Posts
Public Diplomacy and
Terrorism
The September 1, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Center
A lot has been debated by a proliferating number of
“experts”. The official reaction ranged from “revenge” and “crusade” to “war
against terrorism” and “criminal acts”. Other than what and how it happened,
little has been said about why it happened. A correct diagnosis of this
unjustified resentment of the US
and an accurate definition of terrorism, for a long-term solution of the
problem, are still missing.
To begin with, terrorism must be defined in a generally
acceptable manner so as not to cause any consternation and frustration among
people. Terrorism is perceived differently by different groups and in different
circumstances. When Armenians waged terror against Turks from 1880s to 1980s,
they were viewed as legitimate revenge and were cheered by Europeans who had
ulterior motives. When Palestinians and Hamas terrorized us all, they were in
fact called terrorists and were rightly condemned. When Northern Ireland resorted to terror against Britain , they
were considered separatist nationalists and were called to negotiate. When PKK
killed indiscriminately in Turkey ,
again the European liberals called for democracy and human rights without mercy
to the victims and without regard to the consequences on the regional
stability. When Chechens fight for their liberation from the Russian yoke, it
is called terrorism but the world keeps quiet for fear of the Russian wrath.
When Bosnians and Kosovars fought for their independence from disintegrating Yugoslavia ,
just as Croats and Slovenians did, they were branded as Muslim
insurgents. The different perception of these and many other terrorist acts in
Spain, France, Italy, Indonesia, South America for political convenience
brought us to today’s disaster. Many countries in fact even gave refuge to, trained, financed, or encouraged specific terrorist groups as part of their
foreign policy.
Current loose and irresponsible identification of terrorism
with Islam is also wrong. It may even lead to more terror and to “a clash of
cultures”. True, the current terrorists are Muslim, and they are inspired by
their religion, but basically they are of Arab or Persian origin. They are
using the religion as a weapon in the absence of any other power they possess.
Religion is the cheapest effective armament. Our politicians and media have to stop
emphasizing that the Chechen, Kosovar, or Iraqi and Afghani terrorists are
Muslims. Terrorist is terrorist, no matter what religious, national or
political affiliation. As we are sensitive to secularism in our domestic
affairs, we should be equally secular in our international affairs. We should not be looking at everything through religious glasses. Even then, if by reference
to Muslims we mean fundamentalists, we should not forget that we have in our
midst fundamentalists as well. Several suicidal fanatics (fundamentalists) were killed in Guyana , San Francisco ,
and Waco in not
too distant past. Terrorism, though an entirely different issue, we need to fight, like we have to
fight against fundamentalism just as vigorously. We need, therefore, to define
terrorism internationally, and be honest and consistent in its interpretation.
Only then will we be credible in our war against terrorism.
As to the cause of systematic attacks on the US in particular, and of the US resentment in general, the apparent reason is
claimed to be the presence of Israel
on the so-called Arab soil. The real reason, however, lies in the frustration
of the Arab and Persian world with their theocratic system. These masses are
ruled by the Koran instead of civil codes. The non-secular system does not
allow education, science, modernization and thus progress. In short, they still
live with the medieval scripture and with anachronistic norms. Continued
economic despair in the midst of a steadily prospering world makes these masses
angry, intolerant and violent towards the rest of the world. Instead of getting
to work to better themselves so that they can compete with the advanced nations,
they do what they know best and easy: to destroy the challenger. The advanced
world is of course represented by the US . Bin Laden’s reference to 80
years of humiliation in his recent video appearance was found by many
commentators as puzzling. The reference is most probably to Ataturk’s abolition
of the Caliphate and the Shari’a. This unique and courageous act by Ataturk
lifted the Ottoman influence and control over the politically inexperienced and
unprepared people, and exposed them to the British influence and control. That
is why the original hatred is in fact against Ataturk and the British. Israel is an excuse, Islam is the weapon, and
the high profile target is the US
as the surrogate of British.
The US
is unfairly identified with the historical wrongdoings of the old world, especially when the US is so
closely associated with Britain .
We have to admit that on occasions we unquestioningly followed the UK policies without taking into account that
Europe’s imperialistic, colonial, nationalist, quarrelsome, selfish
past still has an effect on the developing world, as well as on Europe ’s policies. Our association with the problems of
the old world have already cost us two world wars and several foreign policy
failures. Until after WWII, the US
was regarded as the young, idealist, just, and benevolent leader of the new
nations, a savior for the poorer nations. Having associated itself too closely
with the defunct imperialists of Europe in the Cold War period, the US came to be
perceived as European ideology’s representative and protector.
Therefore there are two distinct aspects to this problem:
the non-secular regimes, and the image of the US as the protector of the old
colonial countries. We should pursue the following course:
1- A
campaign of secular democracy must be undertaken in the non-secular Arab and
Persian nations. Although such reforms would best succeed if launched by a
courageous national leader the possibility of a repeat of the genius of Ataturk
is very remote. Therefore, the US
could follow the same democracy campaign that it did to win the Cold War.
However, in the Cold War the adversaries were non-democratic but secular
countries. In the New War, secular regime and secular education must be the
basic component of the campaign for democracy. Ataturk’s reforms implemented in
founding the Turkish
Republic
2- The
US
should play the role of a fair and independent advisor and helper of the world
left behind our own fast pace. We should act as Americans, not as West in association
with Europe in general and with Britain
in particular. We should reassume our old image and role of neutral and helpful
Americans. In doing so, we have to be careful not to appear as imposing our own
culture (McDonalds, Disney, Hollywood ,
etc.) on the Muslims. -Furthermore, in order to be credible and to gain their trust, we
have to be consistent in our policy of secularism. The use of double standards
for political convenience or for short-term economic interests will defeat our
efforts. We must stop supporting the autocrats of the Shari’a regimes, as we
did not support communist dictators. -This will mean sacrifice on our part of
oil products. But, no war can be won without sacrifices. There are other oil
countries, in fact, with which we did not diligently pursue a closer relation
after the demise of the Soviet hegemony. Closer ties with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan
may also help us to win them away from the Russian influence, which Russia is
already beginning to reassert. A case in point is Georgia
where Russia
was to close its military bases by last July. It did not. Instead, while taking
advantage of War on Terrorism, it is preparing to invade Georgia on the
pretext of Abkhaz and Chechen “terrorism”. -We have to be very cautious
about not having an ulterior motive of establishing a political influence or of
exploiting the local resources (just as the colonials did). -We also have to
stay clear from appearing to help one local political faction or another. The recent history shows that involvement in support for independence or nation
building catches us between two fires. Let us not have any illusion about it,
by mopping up the Taliban we will be presenting Afghanistan
to Russia
in a silver tray. We are in fact fighting the war that they could not win, just
as we did in Viet-Nam the one that French could not win. Therefore, we should
not get in the quagmire of nation building in Afghanistan after we complete our
operation. Our economic and financial aid policies must be contingent upon
solely secular democracy and secular education.
October 15, 2001
