Since September 11, 2001,
President George W Bush's administration policies in the
"war on terrorism" have mutated the global threat,
mobilizing anti-US sentiment. The crisis in Iraq,
coupled with radical shifts in US policy in the Middle
East and elsewhere, have given extremists a new focus,
allowing radical groups to widen their appeal among
Muslims and others. A terrorism alarm sounds every day
somewhere in the world, canceling flights, closing
embassies, signaling the potential for death.
Terrorism on the rise Much of this has
resulted from the Bush administration's steadfast
refusal to define terrorism. In the Bush lexicon,
terrorism is a catch-all term for interpreting diverse
conflicts, from separatist movements to paramilitary
activity to arms and narcotics trafficking. The failure
to define terrorism has enabled the White House to label
almost anybody opposed to its policies as a terrorist
organization. Groups as diverse in structure and
objectives as Peru's Shining Path, the Liberation Tigers
of Tamil Eelam, Basque Fatherland and Liberty, the
Communist Party of the Philippines and Hamas are on the
State Department's list of designated foreign terrorist
organizations.
Early on, this approach served the
White House well in its search for recruits in the "war
on terrorism". Opposition groups in countries whose
support the United States deemed essential to winning
the war were often labeled "terrorist" in an effort to
curry support from host governments.
But over
time, the failure to define terrorism has become a real
liability. The US now has some 5 million names on its
master terror watch list, people who are identified as
terrorists or believed to represent a potential threat.
And listing any terrorist from any terrorist
organization, creates a problem, not a solution. Trying
to monitor that vast number of people, causes one lose
focus and jeopardize democratic values. The size of this
inclusive terror list also belies official statements
that the real concern, al-Qaeda and its affiliates, are
relatively small in number, a few hundred or thousand at
most.
Related to the first factor is the Bush
administration's eager application of the al-Qaeda label
to virtually any Islamic group threatening terrorist
acts. Regional terrorist groups are invariably portrayed
as having been co-opted by al-Qaeda and subject to its
command and control. As a result, geographical and
country specialists have been forced on the defensive.
With the media focused on the global "war on terrorism",
the White House is not interested in the historical,
political, economic and cultural factors that shape
regional dissident groups. Take Southeast Asia as an
example. All of the US-designated terrorist groups in
the region were founded long before al-Qaeda made its
appearance. Some originated in the 1940s. Al-Qaeda
wanna-be's are out there, often motivated by Bush
administration policies, but al-Qaeda isn't everywhere.
The Bush administration has also come to see
Arab-Muslim terrorism as a phenomenon quite separate
from its causes. The Israeli-Palestinian dispute remains
the central issue in the Middle East, and until
Washington returns to the role of honest broker, there
is no hope for a peaceful resolution. The Bush
administration has largely accepted the Israeli version
of the intifada, viewing the violence of the
Palestinians as "terror" and the inevitable Israeli
response as "legitimate self-defense". As a result, both
sides are trapped in a downward spiral of violence and
retaliation. White House support for Israel's policy of
extrajudicial killings, which undermines US initiatives
to promote human rights, democracy and civil society in
the region, only compounds the problem.
Military solutions to political
problems US policy in Iraq exemplifies a growing
tendency on the part of the Bush administration to apply
military solutions to political problems, often ignoring
larger issues. Latin American governments, after the
rebirth of democracy in the 1980s, largely ruled out
giving police duties to their armed forces. US officials
are now pressuring them to expand the military's role,
arguing that it is the only force with the skills and
resources necessary to meet new threats. Southeast Asian
states also expressed deep concern recently when the
head of the US Pacific Command, without prior
consultation, announced US plans to curb transnational
crime in and around the Strait of Malacca.
In
Africa, the Bush administration has opened a new front
in the "war on terrorism", equipping and training armies
in states seen as potential sanctuaries for terrorists
or long-term sources of oil. Some 100 special-operations
groups are training armies in Chad, Mali, Mauritania and
Niger, largely Muslim states, in a program known as the
Pan-Sahel Initiative. Its goal is to help states guard
porous borders against terrorists, arms and other
trafficking. The Pentagon is also expanding its presence
through training exercises or military base agreements
in other states from Algeria to Liberia to Senegal to
Uganda.
The US adoption in Iraq of Israeli
tactics employed in Palestine adds to the problem. The
early use of plastic handcuffs and hoods was followed by
the demolition of Iraqi homes and businesses, together
with the prolonged detention of prisoners without rights
or charges. Most recently, we have the growing
prisoner-abuse scandal. The power of images is enormous
in the Arab-Muslim world. And the pictures television
viewers see of US troops in action in Iraq are often
mirror images of Israeli troops in action in Gaza and
the West Bank. The Israeli use of dehumanizing force
against the Palestinians has proved counterproductive,
simply increasing Palestinian opposition to Israeli
occupation. The same is true for the US use of similar
tactics in Iraq.
Another downside to the growing
US dependence on force is that it encourages
semi-democratic and authoritarian states to brutalize
their own populations. From Russia's treatment of
Chechen separatists to China's handling of the Uighur
Muslim population in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region,
governments around the world are adopting harsh measures
to deal with dissident groups, separatists and
Islamists, applying military solutions to long-standing
political issues in the name of fighting terrorism.
Global terrorism Southeast Asian
states, long considered the Islamic periphery because of
their pluralism, secularism and moderate Islamic stance,
now confront a small but increasingly potent terrorist
threat. The rise of extremist terrorism also obscures a
fundamental shift in Islam toward an increasingly
conservative mainstream. US policies encourage this
conservative shift but are not the source of it.
In Indonesia, White House attempts last month to
ensure that the alleged leader of Jemaah Islamiya, a
militant Islamic organization linked to the 2002 Bali
nightclub bombing, remained in jail set off a diplomatic
and political tempest. Nationalists and Islamists
denounced the move as undue involvement in Indonesia's
internal affairs.
In the Philippines, US
officials recently warned President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo that her government was not doing
enough to combat terrorism. US concerns centered on the
activities of the Abu Sayyaf Group and the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front. While the need for effective action
was real, Washington erred in thinking international
terrorists created the situation in the southern
Philippines and controlled the combatants. Despite the
Islamist foundations of both groups, and the potential
for an allegiance with Jemaah Islamiya, the conflict in
the southern Philippines is rooted in local issues that
pre-date the "war on terror" and are unlikely to be
resolved through money or arms alone.
In
Thailand, the Buddhist-dominated government used
overwhelming force in late April to thwart coordinated
attacks on police stations and security checkpoints in
the predominantly Muslim south. Some 107 militants, most
in their teens or early 20s, were killed, including an
entire village soccer team. Local residents voiced
bewilderment and anger at the killings, especially the
slaughter of 30 assailants in the historic Krue Se
mosque. Authorities initially offered contradictory
explanations for the violence, ranging from drugs and
arms trafficking to mafia turf battles to Islamic
separatists. Officials and local villagers later agreed
that the foiled attacks were spurred by widely broadcast
images of al-Qaeda and the US occupation of Iraq. As the
father of one of the victims said: "What happens in Iraq
and Palestine and Afghanistan really makes me angry. It
makes me want to fight back." Events in Thailand sparked
fears and arrests in Cambodia because members of its
small Muslim minority often study in southern Thailand.
The Madrid train bombings in March confirmed
Europeans' fears that they too are vulnerable
to terrorist attack. Terrorists wanted for the Madrid
bombings later blew themselves up, killing one police
officer and injuring others. Elsewhere, British
authorities arrested 10 in anti-terror raids, and
Swedish police arrested four men, including one US
citizen, linked to terrorism. In response, Muslim
leaders in Sweden expressed mounting concern at being
stereotyped as terrorists.
In Africa, Morocco
has become both a target and an operating base for
terrorist attacks. Most of the suspects in the Madrid
bombings were Moroccan with the suspected mastermind a
Tunisian. European officials have complained that the
Moroccans tend to blame al-Qaeda for all terrorist
plots, rather than recognizing a wider ideological
inspiration, because it frees them from responsibility.
The Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, successor to an
organization formed to overthrow the monarchy, was
listed as a terrorist organization last year. Another
home-grown concern is the Algerian-based Salafist Group
for Call and Combat, which kidnapped 32 tourists last
year. Chad's army allegedly killed 43 Salafists in
mid-March in two days of heavy fighting near the border
with Niger.
In the Middle East, Jordanian police
killed four suspects believed to have ties to an
al-Qaeda cell only three weeks after security forces
uncovered a major plot to attack US and Jordanian
targets in Amman. Saudi Arabia came under
al-Qaeda-linked attacks on the following day when a
suicide bomber killed two and wounded 60 in Riyadh.
Extremism arrived in Syria later in April when
terrorists exploded a car bomb and engaged in a fierce
gun battle in Damascus. Israel remained a frequent
target of Palestinian attacks.
In Latin America,
US officials continue to paint the Triborder Area, where
Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay meet, as a hotbed of
dangerous criminal and terrorist activity. A wide range
of radical groups, from Colombian guerrillas to white
supremacists to Hezbollah, allegedly meet there to swap
tradecraft. On the other hand, the conflict in Colombia
offers proof that some of the bloodiest terrorism in the
world has no link to Islamic fundamentalism.
Dangerous world The world today is
clearly a more dangerous place than it was on September
10, 2001, or even last year before the invasion of Iraq.
This is true for Americans, but it is equally true for
Spaniards, Indonesians and, most especially, Iraqis.
Unfortunately, the annual "Patterns of Global
Terrorism" report, recently issued by the State
Department, belies the dangerous world in which we live.
It concludes that the number of international terrorist
attacks in 2003 was the lowest since 1969. Describing
Iraq as "a central front in the global war against
terrorism", the report excludes most attacks during
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom
on the grounds that they "do not meet the long-standing
US definition of international terrorism because they
were directed at combatants". The report also excludes
hundreds of Iraqi civilians killed by one side or the
other. While it includes Israelis killed by Palestinian
suicide bombers, it also excludes Palestinians killed in
retaliatory strikes of "legitimate self-defense".
The Bush administration has yet to recognize
that the outcome of the "war on terrorism" will depend
on the quality of the peace. By ruling out the peaceful
settlement of disputes in Iraq, Palestine and elsewhere,
the White House has not eliminated terrorism. It has
provoked it. And it has also legitimized terrorism in
many parts of the world. A cursory survey of global
terrorist activity reveals a huge array of distinct and
interconnected motives. With a growing number of groups
declaring the US their number one enemy, the "war on
terror" could last for generations, if we don't take a
different tack. Until we do, the world in the coming
weeks, months and years will likely remain a very
dangerous place.
Ronald Bruce St John,
an analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus, has published
widely on Middle Eastern issues. His latest book on the
region is Libya and the United States: Two Centuries
of Strife (Penn Press, 2002). This article is posted
with permission fromForeign Policy in Focus.
