|
|
|
|
SPEAKING
FREELY
A twist in the 'war on
terror'
By Aruni Mukherjee
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click here
if you are interested in
contributing.
Instead of celebrations at
winning the 2012 Olympics Games hosting bid,
London sank into turmoil on the morning of July 7
as the "war on terror" came home, weaving deadly
dreams for the British people.
The bombing of the underground transport
system and a double-decker bus in London, which
resulted in at least 37 deaths and nearly 700
injuries, was supposedly carried out by a group
associated with the dreaded name of al-Qaeda.
Whatever the facts, the symbolic significance,
besides the terrible human and material tragedy,
cannot be ignored.
While the leaders of
the world's most powerful country planned to
determine the fate of Africa and the world
environment in the Group of Eight summit at
Gleneagles, Scotland, this attack has thrown it
into disarray. It shows that the terrorist have
the capability to carry out sophisticated and
simultaneous attacks in the heart of the Western
world, on the doorsteps of world's corridors of
power. New York, Madrid and now London. By
targeting the important cities of the countries
which were most active in the allied operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan, surely a point is being made
as well.
What will be the immediate and
long-term significance of the attacks? At the time
of writing this article, Britain's MI5 and MI6
intelligence agencies seem to have had no prior
warnings about this specific attack. British
intelligence had long shown an attack on the isles
as inevitable since September 11, 2001. The
attacks on British consulates in Yemen and
Istanbul had given further hints, but still
Thursday's attack went unintercepted.
To
be fair to Scotland Yard and other agencies, it is
entirely ludicrous and impractical to even
consider security checks for every individual
using the public transport in London. Therefore, a
leeway for terrorists has, is and will always
remain. The more important point is that no
arrests have been made till date, and past
experience shows that the most effective
counter-terrorism operations rely on early arrests
when the perpetrators try to clear out from the
affected area.
The reaction from the
British and global political heavyweights throws
more light on the prospective outcome of this
debacle. A visibly shocked and defiant British
Prime Minister Tony Blair promised to do "all he
can" to "confront and defeat" the perpetrators of
these attacks. A more passionate Ken Livingston,
the mayor of London, challenged the jihadis that
"however many you kill, you will fail".
These were strong responses, suggesting
that stern action may follow against some of the
"suspect" countries in the Middle East, and
perhaps even Pakistan. The more brazen and perhaps
typical of such responses were those by President
George W Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice, both of whom insisted that the "civilized
world" must not yield to such arm-twisting by
extremists.
An important aspect of these
reactions is the adamant insistence on ensuring
that such response is not targeted towards Muslims
per se, but only towards their extremist brethren.
Immediately on hearing of the attacks, the
Archbishop of Canterbury made a public
announcement that complemented the condemnation of
the attacks by the Muslim Council of Britain. To
prevent mass xenophobia, cynicism and perhaps even
racism against Muslims in Britain and elsewhere,
even Blair and Livingston included an insistence
on maintaining communal harmony in their
statements.
Amid all the war cries of "we
shall prevail" by Blair, shadow home secretary and
prime minister aspirant David Davies raised an
important question. He appealed against
surrendering the fundamental beliefs on which
modern Western society is built on in view of
these attacks. For that he argued would be a
victory for the terrorists - they would have
managed to change the way in which the British
people live. This is bound to add fire to the
already heated debate on identity cards in the
House of Commons.
When it boils down to
it, the word "civilization" seems to hold the key
to unraveling the complicated web of possible
post-attack reaction by the West. Rice termed this
attack a "war against the ideals" of Western
civilization. Blair termed it "an attack on
civilized people" and insisted with confidence
that "our values will long outlast theirs". The
bells of the "clash of civilizations" predicted by
Samuel Huntington seem to be ringing loudly in
this discourse.
America and Britain will
find it frustrating and hopeless to try and
negotiate with the terrorist organizations. For
one, it will be hard to sell to the public back
home, which has seen soldiers (and now civilians)
, die in the war against these same terrorists.
For another, the positions of these extremist
organizations are rather inflexible, for the
slightest of compromise will render their
legitimacy as vanguards of Islam futile. Both
would rather have a settlement on entirely their
terms, or none at all. This will make the likely
scenario for further conflict in the Middle East
even more probable.
The attacks on a
controversial perhaps-to-be-built temple site in
Ayodhya, India on July 5 were possibly conducted
by a Pakistan-based terrorist outfit. No one knows
for sure, but it was perhaps the minor ripples of
a terror tsunami that was to be unleashed in
London two days later. When India mobilized its
army in response to the attack by extremist groups
on its parliament in 2001, America preached
restraint. Will it do the same to its most valued
ally? Unlikely.
For America, the attacks
will ensure closer British collaboration in future
operations in the Middle East and elsewhere, as
Blair will probably rise in the popular ratings,
as most leaders do in a crisis.
We all
live in an increasingly inter-connected world
where turmoil in one part affects those in
another. Markets fluctuated not only in London,
but also throughout Europe in view of the London
bombings. The preferable solution would be a
multilateral and peaceful one, but these attacks
in London will harden attitudes on both sides and
might deal a mortal blow to that ideal.
Aruni Mukherjee is based at the
University of Warwick, UK and takes a deep
interest in the political economy of the Indian
sub-continent. He is originally from Kolkata,
India.
(Copyright 2005 Aruni
Mukherjee)
Speaking Freely is an
Asia Times Online feature that allows guest
writers to have their say. Please click here
if you are interested in
contributing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
|
|
|
