Global terrorism: rhetoric vs reality

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has claimed that successful strikes by terrorists merely embolden them to continue with their despicable deeds. Nothing, it seems, succeeds like success. Indeed, Dershowitz makes the rather controversial claim that the Palestinian cause of nationhood managed to engender such international attention because European governments treated Palestinian "terrorists" in the 1970s and 80s equivocally. It thus inspired them to carry on their deadly activities against Israel and encouraged other Islamic groups to embark on a murderous enterprise. The suicide bombers and Intifada of today as well the tragedy of 9/11 can be directly linked to the conciliatory manner in which Palestinian "terrorist" groups were treated in previous decades.

Given such unrelentingly dark views, it is not surprising that the United States seeks to eliminate Al-Qaeeda and their affiliates, even if it takes several decades to do so. Furthermore, the intellectual influence of the ideas propagated by Dershowitz is clear. It enables one to under-stand why the United States typically suggests that the cessation of "terrorism" by Palestinian groups is a precondition for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The most vocal critics of the global "war on terror" tend to be left-wing scholars and activists -- such as Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali and John Pilger. They have suggested that this so-called war is mere rhetoric. The stark reality is that the current wave of terrorism being waged by Al-Qaeeda and their followers is largely an extreme manifestation of the reaction to injustices committed by the United States in its role as the world's superpower intent on imposing its imperial agenda on the international community. It preaches peace, freedom and democracy, but its actions, especially in the Muslim world, suggest a rather different agenda of imperial domination. This is reflected in the shamelessly biased position that the United States adopts in relation to the seemingly interminable Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the support that it provides to despotic and non-democratic regimes in the Middle East, Central Asia and Pakistan merely because such regimes are seen as friendly to US interests.

The contest of ideas on the causes of global terrorism has enormous implications for dealing with one of the scourges of the 21st century. If the available evidence points in the direction of those who argue that the United States is merely an aggrieved superpower undertaking a just war against malevolent terrorists, then peace-loving nations simply have to support the current position and policies of the United States. If, on the other hand, the view that the United States is largely using the "war on terror" as a thinly veiled attempt to pursue an imperial agenda has some credibility, then it suggests a rather different approach to dealing with global terrorism.

The burgeoning professional literature on religiously inspired terrorism offers some interesting clues. A Cornell University scholar, Mahmud Mamdani, has argued that Islamic terrorism can be largely traced to a strategy by the US to support low-level insurgencies by private armed groups in various countries to fight global communism. This led the US to support a pan-Islamic front to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan that ultimately spawned the Al-Qaeeda.

Rohan Gunaratna is widely acknowledged as a world authority on Al-Qaeeda. He makes it clear that Osama Bin Laden and his faithful followers have been particularly adept in legitimising their murderous deeds by linking them with international conflicts (such as the Palestinian Intifada, the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the brutal suppression of Chechnyans in Russia) that elicit widespread sympathy and support among Muslims across the world.

Others who have studied religiously inspired terrorism concur with this view. John Voll of George Washington University makes the point that it would be a mistake to regard Al-Qaeeda as religious fanatics. Jessica Stern, a Harvard scholar and a leading expert on global terrorism, also observes that it would be a grave error to treat Al-Qaeeda as merely a band of murderous mullahs with a fixed agenda. As an organisation, it has demonstrated a remarkable agility to evolve into self-governing affiliates and adapt to changing circumstances. As if to vindicate these observations, the reputed Pew Research Centre's latest survey of global attitudes reveals that even in some Muslim countries regarded as close allies of the US, 45 to 65 per cent of those surveyed are sympathetic to Al-Qaeeda.

Scholarly studies of global terrorism also reveal a clear link between military occupation and the emergence of suicide bombers. Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, emphasises that suicide bombings increased through the 1990s even as the overall incidence of terrorist attacks declined. As he claims: "Every single country where suicide bombings have occurred has also been one in which an occupying country has placed military forces for a long occupation." He notes that where target nations made concessions or modified their behaviour, the suicide attacks stopped. Is it any wonder then that suicide bombers, virtually unknown in Iraq under Saddam, have now become a regular feature in that troubled country coping with the burden of a US-led occupation?

In sum, the view that the United States is a superpower seeking to save the world from the scourge of malevolent terrorists is a comforting argument that only serves to obfuscate the complex issues that underpin the ideology and strategy of global terrorism. While the despicable deeds of Al-Qaeeda and their fellow travellers must not be condoned, it is nevertheless important to understand their strategic logic. Otherwise, the world will be trapped in a self-fulfilling prophecy of an endless "war on terror."

The author is Professor, Department of International Business and Asian Studies, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Australia and a founding editor of the Asia Pacific Economy (Routledge, London and New York).