It is over 2 years since George Bush, in a comprehensive review of US foreign policy presents the “war against terror” as its top priority. Even if we side-step the absurdity of such a concept, and accept it, as Correli Barnett advises [1], not as a war against a “phenomenon” but against a defined enemy – say al Qaeda or another of the pan-Islamist military-political grouping – then we can firmly state that to date the winner of this war is not the Bush administration, but it has opponents. There is no evidence that this conclusion will have to be reversed in the future.
Since September 11, we have seen a massive scaling up of terrorist attacks compared to previous years. In the two years 2002-3 there were 17 major bombings in various parts of the world, compared to 5 such attacks in the eight years leading up to, and including, September 11, 2002 [2]. Moreover, rather than limiting the terrain in which terrorists operate, their geographic presence has spread enormously. The al-Qaeda network, is increasingly turning into an international network and their cells appear to be multiplying in every corner. It is capable of attacking from Bali to Istanbul and Madrid and has the initiative in choosing the time and place – at best the security measures have made it switch from hard targets (places of political or military importance) to soft targets, either linked to economics or to domains of social life and activity. That is it has ultimately extended the scope of conflict such that without a redistribution of general resources to security needs no confrontation is imaginable. Most importantly the war against terror has been totally incapable of reducing the costs of terrorist attacks.
Al-Qaeda and similar networks have increasingly resorted to suicide attacks. These tactics, can according to the calculations of Robert A Pope increase the number of victims of terrorist attacks 13 fold [3]. Moreover all evidence points to the fact that there volunteers for these missions is increasing, and that the human reserves for such acts far exceed the needs to extend them.
No one can be in any doubt that blind terror against the people of a country, under whatever aim or objective, is totally destructive and utterly reprehensible. Terrorism, by provoking religious, ethnic or national hatred, lines up the oppressed of any nation, ethnic group or religious belief behind the oppressors of that ethnic group, nation, or religion or belief. It destroys the class and human solidarity of peoples, the most important weapon in the hands of the downtrodden. It encourages the most conservative political and ideological currents. It opens the space for the most corrupt and repressive political forces. It endangers political and civic freedoms and facilitates the formation of police states. Finally it sacrifices bread, health and better education to security. There can be no doubt on the needs to confront terrorism under whatever guise it appears. But how?
George Bush’s defeat in his confrontation with pan-Islamist terror (terrorism of Islamic fundamentalism) is not surprising. Notwithstanding the belief of some, at its core, terrorism, particularly the terrorism of Islamic fundamentalism, is not an army or a military network, but an ideology and a political movement. Police pressure may reduce its mobility momentarily, but cannot uproot or eliminate it. On the contrary, under certain conditions, police repression may conversely result in its rejuvenation and its resurgence in even stronger shape.
The other reality worth emphasising is the essence and nature of this movement. It is true that political Islam and in particular the jihadist and violent tendencies within it are in their essence dark-thinking, reactionary and totalitarian movements, but this does not mean that they obtained their raison d’?tre through their challenge to modernity, civilisation and democracy. On the contrary political Islam in all its colours, is a reactionary, dark-thinking and totalitarian response to equally reactionary, dark-thinking and totalitarian ideologies: Zionism, orientalism, colonialism and all manner of ethnic, religious and racial conservatism.
In fat this movement is a response to the ideological crisis of the “west” and at its centre the US administration. More than any Qur’anic verse, it has been the US administration, and in particular the government of George Bush, that has given legitimacy to “jihad”, “martyrdom” “anti-westernism”,…. and all the other values of fundamentalist terrorism. They have been instrumental in strengthening the roots of political Islam. One will have great difficulty in finding any government the world over that has raised the flag of freedom and human rights to the extent of the US, yet in practice trampled on these values in the pursuance of its own naked interests. And in the process trampled on every kind of rights, terrorising and murdering defenceless people. From Hanoi to Belgrade, wherever it felt it necessary rained bombs and rockets on the heads of defenceless people obliterating their life and livelihood. Anywhere it saw fit, from Havana to Basra and Baghdad it cut off the supply of milk to children and drugs for the sick in the name of “economic blockade”. It oversaw the most savage slaughter by the Contras in Nicaragua, the Unita in Angola the Renamo in Mozambique, and terror squads in Columbia, Guatemala, Argentina, El Salvador, and countless other countries – not forgetting “Islamic terrorism” in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo …. It never ceased to unstintingly support the naked and cruel Zionist terrorism. And thanks to the Bush administration it drew a line through a number of “values” of the “civilised” west: in Guantanamo it demonstrated its understanding of “human rights”, in the airports of New York, Washington and Dallas it was the turn of human dignity to get the Bush treatment. And the saga of the invisible weapons of mass destruction showed how the only value dominating the political thoughts dominating the US empire’s administration are lies and deception.
The US government was of course not alone in legitimising terrorism and Islamist violence and the extension of its support base. Successive Israeli governments, with Sharon outdoing them all, has been their steadfast ally and fellow traveller. Zionism could proudly claim that its share in mobilising and attracting the support base for violent pan-Islamism and in supplying cadres for the Islamic terror networks is more than the entire Sunni and Shi’te clergy put together plus all the religious schools. The Israeli government is unique in the world today to have risen out of an ultra-reactionary ethnic-terrorist movement.
This was a state which made a condition for its existence the expulsion of the Palestinians, by ruse or through force or intimidation. For over 38 years it has occupied the lands of others and extended its geographic boundaries through daily killing of children and the young, through bulldozing homes, camps, schools and hospitals, fields and farms. This is how the idealised Israel is being built. It leans on an army that according to John Pilger [5], is a terrorist structure in every sense of the word. This is an army whose job is limited to daily intimidating, repressing and killing of the people of Palestine.
It is also clear that what broadens the social base of political Islam and turns it into a mass movement cannot not be reduced to the “ideological crisis in the “west” nor the political acts of imperialism and Zionism. Neither can one reduce Islamic radicalism to a psychological disease, or a cultural virus or even a infirmity of belief, and so resort to cure it by prescribing propaganda, counselling, or psychotherapy. Like many radical-political movements, this one has grown out of the inequality in power and wealth and rides on an ocean of deprivation, of being sidelined and discriminated. It recruits from within lives that implode, identities that are annihilated, hopes that are dashed.
Although these movements tear asunder class barriers paradoxically their main social body takes form in poverty and unemployment; in casualisation; in informalisation; in an atomised, disorganised workforce. Islamic radicalism is an illegitimate child of contemporary capitalism. Its roots are in structural contradictions, in the models of development and accumulation of capitalism in the most mature stage of its development. In the framework of capitalism Islamic, Jewish or Hindu radicalism is as uneradicable as fascism and nazism. Political mismanagement, institutional and functional disorder undoubtedly play a role in smoothing the terrain for the widespread growth of the conservative ultra-right, religious or non-religious, but is not its main dynamic. Conventional thought presents improvement in functionality as the solution. Even ignoring the limited and transitory nature of such policies, fundamentally the conditions for their success in the world today are less than favourable than ever.
The globalisation project, in its current phase, has seen efforts to restructure the political command of capital (the new world order) and a return to naked colonialism. The gunboat has only been given the task of extending the realm of influence of capital, but for its monopoly control. The Bush administration by giving reign to “crony capitalism” and becoming a warden for a small group of corporations, has in practice speeded up the process of the privatisation of the state. His administration has placed the empire in the service of their insatiable appetite for profit and expropriating global excess production. No wonder the neo-conservatives see September 11 as a divine gift, and in the name of the “war against terrorism” occupied Iraq soon after conquering Afghanistan. Whatever way one looks at this, these acts broaden the social, political and operational space for the spread of the terrorism of political Islam. If the occupation of Iraq was not an answer to terrorism, it was a step in speeding up the process of “globalisation”.
In reality the needs and expectations of US corporations are not satisfied by neither the slow process nor the depth of privatisation and freeing of resources facilitated through existing economic and political levers. What they have in their sight is monopoly control over large sections of the economy, and indeed the most profitable – that is the public sector – especially in peripheral countries, which have remained outside their direct control. The privatisation of water, electricity, oil, mining, banks, health services, educations, roads, air travel, communications, mass media continuously faces a new obstacles. In many places neo-colonialism, elections and the ballot box, pliant parliamentary oligarchies have failed to deliver. It is here that one could consider such weapons as war, coup d’?tats, military occupation, or any other form of pure colonialism.
It is no longer a secret that the occupation of Iraq, and even what today is called the “establishment of an Iraqi government” (undoubtedly by appointment as a client state) has only one clear and well defined aim: to speed up the plunder of the public wealth of that country, the transfer of the ownership of all these wealth and resources to “friendly capital” in a way that has international legitimacy (ie become accepted as a legal theft) and to establish the most rabid dictatorship of the market. In this route who cares if the constitution is based on the “shari’a” and becomes Islamised, and some ulema and religious leaders also put their stamp of approval on this plunder. [6] And remarkably, in this transition phase terrorism, albeit in its controlled form, is not only not harmful, but indeed valuable. If terrorism fans the flames of ethnic and religious hatred, when it endangers the security of ordinary people, when it targets the efforts of people to survive – it is undoubtedly beneficial.
The least benefit is that it will drive people into desperation and into the belief that the presence of occupational forces guarantees their security. This is an idea strongly being put about and has been turned into a virtue by some political groups. To get out of having elections on the feeble excuse of lack of security and in practice impose a handpicked puppet government on the people, is in fact rubber stamping the documents removing ownership of the resources of Iraq from the people of the country in favour of US multi-nationals. This is yet another benefit of continued terrorist attacks – make it seem insecure and walk away with the loot.
Moreover, the continuation of an atmosphere saturated with terror, violence, and counter repression will undoubtedly stop the growth of a united resistance movement against occupation and for the formation of popular self government in Iraq. The project of dismembering Iraq and the victory of the three state solution – i.e. what the political elite in the US are advocating [7] will have a greater chance of coming to fruition.
No! In the conditions of the world today one can neither be optimistic about the so-called political and functional solutions, not to Bush and Sharon administrations’ “war on terror”. Political and functional solutions will not work in the absence of a powerful popular global protest movement – without the appearance of a “new superpower” below. The “war on terror” is also nothing more than a “war for imperialism”. It neither desires nor can destroy pan-Islamist terrorism.
No other world power has come up with a serious alternative solutions. Theirs too does not go beyond police methods and ultimately fanning ethnic and religious tensions. furthermore “anti-Muslim” sentiments of one form or another is used to back the establishment of a police state and trampling on civil rights and freedoms.
A serious challenge to the political ruination, and ideological and psychological ruination brought about by radical terroristic religious (and ethnic) movements is only possible through creating an alternative socio-political movement. A movement that can illuminate and engender hope. That can open out a new vista to contemporary mankind. One whose answer to inequality, repression, discrimination, deprivation, and marginalisation is not to worsen them but to negate their very existence. A movement that can combine and strengthen the solidarity between nations, ethnic groups, and followers of different beliefs and religions while accepting their differences, their right to self determination, and individual and civil freedoms.
This is a movement that is not only human-focused, but radically against the slavery of labour, against the reign of profit and the despotism of the market, the plunder of capital and imperialist domination-seeking. This is a movement that can fill the existing ideological vacuum through making those principles world-dominant that venerate life, love and beauty.
Many immediate steps need to be taken. These include a united global campaign to stop the occupation of Palestine and Iraq [and Afghanistan?]. This requires of the people of the main industrialised countries to follow the Spanish example and get rid of conservative governments and those advocating policies of domination and war.
The next step is a determined opposition to the establishment of police states at the level of individual countries, and at the global level, to the political and military dominance of “American empire”. For this purpose it is important to lay aside any hesitation or doubts in defending the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, and especially these days the rights of Muslims, in the main capitalist countries, and defending them decisively against any political or cultural discrimination. The recent ban on hejab in France is the latest example. A decisive battle against neo-liberalism and for establishing a just social system is also urgent. Once this is combined with the organisation of labour power in a global network that bubbles up from below, many avenues can be opened.
The global anti-capitalist movements has taken some appropriate steps in this direction. But these too are in their early stages of formation and have a long way before they are able to materialise all their real potentials. This reality is both hopeful and task giving.
Summer 2004
Footnotes
1. Correlli Barnett. Why al-Qa’eda is winning. The Spectator, March 27 2004
2. ibid
3. Robert A Pape. The strategic logic of suicide terrorism. American Political Science Review, vol 97, no 3 August 2003
4. Ardeshir Mehrdad. Radical Islam. iran bulletin nos 2,3,4, and 5 2003-2004
5. John Pilger. The unmentionable source of terrorism. http://antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=2159 March 20, 2004
6. The draft constitution of Iraq is essentially based on what has been called the commonality of Islam and democracy”. It has been drafted such that it can attract the support of a section of the clergy including Ayatollah Sistani. To see the viewpoints of the defenders of such policies see for example: Reuel Mark Gerecht. A difficult marriage. The weekly Standard, December 25, 2003.
7. Leslie H Gelb. The three-state solution. New York Times, November 25, 2003.