|
 This
essay was written prior to the September 11th attacks.
When the news came in August 1998
of the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania, the
publisher and editor of an independent and strongly pro-government
weekly published in Cairo made this comment: "The news came
to me like a dream. The destruction of the embassies in Nairobi
and Dar Es Salam. Glory be to the avenger. These fires remind me
of the fires of Baghdad. My heart bleeds for the Africans but I am
pleased about what happened to the Americans. That may have turned
us into angry and embittered people looking for revenge which
would placate our souls. I am not going to inquire about the
perpetrator. Whoever you may be you have placated us a little. Ask
the Arab masses from the Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean and you will
see pleasure in their eyes. Even those who condemn the act say let
them pay. Yes, American, we are strong."
The editor who made the above statement does not belong to the
extremist fringe of either the right or the left. He condemns the
terrorism of local Islamists and he is very close to government
circles - too close perhaps, as he has recently been used by
official circles to spearhead the government's campaign against
local human rights groups accused of receiving Western funding.
The editorial in the semi-official Al Ahram on the same day called
on the U.S. to improve its image. It said 'The Arab peoples
generally regard the USA as biased in favour of Israel and against
the Arabs.' In other words the U.S. has brought it on herself.
Other Egyptian papers were more explicit. The U.S., they argued
has turned a deaf ear to Egyptian pleas to fight terrorism.
Instead America harboured and protected wanted terrorists under
various pretexts. Now it is learning a historic lesson. This
general sentiment was echoed throughout the Arab world,
particularly in countries that are U.S. allies: the Gulf
countries, Jordan and Morocco.
These attitudes to political violence are reflected in mainstream
political Arab discourse regarding how violence is produced and
reproduced in the region. Most Arab regimes are very vocal in
condemning terrorism but the signing of a treaty condemning
terrorism by Arab Interior Ministers was held up for years because
of the disagreement over the definition of terrorism. On the
insistence of the majority of Arab countries, led by Syria, the
final agreement distinguished between violence aimed at liberating
occupied lands and other types of violence. The first would not be
regarded as terrorism. Thus terrorism was defined in terms of the
target and not its methods. Violence against Arab regimes or
perpetrated on their territory is considered terrorism. That
directed against Israel is not. In practice all Arab governments
practically espouse this attitude and it is found in their
policies. We cannot go into this discussion without a definition
of terrorism. Contrary to the prevailing attitude, defining
terrorism is not very difficult. One of the definitions
concentrates on the five distinguishing characteristics of
terrorism.
(1) A terrorist act is an act which is premeditated and designed.
(2) It is directed at a wider target than the immediate victims.
(3) It involves an attack on random or symbolic targets. (4) It is
considered by the society in which it occurs.. that it violates
norms and conventions. (5) It is used primarily, but not
exclusively, to influence the political behaviour of governments.
I prefer the definition proposed by Alex Schmidt which defines
terrorism as the equivalent of war crimes. I think this definition
captures both the factual and normative condition of terrorism. I
started with the comment made by an Egyptian editor and the
connection he makes with the blowing up of the American embassies
and the sanctions against Iraq at a time when the two acts can be
seen in the same light. In both places the act targets civilians
deliberately. In both places the suffering of the innocent is
either an objective in itself or it acts as a pressure point on
the target on which pressure is being put. The people who are hurt
are not the target but they are used to exert pressure. The
suffering of the victims is regarded as acceptable. Collateral
damage, to use NATO speak, is 'a price well worth paying' as the
U.S. Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, said about the deaths
of innocent civilians in Iraq as a result of the sanctions.
If we accept the definition of war crimes, terrorism becomes an
act which cannot be justified because nothing can justify war
crimes. However if we stress the definition of war crimes, most of
the acts of modern war would be classed as terrorism. We do not
want to do that. If you look at the bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagaski, it has all the criteria of a terrorist act. On a smaller
scale an individual terrorist would throw a bomb on a residential
area and would kill 20 or 30 people. It is done to send a message.
What was done in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was also intended to send
a message that if you do not give in we will do more of this..
So even when there are political differences the parties can agree
on what is and what is not terrorism. That is why I am saying that
the definition of terrorism is not really a problem. If we define
terrorism in terms of its means and not its ends, another point we
are trying to make is that terrorism is seen by most analysts as a
problem of democratic societies. It is not a problem in despotic
regimes as they themselves are terrorist by definition. Some of
the despotic regimes even manufacture terrorist acts against
themselves in order to be allowed to go to the limit..
Some of the analysts also say that
one of the vulnerabilities of democracy is that if a democracy
tries to suppress terrorism by arresting people, suppressing human
rights etc. it will no longer be a democracy. If this is the case
then the Middle East is not really democratic in this sense. There
is no abundance of democracy. Not even Israel can be considered
democratic. Nevertheless there is a very high incidence of
terrorism in the region. How can we explain this? Even though the
Middle East is not democratic terrorism and violence are rife.
Some of the arguments refer to the fact that despotism generates
terrorism and there is at least one confirmation of this reality
in Algeria. Algeria did not use to have any terrorist acts prior
to 1991-1992 when the elections were annulled. A counter argument
states that prior to the elections Algeria was a one party
dictatorship. In Egypt during the Nasser era when there was no
freedom there was no terrorism. During Sadat's era when there was
a lot of liberalisation there was terrorism.
But I think we need to go beyond this analysis in order to try and
see what the problem is. For example if you take the assassination
of President Sadat in 1981 and after you will see that there was a
very serious polarisation in society with the president attacking
almost every political group. When he died many of the leaders of
civil society were in jail. He cracked down on almost everyone.
When he was assassinated there was much jubilation. Some
theoreticians and church leaders have actually said that killing a
tyrant is a justifiable act. There is also the element of
identification when people identify with the perpetrator, the act
would not be considered terrorism in their eyes.
But there is also an element whereby the polarisation in Middle
Eastern societies has created a kind of reverse of dual
identification. You find people who identify with the victims and
people who identify with the attackers. For some people an act is
considered terrorist while for others it is not. We also find in
the Arab Middle East a deep sense of powerlessness and
frustration. This is illustrated by the quote stated above. The
editor feels powerless about a certain situation, in this case the
siege of Iraq. Now there is also the suffering of the
Palestinians. So they just identify with an act which is taken to
express frustration. This is also indicative of alienation from
the state. In normal cases if there is frustration about political
problems then the political leadership of the country would be
able to channel this type of frustration and direct it into
creative political acts..
I am not saying that despair is the direct cause of violence: it
is a combination of this atmosphere of lack of hope, polarisation
and alienation from the state. Violence and the lack of democracy
have similar roots. They are both springing from a political
situation characterised by these shortcomings. Some analysts would
say this is because of the Muslim psyche or the Muslim tradition
or their way of thought. But then we can ask how and why are the
Western powers, including the United States, also involved in this
violence. It is a situation where the political actors find there
is no way forward except through terrorism and violence.
Dr.
Abdelwahab El-Affendi is a social science researcher. He is
a member of the advisory board of the Association of Muslim Social
Scientists. His writings include “The ‘Democratic
Deficit’ in the Muslim World” and “Home Thought on Islam and
Democracy.”
For
full text, refer to the International Forum for Islamic Dialogue
website www.islam21.net
Posted
with agreement.
|
