involve dialogue, but also
76. Richard Alan Nelson, "Bias Versus Fairness: The Social Utility of Issues Management," Public Relations Review 16,, no. 1 (1990): 28. 77. Grunig and Grunig, "Models of Public Relations and Communication." 78. Riordan, "Dialogue-Based Public Diplomacy: A New Foreign Policy Paradigm." 79. Grunig and Hunt, Managing Public Relations. 80. Ibid., 123. 81. Ibid., 135. 82. Ibid. Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier, Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries. Yun, "Toward Public Relations Theory-Based Study of Public Diplomacy: Testing the Applicability of the Excellence Study." Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 589 the consequences of such messaging should take into consideration the views of the other party. Thus, for the United States to engage in two-way symmetrical public diplomacy, it has to consider the feedback it gets from other countries when making its policies. Central to Grunig‘s relationship management model is the concept of symmetry or balance of interests between an organization and its publics. Grunig‘s approach to public relations is based on. A system is ―a set of interacting units with relationships among them.‖83 Grunig and Huang propose a model of stages and forms of relationships.84 The two-way symmetrical model is viewed as an open system, in which practitioners get input from the organization‘s environment to bring about changes in the organization, as well as its environment. In this model, Grunig and Huang identify the symmetrical and asymmetrical public relations practices as relationship maintenance strategies.85 With a symmetrical worldview, an organization is more likely to use symmetrical relationship maintenance strategies, approaching the pure symmetry end of the continuum, where Grunig places the two-way symmetrical model. In contrast, an organization with an asymmetrical worldview is more likely to use asymmetrical strategies, approaching the asymmetrical extreme of the continuum, where Grunig places the two-way asymmetrical model. The two-way symmetrical model of public relations is in essence the same as new public diplomacy. Nelson and Izadi too contend that adopting the ethical standards of commitment to truth and two-way symmetrical public diplomacy (or
.83 Glen M. Broom, Shawna Casey, and James Ritchey, "Concept and Theory of Organization-Public Relationships," in Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Rhetorical Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, ed. John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000), 13. 84. James E. Grunig and Yi-Hui Huang, "From Organizational Effectiveness to Relationship Indicators: Antecedents of Relationships, Public Relationships Strategies and Relationship Outcomes," in Relationship Management: A Relationship Approach to Public Relations, ed. John A Ledingham and Stephen D Bruning (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000). 85. Ibid.
Global Alliance 590 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace otherwise called new public diplomacy) is vital to an effective public diplomacy strategy.86 To this, they add the ethical standard of ―values- based leadership.‖ Such leaders listen to their constituents, respect their opinions, and practice the art of inclusion. While there may be nuances to leadership styles based on different circumstances and cultures, values- based leaders are exemplified by courage, integrity, authenticity, vision, and passion. These structural changes are not premised on ethical grounds only. Realignments in the post-Cold War political environment, the proliferation of new media, and the resulting possibility for more public participation in international relations have made Cold War public diplomacy strategies obsolete and ineffective.87 With advances in new media and the globalization of information technology, it is no longer possible for the United States to achieve information dominance.88 Black propaganda, or deceptive public diplomacy, has become increasingly ineffective. For black propaganda to be effective, it has to be seen as a semblance of the truth and not rumor or official dissembling. Moreover, what might have become public knowledge after a long time can now become evident almost immediately. Also, an image-oriented public diplomacy will best work in closed societies. Thus, a major obstacle to U.S. public diplomacy program is its emphasis on image building rather
86. Nelson and Izadi, "Ethics and Social Issues in Public Diplomacy: Concepts, Controversies, Challenges and Opportunities." 87. Wilson P. Dizard, Digital Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Information Age (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001). Rosaleen Smyth, "Mapping U.S. Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century," Australian Journal of International Affairs 55,, no. 3 (2001). Wayne Nelles, "American Public Diplomacy as Pseudo-Education: A Problematic National Security and Counter-Terrorism Instrument," International Politics 41,, no. 1 (2004). Dean Kruckeberg and Marina Vujnovic, "Public Relations, Not Propaganda, for U.S. Public Diplomacy in a Post-9/11 World: Challenges and Opportunities," Journal of Communication Management 9,, no. 4 (2005). Zaharna, "The Network Paradigm of Strategic Public Diplomacy." 88. See examples of Iraqi insurgent media in Daniel Kimmage and Kathleen Ridolfo, "Iraqi Insurgent Media: The War of Images and Ideas: How Sunni Insurgents in Iraq and Their Supporters Worldwide Are Using the Media," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty., http://realaudio.rferl.org/online/OLPDFfiles/insurgent.pdf. Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 591 than emphasis on genuine dialogue and symmetrical relationships.89 This type of public diplomacy, needless to say, is ethically and professenally without any merits and would be an obstacle to a truthful, just, and peace oriented communication in the world.
89. Costas M. Constantinou, "On Homo-Diplomacy," Space and Culture 9,, no. 4 (2006).
Global Alliance 592 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
REFERENCES 1. Bernays, Edward L. Crystallizing Public Opinion. New York: Boni and Liveright, 1923. 2. Bernays, Edward L., ed. The Engineering of Consent. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1955. 3. Bernays, Edward L. Propaganda. New York: H. Liveright, 1928. 4. Bernays, Edward L., and Burnet Hershey, eds. The Case for Reappraisal of U.S. Overseas Information Policies and Programs; Incorporating Congressman Fascell's Report. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970. 5. Broom, Glen M., Shawna Casey, and James Ritchey. "Concept and Theory of Organization-Public Relationships." In Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Rhetorical Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, edited by John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning, 3-23. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. 6. Cameron, Glen T., Fritz Cropp, and Bryan H. Reber. "Getting Past Platitudes: Factors Limiting Accommodation in Public Relations." Journal of Communication Management 5,, no. 3 (2000): 242-61. 7. Cancel, Amanda E., Glen T. Cameron, Lynne M. Sallot, and Michael A. Mitrook. "It Depends: A Contingency Theory of Accommodation in Public Relations." Journal of Public Relations Research 9,, no. 1 (1997): 31-63. 8. Constantinou, Costas M. "On Homo-Diplomacy." Space and Culture 9,, no. 4 (2006): 351-64. 9. Dizard, Wilson P. Digital Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Information Age. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001. 10. Edelstein, David, and Ronald Krebs. "Washington's Troubling Obsession with Public Diplomacy." Survival 47,, no. 1 (2005): 89-104. 11. Fitzpatrick, Kathy R. "The Ethics of ―Soft Power:‖ Examining the Moral Dimensions of U.S. Public Diplomacy." Paper presented at the annual convention of International Studies Association, San Diego, CA, March 2006. 12. Gerth, Jeff, and Scott Shane. "U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers." December 1 2005. 13. Gilboa, Eytan. "Public Diplomacy: The Missing Component in Israel's Foreign Policy." Israel Affairs 12,, no. 4 (2006): 715-47. 14. Grunig, James E. "Image and Substance: From Symbolic to Behavioral Relationships." Public Relations Review 19,, no. 2 (1993): 121-39. Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 593
15. Grunig, James E., David M. Dozier, William P. Ehling, Larissa A. Grunig, Fred C. Repper, and Jon White, eds. Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992. 16. Grunig, James E., and Larissa A. Grunig. "Models of Public Relations and Communication." In Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, edited by James E. Grunig, Larissa A. Grunig and L. A. Ehling, 285-326. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992. 17. Grunig, James E., and Yi-Hui Huang. "From Organizational Effectiveness to Relationship Indicators: Antecedents of Relationships, Public Relationships Strategies and Relationship Outcomes." In Relationship Management: A Relationship Approach to Public Relations, edited by John A Ledingham and Stephen D Bruning, 23-54. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. 18. Grunig, James E., and Todd T. Hunt. Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1984. 19. Grunig, Larissa A., James E. Grunig, and David M. Dozier. Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. 20. Heath, Robert L. "A Rhetorical Approach to Zones of Meaning and Organizational Prerogatives." Public Relations Review 19,, no. 2 (1993): 141- 55. 21. Heath, Robert L. Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1997. 22. Heath, Robert L., and Richard Alan Nelson. Issues Management: Corporate Public Policymaking in an Information Society. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1986. 23. Hocking, Brian. "Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Foundations, Forms, Functions and Frustrations." Paper presented at the International Conference on Multistakeholder Diplomacy, Malta, February 2005. 24. International Association of Business Communicators. "Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management." San Francisco, CA, September 1991. 25. Kimmage, Daniel, and Kathleen Ridolfo. "Iraqi Insurgent Media: The War of Images and Ideas: How Sunni Insurgents in Iraq and Their Supporters Worldwide Are Using the Media." Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty., http://realaudio.rferl.org/online/OLPDFfiles/insurgent.pdf.
Global Alliance 594 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
26. Kohut, Andrew. "How the United States Is Perceived in the Arab and Muslim Worlds: Testimony of Andrew Kohut, United States House of Representatives International Relations Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations." http://pewglobal.org/commentary/pdf/1001.pdf. 27. Kruckeberg, Dean, and Marina Vujnovic. "Public Relations, Not Propaganda, for U.S. Public Diplomacy in a Post-9/11 World: Challenges and Opportunities." Journal of Communication Management 9,, no. 4 (2005): 296- 304. 28. Lasswell, Harold D. "The Structure and Function of Communication in Society." In The Communication of Ideas, edited by Lyman Bryson, 117-30. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1948. 29. Ledingham, John A. "Explicating Relationship Management as a General Theory of Public Relations." Public Relations Review 15,, no. 2 (2003): 181-98. 30. Ledingham, John A., and Stephen D. Bruning, eds. Relationship Management: A Relationship Approach to Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. 31. Melissen, Jan. "The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice." In The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, edited by Jan Melissen, 3-27. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005. 32. Murphy, Priscilla. "The Limits of Symmetry: A Game Theory Approach to Symmetric and Asymmetric Public Relations." In Public Relations Research Annual, edited by James E. Grunig and Larissa A. Grunig, 115-31. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989. 33. Nelles, Wayne. "American Public Diplomacy as Pseudo-Education: A Problematic National Security and Counter-Terrorism Instrument." International Politics 41,, no. 1 (2004): 65-93. 34. Nelson, Richard Alan. "Bias Versus Fairness: The Social Utility of Issues Management." Public Relations Review 16,, no. 1 (1990): 25-32. 35. Nelson, Richard Alan, and Foad Izadi. "Ethics and Social Issues in Public Diplomacy: Concepts, Controversies, Challenges and Opportunities." In Handbook of Public Diplomacy edited by Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor, 334-51. New York: Routledge, 2009. 36. Nye, Joseph S. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs, 2004. Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 595
37. Peterson, Peter G., Kathy F. Bloomgarden, Henry A. Grunwald, David E. Morey, Shibley Telhami, Jennifer Sieg, and Sharon Herbstman. "Finding America's Voice: A Strategy for Reinvigorating U.S. Public Diplomacy - Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations." Washington, DC, 2003. 38. Riordan, Shaun. "Dialogue-Based Public Diplomacy: A New Foreign Policy Paradigm." In The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, edited by Jan Melissen, 180-95. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005. 39. Shannon, C. E., and W. Weaver. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1949. 40. Signitzer, Benno, and Timothy Coombs. "Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Conceptual Divergences." Public Relations Review 18,, no. 2 (1992): 139-54. 41. Smyth, Rosaleen. "Mapping U.S. Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century." Australian Journal of International Affairs 55,, no. 3 (2001): 421-44. 42. Snow, Nancy. "U.S. Public Diplomacy: Its History, Problems, and Promise." In Readings in Propaganda and Persuasion, New and Classic Essays, edited by Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, 225-41. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006. 43. van Ruler, Betteke, and Dejan Vercicv. "Reflective Communication Management, Future Ways for Public Relations Research." Communication yearbook 29,, no. 1 (2005): 239-73. 44. Vickers, Rhiannon. "The New Public Diplomacy: Britain and Canada Compared." British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6,, no. 2 (2004): 182-94. 45. Yun, Seong-Hun. "Toward Public Relations Theory-Based Study of Public Diplomacy: Testing the Applicability of the Excellence Study." Journal of Public Relations Research 18,, no. 4 (2006): 287-312. 46. Zaharna, Rhonda. "The Network Paradigm of Strategic Public Diplomacy." Washington, DC, 2005.
Global Alliance 596 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 597
Exploring Non-violent Alternatives to Terrorism Paul Maillet
How can our most sacred cherished beliefs be so involved in the killing and violence we do each other?
If we were half as good at peacemaking as we are at killing, the world would be a far better place.
There is no doubt that history will characterize the beginning of this century by the so called ―war on terror‖. A global effort has been mounted against what is perceived as a major threat to human security and international stability. The difficulty with this characterization is that the term terrorism does not accurately or clearly describe the nature of this conflict in a manner that lends itself to developing an effective response to this threat.
The term ―terrorism‖ in military language is a tactic employed that generally involves unlawful attacks on or disregards the safety of civilians and non combatants for the purposes of creating fear and coercion in regards to some cause, ideology or religion. As such, terrorism is a war crime in terms of the laws of war and just war tradition. This type of warfare has characterized by transnational belligerents, using religious ideologies, suicide bombing, IEDs (improvised explosive devices),
The President of the Paul Maillet Center for Ethics, a Canadian company which deals with strengthening ethics in governance, controlling corruption and building integrity in government departments, community organizations, aboriginal organizations and international projects.
Global Alliance 598 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace hijacking of aircraft, and leveraging computer technology, the media and the internet. It has global reach. It has horrific potential through cyber attacks and WMDs Weapons of mass destruction). More accurately, this type of armed conflict is one of guerilla or insurgent warfare. Guerilla warfare is the usual tactic in asymmetric warfare. It is how one fights a vastly superior conventional force or superpower. However, guerilla warfare requires the cooperation, support or silence of the population within their area of operations to be effective. Modern guerilla warfare requires a framework of effective lines of supply, logistics, safe havens, weapons and money to sustain itself. It needs state sponsors. It needs to recruit and train fighters. Guerilla tactics also require a high degree of compartmentalization in which cells or small units operate with a high degree of independence and initiative, in order to limit their intelligence value if captured. This type of warfare uses tactics of fear and terror, which abuse the very populations they depend on for survival make little military sense and work against them in the longer term. However, the defining characteristic of guerrilla warfare is ―hit and run‖ tactics, take advantage of the element of surprise and disappear. Sun Tzu in the ―Art of War‖ alluded to a strategy of formlessness, as a preferred military strategy. This a strategy that has been well adapted by terrorists to the global environment and their ability to move and communicate internationally makes military counter strategies extremely difficult. The army's formation is like water. The water's formation avoids the high and rushes to the low. So an army's formation avoids the strong and rushes to the weak. Water's formation adapts to the ground when flowing. So then an army's formation adapts to the enemy to achieve victory. If we add criminal elements, drug dealers, organized crime, poverty, disaffected youth, and religious fanaticism into the mix, then the problem becomes very complex indeed. In essence, no matter how we play with words, we have people employing guerilla warfare in which certain combatants are using Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 599 unlawful terror tactics on one hand, and often indulge in criminal activity on the other.
The traditional response - just war tradition The term ―war‖ leads to the traditional military responses towards terrorism and such violence, that usually involves confrontation, fear, anger, hate which often leads to counter tactics that involves further violence and suffering. Using a military response to terrorism usually invokes the laws of armed conflict and just war tradition. This in turn usually involves search and destroy tactics, initially with heavy weapons, and collateral damage. Just war theory seeks to legitimize war, to regulate violence and weapons, and condones some level of collateral damage. Surely, mankind can do much better.
Just War theory In brief, the current just war tradition prescribes in general terms, conditions that first establish jus ad bellum, the right to go to war; and second jus in bello, the right conduct and use of force within war.
Jus ad bellum – the right to war Just cause. This principle limits war to defense against armed attack, prevention of significant harm, and significant threats to international peace. Legitimate authority. Only legitimate political authority, duly constituted, sanctioned by society and with ability to control force and cease its use may wage war. Right intention. The aim must be one of peace and security. Force may be used in accord with just cause, not intimidation, vengeance, domination, hatred, coercion, or not material gain or maintaining economies, and solely for the purpose of correcting a suffered wrong or significant threat.
Global Alliance 600 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Probability of success. Force may not be used in hopeless causes or where disproportionate force is required to achieve success. A war can only be fought with a reasonable chance of success. Proportionality of ends. The good achieved in waging war must be greater than the harm done. States are prohibited from using unnecessary force in attaining the objectives of the just cause involved. Last resort. Force may be used only after all peaceful, political, diplomatic or other alternatives have been exhausted or are clearly not practical. There must be a clear and present danger.
Jus in bello – the use of force in war. Protection and immunity of non-combatants. Conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction between combatants and non- combatants. Force should only be directed towards enemy combatants, and not such as bombing civilian residential areas where no military target exists, or acts of terrorism or reprisals against civilians. Non- combatants are not permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. Non-combatants and POWs must be provided immunity and protection under Geneva conventions and any other applicable laws. Proportionality of means: Weapons and force used must be able to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. The use of force cannot be used launched if risks of incidental civilian injuries, death or collateral damage would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. This principle limits weapons, prohibits torture, and unnecessary harm or destruction. Military necessity. Conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. The use of force must be on a valid military objective, and the collateral damage or harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated.
Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 601
Alternatives to just war theory The argument that war is somehow a necessary evil and can in some way justify the killing of innocents or non-combatants as a legitimate outcome of pursuing certain military objectives is morally unacceptable and must be challenged. There is no human moral philosophy that can justify warfare in such circumstances. If there is reason to believe that innocent deaths may occur then one must stop. If combatants are using populations to hide or shoot from, again stop. Find another way. There are no rights to kill innocent people under any circumstances. Just war theory is seriously flawed. Rather than further codifying warfare, we must now endeavor to codify peace operations. Perhaps it is time to change how we view conflict. We have a huge opportunity with the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine to evolve peacekeeping tradition to a body of practice that is given serious weight to just peace practices. This implies a need for a robust set of laws and just peace traditions to provide an alternative to laws of armed conflict and just war traditions. We must look at waging peace vs waging war. We must codify ―just peace‖ tradition and create parallel ministries of peace in government to bring such tradition into practice. New actions and methodologies are necessary for pre conflict and conflict and post conflict operations. A new language is necessary. We have the opportunity to go even further. We have an opportunity to build a holistic approach that includes and better balances a security response, a peacemaking response and a community response to the reduction of conflict and the relief of suffering. Terrorism is almost a special care. It begins by definition as a war crime under the laws of armed conflict. It deliberately attacks non-combatants as a tactic of fear. The force component of dealing with terrorism may well consider criminality as a first response. This takes away any combatant status or moral legitimacy claims under just war theory. A policing response involves a ―serve and protect‖ approach which usually includes identification, arrest, trial and incarceration. Perhaps a response
Global Alliance 602 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace to terrorism would be better served by a new ethic that prioritizes ―serve and protect‖, criminalize, rather than ―search and destroy‖. Perhaps it is time to explore alternatives in which put aside just war tradition in favor of building ―just peace‖ operations that look to non- violent, community based and good governance approaches that ―drain the ocean‘ that terrorists need to survive and approaches that deal with the conditions of poverty and ideology that recruit terrorists. Peace means to have an fair and effective justice and policing system. It means that, the people and the government need to wake up every day and work hard all day against criminal elements. Nothing can be taken for granted. It must be won and regained every day. Given the advent of terrorism in its current form this may be a part of life for a long time to come.
This means we must rethink military intervention as a response to terrorism. We face the current challenge of prioritizing intervention to stopping the violence and neutrality. We have the legitimacy of R2P to act and we have the mechanism of UN sanctioned missions, even if only as part of a consensus of the willing. We will need to adapt military forces, tactics and equipment for what may be high intensity constabulary operations to protect civilian populations. In addition, the notion of language cannot be overstated. Language shapes responses and is critical. When we label people, consider the words, enemy, criminal, psychopath, terrorist, or competing interests, differences, mental illness, suffering, desperate. Once someone is declared an enemy in war the death penalty is assumed, as is some level of collateral damage and violence. Think of the different emotions and responses that arise when each are used in relation to others. Think of the many paths that people may go down, paths leading to confrontation and hate, of violence, or paths to the ethic of care, of non violence. It is in the domain of connections that language shapes responses. If you want peace, you do not talk not only to your friends – it is more important you talk to those with whom you have differences – civilized people talk. Annex A contains a summary of non-violent communication, an emerging Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 603 technique in the field of the reduction of conflict. If we can get the language right, then peace is inevitable. Our options to the reduction of conflict and relief of suffering now expand:
Just war - a last response of redressing comparative harm and neglect Policing – a measured continuous public safety response to criminality Just peace - a moral response of seeking public good and harmony Strong communities – a meta response to eliminating the root causes
Developing Just peace tradition Clausewitz once said that war is simply an extension of politics by other means. It would seem to me that we have a very extensive body of tradition and law on the conduct of armed conflict, which largely attempts to manage violence and weapons. I believe it is way past time that we had a body tradition, declarations or conventions regarding the conduct of genuine peace operations, managing the cessation of violence. There is a maxim that language is an act of creation. The language of war-fighting suggests structures that support weapons and tactics involving, identifying the enemy, dehumanizing the enemy, killing the enemy, search and destroy operations. This implies the use of tanks, bombing, military search and destroy operations. Armed conflict becomes the primary response to the conflict. The language of peace operations suggest structures supporting protection, diplomacy, neutrality objectives of stopping armed conflict, ceasefires, and the care of victims and relief of suffering. Peacemaking is the name of the game. We must take the moral high ground where collateral damage and destruction of property is unacceptable.
Global Alliance 604 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
A framework for peace operations Preamble: The laws of armed conflict and ‖just war‖ tradition could fill an ocean. Where is the ocean for laws of peace operations, peacemaking and ―just peace‖ tradition? We believe that it is time to change our thinking about how we deal with conflict. Whereas we believe that the ethic of care has at least equal weight, if not greater, to the ethic of justice in conflict situations. We believe in the responsibility to protect. Whereas we believe in non-violence, human rights and the care of others. Whereas we believe that the relief of suffering and the reduction of conflict are not given sufficient weight in global approaches to the use of force in armed conflict. It is therefore resolved: That Laws of peace operations be codified as a strict obligation for dealing with conflict in pre conflict stages, conflict stages, and post conflict stages by the international community and for state and/or transnational parties with political differences that have the potential for violence. That laws of peace operations include as a minimum, strict obligations and every reasonable effort to enable human security, reconstitution and reconciliation and justice:
Care principle 1.Stop or prevent violence as a first priority. 2.Care for the victims.
Peacemaking principle 3.Create safe spaces for peace talks or diplomacy and resolution of differences.
Reconstitution principle 4.Strengthen or rebuild governance at all levels. 5.Enable the creation of safe, healthy and socially responsible communities. 6.Enable the reconstruction of economies and infrastructure.
Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 605
Reconciliation principle 7.Enable truth, reconciliation and justice activity.
The meta requirement - Strong communities The response to just war and just peace cannot be effective unless supported by the actions of communities and governments. It is even more important to look at the root causes of terrorism and address them. It is important to have strong communities that will not support or condone terrorists in their midst. We need a vigilant populace that removes the sanctuaries. This means developing strong stable communities, intercultural and ethnic harmony and wellness that gives hope. We need a language of peace. Draining the ocean that supports terrorism will mean, eliminating the environment that terrorists need to survive. The environment of vulnerability, defencelessness and fear. The conditions that create destructive ideologies. We must work every day at improving social conditions that create poverty, corruption, joblessness, injustice, lack of hope. We must every day work at creating good governance, and good communities The meta response begins within each of us, each nation. It requires an identity shift. The African adage that says - I am who you are. You suffer, I suffer. We are one people on one planet. The ethic of care for each other is needed more than ever. Our response requires relationships that are built on respect and dignity. Dignity which is seen as facilitating self esteem and being able to live well in the company of others. We need an accompaniment culture that asks: What is it you need? What can you do for yourselves? What help do you need from others? We will walk together. We will share what we know. We will learn from each other. We will strengthen the kinship we have between us. Our response requires good governance and a predisposition to human rights and social responsibility, which can be defined as integrity in governance, environmental responsibility, economic sustainability, societal beneficence, and responsible political engagement. A strong community has a common vision. There is no power greater for change than a community discovering what it cares about? Margaret Wheatley.
Global Alliance 606 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
We care about being safe, healthy, about education, being socially, economically and politically stable. We care about good values, about dignity. We care about raising our children and their future. Building a strong community is about knowing ourselves, knowing what we care about, knowing our possibilities, being involved and engaged and wellness. We may not all be able to do the great things, but we can always do the small things with great love. Mother Teresa Peace requires intercultural and ethnic harmony. People must be accepted in society and have hope. Such harmony will require efforts at both reconciliation and integration regarding local, national and international communities. Reconciliation is the art of making connections - Civilized People Talk. It is about differences and closure and accountability. It is about healing oneself from within before seeking change without. It is about adopting a shared language of peace and shared values. It seeks to go beyond co- existence, beyond tolerance, to a relationship of caring for each other, of respect. You must others feel safe. Integration is also the art of making connections and dialogue. It is the commitment to contributing and participating in the social, economic and political life of the community. Above all is it the genuine care for others that involve youth, women, and elders. It is the becoming of good community and global citizens. Terrorists cannot survive here. In the final analysis, our moral worth is defined by how we treat the poor, the most helpless and vulnerable and suffering among us. It is measured not what we say we are but what we do. It is a long journey, and at times, the most we can hope for is to get the direction right, a direction that has hope for future generations, that we engage as best we can, and build our communities one project at a time. Good outcomes will happen little by little. Get the ethics right and everything stands a good chance of being dealt with fairly.
Exploring Non Violent Alteratives to Terrorism / 607
Way forward So we begin. Hope begins first with a commitment to a new direction towards armed conflict as a whole, a commitment to a new framework of principles for conflict: Commitment to a response of peace operations in conflict zones. Commitment to the development of a “just peace” tradition and peacemaking laws and to deal with conflict. Commitment to development of a "community of practice" involving practical strategies, techniques, tactics and practices to conduct peace operations. Commitment to a response of criminalizing individuals or groups using terrorist tactics. Commitment to development of constabulary forces capable of effective policing supported by military forces only when required. Commitment to a preventative approach and direction that leads to an understanding that the best defense against terrorism begins with the wellbeing of the community. Commitment to social responsibility, and the development strong communities, intercultural harmony, and good governance that controls corruption and builds integrity and values, and respects culture and ethnicity, in communities.
Go my friend Bestow your love even on your foes. If you touch their hearts, what do you think will happen? Rumi
Compassion When you look for it, there is nothing to see. When you listen for it, there is nothing to hear. When you use it, it is inexhaustible. Tao te Ching 500 BC
Global Alliance 608 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Hope lives
―The sun always rises and a river of joy flows through it.”
Annex: Towards a language of peace In the spirit of shared values, that include the ethic of care for others and the relief of suffering, and the reduction of conflict, we may wish begin by creating a climate of non violent communication, and a language of peace. This involves encouraging and using language that respects:
Principles 1.Be responsible for your feelings, words and actions. Do not assume that others feel the same way. 2.Do not attribute the feelings, words and actions of anyone to any others. 3.Make no demands, threats or blame. Do not insist or force others to feel, think or act the way you want. 4.Do not judge either yourself or others. 5.Stay in the present and empathize with yourself and others. We are all connected by feelings and needs. Process 1.Observe: State facts simply and without judgment. (ie, This is what has happened…) 2.Feelings: State your own feelings without blame or as caused by others. (ie, I feel very concerned. etc) 3.Needs: State your own need respectfully. (ie, I need to be compassionate about this, to do or say something) 4.Request: Make a suggestion or a request. (ie, Are you able to help or do something about this?) The Right to Peace: A Defense-Security Approach / 609
The Right to Peace: A Defense-Security Approach Dr. Reza Kalhor
Introduction: Attitude to peace I will focus on ―security and defense approaches to peace‖ in order to prove that peace cannot be simply realized from a legal or political viewpoint, but there are more important viewpoints with different approaches to peace. Here, I want to discuss those ideas which stand in contrast to common peace building and peacemaking views. There are two kinds of peace approaches in security theories: a positive approach and a negative approach.
Positive and negative approaches to peace Proponents of the positive approach maintain that peace means absence of war. Some of them believe in the necessity of building peace and there are important theorists in this area with serious arguments. The absence of war as requisite of peace has been also underlined in liberalistic and neoliberal schools which see peace only in the context of security. As a result, they maintain that peace can only exist when security exists too. Therefore, militaries are the main factor which endangers peace and security strategists are the main parties which make plan for peace. What happens in the United Nations or other organizations followed what really happens in the world because political discourse is a main factor determining peace and security. Therefore, realism will be more useful here. Some believe that military men only approach peace from the viewpoint of their own benefits. Therefore, we should focus on frameworks which shape mentality of security strategists and military
Assisstant Professor at the University of Imam Hussain (AS).
Global Alliance 610 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace men. In other words, there are many approaches here one of which was the approach of an international government. It argued that ―war‖ is the main reality, not peace and all plans should be based on war. At present, nongovernmental organizations and other influential entities have been discussing war and peace. Today, states are not the sole parties involved with peace or war, but there are other groups which can play an effective role in delineating the concepts of peace and war. Here, I will mention few claims against us (Iran) in Europe and elsewhere in the West. What does it mean when Western countries claim that we defend peace on the one hand, while also supporting freedom movements, on the other hand? They say that we talk about peace while, at the same time, promoting war and conflict. We should immediately say that the peace formulated by them is not a just peace and the image we have of peace is quite different from their image. Our image is shaped by the military men while their image is made by security strategists. As a result, these viewpoints will never converge. This interest-based viewpoint has been institutionalized in their minds. Therefore, a security- based approach to peace does not value peace as an absolute value, but as the absence of resistance. They say that peace exists where your enemies cannot resist you. This is quite different from the concept of peace in legal texts. They try to formulate their national security and military strategies in such a way as to prevent others from resisting them. In that case peace would exist. Such analysts maintain that countries should move to increase their military capacities. On the other hand, the military men also emphasize that the world is still exposed to serious threats of war and violence. Since they think this way, they also act this way. See how Western countries perform in Iraq or Afghanistan. How they waited for resolutions to be passed by the United Nations before taking action. These examples attest to the existence of a military approach to the concept of peace.
The Right to Peace: A Defense-Security Approach / 611
Covert and overt diplomacy Security-based views are somehow more complicated because they maintain that existing paradigms cover both overt and covert diplomacies. We must try to make people believe in peace as a necessity. Being a ―necessity‖ does not mean that it cannot be breached in any way. Therefore, governments and security experts try to forge a balance among all players and reach an agreement. Collective security views maintained that other countries should become so dependent on them that undermining a political unit‘s security would amount to weakening the security of all. These are unwritten principles which form the minds and mentalities of security and political experts. When writing an article, they all speak about peace, but the main paradigm in their minds is what I said before. The factor which will really establish peace in the world is to form the mentality of strategists, security strategists and military personnel. It is really important for military men and security strategists to reach the conclusion that the society has been matured enough to provide guarantees for building and keeping peace. As long as they have not reached that point, they will insist on their own paradigm and this will be quite realistic. Huge money is spent on this way of thinking, both in our country and other countries and recriminations are rife because of the abovementioned way of thinking. Can countries which rely on a rich religious culture defend that paradigm and to what extent will it pitch us against the world peace? Since other countries only care for their own interests, they defend themselves better, but we stress on human values and should have a better defense capability. Have we been able to develop that capability? It is now clear that what is happening in the world and the realties on the grounds emphasize on peace as absence of war instead of underlining the need for a just peace. They emphasize on the absence of a war which has been started due to necessity, not the war which has actually started. Since this concept lingers in our minds, we are always ready for a mental war even if no war has happened in actuality. In this case, how will we be
Global Alliance 612 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace able to understand the minds of civil society? One the one hand, we want to protect our national interests, but on the other hand, we are faced with serious international equations. How much do we invest on preventing attacks by the Zionist regime and how much on the concept of peace? If you chide military and security strategists and tell them that their viewpoint will give birth to war, they will tell you that this is a just defense. On the other hand, when asking them to promote peace in the society, they will tell you that this is only a reality, not a necessity.
Conclusion We are facing a paradox here and I ask scholars and students to tell us how this paradox should be analyzed and to prove that peace is a human value in parallel to other human parameters and factors. If peace is marginalized, it will be replaced by security and military concerns which will set direction of policies. How long will it take to achieve a just peace without totally doing away with the aforesaid mental concerns? On the whole, what happens in reality is quite different from what happens in conferences on peace. We spend a lot in those conferences because of mental paradigms which govern peace and it seems that those paradigms will continue to hold. Culture of Peace and Facing Terrorism / 613
Culture of Peace and Facing Terrorism Dr. Zuhair A. Almahmeed
“Shouldn‟t I tell you about the best morals of the people in this life and the other life… Spreading peace in the world” The most Noble Prophet, Mohamed, peace be upon him
Introduction Peace is one of Allah‘s attributes and names, and spreading peace within one‘s self is the greatest jihad. It is right start to spread peace between all human beings; this is one of the best morals of people in this life and the other life. Allah has sent prophets and messengers to highlight the humanity of human beings, achieve sustainable peace, establish justice, return to people their rights, maintain human dignity, and preserve and maintain rights for all human beings on the basis that he is either a brother in religion or a peer in humanity. Peace naturally cannot live with injustice, as they are divergent contradictions. A system can last with nonbelievers but not with injustice. It is not enough that civil and ideological systems and international organizations are described with attributed names and descriptions, they also need good governance within all its aspects, in order to achieve a fair peace that will deter tyranny, and as a result terrorism in all its kinds and levels: individual, social and international. People who care about peace must fight injustice in order to establish fair peace and guarantee the rights of all humans, regardless of background. God has given humanity all the substance and guidelines of peace. He sent messengers to spread peace to all humanity. The giving of peace was
Secretary General of Islamic National Movement, Head of Strategic Studies Center, member of the Kuwait's Human Rights Commission.
Global Alliance 614 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace not for one group of people or another, this is not how divine justice works, and it would never accept preference or dominance of a group of people just because of their race, nationality or religion. History has many examples of corrupted sons and families of some of the prophets and of good people; people should be differentiated only with piety for God - the Peace, the Almighty - regardless of their race. God‘s choices are not based on race, but on good deeds and on spreading peace. The United Nations was established as an international forum to keep the global peace between nations. Many projects have been adopted to face international terrorism; nevertheless this international organization has failed, from founding until today, in facing terrorism. This is mainly because this organization and the organizations under it were founded as part of a controlling, tyrannical system that monopolizes the right of international decisions in the hands of the five permanent members of the Security Council. This organization was the founder of the injustice and international terrorism perpetrated on the Middle East by submitting Resolution 194. The resolution was submitted by the assembly of the United Nations, which was founded by the victorious countries of WWII according to their controlling conditions on other countries. Resolution 194 has legalized injustice and tyranny by the founding of the Zionist entity on the usurped land of Palestine after forcing its people out of their houses, displacing and killing them. This resulted in the people of the region drowning in continuous decades of injustice, terrorism and humiliation. This explains the incapability of this international organization, and the countries that control the decisions in it, in facing terrorism; based on the concept that one cannot establish justice in others if they are unjust within themselves. This shows the necessity of finding new tools to spread peace on earth, face tyranny and political evil, and as a result facing terrorism in all of its forms.
Culture of Peace and Facing Terrorism / 615
Definitions This brief paper is dealing with the concept of peace and the general basis that is necessary to spreading peace between people and facing tyranny, political evil, and the resulting terrorism in all of its forms. Definition of Peace: The prevalence of safety, security, dignity, and justice, while respecting and maintaining all rights. Definition of Truce: What ends war; remission, which in Arabic originally it means stillness; it is used to express reconciliation between opponents; however, in Islamic law terminology it means temporary reconciliation between Muslims and groups of combatant nonbelievers. Definition of Reconciliation: It is a legal contract that ends existing or probable hostility, by achieving what the opponents would agree to in the end. In reconciliation one of the opponents drops some or all of their rights, either with or without compensation. Therefore it‘s possible to be said that it has many forms, for example: One of the opponents drops all their right with or without compensation Or drops some of it with or without compensation Or creates similar compensation in return for the disputed right It was defined by jurisprudence scholars as a contract between two opponents that ends an existing dispute, or avoids a probable one, by both of them dropping some of their rights, equally. Definition of Rights: Human rights in Islam are derived from the divine source, as they are legalized by God, the Wise and Just, creator of man, life, and the universe, He that is all knowing, omniscient of man and what brings him happiness or subjects him to misery. He has absolute knowledge of what rights should be given to humans, what duties should they be told to do, and what limits should be legalized so that they abide by them and not exceed them. The sources of Islamic law are full of declaring and explaining rights. We can summarize some of these rights in what follows: 1.The universal dignity of human beings, that is, not differentiating them as having or deserving more or less dignity and basic rights; based on
Global Alliance 616 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
God saying: ―Verily we have honored the children of Adam‖ Quran [17:70]. 2.The prohibition of aggression on man‘s money and life: based on the Quran‘s verse:‖ … And that ye slay not the life which Allah hath made sacred, save in the course of justice.‖ Quran [6:151]; and based on what the noble prophet said: ―your lives and your money are prohibited to you‖. 3.The prohibition of forcing beliefs on people, based on the noble verse: ―There is no compulsion in religion‖ Quran [2:256]. 4.The sacredness of home to protect private life, based on what came in the noble Quran ―Enter not houses other than your own without first announcing your presence‖ Quran [24:27]. 5.Cooperation between people in what is good and all kinds of charity and help to all human beings, regardless of their race, religion, or nationality, based on the noble verse ―We have created you from male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct‖ Quran [49:13]; that is, the best in conduct cares about rights and giving rights to people, and is therefore always noted by Allah Almighty. 6.Integrity between people within a society: to guarantee a decent life for every human being and liberate from need and poverty by requiring a specific amount of the money of the rich to be spent on the needy, based on the noble verses: ―And in whose wealth there is a right acknowledged, for the beggar and the destitute ‖ Quran [70:24,25] and ―The alms are for the poor and the needy‖ Quran [9:60]. 7.Respecting human work, appreciating it and rewarding it, and making no difference in this between men‘s and women‘s work. Allah Almighty said ―Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has Faith, verily, to him will We give a life that is good and pure, and We will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions‖ Quran [16:97] and ―Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it! And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it.‖ Quran [99:7,8]. 8.Obliging every Muslim to learn and eliminate ignorance, based on what the prophet (peace be upon him) said: ―Seeking knowledge is obligatory Culture of Peace and Facing Terrorism / 617 on every Muslim,‖ (narrated by Al Baihaqi in Shuab al Iman and Ibn Abdelbar from Anas). This applies to both males and females. 9.Protection of public health from infectious diseases and protecting society from poverty and ignorance, based on the words of the prophet, peace be upon him, ―If you heard that plague is in a land don‘t enter it , and if it occurred in a land where you are, do not leave the land escaping from the plague‖ (narrated by Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Alnasa‘i). Definition of Justice: Justice is defined in philosophy as putting a thing in its appropriate place. It extends to include the justice of both God Almighty‘s and of others. Divine justice is putting a thing in its appropriate place. So is human justice, by rulers and judges, and the behavior of a just man who has this quality in his actions. Linguists define justice as right judging, and doing the right thing is putting things in their appropriate place. Definition of Injustice: Putting things in their inappropriate place and taking others‘ rights though you have no right to do that. Definition of Occupation: A state‘s land is to be considered occupied when it is under the actual authority of the enemy‘s army. The occupation includes the lands over which authority is exercised in its forming. Definition of Conflict: It can be defined as the collision and opposition between two or more parties who have differences in values and interests and therefore engage in a chain of forceful actions and reactions that aim to harm the other party or parties, and in which each party aims to maximize their gains at the expense of the others and to secure their sources of power. The main difference between conflict and violence lies in that the concept of conflict is wider than the concept of violence, as the forms and the tools of conflict are many, while violence, as defined before, is only one of the tools of managing and ending conflict. The intensity of conflict is related to the type and amount of violence used to manage it. Definition of Surrender: Handing property and/ or the self to the enemy, or giving up the ownership and control of properties or rights, to a party or parties, in complying with their request or order.
Global Alliance 618 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Definition of Compliance: Hurrying to obey. Compliance means following, for a man to comply is to follow. In the Almugam Alwajez to comply is to follow, and to comply to a right is to approve it. In the Mokhtar Alsehah to comply is to submit and be humiliated. Definition of Compliance Contracts: It‘s a type of concluding contract that depends on using a pre-written form of the contract that is individually prepared by one of the parties and is then offered to the other party, who has no choice but to accept it as is or to reject it in its entirety, while having no right to change any of its phrases, provisions, or conditions, and not having the right to start a real negotiation or bargaining with the other party around the conditions. These contracts are therefore called compliance contracts. It is said that the first one to call them that is the French jurist Sally in the beginning of the 20th century. Definition of Terrorism: Violation of law by an individual or organization with the goal of stirring dangerous unrest in the public system by threats and intimidation. Violation of war laws and traditions, including though not exclusive to: assassination, mistreatment, displacement of civilians in occupied territories for hard labor or for other reasons, assassination or mistreatment of war prisoners or people in the open sea, killing hostages, looting private or public property, purposely destroying cities and villages, and invasions that are not justified by military necessity. Definition of Political Evil: Violation of the divine law in the political actions of a country, or following a policy that contradicts with the interests of the nation and its strategic security. Any country that stands on the bases of injustice and corruption, rather than ruling with justice and benevolence in its policy, is a country that is exercising political evil. It is the most dangerous evil that threatens the interests of the Islamic nation and its future.
The Basis of Peace Peace spreads between humans when justice is spread and things are in their appropriate place in accordance with what‘s right. Upon that, Culture of Peace and Facing Terrorism / 619 happens the prevalence of safety and security and the respect of justice between all components of human society, and this naturally contradicts injustice, where things are put in their inappropriate place and people‘s rights are taken without the right to do so. Wise people agree to this, from all Abrahamic religions to others who follow noble human values. Spreading peace and love between people does not mean ignoring injustice or accepting it and the actions of the unjust as a matter of fact. However, neither does facing and deterring injustice mean personal or categorical hatred, rather, it means refusing outrageous actions that contradict peace. Facing these actions is out of love and peace, hoping to return the unjust to the way of the right and justice, according to the divine word, in order to save them from perdition. Peace is directly connected to giving people their rights, and rights are connected to the value system of that society. The Abrahamic religions derive their system of values from their holy books and the instructions of the prophets, on the basis that the Almighty Creator knows the most about his creatures. Those who are responsible for the wording of international charters and national constitutions that protects people‘s rights, agree with these religions in principle. It is possible to summarize the rights that were mentioned in the above definitions, as follows: 1.Equality in dignity and basic human rights for all humans 2.The prohibition of aggression on human life and money 3.The guarantee of freedom of belief, thinking, and worshiping for all 4.The sacredness of homes, to protect privacy 5.The guarantee of education, free research, and freedom of speech for all, and protection from ignorance 6.The guarantee of public health and protection from diseases 7.The guarantee of freedom of movement, mobility, and communication 8.Respect for human work, the freedom to choose it, appreciating it, and rewarding it fairly 9.Cooperation between people for the good of humanity, all types of charity, and help to all humans regardless to their races, religion or nation
Global Alliance 620 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
10. Integrity between the members of society in achieving the right of all to a decent life and liberation from need and poverty 11. The guarantee of the right to defend one‘s self against hostility and injustice
All these premises for rights are in line with human nature as the bases to spread peace in societies and between peoples and nations. They were mentioned by the Abrahamic religions in more than one way. They confirm that it‘s not permissible to treat as equal the assailant and the assaulted under the name of preventing wars and keeping peace, just as it‘s not right to divide the object of conflict between the assailant and assaulted by imposing resolution through force, as this is a form of compliance contract that is not legal according to law or religion. If any human rights are violated, the peacekeepers must face the assailant and aggressor in all of the different peaceful ways; which is what we call political action and active diplomacy. In case of the failure of these efforts, it is a must to then escalate the confrontation until the assailant deters and returns the rights to their legitimate owners. All these are actions of peace, and are the requirements of the sustainability and establishment of peace; if one does not do these actions then they are contradicting the fair peace that guarantees humanity.
Peace from the Islamic Perspective Islam encourages spreading peace, and made it one the greatest virtues. The noble prophet described it as the best moral of people in this life and in the other life when he said ―Shouldn‘t I tell you about the best morals of the people in this life and the other life… spreading peace in the world‖. Imam Mohamed Ibn Ali Ibn Alhussein (Albaqer) (A.S.) narrated that Salaman (R.A.) said ―spread Allah‘s peace, but Allah‘s peace does not go to the unjust‖. ―What is meant by this is that the benefit wouldn‘t reach the unjust because of the fact that they are unjust; the reason behind that is what was mentioned, that helping the unjust is another form of injustice that man should renounce‖. Culture of Peace and Facing Terrorism / 621
In the explanation of the Quran by Mohamed Rashid Reda in Almanar, he mentions the following about peace: ―Islam is a general religion, and among its objectives is spreading its values and virtues among people, even if gradually, and to attract them towards each other so that all humans become brothers. One of the Islamic values that was common in the time of the prophet is spreading peace except for to combatants; whoever peace is announced upon is safe, and anyone who would harm him is considered a traitor and breaking the promise‖. He continues: ―Spreading peace was mentioned as one of the qualities of the believers in the hadiths, and given as a reason of love among them. This is mentioned in the hadith: ‗the best kind of Islam is: giving food, and delivering peace to those who you know and you don‘t‘ and also in the sahih hadiths ‗Spread peace between you, you will love one another‘, ‗spread peace and you will be in peace‘ and ‗three things, whoever has them is having the whole belief, justice with yourself, giving peace to the world, and giving despite your need‘. This is one of the values of the global peace‖. All of these great hadiths refer to the greatness and value of peace and those who spread it, knowing that those who are unjust and don‘t keep promises and treaties won‘t get peace because they have opposed its basis and requirements. Facing them is considered an action of spreading peace, as those who face them are trying to return rights to their owners - which means returning things to their proper place - and only with that will justice be established. Protecting rights and deterring abusers, as a way of being merciful and caring to them, establishes justice. In addition to the concept of Muslims choosing peace and respecting treaties, many verses are mentioned in the Quran that encourage and state the necessity of facing the unjust and injustice to order to protect rights, establish justice, and restore peace. We will mention some of these verses, with explanations from the book Al-mizan fe Tafseer Alquran, in order to understand its noble contents that aim to spread peace between people: In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful
Global Alliance 622 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
―Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances) that do wrong.‖ Quran [60-9] The Almighty says: ―Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection).‖ Those who are meant by ―who fight you‖ etc. are the unbelievers in Mecca and ―support in driving‖ is helping and standing with those doing it. When He says ―It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances) that do wrong‖, ―them‖ refers exclusively to the unbelievers in Mecca and those who support them, it does not mean all nonbelievers in general. In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful ―(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right― (for no cause) except that they say ‗Our Lord is Allah‘. Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid His (cause); for verily Allah is Full of Strength, Exalted in Might‖ Quran [22-40]. This describes those who were oppressed and expelled from their homes. The nonbelievers expelled them from their houses in Mecca, without having the right to do that, and did not even let them get any supplies. They hurt them and continued to increase the torture until they impelled them to leave Mecca, leave their homes and money, and migrate to another land. Some went to Abyssinia (Ethiopia) , others to Medina after the migration of the prophet, peace be upon him. Thus, they expelled them by making them impelled to leave. Fighting should be the last option of defense, and should only be used in the case of the failure of every other means of defense, just as amputation should be the last resort in the treatment of infection. This is because fighting causes the death of some people in order for others to live. Bearing hardships is part of living Culture of Peace and Facing Terrorism / 623 in human society, not only for humans but for any partially conscious or independent creature. In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful ―Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace. When ye should be Uppermost: for Allah is with you and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds‖ Quran [47-35]. The meaning of the verse is that it is not the way of Allah or his prophet to forget about your deeds or retract God‘s forgiveness, so don‘t get weak during the fight or invite the unbelievers to a truce; you are the winners and God will help you to gain victory over them. You will not lose the rewards of your good deeds; He will give them to you fully. In this verse Allah promises the believers victory; they will prevail if they obey Allah and his prophet. He says ―So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior (in victory) if you are indeed (true) believers‖ Quran [3:139]. These verses point to the obligation of fighting injustice, tyranny, and the unjust only as a last resort, after having advised them of all peaceful ways. This fighting is a way of spreading peace by stopping injustice and establishing justice through returning taken rights. A man should not only condemn injustice silently and verbally, as accepting injustice is a form of injustice in itself. It is a duty to not make peace with the unjust when they insist on their aggression and injustice, as this is considered as surrender, humiliation, and the loss of legitimate rights. It is these kinds of unjust actions that encourage the unjust and give them the legitimacy to continue with their corrupted actions that aren‘t in line with the definitions of justice and peace. This explains the invalidity of making peace with the unjust while they are insisting on their actions, as the oppressed might be forced to hold a compliant truce with the oppressors and tyrants, as mentioned in the definitions. This kind of truce and peace with oppressors is basically void, as what was built on something invalid is invalid in itself. In addition, the verses establish basic human rights such as freedom to believe and worship, protecting property and the prohibition of violating it , the
Global Alliance 624 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace prohibition of violating others and their rights, and the right and necessity of self defense in the face of oppression or assault, in order to establish justice and, as a result, peace among all.
Sources of Extremism and Terrorism (Intellectual and Physical Terrorism) Terrorism arises when a person or institution deals with different opinions by ignoring and deleting them, both intellectually and in action. Tyrannical thinking is only an expression of the culture of deleting the ―other‖ who has a different opinion or path. This kind of tyrannical thinking works by oppressing other opinions in word and action, and punishing other opinions through exercising social, cultural, economical, and political exclusion, until the different opinions surrender to the oppressing one. This kind of tyranny is practiced by connecting it with ideologies and nationalities, criminalizing other opinions, and to creating an environment where it is possible to exclude others. This kind of tyranny is usually used to monopolize power and resources and to use them for their own interests, under the name of nation or ideology. But history and the divine law confirm that tyranny and injustice cannot maintain power or resources neither do compliance treaties; these only lead to their confirmed demise because of the repulsion of the people when conditions, which are always variable and never constant, change. The best evidence of this is the Arab Spring that occurred in so many Islamic countries - people demanded dignity, freedom, and the right of self-determination free from internal or external control. The seriousness of opinion tyranny is when it is done in the name of religion, which means that the tyrant is going against divine law, says that he owns the absolute perfect divine truth and others don‘t, and thinks that he rules in the name of God and whoever disagrees with him is disagreeing with God and will therefore be judged by God‘s law and punished by being exiled, tortured or killed. Opinion tyranny is considered intellectual terrorism because it prevents people who have different ideas, opinions, and worldviews from Culture of Peace and Facing Terrorism / 625 expressing them in public or practicing them. They are usually prevented by taking away their personal rights such as individual and public freedom in all its forms and their right to form their own present and future. They become subjected to different types of pressure to repress their thoughts and expression. Intellectual terrorism transforms into physical terrorism when it assassinates and creates violence for individuals or genocide against societies. Physical terrorism is only a result of intellectual terrorism, which is considered an introduction to physical terrorism. Our societies are, in general, diseased with this kind of intellectual extremity that monopolizes the absolute truth and pushes in the direction of public control on societies by the tyrant ruling class and international powers that control people‘s decisions to serve their own goals and interests. This is the new world system that we were preached to about; however the uprisings of the Arab Spring started to change the present and the future by regaining their dignity, freedom and rights. This uprising, insha‘Allah (by the grace of God), will sweep away the origins of extremity and intellectual terrorism, as well physical terrorism, on the way to achieving humanity through spreading just peace for all societies. This era could perfectly be called the Era of the People.
Spreading the Culture of Peace and Facing Terrorism One of the most important elements in spreading the culture of peace and facing terrorism is working on maintaining human rights, especially the rights of those with whom we disagree, even before those with whom we agree. Disagreement in opinions is actually the prosperity of a people and an entrance to integrity. It is important to work on sharing what‘s on people‘s minds in order to ensure the positive benefit from differences in points of view, to face an idea with an idea, to listen to what is being said, and following whichever is deemed better after reasonable discussion between specialists and decision makers. It is important to be careful not to turn differences into disagreements through tyranny in opinion and decision-making. The sharing of minds only happens between those who
Global Alliance 626 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace are different; there is no point in the sharing of minds that are identical as there is nothing there to use for integrity. Even foods and drinks are diverse. One does not integrate with oneself, but with others through common human values that reinforce societies, even those that are different in their thoughts and ideas. It is normal that a human integrates with other humans based on a positive outlook about cooperation in humanity, and it is even more noble if they have in common the same divine belief. This requires basic rules of interaction that establish positive integrity and protect from negativity. These basic rules are based on the following:
A. The Theory of Absolute Truth It is constant in every way, all the time, and never changes; this is only for what is always constant and exclusively in the absolute right, which is Allah the Almighty. Absolute truth is defined as whatever is true at one time and in one place is true at all times and in all places. What is true for one person is true for all people. Truth is true whether we believe it or not. Truth is discovered or it is revealed, it is not invented by a culture or by religious men.
B. The Theory of Relative Truth: it is defined as truth that is true at only one time and in one place. It is true to some people and not to others. It is true now but it may not have been true in the past and may not be again in the future. It is always subject to change. It is also subject to the perspective of people. A man can act believing that he has the absolute truth, and herein lies the danger and the ignition of extremism and intellectual terrorism (which leads to physical terrorism). When a man thinks that whoever disagrees with his thoughts is disagreeing with the truth, and that they are wrong, must be faced, and a limit put on them, this is the cradle of human and international conflict. Then things turn from sanity and subjectivity to personalizing the subjects, and diversity in opinion and thought to disagreement that calls on conflict in all its forms. What makes this even Culture of Peace and Facing Terrorism / 627 more dangerous is if one is making the disagreement in the name of religion, and thus he thinks that whoever disagrees with his opinion is against the truth, and who is against the truth is against God and his prophet, and as a result is out of the religion and must be killed. This is the start of takfiri thinking, that is against humanity and religion, and that snatches mercy from man‘s heart and wisdom from his mind.
C. Fuzzy Logic: this idiomatic expression appeared academically in 1965 in the research of Dr. Tariq Lotfy, the founder of this theory. Fuzzy logic refers to the study of the ways and the basis of the human mind. It is defined as a multi-variable system that allows one to define values that are between the classic definitions of either yes or no, right or wrong, black or white, etc. In this way it is possible to simulate the human way of thinking when programming computers.(20)
D. Other Issues First: The free flow of ideas and developing them to sustain innovation and renovation. Second: Working upon the basis of what is in common, while refining the differences. This happens by respecting others‘ opinions on the ground of the common fate of humanity, and not adopting the way of deleting the other. Different opinions are actually a grace, not an indignation, and are evidence of the intellectual diversity of the society and are what allow it, when put in institutional frameworks, to advance and prosper. We shouldn‘t be scared of other opinions; we should receive them and discuss them with the aim of integrating with them. Differences are the well of innovation and creativity, and as such we should include them in institutional frameworks as a guarantee of the continuous advancement of society. Doing this will guarantee the dignity of all humans, as the leader of believers, Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (A.S.) said, ―People are of two kinds, your brother in religion or your peer in humanity‖.
Global Alliance 628 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Allah the Almighty talked of using the policy of peace and softness and avoiding violence and harshness. He talked of the policy of forgiveness, and using systems like Shura (consultation) as a way of free, persuasive, wise, peaceful, and cooperative conversation and decision-making: ―And by the Mercy of Allah, you dealt with them gently. And had you been severe and harsh hearted, they would have broken away from about you‖ Quran [3:159] The starting point to this is tolerance, accepting the other, and that what is scientifically defined as the theory of relative truth, as we mentioned. In other words, a man doesn‘t own the absolute truth to judge the others by, especially to judge whether they are or are not unbelievers or human. A man should integrate by accepting the other, communicating and dialoguing with him, as this other might have a part of truth and this will help towards integrity and intellectual and spiritual richness. One should avoid a narrow point of view and pre-judging people before interacting with them. Based on the above, and because countries prioritize and speak in the language of interests rather than the language of values in international relationships, and because of the performance of these countries in organizations that haven‘t achieved the desired state of peace between humans, we think that it is vital to focus on civil society organizations that prioritize values rather than interests, to activate public diplomacy between them, to reinforce relationships and integration between people, and through a cultural-social process to face intellectual extremism and tyranny, and as a result face the basis and premise of terrorism. Based on this we suggest working with civil society organizations on the practical goal of creating a unified framework that will allow them to adopt professional, specified programs with the aim of spreading peace and facing terrorism individually, socially and internationally. These are outlined along the following axes: A. Strategic Axis (public strategic thinking forums): coordinates between institutions of public strategic thinking, suggests common initiatives, and Culture of Peace and Facing Terrorism / 629 unifies terms and definitions in order to maximize the effectiveness of all initiatives. B. Cultural and Social Axes (cultural organizations working in cultural dialogue and social interaction): works on initiatives and projects specialized in cultural and social approaches between people, and on sustaining communication through cultural and social events. C. Human Rights and Legal Axes (public human rights and legal organizations): works on the observation and the follow-up of violations and exchanging information, with the aim of jointly and simultaneously facing all national and international forums. D. Political Axis (political pressure groups and lobbies): works on communication and coordination between all the political pressure groups towards a joint and simultaneous facing for all national and international decision makers. E. Media Axis (public media organizations): works on media initiatives, exchanging information, and coordination between the media campaigns of different media, in order to face the violators of human rights and of public peace at the regional and national level, and international peace at the international level. F. Human Aid Axis (humanitarian relief services organizations): offers initiatives of common cooperation between relief organizations, organizing and coordinating activities according to their available capacities, and working on observing injustice and violation as a start to facing the violators. G. Environmental Axis (organizations that defend the environment): works on coordinating between environmental organizations about all crimes and violations against the environment that harm human health and affect society and future generations. After this, coordination will be held between similar civil society organizations interested in participating, from all around the world, to suggest initiatives and projects and adopt their own agenda into an integrated strategy that unifies their efforts and energies and focuses them against the tyrannical agencies that promote terrorism and violate peace.
Global Alliance 630 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Recommendations Based on what was presented in this paper analyzing the culture of peace and facing terrorism, we conclude with the following recommendations: First: develop public relationships between active civil society organizations around the world, with no exceptions, and activate public diplomacy objectively and systematically to guarantee a constant presence on different forums in order to create and sustain a fair, comprehensive, and sustainable peace on the basis of rightness and fairness. Second: Agreement between the civil society organizations that are active in peace, on a systematic work with multiple initiatives built on a system of priorities. This systematic organized work should use energies according to ability and potential and be based on objective conditions of each party to achieve peace. Third: enhance practical communication between knowledgeable people in the nations through building intellectual and operational networks between all civil society organizations in order to enhance coordination, concentrate efforts and energies, and maximize the effectiveness of their work. Fourth: transform all intellectual events into working programs that can be followed up and developed. These programs should be managed by a special follow-up and management authority that forms from the related civil society organizations and works on making work plans, coordinating events, and specialized initiatives in these axes: A. Strategic Axis (public strategic thinking forums) B. Cultural and Social Axes (cultural organizations working in cultural dialogue and social interaction) C. Human Rights and Legal Axes (public human rights and legal organizations) D. Political Axis (political pressure groups and lobbies) E. Media Axis (public media organizations) F. Human Aid Axis (humanitarian relief services organizations) G. Environmental Axis (organizations that defend the environment) Culture of Peace and Facing Terrorism / 631
Annexes
Global Alliance 632 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
Annex I / 633
Annex I
The Full Text of the Secretary of the Confernece Speech During the Opening
In the name of God Praise the creator of universe who set the earth a place for the tranquility of mankind. Salute to all the messengers of God. Greetings all the cultured and respected audience who have gathered here at the conference with the aim of offering solutions to deal with terrorism and materialize a Just Peace for all worldwide! Respected scholars and scholars! Despite all technological advancements, today‘s life is critically endangered by a major threat called terrorism. The scope of its complexity, which has targeted people‘s culture, society and environment, is increased day by day. All of us are aware that terrorism is a global disaster which is emerged from injustice, unilateralism and inattention to human dignity. It is a major menace for the international community, disregard of human races and cultures. Launching the campaign requires an all-out, prudent and principal effort in the hope of resulting in prosperity, peace and health for all generations of human community. This vital fruit will be prevailed around the world when respecting all nations and cultures as well as respecting human rights is institutionalized in the international community. To realize this long-awaited goal, the presence of distinguished figures and scholars as well as representatives of NGOs from across the globe, extended from Asia to Europe and from America to Africa, and from other parts of the world in Iran is a welcome opportunity to benefit from their intellectual, scientific and practical capacities and deal with terrorism under a global management system.
Global Alliance 634 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace
We believe that measures which have been carried out in recent years by the international community under the management of a number of powerful elements against terrorism have shown that the fear of terrorism and terrorist attacks still exists even more than the past. So, the management of dealing with terrorism using experienced methods has proved to be inefficient to eliminate terrorism in an organized way. Respected members of the board of trustees, the scholar and scholars! We are of the opinion that dealing with damages and threats of global terrorism is dependent upon unity and synergy of thoughts and knowledge among the scholar and mobilizing the public around the world. To this end, status of the scholar is of high significance. We believe that the power of knowledge has set them free of dogmatism and narrow- mindedness and has paved the way for a global alliance to combat terrorism for realizing ―Just Peace‖. We believe that despite all carried out campaigns against terrorism its threats to the global peace are on the rise. It has brought unwelcome outcomes such as poverty, injustice, disease, disappointment and frustration for people. To get rid of this inhuman predicament, governmental efforts are by no means sufficient to uproot terrorism and providing people with secure and serene places for human beings. So, the Islamic Global Peace Forum has made efforts since its establishment to launch wide-range activities in cooperation with NGOs and international figures active in the field of peace for benefiting from potentials of the scholar. We have come to the conclusion that relying on a high ambition and a firm belief resulted from pure souls of humans inspired by divine teachings and benefiting from the contemporary era‘s media facilities, grounds are provided for launching a scientific, practical and cultural campaign against terrorism. Therefore, all the freedom-seeking people around the world, especially representatives of international media, should take advantage of this welcome opportunity and think about their personal and global responsibility. Annex I / 635
The Islamic Global Peace Forum sends the message of peace and friendship to Iranian people and invites Iranian and international scholars and officials of NGOs to gather together and devise an efficient and society-based plan to combat terrorism as a predicament under a synergy and collective effort and condemn all branches of terrorism, particularly professional terrorism, state-run terrorism, and cultural terrorism and whatever endangers material and spiritual lives of innocent people inequitably. We are of the opinion that the sun of peace will rise in the near future and the wish of people who longed for security and serenity will come true and the fear of terrorism will be removed under the support of all social scholars and distinguished figures and the next generation will see the face of friendship and kindness. Dear cultural and intellectual representatives from different nations! The goal will be achieved under interaction and discourse among civilizations, religions, cultures, distinguished figures and NGOs. Your presence in the conference is a good sign of achieving the goal. Dear audience, respected colleagues and cultured figures! People around the world expect us to thoroughly examine the current situation and find roots of the global terrorism and offer effective and practical solutions for all nations worldwide to get rid of the terrorism predicament. To this end, we should pay attention to some notes: First, The pathological attitude is a prerequisite which will lead us to a true understanding from challenges and deficits. Second, Combating terrorism will be possible under taking comprehensive and wise measures. Third, Managing, preventing and dealing with terrorism should be carried out based on ethical, religious and legal norms. Eventually, the global peace management, like dealing with terrorism, requires cooperation of all the scholar and NGOs in a synergetic and
Global Alliance 636 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace collective effort with official organizations affiliated with the United Nations. This large gathering, which has been organized aiming to launch an effective movement, is the fruit of cooperation and support of many distinguished figures and directors of NGOs during the past four months. We are honored to host you in Iran in line with realizing the sacred goal of eliminating terrorism in the Islamic Republic. It is hoped that holding this conference would strengthen cooperation and collaboration among the scholar and lead them in the campaign to materialize a world free of terrorism, God willing. Annex II / 637
Annex II
The Final Declaration of The International Conference on Global Alliance against Terrorism for a Just Peace
We, the participants in the International Conference on Global Alliance against Terrorism for a Just Peace, held in Tehran, I. R. of Iran on May 14 - 15, 2011. Recognizing that the global peace is confronted with increasing threats including terrorism, war, poverty, injustice, diseases, hegemony and political, economic and cultural domination, virtual colonization and soft war, and that besides the fundamental responsibilities of governments and international non-governmental organizations, all experts and scholars should take their humane and social responsibilities towards these threats seriously; Declaring that terrorism is rejected and condemned in public opinion and by all nations, divine religions and cultures; Sympathizing with the families of victims and survivors of terrorist acts; Emphasizing the importance of creating the universal culture of just peace and that due significance has not been attached to the concept of justice in the UNGA Resolution 5213/ dated Jan. 15, 1998 and subsequent resolutions and that it is necessary to make the culture of just peace central axis of such resolutions; Declaring that a thorough understanding of the roots and causes of terrorism is prerequisite to any measure for eradication and elimination of terrorism; Condemning any instrumental, dual-standard, selective or unilateral measure as well as condemning the weakening of the nations‘ inalienable rights to self- determination, abuse of the self defense, occupation of
Global Alliance 638 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace territory, racism, threat against territorial integrity and any sort of domination in the name campaign against terrorism; Announcing opposition to the destructive discourses dominating international relations, including the discourse claiming that ―might is right‖ and underlining the necessity of substituting these discourses with constructive and peaceful discourses, including the approach stating ―right is might‖; Announcing our common intention to fulfill our ethical, social and human responsibilities towards fellow human beings and emancipation of humanity from war, domination and injustice and with firm determination to take positive measures based on rationality and justice to confront the threats of global peace and achieve a sublime future for all humankind; Emphasizing the effective role of the intellectuals and non-governmental organizations in confronting the global threats and challenges, particularly terrorism and welcoming the idea of establishment of a Permanent Committee of the Scholars and Experts to Study and Find Mechanisms to Confront Challenges and Threats to Global Just Peace‖; Thanking the Islamic World Peace Forum and the NGOs and research institutions of Islamic Republic of Iran cooperating with it for their initiative to host and successfully organize this conference; Announce our agreement on the following points: 1.We consider terrorism in all its forms, particularly professional and state terrorism, a serious threat to all human beings and condemn it and emphasize categorically that the right to self-determination is a fundamental and inalienable right of people and is different from terrorism, and recognize that regional conventions and resolution of United Nations General Assembly have all emphasized on seriously. 2.We support the idea of just peace as the common global discourse based on cultures, religions, ethical virtues and legal norms and emphasize that peace will be sustainable and in human interest only if it is based on justice and human dignity; 3.We are determined to make all-out efforts to bring about a common understanding of the trend of campaign against terrorism and Annex II / 639 establishment of just peace and contribute to the realization of just peace and campaign against terrorism through utilization of all intellectual and professional potentials as well as religious and ethical values and heritage of global civilization through holding annual conferences, mobilizing the media, offering consultation to governments and international organizations and common proposals to the World Peace Forum. 4.We express our serious concern about sacrilege of divine and ethic values and attribution of intolerance, extremism, terrorism and violence to the divine religions, particularly to the world of Islam, and while emphasizing that Islam is a victim of terrorism, consider Islam phobia as a hurdle in the way of utilization of the heritage of Muslim nations in establishing just peace, and consider any kind of promotion of religion phobia a cause of creation of animosity among human beings and a serious threat to peace among nations at the global level. 5. We consider comprehensive and all-out attention to the roots and causes of terrorism as a prerequisite to any decision or measure with regard to campaign against terrorism; and emphasize that injustice, foreign domination and occupation are among the most important root- causes of terrorism and that real and lasting peace cannot be achieved in an environment of injustice, foreign domination and occupation and racism. 6. We condemn the acts of state terrorism by the Zionist regime and its supporters against the oppressed Palestinian nation and other nations. 7. We condemn the inhumane and violent acts against the peoples of Bahrain, Yemen, Libya and the other related countries. The interference of some states in the affairs of these countries, is a clear example of violation of fundamental human rights and a serious threat to peace in the region and the world. We reiterate that gathering around the axis of just peace is the only means for the establishment of peace and security for all human beings. 8. Emphasizing the necessity of supporting the rights of victims of terror, we believe that prosecution and punishment of all individuals and groups involved in all forms of terrorism on the basis of just legal procedures and
Global Alliance 640 / Against Terrorism for a Just Peace human dignity and respect for the principles of fundamental human rights founded on primordial nature and divine are indispensible for prevention and elimination of terrorism. Expressing our serious concern about unjust trials and underground prisons regarding Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries and the role of intelligence agencies in the management of these affairs, we call on international community to pay special attention and investigate these issues. 9. We support exchange of views and dialogue among cultures, religions, intellectual scholars and non-governmental organizations in order to establish an effective alliance for understanding and tackling the existing threats to global peace and also welcome the initiative taken by this conference regarding the establishment of a ―Permanent Committee of the Scholars and Experts on Global Peace‖, with the participation of the participants of this conference. In order to materialize this issue, we announce the establishment of the Permanent Secretariat of this committee in Tehran, by IWPF and emphasize on the holding of regular meetings of this committee in Iran and other countries. 10. We announce our agreement to send the present declaration to the top officials of countries and international organizations, including the UN Secretary- General and to international non-governmental organizations related to global peace and request them to follow up its contents.